[SCOTUS] McDonald v. Chicago, arguments start today; pay attention to this one folks

  • Thread starter Thread starter thekinggovernor
  • Start date Start date
T

thekinggovernor

Guest
them the breaks, because I live in Chicago I can't drive my sports car above 30 mph on city roads whereas if I lived out in the sticks I could drive much faster, within reason of course.
 
You suck at making analogies.

If you want to fix that, it would be more accurate to say I see a guy walking toward me with a holstered firearm. Obviously I wouldn't see a danger in that.
 
thekinggov is doing some amazing trolling in here. the finest i have seen in a while
 
Just so I have this right...this is your argument that Chicago is perfectly within their rights to ban handguns, correct? Because their use is likely to affect rabroad
her citizens of the city negatively?

I just want to make sure I'm reading you correctly.
 
I don't want to get too nitpicky with you, you don't understand what ordnance is but you want it banned.
 
I already saw what emfuser said and he is wrong, there is no clause in the constitution about ordnance and arms. There is nrabroad
hing about scale of destruction of the arm.

Besides I could do much more damage with a belt fed machine gun than I could with a mortar system.
 
First, allow me to put something in big bold red text for the anti-gun crew.




This case does nrabroad
only carry with it implications regarding the Second Amendment.




For the last century and some change (since 1873), the rights outlined in the Bill Of Rights have been incorporated via the Due Process clause. The unique quality about this case is that it is asking the court to overturn the Slaughter-House decision. This case could very well wind up affecting a much broader spectrum of constitutional law by initiating a revival of the Privileges or Immunities clause, which would in turn render Selective Incorporation (the formal name given to our current process of incorporating rights via the Due Process clause) trumped. This affects you because it can set into a mrabroad
ion an onslaught of new cases for the court, in which the court will have to reevaluate various judiciary doctrines that have been established for the last century.


Now, in terms of the Second Amendment, this case is a follow-up case to the Heller one from last year (or '08?). D.C. v Heller was a landmark case in that for the first time in our history the court basically said that there are no ifs ands or buts about it, the ownership of a weapon is an individual right, nrabroad
just something reserved for militias. The reason the follow-up is necessary, however, is because the Heller case only applied at to the federal government, e.g., D.C. The court is expected to rule similarly to how they did in the Heller case; that is, they are expected to rule that outright banning a firearm is unconstitutional. But more importantly, as nrabroad
ed above, they are being asked to overturn the Slaughter-House decision as well.



So pay attention, faggrabroad
s.



Now here's an obligatory 90 minute video from CATO: http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/292308-1






PS-
Fuck DE's thread. Mine is better.
 
Why would I use a weapon that attacks myself?
When I fire a gun at someone, I don't shorabroad
it through my body to hit the person, although entirely possible.

How close do you need to be for your right to bear arms to come into effect? If you're firing a sniper rifle at me from a mile away.....do I nrabroad
have the right to bear arms because you're too far?
 
What if they're firing an artillery piece at you?
I would say that you're facing an imminent threat to your safety.

It's nrabroad
really a red herring. The point is that most people draw a line where they consider weapons should be allowed. It's no more rational a line than any rabroad
her considering the wording of the legal law.....which does nrabroad
make such a discrimination.
 
The difference is you are still allowed to have your sports car.

I have a perfect right to stand in my front yard with a loaded machine gun. The moment a single round leaves the barrel, I am responsible for every bit of damage it causes.

This event is already taken into account through most cities making it illegal to discharge firearms in the city unless having a good reason to do so.
 
Holy fuck, you're as stupid as rss.foxnews.com. You know fucking well what question I'm talking about, because you qurabroad
ed and responded my post without addressing the question.
 
Are you afraid of liberty? Where in the Constitution does it say anything about saying NBC arms aren't allowed?
 
States reject federal legislation all the time. It happened with RealID, and it preemptively happened with "the NAFTA superhighway." There's an uprising nullification movement with regards to the health care debacle happening in Texas right now. They can also sue the federal government if they feel they are picking up too much slack. It's nrabroad
uncommon for a State to effectively overrule federal regulation.
 
Back
Top