UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
the SCOTUS disagrees with you, even the conservative judges!
Background checks for gun purchases?
- Thread starter canndo
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you fail so fucking hard. just focus on your geometry homework. it was so nice when you got your ass handed to you on election day and left in embarrassment for a month.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
LOL!
the black choppers are coming to get you!
you had better fend off their tanks and fighter planes and grenades and RPGs and drones and nukes and chemical weapons with your little gun!
seriously, just fuck off.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
250k new members you say?
why, that represents about one half of one percent of the united states, leaving only 99.5% of the public NOT supporting the NRA!
overwhelming!
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
take it up with the SCOTUS, bear. they support infringements!
JAJAJAJAJAJAJA! (translation: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!)
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
...appalling to racists like yourself.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so, joe's plan did not involve armed school resource officers?
you're slipping, old man. must be the venereal diseases.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
sounds like you're the type of 14 year old badass who gets into multi-round shootouts. you badass!
just kidding, your teenage angst is palpable again.
nitro harley
Well-Known Member
I am from oregon, and I am surrounded by lib's.....And I can't help but notice that the people that voted for Obama seem to be embarrassed to admit it in public.....Whats up with that?......nitro..
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Do you have a link to conservative SCOTUS opinions supporting a narrowed interpretation of the 2nd? cn
beardo
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
not sure, my wife and i both sport our obama bumper stickers.
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose ..." Scalia wrote that the opinion was not in conflict with bans on gun ownership for convicted felons or the mentally ill. He also did not argue against restrictions on gun-carrying in places like schools and government buildings.
Carroll said Scalia's opinion also includes language that may help those who want restrictions on assault rifles and magazines that can hold large numbers of bullets.
The justice wrote that the opinion should not be seen as casting doubt on "laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. (The court's 1939 Miller case) holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those 'in common use at the time' finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
http://blog.al.com/breaking/2012/12/key_us_supreme_court_decisions_1.html
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Why do we need background check? Don't you now need a script from your doctor to buy any type of gun?
beardo
Well-Known Member
This Pisses Me Off !!!
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
what's funny is that you, the troll of all trolls (i mean that in a good way) can deal with reality better than all the other gun nuts who deny that what you just read was penned by scalia.
props to you, my fellow troll.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
IF you read what Scalia penned...
- The justice wrote that the opinion should not be seen as casting doubt on "laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. (The court's 1939 Miller case) holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those 'in common use at the time' finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
It is pretty clear. You cant have nuclear bombs and hand grenades but you cannot ban 'those in common use at the time'...
He is agreeing with all those people you call gun nuts and supporting the fact that you cant ban common rifles and handguns. And the AR15 is one of the most common rifles...
Reading is fundamental.
canndo
Well-Known Member
In the interest of a more free society, this is a sad but necessary bending of the concept and spirit of the Consitution,
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
he said more than just that! care to include the rest?
you have no idea what i am capable of.
beardo
Well-Known Member
I believe the Republican scum and Democrat scum are in this together with the same goals, and possibly slightly different ideas on how best to achieve them, but I believe both sides have been hijacked for the worse, and legitimate for the people candidates have little to no chance or at best will get elected and sidelined. I like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich as different as they are and as much as you might detest them and as questionable as they may be on certain issues at least I think they mean well for the people they represent. I loved JFK and Bobby Kennedy would have been great, I also think Teddy Roosevelt was good, as different as they were, Now I think the "mainstream" of both parties is very much propaganda that does not benefit the people, the debate has been hijacked and is a distraction.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Actually, IMO the courts went too far on this ruling.
Private businesses should be able to discriminate just as people have a right to boycott businesses. I dont think that violates anyone's rights. If I saw a store that said no colored people allowed, I wouldnt shop there anyway.
Where it starts getting into rights issues is in things like Real Estate. I do not have a problem with the anti-discrimination legislation in that area as people should be allowed to live where they want to and not be subject to segregation.