Bullet makers can't keep up with demand

:rolleye2:wow ur a joke, u could have at least picked the empty reasoning of Stevens over the benighted and accursed dissent of Breyer. The first Justice to ever truly suggest a wholesale anointing of the SCOTUS to simply disregard Constitutional rights wholesale for the sake of an individualized cost-benefit analysis lower even than "rational basis"! Scalia gave Breyer the rebuke he deserved.

how sacred can ownership ever be when regulation of a Right that shall not be infringed can itself be essentially unfettered, in ur view? Perhaps ur unaware that Rights are NOT granted by the State, they are merely RECOGNIZED??

not sweating it, he's got more serious issues of logic and analysis to deal with...

the best part about ming here is that it really doesn't know how prophetic my curse on it really is. Heller actually goes quite a bit farther in the pro-arms position than is commonly explored, and the best way to understand that is to listen to the almost 2 hours hearing on Heller in March 2008...the mp3 is available online.

HOMEWORK:

let all he-shes that doubt me take heed! listen carefully to the Heller hearing, and the directions Scalia, Roberts and Kennedy go in their questioning, n then read the Heller decision...slowly. it's dense with implications to shut the lot of u up.

""":dm:"""

Well... Exactly!



Here's the second amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



Seems pretty simple to me, only lawyers could make a career out of one sentence.

How anyone can interpret that to be a collective government right is beyond me when it specifically mentions "the people" and the right of "the people" shall not be infringed.

How would or could "shall not be infringed" relate to a collective government right?

Is the government going to infringe its own rights?

well u know what sucky writers the Founders were, their shit was always pretty "nebulous", yo!

People will interpret things to fit their views no matter how clear it is.

I've heard people say that "arms" has nothing to do with handguns or rifles.

They say its outdated.

I've heard people say you can keep the gun in your house but you can't touch it.

I think it was Rossie Odonnel that said all that.

Just imagine if the founders had written the bill of rights the same way the leaders of today write laws. The first would be a thousand pages alone.

Keep making those dumb laws, like no bayonet lug on a ar 15 or a adjustable stock. I'm sure a lot of people have been killed by a bayonet.

"the people" is plural, is it not? hence the collective issue.

You guys are children. That's plural, too. Try a boolean search for collective rights second amendment.

But, let's get back to Jeton's "strictest scrutiny" please show us all where in Heller did the majority use a "strictest srcutiny" test. Fucking idiot.

"go read Heller...go read Heller...go read Heller...go read Heller..."

more name calling and ad hominem attacks I see

wow...all this and you still can't tell me what you were directing me to.

what am I going to be shut up about, Melton? still waiting

He does not have the slightest clue, Ming. He thinks he possesses intellectual prowess, but really nothing more than a big mouth.

1) yes, bcuz the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th Amendments also only apply to collectives, everyone knows that no individual has rights under those laws either.

2) y would we do a search on a now-fully-discredited legal theory? that perspective died 6/26/08.

3) nope, read it twice i aint parsing it again for u or ming. neither of u r interesting or beloved or vexing or challenging or credible enuff to do any work for. n i just happen to know that some of the most brilliant legal minds around r already firing on all cylinders exploring the deeper pro-arms positions layed out so extensively in Heller. it's a nice vantage point, watching u rally and squirm n troll n bray...and lose in the wider society.

I guess you are considering it gun control, eh goblin? :hhh:

Do a multi-quote of all your posts here too. That will be quite a sight

oh, u've got about 9 months to go...small chance u'd have to wait another 12. since u missed reading all the in-depth left/right Heller coverage, u must await the Incorporation of Heller...a crux of the Sotomayor hearings, and already under way in Circuit courts.

so bray, n work that 'melt' with ur wee cunt.

He knows. Even a middle schooler would be able to answer a question as simple as that. That is why all the furious distractions and name-calling. Red herring here...straw man over there. Take your pick

But don't ask why you were linked to a supreme court decision. that is beyond the pale

now you are pointing me to the future

OK...I will bite...what will I be wrong about in 9 months. Any clarification possible on that one? :crapper:

you are wrong that most gun control as now commonly construed (especially "big city" gun control in NYC/CHI/LA etc) can pass 2nd Amendment muster once at least one of the Incorporation cases currently winding thu the Apellates actually makes it to SCOTUS. the trajectories involved make a resolution of one of them extremely likely by the end of 6/11, and probably by the end of 6/10.

I don't think so. But it doesn't matter anyway. It is only my opinion. That is all something as nebulous as this is. Different court - different decision.

I think it will pass muster regardless.

^^this is why u should read Heller after listening to the hearings for it first, and then take appraisal of the likely retirement dates of the 5 Justices who voted for it.

I don't think so. Even if the 2nd Amendment is incorporated...restrictions on concealed carry don't violate the second amendment

Someone's absolutely terrified ordinary law-abiding citizens can actually obtain a permit to carry concealed weapons. :scardie:

Better stay out of Vermont. The crime rate there is off the charts!

Still waiting for that turd burglar Jeton to show us where "strictest scrutiny" applies in Heller... What a tool! Let's have it, Jeton, or do you admit you did not know what the fuck you were talking about?

Nothing wrong with CCW that I can see.

Really? Who is that, Goblin?

How would you know that the article doesn't address any of your concerns if you haven't read it?