Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Number 1. Name calling isn't name calling if that's what you really are.The defendants never showed up in Court to make that case!
* National Firearms Act's restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. *
You don't show you don't win that is with any case!
So you may be right about the NFA but it is in existence and only a SCOTUS challenge can over-rule it! Which has not happened has it?
Now you telling someone what type of grip on a AR is NYS legal does that make you a supporter of the law? Well me citing Court case's does not make me a gun control supporter either! But it does point out the road-blocks which is what Scalia did in that paragraph which is in my signature that you hate so much.
You can't win a war if you don't know your enemy can you?
And name calling and insults has always come from you which is a Liberal tactic and it just makes chuckle, But I guess being called a Liberal hits a nerve with you.
Number 2. Whether they showed up or not is irrelevant. The Founders didn't put barrel length in the 2A. It was a sham case.
Number 3. Because it's a sham case and it is what it is until challenged, that doesn't make it right. You are doing a 360 because you know were wrong and now you are shifting to the it has to be challenged argument as if the current corrupt courts would rule based on the Constitution. You know they won't so why are you defending the court system and it's process. It's corrupt.
Number 4. I cite the law to people that ask so that they don't get in trouble. Lots of people here have a hard time reading the law for themselves. You do it because you are for gun control. It's the only reason you do it .We all know the corrupt process. We all know SCOTUS is compromised. We all know they vote based on party lines. There isn't a person here who doesn't know that. We all know that they have us by the balls and their ruling stands until challenged and that it isn't bought up to them because they will rule against us. So don't come here with your BS that you are trying to teach us something. You do so because it strikes a chord with you when people say gun control isn't constitutional. You believe that it is so you come here to defend it citing sham cases.
You talk about reading. Read the Bill of Rights. Read the restrictions placed on amendments written at the same time as the 2nd. You ignore that because it doesn't fit your narrative. Previously in another thread you told me that it was modeled from British law. I showed you the British law and that the 2nd isn't similar in any manner. The 3rd takes phrases from British law that were on their version of the 2A. Why is that? Why are there restrictions on other amendments but none on the 2nd?
GTFOH with your BS. We all know the corrupt process. There isn't anything to fight. We know our enemy. It's broken. The process needs to be abolished and built up again but that can't happen because the courts prevent it by limiting arms and people like you defend them.
Last edited: