- Nov 17, 2009
- 70,647
- 38,476
law is about interpretation and he interpreted it wrong.
Again, show us the precedent in which he interpreted it wrong. Third time I've asked for that.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
law is about interpretation and he interpreted it wrong.
You know leftists. They are all for banning forearms.
Federal Judge in Virginia got it wrong.
that is the best answer I got. he got it wrong.Again, show us the precedent in which he interpreted it wrong. Third time I've asked for that.
You know leftists. They are all for banning forearms.
that is the best answer I got. he got it wrong.
ok so you got me on that oneSo you have no answer. Like I said before, your feeling are not a legal argument.
law is about interpretation and he interpreted it wrong.
Wouldn't that make it rather difficult to eat?You know leftists. They are all for banning forearms.
I tried to increase my forearms, but it was all in vein.
leftists want to ban forearms?
I am not convinced that anyone other than active militia members should be able to own guns.According to Heller V he interpreted it correctly. The modern firearms laws are based on Heller V. And according to Heller V, a handgun is a reasonable firearm. Meaning that any adult will be given the opportunity to purchase them if they wish.
There is no 'active militia', only a 'reserve militia'.I am not convinced that anyone other than active militia members should be able to own guns.
leftists want to ban forearms?
I am not convinced that anyone other than active militia members should be able to own guns.
But if you kept armed bears, they could protect you from other armed bears.Wrong but we do want the last part of the 2A to be corrected to it's real meaning. It currently reads
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
But we think it should read
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and arm bears, shall not be infringed.
It would make it much more competitive when you go bear hunting if they have guns as well. Who knows, you could end up on the hood of a Jeep driven by Smoky.
An 18 year old can drive, vote, join the military, get a job, etc etc etc. They should be able to purchase a handgun from a FFLFederal Judge in Virginia got it wrong, and this is not the last time you will hear about this.
I am not convinced that anyone other than active militia members should be able to own guns.
You have your interpretation, I have mine.An 18 year old can drive, vote, join the military, get a job, etc etc etc. They should be able to purchase a handgun from a FFL
You have your interpretation, I have mine.