In a great ruling for anyone who wants to walk around Our Nation's Capitol while packing heat, a federal judge on Saturday struck down Washington DC's ban on carrying guns in public, because the Second Amendment wants you to have a gun with you at all times:
If the Supremes can abrogate the 1st Amendment in the plaza outside their courthouse, they'll probably have no trouble at all re-writing the 2nd to the same effect. It's easy to read if you understand the concept of original intent. Here's how it works:
What Scalia wants = Founders' original intent
Yeah, that's always the argument. But if the voting body were truly representative of the population at large, you couldn't call the result undemocratic. In other words, one person in Wyoming wouldn't out-vote 50 people in California, as is presently the case.Â
I am concerned that these activist judges are actually abrogating the second amendment. I see no way that a militia (current definition - one or more people with one or more guns) can be well-regulated if no regulations apply to it.
This is good news for domestic terrorist Larry Pratt and his let's-shoot-Congress (with bullets) campaign. Also good news for foreign terrorists.
Guns are displayed publicly to magnify the "potential dangerousness" of the person displaying them. Basically, you're admitting you're completely unable to defend yourself in any confrontation, without the aid of potentially lethal backup. Whether the confrontation might be real or imaginary, ideological or physical, you're totally relying on a crutch of an implied threat that you couldn't begin to convey without brandishing a deadly weapon.
You are publicly admitting you are inadequate. Not that people couldn't see it already, but I guess you get points for coming to grips with your limitations.
Also, you&#039;re implicitly admitting what kind of a terrible person you are. You believe that the world would, without hesitation, take advantage of someone with your inadequacies and handicaps, because <i>you</i> would take advantage of someone with such clear inadequacies. You believe the world we live in is populated with opportunistic shits just as yourself, ready to victimize anyone he can overpower.
With cameras. At first.
Yeah, you never wanna go to the Postal..
&quot;Oh, damn, I can&#039;t reach the little keyboard. Just a second while I neutral steer my way over there.&quot;
&quot;real congress&quot; -- assumes facts not in evidence.
The Secret Service is going to <em>love</em> all these Open Carry enthusiasts picketing outside 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
What could possibly go wrong?
What exactly would be the downside of having a constitutional convention?
Thigh boots and bikinis seems a reasonable compromise for the right to carry a gun in D.C.
If the Supremes can abrogate the 1st Amendment in the plaza outside their courthouse, they&#039;ll probably have no trouble at all re-writing the 2nd to the same effect. It&#039;s easy to read if you understand the concept of original intent. Here&#039;s how it works:
What Scalia wants = Founders&#039; original intent
Yeah, that&#39;s always the argument. But if the voting body were truly representative of the population at large, you couldn&#39;t call the result undemocratic. In other words, one person in Wyoming wouldn&#39;t out-vote 50 people in California, as is presently the case.Â
I am concerned that these activist judges are actually abrogating the second amendment. I see no way that a militia (current definition - one or more people with one or more guns) can be well-regulated if no regulations apply to it.
This is good news for domestic terrorist Larry Pratt and his let&#039;s-shoot-Congress (with bullets) campaign. Also good news for foreign terrorists.
Poor DC, forced to deal with open carry idiots now and still can&#039;t actually vote for real congress.
the &quot;do as I say, not as I do&quot; SCOTUS
Guns are displayed publicly to magnify the &quot;potential dangerousness&quot; of the person displaying them. Basically, you&#039;re admitting you&#039;re completely unable to defend yourself in any confrontation, without the aid of potentially lethal backup. Whether the confrontation might be real or imaginary, ideological or physical, you&#039;re totally relying on a crutch of an implied threat that you couldn&#039;t begin to convey without brandishing a deadly weapon.
You are publicly admitting you are inadequate. Not that people couldn&#039;t see it already, but I guess you get points for coming to grips with your limitations.
Also, you&#039;re implicitly admitting what kind of a terrible person you are. You believe that the world would, without hesitation, take advantage of someone with your inadequacies and handicaps, because <i>you</i> would take advantage of someone with such clear inadequacies. You believe the world we live in is populated with opportunistic shits just as yourself, ready to victimize anyone he can overpower.
I thought the only time unregistered guns were illegal nowadays is if they were in blah hands?