"Tom Kunich" a écrit profondement:
| "Davey Crockett" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
| news:
[email protected]...
| > "
[email protected]" a écrit profondement:
| >
| > |
| > | every country that has a military in combat should have a draft,
| > | because a voluntary service exploits the uneducated and poor.
| > |
| >
| > There are anti-slavery laws in the United States, unless Jorge Boosh
| > puts the interpretation to the Puppets on The Supreme Kangaroo Kourt
| > for a "favourable" interpretation, just as he is doing with the Second
| > Amendment which he will then use to confiscate your guns sometime
| > soon.
|
| Too bad you don't actually read the decisions you talk about. It must
| terrify you that the present court is more likely to limit
| "interpretation" to the actual words and not invent new meanings as
| Ginsburg insists is the total responsibility of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Cout is a bunch of Wankers, bought and paid for as are
all the ceeps that pass for the Politicians of this world::::::
Supremes to Decide if Second Amendment Means What It Says
TruthNews | November 21, 2007
Kurt Nimmo
"In a decision that could affect gun control laws across the nation,
the Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether the Second Amendment
protects an individual's right to carry a gun," reports ABC News .
Carry? Or possess?
"It has been 70 years since the high court has focused on the meaning
of the words ‘right to keep and bear arms' in the Second Amendment and
the case is sure to ignite cultural battles across the country."
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 straight forward to me.
"The Supreme Court agreed to step in because the issue has caused a
deep split in the lower courts. While a majority of courts have said
that the right to bear arms refers in connection to service in a state
militia, two federal courts have said the amendment protects an
individual's right to keep a gun."
A deep split? Apparently, members sitting in the lower courts have a
difficult time reading plain English. The Second Amendment states
unambiguously that the right to bears arms "shall not be infringed."
But then there are people like District of Criminals mayor Adrian
Fenty, who states: "Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it
does not require the district to stand by while its citizens die."
In other words, Fenty thinks he can ban guns and he will not "stand
by" the Second Amendment.
The District of Criminals has the highest crime rate in the country,
surpassing Los Angeles and New York. Is this possible because guns are
banned there and the criminals realize they can victimize anybody they
want without consequence?
It seems Fenty is standing by while people die.
But then it is not the responsibility of the police to protect the
people. It is the duty of the people to protect themselves.
We'll see if the Supremes agree. Or if they will strip the Second
Amendment to its bones.
--
Davey Crockett
-
Driving a Stake through the
Heart of the Politically Correct
