0
   

Anyone Deny That 2nd Amendment Will Be Incorporated ?

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 07:29 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
He means that on the basis of the due process provisions of the 14th amendment,
what he claims the second amendment means will be extended
to the states--that's what he means by incorporation.
Maybe, but I 'd prefer that it be done by the privileges or immunities clause,
thereby repudiating the Slaughterhouse cases, and indeed overruling Barron v. Baltimore,
which held that the Constitution did not mean what it says.





Setanta wrote:
This would involve the Supremes overturning previous statements
by the Court. In United States versus Cruikshank (1876) and
Presser versus Illinois
(1886), the Court held that the second
amendment binds the Federal government (specifically, Congress),
but does not bind the states.
Multiple courts are now referring to the reasoning of those 2 cases
as being "obsolete" and "defunct" insofar as thay fail to support
application of the 2nd Amendment.



Setanta wrote:
I personally don't see upon what basis this Court would overturn that-
-would "incorporate"
I believe that u woud if u read the HELLER decision
wherein the USSC held that (inter alia):
"We start therefore with a strong presumption that
the Second Amendment right is exercised individually
and belongs to all Americans." . . . "Putting all of these textual elements together,
we find that they guarantee the individual right
to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. "
Possibly, Setanta believes that the Court meant only if a citizen
woud chance to visit federal territory woud he have the right
(the "natural right" as the Court expresses it) to defend his life.
I don 't see it that way.



Setanta wrote:
(new obsessive buzz word of the gun lobby, most of whom were
blissfully unaware of the concept until recently) the second amendment.
Not all of them have attended law school.



Setanta wrote:

However, no where is a right of possessing firearms for self-defense mentioned in the constitution,
yet this Court claimed there was a basis for that in Heller.
That is what the 2nd Amendment is for.
Read the decision, if u wish. Justice Scalia was very clear indeed,
as to the text of the Constitution, its history and the zeitgeist that produced it.
The Bill of Rights sprung from the minds of men who were acutely conscious
of the need of personal defense. For instance, there survives a letter
written by Thomas Jefferson to his 12-year-old nephew, wherein he
admonishes the boy always to take his gun with him when he goes out
for a walk and to practice with it for proficiency. Bear in mind that
there were NO police anywhere in the USA, nor in England, until the 1800s.
Every citizen was expected to defend himself from animals or criminals.
'Twas ever thus.



Setanta wrote:
So anything is possible. I would be amused to see someone
explain how states regulating firearms denies people the right of due process.
Many are the ways of failing to render due process of law.






0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 07:42 pm

If the rights protected by the 2nd Amendment are exercised individually
and BELONG TO ALL AMERICANS, and there are over 300,000,000 Americans
distributed over 50 States,
then how can those rights be used inside State borders,
without incorporation to curtail the jurisdiction of State governments ???

Is it possible for that to happen ?





David
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 08:58 am
None of your comments about my posts establish that there is a basis for "incorporation" to the extent that it would void the power of the states to regulate firearms, and you conspicuously fail to address the comment i made about a passage in the majority opinion in Heller which states explicitly that the decision cannot be construed as invalidating other reasons for gun control legislation.

Furthermore, there is a real possibility that in the future, the Court might reject the "logic" applied in Heller as regards a right of self-defense which is superior to the right of state or local authority to legislate in this matter. Their references to historical precedents are flawed or disingenuous. For example, they refer to Blackstone's Commentaries to the effect that every Englishman has a right to arm himself--but they notably omit Blackstone's full statement to the effect that every English has the right to arm himself according to his condition and degree, a principle antithetical to the concept of the equality of citizens which is a basic principle in the United States. I suggest that the conservative fanatics on this court have been playing fast and loose with the truth in framing their opinion.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 11:02 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
None of your comments about my posts establish that there is
a basis for "incorporation" to the extent that it would void the
power of the states to regulate firearms,
That is true; indeed, the court said that regulation was possible, the same as
regulation of free speech is possible. Even such a purist as myself does not claim
that free speech entitles one to yell in a library or a hospital zone.
Fortunately, the court recognized that harassment of the citizens to screw them out
of their rights is unconstitutionally intolerable:
“A statute which, under the pretence of regulating,
amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to
be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose
of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional.” This is like saying
that government cannot harass voters on their way to the voting
booth, to annoy them out of exercising their right to vote.


Setanta wrote:
and you conspicuously fail to address the comment i made about
a passage in the majority opinion in Heller which states
explicitly that the decision cannot be construed as invalidating
other reasons for gun control legislation.
I suspect that I know to which passage u refer; that passage is only non-binding
obiter dictum inasmuch as the subject matter of that comment
was not before the court and was unnecessary for the court
to reach its conclusion.




Setanta wrote:
Furthermore, there is a real possibility that in the future,
the Court might reject the "logic" applied in Heller
as regards a right of self-defense which is superior to the right
of state or local authority to legislate in this matter.
Very unlikely, inasmuch as the court made a rock solid foundation
in earlier history, zeitgeist, and grammatical textual analysis
to support the principles that it establishes. Overturning THAT,
woud be like overturning Roe v. Wade; that will not happen.



Setanta wrote:
Their references to historical precedents are flawed or disingenuous.
That is incorrect.



Setanta wrote:
For example, they refer to Blackstone's Commentaries
to the effect that every Englishman has a right to arm himself--
but they notably omit Blackstone's full statement to the effect
that every English has the right to arm himself according to his
condition and degree
, a principle antithetical to the concept
of the equality of citizens which is a basic principle in the United States.
Your assertion is highly inaccurate.

It is true, of course, that Blackstone addresses that language, taken as it is,
directly from the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which constituted the conditions
subject to which the monarchy of William & Mary was invited
to reign in England, after Mary 's dad fled the Glorious Revolution.
Indeed, that statute is "1 William & Mary, c. 2, §7, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 441 (1689)" and Setanta,
I assure u that despite your claim to the contrary,
the majority of the HELLER court did indeed include
that language in full, to wit:
“That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms
for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.”

Setanta wrote:
I suggest that the conservative fanatics on this court have been
playing fast and loose with the truth in framing their opinion.
That is a contradiction in terms; an oxymoron.
If thay deviate from the truth of the Constitution,
that is the OPPOSITE of being conservative or orthodox.
A loose interpretation means a liberal interpretation;
that concept is very inconsistent with being fanatically conservative.
Your complaint is like vilifying an accountant for being too accurate.





David
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 11:13 am
I see no reason to accept your ipse dixit claims here. That the remarks about gun control legislation are obiter dictum doesn't alter that the Court was expressing an opinion about the value of gun control legislation, at least in the specific instances to which it referred in the majority opinion.

It was not simply in the passage which regarded the statutes of William and Mary that Blackstone made reference to the right to bear arms subject to the condition and degree of the persons bearing those arms--he does so elsewhere. It is also unrealistic to refer to the legislative products of the "Glorious Revolution" as a bill of rights--the enshrinement of privilege would be more accurate. It was a monument of whiggery, and applied only to those people who were adherents of the established church, and with particular reference to propertied individuals who practiced "low church" Anglicanism. In fact, the legislation to which you refer specifically excludes from its provisions religious dissenters, Catholics, Presbyterians and Jews. It also excludes anyone who does not have property worth 20 pounds sterling per annum or more.

What this Court has done is practice the sort of "legislating from the bench" which conservatives have whined about when decisions which they have seen as motivated by "liberalism" have been handed down. There is every good reason to think that aspects of Heller would be overturned in the future simply because it is not based on any passages of the constitution, but rather on dubious interpretations of legal commentary, for which it is not reasonable to claim a universal agreement by scholars.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 11:28 am
Blackstone writes, entirely without any reference to legislation in the reign of William and Mary:

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law.

Please note his reference to "such as are allowed by law." That is hardly a sound basis upon which to attack the concept of gun control legislation.

St. George Tucker, in reviewing Blackstone's commentaries in 1803 wrote:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.

Furthermore, in reviewing Blackstone's commentaries on game laws, Tucker wrote:

Whoever examines the forest, and game laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of keeping arms is effectually taken away from the people of England. The commentator himself informs us, "that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistence [sic] to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws."

And Tucker goes on to note:

In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game.

Blackstone is a very weak reed upon which to build a case for unrestricted gun ownership.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 11:38 am
Thomas Colley, writing a commentary on the United States constitution in 1880 writes:

The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression, and the secret carrying of those suited merely to deadly individual encounters may be prohibited. (emphasis added)

The members of the current Court at not the only one who can play a game of quoting historical sources to uphold the points of view which they wish to further.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 12:06 pm
@Setanta,
Does it make any difference that the Court cited historical figures that actually had a hand in writing the constitution; rather than someone writing a commentary over 100 years later?

Or did the Court site something similar that I may have missed?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 01:23 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
I see no reason to accept your ipse dixit claims here.
Which ones r those ?


Setanta wrote:
That the remarks about gun control legislation are obiter dictum
doesn't alter that the Court was expressing an opinion
about the value of gun control legislation,
The court did not comment on any value of gun control; it did say that:
"nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions
on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,
or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." [emfasis added by me]
To me, that indicates that such laws shoud continue to be enforced for the present time.
Those issues will be litigated seriatim,
at future times; we expected nothing less. A few years ago,
the pro-freedom gun community decided to adopt an incremental approach to vindicating the 2 A,
following the successful tactics of the blacks since the c.1950s. The consensus was to be patient and sure footed.



Setanta wrote:
at least in the specific instances to which it referred in the majority opinion.
Well, it mentioned the mentally ill, and felons, et al.
I am sure that thay will be equally well armed as thay have been
and as thay will choose to be in the future; the real supreme law
of the land is the law of supply and demand.
The Black Market will fully satisfy their desires, as it always has.






Setanta wrote:
It was not simply in the passage which regarded the statutes
of William and Mary that Blackstone made reference to the right
to bear arms subject to the condition and degree of the persons
bearing those arms--he does so elsewhere. It is also unrealistic
to refer to the legislative products of the "Glorious Revolution"
as a bill of rights--the enshrinement of privilege would be more
accurate. It was a monument of whiggery, and applied only to
those people who were adherents of the established church, and
with particular reference to propertied individuals who
practiced "low church" Anglicanism. In fact, the legislation to
which you refer specifically excludes from its provisions religious
dissenters, Catholics, Presbyterians and Jews. It also excludes
anyone who does not have property worth 20 pounds sterling per
annum or more.
If the English wish to choose the nomenclature
of their historical events, thay will have my deference.
Those events r identified with certainty.
To me, these matters r of historical interest,
but as an American citizen, the English Civil War and
the Glorious Revolution r significant only insofar as thay bear upon
the 2nd, 9th, and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution.
This thread is directly concerned with probability of incorporation of the 2 A,
curtailing the jurisdiction of State & municipal governments.


Setanta wrote:
What this Court has done is practice the sort of "legislating from the bench"
That statement is inconsistent with the fact.
The court has the duty to decide cases.
In doing so, it applies the US Constitution and those laws
made in furtherance thereof. Laws which conflict with
the Constitution (e.g., the D.C. anti-gun ordinance) r void.
This has been well settled since Marbury v. Madison,
5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). That is NOT judicial legislation.
That is doing what thay get paid to do.




Setanta wrote:
which conservatives have whined about when decisions which
they have seen as motivated by "liberalism" have been handed down.
With good reason: liberalism deviates from
the correct original principles, otherwise it woud not be liberalism.



Setanta wrote:
There is every good reason to think that aspects of Heller
would be overturned in the future simply because it is not based
on any passages of the constitution, but rather on dubious
interpretations of legal commentary, for which it is not
reasonable to claim a universal agreement by scholars.
Even leaders of the LIBERAL legal intelligentsia refer to
the model adopted by the USSC as being "the standard model".
As u point out: agreement is not universal; agreement is ALMOST 100%,
but if it makes u happy to think those things, then by all means. . . .
candide
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 01:48 pm
You know, you seem like the kind uh guy you wouldn't mind having a beer and a steak with. Has anyone evrer told you you remind them of Ronald Reagan?
0 Replies
 
candide
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 01:50 pm
http://www.catholichomeandgarden.com/images/Military/jmOneNationUnderGod_web.jpg
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 02:28 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Thomas Colley, writing a commentary on the United States constitution in 1880 writes:

The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable
for the general defence of the community against invasion or
oppression, and the secret carrying of those suited merely
to deadly individual encounters may be prohibited
.
(emphasis added)

The members of the current Court at not the only one who can
play a game of quoting historical sources to uphold the points
of view which they wish to further.
Thank u, Setanta, but u know: I don 't recognize Thomas Colley -- so I Googled him to fill this gap in my education.
It seems that Thomas Colley was an English murderer upon whom
a death sentence was executed in 1751, but if u say that he wrote
analyses of the rights of self defense in 1880, I 'll take your word for it.

No, the closest that I am able to get to your exemplar is my hero,
Judge Thomas Cooley, who interestingly enuf, is quoted at length
by the majority in the HELLER decision. (Rumors to the contrary notwithstanding)
Here r some excerpts from HELLER, setting forth some of
his views (please tell me how u like them):

Every late-19th-century legal scholar that we have read
interpreted the Second Amendment to secure an individual
right unconnected with militia service. The most famous
was the judge and professor Thomas Cooley, who
wrote a massively popular 1868 Treatise on Constitutional Limitations.

Concerning the Second Amendment it said:
“Among the other defences to personal liberty
should be mentioned the right of the people to keep
and bear arms
. . . . The alternative to a standing army
is ‘a well-regulated militia,’ but this cannot exist
unless the people are trained to bearing arms. How
far it is in the power of the legislature to regulate this
right, we shall not undertake to say, as happily there
has been very little occasion to discuss that subject by
the courts.” Id., at 350.



That Cooley understood the right not as connected to
militia service, but as securing the militia by ensuring a
populace familiar with arms, is made even clearer in his
1880 work, General Principles of Constitutional Law.
The Second Amendment, he said, “was adopted with some
modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688,
where it stood as a protest against arbitrary
action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the
people.” Id., at 270. In a section entitled
“The Right in General,” he continued:


“It might be supposed from the phraseology of this
provision that the right to keep and bear arms was
only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an
interpretation not warranted by the intent.

The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those
persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance
of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service
when called upon. But the law may make provision for the
enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty,
or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all;
and if the right were limited to those enrolled,
the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action
or neglect to act of the government it was meant
to hold in check
.
The meaning of the provision undoubtedly
is, that the people, from whom the militia
must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms
;
and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose."

The US Supreme Court goes on to say:

" All other post-Civil War 19th-century sources we have
found concurred with Cooley. One example from each
decade will convey the general flavor:
“[The purpose of the Second Amendment is] to secure
a well-armed militia. . . . But a militia would be useless
unless the citizens were enabled to exercise themselves
in the use of warlike weapons. To preserve this privilege,
and to secure to the people the ability to oppose
themselves in military force against the usurpations of government,
as well as against enemies from without, that government is forbidden
by any law or proceeding to invade or destroy the right to keep and
bear arms. . . . The clause is analogous to the one securing
the freedom of speech and of the press.
Freedom,
not license, is secured; the fair use, not the libellous
abuse, is protected.” J. Pomeroy, An Introduction
to the Constitutional Law of the United States
152"
153 (1868)

I think that u 'd like Pomeroy's comment qua "not license" Setanta.
It will be open for debate what that is.






[All emfasis has been added by David.]
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 03:13 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Blackstone writes, entirely without any reference to legislation in the reign of William and Mary:

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law.

Please note his reference to "such as are allowed by law."
That is hardly a sound basis upon which to attack the concept of gun control legislation.
Its a good thing that American libertarians r not limited to that.




Setanta wrote:

St. George Tucker, in reviewing Blackstone's commentaries in 1803 wrote:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.

Furthermore, in reviewing Blackstone's commentaries on game laws, Tucker wrote:

Whoever examines the forest, and game laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of keeping arms is effectually taken away from the people of England. The commentator himself informs us, "that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistence [sic] to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws."

And Tucker goes on to note:

In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game.

Blackstone is a very weak reed upon which to build a case for unrestricted gun ownership.
Its a good thing that Americans have a lot more than that.

The majority in HELLER quotes St. George Tucker:

As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries
(by the law professor and former Anti-federalist St. George Tucker)
made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right,
Americans understood the “right of self-preservation”
as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force”
when “the intervention of society in
his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.”

1 Blackstone’s Commentaries 145"146, n. 42 (1803)
(hereinafter Tucker’s Blackstone).


Tucker elaborated on the Second Amendment:
“This may be considered as the true palladium of
liberty
. . . . The right to self-defence is the first law
of nature
: in most governments it has been the study of
rulers to confine the right within the narrowest limits possible.

Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the
right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any
colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty
, if not
already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

[All emfasis has been added by David.]
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 03:18 pm
@maporsche,
Unless you can demonstrate that the citation were of a universally held point of view, no, it doesn't make any difference. While you're exercising your feeble powers of sarcasm, consider that i said that it is possible that parts of Heller might be rejected in the future, and not the entire ruling swept away--although that is not unprecedented, and not impossible.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 03:39 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Which ones r those ?


Virtually every comment you've made.

Such as that the court did not comment on the value of other forms of gun control legisltaion currently in place; such as that the court will visit those issues seriatim, such as that you can speak for what "we" expect; such as that the gun lobby is "pro-freedom," and that inferential, those who favor gun control are opposed to freedom (examine again the difference between freedom and license).

Your comments about the mentally ill and felons, "et al" getting black market weapons is hardly germane to a discussion of what the Court will do. As for a snide remark about what is or isin't of historical interest, you brought the subject up, not i, with regard to the bases for the Court's jusical activism in Heller. If you advance something such as that in support of the ruling, i am entitled to challenge the validiity of the alleged historical precedents. It's just an attempt to weasel out of supporting your claim to now claim it is not revelant to the discussion of the topic of the thread.

The statement about judicial activism is not inconsistent with the fact, because the Court's duty, as defined in the constitution was never to determine the validity of the constitutionality of any law. That "power" springs from Marbury versus Madison and Mr. Justice Marshall's articulation of the implication of the power of the Court. The Court in this case has ruled without reference to the text of the constitution, instead relying upon allegations about historical precedence. That makes it judicial activism--legislating from the bench--and that makes it a fair target for dispure by anyone with knowledge of the texts to which it refers--such as Blackstone.

You ranting about whether nor "liberalism" is consistent with the "correct original principles" is not relevant. Your political prejudices are hardly to be considered universal truths.

If it makes you happy to live in your blood-soaked dreams of everyone on the street packing "heat," by all means, enjoy yourself.

I'm sure Mr. Justice Taney and his cronies sat around on a porch in Maryland somewhere, drinking their cold drinks and congratulating themselves that the laws regarding the "peculiar institution" would never again be challenged, never be successfully overturned after Dred Scott.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 03:45 pm
(My ISP keeps hanging up, so that i was not able to get back to that post to edit properly. I was quoting David, i was not quoting David quoting me.)
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 03:47 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Unless you can demonstrate that the citation were of a universally held point of view, no, it doesn't make any difference.
IF I CAN demonstrate that, it will not make any difference.
No point of vu is universal; some folks deny that we ever landed
on the Moon and deny that the Earth is round; I can live with that.


Setanta wrote:
While you're exercising your feeble powers of sarcasm,
What, ME ??


Setanta wrote:
consider that i said that it is possible that parts of Heller might be rejected
in the future, and not the entire ruling swept away--
although that is not unprecedented, and not impossible.
I look for huge jurisprudential evolution
of the right to keep and bear arms, including modifications
of the USSC's present, nascent stance; we are still singing Happy Birthday.
U gotta start somewhere.

I expect to see (beginning in July) many local legal changes,
reverting to the freedom of America 's halcyon days of primordial liberty.

Any recalcitrant States or municipalities r in peril of §1983 litigation

or

UNITED STATES CODE TITLE 18
CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I
CRIMES CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS

§§ 241. Conspiracy against rights
§§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 03:48 pm
Mr. Justice Cooley sat on the Michigan Supreme Court, and many modern scholars consider him to have been the greatest American constitutional scholar of the late 19th century. If you hadn't been so avidly on the hunt to ridicule, you'd have recogtnized that an English felon who lived in the mid-18th century could hot have published in 1880.

Therefore, you ought to have realized that i made a typo. For someone who can't spell worth diddly-****, and whose bizarre, allegedly phonetic spellings are sometimes nearly indecipherable, you've got a gall to pull crap like that on me, or on anyone else.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 03:50 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Congratulations--you've just responded to my reply to Maporsche. News flash for you David, not everything is about you.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 03:53 pm
I don't know to whom you refer when you mention Pomeroy--but i don't need someone else's wit, or their wisdom, to know that so many in the gun lobby can't distinguish between freedom and license. It is simply scurrilous insult and reactionary propaganda to claim that people who favor gun control legislation are opposed to freedom--and it's pretty damned simple-minded, too.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Drumsticks - Discussion by H2O MAN
nobody respects an oath breaker - Discussion by gungasnake
Marksmanship - Discussion by H2O MAN
Kids and Guns by the Numbers - Discussion by jcboy
Personal Defense Weapons (PDW) - Discussion by H2O MAN
Self defense with a gun - Discussion by H2O MAN
It's a sellers market - Discussion by H2O MAN
Harrisburg Pa. Outdoor Show "Postponed" - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/16/2024 at 11:06:05