@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:actually the average price of an AK-47 in Afghanistan is around $400. The average price worldwide is $534. And most of those are in places where they are legal or quasi-legal. Everything costs more in the US and if we had sensible gun control laws they'd be very very black, black market, and very high.
I believe that figure is from CBS News
6O Minutes.
I don t see a reason for them to distort that fact.
U sure see many (ubiquitous??) little Moslem boys, not much over babies, in the Mid-East
holding AK 47s on the news a lot. I don't think thay went for your price.
MontereyJack wrote:Not a good example either. You can't drink an AK-47 a week. You can a fifth of whiskey (or in a day), which makes the profit margin and the replacement margin far higher on bootleg whiskey than bootleg guns. Also the punishment for whiskey possession would be just a tiny fraction of the penalty for an AK47. Again, a poor analogy. Read the 2nd amendment.
Yeah, I guess u think I haven 't done that yet.
MontereyJack wrote: Guns were for use in the militia, which was government controlled
and was used in place of a standing army.
Historically, your chosen point of vu has been
discredited by the USSC.
The applicable history was set forth at length in the decision.
Grammatically, your expressed opinion has been
disproven
by the
professional grammarians, who parsed it.
( I have a tenant, a liberal Democrat that ofen argues with me,
who is an English professor at Queens College, who agrees with those grammarians. [Now u 'll say he was afraid I 'd raise the rent.] )
The known history, (including the fact that each citizen had to take care of himself
because there were
NO police in the USA, nor in England until the next century)
and the parsed text
COMPLIMENT each other. Both ways:
u lose. Personal freedom
WINS.
MontereyJack wrote:It doesn't exist in that form anymore. Nowhere in the Consitution does it mention self-defense. You failed to give any example of it. That's cause it simply isn't there. It's you being the judicial activist, David, not the original interpreter.
That is the babbling of a loser, looking in from the outside.
FREEDOM has won; your side, mendacious
liberalism, has lost.
I
ONLY support judicial activism to the extent that it corrects
the mistakes, the
distortions of liberalism and
re-establishes the Original
status quo ante.
U can take comfort in the fact that in the end,
before the turn of the next century,
your grandchildren will live in a fouler, more thorough
despotism
than communism or nazism ever were, when humanity becomes the Borg, and welcomes it.
That will be very, very
collectivistic; u 'll love it.
I 'm pretty sure that I will not live anywhere near long enuf to see that.