The only fruitcakes here are the ones afraid of guns.
I know
cjhsa won't be interested, but if anyone else wants to read the opinions, they can be found
here (.pdf).
Opinions are like axxholes. Everyone has one and thinks the other guy's stinks.
Results are what matter.
cjhsa wrote:Opinions are like axxholes. Everyone has one and thinks the other guy's stinks.
Results are what matter.
Umm.. the opinions Joe linked in are those of the Circuit Judges of the DC Court of Appeals.
Uh, I know.
Gun grabbers lose.
Oh, OK.
So you're glad with the verdict of the judges, but also, you think that their opinions are like assh@les, same as anyone's.
OK, glad we figgered that out.
Like I said, everyone has one....
See, I was right: cjhsa isn't interested in actually reading the judicial opinions.
In the DC case, the matter was heard by only a panel of the Circuit Ct. of Appeals. What may happen is that the full court will decide the case differently.
Except for one lower federal court decision, every court decision has held that the right to bear arms is given in the context of a militia. Thus, the panel's decision is a major departure, and apparently says that gun control is unconstitutional. I see the panel's decision as wrong.
That's what too many drugs will do to you....
joefromchicago wrote:See, I was right: cjhsa isn't interested in actually reading the judicial opinions.
No, cjhsa isn't interested in commenting on judicial opinions. His comments so far give no indication whether he has read them or not.
Seems to me the ruling is quite clear.
McGentrix wrote:No, cjhsa isn't interested in commenting on judicial opinions.
Quite correct. He is much more interested in commenting on the innacurate portrayal of those judicial opinions by the partisans on both sides of this issue. Which is actually rather odd, considering that
ceej has
commented sarcastically on how little fact-checking the press does when it comes to stories about guns. I find it strange that he would be so cynical about the press's ability to report accurately about guns and yet so credulous about the gun lobby's (and anti-gun lobby's) ability to report accurately about judicial decisions.
What's your motivation Joe? Just curious.
cjhsa wrote:What's your motivation Joe? Just curious.
I don't understand the question. Motivation for what?
cjhsa wrote:What's your motivation Joe? Just curious.
Showing what a hypocrite you are
Cycloptichorn
As always, you miss the point.
I can understand if you don't like guns. Fine.
What is your motivation for disarming the citizenry?
Crap, even cops don't want to do that, by a wide margin. So, why you?
cjhsa wrote:As always, you miss the point.
I can understand if you don't like guns. Fine.
What is your motivation for disarming the citizenry?
Crap, even cops don't want to do that, by a wide margin. So, why you?
When did I ever say I wanted to disarm the citizenry?
