 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | (...) Yes, but Mike's interpretation is supported by a thousand documents from the time. Why are you folks arguing this? If you don't want guns in America, change the constitution (if we let you :-). But what it means is really clear. Chris (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | (...) On a relatined point, has this ever been overturned: If you scroll down to "THESECOND AMENDMENT IN THE COURTS" at (URL) find: ==+== "Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment twice more, upholding New Jersey’s strict (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) You weren't paying attention to earlier messages. The law *as written*. If you want to move onto later claims, that's another story. (...) Is this addressed to me or the board in general? If me, you are barking up the wrong tree. Bruce (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | I guess I misunderstood. But unfortunately, I still do. Chris (...) clear. (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) That's too cryptic for me. Guess I'll have to misunderstand you, too. Bruce (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —David Koudys
|
| | | | | (...) And sometimes, when we've been talking about something for sooo long, we get to a pause in the conversation, we look around, and we ask-- "What were we discussing again?" (psst--LEGO and how much fun it is!!!! :) ) Who here loves LEGO? Me! (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Bzzt. LEGO(r) is off topic for this group. :-) (...) Me too but that's irrelevant. (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | (...) For the first time today, I laughed out loud. Thanks ++Lar FUT to which LEGO on-topic group?? Dave K. (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Let me try... I don't know about Chris, but I personally misunderstood this: (...) I'm taking it to mean that you think we have to use the constitution's exact words only and not any contemporaneous writings by the same authors which expand (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) No - it would seem close and I understand you thinking that, but not really. I merely wish to establish one thing before moving on to the next. If Joe Blow walking down the street suddenly spotted the 2nd Amendment, what would be his (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | Much snippage (...) It's in the federalist papers (which I would argue, since they are by the authors of the constitution and which are contemporaneous, ARE valid as a way to gauge meaning and intent) but I forget exactly. I don't think it's any of (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
