Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Gun Legislation' started by Ole Cowboy, Nov 10, 2017.
It's legal to own bombs. Just expensive.
And if you do have plenty of ingredients for said bombs you may have visitors.
I'd visit somebody that had DDs (not talking boobs). Would make for some really great range days.
Not quite the visitors I meant.
SCOTUS denies cert in both Kolbe and Norman cases.
As a former Marylander, I am saddened by this lack of a hearing for my brothers and sisters deep in liberal lala-land. Given the court's current make-up, this may be a good thing for the nation as a whole in that the hoplophobia is contained to Maryland and not given a chance to spread farther at the moment.
The SCOTUS goes through a lot of effort to *keep* from doing any work. Great job, if you can get it -- good pay, choose your own hours, decided what (or even *if*) you do any work...
With respect to larger destructive weapons, I believe in the absoluteness of the 2nd Amendment. If you believe otherwise, you are on the road down that slippery slope. As far as I'm concerned, a government cannot legally nor morally restrict the weapons that you own, but they can restrict when, where, and under what justification you can use them so that you were not endangering others in the process.
I'm seriously disappointed in the Court for not taking up the Kolbe & Norman cases. By failing to grant cert., certain socialist states and circuits are thus further emboldened.
I wonder if they would take the case of a state declaring a certain religion illegal. If so, then they are a bunch of two-faced cowardly idiots for not seeing that the same applies to the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment does not provide for ANY exceptions. Maybe there are some people we might prefer did not have access to firearms, just like there are certain religions that we might prefer did not exist, but BOTH are Constitutionally Protected with NO EXCEPTIONS. If people can't understand that simple fact, then they need to go find themselves another planet to live on since we don't need people that stupid corrupting our gene pool.
If you're talking about Islam, that's not a religion... it's a political ideology. One could make a case that it has a religous component... but once it has rules governing how other religions are to be treated (with a tax levied on infidels), it crosses the line between a religion and a political system designed to rule people.