- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 36,913
- Reaction score
- 11,283
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
I'm sorry...
As well you should be for trying to project your deranged perceptions onto the posts of others.
I'm sorry...
What's that? Can't show how my assertion is false, as you claimed?As well you should be for trying to project your deranged perceptions onto the posts of others.
What's that?
Per the article:
According to the SCotUS, the right to arms is a fundamental right, proctected by the Constitution.
As such, restrictions on fundamental rights are subjected to a strict scrutiny test to determine of they violate the constitution. Under this test, the restriction is assumned to be unconstitutional until proven otherwise.
For those that support this new law or the things included in it:
Under the terms of strict scrunity, show that these things do not violate the constitution.
They can win, technically, because they didn't ban guns in total.
No, it was very clear that you are admitting you can't show how my assertion is false, as you claimed.I didn't stutter in my post. You can go back and read it again if you had trouble understanding it the first time.
No, it was very clear
I know what the 14th does and I do not agree with it but, I still believe the federal/national needs to allow the state to handle the issue.not true since the 14th amendment imposes constitutional rights on the states
No, marriage has been ruled to be a fundamental right by the SCotUS in at least two different rulings. Marriage is not a privilege, it is a right.
I don't believe it does pass scrutiny.
As well you should be for trying to project your deranged perceptions onto the posts of others.
Still waiting for you to -show- how my assertion is false, rather than making your usueal baseless claims.Then I don't see what your problem was and why you had to ask me "What's that?"
Still waiting for you
The fact that marriage, as a legal institution, exists only because the states have laws that created it and allow people to get legally married proves that marriage is a privilege, not a rignt.Come on, it's not even mentioned specifically in the Constitution, though not all rights are. But we are discussing a specific right to keep arms.
Come on, it's not even mentioned specifically in the Constitution, though not all rights are. But we are discussing a specific right to keep arms.
Well then - as I am first to accept, I shall set the termssuch conflict
and since this thread is about guns I would propose a duel to resolve this conflict
I will happily serve as a second to the highest bidder since I find both posters to be men of honor:mrgreen::mrgreen:
C'mon son - put up or shut up.That's sweet and all. But I'm a married man, goob.
The fact that marriage, as a legal institution, exists only because the states have laws that created it and allow people to get legally married proves that marriage is a privilege, not a rignt.Yes, that right is mentioned in the Constitution. The fact that marriage is a fundamental right comes from court rulings. Two specific ones, in fact.
C'mon son - put up or shut up.
The fact that marriage, as a legal institution, exists only because the states have laws that created it and allow people to get legally married proves that marriage is a privilege, not a rignt.
...you cannot otherwise show how I am wrong - and know it.I think I am gonna go with their opinions since...
...you cannot otherwise show how I am wrong - and know it.
This is a lie.I already have.
This is a lie.