Sheriff: Courthouse gunman's home is explosive trap

[spookyturtle 9,465]

The informed analysis of an accomplished Supreme Court Justice and the simple, undeniable fact that for well over 200 years there was never any misunderstanding about the scope and limits of the Second Amendment speak louder than your weak response.

So when didn't the Second Amendment allow for an armed citizenship? When was that suddenly granted after 200 years? Where are these old restrictions and when did they change? Show me the laws.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Let's see

A guy with a semiautomatic weapon of some kind that was not really an assault rifle.

He violated the law by having any weapons, he violated the law by having drugs, he violated the law buy having bombs, he violated the law by attacking a deputy, and he was neutralized by another person with a weapon, and if the swat team had not been cocked and loaded and walking out of the building, would have killed many more.

The answer to the impaired anti gun crowd.

Take my guns! That will cure everything

Yes America they are that out of touch.

[SMOKE 1,426]

The informed analysis of an accomplished Supreme Court Justice and the simple, undeniable fact that for well over 200 years there was never any misunderstanding about the scope and limits of the Second Amendment speak louder than your weak response.

you repeatedly posting another liberal idiots opinion and insulting everyone that doesn't agree with you speaks even louder.

I was at least hoping you would post the year those evil assault rifles became available to the general public. but, no. you failed at supporting your asinine comments once again.

[Jacque67 7,328]

Americans will always have guns . No way to get rid of them. WGAF

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You keep quoting that same piece over and over. One man's opinion that has yet to hold up. Face it, it's going to be a huge undertaking to do what you and a few others here think is so simple. The Second Amendment has held up whenever it has been tested. If it was as simple as you think, it would have been overturned decades ago, maybe when the Kennedy's and MLK were assassinated. That would have been an ideal timeframe. Illinois was just forced to allow CC, another lost opportunity. It's not even close to what you propose. Regardless of your interpretation or mine, it is what it is. As I've asked a few times, how do you go about changing it? And by you, I mean those that want to change what the Constitution currently allows. It will be decades before it happens, if ever. Any politician running on a no gun campaign is done before he starts. But if you want to change it, you have to start somewhere. I challenge you and those like minded to do so. The Constitution allows for that too.

It is not one man's opinion, it is a matter of fact. Here from Connell University on the Second Amendment.

It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court definitively came down on the side of an “individual rights” theory.

If that's still not good enough, why don't you quote the preceding cases where the right to keep and bear arms was acknowledged as an individual right? Go ahead and look and good luck finding it. Doesn't exist. Plain and simple.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

It is not one man's opinion, it is a matter of fact. Here from Connell University on the Second Amendment.

If that's still not good enough, why don't you quote the preceding cases where the right to keep and bear arms was acknowledged as an individual right? Go ahead and look and good luck finding it. Doesn't exist. Plain and simple.

You're right. It's been a simple oversight. Any day now Obama will correct those misguided by the Second Amendment and set the record straight. Soon the US will be gun free. The Supreme Court will probably rule that it's unconstitutional. For an amendment that doesn't hold water and has been wrong for 200 years you'd think that it would be as easy to get rid of guns as you seem to think it is.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You're right. It's been a simple oversight. Any day now Obama will correct those misguided by the Second Amendment and set the record straight. Soon the US will be gun free. The Supreme Court will probably rule that it's unconstitutional. For an amendment that doesn't hold water and has been wrong for 200 years you'd think that it would be as easy to get rid of guns as you seem to think it is.

You can do better than that. Just refute the argument that was actually made. Ridiculing an argument that you just made up yourself is rather silly. It's quite telling, too, however.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

You can do better than that. Just refute the argument that was actually made. Ridiculing an argument that you just made up yourself is rather silly. It's quite telling, too, however.

C. I have no idea idea how to respond to the overwhelming facts you presented, so I will just deflect the issue and move on.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

C. I have no idea idea how to respond to the overwhelming facts you presented, so I will just deflect the issue and move on.

I see the mundane letter responses are back in vogue.

Oh, not that you would have noticed but it was spooks that deflected away from the actual point of the discussion and made up another point that he then attacked.

Edited June 8, 2014 by Mr. Big Dog

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I see the mundane letter responses are back in vogue.

Oh, not that you would have noticed but it was spooks that deflected away from the actual point of the discussion and made up another point that he then attacked.

But the actual deflection was the result of a prior deflection started by another member who you then deflected with a face palm resulting in the final deflection

See i can do pointless deflective double talk also.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

But the actual deflection was the result of a prior deflection started by another member who you then deflected with a face palm resulting in the final deflection

See i can do pointless deflective double talk also.

You're failing again, buddy. Fun stuff but I'll have to run and do some yard work now.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

You're failing again, buddy. Fun stuff but I'll have to run and do some yard work now.

Great swing by and help me replace a couple of sprinkler heads.. PIA

[spookyturtle 9,465]

You can do better than that. Just refute the argument that was actually made. Ridiculing an argument that you just made up yourself is rather silly. It's quite telling, too, however.

Prior to 1934, you could walk into a hardware store and plunk down about $200 and walk out the door with a Thompson sub machine gun. Now what was that you were saying about the interpretation of the Second Amendment being clear for 200 years and suddenly changing in 2008? Guns were much easier to buy years ago than they are today.

Only one of us is making stuff up, and it ain't me.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Prior to 1934, you could walk into a hardware store and plunk down about $200 and walk out the door with a Thompson sub machine gun. Now what was that you were saying about the interpretation of the Second Amendment being clear for 200 years and suddenly changing in 2008? Guns were much easier to buy years ago than they are today.

Only one of us is making stuff up, and it ain't me.

It ain't me either. I have provided the relevant back-up of my claim. You have brought straw men and anecdotes. So let's take a look at prior to 1934. In the Wild West of the 1800s, it was largely illegal to carry firearms into town. One had to check them into the Sheriff's office or the Grand Hotel while in town. Why? Well, to combat violence. Strange, isn't it?

But as with much of the Wild West, myth has replaced history. The 1881 shootout took place in a narrow alley, not at the corral. Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday weren't seen as heroic until later; they were initially charged with murder.

And one fact is usually ignored: Back then, Tombstone had far stricter gun control than it does today. In fact, the American West's most infamous gun battle erupted when the marshal tried to enforce a local ordinance that barred carrying firearms in public. A judge had fined one of the victims $25 earlier that day for packing a pistol.

"You could wear your gun into town, but you had to check it at the sheriff's office or the Grand Hotel, and you couldn't pick it up again until you were leaving town," said Bob Boze Bell, executive editor of True West Magazine, which celebrates the Old West. "It was an effort to control the violence."

So, now that we've swapped stories about the good ole' days, can you or can you not provide real, actual evidence that the Second Amendment was in any way settled as an individual right? Thus far, you've come up empty. I know why. And you do too but you just can't get yourself to admit it.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

It ain't me either. I have provided the relevant back-up of my claim. You have brought straw men and anecdotes. So let's take a look at prior to 1934. In the Wild West of the 1800s, it was largely illegal to carry firearms into town. One had to check them into the Sheriff's office or the Grand Hotel while in town. Why? Well, to combat violence. Strange, isn't it?

So, now that we've swapped stories about the good ole' days, can you or can you not provide real, actual evidence that the Second Amendment was in any way settled as an individual right? Thus far, you've come up empty. I know why. And you do too but you just can't get yourself to admit it.

You guys are silly, you are only allowed to justify something currently done by going back thru the Reagan years.