Justice: That prevents self-defense.
Maybe the concern is over who IS a law abiding citizen?
law abiding citizens flip out and shoot every so once in awhile
dwnoname said: “law abiding citizens flip out and shoot every so once in awhile.”
ANandy reflects: Yet they remain law abiding citizens?
Let me introduce you to RICO who had the uncanny ability of knowing years in advance, even at age 7, what the future held for his peers.
Certainly he has not lost his “touch”, though he is touched in the head.
Dr; Just keep on hiding up there in the geat white north with your head in the snow and STAY OUT of the USA.
Thank you very much.
judge: “didn’t you know that you could go to jail for having a gun in violation of the handgun ban?”
convicted: “yes your honor”
judge: “then why did you have one?”
convicted: “In my neighborhood, I’d rather be caught with a gun than without”.
As they always do, GOCOMICS skipped over a great one, go back and look at it.
All I can hope is that they post it again as a Conrad or something, so that more people can see it.
If you look back at post-civil war history, Gun control laws were designed to keep the recently emancipated slaves from owning guns. That is why the 14th Amendment was passed in order to assure that every state was held to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and all of the Amendments. To this day, most Gun control laws (remember “Saturday Night Specials”?) are efforts to keep blacks from owning guns.
this is not right
parrotthead2009 IS correct - to an extent. I think that the original laws were meant to MAKE sure that WHITE men had their guns. And it is still mostly white men fighting to keep them!
No other nation in the world has as many guns or as many deaths from shootings. And we think we are the most civilized - ‘the best’?
We can thank our capitalist society because it is the business of guns that manages to put so many into the market and into all sorts of peoples hands - good and bad.
Hey Chief Justice, since you love guns so much and have been bought out by the NRA, when are you going to rule that guns can get taken into Congress and The Supreme Court?
Or are you afraid that that women from Arizona’s third district, who is running for Congress, will show up with that ozzi she shows off in one of her ads?
so sorry andy i’m continually overestimating other people’s intellegence. i’ll rephrase that so even you
can understand the point intended. from time to time one or another of these law abiding citizens
(you follow so far?)will become temperally insane, and therefore not responsible for his/her actions (got that?) and use his/her weapon irresponsibly. feel free to reply if any of this has gone over your head, thank you.
This was a zinger!
Of course they should be allowed to own firearms, Bruce. Have you never read the 2nd Amendment?
It refers to “the people” - not citizens, nor sane people, nor people trained in the use of arms, nor non-terrorist people, nor people over the age of whatever - just “the people”
And it says “shall not be infringed” – not “shall not, unless…”
Since we’re told our Justices should show “restraint” rather than “activism”, everyone gets guns.
Heck, even recently-conceived embryos should get guns…they’re “people”, right?
How can the states “regulate the process” without infringing on the right of at least some of the people, and thereby violating the new version of the 2nd amendment (the one that doesn’t involve militias)?
And why do you say “citizens” instead of “people”?
Bruce: “If “mental incompetence” was a factor, do you think I would have been granted that priviledge?”
Priviledge??? I thought it was a right?
As to whether you would have been granted it, I would say that would depend on whether the 2nd says “shall not be infringed” or “shall not be infringed unless the person is mentally incompetent”. Which is it again?
Can’t wait for my thumb missile to show up in the mail…
Right to bear arms ya know.
Wait, thumb missiles?
Is that “judicial restraint” or “judicial activism”?
April 12, 2017
May 10, 2018
July 06, 2017
August 01, 2017