XPost: alt.politics, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.art-bell
From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net
leg@sea wrote:
> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>> "leg@sea" wrote in
>> news:hchrou$c9t$13@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>>>> Matt wrote in
>>>> news:e5c6e48b-b2b6-4bb8-b0cd-519bf40a4191@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 30, 2:34 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" >>>> @comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> "leg@sea" wrote innews:hcfe6s$aeg$1@news.eternal-
>>>>>> september.org:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Matt wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Oct 29, 8:29 pm, "leg@sea" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Matt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 28, 7:09 pm, "leg@sea" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Telles felches spaniels in the break room.
>>>>>>>>>> Blah blah blah, Spammy is the 12 year old that rapes little
>>>>>>>>>> boys. Point proven.
>>>>>>>>>> Matt
>>>>>>>>> How's life by the reservoir, shall we up the ante?
>>>>>>>> Wow, you mean you are going to reveal my (*gasp*) name and
>>>>>>>> address, Spammy? Gee, anyone with a PHONE BOOK can do that.
>>>>>>> I _sure hope_ none of those 'crazed' gun owners you're always
>>>>>>> trying to disenfranchise finds there was over to Lakewood,
>>>>>>> Colorado, Matty...
>>>>>> They probably won't pay any attention to his address.....after
>>>>>> all, the vast majority of them are adult enough to realize that
>>>>>> differences of opinion exist....and always will.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Done raping the 12 year old boys, Spammy?
>>>>>>> Done trying to take away peoples' rights to own guns Matty?
>>>>>> He hasn't tried to take mine away.....or yours if you have one. He
>>>>>> simply has different ideas on gun control.
>>>>> Eh, Spammy and I go way back to his Uncle Sam days on co.general.
>>>>> Allegedly, he lives here. He doesn't like being shown up.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for gun control, I do have different ideas. I think that what
>>>>> works in
>>>>> one place won't work in another. In other words, I like the
>>>>> concept of local control over matters. Does anyone truly disagree?
>>>> Yep. I believe in state control but not city by city. Why should
>>>> someone doing something perfectly legal where he lives be thrown in
>>>> jail while seeing his brother a few blocks over?
>>>>
>>> You believe that the states have the power to override the
>>> CONSTITUTION?!?!?
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Oh good!
>
>>> WTF is the matter with you?
>>
>> Nothing....whether or not the Second Amendment applies to the states
>> hasn't been decided by the Supreme Court yet.
>
> It does, period.
>
>> It is to be decided
>> probably by summer in McDonald v Chicago. However, even when it is
>> decided, according to the decision in Heller, restrictions can be
>> constitutional so what the amendment's application would mean will
>> probably be decided on a state by state basis.
>
> Nope.
Before you get all bent out of shape, maybe I should explain RD for you (I
really need to make a macro for this ). He tends to make his announcements
from the POV of how things are, rather than as they should be. He typically
agrees with how things should be, but still looks at it from the POV of how
they are. So in the end, RD agrees that the 14th SHOULD apply the 2nd to the
lower levels of government, but AT THIS TIME it doesn't.
Hopefully the Chicago case coming down the pipeline will give SCOTUS a
chance to correct this 'oversight' and bring the state of how things are
more in line with the state of how they should be. Until they do, however,
there is a major disconnect between how they are and how they should be and
as long as you understand RD's POV you will understand where he is coming
from.
I beat my head over him for a long time before we got things straight
because I always felt I understood him....then he would suddenly come out
with something like this and I would go "Say what?". Just a difference in
POV not a fundimental difference in our understanding of how the 14th is or
should be applied.
Just a little FYI.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
