The DC mayor is a POS....

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

could you please show me the link in the SCOTUS ruling that supports your position. TIA.

The burden's on you, but here you go:

"c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."

"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose."

"In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

If you can read, Waters, you'll see how wrong you've been.

The decision provides a building block for striking down the new DC law, but it doesn't by its terms foreclose it in any way. The Supreme Court's decision is incredibly liimited: Second Amendment is individual right; can't ban handgun ownership in the home; and have to allow handgun to be "operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."

I win; you lose. Now put on your floaties and please leave the deep end.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Levin

The burden's on you, but here you go:

"c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."

"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose."

"In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

If you can read, Waters, you'll see how wrong you've been.

The decision provides a building block for striking down the new DC law, but it doesn't by its terms foreclose it in any way. The Supreme Court's decision is incredibly liimited: Second Amendment is individual right; can't ban handgun ownership in the home; and have to allow handgun to be "operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."

I win; you lose. Now put on your floaties and please leave the deep end.

"immediate self-defense". A prohibition on having loaded handguns does not allow for immediate self-defense.

You are intellectually dishonest. You make UtahDan seem like a paragon of ethics.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

"immediate self-defense". A prohibition on having loaded handguns does not allow for immediate self-defense.

You are intellectually dishonest. You make UtahDan seem like a paragon of ethics.

You are a true dumbass. The law doesn't ban having loaded handguns. It bans loaded hand guns unless you are faced with a "threat of immediate harm." They cribbed the Supreme Court's language, you dumbass.

You're the intellectually dishonest one who refuses to do his homework and instead hides his sloppy thinking behind who knows what, but it aint' reason.

[MikeWaters]

"immediate self-defense".

Think about it again. You seemed to have missed it the first time.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

"immediate self-defense".

Think about it again. You seemed to have missed it the first time.

The DC law allows for the possession and use of a loaded hand gun in the event of a "threat of immediate harm." Not only for self-defense, but "harm" and not only actual, but a "threat." It actually gives more than the Supreme Court requires it to.

Surely you can't be this obstinately blind.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Levin

The DC law allows for the possession and use of a loaded hand gun in the event of a "threat of immediate harm." Not only for self-defense, but "harm" and not only actual, but a "threat." It actually gives more than the Supreme Court requires it to.

Surely you can't be this obstinately blind.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to insist that you read it again. "immediate self-defense."

You remind me of the kid who has to say the sacrament prayer four times.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to insist that you read it again. "immediate self-defense."

You remind me of the kid who has to say the sacrament prayer four times.

Waters:

What's the difference between "immediate self-defense" and "threat of immediate harm."

I look forward to your explanation how the latter is more strict than the former.

Thanks in advance, you obstinate fool. It's great fun kicking your ass when you ask for a cite, I give it to you, you can't stand that you're wrong, and you suddently build a cement block on your brain and start being a broken record.

[MikeWaters]

It's ludicrous on its face--

can you imagine someone saying "you can only bear a loaded gun when you are justified in using deadly force, otherwise it cannot be loaded."

Just like it is ridiculous (and not what the Supreme Court meant) for the police to carry unloaded guns, it is ridiculous that one has the right to defend oneself in one's own home with a gun, but it can't be loaded.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

It's ludicrous on its face--

can you imagine someone saying "you can only bear a loaded gun when you are justified in using deadly force, otherwise it cannot be loaded."

Just like it is ridiculous (and not what the Supreme Court meant) for the police to carry unloaded guns, it is ridiculous that one has the right to defend oneself in one's own home with a gun, but it can't be loaded.

"It's ludicrous" . . . "it's ridiculous" . . . "it's ridiculous." Nice reasoning.

Supreme Court held, you have a right to:

(1) own gun in home

(2) for "immediate self-defense."

New DC gun law:

(1) permits gun ownership in the home

(2) and keep it loaded for "threats of immediate harm."


You can try to engage with the actual arguments if you want, but until then, I'll just be grateful you're not my lawyer. The closest you've come is by saying that in DC you are always in threats of immediate harm. I think the Supreme Court is going to have to back away from their "immediate self-defense" and gun ownership only for "confrontation" rationale in order to strike down some laws. I suspect they will.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I can read and I can f you up in about 5 minutes.

Do you understand what I am saying?

Wow- did you just go DixieCougar?

Internet "bullies" are adorable.

Edit: Glad to read later in the thread you were joking.