if injecting car paint into the largest organ of your body wasn't enough of a reason. Karen Taylor from BBC 3 's Touch me I'm Karen Taylor
Crap this clip was yanked. Karen Taylor is a crappy tattoo artist with a hard man client who wants a tattoo that says "I love Arsenal" on his back, but she doesn't make it fit. Figure it out.
Instead, we have this method of dealing with armed robbers:
28 August 2008
Joe Biden, DC v. Heller, and the Individual Right
When I thought I wasn't interested in the US Elections, the democrats give the ultimate fuck you to the RKBA crowd by putting Joe Biden in the Vice-presidential spot. You know, Joe Biden the bloke who told the dickless asshole with the assault rifle "if that is his baby, he needs help.I think he just made an admission against self-interest. I don't know that he is mentally qualified to own that gun. I'm being serious. Look, just like me, we go around talking about people who own guns."
Here it is for your viewing pleasure:
Now, DC v. Heller, S.Ct Docket # 07-290, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) has come up with the most fucked up interpretation of the Second Amendment. Well, fucked up for everybody except the gun grabbers. "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." That means pretty much that as long as guns are available, they can be regulated.
What did DC do? They went back to the pre-1976 law, which was still the strictest gun laws on the books! It just allowed for the possession of .38 revolvers with 4 inch barrels! Well, Heller can have his gun for self-defence.
Hahahahahahahahahaha!
Not to mention dickhead Bob Levy has come out to say that the Second Amendment cannot infringe upon property rights. He supports those business owners who want to keep guns off their property. What was he thinking?
Bob, if you lived in Germany in the 20s you would have supported Hitler because he hated Communists. I mean all that anti-semitic stuff wasn't really pertinent was it?
The problem is that the self-defence interpretation from New Scholarship which has become precedent for the time being only came about in the last 20 or so years.
As I like to say: show me where in the Second Amendment the term "self-defence" is mentioned! They only time the word defence is used in the Constitution is in regard to the "Common defence".
So, after the courts get pissed off with the frivolous law suits from felons who want to own guns and trying to sort of which right takes precedence self-defence or property, there is only one proper interpretation of the Second Amendment: the collective/civic/public/militia right. That is the one that ties the Second Amendment guarantee to ensuring the efficacy of Article I, Section 8 militias.
Anyway, the upshot is that the Democrats will all say they can't ban guns, that's unconstitutional.
Thank you Antonin Scalia for a totally screwed up and unscholarly piece of shit decision. You can't base law upon a logical fallacy (argumentum ad populum).
Here it is for your viewing pleasure:
Now, DC v. Heller, S.Ct Docket # 07-290, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) has come up with the most fucked up interpretation of the Second Amendment. Well, fucked up for everybody except the gun grabbers. "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." That means pretty much that as long as guns are available, they can be regulated.
What did DC do? They went back to the pre-1976 law, which was still the strictest gun laws on the books! It just allowed for the possession of .38 revolvers with 4 inch barrels! Well, Heller can have his gun for self-defence.
Hahahahahahahahahaha!
Not to mention dickhead Bob Levy has come out to say that the Second Amendment cannot infringe upon property rights. He supports those business owners who want to keep guns off their property. What was he thinking?
Bob, if you lived in Germany in the 20s you would have supported Hitler because he hated Communists. I mean all that anti-semitic stuff wasn't really pertinent was it?
The problem is that the self-defence interpretation from New Scholarship which has become precedent for the time being only came about in the last 20 or so years.
As I like to say: show me where in the Second Amendment the term "self-defence" is mentioned! They only time the word defence is used in the Constitution is in regard to the "Common defence".
So, after the courts get pissed off with the frivolous law suits from felons who want to own guns and trying to sort of which right takes precedence self-defence or property, there is only one proper interpretation of the Second Amendment: the collective/civic/public/militia right. That is the one that ties the Second Amendment guarantee to ensuring the efficacy of Article I, Section 8 militias.
Anyway, the upshot is that the Democrats will all say they can't ban guns, that's unconstitutional.
Thank you Antonin Scalia for a totally screwed up and unscholarly piece of shit decision. You can't base law upon a logical fallacy (argumentum ad populum).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
