Lumpy wrote:I don't suppose that the original intent of the Second Amendment to explicitly protect the possession of military arms will ever get a hearing?
One can hope.
Lumpy wrote:I don't suppose that the original intent of the Second Amendment to explicitly protect the possession of military arms will ever get a hearing?
Holland&Holland wrote:Lumpy wrote:I don't suppose that the original intent of the Second Amendment to explicitly protect the possession of military arms will ever get a hearing?
One can hope.
Lumpy wrote:I don't suppose that the original intent of the Second Amendment to explicitly protect the possession of military arms will ever get a hearing?
linksep wrote:Lumpy wrote:I don't suppose that the original intent of the Second Amendment to explicitly protect the possession of military arms will ever get a hearing?
"A well regulated militia..." translated from 1791 to 2019 words reads: "A well-practiced civilian security-force".
BigDog58 wrote:crbutler wrote:From reading this, she basically decided that the Brady folk’s brief was factual. She used their Brief as the definition of fact. She should get this bounced on appeal as the ATF is the legal source of these definitions for the USG. Typical liberal, emotions are every bit as valid as facts....
I would grant to gross visual examination at 30 feet, it’s pretty difficult to tell the difference between an AR 15 and an M16.
Of course, calling a dolphin a fish doesn’t make it so, either.
Sorry, but bad analogy. "Dolphin" Is A Fish...you may know it as "Mahi-Mahi", but it is a Dolphin. I have caught hundreds of them, and IMHO, they are best served Fried Golden Brown, with Hush Puppies and French Fries
Holland&Holland wrote:linksep wrote:Lumpy wrote:I don't suppose that the original intent of the Second Amendment to explicitly protect the possession of military arms will ever get a hearing?
"A well regulated militia..." translated from 1791 to 2019 words reads: "A well-practiced civilian security-force".
Does not need to be translated in any way. “Shall not be infringed”.
crbutler wrote:BigDog58 wrote:crbutler wrote:From reading this, she basically decided that the Brady folk’s brief was factual. She used their Brief as the definition of fact. She should get this bounced on appeal as the ATF is the legal source of these definitions for the USG. Typical liberal, emotions are every bit as valid as facts....
I would grant to gross visual examination at 30 feet, it’s pretty difficult to tell the difference between an AR 15 and an M16.
Of course, calling a dolphin a fish doesn’t make it so, either.
Sorry, but bad analogy. "Dolphin" Is A Fish...you may know it as "Mahi-Mahi", but it is a Dolphin. I have caught hundreds of them, and IMHO, they are best served Fried Golden Brown, with Hush Puppies and French Fries
Dolphin fish is different... probably why they call it Mahi Mahi. People can’t figure that out either.
And a dolphin is not the same as a porpoise, either.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 26 guests