Online users
???: Message   

Yep, that.
Re: His argument is back asswards - the "radical" position is that the Rule of Law is invalid because of "consensus" and "mainstream" ignorance/arrogance. -- LateForLunch Post Reply Top of thread Forum

Posted by: TEEBONE

11/21/2019, 20:53:21

Author Profile Mail author Edit
Gizmick -

Look what the left did to U.S. v. Miller for 75 years. They sold the lie that Miller ruled the 2A only applicable to the people's right to bear arms in a militia, when it did no such thing.

Even laymen like ourselves can deduce the principle elucidated by the Court in that case - that Miller had an individual right to bear arms (the Court ignored the gov't's 'collective right' argument entirely) and moved on to the type of weapon at issue.

And we could have (and did) reach that conclusion long before D.C. v. Heller put it into true perspective.

That egregious misrepresentation was a 'consensus' of (leftist) legal opinion.

These people are DETHPICABLE! *pth, pth* (cue Daffy Duck)

TEE



LIBERTY HAS NO EXPIRATION DATE

Democrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.



Modified by TEEBONE at Thu, Nov 21, 2019, 20:59:11


Post Reply | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page