Fool's history

[cheri1122]

Appreciate if you don't post your comment in my quote space. Kind of hillarious though it looks like me quoting me or you quoting you quoting me or something.

Dude, if how it looks is that important to you, you should pay more attention to spelling ['hilarious' is wrong. Again!] And punctuation. Just sayin.

 

[muttly]

Dude, if how it looks is that important to you, you should pay more attention to spelling ['hilarious' is wrong. Again!] And punctuation. Just sayin.

Not concerned how it looks, just that it is confusing when you post your comments in another person's quote space. Maybe use that blue text you like to use so we will all know it is your comments in someone elses quote box. Thanks again for your spell check servise.

 

[Turtle]

“Until 2008, that was not a fact. Not in terms of the Supreme Court. Not in terms of what most people believed the Founding Fathers were intending,” said Dr. Ignagni.

Baloney, to be colloquial. “Most people” means “most people he hung around with,”...

Yeah, that one jumped out pretty hard at me, as well. Saying that it wasn't a fact until the Heller decision of the Supreme Court is disingenuous, at best. Just because the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on something doesn't make it not a fact. The first court test of the Second Amendment's intent of private arms ownership came in 1822 with Bliss v Commonwealth (Kentucky), where Bliss was charged and convicted of bearing a sword hidden inside of a cane. The Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky ruled, in a majority vote with only one dissenting judge, that the law was against both the Kentucky and the US Constitution and overturned the case, flatly stating, "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned," which not coincidentally is almost word for word what the KY Constitution states.

There have been many lower court rulings that focused on the part where it says "the right of the people" to keep and bear arms, because that phrase is used in many places in the Constitution to mean precisely an individual right. The fact that the Supreme Court never ruled on that specific issue prior to 2008 is only because no one had ever presented it to the Court before that time. And in the 2008 ruling, the Court cited many of those lower court rulings as precedent.

The Texas professor noted that an individual’s right to bear arms has grown stronger in the last decade, as more courts side with individuals in gun law cases, except he's missing the fact that with only one exception, not a single court ruling in US history, that hasn't been overturned by a higher court, has ever ruled differently than with the individual's right to keep and bear arms. The one exception being United States v. Miller, the transportation of an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines (unregistered Title II weapons), since the shotgun with a barrel of less-than 18 inches wasn't considered "ordinary military equipment" and had no use for the "common defense." But that decision didn't set a clear-cut precedent either way for individual ownership of weapons, because of the narrowness of the case, and it's never been used as a precedent to rule against individual ownership.