Yes, pretty obviously. You're allowed to bear arms in case there is a need to form a militia. Are you fucking with me?

The reason they included militia/guns is because they didn't want/have a formal national army. There really wasn't such a thing. If another country was going to attack the US, basically every able bodied guy would grab a gun, meet with the rest of the people in their area and formalize their own militia. They wanted to have the right to defend themselves. Makes a ton of sense for them. Certainly can argue whether the people need guns to defend the country this day and age, but I think the old guys got it right.

One of my friends was a plaintiff in that case. She's multi-racial and grew up in Hyde Park and Evanston. Not exactly the kind of person you would expect to be suing for gun rights. But she's an American, dammit!

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

They had also just very recently taken up arms against their own oppressive government. I think they had the foresight to see that the need to do so again in the future was really quite probable.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

Did it stop making as much sense at some point?

I might suggest it makes more sense now than ever. Most of the people who are most adamantly against the rest of us being armed are constantly surrounded by a phalanx of heavily armed guards.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

Yep. "Private Security".

Maybe if we pay ourselves six-figures to be our own private security .....

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George

I'm assuming you're trolling.
Read Heller v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago. The Supreme Court has answered this question for you.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

Assume at your own risk.

If Scalia was to drop dead tomorrow, and Clarence thomas retired, how long do you think that decision would stand?

And no JORR, I m not surrounded by heavily armed guards and I do not own a gun.

_________________

Nearly positive that decision would stand.
The Supreme Court rarely reverses itself. This is generally considered settled law. And since the law is what it is and it is settled then your whole posting history on this topic in this thread is just pointless and silly.

Thanks for your time.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

Merry Christmas.

Thanks for attempting a civil conversation when someone questions you.

_________________

Merry christmas to you and to churros a good night.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

We can pick this one up in the New Year when you are positive.

_________________

I would rather test negative, nahwaddameen?
Seeks, you're an odd man. You challenged the Supreme Court today. Shit like that makes enemies of the state.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

Seacrest, what was the point of all of this? We're you attempting to prove something? Make some sort of point? Or just test Darkside? I'm not being a troll, I'm honestly asking because I can't tell what you were trying to do and I didn't see many statements, only vaguely leading questions.

It's far from pointless and silly.

There are ten cases decided by the Supreme Court that have been reversed. Most in the last 100 years or so.

No matter what your personal position is on abortion, that will one day be reversed. It's horrible law. And a number elite lawyers agree with that statement.

_________________

Not very long at all.

Which speaks volumes about the quality of the legal reasoning those two have used over the past 20-25 years. Their shared belief in "Original Intent" is a joke considering the Constitution was designed to be a living document, but it's nevertheless been a good business model supporting their family and patrons.

And consider this, Brennan (an Eisenhower appointee) & Blackmun (a Nixon appointee) and the biggest drivers behind Roe, have been off the Court for over 20 years now.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

Of course there is a sizable % who have positions hostile to desegregation, and that there are a number of elite lawyers who agree with the concept that Brown v Board of Ed. is also bad law and will be re-reversed, so your point is?

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

My points are quite clear:

No matter what your personal position is on abortion, that will one day be reversed. It's horrible law. And a number elite lawyers agree with that statement.

And there have have been a number of "settled law" cases of the Supreme Court that have been reversed.

Your bringing Brown V Board of Ed into this is a red herring. But you knew that when you did it.

_________________

That's all Seacrest ever does.

_________________

Regardless of one's position on the issue, one must recognize that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortions will not stop happening. Safe abortions performed by trained, medical professionals, will cease in lieu of back alley, coat hanger abortions.

See: Prohibition of alcohol, and the war on drugs.

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way

Abortions were being done without coat hangers LONG before Roe v Wade.

And more women die from legal abortions each year then ever died from the back alley ones. Red herrings were on a number of holiday menus this year.

_________________

Nobody disputed that.



Claiming that you know not only how many of these procedures were done, but how many died as a result of these procedures, is by far the biggest red herring in this thread. I'm sure the people performing these horrible procedures, keep meticulous records.

It would be like me claiming to know how many drug deals went down in a certain time/place.

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way

Well depending on the time, location, and what was being dealt, you could probably be pretty accurate

_________________

Drug deals and their causes are not records kept by coroners.

How young women die is, and has been recorded by coroners for years though.

_________________

http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/u ... tatistics/

-In 2008, 12 women died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortion (CDC).

-The number of deaths attributable to legal induced abortion was highest before the 1980s (CDC).

-In 1972 (the year before abortion was federally legalized), a total of 24 women died from causes known to be associated with legal abortions, and 39 died as a result of known illegal abortions (CDC).

/thread

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way

12?

More women probably die from electrocuting themselves by putting the hair dryer on the edge of the sink while they put their makeup on.

_________________

"on the other hand, is the research arm of Planned Parenthood, the world's largest abortion provider. While their data is helpful, they are a much less neutral source. "

From your own source.

And your source also admits to not having data from at least six states. One state being the largest in the union.

Do you have any thoughts on Chus on the legal nature of Roe v Wade?

_________________

meanwhile, the seacrest source cannot be disputed, ever.

I don't need data to know that the goddamn Catholics ought to get off the Vagina Patrol already.

_________________