JoseCuervo
New member
No Tom that is not what it means and if you have to ask then you are really lost.
He was completely lost when he referenced nut-case John Lott.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No Tom that is not what it means and if you have to ask then you are really lost.
...you didn't build that hat.
Manufactured at the EIB.
John Lott's research is very relevant and very good with respect to the beneficial effects of preventing violent crimes.
WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Sunday that there are "undoubtedly" limits to a person's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, but that future court cases will have to decide where to draw the line.
During an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Scalia was asked whether lawmakers have the right to ban high-capacity gun magazines without violating a person's constitutional right to bear arms. The question comes less than two weeks after the Colorado shooting massacre that left 12 dead and dozens more injured -- and at a time when neither President Barack Obama nor Congress appear willing to touch the issue of gun control.
"We'll see," Scalia said, suggesting that future court cases will determine what limitations on modern-day weapons are permissible.
"Some undoubtedly are [permissible] because there were some that were acknowledged at the time" the Constitution was written, Scalia said. He cited a practice from that era known as "frighting," where people "carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head axe or something. That was, I believe, a misdemeanor."
“So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed," Scalia said. "What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time."
Manufactured at the EIB.
Rush didnt build EIB.
Pfizer did....