Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules

Lol... Oh you guys .... since when do lefties care about laws rules or rights ?

 

" Subsequent amendments allow for rights to be restricted, if they can pass the strict scrutiny standard." That's the operative part of post 75.
Yes I see the word RESTRICTED as it applies to RIGHTS effected by SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS.
What I do not see is the word RESTRICTIONS as a separate subject which THEY would then apply to. As it stands the subject of the sentence, and thus what THEY refers to grammatically speaking, are SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS.
Recall that what you claim has been in post 75 the entire time is the word RESTRICTIONS. RESTRICTIONS does not appear in post 75.
This is what happens when you are not concise with your use of language, and then septuple down on your mistake.

 

which is clearly talking about the restrictions, and you know that.

The amendments allow restrictions, of they pass strict scrutiny when challenged.


You continue to intentionally look silly, because you know perfectly well I was talking about restrictions, not amendments, needing to pass strict scrutiny, and numerous people have pointed out to you.

 

Not according to the grammar rules of the language you wrote the sentence in. Hence why I corrected you.

 

except you know my post was perfectly clear, and I said that the rights restricted, had to pass strict scrutiny, which you directly quoted me saying 5 times. now.


You continue to intentionally look silly, because you know perfectly well I was talking about restrictions, not amendments, needing to pass strict scrutiny, and numerous people have pointed out to you.

 

As stated your post was indeed perfectly clear, and perfectly incorrect. Hence the correction which you should've taken gracefully.

The RIGHTS RESTRICTED by SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT? Amendments don't have to pass strict scrutiny dude, for like the 10th time now.. For instance, the 18th amendment restricted the right to possess alcohol either in public or private. That restriction didn't have to pass scrutiny, that was just the text of the amendment: To restrict the right in no uncertain terms. Amendments go through the Art V amendment process. Statutes derived which purport to limit rights fundamental to our system of ordered liberty must pass strict scrutiny.
That's not what you said, either in post 75, or hilariously enough here either.

Numerous? Is that what you call one poster other than yourself?

 

except you know my post was perfectly clear, and I said that the rights restricted, had to pass strict scrutiny, which you directly quoted me saying 5 times. now.


You continue to intentionally look silly, because you know perfectly well I was talking about restrictions, not amendments, needing to pass strict scrutiny, and numerous people have pointed out to you.

 

And again, in post 75 you state THEY must pass strict scrutiny while only having one ****ing subject in your ****ing sentence. THEY then applies to the only subject in the sentence, SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS


"Subsequent amendments allow for rights to be restricted, if they can pass the strict scrutiny standard."

 

except you know my post was perfectly clear, and I said that the rights restricted, had to pass strict scrutiny, which you directly quoted me saying 5 times. now.


You continue to intentionally look silly, because you know perfectly well I was talking about restrictions, not amendments, needing to pass strict scrutiny, and numerous people have pointed out to you.

 

See above dear.

 

except you know my post was perfectly clear, and I said that the rights restricted, had to pass strict scrutiny, which you directly quoted me saying 5 times. now.


You continue to intentionally look silly, because you know perfectly well I was talking about restrictions, not amendments, needing to pass strict scrutiny, and numerous people have pointed out to you.

 

Yet another scofflaw court ruling that undermines the credibility and ultimately the authority and legitimacy of the judiciary.

Kind of a stupid thing for judges to do to themselves.

 

Why do you insist on name calling ?
And flame baiting ?

By the way, the term is "Law Enforcement Agency",
Not Law Enforcement Officer, an Individual Officer.

 

The interactions between yourself and others present in this discussion have demonstrated the absence of fact that has been referred to.

 

Rahl has run the rodeo on Reality, and Reality is on the ground kicking.

Rahl made it perfectly clear what he said, and Reality kept pretending that was not the case.

So Rahl put him on the ground and stood on his head, metaphorically.

 

Backed you off, dinnit?

 

Lol.... yea you sure did... lolol.

 

except you know my post was perfectly clear, and I said that the rights restricted, had to pass strict scrutiny, which you directly quoted me saying 5 times. now.


You continue to intentionally look silly, because you know perfectly well I was talking about restrictions, not amendments, needing to pass strict scrutiny, and numerous people have pointed out to you.

 

and you know this is not true.

 

He's made it clear after correction. That doesn't mean he didn't make a mistake originally, which is all I pointed out and all he's having so much trouble swallowing.

You kids crack me up

 

except you know my post was perfectly clear, and I said that the rights restricted, had to pass strict scrutiny, which you directly quoted me saying 5 times. now.


You continue to intentionally look silly, because you know perfectly well I was talking about restrictions, not amendments, needing to pass strict scrutiny, and numerous people have pointed out to you.

 

See above dear