LEWIS v. UNITED STATES, 445 U.S. 55 (1980) "These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller." It couldn't be any clearer, could it. But Halbrook claimed that this court did NOT say that the Second Amendment does NOT protect a fundamental right to own a firearm and that this omission (of his OWN words) removed any uncertainty that the Second Amendment protects the ownership of firearms. Go figure.
BRWaldo97 said: "You're being disingenuous, just throwing an *out of context quote* out as proof that Halbrook is somehow lying. The Lewis in "Lewis v. United States" was a felon, and therefore could not legally posses a firearm." -------------------------------------- HOW did I take the quote out of context? All I did was present the quote from the Lewis court and Halbrook's comment on that case. Please explain HOW saying that gun laws don't violate any rights in the Constitution removes uncertainty that the Second Amendment protects the ownership of firearms.
I SAID: "All I did was present the quote from the Lewis court and Halbrook's comment on that case. Please explain HOW saying that gun laws don't violate any rights in the Constitution removes uncertainty that the Second Amendment protects the ownership of firearms." BRWaldo97 SAID: "..this ruling didn't say gun laws don't violate the second amendment, it said that Lewis didn't have the full rights of a citizen as a convicted felon." -------------------------------------- You didn't answer my question. What did the court say which removed all doubt about the Second Amendment protecting a right for all individuals (except felons) to own firearms?
I ASKED: "What did the court say which removed all doubt about the Second Amendment protecting a right for all individuals (except felons) to own firearms?" BRWaldo97 ANSWERED: "Nothing." ---------------------------------------------- So Halbrook's assertion is blatant and unsupported.
I ASKED: "What did the court say which removed all doubt about the Second Amendment protecting a right for all individuals (except felons) to own firearms?" BRWaldo97 ANSWERED: "Nothing." I SAID: So Halbrook's assertion is blatant and unsupported. BRWaldo97 SAID: "There you go, taking things out of context again." ------------------------------------------------ What have I said to take things out of context? I asked a question and YOU said there's "nothing" which the court said which removed all doubt about the Second Amendment securing personal gun rights. So you must agree that Halbrook made an assertion which isn't true, right?
BRWaldo97 said: "All Halbrook said was that the case didn't challenge the idea that the Second Amendment protects an individual right." -------------------------------------------- Wrong. He said the case *removed all doubt* about the Second Amendment securing personal gun rights, and YOU said there's "nothing" the court said to support that blatant assertion.
This is one of the many psychological games being done her in Germany to show the opposition their inferiority. Otherwise it would not be possible that the 2- 3 million Beamte, the GOD-like german civil "servants" rule over 80 million subjects.
LEWIS v. UNITED STATES, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)
"These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller."
It couldn't be any clearer, could it.
But Halbrook claimed that this court did NOT say that the Second Amendment does NOT protect a fundamental right to own a firearm and that this omission (of his OWN words) removed any uncertainty that the Second Amendment protects the ownership of firearms. Go figure.
BRWaldo97 said: "You're being disingenuous, just throwing an *out of context quote* out as proof that Halbrook is somehow lying. The Lewis in "Lewis v. United States" was a felon, and therefore could not legally posses a firearm."
--------------------------------------
HOW did I take the quote out of context? All I did was present the quote from the Lewis court and Halbrook's comment on that case. Please explain HOW saying that gun laws don't violate any rights in the Constitution removes uncertainty that the Second Amendment protects the ownership of firearms.
I SAID:
"All I did was present the quote from the Lewis court and Halbrook's comment on that case. Please explain HOW saying that gun laws don't violate any rights in the Constitution removes uncertainty that the Second Amendment protects the ownership of firearms."
BRWaldo97 SAID:
"..this ruling didn't say gun laws don't violate the second amendment, it said that Lewis didn't have the full rights of a citizen as a convicted felon."
--------------------------------------
You didn't answer my question. What did the court say which removed all doubt about the Second Amendment protecting a right for all individuals (except felons) to own firearms?
I ASKED:
"What did the court say which removed all doubt about the Second Amendment protecting a right for all individuals (except felons) to own firearms?"
BRWaldo97 ANSWERED:
"Nothing."
----------------------------------------------
So Halbrook's assertion is blatant and unsupported.
I ASKED:
"What did the court say which removed all doubt about the Second Amendment protecting a right for all individuals (except felons) to own firearms?"
BRWaldo97 ANSWERED:
"Nothing."
I SAID:
So Halbrook's assertion is blatant and unsupported.
BRWaldo97 SAID:
"There you go, taking things out of context again."
------------------------------------------------
What have I said to take things out of context? I asked a question and YOU said there's "nothing" which the court said which removed all doubt about the Second Amendment securing personal gun rights. So you must agree that Halbrook made an assertion which isn't true, right?
BRWaldo97 said: "All Halbrook said was that the case didn't challenge the idea that the Second Amendment protects an individual right."
--------------------------------------------
Wrong. He said the case *removed all doubt* about the Second Amendment securing personal gun rights, and YOU said there's "nothing" the court said to support that blatant assertion.
One lesson - Nazis arose in a country with few gun controls.
I don't think that the Jewish minority in Germany was a´rmed up to the teeth anyway. This argument really strikes me as odd.
This is one of the many psychological games being done her in Germany to show the opposition their inferiority.
Otherwise it would not be possible that the 2- 3 million Beamte, the GOD-like german civil "servants" rule over 80 million subjects.
Your right it was less about the guns and more about an excuse to harass and search their homes.