Get ready for the next round of attacks on the 2nd.

archer wrote:

Grady wrote: First: I have never made any sort of statement regarding " privacy-rights of women to make their own decisions about what they can do with their bodies".

Second The Supreme Court and those that argue in front of the court are some of the finest constitutional legal minds in the country.

Third Carl T Bogus is a law professor in what at best can be described as a third or maybe even fourth tier law school.

Law school rankings

Really? you are going to discredit someone because of where they went to law school? not every brilliant lawyer came out of a top tier law school....same with doctors, or any other profession.

No, it appears he went to a pretty good law school, Syracuse, but he ended up teaching at low ranked law school. Guess he couldn't get a better gig, must be the quality of his research.

Or, that's where his wife is....OR, that's where his parents are....OR, that's where his wife's parents are.....OR... He likes that part of the country and didn't want to move .... OR, your conjecture is up to the usual standard....

LadyJazzer wrote:

Grady wrote: First: I have never made any sort of statement regarding " privacy-rights of women to make their own decisions about what they can do with their bodies".

Insert stock response: IT AIN'T ALWAYS ABOUT YOU !!!....I don't CARE what you, personally, have or have not said about Pro-CHOICE... It's the collective "YOU" of the GOTP and their "legitimate rape" insanity... And there ARE, in fact, a bunch of the 'baggers on 285Bound that HAVE made statements and violently oppose women's rights to make their own decisions...

So spare me the "I've never said _____" garbage.

And I could care less what you think of Bogus' school ranking... He's every bit as qualified as that wingnut, Lapierre, to express the legal ramifications.

My post

grady wrote: I know that a lefty law professor dug up some statements, alluding that the 2nd was put in place to satisfy Virginia’s need to protect it’s state militia. Keep in mind that at the time every state not just the southern states had their own militias that they wanted to protect. The Supreme Court has affirmed that the 2nd is an individual right. I’ll go with the Supreme Court over some dyed-in-the-wool liberal law professor.

Was immediately followed by Your post

LadyJazzer wrote: So you are saying that you're okay with the Supreme Court affirming that a State right can be expanded to cover your right to own an assault weapon, but you're not okay with them expanding the privacy-rights of women to make their own decisions about what they can do with their bodies...

So you can see where any one would assume your post was directed at me. I feel so much better knowing it was directed to anybody on the right. snowman::

"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

Oh yeah, then that must mean...

"Guns don't protect people. People protect people."

Raees wrote: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

Oh yeah, then that must mean...

"Guns don't protect people. People protect people."

Yes, both statements are true. In both cases it takes a human finger to pull the trigger.

It is strange that when people drive drunk, we go after the drunk driver, but when someone shoots up a school, we penalize millions of legal gun owners who never shot anyone.

FredHayek wrote: It is strange that when people drive drunk, we go after the drunk driver, but when someone shoots up a school, we penalize millions of legal gun owners who never shot anyone.

99% of all traffic deaths could be eliminated if we reqired all cars to stay in first gear. I'm gonna call my congressman and suggest that. Even drunk drivers and stupid people would be pretty harmless if they could only drive 15 mph.

FredHayek wrote: It is strange that when people drive drunk, we go after the drunk driver, but when someone shoots up a school, we penalize millions of legal gun owners who never shot anyone.

DISINGENUOUS,at best.........It wasn't until MADD campaigned HEAVILY for new laws and demanded that something been done.....they
got tired of burying their children because someone had that EXTRA 3 drinks and got behind the wheel (IMPAIRED) and plowed into their
children, killing them in the process. :faint:

homeagain wrote:

FredHayek wrote: It is strange that when people drive drunk, we go after the drunk driver, but when someone shoots up a school, we penalize millions of legal gun owners who never shot anyone.

DISINGENUOUS,at best.........It wasn't until MADD campaigned HEAVILY for new laws and demanded that something been done.....they
got tired of burying their children because someone had that EXTRA 3 drinks and got behind the wheel (IMPAIRED) and plowed into their
children, killing them in the process. :faint:

But again, drunk driving laws only penalize people who drive drunk and not people who operate their cars RESPONSIBLY. Same thing should be done with gun laws... one strike and you're out.

homeagain wrote:

FredHayek wrote: It is strange that when people drive drunk, we go after the drunk driver, but when someone shoots up a school, we penalize millions of legal gun owners who never shot anyone.

DISINGENUOUS,at best.........It wasn't until MADD campaigned HEAVILY for new laws and demanded that something been done.....they
got tired of burying their children because someone had that EXTRA 3 drinks and got behind the wheel (IMPAIRED) and plowed into their
children, killing them in the process. :faint:

Actually there is some evidence that it wasn't MADD who got states to clamp down on drunk driving, but defense attorneys who saw big money in defending drunk drivers. Notice how often you see that people with multiple offenses continue to drive drunk. If MADD was more effective, these people would be off the road.