On Aug 11, 7:39*pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:00:25 -0400, "

wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 14:22:21 -0700, "David Kaye"
wrote:

The gun nuts claim to follow the Constitution, but the Constitution makes
VERY CLEAR that the laws are subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court,
and it is THEIR DECISION as to what a particular clause actually means.

Well, the Supreme Court has ruled many times that the 2nd Amendment refers
to regulating a MILITIA, and that it does not confer ANY right for
individual citizens to own guns.

Good Lord, you're stupid. *I thought Dougie was bad!

I still am bad if that means I still favor better laws to account for
gun ownership. * I don't want "anyone" to have a right to own a gun no
matter how well you word your reply. * There has to be some regulation
(perhaps I should say better regulation) of gun ownership in a
civilized world.

Yes perhaps you should say "better regulation" so
you don't look like a total ass, just mostly one.
There are all kinds of laws on the books. So forgive
me if I'm just a bit sceptical when a clown like
Senator Lousenberg, from NJ, proposes a new
law that would require reporting when anyone
buys 1000 rounds or more of ammo in a week.
Other than this nonsense, I haven't heard a peep
from the old skeletor. Worried about $16tril in
debt? Iran making the A bomb? The economy
that sucks? Nahh, it's those
ammo sales that are the problem worthy of his
attention that finally woke him up.

We've outlawed cocaine and heroin. That's worked
real well, right? Prohibition ring a bell?