11-13-2012, 11:15 AM
|
 |
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Orange County, Ca
Posts: 1,102
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC
The good thing is that you don't have to argue the "militia/collective" argument anymore. Point to Heller and McDonald and say that the issue has been settled.
If they want to go against the Supreme Court, point out that this is twice as many rulings as there are on abortion (Roe v. Wade), so that to question the *individual* aspect of the 2A is akin to trying to ban abortion *and* claim the Earth is flat.
This is a much better route than to do the actual research which is contained in Heller and then have to argue it all over again. A court precedent is a court precedent, and those who don't believe it might as well go to court to claim that they don't have to pay taxes.
See how he ends up denying the simple judicial facts.
|
Said well, I think this is a "common sense" approach. lol
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wherryj
I am a physician. I am held to being "the expert" in medicine. I can't fall back on feigned ignorance and the statement that the patient should have known better than I. When an officer "can't be expected to know the entire penal code", but a citizen is held to "ignorance is no excuse", this is equivalent to ME being able to sue my patient for my own malpractice-after all, the patient should have known better, right?
|
|