DISQUS

I don’t see any point in the whole controversy.

She loves you and hates you , because you don’t pay her attention.

I love this place. It is incredible.

Thanks for sharing these pics.

You are really lucky and hardworking person.

She was totally shocked.

I love the place.

I love your blog mate.

It feel so bad when your daughter gets ill.

The place looks so cool.

You are kind of person who want to enjoy your life. Whats wrong with that?

I love to see them roaring.

My granny lives there and she hasn’t came out for weeks.

You better not to. She looks really beautiful.

Trust me they will never get it. Don’t even attend their phone calls.

Jesus is reconciling all things on heaven and to himself through the Cross (Col 1:20), so I presume he's allowed for the sanctification of echidnas as well.

I'm disappointed in Obama's response on that too. Very weak and wishy-washy.

No problem, Craig. I'm happy to discuss the constitutionality of the ruling. I actually read the opinions and this happened to stick out for me:


----

The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of thefounding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” See Linguists’ Brief 18; post, at 11 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,” which was in turn followed by the target of the hostilities. See 2 Oxford 21. (That is how, for example, our Declaration of Independence ¶28, used the phrase: “He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country . . . .”) Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. See Linguists’ Brief 18–23. Without the preposition, “bear arms” normally meant (as it continues to mean today) what JUSTICE GINSBURG’s opinion in Muscarello said.



In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.

------



Game. Set. Match.



And that's why they got the ruling right. All the people who are arguing against this have not taken context into consideration. What do I mean by context? The political (and linguistic) environment at the time the Constitution was written.

Jill - you might wanna check this out.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288



Yeah, its World Net Daily, but the argument still stands.

Oh, and one more thing: gun bans do nothing but punish law abiding citizens. Do you honestly think that bad guys who want a gun would go "Hey, yano... I was gonna buy a handgun, but now they're banned, I guess I can't get one now. Darn!"


Get serious. Let me tell you about this magical place called Black Market.... anything you want that the government banned you can get here!

The SCOTUS definitely made the right decision today. I'm waiting for the ban in Chicago to be overturned next. I completely disagree with b-serious and craig on this one.


Guns don't kill people, people kill people. The gun is a tool that has the potential for misuse... just like I can run over you in my car.



And if anyone needs any further proof - look to Kennesaw Georgia. In 1983 (or sometime close to that), they made a law requiring citizens to own at least one firearm in the household. Crime dropped DRAMATICALLY the year the ordinance went into effect, which makes sense.

No joke. I *wish* I see Stephanie Tubbs Jones face as Obama lets her know what's up. I can only imagine...

So if anyone needs to be schooled, it's you ... cameron.


-----

Well, your opinion has been duly noted. I'm sorry you don't like my opinion, but rest assured that I won't lose sleep over it. In the meantime, the fact still remains that she will be open to criticism as becomes more vocal in the public area. And the same goes for Cindy. A while ago, she was all indignant about releasing her tax forms... saying that she will "never release them." Guess what showed up on Drudge a few days later?



There is ZERO room for misspeaking in the YouTube era. Hillary Clinton learned that lesson with her Bosnia comment. I'm hoping Michelle doesn't suffer that same fate.

Michelle Obama needs to understand that if she chooses to make controversial statements in a public setting, then there is a chance that those words will be used against her. The lynching pic was over the line and unacceptable, but there is nothing wrong with people with questioning her in other areas.


Bottom line - it's just politics, and it's something that she'll have to learn.

Oh I yearn for the day when Sharpton and his race hustling friends have none of the influence that they have today....