Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Its meme time

You didn't really just spell your own name wrong, did you?

Yep.
I can be reading, and have a coherent conversation with my wife.

But, I don't remember a bit of it.
That, gets me in a lot of trouble!

She's not plump enough for you.

Nothing like a snow covered landing strip!

In her defense you do come across as a bit of a jerk.

I am speechless. Well done sir.

Now that you mention it she could put on a few pounds!! 😁

I've determined that some between 60 and 90 percent of the noice that comes out of females mouths,is filler. "Filler"for those blessed periods silence that is so threatening to the female soul.

I guess classy-conversation-and-good-women thread will be getting some very diverse pics now.😳😳😳

Build it and they will cum . . .

Please don’t hurt my feelers. I’m very sensitive. Edk

stealing that one

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf[/quote]

There seems to be a lot of reacting without really reading going on.

The sign in the picture SUPPORTS the Second Amendment and attacks the odd notion that the Second only applies to 18th century technology. Try reading it slowly and carefully:


The quote I provided SUPPORTS the sign in the picture.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications,... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, ... the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. SCOTUS, DC v Heller, page 8

So don't tell me I need to read Heller and understand Scalia. The quote was written BY Scalia and is FROM Heller and is clearly so cited. I understand it quite well, thank you.

Read before reacting.[/quote]

Scalia gave us a clearly and concisely stated opinion that articulated in well thought out manner the reason why we have a second amendment is twofold one to SPECIFICALLY restrain the hand of government in plain English. Secondly, his careful and lengthy grounding of the right to self defense all the way back to the French Right of Man is for precisely the purpose of preventing the idiots who'd torture the language to distort the RIGHT to arms to defend oneself from assault by anyone, including very explicitly our government.

There is no restriction anywhere in that opinion expressed that the arms must be of any specific type not must be bearable because that invites opinion that parity of armament against assault is not necessary and that restriction BY THE GOVERMENT IN PARTICULAR, is not at the base of the rational for inclusion of the second amendment as a guaranteed right without infringement by regulation. That is a critical distinction of the opinion and one which makes it almost unassailable in the future. Scalia intentionally very carefully crafted that opinion such that assault on the opinion was as close as possible to requiring replacement or abolishment of 2A by constitutional amendment only. Do not give away what he has given us.

That's pretty cool. I've seen mourning doves do that, they look like little turkeys with as wide as they fan their tail.

SOB Chucky has a girlfriend