You pull the wiggly thing, there's a bang, and holes appear in things.

Occasionally, the holes leak red stuff, and the things stop moving.

Played a bit too much COD today?

Nope - the most violent or in-depth game I play is Angry Birds on Kitewife's iPod Touch.

Chess or Stratego is about as violent as I get :-)

Oh, I wish I knew which poet this was reminding me off. It's driving me absolutely batty.

Poet?

Really?

Well, the stylistic non-use of proper nouns - just vague ones like "thing" or "stuff" - is strongly reminding me of something I know I've read fairly recently - I _think_ it was a poem, or at least poetic, I just can't recall what it is! I'm starting to think it was...hm. Maybe a short story.

You're not thinking of E. E. Cummings are you?

No...that's not who I'm thinking of. :)

T'was a shot in the dark ;-)

same poet that wrote "the wheels on the bus go round and round..."

> Next step is to get my concealed carry license.
.  You already have one. See the Second Amendment to The Constitution of The United States. ;)

That's already been decided, contrary to your assertion. Ownership is protected, concealment is not (see Robertson v. Baldwin 1897, and DC v. Heller 2008).

Yeah, along with all but a dozen other states. Correlation is no indicator of causality. However, the correlation between domestic homicide rates (2003) and the status of those state laws is interesting.

oh and it messes up the place too....

but it gives you a chance to change the big rug you really didn't like in the first place.

How do you get stains out of hard wood floors though?

Gasoline and a match?

That tends to mark it up a bit..... ;-)

Now that I think about it, that is advice better given to The Donald ;-)

Heh. I was thinking of the other way around, actually :-)

Don't forget McDonald v. Chicago. ;)

I always thought it was McDonald vs. Burger King :-)

> contrary to your assertion
. See the ";)" at the end of my comment. I wasn't trying to assert anything, just making a wry comment to a fellow gun owner.

. So your assertion is that all legal decisions, laws, &c  are correct and proper? That could get very interesting.



PS: The 2nd Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Article VI says the states have no authority on the matter - "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land". Just because a few lawyers and Liberal judges can't read doesn't mean they are right.

Wow, a Second Amendment activist who's not for state's rights! Mind = blown.

. I'm all for States Rights ... where they apply. But if it's "spoken for" in the Constitution, it's not SR.

I entirely agree...I've just (very generally) found a proclaimed belief in state's rights to be synonymous with a belief in neo-nullification.

. I suppose the label Libertarian fits me reasonably well. I'm all for personal freedom and responsibility - as long as you don't mess with others, you are free to do whatever you like. In Nacholand, we only need one law: Don't eph with nobody. ;)

.  The Wikipedia entry for Libertarianism would probably be a better example of my politcal leanings instead if the Libertarian Party. As with most political parties, the Libertarian Party can get a little outrageous at times.

Article VI predates the second and ninth amendments (by definition). Therefore, since authority to control weapons ownership was not outlined in the original constitution, it is up to the judiciary to interpret the federal relationship. Moreover, it wasn't until DC vs. Heller that a majority of the Court agreed to the out-of-context quotation you have chosen to use.

All legal decisions are binding until and unless overridden by subsequent law or precedent. That's what "the rule of law" means, and without it, you're nothing but an anarchic mob.

.  How does "This Constitution" in Artivcle VI not include all the Amendments?
.  If the majority of the court agrees with me, then, by your reasoning, I'm right.
. They may be binding, but that doesn't make them right or proper. Unfortunately, there are no checks to prevent illegal/bad laws/rulings.
.  Just like an anarchist mob back in the late 1700's. ;)

Yep. If the majority agrees with you, then it's binding (until someone convinces them otherwise).

Binding never made them right or proper. There are lots of checks and balances to recover from (and maybe even to prevent) bad laws or rulings.

.  There is little correlation between right and binding. Slavery was binding at one time and I don't think many ppl will argue that it is right.
.  If there were viable checks to prevent bad laws/rulings we wouldn't have the 18th Amendment, Dred Scott v. Sandford, et al. All we have are (often ineffectual) Cs&Bs to recover.

.  PS: Your anarchy is my civil disobedience. ;)

. *ineffective

>. There is little correlation between right and binding.

...that's what he just said.

Interestingly, Kelsey's initial assertion said absolutely nothing about the "rightness" of the law. He just said it _was_ the law.

.  OK, I'm getting old and tend to repeat things.
.  At least we can agree on something. That is quite an accomplishment for a Deep-South Libertarian Redneck and a Lotus-eating Left-coast Liberal.

.  Interestingly, his following comments did. ;)

>nom, nom, lotuses<

I think there's a lot we can agree on! At the same time, I would suggest that perhaps the disagreements (when engaged with due civility and respect) can be more interesting, and perhaps even enjoyable.

Are you suggesting Nacho not wear bring his legal briefs to the conversation?  I guess that would be more interesting, and perhaps even enjoyable....wait.

. Hearing "civility and respect" from one of the guys that likes to bash ppl who ask stupid questions really tickles my funny bone. ROFL

Not everyone deserves respect. ;)

Here you can not bear a gun weapon, unless you can prove you are a gangster ;(

Depending on you state you could also chose to open carry often without a license.

The Kel-Tec PMR30 is one interesting looking gun, but I am amazed anyone uses it as a CCW. A plinker, varminter, and backpacking gun yes, self defense, no. But then I guess 30 rounds of anything will change most people's minds about being a threat.