I think hot women are probably the best way to explain injustice.
Really, though, if D.C. gun laws are constitutional, then any restriction on a right can be justified.
(hat tip Conservative Grapevine)
I think hot women are probably the best way to explain injustice.
Really, though, if D.C. gun laws are constitutional, then any restriction on a right can be justified.
(hat tip Conservative Grapevine)
Or as Lenin described freedom of speech: You have the right to say anything you want; I have the right to shoot you for it.
As for the blonde, she’d look so much better with a Luger strapped to her thigh…
“Really, though, if D.C. gun laws are constitutional, then any restriction on a right can be justified.”
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.
Bunkerboy, if you want to see pics like that, you should subscribe to The Blue Press, a reloading magazine by Dillon Inc. It features pictures of beautiful women with guns on the cover; how much more awesome can you get?
She might as well stick a spike through the butt and use that sucker as a club. I gather ammunition cannot even be stored with the weapon.
“Excuse me, serial rapist; give me a minute or two to get my gun, my ammunition, unlock my gun and load it.”
She made one mistake in understanding her rights. The right to self defense pre-existed the Constitution, and the Bill of rights can NOT grant a right that already exists. The 2nd Amendment is supposed to GUARANTEE that this existing right of the people SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!
Congress doesn’t care about your right to defend yourself in our nation’s Capitol. They’re more concerned about armed insurrection – and always have been. We’re all supposed to understand that Washington D.C. is a place where the Constitution doesn’t apply. After all, it’s not a ‘State.’
In my view, one good solution is to disband the ‘District of Columbia.’
Bunkerboy… it’d have to be strapped to her inner thigh, though… 😉
Hmm, I do love my .38.
While she is nice to look at, when the blonde opened her mouth, my thoughts were like comment #4. First, the Bill of Rights protects our rights, it doesn’t grant them. That is a critical aspect of the Constitution typically lost on liberals, who despite their name tend to use the Constitution to restrict rights.
Second, the 2nd Amendment does not protect the right to self-defense. It was not intended to do so either, unless you are defending yourself from the government. The right to self-defense was considered a natural right given to us by our creator, and that government could no more take such a right away from the people as they could disown liberalism.
She was right that if she unlocked the weapon, she was violating current DC law. What concerns me about that fact is that SCOTUS could find the DC gun ban unconstitutional, yet leave room for DC to require handguns be treated just like shotguns and rifles. Then again, they can broadly consider the “shall not be infringed” phrasing and stop the foolishness across the board.