I suppose that all depends on the alternative places for donning their body armor might be.
My experience is there very much like people who don't have body armor, except they do have body armor.
It never dawned on me to ask them. But that's only because I figured they don't owe me an explanation.
That is a remarkably stupid and counterfactual assumption in most cases. The police officers depicted below are wearing body armor. Those aren't donuts that are protecting them around their torso.
What does that have to do with anything?
What that tells me is that you label anything that's not
bat ship crazy "right wing."
The record will show that I didn't say that.
Scalia is the Justice who pointed out that the term "bear" means to carry. Unless you're carrying a gun you're not bearing arms.
We do have such restrictions they're called laws. For example you can't use your gun to carry out a burglary, or a strong armed robbery, or murder. I think you'll find it that's not controversial in the least.
Why? I have freedom of speech, but are you gonna limit that two words that don't begin with Z? What happens if I'm a zoologist?
Unless you're writing a book you don't need to know. And even if you are writing a book he may choose not to tell you, which is precisely his prerogative. That's the nature of rights.
Why are you trying to guess his motivation for exercising his rights? It's really not your business.
And?
When did we transfer from a hypothetical question to a particular instance? You posed a general question and now you're switching to a particular instance, where some of the facts already appear to be established. Those are completely different scenarios.
Again we have gone from "a person" your words not mine, to a particular instance with particular facts that may have been correctly transmitted or possibly not, but that's a very different scenario. When you decide what your argument wants to consist of let me know.
Could you please link to me saying I wanted to hand out guns. If you can't do so this is your opportunity to correct the record.
Yes, and our fugitive slave law is pretty accommodating on the grounds that we don't have slavery. That's kind of the nature of having a right to bear arms is that you don't make laws in violation of constitution.
And before 1900 we virtually had no automobile accidents.
Actually the gun laws in Tombstone Arizona for example were unconstitutionally strict.
That's what happens when you start jumping to conclusions.
Well, if you're not planning on wrecking your car, why do you put on your seatbelt?
And to heck with all the people who can't afford to live in your neighborhood…
www.nytimes.com
