Reply #20: Funny how that works...

[-..__...]

eh?

that the right not be COMPELLED to RISK one's life in an enterprise to which one has NOT CONSENTED goes right out the window when the right to self defense... including family members is restricted/denied through the means of "reasonable" gun control legislation.

Here's another "giggle" for you...

I keep hearing these bed wetting gun prohibitionists crying for "reasonable" gun control measures, but when the right to choose/womyns rights is questioned or burdened with "reasonable" restrictions they have a brain aneurysm?

Are you laughing it up yet?

I know, eh?! Who would be surprised to find a, er, RKBA enthusiast objecting to the public interest-based decisions of the more progressive members of the US Supreme Court bench?!?

Riiiiight... maybe it's fashionable in Cuba, Cambodia or Kanada; seizing privately owned land under the guise of "public interest".
Here the developers and bulldozer operators are more likely to be greeted with a bellyfull of buckshot than applauds of progress.

And before we confine the objection to misogynist, racist gun-heads, you might want to utilize those vaunted Google skills of yours and search the DU archives and see what the "interest-based" / "progressive members" of DU have to say about land grabs and the Kelo decision.


Ah yes, the refrain of the anti-choice brigade everywhere

Which "anti-choice brigade" would that be?

Point them out... I want to know.

And would my previous statement be fact or opinion?