Professor Xanthro to WeikuBoy on the Emerson case: "As proof you never actually read the cases in question . . . [here is the] Specific wording in the specific case in question directly ruling a Gun Control law unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds.

[Quoting from the case:] '[The statute] is unconstitutional because it allows a state court divorce proceeding, without particularized findings of the threat of future violence, to automatically deprive a citizen of his Second Amendment rights . . . There must be a limit to government regulation on lawful firearm possession. This statute exceeds that limit.'

This is just a prime example of your [WeikuBoy's] dishonest approach to the subject."

====================

Umm, Xanthro, you DO realize you're quoting from the DISTRICT court case? The district court case that was then appealed to the 5th Circuit? The district court decision that was OVERTURNED by the 5th Circuit? The same 5th Circuit that, although sympathetic to the district judge's reading of the 2A, held that the statute in question did NOT violate the 2A? The same 5th Circuit that then reinstated the charge against the gun owning defendant?

You DO realize that, right? Hello? Buehler? Anyone?

I might be back to refute the rest of your nonsense (again), if I can stop laughing.

The 5th Circuit's opinion is at 270 F. 3d 203 (2001), if you care. The Verdugo case was a 4th amendment search and seizure case, not a 2A case. Get me out of here.

Comes now Victoria L, who always seems to be around wherever Muslims are being hated, and to spew her bile against Islam whenever it is imagined that Israel is being criticized. Yet who is careful to always warn that she is not "a Christian or a Jew or a Neocon." (So you can't accuse HER of hypocrisy, folks, because she's just a free-form spirit floating in the ether who just happens to really, really dislike Muslims.) Well I'll be. How do, Victoria?

When last we met, I had noted Islam's strict prohibition against depictions of the prophet Mohammed -- so strict that Islamic art tends to shy away from depictions of the human form -- and contrasted it with the hypocrisy of Catholics who worship images of Christ but condemn selected artists whom they decide are insufficiently reverent toward the objects of their idolatry. Victoria L jumped all over this on the "grounds" that the Shia sect DOES allow images of Mohammed (which I hadn't known, and have since verified as true). She called me a dhimmi, which I've since learned is commonly used as a term of derision on blogs like Atlas Shrugs toward persons deemed insufficently hysterical against Muslims.

I hadn't thought it hurt my argument at all; and it might help explain the antipathy that Orthodox Muslims feel toward Shiites. But by all means, Victoria, let the record show that "Sunni or Orthodox Islam" strictly prohibits images of Mohammed -- not all of "Islam".

Minor correction for Xanthro: when I referred to "all nine or ten out of the twelve federal appeals courts" I meant all nine or ten of twelve THAT HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE.