Re: SCOTUS 2nd Amend decision

"Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kimmel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:tbSdnfNX0PMYuvPVnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "MioMyo" <USA_Patriot@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:47pbk.13026$xZ.4870@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kimmel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:qN6dnadu6LTPZPDVnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> > "MioMyo" <USA_Patriot@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> > news:oBebk.12994$xZ.4822@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And just as I have been explaining the process; however, morons like
> you
>> >> just don't get it. Note that it took another case to find its way up
> the
>> >> appellate process, plus that was 60 years later.
>> >>
>> >> So sleep tight because IN YOUR LIFE TIME, you will never see the
> current
>> >> 2nd amendment SCOTUS ruling over turned, you moron......
>> >>
>> >
>> > Once again Yoyo the Usenet laughingstock reveals his ignorance, 
>> > sounding
>> > off
>> > on a subject on which he knows nothing.
>> >
>> > Note that the Supreme Court can reconsider a ruling in a new case at 
>> > ANY
>> > TIME.
>> >
>> > Here is but one example:
>>
>> Then do get back to me when SCOTUS does that.
>>
>> Clue:  Your bones will have been turned to dust for decades, kimmey
>> boy......
>>
>> Enjoy that thought, you lying s*** bag.......
>
> I provided not one but two examples demonstrating you are wrong.  You
> deleting them and are reduced to namecalling.

But how many examples did you dismiss or ignore when SCOTUS never 
reconsidered a past decision, kimmey? Thousands? Tens-of-Thousands?

> I accept your concession that you are an idiot who doesn't know what
he's
> talking about.

You may as well be having a wet dream kimmey that SCOTUS will snap to 
attention at your beckon call too, kimmey.

Neither will come true.....