PompousFlea (June 26, 2008 at 5:15 pm)

Wow, that lady i an idiot. People like her are destroying America. Way to be informed glasses man! I truly applaud your work!

rifleman4life (June 26, 2008 at 2:31 pm)

That woman is another person who thinks she knows everything even though she knows nothing about history or events that prove the point that the second amendment is indeed an individual right. I have debated so many people and the people who hate guns or want them banned are people who hate history and probably have never read a history book. God i can't stand them

bbkdl8 (June 25, 2008 at 7:25 am)

"state judges especially have all kinds of crazy ideas of what the Constitution means. It doesn't mean that they're correct." (2:10)Ok...last I checked, a STATE Supreme Court Judge only has the power to interpret the laws and CONSTITUTION of the State in which he/she presides. DC VS Heller is a case regarding the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. They say that ignorance is bliss, but I would rather be educated and happy.

ReDbOAtHuNgGaR (June 7, 2008 at 9:46 pm)

shes a retwat

SilverQueen (May 4, 2008 at 8:34 am)

You lucky ducks. My group got there at 6 that morning and only got five minutes inside. I'm camping out next time.

MasterSgtSlappy (May 3, 2008 at 12:32 am)

Wish you had gotten more of the discussion between that woman (is she a Legal Community Against Violence lawyer?) and Clayton E. Cramer. I just read his article in the latest SGN (Shot Gun News) and he mentions this video in his footnotes. As far as the quality of the argument, I think Jonathans8 & 50srefugee sum it up pretty well, that's why I gave 'em a thumbs-up.

KingCow69 (March 25, 2008 at 2:39 pm)

Who is she? Which brief did she assist on?

DirtCrashr (March 24, 2008 at 3:50 pm)

Articulate vs. inarticulate -- Clayton wins.

xdalfalkif (March 23, 2008 at 1:00 pm)

While I think the woman was wrong, her view is not represented very well in the video. She helped write an amicus brief for the case. She was neither pro or anti but somewhere in the middle. In talking with her, I honestly think she tried to look at the arguments objectively. She was hung up on the preamble and felt that must, based on precedent, have a meaning.

JonWRowe (March 22, 2008 at 2:57 pm)

Cramer really needs newer more stylish glasses.