My previous post was a link to the most clear presentation of McDonald v. Chicago that I have read. This one is the most unclear I have read. It appears they know all the words but don’t know how to use them in a complete sentence.
My previous post was a link to the most clear presentation of McDonald v. Chicago that I have read. This one is the most unclear I have read. It appears they know all the words but don’t know how to use them in a complete sentence.
You have to wonder, why is Henigan and Cornell hoping that the court rules in their favor against Gura even though they are crowing that they can still win with a Gura victory?
then again antis aren’t supposed to be understood anyways.