Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Categorical rejection is rational?
Yes, it is. When you are attempting to limit, that which is unlimitable, you are going to get that response.
Categorical rejection is rational?
Yes, it is. When you are attempting to limit, that which is unlimitable, you are going to get that response.
With that attitude, any other view than your own will seem irrational to you. When you live in a society where many have another view, you seem irrational to them. As always in any human issue, there are and must be talking points. The fact alone that "any and all arms" cannot be the definition of the second amendment stands as an indictment of total intransigence.
The whole crux of Heller is that government cannot deny firearm ownership "just because they feel like it", which is still the case in NYC, where I have to wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 just to own a revolver in my own apartment.
Progressives are not about "reasonable regulation", they are about 1)outright bans (which Heller rightly threw out) and 2) onerous regulations who's whole purpose is to make it as hard as possible for a law abiding citizen to own a firearm. THAT is infringement, and that is what this fight is about.
I'm sure that there are 20 sets of parents in Newtown, CT. who wish the regulations were more onerous.
Those "others", if they want to apply the regulation I listed above, would need to repeal the 2nd amendment if they truly want to follow the constitution.
Or just get a SCOTUS who reads the Second Amendment the way its' been read for the 200 years before Heller.
The further Left any Nation slides the more totalitarian it becomes.
Except for people who live in the "Faux bubble" the Nazi's proved that theory wrong.
People who are intellectually challenged usually resort to the "Fox" bullshit. You think it makes you look all cool and shit, it just reveals that you cannot think for yourself.
When they first tried prohibition the gang wars killed many innocent Americans and that made front page news. In today's modern drug war many more innocent people are being kill across the globe. That doesn't make front page news anywhere in the US. I'm not saying using drugs is not dangerous. The war on drugs makes it even more so.
No, because when you make something legal, expect more people to participate.
Politicians predicted that if they legalized pot in places like Colorado, that would wipe out the illegal sales of pot. Wrong. It's stronger than ever. They thought the same thing when they pushed lotteries across the country; it would stop the mob activity in gambling. Wrong, now the mob uses the states numbers to make their gambling more legitimate. They offer higher payouts and of course, no taxation regardless how much you win.
I don't believe that legalizing something that's so destructive can make things better. I believe that it makes things worse if anything. This very discussion came up today with a coworker of mine. It came up because a school mate of his died from an OD late last week. He's in his later 20's, and claimed that was the sixth classmate that died from an OD since he left school.
The whole crux of Heller is that government cannot deny firearm ownership "just because they feel like it", which is still the case in NYC, where I have to wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 just to own a revolver in my own apartment.
Progressives are not about "reasonable regulation", they are about 1)outright bans (which Heller rightly threw out) and 2) onerous regulations who's whole purpose is to make it as hard as possible for a law abiding citizen to own a firearm. THAT is infringement, and that is what this fight is about.
I'm sure that there are 20 sets of parents in Newtown, CT. who wish the regulations were more onerous.
The whole crux of Heller is that government cannot deny firearm ownership "just because they feel like it", which is still the case in NYC, where I have to wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 just to own a revolver in my own apartment.
Progressives are not about "reasonable regulation", they are about 1)outright bans (which Heller rightly threw out) and 2) onerous regulations who's whole purpose is to make it as hard as possible for a law abiding citizen to own a firearm. THAT is infringement, and that is what this fight is about.
I'm sure that there are 20 sets of parents in Newtown, CT. who wish the regulations were more onerous.
WHAT did I do to those parents in Newtown to deserve "onerous federal firearm regulations?
The whole crux of Heller is that government cannot deny firearm ownership "just because they feel like it", which is still the case in NYC, where I have to wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 just to own a revolver in my own apartment.
Progressives are not about "reasonable regulation", they are about 1)outright bans (which Heller rightly threw out) and 2) onerous regulations who's whole purpose is to make it as hard as possible for a law abiding citizen to own a firearm. THAT is infringement, and that is what this fight is about.
I'm sure that there are 20 sets of parents in Newtown, CT. who wish the regulations were more onerous.
WHAT did I do to those parents in Newtown to deserve "onerous federal firearm regulations?
Joe is a big fan of punishing people for the acts of others. It would be like confiscating the cars of 20 people because someone else got into a DWI accident.
Doing drugs should be left up to adults to decide for themselves. The Government shouldn't be involved with it. Decriminalize drugs and immediately abolish the DEA.
Then, reverse all non-violent drug related prosecutions. Release millions of Americans who don't belong in cages. Most convicted have a problem, they need treatment. They shouldn't be shoved in cages.
Well right now they are being shoved in holes at local cemeteries all around the country. I guess you feel we need to expand that much more, huh?
Doing drugs should be left up to adults to decide for themselves. The Government shouldn't be involved with it. Decriminalize drugs and immediately abolish the DEA.
Then, reverse all non-violent drug related prosecutions. Release millions of Americans who don't belong in cages. Most convicted have a problem, they need treatment. They shouldn't be shoved in cages.
Well right now they are being shoved in holes at local cemeteries all around the country. I guess you feel we need to expand that much more, huh?
When they first tried prohibition the gang wars killed many innocent Americans and that made front page news. In today's modern drug war many more innocent people are being kill across the globe. That doesn't make front page news anywhere in the US. I'm not saying using drugs is not dangerous. The war on drugs makes it even more so.
Adults can decide for themselves. The U.S. imprisons more Citizens than any other nation on earth. Too many of em are non-violent drug offenders. The U.S. prison population is abnormally massive. The costs are immense. Decriminalize drugs and allow adults to make their own decisions on using them. Just as they do with alcohol.
When they first tried prohibition the gang wars killed many innocent Americans and that made front page news. In today's modern drug war many more innocent people are being kill across the globe. That doesn't make front page news anywhere in the US. I'm not saying using drugs is not dangerous. The war on drugs makes it even more so.
I understand your position. Either we're free or we're not. OD's from illegal drugs is surpassed by OD's from prescription drugs, car accidents, falls, and gun related deaths. I don't know how many people across the globe have died, killed in the turf wars and all but I imagine it is pretty high. We don't get a lot of coverage on that front. I just don't agree with the interdiction and incarceration policy. It has not worked. I don't believe it ever will unless they resort to more police state tactics and draconian measures.
Congress's legislative powers are enumerated in article I, section 8. There is no power to restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms.The bitch just admitted she wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment.
Government has a right to regulate the Second Amendment, Hillary Clinton said in an interview on the June 5 airing of This Week With George Stephanopoulos, Clinton contended that Americans have historically recognized the government’s “right” to regulate the bearing of arms, suggesting that it was not until District of Columbia v Heller (2008) that anyone thought otherwise. Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you believe an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right? That it’s not linked to the service in the militia?”
Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you believe an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right? That it’s not linked to the service in the militia?”
Clinton responded:
I think that for most of our history there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment, until the decision by the late Justice [Antonin] Scalia. And there was no argument until then that localities, and states, and the federal government had a right–as we do with every amendment–to impose reasonable regulations.
While arguing for the government’s “right” to regulate the Second Amendment, Clinton twice refused to say the people have “a constitutional right” to keep and bear arms.
It meant that the right to own firearms could not be defeated or frustrated or unlawfully encroached upon.Clinton and Scalia are in agreement:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Spare us your fantasy that the Constitution means whatever the SC says it means. What part of "shall not be abridged" don't you understand?
Well there's that "well regulated " part. If we are cherry picking lines .
You won't be happy unless guns are available out of vending machines . Since they can't be regulated according to you .
The "well regulated" part is purely explanatory. It has no legal implication.
It meant they had trained in military drills and were considered proficient in how to fight as a unit. They were the first line of defense and could be deployed if necessary while the government raised an army. The militias were made of of Citizens at the time. That meant mostly white male property owners. They used their own weapons and kept them in their homes.
Adults can decide for themselves. The U.S. imprisons more Citizens than any other nation on earth. Too many of em are non-violent drug offenders. The U.S. prison population is abnormally massive. The costs are immense. Decriminalize drugs and allow adults to make their own decisions on using them. Just as they do with alcohol.
And just how are we doing with alcohol these days?
Calling drug offenders non-violent is like calling pedophiliacs who only watch the movies non-violent. The violence may not take place in the act, but to get the product to the user is plenty violent.
This is not to mention the fact that only a small percentage of people are in prison for drug usage alone. In most cases, they got busted for drugs during another illegal act or they were dealing.
Making drugs legal will not stop the black market on drugs. Making drugs legal will not stop the theft and robbery needed to get money to buy drugs. Making drugs legal will only result in getting more people to try those drugs and getting hooked. Then taxpayers will have to support them for God knows how long if not the rest of their lives.
It meant that the right to own firearms could not be defeated or frustrated or unlawfully encroached upon.Clinton and Scalia are in agreement:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Spare us your fantasy that the Constitution means whatever the SC says it means. What part of "shall not be abridged" don't you understand?
Well there's that "well regulated " part. If we are cherry picking lines .
You won't be happy unless guns are available out of vending machines . Since they can't be regulated according to you .
The "well regulated" part is purely explanatory. It has no legal implication.
It meant they had trained in military drills and were considered proficient in how to fight as a unit. They were the first line of defense and could be deployed if necessary while the government raised an army. The militias were made of of Citizens at the time. That meant mostly white male property owners. They used their own weapons and kept them in their homes.
Definition of INFRINGE
The devil's in the details as to what is unlawfully encroached upon. In legal jargon, that means: gun ownership is a fundamental right, and a fundamental right may only be encroached upon if there's a compelling state interest (which would be sandy hook or Chicago) and the means the gummit uses to further that interest are as narrow as is practically possible in not affecting the right to own a gun.
hiLIARy proves once again that she is Stupid as well as Corrupt. The Government doesn't have rights; the Government has POWER. Individuals have rights.
