Republicans in Panic?

[jillian]

Yes, they are "like artillery", personal artillery, and an explosive device, not an arm.

Artillery are missile launchers like ballista or trebuchet. Or large bore guns. Neither of which fits a grenade. As I said, a rifle is far more like Artillery than a grenade is. So why not grenades? Simply 'declaring' that they aren't arms is the Begging the Question fallacy. You'll have to factually establish it. And you can't.

The Arms Trade Treaty of which the US is a signatory includes grenades, missile launchers, machine guns and the like as arms. The Arms Export Control Act defines arms as all of the above....plus howitzers, planes, tanks and the like.

By both international law and domestic law, arms include grenades, machine guns, missile launchers, automatic rifles. And far, far more. So who are you quoting when you insist that grenades and the like aren't 'arms'? Yourself, apparently....contradicted by US law.

And for the 9th time, what about automatic rifles. What about SAW light machine guns? What about anti-personnel mines? What about missile launchers.

The whole "big bad weapons" argument is the real strawman.

Why should I be denied concealed carry of a 9mm handgun?

Strawman. I haven't made that argument. I've asked you questions you refuse to answer, despite overwhelming evidence demonstrating that you're wrong in your assumptions.

A grenade is not an "arm" as envisioned in the constitution, stop getting hung up on grenades.
Its an explosive, which was the realm of artillery.

and as for a SAW? I do not see the need for a person to own one, but I support the right of a person to own one because you gun grabbing twats will use anything to make your point that I should be disarmed.

There has to be a compelling government interest in squelching a right, besides a surface to air missile not being a real arm, the governments interest in limiting ownership outweighs the desire of a person to own one.

And a rifle is not, and has never been artillery. Stick to talking about fucking people over about cakes, its your area of expertise.

Don't look now, Marty is defining words in the constitution to serve his agenda. Love the irony.

well, he should read Justice Breyer's dissent. It may not be the law temporarily, but it's the correct assessment.... unlike Scalia's partisan insanity.

Lol, and Breyer isn't partisan????

You. Fucking. Hack.

you can laugh... but breyer is consistent with our precedent and constitutional caselaw. scalia is a wacko. I can't wait til he retires.

and why should you read it? because he's correct and you'd learn something.

 

[JimH52]

Yes, the insane are taking over the asylum. Visions of "One Flew of the Cuckoos Nest" dance through my head. What a strange political season for the Poor GOP.

Do you have any idea who the nominee will be for the Dims?

Does it matter. If Trump is the GOP nominee, the Dems could dig up David Koresh and win. The man is going to alienate every voting sector before the election.

 

[jillian]

You're almost correct, maybe I don't understand the ideology.. How can one account for changes in technology (i.e.semi automatic firearms with a rate of fire - depending on the shooter - of 45 - 60 RPM) today which provides such power? Power unheard of in the 18th Century in a gun easily concealed and carried by a single person.

I guess i'm not the only one to be confused, are you a literal or non literal strict contructionist? Or maybe you are an Originalist or a Textualist? Please, let us know, for most of us simply read English without bias and understand words and phrases written in the 19th, 20th and the 21st centuries must be understood in the context of the times they are written.

As for your use of the word "tyranny", I find that to be way beyond hyperbole and in the ball park of Ignorant paranoia. That's not an ad hominem, its a valid conclusion given the historical reality of tyranny by despots and kings.

It's simple. If its a concept in the document, that concept can be expanded on, or clarified. Freedom of Speech isn't limited to printed material, or yelling in the town square, expanding it to electronic media is a natural extension. As for arms, what the founders wanted people to have was the cutting edge of personal firearms at the time, I see no reason why a citizen should be restricted as long as they are 1) not a felon or 2) not mentally adjudicated. Saying I can't have a semi-automatic handgun "just because I MAY go nutters" is infringement, and prior restraint.

There is no reference to abortion in the document. Thus, it falls to the States to set up rules for that. Same goes for SSM, there is no mention of it, and thus it Falls to the States. Strict construction-ism as I see it means you don't extrapolate 2 or 3 steps to create a right, or get rid of one "just because I feel like it".

When power gets condensed further and further away from the people being ruled, it destroys federalism, and tyranny is a pretty good word to describe it.

Here's a thought (re your first sentence). Art. I, sec 8, clause #1 states a concept: "The Congress Shall have Power ... and provide for the Common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".

Thus, it seems the concept of the general Welfare, given current events, will be best served by expanding it to include gun control measures.

Spin that Marty.

One can also say it would improve "General Welfare" if we removed trial by jury, right to representation, and the right to be secure from searches without a warrant. Wouldn't that make law enforcement's job sooo much easier?

General welfare arguments are nothing more than a crutch used by people who can't justify something, so they run to a vague statement and hope for the best.

you understand that's absurd and not at all reflected in our caselaw.

just so you know.

Then why can the 2nd amendment be ignored because of "general welfare?

Again, fucking hack.

even according to scalia the activist extremist regulation of guns is not prohibited by the 2nd amendment. if you look at the body of caselaw, the law always leaves room for governmental interest. and the welfare of society and protection of our citizens from mass shootings would certainly fall within that scope. i'd refer you to the cases on the 4th amendment and 1st amendment.... there are no absolute rights. and the 2nd is certainly not worthy of a deference that isn't extended to our freedom of speech (which does get limited based on certain necessities and has certain exceptions).

 

[jillian]

Yes, the insane are taking over the asylum. Visions of "One Flew of the Cuckoos Nest" dance through my head. What a strange political season for the Poor GOP.

Do you have any idea who the nominee will be for the Dims?

Does it matter. If Trump is the GOP nominee, the Dems could dig up David Koresh and win. The man is going to alienate every voting sector before the election.

why respond to trash who can't even spell democrat?

I think he'd probably be better off going to school than spending all of his time here.

 

[jillian]

seems the party is concerned that the "base" is taking over the asylum

Time for GOP panic? Establishment worried Carson or Trump might win.


*snip*

According to other Republicans, some in the party establishment are so desperate to change the dynamic that they are talking anew about drafting Romney — despite his insistence that he will not run again. Friends have mapped out a strategy for a late entry to pick up delegates and vie for the nomination in a convention fight, according to the Republicans who were briefed on the talks, though Romney has shown no indication of reviving his interest.

For months, the GOP professional class assumed Trump and Carson would fizzle with time. Voters would get serious, the thinking went, after seeing the outsiders share a stage with more experienced politicians at the first debate. Or when summer turned to fall, kids went back to school and parents had time to assess the candidates. Or after the second, third or fourth debates, certainly

Time for GOP panic? Establishment worried Carson or Trump might win.

Carson is starting to slip as suspected and Rubio/Cruz will take his place. The only thing the GOP can't figure out is how Trump is still leading and by a very large margin. They can't figure out how they are going to get rid of him. But they will get rid of him.

I still think it's going to be Rubio. he's like the tortoise... slowly but surely moving up.

trump is still in the lead, but carson seems to be gone. and unless they nominate Kasich, which they aren't smart enough to do, I think they lose.

 

[jillian]

“I will also work to reinstate the assault weapons ban. We had it during the 1990s. It really was an aid to our police officers, who are now once again, because it has lapsed–the Republicans will not reinstate it–are being outgunned on our streets by these military-style weapons,” Clinton promised during her 2008 presidential campaign.


She also indicated she would support a national firearms registry.


“I stand in support of this common sense legislation to license everyone who wishes to purchase a gun,” Clinton said. “I also believe that every new handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry.”

What Hillary Clinton Thinks Of The 2nd Amendment in Her Own Words

So much bullshit......

Fuck her and her gun grabbing ways. and fuck you for supporting it.

you sound ridiculous.

 

[martybegan]

Artillery are missile launchers like ballista or trebuchet. Or large bore guns. Neither of which fits a grenade. As I said, a rifle is far more like Artillery than a grenade is. So why not grenades? Simply 'declaring' that they aren't arms is the Begging the Question fallacy. You'll have to factually establish it. And you can't.

The Arms Trade Treaty of which the US is a signatory includes grenades, missile launchers, machine guns and the like as arms. The Arms Export Control Act defines arms as all of the above....plus howitzers, planes, tanks and the like.

By both international law and domestic law, arms include grenades, machine guns, missile launchers, automatic rifles. And far, far more. So who are you quoting when you insist that grenades and the like aren't 'arms'? Yourself, apparently....contradicted by US law.

And for the 9th time, what about automatic rifles. What about SAW light machine guns? What about anti-personnel mines? What about missile launchers.


Strawman. I haven't made that argument. I've asked you questions you refuse to answer, despite overwhelming evidence demonstrating that you're wrong in your assumptions.

A grenade is not an "arm" as envisioned in the constitution, stop getting hung up on grenades.
Its an explosive, which was the realm of artillery.

and as for a SAW? I do not see the need for a person to own one, but I support the right of a person to own one because you gun grabbing twats will use anything to make your point that I should be disarmed.

There has to be a compelling government interest in squelching a right, besides a surface to air missile not being a real arm, the governments interest in limiting ownership outweighs the desire of a person to own one.

And a rifle is not, and has never been artillery. Stick to talking about fucking people over about cakes, its your area of expertise.

Don't look now, Marty is defining words in the constitution to serve his agenda. Love the irony.

well, he should read Justice Breyer's dissent. It may not be the law temporarily, but it's the correct assessment.... unlike Scalia's partisan insanity.

Lol, and Breyer isn't partisan????

You. Fucking. Hack.

you can laugh... but breyer is consistent with our precedent and constitutional caselaw. scalia is a wacko. I can't wait til he retires.

He's a rights trashing asshole, noting more or less.

 

[martybegan]

“I will also work to reinstate the assault weapons ban. We had it during the 1990s. It really was an aid to our police officers, who are now once again, because it has lapsed–the Republicans will not reinstate it–are being outgunned on our streets by these military-style weapons,” Clinton promised during her 2008 presidential campaign.


She also indicated she would support a national firearms registry.


“I stand in support of this common sense legislation to license everyone who wishes to purchase a gun,” Clinton said. “I also believe that every new handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry.”

What Hillary Clinton Thinks Of The 2nd Amendment in Her Own Words

So much bullshit......

Fuck her and her gun grabbing ways. and fuck you for supporting it.

you sound ridiculous.

you support progressive fascists.

 

[martybegan]

It's simple. If its a concept in the document, that concept can be expanded on, or clarified. Freedom of Speech isn't limited to printed material, or yelling in the town square, expanding it to electronic media is a natural extension. As for arms, what the founders wanted people to have was the cutting edge of personal firearms at the time, I see no reason why a citizen should be restricted as long as they are 1) not a felon or 2) not mentally adjudicated. Saying I can't have a semi-automatic handgun "just because I MAY go nutters" is infringement, and prior restraint.

There is no reference to abortion in the document. Thus, it falls to the States to set up rules for that. Same goes for SSM, there is no mention of it, and thus it Falls to the States. Strict construction-ism as I see it means you don't extrapolate 2 or 3 steps to create a right, or get rid of one "just because I feel like it".

When power gets condensed further and further away from the people being ruled, it destroys federalism, and tyranny is a pretty good word to describe it.

Here's a thought (re your first sentence). Art. I, sec 8, clause #1 states a concept: "The Congress Shall have Power ... and provide for the Common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".

Thus, it seems the concept of the general Welfare, given current events, will be best served by expanding it to include gun control measures.

Spin that Marty.

One can also say it would improve "General Welfare" if we removed trial by jury, right to representation, and the right to be secure from searches without a warrant. Wouldn't that make law enforcement's job sooo much easier?

General welfare arguments are nothing more than a crutch used by people who can't justify something, so they run to a vague statement and hope for the best.

you understand that's absurd and not at all reflected in our caselaw.

just so you know.

Then why can the 2nd amendment be ignored because of "general welfare?

Again, fucking hack.

even according to scalia the activist extremist regulation of guns is not prohibited by the 2nd amendment. if you look at the body of caselaw, the law always leaves room for governmental interest. and the welfare of society and protection of our citizens from mass shootings would certainly fall within that scope. i'd refer you to the cases on the 4th amendment and 1st amendment.... there are no absolute rights. and the 2nd is certainly not worthy of a deference that isn't extended to our freedom of speech (which does get limited based on certain necessities and has certain exceptions).

the 1st gets limited when someone actually does something, like yell "fire" in a theater, or threatens someone verbally and directly. You want to restrict my 2nd amendment rights with no reason for it other than "I don't think you should have a gun".

It would be like requiring muzzles on every patron in a theater "just in case" one of them could yell "Fire".

No right is absolute, but there is zero reason why I should not be able to carry a handgun concealed in public, same as any police officer or agent of the government. You want to return to feudal rules, where only the upper class and rulers have the right to be armed.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You're almost correct, maybe I don't understand the ideology.. How can one account for changes in technology (i.e.semi automatic firearms with a rate of fire - depending on the shooter - of 45 - 60 RPM) today which provides such power? Power unheard of in the 18th Century in a gun easily concealed and carried by a single person.

I guess i'm not the only one to be confused, are you a literal or non literal strict contructionist? Or maybe you are an Originalist or a Textualist? Please, let us know, for most of us simply read English without bias and understand words and phrases written in the 19th, 20th and the 21st centuries must be understood in the context of the times they are written.

As for your use of the word "tyranny", I find that to be way beyond hyperbole and in the ball park of Ignorant paranoia. That's not an ad hominem, its a valid conclusion given the historical reality of tyranny by despots and kings.

It's simple. If its a concept in the document, that concept can be expanded on, or clarified. Freedom of Speech isn't limited to printed material, or yelling in the town square, expanding it to electronic media is a natural extension. As for arms, what the founders wanted people to have was the cutting edge of personal firearms at the time, I see no reason why a citizen should be restricted as long as they are 1) not a felon or 2) not mentally adjudicated. Saying I can't have a semi-automatic handgun "just because I MAY go nutters" is infringement, and prior restraint.

There is no reference to abortion in the document. Thus, it falls to the States to set up rules for that. Same goes for SSM, there is no mention of it, and thus it Falls to the States. Strict construction-ism as I see it means you don't extrapolate 2 or 3 steps to create a right, or get rid of one "just because I feel like it".

When power gets condensed further and further away from the people being ruled, it destroys federalism, and tyranny is a pretty good word to describe it.

Here's a thought (re your first sentence). Art. I, sec 8, clause #1 states a concept: "The Congress Shall have Power ... and provide for the Common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".

Thus, it seems the concept of the general Welfare, given current events, will be best served by expanding it to include gun control measures.

Spin that Marty.

One can also say it would improve "General Welfare" if we removed trial by jury, right to representation, and the right to be secure from searches without a warrant. Wouldn't that make law enforcement's job sooo much easier?

General welfare arguments are nothing more than a crutch used by people who can't justify something, so they run to a vague statement and hope for the best.

There is no compelling reason to do any of the things you've listed.

There is no compelling reason to further restrict already law abiding gun owners in the hopes of reducing criminal gun use either, but you idiots keep proposing it.

Rational human beings are tired of hearing of innocent Americans being slaughtered by some who were law abiding gun owners until they committed the first assault / murder with their legally purchased gun.

Requiring a license of anyone who wishes to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun is a temporary inconvenience, being murdered is permanent.

 

[Ravi]

Neither grenadiers nor sappers were 'artillery'. So we can put that 'artillery' argument to bed.

And while grenades might not have been standard issue for a soldier in the Founder's era, neither were cartridge ammunition, semi automatic fire arms, or full metal jackets.

They're standard issue today.

So do we use the founder's standards, with no grenades, black powder weapons and muskets? Or do we use today's standards of automatic weapons, grenades, anti-personnel mines, tracers and rocket launchers?

Likewise, US law recognizes tanks, artillery, war planes, laser guided bombs, and the like as 'arms'. So why would you exclude them from your definition? Again, if we're going to go with the founder's 'vision', then we'd have black powder weapons.

I'm asking you to apply your standards consistently. Your lack of consistency isn't my problem. Its yours. As the lines you draw are arbitrary, contradicted by US law, the dictionary, or just make no sense.

You are ignoring the fact that many words in English can have multiple meanings. Arms as defined in the 2nd amendment, as discussed among the founders meant personal arms, nothing more or less. Your attempts to make me into a literal-ist instead of a strict constructionist are failing on the merits.

That's quite a liberal interpretation of a word, there little boy. hahahahahahahaha Not to mention it being total BS.

Classically liberal, not the current progressive statist twat "liberal"

I imagine you are a twat. What you are not is a strict constructionists, unless it suits your agenda.

Wrong again. As I said I have no issue with the end result of SSM being legal, I just don't see it as a federal constitutional issue. Same with Abortion, I have no desire to ban it beyond what is current law, i.e. Third Trimester restrictions, but I don't see any right to it in the Constitution.

Unlike you, I separate what I want to see happen, and how it should be attained.

How do you suppose these issue can be resolved without the SC ruling them unconstitutional? You can't legislate or vote away someone's rights.

 

[martybegan]

It's simple. If its a concept in the document, that concept can be expanded on, or clarified. Freedom of Speech isn't limited to printed material, or yelling in the town square, expanding it to electronic media is a natural extension. As for arms, what the founders wanted people to have was the cutting edge of personal firearms at the time, I see no reason why a citizen should be restricted as long as they are 1) not a felon or 2) not mentally adjudicated. Saying I can't have a semi-automatic handgun "just because I MAY go nutters" is infringement, and prior restraint.

There is no reference to abortion in the document. Thus, it falls to the States to set up rules for that. Same goes for SSM, there is no mention of it, and thus it Falls to the States. Strict construction-ism as I see it means you don't extrapolate 2 or 3 steps to create a right, or get rid of one "just because I feel like it".

When power gets condensed further and further away from the people being ruled, it destroys federalism, and tyranny is a pretty good word to describe it.

Here's a thought (re your first sentence). Art. I, sec 8, clause #1 states a concept: "The Congress Shall have Power ... and provide for the Common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".

Thus, it seems the concept of the general Welfare, given current events, will be best served by expanding it to include gun control measures.

Spin that Marty.

One can also say it would improve "General Welfare" if we removed trial by jury, right to representation, and the right to be secure from searches without a warrant. Wouldn't that make law enforcement's job sooo much easier?

General welfare arguments are nothing more than a crutch used by people who can't justify something, so they run to a vague statement and hope for the best.

There is no compelling reason to do any of the things you've listed.

There is no compelling reason to further restrict already law abiding gun owners in the hopes of reducing criminal gun use either, but you idiots keep proposing it.

Rational human beings are tired of hearing of innocent Americans being slaughtered by some who were law abiding gun owners until they committed the first assault / murder with their legally purchased gun.

Requiring a license of anyone who wishes to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun is a temporary inconvenience, being murdered is permanent.

it is infringement, and it's not happening because we know you assholes won't stop there.

Ni shagu nazad!

 

[Ravi]

Here's a thought (re your first sentence). Art. I, sec 8, clause #1 states a concept: "The Congress Shall have Power ... and provide for the Common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".

Thus, it seems the concept of the general Welfare, given current events, will be best served by expanding it to include gun control measures.

Spin that Marty.

One can also say it would improve "General Welfare" if we removed trial by jury, right to representation, and the right to be secure from searches without a warrant. Wouldn't that make law enforcement's job sooo much easier?

General welfare arguments are nothing more than a crutch used by people who can't justify something, so they run to a vague statement and hope for the best.

There is no compelling reason to do any of the things you've listed.

There is no compelling reason to further restrict already law abiding gun owners in the hopes of reducing criminal gun use either, but you idiots keep proposing it.

The vast majority of guns go through law abiding citizens to nutters.

Still no reason to end my RKBA. Either do something to fix the "nutters" or do something to catch people who have guns illegally. It's not my job to make it easier on government by giving up my 2nd amendment rights.

yebbut, everytime anyone remotely wants to make it harder for nuts to get guns you have a hissy fit.

 

[martybegan]

You are ignoring the fact that many words in English can have multiple meanings. Arms as defined in the 2nd amendment, as discussed among the founders meant personal arms, nothing more or less. Your attempts to make me into a literal-ist instead of a strict constructionist are failing on the merits.

That's quite a liberal interpretation of a word, there little boy. hahahahahahahaha Not to mention it being total BS.

Classically liberal, not the current progressive statist twat "liberal"

I imagine you are a twat. What you are not is a strict constructionists, unless it suits your agenda.

Wrong again. As I said I have no issue with the end result of SSM being legal, I just don't see it as a federal constitutional issue. Same with Abortion, I have no desire to ban it beyond what is current law, i.e. Third Trimester restrictions, but I don't see any right to it in the Constitution.

Unlike you, I separate what I want to see happen, and how it should be attained.

How do you suppose these issue can be resolved without the SC ruling them unconstitutional? You can't legislate or vote away someone's rights.

Sure you can, I can't get a CCW in NYC unless I prove to the NYPD I "need" one. Thats NYC law, and my rights have been legislated away.

Also, again, I don't see a Right to an Abortion, nor a right to SSM, so your point is moot.

 

[martybegan]

One can also say it would improve "General Welfare" if we removed trial by jury, right to representation, and the right to be secure from searches without a warrant. Wouldn't that make law enforcement's job sooo much easier?

General welfare arguments are nothing more than a crutch used by people who can't justify something, so they run to a vague statement and hope for the best.

There is no compelling reason to do any of the things you've listed.

There is no compelling reason to further restrict already law abiding gun owners in the hopes of reducing criminal gun use either, but you idiots keep proposing it.

The vast majority of guns go through law abiding citizens to nutters.

Still no reason to end my RKBA. Either do something to fix the "nutters" or do something to catch people who have guns illegally. It's not my job to make it easier on government by giving up my 2nd amendment rights.

yebbut, everytime anyone remotely wants to make it harder for nuts to get guns you have a hissy fit.

Because everything you propose makes it harder on mostly law abiding citizens, not the people you are supposedly trying to target.

Again, when I get my CCW rights back in NYC, then we can talk, until then, Ni shagu nazad!

 

[Ravi]

That's quite a liberal interpretation of a word, there little boy. hahahahahahahaha Not to mention it being total BS.

Classically liberal, not the current progressive statist twat "liberal"

I imagine you are a twat. What you are not is a strict constructionists, unless it suits your agenda.

Wrong again. As I said I have no issue with the end result of SSM being legal, I just don't see it as a federal constitutional issue. Same with Abortion, I have no desire to ban it beyond what is current law, i.e. Third Trimester restrictions, but I don't see any right to it in the Constitution.

Unlike you, I separate what I want to see happen, and how it should be attained.

How do you suppose these issue can be resolved without the SC ruling them unconstitutional? You can't legislate or vote away someone's rights.

Sure you can, I can't get a CCW in NYC unless I prove to the NYPD I "need" one. Thats NYC law, and my rights have been legislated away.

Also, again, I don't see a Right to an Abortion, nor a right to SSM, so your point is moot.

Sue them. Get it ruled unconstitutional. Rights are only to be taken away if their is a compelling reason to take them away. You obviously don't understand the constitution. EVERYTHING we want to do is our right, the government does not get to say, yeah, but it isn't in the constitution and arbitrarily take away someones right.

 

[Ravi]

There is no compelling reason to do any of the things you've listed.

There is no compelling reason to further restrict already law abiding gun owners in the hopes of reducing criminal gun use either, but you idiots keep proposing it.

The vast majority of guns go through law abiding citizens to nutters.

Still no reason to end my RKBA. Either do something to fix the "nutters" or do something to catch people who have guns illegally. It's not my job to make it easier on government by giving up my 2nd amendment rights.

yebbut, everytime anyone remotely wants to make it harder for nuts to get guns you have a hissy fit.

Because everything you propose makes it harder on mostly law abiding citizens, not the people you are supposedly trying to target.

Again, when I get my CCW rights back in NYC, then we can talk, until then, Ni shagu nazad!

Here's an easy one: background checks. If the feds don't respond in three days, you get your gun, no questions asked. Hire more feds to respond or give them more than three days to respond.

 

[martybegan]

Classically liberal, not the current progressive statist twat "liberal"

I imagine you are a twat. What you are not is a strict constructionists, unless it suits your agenda.

Wrong again. As I said I have no issue with the end result of SSM being legal, I just don't see it as a federal constitutional issue. Same with Abortion, I have no desire to ban it beyond what is current law, i.e. Third Trimester restrictions, but I don't see any right to it in the Constitution.

Unlike you, I separate what I want to see happen, and how it should be attained.

How do you suppose these issue can be resolved without the SC ruling them unconstitutional? You can't legislate or vote away someone's rights.

Sure you can, I can't get a CCW in NYC unless I prove to the NYPD I "need" one. Thats NYC law, and my rights have been legislated away.

Also, again, I don't see a Right to an Abortion, nor a right to SSM, so your point is moot.

Sue them. Get it ruled unconstitutional. Rights are only to be taken away if their is a compelling reason to take them away. You obviously don't understand the constitution. EVERYTHING we want to do is our right, the government does not get to say, yeah, but it isn't in the constitution and arbitrarily take away someones right.

it's been tried, and judges keep denying any suit. They are still going on.
I understand the constitution far better than you do. I also understand that laws like this shouldn't even be proposed, but they are, by people like you. Snivelling little controlling people.

So i have the right to whip my dick around in public???? Good to know!!!!!

 

[martybegan]

There is no compelling reason to further restrict already law abiding gun owners in the hopes of reducing criminal gun use either, but you idiots keep proposing it.

The vast majority of guns go through law abiding citizens to nutters.

Still no reason to end my RKBA. Either do something to fix the "nutters" or do something to catch people who have guns illegally. It's not my job to make it easier on government by giving up my 2nd amendment rights.

yebbut, everytime anyone remotely wants to make it harder for nuts to get guns you have a hissy fit.

Because everything you propose makes it harder on mostly law abiding citizens, not the people you are supposedly trying to target.

Again, when I get my CCW rights back in NYC, then we can talk, until then, Ni shagu nazad!

Here's an easy one: background checks. If the feds don't respond in three days, you get your gun, no questions asked. Hire more feds to respond or give them more than three days to respond.

Again, until I get my rights back, Fuck any new laws.

 

[paulitician]

Desperate wishful thinking. It's what happens when you know you're running the most corrupt piece of shit candidate in the race. If you demonize others enough, you can pretend that Hillary Clinton's a good person worthy of being President. But we'll see if most Americans buy into that delusional scam.