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.
So you're saying the FFs DID create a dictatorship?!?!
They created a defacto theocracy.
So, they were the Islamists of their day?!?!
So you're saying the FFs DID create a dictatorship?!?!
They created a defacto theocracy.
Please go away, you've turned an interesting discussion bad with your lunatic ravings.
The militia was GWs thing. He didn't want a standing Army, but that's what we got anyway. And and Air Force and a Marine Corp and a Navy and a Coast Guard. So much for his grand plan...
AIDS kills many more in America each year than semi-automatic rifles.
You are trying to ban the wrong activity.
Your homophobia aside....I do believe that there are quite a few regulations that came about as a result of the AIDS epidemic. Gay men can't donate blood regardless of their HIV status. Bath houses were closed. There's all kinds of mandatory testing and reporting as a result of the AIDS epidemic in the US. Your strawman is a fail.
Well, we have been discussing original intent as applied to the 2nd Amendment.
If you don't understand the context, I suggest you study your history.
I suggest you study reality. There is no such thing. If you think the right to life is inalienable I suggest you visit a cemetary and if the right to liberty inalienable you visit a prison.
No such thing as original intent?
I recommend you read Glen Beck's rendition of the Federalist Papers ('The Original Argument').
It is written in modern English and I reckon even you could understand it with some effort.
LOL
You are way out there.
I suggest you study reality. There is no such thing. If you think the right to life is inalienable I suggest you visit a cemetary and if the right to liberty inalienable you visit a prison.
No such thing as original intent?
I recommend you read Glen Beck's rendition of the Federalist Papers ('The Original Argument').
It is written in modern English and I reckon even you could understand it with some effort.
LOL
You are way out there.
If I wanted to read fantasy I would read a better author.
No such thing as original intent?
I recommend you read Glen Beck's rendition of the Federalist Papers ('The Original Argument').
It is written in modern English and I reckon even you could understand it with some effort.
LOL
You are way out there.
If I wanted to read fantasy I would read a better author.
It is very well written and only modernizes the language of about 33 of the key Federalist papers. Beck offers a short preface to each, but the Papers themselves are only 'translated' into 21st century english for comprehension.
But of course, we are both quite aware of why you would be scared shitless of it.
LOL
If I wanted to read fantasy I would read a better author.
It is very well written and only modernizes the language of about 33 of the key Federalist papers. Beck offers a short preface to each, but the Papers themselves are only 'translated' into 21st century english for comprehension.
But of course, we are both quite aware of why you would be scared shitless of it.
LOL
I understand you will have difficulty getting this, but there is a difference between scared and bored. I do not care what Beck's take or interpretation might be. The Federalist Papers themselves were merely a set of essays. They do not nor ever have held the authority of law. The Consitution is the law and that is the only thing of concern. The only writings which have any bearing on this subject would be official court rulings, as the courts do the interpreting of the law. So when you can present something other than the opinions of private citizens interpreting the opinions of other private citizens I will be happy to consider it. Until then, you are entitled to your own opinion - just as I am entitled to mine. The only difference being that mine are in line with the courts, and yours are not.
It is very well written and only modernizes the language of about 33 of the key Federalist papers. Beck offers a short preface to each, but the Papers themselves are only 'translated' into 21st century english for comprehension.
But of course, we are both quite aware of why you would be scared shitless of it.
LOL
I understand you will have difficulty getting this, but there is a difference between scared and bored. I do not care what Beck's take or interpretation might be. The Federalist Papers themselves were merely a set of essays. They do not nor ever have held the authority of law. The Consitution is the law and that is the only thing of concern. The only writings which have any bearing on this subject would be official court rulings, as the courts do the interpreting of the law. So when you can present something other than the opinions of private citizens interpreting the opinions of other private citizens I will be happy to consider it. Until then, you are entitled to your own opinion - just as I am entitled to mine. The only difference being that mine are in line with the courts, and yours are not.
You have already been caught lying at least twice in this debate.
Your opinion is shit.
I understand you will have difficulty getting this, but there is a difference between scared and bored. I do not care what Beck's take or interpretation might be. The Federalist Papers themselves were merely a set of essays. They do not nor ever have held the authority of law. The Consitution is the law and that is the only thing of concern. The only writings which have any bearing on this subject would be official court rulings, as the courts do the interpreting of the law. So when you can present something other than the opinions of private citizens interpreting the opinions of other private citizens I will be happy to consider it. Until then, you are entitled to your own opinion - just as I am entitled to mine. The only difference being that mine are in line with the courts, and yours are not.
You have already been caught lying at least twice in this debate.
Your opinion is shit.
There's that problem with reality again.
He's been claiming a big Victory since post #15, reality be damned...
Meanwhile, the White House expressed its continued commitment to an assault weapons ban, reflecting a 2008 and 2012 campaign pledge by Obama.
When President Bill Clinton signed the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act into law in 1994 as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, the measure was popular and enjoyed broad public support and the blessing of law enforcement. The ban on semiautomatic pistols, rifles and shotguns expired in 2004 under the Bush administration due to a sunset provision in the law.
Since that time, the gun control debate has subsided, and numerous attempts to reinstate the ban in Congress have failed. Typically, the proposals have failed to get out of committee due to the lack of political will among Democrats and Republicans alike.
Further, in 2011, following the assassination attempt on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona, the Justice Department developed a list of measures to expand background checks to reduce the risk of criminals and the mentally ill obtaining guns. The proposals also called for enhanced sentences for people who act as straw purchasers for those who cannot pass a background check. But the department shelved the proposals as the 2012 election campaign season approached, and the Republican-controlled Congress began investigating the Operation Fast and Furious gun trafficking case.
This resistance to enacting even the most modest gun control reforms is the result of the power and influence of the pro-gun lobby in U.S. politics, and its ability to frame the terms of the debate. Gun control advocates have lost control of the narrative because their advocates in Congress fear retaliation from the National Rifle Association, or the NRA.
Backed by conservative lawmakers and judges, the NRA has succeeded in promoting an uncompromising interpretation of the Second Amendments right to bear arms. The amendment states: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
And the gun lobbywhich opposes all forms of gun control, assault weapons ban, firearms registration and background checksspends overwhelmingly to support Republican candidates and defeat Democratic candidates. According to OpenSecrets.org, of the $17.6 million the NRA spent on the 2012 federal election cycle, $11.4 million was spent to vote Democratic candidates out of office, and $5.9 million to support Republican candidates. In 2010, the NRA spent at least $100,000 to support or oppose 11 different candidates, with over $1.43 million to help Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania) win a Senate seat against Democrat Joe Sestak.
During the 2012 election, the NRA ran ads in battleground states accusing Obama of chipping away at the right to bear arms. And four years earlier, gun sales surged after the president was elected, amid concerns that Democrats would restrict gin ownership.
In July of this year, one week after the Aurora, Colorado mass shooting, the NRA halted U.S. ratification of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty to prevent the illicit flow of arms to war-ravaged regions of the world.
The NRA has spent over $2 million on lobbying this year. Of the organizations 28 lobbyists, 15 have previously held government positions.
Mother Jones reports that in the past four years, the NRA has passed 99 laws in 37 states making it easier to own guns and carry them in public, and more difficult for the government to track these guns.
How the assault weapons ban has been assaulted | theGrio
When the 113th Congress is sworn in in January, expect the debate over gun control to have renewed urgency. Several prominent lawmakers have already come forth to call for a re-examination and re-working of our nation's gun laws in the wake of Friday's mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.
While new legislation likely won't be introduced until after Jan. 3, statements from top Senators such as Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) suggest that new proposals could be similar to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that was in in place from 1994 to 2004.
"I can tell you that he is going to have a bill to lead on because as a first-day bill I'm going to introduce in the Senate and the same bill will be introduced in the House -- a bill to ban assault weapons," Feinstein said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
In the second presidential debate of the 2012 campaign, President Obama said he was interested in re-instituting the ban.
"Weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don't belong on our streets. And so what I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally," the president said. "Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced."
Law enforcement still likes the ban. Why do we listen to right wing nutters and not law enforcement?
I understand the part about a "well regulated militia...", etc., but is there some cutoff on the lethality of the firepower an individual can possess? For example, I spotted an individual who was displaying a rusting 120 mm mortar in his backyard. What if this gun could be made operable? Would he encounter any legal problems? I expect his neighbors would be concerned.
Backyard Artillery Piece
I could envision how "sportsmen" might use one. They could use it to fire shells known asI understand the part about a "well regulated militia...", etc., but is there some cutoff on the lethality of the firepower an individual can possess? For example, I spotted an individual who was displaying a rusting 120 mm mortar in his backyard. What if this gun could be made operable? Would he encounter any legal problems? I expect his neighbors would be concerned.
Backyard Artillery Piece
I believe this kind of thing has to be rendered inoperative to own. But I'm no expert.
