Did the MSM intend for people to jump to this conclusion??

[Dekster]

Now gee, how does one demolish an amendment to the US constitution, anyone? Can anyone from the right answer that?

I already have. They can say it only applies to militias and the military/police are the only militia; they could say it is antiquated or too vague to mean anything like happens with some other amendments in some judges' hands.

I doubt that so

I answered your question with intent to further a discussion. Apparently you asked your question with intent to troll.

The only way to completely strike down a Constitutional Amendment is by the provisions of Art. IV.. .The US Supremema Courta coulda noa doodit...

Nice theory. Reality is not a theoretical technical classroom exercise though.

 

[healthmyths]

Now gee, how does one demolish an amendment to the US constitution, anyone? Can anyone from the right answer that?

I already have. They can say it only applies to militias and the military/police are the only militia; they could say it is antiquated or too vague to mean anything like happens with some other amendments in some judges' hands.

I doubt that so

I answered your question with intent to further a discussion. Apparently you asked your question with intent to troll.

The only way to completely strike down a Constitutional Amendment is by the provisions of Art. IV.. .The US Supremema Courta coulda noa doodit...

So what does the SCOTUS do? I was always under the impression provided by the Constitution..

It can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. It can tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a law. It can also tell the government of a state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all — the Constitution.
The Role of the Supreme Court | Scholastic.com

 

[daws101]

Of course they did. I saw one interview with a reporter at the event who indicated that they had gone around asking people if they took it that Trump was calling for her to be shot and admitted they couldn't find anybody who thought that was what he meant, but then the reporter turned around and parroted the line that was really what he meant.

Gun nuts wanted people to fear them, this is what it looks like. You think people are being overly sensitive? It's nothing compared with the flood of over-the-top reactions that comes from the right when democrats even mention the epidemic of gun violence in this country. The gun nuts are the most overly reactionary segment of the population, they have no right to complain after the way they have acted and reacted in the past.

The only solution you've offered is to disarm victims

My solution is for gun nuts to start acting like responsible adults and quit talking all that cold dead hands bullshit.

In a way the cold dead hand thing is true , mostly after they've shot themselves or a loved one.

 

[healthmyths]

Of course they did. I saw one interview with a reporter at the event who indicated that they had gone around asking people if they took it that Trump was calling for her to be shot and admitted they couldn't find anybody who thought that was what he meant, but then the reporter turned around and parroted the line that was really what he meant.

Gun nuts wanted people to fear them, this is what it looks like. You think people are being overly sensitive? It's nothing compared with the flood of over-the-top reactions that comes from the right when democrats even mention the epidemic of gun violence in this country. The gun nuts are the most overly reactionary segment of the population, they have no right to complain after the way they have acted and reacted in the past.

The only solution you've offered is to disarm victims

My solution is for gun nuts to start acting like responsible adults and quit talking all that cold dead hands bullshit.

So explain this chart? http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/10/us/gun-sales-terrorism-obama-restrictions.html?_r=0

 

[daws101]

Of course they did. I saw one interview with a reporter at the event who indicated that they had gone around asking people if they took it that Trump was calling for her to be shot and admitted they couldn't find anybody who thought that was what he meant, but then the reporter turned around and parroted the line that was really what he meant.

Gun nuts wanted people to fear them, this is what it looks like. You think people are being overly sensitive? It's nothing compared with the flood of over-the-top reactions that comes from the right when democrats even mention the epidemic of gun violence in this country. The gun nuts are the most overly reactionary segment of the population, they have no right to complain after the way they have acted and reacted in the past.

The ONLY "epidemic of gun violence in this country" is negro on negro gun violence.
I doubt not one in 10,000 guns used in negroes murdering other negroes so they can STEAL THEIR FUCKING GARBAGE CANS! is legal.
Why don't you attempt to be honest for once?
Send the NG into the negro shitholes and confiscate every fucking gun and the "endemic" gun violence in the country will drop by 99% overnight!

 

[MisterBeale]

Now gee, how does one demolish an amendment to the US constitution, anyone? Can anyone from the right answer that?

 

[healthmyths]

Now gee, how does one demolish an amendment to the US constitution, anyone? Can anyone from the right answer that?

I answered but evidently you didn't read!

The 2008 Supreme Court decision In a 5 to 4 decision those justices ruled that the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to own guns for personal self-defense, despite the amendment’s opening language - “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, ” - which pretty clearly says that gun ownership was specifically preserved by the founding fathers in the interest of the common defense against a tyrannical government (remember, this was the issue on their minds back then).
Gun rights advocates cheered. Gun control advocates cried foul.
The Supreme Court Ruling on the 2nd Amendment Did NOT Grant an Unlimited Right to Own Guns

Now here is exactly what the 2nd Amendment states:

Here is the amendment as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:[33]
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.
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Context at the time...
Coming off the revolutionary war where the vast majority of the fighting was done by "regulated militia" as there was NO US ARMY etc. at that time.
So in the context of that time, of course taking arms from the people would mean NO militia. No way of protecting America.

BUT in context of THIS TIME:
With millions of police, national guards, and our entire military what need is there for a militia is what a SCOTUS court would declare interpreting the 2nd Amendment!

 

[occupied]

Of course they did. I saw one interview with a reporter at the event who indicated that they had gone around asking people if they took it that Trump was calling for her to be shot and admitted they couldn't find anybody who thought that was what he meant, but then the reporter turned around and parroted the line that was really what he meant.

Gun nuts wanted people to fear them, this is what it looks like. You think people are being overly sensitive? It's nothing compared with the flood of over-the-top reactions that comes from the right when democrats even mention the epidemic of gun violence in this country. The gun nuts are the most overly reactionary segment of the population, they have no right to complain after the way they have acted and reacted in the past.

Some are, but then there are women who fear for their lives who might be a democrat but be carrying in their purse. Hard to know what women who are victims of domestic violence, stalking, etc really will do when they step into the voting booth.

I am all for responsible gun ownership but I'll be damned if I am on the same side of the debate with all those crazy doomsday cultists the NRA has created. I have a certain number of firearms myself but to me they are overly expensive tools and are no more precious to me than a nail gun or screw gun. People who have fetishized the gun have been fed a line of bullshit that only serves to enrich gun manufacturers who can charge obscene prices for guns and ammo because it is something that will soon be banned in the firearm consumer's paranoid little minds.

What is "responsible gun ownership" in your mind? That is about as ambiguous a phrase in reality as "a living wage". Personally, I think if we can pass laws that require car manufacturers to meet fuel efficiency standards at some point in the future they currently cannot meet, then there is no reason we can't pass legislation that requires fingerprint technology on all guns at some point in the future as well.

Read it again. Did I say anything about gun laws? My point of this entire thread is that gun nuts talk so fucking crazy at times that they have no right to get offended when someone might think they are actually serious about armed resistance to the government AKA killing people they feel are a threat to their fetish. I don't give a fuck if anyone owns a gun as long as they use it responsibly it's too bad they refuse to take responsibility for their nasty paranoid gun politics.

 

[daws101]

Of course they did. I saw one interview with a reporter at the event who indicated that they had gone around asking people if they took it that Trump was calling for her to be shot and admitted they couldn't find anybody who thought that was what he meant, but then the reporter turned around and parroted the line that was really what he meant.

Gun nuts wanted people to fear them, this is what it looks like. You think people are being overly sensitive? It's nothing compared with the flood of over-the-top reactions that comes from the right when democrats even mention the epidemic of gun violence in this country. The gun nuts are the most overly reactionary segment of the population, they have no right to complain after the way they have acted and reacted in the past.

The only solution you've offered is to disarm victims

My solution is for gun nuts to start acting like responsible adults and quit talking all that cold dead hands bullshit.

So explain this chart? http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/10/us/gun-sales-terrorism-obama-restrictions.html?_r=0
View attachment 85028

Like most popular items guns , if a shortage is predicted people will stock up.
Then again there's the fad aspect like
Pokemon Go .

 

[Moonglow]

Now gee, how does one demolish an amendment to the US constitution, anyone? Can anyone from the right answer that?

Suppose further that the Supreme Court, in the first case to test the meaning and constitutionality of Amendment Two , (let's set aside the question of justiciability for now), strikes it down. Could the Court ever be justified in doing this? It's difficult to see how the Court could pull this off. Although, judicial supremacy defines current constitutional practice, if the United States Supreme Court prevented what seems like obvious bona fide constitutional change, it's likely that the Justices would be impeached or at the very least, the people would stridently call for Congress to remove the review of constitutional amendments from the Court's jurisdiction

 

[Dekster]

Of course they did. I saw one interview with a reporter at the event who indicated that they had gone around asking people if they took it that Trump was calling for her to be shot and admitted they couldn't find anybody who thought that was what he meant, but then the reporter turned around and parroted the line that was really what he meant.

Gun nuts wanted people to fear them, this is what it looks like. You think people are being overly sensitive? It's nothing compared with the flood of over-the-top reactions that comes from the right when democrats even mention the epidemic of gun violence in this country. The gun nuts are the most overly reactionary segment of the population, they have no right to complain after the way they have acted and reacted in the past.

Some are, but then there are women who fear for their lives who might be a democrat but be carrying in their purse. Hard to know what women who are victims of domestic violence, stalking, etc really will do when they step into the voting booth.

I am all for responsible gun ownership but I'll be damned if I am on the same side of the debate with all those crazy doomsday cultists the NRA has created. I have a certain number of firearms myself but to me they are overly expensive tools and are no more precious to me than a nail gun or screw gun. People who have fetishized the gun have been fed a line of bullshit that only serves to enrich gun manufacturers who can charge obscene prices for guns and ammo because it is something that will soon be banned in the firearm consumer's paranoid little minds.

What is "responsible gun ownership" in your mind? That is about as ambiguous a phrase in reality as "a living wage". Personally, I think if we can pass laws that require car manufacturers to meet fuel efficiency standards at some point in the future they currently cannot meet, then there is no reason we can't pass legislation that requires fingerprint technology on all guns at some point in the future as well.

Read it again. Did I say anything about gun laws? My point of this entire thread is that gun nuts talk so fucking crazy at times that they have no right to get offended when someone might think they are actually serious about armed resistance to the government AKA killing people they feel are a threat to their fetish. I don't give a fuck if anyone owns a gun as long as they use it responsibly it's too bad they refuse to take responsibility for their nasty paranoid gun politics.

So, you advocate for "responsible gun laws" but have no idea what "responsible gun laws" would look like. Gotcha. This is another one of those "I just want to feel better about myself by tearing other people down" discussions. I must have missed the cues.

 

[daws101]

The RW myth of the activists judges rears it's mishapen head.
As if there have never been any RW activist judges.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Why don't we just call this payback for the RW propaganda machine's dishonest rendering of Hillary's word 'aren't' into 'are',

just a few days ago.

She said 'are' not 'arent'. That was the desperate spin her liars in the media are trying to put on it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So who is making a bigger deal of this statement that had NO...NONE... context issue.
Google search just in 24 hours..."Trump calls for assassination" About 1,490,000 results
]

Funny...

I just googled "Trump calls for assassination" and got 1250 results.

Why are you lying?

 

[JimBowie1958]

trump supporters aren't smart, or apparently honest.

Lol, you surely have some nerve, given your track record of lies, distortions and stupid shit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why don't we just call this payback for the RW propaganda machine's dishonest rendering of Hillary's word 'aren't' into 'are',

just a few days ago.

She said 'are' not 'arent'. That was the desperate spin her liars in the media are trying to put on it.

See what I mean?

 

[S.J.]

Yes, they did. And we can include Fox in the category of MSM.

faux is about as mainstream as it gets.
if you believe it's not than it's no wonder you support trump.

What did I just say, dummy?

nothing as usual ,slapdick...

IOW you can't read. Got it.

False! You can't write or more accurately understand what you've written.
If it was sarcasm it failed .

Keep digging. The more you post, the dumber you look.

 

[healthmyths]

What has happened in this thread is getting mired in the weeds and most of you are losing sight of the purpose...i.e. did the MSM want people to think Trump
was calling for Hillary's assassination.
Let's put some perspective on the tremendous angst that the MSM is putting on this totally ambiguous simple statement by Trump and making it sound like he's calling for an assassination.
Where were the same MSM back in this time???
Do any of you remember that there was an ACTUAL MOVIE...
But a film about an imagined assassination of President George W. Bush got a somewhat different reception in 2006.
“Death of a President,” directed by Gabriel Range and produced by British public-television outlet Channel 4, took a serious look at the consequences of killing No. 43.
Before Sony and ‘The Interview': This award-winning movie imagined George W. Bush’s assassination

Where was all the ANGST in the MSM at that time when a REAL movie depicting the killing of Bush came out?
Rod Liddle, a newspaper and magazine columnist who also makes documentaries for Channel 4, said he thought the Bush film gave voice to a common sentiment in Britain.
"You will never, ever be able to overestimate the degree to which the British people loathe George Bush," Liddle said. "It will be a free round of drinks in every pub for the person who plays the assassin."
Bush 'Assassination' Film Makes Waves Across the Pond

So here we have the MSM ginning up ANGST and hysteria about Trump... YET a real movie encouraging the assassination of GWB? Oh hum...yawn... no big deal!

 

[BluesLegend]

Of course they did. I saw one interview with a reporter at the event who indicated that they had gone around asking people if they took it that Trump was calling for her to be shot and admitted they couldn't find anybody who thought that was what he meant, but then the reporter turned around and parroted the line that was really what he meant.

Gun nuts wanted people to fear them, this is what it looks like. You think people are being overly sensitive? It's nothing compared with the flood of over-the-top reactions that comes from the right when democrats even mention the epidemic of gun violence in this country. The gun nuts are the most overly reactionary segment of the population, they have no right to complain after the way they have acted and reacted in the past.

There's no "epidemic of gun violence" fool why do you make up blatant lies?

 

[occupied]

Gun nuts wanted people to fear them, this is what it looks like. You think people are being overly sensitive? It's nothing compared with the flood of over-the-top reactions that comes from the right when democrats even mention the epidemic of gun violence in this country. The gun nuts are the most overly reactionary segment of the population, they have no right to complain after the way they have acted and reacted in the past.

Some are, but then there are women who fear for their lives who might be a democrat but be carrying in their purse. Hard to know what women who are victims of domestic violence, stalking, etc really will do when they step into the voting booth.

I am all for responsible gun ownership but I'll be damned if I am on the same side of the debate with all those crazy doomsday cultists the NRA has created. I have a certain number of firearms myself but to me they are overly expensive tools and are no more precious to me than a nail gun or screw gun. People who have fetishized the gun have been fed a line of bullshit that only serves to enrich gun manufacturers who can charge obscene prices for guns and ammo because it is something that will soon be banned in the firearm consumer's paranoid little minds.

What is "responsible gun ownership" in your mind? That is about as ambiguous a phrase in reality as "a living wage". Personally, I think if we can pass laws that require car manufacturers to meet fuel efficiency standards at some point in the future they currently cannot meet, then there is no reason we can't pass legislation that requires fingerprint technology on all guns at some point in the future as well.

Read it again. Did I say anything about gun laws? My point of this entire thread is that gun nuts talk so fucking crazy at times that they have no right to get offended when someone might think they are actually serious about armed resistance to the government AKA killing people they feel are a threat to their fetish. I don't give a fuck if anyone owns a gun as long as they use it responsibly it's too bad they refuse to take responsibility for their nasty paranoid gun politics.

So, you advocate for "responsible gun laws" but have no idea what "responsible gun laws" would look like. Gotcha. This is another one of those "I just want to feel better about myself by tearing other people down" discussions. I must have missed the cues.

Since you are incredibly dense I will spell it out for you, I do not care about gun laws because they are practically useless. I am offering a harsh critique of the politics and paranoia surrounding guns. Read this next part slowly: You got your supreme court decision, the country is awash with guns, there is no way to just ban them as you seem to think, few people actually want to ban them, the NRA is peddling ignorant paranoia in order to sell more guns for the gun manufacturers who pay them. I know that's a lot to consider but think about it before you shoot right back with some reply that attempts to pigeon-hole me as one of your mythical "gun grabbers". Keep your guns, lose the senseless paranoia.