How many democrats own guns?

[yiostheoy]

[
Who are the liberals that want a complete gun ban?

You are very confused. Typical for a Moon Bat.

California (run by stupid Libtards) recently passed a series of draconian gun control laws that will make it close to impossible for the average person to own a functional fire arm.

The SAFE Act in New Your (run by Libtards) is a very oppressive anti right to keep and bear arms law state. I can give you some examples of the oppression if you are confused about it.

In the Democrat war on women they are advocating taking away the right of women to defend themselves against attackers with unreasonable gun control laws and requiring permission from the government before being allowed their Constitutional rights..

In New Jersey (run mostly by Libtards including Christie) a man was recently arrested just for the mere possession of firearms that are legal in most other of the US. He committed no crimes and had no intentions of committing crimes with the firearms. That is filthy ass oppression and anti right to keep arms laws,

Even with the McDonald ruling it is almost impossible to legally own a firearm in Chicago (run by stupid Libtards) but yet the city is the murder capitol of the US.

That jackass President Shit for Brains said that the NRA was a terrorist organization. How stupid is that?

TNA: President Obama Designates NRA "Domestic Terrorist Organization".

Crooked Hillary said recently that she wasn't even sure there was a right to keep and bear arms in the US and that the NRA (the largest gun safety organization in the world) was is the same as an Iranian terrorist organization.

Hillary Clinton wavers on Second Amendment right to bear arms

Are you a member of the NRA? Hillary Clinton thinks you're a terrorist.

Of course you can give many examples to disprove his stupid statements and lies. But he, like the majority of the lefties here will never ever listen. You waste your time.

The extreme right fringe does not ever listen either. Both extremes are as useless as teats on a boar.

 

[yiostheoy]

Why do gun nuts act like their gun rights haven't been expanded in the past decade?

They haven't

I cannot buy or legally own some guns in my state. I cannot legally own a magazine of more than a 10 round capacity.

things I could do just a few years ago

You can't ban all guns because you can't repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Gun ban propaganda is thus paranoid proaganda with no basis in reality.

Any amendment can be repealed. Just as anything can be made in an amendment. The Constitution provides for it.

You should have learned that in 8th Grade US History, and again in 12th Grade Civics, and if you went to college then your history/humanities requirement should have taught you a 3rd time about the US Constitution.

That's precisely the main draw back of Hillary as POTUS. She will attempt to replace Scalia and aging Ginsberg with 2 more Ginsbergs. Then the SCOTUS can become activist and quasi legislative.

I was referring to the fact that you will never get the votes to repeal the 2nd Amendment. And you won't.

The only votes that matter are the 9 on the Supreme Court. When it comes to an amendment or anything in the Constitution, what the document says doesn't come close to being as important as what as few as FIVE of that nine BELIEVES it says.

There are lots of things not specifically in the Constitution that the SCOTUS has said are there through their interpretations. Not one word in the 2nd Amendment would have to change even a letter for the MEANING to change based on what FIVE say.

I don't believe you'd ever get the votes to repeal the 2nd amendment according to the procedure outline in Article V of the Constitution. However, you don't have to as long as FIVE people on the Court choose to interpret the same way as an Article V generated amendment would do it. As long as the Court is willing practice judicial activism, you may never see another amendment. All FIVE of them have to do is think it says something different than what's actually written.

With 33% of households being gun owning and 66% being non gun owning, you cannot be sure that a repeal of the 2nd Amendment is impossible.

If the gun ownership increased then maybe you could feel more safe.

But right now a repeal of the 2nd Amendment would be very close.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why do gun nuts act like their gun rights haven't been expanded in the past decade?

They haven't

I cannot buy or legally own some guns in my state. I cannot legally own a magazine of more than a 10 round capacity.

things I could do just a few years ago

You can't ban all guns because you can't repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Gun ban propaganda is thus paranoid proaganda with no basis in reality.

Any amendment can be repealed. Just as anything can be made in an amendment. The Constitution provides for it.

You should have learned that in 8th Grade US History, and again in 12th Grade Civics, and if you went to college then your history/humanities requirement should have taught you a 3rd time about the US Constitution.

That's precisely the main draw back of Hillary as POTUS. She will attempt to replace Scalia and aging Ginsberg with 2 more Ginsbergs. Then the SCOTUS can become activist and quasi legislative.

I was referring to the fact that you will never get the votes to repeal the 2nd Amendment. And you won't.

The only votes that matter are the 9 on the Supreme Court. When it comes to an amendment or anything in the Constitution, what the document says doesn't come close to being as important as what as few as FIVE of that nine BELIEVES it says.

There are lots of things not specifically in the Constitution that the SCOTUS has said are there through their interpretations. Not one word in the 2nd Amendment would have to change even a letter for the MEANING to change based on what FIVE say.

I don't believe you'd ever get the votes to repeal the 2nd amendment according to the procedure outline in Article V of the Constitution. However, you don't have to as long as FIVE people on the Court choose to interpret the same way as an Article V generated amendment would do it. As long as the Court is willing practice judicial activism, you may never see another amendment. All FIVE of them have to do is think it says something different than what's actually written.

That's why it's important to keep anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage judges off the court, right?

 

[yiostheoy]

I mistakenly thought I was talking to people intelligent enough to know that I was not referring to the common knowledge of the amendment appeal PROCESS.

Actually you ASS-U-ME'ed.

Never assume.

They teach you not to assume in the military.

I though you were a vet and therefore you should have learned that Soldier.

Don't assume no repeal is possible. Bad guess.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They haven't

I cannot buy or legally own some guns in my state. I cannot legally own a magazine of more than a 10 round capacity.

things I could do just a few years ago

You can't ban all guns because you can't repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Gun ban propaganda is thus paranoid proaganda with no basis in reality.

Any amendment can be repealed. Just as anything can be made in an amendment. The Constitution provides for it.

You should have learned that in 8th Grade US History, and again in 12th Grade Civics, and if you went to college then your history/humanities requirement should have taught you a 3rd time about the US Constitution.

That's precisely the main draw back of Hillary as POTUS. She will attempt to replace Scalia and aging Ginsberg with 2 more Ginsbergs. Then the SCOTUS can become activist and quasi legislative.

I was referring to the fact that you will never get the votes to repeal the 2nd Amendment. And you won't.

The only votes that matter are the 9 on the Supreme Court. When it comes to an amendment or anything in the Constitution, what the document says doesn't come close to being as important as what as few as FIVE of that nine BELIEVES it says.

There are lots of things not specifically in the Constitution that the SCOTUS has said are there through their interpretations. Not one word in the 2nd Amendment would have to change even a letter for the MEANING to change based on what FIVE say.

I don't believe you'd ever get the votes to repeal the 2nd amendment according to the procedure outline in Article V of the Constitution. However, you don't have to as long as FIVE people on the Court choose to interpret the same way as an Article V generated amendment would do it. As long as the Court is willing practice judicial activism, you may never see another amendment. All FIVE of them have to do is think it says something different than what's actually written.

With 33% of households being gun owning and 66% being non gun owning, you cannot be sure that a repeal of the 2nd Amendment is impossible.

If the gun ownership increased then maybe you could feel more safe.

But right now a repeal of the 2nd Amendment would be very close.

Needing 2/3rds of the Senate to even get the Amendment process out of Congress and you think that's close?

Are you insane?

 

[Flash]

...

California (run by stupid Libtards) recently passed a series of draconian gun control laws that will make it close to impossible for the average person to own a functional fire arm.

...

Completely false.

You may own revolvers.

You may own pistols as long as they can only hold 10 rounds or less.

You may own shotguns as long as they can only hold 10 shells or less.

You may own carbines and rifles as long as they do not have detachable magazines AND also a pistol grip or a folding stock.

And you can only own 10 round detachable box magazines or smaller.

You are confused.

The government taking away most of the right to keep and bear arms but leaving a few crumbs is a direct assault on the Constitutional right that shall not be infringed.

You left out a whole bunch of other laws that other Americans enjoy but that will get you thrown in prison for in Commie Kalifornia. I'll list some of them if you are confused about them.

It is like the oppressive government telling you that you have the right of freedom of religion but you must get permission from the government before exercising it and you can only pray on Tuesday morning's in your closet with a permit and Bible that has been registered with the state and can only be ten pages.

 

[Conservative65]

They haven't

I cannot buy or legally own some guns in my state. I cannot legally own a magazine of more than a 10 round capacity.

things I could do just a few years ago

You can't ban all guns because you can't repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Gun ban propaganda is thus paranoid proaganda with no basis in reality.

Any amendment can be repealed. Just as anything can be made in an amendment. The Constitution provides for it.

You should have learned that in 8th Grade US History, and again in 12th Grade Civics, and if you went to college then your history/humanities requirement should have taught you a 3rd time about the US Constitution.

That's precisely the main draw back of Hillary as POTUS. She will attempt to replace Scalia and aging Ginsberg with 2 more Ginsbergs. Then the SCOTUS can become activist and quasi legislative.

I was referring to the fact that you will never get the votes to repeal the 2nd Amendment. And you won't.

The only votes that matter are the 9 on the Supreme Court. When it comes to an amendment or anything in the Constitution, what the document says doesn't come close to being as important as what as few as FIVE of that nine BELIEVES it says.

There are lots of things not specifically in the Constitution that the SCOTUS has said are there through their interpretations. Not one word in the 2nd Amendment would have to change even a letter for the MEANING to change based on what FIVE say.

I don't believe you'd ever get the votes to repeal the 2nd amendment according to the procedure outline in Article V of the Constitution. However, you don't have to as long as FIVE people on the Court choose to interpret the same way as an Article V generated amendment would do it. As long as the Court is willing practice judicial activism, you may never see another amendment. All FIVE of them have to do is think it says something different than what's actually written.

That's why it's important to keep anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage judges off the court, right?

If those on there would actually READ what the Constitution SAYS, they'd see that neither one of those is written in it yet they continue to find it there.

We need 5 that will read it instead of read into it. I'll take whatever number it takes to read it and see that abortion nor faggot marriage is in it and do the right thing.

 

[yiostheoy]

That's why it's important to keep anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage judges off the court, right?

Roe v. Wade has already settled abortion, and the 14th Amendment has already settled same-sex marriage.

The SCOTUS does not normally reverse themselves.

 

[PredFan]

They tend to poll gun owners as well as non-gun owners so they kind of get what everyone thinks and right now their is a slight majority in favor of them. That is just the truth. I hate them as well since they make me stand in line for so long to answer dumb questions and how hard would it to be to create a registry from the information they have collected.

This is just a lie.

Liberals do not advocate for a complete gun ban.

Not all, but many do. You know that, quit lying.

We would need a new poll to answer your question definitively.

Based on my own experience almost no one wants a compete ban on guns.

Most people are fine with hunting guns.

Most people are against AR and AK style assault guns however.

The problem is that the movers and shakers in the Democrat Party and the monied and powerful Socialists of the world, do. Despite what you and your democrat friends think, the people YOU vote for want a ban on guns.

I believe that with the deaths of both elderly Brady's, that handgun control is now finally dead.

As for the banning of assault style weapons, with Hillary's imminent election and possible takeover of House and Senate for at least 2 years, another Federal ban like WJ Clinton's first one will be in the making.

Handguns should be safe since Billy did not go after them before. For all we know, Bill and Hillary probably both own handguns.

Hunting guns should also be safe since nobody is assaulting them (no pun intended).

Hunting guns normally don't hold more than 5 cartridges.

Assault style guns can hold from 10 to 30 cartridges or more and normally have detachable box or cylinder magazines. Most people infer that an assault weapon also includes some kind of pistol grip on the stock. So that feature normally gets built into the definitional legislation for them as well.

You seem to be reasonable so I'll attempt to show you the error of your thinking.

Gun laws do not work. They only keep non-criminals from owning guns. Therefor if certain "sensible" laws are passed then it infringes on the rights of the law-abiding while criminals will still get guns. So, when the laws passed fail, and they will, more "sensible" gun laws are enacted. But...

Gun laws don't work, criminals still get their hands on guns and people still die. Then more "sensible" gun laws are passed, and the law-abiding are restricted further. But...

Gun laws don't work, criminals still get their hands on guns and people still die. Then more "sensible" gun laws are passed, and the law-abiding are restricted further. But..

...and on and on until one of two things happen; either guns are finally confiscated entirely, or there are so many restrictions that any gun you won is simply a paperweight.

The gun grabbers I referred to, 0bama, Hillary, etc., know this. They are patient. They are counting on people like you to help them toward their goal. They do want a total gun ban. They know that they cannot get it tomorrow, next week, not even next year, but they have a plan. You can see that plan in action right now if you pay attention.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I mistakenly thought I was talking to people intelligent enough to know that I was not referring to the common knowledge of the amendment appeal PROCESS.

Actually you ASS-U-ME'ed.

Never assume.

They teach you not to assume in the military.

I though you were a vet and therefore you should have learned that Soldier.

Don't assume no repeal is possible. Bad guess.

You cannot create a plausible scenario where 2/3rds of Congress would vote to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Feel free to try.

 

[Conservative65]

You can't ban all guns because you can't repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Gun ban propaganda is thus paranoid proaganda with no basis in reality.

Any amendment can be repealed. Just as anything can be made in an amendment. The Constitution provides for it.

You should have learned that in 8th Grade US History, and again in 12th Grade Civics, and if you went to college then your history/humanities requirement should have taught you a 3rd time about the US Constitution.

That's precisely the main draw back of Hillary as POTUS. She will attempt to replace Scalia and aging Ginsberg with 2 more Ginsbergs. Then the SCOTUS can become activist and quasi legislative.

I was referring to the fact that you will never get the votes to repeal the 2nd Amendment. And you won't.

The only votes that matter are the 9 on the Supreme Court. When it comes to an amendment or anything in the Constitution, what the document says doesn't come close to being as important as what as few as FIVE of that nine BELIEVES it says.

There are lots of things not specifically in the Constitution that the SCOTUS has said are there through their interpretations. Not one word in the 2nd Amendment would have to change even a letter for the MEANING to change based on what FIVE say.

I don't believe you'd ever get the votes to repeal the 2nd amendment according to the procedure outline in Article V of the Constitution. However, you don't have to as long as FIVE people on the Court choose to interpret the same way as an Article V generated amendment would do it. As long as the Court is willing practice judicial activism, you may never see another amendment. All FIVE of them have to do is think it says something different than what's actually written.

With 33% of households being gun owning and 66% being non gun owning, you cannot be sure that a repeal of the 2nd Amendment is impossible.

If the gun ownership increased then maybe you could feel more safe.

But right now a repeal of the 2nd Amendment would be very close.

Needing 2/3rds of the Senate to even get the Amendment process out of Congress and you think that's close?

Are you insane?

I've explained how the amendment process isn't needed. If you're too stupid to understand that, let me know and I'll get a kid to explain it on your 1st grade comprehension level.

 

[Skull Pilot]

There are people who want a gun ban. You can find people who support any position.

Can you name any with absolute certainty, though? Can you prove that any effort to ban guns in the US has ever been attempted at the legislative level?

And....I own a firearm. Have been a gun owner for my entire adult life.

ever?? the D.C. case that ended with heller's saying there can't be a total ban. ...which was reasonable. it's the way it's interpreted by the NRA pawns that's the problem.

No the first step is getting the courts to say that gun ownership is not an individual right.

So tell me if the government says that no individual has the right to own a firearm what the next step will be?

Why do gun nuts act like their gun rights haven't been expanded in the past decade?

They haven't

I cannot buy or legally own some guns in my state. I cannot legally own a magazine of more than a 10 round capacity.

things I could do just a few years ago

You can't ban all guns because you can't repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Gun ban propaganda is thus paranoid proaganda with no basis in reality.

Making individual ownership less than a right accomplishes the goal of getting guns out of the public's hands
And maybe you don't know that there is a process to repeal an amendment

 

[yiostheoy]

You can't ban all guns because you can't repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Gun ban propaganda is thus paranoid proaganda with no basis in reality.

Any amendment can be repealed. Just as anything can be made in an amendment. The Constitution provides for it.

You should have learned that in 8th Grade US History, and again in 12th Grade Civics, and if you went to college then your history/humanities requirement should have taught you a 3rd time about the US Constitution.

That's precisely the main draw back of Hillary as POTUS. She will attempt to replace Scalia and aging Ginsberg with 2 more Ginsbergs. Then the SCOTUS can become activist and quasi legislative.

I was referring to the fact that you will never get the votes to repeal the 2nd Amendment. And you won't.

The only votes that matter are the 9 on the Supreme Court. When it comes to an amendment or anything in the Constitution, what the document says doesn't come close to being as important as what as few as FIVE of that nine BELIEVES it says.

There are lots of things not specifically in the Constitution that the SCOTUS has said are there through their interpretations. Not one word in the 2nd Amendment would have to change even a letter for the MEANING to change based on what FIVE say.

I don't believe you'd ever get the votes to repeal the 2nd amendment according to the procedure outline in Article V of the Constitution. However, you don't have to as long as FIVE people on the Court choose to interpret the same way as an Article V generated amendment would do it. As long as the Court is willing practice judicial activism, you may never see another amendment. All FIVE of them have to do is think it says something different than what's actually written.

That's why it's important to keep anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage judges off the court, right?

If those on there would actually READ what the Constitution SAYS, they'd see that neither one of those is written in it yet they continue to find it there.

We need 5 that will read it instead of read into it. I'll take whatever number it takes to read it and see that abortion nor faggot marriage is in it and do the right thing.

You can bet your bippy that Hillary is NOT going to nominate "strict constructionist" justices.

She is going to nominate 2 more Ginsbergs -- Communist Jews.

 

[Conservative65]

That's why it's important to keep anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage judges off the court, right?

Roe v. Wade has already settled abortion, and the 14th Amendment has already settled same-sex marriage.

The SCOTUS does not normally reverse themselves.

They have on controversial issue like that.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Gun control is virtually none exsistent.

Criminals have guns. Gang bangers have guns. Domestic violence perpetrators have guns. Terrorists have guns. Drug dealers have guns. Sometimes little kids have a gun. Young kids take guns to school occasionally. Law abiding citizens have guns. Felons have guns. Illegals have guns.

If we have "gun control" in this country, where is it? Everybody who wants a gun can get a gun.

You mean enforcement of the current gun laws is nonexistent.

 

[yiostheoy]

Any amendment can be repealed. Just as anything can be made in an amendment. The Constitution provides for it.

You should have learned that in 8th Grade US History, and again in 12th Grade Civics, and if you went to college then your history/humanities requirement should have taught you a 3rd time about the US Constitution.

That's precisely the main draw back of Hillary as POTUS. She will attempt to replace Scalia and aging Ginsberg with 2 more Ginsbergs. Then the SCOTUS can become activist and quasi legislative.

I was referring to the fact that you will never get the votes to repeal the 2nd Amendment. And you won't.

The only votes that matter are the 9 on the Supreme Court. When it comes to an amendment or anything in the Constitution, what the document says doesn't come close to being as important as what as few as FIVE of that nine BELIEVES it says.

There are lots of things not specifically in the Constitution that the SCOTUS has said are there through their interpretations. Not one word in the 2nd Amendment would have to change even a letter for the MEANING to change based on what FIVE say.

I don't believe you'd ever get the votes to repeal the 2nd amendment according to the procedure outline in Article V of the Constitution. However, you don't have to as long as FIVE people on the Court choose to interpret the same way as an Article V generated amendment would do it. As long as the Court is willing practice judicial activism, you may never see another amendment. All FIVE of them have to do is think it says something different than what's actually written.

With 33% of households being gun owning and 66% being non gun owning, you cannot be sure that a repeal of the 2nd Amendment is impossible.

If the gun ownership increased then maybe you could feel more safe.

But right now a repeal of the 2nd Amendment would be very close.

Needing 2/3rds of the Senate to even get the Amendment process out of Congress and you think that's close?

Are you insane?

I've explained how the amendment process isn't needed. If you're too stupid to understand that, let me know and I'll get a kid to explain it on your 1st grade comprehension level.

My my you are a rude fokk.

 

[PredFan]

[
Who are the liberals that want a complete gun ban?

You are very confused. Typical for a Moon Bat.

California (run by stupid Libtards) recently passed a series of draconian gun control laws that will make it close to impossible for the average person to own a functional fire arm.

The SAFE Act in New Your (run by Libtards) is a very oppressive anti right to keep and bear arms law state. I can give you some examples of the oppression if you are confused about it.

In the Democrat war on women they are advocating taking away the right of women to defend themselves against attackers with unreasonable gun control laws and requiring permission from the government before being allowed their Constitutional rights..

In New Jersey (run mostly by Libtards including Christie) a man was recently arrested just for the mere possession of firearms that are legal in most other of the US. He committed no crimes and had no intentions of committing crimes with the firearms. That is filthy ass oppression and anti right to keep arms laws,

Even with the McDonald ruling it is almost impossible to legally own a firearm in Chicago (run by stupid Libtards) but yet the city is the murder capitol of the US.

That jackass President Shit for Brains said that the NRA was a terrorist organization. How stupid is that?

TNA: President Obama Designates NRA "Domestic Terrorist Organization".

Crooked Hillary said recently that she wasn't even sure there was a right to keep and bear arms in the US and that the NRA (the largest gun safety organization in the world) was is the same as an Iranian terrorist organization.

Hillary Clinton wavers on Second Amendment right to bear arms

Are you a member of the NRA? Hillary Clinton thinks you're a terrorist.

Of course you can give many examples to disprove his stupid statements and lies. But he, like the majority of the lefties here will never ever listen. You waste your time.

The extreme right fringe does not ever listen either. Both extremes are as useless as teats on a boar.

Perhaps, but at least we can defend our position without lies.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You can't ban all guns because you can't repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Gun ban propaganda is thus paranoid proaganda with no basis in reality.

Any amendment can be repealed. Just as anything can be made in an amendment. The Constitution provides for it.

You should have learned that in 8th Grade US History, and again in 12th Grade Civics, and if you went to college then your history/humanities requirement should have taught you a 3rd time about the US Constitution.

That's precisely the main draw back of Hillary as POTUS. She will attempt to replace Scalia and aging Ginsberg with 2 more Ginsbergs. Then the SCOTUS can become activist and quasi legislative.

I was referring to the fact that you will never get the votes to repeal the 2nd Amendment. And you won't.

The only votes that matter are the 9 on the Supreme Court. When it comes to an amendment or anything in the Constitution, what the document says doesn't come close to being as important as what as few as FIVE of that nine BELIEVES it says.

There are lots of things not specifically in the Constitution that the SCOTUS has said are there through their interpretations. Not one word in the 2nd Amendment would have to change even a letter for the MEANING to change based on what FIVE say.

I don't believe you'd ever get the votes to repeal the 2nd amendment according to the procedure outline in Article V of the Constitution. However, you don't have to as long as FIVE people on the Court choose to interpret the same way as an Article V generated amendment would do it. As long as the Court is willing practice judicial activism, you may never see another amendment. All FIVE of them have to do is think it says something different than what's actually written.

That's why it's important to keep anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage judges off the court, right?

Roe v. Wade has already settled abortion, and the 14th Amendment has already settled same-sex marriage.

The SCOTUS does not normally reverse themselves.

Tell that to Trump. He's vowing to put 'pro-life' judges on the court. Pence is promising that Roe will be overturned if Trump is elected. Are they lying to the voters, or just stupid?

 

[Conservative65]

Any amendment can be repealed. Just as anything can be made in an amendment. The Constitution provides for it.

You should have learned that in 8th Grade US History, and again in 12th Grade Civics, and if you went to college then your history/humanities requirement should have taught you a 3rd time about the US Constitution.

That's precisely the main draw back of Hillary as POTUS. She will attempt to replace Scalia and aging Ginsberg with 2 more Ginsbergs. Then the SCOTUS can become activist and quasi legislative.

I was referring to the fact that you will never get the votes to repeal the 2nd Amendment. And you won't.

The only votes that matter are the 9 on the Supreme Court. When it comes to an amendment or anything in the Constitution, what the document says doesn't come close to being as important as what as few as FIVE of that nine BELIEVES it says.

There are lots of things not specifically in the Constitution that the SCOTUS has said are there through their interpretations. Not one word in the 2nd Amendment would have to change even a letter for the MEANING to change based on what FIVE say.

I don't believe you'd ever get the votes to repeal the 2nd amendment according to the procedure outline in Article V of the Constitution. However, you don't have to as long as FIVE people on the Court choose to interpret the same way as an Article V generated amendment would do it. As long as the Court is willing practice judicial activism, you may never see another amendment. All FIVE of them have to do is think it says something different than what's actually written.

That's why it's important to keep anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage judges off the court, right?

If those on there would actually READ what the Constitution SAYS, they'd see that neither one of those is written in it yet they continue to find it there.

We need 5 that will read it instead of read into it. I'll take whatever number it takes to read it and see that abortion nor faggot marriage is in it and do the right thing.

You can bet your bippy that Hillary is NOT going to nominate "strict constructionist" justices.

She is going to nominate 2 more Ginsbergs -- Communist Jews.

That was the point of what I said. NYCarbineer keeps talking about an amendment process not being able to get through. I agree. My point was that the Article V process isn't needed if as few as FIVE on the Court say the 2nd means what an amendment would say.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Exactly. Why don't we try instead, to find out why we have become so violent?

I didn't mention the word "violent". I did mention that everyone that wants a gun, gets a gun.

The reason guns are everywhere is because of the COTUS. That second amendment and all. You don't have to be violent or non violent to have a gun. You just have to want one and if there is a will, there is a way to get a gun.

If you have any ideas how to change that (if you want that gun access changed) then do share those ideas.