No one is going to take your guns

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There will be blood, and hell to pay for this. These idiots do not realize the Pandora's box they just opened on themselves. For the gun owners of New York: Do not give in to their demands. You have your rights.

The Second Amendment:

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.

You forgot to cite the case where a court ruled the law was un-Constitutional.

And the Second Amendment, as with the rest of the Constitution, exists only in the context of its case law; to simply cite an Amendment absent that context is ignorant and meaningless – as is the rest of your ridiculous, hyperbolic post.

District of Columbia vs Heller

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Justice Scalia, Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v.
DICK ANTHONY HELLER

on writ of certiorari to the united states court ofappeals for the district of columbia circuit

[June 26, 2008]
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.

We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Respondent Dick Heller is a D. C. special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Federal Judicial Center. He applied for a registration certificate for a handgun that he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He thereafter filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on the registration of handguns, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of “functional firearms within the home.” App. 59a. The District Court dismissed respondent’s complaint, see Parker v. District of Columbia, 311 F. Supp. 2d 103, 109 (2004). The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, construing his complaint as seeking the right to render a firearm operable and carry it about his home in that condition only when necessary for self-defense,2 reversed, see Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F. 3d 370, 401 (2007). It held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right. See id., at 395, 399–401. The Court of Appeals directed the District Court to enter summary judgment for respondent.

We granted certiorari. 552 U. S. ___ (2007).


From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment : Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution”); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.

Heller concerned a DC gun law, this law is in New York.

Cite a court case where this New York law was ruled un-Constitutional.

Rhetorical: Are you really this stupid that the above had to be explained to you.

 

[jon_berzerk]

We should get rid of any laws that some people break?

That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard on this forum.

the law was targeted at the law abiding

criminals are not required nor can they to register their firearms

self incriminating

Nonsense.

Criminals don’t obey laws making car theft illegal.

By your ‘reasoning’ stealing a car shouldn’t be a crime.

If a criminal is found in possession of a stolen car or an illegal gun, he’ll be subject to criminal prosecution. That’s how laws and the justice system work.

of course one can be busted for having it

they can not be busted for not registering as i said in the post

registration is aimed at the law abiding

not the criminal since they can not register

 

[NYcarbineer]

funny thing though

the law only targeted law abiding citizens

(those that obeyed the registration law originally)

the criminal who did not obey the law is content

in the knowing that the city does not know they

they have firearms

We should get rid of any laws that some people break?

That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard on this forum.

Only the Unconstitutional ones like the one the letter represents

So, you feel all laws should be enforced?

-Geaux

When was that law ruled unconstitutional?

 

[OODA_Loop]

You forgot to cite the case where a court ruled the law was un-Constitutional.

And the Second Amendment, as with the rest of the Constitution, exists only in the context of its case law; to simply cite an Amendment absent that context is ignorant and meaningless – as is the rest of your ridiculous, hyperbolic post.

District of Columbia vs Heller

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Justice Scalia, Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v.
DICK ANTHONY HELLER

on writ of certiorari to the united states court ofappeals for the district of columbia circuit

[June 26, 2008]
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.

We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Respondent Dick Heller is a D. C. special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Federal Judicial Center. He applied for a registration certificate for a handgun that he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He thereafter filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on the registration of handguns, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of “functional firearms within the home.” App. 59a. The District Court dismissed respondent’s complaint, see Parker v. District of Columbia, 311 F. Supp. 2d 103, 109 (2004). The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, construing his complaint as seeking the right to render a firearm operable and carry it about his home in that condition only when necessary for self-defense,2 reversed, see Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F. 3d 370, 401 (2007). It held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right. See id., at 395, 399–401. The Court of Appeals directed the District Court to enter summary judgment for respondent.

We granted certiorari. 552 U. S. ___ (2007).


From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment : Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution”); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.

Heller concerned a DC gun law, this law is in New York.

Cite a court case where this New York law was ruled un-Constitutional.

Rhetorical: Are you really this stupid that the above had to be explained to you.

Heller v DC = Arms in "common use" protected.

McDonald V Chicago = Incorporation of Heller to the States

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's how stupid the law is, which is the bigger point

-Geaux

No, the point is that you people don't want guns registered because you want it easier for people to conceal the fact that they own illegal guns.

And if the people of a city or a state want a certain gun law, so what? At least by your own standards, so what?

You rightwingers are always harping about states rights and the 10th amendment and all that crap...

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff207/Geaux-4it/Bovine.gif[/IMG/QUOTE]

That's the best you can do?

Are you willing then to concede that the 10th amendment only allows states to do what the federal government gives them permission to do?

 

[NYcarbineer]

the law was targeted at the law abiding

criminals are not required nor can they to register their firearms

self incriminating

Nonsense.

Criminals don’t obey laws making car theft illegal.

By your ‘reasoning’ stealing a car shouldn’t be a crime.

If a criminal is found in possession of a stolen car or an illegal gun, he’ll be subject to criminal prosecution. That’s how laws and the justice system work.

of course one can be busted for having it

they can not be busted for not registering as i said in the post

registration is aimed at the law abiding

not the criminal since they can not register

There's no penalty for possessing an unregistered handgun in New York State?

lol

 

[Geaux4it]

You forgot to cite the case where a court ruled the law was un-Constitutional.

And the Second Amendment, as with the rest of the Constitution, exists only in the context of its case law; to simply cite an Amendment absent that context is ignorant and meaningless – as is the rest of your ridiculous, hyperbolic post.

District of Columbia vs Heller

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Justice Scalia, Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v.
DICK ANTHONY HELLER

on writ of certiorari to the united states court ofappeals for the district of columbia circuit

[June 26, 2008]
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.

We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Respondent Dick Heller is a D. C. special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Federal Judicial Center. He applied for a registration certificate for a handgun that he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He thereafter filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on the registration of handguns, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of “functional firearms within the home.” App. 59a. The District Court dismissed respondent’s complaint, see Parker v. District of Columbia, 311 F. Supp. 2d 103, 109 (2004). The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, construing his complaint as seeking the right to render a firearm operable and carry it about his home in that condition only when necessary for self-defense,2 reversed, see Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F. 3d 370, 401 (2007). It held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right. See id., at 395, 399–401. The Court of Appeals directed the District Court to enter summary judgment for respondent.

We granted certiorari. 552 U. S. ___ (2007).


From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment : Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution”); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.

Heller concerned a DC gun law, this law is in New York.

Cite a court case where this New York law was ruled un-Constitutional.

Rhetorical: Are you really this stupid that the above had to be explained to you.

It will be once litigated based on DC vs Heller.

-Geaux

 

[jon_berzerk]

Nonsense.

Criminals don’t obey laws making car theft illegal.

By your ‘reasoning’ stealing a car shouldn’t be a crime.

If a criminal is found in possession of a stolen car or an illegal gun, he’ll be subject to criminal prosecution. That’s how laws and the justice system work.

of course one can be busted for having it

they can not be busted for not registering as i said in the post

registration is aimed at the law abiding

not the criminal since they can not register

There's no penalty for possessing an unregistered handgun in New York State?

lol

why are you so dense

the felon in possession is charged with having a firearm

as it is anywhere in the United States

they according to the Supreme Court

can not be charged for failure to register the firearm

for the third time

criminals can not be compelled to register a firearm period

nor can they be convicted for failure to do so

the registration system only applies to the law abiding

registration does nothing to stop a criminal from having a firearm

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

the law was targeted at the law abiding

criminals are not required nor can they to register their firearms

self incriminating

Nonsense.

Criminals don’t obey laws making car theft illegal.

By your ‘reasoning’ stealing a car shouldn’t be a crime.

If a criminal is found in possession of a stolen car or an illegal gun, he’ll be subject to criminal prosecution. That’s how laws and the justice system work.

of course one can be busted for having it

they can not be busted for not registering as i said in the post

registration is aimed at the law abiding

not the criminal since they can not register

Criminals are not allowed to own firearms, one cannot ‘register’ something he is disallowed to own. That criminals ignore or violate the law doesn’t make the law invalid.

Rightwing nitwits have been making the failed ‘legal gun owner as “victim”’ argument for decades now, and all they’ve succeeded in doing is to make gun owners sound strident and stupid.

Gun registration laws are un-Constitutional because they manifest an undue burden to exercising one’s Second Amendment rights, absent documented evidence in support, lacking a legitimate legislative end.

Our rights enshrined in the Second Amendment can be protected only by arguing the law, not by arguing failed, moronic NRA talking points.

 

[birddog]

Thank God for the NRA!

 

[jon_berzerk]

Nonsense.

Criminals don’t obey laws making car theft illegal.

By your ‘reasoning’ stealing a car shouldn’t be a crime.

If a criminal is found in possession of a stolen car or an illegal gun, he’ll be subject to criminal prosecution. That’s how laws and the justice system work.

of course one can be busted for having it

they can not be busted for not registering as i said in the post

registration is aimed at the law abiding

not the criminal since they can not register

Criminals are not allowed to own firearms, one cannot ‘register’ something he is disallowed to own. That criminals ignore or violate the law doesn’t make the law invalid.

Rightwing nitwits have been making the failed ‘legal gun owner as “victim”’ argument for decades now, and all they’ve succeeded in doing is to make gun owners sound strident and stupid.

Gun registration laws are un-Constitutional because they manifest an undue burden to exercising one’s Second Amendment rights, absent documented evidence in support, lacking a legitimate legislative end.

Our rights enshrined in the Second Amendment can be protected only by arguing the law, not by arguing failed, moronic NRA talking points.

it is not an NRA talking point it

is the Supreme Courts talking point

the left always tries to claim that registration stops the criminal from having firearms

when in fact the criminal is constitutionally exempt from a gun registration requirement

so who does it target and why

 

[OODA_Loop]

Rightwing nitwits have been making the failed ‘legal gun owner as “victim”’ argument for decades now, and all they’ve succeeded in doing is to make gun owners sound strident and stupid.

I think they have done more than that, no ?

All the up to SCOTUS......... M'kay.

 

[The Rabbi]

You forgot to cite the case where a court ruled the law was un-Constitutional.

And the Second Amendment, as with the rest of the Constitution, exists only in the context of its case law; to simply cite an Amendment absent that context is ignorant and meaningless – as is the rest of your ridiculous, hyperbolic post.

District of Columbia vs Heller

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Justice Scalia, Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v.
DICK ANTHONY HELLER

on writ of certiorari to the united states court ofappeals for the district of columbia circuit

[June 26, 2008]
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.

We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Respondent Dick Heller is a D. C. special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Federal Judicial Center. He applied for a registration certificate for a handgun that he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He thereafter filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on the registration of handguns, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of “functional firearms within the home.” App. 59a. The District Court dismissed respondent’s complaint, see Parker v. District of Columbia, 311 F. Supp. 2d 103, 109 (2004). The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, construing his complaint as seeking the right to render a firearm operable and carry it about his home in that condition only when necessary for self-defense,2 reversed, see Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F. 3d 370, 401 (2007). It held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right. See id., at 395, 399–401. The Court of Appeals directed the District Court to enter summary judgment for respondent.

We granted certiorari. 552 U. S. ___ (2007).


From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment : Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution”); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.

Heller concerned a DC gun law, this law is in New York.

Cite a court case where this New York law was ruled un-Constitutional.

Rhetorical: Are you really this stupid that the above had to be explained to you.

The law was only passed this year. It takes time for things to work their way through the court system. Anyone with a 3rd grade knowledge of law knows that. Which is why you dont.
But it's coming.
Oswego County sheriff joins lawsuit to declare NY SAFE Act unconstitutional | syracuse.com

 

[NYcarbineer]

of course one can be busted for having it

they can not be busted for not registering as i said in the post

registration is aimed at the law abiding

not the criminal since they can not register

There's no penalty for possessing an unregistered handgun in New York State?

lol

why are you so dense

the felon in possession is charged with having a firearm

as it is anywhere in the United States

they according to the Supreme Court

can not be charged for failure to register the firearm

for the third time

criminals can not be compelled to register a firearm period

nor can they be convicted for failure to do so

the registration system only applies to the law abiding

registration does nothing to stop a criminal from having a firearm

You aren't aware that having an unregistered handgun in NY is a crime?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Did you not actually READ and COMPREHEND the post you quoted?

 

[Geaux4it]

There's no penalty for possessing an unregistered handgun in New York State?

lol

why are you so dense

the felon in possession is charged with having a firearm

as it is anywhere in the United States

they according to the Supreme Court

can not be charged for failure to register the firearm

for the third time

criminals can not be compelled to register a firearm period

nor can they be convicted for failure to do so

the registration system only applies to the law abiding

registration does nothing to stop a criminal from having a firearm

You aren't aware that having an unregistered handgun in NY is a crime?

So is crossing the border illegally

-Geaux

 

[thereisnospoon]

Dear Democrats:

You own whatever comes out of this. If government officials are shot and/or killed in New York for taking firearms from law abiding citizens, the onus is on you. There are just some things you don't do: Don't hit on another man's woman, ride another man's Harley, and don't mess with his guns.

I'm sure the same goes for the ladies as well.

Drama Queen alert.


"shot and/or killed in New York for taking firearms from law abiding citizens"?

Uh - you're saying law abiding citizens would murder? That actually would make taking their guns away the right thing to do, doncha think?

Lets look at this another way..
The 2nd Amendment comes into play here. As well as the Supremacy Clause in Article VI sec 2 prohibits the government of the City of New York from enforcing such regulations.
Therefore, no one can be compelled to simply 'surrender' their arms to a local authority.
Michael Bloomberg can kiss a whole lot of asses before that ever happens.
I look at this way. Just suppose for a moment every single law abiding person complies with this. Then what? Well, that's an easy one. All the guns out there in the Big Apple will belong to CRIMINALS...because the Thugs, rapists, robbers, gangs, drug dealers, Jamaican, Columbian, Chinese, Russian, Puerto Rican, Irish and Sicilians crime gangs will NOT surrender their guns.
This is called "open season" on the people.
The simply solution to this is don't comply. Fuck 'em.

 

[jon_berzerk]

There's no penalty for possessing an unregistered handgun in New York State?

lol

why are you so dense

the felon in possession is charged with having a firearm

as it is anywhere in the United States

they according to the Supreme Court

can not be charged for failure to register the firearm

for the third time

criminals can not be compelled to register a firearm period

nor can they be convicted for failure to do so

the registration system only applies to the law abiding

registration does nothing to stop a criminal from having a firearm

You aren't aware that having an unregistered handgun in NY is a crime?

you seem to be unaware that felons are constitutionally exempt from registering a firearm

 

[thereisnospoon]

Obama's Gun Record Basically Consists Of Expanding Gun Owners' Rights - Business Insider

Major Garrett: Obama has expanded, not reduced gun rights - CBS News

So what is it with right wingers? Tardation or inbreeding that makes them hate Obama for no reason? The GOP being 90% white can't have anything to do with it. They claim they aren't "racist".

Funny, I didn't mention Obama, or race. Yet you still felt a need to accuse me of hating Obama because he is black.

Not to mention that I have told you repeatedly that I am not a Republican.

Dean comes on here with his incendiary drive by posts just to get a rise out of people.
Dean believes in nothing. He is nothing. He is a flyspeck with a keyboard.
I imagine him as the loudmouth little jerk who as kids we all hated because he would yap like a poodle and when he got the shit beaten out of him would run to his mommy and claim "but mommy, I didn't do anything"...

 

[Pogo]

Dear Democrats:

You own whatever comes out of this. If government officials are shot and/or killed in New York for taking firearms from law abiding citizens, the onus is on you. There are just some things you don't do: Don't hit on another man's woman, ride another man's Harley, and don't mess with his guns.

I'm sure the same goes for the ladies as well.

Drama Queen alert.


"shot and/or killed in New York for taking firearms from law abiding citizens"?

Uh - you're saying law abiding citizens would murder? That actually would make taking their guns away the right thing to do, doncha think?

No, I'm saying that there will be people who resort to violence to keep their firearms. You don't really think they'll just up and cooperate, do you? Seriously, what do you think will happen when you infringe on someone's constitutional rights? This law all but does away with the freedom to bear arms, since they have to bear the arms the government approves of, with the amount and type of ammo they approve of. That's a bit much don't you think? And who exactly are the drama queens this time?

Once again, same question restated: if some citizen that up to now was law abiding is going to go blow some gummint goober's head off, are you not making a clear argument that they can't be trusted with guns in the first place?