Oregon Gunman: Conservative Republican

[candycorn]

Your idea was?

No.

You didn't want to charge additional anything for guns? Why'd you change your mind?

The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.

Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.

It will be voter insurance. Not a tax.

Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see. Convincing others that gunshot victims should be compensated is pretty easy. Convincing others that you need to apply spite fees is a tad harder.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No.

You didn't want to charge additional anything for guns? Why'd you change your mind?

The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.

Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.

It will be voter insurance. Not a tax.

Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see. Convincing others that gunshot victims should be compensated is pretty easy. Convincing others that you need to apply spite fees is a tad harder.

Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see.

My guns pose no threat. Obama (and Clinton and Sanders) poses a very large threat.
Why should you be able to cause harm by electing and of those threats?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your idea was?

No.

You didn't want to charge additional anything for guns? Why'd you change your mind?

The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.

Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.

It will be voter insurance. Not a tax.

You're right, not a tax.
We should make it $1000 every 2 years.
Nothing against my idea in the Constitution.

 

[Papageorgio]

No.

You didn't want to charge additional anything for guns? Why'd you change your mind?

The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.

Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.

It will be voter insurance. Not a tax.

You're right, not a tax.
We should make it $1000 every 2 years.
Nothing against my idea in the Constitution.

I think insuring our rights will catch on.

 

[Papageorgio]

You didn't want to charge additional anything for guns? Why'd you change your mind?

The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.

Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.

It will be voter insurance. Not a tax.

Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see. Convincing others that gunshot victims should be compensated is pretty easy. Convincing others that you need to apply spite fees is a tad harder.

Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see.

My guns pose no threat. Obama (and Clinton and Sanders) poses a very large threat.
Why should you be able to cause harm by electing and of those threats?

I know lots of people that own guns and pose no threat. I guess we punish the masses because of less than the one percent.

 

[candycorn]

You didn't want to charge additional anything for guns? Why'd you change your mind?

The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.

Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.

It will be voter insurance. Not a tax.

Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see. Convincing others that gunshot victims should be compensated is pretty easy. Convincing others that you need to apply spite fees is a tad harder.

Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see.

My guns pose no threat. Obama (and Clinton and Sanders) poses a very large threat.
Why should you be able to cause harm by electing and of those threats?

What harm would come to you?

 

[candycorn]

No.

You didn't want to charge additional anything for guns? Why'd you change your mind?

The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.

Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.

It will be voter insurance. Not a tax.

You're right, not a tax.
We should make it $1000 every 2 years.
Nothing against my idea in the Constitution.

Yeah, run with that....LOL.

 

[candycorn]

The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.

Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.

It will be voter insurance. Not a tax.

Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see. Convincing others that gunshot victims should be compensated is pretty easy. Convincing others that you need to apply spite fees is a tad harder.

Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see.

My guns pose no threat. Obama (and Clinton and Sanders) poses a very large threat.
Why should you be able to cause harm by electing and of those threats?

I know lots of people that own guns and pose no threat. I guess we punish the masses because of less than the one percent.

When that "less than one percent" are mutilated and killed; the "punishment" of insurance is minimal. Furthermore, the argument that it is an infringement is not valid because you had to pay for the gun in the first place.

Nothing in the constitution says guns have to be cheap.

 

[Papageorgio]

Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.

It will be voter insurance. Not a tax.

Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see. Convincing others that gunshot victims should be compensated is pretty easy. Convincing others that you need to apply spite fees is a tad harder.

Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see.

My guns pose no threat. Obama (and Clinton and Sanders) poses a very large threat.
Why should you be able to cause harm by electing and of those threats?

I know lots of people that own guns and pose no threat. I guess we punish the masses because of less than the one percent.

When that "less than one percent" are mutilated and killed; the "punishment" of insurance is minimal. Furthermore, the argument that it is an infringement is not valid because you had to pay for the gun in the first place.

Nothing in the constitution says guns have to be cheap.

Just keep them out of the hands of the poor. No reason that they should need protection.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.

Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.

It will be voter insurance. Not a tax.

Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see. Convincing others that gunshot victims should be compensated is pretty easy. Convincing others that you need to apply spite fees is a tad harder.

Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see.

My guns pose no threat. Obama (and Clinton and Sanders) poses a very large threat.
Why should you be able to cause harm by electing and of those threats?

What harm would come to you?

The list is very long.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You didn't want to charge additional anything for guns? Why'd you change your mind?

The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.

Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.

It will be voter insurance. Not a tax.

You're right, not a tax.
We should make it $1000 every 2 years.
Nothing against my idea in the Constitution.

Yeah, run with that....LOL.

Just like you should run with your idea.
How'd the "assault weapon" ban help the Dems in 1994? LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.

It will be voter insurance. Not a tax.

Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see. Convincing others that gunshot victims should be compensated is pretty easy. Convincing others that you need to apply spite fees is a tad harder.

Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see.

My guns pose no threat. Obama (and Clinton and Sanders) poses a very large threat.
Why should you be able to cause harm by electing and of those threats?

I know lots of people that own guns and pose no threat. I guess we punish the masses because of less than the one percent.

When that "less than one percent" are mutilated and killed; the "punishment" of insurance is minimal. Furthermore, the argument that it is an infringement is not valid because you had to pay for the gun in the first place.

Nothing in the constitution says guns have to be cheap.

Nothing in the constitution says guns have to be cheap.

Or voting.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Two questions:
- How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?

No part of the 2nd amendment refers to pricing. What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.

- What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?

Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.

My turn:

1. A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"? Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
2. How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws? As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained. The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.

Well except EVERYONE IS in the militia per title 10 US Federal law. Further the Supreme Court , you remember them right? Ruled that one did not need to be a member of a militia to have a right protected by the Constitution. I guess you only support the Supreme Court when you LIKE their rulings right? Remind me how you respond when a right winger disagrees with a Supreme Court decision?

I support all Supreme Court decisions. I don't like them all.

If so then explain why you are whining about the militia in regards the 2nd Amendment? The Court was clear one is NOT required to belong to the militia to have a protected right under the 2nd.

The Court was clear when it had those 9 justices. The resulting bloodbath every month may compel some to change the ruling. This is why it is important to elect HRC. You get rid of Scalia and a few other dinosaurs....boom; you get legislation that will stem the red tide.

Again, it is humorous how you guys ***** and moan about judicial activsm but cling to it to in this case.

KItten.....We're discussing a Constitutional amendment. Which requires 38 state legislatures to ratify an amendment which repeals an existing amendment. in any event, there is no court, no legislature that can stop people from killing. And you will never disarm the law abiding citizens who choose to exercise their rights. Never. Get it?
And of you think Clinton is going to get the opportunity to pack the court with hyper liberals, you're living in a parallel universe.
BTW, Clinton's polling numbers are terrible. Short of some kind of unbelievable turn around, Clinton is not going to win the WH...And don't go spewing that crap about electoral votes.
But.....You are a feminazi who arrogantly believes the election is over. That it is "her turn".....
There is a bunch of you. But not enough.
BTW, until "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is stricken from the Bill of Rights, you will never have your way.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Different members of the court now. These people actually seem to read the papers.

Heller majority:
Roberts Scalia Alito Thomas Kennedy.
McDonnel Majority:
Roberts Scalia Alito Thomas Kennedy.
What's changed?

The scarlett tide of blood from people who haven't reached puberty may change the minds of some justices. Changing some justices will undobutedly do the same.

THe SCOTUS cannot change the US Constitution.

 

[airplanemechanic]

I've yet to see a mass murderer who identified as a Liberal Democrat.

Coincidence?

No.

Yea, not even before he's about to blow his brains out does he want to be known as a liberal.

I can't blame him.

 

[candycorn]

The gun will be the same price it always was. The insurance policy will be extra; granted.

Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.

It will be voter insurance. Not a tax.

You're right, not a tax.
We should make it $1000 every 2 years.
Nothing against my idea in the Constitution.

Yeah, run with that....LOL.

Just like you should run with your idea.
How'd the "assault weapon" ban help the Dems in 1994? LOL!

332-206...they got over it nicely.

 

[candycorn]

Different members of the court now. These people actually seem to read the papers.

Heller majority:
Roberts Scalia Alito Thomas Kennedy.
McDonnel Majority:
Roberts Scalia Alito Thomas Kennedy.
What's changed?

The scarlett tide of blood from people who haven't reached puberty may change the minds of some justices. Changing some justices will undobutedly do the same.

THe SCOTUS cannot change the US Constitution.

They needn't.

Just read it where it says Militia with a capital M and voila!

 

[candycorn]

No part of the 2nd amendment refers to pricing. What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.

Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.

My turn:

1. A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"? Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
2. How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws? As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained. The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.

Well except EVERYONE IS in the militia per title 10 US Federal law. Further the Supreme Court , you remember them right? Ruled that one did not need to be a member of a militia to have a right protected by the Constitution. I guess you only support the Supreme Court when you LIKE their rulings right? Remind me how you respond when a right winger disagrees with a Supreme Court decision?

I support all Supreme Court decisions. I don't like them all.

If so then explain why you are whining about the militia in regards the 2nd Amendment? The Court was clear one is NOT required to belong to the militia to have a protected right under the 2nd.

The Court was clear when it had those 9 justices. The resulting bloodbath every month may compel some to change the ruling. This is why it is important to elect HRC. You get rid of Scalia and a few other dinosaurs....boom; you get legislation that will stem the red tide.

Again, it is humorous how you guys ***** and moan about judicial activsm but cling to it to in this case.

KItten.....We're discussing a Constitutional amendment. Which requires 38 state legislatures to ratify an amendment which repeals an existing amendment. in any event, there is no court, no legislature that can stop people from killing. And you will never disarm the law abiding citizens who choose to exercise their rights. Never. Get it?
And of you think Clinton is going to get the opportunity to pack the court with hyper liberals, you're living in a parallel universe.
BTW, Clinton's polling numbers are terrible. Short of some kind of unbelievable turn around, Clinton is not going to win the WH...And don't go spewing that crap about electoral votes.
But.....You are a feminazi who arrogantly believes the election is over. That it is "her turn".....
There is a bunch of you. But not enough.
BTW, until "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is stricken from the Bill of Rights, you will never have your way.

Time will tell.

Clinton will win the nomination easily. General elections are always a toss up but the GOP is doing it's best to lose it.

 

[candycorn]

It will be voter insurance. Not a tax.

Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see. Convincing others that gunshot victims should be compensated is pretty easy. Convincing others that you need to apply spite fees is a tad harder.

Unlike guns, voting poses no threat, you see.

My guns pose no threat. Obama (and Clinton and Sanders) poses a very large threat.
Why should you be able to cause harm by electing and of those threats?

I know lots of people that own guns and pose no threat. I guess we punish the masses because of less than the one percent.

When that "less than one percent" are mutilated and killed; the "punishment" of insurance is minimal. Furthermore, the argument that it is an infringement is not valid because you had to pay for the gun in the first place.

Nothing in the constitution says guns have to be cheap.

Just keep them out of the hands of the poor. No reason that they should need protection.

They are not in the hands of the poor by and large now.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Excellent! So you won't mind a voting license then?
Only $500 every 2 years. We can call it Voter ID.

It will be voter insurance. Not a tax.

You're right, not a tax.
We should make it $1000 every 2 years.
Nothing against my idea in the Constitution.

Yeah, run with that....LOL.

Just like you should run with your idea.
How'd the "assault weapon" ban help the Dems in 1994? LOL!

332-206...they got over it nicely.

332-206...they got over it nicely.

Yes, they lost the House for the first time since the 50s.