Republicans in Panic?

[martybegan]

Which is of course not what I did.

Why do you feel the need to lie?

It's exactly what you did.

If the democratic party was somehow permanently marginalized, it would mean that the agenda and interests of the majority of blacks would never again be represented at the national level.

That would NOT mean that the Democratic Party is the party of Black People only.

Do you understand?

Now you're telling me that the GOP wouldn't represent the rights of black people. You are getting repetitive.

The GOP has it's ideology and agenda. It's poor showing among blacks shows that this platform is NOT that of the vast majority of blacks.

The Democratic Party's does.

Yet, I do not try to claim that the Dems are the party of Black People only.

It would not be true, and would not contribute to any debate or discussion.

Why would I try such a tact?

Oh, to just slam the dems whether it is true or not?

No, I'm not that type of person.

Who else are the GOP a party of? Hispanics? Jews? Asians? Muslims?

Americans, just like the Democrat Party.

It's people like you that are trying to Balkanize this country, making everyone run back to their own little tribe.

And if you go by the presidential candidates, the Dems are the party of old washed up white people.

 

[Ravi]

Wow it's just embarrassing to see an American who actually believes that the supreme court can void a constitutional amendment.

Where do these extremely stupid people come from?

Oh, Rly????

Forgot about this little gem of a decision....

Plessy v. Ferguson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What constitutional amendment did that void?

In the seven-to-one decision handed down on May 18, 1896 (Justice David Josiah Brewer did not participate because of the death of his daughter),[13] the Court rejected Plessy's arguments based on the Fourteenth Amendment, seeing no way in which the Louisiana statute violated it.[6] In addition, the majority of the Court rejected the view that the Louisiana law implied any inferiority of blacks, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, it contended that the law separated the two races as a matter of public policy.[14]

If you were Black in the South, your 14th amendment rights went into the shitter. For all intents and purposes, the 14th amendment was null and void until segregation was overturned in the 50's and 60's.

That didn't void the amendment. And it was certainly a bad ruling that took years to overturn. I'm kind of surprised that you didn't agree with the ruling, btw. States Rights! Trains Rights, blah, blah, blah.

Your surprise is not surprising, given that you have the typical progressive trait of not being able to understand views other than your own beyond "that guy dumb and evil, unga bunga".

The amendment was not enforced due to the decision, thus was null and void until corrected by legislation. Technically it was never overturned, (Brown vs. Board of Ed was about schools, not trains) but is moot due to the federal legislation that ended the practice of segregation in general.

And State rights only go as a far as the constitution allows them. As a strict constructional federalist, I do see the 14th incorporating the Bill of Rights down to the State level.

And yet somehow the 14th is still part of the constitution. It hasn't been voided and it hasn't been done away with.

 

[Correll]

Another denizen of the LWNJ echo chamber chimes in with inane talking points.....

you know, dear... i'm a lot of things. but a nutjob isn't one of them. in my view, you're wrong on almost every issue. and until the GOP dumps its loons on the right, no one like me (who DID vote for republican mayors and governors in the past) is going to ever vote for one of your candidates.

Sorry Jillian, but when you call everyone who supports Trump an uneducated bigot- you are a nut job.

I was wrong about Obama, but I was right about the Senate, the House and all of the state houses that Obama has handed the GOP. He has been a blessing in that regard.

There is no other explanation for supporting Trump other than being an uneducated bigot. Trump depends on both

Why are you being such a partisan jerk?

i'd hope not wanting to elect a bigot is a partisan issue.

I was kind of hoping that most republicans aren't bigots and would feel the same way.

of course, it seems you can't relate to thinking we shouldn't be represented by a bigot.

I've repeatedly asked you what Trump policy you consider the most bigoted, and you have not responded.

YOu seem to think that be constantly repeating it you can create the illusion of a consensus.

This is true. It is a version of propaganda.

Very dishonest, but effective.

For you, here is a partial list of nations that are "bigoted" in that they have Trumps policy on Birthright Citizenship, imo Trumps most radical proposal.

Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom

 

[martybegan]

there is no "inherent right" to an abortion, I do not see it espoused in any texts, of any revolutions that had the goal of a free society. It's made up, flim flam, the imaginations of 5 of 9 unelected lawyers.

Gay marriage is another made up right, purely because 5 of 9 unelected lawyers decided to speed things up and overrrule the will of the people of several states.

and as for your last statement, I simply don't trust YOU or the government to stick to that view.

You idiots change your views on things faster than a cat in a small pet store changes his appetite.

the 2d applies to WELL-REGULATED MILITIA to defend the country (since there was no standing army at the time) and every justice until scalia knew that. but heller is what it is.... as stupid a decision as it is.

and I don't trust wingers with my rights. it's really simple. I guess it just depends on what your priorities are. of course, the difference is that no one has outlawed guns or tried to (since regulation is STILL ok even scalia said so in heller). yet, your guys routinely try to take away others' rights

The FIRST part gives the States the right to form militias. It was to prevent the federal government from claiming exclusive right to armed force. The SECOND part gives the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.

It's your side that uses the courts to crush others, not us.

In what reality do you claim the right doesn't go to court to keep gun proliferation alive?
See: DC v. Heller

A case where the law making body of a City was superseded by your side going to court.


You might - if you wanted to debate honestly - admit that efforts to deprive gays/lesbians rights, for example:

"Rulings Upholding Marriage Discrimination: In three rulings since June 2013, judges have upheld laws denying the freedom to marry to same-sex couples: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld bans in KY, MI, OH and TN; and federal judges have upheld discrimination in Louisiana and Puerto Rico. Additionally, judges in several state courts, including Tennessee and Florida, have denied respect for same-sex couples' marriages for the purpose of dissolution."

Marriage Rulings in the Courts | Freedom to Marry

2nd amendment rights are explicit. I have the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what a local government wants or desires.

The constitution is silent on the concept of marriage in general, thus it is up to the States, in particular their legislatures to determine the content of the marriage license.

You have to understand what a strict constructionist is to understand my views, you don't have to agree with it, but you have to be able to grasp the concept, something beyond most progressives on this board.

I can grasp the concept, and I reject it as absurd.

Do we still use Bloodletting to treat and prevent disease?
Do we still believe the earth is the center of the universe?
Do we still believe a solar eclipse portends a disaster?

Do you understand the concept of stare decisis? Or do you reject that too?

Nowhere in Art. I, sec 8 is the power enumerated to give to the Federal Government to Regulate air corridors, build interstate highways or the transcontinental RR. In fact one failure of the Art. of Confederation was private sector control of roads, canals and bridges. Read some history, you might find out how absurd is the concept the strict constructionist.

However, clause #1 does provide for the Congress to "...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the US; ..."

Hint, this is not the 18th Century! Things change, laws are passed by legislatures in cities, states and the Congress to mitigate problems which arise do to evolving social structures (e.g.). the Industrial revolution, rural vis a vis urban populations and fire power.

I'm pragmatic, you're an ideologue; the former thinks outside the box, the latter is stuck in one.

It isn't absurd. Strict construction-ism isn't literal construction-ism. That you have to pull that card out shows you either don't really understand it, or don't want to understand it.

One can account for changes in technology without using the amendment process, however when one changes concepts radically, or adds entirely new ones to the purview of the federal government, the amendment process has to be used.

Anything else is tyranny.

 

[Wry Catcher]

there is no "inherent right" to an abortion, I do not see it espoused in any texts, of any revolutions that had the goal of a free society. It's made up, flim flam, the imaginations of 5 of 9 unelected lawyers.

Gay marriage is another made up right, purely because 5 of 9 unelected lawyers decided to speed things up and overrrule the will of the people of several states.

and as for your last statement, I simply don't trust YOU or the government to stick to that view.

You idiots change your views on things faster than a cat in a small pet store changes his appetite.

the 2d applies to WELL-REGULATED MILITIA to defend the country (since there was no standing army at the time) and every justice until scalia knew that. but heller is what it is.... as stupid a decision as it is.

and I don't trust wingers with my rights. it's really simple. I guess it just depends on what your priorities are. of course, the difference is that no one has outlawed guns or tried to (since regulation is STILL ok even scalia said so in heller). yet, your guys routinely try to take away others' rights

The FIRST part gives the States the right to form militias. It was to prevent the federal government from claiming exclusive right to armed force. The SECOND part gives the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.

It's your side that uses the courts to crush others, not us.

In what reality do you claim the right doesn't go to court to keep gun proliferation alive?
See: DC v. Heller

A case where the law making body of a City was superseded by your side going to court.


You might - if you wanted to debate honestly - admit that efforts to deprive gays/lesbians rights, for example:

"Rulings Upholding Marriage Discrimination: In three rulings since June 2013, judges have upheld laws denying the freedom to marry to same-sex couples: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld bans in KY, MI, OH and TN; and federal judges have upheld discrimination in Louisiana and Puerto Rico. Additionally, judges in several state courts, including Tennessee and Florida, have denied respect for same-sex couples' marriages for the purpose of dissolution."

Marriage Rulings in the Courts | Freedom to Marry

2nd amendment rights are explicit. I have the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what a local government wants or desires.

The constitution is silent on the concept of marriage in general, thus it is up to the States, in particular their legislatures to determine the content of the marriage license.

You have to understand what a strict constructionist is to understand my views, you don't have to agree with it, but you have to be able to grasp the concept, something beyond most progressives on this board.

"strict constitutionists" didn't exist as a credible paradigm until rhenquist took the bench. and it wasn't an effective paradigm until scalia and his boys polluted our body of constitutional law. i'd refer you back to Marbury v Madison for a more rational and credible perspective on constitutional construction.

but I know that the wingers have been shouting this for years and have managed to infect public discourse with their propaganda.... which isn't very effective with a single judge or attorney I know... but seems to resonate with lay people.

Spot on^^^

 

[Ravi]

Are you taking idiot pills or something? The SC did NOT create gay marriage or the right to abortion. Those are inherent rights. THE USA cannot take away and inherent right without a compelling reason. There is NO compelling reason to say two same sex people can't get married, nor is there a compelling reason to say the government has the right over a woman's body.

The 2nd is an enumerated right. The only way to overturn it is a constitutional amendment.

Baby.

there is no "inherent right" to an abortion, I do not see it espoused in any texts, of any revolutions that had the goal of a free society. It's made up, flim flam, the imaginations of 5 of 9 unelected lawyers.

Gay marriage is another made up right, purely because 5 of 9 unelected lawyers decided to speed things up and overrrule the will of the people of several states.

and as for your last statement, I simply don't trust YOU or the government to stick to that view.

You idiots change your views on things faster than a cat in a small pet store changes his appetite.

the 2d applies to WELL-REGULATED MILITIA to defend the country (since there was no standing army at the time) and every justice until scalia knew that. but heller is what it is.... as stupid a decision as it is.

and I don't trust wingers with my rights. it's really simple. I guess it just depends on what your priorities are. of course, the difference is that no one has outlawed guns or tried to (since regulation is STILL ok even scalia said so in heller). yet, your guys routinely try to take away others' rights

The FIRST part gives the States the right to form militias. It was to prevent the federal government from claiming exclusive right to armed force. The SECOND part gives the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.

It's your side that uses the courts to crush others, not us.

In what reality do you claim the right doesn't go to court to keep gun proliferation alive?
See: DC v. Heller

A case where the law making body of a City was superseded by your side going to court.


You might - if you wanted to debate honestly - admit that efforts to deprive gays/lesbians rights, for example:

"Rulings Upholding Marriage Discrimination: In three rulings since June 2013, judges have upheld laws denying the freedom to marry to same-sex couples: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld bans in KY, MI, OH and TN; and federal judges have upheld discrimination in Louisiana and Puerto Rico. Additionally, judges in several state courts, including Tennessee and Florida, have denied respect for same-sex couples' marriages for the purpose of dissolution."

Marriage Rulings in the Courts | Freedom to Marry

2nd amendment rights are explicit. I have the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what a local government wants or desires.

The constitution is silent on the concept of marriage in general, thus it is up to the States, in particular their legislatures to determine the content of the marriage license.

You have to understand what a strict constructionist is to understand my views, you don't have to agree with it, but you have to be able to grasp the concept, something beyond most progressives on this board.

The concept is grasped, laughed at, and dismissed.

 

[martybegan]

Oh, Rly????

Forgot about this little gem of a decision....

Plessy v. Ferguson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What constitutional amendment did that void?

In the seven-to-one decision handed down on May 18, 1896 (Justice David Josiah Brewer did not participate because of the death of his daughter),[13] the Court rejected Plessy's arguments based on the Fourteenth Amendment, seeing no way in which the Louisiana statute violated it.[6] In addition, the majority of the Court rejected the view that the Louisiana law implied any inferiority of blacks, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, it contended that the law separated the two races as a matter of public policy.[14]

If you were Black in the South, your 14th amendment rights went into the shitter. For all intents and purposes, the 14th amendment was null and void until segregation was overturned in the 50's and 60's.

That didn't void the amendment. And it was certainly a bad ruling that took years to overturn. I'm kind of surprised that you didn't agree with the ruling, btw. States Rights! Trains Rights, blah, blah, blah.

Your surprise is not surprising, given that you have the typical progressive trait of not being able to understand views other than your own beyond "that guy dumb and evil, unga bunga".

The amendment was not enforced due to the decision, thus was null and void until corrected by legislation. Technically it was never overturned, (Brown vs. Board of Ed was about schools, not trains) but is moot due to the federal legislation that ended the practice of segregation in general.

And State rights only go as a far as the constitution allows them. As a strict constructional federalist, I do see the 14th incorporating the Bill of Rights down to the State level.

And yet somehow the 14th is still part of the constitution. It hasn't been voided and it hasn't been done away with.

Again, for a black person in segregated locations from the 1890's to the 1960's it sure as hell was.
If Hillary get her way, the 2nd will be voided in some areas of the country, depending on who is in power.

Cuomo is ITCHING to get more restrictions on guns, more so then there are now. It already costs $1000 and 3 months just to get a home pistol permit in NYC, add a complacent court and they will make it even worse.

A de facto "ban' is still a ban, and that type of infringement is as close to a ban as you can get.

 

[Dot Com]

wake up thugs, GOP bigotry has become a national punch line...

Only to assholes. But I understand it's hard to see your own asshole. Look in the mirror!

Iceweasel, forever the ladies man. Proves Repubs war on women is not dead.

 

[Ravi]

It's exactly what you did.

If the democratic party was somehow permanently marginalized, it would mean that the agenda and interests of the majority of blacks would never again be represented at the national level.

That would NOT mean that the Democratic Party is the party of Black People only.

Do you understand?

Now you're telling me that the GOP wouldn't represent the rights of black people. You are getting repetitive.

The GOP has it's ideology and agenda. It's poor showing among blacks shows that this platform is NOT that of the vast majority of blacks.

The Democratic Party's does.

Yet, I do not try to claim that the Dems are the party of Black People only.

It would not be true, and would not contribute to any debate or discussion.

Why would I try such a tact?

Oh, to just slam the dems whether it is true or not?

No, I'm not that type of person.

Who else are the GOP a party of? Hispanics? Jews? Asians? Muslims?

Americans, just like the Democrat Party.

It's people like you that are trying to Balkanize this country, making everyone run back to their own little tribe.

And if you go by the presidential candidates, the Dems are the party of old washed up white people.

What are you babbling about? I'm having a conversation with Correll here, who has stated that one, the GOP represents white people, and two, the GOP does not represent black people.

 

[martybegan]

the 2d applies to WELL-REGULATED MILITIA to defend the country (since there was no standing army at the time) and every justice until scalia knew that. but heller is what it is.... as stupid a decision as it is.

and I don't trust wingers with my rights. it's really simple. I guess it just depends on what your priorities are. of course, the difference is that no one has outlawed guns or tried to (since regulation is STILL ok even scalia said so in heller). yet, your guys routinely try to take away others' rights

The FIRST part gives the States the right to form militias. It was to prevent the federal government from claiming exclusive right to armed force. The SECOND part gives the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.

It's your side that uses the courts to crush others, not us.

In what reality do you claim the right doesn't go to court to keep gun proliferation alive?
See: DC v. Heller

A case where the law making body of a City was superseded by your side going to court.


You might - if you wanted to debate honestly - admit that efforts to deprive gays/lesbians rights, for example:

"Rulings Upholding Marriage Discrimination: In three rulings since June 2013, judges have upheld laws denying the freedom to marry to same-sex couples: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld bans in KY, MI, OH and TN; and federal judges have upheld discrimination in Louisiana and Puerto Rico. Additionally, judges in several state courts, including Tennessee and Florida, have denied respect for same-sex couples' marriages for the purpose of dissolution."

Marriage Rulings in the Courts | Freedom to Marry

2nd amendment rights are explicit. I have the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what a local government wants or desires.

The constitution is silent on the concept of marriage in general, thus it is up to the States, in particular their legislatures to determine the content of the marriage license.

You have to understand what a strict constructionist is to understand my views, you don't have to agree with it, but you have to be able to grasp the concept, something beyond most progressives on this board.

"strict constitutionists" didn't exist as a credible paradigm until rhenquist took the bench. and it wasn't an effective paradigm until scalia and his boys polluted our body of constitutional law. i'd refer you back to Marbury v Madison for a more rational and credible perspective on constitutional construction.

but I know that the wingers have been shouting this for years and have managed to infect public discourse with their propaganda.... which isn't very effective with a single judge or attorney I know... but seems to resonate with lay people.

Spot on^^^

Shortsighted and wrong.

 

[martybegan]

there is no "inherent right" to an abortion, I do not see it espoused in any texts, of any revolutions that had the goal of a free society. It's made up, flim flam, the imaginations of 5 of 9 unelected lawyers.

Gay marriage is another made up right, purely because 5 of 9 unelected lawyers decided to speed things up and overrrule the will of the people of several states.

and as for your last statement, I simply don't trust YOU or the government to stick to that view.

You idiots change your views on things faster than a cat in a small pet store changes his appetite.

the 2d applies to WELL-REGULATED MILITIA to defend the country (since there was no standing army at the time) and every justice until scalia knew that. but heller is what it is.... as stupid a decision as it is.

and I don't trust wingers with my rights. it's really simple. I guess it just depends on what your priorities are. of course, the difference is that no one has outlawed guns or tried to (since regulation is STILL ok even scalia said so in heller). yet, your guys routinely try to take away others' rights

The FIRST part gives the States the right to form militias. It was to prevent the federal government from claiming exclusive right to armed force. The SECOND part gives the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.

It's your side that uses the courts to crush others, not us.

In what reality do you claim the right doesn't go to court to keep gun proliferation alive?
See: DC v. Heller

A case where the law making body of a City was superseded by your side going to court.


You might - if you wanted to debate honestly - admit that efforts to deprive gays/lesbians rights, for example:

"Rulings Upholding Marriage Discrimination: In three rulings since June 2013, judges have upheld laws denying the freedom to marry to same-sex couples: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld bans in KY, MI, OH and TN; and federal judges have upheld discrimination in Louisiana and Puerto Rico. Additionally, judges in several state courts, including Tennessee and Florida, have denied respect for same-sex couples' marriages for the purpose of dissolution."

Marriage Rulings in the Courts | Freedom to Marry

2nd amendment rights are explicit. I have the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what a local government wants or desires.

The constitution is silent on the concept of marriage in general, thus it is up to the States, in particular their legislatures to determine the content of the marriage license.

You have to understand what a strict constructionist is to understand my views, you don't have to agree with it, but you have to be able to grasp the concept, something beyond most progressives on this board.

The concept is grasped, laughed at, and dismissed.

By drooling idiots such as yourself, yes.

It gets in the way of your use of government to punish people you don't like.

 

[Ravi]

What constitutional amendment did that void?

In the seven-to-one decision handed down on May 18, 1896 (Justice David Josiah Brewer did not participate because of the death of his daughter),[13] the Court rejected Plessy's arguments based on the Fourteenth Amendment, seeing no way in which the Louisiana statute violated it.[6] In addition, the majority of the Court rejected the view that the Louisiana law implied any inferiority of blacks, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, it contended that the law separated the two races as a matter of public policy.[14]

If you were Black in the South, your 14th amendment rights went into the shitter. For all intents and purposes, the 14th amendment was null and void until segregation was overturned in the 50's and 60's.

That didn't void the amendment. And it was certainly a bad ruling that took years to overturn. I'm kind of surprised that you didn't agree with the ruling, btw. States Rights! Trains Rights, blah, blah, blah.

Your surprise is not surprising, given that you have the typical progressive trait of not being able to understand views other than your own beyond "that guy dumb and evil, unga bunga".

The amendment was not enforced due to the decision, thus was null and void until corrected by legislation. Technically it was never overturned, (Brown vs. Board of Ed was about schools, not trains) but is moot due to the federal legislation that ended the practice of segregation in general.

And State rights only go as a far as the constitution allows them. As a strict constructional federalist, I do see the 14th incorporating the Bill of Rights down to the State level.

And yet somehow the 14th is still part of the constitution. It hasn't been voided and it hasn't been done away with.

Again, for a black person in segregated locations from the 1890's to the 1960's it sure as hell was.
If Hillary get her way, the 2nd will be voided in some areas of the country, depending on who is in power.

Cuomo is ITCHING to get more restrictions on guns, more so then there are now. It already costs $1000 and 3 months just to get a home pistol permit in NYC, add a complacent court and they will make it even worse.

A de facto "ban' is still a ban, and that type of infringement is as close to a ban as you can get.

Oh, bullshit. This is the same tired meme you trot out against any Democratic candidate. Hasn't happened yet and it will not.

 

[martybegan]

If the democratic party was somehow permanently marginalized, it would mean that the agenda and interests of the majority of blacks would never again be represented at the national level.

That would NOT mean that the Democratic Party is the party of Black People only.

Do you understand?

Now you're telling me that the GOP wouldn't represent the rights of black people. You are getting repetitive.

The GOP has it's ideology and agenda. It's poor showing among blacks shows that this platform is NOT that of the vast majority of blacks.

The Democratic Party's does.

Yet, I do not try to claim that the Dems are the party of Black People only.

It would not be true, and would not contribute to any debate or discussion.

Why would I try such a tact?

Oh, to just slam the dems whether it is true or not?

No, I'm not that type of person.

Who else are the GOP a party of? Hispanics? Jews? Asians? Muslims?

Americans, just like the Democrat Party.

It's people like you that are trying to Balkanize this country, making everyone run back to their own little tribe.

And if you go by the presidential candidates, the Dems are the party of old washed up white people.

What are you babbling about? I'm having a conversation with Correll here, who has stated that one, the GOP represents white people, and two, the GOP does not represent black people.

Jumping into the conversation and replying to your statement. Deal with it.

 

[martybegan]

If you were Black in the South, your 14th amendment rights went into the shitter. For all intents and purposes, the 14th amendment was null and void until segregation was overturned in the 50's and 60's.

That didn't void the amendment. And it was certainly a bad ruling that took years to overturn. I'm kind of surprised that you didn't agree with the ruling, btw. States Rights! Trains Rights, blah, blah, blah.

Your surprise is not surprising, given that you have the typical progressive trait of not being able to understand views other than your own beyond "that guy dumb and evil, unga bunga".

The amendment was not enforced due to the decision, thus was null and void until corrected by legislation. Technically it was never overturned, (Brown vs. Board of Ed was about schools, not trains) but is moot due to the federal legislation that ended the practice of segregation in general.

And State rights only go as a far as the constitution allows them. As a strict constructional federalist, I do see the 14th incorporating the Bill of Rights down to the State level.

And yet somehow the 14th is still part of the constitution. It hasn't been voided and it hasn't been done away with.

Again, for a black person in segregated locations from the 1890's to the 1960's it sure as hell was.
If Hillary get her way, the 2nd will be voided in some areas of the country, depending on who is in power.

Cuomo is ITCHING to get more restrictions on guns, more so then there are now. It already costs $1000 and 3 months just to get a home pistol permit in NYC, add a complacent court and they will make it even worse.

A de facto "ban' is still a ban, and that type of infringement is as close to a ban as you can get.

Oh, bullshit. This is the same tired meme you trot out against any Democratic candidate. Hasn't happened yet and it will not.

Sorry, just don't trust you or your political allies.

 

[Ravi]

the 2d applies to WELL-REGULATED MILITIA to defend the country (since there was no standing army at the time) and every justice until scalia knew that. but heller is what it is.... as stupid a decision as it is.

and I don't trust wingers with my rights. it's really simple. I guess it just depends on what your priorities are. of course, the difference is that no one has outlawed guns or tried to (since regulation is STILL ok even scalia said so in heller). yet, your guys routinely try to take away others' rights

The FIRST part gives the States the right to form militias. It was to prevent the federal government from claiming exclusive right to armed force. The SECOND part gives the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.

It's your side that uses the courts to crush others, not us.

In what reality do you claim the right doesn't go to court to keep gun proliferation alive?
See: DC v. Heller

A case where the law making body of a City was superseded by your side going to court.


You might - if you wanted to debate honestly - admit that efforts to deprive gays/lesbians rights, for example:

"Rulings Upholding Marriage Discrimination: In three rulings since June 2013, judges have upheld laws denying the freedom to marry to same-sex couples: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld bans in KY, MI, OH and TN; and federal judges have upheld discrimination in Louisiana and Puerto Rico. Additionally, judges in several state courts, including Tennessee and Florida, have denied respect for same-sex couples' marriages for the purpose of dissolution."

Marriage Rulings in the Courts | Freedom to Marry

2nd amendment rights are explicit. I have the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what a local government wants or desires.

The constitution is silent on the concept of marriage in general, thus it is up to the States, in particular their legislatures to determine the content of the marriage license.

You have to understand what a strict constructionist is to understand my views, you don't have to agree with it, but you have to be able to grasp the concept, something beyond most progressives on this board.

The concept is grasped, laughed at, and dismissed.

By drooling idiots such as yourself, yes.

It gets in the way of your use of government to punish people you don't like.

I have no desire for the government to punish people I don't like. Your problem is that you don't actually realize that strict constructionist means magical thinker.

 

[Ravi]

Now you're telling me that the GOP wouldn't represent the rights of black people. You are getting repetitive.

The GOP has it's ideology and agenda. It's poor showing among blacks shows that this platform is NOT that of the vast majority of blacks.

The Democratic Party's does.

Yet, I do not try to claim that the Dems are the party of Black People only.

It would not be true, and would not contribute to any debate or discussion.

Why would I try such a tact?

Oh, to just slam the dems whether it is true or not?

No, I'm not that type of person.

Who else are the GOP a party of? Hispanics? Jews? Asians? Muslims?

Americans, just like the Democrat Party.

It's people like you that are trying to Balkanize this country, making everyone run back to their own little tribe.

And if you go by the presidential candidates, the Dems are the party of old washed up white people.

What are you babbling about? I'm having a conversation with Correll here, who has stated that one, the GOP represents white people, and two, the GOP does not represent black people.

Jumping into the conversation and replying to your statement. Deal with it.

Then answer the question.

 

[martybegan]

The FIRST part gives the States the right to form militias. It was to prevent the federal government from claiming exclusive right to armed force. The SECOND part gives the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.

It's your side that uses the courts to crush others, not us.

In what reality do you claim the right doesn't go to court to keep gun proliferation alive?
See: DC v. Heller

A case where the law making body of a City was superseded by your side going to court.


You might - if you wanted to debate honestly - admit that efforts to deprive gays/lesbians rights, for example:

"Rulings Upholding Marriage Discrimination: In three rulings since June 2013, judges have upheld laws denying the freedom to marry to same-sex couples: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld bans in KY, MI, OH and TN; and federal judges have upheld discrimination in Louisiana and Puerto Rico. Additionally, judges in several state courts, including Tennessee and Florida, have denied respect for same-sex couples' marriages for the purpose of dissolution."

Marriage Rulings in the Courts | Freedom to Marry

2nd amendment rights are explicit. I have the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what a local government wants or desires.

The constitution is silent on the concept of marriage in general, thus it is up to the States, in particular their legislatures to determine the content of the marriage license.

You have to understand what a strict constructionist is to understand my views, you don't have to agree with it, but you have to be able to grasp the concept, something beyond most progressives on this board.

The concept is grasped, laughed at, and dismissed.

By drooling idiots such as yourself, yes.

It gets in the way of your use of government to punish people you don't like.

I have no desire for the government to punish people I don't like. Your problem is that you don't actually realize that strict constructionist means magical thinker.

You just don't understand it because you don't want to. And the only magical thinking is on your side, that uses basically an oligarchy to get what you want.

 

[martybegan]

The GOP has it's ideology and agenda. It's poor showing among blacks shows that this platform is NOT that of the vast majority of blacks.

The Democratic Party's does.

Yet, I do not try to claim that the Dems are the party of Black People only.

It would not be true, and would not contribute to any debate or discussion.

Why would I try such a tact?

Oh, to just slam the dems whether it is true or not?

No, I'm not that type of person.

Who else are the GOP a party of? Hispanics? Jews? Asians? Muslims?

Americans, just like the Democrat Party.

It's people like you that are trying to Balkanize this country, making everyone run back to their own little tribe.

And if you go by the presidential candidates, the Dems are the party of old washed up white people.

What are you babbling about? I'm having a conversation with Correll here, who has stated that one, the GOP represents white people, and two, the GOP does not represent black people.

Jumping into the conversation and replying to your statement. Deal with it.

Then answer the question.

The GOP is a party of Americans, and getting more and more diverse by the year.

 

[Correll]

If the democratic party was somehow permanently marginalized, it would mean that the agenda and interests of the majority of blacks would never again be represented at the national level.

That would NOT mean that the Democratic Party is the party of Black People only.

Do you understand?

Now you're telling me that the GOP wouldn't represent the rights of black people. You are getting repetitive.

The GOP has it's ideology and agenda. It's poor showing among blacks shows that this platform is NOT that of the vast majority of blacks.

The Democratic Party's does.

Yet, I do not try to claim that the Dems are the party of Black People only.

It would not be true, and would not contribute to any debate or discussion.

Why would I try such a tact?

Oh, to just slam the dems whether it is true or not?

No, I'm not that type of person.

Who else are the GOP a party of? Hispanics? Jews? Asians? Muslims?

Americans, just like the Democrat Party.

It's people like you that are trying to Balkanize this country, making everyone run back to their own little tribe.

And if you go by the presidential candidates, the Dems are the party of old washed up white people.

What are you babbling about? I'm having a conversation with Correll here, who has stated that one, the GOP represents white people, and two, the GOP does not represent black people.

Please stop lying about what I say.

 

[Ravi]

In what reality do you claim the right doesn't go to court to keep gun proliferation alive?
See: DC v. Heller

A case where the law making body of a City was superseded by your side going to court.


You might - if you wanted to debate honestly - admit that efforts to deprive gays/lesbians rights, for example:

"Rulings Upholding Marriage Discrimination: In three rulings since June 2013, judges have upheld laws denying the freedom to marry to same-sex couples: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld bans in KY, MI, OH and TN; and federal judges have upheld discrimination in Louisiana and Puerto Rico. Additionally, judges in several state courts, including Tennessee and Florida, have denied respect for same-sex couples' marriages for the purpose of dissolution."

Marriage Rulings in the Courts | Freedom to Marry

2nd amendment rights are explicit. I have the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what a local government wants or desires.

The constitution is silent on the concept of marriage in general, thus it is up to the States, in particular their legislatures to determine the content of the marriage license.

You have to understand what a strict constructionist is to understand my views, you don't have to agree with it, but you have to be able to grasp the concept, something beyond most progressives on this board.

The concept is grasped, laughed at, and dismissed.

By drooling idiots such as yourself, yes.

It gets in the way of your use of government to punish people you don't like.

I have no desire for the government to punish people I don't like. Your problem is that you don't actually realize that strict constructionist means magical thinker.

You just don't understand it because you don't want to. And the only magical thinking is on your side, that uses basically an oligarchy to get what you want.

lol, you're so stupid that you think those that wrote the constitution didn't make any ambiguous sentences. That's magical thinking.