Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by Rabbi, Oct 16, 2012.
You are completely ignoring the Supreme Court. We are ONE justice away from the Supreme Court ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is a collective right of the militia, not an individual right. That was the dissent in Heller.
Neither Congress nor the President has to do a damn thing. Obama just has to appoint another liberal justice and we no longer have (according to the gov't) an individual right to own or carry guns.
Based on what? SCOTUS isn't going to re-write the law, there has to be some legal challenge to it. Could it happen? Sure, but precedent play. Stare decisis has historically been a major factor in whether the courts even TAKE a case, let alone judging the outcome.
But let's suppose your assumption is right. Whoever is nominated STILL has to go through a Senate confirmation. Are you saying you lack the confidence in the Republicans in the Senate from blocking any extreme appointments?
This level of "doom and gloom" is only benefiting two groups - manufacturers and sellers. And while I think it's great for them, these fears are not grounded in how the system actually works.
Looks like the PEOPLE think that Obama LOST. . .
MSNBC's Undecided Voter Panel Swayed by Romney
Luntz Focus Group Of Mostly Former Obama Voters Switch To Romney
Why on earth would I have any confidence that a Republican minority in the Senate would block any "extreme" appointments?
They didn't block Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor or Kagan...
Any Obama appointment is going to be "extreme".
There's also been the talk of the EPA banning lead ammo and the talk of "strengthening" background checks, both of which could be done via executive order/executive fiat.
fun stuff, an old high school friend and Facebook friend mentioned something about how debates mean nothing and don't sway voters. I was not being offensive but mentioned that I thought Obama's mention of wanting another AWB would be impacting negatively on the fence sitters or independents, citing how Gore lost the Presidency when gun control was brought into the fray. Hoooo doggie, did I get jumped "did Fox news tell you that?" "you are being an a$%^%l"
I remained calm and cited my sources, as I was continually attacked and verbally assaulted by the lefties. I took personal pleasure in watching them come unraveled after all I said was that it was my opinion that there probably already was an impact and that Obama even mentioning an AWB was going to be jumped on quickly. So much for the party of equality and tolerance.
This is my point, and Ginsburg is creepin up on 100.
He only survived because the "impartial moderator" jumped to save his @ other wise Romney had him on the ropes on that one.
And on energy, loved when Obummer kept asking "needs to lay off the Candy" to move on to a new topic.
Why was that misleading debate question even allowed?
There are not a bunch of AK-47s "on the streets".
Uninformed soccer moms will take this and interpret it to mean that there is currently a glut of full-auto AKs being sold out of hot dog stands on each street corner.
Obama himself said that criminals and gangbangers don't even utilize AKs in their crimes, and admitted that his home city of Chicago (despite having among the worst records on gun rights and some of the most restrictive laws anywhere) has crimes committed by youths with handguns instead of quote-unquote "assault weapons".
I hope beyond hope that your average voter doesn't think AWB-redux has any chance of preventing mass shootings or street crime.
Obama is a real charmer. You would trade your gun rights to get another term for Obama.
Sotomayor and Kagan lied to Congress in their confirmation hearings when asked about their opinion on the 2nd Amendment RTKBA.
Once appointed, they went on to join the dissenting liberal activist judges in stating that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms.
I see that you are from Illinois and likely a union type that would gladly trade in his guns to get Obama four more years of power.
We have enough gun laws as it is, can't imagine more!
I finally had to block my own brother because I just couldn't stand the crap he was posting. I will unblock him after the election is over. It will be much better for both of us that I blocked him for now.
He actually had expressed outrage at the way Romney defined the middle class. All of my brother's left leaning friends agreed with him. When I mentioned that Obama defines the middle class the same way, not one more word was mentioned.
And I see an arrogant *** that doesn't like people believing differently than you, so you just make up stuff in your head to fit your world-view.
Yes, I'm an Illinois resident. One who has fought for years to get CCW passed - an effort being spearheaded by a down-state Democrat - and one who has worked as part of group to get the CCW issue successfully on the county ballot (along with about a half-dozen other counties just in this election alone).
I've never been a member of a union, and can't foresee that as a possibility in the future. You make general assumptions about people you know absolutely nothing about and it makes you look imbecilic. But feel free to continue to tell another American - who has all the same rights and privileges that you do - that my opinions are somehow less valid than yours. The way you regard those who disagree with you is a true measure of immaturity.
So, to recap, I have yet to see anyone explain how any new gun legislation will come into being without going through Congress, where it would have to have Republican support AND support of Democrats that want a repeat of the 1994 congressional election massacre. No one has explained how the Supreme Court is going to magically overturn themselves in less than a decade when they are to this day hesitant to overturn rulings from a hundred fifty years ago. And no one has yet responded to the fact that - in one of the most heated election cycles in a while, in a closely watched debate when every sentence is dissected to the nth degree - the President state he wanted a bill INTRODUCED, but that somehow this magically means that the paperwork is all done and ready for signatures come Nov 7th.
Instead, I get implied insults about where I live and explicit insult that I'm willing to give up hard-fought-for rights.
Glad this is a place for mature discussions.
So, you think Obama wants a new Assault Weapons Ban introduced just so he can veto it?
Did you ever vote for Obama?
No, I think he wants it introduced so that either the Senate or the House can (and will) shoot it down, but he can go back and say "Look, see, I tried!"