OtherGround Forum >> Obama plans aim to gut 2nd Amendment

419 - So it's not a waste of time to discuss whether this back-and-forth consists of barbs, but it would be a waste of time for you to briefly explain where there is wiggle room in Miller's 'ordinary military equipment in common use' language?

419 - Says the guy who is white knighting for his political party.

419 - Do you get paid extra to have the last word?

nat turner - Living under laws made 100's of years ago! Going by the common logic here, it shouldn't be an issue to drive your kid to school in a tank. Pathetic!
The luddites need to to stop dragging the country back into the dark ages ,and try and take a hint from the tragedy at Sandy hook ffs! Anyone that still arguing about banning the guns in question (which are not all guns from what i remember) are on crack simple as that.

Do you have a problem with the "laws" against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to free speech, free press, or preventing Congress from passing laws establishing religion?  

Or is it just the "laws" from 100s of years ago with which you disagree that you think are outdated?  

Trust -

nat turner - Living under laws made 100's of years ago! Going by the common logic here, it shouldn't be an issue to drive your kid to school in a tank. Pathetic!
The luddites need to to stop dragging the country back into the dark ages ,and try and take a hint from the tragedy at Sandy hook ffs! Anyone that still arguing about banning the guns in question (which are not all guns from what i remember) are on crack simple as that.

Do you have a problem with the "laws" against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to free speech, free press, or preventing Congress from passing laws establishing religion?  

Or is it just the "laws" from 100s of years ago with which you disagree that you think are outdated?  

kuruptz -

Trust -

nat turner - Living under laws made 100's of years ago! Going by the common logic here, it shouldn't be an issue to drive your kid to school in a tank. Pathetic!
The luddites need to to stop dragging the country back into the dark ages ,and try and take a hint from the tragedy at Sandy hook ffs! Anyone that still arguing about banning the guns in question (which are not all guns from what i remember) are on crack simple as that.

Do you have a problem with the "laws" against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to free speech, free press, or preventing Congress from passing laws establishing religion?  

Or is it just the "laws" from 100s of years ago with which you disagree that you think are outdated?  

.

jzspanky - 

kuruptz -

Trust -

nat turner - Living under laws made 100's of years ago! Going by the common logic here, it shouldn't be an issue to drive your kid to school in a tank. Pathetic!
The luddites need to to stop dragging the country back into the dark ages ,and try and take a hint from the tragedy at Sandy hook ffs! Anyone that still arguing about banning the guns in question (which are not all guns from what i remember) are on crack simple as that.
 

Do you have a problem with the "laws" against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to free speech, free press, or preventing Congress from passing laws establishing religion?  

Or is it just the "laws" from 100s of years ago with which you disagree that you think are outdated?  

.

Things change. False equivalences are unbecoming. There was a time when only white landowners could vote. Aren't you happy that "evolved"?

So you haven't read the 13th, 15h, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments to the Constitution?  

Ah yes, you CAN change the Constitution.  

There's nothing false about comparing one section of the Constitution to another; you don't get to pick and chose what you think is outdated and what's not, that is fallacious reasoning.  There is a means to change the Constitution; if you don't like it, change it.  It's been done 17 times since it was ratified, including once when it repealed a prior amendment, so there's even precedent for correcting mistakes through the process.   

Trust -

jzspanky - 

kuruptz -

Trust -

nat turner - Living under laws made 100's of years ago! Going by the common logic here, it shouldn't be an issue to drive your kid to school in a tank. Pathetic!
The luddites need to to stop dragging the country back into the dark ages ,and try and take a hint from the tragedy at Sandy hook ffs! Anyone that still arguing about banning the guns in question (which are not all guns from what i remember) are on crack simple as that.

Do you have a problem with the "laws" against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to free speech, free press, or preventing Congress from passing laws establishing religion?  

Or is it just the "laws" from 100s of years ago with which you disagree that you think are outdated?  

.

Things change. False equivalences are unbecoming. There was a time when only white landowners could vote. Aren't you happy that "evolved"?

So you haven't read the 13th, 19th, and 26th amendments to the Constitution?  

Ah yes, you CAN change the Constitution.  

There's nothing false about comparing one section of the Constitution to another; you don't get to pick and chose what you think is outdated and what's not, that is fallacious reasoning.  There is a means to change the Constitution; if you don't like it, change it.  It's been done 17 times since it was ratified, including once when it repealed a prior amendment, so there's even precedent for correcting mistakes through the process.   

jzspanky - 

Trust -

jzspanky - 

kuruptz -

Trust -

nat turner - Living under laws made 100's of years ago! Going by the common logic here, it shouldn't be an issue to drive your kid to school in a tank. Pathetic!
The luddites need to to stop dragging the country back into the dark ages ,and try and take a hint from the tragedy at Sandy hook ffs! Anyone that still arguing about banning the guns in question (which are not all guns from what i remember) are on crack simple as that.

Do you have a problem with the "laws" against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to free speech, free press, or preventing Congress from passing laws establishing religion?  

Or is it just the "laws" from 100s of years ago with which you disagree that you think are outdated?  

.

Things change. False equivalences are unbecoming. There was a time when only white landowners could vote. Aren't you happy that "evolved"?

So you haven't read the 13th, 19th, and 26th amendments to the Constitution?  

Ah yes, you CAN change the Constitution.  

There's nothing false about comparing one section of the Constitution to another; you don't get to pick and chose what you think is outdated and what's not, that is fallacious reasoning.  There is a means to change the Constitution; if you don't like it, change it.  It's been done 17 times since it was ratified, including once when it repealed a prior amendment, so there's even precedent for correcting mistakes through the process.   

It's true. The document evolves.

 Saying the document "evolves" implies change happens on its own, spontaneously.  It has been changed intentionally, using the proper process.  People misuse that word "evolve" all the time.   It doesn't evolve, and it isn't proper to re-interpret it just because time has passed. If you don't like what it says, then change it using the process prescribed in the document itself.  We've done a great job with free speech, despite changes in technology that were unthinkable to the Founders.  To suggest we should discard with that level of deference in regard to other sections of the Constitution because they are just as old as the First amendment is patently absurd.  

Trust -

jzspanky - 

Trust -

jzspanky - 

kuruptz -

Trust -

nat turner - Living under laws made 100's of years ago! Going by the common logic here, it shouldn't be an issue to drive your kid to school in a tank. Pathetic!
The luddites need to to stop dragging the country back into the dark ages ,and try and take a hint from the tragedy at Sandy hook ffs! Anyone that still arguing about banning the guns in question (which are not all guns from what i remember) are on crack simple as that.

Do you have a problem with the "laws" against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to free speech, free press, or preventing Congress from passing laws establishing religion?  

Or is it just the "laws" from 100s of years ago with which you disagree that you think are outdated?  

.

Things change. False equivalences are unbecoming. There was a time when only white landowners could vote. Aren't you happy that "evolved"?

So you haven't read the 13th, 19th, and 26th amendments to the Constitution?  

Ah yes, you CAN change the Constitution.  

There's nothing false about comparing one section of the Constitution to another; you don't get to pick and chose what you think is outdated and what's not, that is fallacious reasoning.  There is a means to change the Constitution; if you don't like it, change it.  It's been done 17 times since it was ratified, including once when it repealed a prior amendment, so there's even precedent for correcting mistakes through the process.   

It's true. The document evolves.

 Saying the document "evolves" implies change happens on its own, spontaneously.  It has been changed intentionally, using the proper process.  People misuse that word "evolve" all the time.   It doesn't evolve, and it isn't proper to re-interpret it just because time has passed. If you don't like what it says, then change it using the process prescribed in the document itself.  We've done a great job with free speech, despite changes in technology that were unthinkable to the Founders.  To suggest we should discard with that level of deference in regard to other sections of the Constitution because they are just as old as the First amendment is patently absurd.  

 

 

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH REGISTERING FIREARMS.  

419 - United States v. Miller wasn't the result of NRA lobbying. Put away your talking points and have a real conversation.

419 - Does your employment contract forbid you from discussing certain topics?

Broder - I am not registering jack shit. I am not giving up jack shit. If they ban magazines over 10 rounds I will manufacture my own. Fuck the Government.

419 - Do I need to explain state action doctrine to you?

jzspanky - 

419 - United States v. Miller wasn't the result of NRA lobbying. Put away your talking points and have a real conversation.

I believe we did. The president did what he could do. Congress will do what they can do. Then the courts will do what they do. It's really an easy process.

White347LX -

jzspanky - 

419 - United States v. Miller wasn't the result of NRA lobbying. Put away your talking points and have a real conversation.

I believe we did. The president did what he could do. Congress will do what they can do. Then the courts will do what they do. It's really an easy process.

I would like to agree with you but every once in a while we get the perfect storm of politicians either ignorant or indifferent to their voters' will, and a odd Supreme Court decision to saddle the US taxpayers with some BS like obamacare.

I *hope* congress has learned its lesson after 2010 that voters will replace their congresspeople if they blatantly ignore their will. I hope.