Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
scalia moves between legitimate STATE POLICE POWERS to illegitimate dishonest FEDERAL Intrusions based on the bogus commerce clause expansion because he knows that federal regulation is improper.Right here:Why not? I think you're entitled to the same weapons as the average foot soldier.
Really? You think soldiers are exempt from background checks when they obtain the eligibility to those military weapons?
WTF does that have to do with anything SFB?
Because these nuts are fighting to preserve background check loopholes, and some of them even believe that background checks themselves are unconstitutional.
They are unconstitutional. Where does the Constitution state the government can impose requirements to buy a gun? The 2nd amendment states quite clearly that it can't impose requirements.
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
The Constitution authorizes government to enact restrictions, requirements, and impositions to purchasing a firearm.
Person to person is not a commercial sale.
Wait a minute.....\The part about a well regulated militia.WTF does that have to do with anything SFB?
Because these nuts are fighting to preserve background check loopholes, and some of them even believe that background checks themselves are unconstitutional.
They are unconstitutional. Where does the Constitution state the government can impose requirements to buy a gun? The 2nd amendment states quite clearly that it can't impose requirements.
The government needs to know who has guns and what type in order to regulate a militia.
You support the second amendment don't you?
NOt even the most rabid gun hater has advanced that argument
given that the government now supplies weapons to those in the national guard-your cranium in rectum derived argument has no merit whatsoever
You mean we shouldn't take the constitution literally?
Wait a minute.....\The part about a well regulated militia.WTF does that have to do with anything SFB?
Because these nuts are fighting to preserve background check loopholes, and some of them even believe that background checks themselves are unconstitutional.
They are unconstitutional. Where does the Constitution state the government can impose requirements to buy a gun? The 2nd amendment states quite clearly that it can't impose requirements.
The government needs to know who has guns and what type in order to regulate a militia.
You support the second amendment don't you?
NOt even the most rabid gun hater has advanced that argument
given that the government now supplies weapons to those in the national guard-your cranium in rectum derived argument has no merit whatsoever
You mean we shouldn't take the constitution literally?
Ah yes the defense of this nation excuse.In post 9-11 America, no senator had the balls to vote against something called the Patriot actYou mean like repugs pushing the patriot act?
Really!
When the United States Senate voted on the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001,the vote was 98-1 with one abstention. That meansonly one senator voted against it.
98 Senators allowed their fears to be used to encourage them to vote for terrible legislation. One Senator had enough sense to not vote for terrible legislation based on fear.
What was your point? Fear sells. Well yes it does.
98 Senators had the good sense to vote for a bill that provides the means to protect the American homeland. I had no idea that two posters on USMB are smarter that all 98 Senators. Live and learn, then again..............
This was used at the time. I certainly hope you don't mind the NSA watching you like they are now
Oh the nothing to hide excuse... I love it, all the golden oldies from 2002. You are part of the problem, and they are watching you.Ah yes the defense of this nation excuse.In post 9-11 America, no senator had the balls to vote against something called the Patriot actReally!
When the United States Senate voted on the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001,the vote was 98-1 with one abstention. That meansonly one senator voted against it.
98 Senators allowed their fears to be used to encourage them to vote for terrible legislation. One Senator had enough sense to not vote for terrible legislation based on fear.
What was your point? Fear sells. Well yes it does.
98 Senators had the good sense to vote for a bill that provides the means to protect the American homeland. I had no idea that two posters on USMB are smarter that all 98 Senators. Live and learn, then again..............
This was used at the time. I certainly hope you don't mind the NSA watching you like they are now
I wonder if they were watching Lois Lerner and the IRS. Since I have nothing to hide, I doubt seriously that they are 'watching' me.
Perhaps you should ask any of the 98 Senators that voted for the Patriot Act the reason they voted for it. They probably don't consider protecting the homeland an excuse.Ah yes the defense of this nation excuse.In post 9-11 America, no senator had the balls to vote against something called the Patriot actYou mean like repugs pushing the patriot act?
Really!
When the United States Senate voted on the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001,the vote was 98-1 with one abstention. That meansonly one senator voted against it.
98 Senators allowed their fears to be used to encourage them to vote for terrible legislation. One Senator had enough sense to not vote for terrible legislation based on fear.
What was your point? Fear sells. Well yes it does.
98 Senators had the good sense to vote for a bill that provides the means to protect the American homeland. I had no idea that two posters on USMB are smarter that all 98 Senators. Live and learn, then again..............
This was used at the time. I certainly hope you don't mind the NSA watching you like they are now
Oooo the
Oh the nothing to hide excuse... I love it, all the golden oldies from 2002. You are part of the problem, and they are watching you.Ah yes the defense of this nation excuse.In post 9-11 America, no senator had the balls to vote against something called the Patriot act98 Senators allowed their fears to be used to encourage them to vote for terrible legislation. One Senator had enough sense to not vote for terrible legislation based on fear.
What was your point? Fear sells. Well yes it does.
98 Senators had the good sense to vote for a bill that provides the means to protect the American homeland. I had no idea that two posters on USMB are smarter that all 98 Senators. Live and learn, then again..............
This was used at the time. I certainly hope you don't mind the NSA watching you like they are now
I wonder if they were watching Lois Lerner and the IRS. Since I have nothing to hide, I doubt seriously that they are 'watching' me.
Power, fear, stupidity of the public.Perhaps you should ask any of the 98 Senators that voted for the Patriot Act the reason they voted for it. They probably don't consider protecting the homeland an excuse.Ah yes the defense of this nation excuse.In post 9-11 America, no senator had the balls to vote against something called the Patriot actReally!
When the United States Senate voted on the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001,the vote was 98-1 with one abstention. That meansonly one senator voted against it.
98 Senators allowed their fears to be used to encourage them to vote for terrible legislation. One Senator had enough sense to not vote for terrible legislation based on fear.
What was your point? Fear sells. Well yes it does.
98 Senators had the good sense to vote for a bill that provides the means to protect the American homeland. I had no idea that two posters on USMB are smarter that all 98 Senators. Live and learn, then again..............
This was used at the time. I certainly hope you don't mind the NSA watching you like they are now
They are watching everyone you twit.Oooo the
Oh the nothing to hide excuse... I love it, all the golden oldies from 2002. You are part of the problem, and they are watching you.Ah yes the defense of this nation excuse.In post 9-11 America, no senator had the balls to vote against something called the Patriot act
98 Senators had the good sense to vote for a bill that provides the means to protect the American homeland. I had no idea that two posters on USMB are smarter that all 98 Senators. Live and learn, then again..............
This was used at the time. I certainly hope you don't mind the NSA watching you like they are now
I wonder if they were watching Lois Lerner and the IRS. Since I have nothing to hide, I doubt seriously that they are 'watching' me.
I suggest they may be watching an anti-American pissant like you.
If anyone wants to see the ad itself here it is:
That's in the OP article already. And Giffords is nowhere in it.
Nor does any one of them say, imply or even vaguely hint at "taking ourpacifiersguns away".
Fucking children. No shit.
Nobody said she was. Or can prove we did ?
Or are you saying she didn't start the PAC that is running that ads ?
And nobody said she was trying to take our guns away. Asshole.
What was said in the article is that she is running ads against candidates who don't agree with her and that the ads are half-truths.
You are a dick.
There ain't nothing in the source material about the Second Amendment. What you have is a blogger article (not a news artcile) suggesting that "arguably" the other candidates ad "makes the case" for "excercising" Second Amendment rights. And you ran with it as if it were a real thing. You ain't the brightest bulb in the light tower obviously.
Here's one of the "takeaway" points:
No it isn't dickweed.
Rape does not bring constitutional liberties into question and use emotion to try and take them away.
Is there a reason you can't think with more than two brainscells ?
I just love the spelling of "brainscells" considering the context. Again not a lotta watts in that filament. See also post 113:
Why would anyone call Gabby Giffords a SLIMEWAD? That's not in the OP article.
Really ?
You need someone to explain it to you ?
If she persists in assaulting the 2nd, I'll be calling her a whole lot worse.
she's a typical progressive/Democrat who uses her injuries to beat people over the head with. and when she came out and blamed Sarah Palin that right there was the last respect or care I had about her
she's a slimy leftie/dem/commie
.... link?
... quote?
Anything? Or just making it up?
The woman was shot. In the head. And you want to twist it into "she was asking for it"? Really?
This is where this blind partisanship bullshit takes you, folks.
If anyone wants to see the ad itself here it is:
That's in the OP article already. And Giffords is nowhere in it.
Nor does any one of them say, imply or even vaguely hint at "taking ourpacifiersguns away".
Fucking children. No shit.
Nobody said she was. Or can prove we did ?
Or are you saying she didn't start the PAC that is running that ads ?
And nobody said she was trying to take our guns away. Asshole.
What was said in the article is that she is running ads against candidates who don't agree with her and that the ads are half-truths.
You are a dick.
There ain't nothing in the source material about the Second Amendment. What you have is a blogger article (not a news artcile) suggesting that "arguably" the other candidates ad "makes the case" for "excercising" Second Amendment rights. And you ran with it as if it were a real thing. You ain't the brightest bulb in the light tower obviously.
Here's one of the "takeaway" points:
No it isn't dickweed.
Rape does not bring constitutional liberties into question and use emotion to try and take them away.
Is there a reason you can't think with more than two brainscells ?
I just love the spelling of "brainscells" considering the context. Again not a lotta watts in that filament. See also post 113:
Why would anyone call Gabby Giffords a SLIMEWAD? That's not in the OP article.
Really ?
You need someone to explain it to you ?
If she persists in assaulting the 2nd, I'll be calling her a whole lot worse.
Right;
She's talking about abortion.
Blather all you want.
she's a typical progressive/Democrat who uses her injuries to beat people over the head with. and when she came out and blamed Sarah Palin that right there was the last respect or care I had about her
she's a slimy leftie/dem/commie
.... link?
... quote?
Anything? Or just making it up?
The woman was shot. In the head. And you want to twist it into "she was asking for it"? Really?
This is where this blind partisanship bullshit takes you, folks.
I see nothing in the post you quoted about "asking for it".
Well, it was bound to happen.
Giffords is now utilizing her elevated position and all the sympathy she can muster to run ads against those who support the constitution.
Go figure.
She was never that good before and obviously isn't getting any better.
STFU Gabby.
Mad Gabby Former Congresswoman Unleashes Nasty Ads Against Pro-Second Amendment Candidates - Matt Vespa
Holy shit, can you imagine it? Gabby Giffords supporting real background checks on people before they buy a gun, so that insane mother fuckers can't just buy a gun. Unfortunately it's a bit late for that, because we have millions of insane idiots in possession of all sorts of firearms already. You idiots on the right are so concerned that the boogie man is going to take your guns away that you don't give a shit who can buy a gun, even if that person may end up using it to kill you or one of your family.
Hey asswipe.....
This has little to do with guns.
It has to do with a former congresswoman (and not a very good one at that) playing on the sympathies of others to fund a pac which is openly engaged in political lying....not at all for the purposes of gun control.
So you're now admitting that your OP and all those posts you made to that effect had their collective proverbial head up its ass? After pissing away bandwidth denying just that?
Having it both ways: Priceless.
Well, it was bound to happen.
Giffords is now utilizing her elevated position and all the sympathy she can muster to run ads against those who support the constitution.
Go figure.
She was never that good before and obviously isn't getting any better.
STFU Gabby.
Mad Gabby Former Congresswoman Unleashes Nasty Ads Against Pro-Second Amendment Candidates - Matt Vespa
Holy shit, can you imagine it? Gabby Giffords supporting real background checks on people before they buy a gun, so that insane mother fuckers can't just buy a gun. Unfortunately it's a bit late for that, because we have millions of insane idiots in possession of all sorts of firearms already. You idiots on the right are so concerned that the boogie man is going to take your guns away that you don't give a shit who can buy a gun, even if that person may end up using it to kill you or one of your family.
Hey asswipe.....
This has little to do with guns.
It has to do with a former congresswoman (and not a very good one at that) playing on the sympathies of others to fund a pac which is openly engaged in political lying....not at all for the purposes of gun control.
So you're now admitting that your OP and all those posts you made to that effect had their collective proverbial head up its ass? After pissing away bandwidth denying just that?
Having it both ways: Priceless.
Oh, the irony of the last line of this post.
Your overall contribution makes no sense (but I am not surprized). Only schills use this kind of twisted verbage in an effort to come off looking like they actually have something worthwhile to stay.
she's a typical progressive/Democrat who uses her injuries to beat people over the head with. and when she came out and blamed Sarah Palin that right there was the last respect or care I had about her
she's a slimy leftie/dem/commie
.... link?
... quote?
Anything? Or just making it up?
The woman was shot. In the head. And you want to twist it into "she was asking for it"? Really?
This is where this blind partisanship bullshit takes you, folks.
I see nothing in the post you quoted about "asking for it".
Don't worry your pointy little head over it. There's a lot you don't see even in your own posts.
.Maybe you'd better figure those out first.
Thanks for pointing out that you can't produce it, yet you'll whine about it anyway.
We take you seriously...why ? That's right....we don't.
Sorry shit for brainsHey Shit for brains. civilian police officers routinely have 30 round magazines. other civilians have just as much a reason for them as civilian copsGiven that no gun related legislation will ever be "sensible" to NRA bots, I fully expect what your response will beA woman who nearly had her brains blown out is a fraud for wanting sensible gun controls
Do you guys ever get tired of looking like idiots?
As a liberal you insult the intelligence of normal people every time you speak, but does this grave offense against dignity warrant you being denied the right to speak?
I didn't do anything to Gabbie Giffords, so why do you feel it proper to strip me of my rights? Should you have your free speech rights stripped from you when Obama says something stupid?
RW should define "sensible" before he starts playing with the 2nd Amendment rights of others. How would he like it if we started violating his constitutional rights because of how we felt? He would be objecting just the same. Liberals look to rule based on emotion, not on facts.
But let's look at what Gabby Giffords considers to be sensible
We don't want crazies getting guns. If we don't check their background, we can't verify if they are a criminal or nutjob
There is no "sensible" reason you need a 30 round magazine
criminals won't buy from someone who is going to do a background check. Dopers don't buy dope with prescriptions either moron
You are not entitled to the same weapons as cops
Well, it was bound to happen.
Giffords is now utilizing her elevated position and all the sympathy she can muster to run ads against those who support the constitution.
Go figure.
She was never that good before and obviously isn't getting any better.
STFU Gabby.
Mad Gabby Former Congresswoman Unleashes Nasty Ads Against Pro-Second Amendment Candidates - Matt Vespa
Holy shit, can you imagine it? Gabby Giffords supporting real background checks on people before they buy a gun, so that insane mother fuckers can't just buy a gun. Unfortunately it's a bit late for that, because we have millions of insane idiots in possession of all sorts of firearms already. You idiots on the right are so concerned that the boogie man is going to take your guns away that you don't give a shit who can buy a gun, even if that person may end up using it to kill you or one of your family.
Hey asswipe.....
This has little to do with guns.
It has to do with a former congresswoman (and not a very good one at that) playing on the sympathies of others to fund a pac which is openly engaged in political lying....not at all for the purposes of gun control.
So you're now admitting that your OP and all those posts you made to that effect had their collective proverbial head up its ass? After pissing away bandwidth denying just that?
Having it both ways: Priceless.
Oh, the irony of the last line of this post.
Your overall contribution makes no sense (but I am not surprized). Only schills use this kind of twisted verbage in an effort to come off looking like they actually have something worthwhile to stay.
she's a typical progressive/Democrat who uses her injuries to beat people over the head with. and when she came out and blamed Sarah Palin that right there was the last respect or care I had about her
she's a slimy leftie/dem/commie
.... link?
... quote?
Anything? Or just making it up?
The woman was shot. In the head. And you want to twist it into "she was asking for it"? Really?
This is where this blind partisanship bullshit takes you, folks.
I see nothing in the post you quoted about "asking for it".
Don't worry your pointy little head over it. There's a lot you don't see even in your own posts.
.Maybe you'd better figure those out first.
Thanks for pointing out that you can't produce it, yet you'll whine about it anyway.
We take you seriously...why ? That's right....we don't.
Clearly the meaning is over your head, so as I said, don't strain yer brain. That's why I posted it to Stephanie -- she's at least intelligent enough to figure it out. So again -- you worry about your own drivel.
"Being shot in the head will do what ?
Cause you to take a personal tragedy and play it up for political clout ? "
"political clout" like being a senator?
a lunatic with a gun took that clout away from her but now she's just "playing it up" ??
talk about twisted slime...
Holy shit, can you imagine it? Gabby Giffords supporting real background checks on people before they buy a gun, so that insane mother fuckers can't just buy a gun. Unfortunately it's a bit late for that, because we have millions of insane idiots in possession of all sorts of firearms already. You idiots on the right are so concerned that the boogie man is going to take your guns away that you don't give a shit who can buy a gun, even if that person may end up using it to kill you or one of your family.
Hey asswipe.....
This has little to do with guns.
It has to do with a former congresswoman (and not a very good one at that) playing on the sympathies of others to fund a pac which is openly engaged in political lying....not at all for the purposes of gun control.
So you're now admitting that your OP and all those posts you made to that effect had their collective proverbial head up its ass? After pissing away bandwidth denying just that?
Having it both ways: Priceless.
Oh, the irony of the last line of this post.
Your overall contribution makes no sense (but I am not surprized). Only schills use this kind of twisted verbage in an effort to come off looking like they actually have something worthwhile to stay.
.... link?
... quote?
Anything? Or just making it up?
The woman was shot. In the head. And you want to twist it into "she was asking for it"? Really?
This is where this blind partisanship bullshit takes you, folks.
I see nothing in the post you quoted about "asking for it".
Don't worry your pointy little head over it. There's a lot you don't see even in your own posts.
.Maybe you'd better figure those out first.
Thanks for pointing out that you can't produce it, yet you'll whine about it anyway.
We take you seriously...why ? That's right....we don't.
Clearly the meaning is over your head, so as I said, don't strain yer brain. That's why I posted it to Stephanie -- she's at least intelligent enough to figure it out. So again -- you worry about your own drivel.
What is clear is that you've got nothing behind you. Keep it up. Everyone suspected you were a moron.
Now they know.
