The special insanity of it all

[P@triot]

I love this nation. It's a nation of laws

Then why do you not only insist on trying to break the law, but also support others that promise to as well

You've sat here crowing like a rooster at how Hillary will stack the Supreme Court with political activists and usurp the Constitution by creating law from the bench (completely and totally illegal). You're not really sure which way is up at this point, are you? You contradict yourself over and over.

You're not making any sense. Hillary will stack the court with justices. Hopefully Roberts will continue to steer the court into problem solving.

If it's illegal, you should try to do something about that little man. Oh wait, you're completely impotent; just like in real life.

Clearly not too "impotent" - you can't stop coming back, bending over, and begging for more...

And again - according to you, Hillary will stack the Supreme Court with political activists with the express purpose of usurping the U.S. Constitution to create new law from the bench (which is illegal since only the legislative branch can create legislation and the Supreme Court is the judicial branch).

You are too funny to not engage in debate with Candy. You're the only one I know who says "you're not making any sense" in response to some quoting you...

 

[P@triot]

They are done sweetie. I'm the regulator. I've "regulated" and approved! Done.

Doesn't work that way, need uniforms, interoperability, commonality of mission doctrine codes etc. as always micro dick, you fail

Sweetie....none of that is in the Constitution. You don't get to make it up as you go simply because you love it in the ass so much and can't get enough of it from me....

The military leadership of the nation will decide what is well-regulated. At a bare minimum, drilling with other militias several times a year will be necessary.

Don't like it, don't join a militia.

Now where is that written? Now you're moving the responsibility of "well-regulated" from the federal government over to "military leadership"?

Sorry my dear - that doesn't exist in the Constitution. But then again, you're the one who tries to make the case that the opening of the Bill of Rights "Congress shall make no law" means that Congress is strictly forbidden from creating legislation.

Actually the 2nd refers to State militias, not federal.

Actually the 2nd Amendment clearly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

It doesn't refer to any militia other than to explain why the founders felt it imperative to ensure that the people would always have a Constitutional right to arms.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Given the Anti-Federalists agree that Article III, §2, Clause 1 was the framers intent, that the Federalists agree that Article III, §2, Clause 1 was the framers intent, that both the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists concur in their belief that Article III, §2, Clause 1 was the framers intent, that even Jefferson's letter to Madison during the ratification process agreed that the proposed Constitution was, "...the best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written" which would obviously include Article III, §2, Clause 1 of the proposed Constitution at that time defined by Federalist #78 AND that SCOTUS recognizes Article III, §2, Clause 1 stemming from Federalist #78 as authoritative regarding the Framers intent of the full scope of Judicial Review, you are in error AND you are a loser, Rot!

So to summarize - in your inability to defend your position, you just resort to copying long nonsensical posts (filled with caps and rants) in a weak and transparent attempt to cover up your inability to support your absurd position.

I've highlighted a prime example of that above. I gave a direct quote in which Thomas Jefferson clearly states that the Supreme Court was given no authority to "interpret" the Constitution itself. Your "proof" (and man am I using that term lightly here) that they are is a letter from Jefferson in which he agreed that the Constitution was "the best commentary on the principles of government which was ever written"

Um....how exactly does that refute what Jefferson said about the Supreme Court having no authority to "interpret" the Constitution itself?

Please show me anywhere in the blue quote above where Jefferson even mentions the Supreme Court, much less their authority over the Constitution. Once again, I ask you to provide proof that you own a red Lamborghini and you hold up a white bunny and go "see?". Um....no. No. Not at all. You're white bunny does not prove at all that you own a red Lamborghini.

You've had your ass handed to you in a big way with facts and your response to that reality is to ramble on for 10 pages about stuff that has nothing to do with the issue and the copy and paste that over and over in hopes that by crafting a massive post, nobody will take the time to read it and realize you don't have a clue what you're talking about. So again....please show me anywhere in the blue quote above where Jefferson even mentions the Supreme Court, much less their authority over the Constitution??? Every time I've asked you for something very simple you haven't even attempted it because you know it glaringly illustrates your ignorance.

I don't have to show you anything more than what is summarized in the conclusion at this point and you already did that by reposting it, from where you snatched it. But it is there as the subject of that very clause; "...Article III, §2, Clause 1 of the proposed Constitution at that time defined by Federalist #78...". One need only be able to read, comprehend and then evaluate that post as a whole rather than by drips and drabs as a grammar school child would. If you like, remove that and read the conclusion again without that part. That small bit re: Jefferson was nothing more than part of the multiple comparisons specifically placed for my own reasons. The conclusion would still stand on its own and you would still have that hook in your mouth.

If you would acknowledge the totality of what I wrote you wouldn't be presenting another strawman...or NOT. If you don't see the absolute contradiction, or wish to acknowledge it more likely, between the two quotes from the two Jefferson letters 32 years apart, then you're just dancing the jitterbug again. The conclusion ties it all together, but you don't even wish to mention or acknowledge it because that would be a tacit admission of your misconception, and you cannot muster the courage to admit your error, you coward!

 

[candycorn]

Hopefully it will address the gun violence that people like you sweare we can do nothing about except inject more guns into the system.

Well, I realize based on all of your previous posts that you eschew all facts, reason, and reality for emotional ideology but let's try to look at this logically anyway...ok?

Places that have NEVER experienced a mass shooting:

The White House (Secret Service heavily armed with fully automatic weapons)
NRA meetings (every one heavily armed - some with fully automatic weapons)
Police Departments (everyone heavily armed)

Places that consistently experience mass shootings:

Public Schools (where guns are strictly banned)
Universities (where guns are strictly banned)
Businesses (where guns are strictly banned)
Only movie theaters that ban guns (never at one's that don't)

It is a very special kind of stupid where one is unable to see a pattern. Wherever we "injection more guns into the system" - complete and total peace and security reign. Wherever we ban guns (like you want to do), mass shootings and horrific murders occur.

(Pssst.....you just got crushed my dear. Please quit while you're ahead)

And in nations that don't have the 2nd Amendment...mass shootings almost never occur.

I win. But then again, what else is new???

So you consider mass shootings under your way of "almost never occurring" a better system than under my way in which they literally never occur?

Yes folks....this is the idiocy that is liberalism summed up nicely. I'd rather encounter a few mass shootings than no mass shootings so long as my ideology is implemented.

You do "win". If more mass shootings and a higher body count is the objective (as it clearly is for you), I don't deny it at all. You win. And you'll win every time. Of course, when it comes to death - most people would prefer to score it like golf. The person who can devise systems with the lowest number of deaths is the champion. But you've already proven on this thread that you don't think rationally or reasonably so none of this surprises me.

Another idiot post by Rottweiller...we'll just add that to the collection.

 

[candycorn]

I love this nation. It's a nation of laws

Then why do you not only insist on trying to break the law, but also support others that promise to as well

You've sat here crowing like a rooster at how Hillary will stack the Supreme Court with political activists and usurp the Constitution by creating law from the bench (completely and totally illegal). You're not really sure which way is up at this point, are you? You contradict yourself over and over.

You're not making any sense. Hillary will stack the court with justices. Hopefully Roberts will continue to steer the court into problem solving.

If it's illegal, you should try to do something about that little man. Oh wait, you're completely impotent; just like in real life.

Clearly not too "impotent" - you can't stop coming back, bending over, and begging for more...

And again - according to you, Hillary will stack the Supreme Court with political activists with the express purpose of usurping the U.S. Constitution to create new law from the bench (which is illegal since only the legislative branch can create legislation and the Supreme Court is the judicial branch).

You are too funny to not engage in debate with Candy. You're the only one I know who says "you're not making any sense" in response to some quoting you...

She'll appoint justices. Try to stop her....

 

[P@triot]

Hopefully it will address the gun violence that people like you sweare we can do nothing about except inject more guns into the system.

Well, I realize based on all of your previous posts that you eschew all facts, reason, and reality for emotional ideology but let's try to look at this logically anyway...ok?

Places that have NEVER experienced a mass shooting:

The White House (Secret Service heavily armed with fully automatic weapons)
NRA meetings (every one heavily armed - some with fully automatic weapons)
Police Departments (everyone heavily armed)

Places that consistently experience mass shootings:

Public Schools (where guns are strictly banned)
Universities (where guns are strictly banned)
Businesses (where guns are strictly banned)
Only movie theaters that ban guns (never at one's that don't)

It is a very special kind of stupid where one is unable to see a pattern. Wherever we "injection more guns into the system" - complete and total peace and security reign. Wherever we ban guns (like you want to do), mass shootings and horrific murders occur.

(Pssst.....you just got crushed my dear. Please quit while you're ahead)

And in nations that don't have the 2nd Amendment...mass shootings almost never occur.

I win. But then again, what else is new???

So you consider mass shootings under your way of "almost never occurring" a better system than under my way in which they literally never occur?

Yes folks....this is the idiocy that is liberalism summed up nicely. I'd rather encounter a few mass shootings than no mass shootings so long as my ideology is implemented.

You do "win". If more mass shootings and a higher body count is the objective (as it clearly is for you), I don't deny it at all. You win. And you'll win every time. Of course, when it comes to death - most people would prefer to score it like golf. The person who can devise systems with the lowest number of deaths is the champion. But you've already proven on this thread that you don't think rationally or reasonably so none of this surprises me.

Another idiot post by Rottweiller...we'll just add that to the collection.

In other words "I can't dispute one thing he said intelligently, so I'll just resort to personal attacks". Got it!

 

[P@triot]

I love this nation. It's a nation of laws

Then why do you not only insist on trying to break the law, but also support others that promise to as well

You've sat here crowing like a rooster at how Hillary will stack the Supreme Court with political activists and usurp the Constitution by creating law from the bench (completely and totally illegal). You're not really sure which way is up at this point, are you? You contradict yourself over and over.

You're not making any sense. Hillary will stack the court with justices. Hopefully Roberts will continue to steer the court into problem solving.

If it's illegal, you should try to do something about that little man. Oh wait, you're completely impotent; just like in real life.

Clearly not too "impotent" - you can't stop coming back, bending over, and begging for more...

And again - according to you, Hillary will stack the Supreme Court with political activists with the express purpose of usurping the U.S. Constitution to create new law from the bench (which is illegal since only the legislative branch can create legislation and the Supreme Court is the judicial branch).

You are too funny to not engage in debate with Candy. You're the only one I know who says "you're not making any sense" in response to some quoting you...

She'll appoint justices. Try to stop her....

I don't have to. The Democrats stopped her in 2008 when they elected an unknown Kenyan-born Senator because they hate Hillary. They will stop her for me again. And if they don't, Trump is going to have a field day with her (kind of like I've had with you).

Incidentally, I notice how you really want to avoid discussing your obsession with bypassing the American people and bypassing Congress to get your agenda implement as "law" from the judicial branch when the judicial branch is not permitted to create law.

You continue to prove how much you hate the Constitution and this country (because it prevents you from imposing your will on others). If freedom is too scary for you sweetie, find another country. If those big, bad guns have you sooooo rattled, there are plenty of socialist nations where the population has been disarmed. Go live in your "utopia".

 

[P@triot]

Given the Anti-Federalists agree that Article III, §2, Clause 1 was the framers intent, that the Federalists agree that Article III, §2, Clause 1 was the framers intent, that both the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists concur in their belief that Article III, §2, Clause 1 was the framers intent, that even Jefferson's letter to Madison during the ratification process agreed that the proposed Constitution was, "...the best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written" which would obviously include Article III, §2, Clause 1 of the proposed Constitution at that time defined by Federalist #78 AND that SCOTUS recognizes Article III, §2, Clause 1 stemming from Federalist #78 as authoritative regarding the Framers intent of the full scope of Judicial Review, you are in error AND you are a loser, Rot!

So to summarize - in your inability to defend your position, you just resort to copying long nonsensical posts (filled with caps and rants) in a weak and transparent attempt to cover up your inability to support your absurd position.

I've highlighted a prime example of that above. I gave a direct quote in which Thomas Jefferson clearly states that the Supreme Court was given no authority to "interpret" the Constitution itself. Your "proof" (and man am I using that term lightly here) that they are is a letter from Jefferson in which he agreed that the Constitution was "the best commentary on the principles of government which was ever written"

Um....how exactly does that refute what Jefferson said about the Supreme Court having no authority to "interpret" the Constitution itself?

Please show me anywhere in the blue quote above where Jefferson even mentions the Supreme Court, much less their authority over the Constitution. Once again, I ask you to provide proof that you own a red Lamborghini and you hold up a white bunny and go "see?". Um....no. No. Not at all. You're white bunny does not prove at all that you own a red Lamborghini.

You've had your ass handed to you in a big way with facts and your response to that reality is to ramble on for 10 pages about stuff that has nothing to do with the issue and the copy and paste that over and over in hopes that by crafting a massive post, nobody will take the time to read it and realize you don't have a clue what you're talking about. So again....please show me anywhere in the blue quote above where Jefferson even mentions the Supreme Court, much less their authority over the Constitution??? Every time I've asked you for something very simple you haven't even attempted it because you know it glaringly illustrates your ignorance.

I don't have to show you anything more than what is summarized in the conclusion at this point and you already did that by reposting it, from where you snatched it. But it is there as the subject of that very clause; "...Article III, §2, Clause 1 of the proposed Constitution at that time defined by Federalist #78...". One need only be able to read, comprehend and then evaluate that post as a whole rather than by drips and drabs as a grammar school child would. If you like, remove that and read the conclusion again without that part. That small bit re: Jefferson was nothing more than part of the multiple comparisons specifically placed for my own reasons. The conclusion would still stand on its own and you would still have that hook in your mouth.

If you would acknowledge the totality of what I wrote you wouldn't be presenting another strawman...or NOT. If you don't see the absolute contradiction, or wish to acknowledge it more likely, between the two quotes from the two Jefferson letters 32 years apart, then you're just dancing the jitterbug again. The conclusion ties it all together, but you don't even wish to mention or acknowledge it because that would be a tacit admission of your misconception, and you cannot muster the courage to admit your error, you coward!

"I don't have to show you anything". Yeah - that is certainly the response of someone who has been owned in a debate. Thank you for admitting you got your ass handed to you with facts because you've never read the U.S. Constitution. To recap:

• You can't show me where in the U.S. Constitution it grants the Supreme Court the power to "interpret" the Constitution itself
• You can't show me anything Thomas Jefferson said that contradicts his quotes that the Supreme Court in fact does not have that authority
• You refuse to answer simple questions because it illustrates that you're dead wrong
• You try to cover all of that up with foul language, rambling on about stuff that has nothing to do with the discussion, and lots of caps.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Given the Anti-Federalists agree that Article III, §2, Clause 1 was the framers intent, that the Federalists agree that Article III, §2, Clause 1 was the framers intent, that both the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists concur in their belief that Article III, §2, Clause 1 was the framers intent, that even Jefferson's letter to Madison during the ratification process agreed that the proposed Constitution was, "...the best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written" which would obviously include Article III, §2, Clause 1 of the proposed Constitution at that time defined by Federalist #78 AND that SCOTUS recognizes Article III, §2, Clause 1 stemming from Federalist #78 as authoritative regarding the Framers intent of the full scope of Judicial Review, you are in error AND you are a loser, Rot!

So to summarize - in your inability to defend your position, you just resort to copying long nonsensical posts (filled with caps and rants) in a weak and transparent attempt to cover up your inability to support your absurd position.

I've highlighted a prime example of that above. I gave a direct quote in which Thomas Jefferson clearly states that the Supreme Court was given no authority to "interpret" the Constitution itself. Your "proof" (and man am I using that term lightly here) that they are is a letter from Jefferson in which he agreed that the Constitution was "the best commentary on the principles of government which was ever written"

Um....how exactly does that refute what Jefferson said about the Supreme Court having no authority to "interpret" the Constitution itself?

Please show me anywhere in the blue quote above where Jefferson even mentions the Supreme Court, much less their authority over the Constitution. Once again, I ask you to provide proof that you own a red Lamborghini and you hold up a white bunny and go "see?". Um....no. No. Not at all. You're white bunny does not prove at all that you own a red Lamborghini.

You've had your ass handed to you in a big way with facts and your response to that reality is to ramble on for 10 pages about stuff that has nothing to do with the issue and the copy and paste that over and over in hopes that by crafting a massive post, nobody will take the time to read it and realize you don't have a clue what you're talking about. So again....please show me anywhere in the blue quote above where Jefferson even mentions the Supreme Court, much less their authority over the Constitution??? Every time I've asked you for something very simple you haven't even attempted it because you know it glaringly illustrates your ignorance.

I don't have to show you anything more than what is summarized in the conclusion at this point and you already did that by reposting it, from where you snatched it. But it is there as the subject of that very clause; "...Article III, §2, Clause 1 of the proposed Constitution at that time defined by Federalist #78...". One need only be able to read, comprehend and then evaluate that post as a whole rather than by drips and drabs as a grammar school child would. If you like, remove that and read the conclusion again without that part. That small bit re: Jefferson was nothing more than part of the multiple comparisons specifically placed for my own reasons. The conclusion would still stand on its own and you would still have that hook in your mouth.

If you would acknowledge the totality of what I wrote you wouldn't be presenting another strawman...or NOT. If you don't see the absolute contradiction, or wish to acknowledge it more likely, between the two quotes from the two Jefferson letters 32 years apart, then you're just dancing the jitterbug again. The conclusion ties it all together, but you don't even wish to mention or acknowledge it because that would be a tacit admission of your misconception, and you cannot muster the courage to admit your error, you coward!

"I don't have to show you anything". Yeah - that is certainly the response of someone who has been owned in a debate. Thank you for admitting you got your ass handed to you with facts because you've never read the U.S. Constitution. To recap:

• You can't show me where in the U.S. Constitution it grants the Supreme Court the power to "interpret" the Constitution itself
• You can't show me anything Thomas Jefferson said that contradicts his quotes that the Supreme Court in fact does not have that authority
• You refuse to answer simple questions because it illustrates that you're dead wrong
• You try to cover all of that up with foul language, rambling on about stuff that has nothing to do with the discussion, and lots of caps.

What facts did you provide? NADA! All you wrote were your unsubstantiated opinions. <EDIT> I note in your lead in that you purposefully MISQUOTED what I said to change the context. That goes directly to your character and displays your dishonest bent!

You can't show me where in the U.S. Constitution it grants the Supreme Court the power to "interpret" the Constitution itself

Can you show me in the Constitution where the FAA or the Air Force is authorized? How about the concept of "separate but equal" (Plessy v. Fergus) or integration of schools (Brown v. Board of Ed.) which overturned Plessy (Judicial Review & SCOTUS constitutional interpretation in both cases), or how about the authorization to build the Interstate Highway system rather than simple post roads, or how about the National Park System, or how about a broad plethora of other subjects that can't be found in the Constitution because that Document is nothing more than a framework and not a grocery list of infinite length and breadth. Your suggestion that the Constitution should be a laundry list is an inane suggestion displaying your lack of knowledge and prejudices.

You can't show me anything Thomas Jefferson said that contradicts his quotes that the Supreme Court in fact does not have that authority

I already did and he wrote that to Madison 32 years prior and during the ratification process! Jefferson said of the Constitution that it was "...the best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written" and the Constitution includes Article III, §2, Clause 1, the very source of Judicial Review. You're just too damn dishonest and irresponsible to accept it.

You refuse to answer simple questions because it illustrates that you're dead wrong

I answered your supercilious questions in my own way given your "questions" were, indeed, supercilious in nature. You're just pissed off that I wasn't playing along with your little game; I'm a little to experienced to fall for your grammar school rhetorical games.

You try to cover all of that up with foul language, rambling on about stuff that has nothing to do with the discussion, and lots of caps.

Sure, attack my writing style dealing with a dishonest braggart because it's so very germaine to the subject at hand; you bloody hypocrite! There's that canted logic of yours again. Grow up child!

You have failed to prove your assertions. You have provided ONLY your unsupported opinions. You are a loser in more ways than that though! Life is a Bitch, then you die! Live and die with that, lad!

OH, and thank you for playing!

 

[candycorn]

I love this nation. It's a nation of laws

Then why do you not only insist on trying to break the law, but also support others that promise to as well

You've sat here crowing like a rooster at how Hillary will stack the Supreme Court with political activists and usurp the Constitution by creating law from the bench (completely and totally illegal). You're not really sure which way is up at this point, are you? You contradict yourself over and over.

You're not making any sense. Hillary will stack the court with justices. Hopefully Roberts will continue to steer the court into problem solving.

If it's illegal, you should try to do something about that little man. Oh wait, you're completely impotent; just like in real life.

Clearly not too "impotent" - you can't stop coming back, bending over, and begging for more...

And again - according to you, Hillary will stack the Supreme Court with political activists with the express purpose of usurping the U.S. Constitution to create new law from the bench (which is illegal since only the legislative branch can create legislation and the Supreme Court is the judicial branch).

You are too funny to not engage in debate with Candy. You're the only one I know who says "you're not making any sense" in response to some quoting you...

She'll appoint justices. Try to stop her....

I don't have to. The Democrats stopped her in 2008 when they elected an unknown Kenyan-born Senator because they hate Hillary. They will stop her for me again. And if they don't, Trump is going to have a field day with her (kind of like I've had with you).

Incidentally, I notice how you really want to avoid discussing your obsession with bypassing the American people and bypassing Congress to get your agenda implement as "law" from the judicial branch when the judicial branch is not permitted to create law.

You continue to prove how much you hate the Constitution and this country (because it prevents you from imposing your will on others). If freedom is too scary for you sweetie, find another country. If those big, bad guns have you sooooo rattled, there are plenty of socialist nations where the population has been disarmed. Go live in your "utopia".

Hopefully it will address the gun violence that people like you sweare we can do nothing about except inject more guns into the system.

Well, I realize based on all of your previous posts that you eschew all facts, reason, and reality for emotional ideology but let's try to look at this logically anyway...ok?

Places that have NEVER experienced a mass shooting:

The White House (Secret Service heavily armed with fully automatic weapons)
NRA meetings (every one heavily armed - some with fully automatic weapons)
Police Departments (everyone heavily armed)

Places that consistently experience mass shootings:

Public Schools (where guns are strictly banned)
Universities (where guns are strictly banned)
Businesses (where guns are strictly banned)
Only movie theaters that ban guns (never at one's that don't)

It is a very special kind of stupid where one is unable to see a pattern. Wherever we "injection more guns into the system" - complete and total peace and security reign. Wherever we ban guns (like you want to do), mass shootings and horrific murders occur.

(Pssst.....you just got crushed my dear. Please quit while you're ahead)

And in nations that don't have the 2nd Amendment...mass shootings almost never occur.

I win. But then again, what else is new???

So you consider mass shootings under your way of "almost never occurring" a better system than under my way in which they literally never occur?

Yes folks....this is the idiocy that is liberalism summed up nicely. I'd rather encounter a few mass shootings than no mass shootings so long as my ideology is implemented.

You do "win". If more mass shootings and a higher body count is the objective (as it clearly is for you), I don't deny it at all. You win. And you'll win every time. Of course, when it comes to death - most people would prefer to score it like golf. The person who can devise systems with the lowest number of deaths is the champion. But you've already proven on this thread that you don't think rationally or reasonably so none of this surprises me.

Another idiot post by Rottweiller...we'll just add that to the collection.

In other words "I can't dispute one thing he said intelligently, so I'll just resort to personal attacks". Got it!

You’re the one who states that a word in the constitution was never used by the framers…you have zero intelligence. And it’s become tiresome kicking your ass all around the message board. You’ve got to do a better job entertaining me boy…now get to work.

 

[P@triot]

Then why do you not only insist on trying to break the law, but also support others that promise to as well

You've sat here crowing like a rooster at how Hillary will stack the Supreme Court with political activists and usurp the Constitution by creating law from the bench (completely and totally illegal). You're not really sure which way is up at this point, are you? You contradict yourself over and over.

You're not making any sense. Hillary will stack the court with justices. Hopefully Roberts will continue to steer the court into problem solving.

If it's illegal, you should try to do something about that little man. Oh wait, you're completely impotent; just like in real life.

Clearly not too "impotent" - you can't stop coming back, bending over, and begging for more...

And again - according to you, Hillary will stack the Supreme Court with political activists with the express purpose of usurping the U.S. Constitution to create new law from the bench (which is illegal since only the legislative branch can create legislation and the Supreme Court is the judicial branch).

You are too funny to not engage in debate with Candy. You're the only one I know who says "you're not making any sense" in response to some quoting you...

She'll appoint justices. Try to stop her....

I don't have to. The Democrats stopped her in 2008 when they elected an unknown Kenyan-born Senator because they hate Hillary. They will stop her for me again. And if they don't, Trump is going to have a field day with her (kind of like I've had with you).

Incidentally, I notice how you really want to avoid discussing your obsession with bypassing the American people and bypassing Congress to get your agenda implement as "law" from the judicial branch when the judicial branch is not permitted to create law.

You continue to prove how much you hate the Constitution and this country (because it prevents you from imposing your will on others). If freedom is too scary for you sweetie, find another country. If those big, bad guns have you sooooo rattled, there are plenty of socialist nations where the population has been disarmed. Go live in your "utopia".

Well, I realize based on all of your previous posts that you eschew all facts, reason, and reality for emotional ideology but let's try to look at this logically anyway...ok?

Places that have NEVER experienced a mass shooting:

The White House (Secret Service heavily armed with fully automatic weapons)
NRA meetings (every one heavily armed - some with fully automatic weapons)
Police Departments (everyone heavily armed)

Places that consistently experience mass shootings:

Public Schools (where guns are strictly banned)
Universities (where guns are strictly banned)
Businesses (where guns are strictly banned)
Only movie theaters that ban guns (never at one's that don't)

It is a very special kind of stupid where one is unable to see a pattern. Wherever we "injection more guns into the system" - complete and total peace and security reign. Wherever we ban guns (like you want to do), mass shootings and horrific murders occur.

(Pssst.....you just got crushed my dear. Please quit while you're ahead)

And in nations that don't have the 2nd Amendment...mass shootings almost never occur.

I win. But then again, what else is new???

So you consider mass shootings under your way of "almost never occurring" a better system than under my way in which they literally never occur?

Yes folks....this is the idiocy that is liberalism summed up nicely. I'd rather encounter a few mass shootings than no mass shootings so long as my ideology is implemented.

You do "win". If more mass shootings and a higher body count is the objective (as it clearly is for you), I don't deny it at all. You win. And you'll win every time. Of course, when it comes to death - most people would prefer to score it like golf. The person who can devise systems with the lowest number of deaths is the champion. But you've already proven on this thread that you don't think rationally or reasonably so none of this surprises me.

Another idiot post by Rottweiller...we'll just add that to the collection.

In other words "I can't dispute one thing he said intelligently, so I'll just resort to personal attacks". Got it!

You’re the one who states that a word in the constitution was never used by the framers…you have zero intelligence. And it’s become tiresome kicking your ass all around the message board. You’ve got to do a better job entertaining me boy…now get to work.

It's adorable watching you try so hard to convince yourself that you really believe what you're saying. Kind of like when a toddler works really hard to walk for the first time and they are getting so frustrated.

But here's the thing - I've already provided documentation from the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and our founders. All of which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are 100% wrong (which you already know of course, hence the reason you keep talking about Hillary stacking the Supreme Court with political activists so that you can bypass the Constitution and Congress) and that I was 100% right. Thank for playing though Candy. It was fun educating you and all of your liberals friends. I think each of you learned something for once (though I'm sure all of you will deny what you learned).

 

[candycorn]

Try hard? I haven’t posted on this thread in days. Thanks for another reason to laugh at you. As for whatever else was in your post (I’ve quit paying attention—you’re scantly worth it—the amendment still says “well regulated militia”….get one of those and we’ll talk.

 

[P@triot]

Try hard? I haven’t posted on this thread in days. Thanks for another reason to laugh at you. As for whatever else was in your post (I’ve quit paying attention—you’re scantly worth it—the amendment still says “well regulated militia”….get one of those and we’ll talk.

It does! And then it follows that up with "the right of the people". The right belongs to the people. Again, this is like your position that since the Bill of Rights open with "Congress shall make no laws" you believe Congress shall make no laws. You stop reading when it's convenient to you.

Now lets test your reading comprehension again (maybe it's improved?). Who does the right belong to? (Hint: it doesn't say "militia" even though you want it to)

 

[P@triot]

Try hard? I haven’t posted on this thread in days. Thanks for another reason to laugh at you. As for whatever else was in your post (I’ve quit paying attention—you’re scantly worth it—the amendment still says “well regulated militia”….get one of those and we’ll talk.

Oh are you going to have a complete and total melt down on this one....

Here's the thing too - since the Constitution already establishes the people's inalienable right to keep and bear arm's, Trump won't even need Congress to do this. Thirty seconds into his first term he could simply sign an Executive Order making it so!



Trump Calls for Nationwide Concealed Carry - Page 2 of 2 - Truth And Action

 

[candycorn]

Try hard? I haven’t posted on this thread in days. Thanks for another reason to laugh at you. As for whatever else was in your post (I’ve quit paying attention—you’re scantly worth it—the amendment still says “well regulated militia”….get one of those and we’ll talk.

Oh are you going to have a complete and total melt down on this one....

Here's the thing too - since the Constitution already establishes the people's inalienable right to keep and bear arm's, Trump won't even need Congress to do this. Thirty seconds into his first term he could simply sign an Executive Order making it so!



Trump Calls for Nationwide Concealed Carry - Page 2 of 2 - Truth And Action

Even funnier.
Will that be before or after he outlaws dark skin to be within his veiw?

 

[P@triot]

Try hard? I haven’t posted on this thread in days. Thanks for another reason to laugh at you. As for whatever else was in your post (I’ve quit paying attention—you’re scantly worth it—the amendment still says “well regulated militia”….get one of those and we’ll talk.

Oh are you going to have a complete and total melt down on this one....

Here's the thing too - since the Constitution already establishes the people's inalienable right to keep and bear arm's, Trump won't even need Congress to do this. Thirty seconds into his first term he could simply sign an Executive Order making it so!



Trump Calls for Nationwide Concealed Carry - Page 2 of 2 - Truth And Action

Even funnier.
Will that be before or after he outlaws dark skin to be within his veiw?

Probably before.... But just remember - when he does "outlaw dark skin from his view" - it was your side that got him elected.

 

[candycorn]

Try hard? I haven’t posted on this thread in days. Thanks for another reason to laugh at you. As for whatever else was in your post (I’ve quit paying attention—you’re scantly worth it—the amendment still says “well regulated militia”….get one of those and we’ll talk.

Oh are you going to have a complete and total melt down on this one....

Here's the thing too - since the Constitution already establishes the people's inalienable right to keep and bear arm's, Trump won't even need Congress to do this. Thirty seconds into his first term he could simply sign an Executive Order making it so!



Trump Calls for Nationwide Concealed Carry - Page 2 of 2 - Truth And Action

Even funnier.
Will that be before or after he outlaws dark skin to be within his veiw?

Probably before.... But just remember - when he does "outlaw dark skin from his view" - it was your side that got him elected.

Well, it's just good to see your "principles" don't mean shit.

Obama (the black man) issues EOs, you're against every one.
Trump (the white man) threatens to issue an EO that violates every State's rights (which was the excuse you used to use to oppose Obama) to pas their own laws; you cheer.

We always knew you were a racist piece of shit.
Thanks for proving it.

 

[P@triot]

Try hard? I haven’t posted on this thread in days. Thanks for another reason to laugh at you. As for whatever else was in your post (I’ve quit paying attention—you’re scantly worth it—the amendment still says “well regulated militia”….get one of those and we’ll talk.

Oh are you going to have a complete and total melt down on this one....

Here's the thing too - since the Constitution already establishes the people's inalienable right to keep and bear arm's, Trump won't even need Congress to do this. Thirty seconds into his first term he could simply sign an Executive Order making it so!



Trump Calls for Nationwide Concealed Carry - Page 2 of 2 - Truth And Action

Even funnier.
Will that be before or after he outlaws dark skin to be within his veiw?

Probably before.... But just remember - when he does "outlaw dark skin from his view" - it was your side that got him elected.

Well, it's just good to see your "principles" don't mean shit.

Obama (the black man) issues EOs, you're against every one.
Trump (the white man) threatens to issue an EO that violates every State's rights (which was the excuse you used to use to oppose Obama) to pas their own laws; you cheer.

We always knew you were a racist piece of shit.
Thanks for proving it.

Yeah....uh.....I have zero problem with any president issuing a legal Executive Order. See, the 2nd Amendment makes firearms legal through already. And that is exactly what an Executive Order is for - for the president to instruct members of the executive branch to carry out laws that already exist. Not to create laws or alter laws.

So thank you for proving you're a typical liberal piece of shit. Screaming "racist" because you're ignorant and too closed minded to understand.

 

[P@triot]

Well, it's just good to see your "principles" don't mean shit.

Obama (the black man) issues EOs, you're against every one.
Trump (the white man) threatens to issue an EO that violates every State's rights (which was the excuse you used to use to oppose Obama) to pas their own laws; you cheer.

We always knew you were a racist piece of shit.
Thanks for proving it.

Being that you're incredibly ignorant of the U.S. Constitution, I guess I should clarify this for you. See, the Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution as the highest law in the land. It "trumps" (pun intended) any state law or local ordinance.

And the Constitution (as we've already established) guarantees the people the right to keep and bear arms. No state can deny that right (though they've tried), no county can deny that right (though they've tried), no city can deny that right (though they've tried).

So Donald Trump would be well within his rights to issue an Executive Order mandating conceal carry across the entire United States. Now, if he tried to issue an order banning firearms - that would be unconstitutional. Just like it was unconstitutional when Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum effectively granting amnesty. See, we have laws on the book against illegal immigration and Obama, as head of the executive branch, must enforce those laws whether he likes them or not.

 

[P@triot]

Try hard? I haven’t posted on this thread in days. Thanks for another reason to laugh at you. As for whatever else was in your post (I’ve quit paying attention—you’re scantly worth it—the amendment still says “well regulated militia”….get one of those and we’ll talk.

Thank God for this woman's sake that the American people ignore your lies about the U.S. Constitution. If you had it your way, she would've been raped and murdered because she is not a member of a "militia". And her attacker had a knife, so he would have been legal under your oppressive, authoritarian position. But hey - why do you care that she's a victim of a brutal rape and murder? Knowing you, it probably gets you off. The left has been waging a horrific war on women for decades. Your "disarm them and force them to be a victim" position is just the latest step in your war on women.

Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded