Why the liberals are lossing the debate about guns.

[Quantum Windbag]

The key word above being 'effectively'.

Why don't you list those laws?

When SCOTUS flat out said an income tax was unconstitutional Congress found a way to get one anyway, didn't they?

The income tax is constitutional. What the fuck are you talking about?

I am proving you are wrong about the Supreme Court being the final authority on everything.

Income tax is constitutional because of the 16th Amendment. Before then it was unconstitutional because the Constitution specifically forbids direct taxation unless they are apportioned according to the population of the states in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. The Supreme Court was happy to point this out to Congress in 1895.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Posse Comitatus, moron. The 'government' ordering the military to operate INSIDE the US is un-Constitutional.

Oh, that's right, FUCK the Constitution!!

Apparantly you are prepared to ignore the Constitutional authority of the Supreme Court to determine what laws are constitutional, and what laws are not, so don't be getting all self rightous about your protecting the Constituion. Your position is, in fact, trampling on it.

The Constitution never gave the 9 whores in DC that power. Not too knowledgable on our Founding, our Founders or the Constitution huh? My advice, try reading the Document, then read the words and correspondences of our Founders to see their intent, then look to Madison vs Marbury, which is when the whores in the court usurped the power Constitutionally given to the people, as represented by the House, and took it for themselves. Never in a million years would the Founders have envisioned a time in this nation where ONE MAN would dictate that 280,000,000 free citizens MUST purchase a service from a private company or be punished by fines, never.

Sorry, jt, but it really is this simple:

Congress passes laws
The excutive branch enforces and implements those laws
The Supreme Court rules on the constitionality of those laws. The mere fact that the Supreme Court renders a decision that a law is Consitutional, MAKES that law Constititional.Or, at least that is what they taught me at the South Texas College of Law, in Houston, TX. Of course, if your legal credentuals trump their's, I could be wrong. For example, if you are a Harvard Law school graduate, with citations, I would conceed the point.


http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0774837.html


"Judicial Branch

The judicial branch oversees the court system of the U.S. Through court cases, the judicial branch explains the meaning of the Constitution and laws passed by Congress. The Supreme Court is the head of the judicial branch. Unlike a criminal court, the Supreme Court rules whether something is constitutional or unconstitutional—whether or not it is permitted under the Constitution. On the Supreme Court there are nine justices, or judges: eight associate justices and one chief justice. The judges are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate. They have no term limits. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. Its decisions are final, and no other court can overrule those decisions. Decisions of the Supreme Court set precedents—new ways of interpreting the law."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Apparantly you are prepared to ignore the Constitutional authority of the Supreme Court to determine what laws are constitutional, and what laws are not, so don't be getting all self rightous about your protecting the Constituion. Your position is, in fact, trampling on it.

The Constitution never gave the 9 whores in DC that power. Not too knowledgable on our Founding, our Founders or the Constitution huh? My advice, try reading the Document, then read the words and correspondences of our Founders to see their intent, then look to Madison vs Marbury, which is when the whores in the court usurped the power Constitutionally given to the people, as represented by the House, and took it for themselves. Never in a million years would the Founders have envisioned a time in this nation where ONE MAN would dictate that 280,000,000 free citizens MUST purchase a service from a private company or be punished by fines, never.

Sorry, jt, but it really is this simple:

Congress passes laws
The excutive branch enforces and implements those laws
The Supreme Court rules on the constitionality of those laws. The mere fact that the Supreme Court renders a decision that a law is Consitutional, MAKES that law Constititional.Or, at least that is what they taught me at the South Texas College of Law, in Houston, TX. Of course, if your legal credentuals trump their's, I could be wrong. For example, if you are a Harvard Law school graduate, with citations, I would conceed the point.

That sounds like what they taught me in third grade about how the government works. It ignored a lot of things because, frankly, when i was in third grade I didn't care about it, and didn't understand anything beyond going home so I could watch Dark Shadows on TV. Since that time I have learned the world is a little more complex than I was originally taught, maybe you will learn the same thing one day.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The Constitution never gave the 9 whores in DC that power. Not too knowledgable on our Founding, our Founders or the Constitution huh? My advice, try reading the Document, then read the words and correspondences of our Founders to see their intent, then look to Madison vs Marbury, which is when the whores in the court usurped the power Constitutionally given to the people, as represented by the House, and took it for themselves. Never in a million years would the Founders have envisioned a time in this nation where ONE MAN would dictate that 280,000,000 free citizens MUST purchase a service from a private company or be punished by fines, never.

Sorry, jt, but it really is this simple:

Congress passes laws
The excutive branch enforces and implements those laws
The Supreme Court rules on the constitionality of those laws. The mere fact that the Supreme Court renders a decision that a law is Consitutional, MAKES that law Constititional.Or, at least that is what they taught me at the South Texas College of Law, in Houston, TX. Of course, if your legal credentuals trump their's, I could be wrong. For example, if you are a Harvard Law school graduate, with citations, I would conceed the point.

That sounds like what they taught me in third grade about how the government works. It ignored a lot of things because, frankly, when i was in third grade I didn't care about it, and didn't understand anything beyond going home so I could watch Dark Shadows on TV. Since that time I have learned the world is a little more complex than I was originally taught, maybe you will learn the same thing one day.

If you are arguing that decisions of the Suoreme Court are unconstituional, then you are argueing that the Constitution itself, is unconstituional. That being the case, I suspect that it is you who should return to school, not me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sorry, jt, but it really is this simple:

Congress passes laws
The excutive branch enforces and implements those laws
The Supreme Court rules on the constitionality of those laws. The mere fact that the Supreme Court renders a decision that a law is Consitutional, MAKES that law Constititional.Or, at least that is what they taught me at the South Texas College of Law, in Houston, TX. Of course, if your legal credentuals trump their's, I could be wrong. For example, if you are a Harvard Law school graduate, with citations, I would conceed the point.

That sounds like what they taught me in third grade about how the government works. It ignored a lot of things because, frankly, when i was in third grade I didn't care about it, and didn't understand anything beyond going home so I could watch Dark Shadows on TV. Since that time I have learned the world is a little more complex than I was originally taught, maybe you will learn the same thing one day.

If you are arguing that decisions of the Suoreme Court are unconstituional, then you are argueing that the Constitution itself, is unconstituional. That being the case, I suspect that it is you who should return to school, not me.

let me give you an example of why you are incredibly stupid. After the Civil War Congress passed an amendment that prohibited the states from abusing the civil rights of anyone, even former slaves. After the amendment was ratified the Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, said that it did not apply to the states, and that Congress did not have the authority to enforce the amendment, even though they clearly did. If life actually worked the way you believe that would have been the end of the discussion, yet we eventually got the court to admit it was wrong about that by repeatedly passing laws, and enforcing them without passing another amendment that said the same.

Can Supreme Court decisions be unconstitutional? Of course they can, they are human, and are free to ignore the Constitution if they chose. Does that mean that the Constitution is unconstitutional? Only if you inist that the Suprme Court is actually the Constitution.

 

[jtpr312]

Apparantly you are prepared to ignore the Constitutional authority of the Supreme Court to determine what laws are constitutional, and what laws are not, so don't be getting all self rightous about your protecting the Constituion. Your position is, in fact, trampling on it.

The Constitution never gave the 9 whores in DC that power. Not too knowledgable on our Founding, our Founders or the Constitution huh? My advice, try reading the Document, then read the words and correspondences of our Founders to see their intent, then look to Madison vs Marbury, which is when the whores in the court usurped the power Constitutionally given to the people, as represented by the House, and took it for themselves. Never in a million years would the Founders have envisioned a time in this nation where ONE MAN would dictate that 280,000,000 free citizens MUST purchase a service from a private company or be punished by fines, never.

So I guess when the whores in the Supreme Court overturned the Chicago handgun ban in 2010, they were using a 'usurped' power that the founders never intended them to have?

lol, so the handgun ban should have went into effect unencumbered by the whores of SCOTUS.

Think before you post.

No need to think about it, the handgun ban, like the 9 whores vote on it, where BOTH un-Constitutional. The Constitution did NOT give the supreme court the power to decide if something is Un-Constitutional. They took that power upon themselves in Marbury vs Madison and nobody stopped them. The Founders NEVER gave the supreme court that power and as a matter of fact some wrote that for them to have that power would lead this nation to destruction and lead to crap like ONE man making law for 280,000,000 million citizens as was the case with the scumbag Roberts. Anyone who thinks this was the intent of the Founders has obviously zero knowledge of what the Founders said.

 

[jtpr312]

Apparantly you are prepared to ignore the Constitutional authority of the Supreme Court to determine what laws are constitutional, and what laws are not, so don't be getting all self rightous about your protecting the Constituion. Your position is, in fact, trampling on it.

The Constitution never gave the 9 whores in DC that power. Not too knowledgable on our Founding, our Founders or the Constitution huh? My advice, try reading the Document, then read the words and correspondences of our Founders to see their intent, then look to Madison vs Marbury, which is when the whores in the court usurped the power Constitutionally given to the people, as represented by the House, and took it for themselves. Never in a million years would the Founders have envisioned a time in this nation where ONE MAN would dictate that 280,000,000 free citizens MUST purchase a service from a private company or be punished by fines, never.

Sorry, jt, but it really is this simple:

Congress passes laws
The excutive branch enforces and implements those laws
The Supreme Court rules on the constitionality of those laws. The mere fact that the Supreme Court renders a decision that a law is Consitutional, MAKES that law Constititional.Or, at least that is what they taught me at the South Texas College of Law, in Houston, TX. Of course, if your legal credentuals trump their's, I could be wrong. For example, if you are a Harvard Law school graduate, with citations, I would conceed the point.


http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0774837.html


"Judicial Branch

The judicial branch oversees the court system of the U.S. Through court cases, the judicial branch explains the meaning of the Constitution and laws passed by Congress. The Supreme Court is the head of the judicial branch. Unlike a criminal court, the Supreme Court rules whether something is constitutional or unconstitutional—whether or not it is permitted under the Constitution. On the Supreme Court there are nine justices, or judges: eight associate justices and one chief justice. The judges are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate. They have no term limits. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. Its decisions are final, and no other court can overrule those decisions. Decisions of the Supreme Court set precedents—new ways of interpreting the law."

It's not that simple. Not only doesn't the Constitution give the 9 whores that power, many Founders actually wrote extensively on why that power should never be given to them. Try reading up on Marbury vs Madison, then read up on the words of the Founders regarding the supreme court, then get back to me. It's obvious that you have allowed the PS education system to be your primary source of education, meaning you're ignorant on many things and brainwashed left on so many more things.

 

[Samson]

I suggest everyone read this in its entirety. If I could I would quote it entirely and force every gun control nut to read it every day before they go to bed. It is, by far, the single best exposure of the hypocrisy built into the gun control position you will ever read.

Or, How I Learned To Stop Caring.
By way of introduction, I'd like to explain some of my former positions. Please do not reply and tell me why I'm wrong. That's not relevant to this post. These WERE my positions, for right or wrong.
I used to believe women had a right to reproductive choice. As a male, I will obviously never have an abortion. I supported access because birth control is cheaper than abortions, abortions are cheaper than welfare, welfare is cheaper than jail. And I don't believe the government is capable of legislating for every circumstance. Most of the time, a woman and her doctor will make a decision that works for the situation, and until a baby is an independent organism, it's a parasite. This was also important to me because my wife was warned that a further pregnancy could kill her. That's been surgically remedied and is no longer a problem.
I used to believe gays were entitled to relate as they wished, including marriage. What two people do together doesn't affect me unless I'm one of them.
I used to believe it was wrong to treat people differently based on their skin color. Even if a few people fit a stereotype, millions of others do not.
I used to believe there should be a strong division between church and state, that any support of a religious entity using property of the state constituted endorsement and was wrong.
I used to believe people had a right to protest, campaign, rant and create non-violent incidents to express themselves and their positions. I also believed they had a right to publish as they chose. I believed they were entitled to burn the Flag in protest, to make a statement.
I have obviously been at odds with conservatives over these positions. There have been loud arguments, heated discussions and occasional insults.

Every fucking asshole that supports restricting guns should be taken into a back room at the jail and beaten with a rubber hose just to remind them about why rights for everyone matter.

I'm not sure what "hypocrisy" you're talking about. All I see is a tantrum.

I see it as a smokescreen to divert attention from the 800 lb Gorilla: Obama's Sequester and rapidly deteriorating economic news: $4.00/gallon gas and climbing......

 

[Vandalshandle]

The Constitution never gave the 9 whores in DC that power. Not too knowledgable on our Founding, our Founders or the Constitution huh? My advice, try reading the Document, then read the words and correspondences of our Founders to see their intent, then look to Madison vs Marbury, which is when the whores in the court usurped the power Constitutionally given to the people, as represented by the House, and took it for themselves. Never in a million years would the Founders have envisioned a time in this nation where ONE MAN would dictate that 280,000,000 free citizens MUST purchase a service from a private company or be punished by fines, never.

Sorry, jt, but it really is this simple:

Congress passes laws
The excutive branch enforces and implements those laws
The Supreme Court rules on the constitionality of those laws. The mere fact that the Supreme Court renders a decision that a law is Consitutional, MAKES that law Constititional.Or, at least that is what they taught me at the South Texas College of Law, in Houston, TX. Of course, if your legal credentuals trump their's, I could be wrong. For example, if you are a Harvard Law school graduate, with citations, I would conceed the point.


http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0774837.html


"Judicial Branch

The judicial branch oversees the court system of the U.S. Through court cases, the judicial branch explains the meaning of the Constitution and laws passed by Congress. The Supreme Court is the head of the judicial branch. Unlike a criminal court, the Supreme Court rules whether something is constitutional or unconstitutional—whether or not it is permitted under the Constitution. On the Supreme Court there are nine justices, or judges: eight associate justices and one chief justice. The judges are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate. They have no term limits. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. Its decisions are final, and no other court can overrule those decisions. Decisions of the Supreme Court set precedents—new ways of interpreting the law."

It's not that simple. Not only doesn't the Constitution give the 9 whores that power, many Founders actually wrote extensively on why that power should never be given to them. Try reading up on Marbury vs Madison, then read up on the words of the Founders regarding the supreme court, then get back to me. It's obvious that you have allowed the PS education system to be your primary source of education, meaning you're ignorant on many things and brainwashed left on so many more things.

Ok, jt. I conceed. The sky is green and the sea is yellow. The Supreme Court does not have the authority to rule on the constitionality of laws, and my 2 years in law school was wasted. Because there seems to be a Fox News slant to to your take on the Constitution, and the military, I will also conceed that, if the military is given a lawful order (as defined by the law of the land, as determined by the Supreme Court) by their Commander in Chief, and they refuse to obey that order, we will not call that "Mutany" (althought military law certainly does), and we will even pretend that a Court Martial could not find someone guilty of Mutany, and have them shot. For the sake of a peaceful Saturday night, I will even agree that a person who is convicted of Mutany would not be a traitor, as long as he felt that his decision on a Supreme Court decsion carried more weight than the Supreme Court justices' decison.

So, as I said, the sky is green, and the sea is yellow, and it is clear that law, logic, rationale, common sense and education does not trump that in your world.

.

 

[jtpr312]

Sorry, jt, but it really is this simple:

Congress passes laws
The excutive branch enforces and implements those laws
The Supreme Court rules on the constitionality of those laws. The mere fact that the Supreme Court renders a decision that a law is Consitutional, MAKES that law Constititional.Or, at least that is what they taught me at the South Texas College of Law, in Houston, TX. Of course, if your legal credentuals trump their's, I could be wrong. For example, if you are a Harvard Law school graduate, with citations, I would conceed the point.


Three Branches of Government ? FactMonster.com


"Judicial Branch

The judicial branch oversees the court system of the U.S. Through court cases, the judicial branch explains the meaning of the Constitution and laws passed by Congress. The Supreme Court is the head of the judicial branch. Unlike a criminal court, the Supreme Court rules whether something is constitutional or unconstitutional—whether or not it is permitted under the Constitution. On the Supreme Court there are nine justices, or judges: eight associate justices and one chief justice. The judges are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate. They have no term limits. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. Its decisions are final, and no other court can overrule those decisions. Decisions of the Supreme Court set precedents—new ways of interpreting the law."

It's not that simple. Not only doesn't the Constitution give the 9 whores that power, many Founders actually wrote extensively on why that power should never be given to them. Try reading up on Marbury vs Madison, then read up on the words of the Founders regarding the supreme court, then get back to me. It's obvious that you have allowed the PS education system to be your primary source of education, meaning you're ignorant on many things and brainwashed left on so many more things.

Ok, jt. I conceed. The sky is green and the sea is yellow. The Supreme Court does not have the authority to rule on the constitionality of laws, and my 2 years in law school was wasted. Because there seems to be a Fox News slant to to your take on the Constitution, and the military, I will also conceed that, if the military is given a lawful order (as defined by the law of the land, as determined by the Supreme Court) by their Commander in Chief, and they refuse to obey that order, we will not call that "Mutany" (althought military law certainly does), and we will even pretend that a Court Martial could not find someone guilty of Mutany, and have them shot. For the sake of a peaceful Saturday night, I will even agree that a person who is convicted of Mutany would not be a traitor, as long as he felt that his decision on a Supreme Court decsion carried more weight than the Supreme Court justices' decison.

So, as I said, the sky is green, and the sea is yellow, and it is clear that law, logic, rationale, common sense and education does not trump that in your world.

.

A FOX news slant? That would be hard for me to know seeing as I don't watch FOX news, thinking they are little better than MSNBC, ABC, CNN, etc. Must of been a great law school you attended seeing as how they taught you to spell Mutiny-m-u-t-a-n-y.

 

[editec]

The SCOTUS has reversed decisions in the past.

No doubt it will do so again.

Want to know why?

Because life belongs to the living -- not the dead, not the memory of the dead, not something the dead wrote, but life (and the laws of the living) belongs to those who are alive TODAY.


The 1789 US Consitution was written with THAT FACT IN MIND.

And while I do NOT agree with some of the SCOTUS rulings that have occurred since that time, I am entirely on board with the political/legal theory that the SCOTUS has the obligation to rule on the constiutionality of laws and events that effect us today.

 

[jtpr312]

The SCOTUS has reversed decisions in the past.

No doubt it will do so again.

Want to know why?

Because life belongs to the living -- not the dead, not the memory of the dead, not something the dead wrote, but life (and the laws of the living) belongs to those who are alive TODAY.


The 1789 US Consitution was written with THAT FACT IN MIND.

And while I do NOT agree with some of the SCOTUS rulings that have occurred since that time, I am entirely on board with the political/legal theory that the SCOTUS has the obligation to rule on the constiutionality of laws and events that effect us today.

So you agree with living under an oligarchy? See I don't. I believe in living under a govt of the people, by the people and for the people, you know, what was supposed to be the case in this nation.

 

[editec]

The SCOTUS has reversed decisions in the past.

No doubt it will do so again.

Want to know why?

Because life belongs to the living -- not the dead, not the memory of the dead, not something the dead wrote, but life (and the laws of the living) belongs to those who are alive TODAY.


The 1789 US Consitution was written with THAT FACT IN MIND.

And while I do NOT agree with some of the SCOTUS rulings that have occurred since that time, I am entirely on board with the political/legal theory that the SCOTUS has the obligation to rule on the constiutionality of laws and events that effect us today.

So you agree with living under an oligarchy?

We have always lived under an oligarchy.

No I don't much like it, but there it is.

See I don't. I believe in living under a govt of the people, by the people and for the people, you know, what was supposed to be the case in this nation.

Yeah I'd like that, too.

Sadly our constiution was written by oligarchs FOR oligarchs.

Seriously, dude...you don't already know this?!

 

[P@triot]

In a 14-minute instructional and debunk clip, Campbell narrates why a ban on high-capacity magazine sizes is ineffective, showcasing — through examples — the idea’s purported deficiencies.

“I think it’s a great fallacy to believe that it would,” he said candidly. “You’ve got a standard capacity versus a 10 round. From a citizen standpoint…all we’re doing is making it more difficult for [people] to defend themselves against bad guys.”

He said that those who break the law aren’t concerned with abiding by regulations, so creating magazine capacity restrictions simply doesn’t make sense. The law abiding will follow, but criminals, naturally, won’t.

“By limiting the access to standard magazines…I think you are restricting a good American’s opportunity to protect himself and his family,” the sheriff continued

The clip concludes by noting that proposed magazine size changes don’t truly pass “the common sense test.”

Yes, but when has an ignorant dumbocrat policy ever passed the "common sense test"? The next time will be the first time.

It just makes sense that when it comes to firearms, we should listen to firearms experts and law enforcement instead of liberal bureaucrats who have never even held a firearm in their life.

Sheriff Debunks Gun Magazine ?Fallacies? in This Viral Vid (Plus: His Response to Biden?s Shotgun Advice) | TheBlaze.com

 

[arie2l]

What I find interesting is that none of you have mentioned the NYT article (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/u...is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) showing that the rate of gun ownership is DOWN.
It would seem that many people have decided that they don't want/need guns in their homes. So, it would appear that the heading of this thread is somewhat fallacious.

 

[P@triot]

What I find interesting is that none of you have mentioned the NYT article (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/u...is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) showing that the rate of gun ownership is DOWN.
It would seem that many people have decided that they don't want/need guns in their homes. So, it would appear that the heading of this thread is somewhat fallacious.

Yeah, that's because the NYT is the radical left-wing propaganda arm of the dumbocrats. F.B.I. statistics prove that gun ownership is at an all time high and that crime has continued to plummet in correlation to that fact.

Thanks, but I'll take the F.B.I. statistical facts over the opinion of a libtard writer for the NYT....

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Societ...more-crime-Not-in-2009-FBI-crime-report-shows.

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/opin...i-statistics-rebut-calls-for-gun-control.html

 

[The Rabbi]

What I find interesting is that none of you have mentioned the NYT article (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/u...is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) showing that the rate of gun ownership is DOWN.
It would seem that many people have decided that they don't want/need guns in their homes. So, it would appear that the heading of this thread is somewhat fallacious.

Hmm, record numbers of gun sales just over the last 2 months. Hard to imagine every single one of them already owns one. In fact I know that is not the case because I've sold first guns to a large number of people.
I would bet the survey is flawed because people are wary of telling an anonymous caller whether they ahve guns in the house. Much as they wouldn't admit to having large amounts of cash at home.

 

[P@triot]

Driving is a right. You cannot deny a person the right to operate a motor vehicle any more than you can deny them the right to own a gun.

Did you seriously just claim that driving is a "right"?

I have hear some seriously INSANE shit on this before, but this is hands down the winner of the ultimate bat-shit crazy award.

Driving is no more a "right" than owning an iPad or having a seven-figure salary. None of those are "rights" and the fact that you need that explained to you is equal parts astounding and frightening...

 

[P@triot]

Driving is a right. You cannot deny a person the right to operate a motor vehicle any more than you can deny them the right to own a gun.

Really? That's funny - I've seen that "right" lmao denied over and over and over.

First of all, if you fail your drivers test, that "right" is DENIED.

If you get too many points on your license, you are denied that "right" lmao

If you can't pass a proper vision test, you are denied that "right" lmao

If you don't carry auto insurance, you are denied that "right" lmao

 

[Harry Dresden]

I suggest everyone read this in its entirety. If I could I would quote it entirely and force every gun control nut to read it every day before they go to bed. It is, by far, the single best exposure of the hypocrisy built into the gun control position you will ever read.

Or, How I Learned To Stop Caring.
By way of introduction, I'd like to explain some of my former positions. Please do not reply and tell me why I'm wrong. That's not relevant to this post. These WERE my positions, for right or wrong.
I used to believe women had a right to reproductive choice. As a male, I will obviously never have an abortion. I supported access because birth control is cheaper than abortions, abortions are cheaper than welfare, welfare is cheaper than jail. And I don't believe the government is capable of legislating for every circumstance. Most of the time, a woman and her doctor will make a decision that works for the situation, and until a baby is an independent organism, it's a parasite. This was also important to me because my wife was warned that a further pregnancy could kill her. That's been surgically remedied and is no longer a problem.
I used to believe gays were entitled to relate as they wished, including marriage. What two people do together doesn't affect me unless I'm one of them.
I used to believe it was wrong to treat people differently based on their skin color. Even if a few people fit a stereotype, millions of others do not.
I used to believe there should be a strong division between church and state, that any support of a religious entity using property of the state constituted endorsement and was wrong.
I used to believe people had a right to protest, campaign, rant and create non-violent incidents to express themselves and their positions. I also believed they had a right to publish as they chose. I believed they were entitled to burn the Flag in protest, to make a statement.
I have obviously been at odds with conservatives over these positions. There have been loud arguments, heated discussions and occasional insults.

Every fucking asshole that supports restricting guns should be taken into a back room at the jail and beaten with a rubber hose just to remind them about why rights for everyone matter.

Liberals?.....or should it be Anti-gun rights people....i know a few Liberals who are VERY pro gun rights....