« First « Previous Comments 193 - 232 of 1,448 Next » Last » Search these comments
That's because you don't know what the purpose of the 10th amendment is. The purpose is to keep the feds from regulating anything beyond what's listed for them in the Constitution.
Separate comment since I know it will get reported. People who write specious drivel like this should be outed so everyone will know who they are, and avoid infecting themselves with any of their future postings. I don't know who failed to teach you critical thinking, but someone needs to slap your parents, and every teacher you ever had for starters.
I understand the need for civility, but not for the sake of allowing morons to fill up this site with their idiocy. Ridicule has a place in a forum. It keeps stupid/lazy people from wasting everyone's time with their stupid/lazy questions/comments.
The NRA is a private advocacy group that takes zero state or federal dollars and has over 5 million citizens as members. They do not allow or disallow law, they vote with their dollars and at the booth.
Didn't we already have an Assault Weapons ban, and Columbine happened?
Soros is a complete nasty piece of work. He gave a speech, contents unknown, about his collaboration with Nazis at a Jewish Thing and Elie Weisel was shocked. He's never shown the least remorse about his role as a murderous Turncoat.
The Netanyahu Government agrees with Orban about Soros being a threat:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-hungary-soros/israel-backs-hungary-says-financier-soros-is-a-threat-idUSKBN19V1J4
That's correct. And their dollars have bought them a good chunk of the Congressmen and women. That's not how democracy should work.
Pretty sure that poll is not representative of the general public's feelings on the matter.
Soros has stockholm syndrome bad. I have no doubt he has nazi-like policy and law changes in mind for America. The sooner he dies the better.
Um, that's exactly how Democracy works. Private citizens pooling their money and resources fighting for their rights against coastal leftist billionaires pushing an agenda? Thats the epitome of Democracy.
An individual's rights extend only as far as not to intrude on their neighbor's rights.
By the way, Snopes.com has Soros being a Nazi collaborator as false, even though he was the assistant of the guy who was inventorying Estates of Fled or Captured Jews during WW2.
Snopes is almost as much of a joke as Polifact.
DAVID MIKKELSON: Well, other than checking out our site, a lot of different things. One is, of course, if a story is real, you're generally going to see it in more than one place. If you're finding something that seems rather sensational and it's only on one Web site and it's not something major like CNN or ABC, that's a pretty good tip that perhaps the story is just a rumor or something that someone made up.
A handful of DC based anti-gun groups, staffed by professional lobbyists and activists, underwritten largely by a literal tiny handful of wealthy individuals or foundations, is attempting to smear a multi-million person Membership Organization, the NRA, as undemocratic.
You have to stand in awe.
Um, that's exactly how Democracy works. Private citizens pooling their money and resources fighting for their rights against coastal leftist billionaires pushing an agenda? Thats the epitome of Democracy.
Why are you pretty sure?
Every real poll says otherwise.
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
67% support a ban on assault weapons.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/msn/poll-nearly-two-thirds-support-stricter-gun-laws/ar-BBJsIlA
64% favor tougher gun control laws vs 30% oppose.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/more-americans-ever-support-stricter-210018333.html
66% favor stricter gun control laws vs. 31% oppose.
I disagree. Democracy is 1 person, 1 vote.
Not 1 person with $300MM = 2000 votes. 1 person with no money = 1 vote.
ude seriously?
From your MSN poll.
"The poll was conducted on Feb. 20 among 1,992 registered voters." I'm sure very tilted towards DNC registered voters.
The TYT poll has 330,000 respondents.
Guess which one is statistically more trustworthy?
5 million people beating 2-3 coastal leftist billionaires from stripping them of their rights. Sounds very Democratic even using your own definition.
Don't be ridiculous. The polling I posted above shows conclusively that the vast majority of the population is for tighter gun control. It's only the gun manufacturer $$ and their lobby that is stopping the will of the people.
Right, the Gun Owner's National Association, the NRA, has 5M members.
Not one National Gun Ban Association has 5M members or even 1M members.
Clearly, the handful of Gun Ban Groups with a handful of wealthy donors is the "Will of the People".
Right, the Gun Owner's National Association, the NRA, has 5M members.
Not one National Gun Ban Association has 5M members or even 1M members.
The other thing, there are over 100M gun owners, so 5M is only 5%, yet the liberals think the NRA speaks for ALL gun owners.
Don't be ridiculous. The polling I posted above shows conclusively that the vast majority of the population is for tighter gun control. It's only the gun manufacturer $$ and their lobby that is stopping the will of the people.
In the 2016 election, the NRA spent $11,438,118 to support Donald Trump’s campaign and donated $19,756,346 to groups opposing Hillary Clinton’s. However, the bulk of the contributions have gone to House and Senate members. Here is a look at the top 10 recipients of NRA contributions.
The will of the people is much more accurately measured by polling than by number of activists.
Wow, looking at the lobbyists, no wonder health care is so F**ked up in this country. Their stock shot to the moon with Obamney Care.
No wonder we don't have border security or immigration enforcement with "Don't ask for a copy of workers' papers, but don't you copy our IP" CoC Suckers being #1
And Alphabet/Google, that explains the war on Privacy.
There's not one anti-gun citizen run advocacy group with a 5 million person PAID MEMBERSHIP. Not even 100,000.
Goran_K saysDon't see you accusing Hollywood and Silicon Valley of "meddling in law making".
"discuss anything but the other users"
Reading comprehension issues ?
Read up on how polling is done--especially the parts about obtaining a representative population in the polling.
Yes, we know how polling is done, Hillary is going to win the election according to the polls.
Oh wait...
OF Course they would donate to oppose Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton would have severely weakened the 2A movement. Trump ran on a pro 2A platform. I spent money to oppose Hillary Clinton (over $10,000+).
Why is this a big deal?
And we gave those scum bags yuge tax cuts, how fucked up is that, Right?
anon_cf6c6 saysYes, we know how polling is done, Hillary is going to win the election according to the polls.
Oh wait...
Yep, and Hillary did win the popular vote. The polls were right.
We gave all corporations a tax cut, and now our marginal rate is more in keeping with our competitors.
anon_83081 saysAnd we gave those scum bags yuge tax cuts, how fucked up is that, Right?
We gave all corporations a tax cut, and now our marginal rate is more in keeping with our competitors.
And, more importantly, Trump has followed Republican rule #1 and given more wealth to the 1%.
« First « Previous Comments 193 - 232 of 1,448 Next » Last » Search these comments
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Couple things to note in there:
1. The specific mention of a militia being the reason for the need to bear arms.
2. The 2nd Amendment never mentions the word gun at all.
So, what exactly is the definition of "arms"?
In 1755 Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”
Weapons of offence would seem to include pretty much anything and everything, from knives to nuclear weapons. The US has already seen fit to ban some weapons of offence so the 2nd Amendment clearly has not been interpreted strictly as meaning that the US cannot ban all "arms". Therefore, the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee citizens the right to own whatever weapons they choose.
So it then becomes a question of which weapons should be banned, which should be strictly regulated, and which should be lightly regulated or not at all. Like anything else, we should weigh an individual's right with society's right. When looked at in that manner, it becomes very difficult to justify why fully automatic or semi automatic rifles should be allowed. What purpose do they serve an individual? And why would that purpose outweigh the extreme damage those weapons have cased society??
Patrick thinks the Chamber of Commerce is the worst organization, and he may be correct, but the NRA is not far behind.