Heller, Bruen, etc., should be reversed

I didn't read them because I knew they would be baloney.

I read the second link and it essentially makes the ku Klux Klan argument.

We could deny people the right to really anything because we can say the people doesn't mean the individual.

It's funny how this only applies to one particular amendment.

I'm not sure why you keep squawking about the 14th amendment but if anything it buttresses the second. There is no constitutional privilege that the state has to suspend any of the Bill of Rights for anybody. And the 14th amendment doesn't say that it does in fact that it goes further and saying that it doesn't.

 

Whoa!

Aren't you the guy the went round and round trying to discount the value of a college education? Makes perfect sense to me now.

 

So you don't understand the history and you insult me because of it?

I guess you overpaid for your education.

 

It's not history, it's law. It's only an insult if you take it that way.

Looking back at the benefit it's been to my life, my education was a bargain ... would have been even at twice the price.

 

Our current day politicians can't manage to write a bill that isn't several thousand pages long, and that literally no person on the planet can define what is and isn't in it can't comprehend a 27-word, clearly written in very clear English sentence actually means. FFS, the entire Constitution, if printed on 8.5x11 paper, only takes a few dozen pages to print in it's entirety!

Rather than trying to restrict people's birthrights, how about we pass an Amendment requiring all Federal Laws to be as short as that!

 

Thank you.

 

what's law?

Then why are you so completely incapable of explaining anything?

The reason why I asked to explain is because that's a good measure of whether or not you understand.

I don't think you understand.

 

why don't you tell me what you think Iran Contra was about.

 

He's the poster who advocated the government killing those who wouldn't give up their guns if a law confiscating guns was passed.

 

what rulings by the conservative bloc violate the actual constitution

 

how can anyone read the second amendment along with article one section eight and pretend that the founders intended something other than 1) an individual right and 2) no power given to the federal government to restrict privately owned firearms. If you can actually cite something that contradicts this-be my guest

I reject your claim in bold specifically. there is no evidence of that. rather amendments was the tool the founders provided for

and the bullshit throwaway line against Scalia for dead children proves what i have stated about the anti gun movement.

 

Uh, yeah, it's "legal" to own a machine gun UNDER STRICT circumstances = the other items - probably not.

I have no idea what your blather above means.

 

The Reagan administration sold arms to Iran in hopes that it would help secure the release of American hostages, which it didn't, but did arm Iran against U.S. Then use the money made from that sale to help arm the counterinsurgents in Nicaragua, which was in direct contravention to American law at the time. Which as you see in the following graph had significant legal ramifications for his administration. Also not where the Carter Administration lies on the graph which was my point. Also interesting is where the tRaitor Trump administration ended up in only 4 years AND the comparison between Democratic and Republican Administrations.

 

the law was passed as a gotcha by the Democrats-BFD. and the hysterics about Trump being a traitor-is just that. hysterics with no real evidence

 

he's pro gun as you are

 

That's a matter of perspective, Congress didn't want U.S. involved in Nicaragua so they passed legislation (Boland Amendments) against it. Reagan flipped them the bird and decided to do an end run to finance his contra support by selling arms to our enemy. Hence his place on the graph.

Which proves the first line of my signature: "To follow Trump, you more or less have to say farewell to the actual world and live by the rules of the fun house carnival." -David Brooks WSJ.

TRaitor tRump has been indicted 91 times, by grand juries of his peers, and you're calling that "no real evidence".

Whatever!

 

Presidents don't have juries of their PEERS

 

Well tRaitor tRump for sure, no one would claim him.

But! Weren't you claiming you don't like tRaitor tRump ... just a few pages ago ... or was that a different thread ... several different threads.

 

has Trump been convicted of treason?

 

want to really solve that bullshit-require members of congress and their entourages to be subject to all the laws they pass.

 

By me he has!

He betrayed his office and all America has stood for. And went on and continues on attacking every institution the United States has depended on since its inception.

He used the power of the Presidency to illegally overturn our election and by extension overthrow the Constitution.

 

OK in other words you got nothing. He never overturned the election so we are at two fictional claims already

 

I have love and complete devotion to my country.

It’s you that have nothing.

 

I also know the concept of innocent until proven guilty.