If Gun Confiscation Was Legally Passed and Upheld by the Court...

Where do I "admit" I don't care?

 

Where the hell are you reading that I'm fine with it?

Focus!

What the hell are you talking about?

Try again. Make a point! Or respond to mine. If you can...

 

You fully endorse legislation from the bench and crowed about constitutional provisions not mastering when the court can simply legislate it away with a handwave.

 

Literally both of us got the same message from the same posts at the same time.

 

Quote me endorsing... whatever the hell you think I endorsed... and spare us the B.S.

 

Which goes to prove that reading is not a trait right-winger's excel at. Also proves that neither can respond to my argument. So they have to make up a strawman.

Well... at least you can't. We'll see if the other poster can.

 

Dang. Usually it takes 3-4 posts before you whip out the thinly veiled ad hom.

My points were clear. Obviously you can’t refute them or you would have. My points are not to convince you of anything. They are to demonstrate the danger of authoritarianism by any name. Thanks for the assist and have a good evening.

 

Theres the whole string golem.

See where you enthusiastically say "YES!"? And then launch in to talking about legislating from the bench making any complaint about constitutionality moot?

 

If that happened, lets just say that Dang nabbit, someone done stole all my guns, whoa is me.

 

I see. So your point was that you had no point.

Point well made!

 

Gonna double down huh? Slick move.

 

"Enthusiastically"? How the hell can you read enthusiasm in a simple "Yes!" (without the all-caps, BTW... those are yours)? That is your proof that I'm ok with it?

Ok... As usual, you pull an accusation out of your ass which you were unable to substantiate. But you won't admit your mistake. We're pretty much used to you doing that.

 

Not at all. I would love to see you make a point. Or respond to mine. Because you asked the question, but never explained why. Instead you went on a tangent about me being "Ok with it" (which is absurd)

Here is my answer to your question, in case you had something to say about it.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?goto/post&id=1070983904#post-1070983904

If you don't, that's fine too.

 

I made several points. Either you aren’t willing to ponder them or you aren’t at a point in your life where you are able to appreciate them. I don’t know which and for reasons already stated I don’t care.

But here is where you invalidated all your current claims.

The fact that judges do not follow the Constitution does not render the Bill of Rights invalid. Further argument with someone that has gone down that path is futile. My rights are secure regardless of what SC Justices or you think or do. Government failing to protect my rights or you advocating for them not to is irrelevant to me. Carry on.

 

You keep fabricating these arguments that you think I'm making, to avoid referring to my real arguments. Textbook strawman.

What I said does not render the Bill of Rights invalid. It would, however, render the reasoning behind cases like Heller and Sebelius invalid.

And, mind you, I'm in favor of Obamacare. But I can't deny the fact that the reasoning handed down in the Sebelius case was as poorly reasoned and arbitrary as it was in the Heller case. They are both examples of how SCOTUS legislates.

 

Sorry, caps lock.

Exclamation points are to exclaim. Exclaiming agreement is generally taken as enthusiasm.

Dude I quoted the string. Sorry you got caught

 

How should judges make decisions?

 

Not based on arbitrary pre-conceived personal or political preferences. Definitely not like Heller and Sibelius were decided.

 

Nah, your generation will die off.

 

The USA is always changing. And so does what the people agree upon also change.

It's why you can't own a machine gun today, or at least buy a new one, because the USA decided to make it illegal. Against said constitution.

 

I understand you are ok with that. Some people aren’t.

 

I didn’t ask for a not answer. I asked how they should.

 

Good, I will smoke a joint.

 

the NRA and right wing applauded Reagan's signing of the Mulford Act which did just that

 

Not a fan of the NRA or gun control. The Mulford act was a result of a black supremacist group, parading around with arms in public, on the state Capital.
Dont try to act like you oppose "common sense gun laws''.