Beto O"Rourke calls for ban on AR-15s

Port Tack said:
Really, and they should decide if ballistic missiles, tanks and nuclear weapons are covered because they are "arms" too. Obviously the right to "bear arms" does not mean all of them. The supreme court has already ruled that govt can restrict just what arms you are allowed to have so that ruling is now what the constitution says.
Click to expand...

Absurdity; the last refuge for idiots and morons.
 
Port Tack said:
handguns are passed around like candy among criminals and 25-50 bucks will get you one. if you were selling or giving a handgun to a criminal and knew you could go to prison for doing so would you still sell them for $50. If you were found guilty of a crime using one and the judge said 10 yrs prison or 5 if you can prove where you got that gun, would you tell him?
Click to expand...

BULL SHIT!!!
 
Flash said:
There is no such thing as "undermining freedom of the press" by simple criticism, Roosevelt did not order the farmer in the wheat case--that was a federal law, Japanese internship was overturned.
Click to expand...
It's not simple criticism when you paint all news critical of you as lying "fake news" and suggest that politicians should be able to sue media figures for "libel." What he did to Jim Acosta was also very dictatory.
Do you mean Wickard v. Filburn? FDR was president when that case happened.
Yes, Japanese internship was overturned, but it still happened. My point here is that muh Constitution does not protect out rights, the people who are in power do. Japanese internship happened because the people in power wanted it, no piece of paper stopped them. Then later on, the people in power decided to overturn it.
 
Port Tack said:
I doubt it. roughly 80% of the country wants some type of universal healthcare and they stand little chance of getting it because of the shitheads in congress.
Click to expand...

Well that's different. The establishment is deadset against that. But they'd love to get rid of something like free speech.
 
Port Tack said:
There is a reason you post a fucking stupid reply, you can't answer the question.
Click to expand...

I don't answer lunatics you moron. Grow a fucking brain already snowflake.

YOU ==>
giphy.gif
 
Port Tack said:
For all practical purposes we cannot amend the constitution as long as the 2 parties have a somewhat equal control in govt. They despise one another and whatever the democrat wants to amend the republican will be against and visa versa. Neither side will ever be able to gain the votes to amend the constitution. unless of course we have a real dipshit from one party gaining power that completely turns everyone against that particular party. Trump is a good example, if the blue wave that turned the house blue continues and turns the senate blue by a wide margin and we dump the dipshit for a democrat I suppose we could begin to fix things. As it stands now congress has a dismal rating and has for decades because they can't do a fucking thing but bitch about one another.
Click to expand...

The founders intentionally made it difficult to amend the Constitution to prevent sudden passions from making changes which might not be good in the long run (prohibition).

How would we fix things?
 
StoneByStone said:
It's not simple criticism when you paint all news critical of you as lying "fake news" and suggest that politicians should be able to sue media figures for "libel." What he did to Jim Acosta was also very dictatory.
Do you mean Wickard v. Filburn? FDR was president when that case happened.
Yes, Japanese internship was overturned, but it still happened. My point here is that muh Constitution does not protect out rights, the people who are in power do. Japanese internship happened because the people in power wanted it, no piece of paper stopped them. Then later on, the people in power decided to overty furn it.
Click to expand...

Those criticisms are all protected by free speech. I certainly see no evidence those criticisms have undermined, limited, or prevented the press from publishing what is chooses. Those statements have only given it more ammunition to criticize Trump. Many major news sources have daily opinion pieces criticizing the president; so, the press certainly has not been undermined.

Suggesting politicians should be able to sue media figures for libel is nothing--they can sue them now but it is very difficult for any public figure to sue. That is protected by the Supreme Court and cannot be undermined by somebody's opinion.

I realize FDR was president during Wickard v. Filburn. But my point was that the president did not ignore the Constitution, that was pursuant to the Agricultural Adjustment Act passed by Congress.

Our rights were protected because the people in power were following the Constitution. And those checks do come from the Constitution. Today's Washington Post has a story about 63 judicial decisions blocking presidential actions.
 
Truth Detector said:
Congress cannot amend the Constitution you moron. Do some research before you erupt stupidly.
Click to expand...

That's true - in fact the whole federal govt cannot amend the federal constitution. Only the states can amend it.

Having said that, i must admit the feds have found a way around that. They have the courts amend the constitution and call it an interpretation.
 
StoneByStone said:
It's not simple criticism when you paint all news critical of you as lying "fake news" and suggest that politicians should be able to sue media figures for "libel." .
Click to expand...

Have you forgotten?? The term "fake news" was invented by the controlled media a couple years ago as criticism of trump. But the conservatives latched onto the term and now use it against the press, and rightly so. In just the last few months we've seen the press lie about jussie and the convington kids and buzzfeed/cohen and jazmine barnes.

The american press is a pack of white hating, men-hating, america-hating, LIARS.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
Have you forgotten?? The term "fake news" was invented by the controlled media a couple years ago as criticism of trump.
Click to expand...

Actually, the term was coined to refer to fictional news stories that get circulated online. Trump then started using the term to refer to news he doesn't like.

In just the last few months we've seen the press lie about jussie and the convington kids and buzzfeed/cohen and jazmine barnes.
Click to expand...

The press didn't lie about Jussie Smollett, they simply reported on the story with the information they had. When more information came out, they reported on that too.
What lie did they tell about the Covington kids?
Buzzfeed reported on what Cohen said. You can think Cohen is lying, but Buzzfeed isn't fake news for reporting the story.
The Jazmine Barnes story is the same as the Smollett story. They reported what they knew, then they got new information, and reported that too.

Don't get me wrong, I don't trust the mainstream media either. But mainstream media is a lot more accurate than the actual fake news circulated on Facebook. CNN and Fox both report on stories that make their side look good, but they don't make up shit out of thin air like Alex Jones does.
 
CFM said:
If, as you say, handguns are being passed around like candy among criminals, do you think they care about the laws?
Click to expand...
Of course they do. This "criminals don't care about the laws bullshit" is just that, bullshit. If the one selling or giving someone a gun knew they could go to prison for doing so they would think a lot harder about doing it. And if the criminal knew he could reduce his sentence by giving up that individual he would do it. To say it would not make a difference because a criminal is a criminal is simply fucking stupid.

If you sell a handgun, or any gun, to a criminal, that makes you a criminal. You seem to think the average gun owner does that on a daily basis.
Click to expand...
Bullshit. If I sell a gun to someone who later uses it to commit a crime I am not liable for jack shit. If it were a felony to sell a gun to ANYONE, criminal or otherwise, the number of illegal transfers of ownership would drop drastically.
 
CFM said:
I never said you did.

Keep believing that just anyone can buy one and making yourself look foolish by doing so.
Click to expand...

Unless you are a convicted felon if you have the money you can buy one. You may have ranted online or to friends saying you are going to kill people or have a mental condition and you are going to pass what they now call a background check. Even that convicted felon from Oregon could buy one in Florida, the check isn't even nationwide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top