Obama Administration's War Against The Second Amendment...

That's not the way critical thinking is supposed to work, friend. You don't manufacture a stance, and then look for evidence that supports it. You have it backwards.

Without evidence, you cannot SUPPORT your suspicion. Not "discount" it, as you said.

Of COURSE we can limit free speech. The First and the Second Amendments are NOT unlimited rights, friend. You can't shoot up a crowd of pedestrians, and you can't yell fire in a crowded theater either.

Odd that you call yourself an Independent and yet act as an absolutist like many conservatives.

Which means what exactly? Can you REALLY define her positions as to these complex issues and compare them to other jurists on this Court?

What is truly "disturbing" is your willingness to use vague innuendo and misrepresentations to support a preexisting conclusion.

What's confusing is what you're trying to argue above. Can you possibly clarify your position for me?

 

Are you one of the Anti-Zionists here because your avatar makes me think your Jewish ???

 

I hope you are right but given you live in California if they do you will be one of the first to know. The reported goal of the NRA is to repeal all unconstitutional laws regardless of where they exist. I doubt that completely true because if they did they would be out of business. They are by far the strongest organization in protecting firearms in America. The NRA doest claim to defend anything but firearms and the 2nd amendment. They are only interested in that issue. I am not a member by the way but I do respect their ability.

 

From my perspective, we could be engendering a culture of militia service, even if only via alternative forms of sentencing for persons who keep and bear Arms.

 

This was the quote you had responded to I will post the it as well.

 

Why won't gun lovers muster more often, simply for the greater glory of their republic?

 

This was the response that I didn't see anything to make me think the simple, minor, constitutional was not directed at this. I didn't think it sounded like you. That would be what most gun owners would fear and for that to be looked at as acceptable disturbed me deeply.

 

Because it is illegal to do that where I live. Like every other right they change it to meet there needs.

 

I apologize for the confusion I was taken aback by what you had said in the previous simple, minor , constitutional issue. So anger I'm sure played a role in my rant as you will. I will attempt to explain I might leave some out. As I can not view the rant in question. You had said that you felt the federal govt. had overstepped it authority in macdonald VS Chicago. Yet in a earlier disussion regarding the long gun reporting requirement. You had stated that the Federal Govt. Had the authority to regulate the states differently. I thought that appears to be a double standard. It would seem it would have to be one way or the other. I brought up the case US VS cruishank that backed up your position on macdonald. Yet would to me argue against your position on the long gun reporting issue. I'm sure you know about the case but I will summarize. The court did not incorporate the bill of rights to the states and found the first amendment was not intended to limit the powers of the state government. In respect to their own citizens and that the 2nd amendment has no other effect than to restrict the power of the national government.
Now by that I can understand your position on macdonald. Yet by same effect it would seem that the state would be where gun control would have to originate.

 

I can't believe the issue I found disturbing above. Was offensive to you That goes against some of the aspects of your spectrum. That were most appealing.

 

Yes I can see how experince on the forum can be beneficial.
I do make mistakes but as I said it would appear I took the bait I myself provided. If your choice of post to quote wasn't in error then that would be obvious. However I will not lose sleep over it this issue while important to me. As well as amusing to you. Will not decide anything come election time. Everyone with an opinion on this has made up their minds. The only people who have a say live in Ohio, Pennsyvania, Colorado, Wisconsin, and Florida. The rest will just watch an see who they pick.

 

Why should a sovereign State care what the general government of the Union labels its organs and branches?

A State militia should meet State gun control (laws) not necessarily federal gun control as prescribed by our federal Congress. It would not have to be a component of the National Guard.

 

We had a dot com boom under a previous democrat president.

Many people are more disposed to suffer the ills of our form of government, when they have a petty cash fund for that purpose.

 

This is quite informative, and if you really want to "go deep" on this subject, this documentation could keep you up past your bedtime

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/mwg-internal/de5fs23hu73ds/progress?id=K/SYLhaqxJ&dl

 

It's money that is at the root of corruption in any type of government, or society. The problem is, that even if you take away the money, there will still be corruption.

I predict the movement to make our government smaller will fail for the exact same reason communism failed.

Which was...humans are flawed and corrupt by nature, and that is the variable in any well intended idea.

 

good going !! start a new thread if ya want