- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 1,777
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Let's Get on This Poll About Heller!
- Thread starter John Pierce
- Start date
DoubleR
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Got it, JP.
Got it, JP.
bobernet
Founder's Club Member
imported post
On it.
On it.
Phoenixphire
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Here was my response:
Hmmm...
Here is my question:
Why would an individual, who is willing to violate laws preventing rape, murder, robbery, etc, be concerned with violating a law stating that one can not possess a firearm?
You see, a criminal doesn't mind violating the law. Why? Well, because he is a criminal. That is what criminals do. Criminals violate laws. As a matter a fact, that is the VERY definition of a criminal. "Criminal (noun): An individual who commits, or has been convicted of committing, an illegal act or actions." See?
Firearm laws only remove the firearms from those who are law-abiding. You know, the ones who follow laws, including the ones about rape, murder, robbery, etc. Firearm laws simply leave the honest to be the victim, and the dishonest to get away with murder.... literally.
Here was my response:
Hmmm...
Here is my question:
Why would an individual, who is willing to violate laws preventing rape, murder, robbery, etc, be concerned with violating a law stating that one can not possess a firearm?
You see, a criminal doesn't mind violating the law. Why? Well, because he is a criminal. That is what criminals do. Criminals violate laws. As a matter a fact, that is the VERY definition of a criminal. "Criminal (noun): An individual who commits, or has been convicted of committing, an illegal act or actions." See?
Firearm laws only remove the firearms from those who are law-abiding. You know, the ones who follow laws, including the ones about rape, murder, robbery, etc. Firearm laws simply leave the honest to be the victim, and the dishonest to get away with murder.... literally.
DopaVash
Founder's Club Member
imported post
64% yes. Keep it going guys.
64% yes. Keep it going guys.
desert-prospector
Regular Member
imported post
66% now ! Where is everyone?
66% now ! Where is everyone?
BobCav
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Been there...hit that...
Been there...hit that...
thorkyl
Regular Member
imported post
67% @ 14:14 Central
My post...
Thank you Mr. Heller.
I can't wait to hear if your writing a book on the experience. I think this is a historic day for our Country and our rights.
Thank you from the bottom of my heart.
67% @ 14:14 Central
My post...
Thank you Mr. Heller.
I can't wait to hear if your writing a book on the experience. I think this is a historic day for our Country and our rights.
Thank you from the bottom of my heart.
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
imported post
The Washington ComPost, also known as Pravda on the Potomac, is going to hate this poll if the number continue as they are currently portrayed.
Many of you may not have been in this area when the fanatical campaign was waged by the Washington Post and Channel 7 News to, "Get the Guns off of the Streets". I well remember the frequent editorials on that news station about this effort. Every time there was a murder with a firearm, you could count on Channel 7 News to present their slanted message and end their report with "Get the Guns off the streets". And the Post would run opinions and editorials mostly in their Sunday edition to the same effect. The result of all of the was the ban that was today, overturned. And this is a primary reason I do not watch Channel 7 News to this day, nor do I buy the racist and biased Washington Post.
The Washington ComPost, also known as Pravda on the Potomac, is going to hate this poll if the number continue as they are currently portrayed.
Many of you may not have been in this area when the fanatical campaign was waged by the Washington Post and Channel 7 News to, "Get the Guns off of the Streets". I well remember the frequent editorials on that news station about this effort. Every time there was a murder with a firearm, you could count on Channel 7 News to present their slanted message and end their report with "Get the Guns off the streets". And the Post would run opinions and editorials mostly in their Sunday edition to the same effect. The result of all of the was the ban that was today, overturned. And this is a primary reason I do not watch Channel 7 News to this day, nor do I buy the racist and biased Washington Post.
libertyrules
Regular Member
imported post
69% yes
29% no
1% clueless
69% yes
29% no
1% clueless
DrewGunner
Regular Member
imported post
libertyrules wrote:
Let me help ya out with that. :lol:
69% yes
29% clueless
1% ever more clueless
libertyrules wrote:
Let me help ya out with that. :lol:
69% yes
29% clueless
1% ever more clueless
libertyrules
Regular Member
imported post
DrewGunner wrote:
HA! Eggsactly.
DrewGunner wrote:
HA! Eggsactly.
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
70% now.
70% now.
casullshooter
Regular Member
imported post
We should all be glad that Kerry did not win in 2004 or Alito and Roberts would not be on the bench. We would likely have lost this one with 2 more liberals on the SCOTUS. Think about this in November as Justice Breyer is 88 years old and Souter very close behind. Who do you want appointing the next justice? Obama may well appoint a Clinton:what: as payola for support in the General election.
It is the only reason I can think of to vote for McCain.....BUT a DAMN good one.
We should all be glad that Kerry did not win in 2004 or Alito and Roberts would not be on the bench. We would likely have lost this one with 2 more liberals on the SCOTUS. Think about this in November as Justice Breyer is 88 years old and Souter very close behind. Who do you want appointing the next justice? Obama may well appoint a Clinton:what: as payola for support in the General election.
It is the only reason I can think of to vote for McCain.....BUT a DAMN good one.
imported post
If Kerry won, certainly those justices would not have been appointed. As such, the law would not have been challenged just as in the past. The supreme court could not have been trusted to make a decision in the past. Another supreme court in the recent past would have abolished the second amendment if such a challenge came up. As it is, I am upset that we have four activist judges who think more of their own agenda than what the authors of the constitution clearly intended. Ginsburg and company are a disgrace.
If Kerry won, certainly those justices would not have been appointed. As such, the law would not have been challenged just as in the past. The supreme court could not have been trusted to make a decision in the past. Another supreme court in the recent past would have abolished the second amendment if such a challenge came up. As it is, I am upset that we have four activist judges who think more of their own agenda than what the authors of the constitution clearly intended. Ginsburg and company are a disgrace.
libertyrules
Regular Member
imported post
I agree Obama must be defeated, but a sitting president can't appoint; he can only nominate at the SCOTUS level. However, if Obama manages to pull this charade off, with a Democratic majority in Congress, we're gonna be in a world of hurt.
I agree Obama must be defeated, but a sitting president can't appoint; he can only nominate at the SCOTUS level. However, if Obama manages to pull this charade off, with a Democratic majority in Congress, we're gonna be in a world of hurt.
Aegis
Regular Member
imported post
71% and climbing.
71% and climbing.
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
I agree - the ONLY reason I can find. If a SCOTUS nomination were not so not only possible but likely, actually more than 2 may be likely in the next 4-6 years, I don't know that I could bring myself to vote for the douche or the turd sandwich.
I agree - the ONLY reason I can find. If a SCOTUS nomination were not so not only possible but likely, actually more than 2 may be likely in the next 4-6 years, I don't know that I could bring myself to vote for the douche or the turd sandwich.