Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Yes, you are confused.

No I'm not. I am naturally immune to confusion.

InfraBlue wrote:

The definition of assault weapon in the law are facts and reality for the purposes of the law.

So what?

InfraBlue wrote:

Sometimes the sky is yellow, a law would be correct in pointing that out regardless of who passed it.

The sky is normally blue, not yellow.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

from dictionary.com, definition of "court packing":
the practice of changing the numberOR COMPOSITION
of judges on a court, making it more favorable to particular goals or ideologies
9emphasis added)

Got that, oralloy? chasng es in the composition. . Precisely what Trump and the gop did by only appointing far right judges to an unprecedented number of vacancies,at all levels, not just scotus, in an effort to highjack bliond justice in favor of odepologically-motivated opinionate justice. blocking obama's nomination of garland by inventing a precedent and then violating their own bogus precedent to rush trumpp's 3rd scotus p[ick in time for the election, so she could voote for him if it came before scotus.

That part of his packing didn't wprkl,l fortunately.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

no. CONFUSION R U.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

With my 170 IQ I am naturally immune to confusion. That's why you cannot provide any examples of confusion on my part.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

from dictionary.com, definition of "court packing":
the practice of changing the number OR COMPOSITION of judges on a court, making it more favorable to particular goals or ideologies
(emphasis added)

I suppose changing the composition via extraordinary means could count.

But Mr. Trump was only filling ordinary vacancies.

MontereyJack wrote:

in an effort to highjack blind justice in favor of ideologically-motivated opinionate justice.

Just the opposite. It's the Democrats who put ideology in front of blind justice.

Republicans nominate judges who follow the law and the Constitution.

MontereyJack wrote:

blocking obama's nomination of garland by inventing a precedent

The Republicans didn't invent anything.

The Democrats created that precedent when they blocked W's nominees in 2007-08.

MontereyJack wrote:

and then violating their own bogus precedent to rush trump's 3rd scotus pick in time for the election,

Mr. Garland was blocked as payback for W's nominees. There was no reason to block Mr. Trump's nominees.

MontereyJack wrote:

so she could vote for him if it came before scotus.

No. So she could vote in favor of the law and the Constitution for the rest of her life.

MontereyJack wrote:

That part of his packing didn't work fortunately.

That's because there was no packing to begin with.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Uh-huh. Says you.

So you're wrong.

Right.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

falso. republican appointees twist the constitution to fit their ideology. that's not blind justice. That's a fact. And cojrt packing was and is there. Trump's big lies about the election were utterly flimsy and umnconvincing, even to his appointees, and he seriously overestimated the fealty he thought hiis appoiintees would show him was weajened because of the utter lack of any evidence for him, thst he lost anyway in spite of his attempts, unfortunately somewhat successful, to tilt the playing field.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

false. republican appointees twist the constitution to fit their ideology. that's not blind justice. That's a fact.

That is incorrect. Democratic appointees twist the law and the Constitution to fit their ideology. Republican appointees uphold the law and the Constitution.

MontereyJack wrote:

And court packing was and is there.

That is incorrect. Mr. Trump merely filled vacancies on the court.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Says you.

There is also your failure to point out any examples of confusion in my posts.

InfraBlue wrote:

So you're wrong.

I was wrong about Mr. Biden. His hatred of our Constitution is much more intense than I had believed.

But that has nothing to do with your bit of irrelevant trivia about the Democrats writing fraudulent definitions into their laws.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Another in your unending string of posts trhying to pass off your totally ludicrous opinions as fact. Haven't seen SCOTUS objecvting to anythng he's done so far, and they decide what's constitutional, not you. Not to mention the facts that the stimulus bill he got passed and his pandemicresponses have been wildly popular with bipartisan voters.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Another in your unending string of posts trying to pass off your totally ludicrous opinions as fact.

You can't provide any examples of me ever trying to pass off my opinion as fact.

MontereyJack wrote:

Haven't seen SCOTUS objecting to anything he's done so far,

With the American people opposing and undermining him, he has not achieved very much.

MontereyJack wrote:

and they decide what's constitutional, not you.

Appeals to authority are a logical fallacy.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Love the way you ignore reality. m scotus DO decide conbstitutionalityi. you do not. that is reality.And the american peopoe support what biden has done and it's been considerable, and a welcome change from his chaotic predecessor. Leave your bunker and live in the real world instead of a videogame for a change.

1 Reply

The NRA has murdered four more people in California including a child. That’s about par for the course.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

The NRA has never murdered anyone at all.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Love the way you ignore reality.

You cannot point out anything untrue in my post.

MontereyJack wrote:

scotus DO decide constitutionality. you do not. that is reality.

Appeals to authority are a logical fallacy.

MontereyJack wrote:

And the american peopoe support what biden has done and it's been considerable,

Be serious now. Passing a single piece of legislation is hardly considerable.

MontereyJack wrote:

Leave your bunker and live in the real world instead of a videogame for a change.

Not while there is a pandemic raging outside my doors.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

but it sure has facilitated murderers. If they got a gun, they have the nra to thank for making it super easy to getand misuse.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

That is incorrect. Preventing progressives from outlawing pistol grips had not facilitated a single murder.

How many times do I have to say that??

1 Reply

@oralloy,

How many times do I have to tell you it is not about pistol grips.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Laws that ban pistol grips are about pistol grips.

When progressives undermine their entire gun control agenda just so they can fight to the death for a law against pistol grips, that's about pistol grips.

When the NRA defeats progressive attempts to outlaw pistol grips so that the nation can continue to have them, that's about pistol grips.

You've recently abandoned the pistol grip issue to talk about New Zealand gun laws instead. But you used to be all about pistol grips. I can link to old posts where you used to praise laws against pistol grips.

It's good that you personally have stopped trying to outlaw pistol grips. But the other progressives have not joined you in this. They are still focused on trying to outlaw pistol grips.

And the NRA is still focused on blocking their attempts to outlaw pistol grips.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

laws that ban assault-style semi-auto weapoons are about banning assault-style semiauto weapons. Period. And the majorioty of the country is for much stricter laws fgoverning those and similar weapons. And we have a president who owes nothing kto the nra because the majolrity of t .he country elected him despite the nra. His admn is lkooking into ways to issue executive orders on gun control thgat cannot be reversed. If they get sokmmething, the nra is toast.

1 Reply

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know