Gun law changes from Obama?

The ultimate authority of governance in our system resides in the legislative branch, although with carefully considered safeguards against majoritarian tyranny. The President can veto legislation, but Congress can override a veto, if they can secure a two thirds majority. The courts can invalidate legislation as unconstitutional, but the Conress can amend the constitution--if two thirds of both houses propose amendment, and if three quarters of the states ratify the amendment. Congress controls the purse strings. Congress has the sole ultimate power to make war. The Senate has the sole ultimate power to ratify treaties, if two thirds of the Senate agrees. Most of the kind of hysteria which you have attempted to peddle here derives from a profound ignorance of the constitution and the system of governance which it creates.

Rest your sphincter Setboy, I know what the constitution says and it's obvious that you are so full of yourself that you missed my point.

We already know Obama and his ilk are not a big fans of the constitution and my point is that I think Obama will try to ignore the constitution in an attempt to do whatever he wants.

And yet the premise of this thread is that he has not done that, in spite of whatever you think he said after the Giffords shooting. Interesting logic.

The thread is about liberals that are upset with Obama for not keeping his promise to limit gun ownership, but that does not negate the fact that he ignores the constitution and that if he thought it was in his best interest and it would help him get re-elected he would keep his promise and do whatever he could to limit gun ownership

Now, "we" know nothing of the kind. Don't try to drag me into your sick, hateful fantasies.

The Bill of Rights means that government was given permission to EXIST,
subject to certain conditions, to wit: that some things were beyond the reach of its jurisdiction
among them, reading n writing newspapers as well as freedom of self-defense, inter alia.





David

Now you're just projecting, why don't you tell us more about your sick, hateful fantasies - maybe we can help.

For the record:
In contemplation of the HELLER and the McDONALD cases,
I am OPTIMISTIC as to the complete and total downfall of gun control.
It will wallow at the bottom of the cesspit of history next to nazism & communism.





David

I anticipate the full restoration of the status quo ante of
laissez faire defensive freedom, the same as the 1800s.





David

Set, come on in, take a seat and tell us more about your sick, hateful fantasies.

Monkeys are also adept at copying people.

That was an insult to monkeys everywhere.

Nothing original there... you probably should switch hands now.

Set is into monkeys... who knew that was part of his hateful fantasies.

Poor little monkeys.

better run then spurt. Youre about as simian as we got

Rest easy Formerman, we will protect your dumb monkey butt.

Now who's having fantasies? You probably have me wearing some water-softener repair tool belt.

EVERY predatory event
is a simple contest of power.
The supporters of gun control
just want the predator to enjoy a MONOPOLY of power over his helpless, law-abiding victim.





David

That is so typical of your irrational hatred of those who don't agree with you on this obsession of yours. You are asserting, with no good reason, a motive to people with whom you disagree, and the only purpose of the assertion is to denigrate them. This is equivalent to your "die on yours knees" bullshit. It's a witless, hateful slur, with no logical basis. It's just the venting of your spleen.

I shoud be non-typical ?


It has been RESENTMENT of those who have supported violation
of the very most fundamental right: that to fight back against predatory violence, in self-defense.
Do u imply that I shoud be FORGIVING of this horror against justice ?
Is there A REASON to be forgiving ?





The good reason has been too many decades of observation
of the baleful results of discriminatory licensure
of the right to defend oneself from predatory violence.






Setanta, thay have done worse than DISAGREE.
Thay abused democracy to create felonies against victims
defending themselves from predatory violence.
THAT is complicity in the predatory evil.






Supporters of gun control have asserted that it is better to grovel on your knees than to fight back.
I disputed this with a captain of the NYC Police, over brunch.
He used a trembling voice and showed his hands quivering
in fear to demonstrate the approved technique of addressing criminals
(not for the [armed] police, but for the ordinary citizens).
Much use was made of this argument from 1945 to c.1991,
rejecting anti-communist resistence (think Bertrand Russell).



No, its MORE than that.
My post raises objections to the immorality of the of the gun control position,
sacrificing the good people (victims) to save the bad people (predatory criminals).


I 'm certain that dedicated predatory criminals (as well as the communists) join u in disapproving of it.
I have seen taped interviews with incarcerated violent felons,
discussing armed victims being their most intense fear on-the-job.
Violent criminals DISAPPROVE of armed victims.
Violent criminals NEED gun control.
Violent crime is too dangerous for criminals without gun control.

I am sure that the National Socialists deemed it most improper
for the Jews to shoot back at them in the Warsaw Ghetto; some nerve.
Thay probably thought it was WITLESS and HATEFUL.






In your post, u limit yourself to addressing EMOTIONS,
rather than the merits of discriminatory licensure of the right to self defense,
as distinct from personal freedom.





David