Gun law changes from Obama?

You're hilarious. You make a long series of emotionally motivated, unsubstantiated allegations against those with whom you disagree, and impute to them execrable behavior, going so far as to accuse them of felonious behavior (yeah, right, Bubba--take 'em to court for those felonies). Yet you tell me about emotional responses.

Your emotional responses to such a disagreement has the character of hysteria.

nice of u to say so




I DO that. Yes.




U misunderstood.
I said that thay abused democracy
to create those felonies (by legislative USURPATION of political power).
I did not accuse them of violating gun control statutes.




U fail to address the SUBSTANCE of the argument:
the USURPATION of political power to intimidate the citizens
out of exercising their Natural Right
( US v. CRUIKSHANK 92 US 542 [1875] )
and/or their Constitutional Right of self defense
D.C. v. HELLER 554 US 290; 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008)

Then you can see, i take it, how hypocritical it is of you to take me to task for allegedly emotionally motivated comments when you admit to making emotionally motivated comments yourself.

I didn't say that you had claimed anyone were violating gun control statutes. You make no plausible case that anyone is usurping legislative power, but if you consider that this happens and constitutes felonious conduct, by all means take the guilty to court. Good luck with that.

There is no substance to your argument alleging a usurpation of power. Cruikshank and Presser both contained the observation of the Court that the second amendment binds that Federal government, but not the states. That certainly doesn't qualify because courts do not legislate, they ajudicate. You make much out of little with that silliness. Despite the finding in Heller, there is no explicit statement of a right of self-defense in the constitution. Although i have no objection to the idea of a right to self defense, nothing of the kind is mentioned in that document. Nor does the articulation of such a right at all contradict Cruikshank or Presser, nor The United States versus Miller, in which the Supremes upheld the National Firearms Act, taking notice of the power given Congress in Article I, section 8 to provide for arming the militia. It is interesting that the Court chose Heller, as it leaves the question of the right of the states and the Federal government to regulate firearms unaddressed.

It looks like I failed to address your post; sorry.

I 'll attend to it.





David