Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

It was an artificial deadline. And to order the recounts halted, and then say, well, there isn't time to complete them, is not exactly unbiased.

I know you're a fanatic, but could you devote a little bit of effort to telling one poster from another (and while you're at it, to realize that not everyone who opposes you is on the far right)?






The only thing specious about it is the fact that they have not *also* set up a proper armed militia so that Americans nationwide can start buying automatic rifles, grenades/grenade launchers, bazookas, and the like, and start keeping them in their own homes.

There is no question that Americans have an ancient right to carry guns for self defense when they go out in public, and it is a very good thing that the courts have begun to recognize that part of our Constitutional rights.


It is only a matter of time until Gura's next lawsuit reaches the Supreme Court, and then we will truly have people carrying arms for self defense nationwide:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-03-06/news/bs-md-gun-law-appeal-20120306_1_gun-ruling-gun-rights-state-police



Meanwhile, the UN does not know what kind of Hell is just about to land on top of them.

I almost feel sorry for them. But I suppose it will be good for the combined nations of the world to fully understand that the NRA is more powerful than they are.

The deadline of December 12 was part of the federal statute that governed the election. (It probably still is, unless they've changed the law, although the way it is calculated means the deadline does not always fall on the 12th.)

After December 12, the only way to overturn Bush's victory would have been to have Congress vote to overturn the results, and that was not going to happen.

Gore was just trying to precipitate a Constitutional crisis, and the Supreme Court was having none of it.

Yes, oralloy, I did confuse you with hawkeye. I apologize to hawk, since it's usually you with the more fanatical posts, speaking of fanatics, speaking of your last post, not hawk. Granted, he's no slouch at it, but you have him beaten.

All I ever do is point out the truth.

If the truth conflicts with your ideology, don't blame me. Blame reality.

oralloiy says:

That is utter crap. Gore was behind by a margin not even thick enough to be called razor-thin in an election characterized by completely incompetent administration by Florida with massive questions about the whole procedure, with a deadline abrogatable, in a result which clearly demanded a fair and complete recount, even if it delayed the turnover for awhile. Look at the Franken recount, which was almost endless, and was similarly close, but which finally came to a fair conclusion.. SCotUS and Florida together did something completely antithetical to the spirit of the Constitution. It was clearly totally political, not impartial. Gore only wanted a fair election count. If you consider a fair count a constitutional crisis, you have no idea what the Constitution is about.

oralloy says

Self-delusion is so hard to shake.

Nope. The deadline of December 12 was set in stone as part of a federal statute.

After that date, the only way to overturn a Bush victory, no matter what any eventual recount showed, would be to have both the House of Representatives and the US Senate concurrently vote to overturn Bush's victory.





That is hardly what Gore wanted. He only wanted to recount ballots in heavily democratic precincts, leaving ballots in heavily Republican precincts unrecounted.

Funny how you've not once ever shown me to be wrong on a single fact.

The law looks like it is unchanged.



That date was December 18, back in 2000.





And 6 days before December 18, is December 12.





The Bush electors were certified by the executive of the state. That means the only way to overturn the Bush victory after December 12 would be to have *both* houses vote to do so.

Sorry but the constitution is the constitution and the populatar vote as such is meaningless..................

Yes they was running out of time but that was the SC fault to as they order a stop to the recount until they hear the case and then had the nerve to state that one of the reason for their ruling was the time element.

In any case the action was an outrage and if I had been a supervisor of election in one of those counties I would have told the SC to jam their ruling up their asses and if they would wish to stop the recount they would need to use US marshals at gun point to to so.

Still a recount would not had change things...........

WASHINGTON (AP) — Negotiators at the United Nations are working to put final touches on a treaty cracking down on the global, $60 billion business of illicit trading in small arms, a move aimed at curbing violence in some of the most troubled corners of the world. In the United States, gun activists denounce it as an end run around their constitutional right to bear arms.

"Without apology, the NRA wants no part of any treaty that infringes on the precious right of lawful Americans to keep and bear arms," National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre told the U.N. this month. "Any treaty that includes civilian firearms ownership in its scope will be met with the NRA's greatest force of opposition."

And treaty opponent John Bolton, who was President George W. Bush's ambassador to the U.N., wrote that gun-control advocates "hope to use restrictions on international gun sales to control gun sales at home."

But what both ignore is a well-enshrined legal principle that says no treaty can override the Constitution or U.S. laws.

In fact, a first draft of the treaty circulated in New York this week has been criticized by arms-control activists for containing too many loopholes. For instance, it doesn't include a proposed ban on ammunition trade. Gun activists are standing firm in near-blanket opposition to such a ban, as last Friday's deadly Aurora, Colo., theater shooting rampage heightens interest in the deliberations and raises the stakes.

While the treaty controversy is simmering in Congress and on the Internet, it hasn't yet become a burning issue in the presidential race.

President Barack Obama supports the treaty effort but hasn't talked about it on the campaign trail. Presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney hasn't specifically addressed the treaty but broadly opposes what he sees as overreach by the U.N. on many fronts.

"I'm willing to talk there. I'm not willing to give the United Nations sovereignty in any way or form" over U.S. citizens or law, Romney said at a July 18 town hall in Bowling Green, Ohio.

Romney and Obama did spar long-distance over the narrower issue of U.S. gun control laws this week, with Obama suggesting stiffer regulations in a speech Wednesday night to the National Urban League and Romney arguing in an NBC interview from London, where he is traveling, that America does not need new gun laws.

The Constitution's Second Amendment offers broad protection for weapons ownership by civilians. As recently as 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed this when it struck down a ban on handguns in the District of Columbia, ruling that individuals have a constitutional right to keep guns for self-defense and other purposes. Period.

The court also has ruled separately that treaty obligations may not infringe on individual constitutional protections and rights within U.S. borders. This goes back at least to a 1920 ruling that a migratory bird treaty with Canada, which prohibited the hunting or capturing of certain birds, was an unconstitutional interference with states' rights under the 10th Amendment.

Treaties are government-to-government agreements and do not subject citizens of one nation to laws of another or to those of an outside body.

Also, the U.N. resolution that authorized drafting of the small arms treaty recognizes the clear-cut right of nations "to regulate internal transfers of arms" and says nothing in the treaty that emerges will affect "constitutional protections on private ownership" of firearms.

Beyond that, there are many court rulings spelling out the limits of treaties. And if an act of Congress is inconsistent with a treaty obligation, the law passed by Congress prevails. Legal scholars say this has been well-established, including a long history of cases involving Indian treaties. Various international treaties with Indian tribes were abrogated by Congress — and courts ruled in favor of Congress, much to the displeasure of the tribes.

A proposed treaty to regulate exports and imports of small weapons has been on the U.N. agenda since 2006, and Bush ordered a U.S. veto of that move.

Obama got the process rolling again in 2010. So far, 152 nations have participated in the drafting and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification once there is a final document.

But it may be an empty gesture.

Treaties must be ratified by two-thirds of the 100-member Senate, or 67 votes. And with pressure mounting from the gun lobby, led by the politically powerful NRA, a bipartisan letter opposing such a treaty already gained the signatures of well over 50 senators.

Even so, mushrooming fears have spread on the Internet and on social networks lately, with some pro-gun activists even suggesting the Obama administration was capitalizing on the Colorado killings to advance its case for gun control and others portraying it as a darker plot by the U.N. to expand its reach.

The controversy feeds into suggestions by many conservatives that Obama ultimately hopes to ban possession of firearms, even though he has stood up for protecting Second Amendment rights.

Some gun-rights advocates acknowledge that a treaty by itself wouldn't likely undercut these Second Amendment guarantees.

"But there are all kinds of ways that international law insinuates itself into U.S. law even when there's not a formal ratification," said David Kopel, research director for the conservative Independence Institute, based in Golden, Colo.

For instance, he suggests a treaty could affect the shipment of certain gun parts to U.S. manufacturers, even if the United States does not sign the treaty.

But Gabor Rona, international legal director of Human Rights First, said, "The circle created by the treaty and the circle created by the Second Amendment simply don't intersect at all."

"There is no doubt that the Constitution is superior to any international treaties," said Rona, who also teaches international law at Columbia University.

Good, that someone at least said it very clearily.


That actually should have been clear to anybody before as well, since that's something, any country with a constitution does. Since ages.

Sounds like you might be on the same **** Trayvon Martin was on, monkeyjerk...

In real life, W. was up by 60K votes with 25 minutes or so to go before polls closed and, knowing that nobody makes up that sort of a margin in that much time, Algor conceded the election.

And, then, Abracadabra-SHAZAM!, presto!!! 30 minutes later the race was dead even, and Algor called back to rescind his concession.

A day or two later a demoKKKrat operative was stopped with one of the Flori-duh voting machines in the trunk of his car which is the political equivalent of you or me being stopped with a neutron bomb in the trunk of one of our vehicles, the story disappeared and, in the following days, Limbaugh and others got hold of Flori-duh style voting devices legally and attempted to determine what would produce the infamous "dimpled chad" by experiment.

Turned out the only way anybody could produce hanging or dimpled chads was by trying to punch 20 or 30 voting cards at once i.e. the dimpled and hanging chads seen in the Flori-duh election were artifacts of vote manufacturing, i.e. fraud.

Somebody basically manufactured 60K votes in the last half hour of that race and simply missed his tally by a couple of thousand. In real life, minus the fraud and demoKKKrat efforts to steal an election which wasn't really close enough to steal, W. won that election by 60K votes.

You have no rights. Freedom is a hopeless position in a globalised world. You're on the wrong side of history. 310 million is a pipsqueak population.

You're just scared witless of facing up to your insignificance.

The UN is the future. The administrative class of your country has more in common with the same class in other countries than it does with the hicks from the boondocks. Farmers can't run modern states. They don't even understand them.

Congress looks more like a Parish Council with every year that goes by. A posturing shop.

I guess that's true if you don't use the word "it" correctly and only ever talk in non sequiturs.

What treaty crap isn't going to be tolerated. The NRA doesn't cite one instance of the treaty banning guns in the US. It only uses scare tactics that they don't trust the UN. Gosh.. I don't trust you oralloy because you are a liar. I don't have to provide any evidence of it. I only have to state I don't trust you for it to be true using the NRA's standard and yours.

Let me make that big so even the idiot NRA members can read it. Thought I doubt they will understand it.

Its not "whining"; we r WINNING,
with more that 1/2 of the Senate on the FREEDOM side.





David