Shooting at Washington Shipyard

@JTT,

only if the crying is therapeutic. we dont normally know enough about other peoples of the world to cry for them, all most of us "know" is the product placed in front of us by manipulators. but if cued-ed up to cry over say the the Lybian people by folks who want to kill the Lybian leader, hey, we can do that.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Your compassion for the people the US regularly murders is heart warming, Hawk.

0 Replies

Obama was just doing his attack on the second amendment using the dead bodies of those killed in the Shipyard shootings.

Let see he does not care for the first , second , and fifth amendments so far.

Damn it I voted for this asshole two times and the damn republicans ran such **** poor candidates both times even knowing what I know now I can not see voting for them either.

Talk about being between the rock and the hard place.

0 Replies

Read Scalia's majority decision in Heller, Bill. Obama clearly is well within what the Court majority in Heller said the Second Amendment permitted and didn't. No potential violation of the Amendment at all. You've got it wrong.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Read Scalia's majority decision in Heller, Bill. Obama clearly is well within what the Court majority in Heller said the Second Amendment permitted and didn't. No potential violation of the Amendment at all. You've got it wrong.

Balderdash!

0 Replies

Clearly you've never actually read it. You react from ignorance.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Clearly you've never actually read it. You react from ignorance.

Nope. I am familiar with it.

You might recall that I've quite often set you straight when you've spewed nonsensical gibberish about this subject.

Being familiar with the subject is a prerequisite for repeatedly correcting you.

0 Replies

You've never set me straight on anything. I start out and continue straight. You, on the other hand, are usually bent. And ;you are wrong about the second amendment, as are the other absolutists, whom Scalia takes to task.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

You've never set me straight on anything.

Yes I have. It's been a routine occurrence with all the gibberish you've spewed on the gun threads this past year.

MontereyJack wrote:

I start out and continue straight.

Nope. You nearly always spew nonsense, and you are routinely set straight on it (often by me).

MontereyJack wrote:

You, on the other hand, are usually bent.

Feel free to point out even a single thing that I am wrong about.

MontereyJack wrote:

And you are wrong about the second amendment,

Feel free to point out even a single thing about the Second Amendment that I am wrong about.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Feel free to point out even a single thing about the Second amendment that I am wrong about.

MJ did and all you've done since then is stamp your feet, Oralboy. I'm not saying he was right or wrong, but what good do you do yourself or the topic by just doing your usual song and dance routine. Discuss specifically [would you like a definition of 'specifically' to help you focus?] the allegations MJ made Re: Heller.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Feel free to point out even a single thing about the Second Amendment that I am wrong about.

MJ did

Nonsense. Cite?

JTT wrote:

Oralboy. I'm not saying he was right or wrong, but what good do you do yourself or the topic by

Speaking of "what good do you do".....

How is your incessant name-calling ever useful for any conversation?

JTT wrote:

Discuss specifically [would you like a definition of 'specifically' to help you focus?] the allegations MJ made Re: Heller.

This time he did not make much of an allegation regarding Heller. Even if I were inclined to address his nonsense one more time, there wasn't much to address.

However, he has made more detailed allegations in the past, and I've debunked them in detail many many times. At some point, a person gets tired of repeating themselves.

Repeating myself would be especially tiresome in a situation like this one. We've comprehensively defeated the Freedom Haters. It is a total rout.

Not only is there not going to be any gun control passed, but Obama's second term is going to be a legislative wasteland, and there will be a Republican elected president in 2016.

For him to now pop up and want to rehash his discredited gibberish yet again is a bit like 1946 Japan asking if we could go back and re-do the Battle of Midway.

1 Reply

Why do you think this shooting is getting no where near the same coverage as others?

Someone wrote an op-ed piece in the WAPO today suggesting that no one cares about DC.

I doubt that is the reason.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

The Post devoted several pages to it in the SUnday First section. It focused mainly in "why didn't this guy get help?" how come he retained his Q clearances even after several episodes of firing his gun and /or brandishing it. Also, he obviously needed help because of his "voices" and paranoia

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Nonsense. Cite?

Read Scalia's majority decision in Heller, Bill. Obama clearly is well within what the Court majority in Heller said the Second Amendment permitted and didn't. No potential violation of the Amendment at all. You've got it wrong.

That's enough to address. Surely someone can locate the pertinent info. Thomas does it all the time while you native Americans shuck and jive around pretty much everything.

The rest of your post was shuck and jive.

Quote:

How is your incessant name-calling ever useful for any conversation?

That's not name calling, that's a perfectly apt name for a guy who does nothing but swallow Uncle Sam's myriad lies.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

The why the hell he was not given help is one damn question along why the hell he maintain his clearance.

My wife when she was joining the peace corp needed to have one hell of a back ground check including details of some mental health counseling that dated back to the early 1960s when she was in college.

Could not believe what they ask about and check for people who was volunteering two years of their lives for basely free.

An it would seems that details about her personal life that no US private company could legally ask for was routine questions on their form.

Then in WW2 my father needed to have a high level clearance and the FBI showed up in the very small town he was from and ask all kind of questions of those in the town such as did my father had a drinking problem, did he fight with or cheat on my mother and was they in debt and on and on.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

we really really did not need yet another story about government doing its work really really badly.

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Nonsense. Cite?

Read Scalia's majority decision in Heller, Bill. Obama clearly is well within what the Court majority in Heller said the Second Amendment permitted and didn't. No potential violation of the Amendment at all. You've got it wrong.

That's enough to address.

A vague claim that lacks any specifics?

OK, I'll address it: "No he isn't."

There. Happy now?

JTT wrote:

Surely someone can locate the pertinent info.

As I just pointed out to you in my previous post, MJ has many times in the past posted his bogus claim in much greater detail. And in each of those previous times I completely debunked his nonsense also in much greater detail.

Given the vagueness of his claim this time, my weariness at repeating myself when I've already debunked a claim hundreds of times, and the fact that my side has just comprehensively defeated his side, I am not too interested in repeating myself one more time yet again.

JTT wrote:

The rest of your post was shuck and jive.

No it wasn't.

JTT wrote:

oralloy wrote:
How is your incessant name-calling ever useful for any conversation?

That's not name calling,

Yes it is.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

From Scalia's opinion in Heller

Quote:

Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.

Quote:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

Quote:

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

Scalia iz ded wrong cuz the sekond amendamont duzn sez them things!

Gol dern it, my nuckles is all scrapped up!

1 Reply

It's been more than a week. When is the next scheduled mass murder?

0 Replies

Shooting at Washington Shipyard

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know