Is There Any Chance Christie Did NOT Know About the Dirty Tricks?

Okay, it's Whirlaway to cross the finish first.

http://isportsweb.com/wp-content/uploads//2011/01/1941_whirlaway1.jpg

How to derail threads - obfuscate.

0 Replies

Ok, now I'll beg - can you all shut up about guns and talk more, pro or con or in between, about Christie? I am interested, pro or con or inbetween,

2 Replies

@ossobuco,

Hear, hear! I'm with you.

David should start his own gun thread and put his gun rants there.

2 Replies

@IRFRANK,

IRFRANK wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Ask as often as you like. But keep in mind that any changes that you propose will have to pass muster with the NRA before they will be allowed to become US federal law.

Consider that the NRA is the gun manufacturers and you've identified the problem.

The NRA is not the gun manufacturers. The NRA is the moderate branch of the gun rights lobby.

Many of the gun manufacturers don't care about defending the Constitution at all. (There are a few exceptions to that however.)

There is no problem. So long as the NRA stands guard over the Constitution and defends our liberty, everything will be just fine.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

The National Firearms Act defines automatic weapons adequately. Its meaning is either "full auto" or "Burst". The weapons covered , besides automatics, are sawed off shotguns , shortened barrel rifles, surpressors, and things like RPGs and grenade launchers.
These are no-nos without special licenses to own and fire, and class III covers some.

Federal law does not require any licenses. Federal law merely requires that NFA weapons be properly registered on a Form 4.

Some state laws require federal licensing in order to own full auto weapons. And since there is not actually any federal licensing for full autos, a Class 3 FFL (Curios and Relics) is usually used to fulfill that licensing requirement.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Gun control continues to be deemed constitutional.

Gun control is a very broad and very vague term that covers a wide variety of differing proposals. Some gun control is deemed constitutional, and some gun control is deemed blatantly unconstitutional.

Advocate wrote:

In "Heller," there is, as I recall, dictum from Scalia supporting reasonable gun control.

Any time you see the term "reasonable" attached to the term "gun control" it is almost certainly blatantly unconstitutional.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

The thing is, all of the kumquats keep answering guns and more guns comments even if their stuff isn't thread related.

It's a way of killing a2k, by sweep,

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

The thing is, all of the kumquats keep answering guns and more guns comments even if their stuff isn't thread related.

Your long-standing dislike of any and all facts does not mean that Mr. Christie's valiant defense of our Constitutional liberties is off topic.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

huh?

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Hear, hear! I'm with you.

David should start his own gun thread and put his gun rants there.

INGRATE !
I responded to your post when you Advocated:

Advocate wrote:

Gun control continues to be deemed constitutional. In "Heller," there is, as I recall,
dictum from Scalia supporting reasonable gun control.

U shud apologize! Shame on u!!

David

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Any time you see the term "reasonable" attached to the term "gun control" it is almost certainly blatantly unconstitutional.

when you are appointed to the USSC then that assertion may have some
validity (if its prt of a majority vote). Till then, we must view it for the partisan bullshit that it is.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

huh?

While you may not have voiced outright evil here in this thread (yet), it's always hard for me to forget what a horrible monster you are.

More to the point, Mr. Christie's veto of that outrageous ban on heavyweight sniper rifles is an entirely legitimate reason for supporting him.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

when you are appointed to the USSC then that assertion may have some validity (if its prt of a majority vote).

There is no need for me to be appointed to the Supreme Court for me to point out facts and reality.

farmerman wrote:

Till then, we must view it for the partisan bullshit that it is.

Facts and reality are the exact opposite of BS.

As for partisanship, I guess someone could make a case that only one of the two parties truly cares about facts and reality.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Well, my vote cancels your vote, so now we have a deadlock on the Constitutionality of what SCalia said (IN RECORD FOR THE MAJORITY).

1 Reply

@oralloy,

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Well, my vote cancels your vote,

It does not cancel facts and reality however.

farmerman wrote:

so now we have a deadlock on the Constitutionality of what SCalia said (IN RECORD FOR THE MAJORITY).

If someone makes a case that Justice Scalia said something that contravenes the Constitution, I'll address that case when it is made.

I doubt that anyone can make such a case however.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

IRFRANK wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Ask as often as you like. But keep in mind that any changes that you propose will have to pass muster with the NRA before they will be allowed to become US federal law.

Consider that the NRA is the gun manufacturers and you've identified the problem.

The NRA is not the gun manufacturers. The NRA is the moderate branch of the gun rights lobby.

Many of the gun manufacturers don't care about defending the Constitution at all. (There are a few exceptions to that however.)

There is no problem. So long as the NRA stands guard over the Constitution and defends our liberty, everything will be just fine.

In my opinion, the NRA is good, sometimes,
but the 2nd Amendment Foundation is better.

David

1 Reply

@anonymously99stwin,

anonymously99stwin wrote:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P7tOvtXr2c&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/youtube]

No video on a dialup connection. Sorry.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

It does not cancel facts and reality however.

The reality IS that Scalia did state as Advocate paraphrased. AND, that's a fact. You must learn to deal with it and embrace it as prt of HELLER.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

In my opinion, the NRA is good, sometimes,
but the 2nd Amendment Foundation is better.

They all do different things. SAF focuses on challenging unconstitutional laws in court. The NRA focuses on preventing unconstitutional laws from being passed to begin with.

GOA has the same Congressional focus as the NRA, but the NRA are moderates who compromise. GOA are hardliners who never compromise.

0 Replies

Is There Any Chance Christie Did NOT Know About the Dirty Tricks?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know