Turning The Ballot Box Against Republicans

@Baldimo,

Nonsense. That's what state's rights were used explicitly for for a century and a half. And if someone repeatedly posts nonsense, calling them on it is deserved. And the 10th amendment is about apportionment of rights, not the rightist screed about reining in the feds.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

gun makers are adept at designing guns that skirt the old assault weapons ban (don't give me **** about definitions of assault weapons. that's what it was known as).

This is an admission that they were targeting guns based on how they looked and not what they actually do. Thank you for being honest for once. The Ruger Ranch Rifle has been made the same way for decades, nothing has changed about it and no one created it to "get around" the gun laws. It was never included in the original "assault" weapons ban, they left it alone. Why? It didn't have a pistol grip, that's why. It didn't look mean and dangerous. Hell, the original ban had a few pellet guns and .22 LR guns in the mix because they looked scary.

Quote:

Which is why we should just cut to the root and ban semi-auto guns with detachable magazines, which as the videos I've posted several times show, are capable of 100aimed shots in about a minute and a half, pretty much irrespective of magazine size. That's getting into slaughter territory

You do realize that is 80% + of the weapons currently in citizens hands?

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

You're wrong as usual.

You cannot point out any place where I've ever been wrong.

MontereyJack wrote:

They don't mention pistol grips no matter what you think they do,

Wrong. You mentioned pistol grips:

"weapons with ONE functional feature (which oralloy mistakenly refers to as "cosmetic features") will be banned"

The fact that you wrongly referred to pistol grips as functional features does not change the reality that you referred to pistol grips.

Denying reality will not change the fact that you mentioned pistol grips.

MontereyJack wrote:

because they were condemning weapons, not grips.

Your sophistic word games are silly.

"Banning a gun whenever it has a pistol grip on it" is exactly the same thing as "banning pistol grips on that gun."

MontereyJack wrote:

Your interpretations of what you think people say are purely your own mistaken impressions and misinterpretations you design to further your own opinions, not what they actually say.

I've made no mistake. You praised and called for bans on pistol grips on semi-auto rifles.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Why are conservative debate skills so shoddy?

Conservative debate skills run rings around you while you helplessly try to deny reality and avoid confronting the truth.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

gun makers are adept at designing guns that skirt the old assault weapons ban (don't give me **** about definitions of assault weapons. that's what it was known as).

So in other words, you are after a total ban on all guns.

Whenever manufacturers comply with your bans, you describe that compliance as "skirting the bans" and call for banning even more stuff.

MontereyJack wrote:

Which is why we should just cut to the root and ban semi-auto guns with detachable magazines, which as the videos I've posted several times show, are capable of 100 aimed shots in about a minute and a half, pretty much irrespective of magazine size. That's getting into slaughter territory

That video did not establish that someone could fire rifles that fast using five-round magazines.

That video did however establish that people can fire that fast even without semi-autos or detachable magazines. Note the segment with the New York reloads.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Nonsense. That's what state's rights were used explicitly for for a century and a half.

So what? That does not mean that a limited federal government is a bad idea.

MontereyJack wrote:

And if someone repeatedly posts nonsense, calling them on it is deserved.

Thus all the conservative corrections of your untrue claims.

MontereyJack wrote:

And the 10th amendment is about apportionment of rights, not the rightist screed about reining in the feds.

That is incorrect. The Tenth Amendment says that the power and authority of the federal government is limited to only the power and authority that is explicitly granted to it by the Constitution.

3 Replies

@oralloy,

It does not mean that the limits the rightists iwant to impose necesarily haveany validity. The ideal is incolns govt bY the people FOR the people. If we want it weshouldbeable to get it and the rightists shouldnt be able toblock it by afbitrary limits. If its not unconstitutional its our right and packing courts with dogmatic rightists denies us our rights.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

No. The 10th explicitly recognizes that other rights exist which are protected but not within what the constitution is for.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

You are thinking of the Ninth Amendment.

The Tenth Amendment limits the federal government to only the powers that are explicitly granted to it by the Constitution.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

It does not mean that the limits the rightists want to impose necessarily have any validity.

That depends on what limits they want to impose.

It does mean that if the Constitution does not grant a certain power and authority to the federal government, then the federal government does not possess that power and authority.

MontereyJack wrote:

The ideal is incolns govt bY the people FOR the people. If we want it we should be able to get it

The Constitution doesn't work that way. If the majority wants to impose an unconstitutional law, the Constitution overrules the majority.

Of course, the majority can try to amend the Constitution if they really want something that is currently off limits.

MontereyJack wrote:

and the rightists shouldn't be able to block it by arbitrary limits.

It's not arbitrary. The federal government has the powers granted it by the Constitution, and no more.

MontereyJack wrote:

If its not unconstitutional its our right

If it's not a power expressly granted to the feds by the Constitution, then it is unconstitutional for the feds to get involved.

MontereyJack wrote:

and packing courts with dogmatic rightists denies us our rights.

Conservative judges believe strongly in upholding the Constitution. It's the progressive judges who allow rights to be violated.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Nope. 10th.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

The Ninth Amendment is the one that protects rights that are not enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment says that the federal government has only what power and authority it has been granted by the Constitution, and no more.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Arguably the wotld has
Changed more in the lsst two hundred years than in the 3000years before it. There arre things americans now regard as rights that the framers never thought of or even existed then that the constitution was retrofitted to cover and not by amendments. The fictive personhood of corporations for one. Healthcare as as everyones right for another. The gops futzing around pn that was one of the main reasons they lost the house in 18.
Govt by the people for the people.

N

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Here you go.
https://constitutionday.cpms.osd.mil/constitution3/LaunchPage.html

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Since you don't know what you are talking about, here's the definition, even though you know you are wrong, you have to waste people's time:

9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

1 Reply

Trump Plans to Destroy Coronavirus with an Incredibly Mean Tweet
Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump said that he was already in the process of crafting insults about the virus that would obliterate it once and for all.
By Andy Borowitz

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

That's the definition. Claiming states rights justified segregation was the definition in action. I'm right.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

Cite won't come up not that any of your cities are ed worth the time wasted in reading them.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

No, you aren't, that wasn't the subject at hand, you had to change the subject to try and be correct, this just proves you more wrong. Do you understand the difference between the 9th and 10th Amendments now?

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

I think you're confusing sales with in people's hands. But yes I know they're the hot ticket. So what. Opioids were very popular too

Didn't stop us from stopping their use. The more ar15s sold the more reason to stop selling them. They're too good at slaughter whether wholesale or retail.1

1 Reply

Turning The Ballot Box Against Republicans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know