Lets regulate assault weapons... at least as well as we do prescription drugs... WE AGREE HENRY!
Prescription drugs are not a guaranteed right listed specifically in the Bill of Rights. If the third amendment clearly stated that all Americans have a right to prescription medication, I would suggest congress amend the constitution if regulating prescription drugs is truly what the American people want.
This silly argument could be resolved if the gun grabbers suggested a Constitutional Amendment to reword the 2nd Amendment to restrict gun ownership. If 70% of the American people agree that guns should be regulated like the gun grabbers suggest, then it should be no problem to amend the Constitution to reflect the will of the people. But the gun grabbers know, they don't have that support, that's why they never suggest it.
Prescription drugs are not a guaranteed right listed specifically in the Bill of Rights. If the third amendment clearly stated that all Americans have a right to prescription medication, I would suggest congress amend the constitution if regulating prescription drugs is truly what the American people want.
This silly argument could be resolved if the gun grabbers suggested a Constitutional Amendment to reword the 2nd Amendment to restrict gun ownership. If 70% of the American people agree that guns should be regulated like the gun grabbers suggest, then it should be no problem to amend the Constitution to reflect the will of the people. But the gun grabbers know, they don't have that support, that's why they never suggest it.
The US Supreme Court (the one that America recognizes, but you don't') clearly states that guns can be regulated and that the right to bear arms is not unlimited. Justice Scalia stated on gun control: “Yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed”.
Sorry Cissy... Your 2nd amendment is a different one than the one the rest of America has.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The US Supreme Court (the one that America recognizes, but you don't') clearly states that guns can be regulated and that the right to bear arms is not unlimited. Justice Scalia stated on gun control: “Yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed”.
Sorry Cissy... Your 2nd amendment is a different one than the one the rest of America has.
Lol...Oh, not THE Supreme Court, but THIS Supreme Court. Those are OPINION'S box not absolutes; opinions have many times been reversed by future Supreme Courts. You may not be aware of that.
Geez box, you will listen to any authority to interpret to you what something means. They are just people box, offering an opinion. The opinions of the people wearing the black costumes today, doesn't mean the people that will wear the black costumes tomorrow won't change. That is why they argue cases in front of the court (sometime over, and over, and over again), to persuade their opinion, not to ask for their opinion. If they just wanted their opinion, why bother spending millions of dollars arguing a case? They could just send a letter requesting their opinions.
Compare homicide rates between pre and post federal assualt weapons ban. It looks as if the homicide rate went down once the ban was lifted. But you can see for yourself.
Has everybody taken time to actually compare the assualt weapons ban homicide rate and compare it to after it was lifted? I thought box would have at least had a response as to why the NY homicide rate decreased after the assault weapons ban was lifted. Wouldn't that run counter to his theory that banning assault weapons reduces homicide? Oh yeah, he uses the statistic of "gun deaths" to fit the agenda.
Lol...Oh, not THE Supreme Court, but THIS Supreme Court. Those are OPINION'S box not absolutes; opinions have many times been reversed by future Supreme Courts. You may not be aware of that.
Geez box, you will listen to any authority to interpret to you what something means. They are just people box, offering an opinion. The opinions of the people wearing the black costumes today, doesn't mean the people that will wear the black costumes tomorrow won't change. That is why they argue cases in front of the court (sometime over, and over, and over again), to persuade their opinion, not to ask for their opinion. If they just wanted their opinion, why bother spending millions of dollars arguing a case? They could just send a letter requesting their opinions.
OMG!!! Stop Cissy! Ya are killin me
So for Cicero, the rulings of the Supreme Court are "just opinions"... nothing that really means anything... just like I have an opinion, and Cicero has an opinion... Supreme courts "opinions" (on which they base their rulings) are of little consequence.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
So for Cicero, the rulings of the Supreme Court are "just opinions"... nothing that really means anything... just like I have an opinion, and Cicero has an opinion... Supreme courts "opinions" (on which they base their rulings) are of little consequence.
I know box, one justice's opinon is the gospel to you.
I never said they were of little consequence. Their opinions have consequences because it legitimizes the arbitrary rules that control the citizens and how they can restrict the individuals liberty. That doesn't change the fact that their rulings are based on their OPINIONS. And it doesn't change the fact that future courts may REVERSE ruling based on THEIR OPINIONS.
I knew you wouldn't understand.
Definition: The majority opinion is an explanation of the reasoning behind the majority decision of a supreme court. In terms of the United States Supreme Court, the majority opinion is written by a justice selected by either the Chief Justice or if he or she is not in the majority then the senior justice who voted with the majority. The Majority Opinion is often cited as precedent in arguments and decisions during other court cases. Two additional opinions that justices of the US Supreme Court might issue include a Concurring Opinion and a Dissenting Opinion.
I know box, one justice's opinon is the gospel to you.
I never said they were of little consequence. Their opinions have consequences because it legitimizes the arbitrary rules that control the citizens and how they can restrict the individuals liberty. That doesn't change the fact that their rulings are based on their OPINIONS. And it doesn't change the fact that future courts may REVERSE ruling based on THEIR OPINIONS.
I knew you wouldn't understand.
Definition: The majority opinion is an explanation of the reasoning behind the majority decision of a supreme court. In terms of the United States Supreme Court, the majority opinion is written by a justice selected by either the Chief Justice or if he or she is not in the majority then the senior justice who voted with the majority. The Majority Opinion is often cited as precedent in arguments and decisions during other court cases. Two additional opinions that justices of the US Supreme Court might issue include a Concurring Opinion and a Dissenting Opinion.
I'm glad that you looked it up Cic... maybe now you won't go around embarrassing yourself like you did in the above post!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Lets regulate assault weapons... at least as well as we do prescription drugs... WE AGREE HENRY!
So you are all for selling firearms on every street corner, me to, damn we do agree. Hell getting a prescription is easier then buying beer especially when big pharma pays off most hospital staff.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
So you are all for selling firearms on every street corner, me to, damn we do agree. Hell getting a prescription is easier then buying beer especially when big pharma pays off most hospital staff.
Both firearms and prescription drugs are REGULATED... being different products with different dangers to society, both should be regulated as fits the product.
YOU brought up the firearm/prescription drug link...not I.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Prescription Drugs can only be purchased WHEN F'N NEEDED RIGHT??? They are a regulated product that requires special NEEDS before they can be sold.
OMG you are not serious. Do you know how many people right now are over prescribed meds !!! How many addicts are given drugs that should NEVER be prescribed to them. How many kids are on drugs that make them into little zombies in our school systems because the school physcologists THINK they need them.
Did you guys hear ex-law enforcement will not have to obey the new laws, even though they're your average citizens right now I guess they are still above the law
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Did you guys hear ex-law enforcement will not have to obey the new laws, even though they're your average citizens right now I guess they are still above the law
Didn't hear that, but heard today that off duty police must adhere to the law.....if they carry their service revolver off duty, it can only have 7 rounds, etc.
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
Didn't hear that, but heard today that off duty police must adhere to the law.....if they carry their service revolver off duty, it can only have 7 rounds, etc.
Yes that is going to change soon, only the regular citizens are expected to follow the law, ex lawenforcement will be exempt
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Did you guys hear ex-law enforcement will not have to obey the new laws, even though they're your average citizens right now I guess they are still above the law
No Henry... got a link? I mean a real link?
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
