Gun Lobby REJECTED (by US Senate)

Can you say

REJECTED!!!

The 58-39 vote Wednesday defeated a measure giving people with concealed weapons permits the right to carry their firearms into other states that have similar gun laws. Sixty votes were needed to approve the provision, an amendment to a defense spending bill. Read all about it!

Guns are for Nuts
The winds of change are in the air. National Rifle Association (NRA) candidates got trounced in the 2008 elections.

The NRA spent over thirty-one times more money against Obama than it spent in its negative efforts in 2000 against Al Gore.

This virtually unreported fact (with the exception of OneUtah) is nevertheless, the strongest indicator of the trending sentiment of the American people.

In head-to-head races between candidates endorsed or “A” rated by the NRA and candidates endorsed by the Brady Campaign, Brady candidates won more than 80 percent (including eight of eight U.S. Senate races).

If you look beyond the noise of the few and vocal gun-freaks, you will find an America who while still holding on to the rather fanciful, historical but wrong interpretation of 2a, have grown weary of the spineless machismo of the NRA. Their strongest advocates are best described as armed ‘Birthers.’

…and we all know what kind of Americans they are.

, , , , , , , , , ,

  1. #1 by Weer'd Beard on July 22, 2009 - 12:18 pm

    Gloat all you want Cliff, but your side was in the minority, and we’ll pick up those two votes next time.

    Espeshally odd how Dick Luger voted against this one. His home State of Indiana honors all permits the same way this bill proposes they be handled. It wouldn’t change Indy one bit, and it would simply make other states the same as Indy.

    Oh and thank both your senators for voting for this!

    • #2 by Cliff Lyon on July 22, 2009 - 1:11 pm

      Weerd,

      As you know from the last election, NRA supported candidates lost.

      Of course there remain a number of spineless politicians still in Congress who believe their tenure is dependent upon the NRA including democrats.

      Like the republicans, they are slow learners and we will take them out, slowly but surely until there are no spineless wimps left.

  2. #3 by Richard Warnick on July 22, 2009 - 12:25 pm

    This bill would have been horrible public policy, and a complete abrogation of states’ rights. Yet the Gun Lobby was able to round up 58 votes.

    From the New York Times:

    [T]his radical measure would nullify the laws of almost every state, subjecting police officers to greater risk and increasing the potential for gun violence.

    If this stinker had gotten attached to the Defense appropriations bill, it might have gone through just like the national park gun rider on the credit card bill.

    For once, I have to say I’m glad a majority is not enough to win in the Senate.

    • #4 by Weer'd Beard on July 22, 2009 - 12:52 pm

      If what you’re saying isn’t pure partisan bullshit I look forward to your post about abolishing Driver’s License Reciprocity on the same grounds.

      Also the quote “[T]his radical measure would nullify the laws of almost every state,” is bullshit as “Almost Every” would amount to about 10 states (note Wisconsin and Illinois would still ban conceal carry) as for the “potential for gun violence” that’s already been proven bullshit here and everywhere else. No state is having any problems with their CCW permit holders, allowing them to cross a boarder isn’t going to change anything and you know it.

      • #5 by Richard Warnick on July 22, 2009 - 1:52 pm

        Commercial drivers licenses are standardized by federal law, but I know of no law requiring reciprocity for all state-issued drivers licenses. Nothing to abolish.

        The bill would have had the effect of nullifying the laws of 47 states. Two states, Illinois and Wisconsin (plus the District of Columbia), do not have concealed-carry laws. This provision would apply the other 48 states, nullifying the laws of all but the state with the least restrictive rules.

        • #6 by Bob S. on July 22, 2009 - 2:35 pm

          Richard,

          How about the CONSTITUTION as the law of the land that requires reciprocity of driver’s licenses?
          Article IV

          Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

          A public “act” of being granted a CHL is equivalent to a marriage license or birth certificate, right? Definitely equivalent to a driver’s license…except for the fact that fewer people are killed by those with a CHL than with a Driver’s license.

          If that isn’t enough, how about Section 2?

          Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

          The right to carry concealed has been found to be a privilege…I disagree with that but it is the law. Right?

          Then there is the whole 14th Amendment issue

          Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

          Is the Constitution for the United States of America not enough for you?

          • #7 by James Farmer on July 22, 2009 - 2:46 pm

            Bob S:

            I think you need to dust of some conlaw books and start reading. You may even want to start with a quick review of the Slaughterhouse Cases (check wikipedia). Your comment is so far off base that it is difficult to respond. I would find another source for your cut and paste talking points. Your current source is woefully lacking.

          • #8 by Richard Warnick on July 22, 2009 - 2:50 pm

            So why does the Gun Lobby want Congress to pass a law if the Constitution already grants full reciprocity?

            Funny how states’ rights evaporate when inconvenient for the right wing.

  3. #9 by Cliff Lyon on July 22, 2009 - 1:44 pm

    Weerd, I don’t think you can compare driving with carrying murder weapons.

    That is not to say that some people should not be allowed to drive in any state.

    I think you will agree weerd, some people really should not be allowed to drive. But then you must agree that some people should not have guns.

    For example, the guy who shot up Virginia Tech and the spineless wimp who killed the abortion doctor, and all the other spineless wimps who use guns to kill people because they do not have the maturity to deal with conflict using tried and true tactics.

  4. #10 by James Farmer on July 22, 2009 - 1:45 pm

    http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=7252008

    Oops! My guess is these folks were all law-abiding CCW permit holders.

  5. #11 by Uncle Rico on July 22, 2009 - 1:59 pm

    Don’t know that I’d read that much into it Cliff. Seems like a bit of projecting going on, but I understand the strategy behind that. Personally, I doubt this signals a sea change in American attitudes about guns and gun ownership since the bill in question was pregnant with State’s rights implications which must have made at least some typically pro-gun senators squeamish. Its funny how quickly the sacred ideal of states rights gets jettisoned by some conservatives when another one of their pet issues arises and creates conflict. Its also laughable how quickly some progressives become states-righters when guns are involved. That suggests to me that nobody really gives a shit about states rights, but merely uses the issue as they see fit for politcial advantage.

    As far as Weer’d's comment that “allowing them to cross a border isn’t going to changing anything” is concerned, I think that really misses the point. The issue is not whether anything changes on the ground or not, the issue is the creation of a de facto national concealed carry law. Yeah, yeah, I know the NRA rhetoric about only a few states being impacted, but the story published on the AP wire indicates that the bill would have created reciprocity in the 48 states that have concealed weapons laws. So somebody’s wrong, but even if only a handful of states are affected as the gun lobby claims (which raises the obvious question “why then is it such a big deal to the gun lobby?”), at the end of the day you’re still left with one state which has stricter requirements having to accede to what another state with less stringent requirements has done. At some stage, we all might decide for policy reasons that that is a wonderful idea, but if that is the direction we’re going to go, lets just stop the states rights charade here and now and move ahead with a nationial concealed weapons law, a national drivers’ license, a national license for doctors, lawyers, accountants, and other professionals, etc., etc., etc.

  6. #12 by Cliff Lyon on July 22, 2009 - 2:14 pm

    I wish not to discuss the policy per say except to remind you that were reciprocity to become federal law, you would be on a slippery slope that would lead to more federal guns laws which of course would dilute the force of the State Militia part of 2a.

    For you gun toting constitutional scholars, that is the first part of the sentence, the latter part of which has been misconstrued by idiots on the SCOTUS bench who continue to believe that the “right to bear” is an individual right.

  7. #13 by Cliff Lyon on July 22, 2009 - 2:24 pm

    If JD had his way, and we required a literacy test for gun permits, the biggest gun freaks would be disqualified.

    To wit: Google “right to bare arms” Amendment.*

    There are over 44,000 results, all of them illiterate gun freaks.

    Examples

    I WILL NOT GIVE UP MY 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO BARE ARMS. I WILL FIGHT IF I HAVE TOO. …

    Do We Really Have The Right To Bare Arms Anymore? (Field & Stream)

    *Note: To Weerd, the word is ‘bear’ not ‘bare’.

    ‘Bare’ means naked.

  8. #15 by Bob S. on July 22, 2009 - 2:48 pm

    James,

    Your reading comprehension skills will soon rival Cliff’s dismal efforts.

    From the story
    The Salt Lake County Sheriff’s Office arrested Campos for attempted murder. The Sheriff’s office says Campos did not have a concealed weapons permit, but Serbeck did.

    So, the person who did the shooting was NOT a permit holder.

    Nice try to smear permit holders.

  9. #18 by brewski on July 22, 2009 - 3:04 pm

    I wish the Obama adminstration stood up to the drug lobby, the AMA, the ABA, and the insurance lobby as much as they did to the gun lobby. I am not holding my breath.

    • #19 by Cliff on July 22, 2009 - 6:01 pm

      Brewski,

      The AMA is supporting the Obama health care bill.

      Try to keep up.:)

  10. #20 by Weer'd Beard on July 22, 2009 - 5:32 pm

    brewski, you think it would work any better?

    The 2nd Amendment has only be getting stronger since the 1994 Clinton Assault Weapons Ban (A Bill that Disrespects “States Rights”, but Richard Fully Supports) was past.

    That was pretty much the end of the Ant-Gun groups. They’re scratching to hang on.

    When the AWB didn’t in fact ban Assault Weapons…was advertised as banning Machine Guns and Assault RIFLES (different term meaning nothing close to an “Assault Weapon”) but didn’t effect them at all, was billed as a method for fighting crime, but only effected guns that were rarely used in crime at the time, and didn’t actually effect crime rates.

    Well the Pro-Ignorance Anti-Freedom types were discovered as the Religious Zealots preaching Flat-Earth theories that they are.

  11. #21 by jdberger on July 22, 2009 - 5:48 pm

    I wish not to discuss the policy per say except to remind you that were reciprocity to become federal law, you would be on a slippery slope that would lead to more federal guns laws which of course would dilute the force of the State Militia part of 2a.

    Ooh, ya. Scary.

    And Utah might have to recognize a Massachussetts gay marraige.

    Careful what you wish for, Tubby.

  12. #22 by Cliff on July 22, 2009 - 6:09 pm

    Tubby JD?

    At least ‘spineless gun freak’ has some basis in reality.

    My only response to ‘tubby’ is ‘sticks and stones…’

    btw: I would welcome equal rights in Utah especially gay marriage.

  13. #23 by cav on July 22, 2009 - 6:16 pm

    Tubby Pinko!

  14. #24 by James Farmer on July 22, 2009 - 6:36 pm

    I especially like how the NRA flip-flopped on the issue of states rights vs. federal rights on this issue. What a bunch of flip-flopping chumps!

  15. #25 by Bob S. on July 23, 2009 - 3:04 am

    Richard Warnick :
    So why does the Gun Lobby want Congress to pass a law if the Constitution already grants full reciprocity?
    Funny how states’ rights evaporate when inconvenient for the right wing.

    Because the States and the Federal Government aren’t following the Constitution Richard, that is why a law is needed.
    To spell out exactly what the states should be doing.

  16. #26 by mikeb302000 on July 23, 2009 - 4:39 am

    What a bunch of sore losers and cry babies the pro-gun guys are. I hope you’re right, Cliff, and this represents the “winds of change.”

    • #27 by Weer'd Beard on July 23, 2009 - 5:49 am

      Yeah, Mike, those 39 votes are certainly “winds”.

      See you next time, and we’ll see who’s sore!

  17. #28 by marshall on July 23, 2009 - 6:01 am

    Cliff would have all the gains made by western Democrats evaporate so he gloat and post retarded pictures. I hope you are happy when this comes back to bite the entire progressive agenda.

  18. #29 by Cliff Lyon on July 23, 2009 - 7:53 am

    Oh Marshall,

    You are such an elitist. How dare you expose the disunion within our party.:)

    My Dad used to admonish me for the same reason. He finally changed his tune during the last election.

    I’m curious, by ‘western democrats’ do you mean pro hand gun western democrats? Or are you suggesting that by association with an idiot who posts ‘retarded’ pictures, western democrats will abandon the progressive agenda in protest…or that western republicans on the fence will slip back to the un-progressive, ignorant, racist, hypocritical family-values-except-for-’my penis’, Christian Nation side?

    Please advise.

    btw: It is considered politically incorrect to use the word ‘retarded’ in a derogatory context.

  19. #30 by jdberger on July 23, 2009 - 9:09 am

    58 votes, huh?

    Not too bad for the first time this national CCW reciprocity is out of the gate.

    Cliffy, Darling – we Rights Advocates aren’t spineless. We’re still pushing legislation in a climate of a hostile Congress and a hostile Administration.

    (oh – and we’re winning)

  20. #31 by anonymous on July 23, 2009 - 9:24 am

    Taking a play out of the progressive playbook jd?

    This issue will be brought back again and again until it is passed. I hate that, in all cases left and right.

    I would be for moratoriums on certain issues once they are passed or rejected. I would include it along with the bill. That if bill fails there would no repeat bill arising for a proscribed amount of time. 3, 5, 10 years depending on issue? As long as the issue if positively decided is even constitutional.

    Just an idea, would save the taxpayer a bunch of money, dis-empower lobbyists, give some legislative stability to mitigate the fixating on an issue over and over, which is purely divisive, and in my opinion just empowers government control over our lives.

  21. #32 by jdberger on July 23, 2009 - 9:33 am

    Taking a play out of the progressive playbook jd?

    Civil liberties is a ‘progressive’ issue.

    I’m not always a fan of issues that are brought back time after time, but it usually depends upon what side I’m on. ;-)

  22. #33 by Weer'd Beard on July 23, 2009 - 10:14 am

    Civil liberties is a ‘progressive’ issue.

    Just so long as they’re the civil liberties you hand-pick.

    “progressive” indeed.

  23. #34 by anonymous on July 23, 2009 - 11:38 am

    The adversarial system, and there is the heart of it. I think the short moratorium idea would lead to more clarity in expressing issues, and of course more time to consider all angles between political battles.

  24. #35 by marshall on July 23, 2009 - 4:55 pm

    Cliff,

    But it is politically correct and not elitist to tread on our civil rights?

    Plus this issue is one of the worst for Democrats, if you want Republicans back in power then just keep pushing it.

  25. #36 by Cliff Lyon on July 23, 2009 - 9:02 pm

    I don’t think pro gun democrats are single issue people so I disagree that a pro hand gun control platform will alienate those dems in any material way.

    If it does, then we dont want them anyway. We need to pull the party left, not slide to the middle to keep the sell outs like Matheson.

    If you haven’t been following my anti-gun bent closely, you might think I am a gun grabber. Im really not.

    I just want sane hand gun control and I want see the NRA to be incapacitated. They’ve gone to far and feed on the hysterical spineless right wing gun freakes.

    Sane gun owners need to quit the NRA.

    • #37 by Weer'd Beard on July 24, 2009 - 2:43 am

      Good luck with that, Cliff.

    • #38 by anonymous on July 24, 2009 - 7:59 am

      Keep thinking that Cliff. The desire to restrict one of our most basic rights, and actually one of the rights in the
      Bill of Rights is terribly unpopular. Gun and ammo sales are the proof. I voted for democrats last time out, but will not again if this issue is pressed by them.

      If anything Cliff, the party will have to swing back to the right if it wishes to remain in power. It is too bad you are not running the party. For republicans.

  26. #39 by mike w. on July 29, 2009 - 1:34 pm

    I find it laughable that the anti-rights folks are claiming this as some huge victory. They have the most anti-gun President in history on their side and a Democratic supermajority in Congress. Despite this they can’t get close to passing any gun control legislation and could BARELY keep a pro-gun bill from passing that would have been a huge defeat for them.

    Politically they have everything aligned as they wanted, yet not only can they not get their agenda passed, they’re stuck playing defense and doing so badly.

    Anti-gunners should be very scared given how little influence they now have in national politics.

    • #40 by James Farmer on July 29, 2009 - 1:57 pm

      mike w.:

      Laugh away. The fact of the matter is, however, the “anti-gunners” have suffered defeat after defeat for years or even decades.

      This trend was just stopped dead in its tracks. That should give you pause for thought; maybe even enough to wipe that stupid smirk off your face!

      PS. Do yourself a favor and look up the definition of “super majority.” While entirely common these days, it still pains me to see or hear wingnuts look ridiculously stupid.

  27. #41 by glenn on July 29, 2009 - 3:45 pm

    Yet the gun and ammo sales continue through the roof. Obama is the best advocate for guns any gun lover had. Now that the regular people know Obama is a freak, they go buy up more guns and ammo.

    Go law, it seems to help spur the arming of the populace of America.

    • #42 by James Farmer on July 29, 2009 - 5:40 pm

      Yet the gun and ammo sales continue through the roof.

      So, glenn, glad to see you agree with me that mike w. is talking out his pie-hole.

  28. #43 by mike w. on July 31, 2009 - 6:02 am

    This trend was just stopped dead in its tracks. That should give you pause for thought; maybe even enough to wipe that stupid smirk off your face!

    That’s like saying that if I play Michael Jordan 1-on-1 100 times and manage to beat him once it should give him pause for thought and make him worried? Laughable. The ball is in your guys court, you’ve got what should be a distinct advantage, and you can’t get a damn thing done from a policy standpoint. That is pathetic, and it makes me damn happy to see that anti-gun bigots have become such a weak force over the last several years.

    Also, the antis have NOT suffered defeat after defeat for decades. They actually had some influence in the 90′s, but they’re now being marginalized. It’ll be a great day in history when anti-gunners are grouped with the KKK and universally seen as the anti-freedom bigots that they are.

    • #44 by shane on July 31, 2009 - 8:27 am

      Wow, that is a stretch even for the typical nutcase. Anyone who questions your “right” to pack heat should be grouped with the KKK? That is impressive!

      I assume you can back that up with a nice rational explanation.

      It is also impressive that, as seems to always be the case, anyone who suggests any kind of protections at all is anti-freedom. I assume that is an argument tactic you picked up from the right on healthcare, yes?

    • #45 by James Farmer on July 31, 2009 - 9:10 am

      mike w:

      It’ll be a great day in history when anti-gunners are grouped with the KKK and universally seen as the anti-freedom bigots that they are.

      It is comments like the above that give me continuing hope the GOP will not only fast-track itself to irrelevance, as is currently the case, but also into oblivion, never to be heard from or seen again.

      With the above statement, you have gone sufficiently far over the edge to deserve the wingnutttery of the day award.

      Congratulations, you priceless moron!

      PS. Did you look up the definition to the word “super majority” yet? I mean really, either you just like trolling to rile up the libs, or your sheer ignorance is just astounding!

  29. #46 by mike w. on August 3, 2009 - 7:59 am

    GOP will not only fast-track itself to irrelevance, as is currently the case, but also into oblivion, never to be heard from or seen again.

    Well since the current GOP combines the worst elements the religious right with fiscal conservatism that makes them look more like liberals I’d have to agree. I hope the current GOP dies a horrible death. I hope they learn something from defeat, though I’m not optimistic.

  30. #47 by mike w. on August 3, 2009 - 8:03 am

    “It’ll be a great day in history when anti-gunners are grouped with the KKK and universally seen as the anti-freedom bigots that they are.

    I stand by this 100%. Bigots are bigots, whether it’s you folks, the KKK, or anti-gay bigots. You openly advocate depriving people of their civil rights.

    Actually, there’s one thing where you and the KKK are in perfect agreement. The KKK has historically been very pro-gun control. Armed victims make things much more difficult for bigots.

    • #48 by shane on August 3, 2009 - 8:15 am

      Your right to swing your arm ends where my face begins. Unfortunately a large number of children who can neither control themselves, their guns or their tempers, have made sure that guns are a public problem more than they are a personal right. Further it is the nature of rights in our democracy that they are regulated. And while it is true that in the natural rights system we have all those rights that are not explicitly forbidden, we also have the ability to forbid right previously allowed due to changing mores and circumstances.

      In other words, hollow slogans about “freedom” are about as meaningful as the rest of your argument.

  31. #49 by mike w. on August 3, 2009 - 9:35 am

    “Your right to swing your arm ends where my face begins”

    I agree, which is exactly why there are legal consequences for the MISUSE of firearms. This is true of all rights. Their misuse is regulated.

    The 2nd Amendment doesn’t mean I have the right to rob someone with my gun, to commit armed burglary, rape, or any other crime with a firearm.

    Libel & Slander are not protected speech. If you use your 1st Amendment rights to libel or slander someone there are consequences. Why? Because your criminal misuse of your rights has caused injury to another party.

    There are not however, priori restrictions on ALL speech because some people MIGHT misuse that right and commit libel or slander.

    we also have the ability to forbid right previously allowed due to changing mores and circumstances.

    You most certainly do not. Changing mores & circumstances do not permit government to infringe upon whichever parts of the BOR it sees fit. My rights are not subject to majority vote. This includes proper repealing of the 2nd Amendment, rather than the current anti-gun tactic of just violating it outright and ignoring it.

    Repealing the 2nd Amendment doesn’t make it go away anymore than repealing the rest of the Bill of Rights would allow the government to kick in my door and rob, beat, imprison and torture me with impunity. The 2nd Amendment is inherent and inalienable just like the rest of the Bill of Rights. Words on ink & parchment don’t “grant” me the right to keep & bear arms, they merely codify a pre-existing right. My rights, all of them, exist independent of the Constitution.

    Furthermore, I will always have a natural, inate right to self-defense. That right includes as a corollary the right to procure the best tools available with which to ensure that right can be fulfilled.

  32. #50 by mike w. on August 3, 2009 - 9:39 am

    Unfortunately a large number of children who can neither control themselves, their guns or their tempers, have made sure that guns are a public problem more than they are a personal right.

    So wouldn’t that mean that the problem is not the GUNS, but the PEOPLE who act irresponsibly?

    One more thing. We live in a Constitutional Republic NOT a Democracy.

    • #51 by shane on August 3, 2009 - 10:49 pm

      and yet when people suggest perfectly reasonable ways to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them the NRA goes ape shit. Well at least your consistent.

      A distinct set of definitions for the word republic evolved in the United States. In common parlance a republic is a state that does not practice direct democracy but rather has a government indirectly controlled by the people. In the rest of the world this is known as representative democracy.

      As a philosopher I sometimes use the terms that are going to be recognized by other philosophers, in this case in the philosophy of politics. The fact that the terms have the same meaning but you feel you have to break out the anal and slap on the bold tags and throw in a MEANINGLESS CAPS tells us pretty much everything we need to know about you….

      The 2nd Amendment is inherent and inalienable just like the rest of the Bill of Rights. Words on ink & parchment don’t “grant” me the right to keep & bear arms, they merely codify a pre-existing right. My rights, all of them, exist independent of the Constitution.

      Where do suppose they come from? No, don’t bother….

  33. #52 by jdberger on August 3, 2009 - 4:36 pm

    It’ll be a great day in history when anti-gunners are grouped with the KKK and universally seen as the anti-freedom bigots that they are.

    It is comments like the above that give me continuing hope the GOP will not only fast-track itself to irrelevance, as is currently the case, but also into oblivion, never to be heard from or seen again.

    With the above statement, you have gone sufficiently far over the edge to deserve the wingnutttery of the day award.

    Apparently James is unaware of the history of gun control.

    How’s about a hint?

  34. #53 by jdberger on August 3, 2009 - 4:44 pm

    One more for ya, James.

    Nope, conflating gun control with racism is wingnuttery….right. Sure. You bet….

  35. #54 by mike w. on August 4, 2009 - 11:14 am

    Shane – The terms “democracy” and “Constitutional Republic” are not interchangable.

    Where do suppose they come from? No, don’t bother

    What? Are you seriously going to tell me they come from the Constitution? That the Constitution “grants” me rights?

    The Constitution codifies pre-existing rights which predate the Constitution. They do not depend on the Constitution for their existence. Furthermore, the Constitution does not “give” us our rights. It is a document of negative liberties. That is, it says what the State shall not do.

    It does not say “The people of the United State of America have the right to xxxxx” It says “The government may not infringe upon, shall make no law, etc. etc.”

  36. #55 by mike w. on August 4, 2009 - 11:16 am

    I love how Shane bitches about the formatting of my comments rather than attempting to address the merits of my arguments.

    I’m not surprised. He’s got no substantive counterpoints to offer so he has to pick on meaningless crap.

  37. #56 by shane on August 4, 2009 - 11:45 am

    I’m not surprised. He’s got no substantive counterpoints to offer so he has to pick on meaningless crap.

    One more thing. We live in a Constitutional Republic NOT a Democracy.

    Anything else? kthxbai.

  38. #57 by shane on August 4, 2009 - 11:53 am

    What? Are you seriously going to tell me they come from the Constitution? That the Constitution “grants” me rights?

    No Captain Jumps to Conclusions, I asked where they came from. If you are going to hold the entire argument yourself it makes it a lot easier for me. Should I just not bother showing up?

    Try answering the actual question rather than what you think is being asked.

    Again, “where do your rights come from?”

    Lemme see if i can help you get started. http://oneutah.org/2008/11/21/traditional-rights-and-ethics/

    See if you can take the next step without me holding your hand.

  39. #58 by mike w. on August 4, 2009 - 12:20 pm

    “keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them”

    Define “people who shouldn’t have them.”

    Remember shane, my rights don’t depend on whether or not you think I should be allowed to exercize them.

(will not be published)


%d bloggers like this: