# Scalia found dead



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/us...iate-Justice-Antonin-Scalia-found-6828930.php


May he rest in peace.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

That's too bad


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

That is bad! RIP


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

A lot of wisdom lost. It is sad.


----------



## mzgarden (Mar 16, 2012)

Very sad.


----------



## cfuhrer (Jun 11, 2013)

Straight out of left field. Prayers for comfort for his loved ones and wisdom for those who will choose his replacement.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

RIP. Condolences to his family and loved ones.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

What a shock, RIP sir.


----------



## oth47 (Jan 11, 2008)

Not good news..


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

So sorry to hear of his passing. He was such a champion of the constitution. 

Hopefully, we will not have a new Supreme appointed until after the election. This is scary!


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Not good news at all. Now we will have a liberal court and there is nothing we can do about it.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Old Vet said:


> Not good news at all. Now we will have a liberal court and there is nothing we can do about it.


If that happens, the Constitution is dead and liberty is lost.


----------



## Declan (Jan 18, 2015)

If you want an "assault weapon" have been holding off, you might not want to hold off much longer. If Hillary wins, she will be appointing 2 Supreme Court justices at least. There is no way Ginsburg will last another presidential term. With the prior to this forecast putting the Senate following back close to 50/50, this could really shake up the election and turn out an otherwise depressed electorate. If Trump wins, he could slip a pro-control justice in as well being a New Yorker.


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

Sad news indeed for those of us that are conservatives. The country has been trending liberal for some time and this will likely accelerate the slide. I do not expect the Obama administration to not try to take advantage of the opportunity. The recent SC ruling staying the EPA from enforcing its regulations against the coal companies will be one of the first casualties. 

I do not trust the Senate to be able to stop Obama.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

MattB4 said:


> Sad news indeed for those of us that are conservatives. The country has been trending liberal for some time and this will likely accelerate the slide. I do not expect the Obama administration to not try to take advantage of the opportunity. The recent SC ruling staying the EPA from enforcing its regulations against the coal companies will be one of the first casualties.
> 
> I do not trust the Senate to be able to stop Obama.


Obama will do what he always does.
He will threaten, blackmail, bribe, shine and screech "Racist", basically throw a little girly fit until he gets his way.


----------



## susieneddy (Sep 2, 2011)

sorry to hear of his passing. My he RIP 

For all of you liberal haters


----------



## cfuhrer (Jun 11, 2013)

At least everyone here is behaving like adults.

I am on another forum that prides itself on its free speech and tolerance and they are practically planning a party over there.

My thanks to HT'ers for remembering he was a human being with loved ones.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Obama will do what he always does.
> He will threaten, blackmail, bribe, shine and screech "Racist", basically throw a little girly fit until he gets his way.




Oh come on. You don't think it if were a reversed situation a republican president would try to get his nominee in? I understand you disagree with liberal politics, but lets not pretend that republicans would do the same thing.


----------



## tamarackreg (Mar 13, 2006)

RIP Sir.

I saw him in an interview that completely blew my preconception of what a supreme court justice was like. He was a cool guy - down to earth, funny and smart.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

basketti said:


> Oh come on. You don't think it if were a reversed situation a republican president would try to get his nominee in? I understand you disagree with liberal politics, but lets not pretend that republicans would do the same thing.


So you are cool with the corruption?


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

basketti said:


> Oh come on. You don't think it if were a reversed situation a republican president would try to get his nominee in? I understand you disagree with liberal politics, but lets not pretend that republicans would do the same thing.


Sadly I think the Republicans would cave to pressure and appoint a moderate, like Bush did with Roberts, if the situation was reversed. It is why the conservative movement is losing out as the goal post keeps being shoved further to the left. 

Obama will not nominate a conservative leaning moderate.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

MattB4 said:


> Sadly I think the Republicans would cave to pressure and appoint a moderate, like Bush did with Roberts, if the situation was reversed. It is why the conservative movement is losing out as the goal post keeps being shoved further to the left.
> 
> Obama will not nominate a conservative leaning moderate.


I doubt Ted Cruz would.


----------



## Declan (Jan 18, 2015)

tamarackreg said:


> RIP Sir.
> 
> I saw him in an interview that completely blew my preconception of what a supreme court justice was like. He was a cool guy - down to earth, funny and smart.


I met Rehnquist who was exactly what you probably think a Chief Justice is like I heard today that Scalia put more laughter in the court transcripts than all the other justices combined.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

I've met Sandra Day O'Connor..her granddaughter went to my kids school in AZ and was friends with my oldest daughter. She was a pretty cool lady too.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

They can delay it but He will appoint one when the Senate goes home even if they do not recess. Let the court decide it.


----------



## cfuhrer (Jun 11, 2013)

I had an opportunity to hear Justice Scalia talk and to shake his hand. I'll have to make sure my picture with him is somewhere I can find it to show my son some day.


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

basketti said:


> I doubt Ted Cruz would.


Ted Cruz is a soft moderate in my view so I expect he would also pick a soft moderate to replace one of the liberal court justices. It amazes me how far the country has gone to the Left, that the left think people like Jeb Bush is a conservative instead of the progressive he is. 

Scalia was off the charts conservative in the views of the Left because he demanded we stick to a literal reading of the Constitution. I doubt we'll see his like again as a SC Justice.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> So you are cool with the corruption?


You consider the president appointing a supreme court justice to be corruption? :stars:

I mean, isn't that his job -- if not a constitutional duty?

Ronald Reagan made a lame duck appointment of a supreme court justice. In 1987 Reagan appointed Anthony Kennedy for the supreme court and sent it to the senate for confirmation. Kennedy was eventually confirmed, but not until after Reagan left office.

Specifically, Anthony Kennedy was appointed November 1, 1987, and confirmed February 3, 1988. So Reagan made the appointment before a presidential election, and very close to his leaving office. Considering the holiday schedule, confirmation Feb 3 was about as fast as you could hope for.

Do you describe Reagan's appointment of Kennedy in 1987 as corruption?


----------



## JoePa (Mar 14, 2013)

Obama will try to appoint a black, gay, muslin, woman, transgender atheist but - the Senate and House will stop him and after the election Curz will appoint a conservative - and everything will be ok - don't worry


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

All I want is someone who will adhere to and enforce the Constitution in the manner in which it was written. Not someone entertaining a great social experiment. Not someone espousing that the Constitution is a "Living, breathing document". I want someone who sees it as it is, The supreme law of the land and written in stone.


----------



## Declan (Jan 18, 2015)

JJ Grandits said:


> All I want is someone who will adhere to and enforce the Constitution in the manner in which it was written. Not someone entertaining a great social experiment. Not someone espousing that the Constitution is a "Living, breathing document". I want someone who sees it as it is, The supreme law of the land and written in stone.


The 9th and 10th amendments are so broadly written leaves plenty of room for the great social experiments, as does the 14th amendment, so good luck with that strict constructionist stance.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> You consider the president appointing a supreme court justice to be corruption? :stars:
> 
> I mean, isn't that his job -- if not a constitutional duty?


I consider Obama corrupt, and he has a hatred of this country.
This is his last chance to do some real damage.
He'll most likely pick some activist, racist, single issue candidate.
You know it as well as I do, he'll pick someone who will vote away our rights.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

JoePa said:


> Obama will try to appoint a black, gay, muslin, woman, transgender atheist but - the Senate and House will stop him and after the election Curz will appoint a conservative - and everything will be ok - don't worry


Maybe Trump will appoint a real American who adheres to the Constitution.
They are all supposed to go strictly by rule of law, but Obama put in a couple of justices who are on an agenda and pervert the Constitution.
Most likely, they are on someone's payroll, just like Obama.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Declan said:


> The 9th and 10th amendments are so broadly written leaves plenty of room for the great social experiments, as does the 14th amendment, so good luck with that strict constructionist stance.


It was written that way to put limits on the Federal Government not the citizens. Once you read it with this in mind it is clear what they meant.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Old Vet said:


> It was written that way to put limits on the Federal Government not the citizens. Once you read it with this in mind it is clear what they meant.


If you're going to look at the constitution, I suggest you start with the Appointments Clause.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointments_Clause

Maybe you can find the part that says the president can't do it during an election year.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Ronald Reagan made a lame duck appointment of a supreme court justice. In 1987 Reagan appointed Anthony Kennedy for the supreme court and sent it to the senate for confirmation. Kennedy was eventually confirmed, but not until after Reagan left office.
> 
> Specifically, Anthony Kennedy was appointed November 1, 1987, and confirmed February 3, 1988. So Reagan made the appointment before a presidential election, and very close to his leaving office. Considering the holiday schedule, confirmation Feb 3 was about as fast as you could hope for.


Reagan didn't leave office until January 20, 1989, not before Kennedy was confirmed.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kuriakos said:


> Reagan didn't leave office until January 20, 1989, not before Kennedy was confirmed.


Either way, why wasn't it a lame duck appointment?


----------



## Declan (Jan 18, 2015)

Old Vet said:


> It was written that way to put limits on the Federal Government not the citizens. Once you read it with this in mind it is clear what they meant.


That would include the right of the people in a democracy to engage in the great social experiments via their government if they so desire since the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit that.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

With regards to what we have seen, I doubt that those to whom the task has fallen will accomplish that task with the American people at the foremost in their mind, either D or R.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Nevada said:


> If you're going to look at the constitution, I suggest you start with the Appointments Clause.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointments_Clause
> 
> Maybe you can find the part that says the president can't do it during an election year.


No body said he couldn't do it but is it wise to rush things the way Obama has run his presidency?


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Declan said:


> That would include the right of the people in a democracy to engage in the great social experiments via their government if they so desire since the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit that.


We are not a Democracy, we are a Republic.


----------



## scooter (Mar 31, 2008)

FLASHBACK: Senate Dems passed resolution against election year Supreme Court appointments...

Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, &#8220;Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court&#8217;s business.&#8221; Each of President Eisenhower&#8217;s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...supreme_court_appointments.html#ixzz40Ekgtn11 
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

scooter said:


> FLASHBACK: Senate Dems passed resolution against election year Supreme Court appointments...
> 
> Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, âExpressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Courtâs business.â Each of President Eisenhowerâs SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.
> 
> ...


The designation "S" in front of the resolution indicates it is "simple" which means:

Simple Resolution: Designated "S. Res.," simple resolutions are used to *express nonbinding positions of the Senate *or to deal with the Senate's internal affairs, such as the creation of a special committee. They do not require action by the House of Representatives.

In other words- they do nothing. 

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/bills.htm


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

Found dead in bed with a pillow over his head.
Pronounced dead over the phone by a justice of the peace.
No autopsy ordered.
Already embalmed.

Does anyone find this a bit odd?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

TraderBob said:


> Found dead in bed with a pillow over his head.
> Pronounced dead over the phone by a justice of the peace.
> No autopsy ordered.
> Already embalmed.
> ...


What I really want to know- was Dick Cheney in the hunting party?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by scooter View Post
> FLASHBACK: Senate Dems passed resolution against election year Supreme Court appointments...
> 
> Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, *the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution*, S.RES. 334, &#8220;Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court&#8217;s business.&#8221; Each of President Eisenhower&#8217;s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.
> ...


You say that has something to do with "election year appointments" when it clearly states it's about "recess appointment"

You say "the Democrats passed" it, when the vote shows it failed, and the Republicans were the ones voting "yea"

I don't think you read it at all:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/86-1960/s415


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

TraderBob said:


> Found dead in bed with a pillow over his head.
> Pronounced dead over the phone by a justice of the peace.
> No autopsy ordered.
> Already embalmed.
> ...


Business as usual for the Chicago mob


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

I will say this about his passing. It at least was graceful and quick. Some folks mange that whereas others just ugly away (Ruth Bader Ginsburg springs to mind).

It does bring up that perhaps there should be a mandatory retirement age for the SC Justices. Having near senile people decide the important issues of the day is not a great idea.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Old Vet said:


> No body said he couldn't do it but is it wise to rush things the way Obama has run his presidency?


So far as I can tell, this is only the third time it's happened since term limits came into existence. That was LBJ, Reagan, and now Obama. In each case the president made an appointment, so it seems that Obama has tradition on his side. Can you give me an example of a president NOT appointing a nominee when there was a supreme court vacancy?


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Obama can nominate whomever he wants and will do so.

It is up to the senate to ratify his nomination. 

We, who want to keep what is left of our freedoms and believe in a smaller federal government and the constitution need to begin a grass roots campaign through our senators to stop any ratification of Obama's nominations.

I wonder if the senate has the courage to stop a nomination especially in an election year.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

Here is what seems to me a thoughtful article about the situation: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...t-appointment-republicans-20160215-story.html

The main point seems to be along these lines:


> the implications of refusing to allow Obama to replace Scalia: A divided court leaves lower court rulings in place. And the lower courts are blue. Nine of the 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals have a majority of Democratic appointees. That means liberal rulings conservatives were hoping the Supreme Court would overturn remain law. So if Scalia had cast the deciding vote on a case before he died, but the court rehears it and divides 4-4, that would leave the lower court decision in place. That's what would happen with a proposal to apportion Congress in an entirely new way that would heavily favor Republican districts, which was argued recently. The lower court (in this case a district court which went directly to the Supreme Court for technical reasons) tossed the plan out; conservatives had been hoping the justices would restore it.


 A few pending cases have been ruled on by conservative lower courts (Texas abortion and immigration issues in particular) but in general a lack of a reasonable replacement will allow a push to put policies and regulations conservatives would like to challenge in place with enough time for a SCOTUS deadlock to, in effect, uphold the more commonly-expected liberal-ish lower appeal court decisions. Accepting some "centrist" rational nominee from Obama, even though not at all a "replacement" for Scalia's rabid positions, might be the thoughtful thing for the Senate Republicans to accept. Like statesmen would? NAWWWWWW *Nevermind.* My bad. LOL


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Wolf mom said:


> I wonder if the senate has the courage to stop a nomination especially in an election year.


That's a good question. Republican voters are finally showing their disgust for traditional republicans in congress blocking everything. Blocking a supreme court nominee only confirms that. It could hurt republicans to do it.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Wolf mom said:


> Obama can nominate whomever he wants and will do so.
> 
> It is up to the senate to ratify his nomination.
> 
> ...


I hope so
You know whoever Obama nominates will not be there to protect our Constitutional rights.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> That's a good question. Republican voters are finally showing their disgust for traditional republicans in congress blocking everything. Blocking a supreme court nominee only confirms that. It could hurt republicans to do it.


Not just Republicans, but most Americans are showing their disgust with the corruption that our government has become.
We are sick of smooth talking politicians and professional hate mongers such as Obama
We need a leader, not a ruler, and we need a president who will be on our side.
We are sick of the bought and paid for politicians like Obama, Clinton, McConnell, etc.
We need an American president


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

Nevada said:


> That's a good question. Republican voters are finally showing their disgust for traditional republicans in congress blocking everything. Blocking a supreme court nominee only confirms that. It could hurt republicans to do it.


Incorrect. Republican voters are disgusted with the fact Congressional Republicans have not blocked a single thing Obama has wanted. It could only help the republicans to show they have some spine. Democrats certainly opposed anything a Republican President has attempted.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> That's a good question. Republican voters are finally showing their disgust for traditional republicans in congress blocking everything. Blocking a supreme court nominee only confirms that. It could hurt republicans to do it.


It would depend who it is. If it's an "activist" who comes in with an agenda to interpret the law a certain way, yes it should be blocked. If it's a person with an outstanding record of understanding and following the law, then they deserve consideration no matter the party.

Now threatening to block any Obama nomination before Scalia's body is even cold, yes that makes the Rs look bad. Lacks decorum, seems disrespectful of Scalia. 

Based on O's record, it seems likely he will nominate an activist type judge, but until he actually does it there is no need to huff and puff about it.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Either way, why wasn't it a lame duck appointment?


I don't know. Maybe it was. You'd have to define the term. In that case, Reagan had more than a year left in his term. In this case, Obama has less than a year left in his. Those are arbitrary points. Obama has the authority to nominate a replacement and some might even say a responsibility to do so, although the Constitution does not specify a time frame.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

TraderBob said:


> Found dead in bed with a pillow over his head.
> Pronounced dead over the phone by a justice of the peace.
> No autopsy ordered.
> Already embalmed.
> ...


For all those facts give rise to "did Obama have something to do in this". Question that will never be answered.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kuriakos said:


> I don't know. Maybe it was. You'd have to define the term. In that case, Reagan had more than a year left in his term. In this case, Obama has less than a year left in his. Those are arbitrary points. Obama has the authority to nominate a replacement and some might even say a responsibility to do so, although the Constitution does not specify a time frame.


Off hand, I can't think of a time when there was a supreme court vacancy and the president didn't appoint a nominee. Has it ever happened?


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Off hand, I can't think of a time when there was a supreme court vacancy and the president didn't appoint a nominee. Has it ever happened?


History is not my strong suit but I don't believe it has happened.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

> Democrats certainly opposed anything a Republican President has attempted.


Totally made up nonsense. Reagan appointed a justice, Anthony Kennedy, confirmed Feb 1, 1988, through a Democratic Senate, late in his last term. This was subsequent to Robert Bork being rejected by the Senate with 6 Republicans voting against him. Part of Constitutionally-designed checks and balances includes presidents having the power and *obligation* to make these appointments but subject to rejection by the Senate. If such rejection seems to be for fatuous reasons along the lines of many of the comments here (Obama a socialist Muslim going to appoint some incompetent to the court, etc), then voters can take Senate control away from that party over the next election or two, and vice-versa, elect the opposing party's candidate to the Presidency if someone truly ridiculous is in fact nominated. Only situation reaching that level I have to say was FDR's proposal to "pack" the court with a bunch of extra justices; I'll agree that was nauseatingly unconstitutional on his part. As a matter of history over the last 150 years or so anyway (I think several nominations were seriously sandbagged in the 1850s or whatever during Tyler's term), all these appointments have been voted on one way or the other within 100 days of their official proposal. Contemporary partisan right-wingers screaming for different results in this case should be careful of what can happen if Dems decide to play similar obstructionist hardball going into the future.


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

DryHeat said:


> Totally made up nonsense. ...


Actually just politics as played by the Democrats. They always push their views and than complain about being obstructed if the republicans disagree. 

"Compromise" the Dems cry, "why won't the Repubs ever compromise with us?" The thing they always fail to mention the compromise is always that the Repubs must go along with the Dems, because the Dems are morally and intellectually in the right. Even when the liberal Dems are wrong it is not their fault it is the fact that the Repubs made them do it. 

It is just old the hypocrisy that the dems live in why looking for any hint of hypocrisy from others. They lie about having sex with Lewinski, they lie about classified emails, they lie about using the IRS to go after their political enemies, they lied about Benghazi and said it was a anti-muslim video that caused it all. They steal cheat and engage in fraud but somehow the answer is 'Don't look at us look over there at our political rivals. See they are bad, why would such bad people ever accuse us of anything other than to hide how bad they are." 

It is so sickening the Democratic party should be outlawed and its members arrested and jailed.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MattB4 said:


> Actually just politics as played by the Democrats. They always push their views and than complain about being obstructed if the republicans disagree.
> 
> "Compromise" the Dems cry, "why won't the Repubs ever compromise with us?" The thing they always fail to mention the compromise is always that the Repubs must go along with the Dems, because the Dems are morally and intellectually in the right. Even when the liberal Dems are wrong it is not their fault it is the fact that the Repubs made them do it.
> 
> ...


Has a republican president ever decided to leave a supreme court vacancy for the next president?


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

Nevada said:


> Has a republican president ever decided to leave a supreme court vacancy for the next president?


No. But every president only has the right to propose a nominee and the Senate has the right to turn them down. Whether that be a Republican controlled Senate or a Democrat controlled one. 

The people voted in a Republican Senate because they were unhappy with a Democrat controlled Senate. Now is the time for the Republican Senators to represent that vote. Elections have consequences.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> That's a good question. Republican voters are finally showing their disgust for traditional republicans in congress blocking everything. Blocking a supreme court nominee only confirms that. It could hurt republicans to do it.


*Well Looky here what the Dems have done in THE PAST~!!!!!\\
Flashback: Senate Democrats in 1960 pass resolution against election-year Supreme Court recess appointments*


> Thanks to a Volokh Conspiracy commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, âExpressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Courtâs business.â



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/13/flashback-senate-democrats-in-1960-pass-resolution-against-election-year-supreme-court-recess-appointments/


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> *Well Looky here what the Dems have done in THE PAST~!!!!!\\
> Flashback: Senate Democrats in 1960 pass resolution against election-year Supreme Court recess appointments*
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think we'll see a recess appointment. He'll go for senate approval, and my sense is that he'll get it.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Obama will do what he always does.
> He will threaten, blackmail, bribe, shine and screech "Racist", basically throw a little girly fit until he gets his way.


You do realize the constitution is what gives Obama the duty to appoint a new justice don't you? the right calls for waiting and letting the voters decide. The voters did decide when Obama was elected. 
Mitch McConnell is the one throwing a fit and promising to block any appointment even before a name has been proposed. That is taking away the will of the voters.
Jim


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Well Looky here what the Dems have done in THE PAST~!!!!!\\
> Flashback: *Senate Democrats in 1960 pass resolution* against election-year Supreme Court recess appointments
> 
> 
> ...


That's been posted before and the other poster didn't read it either, since it has nothing to do with "election years", it did NOT pass, and the Dems voted against it.

You have to *READ* past the headlines
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/86-1960/s415


----------



## scooter (Mar 31, 2008)

FLASHBACK: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations


During a Sunday morning appearance on ABC&#8217;s &#8220;This Week,&#8221; Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer &#65279; decried the intent of many Senate Republicans to prevent President Barack Obama from appointing the successor to deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

But less than a decade ago, Schumer advocated doing the same exact thing if any additional Supreme Court vacancies opened under former President George W. Bush.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/f...bush-supreme-court-nominations/#ixzz40KI8Xw5m


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

MattB4 said:


> Actually just politics as played by the Democrats. They always push their views and than complain about being obstructed if the republicans disagree.
> 
> "Compromise" the Dems cry, "why won't the Repubs ever compromise with us?" The thing they always fail to mention the compromise is always that the Repubs must go along with the Dems, because the Dems are morally and intellectually in the right. Even when the liberal Dems are wrong it is not their fault it is the fact that the Repubs made them do it.
> 
> ...


Post of the decade award.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

scooter said:


> FLASHBACK: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations
> 
> 
> During a Sunday morning appearance on ABCâs âThis Week,â Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer &#65279; decried the intent of many Senate Republicans to prevent President Barack Obama from appointing the successor to deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
> ...


Note, however, that democrats were unable to block either of Bush's nominees.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> You consider the president appointing a supreme court justice to be corruption? :stars:
> 
> I mean, isn't that his job -- if not a constitutional duty?
> 
> ...


 
The President has the Constitutional right and responsibility to NOMINATE possible Justices for the SCOTUS. The Senate has the right and responsibility to either confirm, or, not confirm that choice. 

If the Democrat would have won instead of Bush the elder, you think the nomination would have gone through? Let Obama nominate someone. Let the Senate delay conformation until after the next election. If a Republican wins, deny the appointment, if Sanders or the Criminal Clinton wins, approve the appointment. It is Constitutional, and is backed up with tradition.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Note, however, that democrats were unable to block either of Bush's nominees.


Ole Up Chuck said that AFTER Bush's two nominees were confirmed.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Jim Bunton said:


> You do realize the constitution is what gives Obama the duty to appoint a new justice don't you? the right calls for waiting and letting the voters decide. The voters did decide when Obama was elected.
> Mitch McConnell is the one throwing a fit and promising to block any appointment even before a name has been proposed. That is taking away the will of the voters.
> Jim


You do realize whoever is selected, if a left winger, will probably kill our rights to keep and bear arms?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Jim Bunton said:


> You do realize the constitution is what gives Obama the duty to appoint a new justice don't you? the right calls for waiting and letting the voters decide. The voters did decide when Obama was elected.
> Mitch McConnell is the one throwing a fit and promising to block any appointment even before a name has been proposed. That is taking away the will of the voters.
> Jim


You do realize that the Constitution is what gives the Senate the duty to confirm, or, not confirm any nominee that Obama puts forward, don't you? It is one of those checks and balances we all (should have) learned about in civics class. The People gave the Republicans the Senate, in part, to slow down the damage that Obama has been doing to this once great nation. So, who is really taking away the will of the voter?


----------



## susieneddy (Sep 2, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> You do realize whoever is selected, if a left winger, will probably kill our rights to keep and bear arms?


how many guns have you had to turn in or get taken away from you.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

susieneddy said:


> how many guns have you had to turn in or get taken away from you.


Thanks to a conservative Supreme Court, none.
That could change if Obama gets one of his left wingnut, agenda driven "appointees" in there.
Check out the thread about guns being stolen by the government in New York if you don't think the left is after our rights.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

susieneddy said:


> how many guns have you had to turn in or get taken away from you.


Exactly. Excellent post. Bravo. Well done and good job.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

susieneddy said:


> how many guns have you had to turn in or get taken away from you.


 Once it starts, it is, likely, too late. There have been many laws already passed, telling me what guns I am allowed to own. That is infringement. With Obama foaming at the mouth to get his legacy of destruction started, this is a chance he will fight for. Think about it, replacing a Justice, who loved and respected the Constitution, for a crazy leftist who will treat it as toilet paper. Obama can't pass up a chance like that!!


----------



## susieneddy (Sep 2, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> Thanks to a conservative Supreme Court, none.
> That could change if Obama gets one of his left wingnut, agenda driven "appointees" in there.
> Check out the thread about guns being stolen by the government in New York if you don't think the left is after our rights.





Farmerga said:


> Once it starts, it is, likely, too late. There have been many laws already passed, telling me what guns I am allowed to own. That is infringement. With Obama foaming at the mouth to get his legacy of destruction started, this is a chance he will fight for. Think about it, replacing a Justice, who loved and respected the Constitution, for a crazy leftist who will treat it as toilet paper. Obama can't pass up a chance like that!!


again no one has taken any of your guns from you.


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

susieneddy said:


> again no one has taken any of your guns from you.


Sorry but this is a incorrect statement. In some States and some major Cities possession of guns is not only legally difficult but the fact is you can have them confiscated. Try getting and carrying a legal gun in New York City or Washington DC. 

More laws abridging gun rights will occur with a leftist SC. It is simply a fact of how Leftists think. They assign emotional values to objects (Gun violence - really? Like a inanimate piece of metal and plastic commits violence.) rather than people. They also believe by banning a object that people will than become good. Rather foolish but this is how the Left thinks. 

So indeed if you value the Constitution than a Leftist SC is a anathema.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MattB4 said:


> Sorry but this is a incorrect statement. In some States and some major Cities possession of guns is not only legally difficult but the fact is you can have them confiscated. Try getting and carrying a legal gun in New York City or Washington DC.
> 
> More laws abridging gun rights will occur with a leftist SC. It is simply a fact of how Leftists think. They assign emotional values to objects (Gun violence - really? Like a inanimate piece of metal and plastic commits violence.) rather than people. They also believe by banning a object that people will than become good. Rather foolish but this is how the Left thinks.
> 
> So indeed if you value the Constitution than a Leftist SC is a anathema.


That's not what susieneddy said, it's what you want to talk about, and that's a big difference.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

susieneddy said:


> again no one has taken any of your guns from you.


 If I am denied the right to purchase a certain type of gun, by all intents and purposes, that is confiscation.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> If I am denied the right to purchase a certain type of gun, by all intents and purposes, that is confiscation.


No, you want it to be because that would support your agenda, but it's just not.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> If I am denied the right to purchase a certain type of gun, by all intents and purposes, that is confiscation.


No that would be like saying that denying you to arm yourself with a nuclear bomb is the same as taking one away from you.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> No, you want it to be because that would support your agenda, but it's just not.


 
What is the real difference between prying it from my hands, or, denying my right to possess it in the first place? It is still government infringing upon my second amendment rights and the results are the same.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> What is the real difference between prying it from my hands, or, denying my right to possess it in the first place? It is still government infringing upon my second amendment rights and the results are the same.


It ain't been pried? We still have the right to bear arms.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> No that would be like saying that denying you to arm yourself with a nuclear bomb is the same as taking one away from you.


Good example.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> No that would be like saying that denying you to arm yourself with a nuclear bomb is the same as taking one away from you.


 If I had the money to purchase such a weapon, that would be exactly what they would be doing. They are stopping me from possessing certain weapons. It matters not if they take it outright or deny its availability to me.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> If I am denied the right to purchase a certain type of gun, by all intents and purposes, that is confiscation.


It's just the same as saying you can't own a Corvette because you might speed....


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> It ain't been pried? We still have the right to bear arms.


 With caveats, or, infringements, if you prefer. Were do the caveats end? Nothing bigger than a 22LR? Single shot only? Only allowed one box of ammo?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> If I had the money to purchase such a weapon, that would be exactly what they would be doing. They are stopping me from possessing certain weapons. It matters not if they take it outright or deny its availability to me.


How do you respond to a statement such as this? Sigh. There is a limit to the type of weaponry a private citizen should own. Nuclear would be a bit beyond that, I would think. There are private citizens that shouldn't own a BIC lighter and have access to dry wood.


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

Irish Pixie said:


> That's not what susieneddy said, it's what you want to talk about, and that's a big difference.


Really? It is exactly what susieneddy said. So what is it you want to talk about? That a liberal SC would not remove the 2nd amendment by ever more restrictive interpretation of it? 

Do you honestly believe that Liberals do not think guns cause violence? That without guns the world would be a better place? If so, I have some Federally protected swamp land I am willing to sell you.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> With caveats, or, infringements, if you prefer. Were do the caveats end? Nothing bigger than a 22LR? Single shot only? Only allowed one box of ammo?


I thought we were discussing now? What if type statements suck as there is no end to "what if"...


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> How do you respond to a statement such as this? Sigh. There is a limit to the type of weaponry a private citizen should own. Nuclear would be a bit beyond that, I would think. There are private citizens that shouldn't own a BIC lighter and have access to dry wood.


And I would agree, the private citizen shouldn't be allowed to own a nuclear weapon, but, that is not what I was saying. 

There is a huge difference between denying me the right to own a nuclear weapon and denying me the right to own a 20mm, or, an M-16, or, any other weapon, or, ammo currently allowed the soldier in our army.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MattB4 said:


> Really? It is exactly what susieneddy said. So what is it you want to talk about? That a liberal SC would not remove the 2nd amendment by ever more restrictive interpretation of it?
> 
> Do you honestly believe that Liberals do not think guns cause violence? That without guns the world would be a better place? If so, I have some Federally protected swamp land I am willing to sell you.


How do you know a "liberal SC" would remove the 2A? Can you explain? Or did it come to you in a dream?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> I thought we were discussing now? What if type statements suck as there is no end to "what if"...


 We are discussing now. We are currently restricted on the types of weapons we are allowed. With one of the best defenders of the Constitution gone, and the possibility of a President who has no respect for the Constitution, getting to replace him with some crazy leftist, the questions as to where does it end, are valid.


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

Irish Pixie said:


> How do you know a "liberal SC" would remove the 2A? Can you explain? Or did it come to you in a dream?


Nope, no dream, just a impartial knowledge of historical liberal efforts to create more restrictive gun laws. Would you deny all facts?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Double post.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> And I would agree, the private citizen shouldn't be allowed to own a nuclear weapon, but, that is not what I was saying.
> 
> There is a huge difference between denying me the right to own a nuclear weapon and denying me the right to own a 20mm, or, an M-16, or, any other weapon, or, ammo currently allowed the soldier in our army.


Liberals seem to love hating on Conservatives and their values. All one has to do to witness this is look on this board and see the unadulterated bashing they so like to do, all the while trying to claim that they are the real victims.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> And I would agree, the private citizen shouldn't be allowed to own a nuclear weapon, but, that is not what I was saying.
> 
> There is a huge difference between denying me the right to own a nuclear weapon and denying me the right to own a 20mm, or, an M-16, or, any other weapon, or, ammo currently allowed the soldier in our army.


Why? Why do you think that "the right to bear arms" translates into "what a soldier carries"?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MattB4 said:


> Nope, no dream, just a impartial knowledge of historical liberal efforts to create more restrictive gun laws. Would you deny all facts?


So no proof, correct? It's just your opinion that a "liberal SC" will remove the second amendment?

My opinion is nothing will ever remove the second amendment. Who's opinion carries more weight?


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> So no proof, correct? It's just your opinion that a "liberal SC" will remove the second amendment?
> 
> My opinion is nothing will ever remove the second amendment. Who's opinion carries more weight?


''IF'' that happened would you abide by it ?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

TripleD said:


> ''IF'' that happened would you abide by it ?


See post number 94.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Why? Why do you think that "the right to bear arms" translates into "what a soldier carries"?


 The words of the Founders and Framers of this, once, great nation.:

_



Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive

Click to expand...

. 
_ ---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787). 
_



Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...*[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people*. 

Click to expand...

_ ---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. 

_[



W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...

Click to expand...

_ ---George Mason 
​


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> See post number 94.


The IF was in quotes. Just a simple question. Just wanting a simple answer ???


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

TripleD said:


> The IF was in quotes. Just a simple question. Just wanting a simple answer ???


Sigh. I don't play "what if" games. Clear enough?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Sigh. I don't play "what if" games. Clear enough?


Do you lock your doors at night? If so, why?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> The words of the Founders and Framers of this, once, great nation.:
> 
> _.
> _ ---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
> ...


Where are your quotes in the Constitution? Are they near the very very clear statement "We have the right to bear arms"?


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Sigh. I don't play "what if" games. Clear enough?


Well what if you were forced to buy healthcare or pay a penalty ? Clear enough ?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Where are your quotes in the Constitution? Are they near the very very clear statement "We have the right to bear arms"?


 "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, *shall not be infringed*."


Infringe: Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

Is that not the very definition of any and all gun laws?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, *shall not be infringed*."
> 
> 
> Infringe: Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
> ...


It means the right to US citizens to keep and bear arms will not be infringed. It does not say that US citizens can own any weapon they please, does it?

Again, how many guns have been taken from you? Do you still have guns? If so, you still have the right to bear arms.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> It means the right to US citizens to keep and bear arms will not be infringed. It does not say that US citizens can own any weapon they please, does it?
> 
> Again, how many guns have been taken from you? Do you still have guns? If so, you still have the right to bear arms.


 WOW!! Any restriction, placed upon our 2nd amendment rights is infringement, it cannot be more clear. 

So, in your mind there is no infringement as long as we are allowed to own a single shot 22LR rifle? You miss the point and reason for the 2nd amendment. I believe it is because you wish to miss the point.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> WOW!! Any restriction, placed upon our 2nd amendment rights is infringement, it cannot be more clear.
> 
> So, in your mind there is no infringement as long as we are allowed to own a single shot 22LR rifle? You miss the point and reason for the 2nd amendment. I believe it is because you wish to miss the point.


Not what I said, is it? Don't put words in my mouth or lie about what I said. It's not nice.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> WOW!! Any restriction, placed upon our 2nd amendment rights is infringement, it cannot be more clear.
> 
> So, in your mind there is no infringement as long as we are allowed to own a single shot 22LR rifle? You miss the point and reason for the 2nd amendment. I believe it is because you wish to miss the point.


It's just as absurd to have gun rights unrestricted as it would be to have free speech rights unrestricted. But we know we can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater or publish a book on how to make terror devices. Even Scalia understood that.

_From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose._
http://pollways.bangordailynews.com/2012/12/27/national/scalia-on-gun-control/


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

Nevada said:


> It's just as absurd to have gun rights unrestricted as it would be to have free speech rights unrestricted. But we know we can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater or publish a book on how to make terror devices. Even Scalia understood that.
> 
> ...


Yes, but those that want to remove the right to keep and carry arms will limit to the point of restriction. Just like they will limit free speech rights through 'Hate laws" if we are not careful. Some of these leftists would have me arrested if I quoted the bible to them. Or if I pointed out that evolution has no place for homosexuals. They are so hopelessly confused. 

It always amuses me that if the Left gets their ultimate way they will end up with no rights at all. Liberal path leads to dictatorships and abridgment of freedom. All done under the guise of, "we know best".


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Not what I said, is it? Don't put words in my mouth or lie about what I said. It's not nice.


 Hence the question mark at the end of the sentence. It seems that is what you were saying. If not, correct the record.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> It's just as absurd to have gun rights unrestricted as it would be to have free speech rights unrestricted. But we know we can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater or publish a book on how to make terror devices. Even Scalia understood that.
> 
> _From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose._
> http://pollways.bangordailynews.com/2012/12/27/national/scalia-on-gun-control/


We also cannot shoot up that theater either and there is no move, that I am aware of, to ban the word "fire". A law stating that you cannot carry a gun into a government building, or, on private property without permission of the property owner is a far cry from banning certain types of small arms that are available to the standing army.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> We also cannot shoot up that theater either and there is no move, that I am aware of, to ban the word "fire". A law stating that you cannot carry a gun into a government building, or, on private property without permission of the property owner is a far cry from banning certain types of small arms that are available to the standing army.


You can argue about the details of the restrictions, but not about having restrictions.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Hence the question mark at the end of the sentence. It seems that is what you were saying. If not, correct the record.


Again, we have the right to bear arms, that right has not been infringed. The proof is that we still own weapons. Can there be restrictions? Of course, private citizens do not have the right to own certain types of weapons. There you go- Spin!


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> You can argue about the details of the restrictions, but not about having restrictions.


Oh yeah, the restrictions are simple as was the intent of the 2nd amendment. The people have the right to every implement of war afforded a solder in the standing army. Everything, that I have read, from the founders and framers, points to that fact.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Again, we have the right to bear arms, that right has not been infringed. The proof is that we still own weapons. Can there be restrictions? Of course, private citizens do not have the right to own certain types of weapons. There you go- Spin!


 
You seem to believe that women have the right to an abortion. Would you consider a restriction, that only allowed abortion between the 6th and 8th week of gestation, an infringement upon that right? Or, would the fact that abortion is still legal be enough for you?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Again, we have the right to bear arms, that right has not been infringed. The proof is that we still own weapons. Can there be restrictions? Of course, private citizens do not have the right to own certain types of weapons. There you go- Spin!


People don't need grenade launchers or Howitzers.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> People don't need grenade launchers or Howitzers.


 You can legally buy grenade launchers now. 

Who are you to tell me what I do and don't need? 

The first 10 amendments are not now, nor have they ever been the Bill of Needs.


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

Irish Pixie said:


> So no proof, correct? It's just your opinion that a "liberal SC" will remove the second amendment?
> 
> My opinion is nothing will ever remove the second amendment. Who's opinion carries more weight?


Mine. Because my opinion has a basis, yours is simply a claim from you. If I say that a dangerous animal might attack you, and you say that is just my opinion, than I hope you will not be upset when my reasoned opinion turns into a reality. 

Plus there is this nagging question that springs up about definitions. You might claim the 2nd was still in force if the police was allowed to have guns but no one else. Your slippery logic being that the police represent the public and the public still has the right to become policemen and thus have firearms. Such incredible needle hole camel crawling is also a standard tactic of the liberal mind set. Historically proven.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Good example.


Not really
We talk about guns and you guys always throw in Nukes and tanks
It's just deflecting so you don't have to admit someone else has a point.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Nope. Nope. Nope


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> So no proof, correct? It's just your opinion that a "liberal SC" will remove the second amendment?
> 
> My opinion is nothing will ever remove the second amendment. Who's opinion carries more weight?


So let's all sit on our hands and hope the liberals will suddenly stop trying to do away with guns.
Maybe they'll feed them to unicorns.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MattB4 said:


> Mine. Because my opinion has a basis, yours is simply a claim from you. If I say that a dangerous animal might attack you, and you say that is just my opinion, than I hope you will not be upset when my reasoned opinion turns into a reality.
> 
> Plus there is this nagging question that springs up about definitions. You might claim the 2nd was still in force if the police was allowed to have guns but no one else. Your slippery logic being that the police represent the public and the public still has the right to become policemen and thus have firearms. Such incredible needle hole camel crawling is also a standard tactic of the liberal mind set. Historically proven.


Of course you feel that way. :facepalm:


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. Nope. Nope


That's what I thought.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Nope. nope. nope


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

Irish Pixie said:


> Of course you feel that way. :facepalm:


No, I reason that way. I leave feelings up to the liberals. That and art. I never was any good at drawing or crafts. Takes a different sort of mind.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> People don't need grenade launchers or Howitzers.


People don't need Harleys or table saws but your politicians aren't trying to take those away


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Not really
> We talk about guns and you guys always throw in Nukes and tanks
> It's just deflecting so you don't have to admit someone else has a point.


Why would that be? The constitution says well armed militia. It does not say anything about what those arms can be.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Why would that be? The constitution says well armed militia. It does not say anything about what those arms can be.


It says " the right of the *people *to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

It may surprise you to know that I don't want a nuclear device.
It would be heavy, and a single shot.
The point is that when you impose limits, those limits tend to tighten under tyrannical governments


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Why would that be? The constitution says well armed militia. It does not say anything about what those arms can be.




The term "well armed" would suggest that possession of equal arms to those who may be a threat, would be the goal. (back then a standing army was seen as the greatest threat to liberty) 

Not only the text of the amendment, but, also the speeches, writings and discussions of the framers solidify that interpretation.


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

painterswife said:


> Why would that be? The constitution says well armed militia. It does not say anything about what those arms can be.


Actually from historical context it was understood to be individual arms. The militia part is rather misunderstood about and does not refer to State controlled levies. Nor does it mean that firearms can only be owned by soldiers. 

Chemical weapons, biologicals and other weapons of mass destruction are not really a valid discussion topic when it comes to the 2nd. So to bring them up is indeed a deflection.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> The term "well armed" would suggest that possession of equal arms to those who may be a threat, would be the goal. (back then a standing army was seen as the greatest threat to liberty)
> 
> Not only the text of the amendment, but, also the speeches, writings and discussions of the framers solidify that interpretation.


So we should allow anyone to own what ever weapon they can afford?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MattB4 said:


> Actually from historical context it was understood to be individual arms. The militia part is rather misunderstood about and does not refer to State controlled levies. Nor does it mean that firearms can only be owned by soldiers.
> 
> Chemical weapons, biologicals and other weapons of mass destruction are not really a valid discussion topic when it comes to the 2nd. So to bring them up is indeed a deflection.


I believe a machine gun is a weapon of mass destruction.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> I believe a machine gun is a weapon of mass destruction.


So is a car or a plane


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

painterswife said:


> I believe a machine gun is a weapon of mass destruction.


Your belief in this circumstance does not make it so. However machine guns are highly restricted by law at the present time and very few can own them. I think there is only a few thousand people with the needed license.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> So we should allow anyone to own what ever weapon they can afford?


Where would you place the limit?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> So is a car or a plane


Yes and there are restrictions on those that operate them.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> So we should allow anyone to own what ever weapon they can afford?


If a soldier in the U.S. armed services are allowed to use it, then yes.

Soldiers are not allowed to use weapons of mass destruction.

Tanks, grenade launchers, etc., are already legal for civilians to own.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> You can legally buy grenade launchers now.


Swell.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

painterswife said:


> I believe a machine gun is a weapon of mass destruction.


Never shot one have you? For the ammo needed they are really pretty inefficient.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> I believe a machine gun is a weapon of mass destruction.


I believe that a politician with a pen and a phone is a weapon of mass destruction.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Where would you place the limit?


I am some where between 1 bullet at a time and a dozen in a clip. The point is I believe that there should be restrictions and it is up to us as the voting public to come up with where that restriction lies.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Swell.


 Funny how that can be true, yet our cities are not filled with rubble from blown up cars and buildings, huh?


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

You can own a howitzer or cannon as well. Nevada your screwed...lol


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Yes and there are restrictions on those that operate them.


Cars and Planes are not Constitutional rights, but you can buy any car you want, and you can buy as much fuel as you want.
More people are killed by cars than guns, but I don't see Obama faking tears over drunk driving victims.
Pretty much proves to me that the people running this country don't care about the people, it's all about the control.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

MattB4 said:


> Your belief in this circumstance does not make it so. However machine guns are highly restricted by law at the present time and very few can own them. I think there is only a few thousand people with the needed license.


I have this video put out by Dillion Precision in Scottsdale, AZ. And filmed in AZ. Look at how many own FULLY Automatics. Love It! Including Dillion himself owning a GE mini gun. Cool~!

[YOUTUBE] ?v=A0CKq0xRu2k[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> I am some where between 1 bullet at a time and a dozen in a clip. The point is I believe that there should be restrictions and it is up to us as the voting public to come up with where that restriction lies.


 Lucky for us, (for now) we live in a Republic that protects our rights from the whims of the majority. That is quickly changing.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Cars and Planes are not Constitutional rights, but you can buy any car you want, and you can buy as much fuel as you want.
> More people are killed by cars than guns, but I don't see Obama faking tears over drunk driving victims.
> Pretty much proves to me that the people running this country don't care about the people, it's all about the control.


Is a machine gun a constitutional right?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

coolrunnin said:


> You can own a howitzer or cannon as well. Nevada your screwed...lol


 I thought so, but, didn't want to speak out of turn. The licensing can be a bear and, of course, is an infringement.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> I am some where between 1 bullet at a time and a dozen in a clip. The point is I believe that there should be restrictions and it is up to us as the voting public to come up with where that restriction lies.


But the Constitution guarantees our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.



> inÂ·fringe
> in&#712;frinj/
> verb
> act so as to *limit *or undermine (something); encroach on.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Is a machine gun a constitutional right?


Yes it is.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Is a machine gun a constitutional right?


In my opinion, yes it is


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> But the Constitution guarantees our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Do you believe that we should not infringe on any arms? Howitzer, tank, gas, car, ray gun. You get the idea.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> In my opinion, yes it is


That says it all. You opinion. 

You can see right here in this thread that liberals and conservatives have varying answers for that.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> I am some where between 1 bullet at a time and a dozen in a clip. The point is I believe that there should be restrictions and it is up to us as the voting public to come up with where that restriction lies.


I don't need a mag over 30 rounds, but if I want, i can get 100 round drums for my AR15, and 75 round drums for my AK47s.
I have a 12 gauge that will accept a 30 round drum, but I'm ok with my 15 round capacity.
The thing is, my guns aren't going to kill anybody whether they have 1 bullet or 100, because guns are not dangerous by themselves.
The people misusing the guns are the problem, and if they don't have guns, there are thousands of ways to kill if they want to.
Remember the Boston marathon?
Remember Oklahoma city?
No guns involved.
The point is, if you were to ban everything someone could kill someone else with, we'd all be standing around naked on a sand dune someplace.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Do you believe that we should not infringe on any arms? Howitzer, tank, gas, car, ray gun. You get the idea.


You can own a howitzer, with special licenses, but, the license is an infringement.

You can own a tank today, if you have the money. Not an issue


Gas? If you mean chemical weapons, those are illegal for our army to use, so, civilians can be restricted as well.

Car? You can buy any car you wish. 

Ray gun? If the soldiers have ray guns, we should have ray guns.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MattB4 said:


> Your belief in this circumstance does not make it so. However machine guns are highly restricted by law at the present time and *very few can own them*. I think there is only a few thousand people with the needed license.


Federal law allows anyone that can own any firearm to own full auto weapons as long as the follow the proper procedure and pay the $200 transfer tax.

Some *states *restrict the ownership, but there is no special "license" required


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by painterswife View Post
> Do you believe that we should not infringe on any *arms*? Howitzer, tank, gas, car, ray gun. You get the idea.


Howitzers and tanks aren't "arms". 

"Arms" generally means weapons which can be carried by one person
Some missiles and RPG's fit that description, but they are "ordnance" due to the explosive charges, so they also are not "arms"

Irrational arguments don't really help


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Howitzers and tanks aren't "arms".
> 
> "Arms" generally means weapons which can be carried by one person
> Some missiles and RPG's fit that description, but they are "ordnance" due to the explosive charges, so they also are not "arms"
> ...


That is a technical argument I can go with. So you would be fine with any arms that you can carry?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Federal law allows anyone that can own any firearm to own full auto weapons as long as the follow the proper procedure and pay the $200 transfer tax.
> 
> Some *states *restrict the ownership, but there is no special "license" required


I think the price of full auto weapons is more of a deterrent than anything.
It would be for me anyway.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Howitzers and tanks aren't "arms".
> 
> "Arms" generally means weapons which can be carried by one person
> Some missiles and RPG's fit that description, but they are "ordnance" due to the explosive charges, so they also are not "arms"


This makes sense. The difference between arms and ordnance is explosiveness? What are grenades?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> That is a technical argument I can go with. So you would be fine with any arms that you can carry?


I really have no use for something I can't carry.

A 50 BMG can be easily carried

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_BMG


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> This makes sense. The difference between arms and ordnance is explosiveness? What are grenades?


A whole lot of fun?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> This makes sense. The difference between arms and ordnance is explosiveness? What are grenades?


Grenades are "ordnance" but you can own grenade *launchers* that fire dummies, flares and tear gas, although some projectiles are restricted. 

"Rockets" are restricted by the amount of propellant allowed, so only small model-type rockets are legal


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Grenades are "ordnance" but you can own grenade *launchers* that fire dummies, flares and tear gas, although some projectiles are restricted.
> 
> "Rockets" are restricted by the amount of propellant allowed, so only small model-type rockets are legal


Thank you. I learned something new today.


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Federal law allows anyone that can own any firearm to own full auto weapons as long as the follow the proper procedure and pay the $200 transfer tax.
> 
> Some *states *restrict the ownership, but there is no special "license" required


The law reads. 


> Prompted by prohibition era gangsters and the rise of organized crime (law enforcement was seriously outgunned by the likes of bad guy like Dillinger), the United States drafted the National Firearms Act which passed in 1934. The National Firearms Act did not ban machine guns, but it made them impossible to afford for most people. To buy a machine gun under the 1934 NFA, an individual needs to submit the following (the procedure remains unchanged even today):
> 
> Pay a tax of $200, which in 1934 was worth over $3,500
> Fill out a lengthy application to register your gun with the federal government
> ...


 -from http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/05/21/machine-guns-legal-practical-guide-full-auto/

Thus highly regulated and not owned by the common gun owner. 

I do not argue about the constitutionality of these laws. I just pointed it out because some people think any gun that looks like a machine gun (full auto) is a machine gun. Typical problem of the uninformed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by painterswife View Post
> I am some where between *1 bullet at a time and a dozen in a clip*. The point is I believe that there should be restrictions and it is up to us as the voting public to come up with where that restriction lies.


Everything "evil" that can be done with a gun is already illegal.

It doesn't matter if the cartridges are all in one magazine, or loaded one at a time.

More laws won't stop any crimes, and just make more people criminals.

Many courts are striking down magazine restrictions since they are arbitrary and largely pointless

The difference in emptying one 30 round mag and 3 10 round mags is about 2-4 seconds


----------



## MattB4 (Jan 3, 2016)

Cornhusker said:


> ...
> The point is, if you were to ban everything someone could kill someone else with, we'd all be standing around naked on a sand dune someplace.


That would not be enough. The sight of me naked would likely kill some people. The horror!!


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

MattB4 said:


> That would not be enough. The sight of me naked would likely kill some people. The horror!!


They'd have to ban you then 
Or maybe just remove the offending appendages. :hysterical:


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Everything "evil" that can be done with a gun is already illegal.
> 
> It doesn't matter if the cartridges are all in one magazine, or loaded one at a time.
> 
> ...


*Bump Fire Black Rifle vs Machine Gun*
This looks so cool and very legal to do it this way. Simulate a full auto and still follow the law.

[YOUTUBE]?v=wnBAyOAiUIM[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> *Bump Fire Black Rifle vs Machine Gun*
> This looks so cool and very legal to do it this way. Simulate a full auto and still follow the law.
> 
> [YOUTUBE]?v=wnBAyOAiUIM[/YOUTUBE]


Nothing but a very good way to waste ammunition.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Everything "evil" that can be done with a gun is already illegal.
> 
> It doesn't matter if the cartridges are all in one magazine, or loaded one at a time.
> 
> ...


Our 10 round mags are exactly the same mags sold in the US except they have a little rivet at the 10 round point. Obviously, someone would be in a bunch of trouble if caught with one with that had been altered they can be returned to their natural state in under 5 minutes.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

coolrunnin said:


> Nothing but a very good way to waste ammunition.


I can bump fire without one of those stocks, maybe not as well, but I can definitely get rid of some ammo.
It hurts when you fire off a burst for a few seconds and realize "There went $10 worth of ammo"


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

Much a do about nothing! You guys worry too much. The government outlawed alcohol. How'd that work out. You still drink don't you. It's against the law to come across our borders without a visa yet my county probably has more Mexicans than americans and the cops don't even send them back when they stop them. It's against the law to have illegal drugs, make them, or sell them right. How's that working out???? Prostitution is illegal but have you seen the craigs list adds?

As for Scalia, he lived a charmed life with an amazing career, a loving family, and was out traveling and having fun with friends the night he died. He simply went to sleep with sweet dreams and never woke up. Oh how I wish my end could be so easy.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Miss Kay said:


> He simply went to sleep with sweet dreams and never woke up.


I have to admit, that's how to get the last laugh on the world.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wr said:


> Our 10 round mags are exactly the same mags sold in the US except they have a little rivet at the 10 round point. Obviously, someone would be in a bunch of trouble if caught with one with that had been altered they can be returned to their natural state in under 5 minutes.


I don't remember all the details, but I know there are some magazines that are made for 10 rounds of a larger cartridge, but will hold more of a smaller cartridge and still function.

They are still legal under Canadian law due to the fact they aren't labeled for the smaller cartridge.

I'll try and find the specifics


----------



## susieneddy (Sep 2, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> If I am denied the right to purchase a certain type of gun, by all intents and purposes, that is confiscation.


sorry you are wrong


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

susieneddy said:


> sorry you are wrong


But it is an infringement.


----------



## susieneddy (Sep 2, 2011)

no it isn't


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

According to Merriam Webster it is.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

coolrunnin said:


> But it is an infringement.


It sure is, when you CAN'T BUY ANY Fully Automatic weapon manufactured After 1986 for private ownership.
No matter how the left twists it, tweaks it, or misrepresents things. THAT IS Infringement.~!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

coolrunnin said:


> According to Merriam Webster it is.
> 
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe


You cannot infringe on a US citizen's right to bear arms. We have guns, so the right has not been infringed upon.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> You cannot infringe on a US citizen's right to bear arms. We have guns, so the right has not been infringed upon.


No your absolutely right I cannot infringe on anyone's rights, but the government can and does...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

coolrunnin said:


> No your absolutely right I cannot infringe on anyone's rights, but the government can and does...


Really? SMH.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Miss Kay said:


> Much a do about nothing! You guys worry too much. The government outlawed alcohol. How'd that work out. You still drink don't you.


Most of the alcohol probably wasn't family heirlooms.
A lot of the guns they'll steal are.
How do you replace the rifle Grandpa brought back from WWI?
How do you replace the shotgun Dad made the stock for?
The liberals will just grind them up into scrap.
You know, because they are sensitive and caring, and help others.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> You cannot infringe on a US citizen's right to bear arms. We have guns, so the right has not been infringed upon.


Should we wait until they have the guns before we resist?
Obama, Clinton, all of them are talking about gun control, and banning
Do we wait until it's too late, or should we pay attention now and stop them before they can get started? 
Do you honestly trust this government that far?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> Most of the alcohol probably wasn't family heirlooms.
> 
> A lot of the guns they'll steal are.
> 
> ...



Can the old ones not be registered as collectors items? My father has several, legally registered this way. For us, it's a different category.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

susieneddy said:


> sorry you are wrong


No. It matters not if the government takes it from me, or removes my right to obtain it, the results are the same. It is confiscation, it is infringement. 

Lets look at this another way. If the government insists that you have the right of travel, but, tells you that you can go no further than 30 miles from your registered home. Are they, or, are they not infringing on your right to travel?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

wr said:


> Can the old ones not be registered as collectors items? My father has several, legally registered this way. For us, it's a different category.


Registration is the first step towards confiscation and it's illegal for the federal government to have a registration.
It's unconstitutional.
Not that it will stop Obama and the rest of the criminals


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

coolrunnin said:


> According to Merriam Webster it is.
> 
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe


The definition has been posted more than once
Reading comprehension seems to be a problem when you drink liberal Koolaid.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

susieneddy said:


> no it isn't


Yes it is


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Liberals seem to love hating on Conservatives and their values. All one has to do to witness this is look on this board and see the unadulterated bashing they so like to do, all the while trying to claim that they are the real victims.





Cornhusker said:


> You do realize whoever is selected, if a left winger, will probably kill our rights to keep and bear arms?


I am a strong supporter of the second amendment, and believe it has been infringed on quite a bit already. I am more concerned about The damage the patriot act is doing, the way torture has become acceptable, imprisonment with out due processes, warrantless wire taps etc. All brought to you by the right.

Jim


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> You do realize that the Constitution is what gives the Senate the duty to confirm, or, not confirm any nominee that Obama puts forward, don't you? It is one of those checks and balances we all (should have) learned about in civics class. The People gave the Republicans the Senate, in part, to slow down the damage that Obama has been doing to this once great nation. So, who is really taking away the will of the voter?


The Senate has the duty to advise and consent or reject. This means they are to consider the individual appointments. McConnell made it clear he has no intention of considering the nominee. 

In your mind what damage has Obama done to this currently great nation?


----------



## susieneddy (Sep 2, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> No. It matters not if the government takes it from me, or removes my right to obtain it, the results are the same. It is confiscation, it is infringement.
> 
> Lets look at this another way. If the government insists that you have the right of travel, but, tells you that you can go no further than 30 miles from your registered home. Are they, or, are they not infringing on your right to travel?


good grief. You are talking apples and oranges.

Answer the question has anyone come and taken your guns from you? it is a simple question so try and answer it. Quit running around in circles talking about something else.


----------



## susieneddy (Sep 2, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> Yes it is


if I said the sky was blue you would disagree. I have noticed you disagree with anyone who is a Democrat just because you can. That still doesn't make you right.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Jim Bunton said:


> I am a strong supporter of the second amendment, and believe it has been infringed on quite a bit already. I am more concerned about The damage the patriot act is doing, the way torture has become acceptable, imprisonment with out due processes, warrantless wire taps etc. All brought to you by the right.
> 
> Jim



And supported, codified, and expanded by the "Left". It is almost like we should be cautious of government no matter which pack of idiots is in charge.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

susieneddy said:


> good grief. You are talking apples and oranges.
> 
> Answer the question has anyone come and taken your guns from you? it is a simple question so try and answer it. Quit running around in circles talking about something else.


Apples and Oranges? How so? Do we not have the right to freedom of movement? Does the Constitution state that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? So, by your reasoning, as long as the government allows you to travel some, that right is not being infringed. Same thing with Abortion, I assume you believe women have the "right" to an abortion. So, by your reasoning, restrictions, that state that abortions can only be performed between the 6th and 8th week of gestation, should be fine because abortions are still available, correct? 

Not something else, I am talking about infringement. You seem to believe as long as the government allows us to own some types of guns, there is no infringement. I simply expanded that notion to other areas. You seem unwilling or unable to answer. I believe I know why. It is the same reason why Irish Pixie refused when I asked if restrictions on abortion were infringement. 

Your question has been answered, by me and others. For a time, I was unable to purchase a whole host of different types of guns. Thank goodness that infringement has expired. There have been attempts to bring back those dark times. With the passing of Scalia, we must be more vigilant of our rights as Obama and his ilk would like nothing more than to further infringe upon our rights and our greatest protector is no longer there.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Jim Bunton said:


> The Senate has the duty to advise and consent or reject. This means they are to consider the individual appointments. McConnell made it clear he has no intention of considering the nominee.
> 
> In your mind what damage has Obama done to this currently great nation?


I believe that the Senate should do exactly what you say and, likely, should reject any nominee. 

In reality Obama has forced me to buy a product from a private company and has threatened to fine (sorry, "tax") me if I do not. 

He has refused to enforce laws with which he disagrees. 

He has weaponized the IRS. 

He has renewed and expanded the ironically named "Patriot act". 

The list go on and on and on.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> I believe that the Senate should do exactly what you say and, likely, should reject any nominee.
> 
> Why should they reject any nominee? The rejection should be based on the nominees lack of qualifications. not on a difference of political beliefs.
> 
> ...


The only good thing about delaying the appointment is Hilary or Sanders can nominate Obama.









Jim


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Jim Bunton said:


> The only good thing about delaying the appointment is Hilary or Sanders can nominate Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 To be qualified, one must respect the Constitution. It has been seen time and time again that Leftists cannot be trusted to respect the Constitution. 

If Hillary or Sanders wins, we are a dead nation. The Constitution will mean nothing and we will no longer be the United States. I am fully aware of the probability of that horrifying turn of events and only can hope that the war is not too bloody and destructive.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> You cannot infringe on a US citizen's right to bear arms. We have guns, so the right has not been infringed upon.



So because i can be naked under my clothes my right to run naked hasn't been infringed ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

susieneddy said:


> good grief. You are talking apples and oranges.
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question has anyone come and taken your guns from you? it is a simple question so try and answer it. Quit running around in circles talking about something else.



At that point it's to late to peaceably do anything about it.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Jim Bunton said:


> The only good thing about delaying the appointment is Hilary or Sanders can nominate Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think Sanders is much smarter than that.


----------

