1969912 0 #26 February 15, 2008 Quote to be fair, nobody really takes michael savage seriously, except for maybe cair. Good one! "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #27 February 15, 2008 Quoteto be fair, nobody really takes michael savage seriously, except for maybe cair. The problem is there ARE plenty of needledick low functioning mysogynistic bastages who DO take them seriously and fawn on every pronoucement from their and other right wing dickweeds mouths. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #28 February 15, 2008 QuoteQuoteto be fair, nobody really takes michael savage seriously, except for maybe cair. The problem is there ARE plenty of needledick low functioning mysogynistic bastages who DO take them seriously and fawn on every pronoucement from their and other right wing dickweeds mouths. Just as there are plenty of needledick low functioning racist bastards who DO take Matthews, Olberman, Kos, etc seriously and fawn on every pronouncement from their and other left wing dickweed's mouths.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #29 February 15, 2008 Do you have some experience with needledicks??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #30 February 15, 2008 QuoteDo you have some experience with needledicks??? Yeah, I've worked with plenty of liberals over the years....why do you ask?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #31 February 15, 2008 QuoteQuoteDo you have some experience with needledicks??? Yeah, I've worked with plenty of liberals over the years....why do you ask? Zing.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,384 #32 February 15, 2008 Quote this is the only issue I have with my NRA membership. God this group FLOODS you with mail! and yes, I fully understand why....it just gets to be too much sometime! If you think the NRA is bad about mail floods, you must not be a member of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #33 February 15, 2008 Quote"Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." "Police power" is a constitutional doctrine. Police powers are those powers reserved to the states to regulate behaviors in its state. For example, states can ban prostitution under their police powers. But they don't have to. So what the law says is, "Subject to our right to say otherwise, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Actually, it hopefully will be subject to the floor of the 2nd Amendment, meaning that the States cannot go lower than that. But the 2nd hasn't been technically incorporated to the states yet. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #34 February 15, 2008 Quote Do you have some experience with needledicks??? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yeah, I've worked with plenty of liberals over the years....why do you ask? Hmmm Again......are you trying to tell us you are having workplace related.... uh trysts.. where you get to see said needledicks up close???? HMM its been my personal experience that there are far mor of the Viagra...Cialis...Lavitra crowd are invariably of the Conservative persuasion.. All that uptight behavior for most of their lives.. leaves them incablable of... getting into the momentThen again with the right ED medication.. I guess they are doing fine.. I wonder what the personal choice of all the right wing politicians in the rePUBICan party is... since as we have seen alot of them seem to be stepping out on their conservative little women at home... if they even have one Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #35 February 15, 2008 Quotethis is the only issue I have with my NRA membership. God this group FLOODS you with mail! and yes, I fully understand why....it just gets to be too much sometime! I find it unacceptable. The quantity of mail (esp during the Gore campaign) means that most of the money contributed gets spent to send me more mail asking for more money to send me more mail to.... So I dropped the membership, and send the money direct. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #36 February 15, 2008 QuoteHMM its been my personal experience that there are far mor of the Viagra...Cialis...Lavitra crowd are invariably of the Conservative persuasion.. All that uptight behavior for most of their lives.. leaves them incablable of... getting into the moment True. Conservatives have jobs and sometimes are actually tired from more than simply smoking out. And actually taking care of kids can really ruing the moment. On top of that, conservatives don't think their dicks are any bigger or work better than anyone else's. There's something to be said, however, about those who have no problem screwing everyone else. QuoteThen again with the right ED medication.. I guess they are doing fine I haven't needed it. Not yet, though I am glad to see that you have such warmth and caring for other people. Perhaps we can start picking on breastless Nancy Reagan - conservative woman who, by all stereotypes, won't need them, anyway. Let us show the same degree of caring for Elizabeth Edwards. Or people with Alzheimers. Or those with Parkinson's. Or even women having fertility issues. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #37 February 15, 2008 It follows the behavior counselor,,,,,, funny that so many on the right want to control what goes on in other peoples bedrooms yet cant control thier own junk in their own bedrooms... Edited to add.... I started posting shit like that as a balance to all the right wingers on here.. and the republicans posing as libertarians... who did nothing but blame the ills of the world on "liberals"..ie anyone not in fascist lock stepp with those in their virtual hobnail boots. BUT in this case it SOOOOOOO fits.. Fuck em if they cant take what they have dished out Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #38 February 15, 2008 Quote Fuck em if they cant take what they have dished out That would be giving them what they wanted, and thus conceding, Jeanne. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #39 February 15, 2008 It was more of a Joke em if they cant get a fuck.. how is that Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,384 #40 February 15, 2008 QuoteIt follows the behavior counselor,,,,,, funny that so many on the right want to control what goes on in other peoples bedrooms yet cant control thier own junk in their own bedrooms... "I voted for Ronald Reagan because he promised to get big government off my back. But then he brought us Ed Meese, and suddenly I had big government in my pants." -- P.J. O'Rourke"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #41 February 16, 2008 Quote Somehow I doubt any firearm short of something carried on a F-16 would have stopped the aircraft. A few crew members or citizens licensed to carty wielding 9mm pistols filled with blue Glaser Safety Slugs could have done fine against attackers only armed with box-cutters. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skippyjumps 0 #42 February 16, 2008 " ...from my cold dead hands..." -The President, Charlton Heston"whatcha doin with that lawn mower blade?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #43 February 16, 2008 QuoteQuote"Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." "Police power" is a constitutional doctrine. Police powers are those powers reserved to the states to regulate behaviors in its state. For example, states can ban prostitution under their police powers. But they don't have to. So what the law says is, "Subject to our right to say otherwise, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Actually, it hopefully will be subject to the floor of the 2nd Amendment, meaning that the States cannot go lower than that. But the 2nd hasn't been technically incorporated to the states yet. Is "Police power" assumed to prevail even if it's not explicitly mentioned? For example, in WA, the arms clause says "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired.....", but the state does impair that right. An example is our law prohibiting machine gun ownership. Not sure if it's been challenged on the basis of violating the state constitution though. Are federal firearms restrictions supported by an implied federal "Police power", or are they derived from the "...well regulated..." part, or none of the above? EDIT: Lawrocket, could you explain "...the 2nd hasn't been technically incorporated to the states yet" a bit, especially regarding "technically" and "yet"? thanks ----------------- Washington Constitution Article I, Section 24 "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men." --------------------- Listing of all arms rights clauses in state constitutions: http://www.saf.org/Constitutions.html "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #44 February 16, 2008 QuoteIs "Police power" assumed to prevail even if it's not explicitly mentioned? "Police Power" is just the term given to a state's right to have its own laws. QuoteEDIT: Lawrocket, could you explain "...the 2nd hasn't been technically incorporated to the states yet" a bit, especially regarding "technically" and "yet"? Quote The 14th Amendment was passed, and stated, in part: "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." The Courts viewed this as the states consenting to the bill of rights - using the due process clause (which is weird to me - the priveleges and immunities would make more sense to me, but I'm just a lawyer - not a justice). The 14th Amendment came afterward, and states approved it. Prior to that, states could use their "police power" to make laws allowing slaves, etc. It was their view of their society. In the 20th Century, the courts began holding that certain fundamental liberties guaranteed in the Constitution operated as a floor to all citizens in the US. Thus, states - for which there were previously no ban on warrantless searches - had to start using the same rules as the feds. The Bill of Rights was "incorporated" from the feds to the states. It wasn't until 1963 that warrantless searches by state and local govs were deemed unconstitutional by teh SCOTUS! There has, however, been no case that has held that the Second Amendment is "incorporated." For the time being, it is assumed that the states can ban what the feds cannot ban. Then again, it's never been tried in the post-incorporation era. And to think, I spent $100k to learn stuff like this. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Frenchy68 0 #45 February 16, 2008 Quote And to think, I spent $100k to learn stuff like this. When you can get it for free on DZ.com... "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TheAnvil 0 #46 February 16, 2008 I'm not about much anymore...but I'm amazed there's a gun thread without JohnRich posting in it! I like the NRA, but am not a member. Many friends are. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #47 February 16, 2008 So if I'm understanding this, the Bill of Rights is "incorporated" one Amendment at a time through lawsuits and resulting SCOTUS decisions (partial incorporation?) based on the 14th. Any incorporated Amendment is the "floor" you mentioned, and applies to all states. I tried to understand why partial incorporation was the path that ended up being followed (as opposed to total incorporation). Started with the Slaughterhouse Cases and got as far as Adamson v. California before saying "screw it", but Justice Black was probably right. ----------- On a side note, is there any chance that the SCOTUS decision in D.C v. Heller could result in incorporation of the 2nd? Based on the question they agreed to rule on, my guess is no. "..... Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?" "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Frenchy68 0 #45 February 16, 2008 Quote And to think, I spent $100k to learn stuff like this. When you can get it for free on DZ.com... "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #46 February 16, 2008 I'm not about much anymore...but I'm amazed there's a gun thread without JohnRich posting in it! I like the NRA, but am not a member. Many friends are. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #47 February 16, 2008 So if I'm understanding this, the Bill of Rights is "incorporated" one Amendment at a time through lawsuits and resulting SCOTUS decisions (partial incorporation?) based on the 14th. Any incorporated Amendment is the "floor" you mentioned, and applies to all states. I tried to understand why partial incorporation was the path that ended up being followed (as opposed to total incorporation). Started with the Slaughterhouse Cases and got as far as Adamson v. California before saying "screw it", but Justice Black was probably right. ----------- On a side note, is there any chance that the SCOTUS decision in D.C v. Heller could result in incorporation of the 2nd? Based on the question they agreed to rule on, my guess is no. "..... Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?" "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
