I believe I just got a "push-pull" | 55 comments (55 topical, 0 hidden)
as an originalist (none / 0)
I believe that the writers of the constitution were referring to muskets when they wrote the phrase "right to keep and bear arms". Therefore the second amendment clearly prohibits any infringement on the right to keep and wield muskets. God Bless America.

by hazmat on 05/10/2008 10:05:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Shooting from grave to grave (none / 0)


By the way, a Kentucky Rifle was both deadly and accurate.

Who cares?  Over the years, Kentucky Fried Chicken has killed more people than Kentucky rifles have.  Don't pretend that sensible gun control puts America in danger of losing a valuable portion of its heritage.  The country is growing up, and gun control opponents have Peter Pan syndrome.

by OneHitKill on 05/11/2008 12:00:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Why wait till November (none / 0)
McCain wants to stay in Iraq 100 years            

As of 4/30/08.. 68% oppose the U.S war in Iraq

The people have already decided.

 On the subject of gay marriage. It cannot be used as a wedge issue again as no one -- not the public at large, and not even the GOP's religious base -- seems to think that it's among the most pressing issues facing the country today.

Conservatives should realize they are dead in the water and shut the fuck up.


by Chinese Democracy on 05/11/2008 12:36:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
agree (none / 0)

Democrats believe we should have a war on Al Qaida. Its too bad we've effectively disengaged. Now we're being told that the real danger is Iran, which is an enemy of Al Qaida. Let's walk through the logic here:

No wait they're (Iran) helping the government we support in Iraq, right? No wait, I get it: actually we're fighting a war on a faction in Iraq that is against the government we support in Bagdad, which has no connection to Al Qaida. Wait but Iran supports them too. No, here it is Iran supports them exclusively!!! Hold on I think I can get all the lies straight and internally consistent...

The war on terror, and specifically the war on Al Qaida is on the borders of Pakistan and in Afghanistan. The only people actually fighting in that war are the pro-democracy electorate of Pakistan, whose rights and freedoms have been actively opposed by this Bush administration for 7 years.

Republicans, and everyone who supports the republican party agenda have taken a principled stand against the real war on terror. Instead, Republicans believe in having a war on balanced budgets, the constitution, and common sense. And freedom.

by hazmat on 05/11/2008 01:19:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
people fighting the war (none / 0)
and of course the undersupported marines and armed forces in afghanistan.

by hazmat on 05/11/2008 01:21:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
No coincidence (none / 0)

Isn't it odd? I mean, the timing is soooo..how shall I put this? Ah, yes. Typical Republican politics - dredge up a side "issue" which really isn't one and affects practically no one, put it out stage center so the Press gang will have something to chew on, even though there is no nutritional value. Like good little lap dogs. Distraction, distraction, distraction. No clue as to why "good sportmanship" would (or should) come into play - that's not the Republican way! Win at all costs! Who cares if there is nothing but barren wasteland left behind, we WON, goddammit!

Nothing suspicious about a Conservative bench taking up an issue which hasn't been addressed since 1939 (no need). If they had simply declined to hear the case, the lower court ruling of "unconstitutional" ; would stand. Since that IS the outcome expected (even Liberal scholars agree with that likely eventuality) there is no pressing need for them to hear the case in June, which would mean that their decision will come down in September or early October. How fuckin' convenient, huh?

Oh, and it's been said that, "...legal scholar(s) I've talked to thinks that the court will overturn the D.C. gun ban. Not because of the court being more conservative now, but because even these highly liberal scholars would overturn it themselves, given the chance, and then specify the meaning of the right to bear arms as definitively as possible.

"It's worth mentioning that these liberal legal scholars largely want this outcome so that the NRA will have nothing to fund raise on ever again."

Oops! Better be careful what you wish for - you might get it!

by MedfordTim on 05/11/2008 12:56:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Misreading (none / 0)
No "right to keep and bear arms" refers to your right to have a small fortified castles with the arms of bears in it.

by ProfRich on 05/11/2008 01:53:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'll accept (none / 0)

either definition :-)

by hazmat on 05/12/2008 01:59:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I believe I just got a "push-pull" | 55 comments (55 topical, 0 hidden)