Monday, December 16, 2013

Even Republican Men Agree - We Need Background Checks

National Journal

17 comments:

  1. If rights were subject to majority opinion, that might be interesting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rights are subject to majority vote. Enough votes and your rights can be taken away.
      Your lack of education is showing.

      Delete
    2. No, that would constitute a violation of rights by a majority. It's your lack of education that shows here.

      Delete
    3. "Rights are subject to majority vote. Enough votes and your rights can be taken away."

      Provided it passes Constitutional muster.

      Delete
    4. The site liar and coward is lying again.
      It's called a amending the Constitution.
      Now tell us wise lying coward, what does it take to amend the Constitution?

      Delete
    5. The Constitution defines the powers of government and lists rights that it protects. But it neither creates nor grants rights.

      Delete
    6. Another lying duck but the sites lying criminal coward. Alcohol is a good example, but that won't fit into your lies. Thanks for proving me correct and you (again) a lying coward.

      Delete
    7. Could someone render Anonymous's comment into literate English?

      Delete
    8. No surprise the sites criminal lying coward has no idea how laws and rights get put into law. Maybe SS can explain it to him.

      Delete
    9. No, anonymous coward, I know how laws are enacted. But laws do not create rights.

      Delete
    10. Anon, I think what Greg was trying to say is that the amendments to the Constitution is more a list of limitations of government power. Each one specifies what the government cant do.

      The first, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

      The second, shall not be infringed.

      The third, No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner

      And as Yul Brynner said in The King and I, Etc, Etc, Etc.....

      If a law is passed that violates these limitations, it can be challenged and overturned. As has been evidenced by the Heller and McDonald decisions that Mike is anticipating will be overturned someday.

      Delete
    11. I asked how the Constitution is amended. He refused to answer, and neither did you.

      Delete
    12. Anonymous, I was hoping that you didn't require a basic civics lesson. But since you do, feel free to read up on the subject. I'm not going to waste time with your tediousness. Get to the point. You apparently believe that the Constitution grants us our rights. I say we're born with our rights.

      Delete
    13. Obviously you don't know basic civics, or how the Constitution is amended. Thanks for proving yet again that you are nothing but a lying jack ass coward.

      Delete
  2. How do you think the answers would look if it were phrased: how pleased would you be if the President signs legislation punishing those who sell a gun privately (regardless of buyer's status) with a federal felony and imprisonment?

    People can support background checks, but have vastly different ways of getting there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The way they phrased the question was fair and honest. Your way would be an example of an unfair way of stating the same question in order to manipulate the results.

      Delete
    2. It's unfair to talk about the penalties you propose?

      Delete