Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Place An Ad | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Fri., 4:20pm: Bloomberg says NRA's press conference 'shameful'

December 21, 2012

NEW YORK (AP) — New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg says the National Rifle Association's call for armed guards in schools represents a paranoid vision of America....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(32)

liemonger

Jan-09-13 8:55 PM

What are you struggling with? Other than the basic ability to wipe your own.

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams used it also. And it's been used prior in other NON-Supreme Court cases.

"prefatory clause'

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams used it also. And it's been used prior in other NON-Supreme Court cases. Two words little lady.

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams used it also. And it's been used prior in other NON-Supreme Court cases.

Deal with it.

You don't know WTF you're talking about.

Ohhh... and Obamacare wasn't a tax... errrr.....

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

liemonger

Jan-09-13 8:54 PM

Just because that worked and WASN'T challenged doesn't mean there IS a process for repeal.

NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

WILL NEVER HAPPEN FOR THE SECOND.

NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

NO PROCESSS.

If you think so, then point to it, little lady.

What's wrong?

Can't?

That's you.

U instead of the "A."

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

jtoday

Jan-09-13 4:24 PM

Doesn't the NRA actually support 'infringement on bearing arms'? They think felons and the mental unstable should not have guns. I don't remember the Constitution making that exception. Am I incorrect about this?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

liemonger

Jan-08-13 10:16 PM

Just because that worked and WASN'T challenged doesn't mean there IS a process for repeal.

NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

WILL NEVER HAPPEN FOR THE SECOND.

NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

NO PROCESSS.

If you think so, then point to it, little lady.

What's wrong?

Can't?

That's you.

U instead of the "A."

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DefeatSBB5

Jan-08-13 8:56 PM

HA!

In yer face, fool!

21st Amendment!

Already been done once!

Git ready fer a nice big ole forkfull 'a crow!

HA!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

liemonger

Jan-08-13 8:20 PM

What are you struggling with? Other than the basic ability to wipe your own.

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams used it also. And it's been used prior in other NON-Supreme Court cases.

"prefatory clause'

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams used it also. And it's been used prior in other NON-Supreme Court cases. Two words little lady.

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams used it also. And it's been used prior in other NON-Supreme Court cases.

Deal with it.

You don't know WTF you're talking about.

Ohhh... and Obamacare wasn't a tax... errrr.....

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

liemonger

Jan-08-13 7:34 PM

prefatory clause'

Two words little lady.

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams used it also. And it's been used prior in other NON-Supreme Court cases.

Deal with it.

You don't know WTF you're talking about.

Ohhh... and Obamacare wasn't a tax... errrr.....

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

liemonger

Jan-08-13 7:27 PM

The prefatory clause “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” merely announces a purpose. HELLER V. D.C.

It does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The militia consisted of all males capable of acting together for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable citizen militias, thereby enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The Antifederalists therefore sought to preserve the citizens’ militia by denying Congress the power to abridge the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

This interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights adopted in state constitutions immediately preceding and following the Second Amendment.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

liemonger

Jan-08-13 7:26 PM

The prefatory clause “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” merely announces a purpose. HELLER V. D.C.

It does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The militia consisted of all males capable of acting together for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable citizen militias, thereby enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The Antifederalists therefore sought to preserve the citizens’ militia by denying Congress the power to abridge the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

This interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights adopted in state constitutions immediately preceding and following the Second Amendment.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DefeatSBB5

Jan-08-13 6:21 PM

Gun Nut Claims Hammers Are More Deadly Than Guns

Slog tipper directs attention to an article that's gaining traction among credulous gun nuts on the internet:

In 2011, the FBI chart notes that there were 323 instances of death-by-rifle, while 496 people were killed by BLUNT OBJECTS. Okay. Hawkin's assertion seems true enough if you're willing to overlook the sensationalist spin that all of the deaths caused by hammers and clubs, when blunt objects could include tire irons, golf clubs, bricks, flower pots... you know, anything that is both "blunt" and an "object." But of course, Hawkins blithely ignores the other 8,260 firearm-related homicides in 2011 attributed to shotguns, handguns, and other unidentified guns.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

liemonger

Jan-08-13 6:06 PM

The prefatory clause “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” merely announces a purpose. HELLER V. D.C.

It does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The militia consisted of all males capable of acting together for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable citizen militias, thereby enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The Antifederalists therefore sought to preserve the citizens’ militia by denying Congress the power to abridge the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

This interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights adopted in state constitutions immediately preceding and following the Second Amendment.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

liemonger

Jan-07-13 6:21 PM

The prefatory clause “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” merely announces a purpose. HELLER V. D.C.

It does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The militia consisted of all males capable of acting together for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable citizen militias, thereby enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The Antifederalists therefore sought to preserve the citizens’ militia by denying Congress the power to abridge the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

This interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights adopted in state constitutions immediately preceding and following the Second Amendment.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

liemonger

Jan-07-13 6:20 PM

prefatory clause'

Two words little lady.

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams used it also. And it's been used prior in other NON-Supreme Court cases.

Deal with it.

You don't know WTF you're talking about.

Ohhh... and Obamacare wasn't a tax... errrr......

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DefeatSBB5

Jan-06-13 8:14 PM

"The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

Y don't know what the FREAK YOU'RE talking about, cretin!

The "operative clause" cannot be separated from the preceding introductory phrase (it's not a clause, since it has no subject-verb construction), either grammatically, logically, or causally, unless you step into the NRA through-the-lookingglass world in which truisms are inferred totally out of context, even outside their plascement within the syntax of a larger sentence.

It was a dumb, illiterate decision.

You and the Republican-stacked SCOTUS are simply wrong, on so many levels.

Crawl back under your bridge, troll!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

liemonger

Jan-06-13 3:56 PM

prefatory clause'

Two words little lady.

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams used it also. And it's been used prior in other NON-Supreme Court cases.

Deal with it.

You don't know WTF you're talking about.

Ohhh... and Obamacare wasn't a tax... errrr......

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

liemonger

Jan-06-13 3:56 PM

security of a free State” merely announces a purpose. HELLER V. D.C.

It does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The militia consisted of all males capable of acting together for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable citizen militias, thereby enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The Antifederalists therefore sought to preserve the citizens’ militia by denying Congress the power to abridge the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

This interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights adopted in state constitutions immediately preceding and following the Second Amendment.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DefeatSBB5

Jan-06-13 12:15 PM

"The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

The "operative clause" cannot be separated from the preceding introductory phrase (it's not a clause, since it has no subject-verb construction), either grammatically, logically, or causally, unless you step into the NRA through-the-lookingglass world in which truisms are inferred totally out of context, even outside their plascement within the syntax of a larger sentence.

It was a dumb, illiterate decision.

You and the Republican-stacked SCOTUS are simply wrong, on so many levels.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

liemonger

Jan-06-13 8:45 AM

The prefatory clause “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” merely announces a purpose. HELLER V. D.C.

It does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The militia consisted of all males capable of acting together for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable citizen militias, thereby enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The Antifederalists therefore sought to preserve the citizens’ militia by denying Congress the power to abridge the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

This interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights adopted in state constitutions immediately preceding and following the Second Amendment.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

liemonger

Jan-05-13 8:14 AM

The prefatory clause “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” merely announces a purpose. HELLER V. D.C.

It does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The militia consisted of all males capable of acting together for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable citizen militias, thereby enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The Antifederalists therefore sought to preserve the citizens’ militia by denying Congress the power to abridge the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

This interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights adopted in state constitutions immediately preceding and following the Second Amendment.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

liemonger

Jan-02-13 5:14 PM

Call me up, BUTTERCUP.

Dare you.

LOL.

Bet he doesn't answer and if he does, please post the conversation on YOUTUBE or something.

We'll title it "When Retards Collide."

Please.

LOL.

Can't wait for this. It'll be a classic. Two tards that can't wipe their own.

"The founding fathers would be HORRIFIED that there are people, lawmakers even, in this country who actually believe that the 2nd Amendment bestows on individual citizens the RIGHT to keep and bear assault weapons with high capacity magazines. "

Wrong, but why would anyone expect you to be right?

Go learn something instead of wasting everyonne's time.

Start with the Federalist Papers.

Share the fair, little lady.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

liemonger

Jan-01-13 8:51 AM

Hard to believe she didn't have a date and was sitting at home behind her computer.

But, the whole herps probably closes the kissing option.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

liemonger

Jan-01-13 8:50 AM

Call me up, BUTTERCUP.

Dare you.

LOL.

Bet he doesn't answer and if he does, please post the conversation on YOUTUBE or something.

We'll title it "When Retards Collide."

Please.

LOL.

Can't wait for this. It'll be a classic. Two tards that can't wipe their own.

"The founding fathers would be HORRIFIED that there are people, lawmakers even, in this country who actually believe that the 2nd Amendment bestows on individual citizens the RIGHT to keep and bear assault weapons with high capacity magazines. "

Wrong, but why would anyone expect you to be right?

Go learn something instead of wasting everyonne's time.

Start with the Federalist Papers.

Share the fair, little lady.

LOL.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DefeatSBB5

Dec-31-12 7:08 PM

You are very stupid, Adam.

Illiterate, as well.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

liemonger

Dec-31-12 3:18 PM

"The founding fathers would be HORRIFIED that there are people, lawmakers even, in this country who actually believe that the 2nd Amendment bestows on individual citizens the RIGHT to keep and bear assault weapons with high capacity magazines. "

Wrong, but why would anyone expect you to be right?

Go learn something instead of wasting everyonne's time.

Start with the Federalist Papers.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

liemonger

Dec-31-12 3:16 PM

What are you struggling with? Other than the basic ability to wipe your own.

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams used it also. And it's been used prior in other NON-Supreme Court cases.

"prefatory clause'

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams used it also. And it's been used prior in other NON-Supreme Court cases. Two words little lady.

What are you struggling with? Other than the basic ability to wipe your own.

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams used it also. And it's been used prior in other NON-Supreme Court cases.

"prefatory clause'

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams used it also. And it's been used prior in other NON-Supreme Court cases. Two words little lady.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 32 comments Show More Comments
 
 
 

 

I am looking for: