I await with eager anticipation...but most of all for the fallout after and the laughs it'll cause from the "progressives" as they attempt to slander and spin.

I expect lots of posturing and carefully crafted non-answers. . .or at least I would if I owned a television.

It's like the Xmas decorations being up in the stores a week after Labor Day. I'm no longer the Lewis Black fan I once was, but he had one line in particular I loved with regard to this:

"How long does it take you Christians to SHOP?"

Yes, this all campaigning all the time crap is going to wreck the nation. Our permanant political class has ruined the beautiful jewel the Founding Fathers gave us...

Maybe a drinking game- Take a drink for every unequivocal statement, clear position, or straight answer.

JWM

Is Fred in?

Hope Stinky's ready with a mop and bucket. It could get messy. :)

An acquaintance of mine is trapped near the Reagan Memorial Library; I asked him to give Chris Matthews a Bronx Cheer for me.

/Out of love, of course.

I want everybody to take a very long vacation.

Fred won't announce until this season of L&O is over.

5 jwm

Isn't the purpose of a drinking game to get drunk? We'd all be stone-cold sober if we followed that rule!

Republicans running for president?

Funny right?

This morning CBS Radio news prefaced their report on this debate by asking, "Can you name any of the Republican presidential candidates?" as if they were a bunch of no names.

I guess they thought that was humor, but in reality, they completely exposed the farce that is their orgasmic coverage of the Dems and the non-existant coverage of the Reps.

Anyone hear how many viewers viewed the dem debates? I had heard some pundit on some msnbc news this morning said that the dem debates had 2 million viewers? I thought that was rather low, maybe I misheard.

#10 Mandy:
You busted me. I'm just a natural born killjoy.
;)

JWM

RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY!

A little unsolicited advise:

Listen to it on the radio.

Don't watch it on TV.

RAH!

A question.

What happened to the League of Women Voters?

At one time, weren't they the ones running the Presidential debates? At least the Dem-Rep debates for the real election, maybe not these primary squabbles.

Who's running the debates now, and how did this change come about?

What happened to the League of Women Voters?

They fell in love with Bill.

I wish one of them would back the Fair Tax. The Republicans need something new to get fired-up about.

#10 mandy

I was just gonna say the same thing! K-Lo at NRO had a good idea - 1 drink for each time someone says "Reagan." Since the debate is being held at the Reagan Library, you'll be drunk before the candidates names are announced!

#5 jwm

Or take a drink each time a candidate attempts to appear "Reaganesque."

That's a vague enough criteria to allow for a lot of drinking.

Better than expectations...

#19 travman
Like a flat tax? As complicated as our tax system is there aren't any good alternatives.

#20 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey

Three seconds. You're scaring me.

McCain's got a HELL OF A LOT of explaining to do.

McCain Feingold

McCain Kennedy "amnesty for illegals"

Gang of 14

"Agents of intolerance" coment about evangelicals

Slavish courting of the media who only listen to him as long as he's criticizing conservatives

Too many other offensive, backstabbing comments and conduct to recall...

#6 lawrence

Fred said it best yesterday - "if a candidate can't make his case to the people in a couple of months, then he shouldn't be running in the first place." (I'm quoting from memory, so it might not be his exact words.)

Run Fred Run DAMMIT!

#14 MandyManners
Agreed. I still don't understand the appeal of Fred(!).

Debate? [sheesh]

How do 10 people "debate"?

#15 Ben Hur
Nixon won the 1960 debate on the radio.

Fair Tax

I will be watching this, as I haven't decided who I will support in the primary.

(Hint: it won't be a gun controller)

Wow,I'll actually comment on this...I'm like 40,so I can remember growing up very few actual debates being broadcast on TV.
Many times my father would read the questions(imagine!)and then the answers from each candidate.
Only the survivors of the caucaus' were on the tube,and of course the final 2.
It's all just for show though really,I feel that
Bush is purposely ruining the GOP,setting us up for...you know who.
And then we will be in REAL trouble!
It's all about money now.
Patriotism is left to us.
The elite are above it all.
However ,as my late father did in 1941,we must and will confront it all!
Wow I feel better now.

#31 travman

progressive national retail sales tax.

Spend some time in Euprope or the UK and enjoy the nightmare that is V.A.T.
Come back once you've learned your lesson.

The fact that Hannity is defending unnamed johns tells me that he knows some Reps that are going to be busted.

Layin the groundwork

I watched Fred Thompson on Hannity last night. Very impressive guy. I hope he does decide to run.

/channeling Ronald Reagan!

Thanks for the reminder. I'll have to tune in. But 10 candidates? Is it a telethon?

OT

Desperation in Cuba, where three soldiers defected with their weapons and tried to hijack a plane in order to flee the Gulag. So far, the regime is covering up the incident, probably because of fear that others could be encouraged to do the same.

[Link: www.babalublog.com...]

#14 MandyManners

Oh, Mandy. You sing so sweetly.

I understand that Chris Mathews is moderator. What is it with this propensity for Republicans to bend over for liberal democrats? Do they think they will earn something with this behavior?

Looks like we'll have a field of 8 losers.

Where's Tom Ridge when his country needs him most?

I'll get the details here tomorrow and elsewhere. Perhaps, I will tape it.

The questions for debates are stupid and you learn little you didnt already know other than who can answer general questions better under pressure. Like a pagent.

Who is your moral leader? (See Ann Coulter's column its hilarious today). That is just stupid.

I will be watching the Office, Scrubs and UFC.

Why would they do this on a Thur. the one night I watch t.v. regularly and the biggest night for television?

Are they trying to get a small audience?

I still think Duncan Hunter is the best man for the job, but if he doesn't absolutely dominate, then it'll be the Big 3 (and maybe Fred). If Hunter doesn't excel, I'll have to choose between Mitt and Fred (if Fred gets in).

No matter who the Republican nominee is ( and I can say that being pretty sure Hagel, Specter, nut-job Ron Paul and the assorted Northeast RINOs won't be), I'll fully support the Republican candidate.

Is Rudy too liberal for me, on guns and abortion. You bet he is. But if you think any likely Democrat is better on those issues than Rudy, you are on drugs.

I'm not encouraged by this new crop of Republican candidates... Looks like 2008 will see me voting once again for the lesser of two evils...

Just once, I'd like to be able to vote for someone that I agree with on the majority of the issues...

Geraldo.

Being Jewish isn't enough, he now has another cross to bear.

Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan

WHAT, he can't run again... damn
)-:

I so miss that great man.

Giuliani/Thompson is the sizzle that would put the shnizzle on a hillary/obama kebizzle.

/flashes lizard claw-signs/

Without Fred and/or Newt in the mix I am not that interested (this far out).

Still, it beats watching the Dhimms doing the same thing.

MandyManners

Rudy is very good, but I like Fred T too. Fred was the better prosecutor.

It seems like American politics has become one perpetual election campaign, uninterrupted by any actual governing except of the negative kind. Did we used to have debates a year and a half out from an election, or am I just dreaming of a more peaceful, idyllic time?

At that time, too, no one went into the nominating convention as the winner of their party's nomination. That was actually determined at the convention itself -- in those notorious smoke-filled back rooms.

RE: Republicans who may be busted by DC Madam.

1) Don't be cheating on the wife

2) If really, really desperate, put $20 cash money in pocket, drive to suburban Mohammad-mart where nobody likely to recognize you, and buy a spank magazine.

3) If you're so famous that people would recognize you buying stroke book, subscribe to Maxim. Heck, maybe even Playboy, and claim you read articles.

A litmus test
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last.
Churchill

Appeasing the Muslims AND/OR the (ILLEGALS Mexicans, etc.) is NOT acceptable.

50 cato

In an alternate universe he was a better prosecutor.

I'm hoping to see either Fred Thompson or Rudy on the ballot when the elections roll around.

#51 samsgran1948

-- in those notorious smoke-filled back rooms

That did not produce the likes of JimmyDhimmi Carter, I might add.

It's OK because the rock thrower isn't palestinian and the Border Patrolman isn't Israeli.

[Link: www.libertypost.org...]

Severe thunderstorm near Cleveland!

#44 Odinist

I'm not encouraged by this new crop of Republican candidates... Looks like 2008 will see me voting once again for the lesser of two evils...

Just once, I'd like to be able to vote for someone that I agree with on the majority of the issues...

Yeah, but how can Zombie (or Desert Sage or Killgore Trout or...) run and still remain anonymous?

Ok, Troops. I gotta go home.

Prolly won't watch because just tooo many right now & I can't stand Mathews. Might make an interesting read tomorrow.

Chris Mathews is the moderator!

I have to tell you Lizardoids about the funniest
Matthews story ever.

I am in the owner's box at a Redskins game sitting next to Chris Wallace (a very nice guy and an avid Redskins fan). At halftime, Matthews comes up to him and starts questioning him about whether Roger Ailes controls what he says on air. When Wallace says no, several times, Matthews asks, and I quote verbatim,

"So do you think that Roger would be interested in me?"

Wallace: "You would have to ask Roger that."

#58 Ed Mahmoud's Sock Puppet

Cleveland is on the Gulf coast?

Army Moves to Restrict MilBloggers, Terrorists Hard at Work

No kidding...cahin of command needs to be "consulted" for blogging from the sandbox, or from those who are back, but blogging about the sandbox...

USA Today, however, reports a study says the net is the most effective tool they have.

Good move, General Casey!

Here's bone for all of the lazy, uninformed FD 'The Spoiler' Thompson promoters:
HT: instapundit
[Link: www.metropulse.com...]

[Link: www.nysunpolitics.com...]

[Link: pajamasmedia.com...]

When you can't stop gushing, research his actual history, and his actual impromptu talks. Kinda like a paper bag when you're hyperventilating.

/BTW, is he debating..? Has he announced? He's a lazy man's hereo.

58
Cleveland, TENN.?

#62 ROB

Cleveland, Texas

#66 Kaboomboom

Duhhh. I always forget that there's one in TX!

Sorry, Ed!

Ouachita Parish tornado!

#63 Curt

There are practical life and death considerations to restricting unmoderated soldier speak.

That being said there is a propaganda war going on that is very important and soldier blogs are an effective tool in that war.

Give them blogging tools and let them have at it with clearly defined, but broad, rules and regs i.e.; cant give operational details - duh.

Court Martial those that run afoul.

#64 cbinflux

He's a lazy man's hereo.

OK, I have to ask, because I'm kind of a jerk that way.
What is a "hereo"?

Over this last weekend, there was a shooting at a mall in Kansas.

I emailed that mall, as they have a website, trying to find out if they are a weapons free environment or not, in order to flush out a report I am making on a correlation between weapons free environments and shootings.

I emailed them Monday. I have yet to hear back on such a simple question.

5 JWM heh I'd rather watch it drunk out of my mind. They might seem "presidential" then.

And I might forget that the "frontrunners" don't want to build a border fence, or tell the UN that it's time for it to move somewhere that needs the money the diplomats bring with them to headquarters.

71 Lance, that shooting was much more an issue of a seriously dangerously mentally ill person who wasn't institutionalized than the gun control issue.

He killed people in the mall parking lot...whether or not the inside of the mall is a gun free zone isn't applicable anyway.

A guy named Clayton Cramer (I think) has written lots about the problem with the closure of mental institutions. He also wrote a book called Armed America, so he'd be on that facet as well if it applied. Let me search for links.

President Bush won TWO terms, in spite of the msm, in spite of George Soro's billions, in spite of stuffing ballot boxs, in spite of John Kerry's campaign team slashing tires of GOP vehicles in Millwaukee, in spite of the fact that the Democrats seem to be able to get away with any and every illegal activity.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm voting for Rudy, because I believe he is the most qualified, the most steadfast about the WAR ON TERROR, and even though I don't agree with all that he represents, and I don't, nor have I agreed with everything that President Bush has or hasn't done, Rudy has the ability of all of the GOP candidates, to pull a large, large number of "moderate" voters away from the Dims.

Go Rudy!

#64 cbinflux

I confess I dont know much about Thompson. Too early for me to do research on nominees.

2 things from your first link I dont like:

1. He was in favor of CFR.

2. He was against tort reform.

Those are biggies too. Realize your not going to get someone to agree with you 100%, but those are 2 issues are telling.

73 funky

he did shoot people on either side of him in the parking lot, but then went INSIDE the mall.

The final shootout took place 'outside the Target" but this was inside the mall, as police arrived at the scene as people were 'running outside of the mall' per the reports.

however, the RESPONSE to this, and the VT shooting and the Johnson Space Center shooting a few weeks ago will be gun control.

So, I beg to differ. This IS a gun control issue, because those who wish to outlaw our 2nd Amendment Rights are making it one.

Lance: Clayton Cramer on de-institutionalization of the mentally ill.

[Link: www.claytoncramer.com...]

Great stuff, pages long, just scroll past the weird long ad that fills the first page, on my browser at least.

I'd guess you'd like his Armed America book as well...

#70

A hereo is a typo. My posts average one per.

77 funky

thanks, I'll take a look when I get home.

Fred's my guy. Here is his take on Castro's Cuba.

[Link: pajamasmedia.com...]

He's good on the border with Mexico too, which, sadly Rudy is not.

Thompson is only on his second marriage I think, and I don't believe his divorce was ugly or there are disgruntled children, like with Rudy.

But I could live with Rudy. I like Thompson/Guliani

Or Guliani/Thompson would even work.

# 76 LK

Just keep an eye on the DC gun case. That very well may settle everything, one way or the other, if it gets to SCOTUS.

I just heard on the radio that Hussein Obama will be getting SECRET SERVICE DETAIL a year and half ahead of the election!

How many millions is that going to cost the taxpayer?

As much as I've seen him, the only picture I get of Thompson is the role he played in "Hunt for Red October."

If he is anything like the bit part he played there, I'd support him. heh.

The LAST hollywood actor we elected President didn't do too bad of a job. (Think Reagan)

However, the last LAWYER we elected to be president did. (Think Clinton)

#76 Lance Kates

So, I beg to differ. This IS a gun control issue, because those who wish to outlaw our 2nd Amendment Rights are making it one.

The anti-gun crowd, which cares absolutely nothing about safety, or gun incidents, but rather, control and power, have $100's of millions of dollars in reserve and in action, to push the anti-gun agenda.

That being said, yes, they look at every incident where a gun is involved, and politicize it to no end, because they have money to burn.

Where they have been focusing their money lately, has been with the U.N. and the various anti-gun NGO's, because they feel that if they can get a U.N. treaty of firearms abolition, they believe they can get a Dem President, along with a Dem U.N. Ambassador, to sign on to the treaty.

I know that there are many who would literally give their lives to try and stop this, including myself, the Dems, the U.N. and others, are almost wishing that this would happen, because they could and would then say,

"See, there needs to be no private ownership of firearms, anywhere on this earth.

I almost relish the oppurtunity to defend myself, and I will, in action, not words.

Lance, read my whole post. Clayton Cramer has a succesful book about fighting gun control...I'm not pooh-poohing that at all. I'd also advise you to leave Ward Parkway Mall alone, or you will seem like a crank.

Also, it's been confirmed already that it was a gun-free zone, according to mall security...although there was debate about whether they had prominent signs. I grew up in the area and they didn't have them way back then, but hey, it's a different world.

[Link: johnrlott.tripod.com...]

#82 shug

Why would they do that? Does the Secret Service know something about the outcome of the next election already?

82 shug

I read that on Drudge a bit ago... Of course, guns make things more dangerous and we don't need them...

unless you're Obama... or Feinstein... or Boxer... or Clinton... or Kennedy... etc. etc. etc.

I thought we had "debates" AFTER the monied powers have determined who we're allowed to vote for?

ooo that sounded cranky, but wasn't meant to...the warning about calling the mall folks is sincere...

#81 Mike C.

# 76 LK

Just keep an eye on the DC gun case. That very well may settle everything, one way or the other, if it gets to SCOTUS.

What will you do, if it indeed does go before the SCOTUS, and they rule against firearm owners?

I know, beyond the shadow of any doubt what I will do, but what will you do Mike?

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means exactly what it says for me, what does it mean to you?

#41 William

Advising islamic Albania?

# 84 republic

Like I told LK, the rubber may indeed be about to hit the road on this issue. Don't get distracted by sideshows.

#78 dll2000

A hereo is a typo. My posts average one per.

I know, but what you don't understand is that I have to give cbinflux a hard time at least once a day.
It was his anti-FDT campaign that got me squarely focused on Rudy as my candidate for '08, which is a good thing. But I still have to pay him back :')

And who the hell is this Ron Paul guy? Every time I hear his name I think of RuPaul.

I've never trusted anyone with two first names, i.e...
Michael Jackson
George Michael
Elton John
ect...

# 90 republic

I'll be f***ed, as will every other gun owner in the US, including you.

It's almost showtime...

#86 Odinist:

Does the Secret Service know something about the outcome of the next election already?

Obama is getting Secret Service protection because he requested it.

Any declared candidate can have a detail if they want one.

#82 shug
I suspect he's been getting threats.

RON PAUL IS THE REPUBLICAN KUCINICH.

that is all.

/not really, vote FDT

84 republic

I'm still waiting for my CCW Permit.

I don't care if someone doesn't like guns... we have a right to arm ourselves and if someone doesn't want to, that's fine with me... I don't care.

but because YOU don't like guns, don't take MINE away. . . you know?

What really bothers me is the lies that are told... with no basis, and never fact checked.

Guns raise crime! Guns lead to Child Deaths! I'm just waiting for "Guns cause Cancer!" . . . I'm suprised that they haven't linked Lead Poisoning to Gun ownership yet... the rounds I fire contain lead... don't yours?

The lies are spread so quickly, and believed so readily that it seems to rival Global Warming myths...

Fred Thompson's voting record

Duncan Hunter

Rudy Giuliani

Mitt Romney

Tom Tancredo

Sam Brownback

Mike Huckabee

John McCain

Tommy Thompson

Jim Gilmore

Ron Paul

More at [Link: www.ontheissues.org...]

#95 lobo91

That's insane! So all 10 Republicans can request it, along with the rest of the Democrats? What a waste of taxpayer money!

Typical, though...

I would love it if the Republicans started out by debating those responsible for OKC bombing are jihadi's or not?

Separate the contenders from the pretenders real quick!

85 funky

when I sent the email, find out for SURE if it was or not.

My gut said it was, as every mall I've ever been in had been posted 'weapons free' but I didn't want to include it in the report as such unless I was certain.

94 mike C

I've thought about such things... and even taken the logical steps as to what would happen after. I eventually get to Revolution. . . which is a natural course of Democracy, as shown in history. However, where would the Military stand? (Specifically the Marines) . . . Their duty is to protect the country from all threats foreign and domestic. What if the government becomes the domestic threat against the country?

There'd be alot of infighting and confusion...

I really have a feeling that either I or my (now nonexistant) children will have to face that one day.

#86 Odinist

Why would they do that? Does the Secret Service know something about the outcome of the next election already?

Because things need to work out the way they need to work out, for them to work out the way that they must.

If you look at the amount of pure deception which has displayed itself of late, things need to work out the way that they need to, for things to progress the way they need to.

I know that doesn't really make sense, to many, but some on here will understand what I am saying.

I won't be deceived, under any circumstances, but this country may indeed elect a President, who makes absolutely no sense.

We may be looking at a candidate, who has virtually no real experience(Obama) who is the next POTUS.

I am interested to see how my racist, male cheuvenistic, Catholic family votes.

Hillary?

Obama?

Most of my family is racist, cheuvenistic.

I'm not talking my immediete family, I am talking about my family, through my cousins.

They are Democrats, they are cheuvenistic.

It will be interesting.

No matter what, I know beyond the shadow of a doubt, that my soul is safe.

#101 akak
*GAZE*

i with you Mandy

RUDY IN 08
I AM PROUD TO SUPPORT HIM.

#101 akak

I would love it if the Republicans started out by debating those responsible for OKC bombing are jihadi's or not?

All the Iraqis were Chaldean...you know, Jesus Freaks. Islam means peace so they wouldn't have blown up any building

/moonbat off

As I said yesterday:

I have faith in technology. I'm holding out for Resurrected Cyborg Teddy Roosevelt.

96 Killgore Trout

#82 shug
I suspect he's been getting threats.

Almost certainly they're threats from leftists. They're the ones who like to write rambling e-mails about finding people's addresses and molesting their children.

Oh boy, pour some syrup on those Pandercakes.

Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Floor Statement of Senator Byrd

"Today, Senator Byrd announced on the Senate floor our intention to introduce legislation which proposes October 11, 2007 - the five year anniversary of the original resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq - as the expiration date for that resolution. As Senator Byrd pointed out, the October 11, 2002 authorization to use force has run its course, and it is time to reverse the failed policies of President Bush and to end this war as soon as possible.

Earlier this week, President Bush vetoed legislation reflecting the will of Congress and the American people that would have provided needed funding for our troops while also changing course in Iraq and beginning to bring our troops home.

I believe that this fall is the time to review the Iraq war authorization and to have a full national debate so the people can be heard. I supported the Byrd amendment in 2002 which would have limited the original authorization to a year and I believe a full reconsideration of the terms and conditions of the authorization is overdue. This bill would require the president to do just that.

The American people have called for change, the facts on the ground demand change, and the Congress has passed legislation that requires change. It is time to sunset the authorization for the war in Iraq. If the president will not bring himself to accept reality, it is time for Congress to bring reality to him.

Gee, Bush and the Congressional Republicans just got done telling them yesterday that we're not going to surrender, so here they go again, trying to run the white flag up a different flagpole.

/[expletive deleted] amoral weasels

Is China ruining our efforts to go green?

CNN

/Green News Network

our?

#102 LanceKates

There'd be alot of infighting and confusion...

I really have a feeling that either I or my (now nonexistant) children will have to face that one day.

Don't think for a minute that the leftist Dims haven't considered that.

The thing to consider, is the extent that the leftist Dims are willing to go to, to acheive their goals, which can't be acheived.

I know, because I have a family member who is a leftist kook, that my family member would sell me out, in a nanosecond, to acheieve their stupid euphorian dream.

o.t.
TIME RIMES WITH SLIME

Off to T-ball practice or, as we like to call it, the Dandelion League. Later, lizards.

Akak, you're not making any sense.

#108 Killian Bundy

/[expletive deleted] amoral weasels

Gee, this from the current KKK member of Congress?

we need a leader with a global vision

the internet has contributed to global communication

modern transportation has made the world smaller

it's time to consolidate political power on a global scale

I suggest we, the US, start inviting countries to join us as States

let Poland become a few States

let the Ukraine become a few States

let Greenland become a State

let Cuba become a State after Castro dies, and after the Cubans rise up to overthrow whomever tries to succeed Castro

# 98 LK

...we have a right to arm ourselves...

That is the basic issue at stake in the DC gun case. The federal district court ruled that the second amendment propounds an individual right that the District of Columbia could not override. The case is being appealed on that issue, with the District of Columbia maintaining that the amendment refers to a state right. There are entire libraries of written opinion supporting both sides, but the basic question has never been decided by SCOTUS. No matter which side wins at the en banc district court level, the case is almost certainly going to be appealed to SCOTUS. IF they accept it, and IF they rule on the premise rather than some technicality, the issue will be decided. For better or worse. Either way, expect major changes in many local, state and federal laws.

#103 republic
We may be looking at a candidate, who has virtually no real experience(Obama) who is the next POTUS.

I'm not so sure about that republic. Obama is sinking like a stone. Down to 14% as of this am in New Hampshire and Iowa. And his "media manager" was fool enough to go in and take by brute force a fan site someone has been building for more than two years. Then when the content owner asked them to at least pay for his time (a reasonable $36K) he was told to go stuff it. Upshot: Obama got the Myspace name, the kid got to keep the content, Obama made an enemy for life out of the kid and PO'd a whole lot of techies and others by refusing to pay for the kids time. Not how you win friends and influence people in a campaign that is going to be more online than ever before. Might even have just cooked his goose.

82 Shug that's not surprising, actually. JQuerrie had secret service protection for quite a while as well. Remember his running into the secret service guy while snow skiing and then yelling at him? Even though JQuerrie was at fault?

It's just that they are campaigning so very early. I don't know the history on whether Dean and Edwards had protection and how far in advance of the general last time.

Fox news t.v is reporting Cuba has two American G.I's who tried to hijack a plane to America...this is strange.

74 republic you know Guliani doesn't mind gun control, right?

#107 Pawn of the Oppressor

i would definitely vote for a cyborg Teddy R, but barring that FDT is the best option

#82 shug

I just heard on the radio that Hussein Obama will be getting SECRET SERVICE DETAIL a year and half ahead of the election!

How many millions is that going to cost the taxpayer?

More on Obama's Secret Service detail:

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff authorized Obama's protection after consultations with the bipartisan congressional advisory committee, according to Chertoff spokesman Russ Knocke and the Secret Service.

[snip]

Federal law allows candidates to seek protection if they meet a series of standards, including public prominence as measured by polls and fundraising. The members of the congressional advisory committee are the Speaker, the House and Senate majority and minority leaders as well as one additional member.

#98 LanceKates

I'm suprised that they haven't linked Lead Poisoning to Gun ownership yet

In California, there is legislation, on the book, currently, which may impede hunters,and ban lead, of any kind, because of LEAD, which they say may affect the California Condor.

Most people, gun owners included, don't have a clue of what the anti-gun lobby has in store.

Many are in my family, and they don't have a f@#$ing clue.

I'm ready for whatever transpires, not in words, but in action.

#93 De Nada

Things I would like from my candidate:

1) Border Security (real not lip service)

2) Tax cuts (I will call for them down to 10%)

3) Government Spending cuts

4) Real, not pie in the sky new technology, energy solutions i.e.;

a) More nuclear power
b) More domestic oil drilling in Alaska and Gulf and off of CA and anywhere else you find it.
c) More refinearies sp?

5) A tax and regulation policy that does not encourage companies to move overseas, but rather encourages them to stay. Open to suggestions on that one. I dont want to punish foreign companies, I want to make the U.S. a good place to invest.

6) Start getting tough with countries who use us has their personal punching bag verbally on the world stage including European countries.

Foreign aid and troops will be placed and doled strictly for the benefit of the U.S. not for a foreign country. When another country derives an ancillary benefit from that I expect gratitude.

7) All rules of engagement with troops not following the geneva convention will be loosened severely. We will fight all battles to win with overwhelming force. The fault of causalties will lie with the ones abusing the rules of war.

8) Any indictments of U.S. govt. personnel for crimes will be met and enforced with indictments of similarly situated govt. officials of that country and they will be arrested using the U.S. military. Be it E.U., Germany or whoever.
- Any kidnappings of U.S. personnel will be met with reprisal in kind up to and including war.

9) Sponser a Constitutional Amendment overriding the Kelo decision and pass Federal legislation stating 'public use' is not for a net tax benefit.

10) Revamp federal public education spending in ways I have not yet decided. Want to encourage competition and innovation without a Federal takeover of schools. Perhaps I will ban teachers unions. I have not decided.

#115 friarstale

totally agree, although first they must prove they are not commie scum

When are the Bull Moose debates?

11) Tort reform is necessary. Also, legal system needs to be revamped to get rid of blackmail lawsuits where its cheaper to settle in the right than to battle a wrong.

anyone running against Hillary should have extensive security. they should also be careful when flying, driving, or, you know, walking outside during a lightning storm

123 republic

in some areas already, you're required to use steel shot to hunt.

then again, hunting kills bambi, you evil hunter!

*grin*

anyway... I'm going to go. I need to get away from depressing news for a while. In the end, three things remain: Faith, Hope and Love.

everything else is a chasing after the wind.

#122 JustMyView

Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren would not provide details of what led to the extra security, but said, "I'm not aware it was based on any threat." According to the Department of Homeland Security, there were no known threats and Obama requested the protection.

huh.

Somebody please youtube the debate. Thanks.

DesertSage 5/03/2007 2:46:22 pm PDT

Akak, you're not making any sense.

What don't you disagree with when CNN says:

Is China ruining our efforts to go green?

FDT = Friday Drinking Thread?

#130 Killgore Trout

Having an SS detail provides an atmosphere of authenticity?

#115 friarstale
I agree, as ive been saying this for sometime that we should invite other countries to join the union. I like your list by the way id add israel to it too.

#120 funky chicken

74 republic you know Guliani doesn't mind gun control, right?

Yes, that is one thing where I differ from Rudy, but, because he says he is a strict "Constitution Contructionist", and because every Dim candidate, with the lone exception of Bill Richardson has a 100% anti-gun voting record, yes, it's Rudy, hands down.

It may take another civil war in this country, when it comes to guns, because this country isn't going to dis-arm over 100 million decent, Patriotic firearms owners.

Rudy has clearly said, that gun laws need to be different in large cities, vs rural areas.

That decision still lies with the SCOTUS, so I'll trust that Rudy isn't going to f#$k with my firearms.

Rudy is clearly, clearly the most electible GOP candidate, and given that whoever the Dem candidate is, who will be a 100%, 100% anti-gun Dim, the choice for gun owners will be clear.

The worst of all of this, is there is something in me, that says that the Dims are going to win, then, the fact that Rudy may have some conflicting ideas about gun control, won't matter a bit.

I'll die defending my firearms freedoms.

Guarenteed.

I will still be interested to see who my family, my 90% racist, cheuvenistic family will vote for.

Hillary?

Obama?

It is going to be fun to watch them squirm.

"Public information officers or spokesmen for law enforcement agencies are purposely downplaying and in some cases, lying outright to the public about arrests of Muslims in the U.S.," stated one federal law enforcement official during our discussion last week. "We have been told what to say and just as important, what not to say, and warned not to deviate from that ‘template.'"

"oh my" says the lady in the toilet paper commercial

#135 Roger
I'll cut Obama some slack on this one. I'd be nervous if I were him too. He's black, has some Islam connections and could realistically be elected (Unlike Sharpton and Jackson). I'm sure there are some whackos out there who might do him harm.

#130 Killgore Trout

I was surprised about that paragraph too. I'd heard that there had been threats, but I don't have a link. It's almost hard to believe that there haven't been threats; many people in public life get them. And lots of people who aren't in public life.

#129 LanceKates

then again, hunting kills bambi, you evil hunter!

"Bambi" is the best eating of all game, much like veal.

We give a lot of greif to anyone who shoots a fawn, but after you've taken the pleasure of feasting, all you ever hear are snores.

I wish I could be excited about this, but I expect to be disgusted. Having Chris Matthews, (who has asserted that anyone anti-illegal immigration must be motivated by racism) asking questions of Republican candidates is really little different and will be no more coherent than having Joan Baez ask the questions.

I'm going to skip the debates until they can contrive to have at least one questioner to the right of Barak Obama.

Whay on earth are all ten hopefuls in the debate? Ron Paul?

I agree with Hugh Hewitt's take, that participants should have at least 1% of support in at least one national poll.

115 friarstale Actually, I'd go the opposite direction. I'd like to jettison some states we already have, like Taxxachusetts and Califoristan.

I definitely don't want more "global" vision in my US leadership.

#123 republic:

In California, there is legislation, on the book, currently, which may impede hunters,and ban lead, of any kind, because of LEAD, which they say may affect the California Condor.

Military 5.56 ammo these days is either steel-core or tungsten, depending on whether it's for the M-16/M-4 or the M-249.

Why, not Whay

PIMF

#136 Black George Bush

#115 friarstale
I agree, as ive been saying this for sometime that we should invite other countries to join the union. I like your list by the way id add israel to it too.

That idea sounds good at first, but think of the National Debt issues, increased Social Security and Welfare payments, Medicaid, and all the other problems it would cause...

Not to mention the security risks...

#132 akak

It's not what you say, it's how you say it.

Like this:

What don't you disagree with when CNN says:

I just don't understand that sentence. When did I ever say that "I don't disagree with what CNN says"? That's a double negative. I don't even watch CNN (except for Glen Beck).

I'm tired, please, just speak plainly. My head starts to ache when I have to decrypt someones thoughts.

Besides... isn't there a conflict of interest having Matthews pose questions to McCain? Didn't they used to date?

Rudy = "That Guy from 9/11"

his record just doesn't stand up. he coasted along with the boom in NYC, and a nationwide plummet in crime rates. Hillary will hammer him with that relentlessly. likeable, yes, worthy of the Presidency, no.

#116 Mike C

What part of ,

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms", don't they get?

It doesn't matter what may come before those words, there is a comma, and,

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

I almost relish the oppurtunity.

Almost.

I pray that it never comes, but I am ready in a heartbeat, to defend myself.

If they ever ban my firearms, I will be a statistic, one way or the other, and I don't care who reads this.

#134 funky chicken

FDT = Friday Drinking Thread?

funky, are you asking if today is Friday?

Put the bottle down and step away

#143 Ward Cleaver

is Hugh still shilling for Romney?

#134 funky chicken

FDT = Friday Drinking Thread?

Fred Dalton Thompson.

/not a candidate, yet

#145 lobo91

Military 5.56 ammo these days is either steel-core or tungsten, depending on whether it's for the M-16/M-4 or the M-249.

Nothing wrong with tungsten, I shot a turkey a few weeks ago, at 40 yds, and he fell over and went to sleep, with not another movement.

#92 Mike C

# 84 republic

Like I told LK, the rubber may indeed be about to hit the road on this issue. Don't get distracted by sideshows.

I'm with you.

DesertSage

Red Bull? I'll buy

Did anybody else hear Hewitt talking yesterday about the Obama internal campaign documents that fell into the hands of Howard Fineman? They show how phony and packaged that Obama really is. Wish I could find the link.

#94 Mike C

# 90 republic

I'll be f***ed, as will every other gun owner in the US, including you.

It's almost showtime...

I'm with you.

My wife knows full well here I stand on this issue, and we have both talked about the fact, that I may do it without her.

154 killian :-) I know

#151 republic

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms", don't they get?

The two clauses preceding that one.

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.

/their argument is that it applies to State militias, not individuals

Hey, maybe they can talk about the VA tonight:

[Link: blogs.dailymail.com...]

[Link: blogs.dailymail.com...]

Yeah, those VA guys really deserve $33,000 performance bonuses and a convention at the swankiest hotel in Disney World. Yeppers.

#157 akak

Red Bull? Cool, I'm in :')

#161 Killian Bundy

/their argument is that it applies to State militias, not individuals

There wouldn't be a comma, if it weren't two different ideals, it would be one single ideal, with no comma.

I know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that is exactly what the Founders meant.

No matter what, I'm ready, willing and still able.

Go, Mike, Go!

I Like Mike!

Huckabee 2008!

#94 Mike C

Thank you.

#161 Killian Bundy:

their argument is that it applies to State militias, not individuals

Which they usually follow with some reference to the National Guard, thus proving their ignorance of both legal and military matters in one shot.

Hint: The National Guard is a reserve component of the military, not a state militia.

# 151 republic

It doesn't matter what I think of that sentance, and it doesn't matter what you think of that sentance. It matters in the extreme what SCOTUS thinks of that sentance, and that is what we may see.

Oh, and please keep your mountain man revolutionary fantasies to yourself. I dislike bad fiction.

#164 republic

There wouldn't be a comma, if it weren't two different ideals, it would be one single ideal, with no comma.

I don't understand this statement. Can you explain?

For me, right now, Newt is #1. By far. And so these early debates aren't much worth following.

Second amendment and grammar

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.

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

# 167 lobo91

The argument is that there are no longer any such things as state militias, therefore the second amendment is moot.

Of course, there would be nothing to prevent any state from re-establishing a state militia, but that's a pretty lame sci-fi plot.

# 172 Addendum

And, in the current case, DC isn't a state in any case, but a federal district, which kind of doubles down on the militia argument.

#164 republic

There wouldn't be a comma, if it weren't two different ideals, it would be one single ideal, with no comma.

No, proper English demands that a comma be put in exactly that place. The first two clauses, by themselves, don't make any sense and, standing alone, don't form a sentence. They're obviously meant to modify the clauses following.

Anyway, relax, so far the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently construed the Second Amendment as the individual right to bear arms.

/all I'm saying is that the Founders put those first two modifying clauses in for a reason, if they had simply meant, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", they would have left it at that

#169 JustMyView

I don't understand this statement. Can you explain?

If the 2nd Amendment was simply talking about a well regulated militia, and not every American citizen, there would be no comma.

Why would there be a comma, when talking about the exact same subject?

The Founders clearly stated this in any of the other various Amendments.

I don't play games, with anyone, I know, beyond the shadow of a doubt what the Founders meant, and I don't care how anyone else interprets it.

DONT TREAD ON ME!

Isn't it something, that a bricklayer has more on the ball, than many of our American, "elite"

I relish the oppurtunity.

#172 Mike C.:

The argument is that there are no longer any such things as state militias, therefore the second amendment is moot.

Of course, there would be nothing to prevent any state from re-establishing a state militia, but that's a pretty lame sci-fi plot.

Actually, a number of states do still have militias (and no, I'm not referring to some fat drunks who run around in the woods wearing surplus camo).

[Link: www.cnn.com...]

Edwards wants role in GOP debate

He has submitted questions for consideration by the debate's organizers: "Has the Bush doctrine of a Global War on Terror backfired? Does the president's focus suggest a fixed enemy that can be defeated through a permanent military campaign or do you think we need a broader approach as many military leaders believe?"

You'd think he's have thought about reciprocity before sticking his foot that far down his throat.

Too much hair spary on the brain?

#174 Killian Bundy

No, proper English demands that a comma be put in exactly that place. The first two clauses, by themselves, don't make any sense and, standing alone, don't form a sentence. They're obviously meant to modify the clauses following.

Not every American is capable of serving in a militia.

But every American has the right to keep and bear arms.

I am right on this, and history will prove as such.

#174 Killian Bundy

/all I'm saying is that the Founders put those first two modifying clauses in for a reason, if they had simply meant, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", they would have left it at that

I disagree.

The founders never, ever, imagined a group like the lunatic left, who have no Patriotism, no loyalty to America, in fact, a desire to help the very enemies of America.

They meant for every American citizen, to keep and bear arms, and any other judgement, is insane.

# 174 K B

Anyway, relax, so far the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently construed the Second Amendment as the individual right to bear arms.

Sorry, but that's simply not true. The banning of so-called "sawed off" shotguns went before the SCOTUS (sorry - I forget the case name) and they ruled it to be okay as such weapons were not used by the military and would not be useful to the state militia.

State Defense Forces (also known as State Guards, State Military Reserves, or State Militias) in the United States are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government, although they are regulated by the National Guard Bureau of the United States Army.[1] State Defense Forces are authorized by state and federal law and are under the command of the governor, as State Defense Forces are distinct from the National Guard in that they are not federal entities (all National Guard units were federalized under the National Defense Act of 1933 (National Guard Mobilization Act) with the creation of the National Guard of the United States). The federal government recognizes State Defense Forces under 32 USC 109 which provides that State Defense Forces "may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces" (of the United States), thus preserving their separation from the National Guard.

#178 republic

I am right on this, and history will prove as such.

If and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. I was just responding to your comma argument

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.

/omitting it does nothing more than make it an improperly punctuated English sentence

# 180 Addendum

And, IIRC, that is the closest the SCOTUS has ever come to ruling on the issue in any case. There has NEVER been a direct ruling on the issue.

#180 Mike C.

Sorry, but that's simply not true. The banning of so-called "sawed off" shotguns went before the SCOTUS (sorry - I forget the case name) and they ruled it to be okay as such weapons were not used by the military and would not be useful to the state militia.

Well, that's not infringing on your right to bear arms, only setting limits on the types of arms you can bear. The Government has done that forever. I get the slippery slope argument but there has to be limits.

/I mean, I'd love to own an auto MP5, 40mm grenade launcher, and a 155mm howitzer (for the front lawn), but I understand why the Government says no, except for the MP5

#175 republic

If the 2nd Amendment was simply talking about a well regulated militia, and not every American citizen, there would be no comma.

Why would there be a comma, when talking about the exact same subject?

The Founders clearly stated this in any of the other various Amendments.

I don't play games, with anyone, I know, beyond the shadow of a doubt what the Founders meant, and I don't care how anyone else interprets it.

Your understanding of how commas can be used needs to be expanded. You seem to be operating w/ the idea that commas are only used to set off the elements of a compound sentence (i.e., a sentence in which there are two independent clauses), but they are used for many other purposes.

#183 Mike C.:

IIRC, that is the closest the SCOTUS has ever come to ruling on the issue in any case. There has NEVER been a direct ruling on the issue.

You're referring to US v. Miller, which didn't actually address the aplicability of the Second Amendment at all. Given that only one side (the government) presented arguments, it's not a very good case to use for any sort of precedent.

The appellants case was based on their claim that the National Firearms Act of 1934 was unconstitutional because it violated the Second Amendment.

If you read the actual opinion, you'll note that the Court didn't address their claim directly. It basically said, "Since nobody has shown us any evidence to prove that there is a military use for a short-barrelled shotgun, your argument is moot."

Ron Paul for prez!
*hides*

# 184 K B

See lobo91 at # 186 (and thanks, lobo). That's the absolute closest SCOTUS has come to ruling on the basic issue, and that took the military route. Derived from the militia argument.

That is why the current DC gun case is so important. The federal district court ruled that the gun laws of DC violated the second amendment because the second amendment defined a personal, not a state right. That issue has NEVER been decided by SCOTUS.

Film at 11.

#183 Mike C.

And, IIRC, that is the closest the SCOTUS has ever come to ruling on the issue in any case. There has NEVER been a direct ruling on the issue.

United States v. Miller

2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 178.

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

Supreme Court Cases

The Supreme Court has heard only five cases directly related to the Second Amendment. They are: U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894), U.S. v. Miller (1939), and Lewis v. U.S. (1980). One the Supreme Court refused to hear, Burton v. Sills (1968), and one concerning the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and "the people," U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), are also discussed.

/bottom line, individuals still have the right to bear arms

#185 JustMyView

If you vote against Rudy on this one issue, you are seeing with tunnel vision. Look at the big picture.

Personally, and with all due respect, I don't care what anyone other than the Founders meant with the 2nd Amendment.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

That tells me, that the people of America have the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

I don't care what anyone, including the SCOTUS believes about that, I will defend that right, with my very life.

So will approx. 100 million other Americans.

Good luck.

Killian
When you have time, peruse these, if you can.
Descriptions of the supreme court gun cases

UNITED STATES v. POWELL, 423 U.S. 87 (1975)

The strange case of United States v. Miller

I don't care what anybody, the SCOTUS, or other Lizards, or anyone says, the US Constitution, as set out by the founders, clearly states, that as a citizen of the USA, I have the right to keep and bear arms.

I will defend that with my life, and I almost relish the oppurtunity.

Isn't it interesting, that the kook left is the only entity to ever draw this issue.

DONT TREAD ON ME!

TRY ME!

#189 Killian Bundy:

There are two very important phrases in the sentence you quoted from the opinion in Miller:

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

The first highlighted phrase doesn't mean what many people think it does. The Court didn't say that there was no military use for a short-barrelled shotgun (which there clearly was: see WWI trench warfare). What it said was that nobody showed them any evidence to prove such use. As I mentioned earlier, only one side even presented arguments (the prosecution).

The second highlighted phrase is more to the point. Many anti-gun groups claim that the Court said in Miller that the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee individual citizens the right to keep and bear arms, based on that phrase. When you read the sentence in its entirety, however, the Court's meaning is clear. All they really said was that the appellants failed to prove their case.

Since they didn't even present a case, that's not terribly surprising.

#188 Mike C.

the second amendment defined a personal, not a state right. That issue has NEVER been decided by SCOTUS.

Okay, technically, the Supreme Court hasn't specifically ruled directly on the wording of the Second Amendment and upheld an individual's right to bear arms. Then again, they've had plenty of opportunity to do so and in not doing so, it's always been implied.

/sometimes, what the Supreme Court doesn't say is as important as what it does say

#191 lobo91

The second highlighted phrase is more to the point. Many anti-gun groups claim that the Court said in Miller that the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee individual citizens the right to keep and bear arms, based on that phrase. When you read the sentence in its entirety, however, the Court's meaning is clear. All they really said was that the appellants failed to prove their case.

The 2nd Amendmant cleary staes,

",

the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Anyone who believes that the 2nd Amendment only applies to a "well regulated militia", deserves whatever befalls this country, of the right of the people is stifled.

Criminals will own guns, no matter what the law says, even with the death penalty.

I won't give up my firearms, no matter what.

What part of that, from over 100 million Americans, don't these people understand?

No U.S. government, no SCOTUS is ever going to take away the very freedoms that I know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that the Founders meant for me to have.

I relish the oppurtunity, as do, over 100 million other Americans.

BWAHHHAHHAAA

# 194 K B

Ah, but it is the opportunity to hear the SCOTUS make a ruling on that specific issue that I have been hammering on. Until that's settled, additional light years of shelf space will be filled with every conceivable opinion on the issue.

In case I have not made myself clear, we may just be about to see the basic issue at hand settled. One way or the other.

#195 republic

The 2nd Amendmant cleary staes,

",

the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Yep, again, that's part of what it clearly states.

/just relax, no one's coming to confiscate your guns, yet

#194 Killian Bundy

Okay, technically, the Supreme Court hasn't specifically ruled directly on the wording of the Second Amendment and upheld an individual's right to bear arms. Then again, they've had plenty of opportunity to do so and in not doing so, it's always been implied.

Remember, my friend, it is just not, the right to bear arms, but rather,

"the right ot keep and bear arms".

There is a big difference, between the right to bear arms, and the right to KEEP and bear arms.

I just love the fact, that the USA, is never going to take away my Constitutional rights, to keep and bear arms.

Not under any circumstances.

I don't care who may read this,

DONT TREAD ON ME

#197 Killian Bundy

just relax, no one's coming to confiscate your guns, yet

Even the most kook of kook leftist Democrats know better than to try and do that.

But at their heart, they most certainly mean to.

Even Rudy doesn't even think about that.

Every leftist kook Democrats, sans Bill Richardson, wants to do that.

#196 Mike C.

In case I have not made myself clear, we may just be about to see the basic issue at hand settled. One way or the other.

Let's hope so.

/I guess my point would have been better phrased; the individual right to bear arms has always been implied and no Supreme Court ruling has ever contradicted that premise, yet

I can guarantee you that with Mitt as president - he will demand total integrity of himself, and his administration.

#196 Mike C.

Ah, but it is the opportunity to hear the SCOTUS make a ruling on that specific issue that I have been hammering on

You wouldn't happen to have the citation for that case, wherever it currently is in the food chain?

/it would probably be worthwhile to read and follow

# 200 K B

Nor have they supported it. SCOTUS prefers (and rightly so) to normally rule on the narrowest of considerations. But this time, we might just see the basic question answered. And, either way, the implications would be considerable.

#195 republic

No U.S. government, no SCOTUS is ever going to take away the very freedoms that I know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that the Founders meant for me to have.

I don't object to the Second Amendment, but I do wonder how it is that you can have such a sense of certainty. Do you have some magical connection to the thoughts of the long-dead founders?

#187 thecapitalist

Ron Paul rocks! Don't agree with him on everything, but he is the last honest politician. Which is why he's never gotten a bill out of committee, let alone passed.

# 202 K B

No, I don't. But there's been at least one post on it over at The Volokh Conspiracy, and it's a cinch you could follow it at [Link: www.nra.org...]

Why You Should Care About Parker v. District of Columbia

#203 Mike C.

Nor have they supported it. SCOTUS prefers (and rightly so) to normally rule on the narrowest of considerations. But this time, we might just see the basic question answered. And, either way, the implications would be considerable.

Well, it's obviously been implied as witnessed by the rather large number of legal gun owners in this country.

/anyway, given it's current makeup, I'm not overly worried as to what the Supreme Court will do with the issue