Posted on 03/04/2014 4:59:36 PM PST by lbryce
Published on Jan 30, 2013
On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at Cornell Law School, Alan Gura, a partner in Gura & Possessky P.L.L.C., and Michael Dorf, the Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law debated the 2nd Amendment and state gun control laws. Professor Dorf is a constitutional law expert who formerly served as a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Mr. Gura, a Cornell University undergraduate alumnus, successfully argued the landmark 2nd Amendment Supreme Court cases DC v. Heller in 2008 and McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010. This event was organized by the Federalist Society and Cornell Law 2nd Amendment Club.
Barack Obama is a Constitutional Expert ya know. Taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, yes sirree.
What did H. Rowan Gaither of the Ford Foundation say ?
It’s all about “altering life in the United States so that we can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union” ?
A key part of that “altering” is being able to subdue the civilians who have personal arms.
These plans are worked on over generations, one patient step at a time.
Once you advance the idea that there CAN be discussion on 2nd amendment rights there willbe none right? That’s one of the left’s tricks. Take something that is held sacred to the American Peopl, keep pounding their heads by oversensationalizing ever violent incident that involves guns (some people think the urrent administration has ‘caused’ or manipulated events to turn them into shootings; hey its a real possibility with this bunch) until you get them weakened then open the topic for discussion and move your chess plamers into position ready to pounce. Anybody who’s ever played a war-time strategy computer game knows you advance you troops lockstep a little bit at a time keeping the enemy distracted while you sneak your spies and special force guys in behind enemy lines so they can sabotage and set traps in place. You then flank and finish them. That our own stupid politicians can’t see (or don’t want to) these very tactics and try to counter them makes me wonder what the median IQ of them is...
Once you advance the idea that there CAN be discussion on 2nd amendment rights there will be none right? That’s one of the left’s tricks. Take something that is held sacred to the American People, keep pounding their heads by over-sensationalizing ever violent incident that involves guns (some people think the current administration has ‘caused’ or manipulated events to turn them into shootings; hey its a real possibility with this bunch) until you get them weakened, then open the topic for discussion and move your chess plamers into position ready to pounce. Anybody who’s ever played a war-time strategy computer game knows you advance your troops lockstep a little bit at a time keeping the enemy distracted while you sneak your spies and special force guys in behind enemy lines so they can sabotage and set traps in place. You then flank and finish them. That our own stupid politicians can’t see (or don’t want to) these very tactics and try to counter them makes me wonder what their median IQ is...
You are correct. They always lead with the notion that there can be discussion. There can be NO discussion on the 2nd Amendment. The 2A is designed to enable us to protect ourselves from the fascists in sheep’s clothing that claim they want to “discuss” the 2nd Amendment.
There is nothing to talk about, there is no “gray” area of interpretation.
> You are correct. They always lead with the notion that there can be discussion. There can be NO discussion on the 2nd Amendment. The 2A is designed to enable us to protect ourselves from the fascists in sheep’s clothing that claim they want to “discuss” the 2nd Amendment.
There is nothing to talk about, there is no “gray” area of interpretation.
Absolutely. Take a tip from the Dog Whisperer and put them in their place by giving them a good whack uspide their head when they get out of line and demanding. It might knock some sense into them.
This debate is about 2nd Amendment PRIVILEGE limits.
Not Rights.
You can put your fingers back in your ears now.
“There can be NO discussion on the 2nd Amendment.”
Then how do we convince the undecided and the wavering on the other side? Not every one who is for gun control is hardcore or on the far left. Some are misguided and misinformed. We can’t give them proper guidance or information without discussion of some sort.
“There is nothing to talk about, there is no “gray” area of interpretation.”
Let someone give your or your neighbor’s four year old a loaded handgun. Four-year olds are people too and nothing in the Second Amendment obviously excludes them. Of course you can’t respond to this because “There can be NO discussion on the 2nd Amendment”.
Cheap shot. You know what I meant. Or you should have.
The 2nd amendment (for those adults somewhat over the age of four) is not a negotiable right.
“Cheap shot. You know what I meant. Or you should have.”
We readers only know what you wrote.
“The 2nd amendment (for those adults somewhat over the age of four) is not a negotiable right.”
So prisoners of war may retain their arms.
And you might respond: “Cheap shot. You know what I meant. Or you should have.”
Let’s assume you did respond with that. Now we have two exceptions to the Second Amendment. What are the criteria for those exceptions? Are there other exceptions? Why can’t “the people” discuss this? Do you get to make all the rules?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.