Reply #29

In the discussion thread: 2nd amendment can be altered like all the other amendments the Xtreme court has screwed with [View all]

Response to X_Digger (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 04:57 AM

graham4anything (9,092 posts)

29. Roe V. Wade you say HA HA HA HA HA HA HA so you wanna do to guns what they did to Roe?

Sure, bring it on.

Let's narrow it to the tiniest sliver so that gun purchases, and gun uses are almost
non-existent, especially, how bout we all do that in Kansas?

Where the assholes with guns assasssantated a doctor in a church.

So YES BRING IT ON NRA GROUPIES, BRING IT ON

Let's do to guns what the awipes on the right did to a woman's right to privacy

AND BY THE WAY
LET'S PUT PROTESTERS OUTSIDE EVERY SINGLE GUN DEALER AND GUN SHOW

like the right puts zombies and nut jobs outside townhalls when a democrat is speaking
and the right puts those weirdos outside health clinics 24/7/365

and let's take pictures and notes

OK, YEAH, let's do just that

YOU my friend just proved that indeed, without getting rid of an amendment, almost total change can happen

SO BRING IT ON.

And we can attribute this change to those that suggested it.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

48 replies	Author	Time	Post
2nd amendment can be altered like all the other amendments the Xtreme court has screwed with [View all]	MightyMopar	Dec 2012	OP
So do we actually have to alter it to tax and register and ID guns and their owners?	libdem4life	Dec 2012	#1
Second does not grant a right, it requires government to protect a right. Either RKBA for	jody	Dec 2012	#2
says nothing about costs and does mention militia.	samsingh	Dec 2012	#3
The 2nd and 9th amendments means whatever the Supreme Court says it does	MightyMopar	Dec 2012	#5
Is that a precedent you really want to set?	X_Digger	Dec 2012	#10
Today's Supreme Court is just about whatever you can get away with. It's a clown car.	MightyMopar	Dec 2012	#15
WHAT precedent???	gcomeau	Dec 2012	#26
Roe V. Wade you say HA HA HA HA HA HA HA so you wanna do to guns what they did to Roe?	graham4anything	Dec 2012	#29
You forgot to plug for "mayor stop and frisk".	beevul	Dec 2012	#30
Bloomberg financed the Calif. race between pro-nra and anti-nra. The anti-nra upset the pro-nra	graham4anything	Dec 2012	#31
You have a little fleck of spittle.. no.. other side.. up.. up.. right there. Got it.	X_Digger	Dec 2012	#33
Funny you should mention Lawrence v Texas	Major Nikon	Dec 2012	#32
Your subject line is very debatable.	white_wolf	Dec 2012	#27
Please read and understand SCOTUS UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK ET AL. 92 U.S. 542 (1876)	jody	Dec 2012	#38
Kagan diagreeed as do I.	white_wolf	Dec 2012	#40
Agree re philosophy. I put together a DU post in 2007 that I hoped would serve as a point of	jody	Dec 2012	#41
Too bad I missed that post. I would have joined in, but I wasn't here in 07 n/t	white_wolf	Dec 2012	#42
Seems like RKBA is an excellent issue to discuss "rights" because it has divided and polarized	jody	Dec 2012	#43
I disagree with your conclusion.	white_wolf	Dec 2012	#44
In spite of DOI(1776) and PA(1776) & VT(1777) declaring that rights exist, you continue to	jody	Dec 2012	#45
Natural and inherent rights are a logical fallacy though.	white_wolf	Dec 2012	#47
I said rights are rights because people excluded them from authority to govern when they created	jody	Dec 2012	#48
Jefferson had his ass handed to him in Marbury vs Madison	IDoMath	Dec 2012	#4
Citezens United ruling has already many destroyed checks and balances	MightyMopar	Dec 2012	#6
So you want to abandon constitutional supremacy and have a strong executive instead?	IDoMath	Dec 2012	#7
The horse is long out of the barn on that one	MightyMopar	Dec 2012	#8
And you want to help them with that?	IDoMath	Dec 2012	#9
Huh? He said that lots of the so-called checks and balances have been abandoned. And you twist that	rhett o rick	Dec 2012	#11
It all begins in 1803	IDoMath	Dec 2012	#14
Name calling voids anything you might have to say. Go away PLEASE. nm	rhett o rick	Dec 2012	#18
Where was I name calling in that post?	IDoMath	Dec 2012	#19
If you must continue.	rhett o rick	Dec 2012	#34
Facts and analysis are name calling?	IDoMath	Dec 2012	#35
And you continue. Apparently you dont think much of Thomas Jefferson.	rhett o rick	Dec 2012	#36
Ah yes, Marbuy vs Madison. That's where the Supreme Court said that despite what the	rhett o rick	Dec 2012	#12
The corporate whore Republicans have turned the Supreme Court in to a clown car	MightyMopar	Dec 2012	#13
Have I just walked into free republic?	IDoMath	Dec 2012	#16
I wont continue a discussion with someone as rude as you. nm	rhett o rick	Dec 2012	#17
I'm as gobsmacked as you.	X_Digger	Dec 2012	#20
It's a very complex system and we are essentially lied to in our schools	IDoMath	Dec 2012	#21
Well, any high school government class will discuss the balance of power..	X_Digger	Dec 2012	#22
But the analysis is incomplete and sometimes misleading.	IDoMath	Dec 2012	#23
Apparently, a strong, unbalanced executive is good when it's "one of OURS"...	friendly_iconoclast	Dec 2012	#24
And that attitude can be found elsewhere at DU:	friendly_iconoclast	Dec 2012	#25
Seriously?! When did the left start opposing Judicial Review?	white_wolf	Dec 2012	#28
Concerning requirements we wear the same coat: The Press...	Eleanors38	Dec 2012	#37
Arms like cannons and grenades back then vs drones and explosives like we have now?	MightyMopar	Dec 2012	#39
What part of the 1st Amendment's freedom of religion can be altered?	1-Old-Man	Dec 2012	#46

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.