Ah, OneMoreAutocrat,

Roll on the floor all you want, searches without warrants or even probable cause are unconstitutional, and invite further police abuses in the future if left unchecked.

If you don't think that some random guy's ungloved hand on your genitalia and up in your ass crack is a sexual assault, you are welcome to solicit such behavior. Given your charming personality, you might likely have to pay for it. But for any young man (or woman, or older people) peaceably going about his (/their) business on public streets it is, indeed, sexual assault.

Your notions of what level of control over the "the civilian population" (I prefer the terms '"citizens" or, more broadly, "people" is necessary and desirable speaks volumes about your perverted notion of what might comprise a "Democrat." If you might interrupt your rofl-ing for but a moment to trouble yourself with etymology, you would find that the Greek "Demos" from which our Party derives its name puts the common people in charge. For a refresher, I recommend:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=democracy&allowed_in_frame=0

"Democracy implies that the man must take the responsibility for choosing his rulers and representatives, and for the maintenance of his own 'rights' against the possible and probable encroachments of the government which he has sanctioned to act for him in public matters." -Ezra Pound, _ABC of Economics_, 1933

Indeed.

-app

Reagan was never a friend of the Constitution. I know that some rw'ers love him, but what the hell is the point of posting quotes of his here at DU? This is the man who ratted on other actors to the FBI if he thought they were 'communist.' He apointed Ed Meese as his Attorney General, and that man never met a citizen's right that he liked or supported. Since Meese spent most of his term undermining rights codified in the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments (to just scratch the surface), why should any of us be surprised that you can find some anti-Second Amendment quotes in the Reagan rap sheet too?

What's next, quoting Reagan on reproductive (non)freedom for women? Is DU supposed to love that too? Sorry buddy, but I'm pro-choice.

Oh yeah, and Reagan thought fully automatic arms were fine for Nicaragua and his Contra buddies. How'd that work out? I'll fill you in, scholar: it worked out badly for under-equipped Nicaraguan leftists.

Here at DU, I expect better.

-app

I predict that this law will:

1) Get tied-up in courts for the foreseeable future.

2) Not reduce gun crimes or tragedies. People who 'snap' can and will still do tremendous damage with ten-round magazines.

3) Be used as an excuse to harass other states - When crimes continue in NY State, Bloomberg & Cuomo will attempt to blame VA, NC, GA, etc., as has been their wont already.

This is a sad day for individual rights. With respect to RKBA, I'm glad that at least I live in NC and not NY.

-app

In the 2nd Amendment, the word 'regulated' applies to the militia, not the arms. While I may not go quite as far as Mr. Pratt, I find his commitment to upholding this particular Constitutional liberty refreshing.

And before anyone goes and calls me a rw troll or one-issue gun nut; I feel that we Americans should be similarly steadfast in standing up for the rights to speech, privacy, habeus corpus, equal protection, etc.

-app

ZOMG! People who sell things want to keep doing so!

Why, exactly, should the gun industry not support the NRA &/or other 2nd Amendment organizations? As a Democrat, I hate how the NRA has climbed into bed with the right wing fringe (and therefore I am not a member of the NRA myself). I would rather that there be some pro-rights groups that welcome all supporters of the full Bill of Rights powerful enough to speak on the national stage. But there isn't at present. Too many Democrats are trashing the 2nd Amendment right now, so of course industry forces are standing up via the NRA, and thus aligning themselves with Repubs. Hopefully, we pro-BoR & pro-RKBA Democrats can develop a voice and organizational framework of our own over time, so that this sentiment is no longer monopolized by the right.

-app

If the Republicans sweep 2014 (a possibility I recoil against - I am a pro-RKBA, pro-choice, pro-speech, pro-privacy, pro-liberty Democrat), I'll be sure to remind you about these contemptuous words. Methinks that your 'strategy' for garnering a majority is flawed at best. Arrogance & hostility are rarely good recruiting traits.

-app

I support the vigorous exercise of all the rights enumerated in all ten amendments. Does this make me a good liberal (after all, I am pro-choice, pro-speech, pro-privacy, pro-trial-by-jury, etc.) or does tnis make me an eeee-vul gun nut (because I also support the Second Amendment)?

It's not that complicated: I simply believe that our Constitution and nation both are strengthened when we choose to interpret each right as broadly & vigorously (i.e.-'liberally') as possible. Why would any self-respecting liberal have a problem with this?

-app

Only the willfully ignorant pretend that there is some inviolable wall between science, economics, and the social lives of people. Scientists (and all people) have biases, money talks, and we humans have to live among the results.

If the environmental science program you lead pretends that science exists in one sphere, and economics and social pressures exist in entirely separate fields, it is a poor program, doing a disservice to its students.

And, ON-Edit: any comprehensive examination of the science of GMO's would show that just a few of their negative primary impacts have been to make the pollen and root exudates of Bt-engineered plants toxic to non-target lepidopterans, thus reducing the efficacy of Bt as an organic pest control while harming beneficials including some important pollinators. Additionally, the engineering of various herbicide-resistance into crop plants has caused chemical usage to skyrocket, increasing water pollution and damaging soil life.

2nd Edit: I have been active in or at least cognizant of the anti-GMO movement for at least as long as this guy, and I've never heard of him before now. Who is he and why should I care about his sudden epiphany? Without touching a search engine or other reference, I can name the people who have really started and sustained this movement: Mae Wan Ho (Institute of Science in Society), Peter Montague (Rachel's Health & Environment Weekly), Vandana Shiva (too much to name), D. Samuel Epstein (same), Dr. Alfred Putszai (can't be sure of the spelling - I really am doing this without a reference).

These people have only deepened their resistance to GMO's as their knowledge of and experience with GMO's has grown.

-app

The 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' analogy was employed by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes regarding a case about socialists printing anti-draft literature during WW 1. It is purely a Twentieth Century limitation on the First Amendment, and in retrospect, a gross over-reaction to a phenomenon that presented no imminent, existential danger to the USA.

Even Holmes himself sought to dial-back the restrictions he had unleashed upon the 1st Amendment later in his career, but that genie was out of the bottle by then. Like too many abrogations of 'inalienable' rights, We the People lost out.

The cartoonist thus inadvertently makes a point on behalf us pro-2nd-Amendment folks: an unnecessary further restriction on the types of firearms and magazines that can be kept by peaceable citizens will inevitably diminish the liberty enjoyed by us all in the long run.

-app