Dem Senators put a gun to SCOTUS HEAD ..............In a threatening amicus brief, Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, Mazie Hirono, Richard Blumenthal, Richard Durbin and Kirsten Gillibrand all but tell the Justices that they’ll retaliate politically if the Court doesn’t do what they say in a Second Amendment case.
The case involves a challenge to a New York City law that banned licensed gun owners from bringing handguns outside the city even if a gun is unloaded and locked in a container separate from its ammunition. The Court accepted the case in January. Fearing a Supreme Court defeat, New York softened the restrictions and in July asked the Court to dismiss the case as moot. The Justices are scheduled to consider that question Oct. 1. The plaintiffs say the regulations are still unconstitutional. The Senators fear
that the Court will clarify its Second Amendment jurisprudence and broaden protections for gun ownership so they claim that NYCs revisions makes it a moot point. The Brief say that
“The Supreme Court is not well,” .......“Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’” By “restructured,” they mean that if SCOTUS doesn't toe the Democrat agenda that they increase the number of Justices in SCOTUS And pack the court as FDR threatened to do years ago.
The Senators falsely claim that the conservative justices form a monolithic majority which unfortunately is far from the truth .Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts have voted in the majority a number of times against the other conservative members ;and Gorsuch has himself been the 5th vote with the other liberal members Unfortunately this type of 'legitimacy ' threat plays right into the imagined fears of Roberts who appears to be more interested in keeping his beltway dinner invitations coming than in making constitutional rulings . If he keeps it up he will face legitimacy questions from both sides of the divide .

Got a link thats not a right wing loony noise machine?

I read something almost word for word from the Wall Street Journal. Shouldn't you cite that publication? Still not sure about the rules here about that.

LOL, it appears the only free sites anymore are the right wing loony ones. The rest most require a subscription. Guess you guys got one, or Tom didn't want to link a loony tune site.

This modern stuff sucks unless you're a capitalist!

you guys are boring attacking a source .I can easily find sources from both spectrums as could you . Here's one more for your liking .
https://thinkprogress.org/five-democratic-senators-just-declared-all-out-war-on-the-supreme-court-7601fed719e6

here is the quote I clearly identified as a quote from the amicus . It is in the one I just linked .….

And Whitehouse concludes the brief with a threat. “The Supreme Court is not well,” he writes, “and the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics’.”

In a more reasonable time ,FDR threatended to pack the court . But public opinion was against it . Still it served the purpose of intimidating the court . That is their real goal . They don't care about this case . They want to have used the tool to threaten to us it in other cases they care about .

Is that like managers playing the refs? What's wrong with that? The dufus does stuff like that all the time.

so you approve of the idea of court packing ? Turn around is a B . The number of justices has been 9 since 1869 . Tell you what you do . Try impeaching justices you don't like . After all there is precedence for that . Samuel Chase one of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence was impeached by the House after the election of 1800 for being a partisan . He was acquitted by the Senate . So the precedent is the independence of SCOTUS .or at least that is the theory . Chances are that SCOTUS was not going to hear the case anyway. It is just amusing how frightened the leftys are that they would .

you really think the WSJ is a loony tune site ? Their report was straight up without commentary . I did not cite it because it is subscription only .

I'm kind of nuetral over packing SCOTUS, because what goes around does come back to bite you, like getting rid of the fillibuster and a variety of other political tricks and traps. Sometimes I even hope congress never comes back from vacation, and then I think they should never have one. The only thing that saves my sanity, if you can call it that, is realizing we're all loony, and lucky to get anything positive done.

That and getting on my soapbox for a good healthy rant every now and then.

Did they forget there is a seperation for a reason?

Considering that appointment to the Supreme Court is for life and transcends political regimes, I think adding justices is pointless.

Considering that appointment to the Supreme Court is for life and transcends political regimes, I think adding justices is pointless.

No it usurpation of political power

All branches of government have their own tricks and traps to bend the rules in their favor. That's America.

Got a link thats not a right wing loony noise machine?


Says the man who linked to crooksandliars.com on another thread.


Is that like managers playing the refs? What's wrong with that? The dufus does stuff like that all the time.

Yes, and you complain about it all the time. So it's OK if a liberal dem does it but not if Trump does it?

Don't be foolish, you chunk rocks I chunk them back! You know the rules!

There are Rules?

Sure there are, you chunk a rock, I duck, I chunk a rock, it's entirely up to you to duck.

Sure there are, you chunk a rock, I duck, I chunk a rock, it's entirely up to you to duck.

That was funny! You got my Saturday off to a good start. Have a great day, my friend.

Sure there are, you chunk a rock, I duck, I chunk a rock, it's entirely up to you to duck.

Hang on until I get my shanghi and we will see how well you duck. You rocka my roof I rocka your head

Specter1 makes a great point. sorta . It is because that justices of SCOTUS are lifers that this threat is compelling . Now if there were term limits and if SCOTUS rules could be over turned by the legislature and Executive then perhaps the equilibrium the framers envisioned could be realized. That wont happen without an article 5 convention . off my soap box.

YAWN...The framers didn't envision Moscow Mitch, or the dufus, or Bozo Barr either, or how much money they would control. Yeah great idea letting those bozos being able to overrule SCOTUS whenever they didn't like a ruling. You can put your Nikes back in their box Tom.

scores of bad decisions with no redress .That is tyranny of the black robes .

YAWN...The framers didn't envision Moscow Mitch, or the dufus, or Bozo Barr either, or how much money they would control.

As opposed to the sanctified purity of Obama, Lynch, Clinton, and Holder? Please. Nothing has happened with Trump that compares to the meeting Lynch had with BC on the tarmac, or the abject lying that went on about the Benghazi disaster. If you want to see genuine corruption, just look back a few years.

So I guess that justifies letting your side do it since we did it?

So I guess that justifies letting your side do it since we did it?

You're right. It does not, and that's a valid point, but I just wonder how loudly all the liberals howled during the eight years of Obama's two terms. They, and I imagine you, all fell into line in obedient servitude and praise of Mr. Obama. So when you want to be all "riled up" about Trump, just remember that, at least to me, it wouldn't have such a hollow ring to it if you had been as "riled up" back then about Obama.

So the bottom line according to you is it's just your turn to support a corrupt lying, cheating dufus? Hey that's fair, but that makes YOU no better than me, since we both support our own corrupt governing. We can agree on that at least and own the bad stuff we are doing to our country.

Same old BS just a different name right?

So the bottom line according to you is it's just your turn to support a corrupt lying, cheating dufus? Hey that's fair, but that makes YOU no better than me, since we both support our own corrupt governing. We can agree on that at least and own the bad stuff we are doing to our country.

I see you point, but it policy. All about government policy.

Policies that help the rich and hurt the poor, and are cruel to men women and children is not good policy.

Policies that help the rich and hurt the poor, and are cruel to men women and children is not good policy.

Having the best economy in decades is good for everyone, rich or poor. The cruelty allegation is no doubt a reference to the southern border and that is largely gossip level material. Tilting SCOTUS back towards respect for the Constitution and law is a great thing.

Having the best economy in decades is good for everyone, rich or poor.

For all the rich, not for all the poor. Econ 101.


The cruelty allegation is no doubt a reference to the southern border and that is largely gossip level material.

You have made some wild comments here, but this one beats all. "Gossip material"? The abuses and deaths of children have gone all around the world in too many videos to count and in every major newspaper in the world. The US under Trump is seen as a barbarous nation. You see this as gossip - I'm not surprised.


Tilting SCOTUS back towards respect for the Constitution and law is a great thing.

You mean packing the court with conservatives while Moscow Mitch denied the Democrats their choice of Garland.

For all the rich, not for all the poor. Econ 101.

What a ridiculous comment. When a poor person gets a job, or gets a better job than the one he/she had, then that is a good thing. It is your hatred of Trump that prevents you from seeing the blindingly obvious.

If there is a better job available, and you are qualified. I heard after they rounded up all those migrants at the chiken hanging plant they had a job fair and all the hamburger hangers are flocking to replace them.

Burger flipper to chicken hanger is a real step up.

Burger flipper to chicken hanger is a real step up.

Most people would consider a 25% raise to be a real step up. They are both respectable jobs for working people trying to make a living.

Who gets a 25% raise???

It is your hatred of Trump that prevents you from seeing the blindingly obvious.


The blindingly obvious of children being abused and dying? Obvious, yes. And for you, blinding.

Better hatred of Trump than calling the abuse of children, including infants and toddlers, "mere gossip material". You are breathtakingly callous to refer to such horrors as gossip.

Who gets a 25% raise???

If you are working at a Burger King for, let's say, 9 an hour, and you move to a chicken processing plant for 11.25, then you just received a 25% wage increase. Bear in mind that moving from a fast food place to a chicken plant was the topic.

You've been locked up in that library too long.


The blindingly obvious of children being abused and dying? Obvious, yes. And for you, blinding.


Are you talking about Chicago or the southern border, because your remarks are far more appropriate for Chicago. But since Chicago is run by liberal dems, then you seem not too interested. Blind indeed.

If you are working at a Burger King for, let's say, 9 an hour, and you move to a chicken processing plant for 11.25, then you just received a 25% wage increase. Bear in mind that moving from a fast food place to a chicken plant was the topic.

You've been locked up in that library too long.
In this example, a 25% raise is a whole 'nother animal from a 25% wage increase!!!

And then the personal put-down. That's why I rarely post here anymore.

Are you talking about Chicago or the southern border, .


I'm talking about YOUR allegations that the cruelty at the southern border is "largely gossip material". Are you now going to deny you said that?

I'm talking about YOUR allegations that the cruelty at the southern border is "largely gossip material". Are you now going to deny you said that?

Absolutely not, but you missed a key word. I said they are LARGELY gossip material. Do I, for instance, believe anything AOC said? No. People are being cared for in what strikes me as LARGELY an acceptable manner.

Children have died, and that is tragic, but in nearly every case efforts were made to intervene medically. Most of the kids walked from Guatemala, so it would be no surprise they would be in less than good medical condition. It would be amazingly helpful if people entering our country would do so in a legal fashion.

https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-migrant-child-border-deaths-20190524-story.html

As for Chicago, children are shot and killed on a monthly basis. But like I said, since it is run by liberal dems, then no one cares. The same can be said for New Orleans, Detroit, Baltimore, LA, and many other large American cities. You are keyed in on the southern border because you see it as an opportunity to criticize Trump.

Everyday is a new opportunity to criticize the dufus. Are you kidding me?

No concern for Chicago or any other large American citizen where the policies of liberal dems are proving disastrous. Your bias is showing.

Not biased at all, it's just the effect of big city dems surrounded by god and gun conservatives that ruins things. Everybody knows where to get a gun cheap for bad intentions....legally and illegally. I figure if you guys stop selling guns to criminals and loonies, we may not have all those murders in big cities.

Not biased at all, it's just the effect of big city dems surrounded by god and gun conservatives that ruins things.

Always someone else's fault.

Tal -- I figure if you guys stop selling guns to criminals and loonies, we may not have all those murders in big cities. Not biased at all, it's just the effect of big city dems surrounded by god and gun conservatives that ruins things.

JL -- Always someone else's fault.
Tal, sounds like a great idea! Let's give it a try. Six months should give us a rough estimate of success.

Tal, sounds like a great idea! Let's give it a try. Six months should give us a rough estimate of success.

Uhm...you do realize that selling a gun to a convicted criminal is already a crime? As to loonies, how do you propose to unseal their confidential medical records??

Might add, what do you propose to do about the guns already in Chicago despite your strict gun laws???

Uhm...you do realize that selling a gun to a convicted criminal is already a crime? As to loonies, how do you propose to unseal their confidential medical records??

Might add, what do you propose to do about the guns already in Chicago despite your strict gun laws???
Huh? That's not the plan. Please reread.

I figure if you guys stop selling guns to criminals and loonies

Wasn't that the plan? Stop selling guns to criminals and loonies? Wasn't that what I referred to?

What's your plan? Probably NADA! Just like the dufus and his god and gun supporters. See ya at the next massacre!

What's your plan? Probably NADA! Just like the dufus and his god and gun supporters. See ya at the next massacre!

I don't have a plan as such. I don't feel too badly about that since you don't either. I'm not convinced the usual truckload of new laws will help. I think a national return to respect for life would be a good start. I think us asking ourselves how it is that boys used to have guns in their pickup trucks at school and yet no one even thought about shooting up the place would be another good step. What has changed over the last fifty years? How is it that a person used to be able to buy a gun out of the Sears catalog and yet didn't go to work or a movie theater and kill people with it? When we get some answers to those questions, we'll be on the way to solving our national problem.

I still favor open carry of firearms for every law abiding citizen. Random loonies or petty thieves are far less likely to shoot up a place when they know their intended victims can shoot back. 45 states currently allow open carry, with 30 requiring no permit and with 15 requiring a permit. The 5 hold-outs are NY, IL, SC, FL, and CA. Proposed legislation has been filed with the SC legislature to allow it here and the odds look good that it will pass this legislative session.

https://opencarry.org/maps/map-open-carry-of-a-properly-holstered-loaded-handgun/

Athos said "I read something almost word for word from the Wall Street Journal. Shouldn't you cite that publication? Still not sure about the rules here about that."

IMHO every quote should be enclosed in quotation marks and the source should be cited and if it isn't a requirement then it should be.

I don't have a plan as such. I don't feel too badly about that since you don't either. I'm not convinced the usual truckload of new laws will help. I think a national return to respect for life would be a good start. I think us asking ourselves how it is that boys used to have guns in their pickup trucks at school and yet no one even thought about shooting up the place would be another good step. What has changed over the last fifty years? How is it that a person used to be able to buy a gun out of the Sears catalog and yet didn't go to work or a movie theater and kill people with it? When we get some answers to those questions, we'll be on the way to solving our national problem.

Obviously those days are gone and I doubt they come back. I had a plan, stop selling guns...without a rigorous background check of both buyer and seller, no hold barred. That means however long it takes, and whatever info is needed to insure the public safety. I frankly don't give a damn about rights and traditions either in light of all the carnage and death, and I doubt you would care much if YOU and YOURS were victims. That could happen so think of a good idea because those loonies and psycho paths are evil, and no plan is not an option.

Back in the days of the wild west, bad guys waited in ambush to get the drop on their victims, and that's what we have now.

I still favor open carry of firearms for every law abiding citizen. Random loonies or petty thieves are far less likely to shoot up a place when they know their intended victims can shoot back. 45 states currently allow open carry, with 30 requiring no permit and with 15 requiring a permit. The 5 hold-outs are NY, IL, SC, FL, and CA. Proposed legislation has been filed with the SC legislature to allow it here and the odds look good that it will pass this legislative session.

https://opencarry.org/maps/map-open-carry-of-a-properly-holstered-loaded-handgun/

There are more guns than citizens and not all of them want you and your gun in there establishment. Homicidal maniacs aren't that dumb to target well guarded venues, and as I said they pick sitting ducks and soft targets, and there are a lot of those. Guess we just stay home and hope the pizza guy is not a loon. With 45 states and more coming for open carry, doesn't seem to stop the carnage, and heaven forbid some armed innocent reacting to gunfire, get caught up in mistaken identity when the cops show up.

How do you tell the good guys from the bad in such a case? An idea, but hardly perfect.

I had a plan, stop selling guns...without a rigorous background check of both buyer and seller, no hold barred. That means however long it takes, and whatever info is needed to insure the public safety.

That's not the "plan" you posted earlier which was to stop selling guns to criminals and "loonies". I'm fairly sure you already cannot buy a gun if you are a convicted felon. As to the mentally unstable, you will have to go around the wall of medical confidentiality and I don't know an answer to that one. I think you have some good points, but we still need to figure out why we have had such drastic social changes in the past fifty years. How have we gotten to this place?

How do you tell the good guys from the bad in such a case? An idea, but hardly perfect.
Exactly! And how many innocent bystanders will the "good guy" shoot while trying to hit the bad guy?

That's not the "plan" you posted earlier which was to stop selling guns to criminals and "loonies". I'm fairly sure you already cannot buy a gun if you are a convicted felon. As to the mentally unstable, you will have to go around the wall of medical confidentiality and I don't know an answer to that one. I think you have some good points, but we still need to figure out why we have had such drastic social changes in the past fifty years. How have we gotten to this place?

Maybe it's something in the water, food, or air I don't know, but I do know that my plan starts with figuring out who the good guys are and who the bad guys are and who the sick guys are before you sell them a gun. Hey you want a gun, give up them doctor reports by signing a waiver, taking a test, get checked whatever it takes.

A complete thorough background check. I have other ideas, probably wont be that popular with some, since trust of the government and cops ain't that high and you know Americans, they think they know best, but part of protecting the citizen may involve knowing who has what, not to confiscate, but verify your a good guy and not on some good prescription dope, or even the non prescription stuff. Employers and the military have such screening, so should everyone who wants a gun.

When you figure out the why of it let me know, and if you have ideas and solutions I'm open to that too. Good luck getting the bad guys to obey the law, they ain't, and better luck making them go to church and read the bible and behave themselves.

my plan starts with figuring out who the good guys are and who the bad guys are and who the sick guys are before you sell them a gun. Hey you want a gun, give up them doctor reports by signing a waiver, taking a test, get checked whatever it takes.

I would agree that something needs to be done to prevent mentally ill persons from having access to guns.



When you figure out the why of it let me know, and if you have ideas and solutions I'm open to that too. Good luck getting the bad guys to obey the law, they ain't, and better luck making them go to church and read the bible and behave themselves.

You make a lot of good points. I'll give you my two cents for what it's worth. Actions have consequences. When we removed prayer and the Ten Commandments from schools, it sent a message to the next generation. "We don't need God to run this place." That message has been gathering steam ever since then. We think we can make up our own moral values without any input from "above". Well, people listen to these messages, so when a mentally unbalanced person, or an angry young person, or whoever decides to take a particular course of action, the anchor that used to hold them back is no longer there. The result is predictable, and having rejected any objective moral standard, they would ask us, "Who are you to tell me that what I did was wrong?" And if we are going to be honest, this God-rejecting country would have to admit that we no longer have a transcendent moral standard to appeal to. And then you throw in the 73 abortion decision which told us that life is so cheap that the most innocent and defenseless among us can be brutally killed on any whim or pretense, then we grow ever closer to "every man for himself."

Actions do have consequences and you cannot escape the fact that this country as a whole has not lived up to its own moral values defined as all men being equal, let alone embrace the humanity of their fellow citizens. You want school prayer, then you should be at a religious school. Public school should not embrace any one religion over another or one tradition over another. That's a choice a parent makes, without a group making it for them. Just my 2 cents on that subject.

I think you miss the fact it only takes one loony radicalized in extreme ideology based in hate and mayhem to create havoc and fear in the life MANY others. No amount of school prayer will change that, so the problem as I see it is in that small band that embraces the evil of hate. I doesn't take much to feed the bad wolf when he already is looking to do bad stuff. The trick is I think denying that small band the means to carry out that mayhem and identifying them before they do. I simply say we start when they look for the tools to reek havoc, and nip that bud.

99% of folks are not so prone to be homicidal maniacs, bot you cannot ignore that 1% that is either, or the sheeple that flock to them. Hey all I got is applying the same standard the army does before they give a recruit a gun.

PS

I don't think the country has rejected God, just become very selective in who and how they follow that God.

Actions do have consequences and you cannot escape the fact that this country as a whole has not lived up to its own moral values defined as all men being equal, let alone embrace the humanity of their fellow citizens. You want school prayer, then you should be at a religious school. Public school should not embrace any one religion over another or one tradition over another. That's a choice a parent makes, without a group making it for them. Just my 2 cents on that subject.

I don't know that I would call for prayer in school, but you can't escape the impact it must have made when we told schoolchildren that we would no longer be praying. A person can choose his own opinion, but he cannot choose his consequences. One of life's brutal truths.

How do you explain the events of the past fifty years as regards our ever increasing willingness to shoot the place up?

As far as all men being equal, I don't agree with you on that. I think we have largely achieved an equality before law. Not perfectly, and that will never happen, but close enough so that any person who wants to make it can do so. If you don't believe that, then you have to explain Ben Carson, Barack Obama, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Oprah Winfrey, Jackie Robinson, Michael Jordan, Denzell Washington, and a list that goes on and on.

I don't think the country has rejected God, just become very selective in who and how they follow that God.

What does it take to be an ostrich?

just become very selective in who and how they follow that God.

That's the problem. God does not ask us how we wish to follow Him. He sets the standards, and we can either accept or reject them.

No that's YOUR problem, THE problem is the homicidal maniacs preying on the innocent.

THE problem is the homicidal maniacs preying on the innocent.

OK. I'd still like to know why you think that has become so wide spread now versus fifty years ago. What changed???

No student is forbidden from praying in school. All that student has to do is close his eyes and say a prayer in his thoughts to his god. His religious instruction is up to his parents and his pastor/priest/rabbi/imam/holy man.

As for preventing the mentally ill from buying guns, that term "mentally ill" is very misleading. Consider that wonderful guy who has life all figured out, is on his way to success and happiness, but then his girlfriend, influenced by ?, dumps him in a most shameful way. He is boiling over with anger and sinking into depression. He grabs his AR-15 and and goes looking for her to teach her and her family or friends a thing or two.

How many of the 2019 shooters and mass murderers were mentally ill with a history of psychiatric help or in-patient care?

Widespread? I don't know, happening way to often for anyones sense of security on that I can agree, but in numbers a vey small part of the population and they all don't fit the same mold. There is the homicidal loony, and the abject criminal. Both are terrorists in the same mold and using the same tactics as ISIS or any other known group of such ilk.

No secret the advance in technology has allowed the spread of loony and crimal ideas and as those with bad intent network, they feed the sickness to each other and feed off each other. They don't care about the consequences of thier actions, nor the havoc they reek on others because that's their GOAL, and that is what makes them evil in my book. Maybe some are desperate, young is what I put into that category, just sheep to be lead by a bad shepherd who needs a flock for his own selfish agenda and as such these people have been ingrained in our societies in some for or another since man came to earth. Some can be redeemed, some cannot, but it's the ability to be influenced or lead astray that's at the heart of it I think, and that is squarely at the feet of the technology that enables it, not the TV or video games as some might profess, but specifically those who use the technology for that purpose of finding and interacting with that evil that has always been a part of the nature of man, some decidedly more than others.

I got no problem with those who wish to save souls and find the good path, but you must acknowledge some humans search for the lesser path, so while you save souls stop passing out guns like they are candy. To your point though about it being more widespread, if it were it's not just the lone loon perpetrating mayhem it would be an army of them and that's a different evil, more pervasive and of more CRIMINALLY oriented.

Let's face it, it doesn't take a huge army of loons and criminals to prey on the innocent, just a small group or even one. Seems in addition to identifying those folks and giving someone the tools to do so, eliminating the means for those folks to organize and carryout their ends is a must! I just don't think a bible study or just prayers accomplishes that. Be nice though if people of good conscious would come together and deal with the root causes of such folks. As long as the good people are divided, we can never be a force to overcome the evil amongst us. We must do MORE than huddle in a group and just pray about it. That's just my own opinion.


No student is forbidden from praying in school. All that student has to do is close his eyes and say a prayer in his thoughts to his god. His religious instruction is up to his parents and his pastor/priest/rabbi/imam/holy man.

As for preventing the mentally ill from buying guns, that term "mentally ill" is very misleading. Consider that wonderful guy who has life all figured out, is on his way to success and happiness, but then his girlfriend, influenced by ?, dumps him in a most shameful way. He is boiling over with anger and sinking into depression. He grabs his AR-15 and and goes looking for her to teach her and her family or friends a thing or two.

How many of the 2019 shooters and mass murderers were mentally ill with a history of psychiatric help or in-patient care?

Or unreported abhorrent behavior that went untreated.

He grabs his AR-15

Far, far more likely he grabs a handgun. Rifles account for only a small percentage of gun deaths.

Far, far more likely he grabs a handgun. Rifles account for only a small percentage of gun deaths.
How many of the 2019 mass shootings so far have been done with a handgun?

Read carefully. "Rifles account for only a small percentage of gun deaths." That is not a reference to mass shootings.

Read carefully. "Rifles account for only a small percentage of gun deaths." That is not a reference to mass shootings.
The topic at hand is mass shootings.

The topic at hand is mass shootings.

The topic at hand is gun control relative to violent gun crimes. But that's fine. I could actually go with some controls on so called "assault weapons", but every conservative knows that most gun control liberals, such as you for instance, want to have much stricter controls, so that fact makes any kind of compromise a real problem.

The topic at hand is gun control relative to violent gun crimes. But that's fine. I could actually go with some controls on so called "assault weapons", but every conservative knows that most gun control liberals, such as you for instance, want to have much stricter controls, so that fact makes any kind of compromise a real problem.
Why always the unnecessary putdown?

There is absolutely NO NEED for assault weapons. They should all vaporize by midnight.

Obviously that rifle is as easy to get as a handgun, and the weapon of choice for young loonies who want to kill as many people as they can. What useful purpose does such a weapon have except to kill as many people as possible? Even those hand guns and their high capacity magazines serve that same purpose don't they? Of what use are those high capacity magazines except to kill as many people as possible before reloading and killing some more so in combination are the weapon of choice for mass murderers.

I don't know what stricter gun controls liberals want that conservative want other than a ban on assault weapons except for the military so you can explain the difference to this liberal JL.

Why always the unnecessary putdown?


It was not intended to be a putdown. I was simply pointing out that you have posted here before that you would like to see all guns done away with.

Tal's post is a perfect example. "What useful purpose does such a weapon have except to kill as many people as possible? Even those hand guns and their high capacity magazines serve that same purpose don't they? Of what use are those high capacity magazines except to kill as many people as possible before reloading and killing some more so in combination are the weapon of choice for mass murderers."

So you see what I mean? In addition to doing away with assault weapons, he wants to do away with at least some handguns.


I don't know what stricter gun controls liberals want that conservative want other than a ban on assault weapons except for the military so you can explain the difference to this liberal JL.

Just look at your post above and you can plainly see it. For an even better example, look at the city of Chicago.

If you are working at a Burger King for, let's say, 9 an hour, and you move to a chicken processing plant for 11.25, then you just received a 25% wage increase. Bear in mind that moving from a fast food place to a chicken plant was the topic.

You've been locked up in that library too long.

In this example, a 25% raise is a whole 'nother animal from a 25% wage increase!!!

And then the personal put-down. That's why I rarely post here anymore.

In that example, it is a 25% wage increase, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

It was not meant to be a putdown; it was meant to be a joke. My apologies if it was offensive. I do wish we had some emojis on this board.

So you see what I mean? In addition to doing away with assault weapons, he wants to do away with at least some handguns.

You cool with banning the sale of assault weapons and HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES? What about comprehensive and THOROUGH background checks or age limits maybe with a responsible SPONSOR?

It was not intended to be a putdown. I was simply pointing out that you have posted here before that you would like to see all guns done away with.
You cannot stick to just arguing a topic, but always have to drag in a negative comment about whoever posted it. E.g, "most gun control liberals, such as you for instance"

In that example, it is a 25% wage increase, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

An extra $16 bucks a day and 90 bucks a week, 4300 bucks a year is better than nothing but hardly the way out of poverty, but with some overtime...?

In that example, it is a 25% wage increase, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

It was not meant to be a putdown; it was meant to be a joke. My apologies if it was offensive. I do wish we had some emojis on this board.
You had originally said in #32, "Most people would consider a 25% raise to be a real step up. They are both respectable jobs for working people trying to make a living." Then you called it a 25% wage increase. Two different animals, especially for the chicken-hanger-to-burger-flipper-factory example you were going on.

You had originally said in #32, "Most people would consider a 25% raise to be a real step up. They are both respectable jobs for working people trying to make a living." Then you called it a 25% wage increase. Two different animals, especially for the chicken-hanger-to-burger-flipper-factory example you were going on.

How is a raise different from a wage increase? In the end, doesn't it amount to the same thing?


An extra $16 bucks a day and 90 bucks a week, 4300 bucks a year is better than nothing but hardly the way out of poverty, but with some overtime...?

About 350 dollars a month, and if two are working, then 700 a month. That can buy a modest house around here. It might not be a big deal to you, but for most poorer folks, being able to buy a house is HUGE!! Personally, I'd LOVE to get an extra 350 a month.

You cool with banning the sale of assault weapons and HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES? What about comprehensive and THOROUGH background checks or age limits maybe with a responsible SPONSOR?


Well?

How is a raise different from a wage increase? In the end, doesn't it amount to the same thing?
Wage increase because of change to a different job, especially in a different department or company.
Raise while working at the same job.

You cool with banning the sale of assault weapons and HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES? What about comprehensive and THOROUGH background checks or age limits maybe with a responsible SPONSOR?

Sorry. Just now saw it.

1. Ban so-called assault weapons? Yes, so long as we can get a rock-ribbed agreement that it will go no further than that. What will you do with existing weapons?

2. High capacity mags? Probably not.

3. Don't really know what you mean by a "comprehensive and thorough" background check. We already have background checks for most gun purchases. Checking on mental health issues cannot be done due to confidentiality concerns. I would think a background check for criminal behavior could be worked out.

4. Age limit? Already have that. It's 18, same age as being able to vote or join the military.

5. Responsible sponsor? Nope.

But before I would agree to any of that, I would want someone to answer the question. What changed over the last fifty years to land us in this mess?


Wage increase because of change to a different job.
Raise while working the same job.

OK. Thanks for pointing that out, but in what meaningful way does it change the illustration?

OK. Thanks for pointing that out, but in what meaningful way does it change the illustration?
I've worked for several wonderful companies, but who would get a 25% raise???? (I stole a few of Athos' question marks.)

Your arguments are all good, however, if you do the same thing over and over again and nothing changes then this is madness. You asked what changed.



I would want someone to answer the question. What changed over the last fifty years to land us in this mess?

SCOTUS changed the way the second amendment was perceived in the same way as they amplified other rights until the whole argument became about rights

1. Ban so-called assault weapons? Yes, so long as we can get a rock-ribbed agreement that it will go no further than that. What will you do with existing weapons? Buy backs or if registered NOTHING, but cannot be sold or traded.

2. High capacity mags? Probably not. Guess we work on it some.

3. Don't really know what you mean by a "comprehensive and thorough" background check. We already have background checks for most gun purchases. Checking on mental health issues cannot be done due to confidentiality concerns. I would think a background check for criminal behavior could be worked out. I think closing those gun show loopholes and the same evaluation the military does would be what I'm getting at, including mental and emotional before you give 'em a gun. That covers those with no criminal, or mental, emotional problems that could make them a danger. I remind you that not just the military but employers have this as a routine requirement for employment depending on the job, and even financials and social media checks.

4. Age limit? Already have that. It's 18, same age as being able to vote or join the military. No military no gun at 18 without a sponsor. I feel rather strongly that voting and volunteering isn't the same as selling a gun to a teen ager. In the US the drinking age is 21, so not a real big trade off though and saving lives is the goal and priority.

5. Responsible sponsor? Nope. Like I say for teen agers, like a dad or uncle who hunts. Worrisome that when a young person turns 18 his record of past problems gets expunged like the Ohio shooter. To buy a gun, those records should be available to the ones doing the background check in full confidentiality of course., as well as any results from being evaluated.

But before I would agree to any of that, I would want someone to answer the question. What changed over the last fifty years to land us in this mess? The original assault ban was never renewed, and a lot more people are falling through the cracks that have real issues that needed addressing. We did close a bunch of metal hospitals, and the system that was left is horribly inadequate. That I think is part of it just ignoring the problem to long. Plus the politics of special interests like the NRA making sure nothing gets done no matter who gets killed is a huge factor. They are trying to kill any reforms now even after the trauma of horrific shootings that rocked the nation. If trained soldiers can suffer from PTSD what make you think ordinary people cannot?





Wage increase because of change to a different job.
Raise while working the same job.


OK. Thanks for pointing that out, but in what meaningful way does it change the illustration? Big difference between the boss giving you a raise and you getting an unfamilar job in a differnt place for more money. That's what it seems to me. Some adjust better than others I suppose.

No military no gun at 18 without a sponsor. I feel rather strongly that voting and volunteering isn't the same as selling a gun to a teen ager. In the US the drinking age is 21, so not a real big trade off though and saving lives is the goal and priority.

Might be reasonable. Let's also put the 10 commandments back up on school house walls. Are you good with that? Compromise?

Your super-complicated and expensive background check is out of the question. Finding out if a person has committed a felony is fairly straightforward and simple. Doing an extensive mental exam is not going to happen.


OK. Thanks for pointing that out, but in what meaningful way does it change the illustration? Big difference between the boss giving you a raise and you getting an unfamilar job in a differnt place for more money. That's what it seems to me. Some adjust better than others I suppose.

That WAS my illustration. A person left a burger place and went to a chicken place. It changes the illustration not one bit. People leave one job for another all the time and they do it frequently for a raise/wage increase or whatever in the world you want to call it.

Might be reasonable. Let's also put the 10 commandments back up on school house walls. Are you good with that? Compromise?
Absolutely not! It's not the schools' job to teach a specific religion. Um, "separation of church and state." And posting the Commandments won't accomplish a darn thing anyway. It certainly won't inspire love for God and each other, which was Jesus' command. Better would be for us to invite people and bring them into our emptying Christian churches and help parents in their child-raising efforts as they teach their kids moral values.

Absolutely not! It's not the schools' job to teach a specific religion. Um, "separation of church and state." And posting the Commandments won't accomplish a darn thing anyway. It certainly won't inspire love for God and each other, which was Jesus' command. Better would be for us to invite people and bring them into our emptying Christian churches and help parents in their child-raising efforts as they teach their kids moral values.

1. The Ten Commandments are not associated with a specific religion. They apply to Jews, Moslems, and Christians.
2. Do you think things have gone better since we took them down?
3. How do you know it won't inspire love for God and our fellow man?
4. I am all for filling our churches, but wouldn't it help parents in their child raising efforts if those children saw the Ten Commandments on a daily basis? It would amount to a national moral code.
5. Uhm.."Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.
6. You know, for someone who professes to be a Christian, I am amazed that you would think the posting of scripture would not accomplish "a darn thing". I mean that is an astonishing comment.

1. The Ten Commandments are not associated with a specific religion. They apply to Jews, Moslems, and Christians.
Doesn't matter. Christianity is where you're coming from.

2. Do you think things have gone better since we took them down?
They weren't ever there.

3. How do you know it won't inspire love for God and our fellow man?
They won't. They'll do just the opposite.

4. I am all for filling our churches, but wouldn't it help parents in their child raising efforts if those children saw the Ten Commandments on a daily basis? It would amount to a national moral code.
Post those Commandments on the refrigerator at home, the bathroom mirror, the child's closet door.

5. Uhm.."Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.
Uhm, did I say it was?

6. You know, for someone who professes to be a Christian, I am amazed that you would think the posting of scripture would not accomplish "a darn thing".
Nope. I've lived long enough and have seen that sort of thing fail multiple times.

Uhm.."Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.


Neither are the Ten Commandments.

there has not been a single shooting where a gun law hasn't been violated . Proposals stated above are now common . What they ignore is that there is already quite a list of Federal laws .
https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/federal-law/other-laws/key-federal-acts-regulating-firearms/

Beto wants mandatory buy backs . Sparticus wants federal licenses .Warren wants to tax guns to death . Harris will give Congress 100 days before she issues unspecified severe executive orders . Tough back round checks ? All the killers passed back round checks before purchasing guns because there was nothing obvious without 20-20 hindsight that would've put them in a 'red flag' option . Other shooters buy them on the black market or steal them ;both acts already illegal. And of course it would be law enforcing citizens who would comply ;not someone intent on murder .

I'll tell you what would work ;or at least would be a huge deterrent ...the Israeli model. This comes under the premise that when seconds count ;law enforcement is minutes away. The Israelis require all off duty soldiers to carry their weapons. We should do the same requiring all military, police officers, and others who carry and use weapons as a routine part of their job to carry off duty . It is not a sure 100% chance that all attacks would be stopped . But as Dayton showed ;seconds count .

They won't. They'll do just the opposite.

The bottom line seems to be that you consider posting the will and Word of God to be an exercise in futility. That's very sad to have such a low view of the effectiveness of scripture. Makes me wonder what your church reads. "For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it pierces even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow." I haven't found the scripture yet that says, "The word of God is very weak and will not accomplish a darn thing." And NO, I am not putting you down. I am trying to understand your thinking. I don't get it.

At any rate, it seems very logical to me for our country to adopt a common moral standard. Would it affect every child to see "thou shall not commit murder" posted on the wall? No, but it would affect a lot of them. It's a little late in the game to be trying to weed out potential mass killers when they are 20 years old.

We can pass new laws, but it is very difficult to legally control what has become a significantly immoral population. The end result is frequently to make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens.


Uhm, did I say it was?


Then why did you mention it? It is not a principle of law.


I'll tell you what would work ;or at least would be a huge deterrent ...the Israeli model. This comes under the premise that when seconds count ;law enforcement is minutes away. The Israelis require all off duty soldiers to carry their weapons. We should do the same requiring all military, police officers, and others who carry and use weapons as a routine part of their job to carry off duty . It is not a sure 100% chance that all attacks would be stopped . But as Dayton showed ;seconds count .

That's an interesting idea, but it just reminds me of the central question. Why has our country changed so much in just fifty years? What happened? No one was suggesting these remedies fifty years ago. We did not have mass-shooting "lockdown" drills in our schools fifty years ago. What has changed so much that we have to have them now?

i don't put too much thought into that . It is what it is . No one is going to go back to the Willowbrook days of institutional mental facilities Not likey to go back to the days when kids in the rifle club at school brought their weapons onto school grounds either . The idea above is not 100% . So I'm sure there will be a lot of "what if " questions . As we have learned ;no gun law or set of gun laws are 100 % either including the so called 'assault weapon' ban . (Columbine happened in the years o the ban) Take for example the one about restricting the number of bullets in a magazine . But it is easy to turn one magazine into 2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCxGH_B2JnE

Yeah. If someone is determined, they can carry out any kind of plan. Take a guy who cannot get an "assault rifle", but instead has two semi-auto pistols with 12 round mags and multiple clips to use. He can still kill a lot of people. I just have practically no confidence in limiting the sale of "assault" rifles.

i don't put too much thought into that . It is what it is . No one is going to go back to the Willowbrook days of institutional mental facilities Not likey to go back to the days when kids in the rifle club at school brought their weapons onto school grounds either . The idea above is not 100% . So I'm sure there will be a lot of "what if " questions . As we have learned ;no gun law or set of gun laws are 100 % either including the so called 'assault weapon' ban . (Columbine happened in the years o the ban) Take for example the one about restricting the number of bullets in a magazine . But it is easy to turn one magazine into 2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCxGH_B2JnE

You do know what is insane is that this debate is still going on. All you have is a talkfest while people are dying. There are effective ways of dealing with the problem but it will never happen while ever the gun is sacrosanct or sacred

oh if everyone could just live on the beach and grill shrimps . With the number of federal,state ,and local gun laws ,you could hardly call guns sacrosanct here .
Any mass killer is a random outlier who is rarely possible to identify in advance. I think that it is impossible to do anything more that will prevent these people from obtaining weapons. There is also an over blown hysteria factor in this . Of 39,000 gun deaths in 2016 ,451 were from mass killings Again no one mentions the other killings .

Here are the key Federal Gun laws
https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/federal-law/other-laws/key-federal-acts-regulating-firearms

They aren't working so of course it means we need to double down and create more laws for criminals to break ;and maybe grab some other law abiding citizens practicing their rights under the constitution in the sweep .

I really get your point, Tom. If we had outlawed the sale of "assault" weapons ten years ago, I imagine we would still have had about the same situation in gun violence. I don't think the average mass killer will say, "I was going to go out and shoot up the place today, but I decided not to since I couldn't buy an AR." No, I think they would buy a Glock 17 with 5 magazines and go ahead with his/her plan. Our hearts have become calloused.

We still have thoughts and prayers as our default position. Which is better than the conservative nothing we can do about it meme. Or maybe it's the same thing.

Uhm, did I say it was?



Then why did you mention it? It is not a principle of law.
I didn't mention it.

I didn't mention it.


Note the quote from your post below.

"Absolutely not! It's not the schools' job to teach a specific religion. Um, "separation of church and state." And posting the Commandments won't accomplish a darn thing anyway."

Note the quote from your post below.

"Absolutely not! It's not the schools' job to teach a specific religion. Um, "separation of church and state." And posting the Commandments won't accomplish a darn thing anyway."
As I said, I didn't mention it, "it" being the Constitution. YOU are the one who tossed it into the accusation.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jlisenbe https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?p=3839901#post3839901)
Uhm.."Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.

As I said, I didn't mention it, "it" being the Constitution. YOU are the one who tossed it into the accusation.

OK. Then, to be specific, why did you mention "separation of church and state"? It is not a principle of law and not found in the Constitution, so I don't see any relevance.

There was no accusation. It was a simple question. It still is.

OK. Then, to be specific, why did you mention "separation of church and state"? It is not a principle of law and not found in the Constitution, so I don't see any relevance.

There was no accusation. It was a simple question. It still is.
Churches and religious schools, charities, etc. are tax exempt. Why?

Churches and religious schools, charities, etc. are tax exempt. Why?

As far as I know it's the same reason that the United Way is tax exempt. Charitable organizations.

But I still don't know why you brought up separation of church and state.

As far as I know it's the same reason that the United Way is tax exempt. Charitable organizations.

Wrong. Churches and religious schools are tax exempt because they are religious organizations.


But I still don't know why you brought up separation of church and state.

Wrong again. Separation of church and state is simply Jefferson's way of rephrasing the First Amendment which is part of the Constitution.

Wrong again. Separation of church and state is simply Jefferson's way of rephrasing the First Amendment which is part of the Constitution.

OK. I couldn't be "wrong" since I did not assert anything. I asked a question. It is a simple concept.

As far as the tax exempt question is concerned, I pretty clearly said "as far as I know", so I wasn't trying to make a hard and fast statement.

And I still don't know why WG would have brought up "separation of church and state". It is not a principle of law. It appeared in a letter written by Jefferson and holds no formal standing in law.

And I still don't know why WG would have brought up "separation of church and state". It is not a principle of law. It appeared in a letter written by Jefferson and holds no formal standing in law.
The US is not a Christian nation. "The First Amendment was specifically designed to prohibit established churches, and at the Constitutional Convention attempts to write in some sort of nominal support for Christianity always failed."
https://www.learnreligions.com/is-the-united-states-a-christian-nation-248215 (https://www.learnreligions.com/is-the-united-states-a-christian-nation-248215)

But as I have posted before, the 10 Commandments are not solely Christian. Jews and Moslems claim that text as well. And if I was an atheist, I would still be all in for posting them. Don't murder. Don't steal. Don't commit adultery. Even the commandments about the worship of God tell us to put something above ourselves. It makes for a much more ordered and peaceful society if we honor them. In fact, I cannot imagine why anyone would oppose putting such basic moral values on schoolhouse walls. It is NOT an establishment of a national religion anymore than having "In God we trust" on our coins or as our national motto.

But as I have posted before, the 10 Commandments are not solely Christian. Jews and Moslems claim that text as well. And if I was an atheist, I would still be all in for posting them. Don't murder. Don't steal. Don't commit adultery. Even the commandments about the worship of God tell us to put something above ourselves. It makes for a much more ordered and peaceful society if we honor them. In fact, I cannot imagine why anyone would oppose putting such basic moral values on schoolhouse walls. It is NOT an establishment of a national religion anymore than having "In God we trust" on our coins or as our national motto.
But posting the Ten Commandments won't be the end of it. Then the demand will be for schoolteachers to spend class time talking with students about the Commandments ... and the Bible ... and Jesus. Reminds me of gun owners who say that "won't be the end of it" if assault weapons are confiscated.

And I still don't know why WG would have brought up "separation of church and state". It is not a principle of law. It appeared in a letter written by Jefferson and holds no formal standing in law.


Everybody - but you apparently - knows perfectly well what separation of church and state means. Totally proper to bring up in this conversation.

Also, after the Ten Commandments, do we post in the classroom the 8 precepts of Buddhism, its 4 Noble Paths, the I Ching of Tao, and whatever holy sayings the Hindus and the Shintoists and the Bahai crowd have? Then there's the Native Americans, etc., etc., etc.

Or did you think the only religions were Judaism, Christianity and Islam?

Do you propose a federal law mandating it? Or a federal law giving local school districts that authority to allow it? Or a SCOTUS ruling to overturn the 1962 Scotus ruling against public school prayer, or any other religious instruction that's not in an educational context? The individual is however, as WG stated, allowed to pray silently to themselves in a non disruptive way.

But posting the Ten Commandments won't be the end of it. Then the demand will be for schoolteachers to spend class time talking with students about the Commandments ... and the Bible ... and Jesus. Reminds me of gun owners who say that "won't be the end of it" if assault weapons are confiscated.

That's the "slippery slope" argument. It can be used endlessly. "I won't agree with doing away with assault weapons because I know you are really after handguns as well." But there is no real reason for believing what you describe above will happen.


Everybody - but you apparently - knows perfectly well what separation of church and state means. Totally proper to bring up in this conversation.

I know exactly what it means. Unlike you, I also know separation of church/state is not formal law.


Also, after the Ten Commandments, do we post in the classroom the 8 precepts of Buddhism, its 4 Noble Paths, the I Ching of Tao, and whatever holy sayings the Hindus and the Shintoists and the Bahai crowd have? Then there's the Native Americans, etc., etc., etc.

Or did you think the only religions were Judaism, Christianity and Islam?

I know there are other religions, but no, I don't think their precepts should be displayed. The Ten Commandments are the historical moral precepts of this country and have been accepted as so for the past two hundred years or more. Do you see the 8 precepts of Buddhism posted at the entrance to the Supreme Court chambers?


Do you propose a federal law mandating it? Or a federal law giving local school districts that authority to allow it? Or a SCOTUS ruling to overturn the 1962 Scotus ruling against public school prayer, or any other religious instruction that's not in an educational context? The individual is however, as WG stated, allowed to pray silently to themselves in a non disruptive way.

I have not called for prayer. As for the Ten Commandments, it would take a Supreme Court ruling as far as I know. I would suggest it be left up to the individual states. I don't see it happening. My main point is that since SCOTUS decided that having the Ten Commandments displayed, which had been done for 150 years, was suddenly a violation of the Constitution, we have lost our moorings as a country. We did not have this large number of mass shootings in the fifties and sixties. You want to restrict gun ownership. I want to establish some public morals.

Maybe we should start by electing moral leaders that keep your Judeo Christian 10 commandments. Obviously we fall short in that regard.



I know there are other religions, but no, I don't think their precepts should be displayed. The Ten Commandments are the historical moral precepts of this country and have been accepted as so for the past two hundred years or more. Do you see the 8 precepts of Buddhism posted at the entrance to the Supreme Court chambers?


That is emblematic of your whole problem. There is no room in your acceptance for any one except YOU. I don't think the shootings and violence we are experiencing is a moral issue, but a natural progression of more human failings. Maybe we didn't have as many mass shootings in the 50's and sixties, but there was plenty of riots lynching's protests school and church bombings assassinations and injustice and abject cruelty by so called moral people against the deemed others going back to when Euros first came to these lands.

Our history is not a great example of practicing the morals you preach. Maybe the chickens are coming home to roost as we try to form a better union.

I don't think the shootings and violence we are experiencing is a moral issue, but a natural progression of more human failings.

That is an incredible statement. The killing of a dozen innocent human beings is not a moral issue??? Wow. I can only assume you have not had your coffee yet.


That is emblematic of your whole problem. There is no room in your acceptance for any one except YOU.

Well, me and the more than 300 million other Americans whose religious heritage would include Christian, Jewish, or Moslem beliefs, and not to mention the more than 200 years of history which has been dominated by Biblical beliefs going all the way back to the Declaration of Independence. So yeah, it's a little more than just me.

You can deny your own failings all you want, but don't try to make me believe in your perfection when clearly it is your domination you are exploiting and to be frank always have been. Now you can wrap that into morality all you want but history is a clear indication that your domination over others is not just flawed, but has consequences as well. Of course you wish for those days back when you could be so cruel in the name of your God that entitled you, but that's changing so maybe instead of continuing down the path of entitled domination you learn to share with the former ones you dominated with your flawed, cruel, hypocritical DOMINATION.

I doubt 300 million people agree with your assessment, and while it's still your majority, I think good people of your own race reject your claim of entitled majority domination and really do want liberty and justice for all men being equal. Embrace the equality my friend and be better for it and a peaceful outcome. This is the way you can build your moral credibility, which your cruelty greatly overshadows.

There is no 'separation of church and state ' Jefferson wasn't even in the country and was certainly no framer of the constitution . He was not involved in the debates about the amendments so his fanciful description of there being a separation is his own perception . The religious part of the constitution is 2 part . There is no state religion and people are free to exercise their faith. The first amendment is about protecting this right to believe and the government’s inability to tell us what to believe. Even those who don’t believe in God are protected.


Ninety five percent of the original signers of the Constitution were Christian. Their goal wasn’t to tell us how to believe, but to protect our right to decide for ourselves without government interference. To use it as an excuse to exclude religion in the public square is a gross misreading of the intent.

I don't think the shootings and violence we are experiencing is a moral issue, but a natural progression of more human failings.


An evolutionist point of view, the law of the jungle in action and without a moral compass this is what you get. before the ten commandments men just did whatever they thought appropriate, those judeo-christian scriptures tell us that, don't know much about other religions, but I'm fairly sure the basic rules apply

The shootings are a moral issue, particularly in a society that thinks gun ownership is more important than human life

To use your religion as an excuse to dominate and control others is also I feel a gross misreading of intent. That started with the all men are equal EXCEPT reality of the founding of our nation and seems to be prevalent now. Not overtly as chains and whips, but certainly ingrained in practice, and we have many examples over the years, decades and centuries.

An evolutionist point of view, the law of the jungle in action and without a moral compass this is what you get. before the ten commandments men just did whatever they thought appropriate, those judeo-christian scriptures tell us that, don't know much about other religions, but I'm fairly sure the basic rules apply

The shootings are a moral issue, particularly in a society that thinks gun ownership is more important than human life

The world still is a jungle Clete, despite the technical advances and fancy trappings of so called civility. We are a long way from the meek inheriting the Earth, and there are plenty of predators still lurking about. Many of some or other religion professing a God that entitles them to convert the heathens which translates to everybody else, but the true believer.

The world still is a jungle Clete, despite the technical advances and fancy trappings of so called civility. We are a long way from the meek inheriting the Earth, and there are plenty of predators still lurking about. Many of some or other religion professing a God that entitles them to convert the heathens which translates to everybody else, but the true believer.

Spare me the B/S Tal, you have the option of saying No! unless you live in a Muslim country. the question isn't what you believe as much as it is whether you force others to agree with you. I think you are a true believer in the 21st century religion of AGW

I doubt 300 million people agree with your assessment, and while it's still your majority, I think good people of your own race reject your claim of entitled majority domination and really do want liberty and justice for all men being equal. Embrace the equality my friend and be better for it and a peaceful outcome. This is the way you can build your moral credibility, which your cruelty greatly overshadows.

Entitled majority domination? Get some coffee quick!! You're not making sense.


You can deny your own failings all you want, but don't try to make me believe in your perfection when clearly it is your domination you are exploiting and to be frank always have been. Now you can wrap that into morality all you want but history is a clear indication that your domination over others is not just flawed, but has consequences as well.

I have denied my own failings? When have I done that? My perfection? My domination? What world did you wake up in this morning? You consider mass murders to be just a failing of humanity. I consider it to be a moral issue. People will have to decide for themselves, but I hope we don't post your "Law of the Jungle" on our schoolhouse walls.


An evolutionist point of view, the law of the jungle in action and without a moral compass this is what you get. before the ten commandments men just did whatever they thought appropriate, those judeo-christian scriptures tell us that, don't know much about other religions, but I'm fairly sure the basic rules apply.

Well said, especially the part about the moral compass. There has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth on this board about the situation on the southern border. Should we consider that to be simply a failing of humanity, or is it a moral issue that should be addressed? And if we address it, would that be an example of domination by an entitled majority?

Well I don't see you ministering the skin heads or lunatics or even suggesting it, even though you know where they are, who they are and what they want. If you don't they are rather easy to find so lend your morality to those that need it most the immoral doing dastardly deeds to the public.

I wake up to reality that the so called "moral" among us deny the reality of skinheads and lunatics, and choose to convert the peaceful heathens that just want what the constitution grants us all. Makes me wonder why giving liberty and justice for all is such a hard moral choice to make for you.

Well I don't see you ministering the skin heads or lunatics or even suggesting it, even though you know where they are, who they are and what they want. If you don't they are rather easy to find so lend your morality to those that need it most the immoral doing dastardly deeds to the public.

I wake up to reality that the so called "moral" among us deny the reality of skinheads and lunatics, and choose to convert the peaceful heathens that just want what the constitution grants us all. Makes me wonder why giving liberty and justice for all is such a hard moral choice to make for you.

You have lost your ever-lovin mind if you think I have denied the reality of skinheads and lunatics. You post a quote of where I have done that. I don't personally know any and have no idea where to find them, but what they do and stand for is despicable in the same manner of the black or Hispanic supremacist groups. They, like everyone else, need Jesus to change their lives.

But by your standard, aren't they simply exhibiting their "human failings" and trying to work out the law of the jungle? Surely you are not suggesting they are morally corrupt are you???

Spare me the B/S Tal, you have the option of saying No! unless you live in a Muslim country. the question isn't what you believe as much as it is whether you force others to agree with you. I think you are a true believer in the 21st century religion of AGW

I like to think we live in a free country and just want clean air, water, and soil to be put over profits for the few, which it seems some of my fellow citizens are so against, but is it not also true that those fellow citizens are passively, yet aggressively trying to force others to agree with them, and drink the poison Kool Aid of ignorance to the fouling of our resources that give life?

Maybe the choices for you are far in the future, but eventually you will arrive at them.


You have lost your ever-lovin mind if you think I have denied the reality of skinheads and lunatics. You post a quote of where I have done that. I don't personally know any and have no idea where to find them, but what they do and stand for is despicable. They, like everyone else, need Jesus to change their lives.

But by your standard, aren't they simply exhibiting their "human failings" and trying to work out the law of the jungle? Surely you are not suggesting they are morally corrupt are you???

No they are EVIL as it gets. Hunt them and eradicate the threat they pose.

No they are EVIL as it gets. Hunt them and eradicate the threat they pose.

Well, being "evil" is a moral judgement. I didn't think you believed in moral standards. And to "hunt them" and "eradicate" them would mean to murder them wouldn't it? Do you feel the same way about the violent black and Hispanic supremacist groups?

Murder is your word, I clearly meant bring them to JUSTICE and eradicate their threat to FREEDOM of us all. You can fill me in on those other supremacists that I have you to be aware of.

Murder is your word, I clearly meant bring them to JUSTICE and eradicate their threat to FREEDOM of us all.
OK. Fair enough. I will be with you on that completely.


You can fill me in on those other supremacists that I have you to be aware of.

This is from that famous, right-wing group called the Southern Poverty Law Center. "Israel United in Christ, a Black Hebrew Israelite group, led an 800-person march in Tennessee on Aug. 4, 2018. Louis Farrakhan leveraged his attendance at Aretha Franklin’s funeral to legitimize himself and recruit new members by putting her on the cover of the group’s publication, The Final Call, and distributing 50,000 copies in Detroit, Michigan. The New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense hosted black men’s conferences and rallied in front of the White House to denounce Trump and praise Farrakhan." They are all characterized as black nationalist groups.

Now they, of course, don't mention BLM, which was responsible for the looting and destruction of a great deal of private property in Ferguson, MO, all of which, as it turned out, was in support of a young man who basically caused his own death by an innocent policeman. When was the last time you heard of a WSG causing that kind of riot and damage? Now are you going to step up to the plate and condemn that behavior? Might add that not a single person was ever brought to justice because of the violence and destruction. After all, they vote democrat.

This is from that famous, right-wing group called the Southern Poverty Law Center. "Israel United in Christ, a Black Hebrew Israelite group,

Fringe group though they be, no reference to violence as was any other you named, but hate spewing group for sure. The rest of your hodgepodge references are dismissed, and the sarcastic reference of SPLC ignored.

Fringe group though they be, no reference to violence as was any other you named, but hate spewing group for sure. The rest of your hodgepodge references are dismissed, and the sarcastic reference of SPLC ignored.

BLM. No violence?? Really? Try telling that to the people who lost businesses and jobs in Ferguson.

As far as fringe groups go, which WSG do you know of that has a large membership? I ask that sincerely. I don't know of one, but it might be out there.

I believe it's several small loners and friends or sympathizers who network online with some loose affiliations with not very big groups. That's where they seem to congregate and feed the hate stuff to each other. That's part of the danger is you can't see them coming in their ambushes. True LOONS on there own but dangerous to say the least.

SCOTUS should tell them to go pound sand! You cannot threaten someone who cannot be fired because they are hire for what is left of their life. Anyone threatening a SCOTUS member should be drawn and quartered!

Clueless did not want to make a call on SCOTUS packing .So he dodged by creating a commission to "study" it . It's task was to"provide an analysis of the principal arguments in the contemporary public debate for and against Supreme Court reform,"

President Biden to Sign Executive Order Creating the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States | The White House (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/09/president-biden-to-sign-executive-order-creating-the-presidential-commission-on-the-supreme-court-of-the-united-states/)

The commission finished it's task and came to a conclusion . It's conclusion is that it takes no position in 200 some odd pages .

"Although there is widespread agreement among legal scholars that Congress has the constitutional authority to expand the Court's size,there is profound disagreement over whether Court expansion at this moment in time would be wise. We do not seek to evaluate or judge the weight of any of these arguments, and the Commission takes no position on the wisdom of expansion."

SCOTUS-Report-Final-12.8.21-1.pdf (whitehouse.gov) (https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/SCOTUS-Report-Final-12.8.21-1.pdf)

Your tax dollars well spent !

Tax dollars? More likely printed or borrowed dollars.

One consolation in all of this insanity is the red wave that seems to be coming next November.

What we really need is a Jesus wave at any time.

With all the hollering and screaming, shenanigans and scheming, a neutral CYOA move is appropriate. Like conservative wingers really care about taxpayer dollars.

You guys got both hands in the cookie jar and squeal on everybody else.

I would actually agree with Tal on that one. There is no longer any political party which has the courage to exercise fiscal responsibility. Liberal dems are worse, but both are bad. Both Bush and Trump had excellent opportunities to enforce a balanced budget and just blew it. A day is coming, however. A day is coming. The national debt is now approaching 100,000 dollars for every man, woman, and child in America, and we stupidly stand by while these corrupt pols buy votes with borrowed or printed money.

But be careful when you complain about conservatives "squealing". At least there are a few of us out there who see the danger and speak out about it. Liberal dems? Not a one that I know of.

So Tal are you happy with the commission's recommendations ? Tal joins me in the consolation rounds of our league.

I honestly don't care one way or another about political opinions given SCOTUS has been expanded in the past, and may well be in the future even if Ole Joe doesn't now. Lol... I've been out of the hunt all year in our league after two years of domination! I'm no stranger to stumbling, bumbling, and completely fumbling. It be that way sometimes!

;(


I would actually agree with Tal on that one. There is no longer any political party which has the courage to exercise fiscal responsibility. Liberal dems are worse, but both are bad. Both Bush and Trump had excellent opportunities to enforce a balanced budget and just blew it. A day is coming, however. A day is coming. The national debt is now approaching 100,000 dollars for every man, woman, and child in America, and we stupidly stand by while these corrupt pols buy votes with borrowed or printed money.

But be careful when you complain about conservatives "squealing". At least there are a few of us out there who see the danger and speak out about it. Liberal dems? Not a one that I know of.

The pols just do as their corporate masters command them to do.

Having a president pack the court won’t solve anything and would make SCOTUS more political; not less. But I have offered an alternative to that for a long time now. I think term limits are needed for all judges in the Federal system, especially SCOTUS. End lifetime appointments. Presidents with Senate confirmation could decide to replace or keep a justice on the court. But this time when confirmation hearings take place there will be a record of the justice on the court to evaluate. No longer would Senators have to rely on only what the candidate says is their judicial philosophy and all the non-answers candidates typically regurgitate.

I don't know what the answer is. Even with term limits we will at times have a legislative SCOTUS, and that's the major problem. I just don't know how to ensure that honest men and women who will faithfully interpret and apply the law are appointed to the courts. Roe is a prime example of justices just making it up as they go along.

Without a lot of detail ;the Marbury v Madison decision where SCOTUS became the self appointed " final arbiter " is where the real problem lies .