Jan 10th 2013, 13:31:37
Originally posted by Fooglmog:
I don't see what you guys are kibitzing about. There's nothing in that article which suggests the 2nd amendment will be violated.
There have been many laws enforced in America's history which restrict the use and ownership of various arms. Many of these laws are more stringent than what's in place now, and have been upheld by the supreme court as constitutional.
Therefore, it is possible to enforce additional restrictions on arms without violating the second amendment.
There's a limit to how far these restrictions could go, but since we have no details of what's intended we can't make that judgement yet. Because of this, crying foul now does nothing but demonstrate that you're a political hack who's more interested in political posturing than in actually examining the pros and cons of proposed solutions.
In some ways, this actually makes things easier for the rest of us. It tells us who we can ignore when details do become available.
-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.
There have been many laws enforced in America's history which restrict the use and ownership of various arms. Many of these laws are more stringent than what's in place now, and have been upheld by the supreme court as constitutional.
Therefore, it is possible to enforce additional restrictions on arms without violating the second amendment.
There's a limit to how far these restrictions could go, but since we have no details of what's intended we can't make that judgement yet. Because of this, crying foul now does nothing but demonstrate that you're a political hack who's more interested in political posturing than in actually examining the pros and cons of proposed solutions.
In some ways, this actually makes things easier for the rest of us. It tells us who we can ignore when details do become available.
-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.
Thank you.
As far as impeachment, I guess our definitions are at odds. Beginning an impeachment proceeding on a sitting president, or even passing through the house, is a bunch of smoke and mirrors. He's not going to be convicted of anything, especially since, as foog pointed out, none of you have ANY DETAILS whatsoever.
Presidents have been circumventing their enumerated powers for over 200 years through the use of executive orders. It's nothing new.