or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by trumptman

 We understand. They should just go back in the closet. They should have their right but you shouldn't have to tolerate it or accept it or heaven forbid, ever see it. Have you ever even fired a gun? You sound terrified of them and completely ignorant regarding them.  What's funny about the reasoning on this is first your privileged state. You just get to flee the problem. Jump in a car and drive somewhere else. Heck if the problem is an issue just pick up and move...
Are we just making up phrases now? gun stunts?
 It's fun to watch you make stuff up. IntentA defendant must intend to commit assault. Thus, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant intended either to cause the apprehension or fear of contact or to cause the actual contact itself. The plaintiff, however, is not required to show that the defendant had any feelings of ill will or malice towards the plaintiff. The defendant’s intent may also be transferred so that an intent to cause apprehension or contact upon one person...
 Why would I worry about acknowledgment of that? I'm not the one attempting to change the rights, overturn the Supreme Court and alter current case law. Are you complaining that I'm not making your case for you? You have to consider the historical context. (There's that darn history again.) Some states required all abled men to own a gun and be willing to defend the state as a citizen army. The first clause basically declared the Federal Government couldn't stop the states...
 It isn't ignored. It has been interpreted as understood to apply as an individual right. You disagree with it but claiming people ignore it or are ignorant because they disagree with you is rude.  When has this not been the case when expanding or affirming an individual right? The direction of the court, on speech, on marriage, on all individual rights, has been clear for a long time. Plus weren't you the one screaming about history not being an acceptable answer?  Well...
 His "articulate" and "well-reasoned case" is that he can't cite any cases that support his point but can cite the fact that the court has reversed themselves on racial matters in the past. If anything it completely undermines his point because the court in reversing itself found for GREATER personal freedom, not less. To make his point he would have to argue that not only would the court have to rule prior to how they have in the past, but also rule to profoundly restrict...
 I guess that might happen if you are nearsighted to begin with. I assure you I bring the iPhone as close to my eyes as possible. The issue is that with Presbyopia with my 20/15 eyesight, the loss of lens flexibility means that "as close to my eyes as possible" is about 20 inches from my face. When I read certain websites with columns, they start at around 5 pt and with a bit of autozoom often end up at around 10 pt. I still read that just fine but the day it isn't fine...
I'm not a fan of the iPhone 6 size. However I'm rocking an iPhone 5S and my next phone is probably going to last until I am 47 which means I have to consider how it will deal with the fact that my eyesight is starting to become "middle aged" due to my arms becoming too short. I like the 6 form factor because it reminds of the original iPhone. Upgraded camera with OIS and perhaps 12 megapixels tuned in that Apple manner, force touch and faster processor (with more ram one...
 Actually it is a well-reasoned response to his argument because the courts have ruled that the 2nd amendment is related to individual rights and not state rights. He can craft a nice bit of slight of hand to try to distract from that point, but the point remains. In fact the entire Bill of Rights is about personal rights.   Both are easily disputed. If his interpretation were the correct one then the courts would have ruled in that direction in the past. Instead quite the...
 We call those groups hate groups and treat them accordingly. The KKK has with both public and private measures been driven from a peak membership of millions to small isolated groups totaling 5-8k people. The FBI continues to actively monitor and work against the Klan to this day. One tactic that worked very well against the Klan and quickly diminished their membership was media infiltration, and portrayals. The media wouldn't promote any of their materials and...
New Posts  All Forums: