User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/17/2010 6:14:22 PM EDT
[#1]
only states get votes, not territories.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2010 6:23:07 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
only states get votes, not territories. Yep, that would be unconstitutional. Fucking Dems wanting more votes just for 1 city. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2010 6:34:11 PM EDT
[#3]
They KNOW McDonald is going to kill their ban anyway, so they are willing to trade it away to get a vote. Fuck them.
I don't see how they can just start handing out votes to territories anyway. Seems to me that shit is enumerated quite plainly in the constitution. Do these arrogant fucks seriously think they can overrule the constitution with a simple bill/law? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2010 6:37:55 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
They KNOW McDonald is going to kill their ban anyway, so they are willing to trade it away to get a vote. Fuck them. I don't see how they can just start handing out votes to territories anyway. Seems to me that shit is enumerated quite plainly in the constitution. Do these arrogant fucks seriously think they can overrule the constitution with a simple bill/law? The Constitution is 'outdated' to them anyway. I was arguing the other day about the 2nd Amendment and about how all the writer's diaries made it clear that they considered it to be applied at the individual level. He said the 2nd Amendment was old and stupid anyway. I said that if that was true we should throw out the 1st and then shoot all non-Christians into the sun while we were at it (I don't really want to do this, but people around here love all religions besides Christianity). His response was "the 1st Amendment is different." |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2010 6:42:23 PM EDT
[#5]
Anyone want to try and justify their votes that support giving reps and senators to DC?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2010 6:46:30 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Anyone want to try and justify their votes that support giving reps and senators to DC? Yes. 1. The bill passes. 2. DC Residents get gun rights. 3. Someone files a brief with the SCOTUS on its constitutionality. 4. By 5 to 4, the voting portion of the law is declared unconstitutional. 
5. The gun part is untouched. 
6. Liberals explode. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2010 7:04:21 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Anyone want to try and justify their votes that support giving reps and senators to DC? Easy. No Taxation without representation. I dont think however it should be a "state" which it clearly is not, no two senators. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2010 7:05:50 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anyone want to try and justify their votes that support giving reps and senators to DC? Easy. No Taxation without representation. I dont think however it should be a "state" which it clearly is not, no two senators. DC was never intended to have votes |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2010 7:05:58 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: Quoted: Anyone want to try and justify their votes that support giving reps and senators to DC? Yes. 1. The bill passes. 2. DC Residents get gun rights. 3. Someone files a brief with the SCOTUS on its constitutionality. 4. By 5 to 4, the voting portion of the law is declared unconstitutional. 5. The gun part is untouched. 6. Liberals explode. Just like the machine gun ban. Wait, that didn't go as planned.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2010 7:07:09 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anyone want to try and justify their votes that support giving reps and senators to DC? Yes. 1. The bill passes. 2. DC Residents get gun rights. 3. Someone files a brief with the SCOTUS on its constitutionality. 4. By 5 to 4, the voting portion of the law is declared unconstitutional.
5. The gun part is untouched.
6. Liberals explode. Just like the machine gun ban. Wait, that didn't go as planned.
What are you talking about?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2010 7:10:02 PM EDT
[#12]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/17/AR2010041702500.html
Sadly, however, the measure comes with an unacceptable poison pill: a surrender of the District's ability to enact its own gun laws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2010 7:31:26 PM EDT
[#13]
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), the city's non-voting House member, and congressional leaders said they are negotiating to weaken the gun amendment language. But Norton said she is unwilling to sacrifice the opportunity to win a long-sought voting seat for the District by insisting on a stand-alone bill.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/14/AR2010041403637.html?waporef=obinsite |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2010 7:32:40 PM EDT
[#14]
Last year, many city leaders, including Norton, fiercely opposed loosening the District's gun laws. And on Wednesday, council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) denounced the possibility of a trade-off. "It's wrong, it's undemocratic and it's insulting, and we should not kneel down on our basic principles just to get this bill through," she said. "It's way too bitter a pill that we should be forced to sacrifice our public safety."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2010 7:58:58 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Last year, many city leaders, including Norton, fiercely opposed loosening the District's gun laws. And on Wednesday, council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) denounced the possibility of a trade-off. "It's wrong, it's undemocratic and it's insulting, and we should not kneel down on our basic principles just to get this bill through," she said. "It's way too bitter a pill that we should be forced to sacrifice our public safety." Fuck their "basic principles." It's the CONSTITUTION, shitstain! Follow it, learn it, live it! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2010 8:28:04 PM EDT
[#16]
When the residents of DC learn to read a book, and stop voting for Barry I will talk about giving them a Senator, meanwhile they need to STFU.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2010 8:41:26 PM EDT
[#17]
Unconstitutional. End of Story.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2010 8:50:45 PM EDT
[#18]
The Dems want DC, Puerto Rico, Samoa, Guam, The Marianas and the USVI to have representation only because they will be solid dem votes.
If there was Galt Island, a large territory primarily inhabited by libertarians and conservatives, the dems would be wrapping themselves in the constitution quicker then shit. Self serving, nothing more, nothing less. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2010 9:29:24 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Unconstitutional. End of Story. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2010 9:40:41 PM EDT
[#20]
Unconstitutional. it is a piss-poor way to try to get other rights respected. I think the best solution would be for D.C. to be considered part of the respective States from which the land was ceded for Federal use for the purposes of representation, including apportionment of votes. D.C. gets a say without being recognized as some special, seperate entity, which it should not, and I think it could probably be done in a manner which is constitutional.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2010 9:50:15 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anyone want to try and justify their votes that support giving reps and senators to DC? Yes. 1. The bill passes. 2. DC Residents get gun rights. 3. Someone files a brief with the SCOTUS on its constitutionality. 4. By 5 to 4, the voting portion of the law is declared unconstitutional.
5. The gun part is untouched.
6. Liberals explode. Just like the machine gun ban. Wait, that didn't go as planned.
What are you talking about?? the 1986 FOPA had the hughes amendment (MG ban) snuck in at the last minute the FOPA was so important to pass since the ATF was up to their usual shenanigans fucking with law abiding citizens and FFLs, that Reagan signed it under the impression that the Hughes amendment would later be ruled unconstitutional as that's what the NRA, other gun lobbies, and most people thought... unfortunately, that wasn't the case and we got fucked royally with the hughes amendment |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2010 9:52:40 PM EDT
[#22]
We need a Republican to poison pill the bill with a repeal of the 1934 NFA and Hughes Amendment.
Wait a minute. There isn't a single Republican in Congress that has the balls to do it. Nevermind. I keep forgetting that the Republican party is the party of chicken shit cowards... at least at the elected official level. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2010 1:06:47 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
We need a Republican to poison pill the bill with a repeal of the 1934 NFA and Hughes Amendment. Wait a minute. There isn't a single Republican in Congress that has the balls to do it. Nevermind. I keep forgetting that the Republican party is the party of chicken shit cowards... at least at the elected official level. Uh its going to get a poison pill. Have you not been paying attention to this thread?? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2010 1:14:17 PM EDT
[#24]
It's getting A poison pill and a weak one at that given that Heller ripped apart a lot of what DC had done and Heller II will destroy the anti-gun crap in DC even further.
I want someone, anyone who is an elected official to poison pill that bitch with repeal of the NFA and the Hughes Amendment. Other than that, it's a waste of time. Bringing back MG's is likely to get any bill killed due to the hatred of us owning such evil implements of fun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2010 1:15:23 PM EDT
[#25]
Havent you heard? Their "principles" are more important that those of the common citizen
Quoted:
Quoted:
Last year, many city leaders, including Norton, fiercely opposed loosening the District's gun laws. And on Wednesday, council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) denounced the possibility of a trade-off. "It's wrong, it's undemocratic and it's insulting, and we should not kneel down on our basic principles just to get this bill through," she said. "It's way too bitter a pill that we should be forced to sacrifice our public safety." Fuck their "basic principles." It's the CONSTITUTION, shitstain! Follow it, learn it, live it! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2010 1:18:02 PM EDT
[#26]
As a 35-year resident of the DC area, I'm perfectly OK with them not having voting rights.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2010 1:38:56 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
They KNOW McDonald is going to kill their ban anyway, so they are willing to trade it away to get a vote. Fuck them. I don't see how they can just start handing out votes to territories anyway. Seems to me that shit is enumerated quite plainly in the constitution. Do these arrogant fucks seriously think they can overrule the constitution with a simple bill/law? Agreed––-this is pure politics. Absent MacDonald I might (that's *might*) support it on Second Amendment grounds, but it gets a flat out no from me now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2010 1:48:07 PM EDT
[#28]
Utah Senator Orrin Hatch said last week that he would personally lead a filibuster if the House passed an amended version, so it's quite possible this is all for nothing anyway.
On a related note, it's amazing how conservative Hatch can be when he's thinking about re-election. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2010 4:15:39 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Utah Senator Orrin Hatch said last week that he would personally lead a filibuster if the House passed an amended version, so it's quite possible this is all for nothing anyway. On a related note, it's amazing how conservative Hatch can be when he's thinking about re-election. Hatch isn't a bad guy |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2010 4:24:22 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: Quoted: Anyone want to try and justify their votes that support giving reps and senators to DC? Yes. 1. The bill passes. 2. DC Residents get gun rights. 3. Someone files a brief with the SCOTUS on its constitutionality. 4. By 5 to 4, the voting portion of the law is declared unconstitutional. 5. The gun part is untouched. 6. Liberals explode. IIRC, current language says the bill goes right to SCOTUS for review automatically after the President signs it. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
