-
Member Statistics
45,988
Total Members1,837
Most Online
-
Posts
-
I finally got around to reading Sotomayor’s dissent. She makes a kind of logical argument. Sotomayor then negates her own stance however when describing it. It was shown that a person can fire in the same rapid fashion by hooking your thumb through your belt loop and firing from the hip without changing any right parts. Her response was that it wasn’t as accurate. So her definition of a machine gun is now is apparently not how fast you can fire but simply how accurate you are when doing so. The bottom line is that the definition of a machine gun by law passed by Congress is a firearm that can fire more than once with a “single function of the trigger”. Then she goes on to explain that the trigger resets with each shot and has to be functioned again…. making it a semiautomatic. She argues against herself and paints herself into a corner with the actual function of the rifle. I could go on to take down her argument but certainly there is no point in this forum. In the First Amendment guarantees on free speech, some disgusting things must be allowed to be said or demonstrated in the name of freedom because when the government steps in and decides whose speech is allowed, you no longer have free speech. Determining constitutionality on emotions (which was voted on by three justices in this case) is not a good thing as we might then lose any constitutional rights. -
-
-
-
By 5GallonBucket · Posted
Yeah liberals have no leg to stand on. lesser of two evils: k.i.s.s. Keep it simple stupid. speaking of kissing: how bout all those kisses biden gives to children. liberals: whackos
-
-
Topics
-
Recommended Posts