- Messages
- 5,783
- Reactions
- 11,253
About 2 minutes long. It's Fettermans assistant saying Fetter and would ban 2nd A.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Lost me.... Suggest what is the more likely explaination?If there's no reason to believe such a thing is the case, why posit, without evidence, that it may be, going so far as to suggest it's actually the more likely explanation?
"I'm a gun owner, but…"
Let's take it out of the abstract and back to the reality of the situation in question: The harshest gun control measure in the country (M114) passed in Oregon. It was quickly taken to court in Harney County (a rural, VERY pro-gun leaning county), and its implementation was frozen. The Oregon legislature then got together and decided to revive/rescue this measure in the form of (the nearly identical but actually worse) bill 348, this time stipulating that if anyone challenges this bill, it can only be done in (the generally more amenable to gun control) Marion County. The most sensible interpretation, the one most consistent with established patterns and available evidence, is that this was done to reduce the likelihood of a similar fate for 348 as was suffered by 114. Our intellectually dishonest (or perhaps comically naive and ignorant) gun control advocate here instead posited (without evidence or any research on the topic) that this explanation is an exercise in tinfoil hattery and the legislature is likely thinking about how how well equipped the courthouses are or some such thing.Lost me.... Suggest what is the more likely explaination?
There's no reason to believe that a law that Oregon made might be like a previous Oregon law? Really?If there's no reason to believe such a thing is the case, why posit, without evidence, that it may be, going so far as to suggest it's actually the more likely explanation?
"I'm a gun owner, but…"
No. Not really. You've provided no evidence that such a previous Oregon law exists. Your argument is, "it's more likely like some potential other previous Oregon law that I can't cite any example of."There's no reason to believe that a law that Oregon made might be like a previous Oregon law? Really?
It's okay I don't like kids who read good either.Another thread shot to hell by a single troll.
Do you really want to pay for more corrupt career politicians granted there are a few good one but I would rather have term limits than more politicians.We have had the same number of Representatives now, as we did in 1910. Yet the population has more than tripled.
4 Senators were added to the Senate when Hawaii and Alaska became States. But since then, the population of Puerto Rico has grown that it can become a State, and they have no representation in Congress;
And... the House won't consider increasing its size to get a more proportional representation of the population.
I'd say it's less where "most people are" and more "why isn't Congress changing to better fit the population"?
435 Representatives for over 331 million people.
That works out to an average of 760,000+ per Representative.
After 1910, 435 Representatives for 92,228,496 people. That worked out to 212,019 per Representative.
Tell me again, how is keeping Congress small "fair" to the population???
Edit. If we kept the proportional ratio of 1910, we would have had no less than 1,561 Representatives in Congress.
"We're losing because we give everything away for free and control no part of the process.""We're losing because we won't make concessions to the people who won't make any concessions to us."
Do you really want to be just another statistic out of 760,000+ people for your one Rep? I'd rather be one of 212,000 people, at the least with 2 year terms and smaller Congressional Districts, we aren't gonna get run roughshod by the urban centers over and over just because they have more people.Do you really want to pay for more corrupt career politicians granted there are a few good one but I would rather have term limits than more politicians.
I don't know there's bigger fish to fry then adding more career politicians.Do you really want to be just another statistic out of 760,000+ people for your one Rep? I'd rather be one of 212,000 people, at the least with 2 year terms and smaller Congressional Districts, we aren't gonna get run roughshod by the urban centers over and over just because they have more people.
Edit. Why not just reduce House of Reps to 100, that'd be fair right?
^^this, and every time it happens we go down ranting "shall not infringe"....."We're losing because we give everything away for free and control no part of the process."
I'm not so sure. The problem we are having is that far too few, if any politicians are held accountable for their actions in bringing up and passing and writing laws that facially violates the US Constitution... because on average, a population the size of Louisville is being represented by one person, in the House. You can write letters. You can call their staff. You can email them. It's just one out of 760,000 averaged out, per House Rep; is it any wonder they don't listen to their "constituents"?I don't know there's bigger fish to fry then adding more career politicians.
"We're losing because we give everything away for free and control no part of the process."
^^this, and every time it happens we go down ranting "shall not infringe".....
They don't listen because they know where the money is and it's not in gun rights at all but in those well funded anti gun groups like Bloomberg and every town.I'm not so sure. The problem we are having is that far too few, if any politicians are held accountable for their actions in bringing up and passing and writing laws that facially violates the US Constitution... because on average, a population the size of Louisville is being represented by one person, in the House. You can write letters. You can call their staff. You can email them. It's just one out of 760,000 averaged out, per House Rep; is it any wonder they don't listen to their "constituents"?
disagree, weve already proven here how all rights can and are regulated by laws. Shouting "shall not infringe" is really saying there should be no laws when thats not the case.That's like saying "since you're going to try and rape me, maybe it'll be better for me if we agree to just the tip, and you have to pull out."
You're not gaining anything and you're still getting bubblegumed in the bubblegum.
For some of us, it was already hashed out and decided a couple hundred years ago. There's nothing else to talk about. Everything since then has been an infringement. Sorry you don't like that word.disagree, weve already proven here how all rights can and are regulated by laws. Shouting "shall not infringe" is really saying there should be no laws when thats not the case.
Being part of the process is not giving in, laws will be made regardless of analogies, being part of the process of the laws is controlling the process.
Than join the other losers while people try to help you despite your lazy approach.For some of us, it was already hashed out and decided a couple hundred years ago. There's nothing else to talk about. Everything since then has been an infringement. Sorry you don't like that word.
"Controlling the process" of the theft of our rights is a non starter. There's a line in the sand for all of us, you can negotiate right up to it if you want to, but every time they will step over it and force you to draw a new line until there's nothing left.