LGBT Icon Kim Davis JAILED again

[Goosey 3,017]

1 hour ago, M Monstre said:

I'll never understand what goes through such ignorant and close-minded people. The Federal Government ruled in favor of gay marriage, what is there to argue?

The Supreme Court ruled that all Americans have the right to keep and bear arms, but many GagaDaily members like to think otherwise ("another shooting, ban guns now!!1!")

Just saying 

[Economy 52,860]

Look everyone has a right to their beliefs

 

but if this is bothering her so much she cant follow the rules then she really needs to consider another job

[Economy 52,860]

10 hours ago, Goosey said:

The Supreme Court ruled that all Americans have the right to keep and bear arms, but many GagaDaily members like to think otherwise ("another shooting, ban guns now!!1!")

Just saying 

Thats not the same thing

 

were not at a counter and refusing to sell guns

 

thinking the rules should be changed is different from directly violating it in your proffession

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

On 9/7/2016 at 10:10 PM, Goosey said:

The Supreme Court ruled that all Americans have the right to keep and bear arms, but many GagaDaily members like to think otherwise ("another shooting, ban guns now!!1!")

Just saying 

Lots of GagaDaily members, yourself included, aren't even Americans first of all 

Secondly, minus maybe myself and a few other radicals, almost all Americans are for gun control not sweeping gun bans (Yes, even Hillary  )

This has been your fact checker, signing out    

[Goosey 3,017]

15 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

minus maybe myself and a few other radicals, almost all Americans are for gun control not sweeping gun bans (Yes, even Hillary  )

What's that, dear? No sweeping bans?

 

" . . . she will also support work to keep military-style weapons off our streets"
"As senator, she . . . co-sponsored legislation to extend and reinstate the assault weapons ban"
"I believe weapons of war have no place on our streets."

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/gun-violence-prevention/

 

Hillary Clinton calls for reinstituting assault weapons ban after Orlando attack

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton on Monday called for reinstituting a ban on so-called assault weapons in the wake of the deadly terrorist attack in Orlando.

“We did have an assault weapons ban for 10 years, and I think it should be reinstated,” she said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/13/hillary-clinton-calls-reinstituting-assault-weapon/

 

 

 

 

This has been your fact-checker, signing out.

 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

57 minutes ago, Goosey said:

What's that, dear? No sweeping bans?

 

" . . . she will also support work to keep military-style weapons off our streets"
"As senator, she . . . co-sponsored legislation to extend and reinstate the assault weapons ban"
"I believe weapons of war have no place on our streets."

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/gun-violence-prevention/

 

Hillary Clinton calls for reinstituting assault weapons ban after Orlando attack

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton on Monday called for reinstituting a ban on so-called assault weapons in the wake of the deadly terrorist attack in Orlando.

“We did have an assault weapons ban for 10 years, and I think it should be reinstated,” she said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/13/hillary-clinton-calls-reinstituting-assault-weapon/

 

 

 

 

This has been your fact-checker, signing out.

 

Assault Weapons are specific, e.g. not "sweeping" in the sense of all guns, which you have repeatedly accused her of being for in the past 

It's not "ban guns now", its "let's take steps to prevent further incidents, whatever that may look like" and that might include an assault weapon ban to some people  

 

[Goosey 3,017]

3 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Assault Weapons are specific, e.g. not "sweeping" in the sense of all guns, which you have repeatedly accused her of being for in the past 

That is sweeping, not "specific".

It doesn't need to include every single firearm to be "sweeping". If domestic automakers said they were discontinuing all their hatchbacks, that would be "sweeping". 

 

sweeping
adjective

1. wide in range or effect.
2. wide, broad, affecting or touching upon many things

 

 

 

Do you think so-called "assault weapons" are only owned by a few people? Because you'd be wrong. The AR-15 alone is the best-selling rifle in America. Have you been inside a gun store? Check how many "assault weapons" they will have on the walls. 8,000,000 owners and that's just one model, how about all the other so-called "assault weapons"? That sounds pretty "sweeping" to me.

The AR-15 has grown so popular that the National Rifle Association has dubbed it "America's rifle." One industry group estimates that U.S. citizens now own more than 8 million AR-15 rifles.

Source: CBS News, "America's Favorite Gun"

http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/americas-favorite-gun/

 

 

[PartySick 172,545]

On 9/5/2016 at 3:05 PM, Lion Heart said:

“Her good faith belief is simply not a viable defense,” Bunning said, noting that allowing an individual’s beliefs to supersede the court’s authority would set a dangerous precedent.

“I myself have genuinely held religious beliefs,” the judge said, but “I took an oath.”

“Mrs. Davis took an oath,” he added. “Oaths mean things.”

So right

If her personal religious beliefs keep her from doing the job that she's paid for in tax payers' money, then she needs to step down (or be impeached). Otherwise, she needs to do her job. Those are the only two options.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

8 minutes ago, Goosey said:

That is sweeping, not "specific".

It doesn't need to include every single firearm to be "sweeping". If domestic automakers said they were discontinuing all their hatchbacks, that would be "sweeping". 

 

sweeping
adjective

1. wide in range or effect.
2. wide, broad, affecting or touching upon many things

 

 

There's a difference between sweeping as in, all guns ("ban guns now") and banning assault weapons (ban some guns now) Even if it is a relative "all"  I just said this in my last post  

Not replying again since you don't seem interested in actually responding to what I said. Most Americans, including Hillary, are not for any sort of ban-all-guns legislation, and those that are for banning any guns that aren't currently already banned are advocating for this for demonstrably good reason. /discussion

[PartySick 172,545]

On 9/7/2016 at 11:10 PM, Goosey said:

The Supreme Court ruled that all Americans have the right to keep and bear arms, but many GagaDaily members like to think otherwise ("another shooting, ban guns now!!1!")

Just saying 

In 1791 though

And no one wants to ban guns...er, at least I don't and the same goes for the bast majority of people that also support tougher/smarter laws, restrictions, regulation, and resources diverted to making things such as the FBI terror watch list anything other than a joke so it can be properly used to justify taking away someone's "right" (privilege) of owning a gun.

But this is about a county clerk that refuses to do her job on religious grounds even though she works for a secular government and is paid with tax dollars. Despite our secular supreme court deciding all people have the right to a legal partnership and the many statuses/rights that come with it, she still refuses to follow through. It's hardly comparable

2 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Most Americans, including Hillary, are not for any sort of ban-all-guns legislation, and those that are for banning any guns that aren't currently already banned are advocating for this for demonstrably good reason.

I personally think a person would have to be crazy to want to ban guns. There's no way you'd be able to confiscate every weapon in the country and even if you could, there's still a criminal underground where weapons would come from. Guns kind of create their own necessity...if we didn't have them, we wouldn't "need" them, but we do have them...

Anyway, the gun conversation is way off topic. @Goosey feel free to make a reply if you want to try and wrap up this mini conversation though before the thread is really derailed 

[Goosey 3,017]

39 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

There's a difference between sweeping as in, all guns ("ban guns now") and banning assault weapons (ban some guns now) Even if it is a relative "all"  I just said this in my last post  

Banning all so-called "assault weapons" is "sweeping". That silly label covers many hundreds of different models and several classes of firearms, handguns, shotguns, rifles, etc. 

41 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Not replying again since you don't seem interested in actually responding to what I said.

Suit yourself! Although I think you're the one who keeps repeating "they don't want to ban all guns" instead of responding.

I already know what Hillary Clinton wants. I know the views and policies of people like Clinton, Bloomberg, Feinstein et al. a lot better than you, since I actually follow these things daily.

 

32 minutes ago, PartySick said:

And no one wants to ban guns...er, at least I don't and the same goes for the bast majority of people that also support tougher/smarter laws, restrictions, regulation, and resources diverted to making things such as the FBI terror watch list anything other than a joke so it can be properly used to justify taking away someone's "right" (privilege) of owning a gun.

You don't need to put "right" in quotation marks. 

Who decides what are rights and what are not? Answer: the Supreme Court. They have decided that owning a firearm is a right for law-abiding American citizens. That's not a matter of your opinion, or Hillary Clinton's, or mine—it's a fact of law. Here is the relevant case:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

48 minutes ago, PartySick said:

making things such as the FBI terror watch list anything other than a joke so it can be properly used to justify taking away someone's "right" (privilege) of owning a gun.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who are not typically "pro-gun", is opposed to this, at least with the way these secret lists currently work:

 

The Use of Error-Prone and Unfair Watchlists Is Not the Way to Regulate Guns in America

Our nation’s watchlisting system is error-prone and unreliable because it uses vague and overbroad criteria and secret evidence to place individuals on blacklists without a meaningful process to correct government error and clear their names. 

The government contends that it can place Americans on the No Fly List who have never been charged let alone convicted of a crime, on the basis of prediction that they nevertheless pose a threat (which is undefined) of conduct that the government concedes “may or may not occur.” Criteria like these guarantee a high risk of error and it is imperative that the watchlisting system include due process safeguards—which it does not. In the context of the No Fly List, for example, the government refuses to provide even Americans who know they are on the List with the full reasons for the placement, the basis for those reasons, and a hearing before a neutral decision-maker. 

https://www.aclu.org/blog/washington-markup/use-error-prone-and-unfair-watchlists-not-way-regulate-guns-america

 

50 minutes ago, PartySick said:

 @Goosey feel free to make a reply if you want to try and wrap up this mini conversation though before the thread is really derailed 

Aaaaaaaaaaaand done.