Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...
wow

Clarksburg, WV

#23681 Aug 23, 2013
Sundog512 wrote:
<quoted text>
The bible only applies when they find a way to use it against somebody. They certainly don't intend to live by its rules.
Well we have a president who does not want to go by rules no one has a problem with that.

“Of Course I Can”

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#23682 Aug 23, 2013
Correction: You have a president who doesn't want to go by YOUR rules. He seems pretty responsive to the people that elected him.
wow wrote:
<quoted text>
Well we have a president who does not want to go by rules no one has a problem with that.
wow

Clarksburg, WV

#23683 Aug 23, 2013
Sundog512 wrote:
Correction: You have a president who doesn't want to go by YOUR rules. He seems pretty responsive to the people that elected him.
<quoted text>
No not really most people tell me they are sorry they voted for him the second time. I did not make the constitution or the bill of rights. Not asking a lot of him just to follow those.

“Of Course I Can”

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#23684 Aug 23, 2013
Ah, so we are going to engage in an exchange of anecdotal information. I can play that game too.

Okay, well most people tell me they are glad they voted for him both times--especially since the republican party was in such disarray that they had no alternative to offer.

Can you tell me how he is not following the constitution or the bill of rights?
wow wrote:
<quoted text>
No not really most people tell me they are sorry they voted for him the second time. I did not make the constitution or the bill of rights. Not asking a lot of him just to follow those.
Arthur

United States

#23685 Aug 23, 2013
wow wrote:
<quoted text>
No not really most people tell me they are sorry they voted for him the second time. I did not make the constitution or the bill of rights. Not asking a lot of him just to follow those.
Amen to that. I voted for him twice but am very disappointed. I expect the president to the Constitution. I expect my president to obey the law even if it is inconvenient. I expect my president to tell the truth. Obama failed on all the above. OBAMA+Liberty=FAIL
Arthur

United States

#23686 Aug 23, 2013
I expect the president to honor, defend, and obey the Constitution. Obama failed his most important duty.

“Of Course I Can”

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#23687 Aug 23, 2013
I voted for him both times and am very happy with the results. He's got republicans spinning out of control and that always makes me happy.

;)
wow

Clarksburg, WV

#23688 Aug 23, 2013
Sundog512 wrote:
I voted for him both times and am very happy with the results. He's got republicans spinning out of control and that always makes me happy.
;)
I voted for him and I am not happy
wow

Clarksburg, WV

#23689 Aug 23, 2013
Sundog512 wrote:
Ah, so we are going to engage in an exchange of anecdotal information. I can play that game too.
Okay, well most people tell me they are glad they voted for him both times--especially since the republican party was in such disarray that they had no alternative to offer.
Can you tell me how he is not following the constitution or the bill of rights?
<quoted text>
The assassination of Anwar Al-Awlaki and his 16 year old son (both born in the US) was unconstitutional

Tried to negate the Second Amendment with a UN Treaty. Which was also against the oath he took upon becoming President!

Millions of guns transported into another country. We call that supporting terrorism, when illegal arms are shipped into a nation without its governments approval, but Obama can do it?

“what are you talking about you”

Level 8

Since: Mar 11

schlappington, by god

#23690 Aug 23, 2013
Sundog512 wrote:
Correction: You have a president who doesn't want to go by YOUR rules. He seems pretty responsive to the people that elected him.
<quoted text>
aint that the trewth!

http://youtu.be/e_JJLLfTR8I

howz that hope & chaynge werkin owt four yuns?

frig my lifes

“Of Course I Can”

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#23691 Aug 23, 2013
wow wrote:
<quoted text>
The assassination of Anwar Al-Awlaki and his 16 year old son (both born in the US) was unconstitutional
Not according to legal experts.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/09...
wow wrote:
<quoted text>Tried to negate the Second Amendment with a UN Treaty. Which was also against the oath he took upon becoming President!
"Tried to?" Or did?

Ever hear of Reid Vs. Covert?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert
wow wrote:
<quoted text>Millions of guns transported into another country. We call that supporting terrorism, when illegal arms are shipped into a nation without its governments approval, but Obama can do it?
Mexico is not a terrorist country but if you think they have a case, write your congressman.
Well Duh

Ashburn, VA

#23692 Aug 23, 2013
Lets see.....Obamacare. He lied to the American people and said it was not a tax. Arthur has show that interview many pages ago. Then when it was to go before the Suprme court it became a tax so it would pass. Not calling a coup when we all knew it was a coup is lying and side stepping our laws. Fast and furious program that killed boarder agents. IRS scandal under his watch. Bacon hater's favorite, Benghzi. Even if he was innocent, they still lied about it. Getting involved with three local cases and wrong on all three. Bush added 2 trillion to deficet in 8 years while Obama add 7 trillion in 4. Help fuel race anger. Should we continue?
Arthur

United States

#23693 Aug 23, 2013
Sundog512 wrote:
<quoted text>

"Tried to?" Or did?
Ever hear of Reid Vs. Covert?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert
Although the Constitution trumps any and all treaties and therefore it could not directly take away people gun rights, it could greatly limit the number of weapons choices we have. It also could seriously hinder the already low ammo supply of American gun owners. I suppose that was the purpose, to limit guns and ammo for everyone in the world, including Americans. I say they can take that treaty and shove it.

“Of Course I Can”

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#23694 Aug 23, 2013
Well Duh wrote:
Lets see.....Obamacare. He lied to the American people and said it was not a tax. Arthur has show that interview many pages ago. Then when it was to go before the Suprme court it became a tax so it would pass. Not calling a coup when we all knew it was a coup is lying and side stepping our laws. Fast and furious program that killed boarder agents. IRS scandal under his watch. Bacon hater's favorite, Benghzi. Even if he was innocent, they still lied about it. Getting involved with three local cases and wrong on all three. Bush added 2 trillion to deficet in 8 years while Obama add 7 trillion in 4. Help fuel race anger. Should we continue?
So all of those things are unconstitutional, or are you just lying again? If they are, then republicans are not doing their job of bringing him up on charges. What do you suppose the hold up is?

By the way, still waiting for you to show me where I defended the government employee who has a racist website. Seems to me if you want any of your allegations serious, you'd be willing to back them up.

“Of Course I Can”

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#23695 Aug 23, 2013
The constitution doesn't cover your choice of weapons. It says you have the right to bear arms. That's it.

Therefore, it is not a violation of the constitution.

If Americans have a low ammo supply (although I've had no difficulty buying anything), then maybe manufacturer should make more....unless they are enjoying the profits they are making by jacking up the prices.
Arthur wrote:
<quoted text>Although the Constitution trumps any and all treaties and therefore it could not directly take away people gun rights, it could greatly limit the number of weapons choices we have. It also could seriously hinder the already low ammo supply of American gun owners. I suppose that was the purpose, to limit guns and ammo for everyone in the world, including Americans. I say they can take that treaty and shove it.
Arthur

United States

#23696 Aug 23, 2013
Sundog512 wrote:
The constitution doesn't cover your choice of weapons. It says you have the right to bear arms. That's it.
Therefore, it is not a violation of the constitution.
If Americans have a low ammo supply (although I've had no difficulty buying anything), then maybe manufacturer should make more....unless they are enjoying the profits they are making by jacking up the prices.
<quoted text>
I didnt say the treaty was a Constitutional violation now did I? I just pointed out it is a sucky treaty meant to sidestep the Constitution and limit legal American gun owners choices to exercise their 2nd amendment right.

“Of Course I Can”

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#23697 Aug 23, 2013
It doesn't side-step the constitution at all. The constitution doesn't cover what kind of weapons you can own. It simply says you can own a weapon. The fact that you claim this treaty can limit he type of gun you can own is irrelevant to any discussion about the constitution.
Arthur wrote:
<quoted text>I didnt say the treaty was a Constitutional violation now did I? I just pointed out it is a sucky treaty meant to sidestep the Constitution and limit legal American gun owners choices to exercise their 2nd amendment right.

“Of Course I Can”

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#23698 Aug 23, 2013
It doesn't interfere with the second amendment at all because the second amendment does not mention your choice of gun. It simply says you have the right to own a gun.

“Of Course I Can”

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#23699 Aug 23, 2013
As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by this treaty. They can still keep and bear arms. There is no "side-stepping."

Since: Aug 13

Location hidden

#23700 Aug 23, 2013
A thought worth pondering: Why is it that the left is always quick to point out that Obamacare is the law and republicans need to get over it but the left is constantly complaining about the 2nd Amendment which has been the law for over two hundred years?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Huntington Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Coal isn't coming back 7 min Sea of tribulations 58
Deer hunting for meat to eat 25 min hoo doo you think... 129
typically addiction is a sickness 2 hr Sea of tribulations 1
Any older women been with a younger man? (Feb '12) 2 hr Truth 164
smmc board and ceo thread (Mar '15) 3 hr Indictments 159
Hospital FOIA Decision Clarificarion ? 4 hr Indictments 64
If you ever want to understand the liberal mind 4 hr Duh 4

Huntington Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Huntington Mortgages