Moms make case for gun control

Mar 16, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: usatoday.com

Peg Paulson had never beaten a path through the halls of Congress before or met a U.S. senator's staffer or advocated for a controversial issue.

Comments
6,781 - 6,800 of 9,288 Comments Last updated Jun 7, 2014

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7938
Nov 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

huntcoyotes wrote:
<quoted text>You're also wrong, Closet Homosexual.
The difference, my out of the closet limp wristed fairy, is I can prove you wrong while the only thing you can do is roll around on the floor crying "wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhh you're wrong you're wrong! wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh".

Stick to what you know, Pubic Heir: making lonely soldiers happy in bathroom stalls just off base.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7939
Nov 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

2ndAmRight wrote:
Dec. 22, 1835.
Does this sound familiar, GayDavyQ?

Not the remotest connection to the topic.

Help stamp out CenturySpam™!! Flag appropriately!
2ndAmRight wrote:
I'm not the one stuck in the 1800's troll, >you< are.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7940
Nov 29, 2013
 
huntcoyotes wrote:
<quoted text>What's sad is that people get together and have families so large
The average size of a Mexican family is 3.9.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7941
Nov 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

huntcoyotes wrote:
<You should research the concentual age for girls in Mexico- 25 of their 31 states allow sex at age 14.
for "concentual" eh?

For girls age of CONSENT in Massachusetts it's 12.

Anything else, my limped wristed fairy?

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7942
Nov 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference, my out of the closet limp wristed fairy, is I can prove you wrong while the only thing you can do is roll around on the floor crying "wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhh you're wrong you're wrong! wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh".
Stick to what you know, Pubic Heir: making lonely soldiers happy in bathroom stalls just off base.
he only thing >you< have EVER "proven wrong" is YOURSELF.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7943
Nov 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The average size of a Mexican family is 3.9.
How interesting! For that's the same as your IQ.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7944
Nov 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Does this sound familiar, GayDavyQ?
Not the remotest connection to the topic.
Help stamp out CenturySpam™!! Flag appropriately!
<quoted text>
That you keep replying to time after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time .........

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7946
Nov 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
That you keep replying to time after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time .........
stop posting spam, GumsShow.

simple.

Help stamp out CenturySpam™!! Flag appropriately!
2ndAmRight wrote:
I'm not the one stuck in the 1800's troll, >you< are.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7947
Nov 29, 2013
 
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
stop posting spam, GumsShow.
simple.
Help stamp out CenturySpam™!! Flag appropriately!
<quoted text>
Yes, you are "simple" indeed.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7948
Nov 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you are "simple" indeed.
wow... how sad for you.

George: The ocean called...

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7949
Nov 29, 2013
 
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
wow... how sad for you.
George: The ocean called...
Senselessness seems to be your forte.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7950
Nov 29, 2013
 
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
wow... how sad for you.
George: The ocean called...
"...The Senate proceeded, as the Constitution provides, to reconsider the bill (S. 60) to amend an act entitled An act to establish a Bureau for the relief of Freedmen and Refugees," and for other purposes, returned by the President of the United States to the Senate, with his objections; which bill is in the following words, to wit:

"THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

"AT THE FIRST SESSION, BEGUN AND HELD AT THE CITY OF WASHINGTON ON MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER, ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND SIXTY-FIVE.

"AN ACT to amend an act entitled 'An act to establish a Bureau for the relief of Freedmen and Refugees,' and for ether purposes.

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the act to establish a Bureau for the relief of Freedmen and Refugees, approved March three, eighteen hundred and sixty-five, shall continue in force until otherwise provided by law, and shall extend to refugees and freedmen in all parts of the United States, and the President may divide the section of country containing such refugees and freedmen into districts, each containing one or more States, not to exceed twelve in number, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint an Assistant Commissioner for each of said districts, who shall give like bond, receive the compensation, and perform the duties prescribed by this and the act to which this is an amendment; or said bureau may, in the discretion of the President, be placed under a Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners, to be detailed from the army, in which event each officer so assigned to duty shall serve without increase of pay or allowances...."

"...Sec. 7. And be it further enacted, That whenever in any State or district in which the ordinary course of judicial proceedings has been interrupted by the rebellion, and wherein, in consequence of any State or local law, ordinance, police or other regulation, custom, or prejudice, any of the civil rights or immunities belonging to white persons, including the right to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property, and to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and estate, including the constitutional right of bearing arms, are refused or denied to negroes, mulattoes, freedmen, refugees, or any other persons, on account of race, color, or any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, or wherein they or any of them are subjected to any other or different punishment, pains, or penalties, for the commission of any act or offence, than are prescribed for white persons committing like acts or offences, it shall be the duty of the President of the United States, through the Commissioner, to extend military protection and jurisdiction over all cases affecting such persons so discriminated against...."

[Monday, February 19, 1866, Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1873]

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7951
Nov 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

++++++++++ 1800's++++++++

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Does this sound familiar, GayDavyQ?

Not the remotest connection to the topic.

Help stamp out CenturySpam™!! Flag appropriately!
2ndAmRight wrote:
I'm not the one stuck in the 1800's troll, >you< are.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7952
Nov 29, 2013
 
barefoot2626 wrote:
++++++++++ 1800's++++++++
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Does this sound familiar, GayDavyQ?
Not the remotest connection to the topic.
Help stamp out CenturySpam™!! Flag appropriately!
<quoted text>
“Both Heller and McDonald suggest that First Amendment analogues are more appropriate, see Heller, 554 U.S. at 582, 595, 635; McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3045, and on the strength of that suggestion, we and other circuits have already begun to adapt First Amendment doctrine to the Second Amendment context.”--Circuit Judge Diane S. Sykes, July 6, 2011, United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit,[RHONDA EZELL, et al., v. CITY OF CHICAGO]

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7954
Nov 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
“Both Heller and McDonald suggest
Gosh, GayDAvy: when I reminded you of the Heller ruling, let's see what you said:
2ndAmRight wrote:
Just because a group of feces-flinging monkeys adorned in black robes declare it so.
HAHAAHAHAHAHAH!

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

Justice Scalia
This Century
Heller Decision
from the Supreme Court of the United States

Heller Decision

Heller Decision

Heller Decision

Heller Decision

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7955
Nov 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gosh, GayDAvy: when I reminded you of the Heller ruling, let's see what you said:
<quoted text>
HAHAAHAHAHAHAH!
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
Justice Scalia
This Century
Heller Decision
from the Supreme Court of the United States
Heller Decision
Heller Decision
Heller Decision
Heller Decision
"More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."--Mr. Chief Justice TANEY, U.S. Supreme Court, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856).

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7956
Nov 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

2ndAmRight wrote:
-Mr. Chief Justice TANEY, U.S. Supreme Court, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856).
Does this sound familiar, GayDavyQ?

Not the remotest connection to the topic.

Help stamp out CenturySpam™!! Flag appropriately!
2ndAmRight wrote:
I'm not the one stuck in the 1800's troll, >you< are.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7957
Nov 29, 2013
 
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Does this sound familiar, GayDavyQ?
Not the remotest connection to the topic.
Help stamp out CenturySpam™!! Flag appropriately!
<quoted text>
No, more like your God-less and treasonous spew sounds familiar. Don't you think that you will answer for all of your lies and deception, troll? For you will indeed.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7958
Nov 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gosh, GayDAvy: when I reminded you of the Heller ruling, let's see what you said:
<quoted text>
HAHAAHAHAHAHAH!
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
Justice Scalia
This Century
Heller Decision
from the Supreme Court of the United States
Heller Decision
Heller Decision
Heller Decision
Heller Decision
Are you still trying to sell that? NO OTHER laws were before the court and that STATEMENT by just one justice was NOT a ruling by the court.

You also missed the part of OTHER relief might be available to the plaintiff but was not presented to the court therefor NO RULING on those OTHER laws.

Ha ha ha, I love it when you keep repeating the same old proven lie. It just reinforces that you are an idiot. 1 For using it in the first place. 2 For keep repeating it after it is debunked.

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Mexico, Mexico

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7959
Nov 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>You don't know what the 2nd Amendment is, azzwipe.

Of course, you told us that you served in the Army and then said you didn't know what a PFC was.

Buying a Chinese made American flag form Walmart doesn't make you a good American, Shug, and certainly you cannot sit in judgement of others, including people sliding under the fence in Arizona for the first time.
More gay sex fantasies

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••