but the Unemployed Porn Star view would be that the Supreme Court has already done that. In the Heller decision they said that, just as the First Amendment does not prohibit all laws regulating speech, the Second Amendment was likewise subject to limitations. But the core holding – that the Second Amendment codifies a private right to gun ownership – is not going to change in our lifetimes.
Nominees holding the view that only the militia is guaranteed gun ownershipwould never be confirmed. The prefatory clause is history...
Sometimes you got to wonder about the country we live in. Forcible blood draws, prosecutors wanting to forcibly cause a teenager to get an erection so they can take a picture of it. We really need to start dialing back our police and boot out the politicians that pass theses laws. And the saddest part, we have a supreme court that says this stuff is legal.
responsible people whom do not drive drunk.
The people you want to thank are the feminist at MADD.
...alone. That's the only one conservatives care about. They're jerking off to Scalia et.al. right now just thinking about those great rulings.
Spying on the American people ok with you DA? Spying on the press ok with you? Dems lying about the IRS scandal bother you?
Should we start dialing back Obama and his breaches of civil rights or is it ok because you have a man crush on him? Is he one of the politicians that you mention that need to be booted out?
Just want to see how intellectually honest you are with your "outrage" about our government's civil rights breaches.
Actually...Yes!! I've wriiten several letters to my congressman regarding these abuses. You should do the same.
Should we start dialing back Obama and his breaches of civil rights or is it ok because you have a man crush on him? Is he one of the politicians that you mention that need to be booted out?
Just want to see how intellectually honest you are with your "outrage" about our government's civil rights breaches.
is outweighed by the driver’s interest in being able to refuse the very minimal bodily invasion of a blood test?
Drunk drivers kill more Americans each year than terrorists even dream of killing. I find the hysteria about terrorism somewhat ironic when you consider that nearly 10,000 Americans each year are killed by drunk drivers; when you add the accidental gun shot deaths and injuries to these stats, it is pretty clear where the real dangers lie.
And in most cases, forced blood draws are not permitted unless the police obtain a warrant, which means they have to have a reasonable basis to believe the driver is drunk. The Supreme Court in fact said warrantless blood draws are illegal in most cases just a year ago. So the Court already "dialed it back" in a big way.
Driving is a privilege, not a right, and you agree to the state’s laws when you apply for a license. I'm all for prosecuting DUIs to the full extent of the law and for felony DUI the blood test is critical evidence for this.
Maybe you should rethink this one, DA
...a solution of how to reduce them. What minimally invasive solution to this real danger do you have that would be acceptable to the cold dead handers?
The technological solution would be “smart guns” or at least
improved safety devices. Why in the world are guns not “child proofed?” Surely we can manufacture enough safety devices to prevent the child -shooting- his- brother- or- sister tragedy.
Or why does Plaxico Burress shoot himself at the club? Was the safety off, is there no back up safety? Why did Federal Gu Safety Instructor Lee Page shoot himself in the foot with that Glock? Surely eh thought the safety was on. I'll let Spades tell me why guns are not made with redundant safety devices.
There is no legal solution until we get rid of the Second Amendment, and that’s not gonna happen
...the Second Amendment." That's exactly the way you see things - either black or white. More proof you're NOT a lawyer. A REAL lawyer sees things in more than fifty shades of gray. That's why they're seen as shysters by ignorant losers and that's why the very good ones get the BIG bucks.
Here's an idea - instead of throwing in the towel like you just did, you get justices who interpret the Second Amendment like the First Amendment has been, i.e., find the Second Amendment equivalent of "not yelling 'FIRE' in a crowded theater."
The problem is the current conservative justices are too busy jerking off with a piece of parchment around their cocks screaming "original intent!"
but the Unemployed Porn Star view would be that the Supreme Court has already done that. In the Heller decision they said that, just as the First Amendment does not prohibit all laws regulating speech, the Second Amendment was likewise subject to limitations. But the core holding – that the Second Amendment codifies a private right to gun ownership – is not going to change in our lifetimes.
Nominees holding the view that only the militia is guaranteed gun ownership
would never be confirmed. The prefatory clause is history...
The instant the second amendment would be repealed, anarchy and revolution would ensue.
There are things to make them safer. I d prefer biometrics to the smart gun RFID tags but the problem is compromise. Unless protections are written into new laws the NRA won't compromise. I am not sure I blame them. But that's bedsides the point. People should have to take firearm safety to buy a gun. That would help a lot towards preventing accidental shootings but they really aren't the problem. With our constitution unless we decide to lock up indefinitely violent offenders who commit felonies with firearms it ll be hard to change. If we say "you commit a felony with a firearm you will never see the light of day" it might change.
With 300,000,000 guns having less then .00001% accidental shootings is actually very surprising. Biometrics could help but it is also a big compromise for the NRA and gun owners. Add secondary protections and you might see some agreement on it. Without it it's very hard to blame them for not bending. Be honest do anti gunners, and I mean true antigunners want any compromise? You have stated that a complete ban is your personal goal, if you could compromise and get universal background checks and the NRA s agreement that they won't boycott or black ball manufactures that do offer safe gun tech would you agree to back off the only a shot gun/total ban issue?
The truth is responsible gun owners result in 5% of all shootings. Can we agree that making owners more responsible, expanding when and why mental health professionals can confinscate guns or ban new gun purchase, actually make a no purchase list would that be acceptable?
improved safety devices. Why in the world are guns not “child proofed?” Surely we can manufacture enough safety devices to prevent the child -shooting- his- brother- or- sister tragedy.
Or why does Plaxico Burress shoot himself at the club? Was the safety off, is there no back up safety? Why did Federal Gu Safety Instructor Lee Page shoot himself in the foot with that Glock? Surely eh thought the safety was on. I'll let Spades tell me why guns are not made with redundant safety devices.
There is no legal solution until we get rid of the Second Amendment, and that’s not gonna happen.
it is vastly overrated as a cause of concern. Not to say it isn't worrisome, but our worry seems to have exceeded the actual risk.
On a totally different topic, I think nuke reactors have received too much bad press over the years as well. There hasn't been a single death determined to have been caused by a nuke reactor accident in U.S. history and that includes Three Mile Island.
But 40,000 people die each and every year in car accidents and we don't give that a seconds thought.
hanks in large part to uniform federal standards and ...gasp... the trial lawyers who pioneered the "crashworthiness" suits but we have not done much to improve driver training and driver compliance with the laws. Reduce interstate speed limit and make trucks stay in the right lane – have you driven in France? are probably the two best ideas.
I don’t know enough about the dangers of modern nuclear plants to opine on that one but what to do with the waste is still a huge problem as far as I know
have become much more stupid.
Thank you
2014 = 28
Sure...if you think it's completely appropriate to strap a person down like they were at Guantanamo to get their blood. If they are going to draw blood than it needs to done in a respectful manner...period. The mentality that you display is precisely why we have a justice system that behaves they way they do. We have mothers being arrested for leaving children unattended for short periods of time, checkpoints for seat belts, drunk driving and other compliance issues. He'll, you can even get arrested for not cutting your grass, all because it make you feel good or safe. It is false security and it doesn't make you safe.
Drunk drivers kill more Americans each year than terrorists even dream of killing. I find the hysteria about terrorism somewhat ironic when you consider that nearly 10,000 Americans each year are killed by drunk drivers; when you add the accidental gun shot deaths and injuries to these stats, it is pretty clear where the real dangers lie.
And in most cases, forced blood draws are not permitted unless the police obtain a warrant, which means they have to have a reasonable basis to believe the driver is drunk. The Supreme Court in fact said warrantless blood draws are illegal in most cases just a year ago. So the Court already "dialed it back" in a big way.
Driving is a privilege, not a right, and you agree to the state’s laws when you apply for a license. I'm all for prosecuting DUIs to the full extent of the law and for felony DUI the blood test is critical evidence for this.
Maybe you should rethink this one, DA.