gowlerk

The new boogeyman of course. The evil China. But of course they actually don't, you have just been trained to think they do.

You are correct. He will tweet and say all kinds of outrageous things about the judge and the court that would get any normal person slapped with a contempt charge in a millisecond. And it will be completely ignored. But......not forgotten, judges have ways of getting even.

This is an example of how the rest of the world views the US on this issue. God has indeed blessed America, but at the same time She has cursed it as well. As the saying goes, "it's complicated." In his autobiography Lazarus Rising: A Personal and Political Autobiography, Howard expressed his support for the anti-gun cause and his desire to introduce restrictive gun laws long before he became prime minister. In a television interview shortly before the 10th anniversary of the Port Arthur massacre, he reaffirmed his stance, "I did not want Australia to go down the American path. There are some things about America I admire and there are some things I don't. And one of the things I don't admire about America is their... slavish love of guns. They're evil."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_of_Australia As of 2011 and 2012, pistols and semi-automatic pistols were traded on the black market for ten to twenty thousand dollars. This is what happens when supply is limited. Criminals don't have weapons because they just can't afford them. Australia also has little federal power over guns. The laws are the result of agreements between the states and the feds. There is strong public support for the current set of laws which are not a ban on gun ownership, but a series of controls. This is what enforcing responsible ownership actually looks like. Public opinion[edit] In 2015, Essential Research performed a poll regarding the support for Australia's gun laws. The demographic-normalised poll found that 6% of Australians thought the laws were "too strong", 40% thought "about right" and 45% thought "not strong enough".[74] Essential Research repeated the poll a year later and found 6% thought the laws were too strong, 44% thought "about right" and 45% thought the laws were "not strong enough". It also found these views were consistent regardless of political party voting tendency for Labor, Coalition or Greens voters.[75][76][77]

Most truckers are to the right of the median most of the time.

Lock him up, lock him up.

https://fb.watch/jJMelgaBDY/ The latest FB post from the President of USPA. (His personal page to be clear) It is clear that HP flying is something to be glorified and encouraged despite the danger.

I guess so. But isn't it basically the same thing Cohen did serve time for? In any case, it's nice to see him have to deal with some real consequences for once. If not jail how about some home arrest time with an ankle bracelet and a PO to report to?

Thank you Bill.

It has pretty much been shown that EVs will be cheaper to run. People will are argue over the exact numbers. Are you trying to make a point here or do you just want us to research it for you? It would be pretty easy.

I am not familiar enough to comment. My impression is that perhaps some of them may go too far, but the principle may be fine. The devil is always in the details. Calling a right to self defense a "castle doctrine" raises some red flags for me because it sounds like an effort to dress things up in pretty words.

I believe no POTUS of any party can pardon him from the current NY State charges he is facing.

This post is 2 years old. I have given up on SCOTUS since then. A sensible system of laws in today's world allows for responsible governments to impose sensible gun control laws. The US constitution does not allow for common sense laws around guns. I no longer believe that the 2nd is mis-interpreted. It is pretty clear.

Half of all the people are of below median intelligence. And not just in the USA.

Well that certainly seems like exactly what will be done in the foreseeable future. SFA.

The amazing thing about this Trump legal drama is simply the fact that after so many years of lying and cheating so many people this is the first time he has been charged in a criminal court.

? Are you sure you understand the meaning of Phil's post? This thread is about the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of a certain nation ya know. I could start a thread about Canadian politics, and I have in the past. But do you really want to hear what I think about Pee-Pee?

I guess so. I could get worked up about something I suppose. Other than lack of support for the military industrial complex I can’t think of anything except the weather right now. There is the steady flow of weapons streaming over the southern border, maybe I should work on solving that?

That's how Roe got overturned. So maybe you can get it done. Good luck.

Sure, but only the SCOTUS can do that. No other body has the power to interpret the constitution in a legally binding way. The 2nd Amendment has very few words and is fairly clear except for this one sentence only provides a tiny amount of wiggle room. Likely the only way the Court will change the interpretation is in response to enormous public pressure. By that I mean an large and popular effort to amend the constitution. So yes, the nearly impossible task of actually getting that done may be bypassed but only if there is a strong demand for it. That is why people like Keith and Joe and Joe, and Wendy, and Tim and so many others need to start demanding an amendment. It probably won't happen but it may force the change you are asking about. And this argument that people will feel threatened by the possibility and buy even more weapons needs to be ignored. So freaking what? You already have far more guns than people in your nation. no one can shoot more than one at once, at least not effectively.

I can’t really see how anything else could be effective. Your ideas can’t pass unless my understanding of the way the constitution is interpreted is wrong. And even then they would not do the job. Even with the constitution changed it would still take a long time for new rules to be agreed to and implemented. I appreciate that you have reluctantly come around to your new position that rules are needed. But you still feel strongly that the 2nd is even more important. These are not compatible views. So to answer your question, yes. Quit wasting time and start working on the long slow process of fixing the root of the problem.

1750 to 1180 BCE I think their descendants are likely in the USA "gun belt". Or Turkey.

It would also need to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. That is where the ERA went to die.

I may also be needed to remember that CP is an international sport with a world championship. USPA believe it or not isn't the only organization that involved. If you want to play in the world you need to count the FAI as well.

In the post I copied and pasted from. Two posts above and quoted below. Just this morning.