Romney loses in Florida to McCain...

[_Pokatator]

Davey wouldn't have been much of a Crocket without a gun.

Don't you practice ancestor worship like you do Hillary worship?

[_rcrocket]

2. Gun control. Most Mormons believe that they have a right to bear arms and that it is close to revelatory status. They are wrong. Guns should be banned.

So, you don't agree with the US Constitution?

In 1939 (within a year or so), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the 2nd Amendment was not intended to apply to the private ownership of guns. In that case, a person convicted of possessing a saw-off shotgun asserted the 2nd Amendment as a defense.

So, I am rather surprised that the Supreme Court has taken the matter up again with a similar case -- the case is set for oral argument I believe, but I fully expect the Supreme Court to follow the 1939 precedent.

Even so, what has Mormonism to do with gun control?

I don't think it has anything to do with gun control.

I don't agree with your analysis of the 2nd amendment case.

As to the Miller case in 1939, I would refer you to this: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html

Miller applies. Second Amendment idiots hate Miller and find all sorts of ways to criticize it, as your cite demonstrates. I am confident the current Court will cite Miller. But, if the Second Amendment protected the private ownership of guns, we would have an appellate decision by now which says that. It doesn't.


As to the rest of the posters above, it is come down to morons opposing me. And, Merc, I DO have a computer science degree -- a minor -- and I am pretty sure I could clean your clock in that area.

rcrocket

[_Jason Bourne]

?

Hillary Clinton is the most experienced person to lead this country. She is probably, as well, the most intelligent. McCain is an idiot compared to her. Romney is not experienced.

Hillary was the wife of a governor, the wife of a president's and a senator for 7 years now. She has experience. Not the 34 years that she claims. I will give her some credit for fist lady as she was most likely pretty active with Bill's presidency. But more experience than McCain? Hardly. McCain and idiot? You may not like his politics but he is not an idiot. you calling him an idiot is as bad as someone putting Hillary down as the nagging wife. More experience than Romney? Well lhe has four years as governor to her 7 as a senator. But he is far more experienced in the real world. Hillary has no business background. I think Romney is smarter than her as well.

[_ozemc]

2. Gun control. Most Mormons believe that they have a right to bear arms and that it is close to revelatory status. They are wrong. Guns should be banned.

So, you don't agree with the US Constitution?

In 1939 (within a year or so), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the 2nd Amendment was not intended to apply to the private ownership of guns. In that case, a person convicted of possessing a saw-off shotgun asserted the 2nd Amendment as a defense.

So, I am rather surprised that the Supreme Court has taken the matter up again with a similar case -- the case is set for oral argument I believe, but I fully expect the Supreme Court to follow the 1939 precedent.

Even so, what has Mormonism to do with gun control?

I don't think it has anything to do with gun control.

I don't agree with your analysis of the 2nd amendment case.

As to the Miller case in 1939, I would refer you to this: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html

Miller applies. Second Amendment idiots hate Miller and find all sorts of ways to criticize it, as your cite demonstrates. I am confident the current Court will cite Miller. But, if the Second Amendment protected the private ownership of guns, we would have an appellate decision by now which says that. It doesn't.

Again, I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

The 2nd amendment very clearly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

As to the rest of the posters above, it is come down to morons opposing me. And, Merc, I DO have a computer science degree -- a minor -- and I am pretty sure I could clean your clock in that area.

rcrocket

[_dartagnan]

There is virtually no effort to stem the tide of drug traffic and illegal immigration across the Canadian border. I have first-hand knowledge of observing the trafficking of bales of marijuana across the Montana border in heavy-duty transport trucks. They just drive on dirt roads with nobody to stop them.

Canadians are not coming here in droves illegally. You're telling me that because we focus most of our efforts where most of the illegals are coming through, that makes the law racist? Are you really so limited in your thinking abilities? American didn't as Mexico to be "brown" and poor, nor did it ask them to comprise the vast majority of illegal immigrants. That's just they way it is.

On the Mexican border, where my father-in-law served for 30 years in the INS, the laws and their application are completely irrational --- contrary to what existed 100 years ago or more when your ancestors immigrated to the states.

Don't play that ridiculous "your ancestors" card OK? The United States did not want immigrants at Ellis Island who were sick, criminals or likely to become a ward of the state, no matter where they were from. The laws seem to change according to the needs of American society. There has to be a system of legal immigration in force in our day. Allowing just anyone to come here simply because they want to, is not a practical way to run or govern a society.

Immigration policy started, as its foundation, to exclude Chinks, Micks and Wops.

Are you arguing about how racist it was, or is? You're talking about the past, long ago. I'm asking for evidence that the laws are racist NOW.

Even today, immigration excludes the poor but admits the wealthy.

Yes, and for good reason. For example, virtually every Brazilian who comes here violates his/her visa restrictions and remains permanently, eventually buying an illegal SS card for $40 on the black market and getting a job. It is almost a given. I know. I hang out with the entire Brazilian communities in both Atlanta and Orlando. They come on a student or tourist visa and end up staying.

Because of this, it is now extremely difficult to get a tourist visa from Brazil. A Brazilian has to show that he already has a job, own a car, and maybe a house. I know because I wanted to come back from Brazil with a maid who watches our children, but she couldn't obtain one because she had no assets in Brazil. It was disappointing, but it was a stipulation that was necessary because of Brazilians who break the law. To the point, the government didn't trust her. Not because of her race, but because they know people in Brazil are less likely to violate their visas if they have jobs, family, assets etc. Its common sense really.

The effect, therefore, is to exclude the browns.

Um, "the browns" are the ones flooding the country by the millions. I served part of my mission in Santa Ana California. We'd knock on doors and see in some apartments there were two dozen Mexicans living on the floor. Oddly enough, they managed to all have a TV and VCR so we could play Church videos for them. When they are here illegally, criminal activity is not only an attractive lifestyle, it can become a necessity for survival. And what's worse, billions of potential revenues earned by illegal immigrants are sent back to their home countries, so it isn't like they are contributing or putting back much into our economy.

If we just opened the borders entirely, do we really doubt that there is a single Mexican in Mexico who wouldn't be on his way? Are we prepared to absorb 100 million from Latin America?

[_Sethbag]

As far as "immigrant drivers licenses," I just don't get the hostility to this -- unless you are a bigot.

To illegal aliens that is. She supports giving government issued ID to people who are here illegally. Obama nailed her on it and she was left bumbling and seeking for the right words.

Then Obama was pandering to the bigots. I'm OK with government issued ID (driver's license) for illegal immigrants, because at least we'd know who they were. I'm for insurance companies selling auto insurance to illegal immigrants too. Sure, they're not supposed to be here, but when they crash into my car I still want to know who they are, and make sure I'm covered.

Let's see. A guy, or a family, is so desperate to be in the US that they sneak in past whatever border controls we have. Is that person not going to drive just because they haven't got a license? Hello, they didn't have a Visa to enter the country either, and that didn't stop them. If they're gonna be here despite our other laws prohibiting it, and if they're gonna be driving, I'd rather know who they are when they get pulled over or get arrested, or get into an accident, or whatever.

You just dished out the typical talking points but nothing changes the fact that she is a failure and a liberal socialist. She rode the coat tails of her husband. That is what history is showing us.

And the hilarious thing is, whose coattails did George W. Bush ride? He would never have been anything at all in government if his daddy hadn't been George H. W. Bush, and anyone who disputes that ought to be laughed out of town. And Hillary's apparently way, way smarter than GWB.

Oh, and Mitt Romney assumed the governorship of Massachusetts after having held exactly which elected office previously? Oh yeah, he headed up the SLC olympics, so that was enough experience to be a state governor. Uhuh.

[_asbestosman]

The 2nd amendment very clearly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

And yet, clearly it is. We prohibit some people from bearing arms--convicted felons for one (I think). We also limit the sort of arms other citizens may obtain (no automatic weapons If I recall correctly).

[_rcrocket]

The 2nd amendment very clearly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

And yet, clearly it is. We prohibit some people from bearing arms--convicted felons for one (I think). We also limit the sort of arms other citizens may obtain (no automatic weapons If I recall correctly).

Remember, since Marbury v. Madison it is the Supreme Court which interprets the constitution. By now, wouldn't you think that some appellate court would have said that the Second Amendment pertains to the private ownership of firearms (Miller having said that a militia does not extend to the private ownership of arms).

[_rcrocket]

Um, "the browns" are the ones flooding the country by the millions. I served part of my mission in Santa Ana California. We'd knock on doors and see in some apartments there were two dozen Mexicans living on the floor. Oddly enough, they managed to all have a TV and VCR so we could play Church videos for them. When they are here illegally, criminal activity is not only an attractive lifestyle, it can become a necessity for survival. And what's worse, billions of potential revenues earned by illegal immigrants are sent back to their home countries, so it isn't like they are contributing or putting back much into our economy.

If we just opened the borders entirely, do we really doubt that there is a single Mexican in Mexico who wouldn't be on his way? Are we prepared to absorb 100 million from Latin America?

I reiterate. You are a racist and a bigot -- "Mexicans" and Muslims. Why bother even talking to you? You've made up your mind on the basis of one's skin color.

[_Sethbag]

?

Hillary Clinton is the most experienced person to lead this country. She is probably, as well, the most intelligent. McCain is an idiot compared to her. Romney is not experienced.

Hillary was the wife of a governor, the wife of a president's and a senator for 7 years now. She has experience. Not the 34 years that she claims. I will give her some credit for fist lady as she was most likely pretty active with Bill's presidency. But more experience than McCain? Hardly. McCain and idiot? You may not like his politics but he is not an idiot.

Yeah I'm not sure I agree that Hillary has more experience than McCain, but she certainly has more experience than Obama, and Romney. And in a way she might have more relevant experience than McCain in the sense that she was up close and personal with the 8 year presidency of her husband, and with his previous governorship, and that's executive branch experience that McCain hasn't got. I think it's funny that conservatives used to rail on Hillary for playing too much of a role in Bill's government, but now that same up close and personal experience she had doesn't count? I don't agree.

But he [Romney] is far more experienced in the real world. Hillary has no business background.

The cattle futures don't count? ;-)

I think Romney is smarter than her as well.

I don't know about that. She's pretty smart, whether you like her or not. He went to Harvard Law, she went to Yale Law. You've gotta be pretty damn smart to get into either one. I'm guessing they're both pretty darn smart, and after a certain point I'm not sure how one would tell who was really smarter, nor see that it would matter. If her IQ were 140 and his were 145, would that really make much of a difference to how they'd act as President?