Sad when the Onion is this right

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the craziest thing in this whole debate is that Congress could not pass a law that over 90% of the population supported. The NRA has so much power that it is able to kill a bill that most rational people (including gun owners) support. I think almost everyone (except the most extreme) would not fight keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill (or felons). Yet the NRA opposes even these limitations as part of the slippery slope. It is mind boggling.

What's the big deal? Get the votes to change the constitution and get rid of the 2nd amendment or open back up the mental institutions where all the mentally unstable and "homeless" (Aka crazy) people used to be committed


Problem solved. Stop whining , you sound crazy enough to put on your own cannot by a gun list.

It's pretty clear that the constitution need not be changed to regulate gun use (i.e. background checks, licensing requirements, limits on ammunition, assault weapon bans, etc. . .); the only people who believe to the contrary are NRA nutbags who have been drinking the kool-aid.

Shall not be infringed. So voter id is no infringement either. All those rules for gun ownership restrict the rights of poor people by increasing gun costs

BZZZZ. Thank you for playing "I don't understand Constitutional law!"

You see, there are these things called "balancing tests" that the courts use to evaluate whether a law that infringes a Constitutional right passes Constitutional or not.

If a law infringes on a Constitutional right, the government has to demonstrate that there is a compelling state interest in regulating whatever the law regulates, and has to demonstrate that the law achieves that regulation in the most narrowly tailored way possible.

Thus, in the case of voter ID laws, since the various state governments, like Wisconsin, were unable to identify a single case of in-person voter ID fraud, and were unable to explain to the court's satisfaction why anyone would actually commit in-person voter ID fraud, the cost to the people who had to go get IDs was judged to be too high given the very small (if not non-existent) risk to the integrity of the voting system that would be mitigated by requiring photo IDs.

If the government were able to demonstrate a compelling interest in regulating access to firearms, and could demonstrate that it was regulating access to firearms in a way that was narrowly tailored to minimize the impact on 2nd Amendment rights while still achieving that purpose, then that law should pass Constitutional muster.

Please come back and play again sometime when you've learned a little more about how your own government works.

It's for Congress and the Courts to decide. And they've clearly already decided that such things as restricting ownership of fully-auto machine guns or restricting ownership of guns by felons are not a violation of the Second Amendment. And if those are not infringement, then neither would be background checks or restricting sale of 30 round magazines.

[Anonymous]

Time for the NRA to be muzzled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Time for the NRA to be muzzled.

Along with the lesbian gay lobby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Time for the NRA to be muzzled.

No need to muzzle them. Eventually they will expose themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Time for the NRA to be muzzled.

No need to muzzle them. Eventually they will expose themselves.

As what? Lesbians?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Time for the NRA to be muzzled.

No need to muzzle them. Eventually they will expose themselves.

As what? Lesbians?

Nah, NRA members are sexually impotent, which is why they need guns as a proxy to substitute for their lack of having a stiff dick. Lesbians on the other hand can get the job done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Time for the NRA to be muzzled.

No need to muzzle them. Eventually they will expose themselves.

As what? Lesbians?

Nah, NRA members are sexually impotent, which is why they need guns as a proxy to substitute for their lack of having a stiff dick. Lesbians on the other hand can get the job done.

Seriously! Give a lesbian the right tools and she can do anything!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Time for the NRA to be muzzled.

Unfortunately you can't muzzle them. All you can do is try to change the tide of public opinion to the point where few people listen to them.

The NRA's weaponry is the members (and non-members) who vote based on the NRA's recommendations and who write letters to their representatives.

Until those people stop believing that any regulation of gun ownership constitutes the first step to confiscation and totalitarianism, the only thing that can stop the NRA is an equally motivated and well funded campaign to support and reward politicians who take a reasonable stance on gun regulation.

Bloomberg's organization has a chance of doing this, but it'll take work and support.

[Anonymous]

This group filed amicus briefs in Heller and McDonald:

http://www.pinkpistols.org/

They have nothing to do with the NRA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This group filed amicus briefs in Heller and McDonald:

http://www.pinkpistols.org/

They have nothing to do with the NRA.

They say on the website that they work with the NRA. And they also said they collaborated with the NRA in writing their amicus brief in Heller.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This group filed amicus briefs in Heller and McDonald:

http://www.pinkpistols.org/

They have nothing to do with the NRA.

They say on the website that they work with the NRA. And they also said they collaborated with the NRA in writing their amicus brief in Heller.

So are you homophobic? Do you oppose the LGBT community protecting itself from gay-bashing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This group filed amicus briefs in Heller and McDonald:

http://www.pinkpistols.org/

They have nothing to do with the NRA.

They say on the website that they work with the NRA. And they also said they collaborated with the NRA in writing their amicus brief in Heller.

So are you homophobic? Do you oppose the LGBT community protecting itself from gay-bashing?

I am not homophobic, nor do I propose the complete elimination of gun rights.

The Pink Pistols brief says that because homosexuals at the time could not serve openly in the military, they could be denied gun rights if "well regulated militia" actually meant "well regulated militia".

I find this point preposterous, since there was no scenario in which gun ownership would be contingent on military service, and because obviously the gay rights issue at the core of the argument was the ability to openly serve.

So the Pink Pistols are every bit as hyperbolic and irrational as the NRA. And just like criticism of Israeli policies does not make me an anti-Semite, criticism of a group of gay people does not make me homophobic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This group filed amicus briefs in Heller and McDonald:

http://www.pinkpistols.org/

They have nothing to do with the NRA.

They say on the website that they work with the NRA. And they also said they collaborated with the NRA in writing their amicus brief in Heller.

So are you homophobic? Do you oppose the LGBT community protecting itself from gay-bashing?

The American Jewish Committee, along with the Antidefamation League, filed a brief taking the opposite side.

So is my choice to be either homophobic or anti-semitic?