Anonymous wrote:The real question is, why does the rule of law no longer apply to the law? Our president, lawmakers and the Supreme Court might as well just burn the Constitution at this point, because they just do pretty much whatever the hell they want with zero accountability. If they want to be taken seriously by the citizenry, they need to start taking the Bill of Rights seriously again.

Hurr, durr durrr.

How has the President infringed on your Freedom of Speech? He hasn't.

How many guns has the President confiscated? NONE...

You are FULL OF HYPERBOLIC, IDIOTIC, SHIT. You want to talk about being taken seriously, yet you spout this kind of bullshit?

The real question is, why does the rule of law no longer apply to the law? Our president, lawmakers and the Supreme Court might as well just burn the Constitution at this point, because they just do pretty much whatever the hell they want with zero accountability. If they want to be taken seriously by the citizenry, they need to start taking the Bill of Rights seriously again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were a public official in a clerk's office, I would refuse to grant conceal weapon permits as I don't believe in guns.

You are the world's worst troll,

If I worked at Lululemon, I would make everyone take a spandex test. hah. JK

Is I were a public official in a clerk's office, I would refuse to grant marriage licenses as I do not believe the State should have jurisdiction over marriages.

That would have been a very principled position. Last year.

OK. Very helpful. Plural common law marriages for everyone!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were a public official in a clerk's office, I would refuse to grant conceal weapon permits as I don't believe in guns.

You are the world's worst troll,

If I worked at Lululemon, I would make everyone take a spandex test. hah. JK

Is I were a public official in a clerk's office, I would refuse to grant marriage licenses as I do not believe the State should have jurisdiction over marriages.

Anonymous wrote:No the problem started with a dumbass who allegedly left a loaded weapon in his/her. I'll wait for there actual evidence to be presented before passing judgement, but find it difficult to believe that the accused would just randomly shoot someone with no apparent motive.

Believe the facts:

1) the accused stated he had taken many prescription "sleeping pills" he found in a dumpster the morning of the killing. He was probably quite high/drugged on whatever he found (I have not heard the specific drug identified yet).

2) given his drugged state of mind, it is not too shocking that he initially told investigators he was "trying to shoot at sea lions" near the pier. Weird, yes, but understandable from a highly intoxicated homeless person.

3) he also claimed the "gun just went off when I touched it." I assure you, this claim is false. Federal agencies forbid any tampering or modification of service weapons, which must be safely carried in public. In other words, police-issued guns do NOT have a "hair trigger" and do not go off (fire) simply by being touched. The accused clearly had to have pulled the trigger - which has at least a 7 lb pull weight - in order to fire the pistol.

Again - his own testimony is of little value given his admittedly altered state of mind.

If you are a public official of any kind who refuses for any reason to provide lawful services or otherwise perform your duties in any way as prescribed by the oath you took upon entering public service, then you should seek new employment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If all gun owners had to be registered with their state militia and perform drills four times a year, we would have a lot fewer gun owners. But unfortunately Scalia fixed this for them.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/08/us/san-francisco-killing/

San Francisco (CNN) "The gun used in the killing of a San Francisco woman in a case that gave new political prominence to the issue of illegal immigration was stolen from a vehicle belonging to a federal Bureau of Land Management agent, a source familiar with the investigation said Wednesday.

Kate Steinle was shot to death on July 1 on one of San Francisco's busiest piers.

Investigators still are trying to determine how Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, the man accused in Steinle's killing, allegedly obtained the .40-caliber pistol, according to the source.

The Bureau of Land Management said the service weapon was stolen from the officer's vehicle on June 27."

Legal gun owners aren't the problem.

Dude left an unsecured firearm in his car.

Accidents, stupidity, and bad luck will always be with us. That does not mean we should not do all we can to minimize them. When mistakes becomes criminal is when we make no effort to learn from them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If all gun owners had to be registered with their state militia and perform drills four times a year, we would have a lot fewer gun owners. But unfortunately Scalia fixed this for them.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/08/us/san-francisco-killing/

San Francisco (CNN) "The gun used in the killing of a San Francisco woman in a case that gave new political prominence to the issue of illegal immigration was stolen from a vehicle belonging to a federal Bureau of Land Management agent, a source familiar with the investigation said Wednesday.

Kate Steinle was shot to death on July 1 on one of San Francisco's busiest piers.

Investigators still are trying to determine how Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, the man accused in Steinle's killing, allegedly obtained the .40-caliber pistol, according to the source.

The Bureau of Land Management said the service weapon was stolen from the officer's vehicle on June 27."

Legal gun owners aren't the problem.

Dude left an unsecured firearm in his car.

No the problem started with a dumbass who allegedly left a loaded weapon in his/her. I'll wait for there actual evidence to be presented before passing judgement, but find it difficult to believe that the accused would just randomly shoot someone with no apparent motive.

Anonymous wrote:If all gun owners had to be registered with their state militia and perform drills four times a year, we would have a lot fewer gun owners. But unfortunately Scalia fixed this for them.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/08/us/san-francisco-killing/

San Francisco (CNN) "The gun used in the killing of a San Francisco woman in a case that gave new political prominence to the issue of illegal immigration was stolen from a vehicle belonging to a federal Bureau of Land Management agent, a source familiar with the investigation said Wednesday.

Kate Steinle was shot to death on July 1 on one of San Francisco's busiest piers.

Investigators still are trying to determine how Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, the man accused in Steinle's killing, allegedly obtained the .40-caliber pistol, according to the source.

The Bureau of Land Management said the service weapon was stolen from the officer's vehicle on June 27."

Legal gun owners aren't the problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It does apply. They will lose their jobs, per the law, and be replaced with folks who will fulfill the tasks related to that job.

Can we get rid of Obama now? He's refusing to enforce immigration law.

You watch Fox news - so misguided and uninformed. President Obama has deported more illegals than any other US president in history and has expanded immigration LEGALLY within the powers of the presidency.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were a public official in a clerk's office, I would refuse to grant conceal weapon permits as I don't believe in guns.

Yeah! F that pesky 2nd Amemdment! Your special feelings trump all.

Well-ordered militias are welcome.

What is the definition of a militia?

A fighting force raised from the civilian population.

Where would civilian raised militias procure weapons?

Why, silly, they'd use THEIR OWN.

Boom that just happened.

You need to look to history to understand what our founding fathers actually meant by 'militia' - it *wasn't* Obama-hating Tea Party Jim Bob and his AK-47. The founding Fathers defined what they meant in the Militia Act, which was passed in Congress 6 months after the ratification of the 2nd Amendment, and it's not at all what the NRA or Alex Jones conspiracy theorists would have you believe about defending against our own government, nor is it about personal self defense.

Country and Constitution before corrupt political party, partisan hack.

Bullshit. It is you who does not know what the Constitution means. Read the Militia Act of 1792. http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

Again, it DOES NOT mean every citizen armed, it DOES NOT mean "Billy Joe Jim Bob and his merry band of ridgerunners who hate Obama and who are taking up arms against what they laughably think is an "oppressive and tyrannical" Federal Government. The Militia Act is what our Founding Fathers WROTE and APPROVED IN CONGRESS within 6 months of ratification of the 2nd Amendment. Ignoring it means spitting in the face of the Constitution and the founding fathers.

Sorry, but YOU are the one who is a partisan hack...

The Constitution is the Constitution, even if you are outraged that some Americans do not like Obama or his policies, and painting them as racist gun nuts makes you feel good about your positions.

If all gun owners had to be registered with their state militia and perform drills four times a year, we would have a lot fewer gun owners. But unfortunately Scalia fixed this for them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were a public official in a clerk's office, I would refuse to grant conceal weapon permits as I don't believe in guns.

Yeah! F that pesky 2nd Amemdment! Your special feelings trump all.

Well-ordered militias are welcome.

What is the definition of a militia?

A fighting force raised from the civilian population.

Where would civilian raised militias procure weapons?

Why, silly, they'd use THEIR OWN.

Boom that just happened.

You need to look to history to understand what our founding fathers actually meant by 'militia' - it *wasn't* Obama-hating Tea Party Jim Bob and his AK-47. The founding Fathers defined what they meant in the Militia Act, which was passed in Congress 6 months after the ratification of the 2nd Amendment, and it's not at all what the NRA or Alex Jones conspiracy theorists would have you believe about defending against our own government, nor is it about personal self defense.

Country and Constitution before corrupt political party, partisan hack.

Bullshit. It is you who does not know what the Constitution means. Read the Militia Act of 1792. http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

Again, it DOES NOT mean every citizen armed, it DOES NOT mean "Billy Joe Jim Bob and his merry band of ridgerunners who hate Obama and who are taking up arms against what they laughably think is an "oppressive and tyrannical" Federal Government. The Militia Act is what our Founding Fathers WROTE and APPROVED IN CONGRESS within 6 months of ratification of the 2nd Amendment. Ignoring it means spitting in the face of the Constitution and the founding fathers.

Sorry, but YOU are the one who is a partisan hack...