The Rabbi

Two hundred rounds with a Glock and it didnt blow up? That must be some kind of record! J'K:D The 22 is a nice gun but a full-sized one. Really full sized.

Last thing you want. Illegals have lower rates of crime and less usage of government services than Americans of comparable socio-economic status.

Why is that good news? Then they're all going to move here.

I think we've plowed this ground before. You are offering an argument from silence. Also known as a fallacious argument. It ignores the difficulty of the mechanics as well as the precedents that have been amply set out. Where's that dead horse icon again?

I was more reacting to the org and its agenda, and I do mean agenda. What do you suppose would happen if I showed up and said, Black people get more preferences and breaks than any other group in America in the last 50 years. And they still aren't cutting it. Maybe their lack of success has more to do with the cultur than with any alleged white racism. Maybe if people stopped pissing and moaning and waiting for someone else to give them something else things would be different. Maybe if they worked their butts off like virtually every other immigrant and minority group in this country has they might achieve something other than permanent victimhood. Somehow I don't think I would be asked back.

Breathing and eating aren't political issues so your point is irrelevant. The constitution is not a list of what the central gov't may do. Go back and read it. It establishes the forms, means, and methods of the Federal government, including how the central gov't will relate to the state governments. And no where mentioned is a mechanism for the states to secede. Ergo there cannot be a secession within the Constitutional framework.

Hey, Urse, I recognized you right off!

I honestly didnt know whether to put this in announcements or the humor section. But we don't have a humor section here so....

If there is no mechanism provided in the Constitution then it cannot be done. There was no rule preventing succession by cabinet officers but it wasn't done and providing for it required a constitutional amendment. You cannot argue that because the USC doesnt spell something out then it is OK. It isn't.

Your posts are a jumble of meaningless words and phrases. We are not discussing rights. A state does not have rights. The term rights is meaningless here. You could substitute the word "cockroach" and have it mean as much. What is a "philosophical right"? If a state can secede by force why would it need a philosophical justification? What would be the point of doing so?

Thanks, Nate. I think. Was that a compliment??

You can't decide something based on wording not in the Constitution. You can have an interpretation of something there (2A in the DC case) but you can't interpret what isn't there. NSNate is quite right. The historical precedents would be controlling here. As for DC, I think the actual wording of the 2A will not be the basis of anything. Rather the history of interpretation of the 2A will be controlling. And the secession issue is obviously not really dead because you've got these loons running around VT puking it out. Personally I think we should declare them in rebellion and after a fair and speedy trial line them up against the wall.

I had a PPS through the shop not long ago. I didnt particularly like it and it wasnt quite pocket carry material. It also takes down like a--gasp--Glock. As for the Kel-Dreks, yes, people either get a good one and love it or a bad one and hate it. I hated my P32.

I knew we would agree.

Your argument is an argument from silence. Legal and illegal have nothing to do with this. I have already dealt extensively with the argument from silence. But honestly nothing will convince you. Therefore debate with you is fruitless.

He certainly comments on your arguments.

I am missing something. Speer's own loading of the round indicates 990 fps out of the muzzle. This one claims 1000-1100. I don't see the Double Tap as a huge improvement, possibly even worse. It is cheaper though.

Translation: you're right I have no case at all but I can't admit it. Thanks, Mars.

There was a similarly cool one in the movie Buck and the Preacher.

He was not arrested. He was detained.

So you can provide no evidence that the Constitution permits states to withdraw? I'd say that pretty well settles the argument. But let's go further: What would be the mechanism for a state to withdraw? Does it take a majority of its citizens voting? Does it take an act of its legislature? Does it take an act of Congress? Unlike entry into the Union or amending the Constitution, there is no mechanism for states to withdraw. Therefore any action to do so takes place outside of the Constitutional framework. Further, all officers of both the United States and the states themselves undertake an oath to uphold the Constitution (Art VI). How can they claim to uphold the Constitution when they take action which falls outside of it? So the textual evidence is pretty clear. Let's go to historical precedent. As a result of the Civil War those taking sides against the Union were branded as rebels against the US, and stripped of every right of citizenship. There was, to my knowledge, to legal challenge to any of it, certainly none succesful. Had it been legally possible, there would have been. As it was, the leaders of the Confederacy suffered loss of property, freedom, and citizenship rights. Jefferson Davis did not regain his citizenship until the 1970s, and that by special act of Congress. So the historical record is clear on this as well. And those who support secession base their views on literally nothing. You can't beat something with nothing.

He wasn't arrested either. Your point?

I have yet to see the citation.

Just to clarify, repeat offender means he was already barred from owning a gun. He was already in violation of the law. What other law would he have obeyed? None. Criminals dont obey laws. Banning guns would not have deterred him. Duh.

Which article is that?