G27

Yup. Ignorant hatred is bad for everyone. Saddened by the loss of innocent life...

Yes.

Makes me chuckle that voting for the status quo, which has screwed us over and over for decades, is somehow the 'smart' decision. Y'all can bash me all you wish, I couldn't care less - but until you realize voting for the same crap over and over and expecting something other than crap is fruitless, we're all stuck with Groundhog Day. Not sure why I even posted, none of the panicked party voters here will think about breaking the pattern for half a second...

The misspelling in the thread title cracks me up.

You guys are making me feel like a cheapskate with your Reeves...

Today is the SOG Switch XL Tanto. Want one in a drop point, actually, but really love this blade - used it for several years and it holds a great edge.

http://thomas.loc.go...emp/~r112OlGFGF Text:

As long as the repubs hold one of the three legislative bodies, we're fine. Or so we've been told...

Should Congress re-enact the assault weapon ban? (Poll closes at 7 p.m.) YES (747 responses) NO (3109 responses) 3856 total responses (Results not scientific) This poll is closed to voting.

They don't have to knock, they'll just do like they did in England - outlaw them, allowing a grace period to turn in all firearms, no questions asked, after which possession of a firearm is felony. And it would work, for the most part. All of those that didn't turn them in could essentially never again use them without fear of prison time, even in self-defense. But, since we DC v Heller on our side, I don't see it happening.

I assumed he meant 'easy' but the spell checker didn't catch 'east'.

The ticket ripper? LOL, what are they going to do if they find an armed crazy person? Just be the first one shot...

As someone with zero combat experience, I doubt I'd decide to charge a man armed with an AR wearing full protective gear. Also remember that since he was in the front of the theater, the viewers' faces were all illuminated by the back-splash from the screen, while he was likely a dark silhouette (at most). And the patrons were likely choking with eyes-watering while he could see everything clearly. No matter how bad-to-the-bone you are, you end up like a sitting duck in this situation. Fish in a barrel.

It's sad how both sides rush to politicize this.

A treaty is un-ratified unless / until the senate approves with a 2/3rds majority - simple as that. IOW, Obama can sign it, but unless / until it's constitutionally ratified, it's meaningless.

You really think that 2A has not been infringed in TN?

Big difference in passing a bill and treaty ratification (which requires a 2/3 approval from the Senate) - where does Obama get 67 Senate votes to ratify this? Answer: he doesn't.

Yah, i don't think that's how it works - I'm pretty sure the President cannot ratify the treaty without Senate approval. While not the be-all, end-all, the Wikipedia entry on this follows what I was taught regarding US treaty ratification: "In the US, the treaty power is a coordinated effort between the Executive branch and the Senate. The President may form and negotiate a treaty, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it. Once a treaty is ratified, it becomes binding on all the states under the Supremacy Clause. While the United States House of Representatives does not vote on it at all, the requirement for Senate advice and consent to ratification makes it considerably more difficult in the US than in other democratic republics to rally enough political support for international treaties. Also, if implementation of the treaty requires the expenditure of funds, the House of Representatives may be able to block, or at least impede, such implementation by refusing to vote for the appropriation of the necessary funds. In the US, the President usually submits a treaty to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) along with an accompanying resolution of ratification or accession. If the treaty and resolution receive favorable committee consideration (a committee vote in favor of ratification or accession) the treaty is then forwarded to the floor of the full U.S. Senate for such a vote. The treaty or legislation does not apply until it has been ratified. A multilateral agreement may provide that it will take effect upon its ratification by less than all of the signatories.[1] Even though such a treaty takes effect, it does not apply to signatories that have not ratified it. Accession has the same legal effect as ratification. Accession is a synonym for ratification for treaties already negotiated and signed by other states.[2] An example of a treaty to which the U.S. Senate did not advise and consent to ratification is theTreaty of Versailles, which was part of the resolution of the First World War."

I keep seeing people say stuff like this, but how does he sign a treaty without 67 Senate votes? I mean, I believe he would if he could, but there's about zero chance anyone would abide by a treaty not ratified by the Senate - it's literally as black-and-white unconstitutional as it gets.

Nope, people sell beer and liquor all the time on ebay - they simply list it as a collectible bottle with no knowledge of what's contained.http://www.ebay.com/itm/George-T-Stagg-2007-144-8-proof-Collectible-bottle-Rare-buffalo-trace-T-/221065705075?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item33788af673#ht_500wt_1289

You're right, that does looks like it's legal - thanks!

Ahh, that's probably it, thanks. <- (not NFA savvy)

IANAL, so I ask - if you record them without telling them, wouldn't it be inadmissible in court?

Isn't an AOW tax stamp is $5?

Someone who respects our rights and freedoms. MB doesn't. But no one will challenge her as all the good repubs line up to vote for her.