Vendtre Posted March 18, 2016 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 2 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,420 Content Per Day: 0.47 Reputation: 322 Days Won: 4 Joined: 01/31/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted March 18, 2016 Just now, MorningGlory said: I don't think anyone else here is going to look up YOUR sources. Just post them. I have posted them, but why is that even necessary. Why is it that people cannot do such things for themselves? Why do people blindly believe organizations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayin jade Posted March 18, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,178 Topics Per Day: 0.87 Content Count: 43,796 Content Per Day: 6.20 Reputation: 11,243 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted March 18, 2016 1 hour ago, Vendtre said: No, I was not wrong. You might not have noticed, but I rarely am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted March 18, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 599 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,218 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,940 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted March 18, 2016 50 minutes ago, Vendtre said: I am wrong? are you kidding me? I have given you an example of what en banc is for, and I am not wrong. Please provide your source that shows that the only reasons for an en banc review is to overturn the ruling. Failure to do so will be enough for me to know you are just making things up like the NRA did. you have given us an example of what en banc could be used for, but you really don't know why he did that..... And considering Obama picked him right now when he has promised to put in Gun Control before he leaves office gives me great pause as to the answer to why.... I'm saying that if he is not against people having guns, Obama would not have picked him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vendtre Posted March 18, 2016 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 2 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,420 Content Per Day: 0.47 Reputation: 322 Days Won: 4 Joined: 01/31/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted March 18, 2016 7 minutes ago, other one said: you have given us an example of what en banc could be used for, but you really don't know why he did that..... And considering Obama picked him right now when he has promised to put in Gun Control before he leaves office gives me great pause as to the answer to why.... I'm saying that if he is not against people having guns, Obama would not have picked him. But the NRA said this... The only reason to do so would be to overturn the pro-Second Amendment ruling. As you noted, I have shown this to be false. And it ignores that one of the most conservative judges in the land also voted for the en banc. I am not saying he is not anti-gun, I am saying nobody has given a shred of real evidence that he is. The guy has been a judge a long time, you would think he would have lots of evidence if he were truly anti-gun. Yet the NRA has to resort to lying to make him look like he is. Ask yourself, why is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted March 18, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 599 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,218 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,940 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted March 18, 2016 2 minutes ago, Vendtre said: But the NRA said this... The only reason to do so would be to overturn the pro-Second Amendment ruling. As you noted, I have shown this to be false. And it ignores that one of the most conservative judges in the land also voted for the en banc. I am not saying he is not anti-gun, I am saying nobody has given a shred of real evidence that he is. The guy has been a judge a long time, you would think he would have lots of evidence if he were truly anti-gun. Yet the NRA has to resort to lying to make him look like he is. Ask yourself, why is that? Since I am not a member of the NRA nor do I read their literature, you can not say that about me...... what the NRA says doesn't sway my opinion any more than yours does.... but what does sway my opinion are the actual actions of the Judge and what my President has promised the democrats..... and I really don't think you can refute that.... he did the act and Obama has said that several times. So you can take you possibilities and tout them all you want, but me and mine are not going to trust Obama or anyone else who does not have an actual proven second amendment history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted March 18, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,711 Content Per Day: 2.45 Reputation: 8,528 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted March 18, 2016 1 hour ago, Vendtre said: I am wrong? are you kidding me? I have given you an example of what en banc is for, and I am not wrong. Please provide your source that shows that the only reasons for an en banc review is to overturn the ruling. Failure to do so will be enough for me to know you are just making things up like the NRA did. I have already shown you 2 articles, provided by the NRA, that shows he has a history of voting against guns, not just that one case you brought up. Or, do your reading comprehension skills need work? Quite frankly, I dont need to prove anything to you. Youve proven over and over again to not care about the facts, all you care about is your own personal agenda and will twist and ignore any fact, that goes against what you teach. The NRA made up nothing-nor did I, nor do I need to provide any more "proof" to you, as its already been provided. your inability to read is not my problem, nor do I care about what your opinion on the matter is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vendtre Posted March 18, 2016 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 2 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,420 Content Per Day: 0.47 Reputation: 322 Days Won: 4 Joined: 01/31/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted March 18, 2016 26 minutes ago, The_Patriot2016 said: I have already shown you 2 articles, provided by the NRA, that shows he has a history of voting against guns, not just that one case you brought up. Or, do your reading comprehension skills need work? Quite frankly, I dont need to prove anything to you. Youve proven over and over again to not care about the facts, all you care about is your own personal agenda and will twist and ignore any fact, that goes against what you teach. The NRA made up nothing-nor did I, nor do I need to provide any more "proof" to you, as its already been provided. your inability to read is not my problem, nor do I care about what your opinion on the matter is. Your first article said this... The only reason to do so would be to overturn the pro-Second Amendment ruling. This is verifiable false and has been verified as false. The irony here is that I asked you not to blindly accept what the NRA said and your response is to say "well the NRA said", thus proving you have blindly accepted what they posted. As for reading skills, the first one is what this whole discussion is about, and the 2nd one, all of the Supreme Court agreed with, even the guy they are now trying to replace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted March 22, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,711 Content Per Day: 2.45 Reputation: 8,528 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Came across this little piece on facebook, food for thought: A lot of people have brought up the fact that they won't vote for Trump if he's the eventual nominee. I just want to put something in perspective. Justice Scalia's seat is vacant. Ginsberg is 82 years old, Kennedy is 79, Breyer is 77, and Thomas is 67. Nowadays, the data shows that the average age of a Supreme Court retirement or death occurs after 75. These are 5 vacancies that will likely come up over the next 4-8 years. The next President will have the power to potentially create a 7-2 Supreme Court skewed in their ideology. Think about that... 7-2. If the next President appoints 5 young justices, it will guarantee control of the Supreme Court for an entire generation. And 7-2 decisions will hold up much more over time than 5-4 decisions which are seemed to be lacking in mandate. Hillary has made it clear she will use the Supreme Court to go after the 2nd Amendment. She has literally said that the Supreme Court was wrong in its Heller decision stating that the Court should overturn and remove the individual right to keep and bear arms. Period. Everyone saying that they won't vote for one candidate or the other if they are the GOP nominee, please realize this. If Hillary Clinton wins and gets to make these appointments, you likely will never see another Conservative victory at the Supreme Court level for the rest of your life. Ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted March 22, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 599 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,218 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,940 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted March 22, 2016 I think that deserves to be on my facebook also.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts