Finally A Texan Speaks Out, Impeachment!

Google the Sheriffs name.

Yeah, you're talking through your arse. It's not that the EPA stopped it, it's that the town wanted the Army Corps of Engineers to build them a bridge and that required an EPA assessment. Nice try, though.
 
How come you sound like you're 11 years old?

Every time you and Vette declare what Americans believe, you're wrong. Then you get pissy when you realize you're out of line with what America actually stands for. Same shit different day.
 
Every time you and Vette declare what Americans believe, you're wrong. Then you get pissy when you realize you're out of line with what America actually stands for. Same shit different day.

What about that Lit vacation you promised?
 
Vette, tell me again what Americans believe?


1-14-13-5.png

1-14-13-12.png
 
Every time you and Vette declare what Americans believe, you're wrong. Then you get pissy when you realize you're out of line with what America actually stands for. Same shit different day.

The Angry Old White Man Syndrome has them in its ferocious grip and is slowly squeezing all the stale old air from them.
 
I said "or some other federal agency." I was writing from memory, but the story is accurate. Nice try at picking fly shit out of pepper.

Your bootstrappy fuck the gubmint sheriff wanted the gubmint to build him a fucking bridge.
 
He might show that bullshit to the Congress and ask them how it could be possible that an Assault Weapons Ban will fail in both houses.:rolleyes:

In view of Heller and Miller, I suspect such a ban might be unconstitutional. So, it doesn't really matter in the long run.

Heller leaves room for all sorts of regulation.

And judges aren't immune from what happens in the world about them. They don't respond instantly, like representatives, because their focus backwards and forwards is long. But, they respond to current events.

Plus, Heller was 5-4. Fate could upset that balance in a heartbeat.
 
I imposed a vacation on him with Iggy.

For a Marine who often brags about being awarded not one but TWO Navy Crosses for gallantry in Vietnam, you sure as hell run from conflict in your dotage. :rolleyes:

Incoming! Reeeeeetreat!
 
You've crushed his vastly overinflated ego.

Vette fleeing to the cowardly shelter of iggy crushes nobody. In fact it's good for him because that way he can go about his business hearing only things that he likes. Soft, soothing things like how life was in the 50's where uppity women and black people didn't have any say in America. A time when he could muster an erection without the aid of pills or gay erotica.

Either that or he just massively flipped out when I linked California's budget surplus. It. Just. Cannot. Be. True. Iggy.
 
Last edited:
I've never claimed to have been awarded two Navy Crosses, you lying son of a bitch.

It's not like someone known for their credibility is making the claim.

While I have no knowledge of what you said or didn't say in this matter, I do know that Rob is definitely a liar and will say anything about people he has a grudge against.
 
True. However, Miller clearly implies weapons have to have military utility to be protected under the Second. Heller confirms a personal right to keep and bear arms, so where is the line drawn? Can the Congress regulate guns to the point where the right is meaningless? Can the President issue executive orders, when the country isn't at war, without enabling legislation?

I think even if the court were to come out and reverse Heller and say there was no right to bear arms and that all guns can be regulated or banned, they'd have massive civil disobedience on there hands. I think Americans would thumb their noses at it. Millions upon millions of Americans own guns and have spent billions accumulating them. I don't see them walking up to the local police station and passively turning them all in. I can imagine them hanging some public officials however.

If regulations went as far as to ban all weapons beyond 18th century technology it would still be in line with the Second Amendment, right? :)
 
True. However, Miller clearly implies weapons have to have military utility to be protected under the Second. Heller confirms a personal right to keep and bear arms, so where is the line drawn? Can the Congress regulate guns to the point wear the right is meaningless? Can the President issue executive orders, when the country isn't at war, without enabling legislation?

I think even if the court were to come out and reverse Heller and say there was no right to bear arms and that all guns can be regulated or banned, they'd have massive civil disobedience on there hands. I think Americans would thumb their noses at it. Millions upon millions of Americans own guns and have spent billions accumulating them. I don't see them walking up to the local police station and passively turning them all in. I can imagine them hanging some public officials however.

The Court gets to draw the line.

There are all sorts of regulations on the user that could survive constitutional muster. Scalia acknowledged that. Ditto the sale or transfer of firearms.

And just because the pipeline is full today does not mean that it will be tomorrow if production is limited.
 
Back
Top