2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.
I did no such thing. All I said is you have yet to provide any tangible proof. A bunch of Senators and Republican media spouting rhetoric is not an example.Then U tried to play like she wasn't Anti Gun.
Again, false. I never said I couldn't find anything on this woman, I said I couldn't find anything to suggest she was against the 2nd Amendment.Course you were also the one that said you couldn't find anything on this woman at all.
I'm still waiting for you to produce any of it.When clearly there is all kind of stuff out there on her.
I don't need any "liberal" sources, I have her direct testimony which says she supports the ruling of the Supreme Court on the matter.While I am sure all those liberal sources are saying she favors the Second
Excuse me for a moment, as I laugh out loud at you.But as usual you libs look to deflect when coming out the box.
Again, MY focus was your direct words of "Stopping any attorney that don't support and believe in the Constitution despite saying otherwise. Is a plus for the Country. Not a detriment. Perhaps you should read up on her and seeing how she would play with the Second Amendment and what shall not be infringed upon." and asking you to support it. Which you have still failed to do.Your focus was on her case over the manufacturers out of New York. My case was she was Anti Gun and an Obama Puppet.
There is no getting round the fact that she is Anti Gun and Anti 2nd Amendment. Despite what she said.
So you ignore her EXACT words on the subject and instead focus on something you have yet to produce a single solid piece of evidence to support. Amazing.
It's been a long time since I encountered someone this delusional, and the last time I did so, the other person had yet to reach their 18th birthday. You come into a thread to start an argument completely unrelated to the thread, accuse me of dishonesty when I CLEARLY was willing to use any interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in my point, falsely accuse me of engaging in a logical fallacy and then have the audacity to whine when your troll card is called.
It's clear you are not interested in any reasonable or rational discussion. The sad thing is you're obviously more intelligent than MMC, and yet you'd rather act in such a silly manner, using childish insults which have been clearly proven untrue. Instead of wasting everyone's time acting like a child, how about you actually engage in the thread discussion? It seems far more productive than the two of us accusing each other of being dishonest. After all, while I am new here, the rules have made me believe this forum is more about mature debate and not about childish name-calling.
So let's try this again. I disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Many others do as well. But whether we use your interpretation or my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant to the question I originally asked, which is how the lawsuit in question is in violation of either interpretation. Now, do you have any opinions on that matter?
why should beretta be sued by assholes using public tax dollars when some gang banger shoots another gangbanger with a stolen beretta or maybe a Glock. You see, those assholes never proved any negligence by the makers nor did they demonstrate whose guns were "falling" into the wrong hands.
suing gun makers for guns being misused by others is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to bankrupt gun makers and thus deprive citizens from obtaining firearms
Yes that asshole was against the second amendment. EVERYONE who supports and pushes such lawsuits are anti gun turds.
Probably not, but it makes as much sense.
You do realize SHE didn't pursue the case, but rather the state of New York pursued the case, correct? And that when the case was dismissed, the dismissal said nothing about being dismissed with regards to the 2nd Amendment.Yes that asshole was against the second amendment. EVERYONE who supports and pushes such lawsuits are anti gun turds.
You don't seem to know very much about this. I'll admit, I'm fairly ignorant to it as well, but I seem to understand it a little better than you.
the dismissals had nothing to do with the second amendment but the lawsuits were clearly designed to interfere with the lawful ownership of firearms
you can pretend you understand it better than me. You would be wrong. You can look around the entire United states for decades and I doubt you will find someone who actually knows more about this subject than I do.