You have a mighty high opinion of yourself.
Yeah, so? Are you saying one should be insecure in order to have a valid point?
I know what the 2nd is all about.
Your statments to this point do not support this assertion.
And I exercise my rights under that amendment.
Pray, tell me what you found when you researched the Founding Fathers and their quotes on the 2nd Amendment then.
And my point, since you can't read,
Look mom, an ad hominem because he couldn't make a good argument! BTW, this contention is proven wrong by the simple fact that this very post exists. But thanks for playing, please accept some nice parting gifts.
is that armed overthrow of the government is not a constitutional process - it is starting all over.
Evidently the "watering the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants" was glossed over in your readings of what the Founding Fathers intended the 2nd Amendment for, n'est-ce pas?
And it is very interesting that you jump straight to that option before you even mention any constitutional process.
Not at all, I state that if the SCOTUS fails in this ruling. That is allowing the fullest extent of the Constitutional process to work its way.
Your interpretation - I assume that your discourse would apply to any law, not just this one.
Any law which fundamentally assaults a basic human right, esp. as defined by the Bill of Rights, yes, that is correct.
So it seems that you are saying that one's ability to decide whether or not a law is constitutional is proportionate to the size of one's arsenal.
Wow, what a strawman argument! Nice try. Again, please accept these nice parting gifts.
With regard to constitutionality of the law - I haven't read the particulars of the bill,
Then why are you bothering to argue it with me, pray tell? If you can't even bother to read the bill, your criticisms are baseless and knee jerk. Try coming to the battle prepared next time.
but I understand the argument that giving money to influence the political process is an exercise of free speech. If it were that simple, then even a monetary limit on contributions would be unconstitutional. Is that your view?
Yep.
If not, and monetary limits are okay, I don't really understand why it is not okay to prohibit someone (say, labor unions for example) from circumventing the law by giving more money to an organization that coordinates with the DNC to run ads that are okayed by their candidate - again without seeing the particulars to which you object. By the way, on the "giving money is speech" argument, this clearly equates to the long-held constitutional doctrine that certain actions are, in effect, political speech.
Non sequitur. I have no problem with unlimited donations for ads, television, radio, etc.
How do you feel about flag burning?
What has that to do with the argument you're attempting to make? Or is it simply a way to try and bait me into saying something so you can continue with the ad hominem attacks? Please, show a bit more sophistication, ok?
Since you don't think my question about flag burning is salient, let me ask it a different way - do you agree that burning am American flag in protest of a government action or policy is a legitimate exercise of free speech rights? Or do you follow the logic of those who support legislation restricting such action and contend that it is an "action" and does not fall within the protection of free speech? Based upon your prior assertions, it would seem that either (a) you believe that flag burners are entitled to the fullest protection of the U.S. Constitution, or (b) you are logically inconsistent, with your beliefs changing with the extent to which you hold an issue dear.
Since you seem to believe that a SCOTUS ruling is the last word on any issue, can you explain why we now have integrated schools?
Do you believe that it is an appropriate constitutional response to what you perceive to be an unconstitutional action by government officials to make an effort to replace those officials through the electoral process before you shoot them?
Mr. Research - show me any comment that links Mr. Jefferson's "tree of liberty" quote to any debate or commentary on the second amendment.