Michelle Obama says Supreme Court is at stake!

The woman has lost her senses. Poor woman.

did she have any to lose?

Thank you so much for sharing with Sadies Points

Do you mean as in 2000?

Supposing BO is not elected in 2012. How come would he put it at stake?

Nowadays many GOP supporters keep buying guns and several automatic firearms. Never as much since years ago.

Do you feel that, if the Supreme Court would be at stake, that, thanks to them, this could end in a Civil war?

Would you accept the Supreme Court decision or would you prefer a Civil War?

You state that Michelle lost her senses. Do you mean that you would prefer a Civil war?

gilbert.

there are no automatic weapons for sale legally - the only people that buy them - illegally - are criminals/anarchists - not law-abiding conservatives. and those people do NOT support the gop, or the dems.

and it is a possibility, that she and her hubby-in-chief WANT a civil war, which is the LAST thing any conservative wants, and we all pray for it to never happen.

you have a very warped view of what conservatives, gop and libertarian supporters are.

look back - the bombings, the killings - always highly radical left wingers - who bombed the pentagon? who cause the riot at the chicago convention?
oklahoma, watts, harlem - it is NeVER gop supporters.

You should tell that to the several students in campus which have been shot dead these last 12 months.

And for your info, it is quite easy to render a non-automatic rifle into an automatic one: it is just question of one piece to replace!

and even that is illegal gilbert - so pray tell what good more laws would do to help? and have you ever fired an automatic weapon? it isnt like in the movies - no one wants them except the military, because they are so hard to handle.

i suppose you are another of the uniformed that think "AR" as in ar-15 means automatic rifle lolololololololololol


as to 'several students on campus shot in the last 12 months' .. there again - LEFT wing radicals, and/or anarchists - neither group has a thing to do with conservatives.

You know what, my dear friend? You are just finding any kind of justification to the killings as if there was "politicians" who shot.

No. It was not them but a law which was justified at its time and is so much less now because circumstances are presently quite different.

Of course, military trains for it, but it will never impede other to do as well.

You may dispute me on this point, however I just warn you, you are about to lose this argument because I am Swiss and as everyone of us (males) we have been trained and have our weapons home. Indeed. With just a small problem: the ammunition is sealed and one has only the right to open the boxes if there is a war or a threat on our borders. Full stop! If at any annual inspection you would present the ammunition unsealed, you would end in prison for, at the least, 12 months!

This being stated no one has any right to have any other weaponry at home, just because too often they would be used against the spouse's lover, the deceptive boss or , even, on oneself or on the "other" one "just for fun".

I can understand Amendment 2 which seems to be outdated for a simple reason: In 1801, in New York there was "only" 32,000; Boston, 18,000 and in New York in 1776 just 28,000 inhabitants.

Worse in some American countries, the distanceas were such and the lack of communication implied the ability to protect oneself from thieves, murderers and wild animals. No way then to pick up the phone to call the police for help.

Despite the "conservatives" the old times are not going to be back and nowadays we have to know, register who is handling what kind of weapons and related ammunition. We should forbid any sale of lethal weaponry to anyone without a serious reason for it.

And, to reduce the government to its maximum, I suggest to create a department for this with a maximum of 3 employees to cover each State: they would register applications for registrations, send them to the FBI for stamp and authorization, then they would register the FBI agreement, and then mail them the stamped authorization and file a copy of it them once the weapon is bought!

The small government process is to maybe imply a turnover loss ...

other than the absolute fact that making guns illegal increases violent crime in every single place it is put in place, you are spot on ....................................

UK, Switzerland would deny this. To the point they have unarmed policemen. However, I do agree with you on one point:

It is quite easy to have statistics "adjusted" as to serve the opposition ...
or, if not adjusted, "copied and pasted" from one convenient country to any other.

And if you base your statement on Colombian statistics, you are for sure quite right! But, simultaneously, you keep unveiling your own goal ... del Marquez

have no clue where del Marquez is coming from.

but as an example, one town in alabama i believe, passed a city ordinance, that every household where there was not a convicted felon, and had no financial or moral reason to object, must have a gun in it.

crime dropped the first year by just over 80%, and has continued to drap ever since (at least a decade, and i am thinking closer to 2), there has not been a single instance of accidental shooting by a civilian, and the population has grown 10 fold.

there is no adjustments to thoise numbers - they are the raw data.

and using switzerland is not a fair comparison for two major reasons - one, as you state, freely available ammo is not permitted - so guns are not in the equation, unless someone points it at a person and yells "bang - boom - tat-a-tat boom" at them and the person falls down dead.

the second reason is the basic frame of mind and mentality are far different there than it is here.

my nephew lived there for 3 years and was amazed at the basic differnce in outlook, attitudes, composure, and habits. even as basic as eating and meal preparation.

In household doesn't mean that they should go outside killing people.

You can't compare a tiny city with a large one: stresses are far different. A much less generalized them.

is just one example, and there are many many stats that prove, in general, that allowing ccw etc, decreases violent crime.

but i am sure you will dispute it all, as those stats do not fit your agenda.

and why did you call me del marquez?

Because a Marquis (as your alias sounds a bit) goes on the battle in order to replace the King, but he goes there, usually, without even being aware about the reality: He figures the King, has to fight as if he was the King himself, has to die as if and for the king.

You are inventing a reality by projection of a or many small areas into large towns were the stress is quite different a,d you feel that a firearmes resting at home is innocent as when holding it out of the home , on streets, bars,schools, campuses.

So you are the Marquez for a king which doesn't care about the people.

"You can't compare a tiny city to a large one"

But you can compare Switzerland to America?

Good one, les.

Indeed it seems contradictory. What I mean is that you can compare the areas crowded enough as to have a similar number of inhabitants per sq. mile as large towns are.

At the least one has o consider this last event, police could be on the spot in 1 minute but, because someone has a firearm, a gun, you get a drama. On the campus, it happened twice at the least and police was on the spot.

So if each buyer was formerly registered and acknowledged we may restrict the number of crimes, but if we do nothing, they for sure will raise.

I am not against the fact that a gun is bought (upto to some caliber) but against the fact that such weapons can be and are on the street, on cars, in pockets or whatsoever.

I prefer a kid alive than some selfish decision ....

I'm all for living kids too. For obvious reasons the 2nd Amendment will be the last to go, though it's been under attack all my life.

But it stands, and points to your own reality manufacture. As long as it stands, you're talking about a color that doesn't exist.

I think she's dead serious. If her husband isn't re-elected,he can't appoint any more left-wing judges to the high Bench.

I think that's precisely what she means, Norman.

Or get rid of the Supreme Court. If he's re-elected, he'll be able to do whatever he wants. He's already shown that he has nothing but disdain for our laws.

Well, supposedly that might cause the court to loose even more left judges. I think that's her point. No biggie to me. The only judges that will be appointed in the near future will all be scary choices, just like the court now, full of 9 scary big government judges.

Coke or Pepsi. Discouraging, if you've a mind for orange juice.

Exactly.

Of course she's right. I can't remember when the deciding factor in a presidential election for me wasn't which candidate I wanted to be the one who got to make Supreme Court appointments. I'm not that fond of Obama, although I'm considerably less fond of Romney. Even so, I'll vote for Obama because I don't want Romney to make any Supreme Court appointments.

"The President and First Lady firmly believe that gay and lesbian Americans and their families deserve legal protections and the ability to thrive just like any other family"

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/lady-michelle-obama-supreme-court-stake-election/story?id=16159124

And they deserve lots of vegetables and an occasional cookie as well......
.

i have no problem at all with lgbt's having the same legal rights that anyone has in a bonding, such as marraige.

they have as much right to be miserable and screwed over in a divorce as anyone else.

as proof - just think - have you ever EVER, even once in your life heard ANY person say "yea my ex was fantastic but i am a total jerk!'?

be careful what you wish for

nuff said.

Marriage is a Union between a Man and a Woman, Del. Therefore, it is not possible for anyone but a Man and a Woman to be Married. They are perfectly free to engage in any type of Legal Agreement that they wish. Marriage is not one of them. ;)

thats why i said legal rights in a bonding, such as marraige - maybe 'just like', or 'with the same legal rights' would have been better wording?

meant the same thing tho

Ah! Gotcha!

just to piss you off I hope he make it in office again,,

I love that comment and agree.

I might be pissed off.

You'll be pissed on.

They won't realize that, les, until it happens. Even then, they and Obama will still blame Bush as the country crashes down around us.

I don't think it will happen. I think November will be a good month for America. :)

To better days, Marilyn!

Thanks for posting to ~3,000 Here We Come!~