Let's do a quick recap of our recent exchanges.
I: pointed to the likely civil disobedience that would arise out of a comprehensive gun ban or confiscation.
You: proceeded to refer to this as anarchy, even hinting this could be tantamount to treason.
I: pointed to an example (federal drug laws) where this form of civil obedience was not only practiced, but ubiquitous throughout the country.
You: proceeded to say this was a bad example without actually indicating why.
I: pointed to yet another example (sanctuary cities) where this form of civil disobedience was not only practiced, but once again very common.
You: proceeded to link to an article "debunking" my claim that this was civil disobedience since sanctuary cities were supposedly not a violation of federal law.
I: pointed to and quoted from your very own source to point out that they were in fact a violation of federal law, which you could have determined yourself if you had read past the headline of your source.
You: are now apparently ranting about Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz.
You need to bring your A game jet. You are getting thoroughly outclassed right now.
Dot, dot, dot. (. . .?)
Why bring an A game when you're dealing with a D student (D for Dorothy?)?
If "Li'l Miss Adjust Your Realities Accordingly" were only capable of a dialogue as you describe.
Let's see how it went . . . 'cuz you skipped a couple steps. (I know, it was a busy weekend!)
Reply 348, I posited:
Congress (or states) can pass laws that regulate gun ownership. (Whether or not they will do so is another question.)
The constitutionality of these laws can be tested by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has already said--Scalia included!--that the Second Amendment does not preclude the regulation of gun ownership. Details to be determined one day. (Of course not if the NRA has its way.)
We have people on here (yourself included) literally saying that the above process is not possible. Forget about efficacy--you are literally saying it's not possible.
And on top of that you're saying it doesn't matter anyway as there would be a second civil war.
There was some back-and-forth, which was summarized in my reply 359 (that's when I noticed those shiny heels!!!!)
Blather blather blather "CIVIL RIGHTS!!!"
Blah blah blah "3D PRINTER!!!!"
Blech blech blech "YOU CAN'T MAKE ME DO THAT MOMMY!!!!"
Rabble rabble rabble "ADJUST YOUR REALITY ACCORDINGLY"
(Remember that last one? You were really proud of that! #BigWords!)
You conflate "civil rights" with "constitutional rights." You conflate "civil disobedience" with "civil war" (your words, buddy). You conflate "civil war" with smoking marijuana and sanctuary cities. (Somehow those same rapidly firing synapses can't connect "civil war" with "sedition" or "treason," but, hey, you're a D student!)
After all, sanctuary cities are an absolutely clear violation of federal law.
An article from a newspaper of record was shared with you addressing that very question. It gave your assertion "Two Pinocchios." Have you ever seen Pinocchio? It's a fable about lying
. The punchline of that article that that little head of yours somehow construed as backing up your assertion is:This issue gets confusing because it has to do with a technical, legal issues over a term — “sanctuary” — that has no technical or legal definition. In the absence of an official definition, the White House is adopting a broad interpretation of the term and whether the cities are violating the specific section of the U.S. Code.
But there is a difference between cities that clearly limit information-sharing on immigration and citizenship with the federal government (which Section 1373 is about) and cities that do not comply with immigration detainers (which Section 1373 is not about). The White House lumps both types of cities into one statement, obfuscating what’s really going on. We award Two Pinocchios for the lack of context.
Doesn't sound like an "absolutely clear violation of federal law" as stated. (How would that underachieving head of yours classify "civil war"?) It would have been better if you said you don't read Bezos's FAKE NEWS liberal rag!
Youse a bit off, Dot. Time for remedial everything.
(I know, I know, you're only going to dig in those shiny ruby slippers deeper cuz that's your shtick . . . real problems "adjusting realities" and all . . .)