Second Amendment

"Gun Ownership Goes Up, Crime Goes Down"

Kennedy talks with Washington Times Editor Emily Miller about why she wanted a gun as a D.C. resident


In the wake of yesterday's horrific carnage near the Empire State Building in New York City, the question of why any private citizen would or should carry a gun is again in the air.

Earlier this year, ReasonTV and Kennedy talked with Emily Miller about that very question. Miller is a Washington senior editor and resident of Washington, D.C. which had been home to among the very most restrictive gun control laws in the nation until the Supreme Court ruling in Heller.

Original air date was June 5, 2012. Original text follows:

"Gun ownership goes up, crime goes down…that's how it works," explains Washington Times senior editor and recent gun owner Emily Miller.

After being the victim of a home invasion, Miller was determined to take advantage of the 2008 Supreme Court ruling striking down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban. Miller initially thought the process of purchasing a firearm "would just be a hassle for a couple of weeks," and decided to blog her experiences at After four months, countless headaches, and hundreds of dollars in fees, Miller is now legally able to own her Sig Sauer P229 9mm, so long as she keeps it in her home. 

Miller joined Kennedy at Sharp Shooters in Lorton, VA to discuss DC's Byzantine gun laws, the surge in female gun ownership, and how she choose her firearm.

About 3 minutes.

Interview by Kennedy. Camera by Meredith Bragg and Joshua Swain; edited by Bragg.

Visit for downloadable versions and subscribe to's YouTube channel  to receive automatic notification when new material goes live. 

NEXT: 39 Killed in Venezuela Refinery Explosion (Updated)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I want to be able to get down to Cabela’s and pick up a Glock that’s capable of this:

    I too will speak in a Russian accent should I get one.

    1. The Cabella’s in Virginia isn’t set to open until 2014. (sigh.)

      1. There was just that just opened north of Seattle. I can’t wait to get down there, but I hear that it’s constantly packed with donut eating Canadians.

        1. Canadians have the best donuts on the planet. Tim Horton’s. (I particularly like the sour cream glazed.)

          Keep in mind that Canadians can’t (legally) buy a gun in the US. They can legally eat donuts.

          Consider this: you go to Cabela’s and pick out your Glock. While the clerk is phoning it in, complain to the nearest Canadian about the background check paperwork hassle. He/she will then tell you about the stupid Canuck gun laws, particularly regarding handguns. You commiserate and show him/her your carry permit, offer to take him/her to your shooting range next time they are in the neighborhood. They are so grateful they offer you a couple of Tim Horton’s donuts. International relations improve, the world becomes a slightly better place. Thank you sage!

          1. dammit now I want a donut

    2. Hells yes Sage. Don’t forget your “I Piss Excellance” T-shirt when you go to the range:)

      1. Yes that guy’s shirts are teh awesome.

    3. “As always, have nice day”

      FPS Russia is insane.

      No idea how this guy can afford all the crazy shit he does.

      Also no idea how he is able to legally do all the crazy shit he does on some back 40 in Georgia.

      1. That’s a boy who know how to have fun.

  2. “This is not girl shooting; this is good shooting.”


    Unless it was a Romney-esque “birth-certificate” joke — then I’ll tolerate it.

  3. Why do women want guns? It is the great equalizer. Contrary to the feminist propaganda, the average man will beat an average women to a pulp in a physical confrontation. A gun changes that real quick.

    1. Nonsense. They want guns for the same reaspon men want guns. PENISPENISPENIS!

  4. http://blogs.the-american-inte…..cumcision/

    American Academy of Pediatrics Endorses Circumcision

    Let the dick thread begin!!

    1. Fuck that covered wagon shit. My helmet needs to breath free before and after snorkeling.

    2. Don’t even think of starting this shit again. Nothing brings out the monomaniacs like circumcision for some fucking reason…

      1. What we need is a thread that combines abortion, gay marriage, the war between the states and the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, whether patents and copyrights should exist and the appropriate thickness of pizza crust.

        I imagine it would rival the Santorum concession speech in size.

        1. Don’t forget about the chili recipes.

        2. Unfortunately it would just devolve into Kirk vs Picard or some other geeky crap.

    3. The only issue I have with this is that it seems the AAP is basing this on the small benefit that circumscription gives in lowering the transmission of STDs.

      To which my counter is, and always will remain… why not just wear a fucking condom? Seriously, do we consider men that incapable?

      Anyway, circumcise, don’t… whatever. It would appear that the trend has been swinging away from it, as I think we are now to 50/50 nation, whereas I think at one time it was about 80/20. Personally, if it isn’t to comply with your religion, its a basically unnecessary medical procedure with a marginal health benefit, and if your that concerned, then just teach your son to wear a fucking condom as he should be doing that shit anyway. Wrap it before you tap it.

      Plus, you save a shit ton on lube uncut, so there is that. But again, the decision is yours. Just don’t try to justify it by, “GIRLS WILL THINK ITS WEIRD!” because, honestly, not really going to be a problem given statistical trends. Now, if its because you want your kids dick to look like yours… well, more power to you… but, that reasoning always did sound weird to me. But, as I said, I may have my own personal beliefs here, but its your kid, so I ain’t going to intervene as long as you don’t go from cutting off some skin to lopping the whole fucking head off.

      1. Okay, I’m cut and I’ll bite…

        Save money on lube?

        1. I wouldn’t know- I’ve just heard it helps with masturbation. But, as I said, coming at it from the other side, so I wouldn’t know.

          1. What the hell is the world coming to when people actually need lube to jack off?

            1. A world without friction burns?

      2. Plus, you save a shit ton on lube uncut,

        Learn to arouse a woman and you’ll never pay a penny on lube.*

        *Unless you’re gonna explore her hershey highway. I’ve “been told” lube is a must for that.

        1. I don’t always use lube, but when I do I use baconlube

      3. “Seriously, do we consider men that incapable?”


    4. Who is paid to do the circumcisions on male infants?

      Just askin’.

      1. I wonder how that goes down at cocktail parties.

        “So what do you do?”

        “I cut baby penises”

        1. What is that floating in cocktail?

  5. You know what my ideal vision of America is? Every citizen with a gunbelt around their waist and an assault rifle in their living room. The crime rate in this country would take a nose-dive.

    1. An armed society is a polite society.

      1. Damn straight!

    2. So would mouthy wives, barking dogs, unruly guests, political pollsters at dinner time and Jehova Witnesses.

      1. They’re helpful in traffic. Just show it and say “I’d like to merge please.”

  6. This is not girl shooting

    “Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but if I kill all the golfers they’re gonna lock me up and throw away the key.”

    1. “Don’t you have homes?”

      1. “I’ve sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn’t want to do it. I felt I owed it to them”

        1. “Bark like a dog for me. Come on. I will teach you meaning of word respect.”

        2. Oh, this is the worst-looking hat I ever saw. What, when you buy a hat like this I bet you get a free bowl of soup, huh?

          …Oh, it looks good on you though.

          1. You know, I’ve often thought of becoming a golf club.

            1. Your honor your honor, heh heh.

  7. i’m wondering if the feministing, jezebel etc. minions will ever come around to recognizing that RKBA empowers women DISPROPORTIONATELY vs. men (because on average, men can whup women’s asses in a fistfight) and that if they truly want to seek equality, they will support women’s right to carry the very means that EVEN THE PLAYING FIELD.

    you can have all the “take back the night” marches you want. it won’t make a woman safer. a gun will

    1. But they’re icky

      1. well, the kalishnakitty isn’t….

        nor is the…

        1. glitter? For that kind of money I would expect some glitter.

          Seriously though, my wife wants a pink gun.

          1. Chicks with pink guns are hot.

    2. no, because even the Jezebels put leftist dogma among practical considerations. Disarming the populace is entrenched into that dogma, arguably wedged deeper than anything else.

      1. ^^ This. Gender feminism is about advancing leftism, not women. Where the two clash, women’s interests will yield every single time.

        1. That’s ’cause thy’re trying to impress their male leftie college professors. After all, they are girls. Sort of.

    3. The government’s attitude toward gun ownership is clearly paternalistic, too.

      Women need a man to call to come help then when they’re in trouble.

      You can’t be trusted to defend yourselves with a gun.

      Don’t worry, we’ll take care of you.

      You’d think that would make feminists mad as hell.

    4. See, the problem is that for them, rape isn’t caused by things like sex or men being physically stronger.

      Rape isn’t a sexual crime- it’s a power crime. And rape isn’t caused by phyiscal differences- it’s caused by an invisible yet omnipresent culture that apparently condones it called rape culture.

      Therefore, guns won’t solve the problem- according to them. They will only create more violence.

    5. For the hundredth time:

      Feminism is a socialist front movement.

      They don’t give a shit about any individual woman except as useful props for their goal of advancing state paper.

      1. I shoulda scrolled down before posting…

        You nailed it.

      2. Should be power not paper.

        1. you know, it also sounded right the first time.

  8. wtf is rkba?

    1. Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

      Jesus, know your rights!

      1. Know your acronyms!!! I know my rights

        1. That’s not an acronym. It’s an abbreviation.


          1. Only if you, for some strange reason, prefer to say it as four syllables instead of two.

          2. well whatever it is it is annoying. gtsofhbip

            1. itfpapic, it’s both an acronym and an abbreviation.



  9. Like a lot of things on the left, their take on the Second Amendment is driven by aesthetics.

    They don’t like pictures of people getting shot on TV, and they don’t like the hunter aesthetic. When they imagine people with guns, they see NASCAR, country music, and WWE wrestling.

    Change the aesthetic, and a lot of them would change their position.

    And you’d think feminists would take to guns like fish to water. There’s a great equalizer out there, ladies, and if the government allows it, they sell it right in your neighborhood.

    You don’t have to be afraid of some man forcing himself on you just because he’s bigger than you, and you’re all alone…

    Hell, they’ve been teaching rape prevention classes for decades now. Why aren’t the feminists out there advocating empowerment through gun ownership? If they think America is a rape culture, then why isn’t arming women the solution to that? What percentage of sexually assaulted women out there were armed?

    I bet it’s miniscule.

    1. Why aren’t the feminists out there advocating empowerment through gun ownership?

      because feminism is not about female empowerment, per se, and never has been. It is about empowerment through govt, either oblivious to how this perpetuates a different form of patriarchy or purposely lying to those in its audience.

      1. yea. i like the equity feminists like camille paglia and the independent women’s forum feminists, etc. who ARE about REAL empowerment and real EQUALITY (of opportunity, not condition).

        i’m from the govt and im here to help, but i can only be one place at a time, and my sgt. won’t approve overtime for me to be every feminists personal bodyguard.

        so, hey feministing wankers!!! empower yourselves!

        1. Paglia is a riot to read. Don’t agree with everything she says but you get the sense it would be possible to have a couple of beers with her and shoot the shit without fear of being sued.

          1. paglia is like galloway or hitchens (rest in peace).

            even when i disagree with them, they are entertaining, thought provoking, and you know they’d be fun to hang out with.

            although there is no way i could keep up with galloway or hitchens when the drinking started.

        2. Wendy McElroy tends to be an exception to the rule. She’s definately not your typical feminist.

    2. Like a lot of things on the left, their take on the Second Amendment is driven by aesthetics.

      They don’t like pictures of people getting shot on TV, and they don’t like the hunter aesthetic. When they imagine people with guns, they see NASCAR, country music, and WWE wrestling.

      Truth to power, Ken. Indeed, when it’s a swarthy, keffiyeh-clad, Palestinian clutching an AK-47, the Left just swoons from the radical chic.

      1. and the left swoons oblivious to the reality that the same Palestinian treats women like dogs and would shoot gays on sight. Sometimes, all you can do with liberals is laugh at them.

        1. Let’s not forget Che the uber-thug and cold blooded murderer. He’s so sexy.

      2. Exactly.

        The left supposedly hates guns, but put Malcolm X in a photo with a gun and the words “By Any Means Necessary”, and it’s an inter-generational icon.

        They love guns–when they’re presented in the right way.

        Let’s face it, the left is much better at manipulating their ideas in the media–and the aesthetics of things–than we are.

        This goes all the way back to the Situationist International, Up Against the Wall Motherfuckers, et. al.

        Reason is about the closest thing libertarians have to those sorts of organizations–people that are really setting libertarian ideas within the context of popular culture.

        Sometimes it’s a little frustrating ’cause…it seems like the most effective tactics the left uses to manipulate ideas in the media are ignored by my fellow lay libertarians.

        Or, rather, it’s more like those tactics are noticed–but denounced as being “untrue” somehow. What people don’t seem to get, though, is how effective those tactics are in terms of the results.

        It’s hard to get fellow libertarians to read things that are written by people who are diametrically opposed to the libertarian way. But if the best work written about how to manipulate the media and popular culture into perceiving our ideas the way we want is written by Marxists? Then good ideas are where we find them.

        1. Well their number one tactic is just to lie or make shit up, and I think most people who aren’t left wing parrots are too intellectually honest to do that. The rest is just name calling which I suppose everyone does.

          1. Right or wrong is beside the point. Once again, we’re talking about aesthetics here.

            There may be people in this very thread who would change the channel if a flamboyant gay man were saying that there’s no real difference between civil rights and property rights–so long as he were saying it in an especially effeminate voice with an extreme lisp.

            We’re not talking about a small percentage of the American public here; we’re talking about everybody libertarians need to reach if we’re ever gonna make a real difference.

            I think we win on the rationality and the message. But that isn’t the fight! If the fight’s about aesthetics, then that’s how we need to learn how to fight.

            If the Tea Party aesthetic makes Soccer Moms and post-Gen Y kids cringe, then we need to change the aesthetic–to appeal to our intended audience. That’s what the left is doing. They’d lose on the rationality and the message. But their aesthetic is so dead on, their pathetic rationality and horrible message don’t matter one bit.

            They win anyway. If libertarians ever get a politician to make an impact as big as Barack Obama’s, it’ll be becasue we mastered our aesthetic like the left did. It won’t be becasue of our message.

            Rationality gets us exactly as far as we are right now. And where we are right now? Is almost complete irrelevance as far as public policy is concerned.

      3. What a great essay. Wolfe is America’s best living writer, bar none.

    3. Why aren’t the feminists out there advocating empowerment through gun ownership?

      I think it’s a “bleeding heart” issue. I propose that many feminists believe that human life is so sacred that they’d rather be raped than take a life. “Other” methods of control are preferable…

      (Of course that’s diametrically opposed to their positions on abortion, so I may be full of shit. Then again, reason isn’t their strong suit.)

      1. I propose that it’s an aesthetic issue.

        They’re driven by aesthetics. Their support is driven by aesthetics. And projecting an image that’s associated with NASCAR, country music, etc., just doesn’t sell…

        It’s the same reason why the Sierra Club recently came out against fracking. Who cares if replacing coal plants with natural gas decreases carbon emissions by 45%? The fact is that fracking is in the news as an environmental hazard, so the organizations who depend on popular support will agitate against fracking–even if fracking is better for the environment!

        Trying to reason with people will work with a small percentage of them. But with others? Trying to reason with them when their ideas are a function of aesthetics is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. That’s why seeing Kennedy do stuff like this is so important and effective. There wasn’t anything country music or WWE about that clip.

        Once we change the aesthetic, we change a lot of people’s minds. The reason some people who love Obama–and his policies–are the same people who hated Bush–and hated the same polices when Bush was implementing them? Is because they love Obama’s aesthetic.

        Most of us don’t think in those terms–our trip to libertarianism came more by way of reason. But if we’re going to get more influence, we’re gonna need to learn how to think and how to communicate in terms of aesthetics. If that’s what works.

        1. Trying to reason with people will work with a small percentage of them.

          This. I work with a number of lefties who, when it’s patiently explained to them that their policies bring about the exact opposite of their stated goals, respond with, “I don’t care.” The policy feels right to them, and that’s all that matters.

      2. I propose that many feminists believe that human life is so sacred that they’d rather be raped than take a life.

        1. [[Fucking Squirrels.]]

          Except for the pre-born, then killing is a fundamental right.

          And they also don’t show any problem with the gubmint killing people, as long as the right people are in charge.

  10. um, facepalm… ( “Embattled N. Georgia magistrate resigns” for pre-signing arrest and search warrants ( Embattled N. Georgia magistrate resigns by R. Robin McDonald:

    Murray County Chief Magistrate Judge Bryant Cochran has resigned, ending a judicial ethics investigation that included the judge’s practice of distributing pre-signed, blank arrest and search warrants to local law enforcement officers.

  11. obvious, but still…

    United States v. Meregildon,

    Where Facebook privacy settings allow viewership of postings by “friends,” the Government may access them through a cooperating witness who is a “friend” without violating the Fourth Amendment. Cf. United States v. Barone, 913 F.2d 46,49 (2d Cir. 1990) (finding that a person does not have a legitimate privacy expectation in telephone calls recorded by the Government with the consent of at least one party on the call). While Colon undoubtedly believed that his Facebook profile would not be shared with law enforcement, he had no justifiable expectation that his “friends” would keep his profile private. Cf. Barone, 913 F.2d at 49. And the wider his circle of “friends,” the more likely Colon’s posts would be viewed by someone he never expected to see them. Colon’s legitimate expectation of privacy ended when he disseminated posts to his “friends” because those “friends” were free to use the information however they wanted-including sharing it with the Government. Cf. Guest, 255 F.3d at 333 (finding that an e-mail sender-like a letter writer-loses their expectation of privacy upon delivery). When Colon posted to his Facebook profile and then shared those posts with his “friends,” he did so at his peril. Because Colon surrendered his expectation of privacy, the Government did not violate the Fourth Amendment when it accessed Colon’s Facebook profile through a cooperating witness.

    1. violating the Fourth Amendment

      Is that old thing still around? I thought the War on Drug-Users killed it awhile ago.

      1. i posted some good cases in the other thread were lots of coppy practices were suppressed by NEW more restrictive 4th amendment doctrine. but on the whole, the WOD, the WOTerra and the WODV has really eroded the 4th, i agree.

        of course, the 4th is inadequate on its face. it only protects against unreasonable search and seizures vs. more robust constitutional measures, like we have in Hawaii, WA state etc. that protect privacy

        like all this pinging bullshit

        groovy under the 4th, but YEARS ago that shit was shot down in WA w/o warrant or exigency due to our repsect for privacy

  12. Pretty cool that she went for it with the gun and documented the struggle and all, but my first thought was, This woman is, uhm, totally like way too old to still be talking like a valley girl. I haven’t spent much time in the US in the last 15 years, but are women in their late 30s actually talking like this? Not just the extreme nasality, but the rising inflection at the end of sentences. Impossible for me to take someone who speaks like that seriously.

    1. but my first thought was, This woman is, uhm, totally like way too old to still be talking like a valley girl. …are women in their late 30s actually talking like this? Not just the extreme nasality, but the rising inflection at the end of sentences.

      Here and there I guess but really not so much. What you are lamentably seeing from them more and more though is the insipid adolescent insertion of “totally” and “like” in every other sentence.

      1. I’ll take a legion of “totally”s over that hyper-nasal rising inflection shit.

      2. And they dress in their high school daughters clothes that don’t fit them properly. Gettin’ old’s a bitch.

    2. Many Generation Y’er are all grown up now. Were you expecting some other outcome? This woman is probably a left-winger on every other issue and the home invasion is the only reason she became reasonable on this issue.

      1. She is pretty cute though.

  13. I think this calls for a fun round up of Jezebel on guns. Because the comments are always fucking hilarious.

    1. To start:

      Does Feminism carry a gun?

      The general consensus appears to be, “No, because guns are icky and only exist to hurt people so if you own one the only reason you could want it is to hurt people.”

      No, seriously, read the comments. That’s the majority. I may post some of the best later.

      1. You are spot on. Of the wimins folk that I know who own guns, none of them are feminazis, they are all conservative, libertarian, or just apolitical. Like you said, to feminazis, guns are scary and only angry bible toting white tea party radical males have them.

      2. Nothing wrong with hurting the right people.

  14. Kennedy is not wearing the ideal outfit for shooting at a range. Flying hot brass hurts and burns the skin. It somehow has a way of getting inside necklines and into hidden places. Best to wear turtlenecks.

    1. Great, another circumcision denialist!

    2. True story: One time, in the Army, when I was on the CSW range firing M-60s, the brass from the guy next to me (he was too close) had just the right angle that it was bouncing off my A-gunner’s kevlar and falling right down the back of my shirt collar. That was unpleasant.

  15. An update on yesterdays massacre.
    The cops shot all but one of the people.
    “That’s some fine police work, Lou.”…..?hpt=hp_t1

    1. This. The guy who shot his boss, apparently did not even fire one of the shots that killed or wounded innocent bystanders.

      Nice work, NYPD! And hey libtards, this just proves that cops should not have guns!

    2. Police identified the slain victim as 41-year-old Steven Ercolino, who had apparently filed a prior complaint against his assailant that claimed he thought Johnson would try to kill him.

      But Bloomberg says that people don’t need guns because the police will protect them.

      1. Bloomey telling truth:

        But Bloomberg says that people don’t need guns because the police will protect them draw some nice chalk lines after you are dead, and then, I dunno, maybe shoot a few innocent bystanders for extra effect.

    1. “Sleep with him. That way your husband will see what a destructive influence the friend is to your marriage.”

    2. BARF

  16. Umm, girls want guns in case they decide to go to NYC, to protect themselves from randomly shooting cops?

  17. I had nothing to do with this.

    Rest In Peace, Neal Armstrong. You were the greatest America ever produced.

    1. He never did get that Oscar.

    2. RIP, and I agree with the sentiment. A Yeager-like guy, who did amazing things and refused to even mention them, much less brag.

  18. I think the headline is asking the wrong question. Isn’t the real question: Why wouldn’t anyone want a gun?

  19. You threatened to smash his mailbox if he didn’t pay his “insurance” didn’t you Sloopy?

  20. Yesterday’s apprehension process was handled in a sloppy manner by the police.

    If you ask me, it would be handled in a more sloppy fashion by the average Joe(s) with guns.

    There’s a reason they called it the “Wild-Wild West”. There would be shoot-outs and in many times, the people assisting the apprehension process would be mistaken for the PERP.

    My opinion has changed in the last few years. I don’t want to get into name-calling and referring to libertarian/conservative views as mean, selfish, stupid, etc. etc. etc.

    I say let’s have it so that STATE LAWS and STATE CONSTITUTION TRUMPs the US Constitution and Federal Laws. This is the best compromise I can come up with.

    Many (if not most) of the citizens I know in NYC are happy with the gun laws. Just like in Arizona, Denver, and other places that have had crazed gunman show up and kill people, new gun laws (for or against gun control) can help.

    Let the STATES decide on ALL Matters

    1. i meant to say new gun laws cannot help

    2. Alice, you are consistently dumber than anyone here, even O3. You are dumb enough to make me reconsider universal voting rights.

    3. The wild-wild west never existed except on tv. Old westerns are fictional, not documentaries.

    4. Alice picked the wrong week to start sniffing glue.

      Let’s take her argument and replace a few words. If you do so, you can justify limits to the 1A, 4A, reinstitution of slavery, and myriad other laws.

      Alice, you ignorant slut. The Constitution is there to protect the minority, not the most popular views or activities of the day.

    5. John Stossel is right when he says “discrimination laws are silly”

      It is not a good idea to have laws to try to protect everyone in the USA. Hateful people will find a way around these laws nationally.

      Why call me stupid?
      Why say i’m sniffing glue?

      I’m actually a man. Alice Bowie is a character from Cheech and Chong

      What I am simply saying is something that many libertarians/conservatives are saying. I as a liberal am willing to compromise on this. LET THE STATES set rules and policies for its citizen.

      If Alabama doesn’t want equal protection, let the citizens of that state write that into their constitution. Blacks/latinos and others…beware. If you are black and can live with these rules, stay. If not, move to one of the other states that offer equal protection.

      If New York doesn’t want loose gun laws, let us have our strict laws. If you desperately need to have a gun, you take your chances with prosecution or you move out or you don’t have a gun.

      Let California legalize Weed.

      Let Vermont have single payer.
      Let Mass have Obama/Romney Care.
      Let states that don’t want safety nets for their citizens not have safety nets.

      Forget about LAWS for every american. Clearly, we don’t agree across the country on many issues.

      Don’t know why you are complaining about an ANTI-STATIST policy liberals insist on. There’s no point.

      LET THE STATES make laws and keep the FED OUT.

      It’s a great compromise.

      1. It’s a great compromise…except for minorities that are stuck in places unfriendly to them. And I never called you a woman. It’s an old SNL bit.

        Your proposal is why the Nazis rose to power. Do you understand that? I’m sorry if I’m Godwinning a thread, but it’s true. The fucking Nazis came to power and exterminated millions of people because asshead enablers like you threw up their arms and let the tyrants win. Well, fuck that shit.

        Good day, sir.

        1. The Nazis?

          I’m suggesting that STATES laws trump FEDERAL laws. Not setup concentration camps.

          I’m saying that whatever the citizens want for their state, let them have it. Whatever it is. Regardless of what liberals/conservatives/christians think that live in other states.

          1. And if those state laws go against the tenets of the Constitution and allow for setting up concentration camps of, say, illegal immigrants (as you noted above), then you’d be fine with it, right? (Remember, you said whatever they want after all, and some of them already want to round up the illegals. Concentration camps aren’t exactly that far-fetched.)

            Decentralization is fine, but not when it strips away one of the few things the federal government ever did right: the Bill of Rights.

      2. Enumerated rights are enumerated.

        the number 14 comes to mind.

        But yeah if the left wants to start taking the 9th amendment seriously again i am all for it….but i will not give up all my other enumerated rights for it.

        By the way this was how it worked before the left fucked it all up.

        1. Why would you care if your precious enumerated rights were held up in your states and other states?

          I would live and travel to states that are welcoming. I’d avoid states that are not. I have no interest in visiting any of the butt-fuck states like arizona or any of those in the south.

          As you can see, many americans are not happy with the “Enumerated right” of a woman’s right to choose. Women would loose equal protection in states that ban abortion. At this point, I don’t care. I know that in many states abortion would be legal. What I don’t want is these people becoming president (as they are about to do) and outlaw it throughout the USA for a period of time.

          1. As you can see, many americans are not happy with the “Enumerated right” of a woman’s right to choose. Women would loose equal protection in states that ban abortion.

            First off, calling abortion an “enumerated right” is using a pretty convoluted definition of the phrase. And women wouldn’t lose equal protection in states that outlawed it, but unborn females would actually start getting rights their personhood should grant them…unborn males as well.

            Equating abortion with due process, free speech and equal protection is pretty fucking stupid. You’re pretty fucking stupid. Your whole argument is pretty fucking stupid.

            Good day, sir!

      3. You are stupid because nobody on here has EVER bitched about equal protection from the government.


        What we DON’T agree with is the government telling private businesses that they have to adhere to that same standard. Private businesses should be able to be as misogynistic and racist as they want to be. Do you really think those corporations would last very long in today’s day and age? They weren’t even lasting that long in the 60’s when the CRA was signed.

        1. SO the way to resolve that is to have NO FEDERAL LAWS govern corporations.

          Look, I’m willing to give up FEDERAL INCOME Taxes for corporations, the EPA, Labor laws, and all of the other laws most of you libertarians don’t like. Let the states make laws for corporations. The more corp-friendly state, the more corporations.

          Or, maybe a corp would move to a state that has no EPA but high corp taxes.

          Or, maybe a corp would move to a state with no state corp taxes and strong labor laws.

          1. Or, there could be no laws at the state or federal level that regulated what someone did within the confines of their own property up to and until that property owner impacted another person or their property in a negative and/or unwanted manner.

            Jesus Christ, why is your answer to always have somebody telling people or businesses what to do? All you do is change the person or entity that should be telling them?

            It’s like you think people are all sheep and need to be led. You just want more shepherds and smaller flocks. Well here’s a news flash: people and businesses are smart enough to run their own affairs. Some will make good decisions and some will make bad and that’s a hell of a lot better than having an almighty federal or state government that is susceptible to corruption telling them what they can and cannot do with their own property, company or person (until they infringe on the rights of another person or their property).

            You need to get to rehab, cause that glue-sniffing is really bad today.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.