So much for the loss of reciprocity with half the country.
>politician thinks CC is a constitutional right
>talk shit about his name
Thought it was Federal,
As such I redact my original "nothing will happen" because something may happen at state level but I don't live in Virginia so I don't give a fuck
Republicans doubled down on da bible last election. Neither one was popular and mcauliffe barely won. A third party candidate actually managed to get 6.5% of the vote, which is crazy high for someone who spent almost no money on their campaign. It was basically money buying a campaign though. 4.3 million spent on the dem vs 2 on the republican in super pac money. If Super pacs were illegal like they should be in the US then he wouldn't have likely won.
>If Super pacs were illegal like they should be in the US
Preach it brother, you're doing the Lord's work!
I worked for a state rep, wannabe state sen. All I can say is PACs and everything like them is of the devil.
Seriously though, they'd be illegal if more people knew about them. The definition should be taught in schools.
>Can you be any more of a cuck to go by dick if your last name is black?
huh? Pretty ballsy if anything, you KNOW that shit would be used against him, he's just getting ahead of it
Corporations are not people and the political action committee is a thinly-veiled form of bribery, the candidate getting loads of cash to virtually guarantee reelection in exchange for doing whatever the large-scale donor wants, whether or not it's what his constituency, the people, want.
>Roll call somewhere
>Last name first
Don't care if it makes me twelve that's funny
Please god let this work.
I want to at least be able to CC a blackpowder firearm in Hawaii when I visit.
I doubt that even US constitutional carry would repeal Hawaii's registration laws which require buttloads of paperwork to keep a gun in the state longer than 5 days.
Not that guy, but I'm a little uneasy about banning superPACs.
Because a super PAC doesn't directly contribute to the campaign any law designed to defeat super PACs could be broad enough to be used against other things.
I don't like laws that can be used to suppress people. What if they decide that the NRA is a Super PAC?
I get that and agree with you, but it would be able to be written in such a way that it only hits them. Super PACs are pretty specific things classified fairly specifically, if I recall.
However, much like Congressional term limits, reduction of Congressional salaries, and other such things, it will never happen without efforts or even violence of the people. Nobody in Congress would draft that and put it on the floor, let alone sign it.
Fuck this system. Fuck it all.
What do you think lobbying is? They tell the representatives what they should vote for and donate some cash, then if they look like they'll vote for it they'll donate more, and if they vote for it, they donate more, and the representative keeps voting in favor of that lobby to get more cash so he can get rich and/or reelected and not have to get a real job.
Lobbying is dirty, but in theory it's doesn't cross the line of making actual rhetorical argument about issues obsolete if the lobby is run and financed as a nonprofit organization by citizens. When you have groups of corporations using PACs and controlling "nonprofit" lobbying organizations you get for-profit lobbies which are fundamentally detrimental to the democratic process.
Imagine if there was an amendment to this that would 'standardize' all firearms that can be bared to include all autoloading centerfire rifles, handguns of course, and even NFA weapons.
Hell maybe we can even add some clause that adds gun owners as a protected class to automatically win the untold amount of discrimination cases on lawsuits against antigun businesses and organizations...and we could even make the Bloomberg Mayors whatever a hate group lol.
Not a troll and am pro gun but
why should the constitution be a valid argument for gun ownership? the constitution has been changed before for the betterment of the country. Shouldn't the pro-gun debate focus on relevant reasons to why they are a good thing/aren't bad instead of trying to use some "because i say so" constitution argument?
Or rather the antis refuse to listen to the countless real arguments and so out of exasperation even intelligent pro-gunners just default to "muh constitution, muh human rights."
The problem is that as the ones claiming "we should do X" against "we shouldn't have to do X" the burden of proof is on the shoulders of the antis. They have no valid arguments however and the valid arguments from the other side are ignored so they end up implying that their position is based purely on emotions and we end up at an impasse.
no need for a redundant bill, the 2nd amendment already guarantees conceal carry and possession of all guns. anyone who follows retarded liberal state laws is a cuck not an american