Or global warming.

OTOH, more than 58% of Senate Democrats voted for the Iraq war as did 40% of the House Democrats.

I guess Democrats wanted the Iraq war a lot more than they want the pipeline, and they wanted the war *way* more than Republicans ever wanted Obamacare.

When libertarians expound that businesses should be able to deny service to any one for any reason, they also say "but then they can expect to be held up o public ridicule for it." So a baker has a right to refuse to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, but can expect protests on his doorstep.

Same thing here: FedEx can refuse to do their services for any reason they care to spout (or to keep secret if they wish) as is their right (or at least it ought to be).

Two things though. One is the concomitant public exposure for their decision. If they HAD refused because of gayness or blackness or something else, it would be a media circus. But since they refused on some wishy washy left-leaning reasoning, the normal chorus of "corporations are evil" will be silented for a bit.

The second thing is that their stated reasons are apparently hogwash. Claiming a law requires them to do X when there is no such law is just weak. And they should rightly be ridiculed for that.

Yeah, I know what I'm posting. That's why I'm posting it. "Gun-control" laws have been around for a long time, and courts, including SCOTUS, have a long history of striking them down based on the clear language of the 2nd. 2nd-supporters didn't just start advocating and fighting for their rights because of some Black Panthers in the 70's, they've been fighting for 200 years.

SCOTUS decision in Heller is 100% in line with courts throughout the land and over the centuries:

[thanks wikipedia]

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

Anyone claiming the "militia" is the National Guard, or that people do not have a right to arms that might help them should a citizens militia need to form against despotic government with standing army, are the ones trying to change 100's of years of consistent reading of the plain language of the 2nd.

Please explain.

Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557

But to prohibit the citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm, except upon his own premises or when on a journey traveling through the country with baggage, or when acting as or in aid of an officer, is an unwarranted restriction upon his constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky.

Whether or not an act of the legislature conflicts with the constitution, is, at all times, a question of great delicacy, and deserves the most mature and deliberate consideration of the court. But though a question of delicacy, yet as it is a judicial one, the court would be unworthy its station, were it to shrink from deciding it whenever, in the course of judicial examination, a decision becomes material to the right in contest. The court should never, on slight implication or vague conjecture, pronounce the legislature to have transcended its authority in the enactment of law; but when a clear and strong conviction is entertained, that an act of the legislature is incompatible with the constitution, there is no alternative for the court to pursue, but to declare that conviction, and pronounce the act inoperative and void. And such is the conviction entertained by a majority of the court, (Judge Mills dissenting,) in relation to the act in question.
The judgment must, consequently, be reversed.

Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga.

We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self-defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void; and that, as the defendant has been indicted and convicted for carrying a pistol, without charging that it was done in a concealed manner, under that portion of the statute which entirely forbids its use, the judgment of the court below must be reversed, and the proceeding quashed.

[Wikipedia: The Supreme Court in its ruling in Heller v. District of Columbia said Nunn, "...perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second amendment furthered the purpose announced in the prefatory clause...." The Nunn court concept of fundamental rights was relevant to determine whether or not the Second Amendment is a restriction only on the federal government or whether the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right that cannot be infringed by the state governments.]

People vs. Zerillo

The part of the act making it a crime for an unnaturalized foreign-born resident to possess a revolver, unless so permitted by the sheriff, contravenes the guaranty of such right in the Constitution of the state, and is void. The statute must be construed in accord with the provisions of our Constitution, and it may stand as an act prohibiting the use of firearms by unnaturalized foreign-born residents in hunting or capturing or killing any wild bird or animals, either game or otherwise, of any description, excepting in defense of person or property, but so far as it makes it a crime for unnaturalized residents to possess a revolver for the legitimate defense of their persons and property it is void.
Under the complaint and warrant and the evidence the defendant should have been adjudged not guilty. The conviction is set aside, and defendant is discharged.

State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574

On this occasion, the defendant threatened with violence was forced to abandon his property. He went to his place of business where he had the right to keep his pistol, "being on his own premises," and returned with it unconcealed. He was acting in self-defense of his person and in defense of his property. The court below most properly adjudged upon the special verdict that he was not guilty.

So? The point I was making is that pro-2nd Amendment, pro-firearm arguments didn't just start 30 years ago as an earlier poster intimated. The existence of these cases, no matter how they ultimately were decided, is sufficient to that purpose.

From WSJ article on same topic:

The Journal reported Monday that the DEA, an arm of the Justice Department, has been quietly building a database to monitor and store data about vehicles on major highways. Internal documents show the primary goal of the database is asset forfeiture, a controversial practice of seizing motorists’ possessions if police officers suspect they are criminal proceeds. Sometimes, those seizures take place without evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." (Edward Abbey, "The Right to Arms," Abbey's Road [New York, 1979])

wikipedia:

Edward Paul Abbey (January 29, 1927 – March 14, 1989) was an American author and essayist noted for his advocacy of environmental issues, criticism of public land policies, and anarchist political views. His best-known works include the novel The Monkey Wrench Gang, which has been cited as an inspiration by radical environmental groups, and the non-fiction work Desert Solitaire. Abbey was born in Indiana, Pennsylvania on January 29, 1927 to Mildred Postlewait and Paul Revere Abbey. Mildred was a schoolteacher and a church organist, and gave Abbey an appreciation for classical music and literature. Paul was a socialist, anarchist, and atheist whose views strongly influenced Abbey.

Heck, ATF agents lose dozens of guns every year...

http://www.justice.gov/oig/rep...

Over the 59-month period we tested, 76 weapons and 418 laptop
computers were lost, stolen, or missing from ATF. ATF's rate of weapons
loss per month has nearly tripled since Treasury's 2002 audit...

We also found serious deficiencies in ATF's response to these lost,
stolen, or missing items. ATF staff did not report many of the lost, stolen, or
missing weapons...

More like Operation Fearless.

http://www.jsonline.com/watchd...

ATF agents running an undercover storefront in Milwaukee used a brain-damaged man with a low IQ to set up gun and drug deals, paying him in cigarettes, merchandise and money, according to federal documents obtained by the Journal Sentinel.

Hours after a machine gun was stolen from an ATF agent's vehicle in September, police had four men in custody. But the gun vanished.

ATF agents let a man armed with a gun and threatening to shoot someone walk out of their storefront sting operation in Milwaukee last summer, failing to arrest him or take the weapon, the Journal Sentinel has learned.

ATF agents have lost track of dozens of government-issued guns, after stashing them under seats in their cars, in glove compartments or leaving them on top of their vehicles and driving away, according to reports obtained by the Journal Sentinel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2...

Low, to be sure, but the rate of similar crimes pretty much equally low before the laws.

And even the Port Arthur massacres were not really aided too much by the semi-automatic nature of the weapons. Bryant could have executed people at point-blank range with 6-shot revolver, either reloading or changing weapons (after the first magazine was emptied in his first semi-auto rifle, he did just that changed to the next rifle.

How many mass shootings (with semi-automatic weapons) were there before the guns laws? Two? And one since? And the new laws are the difference maker? From wikipedia, it seems Aussies ought not to be trusted with fire, knives or shotguns either...

Cullin-La-Ringo massacre - Horatio Wills and his traveling party were killed by Aborigines at Cullin-La-Ringo Station in Queensland in 1860; police, native police and civilians killed 60 to 70 Aborigines in response.
George David Silva murdered six members of the Ching family at Alligator Creek near Mackay, Queensland in 1911.
Coniston massacre - Over 50 Aboriginal people were killed in the last Aboriginal massacre in 1928. The motive was revenge for the killing of dingo hunter Frederick Brooks.
Hope Forest massacre - Clifford Cecil Bartholomew shot dead ten members of his family in Hope Forest near Adelaide, September 1971.[2]
22 September 1976 - William Robert Wilson - Killed two people and wounded four on Boundary Street, Spring Hill, Brisbane. Wilson took a .22 calibre rifle and 500 rounds of ammunition to Boundary Street around 12.30 pm and began shooting randomly. He shot and killed Monika Schleus, aged 17, as she crossed Boundary Street. Wilson shot and wounded Donald William Hepburn Galloway, who was also crossing the street. Proceeding to a milk bar, Wilson shot and killed Marianne Kalatzis, aged 18, and wounded Mavis Ethel Sanders and Virginia Hollidge. In the neighbouring shop he shot and wounded Quinto Alberti. Wilson was captured by police around 4:15 pm at a suburban house where Wilson was holding a man and four young women hostage. Wilson served three years in a mental hospital. On being found fit for trial, he was sentenced in 1980 to two life sentences for the murders and 10 years each, concurrently, for the four attempted murders. He pleaded guilty to all charges.[3]
Milperra massacre - Two biker gangs, the Comanchero and the Bandidos, engaged in a shoot-out in a hotel car park, killing 7 people in 1984, including a bystander. Only one defendant was acquitted on the murder charges.
Joseph Schwab - 1987, Schwab shot dead 5 people in and around the Kimberley region in Western Australia before being shot dead by police.[4]
Hoddle Street massacre - Armed with two rifles and a shotgun, Julian Knight shot 7 people dead and wounded another 19 in 1987 before surrendering to authorities.
Queen Street massacre - Armed with a sawn-off rifle, Frank Vitkovic roamed the Australia Post building killing 8 and wounding 5, also in 1987. When the weapon was finally wrestled from him, he committed suicide by jumping out of a nearby window.
Surry Hills massacre - Paul Anthony Evers killed 5 people with a 12-gauge shotgun at a public housing precinct in Surry Hills in 1990 before surrendering to police.[5]
Strathfield massacre - In 1991 Wade Frankum killed 7 people and wounded 6 others with a large knife and an SKS before turning the gun on himself when he realised he could not escape.
Central Coast Massacre - Malcolm Baker killed 6 people and injured another with a shotgun in 1992 before being arrested by police.
Port Arthur massacre - In 1996, armed with two semi-automatic rifles, Martin Bryant killed 35 people around Port Arthur and wounded 21 before being caught by police the next day following an overnight siege.
Childers Palace Fire - In June 2000, drifter and con-artist Robert Long started a fire at the Childers Palace backpackers hostel that killed 15 people.
Monash University shooting - In October 2002, Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five.
Churchill Fire - 10 confirmed deaths due to a deliberately lit fire. The fire was lit on 7 February 2009.[6]
2011 Hectorville siege - A mass shooting that took place on Friday, April 29, 2011, in Hectorville, South Australia. It began after a 39-year-old male, Donato Anthony Corbo, went on a shooting rampage, killing three people and wounding a child and two police officers, before being arrested by Special Operations police after an eight-hour siege.[7]
Quakers Hill Nursing Home Fire - 10 confirmed and as many as 21 people may have died as a result of a deliberately lit fire in a Quakers Hill nursing home. The fire was lit early on 18 November 2011.[8]
Cairns stabbings - A woman stabbed 8 children to death on Friday, 2014, December 19, 2014, 7 of them were her own.

As a CCW holder, I have already been fingerprinted by the Sheriff's office, photographed, background-checked by the FBI, and paid cash money for the process. But every time I buy a gun, it takes about 1 hour to show my CCW, fill out more paperwork, get all the background stuff confirmed, undergo the probative questions of the FFL from whom I'm buying (trying to see if there's any reason to deny the sale, e.g. if they thought I was drunk).

Last time I voted, I walked up to the empty desk, signed my name (no picture ID check), poked a few buttons on a video screen and walked out. Oh, and 20 years ago I filled out a postcard (name and address) to register to vote.

Actual statistics do not bear out your "well-known" trope. First, it's not a "loophole" its the Federal law written expressly to allow occasional private sales. The overwhelming majority of sales at guns shows are by FFL, who comply with background checks. Many others are responsible gun owners who expect you to show them your CCW or similar documentation. Only 2% of crime guns are obtained at gun shows. A mid-1980s study found that gun shows were such a minor source of criminal gun acquisition that they were not even worth reporting as a separate figure.

And the law already prohibits both straw purchases and private sales to people who are not legally allowed to own guns. There's a reason why non-FFL sellers at a guns show demand to see a CCW.

A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law.
[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]

Seeing a valid CCW is an easy check to help private sellers feel pretty good that the person to whom they are selling is not prohibited from owning the firearm.

not located in Buffalo, Albany or NYC. You will see thousands and thousands of "No NY SAFE ACT" signs. In the front yard of house after house after house. Sheriffs are refusing to enforce it. The law is being picker apart by courts and "corrective" legislation. It is hugely unpopular and likely to go away sooner rather than later.

http://americannewsreport.com/...

In Colorado, the gun control folks were handed their collective butts in recall elections despite outspending the 2nd Amendment folks by a very wide margin.

There are still peaceful resolutions to these differences, but it certainly seems that it is more likely than ever that some gung-ho prosecutor in NYS will go after someone using provisions of the SAFE Act and will find that there are a lot of people ready to show up armed, like in the Clive Bundy situation.