the media was gaga over her. its not just nunchucks she doesnt beleive regular people have the right to defend themselves. thats the same thing they have been pushing in our schools, if someone beets on u your not supposed to fight back just run to an authority figure. but its ok if u r a cop or the like. she and her ilk are not worth their own flesh and blood.
Wow, this is dumb. Nunchaku illegal, guns legal... So much easier to kill with a gun. But neither should be illegal. Just cuz some people choose to be assholes and hurt each other with these things doesn't mean everybody who has them will. Some are collectors, some just enjoy plinking targets. In the case of nunchaku and myself, I own nunchaku to learn to use them for fun and exercise, and because I find them interesting.
we need to jump on this with both feet. i mean what if some crazy person went to i dont know say there local town hall meeting and all of a sudden pulled out a set of nunchucks and started just nunchucking everyone. i mean it could be really bad. lol next we should do away with silver ware and kitchen knives. lol why are we paying for them to sit and even ponder such things..
The word Arms in the constitution, include a lot of things that could be weapons - baseball bat, night stick, knife, swords, bricks, bow and arrows.
In ny guns are illegal to have for the most part. So people are look for alternatives to the gun. What this liberal person did was took another weapon away from the citizens to use in self defense. In other words she can not understand the constitution or USA
Wow...this is what we talk about in our legal system? This is retarded...how could you possibly have a serious discussion on how dangerous a set of nunchucks could be?
Really? You need to have an intellectual conversation over this?
They should not judge a rule to nunchaku practitioners without statistical proofs and awarenez of the ones whose using it. said it can hurt people around areas by just swigging it - that is for minors/children. Nunchaku requires discipline and a place to practice. and not all nunchaku is lethal. the first impression of nunchaku is a weapon, but it is actually an exercise equipment/tools. in our modern world, everything is adjusting, mostly for the better. it wont damage anything on allowing it.
they should have focused more on guns and knifes which can be used as advantage for robbery. on our nunchaku community, not one used it to abide the law of human. this is our rights of expression. we call them freestyle nunchaku - used in parks and indoors but not on a busy street. nunchaku can only be illegal if it is used for defensive/offense act. it works like a pencil, when used as a weapon. so nunchaku can be considered as a tool. just like hammer and saw. check "appeal to authority" judge
Hmm. I've been using nunchaku for about.....3 or so months, and regardless of what combinations or whatever I pull off, I've hit myself in the head just one time, and that was because I was being retarded with my younger brother. They can indeed be dangerous, but so are guns. Most people wouldn't just buy them to go hurt people; I got them because I'm a martial artist, and wanted a "just in case" weapon as a bo staff's way to big to keep in the car.
i am really disappointed by this. if you dont even know what to call them, then obviously you have not really taken the time to figure out what exactly people use them for nowadays. today, when people buy nunchaku, they go on youtube and look for tutorials. they discover freestyle. sure there are idiots who want to do nothing but beat people up, but they can just as easily use a baseball bat. just as deadly.good luck getting my nunchaku. for all of you in ny who still spin chux, fuck yeah!!!!
and after one chooses the bat as a weapon, he would only have to tune in to any major league game to see a tutorial on how to operate the bat, pop a bunch of steroids and then go decapitate someone.
exactly! nunchaku is not something that someone can just one day pick up and really be effective with. they would hurt themselves more than the would hurt anyone else. i have been doing freestyle nunchaku for over a year now and i would be hard pressed to use them in combat without really hurting myself lol
I knew a guy who was quite skilled with nunchaku, he still tended to wang himself frequently. Honestly what kind of super dangerous martial arts weapon is that?
NUM-CHUKS? what a dumb bitch. They are NUNCHAKU, easy to pronounce with a spanish speaking tounge as both japanese and spanish share common phonics.of course a "wise latina" could never out wit the provrbial, "wise man" of lore. Wise-man smoke, foo man choo.
And I can stab someone in the eye and cause fatal damage with a writing utensil. Should you ban those? Especially in schools and government buildings?
Should you treat me like a criminal simply because I have the capabilities to become one? Might as well get the jump on all of us and declare capital punishment for anyone but the mentally retarded, right?
absolute ignorance sotomayor your an absolute idiot mamm they are Nunchaukas. you can have my damned guns, my money and my stock but no one takes my nunchucks. WHAT DO WE EXPECT FROM SOME ONE WHO WAS RAISED IN A HOUSING PROJECT. THE ONLY TWO STICKS SHE EVER SAW WERE THE ONES DADDY HIT MAMA WITH AND THE ONLY CHAIN WAS THE ONE HANGING FORM DADDYS POCKET .DUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHH
nun-chumps should be illegal for all round-eyes! They should only be carried by people with slanted peep-holed eyes, because only they can focus on exact precise targets! HOO-RUH!
well... i guess we are going to have a political discussion...
i thought we would all just laugh at the term "nun-chuck sticks" which to me sounds like a weapon used during the crusades...
or point out the fact that she said that if you swing them around other people you will get hurt... not the other people...
but if we are going to talk politics lets talk, outlawing nunchucks is completely ridiculous, what, are you going to hold a coup de'tate with rice thrashers? nuf said
mmmm i always wonderd because in america they have these sorts of discussions about some collecter items which might cause damage but i could walk into almost any gun-shop and buy a glock and no one asks questions about that, i would like to get some clearance on this
You're correct, but his point still stands... If they outlaw nunchucks, then shouldn't they outlaw shovels, metal rakes, dogs, cats, snakes, really anything metal, especially chains. All of those can cause damage to people.
She is dumb if she things outlawing "nunchucks" will save someone's life, if someone is going to kill someone with a nunchuck and they can't get their hands on one... they're going to pick up a shovel, they aren't going to forget about their plan because of no nunchucks
all of her points about nunchucks being dangerous are valid; however, that can be said of literally thousands of other common objects. For example roll up a magazine and slam the short end into someones temple and you could fracture their skull. Let's ban those!
@Fordtrucksown You can say that about ANY weapon. Once you've made the decision to kill someone, you're not gonna just give up cuz your weapon of choice is illegal. You'll probably still have one because killing is illegal, and it being illegal isn't stopping you from making the decision to do it. Even if you don't have your chosen weapon, you're gonna kill them one way or another. taking away nunchaku isn't gonna solve jack shit. And there are so many ways to kill it's not even funny.
hrm... well i still think that its better we have access to weapons and a few idiots kill themselves then we don't have access and no one can defend themselves
WTF!!! ive always played with nunchucks since i was like 5 and got the fake plastic ones the most i ever did with real ones was a really big bruise you could break bones and stuff but only if you intended to do it... or if you are really stupid
"Nunchuck sticks" as they called them are actually nowdays used more by freestylers than by martial artists. currently the nunchaku freestyle chuck of is going on, we also have a world cup and there is strong talk of it being in the olympics. The idea of this is barbaric and there are things we have which would do potentially more damage as to use nunchaku as a form of weapon takes training as of rebound etc and if someone untrained used them for combat they would probably injure themsels more.
what is not intelligent about her answer ??? she is only explaining a real case with real life experiences ...her answer is as stupid as many of the questions that have been asked
Well it seems that the world has changed. And that hopefully things will change for the better at nominating people of all walks of life. Regardless of race, color, creed, sex. It begun with Obama.
First off... theyre NUNCHUKU, not numchuks... and secondly why the fuck is she doing in such a position of power and can't even say SWINGING properly... the first G does not sound louder than the last one.
first she goes along with its ok to ban numchucks then its guns doesnt everyone see threw her lies. Find out about what she realy believes on the issues and you will be very frieghtened. Because as she states she will be righting laws soon.
Her answer was that certain decisions, such as the decision to ban nunchucks, are left to the states, according to the precedent she was bound to follow at the time she made the particular decision the Senator was asking about. Pretty simple, and supportable, answer.
Neither the recession, depression, war, etc., has any relevance to how a particular legal case should be decided. Also, the REPUBLICAN Senator asked her about the case involving nunchucks. I guess instead of answering, she should have said: "That's a stupid question"? Who's retarded? Look in the mirrir.
lol this is a frickin joke... if u are being taught by someone who knows how to use it, then it is just like any other weapon in the world. they would have to ban anything and everything to make sure ppl didnt have weapons... and u would have to cut off every1s arms and legs. and U WOULD STILL HAVE WEAPONS. i own nunchuks and as long as i am responsible and dont go swinging wildly, then there is a REALLY good chance that no one will get hurt
U gotta be FRIGGIN KIDDING ME!! The Government / Supreme Court, on any level, has NOTHING BETTER to do then to debate Numchucks?! Ok yea it takes 8lb pressure per square inch to break a bone, Nunchucks can generate as much as 80, guess what can break a bone? a baseball bat a tire iron, a pipe, a decent stick / tree limb. Lets ban that shit too...so no more plumbing, base / soft ball...gott cut down all the trees to dangerous. Forget being shot by a 9 mil or DUI Laws these nunchucks are serious
Absurdity is the norm. When John Wayne Gacy was murdering boys, he was also a part time clown and drove a van, and some comedian said, "Oh great, now we have to ban clowns and vans". The politicians are always after that purposeless event that the sheeple morons will feel good about.
Dear friend, We are the biggest wholesale company on electronic product in China. We can offer you the best price and afterservice.there are many kinds of electronic products in our store, such as TV, Notebooks, GPS,iphone,Mp3, Mp4 and so on.When you havetime, please visit our website and contact us. we will try our best to help you .
Our belief: credit is the first, customers are our god.
Our website is:__lucksey{.}COM__
Please enter the site format! Be able to look at site!
ye lets ban baseball bats too. and all sticks altogether.. and every "instrument" you can hit a man with.. damn, i hate mankind sometimes. and lawyers.
Nunchucks??? LOL, all they are is 12-14 inch whipping-sticks tied together. I have a pair of roswood nunchucks. You can beat someone black and blue with them, but you won't break any arms or skulls. There's just not enough weight in the wooden ones. A bo is a much better weapon because you can put your weight behind it for some real crushing power. Nunchucks are just good for whipping someone: causing pain without serious injury.
What is the difference between what a pair of nunchucks can do vs. a knife?
It's two sticks tied together with rope. The fact that it can be used dangerously is already a foregone conclusion, so can a knife, so can a bat, so can a long stick, so can a piece of glass etc. etc...
She's an idiot. Typical liberal woman's response to any weapon.
How about machetes? Don't we need diversity when it comes to self-defense? We have no rights because we must be equal to the corporations we have enshrined as masters. But don't mess with our right to arm bears--that is the only amendment left after BUSH.
I wish all the Republifucks would at least watch the full Hatch Q&A and study the case in question. She was simply explaining the law in question and why it was upheld. If you think Sotomayor gives a crap about whether or not you have nunchucks, you're a friggin' moron who should take your gun to your temple and pull the trigger.
Wow, nunchaku aren't even close to being one of the most dangerous weapons. You know what else can fatally injure a person? Baseball bats. Are those getting outlawed as well?
screw that obongo, appointed, racist liberal ass munching, nasty beast of a whore!! and screw YOU liberals, you immoral, brainwashed, lazy piece of shit tree hugging, uneducated imbeciles!! Keep waiting for your free money, the money you steal out of the pockets of US!!hard working, TAXPAYING!! people that slave to feed our children and who strive to better our lives.. YOU LOSERS SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOUR UNAMERICAN PIECE OF SHIT LIVES!! your messiah has brought you more of the same you losers
You use the term Obongo and then go on to call liberals racist. Hummm . . .. You use the term uneducated yet there are numerous typos and punctuation throughout your post, hummm... So you think that liberal dont pay taxes?
It seems you are talking about your self? Perhaps you are a Liberal as well?
You are quite ignorant. Apparently you don't know that, on average, Democrats (liberals) are more educated than Republicans (conservatives). You apparently also missed that blue states (liberal) generate more income than red states (conservative). So, guess what, we are more educated and pay more taxes. So, in sum, fuck off you ignorant fuck.
You just proved my points lol Keep up the good work!! I love how you back up your claims with nothing more then shit!! I am assuming that's because you have shit for brains!! If you are going to proclaim all these wonderful attributes that libtards are making to society, then you better you some kind of reference other than the shit for brains that you have to prove those claims...... ps. Go fuck yourself!!!!
and you want to talk about punctuation, and spelling !! You troglodyte!!
Coming from you, a brainwashed moron.. I can only laugh!! You promote and support, immorality. I support ; MORALITY!!... enough said... Go drink your kool-aid, before it gets warm!!
You just like to make up facts as you go along. No wonder reality means nothing to you. What immorality to you take it upon yourself to assume I promote and support?
I will admitt that your ignorance is unprecidented among the common liberal kool aid drinkers in this forum lol You need to consider the symantics of your party and what your party stands for in this country..Morality Vs. immorality.consider the FACTS the democratics have diminished the standards of living in this country, your party supported the largest spending bill ever passed, without even know what the monies are being used for.Enjoy the change,keep looking for the hope you, ignorant SOB
You can't spell unprecedented or semantics, and don't appear to know what semantics means, or at least can't properly use the word in a sentence.
Democrats have diminished the standards of living in this country? How so? By promoting education? By promoting a living wage? Seriously, where do you get your opinions?
You seem to not know what "ignorant" and "fact" mean.
You commented about morality. Now you are changing the debate to finance? Is that your game - keep changing the subject?
Let us go back to the diminshed moral values that you support, same sex marriage? late term abortion? reverse racism?? stem cell research, inwhich the cells being extracted from aborted and unborn embryos?? How about lowering the standard of health care by nationalizing it?? the list goes on, and on, and on.. You promote ignorance by suppoting the loose liberal agendas.. now go fuck off... I have to go to work, early tomorrow morning.... You??
You have made quite a few assumptions. I do not "support" late term abortion, or racism in any form. Nor do I support lowering the standard of health care, though I do not see nationalized health care as a "moral" issue. I am against discrimination in any form, so, yes, I support the right to same sex couples to marry. I do not impose my religion on others, like you. I take it, o holier than thou one, that you do not work on the Sabbath? And support killing those that do? Fucking hypocrite.
If Democrats are so much more educated then why do they do things against the American citizen instead of helping them? More taxes and fines for not doing what they want. Making legislation to make it harder on business rather than to help business by eliminating problems?
The socialists ARE NOT more educated, they prove it all the time with their failed policies and ideas. It's NOT about "helping" Americans it's ALL about controlling them. Why else would they mandade which kind of lightbulb you may own, the color or size of your car, etc. Look at California 40years of Demo control and it's bankrupt.
T00: That, on average, Democrats are more educated than Republicans, is a documented fact. What you seem to be arguing is that, despite their higher education, they are nonetheless less intelligent. I disagree. Republican policies fail just as much, more, than Democratic policies. As for control - really? Republicans want to control our private lives and souls. You appear to be whining about environmental regulation (light bulbs). Your whining proves the point - you don't get it.
While there is disagreement, most respected scientists today agree that climate change is real, is a real threat, and is being caused by man. Fluorescent bulbs are one of the easiest and most economical ways to reduce energy consumption, and thus carbon emissions. Would you legalize slowly adding arsenic to our water? Of course not. Carbon emissions are no different, it will just take a lot longer.
Your CA example further shows your ignorance, as you don't understand the real issue.
TheNewVideo: The statistic is what it is. Look it up if you don't believe me.
You are, of course, characterizing Democratic efforts. I have no idea what you are talking about in terms of fines, but, let's be real, if the government is going to spend money, it has to tax. Gone are the days of lean government, regardless of which party runs it. Tax and spend is better than not tax and spend. That said, the massive deficit, IMO, is a mistake, but some very smart people think it will help.
NewVideo: Also, you are picking a few particular issues on which you believe the Democrats are faiing. There are many other issues. I can't speak for all educated people, but my vote was more against McCain Palin than for Obama. McCain was promising to follow Bush's disastrous policies. He was also very old, and Palin scared the crap out of me. For me, the most important issues for our nations future are education and the environment. Obama was stronger on both.
There's just a FEW examples of BAD ideas from Democrats which HAVE failed!
"if the government is going to spend money, it has to tax"
THEN YOU PAY IT!! That's the dumbest statement I've ever seen. Oh and just a little FYI man CANNOT control the weather hence "climate change" is foolish
Gee, and it would be SOOOO hard to list just as many failed Republican policies. BTW, taxing soda is a great idea, and California's fiscal problem is primarily due to the initiative process, but, regardless, your examples say nothing about which party is more educated. This information, again, is factual. Learn logic.
Re climate change - really, we cant control the weather? So climate change must be bs? Wow, you are an idiot. I encourage you to get an education, though I doubt it will help.
That REALLY shows how little you know right there. You're a socialist and won't figure out how foolish you are until it's much to late. I really pity you, for how little you know about everything.
And you're an idiot. This shows my opinion, not my knowledge. I would be fine not offering health care, emergency or not, to anyone who can't pay. I really don't give a shit about people I don't know. But that's not going to happen. We will always spend money caring for people who can't pay. Guess what? Soda makes that cost MUCH higher because it creates obesity, a huge medical problem. I think the obese who drink soda should pay a tax to subsidize the cost of me paying for their health care.
Two reasons. It would have been a wasted vote, because he was not going to win, and his stance on the First Amendment. He supports a constitutional amendment to divest federal courts of jurisdiction over cases challenging the validity of state laws that amount to endorsement / establishment of religion. This is a very important issue to me. I am not willing to gut such a fundamental protection just to save money.
Nunchucks can cause damage? No kidding. They're a martial weapon, they're arms. So is a firearm. If she thinks that because a weapon is dangerous (what the hell weapons aren't?) it's okay for the State to prohibit owning them they can do the exact same thing (and have been for years now) firearms. Something she supposedly doesn't support.... yeah... right.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution! "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..." (made applicable to the states by the 14th Amendment). This is not about big federal government; it's about courts enforcing the rights of the citizenry when states overstep constitutional bounds. Paul would allow states to etablish Christianity as an official religion without federal judicial review. People need protection from state governments as much as from the fed
the constitution does not expressly authorize judicial review. dr. paul does not want to impose christianity on others. how can u protect ppl from the state government by giving federal government unconstitional powers? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion + or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech......." how is it constitutional to tell kids they cant pray in school?
That it one of the stupidest things I have read. The Constitution creates a Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court has no power to review legislation for consistency with the Constitution, the Court and the Constitution cease to have meaning. Your unfounded interpretation would gut the checks and balances inherent in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court never held that kids can't pray in school. Try reading the case law. While the Court makes mistakes, the remedy is not to destroy the court.
Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches. - thomas jefferson i am not the unfounded one here at all. also how would it be check and balance if only judges who r in office for life gets to decide constitutionality
The Legislature enacts laws. The executive enforces them, and controls the military. The Judicial interprets them, and makes sure the Legislature did not overstep its bounds when enacting laws. All three branches can and do safeguard the Constitution. The Legislature can decide not to pass a law if it would violate the Constitution. The executive can veto. And the judiciary can invalidate. It's not complicated. You would eliminate a key check on elected officials - on the tyrany of the majority.
Under your (and Ron Paul's) world, nothing would protect US. citizens should the states attempt to deny them the freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Wouldn't that be a great place to live!
Do you actually think about these things before commenting? Or do you worship Paul so much that whatever he says is gospel?
wow what is wrong w/ u, i didnt even insult u because based on ur other comments all u do is insult ppl and generating heat rather than anything substantial. i know that it is a problem if a state deny its ppl freedom, its even worse if federal government do it, because it affects more ppl. at least at the state level ppl would be much better represented. also, it is called following the constitution
The key to the First Amendment is protecting the minority from the majority. This can only work if courts uphold the Constitution. By definition, the "people" are the majority, and thus will not check themselves.
Yes, it is called following the Constitution. The problem is you do not understand it. The reason I insulted you is because I am tired of people without legal educations thinking they understand the law better than some of the greatest legal minds of all time.
power of judicial review is not given to the supreme court by the constitution. the constitution does not prohibit judicial review to the states. according to the 10th amendment the states should have such power. only the states have the power to create the laws for fed govt to follow so they should interpret them. ''ppl will not check themselves'' what about state courts? ''all 3 branches can and do safeguard the con''? u didnt mean that do u? plz dont reply w/ more of the same myopic view
Article III, Section 2, U.S. Constitution: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution." Only a moron (such as you) would claim that this does not grant the U.S. Supreme Court power to find that a law passed by a state is unconstitutional.
sidiggy1 ive heard that one plenty of times, article3 sect2. ''the judicial power'' ''arising under this constitution'', tell me what is that power? NO ONE not even judges that support judicial review, would say that the constitution explicitly gives supreme court the power of judicial view. are u not at all embarrased?
Evil? You are SUCH an idiot it is insane! Distorting the law of the land that protects our freedom? Just how do you suppose the Constitution protects our freedom if federal couts have no power to enforce it?
"Congress shall make no law ..." What does that mean if the Court can't hold that Congress violated it?
Seriously - you are retarded. It pains me. The Courts PROTECT our constitutional rights. Without the Courts doing so, we have no Constitutional rights. How am I distorting anything?
If by have not refuted any, you mean have obliterated all, then you are correct. I have articulated, accurately, how the Constitution is supposed to work and why, which, BTW, is the way legal scholars understand it. You have responded with senseless babble that would effectively mean we have no federal judiciary. Seriously, in your view, what inherent power DOES the federal judiciary have? And how would that power create a "check" against the legislative and executive branches?
go to ur constitution. look at art. 3 sect. 2 second paragraph. the supreme court has jurisdiction over controversies between more than one state. the rest are appellate jurisdiction. the congress may eliminate/make exceptions and regulate those. even the supreme court acknowledged that its jurisdiction is defined by congress(the states & ppl it represents). only the states have the power to create the laws for fed govt to follow, they should have the power to interpret them & create the check.
I know you think that it how it works, but you are an idiot. The federal courts are crucial and have been crucial to protecting individual liberties against the states. That is how it was written, how it is supposed to be, and how it is. You think everyone else is wrong, and that they way the law has been interpreted 200 years is wrong. Good for you. I am glad the law has been interpreted the way it has, and glad the federal courts are there to protect me against illegal state action.
yes federal courts can be used to protect u from illegal state action(though it has to disobey the constitution if it overrule state supreme court on state laws), but what protects u from federal courts? us supreme court cant overrule state supreme court when it comes to state law. thats how it is written, for a long time we have not been following the constitution. if u say im wrong, why not just use the words from the constitution and refute me?
Why do we need protection from federal courts? Federal courts do not enact laws. The most they can do is invalidate them. And, there is a check - if we think they got it wrong, we amend the constitution to make it more clear. Pretty simple.
Look, it would take a short essay to prove you are wrong. Frankly, I am bored with this discussion. As I said, two hundred years of legal scholarship agrees with me. I have read the Constitution, and gone to law school, and I am done with you.
what about state courts, why cant they protect us? i dont care about ur badge. also do u want to discuss how many unconstitutional things the govt has done?
I see now that you were asking about the name of Paul's proposed amendment. I checked and I was wrong, he proposes legislation, not an amendment. A Yahoo search found these words from Paul himself:
"My legislation would restore First amendment protections of religion and speech by removing all religious freedom-related cases from federal district court jurisdiction, as well as from federal claims court jurisdiction."
This would not "restore" First A. protections, it would eliminate them.
and obama isn't? he is doing more bad things then bush, carbon tax, lol getting taxed for breathing. and he promised the american people that he would take the troops out of iraq but yet he sends more and more to die for nothing. he is mearly a puppet held up by a higher power that wants him to work against the american people. not for usa.
You don't seriously believe that a carbon tax applies to CO2 created by breathing, do you?
CO2 emissions pose a very real and very serious threat to our current way of life. Is a carbon tax the right or best way to solve the problem? I don't know, but the problem needs to be addressed, and it needs to be done now.
the biggist thing that is cousing this so called global warming is all the trash in the oceans, read bought that. and carbon taxes is in effect, there needs to be more programs that pay for getting trash out of the oceans. there is a part where it spans out 2 of texas and 92 feet deep, it also slows down the oceans currents witch keep the temps of the earth stable.
Where are you getting that belief? Certainly the oceans are key, as they absorb much CO2, and destroying plant life therefore increases CO2, but I have never heard that it compares to the output from power generation, transportaiton, or the meat industry. I am aware of the mass of platic, but have not heard about its affect on currents and any resulting affect on global temperatures. I agree it is a problem either way.
I am totally against banning nunchaku. That said, I do hope everyone understands that the elected legislature of the State of New York banned nunchaku, not Sotomayer.
I am so astounded by the level of ignorance presented by the many commenters here who didnt bother looking into the context or even listen to the entire clip. Its amazing just how much political bias has blinded America...so much they abandon logic and reason. She is simply pointing out a NY case and putting into context...that's it. Astounded I tell you.
she's getting a cake walk. spineless republicans need to grow a pair. she'll get on the bench and use the bill of rights for toilet paper. the bitch can't even answer a direct question.
can this bitch not answer a direct question? she's having a cake walk compared to the "borking" clarence thomas got from the godless liberals. she's going to get on the bench, she'll use the bill of rights for toilet paper, and these spineless republicans will once again go along to get along and end up with a knife in their backs. i'm sick of all of them.
Exactly, there are certain weapons that have to be regulated, but ban some of them wont make any difference anything can be use as a weapon, but like the famous saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" fits just perfect with this, doesn't matte how small is the object it could be just as lethal as the most dangerous weapon, our fists are two walking weapons and they are very lethal. Yes, i have family that has been seriously hurt by crazy people.
no right to bear nunchucks in the constitution, and nunchucks are pretty deadly. the way it is swung increases the velocities to much more than a bat. if someone knows how to use it, it can kill. if someone didn't, they could hurt themselves as well those around them.
But banning Nunchucks? what about just ban everything that could be used as a weapon, i understand that there has to be ground rules to prevent any accidents or deaths, but its just doesn't make sense, they should not ban things, they should give a least an age requirement and be able to get a license if you want to walk in public with specific weapons because at least they know that if they have permit for it they are qualified responsible person that its not going to use it for criminal acts.
anything in the hands of a nutjob is a weapon....instead of banning every object on earth put the person that uses them in a crime in jail......and keep them there....
Wtf? This is stupid. Bats are just as dangerous if not more so. Why ban nunchucks? I find this our after I find out that customs is basically banning folding knifes. It'll soon be that we can only own guns and toothpicks. You can't own that bat! You may hurt someone that you want but not kill them! >:(
Banning Nunchucks doesn't make any sense, Criminals will still use them no matter if they are banned, just how they still use guns knives or anything that can be used as a weapon, Criminals are not stupid and they will used whatever it doesn't matter if its banned, obviously they don't walk around with a gun 24/7 right before they try to rob someone. Now what about the people that just have to follow the rules but are making them selves more vulnerable by not having anything to defend themselves
this bitch can't even answer a direct question. she's having a cake walk compared to the borking that clarence thomas got from these godless liberals. she'll get on the bench; she'll use the bill of rights for toilet paper. kiss your rights goodbye, kiss America as we know her goodbye... You wanted change, here it comes. Did you vote for obama? thanks a pant load, asshole.
I have nunchucks. But not for hurting people, but for protection.
ventmonster247 3 months ago
the media was gaga over her. its not just nunchucks she doesnt beleive regular people have the right to defend themselves. thats the same thing they have been pushing in our schools, if someone beets on u your not supposed to fight back just run to an authority figure. but its ok if u r a cop or the like. she and her ilk are not worth their own flesh and blood.
21thx12 6 months ago
Why don't they just ban rocks too? If you throw them around, someone could get hurt. Oh and arms. You can hurt someone with them too.
SplitSecondSnarl 7 months ago
Wow, this is dumb. Nunchaku illegal, guns legal... So much easier to kill with a gun. But neither should be illegal. Just cuz some people choose to be assholes and hurt each other with these things doesn't mean everybody who has them will. Some are collectors, some just enjoy plinking targets. In the case of nunchaku and myself, I own nunchaku to learn to use them for fun and exercise, and because I find them interesting.
DerStadtschutz 9 months ago
Ban knives as well.
Andybaby 11 months ago
You know what else can do a lot of damage? A gun! Seriously, we should be discussing the dangers of guns not fucking nunchucks.
loldianaaa 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That was a Cool Video keep it up...I'm just getting started...checkout my Channel when you have a chance. Let me know what you think. ;)
NinjaMarketingGroup 1 year ago
we need to jump on this with both feet. i mean what if some crazy person went to i dont know say there local town hall meeting and all of a sudden pulled out a set of nunchucks and started just nunchucking everyone. i mean it could be really bad. lol next we should do away with silver ware and kitchen knives. lol why are we paying for them to sit and even ponder such things..
keverc 1 year ago
dumb ass cunts!!!!
tattoodfreeek 1 year ago
The word Arms in the constitution, include a lot of things that could be weapons - baseball bat, night stick, knife, swords, bricks, bow and arrows.
In ny guns are illegal to have for the most part. So people are look for alternatives to the gun. What this liberal person did was took another weapon away from the citizens to use in self defense. In other words she can not understand the constitution or USA
samten10a 1 year ago
Right....I guess guns do no damage to people whatsoever...idiots...
MrMantura 1 year ago 2
Gee, a weapon designed for fighting can be used to harm someone, too? I never would have guessed.
MaverickLoneshark 1 year ago 2
nunchucks don't kill people. people kill people.
(my bad if this has already been pointed out)
notahemi 1 year ago
noise...
GabVillaraza 2 years ago
its wrong ! gun and knife kitchen else... not allow only nunchaku why not!!!!!!!!
81anunahg4 2 years ago
of course swinging them around hurts people...that's the point.
powermasterjazz 2 years ago
They can have my nunchucks when they pry them from my cold dead fingers.
powermasterjazz 2 years ago 3
Wow...this is what we talk about in our legal system? This is retarded...how could you possibly have a serious discussion on how dangerous a set of nunchucks could be?
Really? You need to have an intellectual conversation over this?
Wow....just....wow....
Zetzza 2 years ago 9
@Zetzza Kinda scary that these assholes are the ones in charge huh?
mattxr2i 1 year ago
wow how many people in this country can wield nunchucks XD
we are all ninja
yearningarrow 2 years ago
Gun kills too. Knifes also and nobody seems to care.
sebricci 2 years ago
They should not judge a rule to nunchaku practitioners without statistical proofs and awarenez of the ones whose using it. said it can hurt people around areas by just swigging it - that is for minors/children. Nunchaku requires discipline and a place to practice. and not all nunchaku is lethal. the first impression of nunchaku is a weapon, but it is actually an exercise equipment/tools. in our modern world, everything is adjusting, mostly for the better. it wont damage anything on allowing it.
hapuzi 2 years ago
they should have focused more on guns and knifes which can be used as advantage for robbery. on our nunchaku community, not one used it to abide the law of human. this is our rights of expression. we call them freestyle nunchaku - used in parks and indoors but not on a busy street. nunchaku can only be illegal if it is used for defensive/offense act. it works like a pencil, when used as a weapon. so nunchaku can be considered as a tool. just like hammer and saw. check "appeal to authority" judge
hapuzi 2 years ago
Stupid beaner...FFS get women out of political positions!
medievalfantasy 2 years ago
Nunchucks? Srsly?
You're more likely to hurt yourself with it than anyone else.
MasterZhang 2 years ago
Hmm. I've been using nunchaku for about.....3 or so months, and regardless of what combinations or whatever I pull off, I've hit myself in the head just one time, and that was because I was being retarded with my younger brother. They can indeed be dangerous, but so are guns. Most people wouldn't just buy them to go hurt people; I got them because I'm a martial artist, and wanted a "just in case" weapon as a bo staff's way to big to keep in the car.
nonstophero0079 2 years ago
I think there first use was for thrashing rice. Does that mean farm implements are deadly??
revmkell 2 years ago
COWABUNGAAAAA!!!!!!!
formivore 2 years ago 2
i am really disappointed by this. if you dont even know what to call them, then obviously you have not really taken the time to figure out what exactly people use them for nowadays. today, when people buy nunchaku, they go on youtube and look for tutorials. they discover freestyle. sure there are idiots who want to do nothing but beat people up, but they can just as easily use a baseball bat. just as deadly.good luck getting my nunchaku. for all of you in ny who still spin chux, fuck yeah!!!!
hru418 2 years ago 2
and after one chooses the bat as a weapon, he would only have to tune in to any major league game to see a tutorial on how to operate the bat, pop a bunch of steroids and then go decapitate someone.
i811st 2 years ago
exactly! nunchaku is not something that someone can just one day pick up and really be effective with. they would hurt themselves more than the would hurt anyone else. i have been doing freestyle nunchaku for over a year now and i would be hard pressed to use them in combat without really hurting myself lol
hru418 2 years ago
Nunchaku is used for so much more than just killing/hurting people. These people don't know what they're talking about.
ruvidan 2 years ago
I knew a guy who was quite skilled with nunchaku, he still tended to wang himself frequently. Honestly what kind of super dangerous martial arts weapon is that?
lizardman464 2 years ago
NUM-CHUKS? what a dumb bitch. They are NUNCHAKU, easy to pronounce with a spanish speaking tounge as both japanese and spanish share common phonics.of course a "wise latina" could never out wit the provrbial, "wise man" of lore. Wise-man smoke, foo man choo.
i811st 2 years ago
LMAO.
And I can stab someone in the eye and cause fatal damage with a writing utensil. Should you ban those? Especially in schools and government buildings?
Should you treat me like a criminal simply because I have the capabilities to become one? Might as well get the jump on all of us and declare capital punishment for anyone but the mentally retarded, right?
Lyrelia 2 years ago 2
"but teaching young kids how to operate firearms , is equiping them to become violent killers,isn't it?"
"Maam, you are perfectly equipped to be a prostitute, aren't you?"
i811st 2 years ago
This just in-Sotomayor hates weaboos too.
kipchak 2 years ago
absolute ignorance sotomayor your an absolute idiot mamm they are Nunchaukas. you can have my damned guns, my money and my stock but no one takes my nunchucks. WHAT DO WE EXPECT FROM SOME ONE WHO WAS RAISED IN A HOUSING PROJECT. THE ONLY TWO STICKS SHE EVER SAW WERE THE ONES DADDY HIT MAMA WITH AND THE ONLY CHAIN WAS THE ONE HANGING FORM DADDYS POCKET .DUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHH
GUNS BAD.
SHARP THINGS BAD.
STEAK BAD.
RELIGON BAD.
VETERANS BAD.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT IS GOOD?
rickwantstoknow 2 years ago
Think of how many thousands of lives are saved each year by banning the nunchuck and the ninja throwing star.
zacheh 2 years ago 13
ROFL
ruvidan 2 years ago 4
Yeah, they look so, so, SO much more dangerous than basebal bats....
Conran1979 2 years ago
get that spic wetbag beaner border hopper back to mexico
lmortal 2 years ago
nun-chumps should be illegal for all round-eyes! They should only be carried by people with slanted peep-holed eyes, because only they can focus on exact precise targets! HOO-RUH!
1chichimec1 2 years ago
LoL
Nunchucks are the WORST Weapon EVER! LoL
Just watch someone Good using them and count the times they hit themselves,.. just too funny
Weedhappy 2 years ago
so will i have to get rid of my antique katanas becouse i might attack people with it becouse it sure sounds like it
fook626 2 years ago
well... i guess we are going to have a political discussion...
i thought we would all just laugh at the term "nun-chuck sticks" which to me sounds like a weapon used during the crusades...
or point out the fact that she said that if you swing them around other people you will get hurt... not the other people...
but if we are going to talk politics lets talk, outlawing nunchucks is completely ridiculous, what, are you going to hold a coup de'tate with rice thrashers? nuf said
Eoph 2 years ago
mmmm i always wonderd because in america they have these sorts of discussions about some collecter items which might cause damage but i could walk into almost any gun-shop and buy a glock and no one asks questions about that, i would like to get some clearance on this
zalteroth1 2 years ago
you are pretty ignorant... you cant buy a glock in any gun store off the street, you need to get certified and also have a background check.
but i totally agree about the collectors items/martial artists implements.
Eoph 2 years ago
You're correct, but his point still stands... If they outlaw nunchucks, then shouldn't they outlaw shovels, metal rakes, dogs, cats, snakes, really anything metal, especially chains. All of those can cause damage to people.
She is dumb if she things outlawing "nunchucks" will save someone's life, if someone is going to kill someone with a nunchuck and they can't get their hands on one... they're going to pick up a shovel, they aren't going to forget about their plan because of no nunchucks
Fordtrucksown 2 years ago
all of her points about nunchucks being dangerous are valid; however, that can be said of literally thousands of other common objects. For example roll up a magazine and slam the short end into someones temple and you could fracture their skull. Let's ban those!
apcrumley 2 years ago 2
@Fordtrucksown You can say that about ANY weapon. Once you've made the decision to kill someone, you're not gonna just give up cuz your weapon of choice is illegal. You'll probably still have one because killing is illegal, and it being illegal isn't stopping you from making the decision to do it. Even if you don't have your chosen weapon, you're gonna kill them one way or another. taking away nunchaku isn't gonna solve jack shit. And there are so many ways to kill it's not even funny.
DerStadtschutz 9 months ago
It varies by state.
kipchak 2 years ago
hrm... well i still think that its better we have access to weapons and a few idiots kill themselves then we don't have access and no one can defend themselves
Eoph 2 years ago
Yeah, what i should have said is that there aren't exactly set laws for the united states regarding handguns.
kipchak 2 years ago
rofl, you've obviously never bought a Glock in an American gun-shop.
jimcohlanza 2 years ago
You mean a grenade.
jaffas11 2 years ago
WTF!!! ive always played with nunchucks since i was like 5 and got the fake plastic ones the most i ever did with real ones was a really big bruise you could break bones and stuff but only if you intended to do it... or if you are really stupid
3060130601 2 years ago
shes gay
dilldill101 2 years ago
i like sports
dilldill101 2 years ago
lol
ptowndrummr 2 years ago
"Nunchuck sticks" as they called them are actually nowdays used more by freestylers than by martial artists. currently the nunchaku freestyle chuck of is going on, we also have a world cup and there is strong talk of it being in the olympics. The idea of this is barbaric and there are things we have which would do potentially more damage as to use nunchaku as a form of weapon takes training as of rebound etc and if someone untrained used them for combat they would probably injure themsels more.
guitarguy1337 2 years ago
?!?!?! Are you kidding me?! What an intelligent woman... not.
DelinquentRodent 2 years ago
what is not intelligent about her answer ??? she is only explaining a real case with real life experiences ...her answer is as stupid as many of the questions that have been asked
hintsofblue 2 years ago
Well it seems that the world has changed. And that hopefully things will change for the better at nominating people of all walks of life. Regardless of race, color, creed, sex. It begun with Obama.
JPPT1974 2 years ago
holy shit. wake up america
tommygaskins 2 years ago
I didn't know Nunchucks required swinging motion to activate. I've been using mine all wrong...
Shishio591 2 years ago
she will destroy america.
legalizemarijuananos 2 years ago
go to "very scary yes we can Obama song"
video to hear Obama say thank you satan
when song is played backwards.
verrrrrry evilll..its his voice no doubt about it.
Obama is Evil..
He is a fraud
obamaout 2 years ago
I swung nungchungs among one nun's lungs. It was fun.
JapsEye2 2 years ago
psycho......
pipersmitty87 2 years ago
First off... theyre NUNCHUKU, not numchuks... and secondly why the fuck is she doing in such a position of power and can't even say SWINGING properly... the first G does not sound louder than the last one.
TheRealDarklock 2 years ago
first she goes along with its ok to ban numchucks then its guns doesnt everyone see threw her lies. Find out about what she realy believes on the issues and you will be very frieghtened. Because as she states she will be righting laws soon.
coolvideo28 2 years ago
i swung nunchucks in a small room and killed 8 people in one swing i think they are dangerous
Xstronglikebear 2 years ago
US Soldier Cook does not have to deploy
to Afghanistan..He challgened legitmacy
of Obama. Obama is not a US citizen.
Obama was born in Kenya.
Any supreme court judge who assists in the prepretration of this fraud against the US consitution should be brought up on
criminal charges.
Obama must be removed from the office of the US Pres..until he can validate his place of birth.
We are wasting taxpayer $ while he is playing pres.
obamaout 2 years ago
Her answer was that certain decisions, such as the decision to ban nunchucks, are left to the states, according to the precedent she was bound to follow at the time she made the particular decision the Senator was asking about. Pretty simple, and supportable, answer.
sidiggy1 2 years ago
Wow......these comments are pretty stupid......you have no idea what this video is from...
brumagemm 2 years ago
Neither the recession, depression, war, etc., has any relevance to how a particular legal case should be decided. Also, the REPUBLICAN Senator asked her about the case involving nunchucks. I guess instead of answering, she should have said: "That's a stupid question"? Who's retarded? Look in the mirrir.
sidiggy1 2 years ago
lol this is a frickin joke... if u are being taught by someone who knows how to use it, then it is just like any other weapon in the world. they would have to ban anything and everything to make sure ppl didnt have weapons... and u would have to cut off every1s arms and legs. and U WOULD STILL HAVE WEAPONS. i own nunchuks and as long as i am responsible and dont go swinging wildly, then there is a REALLY good chance that no one will get hurt
Nathan1030 2 years ago
U gotta be FRIGGIN KIDDING ME!! The Government / Supreme Court, on any level, has NOTHING BETTER to do then to debate Numchucks?! Ok yea it takes 8lb pressure per square inch to break a bone, Nunchucks can generate as much as 80, guess what can break a bone? a baseball bat a tire iron, a pipe, a decent stick / tree limb. Lets ban that shit too...so no more plumbing, base / soft ball...gott cut down all the trees to dangerous. Forget being shot by a 9 mil or DUI Laws these nunchucks are serious
dwest2992 2 years ago
Absurdity is the norm. When John Wayne Gacy was murdering boys, he was also a part time clown and drove a van, and some comedian said, "Oh great, now we have to ban clowns and vans". The politicians are always after that purposeless event that the sheeple morons will feel good about.
pslgreg 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dear friend, We are the biggest wholesale company on electronic product in China. We can offer you the best price and afterservice.there are many kinds of electronic products in our store, such as TV, Notebooks, GPS,iphone,Mp3, Mp4 and so on.When you havetime, please visit our website and contact us. we will try our best to help you .
Our belief: credit is the first, customers are our god.
Our website is:__lucksey{.}COM__
Please enter the site format! Be able to look at site!
huaxiat0 2 years ago
Who the fuck still uses numchucks? I have yet to cross someone in a dark alley with a pair on them...
samuraiyao 2 years ago
ye lets ban baseball bats too. and all sticks altogether.. and every "instrument" you can hit a man with.. damn, i hate mankind sometimes. and lawyers.
ermaduk 2 years ago
Nunchucks??? LOL, all they are is 12-14 inch whipping-sticks tied together. I have a pair of roswood nunchucks. You can beat someone black and blue with them, but you won't break any arms or skulls. There's just not enough weight in the wooden ones. A bo is a much better weapon because you can put your weight behind it for some real crushing power. Nunchucks are just good for whipping someone: causing pain without serious injury.
gilbet 2 years ago
LOL she is ACTUALLY talking about nunchucks
freddiefernandez 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The way these people talk makes me uncomfortable. Like a movie with really bad acting.
RunawayRed 2 years ago
....The way these people talk makes me uncomfortable. It's like a movie with really bad acting.
RunawayRed 2 years ago
This is where woman belong in politics. Not trying to help the world, but to talk about numchucks!
JMike92 2 years ago
What is the difference between what a pair of nunchucks can do vs. a knife?
It's two sticks tied together with rope. The fact that it can be used dangerously is already a foregone conclusion, so can a knife, so can a bat, so can a long stick, so can a piece of glass etc. etc...
She's an idiot. Typical liberal woman's response to any weapon.
SecretCreed 2 years ago
Q. What will the difference be between President Obama and Karl Marx?
A. Karl Marx had way more experience.
garciadelacadena 2 years ago
How about machetes? Don't we need diversity when it comes to self-defense? We have no rights because we must be equal to the corporations we have enshrined as masters. But don't mess with our right to arm bears--that is the only amendment left after BUSH.
earthspeakorg 2 years ago
I wish all the Republifucks would at least watch the full Hatch Q&A and study the case in question. She was simply explaining the law in question and why it was upheld. If you think Sotomayor gives a crap about whether or not you have nunchucks, you're a friggin' moron who should take your gun to your temple and pull the trigger.
MrTouchShriek 2 years ago
Anything can be a weapon, if you think about it. Its always 'how you use something, and why you use it"
HEYTUBEMAN101 2 years ago 2
Wow, nunchaku aren't even close to being one of the most dangerous weapons. You know what else can fatally injure a person? Baseball bats. Are those getting outlawed as well?
capitalsown 2 years ago
yes no may be,
argh, the "´chucks" have a much higher force
of inpact per square cm.
much much higher.
Realizalize 2 years ago
screw that obongo, appointed, racist liberal ass munching, nasty beast of a whore!! and screw YOU liberals, you immoral, brainwashed, lazy piece of shit tree hugging, uneducated imbeciles!! Keep waiting for your free money, the money you steal out of the pockets of US!!hard working, TAXPAYING!! people that slave to feed our children and who strive to better our lives.. YOU LOSERS SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOUR UNAMERICAN PIECE OF SHIT LIVES!! your messiah has brought you more of the same you losers
unoitaliano 2 years ago
You use the term Obongo and then go on to call liberals racist. Hummm . . .. You use the term uneducated yet there are numerous typos and punctuation throughout your post, hummm... So you think that liberal dont pay taxes?
It seems you are talking about your self? Perhaps you are a Liberal as well?
wtfoof 2 years ago
You are quite ignorant. Apparently you don't know that, on average, Democrats (liberals) are more educated than Republicans (conservatives). You apparently also missed that blue states (liberal) generate more income than red states (conservative). So, guess what, we are more educated and pay more taxes. So, in sum, fuck off you ignorant fuck.
sidiggy1 2 years ago
You just proved my points lol Keep up the good work!! I love how you back up your claims with nothing more then shit!! I am assuming that's because you have shit for brains!! If you are going to proclaim all these wonderful attributes that libtards are making to society, then you better you some kind of reference other than the shit for brains that you have to prove those claims...... ps. Go fuck yourself!!!!
and you want to talk about punctuation, and spelling !! You troglodyte!!
unoitaliano 2 years ago
Your ignorance is astounding. But, then, ignorance is bliss, so you must be a very happy idiot.
sidiggy1 2 years ago
Coming from you, a brainwashed moron.. I can only laugh!! You promote and support, immorality. I support ; MORALITY!!... enough said... Go drink your kool-aid, before it gets warm!!
unoitaliano 2 years ago
You just like to make up facts as you go along. No wonder reality means nothing to you. What immorality to you take it upon yourself to assume I promote and support?
sidiggy1 2 years ago
I will admitt that your ignorance is unprecidented among the common liberal kool aid drinkers in this forum lol You need to consider the symantics of your party and what your party stands for in this country..Morality Vs. immorality.consider the FACTS the democratics have diminished the standards of living in this country, your party supported the largest spending bill ever passed, without even know what the monies are being used for.Enjoy the change,keep looking for the hope you, ignorant SOB
unoitaliano 2 years ago
You can't spell unprecedented or semantics, and don't appear to know what semantics means, or at least can't properly use the word in a sentence.
Democrats have diminished the standards of living in this country? How so? By promoting education? By promoting a living wage? Seriously, where do you get your opinions?
You seem to not know what "ignorant" and "fact" mean.
You commented about morality. Now you are changing the debate to finance? Is that your game - keep changing the subject?
sidiggy1 2 years ago
Let us go back to the diminshed moral values that you support, same sex marriage? late term abortion? reverse racism?? stem cell research, inwhich the cells being extracted from aborted and unborn embryos?? How about lowering the standard of health care by nationalizing it?? the list goes on, and on, and on.. You promote ignorance by suppoting the loose liberal agendas.. now go fuck off... I have to go to work, early tomorrow morning.... You??
unoitaliano 2 years ago
You have made quite a few assumptions. I do not "support" late term abortion, or racism in any form. Nor do I support lowering the standard of health care, though I do not see nationalized health care as a "moral" issue. I am against discrimination in any form, so, yes, I support the right to same sex couples to marry. I do not impose my religion on others, like you. I take it, o holier than thou one, that you do not work on the Sabbath? And support killing those that do? Fucking hypocrite.
sidiggy1 2 years ago
If Democrats are so much more educated then why do they do things against the American citizen instead of helping them? More taxes and fines for not doing what they want. Making legislation to make it harder on business rather than to help business by eliminating problems?
TheNewVideo 2 years ago
The socialists ARE NOT more educated, they prove it all the time with their failed policies and ideas. It's NOT about "helping" Americans it's ALL about controlling them. Why else would they mandade which kind of lightbulb you may own, the color or size of your car, etc. Look at California 40years of Demo control and it's bankrupt.
T0000009 2 years ago
T00: That, on average, Democrats are more educated than Republicans, is a documented fact. What you seem to be arguing is that, despite their higher education, they are nonetheless less intelligent. I disagree. Republican policies fail just as much, more, than Democratic policies. As for control - really? Republicans want to control our private lives and souls. You appear to be whining about environmental regulation (light bulbs). Your whining proves the point - you don't get it.
sidiggy1 2 years ago
While there is disagreement, most respected scientists today agree that climate change is real, is a real threat, and is being caused by man. Fluorescent bulbs are one of the easiest and most economical ways to reduce energy consumption, and thus carbon emissions. Would you legalize slowly adding arsenic to our water? Of course not. Carbon emissions are no different, it will just take a lot longer.
Your CA example further shows your ignorance, as you don't understand the real issue.
sidiggy1 2 years ago
TheNewVideo: The statistic is what it is. Look it up if you don't believe me.
You are, of course, characterizing Democratic efforts. I have no idea what you are talking about in terms of fines, but, let's be real, if the government is going to spend money, it has to tax. Gone are the days of lean government, regardless of which party runs it. Tax and spend is better than not tax and spend. That said, the massive deficit, IMO, is a mistake, but some very smart people think it will help.
sidiggy1 2 years ago
NewVideo: Also, you are picking a few particular issues on which you believe the Democrats are faiing. There are many other issues. I can't speak for all educated people, but my vote was more against McCain Palin than for Obama. McCain was promising to follow Bush's disastrous policies. He was also very old, and Palin scared the crap out of me. For me, the most important issues for our nations future are education and the environment. Obama was stronger on both.
sidiggy1 2 years ago
Spcial Security-Democrat idea=Bankrupt
Medicare-Democrat idea=Bankrupt
Medicaid-Democrat idea=Bankrupt
California-Democrat Run=Bankrupt
Taxing Soda pop-Obama idea
Taxing health isurance-Obama idea
There's just a FEW examples of BAD ideas from Democrats which HAVE failed!
"if the government is going to spend money, it has to tax"
THEN YOU PAY IT!! That's the dumbest statement I've ever seen. Oh and just a little FYI man CANNOT control the weather hence "climate change" is foolish
T0000009 2 years ago
Gee, and it would be SOOOO hard to list just as many failed Republican policies. BTW, taxing soda is a great idea, and California's fiscal problem is primarily due to the initiative process, but, regardless, your examples say nothing about which party is more educated. This information, again, is factual. Learn logic.
Re climate change - really, we cant control the weather? So climate change must be bs? Wow, you are an idiot. I encourage you to get an education, though I doubt it will help.
sidiggy1 2 years ago
"taxing soda is a great idea"
That REALLY shows how little you know right there. You're a socialist and won't figure out how foolish you are until it's much to late. I really pity you, for how little you know about everything.
T0000009 2 years ago
And you're an idiot. This shows my opinion, not my knowledge. I would be fine not offering health care, emergency or not, to anyone who can't pay. I really don't give a shit about people I don't know. But that's not going to happen. We will always spend money caring for people who can't pay. Guess what? Soda makes that cost MUCH higher because it creates obesity, a huge medical problem. I think the obese who drink soda should pay a tax to subsidize the cost of me paying for their health care.
sidiggy1 2 years ago
sidiggy1 why didnt u vote 4 ron paul?
sillynanny44 2 years ago
Two reasons. It would have been a wasted vote, because he was not going to win, and his stance on the First Amendment. He supports a constitutional amendment to divest federal courts of jurisdiction over cases challenging the validity of state laws that amount to endorsement / establishment of religion. This is a very important issue to me. I am not willing to gut such a fundamental protection just to save money.
sidiggy1 2 years ago
whats the name of the amendment? a limited federal government is a virtue, people are better represented at the state level
sillynanny44 2 years ago
Nunchucks can cause damage? No kidding. They're a martial weapon, they're arms. So is a firearm. If she thinks that because a weapon is dangerous (what the hell weapons aren't?) it's okay for the State to prohibit owning them they can do the exact same thing (and have been for years now) firearms. Something she supposedly doesn't support.... yeah... right.
Anakha13 2 years ago
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution! "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..." (made applicable to the states by the 14th Amendment). This is not about big federal government; it's about courts enforcing the rights of the citizenry when states overstep constitutional bounds. Paul would allow states to etablish Christianity as an official religion without federal judicial review. People need protection from state governments as much as from the fed
sidiggy1 2 years ago
the constitution does not expressly authorize judicial review. dr. paul does not want to impose christianity on others. how can u protect ppl from the state government by giving federal government unconstitional powers? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion + or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech......." how is it constitutional to tell kids they cant pray in school?
sillynanny44 2 years ago
That it one of the stupidest things I have read. The Constitution creates a Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court has no power to review legislation for consistency with the Constitution, the Court and the Constitution cease to have meaning. Your unfounded interpretation would gut the checks and balances inherent in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court never held that kids can't pray in school. Try reading the case law. While the Court makes mistakes, the remedy is not to destroy the court.
sidiggy1 2 years ago
Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches. - thomas jefferson i am not the unfounded one here at all. also how would it be check and balance if only judges who r in office for life gets to decide constitutionality
sillynanny44 2 years ago
The Legislature enacts laws. The executive enforces them, and controls the military. The Judicial interprets them, and makes sure the Legislature did not overstep its bounds when enacting laws. All three branches can and do safeguard the Constitution. The Legislature can decide not to pass a law if it would violate the Constitution. The executive can veto. And the judiciary can invalidate. It's not complicated. You would eliminate a key check on elected officials - on the tyrany of the majority.
sidiggy1 2 years ago
Under your (and Ron Paul's) world, nothing would protect US. citizens should the states attempt to deny them the freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Wouldn't that be a great place to live!
Do you actually think about these things before commenting? Or do you worship Paul so much that whatever he says is gospel?
sidiggy1 2 years ago
wow what is wrong w/ u, i didnt even insult u because based on ur other comments all u do is insult ppl and generating heat rather than anything substantial. i know that it is a problem if a state deny its ppl freedom, its even worse if federal government do it, because it affects more ppl. at least at the state level ppl would be much better represented. also, it is called following the constitution
sillynanny44 2 years ago
The key to the First Amendment is protecting the minority from the majority. This can only work if courts uphold the Constitution. By definition, the "people" are the majority, and thus will not check themselves.
Yes, it is called following the Constitution. The problem is you do not understand it. The reason I insulted you is because I am tired of people without legal educations thinking they understand the law better than some of the greatest legal minds of all time.
sidiggy1 2 years ago
power of judicial review is not given to the supreme court by the constitution. the constitution does not prohibit judicial review to the states. according to the 10th amendment the states should have such power. only the states have the power to create the laws for fed govt to follow so they should interpret them. ''ppl will not check themselves'' what about state courts? ''all 3 branches can and do safeguard the con''? u didnt mean that do u? plz dont reply w/ more of the same myopic view
sillynanny44 2 years ago
Myopic view? You mean reality?
sidiggy1 2 years ago
Article III, Section 2, U.S. Constitution: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution." Only a moron (such as you) would claim that this does not grant the U.S. Supreme Court power to find that a law passed by a state is unconstitutional.
sidiggy1 2 years ago
sidiggy1 ive heard that one plenty of times, article3 sect2. ''the judicial power'' ''arising under this constitution'', tell me what is that power? NO ONE not even judges that support judicial review, would say that the constitution explicitly gives supreme court the power of judicial view. are u not at all embarrased?
sillynanny44 2 years ago
I am embarrassed that you are a U.S. citizen with the right to vote. Idiot.
sidiggy1 2 years ago
do u know how evil u r? distorting the law of the land that protects our freedom
sillynanny44 2 years ago
Evil? You are SUCH an idiot it is insane! Distorting the law of the land that protects our freedom? Just how do you suppose the Constitution protects our freedom if federal couts have no power to enforce it?
"Congress shall make no law ..." What does that mean if the Court can't hold that Congress violated it?
Seriously - you are retarded. It pains me. The Courts PROTECT our constitutional rights. Without the Courts doing so, we have no Constitutional rights. How am I distorting anything?
sidiggy1 2 years ago
ive addressed every single one of those questions.
sillynanny44 2 years ago
The fact that you believe that shows what a moron you are.
sidiggy1 2 years ago
no, it doesnt, because u havent refuted any of my points or answered any of my questions. :)
sillynanny44 2 years ago
If by have not refuted any, you mean have obliterated all, then you are correct. I have articulated, accurately, how the Constitution is supposed to work and why, which, BTW, is the way legal scholars understand it. You have responded with senseless babble that would effectively mean we have no federal judiciary. Seriously, in your view, what inherent power DOES the federal judiciary have? And how would that power create a "check" against the legislative and executive branches?
sidiggy1 2 years ago
go to ur constitution. look at art. 3 sect. 2 second paragraph. the supreme court has jurisdiction over controversies between more than one state. the rest are appellate jurisdiction. the congress may eliminate/make exceptions and regulate those. even the supreme court acknowledged that its jurisdiction is defined by congress(the states & ppl it represents). only the states have the power to create the laws for fed govt to follow, they should have the power to interpret them & create the check.
sillynanny44 2 years ago
I know you think that it how it works, but you are an idiot. The federal courts are crucial and have been crucial to protecting individual liberties against the states. That is how it was written, how it is supposed to be, and how it is. You think everyone else is wrong, and that they way the law has been interpreted 200 years is wrong. Good for you. I am glad the law has been interpreted the way it has, and glad the federal courts are there to protect me against illegal state action.
sidiggy1 2 years ago
Comment removed
sillynanny44 2 years ago
yes federal courts can be used to protect u from illegal state action(though it has to disobey the constitution if it overrule state supreme court on state laws), but what protects u from federal courts? us supreme court cant overrule state supreme court when it comes to state law. thats how it is written, for a long time we have not been following the constitution. if u say im wrong, why not just use the words from the constitution and refute me?
sillynanny44 2 years ago
Why do we need protection from federal courts? Federal courts do not enact laws. The most they can do is invalidate them. And, there is a check - if we think they got it wrong, we amend the constitution to make it more clear. Pretty simple.
Look, it would take a short essay to prove you are wrong. Frankly, I am bored with this discussion. As I said, two hundred years of legal scholarship agrees with me. I have read the Constitution, and gone to law school, and I am done with you.
sidiggy1 2 years ago
what about state courts, why cant they protect us? i dont care about ur badge. also do u want to discuss how many unconstitutional things the govt has done?
sillynanny44 2 years ago
I see now that you were asking about the name of Paul's proposed amendment. I checked and I was wrong, he proposes legislation, not an amendment. A Yahoo search found these words from Paul himself:
"My legislation would restore First amendment protections of religion and speech by removing all religious freedom-related cases from federal district court jurisdiction, as well as from federal claims court jurisdiction."
This would not "restore" First A. protections, it would eliminate them.
sidiggy1 2 years ago
and obama isn't? he is doing more bad things then bush, carbon tax, lol getting taxed for breathing. and he promised the american people that he would take the troops out of iraq but yet he sends more and more to die for nothing. he is mearly a puppet held up by a higher power that wants him to work against the american people. not for usa.
prison planet. com
vinnytosain 2 years ago
You don't seriously believe that a carbon tax applies to CO2 created by breathing, do you?
CO2 emissions pose a very real and very serious threat to our current way of life. Is a carbon tax the right or best way to solve the problem? I don't know, but the problem needs to be addressed, and it needs to be done now.
sidiggy1 2 years ago
the biggist thing that is cousing this so called global warming is all the trash in the oceans, read bought that. and carbon taxes is in effect, there needs to be more programs that pay for getting trash out of the oceans. there is a part where it spans out 2 of texas and 92 feet deep, it also slows down the oceans currents witch keep the temps of the earth stable.
vinnytosain 2 years ago
Where are you getting that belief? Certainly the oceans are key, as they absorb much CO2, and destroying plant life therefore increases CO2, but I have never heard that it compares to the output from power generation, transportaiton, or the meat industry. I am aware of the mass of platic, but have not heard about its affect on currents and any resulting affect on global temperatures. I agree it is a problem either way.
sidiggy1 2 years ago
but she says "numchucks" not "nunchucks"
ArxVirtus 2 years ago 2
WHAT?! NUNCHAKU ARE GETTING ILLEGAL!?! no way i have a pair
paperninjathefirst 2 years ago
I am totally against banning nunchaku. That said, I do hope everyone understands that the elected legislature of the State of New York banned nunchaku, not Sotomayer.
Yetibutt 2 years ago
I am so astounded by the level of ignorance presented by the many commenters here who didnt bother looking into the context or even listen to the entire clip. Its amazing just how much political bias has blinded America...so much they abandon logic and reason. She is simply pointing out a NY case and putting into context...that's it. Astounded I tell you.
greatgaara 2 years ago
That swinging mechanism, WTF. I have smarter underwear than this stupid Bush appointee and now a Obama appointee.
endisnighe 2 years ago
she's getting a cake walk. spineless republicans need to grow a pair. she'll get on the bench and use the bill of rights for toilet paper. the bitch can't even answer a direct question.
shielah1 2 years ago
what was the question being asked in this clip? oh, right, there was no question. geez man, calm down.
TheDuckofLaw 2 years ago
can this bitch not answer a direct question? she's having a cake walk compared to the "borking" clarence thomas got from the godless liberals. she's going to get on the bench, she'll use the bill of rights for toilet paper, and these spineless republicans will once again go along to get along and end up with a knife in their backs. i'm sick of all of them.
shielah1 2 years ago
Exactly, there are certain weapons that have to be regulated, but ban some of them wont make any difference anything can be use as a weapon, but like the famous saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" fits just perfect with this, doesn't matte how small is the object it could be just as lethal as the most dangerous weapon, our fists are two walking weapons and they are very lethal. Yes, i have family that has been seriously hurt by crazy people.
Regulate them but don't ban them all.
thecoolmex 2 years ago
no right to bear nunchucks in the constitution, and nunchucks are pretty deadly. the way it is swung increases the velocities to much more than a bat. if someone knows how to use it, it can kill. if someone didn't, they could hurt themselves as well those around them.
sol3dg3 2 years ago
But banning Nunchucks? what about just ban everything that could be used as a weapon, i understand that there has to be ground rules to prevent any accidents or deaths, but its just doesn't make sense, they should not ban things, they should give a least an age requirement and be able to get a license if you want to walk in public with specific weapons because at least they know that if they have permit for it they are qualified responsible person that its not going to use it for criminal acts.
thecoolmex 2 years ago
anything in the hands of a nutjob is a weapon....instead of banning every object on earth put the person that uses them in a crime in jail......and keep them there....
ffrht 2 years ago
Wtf? This is stupid. Bats are just as dangerous if not more so. Why ban nunchucks? I find this our after I find out that customs is basically banning folding knifes. It'll soon be that we can only own guns and toothpicks. You can't own that bat! You may hurt someone that you want but not kill them! >:(
OniLinkSword 2 years ago
Banning Nunchucks doesn't make any sense, Criminals will still use them no matter if they are banned, just how they still use guns knives or anything that can be used as a weapon, Criminals are not stupid and they will used whatever it doesn't matter if its banned, obviously they don't walk around with a gun 24/7 right before they try to rob someone. Now what about the people that just have to follow the rules but are making them selves more vulnerable by not having anything to defend themselves
thecoolmex 2 years ago
soon theyll be banning shing shots, water guns, and fly swatters
fuckers.
goemaster 2 years ago
this bitch can't even answer a direct question. she's having a cake walk compared to the borking that clarence thomas got from these godless liberals. she'll get on the bench; she'll use the bill of rights for toilet paper. kiss your rights goodbye, kiss America as we know her goodbye... You wanted change, here it comes. Did you vote for obama? thanks a pant load, asshole.
shielah1 2 years ago
I bet that twat really stinks up the room with her fat ass pooting out rice and bean farts all day long.
ZZanthar 2 years ago