When I saw the title I thought the same thing.

Same here. Glad to see you aren't leaving, Jaybird.

Mr. Shapiro is adroitly ignoring the factors that make things as they are.  You cannot ignore past policies that disadvantaged groups based solely on color and not expect to see a result of that.  It's called racism.  I'll post about this in another ongoing thread related to my findings on STEM in predominately black schools.  I'm really waiting on one more piece of data, but I don't think it will significantly disturb the conclusion, so I'll post it later this afternoon.

So today's generation of white people are racist for policies of the past? What, specifically, is he ignoring?

That video works off a broad generalization that, as a whole, black people in the country aren't treated the same or aren't treated fairly, which is garbage. Does racism exist in the U.S.? Yes. But it's not this wide spread, rampant plague that you're trying to make it out to be. We've had a black Secretary of State, black Attorney General, black Supreme Court Justice, black President and yet you're still trying to further the argument that we have some massive problem with racism in the country.

Ben Shapiro has some good words:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__Vj3DXwOBI

WTF good would happen by re-instating the AWB?

Can someone point to any rational reason why the AWB would be a benefit?  Oh, when you do that, try to take into account the lawful uses of firearms (I know, that pesky Constitution is just a hinderance...)

My point was that instead of bringing a lawsuit against a gun manufacturer (which isn't likely to go anywhere), she'd be better off pursuing her goals by joining the anti-gun lobby.

People keep talking about this, but how in the world would it ever happen? My understanding is, you need either a 2/3 vote by both houses, or 2/3rds of our 50 states to call for one. How could you ever get that many senators and representatives to support limiting their parties power and influence? How could you ever get 33 states to call a convention and then get 38 of them to agree to give more power bad to the people? The Democrats alone could keep this from happening and they in no way want power to go back to the people. They like the established order just fine, they just desire less Republicans in the way.

Correct, here's Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

State legislatures by and large are moving more to the right, so this isn't entirely out of the realm of possibilities, though I still find it unlikely anytime in the near future. Calling a convention and passing amendments at the convention are two separate things. Depending on what the proposed amendment was, I think some have a chance at passing even with the establishment Republicans.

Also, I completely disagree with term limits on Supreme Court judges. It just further politicizes the position and doesn't solve much. Just as it would provide more opportunities to toss liberal judges out, it would also provide more opportunities to toss conservative judges out. By making it a life time position, the individual judges can in theory, set politics aside and focus on the law, the constitution and what is right for the country without having to worry about what the electorate think, or the political parties, or the lobbyists, or whoever.

I agree with this. In fact, when interviewed by Fox News a few years ago, Scalia mentioned this and said exactly that: Supreme Court Justices are given life tenure so they can't be influenced by anybody.

Campaigns make mistakes, people get fired and the campaigns move on. What surprises me is the tactic that the Cruz campaign is using. Instead of going after Rubio for his comments on Univsion (Cruz was right about what Rubio said), he's having ads like this go out. I agree that Cruz is starting to get desperate to win and it's not looking good for him. I think his positive message worked better for him than his negative ads.

Does Trump have to take out his twenty two magnum automatic revolver with a clip loaded with cop killer bullets and cap someone's ass for you to believe that he's a true Two Amendment guy? 

Geeze. The things we have to do to convince some of you that Trump is a good 'ol Midwestern conservative.

What's going to happen after the first mass shooting when he's president?

The reason people aren't sold on his conservative credentials, in particular his stance on the 2nd Amendment, is because of statements like this:

The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions,” he wrote in his book The America We Deserve. I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun.

While true that people can change their positions over time, and be sincere about their new stances, Trump comes across as changing his position based on the political winds, which is something President Obama has done a lot (read: gay marriage).

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/uncategorized/a-flip-flop-trump-now-supports-second-amendment

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/make-america-great-again#.foPLXladA

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights