Reply With Quote
Nope - but the Bill/Lynch meeting, immunity deals with nothing in return, the whole email/server issue have cast su ious doubts on both FBI/DOJ.
And FWIW, it's not about defending the DOJ or the FBI, I'm merely pointing out that the hate for Congress is pretty much universal, regardless of party. Which is, IMO, a good indicator of why people are frustrated with the political class.
Nope - but the Bill/Lynch meeting, immunity deals with nothing in return, the whole email/server issue have cast su ious doubts on both FBI/DOJ.
Oh, I agree. I wish we could just throw out the whole lot and start over with term limits.
Let's be honest here.
A minority of people..mostly right wingers are the ones saying the FBI is corrupt solely because they didn't indict Hillary.
Before that point, Comey was a godsend.
You shot your honor wad already. You're dead in this town.
Says who? Someone who wasn't even here when the bet was made?
Do u always guess or do u know something
Prove I wasn't on here then.
I realize that... but the majority of people who claim to be scared about restrictions probably have a stockpile of guns and ammo anyway. And I've not read any propositions that would keep people from doing so in the future as long as you are a law abiding citizen.
Let's take registered voters that identify as Republican (aka red-team base), the most likely sample to unequivocally feel that way. Then we're talking around 29% of registered voters... a bit of a far cry from half the population, tbh
(based on: http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/...further-apart/)
A majority (56%) of Americans disapproves of the FBI's recommendation not to charge Hillary Clinton with a crime over her handling of email while Secretary of State ... Yet Democrats don't back Clinton up on the issue nearly as much as Republicans criticize her, and independents side more with Republicans.
http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-con...ntonemails.pdf
the "gun show loophole" has already been closed. All dealers at gun shows do background checks. What they are trying to do is make the occasional aisle sale/trade between individuals illegal. They will then extend that language to all sales having to go through an FFL. Joe wants to sell Fred his quail gun. Dad wants to give his son his deer rifle. Those are the kinds of transactions between law abiding citizens the government wants to track. The additional laws won't do anything to keep guns out of the hands of criminals because by definition they break the law.
Is anyone paying attention to Hillary's plan to 'make gun manufacturers responsible for gun deaths?" That in itself is a killer to the gun industry. Making Smith and Wesson or Ruger financially liable for a gun death where the product doesn't malfunction and works exactly as designed is absolutely disgusting. A Cop shoots a robber and Glock has to pay damages? An Islamic terrorist shoots up a gay bar and Colt is financially responsible to the victims? That is the kind of anti gun Hillary has SAID she will do. That's her PUBLIC position. one can only assume her private position is even more draconian.
I think it's the opposite. That kind of rhetoric plays well with the Democrat base just like her free college proposal and might help her get elected, but I doubt she believes in either.
Could make a seller think twice about who he's selling it to when it's registered to him. A dad giving his son a gun shouldn't be any more difficult than transferring his car le to him.
Please reference the section of the cons ution that addresses cars.
How is that relevant? Please explain how transferring gun ownership infringes the cons utional right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Y'all want Voter ID laws but you can't fill out a damn form to give a gun to your kid?
It comes down to whether the federal government has a right to maintain a registry of all legal gun owners.
Throughout history in other countries this has been the initial step ultimately leading to confiscation.
You can still keep and bear your registered arms. We've been through the registry argument. It's the same slippery slope bull .
Until the government comes for your guns, the 2nd Amendment has not been infringed upon.
You will simply make the vast majority of otherwise law abiding gun owners criminals because unlike you, they clearly recognize the slippery slope.
Did those countries grant citizens the right to keep arms in their cons utions?
Last edited by Th'Pusher; 10-16-2016 at 12:07 PM.
The cons ution is apparently subject to be rewritten by future courts. We already have four existing justices that interpret the second amendment to only apply to standing militias.
The dissents written by Justices Breyer and John Paul Stevens and joined by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg held that the Second Amendment affirms the right of the people to keep and bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia, but not an absolute individual right to own a gun.Dec 22, 2010
Ok. Go buy some more guns.
what guns? I don't have any guns.Ok. Go buy some more guns.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
