BREAKING: Active shooter in Midland/Odessa TX

[bigrebnc1775]

more 1700's militia machinations Red?

seriously.....

~S~

How about 20th century U.S. Code?
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

You keep posting this and highlight the part about the unorganized militia. Hate to tell you but the 2nd doesn't say anything about an unorganized militia. It does say something about a well regulated militia though.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


But then again, you might have different opinions about things that are well regulated and things that are unorganized. Hint: well regulated is actually the opposite of unorganized.

The government created the unorganized Militia take it up with them.
Here's a hint for you well regulated is in working order as to be expected.

Doesn't change the fact that the 2nd only specifies provisions for a well regulated militia, not an unorganized one. If an unorganized one was allowed as well, they would have said so, or they wouldn't have called it a well organized militia.

Utterly fucking stupid.

The 2nd specifies the RIGHT of the people, not the right of the militia. It does not say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms.

I realize you Marxists are at war to end civil rights, ALL civil rights, which is WHY we will hang on the to second.

Mason once said the people are the militia.

 

[RealDave]

How about 20th century U.S. Code?
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

You keep posting this and highlight the part about the unorganized militia. Hate to tell you but the 2nd doesn't say anything about an unorganized militia. It does say something about a well regulated militia though.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


But then again, you might have different opinions about things that are well regulated and things that are unorganized. Hint: well regulated is actually the opposite of unorganized.

The government created the unorganized Militia take it up with them.
Here's a hint for you well regulated is in working order as to be expected.

Doesn't change the fact that the 2nd only specifies provisions for a well regulated militia, not an unorganized one. If an unorganized one was allowed as well, they would have said so, or they wouldn't have called it a well organized militia.

Utterly fucking stupid.

The 2nd specifies the RIGHT of the people, not the right of the militia. It does not say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms.

I realize you Marxists are at war to end civil rights, ALL civil rights, which is WHY we will hang on the to second.

Mason once said the people are the militia.

Certainly not well organized. Who is your general?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You keep posting this and highlight the part about the unorganized militia. Hate to tell you but the 2nd doesn't say anything about an unorganized militia. It does say something about a well regulated militia though.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


But then again, you might have different opinions about things that are well regulated and things that are unorganized. Hint: well regulated is actually the opposite of unorganized.

The government created the unorganized Militia take it up with them.
Here's a hint for you well regulated is in working order as to be expected.

Doesn't change the fact that the 2nd only specifies provisions for a well regulated militia, not an unorganized one. If an unorganized one was allowed as well, they would have said so, or they wouldn't have called it a well organized militia.

Utterly fucking stupid.

The 2nd specifies the RIGHT of the people, not the right of the militia. It does not say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms.

I realize you Marxists are at war to end civil rights, ALL civil rights, which is WHY we will hang on the to second.

Mason once said the people are the militia.

Certainly not well organized. Who is your general?

As to be expected in working order

 

[miketx]

You keep posting this and highlight the part about the unorganized militia. Hate to tell you but the 2nd doesn't say anything about an unorganized militia. It does say something about a well regulated militia though.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


But then again, you might have different opinions about things that are well regulated and things that are unorganized. Hint: well regulated is actually the opposite of unorganized.

The government created the unorganized Militia take it up with them.
Here's a hint for you well regulated is in working order as to be expected.

Doesn't change the fact that the 2nd only specifies provisions for a well regulated militia, not an unorganized one. If an unorganized one was allowed as well, they would have said so, or they wouldn't have called it a well organized militia.

Utterly fucking stupid.

The 2nd specifies the RIGHT of the people, not the right of the militia. It does not say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms.

I realize you Marxists are at war to end civil rights, ALL civil rights, which is WHY we will hang on the to second.

Mason once said the people are the militia.

Certainly not well organized. Who is your general?

The phrase is well regulated, liar.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The government created the unorganized Militia take it up with them.
Here's a hint for you well regulated is in working order as to be expected.

Doesn't change the fact that the 2nd only specifies provisions for a well regulated militia, not an unorganized one. If an unorganized one was allowed as well, they would have said so, or they wouldn't have called it a well organized militia.

Utterly fucking stupid.

The 2nd specifies the RIGHT of the people, not the right of the militia. It does not say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms.

I realize you Marxists are at war to end civil rights, ALL civil rights, which is WHY we will hang on the to second.

Mason once said the people are the militia.

Certainly not well organized. Who is your general?

The phrase is well regulated, liar.

And it's meaning is this
As to be expected in working order.

 

[rjs330]

Well, about a half hour ago, a Home Depot was shot up in Odessa. And, apparently there are 2 of them. One is in a gold and white truck, one is in a postal van.

Details are still coming in. So far, 1 is dead, and 10 or more are injured.

Authorities responding to reports of shootings in West Texas


Authorities responding to reports of shootings in West Texas

• 
  
• 
  

By Caroline Linton

Updated on: August 31, 2019 / 6:09 PM / CBS News


The Odessa Police Department posted on Facebook that there are "multiple people shot" and at least one suspect driving around in a hijacked mail truck "shooting at random people."



"The suspect just hijacked a U.S. mail carrier truck and was last seen in the area of 38th and Walnut," the Facebook post read. "Everyone is encouraged to get off the road and use extreme caution! All law enforcement is currently searching for the suspect and more information will be released as soon as it becomes available."

The Midland Police Department posted on Facebook they believe two shooters were involved and using two separate vehicles. One suspect is believed to be at the Cinergy movie theater in Midland and the other is believed to be driving on Loop 250 in Midland, the police said.

T's & P's

STFU.

I sure hope that no one you know and care for was shot.

Wait now liberals care?

You kill babies

They only care after the mother decides she wants to keep the baby.

 

[rjs330]

Once you answer that question you'll also have the answer to your question. So tell me what firearm is there that is in common use that would have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia?

Let's see. If I am part of the Well Regulated Militia, that means that I belong to a State Sponsored Militia like the SDF, Police Force and a few others. And the common weapon for them would be the AR-15, M-16 or the M-4. And you will find that the laws back that up along with the Federal Firearms laws pertaining to the sale and distribution of Automatic Weapons. You think because you are part of a bunch of yokels running around the woods wearing green pickel suits that they should get the same weapons? Nope. Only if the States and localities allows it and more and more states localities are removing the AR-15 from the allowable list. You are NOT part of the Organized Militia. In fact, the California Police have to turn in their ARs when they go off duty and go home. As does every other SDF unit.

So the answer to your question is, not all weapons used by the Organized Militia is authorized to be used in the Civilian world.

I know you won't accept that but it's the law.

nope the unorganized Militia.you and every able body man and woman are part of it.
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

According to the 2nd ammendment, the weapons only applies to the well organized militia.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Not the unorganized Militia. And those Unorganized Militia that it pertains to are part of the SDF which cannot be called up to be nationalized into the Federal Forces. It's a lot more complicated than you make it out to be. And that would be up to each individual state. The State can determine who has those rights or privileges and who does not. The only say you have in it is in your vote.

Hmm. If what you say is true, why didn't the government round up all the guns after the Constitution was passed? I mean, didn't they know what they meant?

Mark

They put the power of the weapons into the States hands. In the beginning, the Feds had no Military at all. Then when things started going haywire on the Frontier, the Feds were allowed a force of 75,000 which was smaller than any one state could muster.

That still doesn't answer the question. If the intent was to not allow guns in the hands of anyone but the military (militia) then why didn't they round up all the guns once the military, militia, was established?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Let's see. If I am part of the Well Regulated Militia, that means that I belong to a State Sponsored Militia like the SDF, Police Force and a few others. And the common weapon for them would be the AR-15, M-16 or the M-4. And you will find that the laws back that up along with the Federal Firearms laws pertaining to the sale and distribution of Automatic Weapons. You think because you are part of a bunch of yokels running around the woods wearing green pickel suits that they should get the same weapons? Nope. Only if the States and localities allows it and more and more states localities are removing the AR-15 from the allowable list. You are NOT part of the Organized Militia. In fact, the California Police have to turn in their ARs when they go off duty and go home. As does every other SDF unit.

So the answer to your question is, not all weapons used by the Organized Militia is authorized to be used in the Civilian world.

I know you won't accept that but it's the law.

nope the unorganized Militia.you and every able body man and woman are part of it.
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

According to the 2nd ammendment, the weapons only applies to the well organized militia.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Not the unorganized Militia. And those Unorganized Militia that it pertains to are part of the SDF which cannot be called up to be nationalized into the Federal Forces. It's a lot more complicated than you make it out to be. And that would be up to each individual state. The State can determine who has those rights or privileges and who does not. The only say you have in it is in your vote.

Hmm. If what you say is true, why didn't the government round up all the guns after the Constitution was passed? I mean, didn't they know what they meant?

Mark

They put the power of the weapons into the States hands. In the beginning, the Feds had no Military at all. Then when things started going haywire on the Frontier, the Feds were allowed a force of 75,000 which was smaller than any one state could muster.

That still doesn't answer the question. If the intent was to not allow guns in the hands of anyone but the military (militia) then why didn't they round up all the guns once the military, militia, was established?

Why didn't Washington round up all the guns after the whiskey rebellion?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Let's see. If I am part of the Well Regulated Militia, that means that I belong to a State Sponsored Militia like the SDF, Police Force and a few others. And the common weapon for them would be the AR-15, M-16 or the M-4. And you will find that the laws back that up along with the Federal Firearms laws pertaining to the sale and distribution of Automatic Weapons. You think because you are part of a bunch of yokels running around the woods wearing green pickel suits that they should get the same weapons? Nope. Only if the States and localities allows it and more and more states localities are removing the AR-15 from the allowable list. You are NOT part of the Organized Militia. In fact, the California Police have to turn in their ARs when they go off duty and go home. As does every other SDF unit.

So the answer to your question is, not all weapons used by the Organized Militia is authorized to be used in the Civilian world.

I know you won't accept that but it's the law.

nope the unorganized Militia.you and every able body man and woman are part of it.
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

According to the 2nd ammendment, the weapons only applies to the well organized militia.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Not the unorganized Militia. And those Unorganized Militia that it pertains to are part of the SDF which cannot be called up to be nationalized into the Federal Forces. It's a lot more complicated than you make it out to be. And that would be up to each individual state. The State can determine who has those rights or privileges and who does not. The only say you have in it is in your vote.

Hmm. If what you say is true, why didn't the government round up all the guns after the Constitution was passed? I mean, didn't they know what they meant?

Mark

They put the power of the weapons into the States hands. In the beginning, the Feds had no Military at all. Then when things started going haywire on the Frontier, the Feds were allowed a force of 75,000 which was smaller than any one state could muster.

That still doesn't answer the question. If the intent was to not allow guns in the hands of anyone but the military (militia) then why didn't they round up all the guns once the military, militia, was established?

You know, that is a good question. In the Old West, guns were taken whenever a person entered some towns. They surrendered them at the hotel or the sheriffs office. Matter of fact, the shootout at the OK corral was because some cowboys didn't want to give up their guns, and they were taken out.

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West | History | Smithsonian

"Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today,” says Adam Winkler, a professor and specialist in American constitutional law at UCLA School of Law. “Today, you're allowed to carry a gun without a license or permit on Tombstone streets. Back in the 1880s, you weren't.” Same goes for most of the New West, to varying degrees, in the once-rowdy frontier towns of Nevada, Kansas, Montana, and South Dakota.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Once you answer that question you'll also have the answer to your question. So tell me what firearm is there that is in common use that would have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia?

Let's see. If I am part of the Well Regulated Militia, that means that I belong to a State Sponsored Militia like the SDF, Police Force and a few others. And the common weapon for them would be the AR-15, M-16 or the M-4. And you will find that the laws back that up along with the Federal Firearms laws pertaining to the sale and distribution of Automatic Weapons. You think because you are part of a bunch of yokels running around the woods wearing green pickel suits that they should get the same weapons? Nope. Only if the States and localities allows it and more and more states localities are removing the AR-15 from the allowable list. You are NOT part of the Organized Militia. In fact, the California Police have to turn in their ARs when they go off duty and go home. As does every other SDF unit.

So the answer to your question is, not all weapons used by the Organized Militia is authorized to be used in the Civilian world.

I know you won't accept that but it's the law.

nope the unorganized Militia.you and every able body man and woman are part of it.
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

According to the 2nd ammendment, the weapons only applies to the well organized militia.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Not the unorganized Militia. And those Unorganized Militia that it pertains to are part of the SDF which cannot be called up to be nationalized into the Federal Forces. It's a lot more complicated than you make it out to be. And that would be up to each individual state. The State can determine who has those rights or privileges and who does not. The only say you have in it is in your vote.

Hmm. If what you say is true, why didn't the government round up all the guns after the Constitution was passed? I mean, didn't they know what they meant?

Mark

They put the power of the weapons into the States hands. In the beginning, the Feds had no Military at all. Then when things started going haywire on the Frontier, the Feds were allowed a force of 75,000 which was smaller than any one state could muster.

No they didn't they left guns in the hands of the private citizen and protected that right with the federal controlled 2nd amendment.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

nope the unorganized Militia.you and every able body man and woman are part of it.
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

According to the 2nd ammendment, the weapons only applies to the well organized militia.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Not the unorganized Militia. And those Unorganized Militia that it pertains to are part of the SDF which cannot be called up to be nationalized into the Federal Forces. It's a lot more complicated than you make it out to be. And that would be up to each individual state. The State can determine who has those rights or privileges and who does not. The only say you have in it is in your vote.

Hmm. If what you say is true, why didn't the government round up all the guns after the Constitution was passed? I mean, didn't they know what they meant?

Mark

They put the power of the weapons into the States hands. In the beginning, the Feds had no Military at all. Then when things started going haywire on the Frontier, the Feds were allowed a force of 75,000 which was smaller than any one state could muster.

That still doesn't answer the question. If the intent was to not allow guns in the hands of anyone but the military (militia) then why didn't they round up all the guns once the military, militia, was established?

You know, that is a good question. In the Old West, guns were taken whenever a person entered some towns. They surrendered them at the hotel or the sheriffs office. Matter of fact, the shootout at the OK corral was because some cowboys didn't want to give up their guns, and they were taken out.

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West | History | Smithsonian

"Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today,” says Adam Winkler, a professor and specialist in American constitutional law at UCLA School of Law. “Today, you're allowed to carry a gun without a license or permit on Tombstone streets. Back in the 1880s, you weren't.” Same goes for most of the New West, to varying degrees, in the once-rowdy frontier towns of Nevada, Kansas, Montana, and South Dakota.

Some towns did that most didn't

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm beginning to think these latest shootings RED FLAGS

You can call it Red Flags, its proven that all of them so far are Nut Jobs with background as Nut Cases.

and that is a lie

 

[rjs330]

The more the problem the more they will be banned. Common sense. No BS. There is life without guns, but I doubt you have one other than guns.

There is life without guns. It called communism and dictatorships. Why do you hate freedom?

Hate freedom? Hardly. Ask that question to the loved ones of the murdered and wounded. What happened to their freedom?

So you will take away the freedom of every American so that they can have the illusion of freedom under a despotic government?

Only a moron would want to give up a right that allowed them the best outcome for their survival. Those people have mental issues and should be silenced and locked away for their own safety.

Survival from what?

Mass shootings are not due to mental illness. Studies have proven this.

Putting a gun in a home that was without one, increases the risk to those living in that house.

People wanting to own an AR-15 type rifle have mental issues.

That's exactly why I have a concern about requiring mental health evaluations before getting a gun. People like you who would put political opinions before actual evaluations. What a great way to get guns out of the hands of the people. Just say anyone that want a gun is mentally ill.

 

[OldLady]

There is life without guns. It called communism and dictatorships. Why do you hate freedom?

Hate freedom? Hardly. Ask that question to the loved ones of the murdered and wounded. What happened to their freedom?

So you will take away the freedom of every American so that they can have the illusion of freedom under a despotic government?

Only a moron would want to give up a right that allowed them the best outcome for their survival. Those people have mental issues and should be silenced and locked away for their own safety.

Survival from what?

Mass shootings are not due to mental illness. Studies have proven this.

Putting a gun in a home that was without one, increases the risk to those living in that house.

People wanting to own an AR-15 type rifle have mental issues.

That's exactly why I have a concern about requiring mental health evaluations before getting a gun. People like you who would put political opinions before actual evaluations. What a great way to get guns out of the hands of the people. Just say anyone that want a gun is mentally ill.

But a mental health PROFESSIONAL would never say that. People have so little trust in others these days.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There is life without guns. It called communism and dictatorships. Why do you hate freedom?

Hate freedom? Hardly. Ask that question to the loved ones of the murdered and wounded. What happened to their freedom?

So you will take away the freedom of every American so that they can have the illusion of freedom under a despotic government?

Only a moron would want to give up a right that allowed them the best outcome for their survival. Those people have mental issues and should be silenced and locked away for their own safety.

Survival from what?

Mass shootings are not due to mental illness. Studies have proven this.

Putting a gun in a home that was without one, increases the risk to those living in that house.

People wanting to own an AR-15 type rifle have mental issues.

That's exactly why I have a concern about requiring mental health evaluations before getting a gun. People like you who would put political opinions before actual evaluations. What a great way to get guns out of the hands of the people. Just say anyone that want a gun is mentally ill.

It's a known fact that anyone who wants to get rid of something that would benefit them in a fight for their life is incompetent

 

[rjs330]

Look the supreme court has ruled the weapons you don't like are protected by the second amendment.

The more the problem the more they will be banned. Common sense. No BS. There is life without guns, but I doubt you have one other than guns.

There is life without guns. It called communism and dictatorships. Why do you hate freedom?

Hate freedom? Hardly. Ask that question to the loved ones of the murdered and wounded. What happened to their freedom?

So you will take away the freedom of every American so that they can have the illusion of freedom under a despotic government?

Are you talking about Trump taking away our right to clean air, unpolluted water, safe work places? The right that all of us have the same rights?

Are you kidding? So rolling back some regulations is wanting dirty air, dirty water and unsafe work places? That's the problem with the left. There can't be any reasonableness to anything. It has to be their way or you want everyone to die.

Have you never heard of reasonable regulations?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hate freedom? Hardly. Ask that question to the loved ones of the murdered and wounded. What happened to their freedom?

So you will take away the freedom of every American so that they can have the illusion of freedom under a despotic government?

Only a moron would want to give up a right that allowed them the best outcome for their survival. Those people have mental issues and should be silenced and locked away for their own safety.

Survival from what?

Mass shootings are not due to mental illness. Studies have proven this.

Putting a gun in a home that was without one, increases the risk to those living in that house.

People wanting to own an AR-15 type rifle have mental issues.

That's exactly why I have a concern about requiring mental health evaluations before getting a gun. People like you who would put political opinions before actual evaluations. What a great way to get guns out of the hands of the people. Just say anyone that want a gun is mentally ill.

But a mental health PROFESSIONAL would never say that. People have so little trust in others these days.

That's bullshit when you have a psychiatrist going on national tv giving his opinion of the president and saying he's worse than Stalin or Hitler there is no way in hell would I trust any DR. with my rights after that.

 

[okfine]

I'm beginning to think these latest shootings RED FLAGS

You can call it Red Flags, its proven that all of them so far are Nut Jobs with background as Nut Cases.

and that is a lie

More like 20%

 

[rjs330]

Hate freedom? Hardly. Ask that question to the loved ones of the murdered and wounded. What happened to their freedom?

So you will take away the freedom of every American so that they can have the illusion of freedom under a despotic government?

Only a moron would want to give up a right that allowed them the best outcome for their survival. Those people have mental issues and should be silenced and locked away for their own safety.

Survival from what?

Mass shootings are not due to mental illness. Studies have proven this.

Putting a gun in a home that was without one, increases the risk to those living in that house.

People wanting to own an AR-15 type rifle have mental issues.

That's exactly why I have a concern about requiring mental health evaluations before getting a gun. People like you who would put political opinions before actual evaluations. What a great way to get guns out of the hands of the people. Just say anyone that want a gun is mentally ill.

But a mental health PROFESSIONAL would never say that. People have so little trust in others these days.

Well you would think so, but we know that isn't true. Take a look at the justice system as a prime example. People will look for judges and jurisdictions that may rule in their favor based upon political leaning. It's called judge shopping. All the government would have to do is find these type of "professionals" and then suddenly you have it. A judge is supposed to rule according to the Constitution but there are plenty that rule from the bench. It would be the same for these types of laws.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm beginning to think these latest shootings RED FLAGS

You can call it Red Flags, its proven that all of them so far are Nut Jobs with background as Nut Cases.

and that is a lie

More like 20%

I'm not going to disagree on that point but we have due process make it happen without violating rights.