Where is the Liberal outrage?????

[Flash]

NYcarb,
Flash's story is that the government can not be trusted to deny gun ownership rights to incarcerated felons, or anyone else...and he is sticking to it. Personally, I find that so absurd that there is no point in wasting any more time with him.

You have no understanding of what has been discussed, do you?

The problem with background checks is that the filthy government puts the burden on the individual to prove that they are not a felon before they can enjoy an individual right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

It also gives the government the opportunity to determine who is worthy of participation in that right. We know how the government has and can abuse power like that.

It is a crime for a convicted felon to own a weapon. What more do we really need than that? Why do you have to prove to the government that you are not a convicted felon? Why the assumption of guilt when you attempt to purchase a firearm?

Do you think that a person should have to prove to the government that they are not going to incite the overthrow of the US government before publishing something in writing or do you believe in free speech and if somebody incites then they are punished? It is the same thing. Do you really want the government getting a veto in how you exercise your rights guaranteed in the Constitution because that is what background checks are all about.

You Libtards believe that you shouldn't have to prove to the government that you an American citizen before voting so why are you hypocritical about another right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights?

 

[hazlnut]

Black Gang Shoots 5 Year-Old White Girl Dead on Her Grandpa 8217 s Lap 8211 No National Outrage Video The Gateway Pundit

"Two black males in Milwaukee walked up to the home of a white family, in a majority black neighborhood, and unleashed a hail of gunfire. A five year old white girl was murdered while sitting on her grandfather’s lap."

My heart goes out to her family.

Another story that calls for more sensible gun regs.

 

[TheOldSchool]

NYcarb,
Flash's story is that the government can not be trusted to deny gun ownership rights to incarcerated felons, or anyone else...and he is sticking to it. Personally, I find that so absurd that there is no point in wasting any more time with him.

You have no understanding of what has been discussed, do you?

The problem with background checks is that the filthy government puts the burden on the individual to prove that they are not a felon before they can enjoy an individual right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

It also gives the government the opportunity to determine who is worthy of participation in that right. We know how the government has and can abuse power like that.

It is a crime for a convicted felon to own a weapon. What more do we really need than that? Why do you have to prove to the government that you are not a convicted felon? Why the assumption of guilt when you attempt to purchase a firearm?

Do you think that a person should have to prove to the government that they are not going to incite the overthrow of the US government before publishing something in writing or do you believe in free speech and if somebody incites then they are punished? It is the same thing. Do you really want the government getting a veto in how you exercise your rights guaranteed in the Constitution because that is what background checks are all about.

You Libtards believe that you shouldn't have to prove to the government that you an American citizen before voting so why are you hypocritical about another right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights?

So you are also against voter ID?

Oh what a tangled web we weave!

 

[Flash]

"Well regulated" must be hard to understand too.

Actually it is not because that wording in the 1700s meant well provisioned as in having a good supply of arms. Just Scalia explained that very well in the Heller case.

However, unfortunately for the Libtards, "shall not be infringed" means the same then as it does now.

Is that why the majority of all gun control laws have been found constitutional since, and directly because of, the Heller case?

There hasn't been that many cases in front of the Supreme Court. In fact the Heller case was the first major one since Miller.

The problem with gun control cases is that they are mostly dealing with crimes as oppose to the actual law.

In order to challenge the law a person has to have standing. Very few people are willing to risk spending time in jail in order to challenge a basic law.

There have been several cases reverted back to a lower court or not heard because the people challenging the law were determined not to have standing. For instance, the challenge on the stupid California law on restricting high capacity magazines was thrown out because of that.

You have to get somebody that was actually arrested for having a high capacity magazine to challenge the law. That person must have the funds to take it through system and be prepared to face jail time if convicted. Very few people are willing or able to do that and will plea bargain before going that route. Quite often there are crimes involved and the basic question of the illegality of the magazine ban is never heard.

You anti gun nuts had better be careful wishing for the courts to decide on gun laws because as Heller and McDonald proved you are liable to get an answer you don't want to hear.

 

[Flash]

NYcarb,
Flash's story is that the government can not be trusted to deny gun ownership rights to incarcerated felons, or anyone else...and he is sticking to it. Personally, I find that so absurd that there is no point in wasting any more time with him.

You have no understanding of what has been discussed, do you?

The problem with background checks is that the filthy government puts the burden on the individual to prove that they are not a felon before they can enjoy an individual right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

It also gives the government the opportunity to determine who is worthy of participation in that right. We know how the government has and can abuse power like that.

It is a crime for a convicted felon to own a weapon. What more do we really need than that? Why do you have to prove to the government that you are not a convicted felon? Why the assumption of guilt when you attempt to purchase a firearm?

Do you think that a person should have to prove to the government that they are not going to incite the overthrow of the US government before publishing something in writing or do you believe in free speech and if somebody incites then they are punished? It is the same thing. Do you really want the government getting a veto in how you exercise your rights guaranteed in the Constitution because that is what background checks are all about.

You Libtards believe that you shouldn't have to prove to the government that you an American citizen before voting so why are you hypocritical about another right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights?

So you are also against voter ID?

Oh what a tangled web we weave!

So you are against firearm background checks. Oh what a tangled web we weave!

 

[TheOldSchool]

NYcarb,
Flash's story is that the government can not be trusted to deny gun ownership rights to incarcerated felons, or anyone else...and he is sticking to it. Personally, I find that so absurd that there is no point in wasting any more time with him.

You have no understanding of what has been discussed, do you?

The problem with background checks is that the filthy government puts the burden on the individual to prove that they are not a felon before they can enjoy an individual right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

It also gives the government the opportunity to determine who is worthy of participation in that right. We know how the government has and can abuse power like that.

It is a crime for a convicted felon to own a weapon. What more do we really need than that? Why do you have to prove to the government that you are not a convicted felon? Why the assumption of guilt when you attempt to purchase a firearm?

Do you think that a person should have to prove to the government that they are not going to incite the overthrow of the US government before publishing something in writing or do you believe in free speech and if somebody incites then they are punished? It is the same thing. Do you really want the government getting a veto in how you exercise your rights guaranteed in the Constitution because that is what background checks are all about.

You Libtards believe that you shouldn't have to prove to the government that you an American citizen before voting so why are you hypocritical about another right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights?

So you are also against voter ID?

Oh what a tangled web we weave!

So you are against firearm background checks. Oh what a tangled web we weave!

I'll trade you one for the other!

 

[Freewill]

Black Gang Shoots 5 Year-Old White Girl Dead on Her Grandpa 8217 s Lap 8211 No National Outrage Video The Gateway Pundit

"Two black males in Milwaukee walked up to the home of a white family, in a majority black neighborhood, and unleashed a hail of gunfire. A five year old white girl was murdered while sitting on her grandfather’s lap."

My heart goes out to her family.

Another story that calls for more sensible gun regs.

Sad indeed. And yes we need laws against thugs owning guns and drive by shootings. More laws, that's the answer.

 

[Freewill]

White lives matter.

Someone blow a horn! Freewill just checkmated the thread with his bold, daring declaration! I am fainting in awe!

I have a dream!!

 

[Flash]

I live in Florida, and the other day saw a bumper sticker on a parked car that read:

"I miss Chicago ."

So, I broke the window, stole the radio, shot out
two of the tires, added an Obama bumper sticker
and left a note that read, "I hope this helps!"

 

[chikenwing]

Fuck you Flash. You want some outrage? Get your conservative buddies to start portraying her as a thug who deserved it.

As it is, you won't find a single democrat or republican not wanting justice for her killers. You ass.

Yet you still posted this??
You have no credibility at all.

 

[kaz]

I'm telling you that I see no difference, all the liberals argue for the same positions and justify them with the same talking points. So how do I then say, oh, you are moderate and you are extreme?

Which is why I asked you for examples of positions and politicians who are moderate and extreme. I love ya man, you're a good guy Harry. But you evaded the question. What about telling me so I can tell? To me moderate and extreme liberals are like stink bugs. You're telling me there are males and females, but I can't tell them apart, so tell me how to do that? I thought if you can give me some examples of positions and candidates that are each, then maybe I can get that.

how did i evade the question when i told you what i feel makes one far left?......do you think dean,jones and gunos "points" are the same as RW or Sallows?....i have been in threads were both of those guys have disagreed with a dem position the other 3....never.....Sallow does not care for gay people and has called them faggots in the threads....that sure as hell aint far left....but he is a lefty...

You evaded the question because you didn't answer it.

What policies to moderate and extreme liberals disagree on?

Tell me some moderate and extreme liberal politicians?

If you answered them, I sure didn't see it. All you said was extreme don't question Democratic policies. So a moderate questions them and then goes along with them? Democrats argue? About what? I don't know what you are saying Harry. My question seems pretty clear.

What policies to moderate and extreme liberals disagree on?

out here illegal immigration.....there are more liberals than you think that actually care about the effects this is having on the local economy....
gay marriage right....2 times this has been shot down.....many more "moderate conservative" dems were against this.....
Tell me some moderate and extreme liberal politicians?

i can only tell you the ones out here...and the ones where i am at (Loretta Sanchez) to me is not a very effective Rep....kisses the wealthiest asses and then claims she doesnt.....
So a moderate questions them and then goes along with them?

yep just like many "moderate" Republicans do with the farther right....but thats because they are more concerned with their job than the Country.....
Democrats argue? About what?

sure they do just like Republicans do.....out here Illegal immigration is one topic....

What Democrats are publicly arguing about immigration? I don't hear that.

So you jump to local politics? So are all the politicians in DC moderate or extreme since you seem to be agreeing they are the same?

That you have to jump to a local politician shows my point, sure, maybe your neighbors have a few differences, but once they go into politics and go anywhere they all agree on every view. At least you seem to be conceding any differences are only at the local level.

What Democrats are publicly arguing about immigration? I don't hear that.
and you wont because of what we were talking about above........questions them and then goes along with them.....for fear of his job...but here locally i have seen some local democrats here in OC voice their opinion about illegals and their affect on the local economy but for fear of being called a racist....went along with the crowd......but i found this....Rep. Henry Cuellar, a Texas Democrat, has attacked the president for being negligent in handling the immigration crisis, even calling it Obama's Katrina moment. He's introduced legislation with GOP Sen. John Cornyn of Texas designed to speed up the deportation process for kids detained at the border.......
Kaz i would think by now you know i cant stand ANY Politician in DC.....the local ones affect me more than those guys.....so i pay more attention to them.....our 2 State senators are useless and my Rep is Loretta Sanchez.....need i say more?....

You argued that Democrats are not all the same. I asked you to back that up with issues and candidates, and you keep pointing to Podunk candidates and can't name issues at all. I didn't know what you talking about Harry, Democrats are Jonestown kool-aid drinkers. I still don't know what you are talking about, and you don't seem to be able to back up your claim with any national candidate or issue.