Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
How about the 15th amendment . That litteraly says “right to vote “You don't have a constitutional right to a car.
Well now you are making a completely different argument . What happened ?
Oh, you have a right to vote . But still have to register and ID and all that . And we know how righties LOVE ID laws !
Oh my. You think you have a right to vote. Can you show me in the constitution where this right is enumerated? There are amendments stating what can not be used to deny someone the ability to vote, but there is no right written. Voter registration is left to the states with the Presidential election being the only national election those voters can vote in. All other elections are local. States can indeed limit who can and can't vote as long as it does not run afoul of the constitutional amendments saying you can't limit someone for x, y or z. A, b an c may be perfectly legal for a state to deny you the right to vote. You need to bone up or your civics facts and quit emoting your beliefs.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
What part of "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude" do you not understand in that amendment? It says as do other voting amendments what a state can not use in denying someone the right to vote. Many states deny the right to vote to felons.......even to those of race, color or previous condition of servitude. That's because they aren't being denied based on what the amendment says, but something else. We also limit the vote based on age and whether you are registered or not. Again, as long as a state does not run afoul of the constitutional amendments regarding what can't be used to deny the right to vote, you can legally be denied by the state for other reasons.
Oh, so now you ain’t up for cherry Picking lines ? What part of “well regulated militia “ don’t you understand ?
We should make Drunk Driving a 1st degree murder charge. I bet drunk driving would go way, way down, as when you punish those drunks by execution, it may not stop all drunk driving, but there wouldn't be "REPEAT" offenders, as they are removed from society.. Want to drink and get drunk, stay home.....EXCLUSIVE: Obama Rarely Prosecuted Criminals Who Sought To Buy Guns Illegally
"More than 100,000 convicted felons or other “prohibited persons” tried to buy guns each year during President Barack Obama’s administration by lying on their applications, but the Justice Department only considered prosecuting about 30 to 40 people each year.
The Obama administration may have publicly aligned itself with anti-gun activists, but it consistently turned a blind eye to prosecute known criminals who tried to buy guns."
That's understandable / obvious considering Barry ran / sold guns to The Muslim Brotherhood, the PLO, Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Mexican Drug Cartels....
lol, since you don't believe there should even BE background checks, your objection to alleged lack of prosecution is ludicrous.
No.....even if he doesn't believe in background checks because they don't stop criminals from getting guns....we still have them....the ones you guys wanted......and they are not stopping the criminals from getting guns, and they aren't stopping the mass public shooters from getting guns.....it is you who have to explain that, not him....
Laws against drunk driving don't keep all drunk drivers off the roads. should we simply make drunk driving legal?
EXCLUSIVE: Obama Rarely Prosecuted Criminals Who Sought To Buy Guns Illegally
"More than 100,000 convicted felons or other “prohibited persons” tried to buy guns each year during President Barack Obama’s administration by lying on their applications, but the Justice Department only considered prosecuting about 30 to 40 people each year.
The Obama administration may have publicly aligned itself with anti-gun activists, but it consistently turned a blind eye to prosecute known criminals who tried to buy guns."
That's understandable / obvious considering Barry ran / sold guns to The Muslim Brotherhood, the PLO, Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Mexican Drug Cartels....
you have no legal right to drive.Bad guys with cars run over people on a NYC bridge...Shall all cars be banned?I wouldn't need any guns if the bad guys were executed. Isnt that a fair trade?I lived there for 5 1/2 years, and crime there was almost non existent. There were a few stupid liberals(redundant statement again), but they either lost their hand or head, depending on the crime....
Great . Except they trade freedom for that “safety”.
Good guys wh guns become bad guys with guns as soon as the gun is used for bad .
No . But we do license drivers , regulate cars, register cars , transfer titles to cars .
How about we do that with guns too?
Gun laws we need enforced and to close loopholes
1. Background checks on EVERY transaction. Gun shops, gun shows and personal transactions
2. Mandatory sharing of information on convicted felons and mental patients restricted from having guns. A single nationwide database that is continually updated
The flaws are too many loopholes demanded by the NRALet's enforce background checks...100%
Translation: Let's get rid of incompetent and corrupt people in government. The problems with enforcement are the flaws of the government (not gun ownership by law-abiding people, btw.)
B'loney. The NRA didn't demand that the DOD not provide data on service members who should be ineligible to own a gun.
I agree
But the NRA has made it harder to share information. There should be a single database for those restricted from having guns. It should include those on the terrorist watch list
Same applies to the no fly list/----/ And for good reason. Apparently the gun grabbers didn't consider all of the facts.B'loney. The NRA didn't demand that the DOD not provide data on service members who should be ineligible to own a gun.
I agree
But the NRA has made it harder to share information. There should be a single database for those restricted from having guns. It should include those on the terrorist watch list
That is an absolute crock.
It was the NRA who blocked banning terrorists from the no buy list
In a letter this week to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, NRA executive director Chris Cox said the bill, offered last week by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., "would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."
"As many of our friends in law enforcement have rightly pointed out, the word 'suspect' has no legal meaning, particularly when it comes to denying constitutional liberties," Cox wrote.
In a letter supporting the measure, Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling said the bill would not automatically prevent a gun sale to a suspected terrorist. In some cases, federal agents may want to let a sale go forward to avoid compromising an ongoing investigation.
If you are wrongly placed on the no fly list, you can legally challenge it
Same goes if you are placed on the can't buy guns list
Like CA for example, but they don't prosecute all federal laws.... like harboring a fugitive, i.e., Sanctuary Cities'Why aren’t the states prosecuting them?
The flaws are too many loopholes demanded by the NRALet's enforce background checks...100%
Translation: Let's get rid of incompetent and corrupt people in government. The problems with enforcement are the flaws of the government (not gun ownership by law-abiding people, btw.)
B'loney. The NRA didn't demand that the DOD not provide data on service members who should be ineligible to own a gun.
I agree
But the NRA has made it harder to share information. There should be a single database for those restricted from having guns. It should include those on the terrorist watch list
we already have a database
National Instant Criminal Background Check System - Wikipedia
The flaws are too many loopholes demanded by the NRATranslation: Let's get rid of incompetent and corrupt people in government. The problems with enforcement are the flaws of the government (not gun ownership by law-abiding people, btw.)
B'loney. The NRA didn't demand that the DOD not provide data on service members who should be ineligible to own a gun.
I agree
But the NRA has made it harder to share information. There should be a single database for those restricted from having guns. It should include those on the terrorist watch list
we already have a database
National Instant Criminal Background Check System - Wikipedia
And as we know, databases lead to confiscation
-Geaux
95% of NY want background checks to cover all gun sales. 100% of the rest of the United States don't want more gun laws that aren't even enforced by liberal states...95% of Americans now want background checks to cover all gun sales. Background checks are not unconstitutional.
Why do gun 'rights' extremists insist on opposing that?
NYC, Californication, Chicago..........The flaws are too many loopholes demanded by the NRA
B'loney. The NRA didn't demand that the DOD not provide data on service members who should be ineligible to own a gun.
I agree
But the NRA has made it harder to share information. There should be a single database for those restricted from having guns. It should include those on the terrorist watch list
we already have a database
National Instant Criminal Background Check System - Wikipedia
And as we know, databases lead to confiscation
-Geaux
Where in the US has gun confiscation occurred?
NYC, Californication, Chicago..........B'loney. The NRA didn't demand that the DOD not provide data on service members who should be ineligible to own a gun.
I agree
But the NRA has made it harder to share information. There should be a single database for those restricted from having guns. It should include those on the terrorist watch list
we already have a database
National Instant Criminal Background Check System - Wikipedia
And as we know, databases lead to confiscation
-Geaux
Where in the US has gun confiscation occurred?
95% of NY want background checks to cover all gun sales. 100% of the rest of the United States don't want more gun laws that aren't even enforced by liberal states...95% of Americans now want background checks to cover all gun sales. Background checks are not unconstitutional.
Why do gun 'rights' extremists insist on opposing that?
95% of NY want background checks to cover all gun sales. 100% of the rest of the United States don't want more gun laws that aren't even enforced by liberal states...95% of Americans now want background checks to cover all gun sales. Background checks are not unconstitutional.
Why do gun 'rights' extremists insist on opposing that?
Don't make shit up.
ROTFLMAO...........Don't make shit up
#10) Sociopaths are delusional and literally believe that what they say becomes truth merely because they say it!
The flaws are too many loopholes demanded by the NRA
B'loney. The NRA didn't demand that the DOD not provide data on service members who should be ineligible to own a gun.
I agree
But the NRA has made it harder to share information. There should be a single database for those restricted from having guns. It should include those on the terrorist watch list
we already have a database
National Instant Criminal Background Check System - Wikipedia
And as we know, databases lead to confiscation
-Geaux
Where in the US has gun confiscation occurred?
Like CA for example, but they don't prosecute all federal laws.... like harboring a fugitive, i.e., Sanctuary Cities'Why aren’t the states prosecuting them?
They like to pick and choose
-Geaux
EXCLUSIVE: Obama Rarely Prosecuted Criminals Who Sought To Buy Guns Illegally
"More than 100,000 convicted felons or other “prohibited persons” tried to buy guns each year during President Barack Obama’s administration by lying on their applications, but the Justice Department only considered prosecuting about 30 to 40 people each year.
The Obama administration may have publicly aligned itself with anti-gun activists, but it consistently turned a blind eye to prosecute known criminals who tried to buy guns."
That's understandable / obvious considering Barry ran / sold guns to The Muslim Brotherhood, the PLO, Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Mexican Drug Cartels....
They don't want more gun laws. They simply don't like law abiding citizens having the right to own guns.
How about the 15th amendment . That litteraly says “right to vote “Well now you are making a completely different argument . What happened ?
Oh, you have a right to vote . But still have to register and ID and all that . And we know how righties LOVE ID laws !
Oh my. You think you have a right to vote. Can you show me in the constitution where this right is enumerated? There are amendments stating what can not be used to deny someone the ability to vote, but there is no right written. Voter registration is left to the states with the Presidential election being the only national election those voters can vote in. All other elections are local. States can indeed limit who can and can't vote as long as it does not run afoul of the constitutional amendments saying you can't limit someone for x, y or z. A, b an c may be perfectly legal for a state to deny you the right to vote. You need to bone up or your civics facts and quit emoting your beliefs.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
What part of "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude" do you not understand in that amendment? It says as do other voting amendments what a state can not use in denying someone the right to vote. Many states deny the right to vote to felons.......even to those of race, color or previous condition of servitude. That's because they aren't being denied based on what the amendment says, but something else. We also limit the vote based on age and whether you are registered or not. Again, as long as a state does not run afoul of the constitutional amendments regarding what can't be used to deny the right to vote, you can legally be denied by the state for other reasons.
Oh, so now you ain’t up for cherry Picking lines ? What part of “well regulated militia “ don’t you understand ?
The fact that we no longer form militias in no way impedes the rest of the amendment or its intent for the right to own firearms for personal protection.........but you already knew that. If you disagree, you can study the 150+ years of SCOTUS cases and be educated.
