Biden DOJ Dragging Feet on Prosecuting Attempted Assassin of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh

[struth]

I'm getting this idea that the current SCOTUS has declared precedents don't mean anything, it's just who has the most votes on SCOTUS.

So instead of actually trying to amend the Constitution to say what you want it to say, you are simply going to whine about the SCOTUS? Gotcha.....whine away

 

[JoeB131]

So instead of actually trying to amend the Constitution to say what you want it to say, you are simply going to whine about the SCOTUS? Gotcha.....whine away

Yup. No point in scratching up the constitution when you don't need to.

Two SCOTUS Justices... Then the Second is about WELL REGULATED MILITIAS.

Joker Holmes wants a gun, he has to join a Militia. Or the National Guard. But they won't take him because he's nuts.

 

[struth]

Yup. No point in scratching up the constitution when you don't need to.

Two SCOTUS Justices... Then the Second is about WELL REGULATED MILITIAS.

Joker Holmes wants a gun, he has to join a Militia. Or the National Guard. But they won't take him because he's nuts.

You need to if you want to take the right away......

 

[JoeB131]

You need to if you want to take the right away......

Except it's not a right. The Second Amendment was about militias from 1787 to 2010, and it will be about Militias again.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

 

[struth]

Except it's not a right. The Second Amendment was about militias from 1787 to 2010, and it will be about Militias again.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

The second amendment was only about that in your head, not in the real world...hence why the SCOTUS found Washington DC was in violation of the law.

Look, it's obvious you are just here to whine, you don't actually care about what you claim to, if you did, you'd be trying to amend the Constitution

 

[JoeB131]

The second amendment was only about that in your head, not in the real world...hence why the SCOTUS found Washington DC was in violation of the law.

Look, it's obvious you are just here to whine, you don't actually care about what you claim to, if you did, you'd be trying to amend the Constitution

Um, no, for 200+ years, it was held that the militia clause allowed regulation of gun ownership. See US v. Miller as just one example.

 

[struth]

Um, no, for 200+ years, it was held that the militia clause allowed regulation of gun ownership. See US v. Miller as just one example.

Nobody said you can’t regulate firearms

 

[JoeB131]

Nobody said you can’t regulate firearms

Sure we can't... as long as the National Rampage Association is willing to jump into the breech and sue cities and states that impose even the most common sense rules.

 

[struth]

Sure we can't... as long as the National Rampage Association is willing to jump into the breech and sue cities and states that impose even the most common sense rules.

Sure you can…and so long as the law doesn’t violate peoples rights you won’t have to worry about losing a lawsuit to groups of people

 

[ThisIsMe]

But did not attempt to murder anyone.

The end.

No, not the end. If someone plans to commit a crime, gathers the items to commit said crimes, drives across the country to commit said crime, and that crime happens to be a judge or any other federal official, you don’t say “aw geez…you go close but you didn’t go through with it, so, we’ll let bygones be bygones”.

Again, if that was a maga who drove from Texas, you’d be screaming for death penalty, not suggesting leniency. You never address that, because you know it’s true.

 

[JoeB131]

No, not the end. If someone plans to commit a crime, gathers the items to commit said crimes, drives across the country to commit said crime, and that crime happens to be a judge or any other federal official, you don’t say “aw geez…you go close but you didn’t go through with it, so, we’ll let bygones be bygones”.

Again, if that was a maga who drove from Texas, you’d be screaming for death penalty, not suggesting leniency. You never address that, because you know it’s true.

SInce I have been a pretty consistent opponent of the Death Penalty for ANY offense, you really don't know what you are talking about.

The problem with this guy is that he's mentally ill. And as we learned from our unfortunate experience with Hinkley, you can't hold the insane responsible for their insanity.

Hey, here's a crazy idea. Let's make it impossible for crazy people to buy guns.

 

[ThisIsMe]

SInce I have been a pretty consistent opponent of the Death Penalty for ANY offense, you really don't know what you are talking about.

The problem with this guy is that he's mentally ill. And as we learned from our unfortunate experience with Hinkley, you can't hold the insane responsible for their insanity.

Hey, here's a crazy idea. Let's make it impossible for crazy people to buy guns.

SInce I have been a pretty consistent opponent of the Death Penalty for ANY offense, you really don't know what you are talking about.

Ok, fine..not YOU…dems in general. Better?
The point is, you’re wanting to go soft on this person, where if it had been a maga dude from Texas, you wouldn’t be advocating leniency.

[Quite]The problem with this guy is that he's mentally ill. And as we learned from our unfortunate experience with Hinkley, you can't hold the insane responsible for their insanity.[/Quote]

Well, we can’t say he was “insane”, has the psych eval been released? He said he needed mental help, that doesn’t mean he was insane.

Hey, here's a crazy idea. Let's make it impossible for crazy people to buy guns.

How would we do this? Mental fitness evaluation to buy a gun? lol, no thanks, we all know where that would lead:

Doctor: “did you vote for Trump?”

Gun buyer: “yes”

Doctor: “I deem you mentally unfit…denied”

As far as a background check, was there anything in roske’s last that would have flagged him?

Also:

Nicholas Roske negotiating plea deal over plot to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh: court docs

A man accused of attempting to murder Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh is in pretrial negotiations over a resolution to his charges, court documents revealed.

nypost.com

Roske then spotted two deputy marshals outside of Kavanaugh’s home and allegedly abandoned those plans, opting to call 911 and turn himself in.

The idea that he just willingly turned himself in is a tad misleading. Had those Marshalls not been outside of kavanaughs home, would the outcome have been different?

 

[JoeB131]

Ok, fine..not YOU…dems in general. Better?
The point is, you’re wanting to go soft on this person, where if it had been a maga dude from Texas, you wouldn’t be advocating leniency.

I would punish them to the extent the law allows. If said person had a history of mental illness, we should take that into account.

Well, we can’t say he was “insane”, has the psych eval been released? He said he needed mental help, that doesn’t mean he was insane.

HIPAA laws prevent those from being released. My guess, though, is that yeah, he probably has an extensive history of mental illness.

How would we do this? Mental fitness evaluation to buy a gun? lol, no thanks, we all know where that would lead:
Doctor: “did you vote for Trump?”
Gun buyer: “yes”
Doctor: “I deem you mentally unfit…denied”
As far as a background check, was there anything in roske’s last that would have flagged him?

No. Which means the background check was inadequate.

I recently applied for an IL FOID card. Do you know what their "thorough" background check consisted of? I had to pay $11.00, send them a picture, and fill out a form swearing I had no criminal or mental health issues. That's it.

Now, compare that to what I went through on my last employment screening, or applying for a mortgage, or being a sponsor for my wife to get permanent residency, and it's a joke.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I would punish them to the extent the law allows. If said person had a history of mental illness, we should take that into account.



HIPAA laws prevent those from being released. My guess, though, is that yeah, he probably has an extensive history of mental illness.



No. Which means the background check was inadequate.

I recently applied for an IL FOID card. Do you know what their "thorough" background check consisted of? I had to pay $11.00, send them a picture, and fill out a form swearing I had no criminal or mental health issues. That's it.

Now, compare that to what I went through on my last employment screening, or applying for a mortgage, or being a sponsor for my wife to get permanent residency, and it's a joke.

Sounds like the process was easy because you were renewing your foid. The info I looked up says you need finger prints, clean background check, no menorah health issues. The finger prunes are now kept in file food renewal purposes. So, if it was that easy, sounds like it was a renewal process, which means they likely checked your prints against a crime database automatically and you just didn’t know it.

 

[JoeB131]

Sounds like the process was easy because you were renewing your foid. The info I looked up says you need finger prints, clean background check, no menorah health issues. The finger prunes are now kept in file food renewal purposes. So, if it was that easy, sounds like it was a renewal process, which means they likely checked your prints against a crime database automatically and you just didn’t know it.

Except I wasn't "renewing". I simply never had one before. I only got the card because I was curious to see how easy or hard these card were to actually get.

And the answer was, not very.

I haven't handled a gun since I left the Army in 1992, and have no desire to do so.

But the point was, no, the IL Foid didn't ask for my fingerprints. While I am sure my background check would have come back clean (Nothing more serious than a moving violation) the point is, how serious of a background check could they have done for $11.00.

By way of comparison, in getting a sponsorship for Mrs. B131, even though she has been residing in the US for the last 8 years, they did take her fingerprints, had her report to an immigration office, had us fill out some 200 pages of documentation, and we had to get an attorney to navigate the process. Why? To make sure it was a real marriage and not a green card wedding? Cost of the process? $3875.00.

Seems we have our priorities wrong.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Except I wasn't "renewing". I simply never had one before. I only got the card because I was curious to see how easy or hard these card were to actually get.

And the answer was, not very.

I haven't handled a gun since I left the Army in 1992, and have no desire to do so.

But the point was, no, the IL Foid didn't ask for my fingerprints. While I am sure my background check would have come back clean (Nothing more serious than a moving violation) the point is, how serious of a background check could they have done for $11.00.

By way of comparison, in getting a sponsorship for Mrs. B131, even though she has been residing in the US for the last 8 years, they did take her fingerprints, had her report to an immigration office, had us fill out some 200 pages of documentation, and we had to get an attorney to navigate the process. Why? To make sure it was a real marriage and not a green card wedding? Cost of the process? $3875.00.

Seems we have our priorities wrong.

According to the Illinois laws, they should have finger printed you and did a background check. Someone apparently didn’t follow the laws in your case.

 

[JoeB131]

According to the Illinois laws, they should have finger printed you and did a background check. Someone apparently didn’t follow the laws in your case.

THis was just to get a FOID card.

Nope, they don't require fingerprints.

$11.00, send them a picture, pinky swear you aren't a crazy person.