Dems push psychological evaluations for gun owners and 'family members'

[Cecilie1200]

Do the democrats call for an 'evaluation' to exercise any other parts of the Bill of Rights?

I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted an "evaluation" to allow conservatives/Republicans to exercise ANY of the Bill of Rights.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, you're not. You're far more likely to be murdered by a member of your own race than someone outside your race. More than 5 times more likely to be killed by a member of your own race than a minority.

Expanded Homicide Data Table 6

ucr.fbi.gov

As a white woman, I am far more likely to be murdered by my white male partner, or a member of my own family, than I am by a black stranger.

Crime statistics in Canada and Europe are quite different than American crime statistics. In the USA, only violent rapes are counted in the "sexual assaults" category. In the rest of the world, groping, and attempted rape are also counted as "sexual assaults". Basically, if no one goes to the hospital or the morgue, it's not reported as a "violent" crime, whereas in the rest of the world, if two guys have a fight outside the bar, and someone calls the cops, it's reported in their numbers as a "violent" crime, even if nobody was injured.

Wrong. If a guy grabs a woman here and there was a witness to testify to that, he will be arrested and charged with sexual assault. You sidestepped the fact that blacks and Hispanics kill far more people than whites in this country. So it plays a part in your white country and European countries.

Guns don't jump out of dresser drawers and kill people. Criminals do that. You could take a nice quiet middle-class white suburb, make law that every household must have a gun, and their violent crime rate won't change 1%.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Guns don't jump out of dresser drawers and kill people. Criminals do that.

Criminals jump out of dresser drawers?

Perhaps we need to ban certain kinds of furniture.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Guns don't jump out of dresser drawers and kill people. Criminals do that.

Criminals jump out of dresser drawers?

Perhaps we need to ban certain kinds of furniture.

Or the really short criminals who can fit in them, I guess.

 

[Nostra]

Do the democrats call for an 'evaluation' to exercise any other parts of the Bill of Rights?

I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted an "evaluation" to allow conservatives/Republicans to exercise ANY of the Bill of Rights.

These asswipes think they can tell us we need to come to them and convince them we should be able to exercise our God given rights.

They are 100% Fascists.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Criminals jump out of dresser drawers?

Perhaps we need to ban certain kinds of furniture.

Don't give the Nazis any ideas. They are already impeaching a President for exercising his constitutional rights.

 

[2aguy]

Please quote the Constitutional text specifically guaranteeing the right to abortion.

The 14th Amendment.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

Laws which deny women the right to decide whether to have a baby denies her constitutional right to life and liberty. And don't start with rights for the zygote. It doesn't have rights.

That's bullshit.

By exactly the same logic, any law telling me that I don't have a right to kill you is a violation of my right to life and liberty.

Really, any law that compels or prohibits any behavior is, strictly speaking a violation of liberty.

The point, of course, is that in some cases, one's liberty must be abridged in order to protect the rights of another, such as the right of any human being (whether you, an unborn child, or anyone else) not to be murdered in cold blood.

If the Fourteenth Amendment can legitimately be twisted, as you are trying to do, to protect the “right” to murder an innocent child, then really, what laws can rightfully exist to prohibit any behavior?

You are a living breathing human being, you have righits, and no one has the right to take YOUR life. A zygote, or a fetus is not breathing, and under the Holy Bible, and all human laws since the beginning of time, has no rights.

Which makes moot your contention that a woman has no right to decide whether or not to have a baby, and has no dominion over her own body.

It's not "Bullshit". Even the Bible says that Adam didn't not become human until God "breathed life" into him. Breathe is life. Bible also says that God "formed" Adam, and when God was happy with His creation, he "breathed" life into him. Thus, while a human is being formed, he/she is not yet human or alive.

The 14th Amendment and the right of a woman have dominion over her own body are settled law, and one which men never questioned, until women starting demanding the right to vote. The moment women starting pushing for rights, men have tried to force them to have babies they cannot afford to have.

Kind of how as soon as black people starting voting in large numbers, white men seek to suppress their right to vote. And just like the argument against voting, it's to protect "rights" that aren't in danger.

The moment we starting advocating for things that really will save the lives of babies - things like universal health care, better education for poor children, higher wages for their mothers, mandated vacations for working families, family leave to care for sick family members, or anything to improve the health or the lives of poor children, you oppose it and point to the parents for being irresponsible enough to have children they can't afford to care for.

I'll believe you care about babies, when you starting advocating for living breathing children, and not just the unborn. Until you do, you're just anyother lying right winger.

Kind of how as soon as black people starting voting in large numbers, white men seek to suppress their right to vote.


Not "White Men," it was the democrat party that enacted Poll Taxes, Literacy tests and lynching to keep blacks from voting....

Moron...it is conservatives who donate more time and money to charity than left wingers do.....

 

[JoeB131]

Incel Joe is very fond of falsely accusing others of racism, but if you look through each of our bodies of work, you'll find that only he ever expresses racist beliefs.

Mormon Bob belongs to a cult that didn't allow black people to become members until 1978, and only then because the Government threatened to pull their tax exemption. Their "Holy Scriptures" refer to God cursing blacks and Native Americans with dark skin.

What you have to remember is the reason you're safe in your home is because people like me have guns in ours. Criminals don't know if you have a gun or not, so they don't dare rob you while you're home. Take guns away from law abiding citizens, and they will know you are not armed and can't defend yourself.

Except countries that ban guns don't have anywhere near our crime rates.

Most criminals don't do home invasions because it's just easier to break into an empty house.

And I already posted charts of the problems they do have because they can't protect themselves. They have higher crime rates in other areas like rapes, assaults, and armed robberies. Instead of getting shot, they get sliced up like a side of beef. They have a knife ban. You can't have a knife on your person just like felons here can't have a gun. But like here, the bad guys don't obey the laws, the unsuspecting law abiding citizen does, and that's how they become victims.

No, guy, they have higher crime rates because they actually have looser definitions of crime. For instance, the US defines sexual assault as sexual penetration of the victim. Most European countries define it as any unwanted touching. We define assault as anything with serious injury, they pretty much count any physical contact.

Again, those people will always get guns if they want them. Every place would be a gun-free zone which attracts them to various places today. All crooks carry guns. Nobody is going to mug you unarmed.

Guns aren't available to the general public, they aren't going to get guns. The rest of the world has figured this out.

 

[JoeB131]

That's bullshit.

By exactly the same logic, any law telling me that I don't have a right to kill you is a violation of my right to life and liberty.

Really, any law that compels or prohibits any behavior is, strictly speaking a violation of liberty.

The point, of course, is that in some cases, one's liberty must be abridged in order to protect the rights of another, such as the right of any human being (whether you, an unborn child, or anyone else) not to be murdered in cold blood.

If the Fourteenth Amendment can legitimately be twisted, as you are trying to do, to protect the “right” to murder an innocent child, then really, what laws can rightfully exist to prohibit any behavior?

Except the law doesn't recognize fetuses as people.

you can't collect a death benefit for a miscarriage.

If we went your crazy route of calling fetuses people, then every miscarriage would have to be investigated like a homicide, and women who caused a miscarriage through their own negligence would be charged with manslaughter.

Here's the reality. Before Roe v. Wade, you had abortion laws on the books, but no one was following them. Women weren't arrested for having abortions, and doctors were only charged with a crime if their negligence resulted in injury to the woman. No one was ever charged with killing a fetus. Women went to their OB/GYN, who quietly performed an abortion and wrote something else down on the chart, which insurance was happy to pay for.

When Seven Supreme Court Justices (FIVE of them Republicans) voted to get rid of the abortion laws, they thought what they were doing was no less controversial than when they overturned the Contraception Laws in Griswald v. Connecticut.

The ONLY reason why this is controversy today is because the Religious Right needed an issue to get people worked up about. Pre-Roe, abortion was seen as a "Catholic Issue" by most of the Evangelical Churches. They just didn't care about the issue. But they needed to get asses in pews, and segregation wasn't selling as a political issue anymore.

 

[Dragonlady]

Do the democrats call for an 'evaluation' to exercise any other parts of the Bill of Rights?

I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted an "evaluation" to allow conservatives/Republicans to exercise ANY of the Bill of Rights.

Well, women have to have all those unnecessary tests to have an abortion in a red state. You have to have special forms of ID or you can't vote. The children of blacks and gays can't attend "Christian" schools. So many "special" conservative rules.

 

[Nostra]

A massive Democratic gun-control plan that could be called the "head shrink job protection bill" would require weapon owners and their family members to undergo "psychological evaluations."
Gun owners also would have to pay the government $800 in "insurance" fees, and a long list of weapons simply would be banned.

Unconstitutional. Perhaps one day the Democrats will forward legislation that is, but it is not today.

It's amazing just how many people the Democrats have pissed off in just two weeks.

Dems push psychological evaluations for gun owners and 'family members'

If a woman wants an abortion, Republicans have insisted that she wait three days and think about it, view ultra sounds of the fetus, and undergo other unnecessary medical tests before the woman can have a legal abortion and you don't have any problem with any of these waiting periods, and additional restrictions. You're all for making it as difficult and expensive as possible to have an abortion.

If a Republican wants a gun, he or she should have to go through the same level of bullshit that a woman goes through to get an abortion. Fair is fair.

Please quote the Constitutional text specifically guaranteeing the right to abortion.

The 14th Amendment.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

Laws which deny women the right to decide whether to have a baby denies her constitutional right to life and liberty. And don't start with rights for the zygote. It doesn't have rights.

Explain how having a baby takes one's life and liberty away.

This should be good.

crickets from Dragonlady

 

[Nostra]

That's bullshit.

By exactly the same logic, any law telling me that I don't have a right to kill you is a violation of my right to life and liberty.

Really, any law that compels or prohibits any behavior is, strictly speaking a violation of liberty.

The point, of course, is that in some cases, one's liberty must be abridged in order to protect the rights of another, such as the right of any human being (whether you, an unborn child, or anyone else) not to be murdered in cold blood.

If the Fourteenth Amendment can legitimately be twisted, as you are trying to do, to protect the “right” to murder an innocent child, then really, what laws can rightfully exist to prohibit any behavior?

Except the law doesn't recognize fetuses as people.

you can't collect a death benefit for a miscarriage.

If we went your crazy route of calling fetuses people, then every miscarriage would have to be investigated like a homicide, and women who caused a miscarriage through their own negligence would be charged with manslaughter.

Here's the reality. Before Roe v. Wade, you had abortion laws on the books, but no one was following them. Women weren't arrested for having abortions, and doctors were only charged with a crime if their negligence resulted in injury to the woman. No one was ever charged with killing a fetus. Women went to their OB/GYN, who quietly performed an abortion and wrote something else down on the chart, which insurance was happy to pay for.

When Seven Supreme Court Justices (FIVE of them Republicans) voted to get rid of the abortion laws, they thought what they were doing was no less controversial than when they overturned the Contraception Laws in Griswald v. Connecticut.

The ONLY reason why this is controversy today is because the Religious Right needed an issue to get people worked up about. Pre-Roe, abortion was seen as a "Catholic Issue" by most of the Evangelical Churches. They just didn't care about the issue. But they needed to get asses in pews, and segregation wasn't selling as a political issue anymore.

Once again you prove you are an idiot.

Policy Research

NCSL’s experts are here to answer your questions and give you unbiased, comprehensive information as soon as you need it on issues facing state legislatures. We answer more than 20,000 requests for information a year.

www.ncsl.org

 

[Unkotare]

Do the democrats call for an 'evaluation' to exercise any other parts of the Bill of Rights?

I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted an "evaluation" to allow conservatives/Republicans to exercise ANY of the Bill of Rights.

Well, women have to have all those unnecessary tests to have an abortion in a red state. You have to have special forms of ID or you can't vote. The children of blacks and gays can't attend "Christian" schools. So many "special" conservative rules.

Got anything to support those claims, foreigner?

 

[Blues Man]

um, that's a mythology. A real frog will get out of the water when the water temperature changes. On the other hand, if you drop a frog into boiling water, he'll probably die of shock. The actual science is different from the Right Wing Metaphor.

Nope. A frog needs something hard in which to use his legs to jump. The frog just dies.

What you have to remember is the reason you're safe in your home is because people like me have guns in ours. Criminals don't know if you have a gun or not, so they don't dare rob you while you're home. Take guns away from law abiding citizens, and they will know you are not armed and can't defend yourself.

Except other countries ban or limit gun ownership and DON'T Have the kinds of problems we have. The concept of "it can't be done" is ridiculous because it HAS been done in Germany, the UK , Japan and a host of other countries.

And I already posted charts of the problems they do have because they can't protect themselves. They have higher crime rates in other areas like rapes, assaults, and armed robberies. Instead of getting shot, they get sliced up like a side of beef. They have a knife ban. You can't have a knife on your person just like felons here can't have a gun. But like here, the bad guys don't obey the laws, the unsuspecting law abiding citizen does, and that's how they become victims.

No, guy, I worry more about a nut with a gun than I do with a crook without a gun. So a mugger takes my wallet. I never carry more than $100.00 on me, and I can cancel my credit cards. That's MUCH less of a problem than if I'm watching a movie and James Holmes pops in because he thinks he's The Joker. Or if Richard Paddock decides to spray down a concert with bullets because he's dying anyway, and wants to take a bunch of other people with him.

Again, those people will always get guns if they want them. Every place would be a gun-free zone which attracts them to various places today. All crooks carry guns. Nobody is going to mug you unarmed.

witnessla.com

Another leftist lying site that has been debunked a while ago.

Debunking the Myth of "Concealed-Carry Killers"

The Violence Policy Center—a gun control advocacy group—released a study last month it wrongly claims shows that “too many concealed-carry permit holders are a direct threat to public safety.” That claim rests on an analysis of a database documenting “non-self-defense incidents,” which the...

www.heritage.org

I live in a country where handguns are carefully regulated, and none of the stuff you claim will happen without guns to defend yourselves, is happening here. Our murder rate is 1/7th of the USA, and our violent crime statistics are much lower than yours.

If owning guns kept Americans "safe", your nation wouldn't be the most violent in the first world. And don't hand me that bullshit that it's because of minorities.

Safety is an illusion.

And in the US the police are not obligated to come to anyone's aid.

And our murder rate is driven by criminals who obtain their guns illegally.

The fact is that people who acquire and carry guns legally do not add to the crime rate at all.

And we don't believe a person should have his rights violated because some other asshole commits a crime

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, women have to have all those unnecessary tests to have an abortion in a red state. You have to have special forms of ID or you can't vote. The children of blacks and gays can't attend "Christian" schools. So many "special" conservative rules.

I don't know about the gays, but WTF did you get this stupid idea that blacks can't attend Christian schools?

 

[Nostra]

Do the democrats call for an 'evaluation' to exercise any other parts of the Bill of Rights?

I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted an "evaluation" to allow conservatives/Republicans to exercise ANY of the Bill of Rights.

Well, women have to have all those unnecessary tests to have an abortion in a red state. You have to have special forms of ID or you can't vote. The children of blacks and gays can't attend "Christian" schools. So many "special" conservative rules.

Black children can't attend Christian schools?

Are you ever not a lying sack of dogshit?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Except the law doesn't recognize fetuses as people.

you can't collect a death benefit for a miscarriage.

If we went your crazy route of calling fetuses people, then every miscarriage would have to be investigated like a homicide, and women who caused a miscarriage through their own negligence would be charged with manslaughter.

Here's the reality. Before Roe v. Wade, you had abortion laws on the books, but no one was following them. Women weren't arrested for having abortions, and doctors were only charged with a crime if their negligence resulted in injury to the woman. No one was ever charged with killing a fetus. Women went to their OB/GYN, who quietly performed an abortion and wrote something else down on the chart, which insurance was happy to pay for.

When Seven Supreme Court Justices (FIVE of them Republicans) voted to get rid of the abortion laws, they thought what they were doing was no less controversial than when they overturned the Contraception Laws in Griswald v. Connecticut.

The ONLY reason why this is controversy today is because the Religious Right needed an issue to get people worked up about. Pre-Roe, abortion was seen as a "Catholic Issue" by most of the Evangelical Churches. They just didn't care about the issue. But they needed to get asses in pews, and segregation wasn't selling as a political issue anymore.

It has nothing to do with segregation. It's just a simple matter that abortions are not constitutionally protected. The founders never wrote the Constitution with abortion in mind. Abortions in this country are close to a 50/50 split, and that's why it's controversial.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Black children can't attend Christian schools?

Are you ever not a lying sack of dogshit?

Makes you wonder what kind of American propaganda they are feeding these commies up north.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Except countries that ban guns don't have anywhere near our crime rates.

Most criminals don't do home invasions because it's just easier to break into an empty house.

Bull. They would rather you be home because then they can hold you hostage until you tell them where you hide your valuables at. You don't have to worry about that now because of their uncertainty if you have a firearm or not. It's not worth getting killed over. If they hit your home, they'll wait until they are assured you're not there.

No, guy, they have higher crime rates because they actually have looser definitions of crime. For instance, the US defines sexual assault as sexual penetration of the victim. Most European countries define it as any unwanted touching. We define assault as anything with serious injury, they pretty much count any physical contact.

They have higher crime rates because people can't defend themselves.

Sexual Assault Overview

Created by FindLaw's team of legal writers and editors | Last updated June 25, 2019


Sexual assaults affect millions of Americans annually. The term encompasses various actions that involve behavior or contact toward another person without their consent. The actions are defined by state law and can therefore differ by jurisdiction. However, some common examples of sexual assault include:

*Fondling, kissing, or making unwanted bodily contact;

• Forcing another person to perform or receive oral sex;
• Forcing a tongue, mouth, finger, penis, or an object on another person's anus, penis, or vagina; and
• Forced masturbation.

Sexual Assault Overview - FindLaw

All states prohibit sexual assault, but the exact definitions of the crimes that fall within the category of sexual assault differ from state to state. Learn more about this and related topics by visiting FindLaw's section on Criminal Charges.

www.findlaw.com

Guns aren't available to the general public, they aren't going to get guns.

Really? I didn't know that. HEY! If that's the way it works, perhaps we could try that for recreational narcotics.............oh.....wait!

 

[Dragonlady]

Do the democrats call for an 'evaluation' to exercise any other parts of the Bill of Rights?

I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted an "evaluation" to allow conservatives/Republicans to exercise ANY of the Bill of Rights.

Well, women have to have all those unnecessary tests to have an abortion in a red state. You have to have special forms of ID or you can't vote. The children of blacks and gays can't attend "Christian" schools. So many "special" conservative rules.

Black children can't attend Christian schools?

Are you ever not a lying sack of dogshit?

Every time you post one of these little gems, I have to ask "Are you an American, living in the USA?", because your posts reveal an astounding lack of general knowledge about life in the USA in general.

I've have several American parents tell me they enrolled their kids in "Christian" schools so they wouldn't have to go to schools with blacks.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/12/in-southern-towns-segregation-academies-are-still-going-strong/266207/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/11/08/white-writer-confronts-her-schooling-segregated-private-academy-challenges-others-do-same/

Still Separate, Still Unequal: Teaching about School Segregation and Educational Inequality (Published 2019)

Although many students learn about the struggles to desegregate schools in the civil rights era, segregation as a current reality is largely absent from the curriculum. This teaching resource uses Times articles and Op-Eds to investigate the issue.

www.nytimes.com