Second amendment, should felons be allowed to own guns?

[toobfreak]

If the government comes in here and posts the message I responded to then, yes, I'll ask the government. But it was Canon Shooter who said it's not a right so I asked Canon Shooter

So you are good to go with any usurpation of rights by an overbearing government just so long as they don't ask YOU?

- show where the government has the authority to restrict one's access to the Internet.

Show me where the government has the authority to violate my allodial property rights?
Show me where the government has the authority to seize property with no crime then charge you with defending it to get it back?
Show me where the government has the authority to take your kids off you because they don't like how you raise them?
Show me where the government has the authority to tell you what you can eat and how, deny you healthcare, and limit or deny how you practice your faith?
Show me where the government has the authority to even educate your kids and teach them things in secret without your knowledge or approval or against your objections?

 

[Levant]

You mention that no one here is looking for trouble - but you and the OP want to take on people that you are so afraid of that you're shaking in your boots

LOOK pinbrain, WHERE did I ever say I wanted to "take on" anyone? Don't you dare put words in my mouth. You're an idiot who runs his mouth too much and seems to think his opinion matters more than other people. You just love to stereotype people and claim you're a conservative but sure talk like a bigass liberal. You think you have the right to hold everyone else to YOUR standard of behavior, but not you held to theirs, and think you sre the last word on the Constitution. So far, I've seen you on the WRONG side of every issue, liking some of the most leftist people and stereotyping all whom disagree with you.

Mortality is like an asteroid, easiest to carve in youth or when it gets just a little off track just as a rock is easier to deflect farther out in space. Your kind of neanderthal thinking is what has led us to the problems we have today. You have a strange mix of permissiveness for poor social behavior yet at the same time a rather militant dislike for those willing to be pro-active in trying to resist sagging standards!

You said yourself that carrying a gun empowers people to say what they want to people who otherwise scare them shitless. You put the words in your mouth. I just discussed them.

And if you think I'm wrong on any issue, discuss the issue. I'm game.

And, no, it's not me trying to hold others to my standard of behavior. It's you who wants to carry a gun so you can tell someone you're terrified of to pull their pants up. You're the authoritarian but you're a coward authoritarian. You only get bossy behind a keyboard or a gun.

And, no, I never said I was the last word on the Constitution but I am pretty damn knowledgeable about it. If you'd care to take me on on any topic about the Constitution where you think I'm wrong, bring it. You never know; you might win. Though I know a lot, I've also been wrong on rare occasions and openly admit it and thank the person who taught me when they do... I'm not sure you have the mental or logical capacity to do it but, then, as someone else suggested, there's never been a person I've known from whom I didn't learn something - that'll likely include you one day - except about vacuum tubes.

And who did I stereotype? In fact, in another post you called me a bigot... I overlooked it because I considered the source. But I don't stereotype, I have too much fun pointing out your specific flaws to have to generalize to piss you off. You'll have to post where you've ever seen me say a bigoted word or stereotype.

You're a not-so-unusual mix of pretending to be a conservative while trying to force your way on everyone else. You actually have no respect for liberty or rights; you just want people to behave like you want them to or you'll pick a fight and when you get one you say, but I doubt you have the courage, you'll shoot them.

 

[toobfreak]

You said yourself that carrying a gun empowers people to say what they want to people who otherwise scare them shitless. You put the words in your mouth.

Never said that, Dipshit. Boy are you a fucking idiot.

It's you who wants to carry a gun so you can tell someone you're terrified of to pull their pants up.

Never said that, Pigboy. Boy are you a fucking idiot. I don't even carry a gun. Not for a long time.

You're the authoritarian but you're a coward authoritarian.

I must be a really BAD authoritarian as I have no authority over anyone! Jesus are you a Moron.

You only get bossy behind a keyboard or a gun.

Actually, I'm never bossy at all. I only seem that way with turd-brained idiots when I talk back to them like they do to others and make monkeys out of them.

And, no, I never said I was the last word on the Constitution but I am pretty damn knowledgeable about it.

Hope you know more about the Federalist papers and the Four Organic Laws of the USA than you do about tubes! Do you even know what the Organic Laws of the United States are?

If you'd care to take me on on any topic about the Constitution where you think I'm wrong, bring it.

So you can run like a little girl like you are now deflecting and running from your electronic wizard claims, Fat man?

there's never been a person I've known from whom I didn't learn something - except about vacuum tubes.

Right. You WROTE THE BOOK on all tube technology. Even technology that is long ongoing still to this day long after you quit changing out blown 2CN3A rectifiers.

You're a not-so-unusual mix of pretending to be a conservative
You actually have no respect for liberty or rights

 

[Levant]

You would certainly use it against minorities while claiming self defense when it was you that started the fight.

I’m a minority where I am.. and what’s wrong with confronting things in my community that see as bad?

Because what you consider bad is just the fact that you do not want anyone that is non-white in your neighborhood...

Fact is if you have a felony based on a violent crime then no you should not own a gun...

Not true I see kids walking around with there pants hanging down why can’t I confront them with a equalizer .

What business is it of yours if they wear their pants hanging down? You don't like it? Look away. You should not be able to confront them with a gun just because you don't like the way their wear their clothes?

It’s offensive to my daughter it’s offensive to my grandmother is offensive to my mother and I have a right to say what I want

Actually, you don't have that right.

Localities have the right to set local standards, and if walking around with half your ass hanging out is deemed a violation of local decency standards, you have every right to complain and the offender his every right to face a judge and be fined in a courtroom.

A sad fact that you even have to have this discussion in America defending a person's right to indecent behavior but not a person's right not to have themselves or their children forced to accept it.

If you see someone violating local decency laws, then feel free to say something to them. I didn't say you don't have the right. Feel free, if your state has provisions, to place them under citizens arrest. Go for it. But if your courage to say something comes from a gun then you're a pussy and you've become an almost insurmountable argument against me in my attempt to defend the right to keep and bear arms.

And the discussion was about pants sagging, not ass showing. 90+ per cent of saggers I see are showing boxers more expensive than I would ever buy rather than their ass. The bigger question is, who are you to tell someone else how to dress? Your children are not harmed by seeing someone sagging, even if their ass is showing - in case you haven't noticed, you and your children have asses, too. It is the reaction of adults, in front of their children, that causes the harm.

SO LESSEE:

1. YOU'RE to judge whether someone carries out their 2A right to self protect because you'd rather see them beat up badly, stabbed or shot?
2. If someone carries for self-protection, you cannot defend the Bill of Rights. Civil rights are OK to you so long as they are not actually USED.
3. You have so many ass waggers in your community, you have them categorized by brand of underwear. You have three on every corner.
4. YOU decide whether other people's children are harmed or not by the behavior of others.
5. You feel everyone has the right to impose their offensive behavior on others but not the right to object to it.
6. Me and my children have dicks too, so by your sagging, convoluted logic, we should all just walk around with our dicks out.
7. No harm is done to kids if they see gangsta hood behavior, but they are harmed if anyone tells them they shouldn't dress like that.

1. Well, Mr. Constitutional Expert - there is no 2A right. Not to self-protect, not to keep and bear arms, not at all. There is a natural, or God-given (choose your own creator of choice) right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment restricts the Government from infringing on that right. The Second Amendment is not a right of its own and it doesn't create any right. But I don't care why you carry or don't carry, as long as you aren't going around carrying a gun to give courage to your big mouth. That's where brandishing laws or threatening laws come into play. Like I said, behind the keyboard or behind the gun, you're a tough guy. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure, not so much.
2. You can use your right to keep and bear arms. Carry them wherever you wish but it's murder if you knowingly pick a fight and then shoot someone. That makes you at least as much, if not more so, of a criminal than those kids you're so terrified of.
3. Pointless. I don't care about ass waggers, as you call them. I really have better things on my mind, at home and when I'm out. It must really suck to be you and that's the most important thing in your life.
4. No, I don't decide but I know that children are not harmed by the things they see when adults respond like adults and have intelligent discussions with their children about appropriate community behavior. If your children see you start a fight, draw a gun, and shoot someone, how much harm do you think that does to them? As much as it must suck to be you, it must suck more to be your child.
5. You absolutely have the right to object when you see something that bothers you. You just don't have the right to have a plan that ends up with someone shot because you got cocky because you have a gun. Have you ever considered walking up to someone and saying nicely, "Pardon me, my daughter is embarrassed by seeing your underwear; would you mind pulling your pants up for a few minutes?" And then when they tell you to kiss your ass you can pull your gun and shoot them. Really... That's in the rules.
6. Really? You're talking on this forum about your children's sexual organs? You're a creep.
7. Now you know I didn't say they're harmed by you telling them they shouldn't dress like that.. I mean telling your children that they shouldn't dress like that. But if you mean they're harmed by you telling the (funny that you go into hood-speak to say) gangsta not to dress like that? Yes, children are psychologically harmed when they see their pussy-ass father get his ass kicked for opening his big mouth.

I've carried a concealed weapon, and occasionally open-carried, in Oklahoma for 12 years. Not once have I gone to a place with my gun that I would not have gone to without my gun. Not once have I said a word to a person because I was carrying a gun that I would not have said without my gun.

If you want to be a man, you walk up to the biggest, meanest looking, "gangsta" you can find, unarmed, and either ask nicely or order him, up to you, to pull his damn pants up... If you get an ass whipping, take it like a man; you had it coming. But, whether you get an ass whipping or not, then you can go up to as many as you choose and know you're not a coward with a big mouth only because you have a gun. But if you won't say it without a gun and you will say it with a gun, you're nothing but a coward looking for trouble.

 

[Levant]

If the government comes in here and posts the message I responded to then, yes, I'll ask the government. But it was Canon Shooter who said it's not a right so I asked Canon Shooter

So you are good to go with any usurpation of rights by an overbearing government just so long as they don't ask YOU?

- show where the government has the authority to restrict one's access to the Internet.

Show me where the government has the authority to violate my allodial property rights?
Show me where the government has the authority to seize property with no crime then charge you with defending it to get it back?
Show me where the government has the authority to take your kids off you because they don't like how you raise them?
Show me where the government has the authority to tell you what you can eat and how, deny you healthcare, and limit or deny how you practice your faith?
Show me where the government has the authority to even educate your kids and teach them things in secret without your knowledge or approval or against your objections?

See, you prove my point... several points, actually.. Like the point that you don't understand liberty or the Constitution or tyranny.

This whole belligerent sequence from you started with you trying to tell me that there are people who have authority over me and my body and I own nothing and there's no such thing as natural freedom or rights and that I'm not free and that I'm an idiot for saying all those things you mention above are tyranny.......... and now you're accusing me of accepting them.

I've said all along that when people who happen to have jobs in government do things that are not within the authority of the Constitution that is tyranny. I said that the only power they have is what's in the Constitution and you called me out on it... Just like later quoting your own posts and pretending they were mine and then attacking me for what you said, you're doing the same... Your IQ must be really low, in the sub-50 range, I'm guessing. You really can't keep thoughts straight or clear in your mind. You must be a Biden fan.

 

[Levant]

You said yourself that carrying a gun empowers people to say what they want to people who otherwise scare them shitless. You put the words in your mouth.

Never said that, Dipshit. Boy are you a fucking idiot.

It's you who wants to carry a gun so you can tell someone you're terrified of to pull their pants up.

Never said that, Pigboy. Boy are you a fucking idiot. I don't even carry a gun. Not for a long time.

You're the authoritarian but you're a coward authoritarian.

I must be a really BAD authoritarian as I have no authority over anyone! Jesus are you a Moron.

You only get bossy behind a keyboard or a gun.

Actually, I'm never bossy at all. I only seem that way with turd-brained idiots when I talk back to them like they do to others and make monkeys out of them.

And, no, I never said I was the last word on the Constitution but I am pretty damn knowledgeable about it.

Hope you know more about the Federalist papers and the Four Organic Laws of the USA than you do about tubes! Do you even know what the Organic Laws of the United States are?

If you'd care to take me on on any topic about the Constitution where you think I'm wrong, bring it.

So you can run like a little girl like you are now deflecting and running from your electronic wizard claims, Fat man?

there's never been a person I've known from whom I didn't learn something - except about vacuum tubes.

Right. You WROTE THE BOOK on all tube technology. Even technology that is long ongoing still to this day long after you quit changing out blown 2CN3A rectifiers.

You're a not-so-unusual mix of pretending to be a conservative
You actually have no respect for liberty or rights

View attachment 330258

So you admit that you don't have the courage or skill to take me on about the Constitution. That's good. confession is good for the soul.

And, no, the Four Organic Laws of the United States are not actual laws. Calling them that doesn't make them that. Including them in US Code doesn't make them law, it makes them references.

But I'll tell you what. If you'll pay attention and carefully read what I say (I suggest following me so you can catch all of my posts ) then I'll teach you more about the Constitution than you ever thought there was to know. How's that for a good-will gesture?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No one should be labeled a “felon” and treated differently after he/she has paid the debt to society. All rights should be restored.

So, yes. “Felons” should be allowed to exercise their rights.

.

 

[toobfreak]

If the government comes in here and posts the message I responded to then, yes, I'll ask the government. But it was Canon Shooter who said it's not a right so I asked Canon Shooter

So you are good to go with any usurpation of rights by an overbearing government just so long as they don't ask YOU?

- show where the government has the authority to restrict one's access to the Internet.

Show me where the government has the authority to violate my allodial property rights?
Show me where the government has the authority to seize property with no crime then charge you with defending it to get it back?
Show me where the government has the authority to take your kids off you because they don't like how you raise them?
Show me where the government has the authority to tell you what you can eat and how, deny you healthcare, and limit or deny how you practice your faith?
Show me where the government has the authority to even educate your kids and teach them things in secret without your knowledge or approval or against your objections?

See, you prove my point... several points, actually.. Like the point that you don't understand liberty or the Constitution or tyranny.

That must be why I have a whole bookshelf behind me on Constitutional Law from the Library of American Freedoms as a member, published by Palladium Press, Genius.

Gee are you a total fraud and a lying schmuck.

 

[toobfreak]

So you admit that you don't have the courage or skill to take me on about the Constitution.

Where did I admit that, Shitstain? I'm still waiting for you to stop your dumbfuckery and deflections running away from your claims you are a veritable ELECTRONIC WIZARD!

And, no, the Four Organic Laws of the United States are not actual laws.

So the US CODE is WRONG in calling these four greatest legal documents, the very CORNERSTONE of all that is the USA, Laws? You ought to notify Congress!

Gee are you a total Ass and a know-it-all lying Schmuck.

 

[Levant]

If the government comes in here and posts the message I responded to then, yes, I'll ask the government. But it was Canon Shooter who said it's not a right so I asked Canon Shooter

So you are good to go with any usurpation of rights by an overbearing government just so long as they don't ask YOU?

- show where the government has the authority to restrict one's access to the Internet.

Show me where the government has the authority to violate my allodial property rights?
Show me where the government has the authority to seize property with no crime then charge you with defending it to get it back?
Show me where the government has the authority to take your kids off you because they don't like how you raise them?
Show me where the government has the authority to tell you what you can eat and how, deny you healthcare, and limit or deny how you practice your faith?
Show me where the government has the authority to even educate your kids and teach them things in secret without your knowledge or approval or against your objections?

See, you prove my point... several points, actually.. Like the point that you don't understand liberty or the Constitution or tyranny.

That must be why I have a whole bookshelf behind me on Constitutional Law from the Library of American Freedoms as a member, published by Palladium Press, Genius.

Gee are you a total fraud and a lying schmuck.

Palladium Press.. That's where all the experts go to learn. NOT.

Even so, there's probably good stuff in those books. You should put them in front of you where they would do you some good.

 

[Levant]

So you admit that you don't have the courage or skill to take me on about the Constitution.

Where did I admit that, Shitstain? I'm still waiting for you to stop your dumbfuckery and deflections running away from your claims you are a veritable ELECTRONIC WIZARD!

And, no, the Four Organic Laws of the United States are not actual laws.

So the US CODE is WRONG in calling these four greatest legal documents, the very CORNERSTONE of all that is the USA, Laws? You ought to notify Congress!

Gee are you a total Ass and a know-it-all lying Schmuck.

You understand that organic law is a philosophical or intellectual basis of law, not a legal basis of law, right? No American laws today can be defended or enforced based on the Articles of Confederation.

Our laws stem from those documents but they're not law. They're not listed as law in the US Code; they're listed as FRONT MATTER. Reference Material, as I said. It's looking more and more like I overestimated your IQ at 50.

In spite of your Info-wars driven anarchic views, the supreme law of the land is the United States Constitution. The other documents are simply reference, today. Other than the Northwest Ordinance, they're not law. The Articles of Confederacy were replaced by the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence was never ratified law and didn't create anything, it abolished the old. The Northwest Ordinance is interesting because it was passed law of the Continental Congress and was the law of the Northwest Territory. Creating a union of 13 states by the Constitution did not change the governing laws of the Northwest Territories so those rules stayed in existence. They have no effect today because the entire territory have become states. So, just like the other documents in the FRONT MATTER section of the US Code, the Northwest Ordinance is interesting reference material that helps us understand the original thinking of the Founders when they created the only of of those documents with weight of law today: Tue Constitution of the United States of America.

 

[Jitss617]

Sometimes traditions should be broken because they are outdated, archaic and just downright abusive.

So what’s America with out tradition ? Chicago?

What tradition? You'll have to be more specific.

Do people have the freedom to choose whether they follow a given tradition?

Of course, I was just asking you a question, again you dodge it like the coward you are

I dodge nothing. YOu ask about something as vague as "tradition", and now get pissy because someone doesn't answer with a Yes or No? lol

Exactly what traditions are you talking about?

There are a LOT of traditions in the country. You want to generalize and lump them all together?

it’s a family tradition.

Then it is a stupid tradition. If you can't specify a tradition, my answer stands.

Each individual decides which traditions they follow and which tradition they toss out.

Women should be at home taking care of the family that’s the only way you’re gonna keep America going

Oh, so women should not have career aspirations and goals beyond the home? Just negate their contributions so you don't have to do housework? lol

So nice of you to sacrifice other's freedom.

Of course the could, but if you country is full of single parents, stats show 77% of kids will end up breaking the law.

 

[WinterBorn]

Sometimes traditions should be broken because they are outdated, archaic and just downright abusive.

So what’s America with out tradition ? Chicago?

What tradition? You'll have to be more specific.

Do people have the freedom to choose whether they follow a given tradition?

Of course, I was just asking you a question, again you dodge it like the coward you are

I dodge nothing. YOu ask about something as vague as "tradition", and now get pissy because someone doesn't answer with a Yes or No? lol

Exactly what traditions are you talking about?

There are a LOT of traditions in the country. You want to generalize and lump them all together?

it’s a family tradition.

Then it is a stupid tradition. If you can't specify a tradition, my answer stands.

Each individual decides which traditions they follow and which tradition they toss out.

Women should be at home taking care of the family that’s the only way you’re gonna keep America going

Oh, so women should not have career aspirations and goals beyond the home? Just negate their contributions so you don't have to do housework? lol

So nice of you to sacrifice other's freedom.

Of course the could, but if you country is full of single parents, stats show 77% of kids will end up breaking the law.

Got a link for that?

And what you are talking about is mostly the women abandoned by men or women running from abuse. Should those traditions be maintained?

 

[Jitss617]

Sometimes traditions should be broken because they are outdated, archaic and just downright abusive.

So what’s America with out tradition ? Chicago?

What tradition? You'll have to be more specific.

Do people have the freedom to choose whether they follow a given tradition?

Of course, I was just asking you a question, again you dodge it like the coward you are

I dodge nothing. YOu ask about something as vague as "tradition", and now get pissy because someone doesn't answer with a Yes or No? lol

Exactly what traditions are you talking about?

There are a LOT of traditions in the country. You want to generalize and lump them all together?

it’s a family tradition.

Then it is a stupid tradition. If you can't specify a tradition, my answer stands.

Each individual decides which traditions they follow and which tradition they toss out.

Women should be at home taking care of the family that’s the only way you’re gonna keep America going

Oh, so women should not have career aspirations and goals beyond the home? Just negate their contributions so you don't have to do housework? lol

So nice of you to sacrifice other's freedom.

Of course the could, but if you country is full of single parents, stats show 77% of kids will end up breaking the law.

Got a link for that?

And what you are talking about is mostly the women abandoned by men or women running from abuse. Should those traditions be maintained?

By 1996, 70 percent of inmates in state juvenile detention centers serving long-term sentences were raised by single mothers. Seventy-two percent of juvenile murderers and 60 percent of rapists come from single-mother homes. Seventy percent of teenage births, dropouts, suicides, runaways, juvenile delinquents, and child murderers involve children raised by single mothers. Girls raised without fathers are more sexually promiscuous and more likely to end up divorced. A 1990 study by the Progressive Policy Institute showed that after controlling for single motherhood, the difference between black and white crime rates disappeared.

Various studies have come up with slightly different numbers, but all the figures are grim. According to the Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, children from single-parent families account for 63 percent of all youth suicides, 70 percent of all teenage pregnancies, 71 percent of all adolescent chemical/substance abuse, 80 percent of all prison inmates, and 90 percent of all homeless and runaway children.

A study cited in the Village Voice produced similar numbers. It found that children brought up in single-mother homes ‘are five times more likely to commit suicide, nine times more likely to drop out of high school, 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances, 14 times more likely to commit rape (for the boys), 20 times more likely to end up in prison, and 32 times more likely to run away from home.’ Single motherhood is like a farm team for future criminals and social outcasts.

 

[WinterBorn]

Sometimes traditions should be broken because they are outdated, archaic and just downright abusive.

So what’s America with out tradition ? Chicago?

What tradition? You'll have to be more specific.

Do people have the freedom to choose whether they follow a given tradition?

Of course, I was just asking you a question, again you dodge it like the coward you are

I dodge nothing. YOu ask about something as vague as "tradition", and now get pissy because someone doesn't answer with a Yes or No? lol

Exactly what traditions are you talking about?

There are a LOT of traditions in the country. You want to generalize and lump them all together?

it’s a family tradition.

Then it is a stupid tradition. If you can't specify a tradition, my answer stands.

Each individual decides which traditions they follow and which tradition they toss out.

Women should be at home taking care of the family that’s the only way you’re gonna keep America going

Oh, so women should not have career aspirations and goals beyond the home? Just negate their contributions so you don't have to do housework? lol

So nice of you to sacrifice other's freedom.

Of course the could, but if you country is full of single parents, stats show 77% of kids will end up breaking the law.

Got a link for that?

And what you are talking about is mostly the women abandoned by men or women running from abuse. Should those traditions be maintained?

By 1996, 70 percent of inmates in state juvenile detention centers serving long-term sentences were raised by single mothers. Seventy-two percent of juvenile murderers and 60 percent of rapists come from single-mother homes. Seventy percent of teenage births, dropouts, suicides, runaways, juvenile delinquents, and child murderers involve children raised by single mothers. Girls raised without fathers are more sexually promiscuous and more likely to end up divorced. A 1990 study by the Progressive Policy Institute showed that after controlling for single motherhood, the difference between black and white crime rates disappeared.

Various studies have come up with slightly different numbers, but all the figures are grim. According to the Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, children from single-parent families account for 63 percent of all youth suicides, 70 percent of all teenage pregnancies, 71 percent of all adolescent chemical/substance abuse, 80 percent of all prison inmates, and 90 percent of all homeless and runaway children.

A study cited in the Village Voice produced similar numbers. It found that children brought up in single-mother homes ‘are five times more likely to commit suicide, nine times more likely to drop out of high school, 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances, 14 times more likely to commit rape (for the boys), 20 times more likely to end up in prison, and 32 times more likely to run away from home.’ Single motherhood is like a farm team for future criminals and social outcasts.

So no link, just more plagarism?

And there is a difference between your claim that 77% of kids from single parent homes will break the law, and stating that 70% of inmates at juvenile detention centers are from single parent homes.

And if you look at economic factors, being raised in a poor household will see almost the same percentages. Being poor is the problem more than having two parents.

And how do you plan to fix this? Will you force women to stay home? The reason 2 parent households do better is because there are 2 incomes, not because there are two parents.

And will you force women to stay in abusive situations, just to cut the number of single parent households?

10 million people a year are subjected to domestic violence every year. So it is not an isolated problem.

20 alarming domestic violence statistics

Domestic violence is a major issue in the U.S. and around the world, and many nonprofits work tirelessly to provide critical support and services to victims.

www.socialsolutions.com

Even if the violence is only directed towards the adult, witnessing the violence has a profound effect on children.


And none of the above problems even touch on whether women are free to choose their own life, as men are. Are women not free in the US?

 

[Jitss617]

And if you look at economic factors, being raised in a poor household will see almost the same percentages. Being poor is the problem more than having two parents.

Let’s look at that,, LINK?

 

[WinterBorn]

And if you look at economic factors, being raised in a poor household will see almost the same percentages. Being poor is the problem more than having two parents.

Let’s look at that,, LINK?

Oh, you don't provide links but you want others to provide them?

I'll post it when I am back on my computer. Meanwhile, you keep avoiding the nature of taking away the freedom of women, while not forcing men to take care of their children.

 

[Jitss617]

And if you look at economic factors, being raised in a poor household will see almost the same percentages. Being poor is the problem more than having two parents.

Let’s look at that,, LINK?

Oh, you don't provide links but you want others to provide them?

I'll post it when I am back on my computer. Meanwhile, you keep avoiding the nature of taking away the freedom of women, while not forcing men to take care of their children.

I’m
Saying we should encourage family units not celebrate single motherhood

 

[Syriusly]

In general I think that once someone has served their time, they should be fully re-enfranchised- both with the vote and their right to own guns.
Except- in my opinion- those who have committed a crime with a gun, or other weapon.

I am curious to see where Republicans go with this- so far generally like in Florida- Republicans are doing what they can to prevent ex-cons from voting. Will they have the same reluctance with firearms?

 

[Syriusly]

And if you look at economic factors, being raised in a poor household will see almost the same percentages. Being poor is the problem more than having two parents.

Let’s look at that,, LINK?

Oh, you don't provide links but you want others to provide them?

I'll post it when I am back on my computer. Meanwhile, you keep avoiding the nature of taking away the freedom of women, while not forcing men to take care of their children.

I’m
Saying we should encourage family units not celebrate single motherhood

I think we should absolutely encourage family units- while at the same time appreciate and support those single parents who are doing the best that they can.