So asking for clarification on gun policy is trolling?...what do you call what the white house press corp. do to Trump?....this is why you are going to lose...your short sided one sided blindness....
He asked a question. Potty mouth Biden is losing it when he can’t even handle a good question from a blue collar worker.
Sleepy Joe is nuts!
Biden is REALLY losing it
even calling an ar-14 instead of an ar-15
he also said is sons have guns when he only has one son
heres the deal, biden has a 20 gage shotgun
but if anyone ever tries to harm him one of his armed bodyguards will shoot the attacker and biden will not need his own gun
I call on every gun grabber in America sitting their fat ass in public office to give up armed police protection and just rely on calling 911 if someone tries to kill them
The "Nazis" are on the LEFT, Chief. Please put down that peace pipe before posting in the future. Thank you.
But that's not the idea, no matter how much you keep moving the topic to that idea.You misconstrued. We're not talking about denying second amendment rights based on race or ethnicity. We're talking about denying PURCHASING rights to people with invalid background checks (wherin that happens to be because of a ludicrous govt policy that mentions race/ethnicity). While race /ethnicity may have some involvement, nevertheless, the basis for the denial is invalid background check.I'm pretty sure that denying second amendment rights based on race or ethnicity will not be accepted by the courts as an exception.
One must pass a background check to buy a gun. Not having lots of pertinent information in a background is not passing a background check, and thus the sale must not happen. The cause of the denial is background check insufficency.
Secondly, are you saying that you would sell a gun to someone like Nickolas Cruz ? You think that's OK ?
I thought you liberal guys were strong on background checks. Not any more ?
I am not a liberal. It may be hard for you to understand, but just because someone disagrees with you about something does not make them a liberal.
You can try all the mental gymnastics you want. If the idea is to only deny minorities theirBut Constitutional rights, it’s not going to pass legal muster. Again, if you think the programs you are talking about are terrible, push to get rid of those programs. That, at least, has a chance of happening.
As I said (twice now), the title only allows a few words. The topic is the title AND the OP, combined.But that's not the idea, no matter how much you keep moving the topic to that idea.You misconstrued. We're not talking about denying second amendment rights based on race or ethnicity. We're talking about denying PURCHASING rights to people with invalid background checks (wherin that happens to be because of a ludicrous govt policy that mentions race/ethnicity). While race /ethnicity may have some involvement, nevertheless, the basis for the denial is invalid background check.I'm pretty sure that denying second amendment rights based on race or ethnicity will not be accepted by the courts as an exception.
One must pass a background check to buy a gun. Not having lots of pertinent information in a background is not passing a background check, and thus the sale must not happen. The cause of the denial is background check insufficency.
Secondly, are you saying that you would sell a gun to someone like Nickolas Cruz ? You think that's OK ?
I thought you liberal guys were strong on background checks. Not any more ?
I am not a liberal. It may be hard for you to understand, but just because someone disagrees with you about something does not make them a liberal.
You can try all the mental gymnastics you want. If the idea is to only deny minorities theirBut Constitutional rights, it’s not going to pass legal muster. Again, if you think the programs you are talking about are terrible, push to get rid of those programs. That, at least, has a chance of happening.
Moving the topic? It's the title of your thread.
Further, you keep promoting the idea. An "invalid background check" is something you made up. Anyone could have committed crimes which went unreported. Neither you nor, importantly, the legal system can know who has or has not committed a crime if it isn't reported. In addition, not all young minorities in Broward county, or other areas with similar programs, will have committed unreported crimes. Despite that, you ask if all young minorities should be denied their Constitutional right, but say nothing about young whites.
And this is all based on the assumption that your claims regarding the PROMISE program are accurate. I find that less than likely. I also wonder if you consider students with disabilities and LGBTQ students (who are mentioned with students of color in the Collaborative Agreement on School Discipline for Broward) as part of the young minorities you seem to be all for denying the right to purchase a gun.
You seem to believe that assuming young minorities have committed crimes which went unreported, and should therefore be denied the right to keep and bear arms, is a valid idea. I suppose it might be, if one didn't feel the need to follow the Constitution.
Some people have to be told 3 times.
As I said (twice now), the title only allows a few words. The topic is the title AND the OP, combined.But that's not the idea, no matter how much you keep moving the topic to that idea.You misconstrued. We're not talking about denying second amendment rights based on race or ethnicity. We're talking about denying PURCHASING rights to people with invalid background checks (wherin that happens to be because of a ludicrous govt policy that mentions race/ethnicity). While race /ethnicity may have some involvement, nevertheless, the basis for the denial is invalid background check.I'm pretty sure that denying second amendment rights based on race or ethnicity will not be accepted by the courts as an exception.
One must pass a background check to buy a gun. Not having lots of pertinent information in a background is not passing a background check, and thus the sale must not happen. The cause of the denial is background check insufficency.
Secondly, are you saying that you would sell a gun to someone like Nickolas Cruz ? You think that's OK ?
I thought you liberal guys were strong on background checks. Not any more ?
I am not a liberal. It may be hard for you to understand, but just because someone disagrees with you about something does not make them a liberal.
You can try all the mental gymnastics you want. If the idea is to only deny minorities theirBut Constitutional rights, it’s not going to pass legal muster. Again, if you think the programs you are talking about are terrible, push to get rid of those programs. That, at least, has a chance of happening.
Moving the topic? It's the title of your thread.
Further, you keep promoting the idea. An "invalid background check" is something you made up. Anyone could have committed crimes which went unreported. Neither you nor, importantly, the legal system can know who has or has not committed a crime if it isn't reported. In addition, not all young minorities in Broward county, or other areas with similar programs, will have committed unreported crimes. Despite that, you ask if all young minorities should be denied their Constitutional right, but say nothing about young whites.
And this is all based on the assumption that your claims regarding the PROMISE program are accurate. I find that less than likely. I also wonder if you consider students with disabilities and LGBTQ students (who are mentioned with students of color in the Collaborative Agreement on School Discipline for Broward) as part of the young minorities you seem to be all for denying the right to purchase a gun.
You seem to believe that assuming young minorities have committed crimes which went unreported, and should therefore be denied the right to keep and bear arms, is a valid idea. I suppose it might be, if one didn't feel the need to follow the Constitution.
Some people have to be told 3 times.
There is no "part" of a topic, regardless of how much you want to create one.As I said (twice now), the title only allows a few words. The topic is the title AND the OP, combined.
Moving the topic? It's the title of your thread.
Further, you keep promoting the idea. An "invalid background check" is something you made up. Anyone could have committed crimes which went unreported. Neither you nor, importantly, the legal system can know who has or has not committed a crime if it isn't reported. In addition, not all young minorities in Broward county, or other areas with similar programs, will have committed unreported crimes. Despite that, you ask if all young minorities should be denied their Constitutional right, but say nothing about young whites.
And this is all based on the assumption that your claims regarding the PROMISE program are accurate. I find that less than likely. I also wonder if you consider students with disabilities and LGBTQ students (who are mentioned with students of color in the Collaborative Agreement on School Discipline for Broward) as part of the young minorities you seem to be all for denying the right to purchase a gun.
You seem to believe that assuming young minorities have committed crimes which went unreported, and should therefore be denied the right to keep and bear arms, is a valid idea. I suppose it might be, if one didn't feel the need to follow the Constitution.
Some people have to be told 3 times.
Oh, I see. You don't want me to discuss the part of the topic you are uncomfortable defending? Understood. I wouldn't want to try defending such silliness, either.
That's been explained 3 times in the thread, including in the post you just quoted.As I said (twice now), the title only allows a few words. The topic is the title AND the OP, combined.
Moving the topic? It's the title of your thread.
Further, you keep promoting the idea. An "invalid background check" is something you made up. Anyone could have committed crimes which went unreported. Neither you nor, importantly, the legal system can know who has or has not committed a crime if it isn't reported. In addition, not all young minorities in Broward county, or other areas with similar programs, will have committed unreported crimes. Despite that, you ask if all young minorities should be denied their Constitutional right, but say nothing about young whites.
And this is all based on the assumption that your claims regarding the PROMISE program are accurate. I find that less than likely. I also wonder if you consider students with disabilities and LGBTQ students (who are mentioned with students of color in the Collaborative Agreement on School Discipline for Broward) as part of the young minorities you seem to be all for denying the right to purchase a gun.
You seem to believe that assuming young minorities have committed crimes which went unreported, and should therefore be denied the right to keep and bear arms, is a valid idea. I suppose it might be, if one didn't feel the need to follow the Constitution.
Some people have to be told 3 times.
Your topic does not match the title of the thread.
There is no "part" of a topic, regardless of how much you want to create one.As I said (twice now), the title only allows a few words. The topic is the title AND the OP, combined.
Moving the topic? It's the title of your thread.
Further, you keep promoting the idea. An "invalid background check" is something you made up. Anyone could have committed crimes which went unreported. Neither you nor, importantly, the legal system can know who has or has not committed a crime if it isn't reported. In addition, not all young minorities in Broward county, or other areas with similar programs, will have committed unreported crimes. Despite that, you ask if all young minorities should be denied their Constitutional right, but say nothing about young whites.
And this is all based on the assumption that your claims regarding the PROMISE program are accurate. I find that less than likely. I also wonder if you consider students with disabilities and LGBTQ students (who are mentioned with students of color in the Collaborative Agreement on School Discipline for Broward) as part of the young minorities you seem to be all for denying the right to purchase a gun.
You seem to believe that assuming young minorities have committed crimes which went unreported, and should therefore be denied the right to keep and bear arms, is a valid idea. I suppose it might be, if one didn't feel the need to follow the Constitution.
Some people have to be told 3 times.
Oh, I see. You don't want me to discuss the part of the topic you are uncomfortable defending? Understood. I wouldn't want to try defending such silliness, either.
If you have an obsession with racial discrimination, as is obvious you do, why don't you start a thread in opposition to the worst & largest racial discrimination in America... ?Affirmative Action.
.
I've told you repeatedly that the topic is unreported crime making invalid background checks. Sure there's an aspect of regarding minorities. That's the way they made it be.There is no "part" of a topic, regardless of how much you want to create one.As I said (twice now), the title only allows a few words. The topic is the title AND the OP, combined.
Moving the topic? It's the title of your thread.
Further, you keep promoting the idea. An "invalid background check" is something you made up. Anyone could have committed crimes which went unreported. Neither you nor, importantly, the legal system can know who has or has not committed a crime if it isn't reported. In addition, not all young minorities in Broward county, or other areas with similar programs, will have committed unreported crimes. Despite that, you ask if all young minorities should be denied their Constitutional right, but say nothing about young whites.
And this is all based on the assumption that your claims regarding the PROMISE program are accurate. I find that less than likely. I also wonder if you consider students with disabilities and LGBTQ students (who are mentioned with students of color in the Collaborative Agreement on School Discipline for Broward) as part of the young minorities you seem to be all for denying the right to purchase a gun.
You seem to believe that assuming young minorities have committed crimes which went unreported, and should therefore be denied the right to keep and bear arms, is a valid idea. I suppose it might be, if one didn't feel the need to follow the Constitution.
Some people have to be told 3 times.
Oh, I see. You don't want me to discuss the part of the topic you are uncomfortable defending? Understood. I wouldn't want to try defending such silliness, either.
If you have an obsession with racial discrimination, as is obvious you do, why don't you start a thread in opposition to the worst & largest racial discrimination in America... ?Affirmative Action.
Really? There is no part of a topic? So, what, you think no one should be able to discuss particular details of a topic you bring up? Again,
I'm not obsessed with racial discrimination. However, when someone brings up the idea of denying Constitutional rights on the basis of race, I do feel the urge to point out the foolishness of such an idea. When, as you have, that person continues to press the idea, I have no problem continuing to point out that foolishness. In your particular case, you seem to want to ignore or deny that you've even put the idea forward, despite the clear evidence that you have. You've thrown out some excuses (Thread titles have limited space, you only asked a question rather than supporting the idea) but it's been pretty clear from your posts that you think the idea of denying the rights of minorities is one with merit.
If you didn't want anyone to call you out for it, you shouldn't have brought it up.
