Universal background checks... really?

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Dangerous people are not eligible for bail.
.

So the cop who shot the woman in Fort Worth…

He’s been charged with murder.

Did he get bond? Of course he dd…

View attachment 284521

I know you think you're making a point in your favor, but you're really proving my case.

If only cops have guns.....

.

 

[candycorn]

Dangerous people are not eligible for bail.
.

So the cop who shot the woman in Fort Worth…

He’s been charged with murder.

Did he get bond? Of course he dd…

View attachment 284521

I know you think you're making a point in your favor, but you're really proving my case.

If only cops have guns.....

.

The argument you made that dangerous people don’t get bail has been thoroughly debunked.

Boo Yah!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Dangerous people are not eligible for bail.
.

So the cop who shot the woman in Fort Worth…

He’s been charged with murder.

Did he get bond? Of course he dd…

View attachment 284521

I know you think you're making a point in your favor, but you're really proving my case.

If only cops have guns.....

.

The argument you made that dangerous people don’t get bail has been thoroughly debunked.

Boo Yah!

And, so your argument is that cops are dangerous people?

You're ******* owning yourself. You're in a no win situation.

.

 

[candycorn]

Dangerous people are not eligible for bail.
.

So the cop who shot the woman in Fort Worth…

He’s been charged with murder.

Did he get bond? Of course he dd…

View attachment 284521

I know you think you're making a point in your favor, but you're really proving my case.

If only cops have guns.....

.

The argument you made that dangerous people don’t get bail has been thoroughly debunked.

Boo Yah!

And, so your argument is that cops are dangerous people?

You're ******* owning yourself. You're in a no win situation.

.

No.

I am demonstrating that dangerous people get bail set all the time. Something you said didn’t happen **** face.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Dangerous people are not eligible for bail.
.

So the cop who shot the woman in Fort Worth…

He’s been charged with murder.

Did he get bond? Of course he dd…

View attachment 284521

I know you think you're making a point in your favor, but you're really proving my case.

If only cops have guns.....

.

The argument you made that dangerous people don’t get bail has been thoroughly debunked.

Boo Yah!

And, so your argument is that cops are dangerous people?

You're ******* owning yourself. You're in a no win situation.

.

No.

I am demonstrating that dangerous people get bail set all the time. Something you said didn’t happen **** face.

So, you're saying that a cop is dangerous?

You ******* lose this argument any way you spin it. Either cops are dangerous people, and we need equal or better arms, or cops are not dangerous people, and your bail argument goes in the shitter.



.

 

[candycorn]

So the cop who shot the woman in Fort Worth…

He’s been charged with murder.

Did he get bond? Of course he dd…

View attachment 284521

I know you think you're making a point in your favor, but you're really proving my case.

If only cops have guns.....

.

The argument you made that dangerous people don’t get bail has been thoroughly debunked.

Boo Yah!

And, so your argument is that cops are dangerous people?

You're ******* owning yourself. You're in a no win situation.

.

No.

I am demonstrating that dangerous people get bail set all the time. Something you said didn’t happen **** face.

So, you're saying that a cop is dangerous?

People who are charged with murder are, by definition, considered dangerous by the courts. So Yeah, I think it’s a safe bet.

You ******* lose this argument any way you spin it. Either cops are dangerous people, and we need equal or better arms, or cops are not dangerous people, and your bail argument goes in the shitter.



.

I’m not sure what you think my argument is. I’m for tougher background checks.
The whole “the police are the only ones who should have guns” is a creation you’ve made on your own **** face.

I’m simply pointing out that dangerous people are given bond regularly.
Which you said didn’t happen. So I’ve won the argument 8 moves ago. I’m just running up the score. And when you respond again, I’ll add to my victory.

The larger point is that the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms is no absolute. The cop who murdered the woman in Fort Worth is Exhibit A. He hasn’t been convicted of anything but he can’t have a firearm as a condition of his bail. It demonstrates the limits to the constitutional rights.

Your move.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I know you think you're making a point in your favor, but you're really proving my case.

If only cops have guns.....

.

The argument you made that dangerous people don’t get bail has been thoroughly debunked.

Boo Yah!

And, so your argument is that cops are dangerous people?

You're ******* owning yourself. You're in a no win situation.

.

No.

I am demonstrating that dangerous people get bail set all the time. Something you said didn’t happen **** face.

So, you're saying that a cop is dangerous?

People who are charged with murder are, by definition, considered dangerous by the courts. So Yeah, I think it’s a safe bet.

You ******* lose this argument any way you spin it. Either cops are dangerous people, and we need equal or better arms, or cops are not dangerous people, and your bail argument goes in the shitter.



.

I’m not sure what you think my argument is. I’m for tougher background checks.
The whole “the police are the only ones who should have guns” is a creation you’ve made on your own **** face.

I’m simply pointing out that dangerous people are given bond regularly.
Which you said didn’t happen. So I’ve won the argument 8 moves ago. I’m just running up the score. And when you respond again, I’ll add to my victory.

The larger point is that the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms is no absolute. The cop who murdered the woman in Fort Worth is Exhibit A. He hasn’t been convicted of anything but he can’t have a firearm as a condition of his bail. It demonstrates the limits to the constitutional rights.

Your move.

The right is limited to this extent:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
—Thomas Jefferson

in so far as a police officer has not been found guilty of any crime, it is not a danger to society, there should be no restriction. Otherwise, that person should not be walking around on bail.

.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I know you think you're making a point in your favor, but you're really proving my case.

If only cops have guns.....

.

The argument you made that dangerous people don’t get bail has been thoroughly debunked.

Boo Yah!

And, so your argument is that cops are dangerous people?

You're ******* owning yourself. You're in a no win situation.

.

No.

I am demonstrating that dangerous people get bail set all the time. Something you said didn’t happen **** face.

So, you're saying that a cop is dangerous?

People who are charged with murder are, by definition, considered dangerous by the courts. So Yeah, I think it’s a safe bet.

You ******* lose this argument any way you spin it. Either cops are dangerous people, and we need equal or better arms, or cops are not dangerous people, and your bail argument goes in the shitter.



.

I’m not sure what you think my argument is. I’m for tougher background checks.
The whole “the police are the only ones who should have guns” is a creation you’ve made on your own **** face.

I’m simply pointing out that dangerous people are given bond regularly.
Which you said didn’t happen. So I’ve won the argument 8 moves ago. I’m just running up the score. And when you respond again, I’ll add to my victory.

The larger point is that the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms is no absolute. The cop who murdered the woman in Fort Worth is Exhibit A. He hasn’t been convicted of anything but he can’t have a firearm as a condition of his bail. It demonstrates the limits to the constitutional rights.

Your move.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. NOBODY is entitled to be wrong in their facts. Let me share a couple of court rulings on this for you:

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

Even the anti-gun Heller decision admits that the Right to keep and bear Arms is a preexisting Rights.You are factually wrong.

 

[iceberg]

I know you think you're making a point in your favor, but you're really proving my case.

If only cops have guns.....

.

The argument you made that dangerous people don’t get bail has been thoroughly debunked.

Boo Yah!

And, so your argument is that cops are dangerous people?

You're ******* owning yourself. You're in a no win situation.

.

No.

I am demonstrating that dangerous people get bail set all the time. Something you said didn’t happen **** face.

So, you're saying that a cop is dangerous?

People who are charged with murder are, by definition, considered dangerous by the courts. So Yeah, I think it’s a safe bet.

You ******* lose this argument any way you spin it. Either cops are dangerous people, and we need equal or better arms, or cops are not dangerous people, and your bail argument goes in the shitter.



.

I’m not sure what you think my argument is. I’m for tougher background checks.
The whole “the police are the only ones who should have guns” is a creation you’ve made on your own **** face.

I’m simply pointing out that dangerous people are given bond regularly.
Which you said didn’t happen. So I’ve won the argument 8 moves ago. I’m just running up the score. And when you respond again, I’ll add to my victory.

The larger point is that the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms is no absolute. The cop who murdered the woman in Fort Worth is Exhibit A. He hasn’t been convicted of anything but he can’t have a firearm as a condition of his bail. It demonstrates the limits to the constitutional rights.

Your move.

i would think it would be "found guilty of murder" not just charged.

or are you saying everyone is in fact guilty of the charges regardless of a trial?

why does the left hate due process so much?

 

[Rustic]

As I keep pointing out, mass graves are harder to fill when the victims can shoot back....

It's all about disarming the law abiding so government can rule with an iron fist.

Let them win this issue without a physical fight and mass graves will be exactly what you have.

.

I agree with you on the issue that the left wants to disarm us so that they can implement a system antithetical to the values that we cherish. AND I agree that, in an abstract way, the left fears an uprising. But, then again, it is not an immediate fear.

Today, 10 percent of the states have outlawed high capacity magazines. What have we done about it? Trump banned bump stocks and that E.O. violated THREE provisions of the Constitution. There are over 40,000 federal, state, county, and city laws, rules, statutes, regulations, ordinances, edicts, case laws, etc. governing firearms. If that isn't enough laws to say all the "sensible" gun laws have already been passed, then there isn't a cow in the whole state of Texas.

In my time on discussion boards I've heard their arguments. I spent nearly four decades researching ways to reduce gun violence without gun control to no avail. And one of the silliest arguments the NRA makes is that we should enforce the laws on the books. Stay with me for a moment:

Where I live, if you file a Petition for Divorce, the policy is that the petition will not be accepted without an accompanying Mutual Restraining Order. Under federal law (the Lautenberg Amendment), you cannot own a firearm if you are under a restraining order. Now, a Mutual Restraining is not like a Temporary Restraining Order. It is perpetual. So, if you've ever gotten a divorce in this state, you can NEVER own a firearm. The law is ignored because if the people were suddenly made aware of it, they would rebel. In those 40,000 plus laws, how many other laws are equally dangerous as the one I cited?

We need to be doing more than posting on these boards. We need to start meeting with friends and neighbors, face to face, and discuss these issues. We need to answer tough questions. At what point would you come to my property, weapon in hand, and be willing to lay down your life in defense of my Liberties? It is a rhetorical question you don't have to answer publicly. But, if we're going to "fight back," we need to start discussing what it is, exactly we see as threats and then draw well defined lines in the sand so that all of us know when and how far to go in resisting tyranny and saying no to the gun banning socialists and communists.

Without getting in an off track discussion of socialism, I am an extreme leftist socialist, and would never support any federal gun control at all because I think it is specifically illegal according to the constitution.
But to be practical, a democratic republic can never allow any significant gun control.
It is individuals who are supposed to be the ultimate source of all authority, not the police or military that we hire.

In the 1960s and 70s, it was republicans who were trying to pass gun control, and I was helping union organizers, civil right organizers, etc. to be armed for self defense against frequent attacks from KKK type groups.

I was not old enough to have known what was going on in the 1960s and some of the 1970s; however, I am old enough that the local Republicans had nominated me to be an elector for Ronald Reagan. I declined the opportunity because Reagan was anti-gun.

Back in those days Neal Knox tried to get me to remain loyal to the Republican Party and support the NRA, but by 1984 I knew that the Republicans were just as much anti-gun as the Democrats. The whole democratic republican thing doesn't work for me. A Republic acknowledges unalienable Rights. A democracy only acknowledges majority rule.

The right continues to lose on gun control because they do not from where their Rights emanate. You claim to be socialist and so does Bernie Sanders. When the socialists find a suitable standard bearer, maybe your denial of what a socialist is may have a different ring to it.

Until then, there is no pro-gun side fighting for our Rights. The Republican leadership has stabbed gun owners in the back every administration since I was old enough to understand anything about politics... like early 1970s(?)

Today, with a generation who can't tell you the legal difference between an unalienable Right and an inalienable right; when politicians - especially the RINO Party cannot even say Republican; when every Republican has to have the Hell beat out of them to force them not to support gun control, then those who believe in and understand the Constitution do not have a leader at the federal level.

If the right truly understood the Constitution, their history and the destiny of the posterity of the founders, rope factories would be working over-time to make enough rope to hang all the traitors in this country. But, the right does not understand the issue fully so, they are on the receiving end - and I have to appeal to gun owners the way Benjamin Franklin had to address his countrymen: We can stick together or hang separately. But, now the cards are on the table, the time for talk is over. The government says you have no Rights and each year another class of Americans are denied their Rights, another type of weapon is taken off the market, another state cuts deeper with more restrictions. And so far all I see is talk and keyboard banging.

To just touch on socialism, grew up in WI, which has long socialist governor and mayor tradition.
When its local, it is like employees buying out the company they worked for.

With gun control, like assault weapons ban, unless they also confiscate from the police and military, they are violating the 14th amendment on equal treatment under the law.
I have over half a dozen they will want, and they are not getting them.
Anyone who tries to confiscate, is a clear and present danger to the republic, and after the first person is shot, that will be the start of the civil war.

Right or left does not seem to matter any more, Dislike both Bush and Hillary equally,

The Clintons and bushes are two sides of the same coin, progressive career politicians....

 

[M14 Shooter]

Dangerous people are not eligible for bail.
.

So the cop who shot the woman in Fort Worth…
He’s been charged with murder.
Did he get bond? Of course he dd…

So?

 

[2aguy]

Dangerous people are not eligible for bail.
.

So the cop who shot the woman in Fort Worth…

He’s been charged with murder.

Did he get bond? Of course he dd…

View attachment 284521

Yep....not a career criminal, no history of violence and this appears to have been an accident, not pre-meditated murder.......vs. the gang member with a lifetime of felony convictions, most often for violent crime and gun crimes.....

Can you tell the difference?

 

[2aguy]

The argument you made that dangerous people don’t get bail has been thoroughly debunked.

Boo Yah!

And, so your argument is that cops are dangerous people?

You're ******* owning yourself. You're in a no win situation.

.

No.

I am demonstrating that dangerous people get bail set all the time. Something you said didn’t happen **** face.

So, you're saying that a cop is dangerous?

People who are charged with murder are, by definition, considered dangerous by the courts. So Yeah, I think it’s a safe bet.

You ******* lose this argument any way you spin it. Either cops are dangerous people, and we need equal or better arms, or cops are not dangerous people, and your bail argument goes in the shitter.



.

I’m not sure what you think my argument is. I’m for tougher background checks.
The whole “the police are the only ones who should have guns” is a creation you’ve made on your own **** face.

I’m simply pointing out that dangerous people are given bond regularly.
Which you said didn’t happen. So I’ve won the argument 8 moves ago. I’m just running up the score. And when you respond again, I’ll add to my victory.

The larger point is that the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms is no absolute. The cop who murdered the woman in Fort Worth is Exhibit A. He hasn’t been convicted of anything but he can’t have a firearm as a condition of his bail. It demonstrates the limits to the constitutional rights.

Your move.

i would think it would be "found guilty of murder" not just charged.

or are you saying everyone is in fact guilty of the charges regardless of a trial?

why does the left hate due process so much?

why does the left hate due process so much

Oooh....oooh....let me answer, let me answer!!!!

They hate due process because it slows down the execution of their will against others.......when they decide to destroy someone, due process gets in the way and often protects the individual from the lefty.......

Can't have that......mass graves don't fill themselves....

 

[iceberg]

And, so your argument is that cops are dangerous people?

You're ******* owning yourself. You're in a no win situation.

.

No.

I am demonstrating that dangerous people get bail set all the time. Something you said didn’t happen **** face.

So, you're saying that a cop is dangerous?

People who are charged with murder are, by definition, considered dangerous by the courts. So Yeah, I think it’s a safe bet.

You ******* lose this argument any way you spin it. Either cops are dangerous people, and we need equal or better arms, or cops are not dangerous people, and your bail argument goes in the shitter.



.

I’m not sure what you think my argument is. I’m for tougher background checks.
The whole “the police are the only ones who should have guns” is a creation you’ve made on your own **** face.

I’m simply pointing out that dangerous people are given bond regularly.
Which you said didn’t happen. So I’ve won the argument 8 moves ago. I’m just running up the score. And when you respond again, I’ll add to my victory.

The larger point is that the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms is no absolute. The cop who murdered the woman in Fort Worth is Exhibit A. He hasn’t been convicted of anything but he can’t have a firearm as a condition of his bail. It demonstrates the limits to the constitutional rights.

Your move.

i would think it would be "found guilty of murder" not just charged.

or are you saying everyone is in fact guilty of the charges regardless of a trial?

why does the left hate due process so much?

why does the left hate due process so much

Oooh....oooh....let me answer, let me answer!!!!

They hate due process because it slows down the execution of their will against others.......when they decide to destroy someone, due process gets in the way and often protects the individual from the lefty.......

Can't have that......mass graves don't fill themselves....

it makes an attempt to put facts and logic into a discussion and yes, makes it harder for people to get their emotional points validated.

 

[mudwhistle]

Progressives want Background checks on all private sales. Why? Who pays for that? Paying for an right?
That is definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.

Any type of waiting period on an right? I don’t think so, definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.
No one should have to wait more than seconds to purchase their firearms.

Obviously universal background checks I have nothing to do with firearms… Like always... it’s always been about control.
The ******* spineless gun grabbers can pound sand... lol

No, you're right. Background checks won't do the trick. Ban and confiscate assault rifles and mags over 10 rounds. Insist on safety courses and licensing, including a clean mental health evaluation, every five years, for any gun. Clean up the NICS data base so it actually contains the information needed to make an informed decision on a potential buyer's appropriateness for a gun.
Americans are stupid mental cases.

Oh.....so reducing the mags from 30 rds to 10 rds will end ass-shootings?

 

[candycorn]

The argument you made that dangerous people don’t get bail has been thoroughly debunked.

Boo Yah!

And, so your argument is that cops are dangerous people?

You're ******* owning yourself. You're in a no win situation.

.

No.

I am demonstrating that dangerous people get bail set all the time. Something you said didn’t happen **** face.

So, you're saying that a cop is dangerous?

People who are charged with murder are, by definition, considered dangerous by the courts. So Yeah, I think it’s a safe bet.

You ******* lose this argument any way you spin it. Either cops are dangerous people, and we need equal or better arms, or cops are not dangerous people, and your bail argument goes in the shitter.



.

I’m not sure what you think my argument is. I’m for tougher background checks.
The whole “the police are the only ones who should have guns” is a creation you’ve made on your own **** face.

I’m simply pointing out that dangerous people are given bond regularly.
Which you said didn’t happen. So I’ve won the argument 8 moves ago. I’m just running up the score. And when you respond again, I’ll add to my victory.

The larger point is that the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms is no absolute. The cop who murdered the woman in Fort Worth is Exhibit A. He hasn’t been convicted of anything but he can’t have a firearm as a condition of his bail. It demonstrates the limits to the constitutional rights.

Your move.

i would think it would be "found guilty of murder" not just charged.

or are you saying everyone is in fact guilty of the charges regardless of a trial?

why does the left hate due process so much?

No. I was stating that your Second Amendment rights can be Stripped away from you based on your of being out on bail instead of your being convicted. Thus proving that constitutional rights are not absolute

 

[Porter Rockwell]

And, so your argument is that cops are dangerous people?

You're ******* owning yourself. You're in a no win situation.

.

No.

I am demonstrating that dangerous people get bail set all the time. Something you said didn’t happen **** face.

So, you're saying that a cop is dangerous?

People who are charged with murder are, by definition, considered dangerous by the courts. So Yeah, I think it’s a safe bet.

You ******* lose this argument any way you spin it. Either cops are dangerous people, and we need equal or better arms, or cops are not dangerous people, and your bail argument goes in the shitter.



.

I’m not sure what you think my argument is. I’m for tougher background checks.
The whole “the police are the only ones who should have guns” is a creation you’ve made on your own **** face.

I’m simply pointing out that dangerous people are given bond regularly.
Which you said didn’t happen. So I’ve won the argument 8 moves ago. I’m just running up the score. And when you respond again, I’ll add to my victory.

The larger point is that the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms is no absolute. The cop who murdered the woman in Fort Worth is Exhibit A. He hasn’t been convicted of anything but he can’t have a firearm as a condition of his bail. It demonstrates the limits to the constitutional rights.

Your move.

i would think it would be "found guilty of murder" not just charged.

or are you saying everyone is in fact guilty of the charges regardless of a trial?

why does the left hate due process so much?

No. I was stating that your Second Amendment rights can be Stripped away from you based on your of being out on bail instead of your being convicted. Thus proving that constitutional rights are not absolute

Do you support unconstitutional acts?

 

[candycorn]

No.

I am demonstrating that dangerous people get bail set all the time. Something you said didn’t happen **** face.

So, you're saying that a cop is dangerous?

People who are charged with murder are, by definition, considered dangerous by the courts. So Yeah, I think it’s a safe bet.

You ******* lose this argument any way you spin it. Either cops are dangerous people, and we need equal or better arms, or cops are not dangerous people, and your bail argument goes in the shitter.



.

I’m not sure what you think my argument is. I’m for tougher background checks.
The whole “the police are the only ones who should have guns” is a creation you’ve made on your own **** face.

I’m simply pointing out that dangerous people are given bond regularly.
Which you said didn’t happen. So I’ve won the argument 8 moves ago. I’m just running up the score. And when you respond again, I’ll add to my victory.

The larger point is that the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms is no absolute. The cop who murdered the woman in Fort Worth is Exhibit A. He hasn’t been convicted of anything but he can’t have a firearm as a condition of his bail. It demonstrates the limits to the constitutional rights.

Your move.

i would think it would be "found guilty of murder" not just charged.

or are you saying everyone is in fact guilty of the charges regardless of a trial?

why does the left hate due process so much?

No. I was stating that your Second Amendment rights can be Stripped away from you based on your of being out on bail instead of your being convicted. Thus proving that constitutional rights are not absolute

Do you support unconstitutional acts?

Irrelevant.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

No.

I am demonstrating that dangerous people get bail set all the time. Something you said didn’t happen **** face.

So, you're saying that a cop is dangerous?

People who are charged with murder are, by definition, considered dangerous by the courts. So Yeah, I think it’s a safe bet.

You ******* lose this argument any way you spin it. Either cops are dangerous people, and we need equal or better arms, or cops are not dangerous people, and your bail argument goes in the shitter.



.

I’m not sure what you think my argument is. I’m for tougher background checks.
The whole “the police are the only ones who should have guns” is a creation you’ve made on your own **** face.

I’m simply pointing out that dangerous people are given bond regularly.
Which you said didn’t happen. So I’ve won the argument 8 moves ago. I’m just running up the score. And when you respond again, I’ll add to my victory.

The larger point is that the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms is no absolute. The cop who murdered the woman in Fort Worth is Exhibit A. He hasn’t been convicted of anything but he can’t have a firearm as a condition of his bail. It demonstrates the limits to the constitutional rights.

Your move.

i would think it would be "found guilty of murder" not just charged.

or are you saying everyone is in fact guilty of the charges regardless of a trial?

why does the left hate due process so much?

No. I was stating that your Second Amendment rights can be Stripped away from you based on your of being out on bail instead of your being convicted. Thus proving that constitutional rights are not absolute

Do you support unconstitutional acts?

Nice blanket statement. Define unconstitutional. Try being specific.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. I was stating that your Second Amendment rights can be Stripped away from you based on your of being out on bail instead of your being convicted. Thus proving that constitutional rights are not absolute

Look at you, acting as if people actually believe constitutional rights are absolute.
Oh, and for the record, you can lose your right to keep and bear arms for possessing a medical marijuana card.