Universal background checks... really?

[candycorn]

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.

Thanks for the back up but I won the argument about 70 posts ago.

 

[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.

Thanks for the back up but I won the argument about 70 posts ago.

You won against... no one, other than the straw man you put up.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

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

You are under constant surveillance by your own corporate state in partnership with Israeli intelligence surveillance technology. Do some reading.

 

[Rustic]

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

You are under constant surveillance by your own corporate state in partnership with Israeli intelligence surveillance technology. Do some reading.

Lol
Na, not really
The deep state is the biggest threat to this republic

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

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

You are under constant surveillance by your own corporate state in partnership with Israeli intelligence surveillance technology. Do some reading.

Lol
Na, not really
The deep state is the biggest threat to this republic

Who do you think your "deep state" is? I've given you too much credit, I had you down as bird bath deep, quite an overestimation.

 

[Rustic]

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

You are under constant surveillance by your own corporate state in partnership with Israeli intelligence surveillance technology. Do some reading.

Lol
Na, not really
The deep state is the biggest threat to this republic

Who do you think your "deep state" is? I've given you too much credit, I had you down as bird bath deep, quite an overestimation.

High-level federal employees, accountable to nobody. Our government is about 10,000 times too big

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

Your motive determines the value of your opinion if you want some of us to accept it. If you oppose constitutional guarantees, we don't have to waste time on that portion of the discussion.

 

[candycorn]

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

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.

Your motive determines the value of your opinion if you want some of us to accept it. If you oppose constitutional guarantees, we don't have to waste time on that portion of the discussion.

there are limits to Constitutional rights. Accept it or not... it is the truth as I have proven.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

"...on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed" Letter from Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson 12 June 1823

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." Geoge Washington, FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES 1795

So, I took that advice, watched as the courts interpreted the law. When a question is answered and interpreted, THAT is the law. I do not recognize future reinterpretations of the law by the United States Supreme Court. If any part of a future ruling by the Courts contradicts the original ruling on that point of law, I ignore it.

I don't care what others think is constitutional, lawful, legal, illegal, etc. The founders laid out the way we should interpret the Constitution; they created three branches of government - each being equal. The United States Supreme Court claims that they are the final arbiters of what the law is. I keep the spirit of the founders alive:

The Founders on a Living Constitution | What Would The Founders Think?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

Your motive determines the value of your opinion if you want some of us to accept it. If you oppose constitutional guarantees, we don't have to waste time on that portion of the discussion.

there are limits to Constitutional rights. Accept it or not... it is the truth as I have proven.

You've proven nothing. All you have is the philosophy that might makes right. So, when a power you disagree with overpowers you, then they are right. If you believe that philosophy, you should also believe that no woman should be protected against rape... at least when that is what you advocate for the Constitution of your own country.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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

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.

"...on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed" Letter from Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson 12 June 1823

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." Geoge Washington, FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES 1795

So, I took that advice, watched as the courts interpreted the law. When a question is answered and interpreted, THAT is the law. I do not recognize future reinterpretations of the law by the United States Supreme Court. If any part of a future ruling by the Courts contradicts the original ruling on that point of law, I ignore it.

I don't care what others think is constitutional, lawful, legal, illegal, etc. The founders laid out the way we should interpret the Constitution; they created three branches of government - each being equal. The United States Supreme Court claims that they are the final arbiters of what the law is. I keep the spirit of the founders alive:

The Founders on a Living Constitution | What Would The Founders Think?

If you continuously do that you have my support. If you waiver then you get my disagreement.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Your motive determines the value of your opinion if you want some of us to accept it. If you oppose constitutional guarantees, we don't have to waste time on that portion of the discussion.

there are limits to Constitutional rights. Accept it or not... it is the truth as I have proven.

You've proven nothing. All you have is the philosophy that might makes right. So, when a power you disagree with overpowers you, then they are right. If you believe that philosophy, you should also believe that no woman should be protected against rape... at least when that is what you advocate for the Constitution of your own country.

No. My philosophy (backed up by case law) is that constitutional rights have limits.

If you feel otherwise, that is your right to do so. But you’re incorrect.

 

[2aguy]

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

No one said Rights are unlimited...since we lock up people who commit crimes....what you believe is that Rights are just the whim of the government...and that we must plead with the government to have any Rights at all......

 

[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

No one said Rights are unlimited...since we lock up people who commit crimes....what you believe is that Rights are just the whim of the government...and that we must plead with the government to have any Rights at all......

Rockhead said so. Perhaps you girls can debate that. Turn on your own? Won’t happen. You have no character.

No what I believe is that rights have limits. So Background checks to buy weapons are perfectly constitutional.
More stringent background checks are also constitutional as well.

 

[2aguy]

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

No one said Rights are unlimited...since we lock up people who commit crimes....what you believe is that Rights are just the whim of the government...and that we must plead with the government to have any Rights at all......

Rockhead said so. Perhaps you girls can debate that. Turn on your own? Won’t happen. You have no character.

No what I believe is that rights have limits. So Background checks to buy weapons are perfectly constitutional.
More stringent background checks are also constitutional as well.

No, they aren't....we have a 5th Amendment, a 4th Amendment and a 14th Amendment....as well as the 2nd Amendment.........an arbitrary block to the exercise of a Right....a Background Check, is a violation of the 2nd Amendment...

 

[iceberg]

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.

Your motive determines the value of your opinion if you want some of us to accept it. If you oppose constitutional guarantees, we don't have to waste time on that portion of the discussion.

there are limits to Constitutional rights. Accept it or not... it is the truth as I have proven.

when you get right down to it, there are limits to everything. if you want to start calling parts of the constitution YOU don't think are being done properly into question, fine. there's a place for it and it's amending it. however, if we start changing it up, rest assured you'll see things like voter ID cards come up, changing how we calculate the US citizen population and the like. you can't just pick and choose what YOU want changed and shut the door on the rest.

you are literally opening a pandoras box in this route to get your personal needs covered. maybe. i daresay you'd not be happy with other changes others would make while we've got it out and in "edit mode".

 

[iceberg]

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

No one said Rights are unlimited...since we lock up people who commit crimes....what you believe is that Rights are just the whim of the government...and that we must plead with the government to have any Rights at all......

Rockhead said so. Perhaps you girls can debate that. Turn on your own? Won’t happen. You have no character.

No what I believe is that rights have limits. So Background checks to buy weapons are perfectly constitutional.
More stringent background checks are also constitutional as well.

great. background checks on voting. free speech. every other right on the book is now subject to someone how there who FEELS it is necessary.

but again, none of what you FEEL matters. we have a process to change the constitution and it should be followed to the letter. however, it sounds like you want to leave it alone and make up rules after the fact that help guide the meaning of the 2nd amendment to what you believe it should be.

i would have to think that is what we are "all" doing - guiding it to how we think it should be. some hold up the constitution and say "here are my rights" and you seem to be wanting to put it down and say "fine, here's your regulations to these rights".

we already have background checks. universal to me on it's own isn't a big deal. if a private sale still go to a local FFL dealer and simply waive the fee of $25 i believe. however, background checks have failed us many times and that system does need to be looked into. CAREFULLY and COOPERATIVELY. one side trying to shove all their views on the other has never worked out well that i have seen.

 

[candycorn]

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

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

No one said Rights are unlimited...since we lock up people who commit crimes....what you believe is that Rights are just the whim of the government...and that we must plead with the government to have any Rights at all......

Rockhead said so. Perhaps you girls can debate that. Turn on your own? Won’t happen. You have no character.

No what I believe is that rights have limits. So Background checks to buy weapons are perfectly constitutional.
More stringent background checks are also constitutional as well.

great. background checks on voting. free speech. every other right on the book is now subject to someone how there who FEELS it is necessary.

but again, none of what you FEEL matters. we have a process to change the constitution and it should be followed to the letter. however, it sounds like you want to leave it alone and make up rules after the fact that help guide the meaning of the 2nd amendment to what you believe it should be.

i would have to think that is what we are "all" doing - guiding it to how we think it should be. some hold up the constitution and say "here are my rights" and you seem to be wanting to put it down and say "fine, here's your regulations to these rights".

we already have background checks. universal to me on it's own isn't a big deal. if a private sale still go to a local FFL dealer and simply waive the fee of $25 i believe. however, background checks have failed us many times and that system does need to be looked into. CAREFULLY and COOPERATIVELY. one side trying to shove all their views on the other has never worked out well that i have seen.

Background checks are the law.
It’s not based on feelings.

 

[iceberg]

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

No one said Rights are unlimited...since we lock up people who commit crimes....what you believe is that Rights are just the whim of the government...and that we must plead with the government to have any Rights at all......

Rockhead said so. Perhaps you girls can debate that. Turn on your own? Won’t happen. You have no character.

No what I believe is that rights have limits. So Background checks to buy weapons are perfectly constitutional.
More stringent background checks are also constitutional as well.

great. background checks on voting. free speech. every other right on the book is now subject to someone how there who FEELS it is necessary.

but again, none of what you FEEL matters. we have a process to change the constitution and it should be followed to the letter. however, it sounds like you want to leave it alone and make up rules after the fact that help guide the meaning of the 2nd amendment to what you believe it should be.

i would have to think that is what we are "all" doing - guiding it to how we think it should be. some hold up the constitution and say "here are my rights" and you seem to be wanting to put it down and say "fine, here's your regulations to these rights".

we already have background checks. universal to me on it's own isn't a big deal. if a private sale still go to a local FFL dealer and simply waive the fee of $25 i believe. however, background checks have failed us many times and that system does need to be looked into. CAREFULLY and COOPERATIVELY. one side trying to shove all their views on the other has never worked out well that i have seen.

Background checks are the law.
It’s not based on feelings.

show me in the constitution where it says background checks will be conducted.

suddenly we're going off script, aren't we?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Thanks for the back up but I won the argument about 70 posts ago.

When have I ever said any rights are absolute and unchecked?

Did you not see the Thomas Jefferson quote that I posted? You'll find it in my signature.

.