In ordinary legal investigations, that’s true. In other situations, however, it’s not true.
May be. Or, alternatively, the law simply isn’t “settled.”
You have a secured right to your gun.
Why wood a new mechanical device in a stock hold that same status?
It was a dumb thing to say. Many of us disagreed with that statement. I doubt he’d say the same nowadays.
No no, gasbag. I’m denying your false dichotomy. I support Trump AND our Constitution.
I’m not a RINO, you dipshit.
You fail to understand these matters. He had assistants within and outside of the DoJ assist in how to proceed. And how he runs the executive branch
is his business.
I don’t believe you’ve made that case. It’s, at best, a tangent to the 2A.
You’re kind of tragically stupid. If some other nation tries to pull off a precision air strike on a non-military target, it might be mere criminal behavior instead of an act of war. And yes.
Of course we’d object and might even consider it a literal act of war. So? Ok. We might “do something” to retaliate. Of course, WE can.
Never started. Your infantile ad hominems leave no marks.
You’re sounding like the last vestiges of “stupid “in the old GOP. In any event, it is actually smarter to observe your factual and logical errors, as I do. And, when I do so, for your benefit, you’re free to do with the information as you see fit.
Nonsense. Be specific. Ignore the talking points. Which specific part of the NDAA supposedly authorized the President to engage in a preemptive strike?
As I noted above. That’s a “them” problem.
No no. One of our enemies was operating there. A military leader of that enemy got confirmed to be there. And we took him out. I applaud that Presidential decision.
No. Your weren’t. But you
could try. Offer the purported quote. Properly link it. Then, perhaps, we can talk.
