I'll tell you who rearms criminals. Democrats and their legislation that gets violent criminals out of jail early. Own it, big guy.
How come you think that I am not outraged?
I'm not a Democrat, so why would I have to own it?I'll tell you who rearms criminals. Democrats and their legislation that gets violent criminals out of jail early. Own it, big guy.
Those bases seem to be pretty well covered already.Have you ever posted anything about that? The only thing you EVER post is criticism of republicans. Why do you think it's being called out all the time? You don't blame democrats for putting criminals back on the streets. You don't blame democrat run cities for being the most violent in the country. You don't blame democrats for endorsing open borders.
When was the last time you held Biden accountable for the Fentanyl coming into our country? You don't think Fentanyl kills kids?
????Yep... only took you 30 minutes to jump out. So... how many days 'til Spring?
So an article written by an advocacy group that has been caught falsifying its "statistics" to support its viewpoint, that gets the majority of its funding from a lobbyist group that claims to be non partisan but has had one of the most vocal anti gun presidents on its board of directors. Makes about as much sense as the "study" you posted that includes 18 and 19 year olds as children.
I think you are confusing rights with privileges.In order to preserve the 2A, we must recognize cases such as these where the actions of some Americans overrides their absolute 2A right.
I don't disagree with characterizing it as a privilege, but there are many who would disagree with both of us on that.I think you are confusing rights with privileges.
Could you be more specific?So an article written by an advocacy group that has been caught falsifying its "statistics" to support its viewpoint, that gets the majority of its funding from a lobbyist group that claims to be non partisan but has had one of the most vocal anti gun presidents on its board of directors. Makes about as much sense as the "study" you posted that includes 18 and 19 year olds as children.
Except that it's a right, not a privilege in the U.S.. Now that right along with the right to be a free man can and should be taken away if you break certain laws but that would mean gun laws would have to be enforced on a case by case basis, not involving taking the right to bear arms away from law abiding citizens.I don't disagree with characterizing it as a privilege, but there are many who would disagree with both of us on that.
To which part?Could you be more specific?
"an advocacy group that has been caught falsifying its "statistics" to support its viewpoint, that gets the majority of its funding from a lobbyist group that claims to be non partisan but has had one of the most vocal anti gun presidents on its board of directors."To which part?
I agree with all of that.Except that it's a right, not a privilege in the U.S.. Now that right along with the right to be a free man can and should be taken away if you break certain laws but that would mean gun laws would have to be enforced on a case by case basis, not involving taking the right to bear arms away from law abiding citizens.
No. The author is stated on the article itself, I wil not do anyone's research for them as much as I wont tell anyone how to defend their families."an advocacy group that has been caught falsifying its "statistics" to support its viewpoint, that gets the majority of its funding from a lobbyist group that claims to be non partisan but has had one of the most vocal anti gun presidents on its board of directors."
If you're asking about the case in Miramar, it's my belief if they are hit with a felony they should lose their rights to own a firearm.I agree with all of that.
What about the case under immediate discussion?
If you wish to be seen as someone who makes unfounded accusations, go right ahead, but don't expect me to help you.No. The author is stated on the article itself, I wil not do anyone's research for them as much as I wont tell anyone how to defend their families.
I'm not a Democrat, so why would I have to own it?
Those bases seem to be pretty well covered already.
The linked article you dislike so much shows several examples of situations where convicted felons had their gun-ownership rights restored under the "relief" principle originally intended by Congress to keep the gun manufacturer Winchester in business after their parent company Olin Mathiesen had been found guilty of an illegal kickback scheme involving the international trade in drugs. Do you think they just made up all those cases?If you're asking about the case in Miramar, it's my belief if they are hit with a felony they should lose their rights to own a firearm.
The President can do nothing on that line without the help of Congress (assuming here that the Supreme Court will not upend the will of the people and Congress again).So to review, the border crisis Democrats say "doesn't exist" is well covered already? The Fentanyl crisis is being well covered?
I asked you once before and I don't believe you answered. We know you see every comment but selectively respond. What is your proposal for the gun situation we have in the U.S.? You play JoeTato Briben for a day. You couldn't possibly be any worse. What would you do about guns?
The Democrats are one of the two big criminal organizations thwarting the will of the American people, the other being the Republicans. They should both be prosecuted under the RICO statute.You don't have to own anything... it's your choice to continue pretending you're not a democrat.