It wasn’t the Dems that called the current Congress a do nothing Congress. It was Trump. And then repeated by the GOP. It has just been pointed out that Moscow Mitch is the one gumming up the works. Pointing at Harry and claiming what he did was wrong does nothing to address the current Congress, unless we just want to debate Harry’s actions.
Which of those are a felony conviction when they are expanding it to any offense involving a domestic or dating partner irrespective of the fact the individual is only charged or convicted of a misdemeanor assault?
We’ve only had two republican presidents in that entire time unless you want to include GHW Bush.
Too small of a sample to even begin to draw any conclusions particularly since there is no definition to rely on.
What I’m saying is if you want change than change your own party.
Don’t call on the other party to change when you know your own party is not going to change.
You sound like you approve when your side plays dirty politics because it get’s you what you want but want the other side to play fair so you can screw them over and laugh about it. . More do as I say but not what I do.
And you must have been living in a hole to not know that the last GOP congress was called the do nothing congress by the left.
But the left always have to be the victim.
2 Likes
Around as many as 90% of Americans are for expanding background checks. Link
Expanding background checks has bipartisan Senate support. Link
Expanding background checks could have probably prevented the Odessa Midland, Texas shooting. Link
Yet you advocate removing a Constitutionally-recognized right on the basis of it?
90% don’t know what the current requirements are.
1 Like
Those works need gumming.
“Shall not be infringed”.
Get your petition to repeal the 2nd Amendment started.
Makes perfect sense to them that passing a new law will keep people who are buying guns illegally from buying guns illegally.
As for Odessa just how would have expanded background checks prevented the shooter from buying a gun? This I have to hear.
1 Like
Those goobermint goobers never met a law they didn’t like.
They’re talking about private sales.
Which is completely unenforcible without first registering every existing gun and creating an instant check database.
1 Like
Your right.
Even with their new and improved background checks they could not have prevented this person from buying a gun on the street.
Their new and improved background checks would not have been able to prevent a person from building a gun in their basement and selling it to this man .
That gun grabbers focus on law abiding citizens is the crazy part in this. If makes it seem that they really don’t care about the deaths caused by the crazies.
2 Likes
It is not a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
The Court also emphasized, however, that the Second Amendment is not “unlimited.” It is not a right “to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Instead, the Court provided examples of permissible regulation of firearms consistent with the Second Amendment. The right does not “protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns,” nor does it grant an unregulated right to carry concealed firearms. These limits were “supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”
With regard to background checks, the Court included examples of “presumptively lawful regulatory measures.” According to the majority, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
I’m still waiting for you to tell us how your new super duper background checks are going to stop a crazy person from purchasing a gun?
By definition it infringes on our 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendment Rights.
The legal definition of infringe is to “encroach upon” or interfere with.
You cannot put a background check on private transfers without infringing on our rights.
You cannot have the free exercise of rights if you put preconditions on them.
2 Likes
Yes it is.
JOHN YOO is the Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley
Anybody who claims prior restraint is not an infringement doesn’t understand the most basic premises of law.
And just as zi suspected, zu’s entire argument is based on stare decisis, not the Constitution.
The old “zi already infringe, so zi can infringe some more” scheme.
2 Likes
The left always cherry pick’s Scalia’s words and ignores the fact he listed the types of “reasonable regulations” that are acceptable none of which create the prior restraint issue nor otherwise infringe on our 4th and 5th Amendment Rights.
