- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
should prevent someone who has yet to be charged, indicted or convicted of any crime, from being able to own a gun
then why should someone be able to be nominated, run or serve as president when they too are under investigation?
Hmmmm
You will have to ask chromium, our resident extra judicial expert on these matters.
You think that not being able to differentiate between something as serious as plotting terror and being less careful with emails than you should makes you seem rational?
are you laboring under the delusion that the only people who are on that watch list are actually PLOTTING terrorism which I, as a retired federal prosecutor knows can be prosecuted as conspiracy?
You think that not being able to differentiate between something as serious as plotting terror and being less careful with emails than you should makes you seem rational?
Nope, simply pointing out the fact that the temporary trivial harm resulting from being denied access to murderous technology should not be compared to allowing any B.S. witch hunt from influencing a presidential election.
Plotting terror better get you more than just put on a list and the same is true of improper handling of classified information. The point, in case you missed it, is that we use the judicial system to determine guilt - not which list you are on or which political party you happen to be in with.
Nope, simply pointing out the fact that the temporary trivial harm resulting from being denied access to murderous technology should not be compared to allowing any B.S. witch hunt from influencing a presidential election.
you mean the fact that we should ignore people legal violations as long as they fall into our ideology hmmm doesn't seem to consistent to me.
The FBI choose not to flag this guy. they investigated him 2 times.
however he never convicted or charged him with anything. we live in a nation of innocent until proven guilty.
Clinton is in trouble no doubt about it. the FBI doesn't waste time with witch hunts as you call it.
this has been a full investigation for a while. lying to federal officers is a federal felony by itself.
In any event he would have found a way to do what he was going to do anyway.
it is sad, but there is no reason to take guns from lawful citizens.
You think that not being able to differentiate between something as serious as plotting terror and being less careful with emails than you should makes you seem rational?
Nope, just recognize the reality that people with power or the potential to obtain power are generally more likely to be accused of crimes for no reason than some random dong is. The police generally don't have the funds to waste a ton of time on some random dong as a result there's very little interruption to the typical person's liberties. When it's a presidential candidate there is a lot of deep pockets that will fund such witch hunts. If we blocked every candidate just for being accused there would be no candidates.you mean the fact that we should ignore people legal violations as long as they fall into our ideology hmmm doesn't seem to consistent to me.
Seems to indicate a pretty high bar necessary to flag someone. Seems like the fears of right wing nuts are not justified.The FBI choose not to flag this guy. they investigated him 2 times.
No, but the republican Benghazi committee sure was and if it weren't for that giant waste of time nobody would even know about this silly email ****. Start a BS investigation into any republican in congress and I guarantee you it will turn up more serious **** than what Hillary is being accused of.Clinton is in trouble no doubt about it. the FBI doesn't waste time with witch hunts as you call it.
most of the gun banners on this board would most likely-if they have the power-put anyone who doesnt' buy into the bannerrhoid positions on guns. We had one gun banner tell us that anyone who buys or owns a gun has to be considered suspect and likely intending criminal actions
Hmm... If about 1/6 of adults are put on the watch list (for merely owning a gun) and it takes 8 agents to actually watch each one then we are in for one huge (over the current entire adult population) federal government.
he would have found a way to do what he was going to do anyway.
the problem is is that many on the left want to ban guns. They only pretend its to ban criminals from having guns so when you point out how silly their arguments are from a crime control position, they ignore you because crime control is only a facade they spout out in order to hide their real motivations.
Only in the US is this a political issue. In any other developed nation its a very legitimate health and concern that has broad support across the entire political spectrum. Any proposed legislation that would introduce a US style system of unrestricted firearms access would see the party who proposed it cast into electoral oblivion at the polls and rightly so
As I've said before bullets don't care about your politics. This is not an issue of what is right and left here but of what is right or wrong
Only in the US is this a political issue. In any other developed nation its a very legitimate health and concern that has broad support across the entire political spectrum. Any proposed legislation that would introduce a US style system of unrestricted firearms access would see the party who proposed it cast into electoral oblivion at the polls and rightly so
As I've said before bullets don't care about your politics. This is not an issue of what is right and left here but of what is right or wrong
We do not have unrestricted firearm access in the US, already your argument is built on a lie.
Yeah, I'm sure he could have killed 49 people and seriously wounded dozens more … with a butter knife.
So you gun NUTS are content with a system that allowed this NUT who was twice investigated by the FBI for terrorist connections … to go to the local gun shop, by an assault rifle, and load up with lots of ammunition. Of course. He had a clear constitutional right to … "protect himself," or go "rabbit hunting," or "enjoy some target practice."
an emotional argument, not all victims of violence agree with this. like the general population, victims have mixed views on the issue. two columbine survivors serve as state legislators, one in Washington and the other in Colorado, and both are NRA A rated.As far as I'm concerned, ya better pull yer head out of it before it's someone you care about that gets ripped into by a few of these charming items.
View attachment 67202760
I don't wanna ban guns. Not even close. I want gun nuts who block efforts to make it more difficult for mass murderers to purchase killing machines … to suffer the way the victims of gun violence and their families suffer.
And I sure do look forward to eight more years of hysterical delusions regarding emails and Benghazi and the Clinton Foundation and Vince Foster and Cattlegate and Filegate and Travelgate and the Rose Law Firm. I'm getting tired of never went to college, married to his male college roommate, hates America, hates the military, hates whites, hates the police, is destroying America, bows down to every foreign leader he meets, wasn't born in the US, terrorist sympathizer (Frumpy all but explicitly said that today), lies all the times, stutters all the time, secret Muslim, etc , etc. We need some new entertainment.
Yes you do. Even if restrictions are tighter in one state than another there is nothing to stop guns being brought across state lines. Even a felon can simply buy a gun second hand no questions asked
Yeah, I'm sure he could have killed 49 people and seriously wounded dozens more … with a butter knife.
So you gun NUTS are content with a system that allowed this NUT who was twice investigated by the FBI for terrorist connections … to go to the local gun shop, by an assault rifle, and load up with lots of ammunition. Of course. He had a clear constitutional right to … "protect himself," or go "rabbit hunting," or "enjoy some target practice."
As far as I'm concerned, ya better pull yer head out of it before it's someone you care about that gets ripped into by a few of these charming items.
I don't wanna ban guns. Not even close. I want gun nuts who block efforts to make it more difficult for mass murderers to purchase killing machines … to suffer the way the victims of gun violence and their families suffer.
And I sure do look forward to eight more years of hysterical delusions regarding emails and Benghazi and the Clinton Foundation and Vince Foster and Cattlegate and Filegate and Travelgate and the Rose Law Firm. I'm getting tired of never went to college, married to his male college roommate, hates America, hates the military, hates whites, hates the police, is destroying America, bows down to every foreign leader he meets, wasn't born in the US, terrorist sympathizer (Frumpy all but explicitly said that today), lies all the times, stutters all the time, secret Muslim, etc , etc. We need some new entertainment.
It is illegal in all 50 states for a felon to purchase a firearm unless their rights have been restored. second hand or otherwise.
It is also illegal to traffick guns across state lines.
Yes you do. Even if restrictions are tighter in one state than another there is nothing to stop guns being brought across state lines. Even a felon can simply buy a gun second hand no questions asked
Thats pretty much unrestricted access in my view
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?