Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So you admit that the rich and powerful (whites) are privileged?Seems like you're defending illegal gun purchases, right?
www.nraila.org
This Hunter thing is fake newsSo you admit that the rich and powerful (whites) are privileged?
NRA-ILA | Hunter Biden Incident Shows that Gun Laws are for the Little People
There is a central hypocrisy at the heart of the gun control effort.
This is another example of how the left is no different than the right.
www.nraila.org
Fake news.Seems like you're defending illegal gun purchases, right?
www.nraila.org
Have you noticed that the bills never address the issues and do nothing to stop the crimes that they were so outraged over?…people’s homes to confiscate guns already owned? Even if we banned sales of AR-15’s, it doesn’t somehow mean it would involve taking them from existing gun owners. Republicans entertain this specific idea because it makes them feel manly and tough picturing some suit showing up and saying “give me your guns! I’m here to collect!” They would respond with “come take it mother fucker! Derp, derp, derp!”
The whole thing is a silly, childish fantasy but that’s how they think.
If we already make it illegal for kids to buy guns from businesses, why would it be unconstitutional to add further restrictions? The 2nd amendment clearly already has limitations and always has.
Schumer tells Democrats to "keep talking" to GOP about gun legislation
"We know we're not going to get everything we want," Schumer said.www.axios.com
So you admit that the rich and powerful (whites) are privileged?
NRA-ILA | Hunter Biden Incident Shows that Gun Laws are for the Little People
There is a central hypocrisy at the heart of the gun control effort.
This is another example of how the left is no different than the right.
Yea and nothing would happened to him. Just like Don Jr. They are rich and white. If he was R. Kelly he'd be prosecuted but not Don Jr.Rich and powerful DemoKKKrats are privileged. If Donald Trump, Jr. lied on a federal form and illegally purchased a gun, he'd be prosecuted. Instead, you're here defending Hunter's crime.
Come get them.…people’s homes to confiscate guns already owned? Even if we banned sales of AR-15’s, it doesn’t somehow mean it would involve taking them from existing gun owners. Republicans entertain this specific idea because it makes them feel manly and tough picturing some suit showing up and saying “give me your guns! I’m here to collect!” They would respond with “come take it mother fucker! Derp, derp, derp!”
The whole thing is a silly, childish fantasy but that’s how they think.
If we already make it illegal for kids to buy guns from businesses, why would it be unconstitutional to add further restrictions? The 2nd amendment clearly already has limitations and always has.
Schumer tells Democrats to "keep talking" to GOP about gun legislation
"We know we're not going to get everything we want," Schumer said.
No one wants them. We don’t care. Sorry to bust your childish, cinematic fantasy.Come get them.
So they can say since that cant work, they destroy more liberties.Have you noticed that the bills never address the issues and do nothing to stop the crimes that they were so outraged over?
When are you at work?Come get them.
We will just make those bullets illegal and if he tries to buy them on the black market, slap him with a felony. And guess what felons can't own?No wants them. We don’t care. Sorry to bust your childish, cinematic fantasy.
Yea and nothing would happened to him. Just like Don Jr. They are rich and white. If he was R. Kelly he'd be prosecuted but not Don Jr.
Ivanka and Don Jr. Would Rather Not Discuss the Trump Organizationâs Many Alleged Crimes
The duo are trying to dodge a subpoena from the New York Attorney General’s office.www.vanityfair.com
The duo are trying to dodge a subpoena from the New York Attorney General’s office.
As you’ve probably heard by now, prosecutors in various states have taken a keen interest in Donald Trump. In New York, for example, there are a number of investigations into the ex-president’s business and its financial practices, including ones being conducted by the Westchester district attorney, the Manhattan district attorney, and the New York attorney general. In the case of the Manhattan D.A.’s office, the Trump Organization and its longtime chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, were charged with a cornucopia of felonies in July, which is obviously no good, very bad news for the family business. (Both the Trump Organization and Weisselberg have pleaded not guilty.) But that’s not the only probe undoubtedly keeping Team Trump up at night. For instance, last month, New York Attorney General Letitia James subpoenaed Donald Trump for his testimony as part of a civil fraud investigation—which he naturally responded to by suing her—and now James has demanded a word with the ex-president’s eldest children. And they’re not happy about it!
The Associated Press reports that James’s office confirmed on Monday that it has subpoenaed Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump, seeking testimony and documents as part of a multiyear civil probe of matters including “the valuation of properties owned or controlled” by Trump and his company. Before she became a senior White House adviser, Ivanka Trump served as an executive at the Trump Organization. After Trump was elected in 2016, both Don Jr. and Eric Trump took over the day-to-day running of the company. James’s investigation appears to deal with matters predating Trump’s time in the White House, i.e. when both children in question were Trump Organization employees.
So they can say since that cant work, they destroy more liberties.
We all know their end game, despite what the LIARS say.
What crime? You guys have been saying all day that any regulations, laws or rules about gun ownership are unconstitutional. So anything Hunter did with a gun is perfectly legal. If I am to believe your position on guns.Yet here you are, defending Hunter's crime. You wouldn't be doing that if it was Don, Jr.
That's DemoKKKrat privilege, just like I said.
Im not a republican. Im not a conservative. I have told you this 30 times and we have posting here for over a decade. Im also as pro-choice as they come.We don't want to get rid of all guns. At least I don't. But none of you can say you want abortion to remain legal. So who's the liars?
That you want to infringe?Just sum up what I am referring to.
What crime? You guys have been saying all day that any regulations, laws or rules about gun ownership are unconstitutional. So anything Hunter did with a gun is perfectly legal. If I am to believe your position on guns.
So a 5 year old can own a gun stupid?
It also says a well regulated militia. Are you well regulated?
Libtard bullshit.You have human rights
Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination.
You have constitutional rights because some politicians wrote the constitution. So politicians can alter the constitution if there are flaws in it. Or add things. Or amend things. Right? Or clarify. Because you aren't a well regulated militia. And they never said how powerful the guns could be. Or how old you had to be. They had muzzle loaders back then.
In the bitter debate over gun control, battle lines are often drawn around the Second Amendment, with many in favor of gun rights pointing to it as the source of their constitutional authority to bear arms, and some in favor of tighter gun control disagreeing with that interpretation.
But if the purpose of the debate is to reduce the tragic human toll of gun violence, the focus on Second Amendment is often misplaced, according to many experts on guns and the Constitution.
Adam Winkler, a professor of law at the UCLA School of Law, also said the Second Amendment is losing its legal relevance in distinguishing lawful policies from unlawful ones as the gap between what he calls the "judicial Second Amendment" and the "aspirational Second Amendment" widens.
Winkler defines the "judicial Second Amendment" as how courts interpret the constitutional provision in their decisions, and the "aspirational Second Amendment" as how the amendment is used in political dialogue. The latter is "far more hostile to gun laws than the judicial one," he said -- and also more prevalent.
"State law is embracing such a robust, anti-regulatory view of the right to keep and bear arms that the judicial Second Amendment, at least as currently construed, seems likely to have less and less to say about the shape of America's gun laws."
"In the judicial Second Amendment, gun rights advocates haven't found that much protection," Winkler said. "Where they found protection was by getting state legislatures, in the name of the Second Amendment, to legislate for permissive gun laws."
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads in full:
"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The role of the Second Amendment, like many constitutional rights, is to put limits on what regulations the federal government can pass, and scholars and lawyers have debated its scope since it was ratified in 1791.
Before the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision in 2008, much of the debate revolved around the meaning of a "well-regulated militia." The Heller decision struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., and established the right for individuals to have a gun for certain private purposes including self-defense in the home. The court expanded private gun ownership protection two years later in McDonald v. City of Chicago, determining that state and local governments are also bound to the Second Amendment.
"The Bill of Rights, by its terms, only applies to the federal government, but the Supreme Court, through a doctrine known as incorporation, has made almost all of its guarantees applicable against state and local governments as well. That's what the question was in McDonald," Blocher said. "But some states have chosen to go above and beyond what the court laid out."
Notably, the court in Heller carved out limitations on that individual right and preserved a relatively broad range of possible gun regulation -- such as allowing for their restriction in government buildings, schools and polling places -- but in many instances, state legislatures have decided not to use the authority that the court has granted them.
"Most states have chosen not to use their full regulatory authority," Blocher said. "If a state decides not to forbid people from having large-capacity magazines, for instance, that doesn't necessarily result in a law. It can be the absence of a law that has the most impact."
Why the Second Amendment may be losing relevance in gun debate
The Second Amendment is often misplaced and overrated in the debate over guns in America, according to many experts on guns and the Constitution.abcnews.go.com
