In response to San Bernardino mass murders, Democrats propose to restrict the law-abiding (???)

[Little-Acorn]

It's especially ironic that the Democrats chose April 19 to release their latest attempts to take away law-abiding American citizens' guns, 241 years to the day after American colonists fired on British troops who were coming to take away their guns.

That event started a revolution.

"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it."

 

[Rustic]

And what's so different from the right wanted to ban Muslims and all sorts of other restrictive devices that are desired?

Guns don't kill people muslims kill people.

Guns go kill people, actually Americans do.....

Now go hide...

 

[OnePercenter]

And what's so different from the right wanted to ban Muslims and all sorts of other restrictive devices that are desired?

One: it's constitutional to ban who ever we want from immigrating. Two: it will actually have an effect.

One: it's constitutional to ban who ever we want from immigrating. Two: it will actually have an effect.

That's in Canada? Aye.

 

[OnePercenter]

Democrats propose to restrict the law-abiding

that is pretty much the way they think

take this for example

"The man who killed Trayvon Martin should have never had a gun in the first place."

-- Hillary Clinton in a campaign appearance this week

Hillary Clinton: George Zimmerman Shouldn't Have Had a Gun - The Truth About Guns

With Zimmerman's history, Clinton is correct.

Apart from the 2012 Martin shooting, Zimmerman has had other encounters with the law, including two incidents in 2005, five incidents in 2013 and other incidents in following years.[36]

In July 2005, when he was 21, Zimmerman was arrested after shoving an undercover alcohol control agent while a friend of Zimmerman's was being arrested for underage drinking. The officer alleged that Zimmerman had said, "I don't care who you are," followed by a profanity, and had refused to leave the area after the officer had shown his badge.[37] The charges were subsequently dropped when Zimmerman entered a pre-trial diversion program that included anger management classes.[4][38]

Also in 2005, Zimmerman's ex-fiancée filed a restraining order against him, alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman requested a reciprocal restraining order. Both orders were granted.[4][39] These incidents were raised by prosecutors at Zimmerman's initial bond hearing. The judge described them as "run of the mill."[40][41]

Zimmerman's wife, Shellie pleaded guilty on August 28, 2013, to a reduced misdemeanor perjury charge for lying under oath. She was sentenced to a year's probation and 100 hours of community service. She lied about their assets during a bail hearing following his arrest for shooting Martin. Days before the bond hearing she moved $74,000, broken into smaller transfers, from his credit union account to hers. $47,000 was transferred from George's account to his sister's in the days before the bond hearing. Amounts of over $10,000 would have been reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Four days after he was released on bond, she transferred more than $85,500 from her account into her husband's account. The jail recorded Zimmerman instructing her on a call to "pay off all the bills," including credit cards.[42] On September 9, 2013, in Lake Mary, police responded to a 911 call by Zimmerman's estranged wife, who reported that Zimmerman had threatened her and her father with a gun and had punched her father in the face. Zimmerman was briefly detained and questioned by police.[43] No gun was found at the scene. Police took a broken iPad from the scene for examination of a video recording of the incident to determine whether to press charges against either Zimmerman or his wife.[44] His wife declined to press charges, later expressing regret about her decision.[45] After determining that the iPad video could not be recovered, the Lake Mary police department announced they would not be pressing charges against Zimmerman, his wife, or her father.[46]

On November 18, 2013, Zimmerman's girlfriend called the police alleging that after she had asked Zimmerman to leave her home, he had pointed a shotgun at her and begun breaking her belongings.[47] The police reported that Zimmerman had barricaded himself inside the apartment before they had made their way inside and arrested him.[48] He was charged with aggravated assault with a weapon – a felony – as well as domestic violence battery and criminal mischief.[49][50] On December 6, Zimmerman's girlfriend asked that the charges against Zimmerman be dropped and that the restraining order barring him from seeing her be lifted, after which prosecutors said that they would no longer be pursuing a case against him.[51][52]

On January 9, 2015, Zimmerman was arrested by Lake Mary police and charged with aggravated assault with a weapon after allegedly throwing a wine bottle at his ex-girlfriend.[53] He was released on bond the following day.[54] The charges were later dropped after the complainant recanted her story.[55]

 

[bripat9643]

And what's so different from the right wanted to ban Muslims and all sorts of other restrictive devices that are desired?

One: it's constitutional to ban who ever we want from immigrating. Two: it will actually have an effect.

One: it's constitutional to ban who ever we want from immigrating. Two: it will actually have an effect.

That's in Canada? Aye.

No. It's right here in the United States.

 

[Centinel]

“These weapons of war don’t belong in our communities,” Glazer told the Senate panel before it approved the measure he coauthored with Hall.

So Glazer wants police to get rid of their ARs?

 

[2aguy]

Democrats propose to restrict the law-abiding

that is pretty much the way they think

take this for example

"The man who killed Trayvon Martin should have never had a gun in the first place."

-- Hillary Clinton in a campaign appearance this week

Hillary Clinton: George Zimmerman Shouldn't Have Had a Gun - The Truth About Guns

With Zimmerman's history, Clinton is correct.

Apart from the 2012 Martin shooting, Zimmerman has had other encounters with the law, including two incidents in 2005, five incidents in 2013 and other incidents in following years.[36]

In July 2005, when he was 21, Zimmerman was arrested after shoving an undercover alcohol control agent while a friend of Zimmerman's was being arrested for underage drinking. The officer alleged that Zimmerman had said, "I don't care who you are," followed by a profanity, and had refused to leave the area after the officer had shown his badge.[37] The charges were subsequently dropped when Zimmerman entered a pre-trial diversion program that included anger management classes.[4][38]

Also in 2005, Zimmerman's ex-fiancée filed a restraining order against him, alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman requested a reciprocal restraining order. Both orders were granted.[4][39] These incidents were raised by prosecutors at Zimmerman's initial bond hearing. The judge described them as "run of the mill."[40][41]

Zimmerman's wife, Shellie pleaded guilty on August 28, 2013, to a reduced misdemeanor perjury charge for lying under oath. She was sentenced to a year's probation and 100 hours of community service. She lied about their assets during a bail hearing following his arrest for shooting Martin. Days before the bond hearing she moved $74,000, broken into smaller transfers, from his credit union account to hers. $47,000 was transferred from George's account to his sister's in the days before the bond hearing. Amounts of over $10,000 would have been reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Four days after he was released on bond, she transferred more than $85,500 from her account into her husband's account. The jail recorded Zimmerman instructing her on a call to "pay off all the bills," including credit cards.[42] On September 9, 2013, in Lake Mary, police responded to a 911 call by Zimmerman's estranged wife, who reported that Zimmerman had threatened her and her father with a gun and had punched her father in the face. Zimmerman was briefly detained and questioned by police.[43] No gun was found at the scene. Police took a broken iPad from the scene for examination of a video recording of the incident to determine whether to press charges against either Zimmerman or his wife.[44] His wife declined to press charges, later expressing regret about her decision.[45] After determining that the iPad video could not be recovered, the Lake Mary police department announced they would not be pressing charges against Zimmerman, his wife, or her father.[46]

On November 18, 2013, Zimmerman's girlfriend called the police alleging that after she had asked Zimmerman to leave her home, he had pointed a shotgun at her and begun breaking her belongings.[47] The police reported that Zimmerman had barricaded himself inside the apartment before they had made their way inside and arrested him.[48] He was charged with aggravated assault with a weapon – a felony – as well as domestic violence battery and criminal mischief.[49][50] On December 6, Zimmerman's girlfriend asked that the charges against Zimmerman be dropped and that the restraining order barring him from seeing her be lifted, after which prosecutors said that they would no longer be pursuing a case against him.[51][52]

On January 9, 2015, Zimmerman was arrested by Lake Mary police and charged with aggravated assault with a weapon after allegedly throwing a wine bottle at his ex-girlfriend.[53] He was released on bond the following day.[54] The charges were later dropped after the complainant recanted her story.[55]

No...she is lying again. There was nothing in his record to keep him from owning and carrying a gun....

Why do you guys insist on defending the thug who attacked Zimmerman...had he not been a thug in training and doubled back to ambush Zimmerman he would be alive......

 

[frigidweirdo]

And what's so different from the right wanted to ban Muslims and all sorts of other restrictive devices that are desired?

Banning Muslims makes more sense than banning all guns. The reason Muslims running rampant in Europe is such a problem is because they don't have any guns to defend themselves from all of the violence caused by Syrian refugees.

Could that be because you're not a Muslim?

It's so easy to give up other people's rights, isn't it?

Do they have the right to rape and murder when they feel like it?

No, they don't. However you also don't have the right to treat them all as if they're all rapists and murderers.

 

[TexM3]

And what's so different from the right wanted to ban Muslims and all sorts of other restrictive devices that are desired?

Banning Muslims makes more sense than banning all guns. The reason Muslims running rampant in Europe is such a problem is because they don't have any guns to defend themselves from all of the violence caused by Syrian refugees.

Could that be because you're not a Muslim?

It's so easy to give up other people's rights, isn't it?

Do they have the right to rape and murder when they feel like it?

No, they don't. However you also don't have the right to treat them all as if they're all rapists and murderers.

Almost 50% of US muslims support all of us living under islamic law. Do you want to live under islamic law?

 

[bripat9643]

And what's so different from the right wanted to ban Muslims and all sorts of other restrictive devices that are desired?

Banning Muslims makes more sense than banning all guns. The reason Muslims running rampant in Europe is such a problem is because they don't have any guns to defend themselves from all of the violence caused by Syrian refugees.

Could that be because you're not a Muslim?

It's so easy to give up other people's rights, isn't it?

Do they have the right to rape and murder when they feel like it?

No, they don't. However you also don't have the right to treat them all as if they're all rapists and murderers.

We don't. We treat them like some of them are rapists and/or murderers. That means keeping all of them out, since we can't identify ahead of time who the rapist and murderers are.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And what's so different from the right wanted to ban Muslims and all sorts of other restrictive devices that are desired?

Banning Muslims makes more sense than banning all guns. The reason Muslims running rampant in Europe is such a problem is because they don't have any guns to defend themselves from all of the violence caused by Syrian refugees.

Could that be because you're not a Muslim?

It's so easy to give up other people's rights, isn't it?

Do they have the right to rape and murder when they feel like it?

No, they don't. However you also don't have the right to treat them all as if they're all rapists and murderers.

Almost 50% of US muslims support all of us living under islamic law. Do you want to live under islamic law?

No, I don't. And maybe they do support it, so what? If they want it, they can go elsewhere and get it.

 

[TexM3]

Banning Muslims makes more sense than banning all guns. The reason Muslims running rampant in Europe is such a problem is because they don't have any guns to defend themselves from all of the violence caused by Syrian refugees.

Could that be because you're not a Muslim?

It's so easy to give up other people's rights, isn't it?

Do they have the right to rape and murder when they feel like it?

No, they don't. However you also don't have the right to treat them all as if they're all rapists and murderers.

Almost 50% of US muslims support all of us living under islamic law. Do you want to live under islamic law?

No, I don't. And maybe they do support it, so what? If they want it, they can go elsewhere and get it.

So what? Are you stupid? It's treason for starters. Do you know what happens when muslums gain critical mass and activate the political component of islam? They don't go elsewhere they lobby for islamic law. Do you care about what's left of the Constitution? Why on earth would we advocate adding more people to the US that want to subvert our Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Are you a trader too, or just a weirdo?

 

[jillian]

Guns go kill people

They must be sneaky.


I've never seen one going down the street on it's way to kill someone.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Could that be because you're not a Muslim?

It's so easy to give up other people's rights, isn't it?

Do they have the right to rape and murder when they feel like it?

No, they don't. However you also don't have the right to treat them all as if they're all rapists and murderers.

Almost 50% of US muslims support all of us living under islamic law. Do you want to live under islamic law?

No, I don't. And maybe they do support it, so what? If they want it, they can go elsewhere and get it.

So what? Are you stupid? It's treason for starters. Do you know what happens when muslums gain critical mass and activate the political component of islam? They don't go elsewhere they lobby for islamic law. Do you care about what's left of the Constitution? Why on earth would we advocate adding more people to the US that want to subvert our Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Are you a trader too, or just a weirdo?

How is it treason? It's not treason, it's just a difference of opinion. Unless of course you're saying going against the Constitution is treason, in which case you've just gone and opened up a massive can of worms. Ie, congress commits treason by making unconstitutional laws, the presidents commit treason by making unconstitutional executive orders, and much more.

Also, you're making silly assumptions. I didn't say open up the borders and allow everyone in. I said don't ban Muslims. There's a difference.

Oh, you're from Pakistan, sorry, unless you have a PhD in Astro-Physics we really don't take people from poor countries like yours. It's not about the religion, it's about letting in people who have the skills that the US desires.

Do you know how many Chinese and Russians get rejected for tourist visas every year? It must be tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands. It's not based on religion.

 

[Agit8r]

Reaganesque

 

[TexM3]

Do they have the right to rape and murder when they feel like it?

No, they don't. However you also don't have the right to treat them all as if they're all rapists and murderers.

Almost 50% of US muslims support all of us living under islamic law. Do you want to live under islamic law?

No, I don't. And maybe they do support it, so what? If they want it, they can go elsewhere and get it.

So what? Are you stupid? It's treason for starters. Do you know what happens when muslums gain critical mass and activate the political component of islam? They don't go elsewhere they lobby for islamic law. Do you care about what's left of the Constitution? Why on earth would we advocate adding more people to the US that want to subvert our Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Are you a trader too, or just a weirdo?

How is it treason? It's not treason, it's just a difference of opinion. Unless of course you're saying going against the Constitution is treason, in which case you've just gone and opened up a massive can of worms. Ie, congress commits treason by making unconstitutional laws, the presidents commit treason by making unconstitutional executive orders, and much more.

Also, you're making silly assumptions. I didn't say open up the borders and allow everyone in. I said don't ban Muslims. There's a difference.

Oh, you're from Pakistan, sorry, unless you have a PhD in Astro-Physics we really don't take people from poor countries like yours. It's not about the religion, it's about letting in people who have the skills that the US desires.

Do you know how many Chinese and Russians get rejected for tourist visas every year? It must be tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands. It's not based on religion.

Trying to subvert the Constitution and replace it with islamic law is treason. Until islam has it Martin Luther moment we should not let any more muslims into the US. EOM lets get back on topic.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, they don't. However you also don't have the right to treat them all as if they're all rapists and murderers.

Almost 50% of US muslims support all of us living under islamic law. Do you want to live under islamic law?

No, I don't. And maybe they do support it, so what? If they want it, they can go elsewhere and get it.

So what? Are you stupid? It's treason for starters. Do you know what happens when muslums gain critical mass and activate the political component of islam? They don't go elsewhere they lobby for islamic law. Do you care about what's left of the Constitution? Why on earth would we advocate adding more people to the US that want to subvert our Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Are you a trader too, or just a weirdo?

How is it treason? It's not treason, it's just a difference of opinion. Unless of course you're saying going against the Constitution is treason, in which case you've just gone and opened up a massive can of worms. Ie, congress commits treason by making unconstitutional laws, the presidents commit treason by making unconstitutional executive orders, and much more.

Also, you're making silly assumptions. I didn't say open up the borders and allow everyone in. I said don't ban Muslims. There's a difference.

Oh, you're from Pakistan, sorry, unless you have a PhD in Astro-Physics we really don't take people from poor countries like yours. It's not about the religion, it's about letting in people who have the skills that the US desires.

Do you know how many Chinese and Russians get rejected for tourist visas every year? It must be tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands. It's not based on religion.

Trying to subvert the Constitution and replace it with islamic law is treason. Until islam has it Martin Luther moment we should not let any more muslims into the US. EOM lets get back on topic.

Er... not really.

There is a part to the constitution which allows for change. Also, there is nothing in the constitution which forbids people to practice Sharia Law if they so choose within their own community.

When some silly cow in the South decided to "subvert the Constitution" the right wingers all got behind her.... but when it's Muslims having a view on something (which you didn't prove) and doing not much about it, all of a sudden it's bad... I don't get it.

 

[TexM3]

Almost 50% of US muslims support all of us living under islamic law. Do you want to live under islamic law?

No, I don't. And maybe they do support it, so what? If they want it, they can go elsewhere and get it.

So what? Are you stupid? It's treason for starters. Do you know what happens when muslums gain critical mass and activate the political component of islam? They don't go elsewhere they lobby for islamic law. Do you care about what's left of the Constitution? Why on earth would we advocate adding more people to the US that want to subvert our Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Are you a trader too, or just a weirdo?

How is it treason? It's not treason, it's just a difference of opinion. Unless of course you're saying going against the Constitution is treason, in which case you've just gone and opened up a massive can of worms. Ie, congress commits treason by making unconstitutional laws, the presidents commit treason by making unconstitutional executive orders, and much more.

Also, you're making silly assumptions. I didn't say open up the borders and allow everyone in. I said don't ban Muslims. There's a difference.

Oh, you're from Pakistan, sorry, unless you have a PhD in Astro-Physics we really don't take people from poor countries like yours. It's not about the religion, it's about letting in people who have the skills that the US desires.

Do you know how many Chinese and Russians get rejected for tourist visas every year? It must be tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands. It's not based on religion.

Trying to subvert the Constitution and replace it with islamic law is treason. Until islam has it Martin Luther moment we should not let any more muslims into the US. EOM lets get back on topic.

... I don't get it.

It's because you have a defective amygdala.

 

[easyt65]

Obama declares his vetting process is faultless.
Obama, overseas, makes fun of Americans voicing their concerns for our national security / their safety.
Obama says Americans have nothing to fear except 'widows and orphans'.
Obama gives a visa to a terrorist after his background check 'passed' them.
The terrorist kills 12 Americans in California.

Obama's response?

Obama sends out his hand-picked Atty General, Loretta Lynch, to intimidate and threaten Americans with legal action if they are caught exercising their Constitutionally-protected 1st Amendment rights by expressing their anger regarding yet another terrorist attack on US soil under Obama - this one being perpetrated with the aid of the Obama administration and a President who mocked Americans while aiding the terrorist get into the country.

Another tragedy, and Obama tries to make US citizens 'the bad guy'.

After 9/11/12 Hillary and Obama falsely blamed a video for the attack in Benghazi, vowed to jail a film maker in the US for making a video (freedom of speech?), and followed through with that threat. A month later, speaking to the world while giving a speech before the UN, Obama against falsely blamed the video, apologized for it - seemingly justifying the attack in retaliation of the 'offense to Islam', and declared, 'The future must not belong to those ho slander the prophet of Islam.'

Once again, Americans are not the 'victims' but the 'offenders'.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, I don't. And maybe they do support it, so what? If they want it, they can go elsewhere and get it.

So what? Are you stupid? It's treason for starters. Do you know what happens when muslums gain critical mass and activate the political component of islam? They don't go elsewhere they lobby for islamic law. Do you care about what's left of the Constitution? Why on earth would we advocate adding more people to the US that want to subvert our Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Are you a trader too, or just a weirdo?

How is it treason? It's not treason, it's just a difference of opinion. Unless of course you're saying going against the Constitution is treason, in which case you've just gone and opened up a massive can of worms. Ie, congress commits treason by making unconstitutional laws, the presidents commit treason by making unconstitutional executive orders, and much more.

Also, you're making silly assumptions. I didn't say open up the borders and allow everyone in. I said don't ban Muslims. There's a difference.

Oh, you're from Pakistan, sorry, unless you have a PhD in Astro-Physics we really don't take people from poor countries like yours. It's not about the religion, it's about letting in people who have the skills that the US desires.

Do you know how many Chinese and Russians get rejected for tourist visas every year? It must be tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands. It's not based on religion.

Trying to subvert the Constitution and replace it with islamic law is treason. Until islam has it Martin Luther moment we should not let any more muslims into the US. EOM lets get back on topic.

... I don't get it.

It's because you have a defective amygdala.

Wonderful.