Legit. Qst. regarding gun ownership.....

[Onyx]

You've already stated you want to do away with the state, what 'moral authority' would you follow?

It is less about what moral authority I would follow, but rather that I would have the choice to pursue morality in general.

 

[Onyx]

How does that work ?.

Technically it does not.

Abolishing the state is an oxymoron, although it is pretty obvious what I meant.

 

[Grizz]

Look how quickly republicans succumb to the idea of illegal search and seizure. Embarrassing.

Damn you are stupid. You make up random shit in your head and pretend it is real. Go read Terry vs Ohio you stupid turd.

Go read Floyd vs. City of New York you idiot

It has absolutely nothing to do with Terry vs Ohio. Try again loser.

Neither does our conversation. Terry vs. Ohio has nothing to do with random stop and frisk.

"On July 14, 1994, President Clinton's Deputy Attorney General and later 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that “The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes … and that the president may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.” This “inherent authority” was used to search the home of CIA spy Aldrich Ames without a warrant. "It is important to understand", Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities"

Dumbass

 

[Two Thumbs]

A few days ago, Trump suggested his "strategy" to curb gun violence in Chicago; that is, to institute a "stop and frisk" policy throughout the crime-ridden city.

My question, however, is one of simple"logic": How can the same person be in favor of "open-carry" or "conceal-and-carry" of weapons, AND then also be in favor of "stop-n-frisk"?

If there is "logic" in that double-standard, the only logic would be all-out "profiling".....

he can't order city cops to do a damn thing.

how can someone that's against the 2nd Amendment give a damn about privacy?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Look how quickly republicans succumb to the idea of illegal search and seizure. Embarrassing.

Damn you are stupid. You make up random shit in your head and pretend it is real. Go read Terry vs Ohio you stupid turd.

Go read Floyd vs. City of New York you idiot

It has absolutely nothing to do with Terry vs Ohio. Try again loser.

Neither does our conversation. Terry vs. Ohio has nothing to do with random stop and frisk.

"On July 14, 1994, President Clinton's Deputy Attorney General and later 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that “The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes … and that the president may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.” This “inherent authority” was used to search the home of CIA spy Aldrich Ames without a warrant. "It is important to understand", Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities"

Dumbass

Sorry citizens cannot be randomly searched for "foreign intelligence" purposes. The "effect" you're having on this forum is very negative.

 

[Grizz]

Damn you are stupid. You make up random shit in your head and pretend it is real. Go read Terry vs Ohio you stupid turd.

Go read Floyd vs. City of New York you idiot

It has absolutely nothing to do with Terry vs Ohio. Try again loser.

Neither does our conversation. Terry vs. Ohio has nothing to do with random stop and frisk.

"On July 14, 1994, President Clinton's Deputy Attorney General and later 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that “The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes … and that the president may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.” This “inherent authority” was used to search the home of CIA spy Aldrich Ames without a warrant. "It is important to understand", Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities"

Dumbass

Sorry citizens cannot be randomly searched for "foreign intelligence" purposes. The "effect" you're having on this forum is very negative.

According to your "boy" they can.
Sorry dad you don't get it both ways.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Go read Floyd vs. City of New York you idiot

It has absolutely nothing to do with Terry vs Ohio. Try again loser.

Neither does our conversation. Terry vs. Ohio has nothing to do with random stop and frisk.

"On July 14, 1994, President Clinton's Deputy Attorney General and later 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that “The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes … and that the president may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.” This “inherent authority” was used to search the home of CIA spy Aldrich Ames without a warrant. "It is important to understand", Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities"

Dumbass

Sorry citizens cannot be randomly searched for "foreign intelligence" purposes. The "effect" you're having on this forum is very negative.

According to your "boy" they can.
Sorry dad you don't get it both ways.

Nope you just have terrible reading comprehension skills.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Look how quickly republicans succumb to the idea of illegal search and seizure. Embarrassing.

Stop and frisk has worked before. You don't like it, what are your ideas to stop the violence in Chicago?

Lots of horrific things have worked before. What other unconstitutional things would you like to do besides stop and frisk? Are there certain groups you want to strip some freedoms from?

Stop and frisk is NOT unconstitutional you retard.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Look how quickly republicans succumb to the idea of illegal search and seizure. Embarrassing.

Stop and frisk has worked before. You don't like it, what are your ideas to stop the violence in Chicago?

Lots of horrific things have worked before. What other unconstitutional things would you like to do besides stop and frisk? Are there certain groups you want to strip some freedoms from?

Stop and frisk is NOT unconstitutional you retard.

Random stop and frisk is most certainly unconstitutional

 

[Grizz]

It has absolutely nothing to do with Terry vs Ohio. Try again loser.

Neither does our conversation. Terry vs. Ohio has nothing to do with random stop and frisk.

"On July 14, 1994, President Clinton's Deputy Attorney General and later 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that “The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes … and that the president may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.” This “inherent authority” was used to search the home of CIA spy Aldrich Ames without a warrant. "It is important to understand", Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities"

Dumbass

Sorry citizens cannot be randomly searched for "foreign intelligence" purposes. The "effect" you're having on this forum is very negative.

According to your "boy" they can.
Sorry dad you don't get it both ways.

Nope you just have terrible reading comprehension skills.

You poor old man.....Bill says you are an idiot.
Wipe the sweat from my balls off of your upper lip.

 

[Grizz]

Look how quickly republicans succumb to the idea of illegal search and seizure. Embarrassing.

Stop and frisk has worked before. You don't like it, what are your ideas to stop the violence in Chicago?

Lots of horrific things have worked before. What other unconstitutional things would you like to do besides stop and frisk? Are there certain groups you want to strip some freedoms from?

Stop and frisk is NOT unconstitutional you retard.

Random stop and frisk is most certainly unconstitutional

Mr. Clinton disagrees with you.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Look how quickly republicans succumb to the idea of illegal search and seizure. Embarrassing.

Stop and frisk has worked before. You don't like it, what are your ideas to stop the violence in Chicago?

Lots of horrific things have worked before. What other unconstitutional things would you like to do besides stop and frisk? Are there certain groups you want to strip some freedoms from?

Stop and frisk is NOT unconstitutional you retard.

Random stop and frisk is most certainly unconstitutional

Mr. Clinton disagrees with you.

No he doesn't.

 

[Grizz]

Stop and frisk has worked before. You don't like it, what are your ideas to stop the violence in Chicago?

Lots of horrific things have worked before. What other unconstitutional things would you like to do besides stop and frisk? Are there certain groups you want to strip some freedoms from?

Stop and frisk is NOT unconstitutional you retard.

Random stop and frisk is most certainly unconstitutional

Mr. Clinton disagrees with you.

No he doesn't.

Yawn.
Sorry dad, I prefer my opponents have a brain, you don't qualify.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Lots of horrific things have worked before. What other unconstitutional things would you like to do besides stop and frisk? Are there certain groups you want to strip some freedoms from?

Stop and frisk is NOT unconstitutional you retard.

Random stop and frisk is most certainly unconstitutional

Mr. Clinton disagrees with you.

No he doesn't.

Yawn.
Sorry dad, I prefer my opponents have a brain, you don't qualify.

That hasn't been "effected"

 

[Grizz]

Stop and frisk is NOT unconstitutional you retard.

Random stop and frisk is most certainly unconstitutional

Mr. Clinton disagrees with you.

No he doesn't.

Yawn.
Sorry dad, I prefer my opponents have a brain, you don't qualify.

That hasn't been "effected"

You've lost dad
Bill says that the Prez has that "authority".

 

[TheOldSchool]

Random stop and frisk is most certainly unconstitutional

Mr. Clinton disagrees with you.

No he doesn't.

Yawn.
Sorry dad, I prefer my opponents have a brain, you don't qualify.

That hasn't been "effected"

You've lost dad
Bill says that the Prez has that "authority".

Not to conduct random stop and frisk. That has not been "effected."

 

[OKTexas]

A few days ago, Trump suggested his "strategy" to curb gun violence in Chicago; that is, to institute a "stop and frisk" policy throughout the crime-ridden city.

My question, however, is one of simple"logic": How can the same person be in favor of "open-carry" or "conceal-and-carry" of weapons, AND then also be in favor of "stop-n-frisk"?

If there is "logic" in that double-standard, the only logic would be all-out "profiling".....

Yep, it's called criminal profiling, nothing bad about it.

 

[OKTexas]

You think it's foolish to check if someone carrying a firearm has a permit?

Depends on what they're doing.

 

[OKTexas]

You think it's foolish to check if someone carrying a firearm has a permit?

Look up the meaning of "profiling"and THEN come back on the thread.

The regressive meaning, right?

 

[OKTexas]

A few days ago, Trump suggested his "strategy" to curb gun violence in Chicago; that is, to institute a "stop and frisk" policy throughout the crime-ridden city.

My question, however, is one of simple"logic": How can the same person be in favor of "open-carry" or "conceal-and-carry" of weapons, AND then also be in favor of "stop-n-frisk"?

If there is "logic" in that double-standard, the only logic would be all-out "profiling".....

Sacrificing freedom for security is not an issue for Trump voters. Even though the founders of this country were diametrically opposed to that type of thinking.

Don't pretend you give a damn about what the founders thought.