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.
Actually he made a solid point that some on the progressive left believe removing firearms from the general society will make this country safer but what if you took the firearms away from Hillary Clinton Secret Service Detail?
She would be less safe and no Donald Trump was not making any threat against her but pointing out the reality that her Security Detail are carrying guns and make her life safer.
Stupid premise.....Hillary is NOT calling for the removal of ALL guns (like those carried by her security team).....Hillary is advocating for stronger background checks on the sale of military style weapons......you know, the kind that insane and terrorists can buy at any gun store.
You live in a fantasy world so much that you cannot even admit your side won the guns in America debate. I repeat, your side won. There is no political will on the left to pursue total gun bans anymore because they finally realized how useless and politically damaging it would be. Talking to a gun nut is like trying to talk a suicidal person off a ledge.No congress is going to pass a law banning guns for it to even be challenged in federal court. The 2nd amendment is considered "settled law". Justices cannot just reverse what 2 centuries of jurisprudence has said concerning gun rights. Your fears are groundless.
The hell they can't. All it takes is another case to go in front of the SC and they can rule anyway they desire.
Congress is not who I was referring to anyway. If after the court changes, a gun owner wants to have his or her right protected because the city placed a ban on semi-automatic handguns, that's when the SC will hear a new case regarding guns. They can rule that it's either a violation of the 2nd or it isn't. When they rule that it isn't, that opens the door for every city and state to do the exact same thing.
they were personal emails and not govt emails and were not required to be turned over to the govt archives, by Law/Regs..... they were hers to do with, what she liked....just like you and me with our own personal emails.... try again!So, I assume then that Trump will be dismissing his personal security detail.....I think his personal security detail is far better prepared since they are not constrained by PC......good thing they are there to direct the SS.....So, I assume then that Trump will be dismissing his Secret Service security detail
Just like he released his tax returns
Trump isn't the one trying to disarm we the people. I really don't care about his tax returns, I demand to see why the hillary bleached all those emails.
stronger background checks for citizens that want to purchase a constitutionally legal item while at the same time telling us we are racists for wanting to have complete background checks before we let terrorists in.Actually he made a solid point that some on the progressive left believe removing firearms from the general society will make this country safer but what if you took the firearms away from Hillary Clinton Secret Service Detail?
She would be less safe and no Donald Trump was not making any threat against her but pointing out the reality that her Security Detail are carrying guns and make her life safer.
Stupid premise.....Hillary is NOT calling for the removal of ALL guns (like those carried by her security team).....Hillary is advocating for stronger background checks on the sale of military style weapons......you know, the kind that insane and terrorists can buy at any gun store.
The battle is entirely within the paranoid minds of gun nuts. If there were actual numbers on gun ownership among democrats the nuts would never believe just how many "gun grabbers" have guns.It's an ongoing battle. Always will be, unless the pro-2nd side loses.You live in a fantasy world so much that you cannot even admit your side won the guns in America debate. I repeat, your side won. There is no political will on the left to pursue total gun bans anymore because they finally realized how useless and politically damaging it would be. Talking to a gun nut is like trying to talk a suicidal person off a ledge.No congress is going to pass a law banning guns for it to even be challenged in federal court. The 2nd amendment is considered "settled law". Justices cannot just reverse what 2 centuries of jurisprudence has said concerning gun rights. Your fears are groundless.
The hell they can't. All it takes is another case to go in front of the SC and they can rule anyway they desire.
Congress is not who I was referring to anyway. If after the court changes, a gun owner wants to have his or her right protected because the city placed a ban on semi-automatic handguns, that's when the SC will hear a new case regarding guns. They can rule that it's either a violation of the 2nd or it isn't. When they rule that it isn't, that opens the door for every city and state to do the exact same thing.
He LIED. Hillary nor Hillary's campaign, began the Birther movement. YOU know it, I KNOW it and the Country KNOWS it.....Trump knows the Birther support he gave for 5 years will be brought up at the debates, he's simply being a typical POLITICIAN......by renouncing it now... I don't think it will help him though....I think it will still be brought up in the debates....even with his flip flop.
He just pointed out that Hillary started the whole thing and this could be a situation where she was actually telling the truth. I know that seem unbelievable but she could have been telling the truth so you may be right.
Trump is fooling no one but those who insist on being FOOLED.
Trump's correct again and displays both the glaring idiocy of the left and exposes the Dem base as useful idiots.
Hillary and her unarmed security detail should only appear in gunew free zones.
But some animals are more equal than others
Gun free zones don't prohibit armed security.
yeah....like at the Orlando Night club where the son of a hilary clinton supporter, a muslim terrorist, murdered 49 people and injured another 50 while the armed security ran to call police...leaving 300 unarmed people to face an armed attacker.....in a gun free zone.....
He LIED. Hillary nor Hillary's campaign, began the Birther movement. YOU know it, I KNOW it and the Country KNOWS it.....Trump knows the Birther support he gave for 5 years will be brought up at the debates, he's simply being a typical POLITICIAN......by renouncing it now... I don't think it will help him though....I think it will still be brought up in the debates....even with his flip flop.
He just pointed out that Hillary started the whole thing and this could be a situation where she was actually telling the truth. I know that seem unbelievable but she could have been telling the truth so you may be right.
Trump is fooling no one but those who insist on being FOOLED.
You have to know now that sydney blumenthal and the hilary campaign director were both pushing the Birther story to the press......they are all admitting that it was shopped to them now...you are wrong....and neither one of them blows their nose without authorization from hilary.....
Hillary isn't trying to disarm anyone. Post a link of her saying that or sit down and stfu[/QUOTE]Trump isn't the one trying to disarm we the people. I really don't care about his tax returns, I demand to see why the hillary bleached all those emails.
Democrats have a problem with the total irresponsibility of the gun nuts and their total opposition to gun laws of any kind no matter what. This issue is far more complex than "Yes guns vs. No guns" but you people cannot argue in it any other terms.The battle is entirely within the paranoid minds of gun nuts. If there were actual numbers on gun ownership among democrats the nuts would never believe just how many "gun grabbers" have guns.
Demorats have no problems with guns themselves. Democrats have problems with us being to be able to protect ourselves with guns.
Democrats have a problem with the total irresponsibility of the gun nuts and their total opposition to gun laws of any kind no matter what. This issue is far more complex than "Yes guns vs. No guns" but you people cannot argue in it any other terms.The battle is entirely within the paranoid minds of gun nuts. If there were actual numbers on gun ownership among democrats the nuts would never believe just how many "gun grabbers" have guns.
Demorats have no problems with guns themselves. Democrats have problems with us being to be able to protect ourselves with guns.
There are many things to worry about the government but someone showing up to confiscate your guns is not something you should even worry about. There are too many more pressing issues to stupidly make this your single-issue vote.You live in a fantasy world so much that you cannot even admit your side won the guns in America debate. I repeat, your side won. There is no political will on the left to pursue total gun bans anymore because they finally realized how useless and politically damaging it would be. Talking to a gun nut is like trying to talk a suicidal person off a ledge.
The only reason we did win is because we have the Constitution and the courts on our side. Without that, we would have lost big time just as we will with a Commie/ liberal majority court.
Hey, the government can't make you purchase healthcare insurance either, but they will steal your money if you don't. The government can't make you buy car insurance either, but if you get caught, you will pay a huge fine and maybe get your car towed depending on what state you live in.
Government can do a lot of things to make your life hell. It's not paranoia, it's history--particularly when the left is in charge.
He LIED. Hillary nor Hillary's campaign, began the Birther movement. YOU know it, I KNOW it and the Country KNOWS it.....Trump knows the Birther support he gave for 5 years will be brought up at the debates, he's simply being a typical POLITICIAN......by renouncing it now... I don't think it will help him though....I think it will still be brought up in the debates....even with his flip flop.
He just pointed out that Hillary started the whole thing and this could be a situation where she was actually telling the truth. I know that seem unbelievable but she could have been telling the truth so you may be right.
Trump is fooling no one but those who insist on being FOOLED.
You have to know now that sydney blumenthal and the hilary campaign director were both pushing the Birther story to the press......they are all admitting that it was shopped to them now...you are wrong....and neither one of them blows their nose without authorization from hilary.....
Never happened. If the Clinton campaign had been pushing the birther story it would have been all over the news in the spring of 2008. It wasn't. You're an idiot and a liar.
Trump's correct again and displays both the glaring idiocy of the left and exposes the Dem base as useful idiots.
Hillary and her unarmed security detail should only appear in gunew free zones.
But some animals are more equal than others
Gun free zones don't prohibit armed security.
yeah....like at the Orlando Night club where the son of a hilary clinton supporter, a muslim terrorist, murdered 49 people and injured another 50 while the armed security ran to call police...leaving 300 unarmed people to face an armed attacker.....in a gun free zone.....
Is your father responsible if you kill someone?
And Trump invited a known Pedophile/ Page raping and disgraced ex Florida Republican congressman Mark Foley!Hillary invited the Pulse shooters father to the DNCIs that why you liberal shooters kill us in movie theaters, schools, night clubs, churches, malls, and other liberal gun-free zones....That's how the Far Righties are, pwjohn. The only way they can deal with opposition is with violence.
Trump is dumb white trash.
Wrong.I don't know if the NRA is the genesis of the hysteria, but it has certainly been spread by conservative media.
There are eight zillion guns in this country. "They" are not going to break down doors and take them away.
But I'm pretty sure many think that really is the plan.
No, we don't.
What is the plan is to put in as many lib judges on the Supreme Court to guarantee they will rule we don't have a constitutional right to own firearms outside of our police, military and militias which really don't exist anymore.
From there, cities and states could make any law they want against guns. Cities could allow lawsuits against gun manufacturers for the unintended firearm deaths in their city. That would cause them to stop selling guns in that city or state. They could place a dollar per round tax on ammo. They could make you buy a half million dollar liability insurance policy if you are a gun owner. They could even outlaw guns in their state entirely.
Nothing would be able to stop cities and states from doing such things because we would no longer have the constitutional right to own or carry firearms.
registering the sale of guns is not infringing on your right to own one....doing a back ground check is not infringing on your right to own one....Hillary believes in the 2nd amendment but as with ALL of the bill of rights, she believes the govt can regulate them, as the 2nd amendment states....
you have freedom of religion but if your religion says it's okay to have 10 wives, or required to marry 11 year old girls when you are 30 etc, or to kill a dog or cat as sacrifice, you don't have that freedom....
We have the right to free speech, but we can not yell FIRE in a theater when there is one....
we have the right to not incriminate ourselves, but if the gvt gives the suspect their Miranda rights, what is said by the suspect can and will be used against them by our gvt....
We have a right to privacy, but the govt dictates what that privacy is....
We have the right to bear arms, but you can NOT own a Nuke...you can't go in to a court room armed...you can't be armed in prison...etc...
ALL of these cases are constitutional rights...yet they are all regulated by our gvt...
Another sad product of government schools. Yeah, they put in the second amendment that government can regulate a right they can't infringe on.
But even more basic, what grade is your reading level?
2nd amendment: "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"
If you could read your native language, you would realize that "well regulated militia" is an explanation, not a condition.
It says BECAUSE a well regulated militia is necessary to a free State, we have the uninfringable right to keep and bear arms. It does not say IF it's a regulated militia.
It's really sad having to point that out to an adult
Wrong.I don't know if the NRA is the genesis of the hysteria, but it has certainly been spread by conservative media.
There are eight zillion guns in this country. "They" are not going to break down doors and take them away.
But I'm pretty sure many think that really is the plan.
No, we don't.
What is the plan is to put in as many lib judges on the Supreme Court to guarantee they will rule we don't have a constitutional right to own firearms outside of our police, military and militias which really don't exist anymore.
From there, cities and states could make any law they want against guns. Cities could allow lawsuits against gun manufacturers for the unintended firearm deaths in their city. That would cause them to stop selling guns in that city or state. They could place a dollar per round tax on ammo. They could make you buy a half million dollar liability insurance policy if you are a gun owner. They could even outlaw guns in their state entirely.
Nothing would be able to stop cities and states from doing such things because we would no longer have the constitutional right to own or carry firearms.
There is no such ‘plan’.
You’re as much a liar as Trump.
Liberals support Heller/McDonald, they consider current Second Amendment case law to be settled and accepted, and have no desire to allow states and local jurisdictions to enact comprehensive ‘gun bans,’ or ‘prohibit’ the sale of firearms.
Your post not only exhibits ignorance of the law and the propensity for lying common to most on the right, it also shows the hypocrisy of conservatives.
What happened to “states’ rights” and the right of local communities to decide their own issues absent interference from ‘big government.’
If it’s un-Constitutional for states to ban certain types of firearms – or firearms altogether – then it’s likewise un-Constitutional for states to seek to compel women to give birth against their will, or to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.
Conservatives can’t have it both ways.
Wrong.I don't know if the NRA is the genesis of the hysteria, but it has certainly been spread by conservative media.
There are eight zillion guns in this country. "They" are not going to break down doors and take them away.
But I'm pretty sure many think that really is the plan.
No, we don't.
What is the plan is to put in as many lib judges on the Supreme Court to guarantee they will rule we don't have a constitutional right to own firearms outside of our police, military and militias which really don't exist anymore.
From there, cities and states could make any law they want against guns. Cities could allow lawsuits against gun manufacturers for the unintended firearm deaths in their city. That would cause them to stop selling guns in that city or state. They could place a dollar per round tax on ammo. They could make you buy a half million dollar liability insurance policy if you are a gun owner. They could even outlaw guns in their state entirely.
Nothing would be able to stop cities and states from doing such things because we would no longer have the constitutional right to own or carry firearms.
There is no such ‘plan’.
You’re as much a liar as Trump.
Liberals support Heller/McDonald, they consider current Second Amendment case law to be settled and accepted, and have no desire to allow states and local jurisdictions to enact comprehensive ‘gun bans,’ or ‘prohibit’ the sale of firearms.
Your post not only exhibits ignorance of the law and the propensity for lying common to most on the right, it also shows the hypocrisy of conservatives.
What happened to “states’ rights” and the right of local communities to decide their own issues absent interference from ‘big government.’
If it’s un-Constitutional for states to ban certain types of firearms – or firearms altogether – then it’s likewise un-Constitutional for states to seek to compel women to give birth against their will, or to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.
Conservatives can’t have it both ways.
Wrong.I don't know if the NRA is the genesis of the hysteria, but it has certainly been spread by conservative media.
There are eight zillion guns in this country. "They" are not going to break down doors and take them away.
But I'm pretty sure many think that really is the plan.
No, we don't.
What is the plan is to put in as many lib judges on the Supreme Court to guarantee they will rule we don't have a constitutional right to own firearms outside of our police, military and militias which really don't exist anymore.
From there, cities and states could make any law they want against guns. Cities could allow lawsuits against gun manufacturers for the unintended firearm deaths in their city. That would cause them to stop selling guns in that city or state. They could place a dollar per round tax on ammo. They could make you buy a half million dollar liability insurance policy if you are a gun owner. They could even outlaw guns in their state entirely.
Nothing would be able to stop cities and states from doing such things because we would no longer have the constitutional right to own or carry firearms.
There is no such ‘plan’.
You’re as much a liar as Trump.
Liberals support Heller/McDonald, they consider current Second Amendment case law to be settled and accepted, and have no desire to allow states and local jurisdictions to enact comprehensive ‘gun bans,’ or ‘prohibit’ the sale of firearms.
Your post not only exhibits ignorance of the law and the propensity for lying common to most on the right, it also shows the hypocrisy of conservatives.
What happened to “states’ rights” and the right of local communities to decide their own issues absent interference from ‘big government.’
If it’s un-Constitutional for states to ban certain types of firearms – or firearms altogether – then it’s likewise un-Constitutional for states to seek to compel women to give birth against their will, or to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.
Conservatives can’t have it both ways.
