We have a branch of government openly attacking the Constitution

[Pumpkin Row]

The Democrat House of Representatives (or House of Little Dictators) is staging a sit-in ,because they can't filibuster , against the Second Amendment.

If these dillweeds want to get rid of gun rights, they need an amendment process, and a ratification from all 50 states. It shouldn't even be attempted unless they have support from 3/4 of the American public, which is something they'll NEVER GET. The fact is, most Americans, even in bad neighborhoods , don't think the guns cause the crimes.

What we have is, Socialists infiltrated and organized in our government. They support The Agenda, even if it's bad for them, because they want to stay with the in-crowd.

So now they want to ability to deny guns to people who they place on "lists"

The "no fly" list.

If the government thinks someone is too dangerous to be on a plane, what the hell are they walking around for? shouldn't they be in jail? (or deported)

So they allow all these people into the country and let us deal with them on a daily basis, but if they try to get on a plane with someone important, they can't fly.

The scary part is, Trump, the GOP, and even the NRA might be willing to pass this.

This will be another great advancement for destroying the Second Amendment, the government will deny gun rights to people without any convictions.

Last year they told us we should deny rights to people that they call "mental" , now they have temporarily abandoned that idea and they're hoping the conservative's hate for radical Islam will give them the power to deny people on "no fly" lists. They switched gears because both proposals accomplish the same goal.

We're going to give our corrupt government the power to deny people on a "no fly list", the same government that allows everyone and their mother to come here without knowing any history, and the same corrupt government that tells the TSA not to check Muslims.

Sounds like "one branch of government doesn't do what we want it to do, so it's attacking the constitution.

No, they're pretty clearly attacking the constitution, as the Democratic party has been for this entire presidency, and probably longer.

Both parties have been attacking the constitution since the day it was written. But people keep giving them the legitimacy to do so.

Saying "but the other party did it, too!" doesn't somehow make it okay. I don't condone anyone attacking the constitution, regardless of what party they're part of.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

"We have a branch of government openly attacking the Constitution"

No, we have dishonest conservatives openly contriving and propagating the lie that the Constitution is being ‘attacked’ – when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Or…

We have ignorant conservatives openly exhibiting their ignorance with regard to the Constitution, its case law, the rule of law, and how government works.

Do you want to get really specific? Okay, we'll pretend they're not attacking the constitution, since you apparently think our second amendment right doesn't exist.

The house democrats are having a sit-in because the senate denied their bill to press a ban on guns... They're literally protesting the due process our country has to balance our governmental system, because they didn't get what they wanted. Are you going to try to justify this, too?

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Democrat House of Representatives (or House of Little Dictators) is staging a sit-in ,because they can't filibuster , against the Second Amendment.

If these dillweeds want to get rid of gun rights, they need an amendment process, and a ratification from all 50 states. It shouldn't even be attempted unless they have support from 3/4 of the American public, which is something they'll NEVER GET. The fact is, most Americans, even in bad neighborhoods , don't think the guns cause the crimes.

What we have is, Socialists infiltrated and organized in our government. They support The Agenda, even if it's bad for them, because they want to stay with the in-crowd.

So now they want to ability to deny guns to people who they place on "lists"

The "no fly" list.

If the government thinks someone is too dangerous to be on a plane, what the hell are they walking around for? shouldn't they be in jail? (or deported)

So they allow all these people into the country and let us deal with them on a daily basis, but if they try to get on a plane with someone important, they can't fly.

The scary part is, Trump, the GOP, and even the NRA might be willing to pass this.

This will be another great advancement for destroying the Second Amendment, the government will deny gun rights to people without any convictions.

Last year they told us we should deny rights to people that they call "mental" , now they have temporarily abandoned that idea and they're hoping the conservative's hate for radical Islam will give them the power to deny people on "no fly" lists. They switched gears because both proposals accomplish the same goal.

We're going to give our corrupt government the power to deny people on a "no fly list", the same government that allows everyone and their mother to come here without knowing any history, and the same corrupt government that tells the TSA not to check Muslims.

Sounds like "one branch of government doesn't do what we want it to do, so it's attacking the constitution.

No, they're pretty clearly attacking the constitution, as the Democratic party has been for this entire presidency, and probably longer.

Both parties have been attacking the constitution since the day it was written. But people keep giving them the legitimacy to do so.

Saying "but the other party did it, too!" doesn't somehow make it okay. I don't condone anyone attacking the constitution, regardless of what party they're part of.

No, I didn't say it made it good either.

However the people keep voting for it, so... it has legitimacy and the people seem to accept it.

 

[Wolfstrike]

No one is ‘advocating’ citizens be denied guns, no one is ‘advocating’ citizens have their guns ‘confiscated,’ and no one is ‘advocating’ the Second Amendment be ‘violated.’

Although inalienable, the Second Amendment right is not absolute, the right is subject to reasonable restrictions by government, including provisions for the commercial sale of firearms, such as background checks (DC v. Heller).

i'm confused as to why you he the Bill of Rights your avatar.
you think it's a good luck charm