The 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th and 10th Amendments are our first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth lines of defense. Yet when then government decided to tear those ones apart no one question it.
The only difference in this case is that the Democrats want to rip apart the entire Bill of Rights, while the Republicans are saying tearing up 90% is good enough.
Tom, you're just throwing bullshit against the wall, I can't even imagine what you're talking about
I can only presume it's some stretched out equivalency argument that won't hold water
I can only presume it's some stretched out equivalency argument that won't hold water
Willie, if the Democrats proposal does not violate the sixth amendment, their position is the most logical one. If it doesn't violate the sixth amendment, why weren't the Republicans fighting back against them before? The Rs couldn't be bothered earlier and now everyone is going to be drowning in all of the bullshit
.Both Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama tweeted their support of the Democrats' sit-in
.
+11
President Obama chimed in and supported his fellow Democrats engaged in a sit-in on the House floor over trying to get gun control votes in the House
+11
Hillary Clinton was on Capitol Hill this morning meeting with House Democrats before heading back to the campaign trail to give a speech in Raleigh, North Carolina. She tweeted her approval of the sit-in as well
.
"this is what real leadership looks like"
and they quit after 25 hours
c'mon man, you just can't make this shit up
It's about being able to deny someone the right to buy a gun based around suspicion of being a terrorist. The Democrats argument is that convicted criminals have lost the right to own weapons and all three branches of government as well as American people support that. Essentially what the Democrats want is to punish these people without a trial by infringing on their right to buy guns. But both sides have been punishing them without trials for years without anyone questioning it.
That's a hard one, kind of a tweener
Enemy combatants are not protected by constitutional rights, but they're obviously not necessarily enemy combatants
I'm a proponent of background checks, so I'm not opposed to delaying the right to purchase a gun until the background check is completed, and background checks should include connections to terrorists and organized crime and mental illness
Once the background check is completed and passed, they can buy a gun
Enemy combatants are not protected by constitutional rights, but they're obviously not necessarily enemy combatants
I'm a proponent of background checks, so I'm not opposed to delaying the right to purchase a gun until the background check is completed, and background checks should include connections to terrorists and organized crime and mental illness
Once the background check is completed and passed, they can buy a gun
About 90% of Americans share similar views. And Congress still refuses to do anything. The bills proposed by both sides refuse to lay out clear criteria for what can deny someone the right to buy a gun, instead they just talk about things like "terror watch list" and "probable cause."
On minor quibbles, domestic violence history is one of the most important things to consider. Mental illness needs to be approached very cautiously when dealing with constitutional rights. Mental illness is not a crime and if we punish people for it all that will happen is that they avoid treatment.
