Biden for Prez

Originally Posted by 95sn

The Federal background check is a joke when an 18 year old can walk out with assault weapons. That is what needs to change. The gun laws in texas are the some of the most lax in the entire country. Abbott is proud of that, proven by having public signing parties when he signs new laws like no need for a permit to carry. e is quite proud and puts it on all his social media. He cant explain how letting everyone walk around with a gun makes anyone safer. He is worried about the "rights of gun owners" ??? Delta claims there are over a billion guns in America, if true...how are any gun owners rights being challenged? Did any democrat ever take a gun away like they have been claiming for decades? Democrats cant even get a simple background check passed.
When the 2nd amendment was ratified, we had muskets and flintlock pistols that used musket balls, not bullets. https://www.ranker.com/list/firearms...achel-souerbry
Is the constitution a changing document or is that only when convenient? Your trigger pull calculations are sick thoughts, trying to rationalize and BS. Next you will claim in 1780's they knew about assault weapons. You are clearly radicalized and dangerous, and sick. Wow, I feel so relieved the killer used a handgun you say?, to kill, so that makes it better? I bet the parents will now donate and attend next weeks NRA show cause it was just a handgun that killed their children. Abbott, Cruz, Trump all on the schedule and planning on going to support the NRA directly after the largest mass killing in 10 years just down the highway. Asking questions to prop your gun knowledge is something only the truly radicalized would do in response to another mass killing. Sick F.

You RIGHTS are non negotiable according to the constitution. So while the constitution is a living document, your rights are not.

Gun laws in Texas are not laxed. They are similar than everywhere in the country except kalifornia and new york and chicago. Which also are places where people are being gunned down on the streets near daily. There laws meet federal guidelines. Owning a gun is a right. The kid passed all his backgrounds. What are people supposed to do. I thought you demorats said that background checks will stop all this? He did a background check.

The projectile being fired is call a BULLET. Don't let facts get in the way of your weed altered emotional state. What you are describing is a cartridge.

Assault weapon is a made up leftist term. There is no such thing as an assault weapon. You still have not answered. What is the different between a ruger mini 14, ruger 10-22, ar-15, ar 10. 2 of those are not in your fictitious camp of rifles yet all of them perform in the exact same fashion.

I don't care what the killer used. The object is not the problem. The person is the problem. You guys are the ones grandstanding on the fictitious assault weapon craze. Most killings by a large factor are by pistols.

My trigger pull calculation is a factual rebuttal to your emotional bull$hit saying that we do not have weapons like they did back then. The reality is their weapons killed more percent of the population in one shot that someone with a belt fed automatic weapon today. Not sick. It is a simple fact. So quit with the emotional plea that the founding fathers did not know what they were doing.

I am not responding to a mass killing. I am responding to your mass stupidity. blaming an object for the violence of people. you conveniently are not thoughtful on what nearly every American house hold has had guns in their house since the beginning of the country over 2 centuries ago, yet mass shootings are only a thing of today. Not willing to look into objective facts and maybe have to say the things you like are bad for society like introducing drugs, violence and family decay to young minds. Nope it is an objects fault.

We already know where you demorats fall. You are against free speech. Against guns. Trying to make life more expensive in the USA so you can move our wealth to the world. Love centralized authoritarian control of peoples lives. Even willing to illegally flood the country with foreigners so you can have 3rd grade educated voters keep you people in office.

By the way. The biggest mass killings of Americans were not done with guns. jet fuel and diesel/ plant fertilizer have been the biggest.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

You RIGHTS are non negotiable according to the constitution. So while the constitution is a living document, your rights are not.

Gun laws in Texas are not laxed. They are similar than everywhere in the country except kalifornia and new york and chicago. Which also are places where people are being gunned down on the streets near daily. There laws meet federal guidelines. Owning a gun is a right. The kid passed all his backgrounds. What are people supposed to do. I thought you demorats said that background checks will stop all this? He did a background check.

The projectile being fired is call a BULLET. Don't let facts get in the way of your weed altered emotional state. What you are describing is a cartridge.

Assault weapon is a made up leftist term. There is no such thing as an assault weapon. You still have not answered. What is the different between a ruger mini 14, ruger 10-22, ar-15, ar 10. 2 of those are not in your fictitious camp of rifles yet all of them perform in the exact same fashion.

I don't care what the killer used. The object is not the problem. The person is the problem. You guys are the ones grandstanding on the fictitious assault weapon craze. Most killings by a large factor are by pistols.

My trigger pull calculation is a factual rebuttal to your emotional bull$hit saying that we do not have weapons like they did back then. The reality is their weapons killed more percent of the population in one shot that someone with a belt fed automatic weapon today. Not sick. It is a simple fact. So quit with the emotional plea that the founding fathers did not know what they were doing.

I am not responding to a mass killing. I am responding to your mass stupidity. blaming an object for the violence of people. you conveniently are not thoughtful on what nearly every American house hold has had guns in their house since the beginning of the country over 2 centuries ago, yet mass shootings are only a thing of today. Not willing to look into objective facts and maybe have to say the things you like are bad for society like introducing drugs, violence and family decay to young minds. Nope it is an objects fault.

We already know where you demorats fall. You are against free speech. Against guns. Trying to make life more expensive in the USA so you can move our wealth to the world. Love centralized authoritarian control of peoples lives. Even willing to illegally flood the country with foreigners so you can have 3rd grade educated voters keep you people in office.

By the way. The biggest mass killings of Americans were not done with guns. jet fuel and diesel/ plant fertilizer have been the biggest.

Women have a non negotiable right to an abortion too. Why dont we make any one who wants to purchase a gun go through the same simple process Women do for their rights?
1.Mandetory 48 hour wait period.
2.Parental permission
3.A note from their doctor proving they understand what he is about to do.
4.Must watch a video about the effects of gun violence
5.An ultrasound wand stuffed up their azz , well apparently just because.
6.Lets close down all but one gun shop in the state and make a buyer travel 100's of miles, take time off work, an overnight stay at a motel to make a purchase.
7.Make the buyer walk down a gauntlet of people holding photos of family members who were shot to death, who call him a murderer and beg him not to buy a gun.
Its their rights we need to protect. or are you only talking about Gun rights are cash/carry?

If it isnt the gun that is the problem, why is it every mass murder in this country, they use a gun? Because you are lying and your typical pretzel BS no one believes.
As usual you are wrong on every turn, completely radicalized. There you go with your replacement theory fear. Keep proving me right. Sick M Fer.

Originally Posted by 95sn

Women have a non negotiable right to an abortion too. Why dont we make any one who wants to purchase a gun go through the same simple process Women do for their rights?
1.Mandetory 48 hour wait period.
2.Parental permission
3.A note from their doctor proving they understand what he is about to do.
4.Must watch a video about the effects of gun violence
5.An ultrasound wand stuffed up their azz , well apparently just because.
6.Lets close down all but one gun shop in the state and make a buyer travel 100's of miles, take time off work, an overnight stay at a motel to make a purchase.
7.Make the buyer walk down a gauntlet of people holding photos of family members who were shot to death, who call him a murderer and beg him not to buy a gun.
Its their rights we need to protect. or are you only talking about Gun rights are cash/carry?

If it isnt the gun that is the problem, why is it every mass murder in this country, they use a gun? Because you are lying and your typical pretzel BS no one believes.
As usual you are wrong on every turn, completely radicalized. There you go with your replacement theory fear. Keep proving me right. Sick M Fer.

Women do not have a constitutional right to murder a baby. Maybe you can talk your people into saying men can kill babies now that you are able to conceive. Wonder if we should add science denier to you title on top of reality denier.

You really should read up on the bill of rights and the constitution:

The First Amendment provides several rights protections: to express ideas through speech and the press, to assemble or gather with a group to protest or for other reasons, and to ask the government to fix problems. It also protects the right to religious beliefs and practices. It prevents the government from creating or favoring a religion.

The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.

If you want to get down to it. Roe v Wade is not in the constitution. It was a court ruling where the federal government incorrectly seized power from the state. There is ZERO in the constitution about abortion. Thus it is covered in this amendment from the bill of rights:

The Tenth Amendment says that the Federal Government only has those powers delegated in the Constitution. If it isn’t listed, it belongs to the states or to the people.

[QUOTE=DeltaHoosier;2014885]Women do not have a constitutional right to murder a baby. Maybe you can talk your people into saying men can kill babies now that you are able to conceive. Wonder if we should add science denier to you title on top of reality denier.

You really should read up on the bill of rights and the constitution:

The First Amendment provides several rights protections: to express ideas through speech and the press, to assemble or gather with a group to protest or for other reasons, and to ask the government to fix problems. It also protects the right to religious beliefs and practices. It prevents the government from creating or favoring a religion.

The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.

If you want to get down to it. Roe v Wade is not in the constitution. It was a court ruling where the federal government incorrectly seized power from the state. There is ZERO in the constitution about abortion. Thus it is covered in this amendment from the bill of rights:


There is nothing in the constitution that keeps a president in his last year in office from nominating a SC judge. Except R's dont play by the rules, they make up their own. There is also nothing in the constitution about the size or number of judges in the SC either. I will expect silence from you when Biden adds 2,3,or 5?

[QUOTE=95sn;2014889]

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Women do not have a constitutional right to murder a baby. Maybe you can talk your people into saying men can kill babies now that you are able to conceive. Wonder if we should add science denier to you title on top of reality denier.

You really should read up on the bill of rights and the constitution:

The First Amendment provides several rights protections: to express ideas through speech and the press, to assemble or gather with a group to protest or for other reasons, and to ask the government to fix problems. It also protects the right to religious beliefs and practices. It prevents the government from creating or favoring a religion.

The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.

If you want to get down to it. Roe v Wade is not in the constitution. It was a court ruling where the federal government incorrectly seized power from the state. There is ZERO in the constitution about abortion. Thus it is covered in this amendment from the bill of rights:


There is nothing in the constitution that keeps a president in his last year in office from nominating a SC judge. Except R's dont play by the rules, they make up their own. There is also nothing in the constitution about the size or number of judges in the SC either. I will expect silence from you when Biden adds 2,3,or 5?

Moving the goal posts again I see. now you are onto Supreme Court voting, which to no ones surprise, you are wrong again. You see it is in the constitution. You are just so darn easy. Fueled by nothing but emotion.


The Process

The President usually will consult with Senators before announcing a nomination.

When the President nominates a candidate, the nomination is sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration.

The Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on the nominee. The Committee usually takes a month to collect and receive all necessary records, from the FBI and other sources, about the nominee and for the nominee to be prepared for the hearings.

During the hearings, witnesses, both supporting and opposing the nomination, present their views. Senators question the nominee on his or her qualifications, judgment, and philosophy.

The Judiciary Committee then votes on the nomination and sends its recommendation (that it be confirmed, that it be rejected, or with no recommendation) to the full Senate.

The full Senate debates the nomination.

The Senate rules used to allow unlimited debate (a practice known as filibustering) and to end the debate, it required the votes of 3/5 of the Senate or 60 senators (known as the cloture vote). In April 2017, the Senate changed this rule and lowered the required votes to 51 to end debate on Supreme Court nominations (this is commonly known as "the nuclear option").

When the debate ends, the Senate votes on the nomination. A simple majority of the Senators present and voting is required for the judicial nominee to be confirmed. If there is a tie, the Vice President who also presides over the Senate casts the deciding vote.

[QUOTE=DeltaHoosier;2014892]

Originally Posted by 95sn

Moving the goal posts again I see. now you are onto Supreme Court voting, which to no ones surprise, you are wrong again. You see it is in the constitution. You are just so darn easy. Fueled by nothing but emotion.


The Process

The President usually will consult with Senators before announcing a nomination.

When the President nominates a candidate, the nomination is sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration.

The Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on the nominee. The Committee usually takes a month to collect and receive all necessary records, from the FBI and other sources, about the nominee and for the nominee to be prepared for the hearings.

During the hearings, witnesses, both supporting and opposing the nomination, present their views. Senators question the nominee on his or her qualifications, judgment, and philosophy.

The Judiciary Committee then votes on the nomination and sends its recommendation (that it be confirmed, that it be rejected, or with no recommendation) to the full Senate.

The full Senate debates the nomination.

The Senate rules used to allow unlimited debate (a practice known as filibustering) and to end the debate, it required the votes of 3/5 of the Senate or 60 senators (known as the cloture vote). In April 2017, the Senate changed this rule and lowered the required votes to 51 to end debate on Supreme Court nominations (this is commonly known as "the nuclear option").

When the debate ends, the Senate votes on the nomination. A simple majority of the Senators present and voting is required for the judicial nominee to be confirmed. If there is a tie, the Vice President who also presides over the Senate casts the deciding vote.

Obama nominated a republican (to make it easy) in March, 8-9 months prior to election and McConnel refused to move.
On the other hand, Amy Barrett was pushed thru after Ginzberg died in September, nominated Barrett in October and confirmed DURING THE ELECTION. But...There is a PROCESS for Dems
The radical Democrat Obama nominates a Republican and The kind republicans only nominated judges that were anti abortion even though each one of them lied during the process saying Roe was settled law.
Move your own goal post.

[QUOTE=95sn;2014893]

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Obama nominated a republican (to make it easy) in March, 8-9 months prior to election and McConnel refused to move.
On the other hand, Amy Barrett was pushed thru after Ginzberg died in September, nominated Barrett in October and confirmed DURING THE ELECTION. But...There is a PROCESS for Dems
The radical Democrat Obama nominates a Republican and The kind republicans only nominated judges that were anti abortion even though each one of them lied during the process saying Roe was settled law.
Move your own goal post.

Democrats did not vote for the justices anyway so who cares what they told them. Biden just put a woman in the supreme court who is afraid to say what the definition of a woman is. besides it does not surprise me that democrats want to question people about a ruling by the judicial branch that is against the constitution. You see they did not nominate people who are anti abortion. They actually nominated people who were able to look at what the constitution says and rule accordingly. Not activists.

Obama nominated a republican? Man. I swear in a moment you are going to tell us Trump colluded with the Russians. I am sure that is about to slip out of your pie hole in a second.

Republicans controlled the senate. The did not bring the person to a vote during obama. bit of dirty pool I agree, but within the constitution.

Of course you democrats during the hearings had to go through your leftist play book. accuse of rape, accuse of this, accuse of that. Just horrible horrible people you democrats. You guys even went to the play book on Elon Musk when he said he is switching parties due to how hateful and liars democrats are and he even gave money to hillary. Go against democrats and they will stop at nothing for power.

Kind of like your emotional pleas. Change a buttstock on a rifle and it is not longer the evil rifle but has zero functional difference.