NRA torches Biden admin for plan to change rules for gun buyers, sellers

If it's such a conservative thing how come Democrats haven't acted to end it?

And sorry for your luck it false comparisons but having an abortion as not the same thing as owning something.

Are there any Democrats that actually object to abortions of convenience?

 

How exciting! You can explain to your forum buddies that fascists are rightwingers. I'm just sure they'll respect your expertise.

 

All the fascist gun grabbers just happen to be left wing. Chew on that fact

 

Who said abortion is a conservative idea?

Mifepristone and misoprostol aren't real? Good. You won't mind women having them.

Why would they object to women's rights, or refer to exercising their rights as a "convenience?" Do you view using a firearm to protect yourself as a convenience, too?

 

There's no such thing as a "fascist leftwinger." As your Yale pal who claims to have political expertise.

 

How could Yale consider you as top political science student when you apparently have no standing in economics? How could you understand why Marxism can't succeed? Perhaps I'm wrong and you can tell us why this happened...?

 

changing the goal posts

you cannot understand that Democrats are not all lefties

or that Marxism is the only form of leftist thought

I took two economics classes-big freshman classes of 300. I didn't care for them

 

I've been in politics for years.

It's not the only form of left-of-center thought.

Did you need to understand calculus to take the class? If not, you didn't get the real deal.

 

so basic freshman economics requires calculus. I suppose i should get a refund.

 

It should be required, at least for serious students.

 

most freshman lecture classes are merely an introduction. I wasn't interested in it as a field, I took micro and macro-hated them both and after freshman year mainly took history, philosophy and political science courses.

 

It's hard to understand history without an appreciation of economics.

 

well I earned all A's in history and political science and I only took two economics classes and my grades in them were mediocre=Bs

 

You should by now have realized there's a hole in your knowledge negatively impacting your ability to understand and explain, what historians do. Why did we have a depression in 1930? Why is this happening...?

 

explain what? how many historians have economics degrees. economics doesn't explain why some poor people work their way out of poverty while others are permanent public tit suckers

 

Do you not know what the word means friend?

 

You LITERALLY took issue with procedural due process. That's not an insult, that's a statement of fact.
If it makes your position seem silly, that's your problem not my problem. Come up with a better argument.

Further: Libertarian, never voted republican. Continue to be quite upset for all I care.

We as in any person holding that position in this thread.

 

Again, you're misconstruing a nuanced difference.

If a court rules its unconstitutional I can obtain relief. But something actually is or isn't a thing, based upon whether it is or isn't that thing. Such a tautology doesn't take you many places, but its 100% true.
The Court recognizing or ruling a certain way entitles me to get something cured. But their recognizing a thing doesn't alter the thing in and of itself. Only the way they authorize it to be treated.

 

Right back at you. You're eroding basic constitutional protections which exist for good reason, and making LITERALLY BY DESIGN BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION are trying to AVOID any formalized process.
I think that change, taking rights by informal process, will cause more harm to society than not making that change.

 

Actually you can own a car without a driver's license. You can't drive it on public roads, and you can't get it insured, but you can own it. Please learn how things work before you pronounce upon them, so I don't have to clean up after you. Its common courtesy!
Further: Operating a vehicle = privilege.
Keeping and bearing arms = right
What you can limit one with does not apply to the other.

You don't follow those rules, so how would you know whether or not they are appropriate? They provide for relief, but you won't trigger them. Because you want to 'avoid a formalized process'.
Which people EXPLICITLY have a right to.

Make with the constitutional amendments. You'll need one for the 2nd, 14th, and 4th amendments. You'll be removing procedural due process. Have fun with the fallout of that ****.

 

And yet they do not investigate or halt crimes in progress. So citing him as a prison warden for his expertise in what the law should be regarding carrying a firearm has as much use as citing a plumber.

You'd be an honest rhetorician if you would bother to read. If they're a criminal enterprise such that their association is per se illegal, trigger ****ing RICO on them already and stop trying to **** with my rights.

 

And what has that to do with being adjudicated mentally unfit? You DO understand there is a legal process required to divest someone of their rights to direct their own life right? THATS WHAT THAT REFERS TO.

1) Rule violation. For shame doc.
2) I'm not making anything up, you literally want to be able to harvest doctor's records without probable cause or a warrant which violates HIPPA.

 

If they're involved in organized crime, you do need to charge them all. That's what you DO with people you have probable cause to suspect committed a criminal offense, such as racketeering.

 

You literally said they would have to report and submit to inspection to PROVE they were able to exercise their rights.

You literally want people's rights removed "without a formal process". That's a grabber IE a person who wants persons rights violated outside the bounds of the 4th amendment. Since its about guns, gun grabber. Simple as.

 

Except for a process you decided anyone over a certain age would be subjected to it.
Which is age discrimination.

Not the age discrimination act dude. Age discrimination as a constitutional concept. You know, like racial discrimination in writing a law? You know like "blacks can't do X or blacks must be subjected to Y process that whites are not"? Same thing, but with "over X age you must be subjected to Y process". Age is a protected class, like race or sex or religion.

This is why I keep telling you and other posters not to use AI to farm out your learning. You don't learn anything, and you cite the wrong **** wasting everyone's ****ing time.
READ. FOR. YOURSELF.

You're wanting a law that compels persons over a certain age to submit to inspection over whether or not they should retain their constitutional rights. That wouldn't pass the test.
Which, by the way, you have not described in your little bing conversation. So I'll ask again: What is the appropriate test for a law to pass if it contains age discrimination in its terms?

You're certainly not opposed to age discrimination, you're calling for it.