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

Even money says if they do you'll be right back here saying you don't agree.

 

And you think procedural due process is one of those things?

And you can't understand why we're calling you a grabber?

 

A nice humiliation if they voted Yay. An actual flogging if they penned or sponsored the bill. Serves multiple purposes. Encourages self regulating term limitation, also we might get to see Nancy or the Turtle get a flogging

 

And what punishment would there be for such discretion being abused?

That's what they're asking you to do: Draw the ****ing line. Tell us where you'd put it. Have the courage of your convictions and speak.

 

tar and feathering would meet the Bruen test I believe due to its widespread use at the time

 

the court should have remanded the issue for the trial court to make factual findings concerning the usefulness of sawn off shotguns (which are popular in trench warfare and for guarding prisoners or use by the guy on point in jungle warfare) in military use

 

Bruen doesn't rule cruel and unusual punishment.
But I believe we can find an analog in how we treat the whole 'dangerous and unusual' bit.
It may be dangerous, but its not unusual, is to the 2a what it may be cruel, but its not unusual, is to the 8th amendment

 

Of course, I care because unconstitutional legislation won't accomplish anything.

What about the state governments in Memphis, St. Louis, Springfield MO, Little Rock, Cleveland--Republicans control the cities in their states. What are Ohio, Missouri, Tennessee, and Arkansas doing about crime?

Besides, it's no surprise poor people in big cities vote for Democrats given Republicans are more than happy to see people starve.

Really? What's the "gun control" they're supporting to take guns away from senile seniors?

Horseshit.

And you say you care about law enforcement.

You don't have a plan.

 

Did you even read what I wrote? We're not doing enough to deal with perps using guns to rob and attack people. I want them in jail.

Not in this country.

Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 46.02. Unlawful Carrying Weapons isn't the answer.

The hell we're serious.

Because it costs money to catch, convict and lock up perps.

My "fellow travelers" would be whom?

 

Works where?

"Guest on the premises" where?

We don't need senile folks wandering around with firearms.

If there is no family? If the family members refuse to act?

 

You mean.... you?
You, who was caught adding words that do not exist in the relevant cases, and without which your argument fails.
Funny how you have, as of yet, failed to respond to the accusation to that effect.
Because you... can't?

It's not.

 

So what?

Reason or justification for what?

What on earth are you talking about?

Already the law.

Yes, I want a law that takes firearms out of the hands of senile individuals.

This makes no sense.

 

You're saying liquor isn't sold in areas under government control?

 

This all sails over your head.

Allowing gun charges for being in a gang is another tools for dealing with perps.

 

It's based on physical snd mental heath, not age.

I'm opposed to age discrimination.

You don't like AI answers, but someone else might. Bing:

The proper test for age discrimination in the United States is based on the **Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which prohibits employment discrimination against persons 40 years of age or older. The ADEA applies to employers with 20 or more employees, as well as to state and local governments, employment agencies, labor organizations, and the federal government.

To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under the ADEA, a plaintiff must show that:

- He or she was at least 40 years old at the time of the alleged discrimination.
- He or she suffered an adverse employment action, such as termination, demotion, denial of promotion, etc.
- He or she was qualified for the position or met the employer's legitimate expectations.
- He or she was replaced by or treated less favorably than a substantially younger person.

The burden then shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. If the employer does so, the plaintiff must then prove that the employer's reason was a pretext for age discrimination.

The ADEA also provides some exceptions and defenses for employers, such as:

- A bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ), which means that age is reasonably necessary for the normal operation of the business or the performance of the job.
- A bona fide seniority system or employee benefit plan, which is not intended to evade the purposes of the ADEA and does not require or permit involuntary retirement.
- A voluntary retirement incentive plan, which is consistent with the purposes of the ADEA and meets certain requirements.
- A waiver of ADEA rights or claims, which is knowing and voluntary and complies with the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act.

If you want to test your knowledge of age discrimination law, you can take this quiz or this quiz..

Source: Conversation with Bing, 12/20/2023
(1) The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/age-discrimination-employment-act-1967.
(2) Employment Tests and Selection Procedures. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/employment-tests-and-selection-procedures.
(3) Test Your Knowledge of Age Discrimination Law - AARP. https://www.aarp.org/work/age-discrimination/quiz/.
(4) Take This Quiz and Find Out if It's Age Discrimination - AARP. https://www.aarp.org/work/age-discrimination/age-bias-comments-quiz/.
(5) Age Discrimination | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. https://www.eeoc.gov/age-discrimination.
(6) undefined. http://eeoc.gov/eeoc/meetings/archive/5-16-07/index.html.
(7) en.wikipedia.org. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_Discrimination_in_Employment_Act_of_1967.​

Anyway, mental acuity and mental health are the issue.

 

That's a flat BS. No one has to prove innocence.

I sound like a "gun grabber" because I want guns out of the hands of senile people? Egads.

 

You don't have to charge everyone involved in organized and white collar crime.

 

It isn't a crime to be mentally unfit.

You keep making up idiotic claims.

 

They deal with criminals.

You'd be the criminal's best friend if you made more sense.

 

Geezuz, they take a test. Can't pass it? Can't drive a car. Can't have a firearm.

The rules don't adequately protect society. Your "established rules" are inappropriate.

 

I don't think you care enough about protecting society.

 

We register some firearms. Machine guns, for example.

 

The Court is the final arbiter of what's constitutional, not you.

 

Please, you're no grammarian.

 

You're in over your head, so you come up with insults. Typical MAGA.

"We?" You and other MAGA types?