Biden misfire: Majority turns against ‘assault weapons’ ban

the far right wants WHAT?

 

Lenin wrote about abolishing the police and replacing it with a force made up of the proletariat.

Mao did the same thing with The Red Guards.

It isn't hard to figure out what they are doing. Just read what Communists have done throughout their history.

Remember the "autonomous zones" during the George Floyd insurrection? That's borrowed directly from the ****ing commies.

 

I cannot have a discussion with someone that cannot comprehend what is being discussed. Take care

 

Afraid to accept my challenge?

 

They want zero changes or less regulation such as permitless carry — some are going as far as saying people charged with convicted of specific crimes such as domestic abuse should not be “infringed”.

Which words do you not understand?

The compromise is somewhere in the middle.

 

Charged with maybe you should have a temporary restriction but only a conviction should cause someone to permanently lose their rights.

But I'd argue if you let a felon out of prison you're letting them have guns it's just not legally have guns.

So if they can never have a gun why are they being let out of prison. Believe it or not you can just break that off probably for 20-30 years and nobody would know.

 

You said the far right wants to ban guns.

 

That's what we're saying...lol

 

It seems just like a way to keep felons as felons and to catch them on reoffenses.

This goes into prison reform in a bunch of other things that are just a quagmire of talking points so I'm going to refrain. I think the way we treat people who paid their debt to society is horrendous.

 

You got it wrong. All most gun owners will suggest is "Disarm the criminals first" And then approach us with your idea's. Hasn't made it thru the layers of leftist bubble sphere yet.. In fact, the left has made it harder to disarm them and from lack of border security made firearms even more relevant!!

 

Part of the problem is once they are convicted, they have very little chance of reentering mainstream society! Way too many applicants with no prior criminal charges and they are passed over.. I guess that "Firearm" and other perks associated with a life of honesty is so difficult to surrender because of bad people doing bad things..

 

Yeah there essentially marked with a Scarlet letter. And some of them should be but there needs to be more effort placed on reform.

Anyway that's a long complicated discussion.

 

I agree, but on the count of domestic or any other form of violence, they should never be allowed certain privileges..

 

Of course there's no "compromise" because you liberals idea of compromise is give us everything that we want we won't give you a damn thing but the further erosion of your second amendment rights.

 

I'm not sure they should get out

 

I seen enough to know that the Women or some other dude is the cause, but unfortunately law enforcement just tosses all their ass's in the cell and let the judge decide, still ends up on your record..

 

I've seen enough to know domestic violence is typically mutual. But women are seen as victims.

 

Yes I agree!!!!!

 

And like I have said, let’s just watch this play out, both sides want the extreme end of the spectrum — there will either be compromise or one side will win.

 

here is the originally compromise-the government wouldn't interfere with the arms of the citizens and the citizens wouldn't get rid of the new federal government through use of arms.

I oppose any abridgment of a constitutional right based on a MISDEMEANOR conviction.

 

divorce attorneys representing women whose ex's or soon to be ex's are in professions where they need to be armed-use the threat of a lautenberg banning as leverage.

 

before the Lautenberg amendment (yes dear as one of my favorite politicians called that abomination) many men would plead out a DV misdemeanor to spare-usually the kids-having to go to court. 2-5-10 years later, that came back to bite them retroactively. Many men would have fought what they thought was just going to be a minor fine if they knew they were permanently going to be barred for life from owning a gun. Again, this is an area where the federal government does not properly have this power.

 

He did and when I called him on that, I got some irresponsive reply

 

It’s almost like some things have changed in the last 230+ years

 

It was a typo
Most people can use syntax clues to decipher those although present company seems exempt