That’s another completely unfounded and bogus claim and just repeating it doesn’t make it so. There are NO RIGHTS that are absolute. For many, you have to show proof of age, citizenship, compliance with the law and/or residency. All including the 2a, religious practice and voting are subject to regulation. The GOP is promoting voter IDs. How does your statement comport with that ? It doesn’t. Many States that require a waiting list have been challenged and still their laws prevail. It’s the SC that interprets the constitution, not you. . Just don’t move to California.
I never claimed that any rights are absolute. That's a strawman on your part. What is the issue with voter ID?
The TSA still has a confirmed failure rate of ninety five percent, even with regard to detecting firearms, as per the article cited. How many planes were hijacked with a firearm before the measures were instituted?
Wrong. The failure rate you’re so proud to keep quoting implies in no way to firearms alone. Weapons are not exclusively firearms. Neither are “weapons” exclusively firearms in the constitution. It’s a bogus comparison. You can keep trolling your ideas about this testing protocol but the documented cases of passengers able to illegally bring a firearm onto a commercial airline has yet to be a problem. Some have tried but it’s way lower then 95%. Like 1-200,000 have inadvertently tried. Interesting to note too, there is no indication that anyone actually succeeded. These stats speak for themselves. Now, you try to find how many skyjackings that has occurred over the US with a firearm since 9-11. Because, that’s the only valid statistic. https://www.ammoland.com/2018/02/1-in-200000-passengers-forgot-a-gun-in-carry-on/#axzz5G5woBy8R
Then use this qualifier EVERYTIME you try to assert anything about the Bill of Rights. The constitution with out the amendments and pertinent SC decisions is an outline, not an absolute document to be taken literally and out of context. Voter ID is another attempt at qualifying the right to vote. The attempt is an acknowledgement that the constitution is not absolute. If a party wants to enact voter ID laws, then it has to acknowledge that gun regulations including permits for all gun ownership are just as valid.
Voter ID isn't a permit. It's an ID that says you are who you claim you are. With regards to firearms, it like just showing an ID to buy a gun, not getting permission to do so.
A permit to process a gun is in every way like a voter ID. It tells the supplier you are who claim you are, “qualified.” You can toss words around like “permission” all you want. Your rights are not absolute which means they are all subject to regulation. To get your weapons permit, you need an ID and proof of training PLUS legal eligibility in the form of a background check. You still need an ID to get the permit. They are both part of the regulation process because in our agreed upon words, neither voting rights or gun ownership rights are absolute.
Still on the bogus claim that firearms were 95% succesful rate ? Quote it and reference it. That’s not what it says.
Wrong. Every state in the union requires some permit as related to firearms in some form or another. You need a permit to own, let alone carry a full auto, and other federally regulated firearms, explosives etc. in every state. All federal laws can be enforced by local authorities. The opposite is not true. Even many states with no permit for concealed carry apply only to handguns and you still need a permit for reciprocity with other cooperative states. Every state issues and /or enforces permit use of guns in some form or another.
Which has no relevance, none whatsoever, pertaining to firearms in general. And in the majority of states in the united states, there is absolutely no requirement for a permit to own a firearm. It is not reciprocity that is being discussed.
"However, this time, TSA agents failed to detect almost every single test bomb and gun, aviation experts said." I see Gun in that paragraph. Not off topic.
The contention is that they are 95% ineffective against guns. You have no idea. It could have been one gun and the rest explosives. There is no break down. The debate is still about hardening areas from firearms. You came in late and just as wrong. Still bogus.
FACT: the NRA allowed their conference to be a gun-free zone for a period of time. concealed-carry permits were NOT recognized during this period.
The Secret Service is in charge of Security for all functions, when the POTUS or VPOTUS or anyone else they are responsible for Security wise. The Authority of the Secret Service supersedes all others. There is no choice in this matter. And NRA has zero authority in matters of Security in any case. Concealed Carry permits are for personal defense and can be disallowed at any point for any reasoning by anyone.
they could have chosen to tell Trump and Pence to take a walk. or they could had them broadcast the speech over Skype. the NRA had options. they chose live appearances in exchange for the loss of gun rights.
The more you guys attack the NRA, the more money they receive. Seriously what is the purpose of continuing to harp on this subject? Do you think it's turned one NRA supportervawat from the NRA?
