evillawyer
Kung Fu Kamala, B*tches!
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2010
- Messages
- 31,966
- Likes
- 21,151
Setting aside the fact that this thread is full of second amendment arguments, you’re complaining about people selectively ignoring the constitution in one paragraph and then selectively ignoring it in the. very. next. paragraph.What I find interesting is that drunk drivers kill far more people than mass shootings. Yet people get all wrapped up in the Constitution about one and not the other.
And the last I checked, driving is a privelege, not a right AND drunk driving is still a crime.
Owning a firearm is a constitutionally protected RIGHT.
Prove that it isn't Trump's fault! Prove that Trump had no influence with his racism, his hate, and his divisive speaking.
Trump shouldn't go near El Paso. If he does it'll be like rubbing salt in the survivors' wounds.
LOLProve that it isn't Trump's fault! Prove that Trump had no influence with his racism, his hate, and his divisive speaking.
Trump shouldn't go near El Paso. If he does it'll be like rubbing salt in the survivors' wounds.
Try the 25th Amendment thingy again, losers.
Prove that it isn't Trump's fault! Prove that Trump had no influence with his racism, his hate, and his divisive speaking.
Trump shouldn't go near El Paso. If he does it'll be like rubbing salt in the survivors' wounds.
Exactly what those that advocate gun control are doing. The one I ignore would actually save an appreciable number of lives however.Setting aside the fact that this thread is full of second amendment arguments, you’re complaining about people selectively ignoring the constitution in one paragraph and then selectively ignoring it in the. very. next. paragraph.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...”
- The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
So, freedom from unreasonable government intrusion is also a constitutionally protected right.
It’s an all or nothing proposition. If you don’t apply it to everybody, then it protects nobody and is effectively meaningless. If the officer can claim justification for one unfounded stop where he finds an open container, then he doesn’t need a foundation for any stop.
No he won't. He will be rubbing salt in the butts of those that are butthurt by his existence.Prove that it isn't Trump's fault! Prove that Trump had no influence with his racism, his hate, and his divisive speaking.
Trump shouldn't go near El Paso. If he does it'll be like rubbing salt in the survivors' wounds.
You do not know all the facts on either but think that you do because you read about somewhere. Nevertheless, the responsibility for these shootings rests on the person who was pulling the trigger and no one else.Here's the thing. He went on and on using a false comparison to deflect. He whined that it is not fair to point out that the El Paso shooter was right-leaning, but not talk about the Dayton shooter being left leaning.
A number of folks made here yesterday made the same illogical point, and it is obviously making the rounds as a pro-Trump talking point.
The reason that the claim is illegitimate is that the evidence is that politics simply had nothing to do with the Dayton shooting whereas political beliefs were THE motivation for the El Paso shooting. The two situations are simply not comparable.
You do not know all the facts on either but think that you do because you read about somewhere. Nevertheless, the responsibility for these shootings rests on the person who was pulling the trigger and no one else.
Shame on anyone, and I mean anyone, using tragedy for political reasons. It's a dick move.