BoldAsLove said:

Maroon said:

And such is the price of a truly free society.

No crime is worth limiting my freedom one bit

And thank god I'm not the only who thought that the constitution is written in such a way


But conditioned minds have allowed willful modern misinterpretations of these laws to redefine original intents and you are just adding fuel to the fire because many see right through this

Which is why I'm sure gun sales are booming right as we speak

---

Our society is not truly free then and never has been. And I'm okay with that, so it seems we just differ on opinion.

Though I find it interesting that you comment on the "original intent" when the second amendment clearly states the need for a "well-regulated militia" for national. Something that is rarely discussed when talking about gun rights.

---

hostileuniverse said:

BoldAsLove said:

American citizens should not have their constitutional rights taken away without due process. If he is proven to be a terrorist, then of course he shouldn't have access to a gun. If the FBI is unable to prove a link, then they should only be able to monitor.

---

So even though he's made numerous threats and admitted to being an ISISsympathizer, let him buy guns? Fuck that

---

hostileuniverse said:

He passed his background check, under current law, being an Isis supporter is currently not grounds to deny gun purchases, it should be, but progressives won't allow it

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

hostileuniverse said:

He passed his background check, under current law, being an Isis supporter is currently not grounds to deny gun purchases, it should be, but progressives won't allow it

---

Good lord, it was just pointed out to you that the GOP, not liberals, blocked the ban.  How can anyone be so ignorant after being spoon fed this information?

You are siding with liberals on this issue.

---

Oh look, you're lying again, both democrats and republicans both had bills to keep terrorists from obtaining guns, both were rejected, but I wouldn't expect you to be honest about... Well... Anything

hostileuniverse said:

both democrats and republicans both had bills to keep terrorists from obtaining guns, both were rejected, but I wouldn't expect you to be honest about... Well... Anything

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

hostileuniverse said:

both democrats and republicans both had bills to keep terrorists from obtaining guns, both were rejected, but I wouldn't expect you to be honest about... Well... Anything

---

I didn't know that.  Can you provide a link to the Republican bill???

---

hostileuniverse said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Can you provide a link to the Republican bill???

---

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/262030-senate-blocks-tying-gun-fight-to-obamacare-repeal

---

Quote:

Senators rejected an amendment from Cornyn by a 55-44 vote. The Texan's proposal would have allowed the attorney general to delay suspected terrorists from getting a gun for up to 72 hours as they try to get a court to approve blocking the sale of the firearm. 

---

Quote:

In another vote, senators turned down an amendment from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) that would have increased money for mental health and prosecute felons who fail background checks.

---

Quote:

have you seen my baseball?

---

hostileuniverse said:

Jesus you're fucking dense...

From the fucking article...

Quote:

Senators rejected an amendment from Cornyn by a 55-44 vote. The Texan's proposal would have allowed the attorney general to delay suspected terrorists from getting a gun for up to 72 hours as they try to get a court to approve blocking the sale of the firearm. 

---

Cornyn's a republican

---

The Senate rejected it, though the Senate had 54 Republicans and 45 Democrats. 

And it wouldn't have prevented suspected terrorists from buying a gun; it only offered a 72 hour maximum delay, which any lawyer could easily help exceed.

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

hostileuniverse said:

Jesus you're fucking dense...

From the fucking article...

Quote:

Senators rejected an amendment from Cornyn by a 55-44 vote. The Texan's proposal would have allowed the attorney general to delay suspected terrorists from getting a gun for up to 72 hours as they try to get a court to approve blocking the sale of the firearm. 

---

Cornyn's a republican

---

The Senate rejected it, though the Senate had 54 Republicans and 45 Democrats. 

And it wouldn't have prevented suspected terrorists from buying a gun; it only offered a 72 hour maximum delay, which any lawyer could easily help exceed.

---

hostileuniverse said:

I guess to a partisan hack, if it came from republicans no good can come of it, this is why America is so fucked, both parties constantly work against each other to achieve the same goal, it's really disgusting... IMO

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

hostileuniverse said:

I guess to a partisan hack, if it came from republicans no good can come of it, this is why America is so fucked, both parties constantly work against each other to achieve the same goal, it's really disgusting... IMO

---

Look, we both seem to agree that something should be done so that suspected terrorists don't buy guns.

So which party is trying to do something about it NOW???

---

Shouldn't the proper protocol for "suspected terrorists" be imprisonment or deportation rather than that they "don't buy guns".

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

hostileuniverse said:

I guess to a partisan hack, if it came from republicans no good can come of it, this is why America is so fucked, both parties constantly work against each other to achieve the same goal, it's really disgusting... IMO

---

Look, we both seem to agree that something should be done so that suspected terrorists don't buy guns.

So which party is trying to do shit on due process NOW.

Fixed that for you.

If the government wants to put someone on a list along with the 800k or so that are already there, they should have to prove the person is a danger BEFORE they go on the list.