tvc184

Watching MSNBC and CNN, they have pretty much thrown in the towel for Biden. CNN has had a commentator mention “if” someone comes in to replace Biden, he will likely win… So they know that the cards have been dealt but the replacement hasn’t been named publicly yet.

Months. Sorry to correct your tpyo….

Now they have degraded to who can hit the golf ball farther…. 🤣🤣🤣

He created inflation with his Green New Scam.. 🤣

He was waiting for a chance to use that one and got to squeeze it in…. his “trump” card I expect it at least one more time.

Yes, that is probably the planned closure.

.. and neither does he!

Biden - For 51 years Roe v. Wade was the law of the land. If I was Trump, who didn’t get a rebuttal, I would have said… For 59 years Plessy v. Ferguson was law of the land that said separate but equal was constitutional. It was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education. So is the Supreme Court allowed to correct mistakes?

Yes. I think we are witnessing the end of the Biden reelection campaign.

Omg…. Women are getting raped by their spouses and being arrested when they cross state lines. - Joe Biden

I thought he was going to fall asleep.

They might have to call a 10 run rule and end it early….

I don’t think that Biden is going to it….

No matter what side of the aisle you are on, whether you believe that the Democrat nomination is completely fair and playing out as we speak or whether you believe that Biden being forcibly removed was planned months or even years ago…. The Democrats must have a serious plan in place, that is not public, in order to respond to substantial odds that Biden might crater from health issues, reality that he might lost to Trump or whatever. This cannot be a typical reelection as if Bush or Obama was running.

But some of it beats watching Australian rules football at 2am….

The problem with law enforcement (and everything) is cost. It is more so with law enforcement. PA is divided into 8 patrol districts. I have no idea about Beaumont. Patrol officers work four 10 hour shifts. At three shifts a day and seven days a week, so it would take the hiring of six additional officers to put a single officer on the street for a week. At approximately $150,00 per officer, it is roughly one million dollars to add a single officer to a single district around the clock. The police department already has the largest budget in the city. So if one district (or even a couple of combined districts) would greatly improve by adding a single officer, it would cost one million dollars. I say, let’s add 18 more and increase the patrol shift by three officers per shift but I can guarantee that they won’t add $3,000,000 to the budget and that isn’t a one time expense. That million or 3 million will be spent elsewhere. Maybe on a couple of signs….. 🤣

Like the signs should be about #1,437th on the list of things to do and they are on #7?

Hopefully Texas will win their case in court to simply make suppressors legal without the federal tax stamp. I doubt it as the interstate commerce clause is far reaching. For those who may not know, in Texas a firearms suppressor is legal but they are still against federal law without a federal tax stamp. Texas removed them from prohibited weapons a couple of years ago. Texas is currently fighting a case in court that if the suppressor is manufactured completely in Texas and never leaves Texas, it would not then fall under the interstate commerce clause. The ICC allows any commerce that crosses a state line to be controlled by the US Congress under the Constitution in Article I.

The Supreme Court has never ruled to my knowledge that a child under 18 has all rights under the Constitution. A recent Fifth Circuit Court (our circuit in New Orleans) ruling said that an 18 year old is an adult and carries adult rights. That was in reference to the Texas law on issuing a license to carry a handgun in public for people 21 and older. So Texas has had to start issuing carry licenses to 18 year olds. Like other rulings that I’m aware of, those rights do not extend to a person who is not an adult under United States law, under 18. While some rights such as free-speech are protected for children, others are not. As another example of this is that the Fourteenth Amendment requires equal protection and due process. A 14 year old can be denied the right to sign a contract however so he isn’t included in all “equal protection”. Therefore the issue of a 14 year old carrying a machine gun or any firearm is not a constitutional issue in my opinion. Even under federal law people often state that an 18-20 year old person cannot buy a handgun but that is incorrect. Under both state and federal law an 18-year-old can purchase a firearm in front of a police officer or ATF agent. The federal government, probably through the interstate commerce clause, doesn’t allow federal licensed gun dealers to sell a handgun to an 18 year old however such sales are not banned from a private person to person sale. So again an 18 year old is considered an adult and can purchase and possess handguns but a person under 18 is not included. The 18 year old adult simply can’t buy one from a federally licensed dealer. So there are some restrictions under both state and federal law for some firearms laws which are constitutional. As the Supreme Court ruled in Heller, McDonald and most recently (2022) in Bruen, the Second Amendment protects the right of adults to obtain (keep) and carry (bear) arms but did not extend that right to minors or children.

Non-violent, yes. Scenario 1: Man assaulted his neighbor and gave him a black eye. He got probation. A year later he assaulted neighbor again and this time busted his nose. He got a month in the county jail for another misdemeanor assault. Two years later, he busted the neighbor’s lip. He got the maximum sentence of a year in jail for another misdemeanor assault. Scenario 2: A 17 year old sneaks out his mama’s credit card and runs up $150 on the card. Mama is struggling and can’t pay restitution and the store filled charges for Credit Card Abuse. The 17 year old can never legally own or possess a firearm. The guy who terrorizes his neighborhood and on occasion beats up a neighbor, causing painful and visible injuries, has no such restrictions on ownership or possession of a firearm. With nothing else to go on, who is the threat to the neighborhood? Is it a 17-year-old kid living at home who basically stole his mother's money by way of a credit card or is the guy who terrorizes his neighborhood and occasionally assaults someone? The kid who used his mama’s credit card without permission is a felon and the guy who repeatedly assaults his neighbors is not.

Okay. That is a good argument. There is no law prohibiting the stocks and the Supreme Court was correct by the letter of the law and Constitution but citizens should refuse to buy them. If every person voluntarily turned theirs in and refused to buy any, I am okay with it. It won’t stop the willing from anything however.

Some drugs to keep him awake and a tiny receiver/ hearing aid where he will be fed the answers….. Ask anything and his handlers will give him the answer. It will be like a silent and invisible teleprompter.

With a legal suppressor attached. We can’t stop evil people, much less with those who have time to plan.

Not as fast but pretty darn quick but skip that as nearly meaningless. You continue to ignore the questions that you don’t like however. Deflection is admitting that you have no argument. Should people go to jail for something that isn’t a crime? Should the Supreme Court base its decisions on the Constitution and the law or emotions? Does anyone believe there is a right to slaughter kids? If Congress passes a law banning bump stocks, so be it. Remember that in this decision the Supreme Court didn’t overturn machine gun laws, they only correctly and unemotionally ruled that a bump stock doesn’t fit the definition as provided by Congress. It comes down to the fact that the Congress didn’t pass a law that covered bump stocks. I understand that you are displeased. You could have reduced your statements to, “I don’t like that law”. So much more simple.

Out of all of your comments, this might be the most ridiculous; “fight for the right to slaughter kids”. Please point out anyone who believes there is a “right to slaughter kids”… and you call other people nuts? You still don’t answer the questions and go back to emotions. Should people be arrested for something that isn’t a crime? Should the Supreme Court ignore the Constitution in favor of emotions? Would a ban on bump stocks have prevented any crime?