He wants police to be able to act without fear of personal consequences when he asks them to break the law. Imagine if you were asked to roll up and grab protest leaders off the street. He wants to make that decision easier for officers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/17/portland-protests-federal-arrests/

Good, anti 2A laws should be struck down.

Yes that is certainly is the modern definition of regulate. But not at all how it was used when the founders wrote the constitution.

I’ll just place the same link here in case you didn’t read it last time.

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

Well regulated meant well supplied, trained and fully manned in the late 1700 when the constitution was written. I’d love to see local armories in every city with with ranges fully stocked with state supplied ammunition and firearms that are available to the public! Having a large healthy industrial base that can support this kind of roll out is key.

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

Reads like another sensational bullshit anti 2A hit piece.

I think most of the Republican base don’t consider this as a factor. To them everything would continue on as it is just better and with no liberals, LGBTQ, or minorities.

To the masses, Social Security checks would still flow, Medicaid would cover them when they are sick and disability checks would still come in the mail, roads would be maintained, mail would be delivered cheaply, stocks will remain trustworthy investments, food/water will be safe… Until the liberals are gone, then the funny starts.

The business interests think their regulations will disappear and profits will be made… never mind those other regulations that keep our banking system stable, the power on, and customers roaming around with money in their pockets to spend. For the unscrupulous businesses that will be true, but it will quickly look like the late 1800s with huge monopolies dominating everything… Until a dictator rises to power on the backs of the upset masses and it’s taken away…

But for the elites and the power hungry, they know better. They would rather rule in hell than than serve with angels. They see how a few have total control in Russia, China, NK, etc. They want it too, even if it means they would have no where safe to spend those riches.

I agree, Newsome would have been a good candidate. Hell there are half a dozen good candidates that are half Bidens age. If Dems loose, I agree they did it to themselves by letting Biden run again.

Sounds like we should pass another amendment guaranteeing access to driving…

As I stated in my original post there are a lot of things you can attack the NRA for. Firearm education and safety training is not one of them.

Obviously you’ve never attended a firearms safely course or marksmanship course. I’ve attended sessions with all of my children.

They never market fear and always seek to instill safety and marksmanship.

You can wring your hands, fear monger and try to build a false narrative all you want. But you are just like the right wing religious nut jobs who attack sex education. Like them you’re just hurting society by trying to keep people ignorant.

just like relig

The NRA is a organization that is funded by donations. I have no problem with them using those donations to promote safety and marksmanship.

I personally can’t fund the facilities that these activities take place in. Just like you most likely couldn’t fund a gymnasium or skate park. There are non profits who help provide funding for all these activities, 2A organizations are no different.

Without funding from the NRA those programs and facilities likely would not exist. I read this article for exactly what it is, a hit piece by anti 2A advocates to keep knowledge of firearms that does not fit their narrative from the public.

Even if the classes provide a public service and help save lives it doesn’t fit the “guns are bad Mckaaay” narrative they want to push.

This is such a bullshit article. Yeah the NRA is a terrible organization and there are a lot of reasons to attack them. But attacking the educational, gun safety and shooting sports programs that they offer or fund is complete bullshit and is detrimental to the public good.

This is like saying we shouldn’t offer driving classes because one day a student might get into an accident.

Correlation is not causation.

Sounds like they are going to get the government they voted for…

After the Obama administration both parties have taken hardline stances on China. Their theft of intellectual property, ignoring international law, massive subsidies of industries that target foreign economies, human rights abuses, wolf warrior diplomacy etc. etc. had proven that democracy wasn’t going to take root even when they were uplifted economically.

China has no friends in either party now and the reaction of the a potential Hillary Clinton administration in 2016 likely would have been the same.

The US has to brutalize and strangle China’s economy to bring them to the table and force change. There is no need to provide incentives to other Asian powers as China’s actions against their neighbors are enough to put them in the USA’s sphere of influence.

Well it is a Republican held congress. I thought their motto was “It isn’t worth doing unless you are fucking some underling over.”

No, but I did watch the most recent debate where she attacked the premise of the national abortion ban question rather than answering it.

Cudos to her if she would actually seek to reverse the TC&J act. But I consider it a strike against someone’s credibility when they side step a question rather than make their beliefs known.

Sleepy Joe dominated that cuck Trump in one election and has skull fucked the rest of the Republican congressional caucus.

Surprisingly they get sent to bed early with a hot toddy and a BJ.

Haley scares me the most out of all of them. The others fall all over themselves to say what they mean. She cloaks her beliefs in half statements just like W. did in the 00s.

Abortion is a good example, she knows it’s a loosing issue so she has taken the stance of attacking the idea that Republicans would have a large enough majority to ever pass a ban. She never states she wouldn’t sign a ban if it came across her desk.

The electorate won’t know who they voted for until she is in office.