I respectfully disagree. A Twitter link allows me to go and participate in the fun. Twitter has never been profitable, so denying them some more funds is meaningless.
Convicted felons serving time in jail shouldn't have access to guns or any armaments for that matter. They'd shoot the guards and escape.
When they get out of jail, then we'll talk about them having their guns back.
Likewise, I believe there should always be a pathway for a law-abiding citizen to practice their rights, even if they were once a felon and no matter the crime. The first step to encouraging people to successfully reform is to offer them everything they had before they made whatever poor decisions led them to get convicted.
Remember, its KEEP and BEAR arms. That's actually two rights. The right to the property of a firearm as well as the right to use it. When you're in jail for something like a white-collar tax crime, you should only lose the right to BEAR arms. There's no reason to take away the right to KEEP arms.
But, if you're convicted of a crime with a deadly weapon, then yeah, take the guns away and give them back only when the person proves they are reformed. Finally, let States decide when that will be, not the Federal Government.
Is this a nuanced approach? Sure, but I can be Hyper-Pro-2A and against certain people having guns at the same time. For instance, I don't think the Federal Government outside the military should be able to practice their 2A right to bear arms. Effectively, I would have it so the FBI and CIA shouldn't have access to firearms unless they are working in conjunction with State or Foreign police.
Well yeah in jail they don't have guns. You may not want a felon to have a gun but technically, on the street, they're entitled to self defense too. If someone has proven they are dangerous with a gun, put em away and throw away the key, they don't deserve to walk among the free. There are many felons who have never assaulted anyone and aren't dangerous, you know like dwi felons. It's ridiculous they lose their right to carry because of a traffic ticket.
I understand where you're coming from, but your stance has no meat to include in the rule of law.
You need hard limits, definitions, terms, and classes for who can and can't have a gun.
I agree, only violent felons who have been convicted should have their guns taken away.
But you have to specify -- who decides "If someone has proven they are dangerous with a gun"?
Red Flag Laws say anyone who says mean things online has proven they are too dangerous with a gun. So now we need to specify what "dangerous with a gun" means as well as "too dangerous with a gun."
That's why this crap is difficult legally.
Even people who aren't felons should have certain restrictions to their 2A rights. For example, I'm pretty sure everyone wouldn't want someone swinging around a gun at a playground crawling with kids.
Does the charge of Recklessness mean he gets his gun taken away? I mean, it can be a felony, but he didn't kill anyone or intend to kill anyone, he was just reckless, so... Should he still keep his gun even if he is convicted?
I know I'm splitting hairs here, but that's the gist. Once you say "everyone should have guns all the time for any reason" it begins a long train of "but what about X, and what about Y, and what about Z"?
My stance is the simplest I can see to resolve that never-ending train of exceptions, particularly this one:
If the Government decides what a felony is, then can't they just charge me with a felony for some BS charges and then take my guns away? Since I'm a convicted felon, doesn't that mean I never can get my guns back, even if I was wrongly convicted?
That's why I think no matter what your crime was, there should be an avenue to get back the rights that you lost because of your conviction.
The way that the current red flag laws are being used/written goes against another constitutional right to face your accuser. That and the thousands of dollars that will be spent on attorney fees in an attempt to recover any weapons that were taken under the guise of red flag laws.
For me personally, "shall not be infringed" means just that. The fact that the government is aware of each and every firearm that has been legally purchased is a crime in and of itself. The PA state police keep their own version of NIC system called PIC system which is beyond flawed and also another illegal gun registry and PA's version of the 2nd amendment is worded even stronger than the US Constitution's: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." and yet the PA legislators do their damnedest to overrule it. To complicate matters even further, the PA Game Commission has rules and regulations that contradict one another and the Constitution and they can pick and choose which regulation to use to suit their needs. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what the game commission does but the contradictory rules are a joke.
When you restrict one person, others lose their rights as well. Keep in mind that the red flag laws and all other ploys are nothing more than gun confiscation and the disarmament of the American people. We either have God-given rights or we do not. Which is it?
We either have God-given rights or we do not. Which is it?
Does someone in jail have the ability to exercise all their rights?
No?
That means rights can be taken away or restricted.
The Court's sole purpose is to ensure only those who are guilty of a crime have their rights restricted while innocent law-abiding citizens do not have their rights restricted.
You give up your rights when you infringe the rights of another person. That is the necessary, Lawful remedy in favor of the person whose rights you infringed.
A Legal matter only pertains to offences that did not deprive another person of their rights, but did do calculable damage to their property or broke a policy contract you agreed upon. Legal matters should only result in incarceration if no other remedy, be it financial or actionable, is possible. (This is highly abused by our system, mind you.)
A Lawful matter pertains to the infringement of another's rights, and nearly always involves depriving the offenders rights, up to and including their right to property, ability to move freely, and even life. If you steal something, then they can take it back. If you restrict someone's movement, your movement can be restricted. If you kill someone, then we have authority to kill you back.
In the case of incarceration, one must serve their sentence in order to reclaim the rights they had forfeited.
Police Officers shouldn't be able to arrest you, only detain. This is a gross misuse of their powers. Police Officers are POLICY OFFICIALS given authority to ENFORCE POLICY.
They are over-glorified mall cops, enforcing the policies of the mall. The only authority to arrest is given to them by the Sheriff once he Deputizes them.
Only the Sheriff, an elected official, and his deputies should have the ability to arrest an individual indefinitely.
This is how it was set up for the longest time. What we have now is a Corporate Global Entity able to incarcerate people for LEGAL offenses, not LAWFUL offenses.
To put it plainly -- We currently live in a system where people regularly go to jail for traffic violations of a POLICY/ POLITICAL nature that does not infringe upon the rights of another. This indirectly grants Political Systems rights. This is profane, but it's what is going on.
If you want "Shall Not Be Infringed" to mean anything, we need to dismantle this obscene overreach by the Government and Political entities.
Convicted felons serving time in jail shouldn't have access to guns or any armaments for that matter. They'd shoot the guards and escape.
When they get out of jail, then we'll talk about them having their guns back.
You forgot to put "Kidding aside,..." after that. Please tell us you don't actually think the anon was actually advocating letting felons serving time in jail have guns. Nobody is that stupid. Are they?
What happens if claiming the election was stolen becomes a felony crime? What happens if visiting evil russian Qannon disinformation sites is a felony crime? What happens if it is considered domestic terrorism or even treason? Just stick with "shall not be infringe" staying "shall not be infringed" instead of trying to justify only the people you don't like losing their God given rights.
I think everyone should be able to Constitutionally carry--no permit, just carry the weapon and use it as needed. That may be worn openly instead of concealed. Kind of like the old west shows.
That seems to me to be a correct statement. I suggested we be like the western TV shows where you openly wear and carry. If you notice, especially in Maryland, I see a lot of plain clothes policemen with their weapons being worn openly and their badge being in very close proximity to their weapon, When I say plain clothes, I mean in shorts, wearing khakis and pullover shirts (no police insignia), and sometimes in a shirt and tie with dress pants. I don't think police should be able to do this unless all citizens are allowed to openly wear and carry. Who can tell the difference if they have their back to you and you see, on their right or left side, a handgun? Very bad professionalism on the police officers--in my estimation.
Every one of the commenters that I recognized who they are, more than likely live in gated communities and have ARMED security, many of them at tax payer expense - they only want US disarmed and defenseless.
You are free to move to a country where people are not allowed to have guns, so until then STFUP about complaining about people having the right to bear arms
Lawless liberals. It is interesting that everybody, and I mean everybody must abide by Supreme Court rulings liberals like, but if the court issues a ruling they don't like, all bets are off. The court suddenly becomes irrelevant. People like Mr. Olbermann aren't interested in justice or the rule of law. They are only interested in getting what they or their dark masters want.
Why hasn't his door being knocked down by the FBI for advocating harm against the republic? For being a domestic enemy of the Constitution? At the very least he should be roughly questioned. Lawless, worthless, and bad, but it won't last. God is exposing evil, Mr. Olbermann, and it is going to be thorough. Are there any skeletons safely tucked away in your closet? Be sure they will come rattling out into the street, and you will answer for every bone.
Every one of those blue checks melting down and threatening insurrection and violence should all be reported under the same red flag laws they so vehemently support.
I'm upset about the ruling today as well. There should be no licensing process by the states to carry a concealed weapon of any kind. But Bret Kavanaugh made sure to stand against that in a previous case.
"Shall issue" is certainly better than "may issue", but "Shall issue" is still an infringement of my rights.
Keith Olbermann is completely crazy, If you've ever watched him on video, you know he's one of the best examples of someone with anger management problems.
It was fun reading, but I'm kinda depressed at how many stupid people there appears to be in this country. These are media elites and they are totally clueless about how thus country works.
It is going to be a pleasure and a treat to watch Keith Olbermann go insane on his broadcasts as the Q crew batten down the hatches, same with Rachel Maddow. Its going to be a really biggg Showww.
"Be afraid. Be very afraid." One comment called for everyone to not visit the US. I'm thinking...ok, tell that to the ones invading our Southern Border.
If you want more just read the twitter replies to this tweet. Gee they were ok with the Supreme Court when everything was going their way. Sore losers.
Seriously, report every liberal who complains under whatever "Red Flag" laws exist. They are erratic, irrational, and have anger-management issues. Frequent explosions in public make you fear for their safety.
It is so pathetic that so many people say “if abortion is left up to the states then why isn’t concealed carry being left to the states!?!”
Abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, certainly not as a right, and thus that issue rightly falls to the states. Gun ownership is specifically addressed in the 2A and thus is not to be left to the states because it is meant as a Right for all citizens.
How do none of these people know how the Constitution/Federalist system operate, even on a general level?
True Colors really come out when you hear Piers Morgan saying, "Americans" this... "Americans" that... Complaining about our second amendment.
He talks that way, as if he is a part of this country, but he knows he's not. And his concern that our country is making it "easier" for us to own a gun, tells me....
That he is A FORIEGN FAGGOT that thinks he can call the shots in a country that isn't even his.
Fuck You Piers Morgan.
You Yankee Fuckfart.
He's probably being fitted for his Red Coat right damn now.
I really hate the crown.
I don't hate much, but the British Crown is one of THE WORST entities to scourge the face of this Earth.
I know guns are safe. Like seriously, let them try to disarm America. But these fags that are talking massive shit, daaaaaaaang it makes me wanna (fill in blank).
Nitter link: https://nitter.net/AuronMacintyre/status/1539992645635915776
Let's get back to using Nitter Links again, guys!
Replace "twitter.com" with "nitter.net".
I respectfully disagree. A Twitter link allows me to go and participate in the fun. Twitter has never been profitable, so denying them some more funds is meaningless.
That's not what its about at all.
https://nitter.net/about
Regardless, it still makes it harder for me to follow a Twitter link and participate in the fun.
Edit: there's literally a thread right now talking about Q using us to bring the fight to them. Q post 4511. That's why I want a Twitter link.
I'm not sure what you mean, everything seems to load fine for me.
People's privacy on this site takes priority, you know? Efficiency is the icing on the cake.
You can always swap back from "nitter.net" to "twitter.com".
What about the girls??? Askin' for a friend!!!
goils too!
Boy... And they're all wrong.
This doesn't mean Universal Conceal Carry.
It just means the State can't make special rules for who can and can't get a Conceal Carry License.
You still gotta get the License.
Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of Universal Conceal Carry for non-felons, but hot damn they are just off base sperging right now.
Shall NOT be infringed. Gun ownership shouldn’t be restricted to non-felons (or to over 18s for that matter).
Legally, that can't work.
Convicted felons serving time in jail shouldn't have access to guns or any armaments for that matter. They'd shoot the guards and escape.
When they get out of jail, then we'll talk about them having their guns back.
Likewise, I believe there should always be a pathway for a law-abiding citizen to practice their rights, even if they were once a felon and no matter the crime. The first step to encouraging people to successfully reform is to offer them everything they had before they made whatever poor decisions led them to get convicted.
Remember, its KEEP and BEAR arms. That's actually two rights. The right to the property of a firearm as well as the right to use it. When you're in jail for something like a white-collar tax crime, you should only lose the right to BEAR arms. There's no reason to take away the right to KEEP arms.
But, if you're convicted of a crime with a deadly weapon, then yeah, take the guns away and give them back only when the person proves they are reformed. Finally, let States decide when that will be, not the Federal Government.
Is this a nuanced approach? Sure, but I can be Hyper-Pro-2A and against certain people having guns at the same time. For instance, I don't think the Federal Government outside the military should be able to practice their 2A right to bear arms. Effectively, I would have it so the FBI and CIA shouldn't have access to firearms unless they are working in conjunction with State or Foreign police.
Well yeah in jail they don't have guns. You may not want a felon to have a gun but technically, on the street, they're entitled to self defense too. If someone has proven they are dangerous with a gun, put em away and throw away the key, they don't deserve to walk among the free. There are many felons who have never assaulted anyone and aren't dangerous, you know like dwi felons. It's ridiculous they lose their right to carry because of a traffic ticket.
I understand where you're coming from, but your stance has no meat to include in the rule of law.
You need hard limits, definitions, terms, and classes for who can and can't have a gun.
I agree, only violent felons who have been convicted should have their guns taken away.
But you have to specify -- who decides "If someone has proven they are dangerous with a gun"?
Red Flag Laws say anyone who says mean things online has proven they are too dangerous with a gun. So now we need to specify what "dangerous with a gun" means as well as "too dangerous with a gun."
That's why this crap is difficult legally.
Even people who aren't felons should have certain restrictions to their 2A rights. For example, I'm pretty sure everyone wouldn't want someone swinging around a gun at a playground crawling with kids.
Does the charge of Recklessness mean he gets his gun taken away? I mean, it can be a felony, but he didn't kill anyone or intend to kill anyone, he was just reckless, so... Should he still keep his gun even if he is convicted?
I know I'm splitting hairs here, but that's the gist. Once you say "everyone should have guns all the time for any reason" it begins a long train of "but what about X, and what about Y, and what about Z"?
My stance is the simplest I can see to resolve that never-ending train of exceptions, particularly this one:
That's why I think no matter what your crime was, there should be an avenue to get back the rights that you lost because of your conviction.
The way that the current red flag laws are being used/written goes against another constitutional right to face your accuser. That and the thousands of dollars that will be spent on attorney fees in an attempt to recover any weapons that were taken under the guise of red flag laws.
For me personally, "shall not be infringed" means just that. The fact that the government is aware of each and every firearm that has been legally purchased is a crime in and of itself. The PA state police keep their own version of NIC system called PIC system which is beyond flawed and also another illegal gun registry and PA's version of the 2nd amendment is worded even stronger than the US Constitution's: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." and yet the PA legislators do their damnedest to overrule it. To complicate matters even further, the PA Game Commission has rules and regulations that contradict one another and the Constitution and they can pick and choose which regulation to use to suit their needs. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what the game commission does but the contradictory rules are a joke.
When you restrict one person, others lose their rights as well. Keep in mind that the red flag laws and all other ploys are nothing more than gun confiscation and the disarmament of the American people. We either have God-given rights or we do not. Which is it?
Does someone in jail have the ability to exercise all their rights?
No?
That means rights can be taken away or restricted.
The Court's sole purpose is to ensure only those who are guilty of a crime have their rights restricted while innocent law-abiding citizens do not have their rights restricted.
Angels point is right on. No meat? Angel clearly said you leave them in prison if theybare violent. Don't let them walk among the free.
You are dead wrong.
A bunch of you would get eaten alive in court.
Here, I'll prove it.
You give up your rights when you infringe the rights of another person. That is the necessary, Lawful remedy in favor of the person whose rights you infringed.
A Legal matter only pertains to offences that did not deprive another person of their rights, but did do calculable damage to their property or broke a policy contract you agreed upon. Legal matters should only result in incarceration if no other remedy, be it financial or actionable, is possible. (This is highly abused by our system, mind you.)
A Lawful matter pertains to the infringement of another's rights, and nearly always involves depriving the offenders rights, up to and including their right to property, ability to move freely, and even life. If you steal something, then they can take it back. If you restrict someone's movement, your movement can be restricted. If you kill someone, then we have authority to kill you back.
In the case of incarceration, one must serve their sentence in order to reclaim the rights they had forfeited.
Police Officers shouldn't be able to arrest you, only detain. This is a gross misuse of their powers. Police Officers are POLICY OFFICIALS given authority to ENFORCE POLICY.
They are over-glorified mall cops, enforcing the policies of the mall. The only authority to arrest is given to them by the Sheriff once he Deputizes them.
Only the Sheriff, an elected official, and his deputies should have the ability to arrest an individual indefinitely.
This is how it was set up for the longest time. What we have now is a Corporate Global Entity able to incarcerate people for LEGAL offenses, not LAWFUL offenses.
To put it plainly -- We currently live in a system where people regularly go to jail for traffic violations of a POLICY/ POLITICAL nature that does not infringe upon the rights of another. This indirectly grants Political Systems rights. This is profane, but it's what is going on.
If you want "Shall Not Be Infringed" to mean anything, we need to dismantle this obscene overreach by the Government and Political entities.
Angel, I'm with you.
You forgot to put "Kidding aside,..." after that. Please tell us you don't actually think the anon was actually advocating letting felons serving time in jail have guns. Nobody is that stupid. Are they?
Judges, Lawyers, and Lawmakers are absolutely that stupid.
If it isn't written in the letter of the law, it doesn't exist to them.
You have to spell things out CLEARLY and with no loopholes someone can exploit.
Common sense DOES NOT EXIST inside a courtroom.
Lol nobody is that stupid….hellooo 2020
Your posts are always a pleasure, sleepydude.
If a person who did their time is to violent to trust with a gun, then they didnt do enough time.
If they are a murderer, they likely should be put to death instead of released into the public with a bunch of weak rules.
Correct...and not to mention I thought "they" were all for the courts making "laws." Guess Kieth doesn't think Roe v Wade should be enforced...
What happens if claiming the election was stolen becomes a felony crime? What happens if visiting evil russian Qannon disinformation sites is a felony crime? What happens if it is considered domestic terrorism or even treason? Just stick with "shall not be infringe" staying "shall not be infringed" instead of trying to justify only the people you don't like losing their God given rights.
sperging????
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Sperging%20out
Kek, pretty much like listening to Jen Psaki or her replacement or Camela Harris or pretty much everybody in the Xiden admin!
I think everyone should be able to Constitutionally carry--no permit, just carry the weapon and use it as needed. That may be worn openly instead of concealed. Kind of like the old west shows.
But the concealed requirement would change your right to choose how to bear…no restrictions in the 2A wording.
That seems to me to be a correct statement. I suggested we be like the western TV shows where you openly wear and carry. If you notice, especially in Maryland, I see a lot of plain clothes policemen with their weapons being worn openly and their badge being in very close proximity to their weapon, When I say plain clothes, I mean in shorts, wearing khakis and pullover shirts (no police insignia), and sometimes in a shirt and tie with dress pants. I don't think police should be able to do this unless all citizens are allowed to openly wear and carry. Who can tell the difference if they have their back to you and you see, on their right or left side, a handgun? Very bad professionalism on the police officers--in my estimation.
No it means carry….you can’t “bear” an arm that’s home in your safe.
Yes and look at all the idiots complaining about it. Everyone of them should become a victim of a crime and then see if their opinion changes.
Sadly it wouldn't. They are too far gone.
Yeah, they are literally insane. These people are too far gone. Deceived by satan and his demons to the point where they have reprobate minds.
4-6% lost forever…
4 + 6 %
Minimum
Prolly more like 46%. No need for the hash.
Every one of the commenters that I recognized who they are, more than likely live in gated communities and have ARMED security, many of them at tax payer expense - they only want US disarmed and defenseless.
You are free to move to a country where people are not allowed to have guns, so until then STFUP about complaining about people having the right to bear arms
Lawless liberals. It is interesting that everybody, and I mean everybody must abide by Supreme Court rulings liberals like, but if the court issues a ruling they don't like, all bets are off. The court suddenly becomes irrelevant. People like Mr. Olbermann aren't interested in justice or the rule of law. They are only interested in getting what they or their dark masters want.
Why hasn't his door being knocked down by the FBI for advocating harm against the republic? For being a domestic enemy of the Constitution? At the very least he should be roughly questioned. Lawless, worthless, and bad, but it won't last. God is exposing evil, Mr. Olbermann, and it is going to be thorough. Are there any skeletons safely tucked away in your closet? Be sure they will come rattling out into the street, and you will answer for every bone.
He's got so many bones they should check his yard for mass graves.
Every one of those blue checks melting down and threatening insurrection and violence should all be reported under the same red flag laws they so vehemently support.
I'm upset about the ruling today as well. There should be no licensing process by the states to carry a concealed weapon of any kind. But Bret Kavanaugh made sure to stand against that in a previous case.
"Shall issue" is certainly better than "may issue", but "Shall issue" is still an infringement of my rights.
I see lots of anti-americans on there. They should leave and go to another land where they confiscate your guns should you have any.
I especially get a kick out of the Brits complaining.
We have the 2A specifically because of THEM.
Damn Tories never stop!
Keith Olbermann is completely crazy, If you've ever watched him on video, you know he's one of the best examples of someone with anger management problems.
u/#chips
u/#chips
It was fun reading, but I'm kinda depressed at how many stupid people there appears to be in this country. These are media elites and they are totally clueless about how thus country works.
I’m with you. It’s like nobody uses their brains anymore. They follow the path of least resistance.
Watching Blue Check's heads melt is fast becoming a national pastime.
Olberman is not in charge...
Oberfurerman. He's a modern day Nazi. Can you imagine if he was actually in a position of power? He wouldn't hesitate to send us all to the showers.
Dissolving the Supreme Court, like in acid? How many red flag laws have been violated?
I blame the meltdown on vaxes.
No, these clowns would rage even before the vax - most of them probably got saline anyway.
It is going to be a pleasure and a treat to watch Keith Olbermann go insane on his broadcasts as the Q crew batten down the hatches, same with Rachel Maddow. Its going to be a really biggg Showww.
Way back when, it was a law for every able bodied man in England to spend two hours every Sunday shooting his bow and arrow. To be ready for anything.
Priceless
"Be afraid. Be very afraid." One comment called for everyone to not visit the US. I'm thinking...ok, tell that to the ones invading our Southern Border.
u/#kek
If you want more just read the twitter replies to this tweet. Gee they were ok with the Supreme Court when everything was going their way. Sore losers.
Let's not joke about it anymore.
Seriously, report every liberal who complains under whatever "Red Flag" laws exist. They are erratic, irrational, and have anger-management issues. Frequent explosions in public make you fear for their safety.
It is so pathetic that so many people say “if abortion is left up to the states then why isn’t concealed carry being left to the states!?!”
Abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, certainly not as a right, and thus that issue rightly falls to the states. Gun ownership is specifically addressed in the 2A and thus is not to be left to the states because it is meant as a Right for all citizens.
How do none of these people know how the Constitution/Federalist system operate, even on a general level?
School Indoctrination is your answer.
True Colors really come out when you hear Piers Morgan saying, "Americans" this... "Americans" that... Complaining about our second amendment.
He talks that way, as if he is a part of this country, but he knows he's not. And his concern that our country is making it "easier" for us to own a gun, tells me....
That he is A FORIEGN FAGGOT that thinks he can call the shots in a country that isn't even his.
Fuck You Piers Morgan. You Yankee Fuckfart. He's probably being fitted for his Red Coat right damn now.
I really hate the crown. I don't hate much, but the British Crown is one of THE WORST entities to scourge the face of this Earth.
I know guns are safe. Like seriously, let them try to disarm America. But these fags that are talking massive shit, daaaaaaaang it makes me wanna (fill in blank).
#PiersIsGay
We have the 2A specifically because of Tories like Piers. They're stilled pissed we beat them 239 years ago!
They are the exact reason we even have the 2nd amendment. Good point!
They're mentally ill.
Yeah Keith, the breakdown of the rule of law will be terrific.
I wonder if my state should prorate a refund for the time remaining on my CPL? Sounds reasonable.
Man, those were painful to read.
Never ceases to amaze me how ignorant citizens are of the Constitution. (face palm)
The people will enforce it dumb ass
LOL
Lots of mad Semites
Good point Keith, we the people will enforce it for them.
The question is, how will you traitors stop we the people?
Crocodile tears!
Or Pedophile tears, lol
Keith Olberman. LOL.