Liberal Double Standards ....

[My I]

.... are SERIOUSLY getting on my nerves...

Since WHEN, In The UNITED STATES of AMERICA, is it CONSTITUTIONAL to say a person is GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT????

 

[LincolnDuncan]

.... are SERIOUSLY getting on my nerves...

Since WHEN, In The UNITED STATES of AMERICA, is it CONSTITUTIONAL to say a person is GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT????

When you convicted Hillary Clinton

 

[My I]

Double standards and LIES.

 

[My I]

When you convicted Hillary Clinton

I didn't do that. She did that herself. And she IS going down. Because she is a piss poor liar and keeps getting caught in it, then blames someone else.

 

[Veroe]

Would it surprise you to know I'm also concerned about this red flag law as well. It'd be more accurate to say I have mixed feelings on it though. I agree in the case the guy brought up in Vermont it was a good thing stopping another parkland or Sandyhook from terrorizing our schools. But I worry over the infringement of a person's rights it can cause or they way the ACLU says it could be abused on African Americans.

I'm undecided about how I feel on it.

 

[My I]

Would it surprise you to know I'm also concerned about this red flag law as well. It'd be more accurate to say I have mixed feelings on it though. I agree in the case the guy brought up in Vermont it was a good thing stopping another parkland or Sandyhook from terrorizing our schools. But I worry over the infringement of a person's rights it can cause or they way the ACLU says it could be abused on African Americans.

I'm undecided about how I feel on it.

When you are unsure of which way to go, look at it and see what makes sense. Is it RIGHT, under ANY circumstances to say that a person is guilty until proven innocent? Our Constitution protects us from that. The BURDEN of PROOF is on the ACCUSER.

If we allow this then ANYONE can say, "I saw him out in his yard ranting like a mad man." and his rights are taken away. Do you support that?

 

[LincolnDuncan]

I didn't do that. She did that herself. And she IS going down. Because she is a piss poor liar and keeps getting caught in it, then blames someone else.

You should discuss with a medical professional if medication would help you.

 

[My I]

You should discuss with a medical professional if medication would help you.

You should discuss with a medical professional if all that dope you smoke is good for you.

See, I know you're just trying to provoke anger in me. Not gonna work. I put you on ignore a year ago for a reason. But I decided to give you a second chance, New Year and all. And you're still a dumbass. So for the rest of the year I'll be ignoring you again.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

You should discuss with a medical professional if all that dope you smoke is good for you.

See, I know you're just trying to provoke anger in me. Not gonna work. I put you on ignore a year ago for a reason. But I decided to give you a second chance, New Year and all. And you're still a dumbass. So for the rest of the year I'll be ignoring you again.

Man, my second chance and I blew it.

I hate to blow up your ego, but I'm hardly aware of you.

 

[dan_c00000]

I didn't do that.

You do know everything in that Clinton Cash book was a lie and Roger Stone is going to go to jail, right? Do you also understand that Trump your Orange Nazi hero committed treason to win the election? When are you going to call for them to go to jail?

 

[10NadNuder]

.... are SERIOUSLY getting on my nerves...

Since WHEN, In The UNITED STATES of AMERICA, is it CONSTITUTIONAL to say a person is GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT????

Many courts in the country...

Cities are facing budget issues, meaning they can pay less officers, so the first person to get arrested for a crime is usually charged & maybe even convicted. That way, they needn't apply a new set of officers to the same case.

 

[My I]

Double standards and lies on the border

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Any that begins with "The Democrat's progressive political theatre ..." speaks for itself.

Not a valid post if you want to have a real conversation.

 

[Veroe]

When you are unsure of which way to go, look at it and see what makes sense. Is it RIGHT, under ANY circumstances to say that a person is guilty until proven innocent? Our Constitution protects us from that. The BURDEN of PROOF is on the ACCUSER.

If we allow this then ANYONE can say, "I saw him out in his yard ranting like a mad man." and his rights are taken away. Do you support that?

You present a hypothetical of what may happen. Yes it is concerning but is not currently happening now not with these laws yet. But the case in Vermont the guy in the video brought up was something that has happened or rather was stopped from happening by this red flag law.

While I have my concerns over confiscation of anyone's firearms and the suspension of their constitutional rights, I'm by no means a NRA gaslighted dupe. And since I can't have sensible background checks or the closing of the gun show loophole or even a ban on selling military grade firearms to just anyone...I'm leaning towards I'll accept it.

 

[My I]

You present a hypothetical of what may happen. Yes it is concerning but is not currently happening now not with these laws yet. But the case in Vermont the guy in the video brought up was something that has happened or rather was stopped from happening by this red flag law.

While I have my concerns over confiscation of anyone's firearms and the suspension of their constitutional rights, I'm by no means a NRA gaslighted dupe. And since I can't have sensible background checks or the closing of the gun show loophole or even a ban on selling military grade firearms to just anyone...I'm leaning towards I'll accept it.

Sensible background checks? The Liberals demanded that YEARS ago and the NRA and Lawful gun owners capitulated. Why? Because we know that we are lawful in our gun ownership. I pass FAR more stringent background checks every year. You HAVE sensible background checks.

But then the Liberals shoot themselves in the foot with it. Liberal policies prevent disturbed teenagers from being reported to the authorities in order to protect their RIGHTS and prevent them having their future ruined.

Nikolas Cruz' RIGHTS were protected. He was not reported to the NICS. Therefore there was nothing in the database to STOP him from purchasing a firearm, DESPITE dozens of calls to the Cruz home by Broward Co Sheriffs Deputies. DESPITE dozens of in school violent outbursts. DESPITE his being diagnosed by a psychiatrist as being a violent threat to himself and others and being prescribed mind altering drugs.

NRA? They had NOTHING to do with that shooting. Or ANY other mass shooting. How many mass shooters were members of the NRA? NONE. NOT ONE. It wasn't the NRA that enabled these wack jobs to obtain a gun and shoot up schools, concerts and movie theaters. It was LIBERAL policies.

Gun show loophole??? LIBERAL LIE.

You STILL have to go through the same background check at a gunshow as you do at a gun store. You cannot purchase a gun from a gunshow vendor in a state you are not a resident of. Don't believe it? Try it. I DARE you to go into ANY gunshow in America and try to purchase a firearm without a background check or showing out of state ID. If you are LUCKY you will simply be escorted of the premises. And there is a VERY good chance you will be speaking to a Law Enforcement Officer and might get a free ride downtown.

Straw man sales? Liberal media Hype. See above. It is already illegal to purchase a firearm for another person. PERIOD. Yes you can purchase one for a family member or a friend but it is a complicated procedure requiring BOTH of you to go through a background check. This I know first hand as I gifted a .22 rifle to my son this past Christmas.

The Liberal Media would have you believe it's easier to buy a gun than a candy bar. But the TRUTH is just the opposite.

And you want to allow ANYONE to make an accusation that IMMEDIATELY gets a persons rights and property STRIPPED from him without proof?

Stop taking your liberal run media at face value and check their facts. They are the biggest LIARS on the planet and they prey on the gullible and the stupid. Which do YOU want to be.

 

[My I]

What was his point again?

"...5 to 10 MILLION" ARs in this country. Truth is about 4.5 to 6 million. But a couple of whackos that were protected by Liberal policies shoot a bunch of people and suddenly anyone who owns one of these guns is a psychopath?

There are now over 9 million people in the USA that own firearms. There are enough firearms in this country to arm every single person in the USA. There is enough ammunition in this country to shoot every single person in the USA at least 8 times. If Lawful Gun Owners were the real problem in The United States of America....

YOU'D KNOW IT!!!​

Do something about the actual criminals and leave the innocent alone.

 

[10NadNuder]

Do something about the actual criminals and leave the innocent alone.

Translation: Remove himself from the office he never won in the first place.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

He made a stupid and unrealistic promise to his base for which he will feel embarrassment beyond belief far too humiliating for him to consider capitulation.

 

[10NadNuder]

He made a stupid and unrealistic promise to his base for which he will feel embarrassment beyond belief...

Outside of this barely being a blip on his radar compared to past events, that much could be written about Trump.

 

[NickStJohn]

×××××

 

[My I]

Exactly.

By the way, where in the U. S. Constitution does it say "innocent until proven guilty?"

Though the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. The case of Coffin v. United States (1895) established the presumption of innocence of persons accused of crimes.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.".

In any penal case it is the prosecution who bears the burden of proof and must prove guilt beyond a shadow of doubt. Go ask your lawyer.

 

[10NadNuder]

In any penal case it is the prosecution who bears the burden of proof and must prove guilt beyond a shadow of doubt. Go ask your lawyer.

That is the belief of many, much like innocent until proven guilty. However, much like the voting on "American Idol", the vast majority of Americans are likely unable to pay attention to the majority of cases, so people can be convicted without such burdens/standards being met.

 

[dan_c00000]

Though the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. The case of Coffin v. United States (1895) established the presumption of innocence of persons accused of crimes.

The U.S. Constitution was ratified and became law in 1789. That's over a hundred years before your case.

Someone should be really nice and purchase you a "Kids' Guide to U.S. History". I'm thinking about the 3rd grade level ought to do it for you.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

it never happened

there's no proof

o.k so there's proof but it's not illegal

o.k it's illegal but not if Trump does it

It's Obama's fault

 

[My I]

That is the belief of many, much like innocent until proven guilty. However, much like the voting on "American Idol", the vast majority of Americans are likely unable to pay attention to the majority of cases, so people can be convicted without such burdens/standards being met.

So show me YOUR evidence.