The Supreme Court was stacked conservative justices BECAUSE in 2016 97 million people did not bother to vote.Or they voted for someone who had no chance of winning.Elections do have consequences Now imagine  if those 97 million voted for Hillary the court would be stacked with liberal justices correct so the only people responsibe for this are the American voting public.So if Hillary was elected she would have been able to place 3 liberal justices on the court and it would be 6 to 3 liberal court.

Hillary didn't win thats why there she would have placed liberals on court and we wouldn't be talking about his now. CORRECT

The error in Roe was made in 1973, when the court thought they were legislators instead of jurists. That has been the precedent for the past 49 years, but through the course of history, SCOTUS has overturned precedents 230 times. So what the court did was right. 5 justices analyzed the constitution, found nothing that applied specifically to abortion, and when something comes up that is not covered under the US constitution, it must be reverted back to the states. That's what the ruling does. What amazes me is that 3 justices did not consider the constitution at all, and the Chief Justice wanted to consider only the Mississippi case, and not Roe as a whole. We already have 535 Legislators; we don't need 9 more.
BTW, had McConnell not blocked Merrick Garland from a hearing and appointment to the Court, where would we be now. As AG, he is so incredibly biased toward the Democrat Agenda, he refuses to enforce the law unless it applies to Republicans, and the Progressive Socialists can do no wrong.

Big stretch about Garland being a moderate who you kidding. You are a master of research MyWar look him up he is a total political hack for the Democrats and progressives.You must also be using Biden Math even if he was on court and roberts being what you call wishy washy the result would have been the same. 

Bang Bang goes the USA. 7 More dead so far. 

Legally purchased weapon of war. Such a shame man. 

Porktown
Face tattoo should be part of the mental background check.

Yeah. I'd agree with that. Face tattoos tell me that that somebody is nuts. Jeezus!!! This is another mental case the local police had run into before, yet, he didn't raise anyone's eyebrows or suspicions. People that know folks like this shooter need to report it. Then, at least, if nothing gets done, it's not on them. They did their duty. These loners with 0 self-esteem delight in posting their crazy thoughts on social media, but still, it goes on.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Uh… I believe the 2A says “shall not be infringed”, not “shall not be infringed (unless you have face tattoos)”.

The Facebook live video of the shooting is nuts. Those shots are popping off so fast.

How about that nutjob senate candidate from Missouri that’s running the RINO hunting ads? Can we take his guns away? Or stop giving him any more attention? Or maybe at the very least, not vote for him?

I’d say crap like that is a pretty big part of the problem.

EMitch
Face tattoos tell me that that somebody is nuts.  

At the very least, it says "I don't give a F about society".    
 
He probably wasn't looking to join a well regulated militia, with intent to secure the free state.
 
Not that we should ever consider the part of the Constitution that says "well regulated" when we talk gun rights.  Most seem to only look at "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".  Why is this "well regulated" part considered "unconstitutional" by many, when regulations are brought up?  If you are part of a well regulated Militia, you should have the right to bear warplanes, missiles and others to ensure a free state.  That is exactly what the Constitution says.  If there were a war to break out right now and you had the choice of a 1776 cannon with unlimited cannon balls, a musket with unlimited rounds, or an AR-15 with unlimited ammunition, high capacity clips, bump stock, laser sight, and whatever modern day gadgets for it, which would you choose.  I bet there would be a good bit of 1776 cannons left in the pile and likely not one musket taken.
 
To me, it is a gray area of where the line needs to be drawn.  If we can't "bear tactical nukes" or "bear F-22 Raptors" or even "bear fully automatic fired weapons" without these not being "protected by" the Constitution, how is this modern technology "protected by" the Constitution?
 
Like MyWar said before.  The modern gun debate basically comes down to the acceptance of mass shootings if you think this modern weapons technology should not be "well regulated". 

Ya because an AR-15 is used for sport..🙄.
Murrica where life begins at conception and ends on the wrong side of a firearm. Life is so grand.

pensfan where does like begin after an abortion?????100 % fatal

ICE NUT
Just the one with the wacko white kid that again fell thru all of that states GUN laws that didn't prevent a darn thing.

The old “gun laws don’t work” routine eh? Are laws only useful if they are obeyed 100% of the time?

This guy committed murder too, do murder laws not work? So should we get rid of murder laws? Do we just throw our hands up in the air every time somebody gets murdered and say “see, murder laws don’t work!”?

Or how about if you ban abortion, women will just get back alley abortions, or travel out of state, or go to Mexico to get them. So then by that same logic, abortion laws don’t work. So why are conservatives on a crusade to pass abortion laws that won’t be obeyed 100% of the time?

Am I missing something? What is the logic here? Seems like it makes absolutely no sense.

BTW Ice, I don't mean for my comments to assume what you are thinking.  The "meant" and other comments are more general comments to what I have heard others say.  I am not looking to argue any of this.  This all should be open communication of ideas, not arguing.
 
To expand on what I said of flooding of the market, is exactly how those "tough gun laws" in Illinois, NY, DC and others, are still resulting in guns getting in the wrong hands.  These guys aren't going to Dunham's or Cabela's and buying AR-15's (although sounds like this recent nut job did and many of that type seem to do).  Most others are buying in WI, IN or from others that are smuggling into these areas.  Yes, breaking the law to do so.
 
I really don't know a solution, I don't think anyone does.  These mass shootings on innocent crowds involving these AR rifles is becoming much more frequent.  There needs to be clear acknowledgement from all of our leaders, no matter what the party, that these seem to be the weapon of choice.  Until that happens, it is exactly what MyWar said about people just needing to accept that a few mass killings of innocent people per year is worth it.

24 weeks is about the cutoff for survival rate, albeit less than 50% and very disabled, for a BABY. Anything earlier and a FETUS can not survive outside the womb. It's called science.

^^^^
As odd as you may find it, I can agree to your proposal because it is not, in my opinion, overreaching. But there needs to be one stipulation.

Just like those that know guns automatically dismiss those who don’t and make statements that are factually incorrect, like referring to a semi automatic modern sporting rifle as an assault weapon or weapon of war when they clearly by definition are not (think how much credence one would put into a sports discussion with someone who starts the conversation that the Pirates would have one if they just scored another touchdown in the 3rd period), so do gun people dismiss any new gun laws, which will place restrictions, how demanding remains to be seen, but restrictions nonetheless, when current, very basic gun laws already on the books are either not enforced or enforced in a judicious manner.

Case in point, before I would sign on to the above proposal, I want to see all, as in everyone, who violates Form 7743 be penalized to the fullest extent of the law.

Form 7743 is required when purchasing any gun from a retailer and for transfer of a handgun between any private individuals. Failure to answer the questions correctly, is an automatic rejection of the sale. Lying on the form is a federal offense.

Form 7743 is used by the retailer or FF license holder to do a background check on the soon to be purchaser. Depending on the size of the store, either a call is placed to law enforcement that then runs the check or through a kiosk that directly runs the check. It is a process that takes about 5 minutes (unless phone lines are busy with the call-in method).

Question #6, I believe, asks about drug use. Hunter Biden lied on the form for that question — he was not only discharged from the military due to drug use, but also wrote about his drug use at the time he answered “no” to that question on Form 7743. Why has he not been indicted?

This is one problem with proposing new gun laws — they old ones are not enforced, depending on who you are.

Further, I could get behind the proposal if the ATF were more efficient.

I wanted to purchase a suppressor — I like the noise reduction to protect my hearing (no it doesn’t silence centerfire rifles like in the movies, but reduced the db level below the harmful range); like the reduced recoil; and like the reduced muzzle flash at first and last light, a time when deer movement is high.

In order to purchase a suppressor, one needs a $200 tax stamp for a Class 3 license from the ATF. The application has two parts — a background check via Form 7743 and a FBI fingerprint check.

As mentioned earlier, a Form 7743 background check through a kiosk takes at most 5 minutes. The fingerprints are done electronically through the same kiosk. Since I have never been fingerprinted by law enforcement (using the kiosk was the first time), it would take milliseconds to determine that I’m not in the FBI database (think how many Google results are found in a fraction of a second). So why does it take 9-12 months to get the tax stamp, which is also electronic, from the ATF?