testtest

Senator Marco Rubio Introduces Bill To Suspend Gun Rights of Anyone Who Has Been "Investigated" For Domestic Terrorism

BET7

BET7

Ronin
Founding Member
Seems like Senator Rubio is getting in on the "Domestic Terrorism" craze. In 2015 while running for President, he was against an almost identical bill that was proposed at that time. The NRA still has him with a A+ rating.

national-justice.com

Senator Marco Rubio Introduces Bill To Suspend Gun Rights of Anyone Who Has Been "Investigated" For Domestic Terrorism

Republican lawmaker Marco Rubio has reintroduced legislation that seeks to suspend the Second Amendment rights of any person who has been investigated for "terrorism" related offenses within 10 years of attempting a gun purchase. The Senate bill, named the Terror Intelligence Improvement Act...
national-justice.com national-justice.com
 
How is this guy even on people’s lips? Can you imagine if politics were like professional sports? This guy would be riding the pine on a AAA team somewhere in Honduras.
 
BET7 said:
Seems like Senator Rubio is getting in on the "Domestic Terrorism" craze. In 2015 while running for President, he was against an almost identical bill that was proposed at that time. The NRA still has him with a A+ rating.

national-justice.com

Senator Marco Rubio Introduces Bill To Suspend Gun Rights of Anyone Who Has Been "Investigated" For Domestic Terrorism

Republican lawmaker Marco Rubio has reintroduced legislation that seeks to suspend the Second Amendment rights of any person who has been investigated for "terrorism" related offenses within 10 years of attempting a gun purchase. The Senate bill, named the Terror Intelligence Improvement Act...
national-justice.com national-justice.com
Click to expand...
4FC8A181-D67A-49A1-B790-80766C12B9C3.jpeg
 
Bassbob said:
The bill is unconstitutional and would never stand up to SCORUS scrutiny. Rubio knows that. It’s politicking. Trying to cover his ass with the democrats.
Click to expand...
So riddle me this, Batman...if they're unconstitutional, why do we have red flag laws in multiple states, now?

The only difference is, this one requires the use of the amorphous term "terrorist" instead of a simple "they're dangerous and I don't like them and I think they could hurt me and they have guns in the house"...and it's federal, not local.
 
Peglegjoe said:
So riddle me this, Batman...if they're unconstitutional, why do we have red flag laws in multiple states, now?

The only difference is, this one requires the use of the amorphous term "terrorist" instead of a simple "they're dangerous and I don't like them and I think they could hurt me and they have guns in the house"...and it's federal, not local.
Click to expand...
We have red flag laws in multiple states, now, because multiple states have voted in liberal lawmakers.
Soon as enough of those voters start losing their individual liberties, wake up to what they’ve done, and Start to vote for their own best interests again, the nutty laws will get overturned.
Its the huge fallacy in liberal gov’t: Conservatives vote on principles, mostly. Liberals tend to vote on “causes”. If a liberal votes based on, say, a candidate’s environmental position, that liberal fails to realize he/she is getting a candidate that owes other lib causes support as well. You end up with the whole lib shebang and some of it sooner or later is gonna trample on a right you DO want to keep... Vote conservative and you at least tend to get a package that supports overall preservation of individual rights across the board - a smaller & less intrusive gov’t...
 
Last edited:
TidalWave said:
We have red flag laws in multiple states, now, because multiple states have voted in liberal lawmakers.
Soon as enough of those voters start losing their individual liberties, wake up to what they’ve done, and Start to vote for their own best interests again, the nutty laws will get overturned.
Click to expand...
The argument above, though, was "that will never happen, it's unconstitutional".

Guess what.

It HAS happened.

And if we aren't careful...it'll KEEP happening, until it's too late.

(if it's not already too late).
 
Peglegjoe said:
The argument above, though, was "that will never happen, it's unconstitutional".

Guess what.

It HAS happened.

And if we aren't careful...it'll KEEP happening, until it's too late.

(if it's not already too late).
Click to expand...
Well for starters Joe, red flag laws are enacted by states and counties, not the US Congress. States like NY and CA. Have enacted quite a few unconstitutional laws. Most of which were upheld by the ninth circuit and the SCOTUS wisely declined to hear the cases given the make up of the SC and justice Roberts having so far sided with the liberals every time. Even high capacity magazine bans were ruled unconstitutional by of all courts, the ninth circuit. I suspect red flag laws and high capacity mag bans and AR bans are going to be addressed by the SCOTUS very soon.
I digress. If the US Congress passes unconstitutional legislation it will be challenged. And the SCOTUS WILL be forced to rule on it. Which way do you think they will rule Joe?
 
These days?

I don't hold any hope that they'll actually follow the Constitution. The states don't. The Legislative branch doesn't. The Executive branch doesn't. So, why would the Judicial branch?

I hope they will...and it'll put an end to all this anti-gun crap once and for all...but given the track record for our nation's legal system at large lately I won't hold my breath. I do rest a bit easier knowing Kavanaugh and ACB are seated...but I also worry about "will this get heard before, or after, the Dems pack the court?".

We live in a nation that now stifles free speech, glorifies criminals and criminal behavior, punishes hard-working citizens, and has said in so many words that they want to fundamentally change the United States of America.

And people STILL put them in office.

Which way do I want them to rule, and which way do I expect them to rule...don't match, I'm sorry to say.
 
Peglegjoe said:
These days?

I don't hold any hope that they'll actually follow the Constitution. The states don't. The Legislative branch doesn't. The Executive branch doesn't. So, why would the Judicial branch?

I hope they will...and it'll put an end to all this anti-gun crap once and for all...but given the track record for our nation's legal system at large lately I won't hold my breath. I do rest a bit easier knowing Kavanaugh and ACB are seated...but I also worry about "will this get heard before, or after, the Dems pack the court?".

We live in a nation that now stifles free speech, glorifies criminals and criminal behavior, punishes hard-working citizens, and has said in so many words that they want to fundamentally change the United States of America.

And people STILL put them in office.

Which way do I want them to rule, and which way do I expect them to rule...don't match, I'm sorry to say.
Click to expand...
The fact that they declined to hear gun cases, knowing they could very well go the wrong way if they did, until they had a clear majority gives me some hope.
 
...unless the Dictator-In-Chief decides to pack the Court with yet another Executive Order...

I'm serious, and those of you who don't believe me, look it up and look at what he's doing these days.

Executive Branch is blatantly ignoring the Constitution of the United States of America.
Legislative Branch is blatantly ignoring the Constitution of the United States of America.
Big Tech is blatantly ignoring the Constitution of the United States of America.
Big Media is blatantly ignoring the Constitution of the United States of America.
Social Media is blatantly ignoring the Constitution of the United States of America.
...and, depressingly enough, the majority of the population of the United States, is blatantly ignoring the Constitution of the United States of America.

We are not in a good spot right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top