Most people know that crime pays. In a poll of nearly 3,000 offenders for the Ministry of Justice, many made candid admissions about their attitudes to law and order, including one in eight who said they got excitement from committing crime. It came as Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary, highlighted separate research which showed prisoners admitted committing an average of 41 previous offences - most of which never led to them being caught or punished. If you are serving time in prison, on average you will have committed an astonishing 41 previous offences, said Mr Grayling. 'Crime pays' and it's fun, say crooks, By David Barrett, Home Affairs Correspondent, The Telegraph, 13 Jun 2013. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10119005/Crime-pays-and-its-fun-say-crooks.html Criminals are rarely caught. When caught they are rarely tried and convicted. When tried and convicted most criminals can avoid long prison sentences.
Filibuster will be how they keep their seats - - - Updated - - - We shall see. Any dem that votes for a GOP bill will be a marked man
I read The Art of the Deal shortly after he announced. If the Clintons had read it they would have seen this coming.
Trump without the support of his voters will lose the shield that is protecting him from the wrath of the corrupt bipartisan political class that hates his guts. Does anyone still believe Trump is foolish enough go for gun control nonsense and lose his base of support - instantly? Without Trump's coattails Toomey would have been bounced out of the Senate for his "Toomey/Manchin" national gun registry bill. Gun control legislation is the ultimate IQ test for every politician. It is the real third rail of politics.
And where has this statement been proven as being factually correct? Which ultimately has what relevance to the discussion? How does the matter of commerce play any part in matters pertaining to the second amendment? Which has what relevance to the discussion? Nuclear weapons are in no way remotely comparable to firearms. The only reason this is factual, is because it is codified into law that is a background check takes more than three business days to complete, the transaction may proceed. This was to insure that background checks were not indefinitely delayed by unscrupulous politicians and government workers, who would seek to restrict firearms through any method possible. The supreme court has said otherwise on matters pertaining to the first amendment. The firearms buyback program of the nation of Australia was not voluntary in any way. Anyone who did not surrender their registered firearms for destruction faced criminal prosecution and conviction for noncompliance. Why did she express a desire to have firearms manufacturers and federally licensed dealers held accountable for the criminal actions of individuals who illegally acquire firearms? If you are claiming the democratic party is above lying, cheating, and stealing, then you are demonstrating intellectual dishonesty on the matter.
Pray tell how so? Unless the matter goes before a jury, in which case they will be more likely to side with the accused, rather than the star witness who is a convicted criminal. Or the seller could simply report the firearm as being stolen five minutes after committing the sale, thus absolving them of responsibility on the matter. Or as the member BryanVA has said, they could simply state that the firearm must has been stolen, and that they had not seen it in quite some time. How would police officers go about discrediting his testimony, and why would they feel obligated to do such? If the person being sold to is not a prohibited individual, and thus can legally purchase a firearm, what reason would there be to investigate them, in order to find out whether or not the firearm was purchased with a background check? How would it even be proven that it was purchased after the effective date of the background check requirement being enacted? Beyond such, why would prosecutors bother tying up court dockets with such charges, when they will simultaneously refuse to prosecute individuals who knowingly commit perjury on the federal forms necessary for conducting a background check? Because such a requirement is easily subverted through a straw purchaser, meaning the one the firearm is sold to may be supplying it to someone who will indeed be using it to murder their estranged wife as you claim. If something is easily subverted, and the odds of prosecution are exceedingly rate, there is no legitimate purpose in bothering with it in the first place.
LOL remember vegas is the same guy who said....when Clinton wins. A 10 Senator pickup is entirely possible, I just hope Vegas keeps saying it's not.....track records aside
Unless Donald Trump owns stock in various firearms manufacturers. In which case he has a financial incentive to care about such matters.
You have had to eat your words about the election. And you will eat these words too. Dems have way more exposure in 2018 than republicans. If they do nothing, the repub majority will grow to where they will have a super majority. If you think you have a shot at passing anti gun legislation, you're delusional. They couldn't do it under Obama and now you think with a stronger executive, legislative and judicial branch hold that they can make it happen now. I think you want this so badly that you are willing to lie to yourself, and you are believing the lies.
A dem that doesn't play ball will not be getting any gun control legislation passed. Like you said, you gotta give to get.
You sure do manipulate and try to spin things to your liking, however, your logic leaves much to be desired.
LOL if republicans follow the Harry Reid plan that Obama applauded, of which I provided plenty of proof that it can be applied to legislation actions then the next 2 years could be very fruitful, I think I'll suggest that to my senators. You are welcome to provide proof it can't be applied to legislation, we all await with baited breath.....not Lol
He lied to himself about a Clinton win....any doubt he will lie to himself about a repub majority? - - - Updated - - - Yup and replaced by a republican....Good Call dude!
