The claim was made on the part of yourself. Therefore the obligation to present evidence to back up the claim is equally on the part of yourself. And it will be exceedingly difficult for yourself to present anything that is worse than Barack Obama treating legitimate reporters as one would treat criminals and designated enemy combatants.
So, you don’t know the difference do you. Are you the internet police now ? I just asked you a simple question. Do you not know the difference between federal, state and local laws and ordinances. It seems not if you have to ask.
It’s public record. “Since 1969, Republican presidential administrations have 121 criminal indictments and 89 convictions, while Democrats have had 3 and 1 respectively.” Now, tell us about the crimes of Obama and Hillary , and forget they have never been indicted of anything. Seriously, you never knew this. How much truth are you unaware of from Faux news. You had to ask ?
Your hero. From the mouths of babes and the idiot savant Trump. Trump admits to willingness to collude with foreign powers. President Donald Trump told ABC's Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos that if any foreign government had information about his opponents, he would 'take it'
Can a city ordinance be violated and ignored just as easily as a state law? If such is the case, then there is no meaningful difference made pertaining to which a restriction is. It does not matter if the firearm-related restrictions for the city of Chicago do not apply throughout the entire state of Illinois, as it makes no meaningful difference overall.
Have you done the research ? If you have, you should be able to answer that question for yourself. If you haven’t, you’re just trolling again. I’d be a little concerned that the common criminal actually knows these differences, and you don’t. But that doesn’t seem to prevent you guys from asking such obvious questions and then making unfounded assertions, all the while bragging about your expertise.
A common statement on the part of those who support greater firearm-related restrictions, is that the only way for such restrictions to have any effect is if they are federal law, and apply to the entire united states in an even and homogeneous manner. According to them any examples of deviance in this approach with the individual states and cities, no matter how small or how isolated the deviation of firearm-related restrictions may be, it will ultimately serve to undo the effectiveness of these firearm-related restrictions and allow them to be easily violated because of those who observe a different standard. Supporters of firearm-related restrictions themselves are admitting the laws at the local and state level serve no reason for existence because they are too easily violated. Therefore it does not matter whether a restriction is a state law or a city ordinance, as all are equally and easily violated.
Adolf Hitler was directly linked to the death of some six million individuals who the nation of Germany deemed to be undesirable. But despite this fact, despite all of the evidence against him, he was never convicted, nor even indicted in a court of law by those who were in a position to do such. Does such ultimately mean Adolf Hitler did not do anything wrong, and was actually innocent of the accusations against him? Or does it simply mean those who were in a position to do something about such at the time were just as corrupt as Adolf Hitler himself?
What a delusional analogy. You can avoid being convicted by committing suicide, in your mind it makes them innocent ? Keep pretending.
No, he opened up the US Constitution and read the 2nd Amendment. SCOTUS has no power over the Constitution, only under it. See Article III of the US Constitution.
There was sufficient opportunity for a criminal indictment to be had in the time leading up to the committing of suicide. Why did such not occur?
