and ugly ass shoes

You were profiled not once but twice?

I have been profiled my whole life (hair color).

profiled once...long hair.
the first time was really stupid but no real harm done...though it could have affected my view of cops the rest of my life, young as I was I knew it was just these idiots.

Well peacock purple does attract some attention

Hater....

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6664640-Patrick-Mathews-Detention-Motion.html 

Apparently there was a white supremacist group that intended to start a shooting at the VA rally. FBI arrested them ahead of time.

Yes magical timing........the FBI is as pure as the wind driven snow.

As of 1/20/2020 they are still being debated.

Don’t recall the part about the rally, but I mostly skimmed the first 8 or so pages. That said, throw away the key and afford him due process. After, he’s afforded due process, find & melt the key.

"I like taking guns away early,...Take the guns first, go through due process second." - Donald Trump



I believe the one per month law would serve the purpose of limiting handgun purchase to one per month

---

But seriously, my argument isn't with the proponents, nor opponents of any of the legislation. My beef is with the hysterical misrepresentation of facts. By any one.

1) Don’t agree with Trump all the time.
2) I concur
3) Yep

As to gun rights/laws....I don't have any intention of arguing my thoughts with anyone.....no point...especially since I can't fully rationalize all of my own feelings on the subject....but here's some of my opinions, disjointed and contradictory they may be.

-My originalist thoughts on the 2nd Amendment are that it was primarily to prevent disarming the citizenry so that a future federal government can be overthrown if it gets too stupid

-The idea of anyone taking up arms against government today makes me think I'd be opposed to any of those kinds of groups thinking its a good idea

-So, maybe the whole idea of maintaining opportunity for anti-government militia is something I'm willing to risk losing

-I fully support limiting magazine sizes -- For crissakes, ducks facing my 12 ga. don't have to worry about me loading more than 3 shells....but NRA will fight to the death to defend the Dayton shooter's right to load up a 100 round double drum....really???? wtf

-I understand the difficulty in defining and differentiating, but I fully support trying to get to a place where what I consider to be 'assault style rifles' are more heavily regulated, if not outright outlawed. When not in the hands of criminally fd up people, they're little more than toys.

-I'm largely libertarian in my philosophy, so reconciling the above isn't easy for me

so.....that said, I don't really care enough one way or another to argue 2nd amendment much....I support looking for common sense answers (even regulatory) to gun violence....I also support facts and honest discussion over rhetoric and fake news

Except gun laws don’t work....so there’s that.

None of them?

Anthony, the ones that everyone was rallying about were struck.

All that was being debated were the ones dsteig identified. I don't agree with them (I'm fine with former felons having a gun) but they are not the insane ones which started the rally)

Also, I don't know what page it was but they specifically discussed bringing guns and ammo and "throwing firecrackers into the crowd" to get the shooting started. Dunno why they didn't just start the shooting themselves if they wanted that... Sounds like a stupid rationalization to defend their actions....

Nope

4% of gun deaths are long rifle.


ALL LONG RIFLES.......not just the scary “black” ones....ALL.

I think an obvious answer would be for SCOTUS to more narrowly define the right to bear arms. Unfourtunatly I do not think that necessarily would be a good answer. Is anyone capable of rendering a non biased, non political definition? I doubt it.

My thoughts are rather similar to Dave's. Common sense answers would be best. But I doubt we will ever reach agreement on what those answers should be.

Follow the constitution, yes of course, but is the constitution still applicable? Is either side entirely right or wrong? Of course not.

In truth in this day and age a well armed militia would need much more than guns.

The problem isn't what guns does the normal law abiding public have. It is any guns criminals and insane people have. Yet who should determine who is a criminal and who is insane? This becomes way to Orwellian for me. I don't want to be a safe lemming. I want to be a human being who has the ability to excersise free will.