caryking said:

---

WolfpackUSC said:

---

barelypure said:

---

WolfpackUSC said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Why?

NEW: Senate votes 22-6 to ban local ‘red flag’ laws in Tennessee

Red flag laws allow law enforcement to remove firearms from a person who is deemed by a court to be a threat to themselves or others.

Under @TNGOP control, Tennessee is a leader in gun violence. pic.twitter.com/AqWqVQqbwz

— Tennessee Senate Democrats (@TNSenateDems) April 11, 2024

---

Related, but unrelated. I've mentioned it before, but all gun purchases should require a permit.

---

Should we be required to have a permit to exercise our freedom of speech?
How about our freedom of religion? Or secure in our homes?
What other rights would you give away to a despotic government to feel safe?

Now as to Red Flag laws I'm not necessarily against them. There does need to be proof that the person is a danger to themselves or others and not just someone fears they may do something because they own a gun.

I'd rather see the DAs stop making deals by taking the gun charges off in order to get a guilty plea. Is someone commits a crime and uses a gun that needs to be prosecuted. A convicted person deserves the right to have their full rights returned to them. But before that if a felon is picked up with a gun then that needs to be prosecuted.

Just like 1st offense non-violent crimes may deserve release with no bail. But violent crimes and repeat offenders need to be kept locked up with high bail amounts.

---

I'm only talking about guns here, which in some cases, already require a permit. You cannot take the 2nd amendment literally, or else any citizen could buy any weapon they please, fully auto weapons, anti-tank weapons, mortars, etc…

I just think everybody needs a permit to own one.

---

If it's not literal, then what would you ban? By the way, go look into Virginia law, back in the day. It was damn near mandatory to own a cannon. Also, machine guns were available back then as well. No permit required!

---

caryking said:

---

WolfpackUSC said:

---

barelypure said:

---

WolfpackUSC said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Why?

NEW: Senate votes 22-6 to ban local ‘red flag’ laws in Tennessee

Red flag laws allow law enforcement to remove firearms from a person who is deemed by a court to be a threat to themselves or others.

Under @TNGOP control, Tennessee is a leader in gun violence. pic.twitter.com/AqWqVQqbwz

— Tennessee Senate Democrats (@TNSenateDems) April 11, 2024

---

Related, but unrelated. I've mentioned it before, but all gun purchases should require a permit.

---

Should we be required to have a permit to exercise our freedom of speech?
How about our freedom of religion? Or secure in our homes?
What other rights would you give away to a despotic government to feel safe?

Now as to Red Flag laws I'm not necessarily against them. There does need to be proof that the person is a danger to themselves or others and not just someone fears they may do something because they own a gun.

I'd rather see the DAs stop making deals by taking the gun charges off in order to get a guilty plea. Is someone commits a crime and uses a gun that needs to be prosecuted. A convicted person deserves the right to have their full rights returned to them. But before that if a felon is picked up with a gun then that needs to be prosecuted.

Just like 1st offense non-violent crimes may deserve release with no bail. But violent crimes and repeat offenders need to be kept locked up with high bail amounts.

---

I'm only talking about guns here, which in some cases, already require a permit. You cannot take the 2nd amendment literally, or else any citizen could buy any weapon they please, fully auto weapons, anti-tank weapons, mortars, etc…

I just think everybody needs a permit to own one.

---

If it's not literal, then what would you ban? By the way, go look into Virginia law, back in the day. It was damn near mandatory to own a cannon. Also, machine guns were available back then as well. No permit required!

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

WolfpackUSC said:

---

barelypure said:

---

WolfpackUSC said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Why?

NEW: Senate votes 22-6 to ban local ‘red flag’ laws in Tennessee

Red flag laws allow law enforcement to remove firearms from a person who is deemed by a court to be a threat to themselves or others.

Under @TNGOP control, Tennessee is a leader in gun violence. pic.twitter.com/AqWqVQqbwz

— Tennessee Senate Democrats (@TNSenateDems) April 11, 2024

---

Related, but unrelated. I've mentioned it before, but all gun purchases should require a permit.

---

Should we be required to have a permit to exercise our freedom of speech?
How about our freedom of religion? Or secure in our homes?
What other rights would you give away to a despotic government to feel safe?

Now as to Red Flag laws I'm not necessarily against them. There does need to be proof that the person is a danger to themselves or others and not just someone fears they may do something because they own a gun.

I'd rather see the DAs stop making deals by taking the gun charges off in order to get a guilty plea. Is someone commits a crime and uses a gun that needs to be prosecuted. A convicted person deserves the right to have their full rights returned to them. But before that if a felon is picked up with a gun then that needs to be prosecuted.

Just like 1st offense non-violent crimes may deserve release with no bail. But violent crimes and repeat offenders need to be kept locked up with high bail amounts.

---

I'm only talking about guns here, which in some cases, already require a permit. You cannot take the 2nd amendment literally, or else any citizen could buy any weapon they please, fully auto weapons, anti-tank weapons, mortars, etc…

I just think everybody needs a permit to own one.

---

If it's not literal, then what would you ban? By the way, go look into Virginia law, back in the day. It was damn near mandatory to own a cannon. Also, machine guns were available back then as well. No permit required!

---

Back during the "Wild West" it was illegal to even carry a gun in many towns. The shootout at the OK Corral happened because they refused to relinquish their guns. And we had the 2nd Amendment back then, too!

This newfound 2nd Amendment extreme interpretation was "found" by activist judges... the literal interpretation has words like "regulated" and "militia being necessary to the security of a free State" in it, too. Pretty sure most gun owners aren't members of the National Guard.

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

In Trumps defense he said that Arizona needs to dial back that law. If that happens remains unseen. Some of these states are just going crazy. And ultimately going to cost them.

---

He needs to take a stance. He's been pro choice, for a national ban, and now wants it to be left to the states unless leaving it to the states hurts his chances of winning in said state.

---

Hell, I saw a video, this morning, showing Biden in 2007 (I think) where his stance was very right winged. I think most politicians change their views over time. Here is an article talking about Biden…

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/13/joe-biden-2006-video-abortion

---

As a Catholic I think he's personally against abortion. As a politician he understands and is for individual choice. He personally would not advocate for an abortion on a personal level but doesn't think his beliefs should be the basis for everyone else.

---

Are you saying he's politically expedient?

---

I'm saying he wouldn't push for an abortion if given the decision. But that he believes that decision should not be a decision that the government is involved in.

---

How is that different than Trump?

---

Biden has always supported a woman's right to an abortion. Trump has gone from supporting a woman's right, to supporting a national ban, to now supporting it being a state's right. Except when a swing state goes too far.

In his 2007 book "Promises to Keep," Biden describes his beliefs and voting record on abortion as "middle of the road." He wrote that he doesn't think he has "a right to impose my view on the rest of society" and committed to protecting Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion. In a recent email to supporters, Biden underscored: "I refuse to impose my religious beliefs on other people."

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

In Trumps defense he said that Arizona needs to dial back that law. If that happens remains unseen. Some of these states are just going crazy. And ultimately going to cost them.

---

He needs to take a stance. He's been pro choice, for a national ban, and now wants it to be left to the states unless leaving it to the states hurts his chances of winning in said state.

---

Hell, I saw a video, this morning, showing Biden in 2007 (I think) where his stance was very right winged. I think most politicians change their views over time. Here is an article talking about Biden…

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/13/joe-biden-2006-video-abortion

---

As a Catholic I think he's personally against abortion. As a politician he understands and is for individual choice. He personally would not advocate for an abortion on a personal level but doesn't think his beliefs should be the basis for everyone else.

---

Are you saying he's politically expedient?

---

I'm saying he wouldn't push for an abortion if given the decision. But that he believes that decision should not be a decision that the government is involved in.

---

How is that different than Trump?

---

Biden has always supported a woman's right to an abortion. Trump has gone from supporting a woman's right, to supporting a national ban, to now supporting it being a state's right. Except when a swing state goes too far.

In his 2007 book "Promises to Keep," Biden describes his beliefs and voting record on abortion as "middle of the road." He wrote that he doesn't think he has "a right to impose my view on the rest of society" and committed to protecting Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion. In a recent email to supporters, Biden underscored: "I refuse to impose my religious beliefs on other people."

---

Easy to say for someone with no religious beliefs.

---

Wufskins said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

In Trumps defense he said that Arizona needs to dial back that law. If that happens remains unseen. Some of these states are just going crazy. And ultimately going to cost them.

---

He needs to take a stance. He's been pro choice, for a national ban, and now wants it to be left to the states unless leaving it to the states hurts his chances of winning in said state.

---

Hell, I saw a video, this morning, showing Biden in 2007 (I think) where his stance was very right winged. I think most politicians change their views over time. Here is an article talking about Biden…

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/13/joe-biden-2006-video-abortion

---

As a Catholic I think he's personally against abortion. As a politician he understands and is for individual choice. He personally would not advocate for an abortion on a personal level but doesn't think his beliefs should be the basis for everyone else.

---

Are you saying he's politically expedient?

---

I'm saying he wouldn't push for an abortion if given the decision. But that he believes that decision should not be a decision that the government is involved in.

---

How is that different than Trump?

---

Biden has always supported a woman's right to an abortion. Trump has gone from supporting a woman's right, to supporting a national ban, to now supporting it being a state's right. Except when a swing state goes too far.

In his 2007 book "Promises to Keep," Biden describes his beliefs and voting record on abortion as "middle of the road." He wrote that he doesn't think he has "a right to impose my view on the rest of society" and committed to protecting Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion. In a recent email to supporters, Biden underscored: "I refuse to impose my religious beliefs on other people."

---

Easy to say for someone with no religious beliefs.

---

Hold up, you think Biden has no religious beliefs? Care to opine on his opponent?

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

In Trumps defense he said that Arizona needs to dial back that law. If that happens remains unseen. Some of these states are just going crazy. And ultimately going to cost them.

---

He needs to take a stance. He's been pro choice, for a national ban, and now wants it to be left to the states unless leaving it to the states hurts his chances of winning in said state.

---

Hell, I saw a video, this morning, showing Biden in 2007 (I think) where his stance was very right winged. I think most politicians change their views over time. Here is an article talking about Biden…

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/13/joe-biden-2006-video-abortion

---

As a Catholic I think he's personally against abortion. As a politician he understands and is for individual choice. He personally would not advocate for an abortion on a personal level but doesn't think his beliefs should be the basis for everyone else.

---

Are you saying he's politically expedient?

---

I'm saying he wouldn't push for an abortion if given the decision. But that he believes that decision should not be a decision that the government is involved in.

---

How is that different than Trump?

---

Biden has always supported a woman's right to an abortion. Trump has gone from supporting a woman's right, to supporting a national ban, to now supporting it being a state's right. Except when a swing state goes too far.

In his 2007 book "Promises to Keep," Biden describes his beliefs and voting record on abortion as "middle of the road." He wrote that he doesn't think he has "a right to impose my view on the rest of society" and committed to protecting Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion. In a recent email to supporters, Biden underscored: "I refuse to impose my religious beliefs on other people."

---

Easy to say for someone with no religious beliefs.

---

Hold up, you think Biden has no religious beliefs? Care to opine on his opponent?

---

I've heard he claims to be Catholic. Since he doesn't behave as one, by elimination, he has no religious beliefs. As for Trump, I neither know nor care.

---

Wufskins said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

In Trumps defense he said that Arizona needs to dial back that law. If that happens remains unseen. Some of these states are just going crazy. And ultimately going to cost them.

---

He needs to take a stance. He's been pro choice, for a national ban, and now wants it to be left to the states unless leaving it to the states hurts his chances of winning in said state.

---

Hell, I saw a video, this morning, showing Biden in 2007 (I think) where his stance was very right winged. I think most politicians change their views over time. Here is an article talking about Biden…

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/13/joe-biden-2006-video-abortion

---

As a Catholic I think he's personally against abortion. As a politician he understands and is for individual choice. He personally would not advocate for an abortion on a personal level but doesn't think his beliefs should be the basis for everyone else.

---

Are you saying he's politically expedient?

---

I'm saying he wouldn't push for an abortion if given the decision. But that he believes that decision should not be a decision that the government is involved in.

---

How is that different than Trump?

---

Biden has always supported a woman's right to an abortion. Trump has gone from supporting a woman's right, to supporting a national ban, to now supporting it being a state's right. Except when a swing state goes too far.

In his 2007 book "Promises to Keep," Biden describes his beliefs and voting record on abortion as "middle of the road." He wrote that he doesn't think he has "a right to impose my view on the rest of society" and committed to protecting Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion. In a recent email to supporters, Biden underscored: "I refuse to impose my religious beliefs on other people."

---

Easy to say for someone with no religious beliefs.

---

Hold up, you think Biden has no religious beliefs? Care to opine on his opponent?

---

I've heard he claims to be Catholic. Since he doesn't behave as one, by elimination, he has no religious beliefs. As for Trump, I neither know nor care.

---

Like I said earlier, Biden himself wouldn't advocate for an abortion based on his religious beliefs. He doesn't let his beliefs dictate policy on a public that may not have his same beliefs.

You can dodge the Trump question. But you look silly when you micro analyze Biden's views and dismiss Trump's.

---

Wufskins said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

In Trumps defense he said that Arizona needs to dial back that law. If that happens remains unseen. Some of these states are just going crazy. And ultimately going to cost them.

---

He needs to take a stance. He's been pro choice, for a national ban, and now wants it to be left to the states unless leaving it to the states hurts his chances of winning in said state.

---

Hell, I saw a video, this morning, showing Biden in 2007 (I think) where his stance was very right winged. I think most politicians change their views over time. Here is an article talking about Biden…

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/13/joe-biden-2006-video-abortion

---

As a Catholic I think he's personally against abortion. As a politician he understands and is for individual choice. He personally would not advocate for an abortion on a personal level but doesn't think his beliefs should be the basis for everyone else.

---

Are you saying he's politically expedient?

---

I'm saying he wouldn't push for an abortion if given the decision. But that he believes that decision should not be a decision that the government is involved in.

---

How is that different than Trump?

---

Biden has always supported a woman's right to an abortion. Trump has gone from supporting a woman's right, to supporting a national ban, to now supporting it being a state's right. Except when a swing state goes too far.

In his 2007 book "Promises to Keep," Biden describes his beliefs and voting record on abortion as "middle of the road." He wrote that he doesn't think he has "a right to impose my view on the rest of society" and committed to protecting Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion. In a recent email to supporters, Biden underscored: "I refuse to impose my religious beliefs on other people."

---

Easy to say for someone with no religious beliefs.

---

Hold up, you think Biden has no religious beliefs? Care to opine on his opponent?

---

I've heard he claims to be Catholic. Since he doesn't behave as one, by elimination, he has no religious beliefs. As for Trump, I neither know nor care.

---

Like I said earlier, Biden himself wouldn't advocate for an abortion based on his religious beliefs. He doesn't let his beliefs dictate policy on a public that may not have his same beliefs.

You can dodge the Trump question. But you look silly when you micro analyze Biden's views and dismiss Trump's.

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

In Trumps defense he said that Arizona needs to dial back that law. If that happens remains unseen. Some of these states are just going crazy. And ultimately going to cost them.

---

He needs to take a stance. He's been pro choice, for a national ban, and now wants it to be left to the states unless leaving it to the states hurts his chances of winning in said state.

---

Hell, I saw a video, this morning, showing Biden in 2007 (I think) where his stance was very right winged. I think most politicians change their views over time. Here is an article talking about Biden…

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/13/joe-biden-2006-video-abortion

---

As a Catholic I think he's personally against abortion. As a politician he understands and is for individual choice. He personally would not advocate for an abortion on a personal level but doesn't think his beliefs should be the basis for everyone else.

---

Are you saying he's politically expedient?

---

I'm saying he wouldn't push for an abortion if given the decision. But that he believes that decision should not be a decision that the government is involved in.

---

How is that different than Trump?

---

Biden has always supported a woman's right to an abortion. Trump has gone from supporting a woman's right, to supporting a national ban, to now supporting it being a state's right. Except when a swing state goes too far.

In his 2007 book "Promises to Keep," Biden describes his beliefs and voting record on abortion as "middle of the road." He wrote that he doesn't think he has "a right to impose my view on the rest of society" and committed to protecting Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion. In a recent email to supporters, Biden underscored: "I refuse to impose my religious beliefs on other people."

---

Easy to say for someone with no religious beliefs.

---

Hold up, you think Biden has no religious beliefs? Care to opine on his opponent?

---

I've heard he claims to be Catholic. Since he doesn't behave as one, by elimination, he has no religious beliefs. As for Trump, I neither know nor care.

---

Like I said earlier, Biden himself wouldn't advocate for an abortion based on his religious beliefs. He doesn't let his beliefs dictate policy on a public that may not have his same beliefs.

You can dodge the Trump question. But you look silly when you micro analyze Biden's views and dismiss Trump's.

---

You're the one who wanted to discuss Biden and religion, Trump was an afterthought until you brought it up as a deflection to my comment. I said I didn't know Trump's religion and further, I don't really care. Since you think I'm dodging something, maybe I should have also emphasized that I don't care what Biden's religion is in addition to my opinion that he has none.

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

WolfpackUSC said:

---

barelypure said:

---

WolfpackUSC said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Why?

NEW: Senate votes 22-6 to ban local ‘red flag’ laws in Tennessee

Red flag laws allow law enforcement to remove firearms from a person who is deemed by a court to be a threat to themselves or others.

Under @TNGOP control, Tennessee is a leader in gun violence. pic.twitter.com/AqWqVQqbwz

— Tennessee Senate Democrats (@TNSenateDems) April 11, 2024

---

Related, but unrelated. I've mentioned it before, but all gun purchases should require a permit.

---

Should we be required to have a permit to exercise our freedom of speech?
How about our freedom of religion? Or secure in our homes?
What other rights would you give away to a despotic government to feel safe?

Now as to Red Flag laws I'm not necessarily against them. There does need to be proof that the person is a danger to themselves or others and not just someone fears they may do something because they own a gun.

I'd rather see the DAs stop making deals by taking the gun charges off in order to get a guilty plea. Is someone commits a crime and uses a gun that needs to be prosecuted. A convicted person deserves the right to have their full rights returned to them. But before that if a felon is picked up with a gun then that needs to be prosecuted.

Just like 1st offense non-violent crimes may deserve release with no bail. But violent crimes and repeat offenders need to be kept locked up with high bail amounts.

---

I'm only talking about guns here, which in some cases, already require a permit. You cannot take the 2nd amendment literally, or else any citizen could buy any weapon they please, fully auto weapons, anti-tank weapons, mortars, etc…

I just think everybody needs a permit to own one.

---

If it's not literal, then what would you ban? By the way, go look into Virginia law, back in the day. It was damn near mandatory to own a cannon. Also, machine guns were available back then as well. No permit required!

---

Back during the "Wild West" it was illegal to even carry a gun in many towns. The shootout at the OK Corral happened because they refused to relinquish their guns. And we had the 2nd Amendment back then, too!

This newfound 2nd Amendment extreme interpretation was "found" by activist judges... the literal interpretation has words like "regulated" and "militia being necessary to the security of a free State" in it, too. Pretty sure most gun owners aren't members of the National Guard.

---

This moment is ALL-TIME.

Watch a gun-owning Chinese refugee who fled Communism OBLITERATE anti-gun activist David Hogg in 60 seconds after forcing him to admit the quiet part OUT LOUD

“THE DEBATE ON GUN CONTROL IS OVER!” 🔥🔥🔥 pic.twitter.com/NZTTh9br7z

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) April 11, 2024

Wufskins said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

In Trumps defense he said that Arizona needs to dial back that law. If that happens remains unseen. Some of these states are just going crazy. And ultimately going to cost them.

---

He needs to take a stance. He's been pro choice, for a national ban, and now wants it to be left to the states unless leaving it to the states hurts his chances of winning in said state.

---

Hell, I saw a video, this morning, showing Biden in 2007 (I think) where his stance was very right winged. I think most politicians change their views over time. Here is an article talking about Biden…

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/13/joe-biden-2006-video-abortion

---

As a Catholic I think he's personally against abortion. As a politician he understands and is for individual choice. He personally would not advocate for an abortion on a personal level but doesn't think his beliefs should be the basis for everyone else.

---

Are you saying he's politically expedient?

---

I'm saying he wouldn't push for an abortion if given the decision. But that he believes that decision should not be a decision that the government is involved in.

---

How is that different than Trump?

---

Biden has always supported a woman's right to an abortion. Trump has gone from supporting a woman's right, to supporting a national ban, to now supporting it being a state's right. Except when a swing state goes too far.

In his 2007 book "Promises to Keep," Biden describes his beliefs and voting record on abortion as "middle of the road." He wrote that he doesn't think he has "a right to impose my view on the rest of society" and committed to protecting Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion. In a recent email to supporters, Biden underscored: "I refuse to impose my religious beliefs on other people."

---

Easy to say for someone with no religious beliefs.

---

Hold up, you think Biden has no religious beliefs? Care to opine on his opponent?

---

I've heard he claims to be Catholic. Since he doesn't behave as one, by elimination, he has no religious beliefs. As for Trump, I neither know nor care.

---

Like I said earlier, Biden himself wouldn't advocate for an abortion based on his religious beliefs. He doesn't let his beliefs dictate policy on a public that may not have his same beliefs.

You can dodge the Trump question. But you look silly when you micro analyze Biden's views and dismiss Trump's.

---

You're the one who wanted to discuss Biden and religion, Trump was an afterthought until you brought it up as a deflection to my comment. I said I didn't know Trump's religion and further, I don't really care. Since you think I'm dodging something, maybe I should have also emphasized that I don't care what Biden's religion is in addition to my opinion that he has none.

---

No the conversation was brought up by someone else that posted Trump's abortion stance. And it devolved to this. I'm not trying to be combative. Biden is Catholic. And he's certainly proven to be a God fearing man more so than the other guy. I'm just amazed that so many people from the religious right can be, imo, brainwashed by Trump. And that includes members of my own family.

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

No the conversation was brought up by someone else that posted Trump's abortion stance. And it devolved to this. I'm not trying to be combative. Biden is Catholic. And he's certainly proven to be a God fearing man more so than the other guy. I'm just amazed that so many people from the religious right can be, imo, brainwashed by Trump. And that includes members of my own family.

---

I believe Wolfskins is correct regarding the topic. I brought up the Trump abortion platform and we had debate over that. Yes, Biden is said to be Catholic. Honestly, no one knows what's in his heart, so, debating whether he's Christian is really kind of dumb.

Now, based on his actions, we can certainly make assessment on his Christian following. My opinion is that he pushes the bounds of Christian teaching. That said, he will have to answer to his actions, not me.

Regarding Trump, I don't think anyone thinks he is some absolute Christian. He is a flawed person! Just like all of us. That said, God used many flawed people, throughout the Bible, for good. Is Trump one of those people? Well, I don't know…

---

statefan91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

No the conversation was brought up by someone else that posted Trump's abortion stance. And it devolved to this. I'm not trying to be combative. Biden is Catholic. And he's certainly proven to be a God fearing man more so than the other guy. I'm just amazed that so many people from the religious right can be, imo, brainwashed by Trump. And that includes members of my own family.

---

I believe Wolfskins is correct regarding the topic. I brought up the Trump abortion platform and we had debate over that. Yes, Biden is said to be Catholic. Honestly, no one knows what's in his heart, so, debating whether he's Christian is really kind of dumb.

Now, based on his actions, we can certainly make assessment on his Christian following. My opinion is that he pushes the bounds of Christian teaching. That said, he will have to answer to his actions, not me.

Regarding Trump, I don't think anyone thinks he is some absolute Christian. He is a flawed person! Just like all of us. That said, God used many flawed people, throughout the Bible, for good. Is Trump one of those people? Well, I don't know…

---

What does it say about his Christian following? Based on the number of denominations I think it's safe to say that there is a large spectrum for interpretation of the Bible.

---

Wufskins said:

---

This guy cannot run our state.

https://abc11.com/mark-robinson-nc-governor-taxes-bankruptcy/14646919/

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

This guy cannot run our state.

https://abc11.com/mark-robinson-nc-governor-taxes-bankruptcy/14646919/

---

First politician that didn't pay taxes. ( I'm being sarcastic) The problem with this guy is that he has done a lot that he preaches against. From not paying taxes to abortion, bad look.

---

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

This guy cannot run our state.

https://abc11.com/mark-robinson-nc-governor-taxes-bankruptcy/14646919/

---

First politician that didn't pay taxes. ( I'm being sarcastic) The problem with this guy is that he has done a lot that he preaches against. From not paying taxes to abortion, bad look.

---

Yes, it not just that he's a hypocrite. He's an awful person that isn't even good at running a small daycare business.

---

barelypure said:

---

Robinson has certainly had his issues. But then you have to look at his background. He wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He grew up poor. Isn't Harvard educated. He's an everyday Man who experienced a lot of setbacks, just like other blacks. The system not only didn't see him but worked against him at every step.

He was laid off from his job. He struggled financially. He even was forced to file for bankruptcy. Sounds to me he represents a majority of North Carolinians. This all shaped his views and he saw thru the promises of the Democrats and became a Republican. That's his biggest crime and shame. That he threw off the yoke of modern day slavery to be his own man. Thus he must be destroyed. They can't allow him to succeed.

Also, to answer the question about Trump and religion posed earlier. Isn't it apparent he's the AntiChrist come to destroy the world. Or something like that I heard on maybe NPR.

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

This guy cannot run our state.

https://abc11.com/mark-robinson-nc-governor-taxes-bankruptcy/14646919/

---

First politician that didn't pay taxes. ( I'm being sarcastic) The problem with this guy is that he has done a lot that he preaches against. From not paying taxes to abortion, bad look.

---

Wufskins said:

---

Here are just a few of the things Mark Robinson has written or said…

He's hoped for a return to " the America where women couldn't vote."

On Facebook, he posted "this foolishness about Hitler disarming MILLIONS of Jews and then marching them off to concentration camps is a bunch of hogwash."

On the film Black Panther, he posted on Facebook "It is absolutely AMAZING to me that people who know so little about their true history and REFUSE to acknowledge the pure sorry state of their current condition can get so excited about a fictional 'hero' created by an agnostic Jew and put to film by satanic marxist. How can this trash, that was only created to pull the shekels out of your Schvartze pockets, invoke any pride?"

In a church sermon, he once said "We are called to be led by men," he said "God sent women out when they had to do their thing, but when they had to do their thing, but when it was time to face down Goliath, [He] sent David. Not Davita, David. God also sent Moses, not Momma Moses. Daddy Moses."

And echoing my buddy Barely, he posted this about First Lady Michelle Obama - "Michelle Obama is an anti-American, abortion and gay marriage supporting, liberal leftist elitist and I'll be glad when he takes his boyfriend and leaves the White House."

Regarding mass shootings, he claimed they were "karma for Americans' support of abortion. " When you spill that innocent blood, that blood is going to come back as a stain on you and it's going to come home to roost. People say, 'Well, I just can't believe we're having all these mass killings. And I can't believe that people are so mean.' Our own government is promoting the murder of infants. Do you think that somehow people talk about karma all the time. Do you think that that's not swinging back around in this society and that people are seeing how human life is being devalued through the murder of all these infants?"

Stand up guy for sure.

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

In Trumps defense he said that Arizona needs to dial back that law. If that happens remains unseen. Some of these states are just going crazy. And ultimately going to cost them.

---

He needs to take a stance. He's been pro choice, for a national ban, and now wants it to be left to the states unless leaving it to the states hurts his chances of winning in said state.

---

Hell, I saw a video, this morning, showing Biden in 2007 (I think) where his stance was very right winged. I think most politicians change their views over time. Here is an article talking about Biden…

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/13/joe-biden-2006-video-abortion

---

As a Catholic I think he's personally against abortion. As a politician he understands and is for individual choice. He personally would not advocate for an abortion on a personal level but doesn't think his beliefs should be the basis for everyone else.

---

Are you saying he's politically expedient?

---

I'm saying he wouldn't push for an abortion if given the decision. But that he believes that decision should not be a decision that the government is involved in.

---

How is that different than Trump?

---

Biden has always supported a woman's right to an abortion. Trump has gone from supporting a woman's right, to supporting a national ban, to now supporting it being a state's right. Except when a swing state goes too far.

In his 2007 book "Promises to Keep," Biden describes his beliefs and voting record on abortion as "middle of the road." He wrote that he doesn't think he has "a right to impose my view on the rest of society" and committed to protecting Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion. In a recent email to supporters, Biden underscored: "I refuse to impose my religious beliefs on other people."

---

Easy to say for someone with no religious beliefs.

---

Hold up, you think Biden has no religious beliefs? Care to opine on his opponent?

---

I've heard he claims to be Catholic. Since he doesn't behave as one, by elimination, he has no religious beliefs. As for Trump, I neither know nor care.

---

Like I said earlier, Biden himself wouldn't advocate for an abortion based on his religious beliefs. He doesn't let his beliefs dictate policy on a public that may not have his same beliefs.

You can dodge the Trump question. But you look silly when you micro analyze Biden's views and dismiss Trump's.

---

You're the one who wanted to discuss Biden and religion, Trump was an afterthought until you brought it up as a deflection to my comment. I said I didn't know Trump's religion and further, I don't really care. Since you think I'm dodging something, maybe I should have also emphasized that I don't care what Biden's religion is in addition to my opinion that he has none.

---

No the conversation was brought up by someone else that posted Trump's abortion stance. And it devolved to this. I'm not trying to be combative. Biden is Catholic. And he's certainly proven to be a God fearing man more so than the other guy. I'm just amazed that so many people from the religious right can be, imo, brainwashed by Trump. And that includes members of my own family.

---

I believe Wolfskins is correct regarding the topic. I brought up the Trump abortion platform and we had debate over that. Yes, Biden is said to be Catholic. Honestly, no one knows what's in his heart, so, debating whether he's Christian is really kind of dumb.

Now, based on his actions, we can certainly make assessment on his Christian following. My opinion is that he pushes the bounds of Christian teaching. That said, he will have to answer to his actions, not me.

Regarding Trump, I don't think anyone thinks he is some absolute Christian. He is a flawed person! Just like all of us. That said, God used many flawed people, throughout the Bible, for good. Is Trump one of those people? Well, I don't know…

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

WolfpackUSC said:

---

barelypure said:

---

WolfpackUSC said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Why?

NEW: Senate votes 22-6 to ban local ‘red flag’ laws in Tennessee

Red flag laws allow law enforcement to remove firearms from a person who is deemed by a court to be a threat to themselves or others.

Under @TNGOP control, Tennessee is a leader in gun violence. pic.twitter.com/AqWqVQqbwz

— Tennessee Senate Democrats (@TNSenateDems) April 11, 2024

---

Related, but unrelated. I've mentioned it before, but all gun purchases should require a permit.

---

Should we be required to have a permit to exercise our freedom of speech?
How about our freedom of religion? Or secure in our homes?
What other rights would you give away to a despotic government to feel safe?

Now as to Red Flag laws I'm not necessarily against them. There does need to be proof that the person is a danger to themselves or others and not just someone fears they may do something because they own a gun.

I'd rather see the DAs stop making deals by taking the gun charges off in order to get a guilty plea. Is someone commits a crime and uses a gun that needs to be prosecuted. A convicted person deserves the right to have their full rights returned to them. But before that if a felon is picked up with a gun then that needs to be prosecuted.

Just like 1st offense non-violent crimes may deserve release with no bail. But violent crimes and repeat offenders need to be kept locked up with high bail amounts.

---

I'm only talking about guns here, which in some cases, already require a permit. You cannot take the 2nd amendment literally, or else any citizen could buy any weapon they please, fully auto weapons, anti-tank weapons, mortars, etc…

I just think everybody needs a permit to own one.

---

If it's not literal, then what would you ban? By the way, go look into Virginia law, back in the day. It was damn near mandatory to own a cannon. Also, machine guns were available back then as well. No permit required!

---

Back during the "Wild West" it was illegal to even carry a gun in many towns. The shootout at the OK Corral happened because they refused to relinquish their guns. And we had the 2nd Amendment back then, too!

This newfound 2nd Amendment extreme interpretation was "found" by activist judges... the literal interpretation has words like "regulated" and "militia being necessary to the security of a free State" in it, too. Pretty sure most gun owners aren't members of the National Guard.

---

barelypure said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

WolfpackUSC said:

---

barelypure said:

---

WolfpackUSC said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Why?

NEW: Senate votes 22-6 to ban local ‘red flag’ laws in Tennessee

Red flag laws allow law enforcement to remove firearms from a person who is deemed by a court to be a threat to themselves or others.

Under @TNGOP control, Tennessee is a leader in gun violence. pic.twitter.com/AqWqVQqbwz

— Tennessee Senate Democrats (@TNSenateDems) April 11, 2024

---

Related, but unrelated. I've mentioned it before, but all gun purchases should require a permit.

---

Should we be required to have a permit to exercise our freedom of speech?
How about our freedom of religion? Or secure in our homes?
What other rights would you give away to a despotic government to feel safe?

Now as to Red Flag laws I'm not necessarily against them. There does need to be proof that the person is a danger to themselves or others and not just someone fears they may do something because they own a gun.

I'd rather see the DAs stop making deals by taking the gun charges off in order to get a guilty plea. Is someone commits a crime and uses a gun that needs to be prosecuted. A convicted person deserves the right to have their full rights returned to them. But before that if a felon is picked up with a gun then that needs to be prosecuted.

Just like 1st offense non-violent crimes may deserve release with no bail. But violent crimes and repeat offenders need to be kept locked up with high bail amounts.

---

I'm only talking about guns here, which in some cases, already require a permit. You cannot take the 2nd amendment literally, or else any citizen could buy any weapon they please, fully auto weapons, anti-tank weapons, mortars, etc…

I just think everybody needs a permit to own one.

---

If it's not literal, then what would you ban? By the way, go look into Virginia law, back in the day. It was damn near mandatory to own a cannon. Also, machine guns were available back then as well. No permit required!

---

Back during the "Wild West" it was illegal to even carry a gun in many towns. The shootout at the OK Corral happened because they refused to relinquish their guns. And we had the 2nd Amendment back then, too!

This newfound 2nd Amendment extreme interpretation was "found" by activist judges... the literal interpretation has words like "regulated" and "militia being necessary to the security of a free State" in it, too. Pretty sure most gun owners aren't members of the National Guard.

---

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I'll assume you saw the commas. But in case you didn't reread the Amendment. The commas were used to give a reason for the amendment among many reasons and not as a limitation.

As to the "Wild West" aren't they nothing more than latter day "gun free zones". They didn't forbid anyone from owning a gun, any gun. They didn't even require them to have a permit. They just restricted where they could be carried.

For those in NC, House Bill 189 AN ACT TO PROTECT A PERSON'S RIGHT TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN WITHOUT A PERMIT AND TO CONTINUE ALLOWING PERSONS TO ACQUIRE A CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF RECIPROCITY OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON DESIRED, AND TO AUTHORIZE OFFICIALS ELECTED IN THE STATE TO CARRY A CONCEALED FIREARM WHILE PERFORMING THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES IF THE OFFICIAL HAS A CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMIT.

---

barelypure said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

WolfpackUSC said:

---

barelypure said:

---

WolfpackUSC said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Why?

NEW: Senate votes 22-6 to ban local ‘red flag’ laws in Tennessee

Red flag laws allow law enforcement to remove firearms from a person who is deemed by a court to be a threat to themselves or others.

Under @TNGOP control, Tennessee is a leader in gun violence. pic.twitter.com/AqWqVQqbwz

— Tennessee Senate Democrats (@TNSenateDems) April 11, 2024

---

Related, but unrelated. I've mentioned it before, but all gun purchases should require a permit.

---

Should we be required to have a permit to exercise our freedom of speech?
How about our freedom of religion? Or secure in our homes?
What other rights would you give away to a despotic government to feel safe?

Now as to Red Flag laws I'm not necessarily against them. There does need to be proof that the person is a danger to themselves or others and not just someone fears they may do something because they own a gun.

I'd rather see the DAs stop making deals by taking the gun charges off in order to get a guilty plea. Is someone commits a crime and uses a gun that needs to be prosecuted. A convicted person deserves the right to have their full rights returned to them. But before that if a felon is picked up with a gun then that needs to be prosecuted.

Just like 1st offense non-violent crimes may deserve release with no bail. But violent crimes and repeat offenders need to be kept locked up with high bail amounts.

---

I'm only talking about guns here, which in some cases, already require a permit. You cannot take the 2nd amendment literally, or else any citizen could buy any weapon they please, fully auto weapons, anti-tank weapons, mortars, etc…

I just think everybody needs a permit to own one.

---

If it's not literal, then what would you ban? By the way, go look into Virginia law, back in the day. It was damn near mandatory to own a cannon. Also, machine guns were available back then as well. No permit required!

---

Back during the "Wild West" it was illegal to even carry a gun in many towns. The shootout at the OK Corral happened because they refused to relinquish their guns. And we had the 2nd Amendment back then, too!

This newfound 2nd Amendment extreme interpretation was "found" by activist judges... the literal interpretation has words like "regulated" and "militia being necessary to the security of a free State" in it, too. Pretty sure most gun owners aren't members of the National Guard.

---

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I'll assume you saw the commas. But in case you didn't reread the Amendment. The commas were used to give a reason for the amendment among many reasons and not as a limitation.

As to the "Wild West" aren't they nothing more than latter day "gun free zones". They didn't forbid anyone from owning a gun, any gun. They didn't even require them to have a permit. They just restricted where they could be carried.

For those in NC, House Bill 189 AN ACT TO PROTECT A PERSON'S RIGHT TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN WITHOUT A PERMIT AND TO CONTINUE ALLOWING PERSONS TO ACQUIRE A CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF RECIPROCITY OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON DESIRED, AND TO AUTHORIZE OFFICIALS ELECTED IN THE STATE TO CARRY A CONCEALED FIREARM WHILE PERFORMING THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES IF THE OFFICIAL HAS A CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMIT.

---

A recap of the last month or so on the @USNavy social media pages. First, they post a pic with “I eat ass” on the gloves. Second, they post that backward scope, chicken wing nonsense yesterday.

What is going on?!? I do not understand. Is this intentional? pic.twitter.com/W3glQQtSWO

— Code of Vets ™ (@codeofvets) April 11, 2024

The US Navy posted this picture, then deleted it. Let's look at the comments, shall we? 🌶️https://t.co/EqxPwWaEPU

— Oregon Tea Party 🇺🇲 (@OregonTeaParty) April 13, 2024

Werewolf said:

---

Aboard the USS John McCain........remember this.

The US Navy posted this picture, then deleted it. Let's look at the comments, shall we? 🌶️https://t.co/EqxPwWaEPU

— Oregon Tea Party 🇺🇲 (@OregonTeaParty) April 13, 2024

---

NEW: The Judge presiding over the trial of rancher George Alan Kelly walks out of courtroom in the middle of Defense proceedings

The trial is in its third week and the mainstream media reports that Judge Thomas Fink has accused lawyers on the defense and prosecution of dragging… pic.twitter.com/wlKzpRCD67

— Unlimited L's (@unlimited_ls) April 12, 2024