I hate the idea of owning a gun, but I love the idea of owning a cannon.
Our bill of rights has been shredded. The fourth amendment specifically prohibits the kind of activities the NSA is involved in domestically. The fifth amendment prohibits any president or anyone else from killing anyone without due process.
Part of why I was attracted to the idea of owning a gun was self-defense, and part of it was that I've been fascinated by guns since I was a little kid, and I want to play with them. It seems like a lot of fun.
We need a comprehensive strategy that includes expanding criminal background checks for all commercial gun sales, dedicated federal law to combat gun trafficking, and a strong commitment to mental health services.
When the gun lobby fights gun-control legislation, its logic is clear: it does not like laws that prevent people from owning or using guns.
The idea that owning a gun in America was an individual right only dates to the 1980s.
This idea of bringing awareness to our lives seems like a good idea, right? We'll gain a productive, enjoyable, reflective life and be able to extend compassion, empathy, and joy to others. That seems like a pretty good deal.
Discrimination in public benefits is also perfectly legal. Under federal law, people convicted of drug felonies are deemed ineligible even for food stamps.
For the rest of your life you must check the box on employment applications asking the dreaded question: "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?" And once you check that box, the odds are sky high that your application is going straight to the trash. Hundreds of professional licenses are off-limits to people convicted of felonies.
The reduction in gun violence President Obama claims to desperately want comes from law enforcement and prosecution, not from political rhetoric, lectures and sentence commutations for federal firearm law offenders and felons.
People with felony convictions - pending felony convictions should not be able to buy gun, but they should be able to stay in sanctuary cities, if they're illegal, if they cross the border.
I don't think the question is if should we have a shield law. I think the question is what kind of shield law we should have. Yes, I'd like to see a federal shield law, but if and only if it provides genuine safeguards and doesn't green-light prosecutors and judges and litigants from going after the press and getting things to which they should not be entitled. It's not a simple kind of litmus test.
That's not the federal law. What you're confusing is law with the opinion of a justice, what one lone federal judge says is not law.
There's no such thing as a good gun. There's no such thing as a bad gun. A gun in the hands of a bad man is a very dangerous thing. A gun in the hands of a good person is no danger to anyone except the bad guys.
Although federal law prohibits companies with 15 or more employees from discriminating against pregnant job seekers, it can be quite hard for an ordinary woman to land a job if she lets prospective bosses know she is pregnant.
Not a single federal dollar should be used for states or cities efforts to target law-abiding gun owners.