Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-26-2016, 10:46 AM
 
58,973 posts, read 27,267,735 times
Reputation: 14265

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Let's be honest here... Katie was not the one in the editing room.
This is the corporate media, pushing an agenda in propaganda.

The response was correct and I have said it here with liberal backlash many times.

The 2nd amendment says, people. It does not say citizens, 21 or older who are not criminals.

If a person is walking free and not incarcerated, they have all their rights and that shall not be infringed.
"Let's be honest here... Katie was not the one in the editing room.'

If she had any principles, she would be out condemning the "final" product.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-26-2016, 11:02 AM
 
Location: Just over the horizon
18,453 posts, read 7,081,915 times
Reputation: 11699



From your link:



Only 10 states ban voting by convicted felons permanently, and even then it depends on the nature of crime and circumstances. (as in violent felons only, an important distinction not afforded to those who have their 2nd amendment rights permanently revoked) All the rest restore their voting rights at some point after completing their sentence.

Contrary to popular opinion, voting rights are rarely permanently revoked from those who have been released from prison as are second amendment rights.


As far as your second link goes, what do Voter ID laws have anything to do with this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2016, 03:33 PM
 
Location: Upstate NY 🇺🇸
36,754 posts, read 14,814,475 times
Reputation: 35584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
"Let's be honest here... Katie was not the one in the editing room.'

If she had any principles, she would be out condemning the "final" product.

The editor's "apology"...wasn't. And there's no way I'm going to believe the producer and editor didn't think anti-gun Couric would be thrilled with the edit. Plus, Couric is the Executive Producer.

Couric should have been outraged, and apologized. Instead, she issued a statement "standing by" the edit. Who's surprised? Not me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2016, 04:57 PM
 
Location: Midwest
38,496 posts, read 25,800,800 times
Reputation: 10789
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96 View Post
From your link:



Only 10 states ban voting by convicted felons permanently, and even then it depends on the nature of crime and circumstances. (as in violent felons only, an important distinction not afforded to those who have their 2nd amendment rights permanently revoked) All the rest restore their voting rights at some point after completing their sentence.

Contrary to popular opinion, voting rights are rarely permanently revoked from those who have been released from prison as are second amendment rights.


As far as your second link goes, what do Voter ID laws have anything to do with this?
The US Constitution stated in Amendment XV, which was ratified by the states in 1870: "Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Voting is a constitutional right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2016, 05:18 PM
 
4,504 posts, read 3,028,351 times
Reputation: 9631
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinm View Post
Katie is just a bimbo who believes she is a journalist. She needs to go back to doing stupid human interest stories on the Today Show. She has no credibility in the news business.
Most of them are. And as someone else said, that includes Savannah Guthrie and Megyn Kelly. I believe the idiotic Savannah might be the worst of the worst
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2016, 07:19 PM
 
Location: Just over the horizon
18,453 posts, read 7,081,915 times
Reputation: 11699
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
The US Constitution stated in Amendment XV, which was ratified by the states in 1870: "Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Voting is a constitutional right.
Requiring ID to vote has nothing to do with anyone's race, color, or previous condition of servitude........

So.....why do I need ID to buy a firearm?

Maybe for the same reason that you should have to have ID to vote?

That there's a possibility that I'm not who I say I am?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2016, 08:00 PM
 
Location: Sarasota FL
6,864 posts, read 12,070,521 times
Reputation: 6744
It's a good thing one of the attendees had a voice recorder running or we would never know about the deceptive video that was shown.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2016, 09:14 PM
 
19,717 posts, read 10,109,755 times
Reputation: 13074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Back to NE View Post
BS, bullet taxes, OMG they're taking our bullets away! The outright bans are for ridiculous assault guns and others ideal for mass murder.

Scapegoating guns and blaming rednecks to take attention away from inner city crime? Why? That's more made-up BS to motivate gun buyers and Republican politicians.
Showing a complete lack of knowledge about guns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2016, 01:34 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,596,242 times
Reputation: 18521
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinm View Post
Katie has editorial control over her stories. That is part of her contract.

Really... I'm not privy to a private employment contract to confirm that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2016, 01:37 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,596,242 times
Reputation: 18521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
"Let's be honest here... Katie was not the one in the editing room.'

If she had any principles, she would be out condemning the "final" product.
I'm no Katie fan, but has anyone actually questioned her on it?
Think that will ever happen? Me neither!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:52 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top