You last visited: Today at 09:53 PM
|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|02-16-2013 09:32 PM|
The most crucial thing everyone is forgetting is that the right to bear arms is in the U.S. constitution. While people are having a discussion about gun rights, they completely ignore that gun rights are SUPREME LAW. Not "guns, except for _____ & _____ and only _____ amount of bullets"
The federal government has been caught red handed smuggling weapons to criminals, like during the fast & furious operation.
Now the federal government wants to take away the legal right of citizens to have certain types of weapons. They can't force us to give up our 2nd amendment rights, that's why they have to convince people to give them up voluntarily, and a lot of people are being scared into doing it and are trying to force their decision on others.
During the waco siege, the government killed 70+ people, much more than Sandy Hook
More recently, the LAPD shot at innocent civilians during their manhunt for Christopher Dorner.
The Supreme Court ruled the police have no duty to protect you.
Why should U.S. citizens lose their rights because of a crazy man? Lunatics will always exist, but you don't lose your rights because of lunatics. This implies that the gun caused the crime, when it didn't.
|02-16-2013 09:14 PM|
One less gun to worry about
|02-16-2013 08:13 PM|
"You're going to jail for 20 years"
"WHAT?!!! that's not fair, I haven't done anything"
"Ok, let's compromise, 15 years".
"I am not going to jail, I haven't done anything"
"I can't believe you're not willing to compromise, that is really telling"
"Look, I haven't done anything, you're not being reasonable"
|02-16-2013 02:45 PM|
|02-15-2013 02:47 PM|
|02-15-2013 05:51 AM|
A bipartisan quartet of senators, including two National Rifle Association members and two with "F" ratings from the potent firearms lobby, are quietly trying to find a compromise on expanding the requirement for gun-sale background checks.
A deal, given a good chance by several participants and lobbyists, could add formidable political momentum to one of the key elements of President Obama's gun control plan. Currently, background checks are required only for sales by the nation's 55,000 federally licensed gun dealers, but not for gun shows, person-to-person sales or other private transactions.
The senators' talks have included discussions about ways to encourage states to make more mental health records available to the national system and the types of transactions that might be exempted from background checks, such as sales among relatives or to those who have permits to carry concealed weapons, said people who spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to describe the negotiations publicly.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2...z2KyYDbzV3
|02-13-2013 04:55 AM|
In this case I was genuinely interested in the claim that a very small percent of fraudulent votes can cause the election of a madman*. I just think that is a very weak logic/reasoning if not a fallacious one.
* The irony of this is that just recently you mentioned that more than one factor goes into crime and its prevention and here we are dealing with a claim that a tiny percent of fraudulent votes may cause the election of a madman.
|02-13-2013 04:20 AM|
|02-12-2013 10:25 PM|
As others have said, I haven't seen any suggestions of compromises from many who have argued against guns.
I did a search for the word "compromise" in every gun thread I have participated in since I decided to joint the gun talk on this forum. I have to admit there was less than I thought.
Gun control mega thread:
RHCCapri: I don't often agree but rational was offered with the suggestions
Another member suggesting 7 bullets is a compromise
skiman and another poster discuss compromise. Skiman acknolwedges the difficulties and limitations of some ideas. The other poster encourages talk of compromise.
Compromise in this case is less than 10 bullets without rational.
Talk of compromise gun for home defense.
skiman makes a reasoned case.
A bit of compromise here
I see very little in the way of compromise. However, in reviewing the old threads I did see a lot in the way of people not thinking out their suggestions for new laws and rules.
See you all later.
|02-12-2013 04:01 PM|
|02-12-2013 11:44 AM|
|02-12-2013 11:13 AM|
|02-12-2013 11:06 AM|
|02-12-2013 08:21 AM|
...maybe Illinois should pass a law saying they will ignore any federal law/order wrt to CC.
|02-12-2013 08:05 AM|
|This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|