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.
Please tell me how precisely your "natural rights" have been deprived. What specifically has the government done that has deprived you of your liberties?
Whatever you do don't take the time to read some of the EOs that Obama has signed that have actually taken away some of our rights. Maybe just the first steps toward such but once they are put into effect completely you will come to see what you don't want to see.
Not so at all. No one could get any anti gun bill through the republican controlled Congress under any circumstances whatsoever. Only NRA and GOA fundraisers make those kinds of statements.
"Yes only your donation can save us from the Federal Government using the UN to take away your guns."
This is the last time I will read a post today about that Republican controlled Congress. I am sure you know that the Dems and Dirty Harry control the Senate so it makes me really mad to see people talking about that Republican Congress. I know that you know the word Congress means both houses as in Senate and House of Representatives. It is time for the crap to stop.
Respectfully, I'm trying to refute your conspiracy theory that the United Nations is controlled by the Federal Government. Especially concerning right to own and possess firearms. My rebuttal was based on the fact that the House of representatives is composed of solid 2nd amendment congressmen and women. More than enough to insure that no anti gun bill ever see's the light of day. This is fact. When one spreads the cloud of fear that the United Nations, under the direction of the United States Federal Government, is going to take all our firearms away, then I think they are pandering to another agenda than just preserving the 2nd amendment.
Hence, my reference to fund raising. This should be clear enough?
Just what do you know about the treaty and its month of consideration last month? Do you know that they are at it again, this month?
Hey, I give no money at all to those gunners but may have to start once that treaty gets sent to the Senate.
BS, and the SC agrees. Explain, besides using some moronic idea that all gun laws are against the Constitution, why it is that you are against background checks and denying felons the right to legally own guns, or have you lost all common sense?
In other words the writers of the Bill of Rights had no common sense? Isn't that what you just said?
In other words the writers of the Bill of Rights had no common sense? Isn't that what you just said?
No, Roy, in YOUR words. Sorry to disappoint but every SC has held up the legality of keeping felons and crazies from having guns legally (background checks), but hey you have nothing to worry about, right Roy.
Respectfully, I'm trying to refute your conspiracy theory that the United Nations is controlled by the Federal Government. Especially concerning right to own and possess firearms. My rebuttal was based on the fact that the House of representatives is composed of solid 2nd amendment congressmen and women. More than enough to insure that no anti gun bill ever see's the light of day. This is fact. When one spreads the cloud of fear that the United Nations, under the direction of the United States Federal Government, is going to take all our firearms away, then I think they are pandering to another agenda than just preserving the 2nd amendment.
Hence, my reference to fund raising. This should be clear enough?
Thank you for clearing up my confusion. While that's what I thought you meant, I wasn't sure and didn't want to write something based on assumptions.
The United States of America provides a significant portion of the United Nation’s budget. If they’re willing to admit that 40 – 70% (depending on the year in question) of the United Nation’s budget is provided by the United States, wouldn’t it be reasonable to believe that cooked books would hide more? For the sake of argument, let’s just go along with what they admit to. This alone tells a story that the U.N. would not exist without USA’s funding. Moreover, can one reasonably believe that all of this money is given without stipulations? The U.N. furthers U.S. interests.
While there may well be republicans that say they’re pro-gun, when one checks into their voting history, it’s easy to see that they’re just pandering to the pro-gunners. Many gun laws are riders on bills that have absolutely nothing to do with crime, guns, and the like. No bill becomes a law without the approval of both sides of the isle. Hence, those that blame republicans for this or democrats for that isn’t really looking at the big picture. Bills become laws due to bi-partisan approval.
As far as gun control goes, does it really help to do a background check? Thus far, it’s done nothing to curb gun violence. Just because a criminal cannot go into a store and legally purchase a firearm, doesn’t mean that somebody else won’t do it for them. Additionally, it creates seedy black markets, illegal operations, and actually creates more crime than it’s trying to prevent. Furthermore, we give no chance for those deemed unfit for firearms ownership the ability to reform and return to society. Firearms are just like any other tool man’s created. They can be collected, shot for sport, and used for hunting as well as self protection, but we take these God given rights as guaranteed by the Constitution away from them for life. Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say, only those deemed mentally fit, not guilty of misdemeanors of domestic violence, do not have more than 3 DUIs, and or were not dishonorably discharged by the Armed Forces, etc. Most criminals, drunks, and people declared mentally incompetent are no more likely to commit a violent crime with a firearm than you reading this. Baseball bats, hammers, hatches, steak knives, cars, golf clubs, and the like can all be used to commit crimes of violence including murder, but we don’t demonize them.
People seem to be under the assumption that we can prevent crimes. We cannot. We have to wait until somebody actually commits the crime. Just because we think somebody is planning, has the means to, or is about to commit a crime, doesn’t mean that the person really is or is actually going to go through with it. All laws do that are trying to prevent this is to turn normally non-violent people into criminals, and once they’ve a criminal record for innocuous crimes or they're now criminals because our society has prosecuted them for something we thought they would do, we as a society have just hamstrung that person for the rest of their lives. All of this rhetoric comes from the gun control act of 1968, which was sparked off by the Kennedy assassination. Prior to the most recent gun control acts in the past ten years, several states permitted convicted felons to own firearms again after they completed their sentencing, and a five or ten-year crime free period lapsed.
All forms of gun control do not work and they’re strictly unconstitutional.
Thank you for clearing up my confusion. While that's what I thought you meant, I wasn't sure and didn't want to write something based on assumptions.
The United States of America provides a significant portion of the United Nation’s budget. If they’re willing to admit that 40 – 70% (depending on the year in question) of the United Nation’s budget is provided by the United States, wouldn’t it be reasonable to believe that cooked books would hide more? For the sake of argument, let’s just go along with what they admit to. This alone tells a story that the U.N. would not exist without USA’s funding. Moreover, can one reasonably believe that all of this money is given without stipulations? The U.N. furthers U.S. interests.
While there may well be republicans that say they’re pro-gun, when one checks into their voting history, it’s easy to see that they’re just pandering to the pro-gunners. Many gun laws are riders on bills that have absolutely nothing to do with crime, guns, and the like. No bill becomes a law without the approval of both sides of the isle. Hence, those that blame republicans for this or democrats for that isn’t really looking at the big picture. Bills become laws due to bi-partisan approval.
As far as gun control goes, does it really help to do a background check? Thus far, it’s done nothing to curb gun violence. Just because a criminal cannot go into a store and legally purchase a firearm, doesn’t mean that somebody else won’t do it for them. Additionally, it creates seedy black markets, illegal operations, and actually creates more crime than it’s trying to prevent. Furthermore, we give no chance for those deemed unfit for firearms ownership the ability to reform and return to society. Firearms are just like any other tool man’s created. They can be collected, shot for sport, and used for hunting as well as self protection, but we take these God given rights as guaranteed by the Constitution away from them for life. Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say, only those deemed mentally fit, not guilty of misdemeanors of domestic violence, do not have more than 3 DUIs, and or were not dishonorably discharged by the Armed Forces, etc. Most criminals, drunks, and people declared mentally incompetent are no more likely to commit a violent crime with a firearm than you reading this. Baseball bats, hammers, hatches, steak knives, cars, golf clubs, and the like can all be used to commit crimes of violence including murder, but we don’t demonize them.
People seem to be under the assumption that we can prevent crimes. We cannot. We have to wait until somebody actually commits the crime. Just because we think somebody is planning, has the means to, or is about to commit a crime, doesn’t mean that the person really is or is actually going to go through with it. All laws do that are trying to prevent this is to turn normally non-violent people into criminals, and once they’ve a criminal record for innocuous crimes or they're now criminals because our society has prosecuted them for something we thought they would do, we as a society have just hamstrung that person for the rest of their lives. All of this rhetoric comes from the gun control act of 1968, which was sparked off by the Kennedy assassination. Prior to the most recent gun control acts in the past ten years, several states permitted convicted felons to own firearms again after they completed their sentencing, and a five or ten-year crime free period lapsed.
All forms of gun control do not work and they’re strictly unconstitutional.
post of the day, sorry I cannot rep you again so soon.
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.
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.
