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.
Background checks as well as all other gun control scheme will do nothing to stem the violence only arming as many law abiding citizens as possible can we reduce crime.
Arming law abiding citizens who wish to be armed is not a bad idea. Disarming non-law abiding ones is also not a bad idea. Hence, background checks.
But I think the prohibition on firearms ought to apply only to those convicted of violent crimes, not all crimes or even all felonies.
and if they buy one on the black market? Universal background checks= national registry= confiscation=civil war.
Your equation breaks down at the first hurdle. A national registry of persons disqualified from firearms ownership is not the same as a registry of gun owners.
If they buy one on the black market, they would be in violation of the law, just like many unqualified gun owners (e.g. felons) are right now.
Old news. That flick came out back when the dinosaurs were roaming the earth.
I saw it. Totally uninteresting.
Bowling for Columbine is not old news. It is one of the most watched "documentaries" in schools across America. Nearly every kid at the school I teach at sees it...with nothing in the curriculum criticizing the movie. Every single kid sees at least one Michael Moore movie as Sicko is part of the curriculum for Health and Health is required to graduate.
My professor within the college of education recommended that we show it to students in 2002. Teachers at my school and the previous school that I taught at make comments like "I love Michael Moore". One admiring teacher said that Michael Moore was 1 of 3 people on Earth that she wants to see before she dies. Teacher's at my previous school also showed the movie as a "documentary."
I eventually created an elective class where we look at controversial topics and debate them. One teacher was upset that we watched 2 Michael Moore films, then a third one that criticized his films, and then had the students perform research and debate. Criticizing Michael Moore "allows those against change to win" and isn't "fair" even though all I do is show the 3 movies and have the kids perform their own research - I don't point anything out either way. The students have to critique specific parts of each documentary in a paper.
I am going to stop showing 2 films of Michael Moore, because it is a waste of time...they are already so familiar with him from other classes...Sicko, Capitalism a Love Story, Fahrenheit 9-11, Bowling for Columbine, Roger and Me...I have known to be shown in my school. Of course, no student sees all of those in their classes.
Background checks as well as all other gun control scheme will do nothing to stem the violence only arming as many law abiding citizens as possible can we reduce crime.
It hurts your arguments because you don't have one. its all emotion and opinions, nothing more, We have the facts, statistics, logic and reason on our side? what do you guys have?
Everybody who is behind bars today was once a "law abiding" citizen. DUH!
Bowling for Columbine is not old news. It is one of the most watched "documentaries" in schools across America. Nearly every kid at the school I teach at sees it...with nothing in the curriculum criticizing the movie. Every single kid sees at least one Michael Moore movie as Sicko is part of the curriculum for Health and Health is required to graduate.
My professor within the college of education recommended that we show it to students in 2002. Teachers at my school and the previous school that I taught at make comments like "I love Michael Moore". One admiring teacher said that Michael Moore was 1 of 3 people on Earth that she wants to see before she dies. Teacher's at my previous school also showed the movie as a "documentary."
I eventually created an elective class where we look at controversial topics and debate them. One teacher was upset that we watched 2 Michael Moore films, then a third one that criticized his films, and then had the students perform research and debate. Criticizing Michael Moore "allows those against change to win" and isn't "fair" even though all I do is show the 3 movies and have the kids perform their own research - I don't point anything out either way. The students have to critique specific parts of each documentary in a paper.
I am going to stop showing 2 films of Michael Moore, because it is a waste of time...they are already so familiar with him from other classes...Sicko, Capitalism a Love Story, Fahrenheit 9-11, Bowling for Columbine, Roger and Me...I have known to be shown in my school. Of course, no student sees all of those in their classes.
The film is still relevant and watched today.
So you are upset that Michael Moore has made some outstanding documentaries that often expose the right wing machine, and you wish to hide it?
In all fairness Moore made a documentary about the carnage guns inflict on us as a society so why be critical of him when he is pointing out a obvious truth.
If we can regulate things like having a license to drive and operate a car why not firearms? How exactly did these 2 teens amass such a arsenal of guns to murder so many others in Columbine?
Hate to say this but we all know somebody who really has no business owning a gun to begin with.
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.
