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.
Well the confusion of the moment may have added even more casualties, 200 people in a room firing is never a good idea and no one is prepared for this. Looking at the demographics of these people it is doubtful that many would even carry a gun, health care workers, nurses, working with disabled children. The answer isn't more guns.
The answer is not removing the ability for law abiding people to defend themselves and their families from evil either.
I keep mentioning this example: Charlie Hebdo shootings.
People REMEMBER Charlie Hebdo shootings - Stephane Charbonnier applied to the French government the right to carry a handgun for personal protection. At this time there were numerous threats against his life. He was denied. Instead he took a bodyguard.
Well that didn't help him in the shootings, when the Muslim assassins weren't concerned about obtaining their guns legally. He among 8 other cartoonists were killed.
Now it's hard to say what difference would be if he had a gun. Maybe his fate would have been the same but if he engaged in a shoot out with the assassins, other cartoonists would have had time to escape to safety.
I used to be an NRA member and I still think that we need a strong organization to protect our rights to bear arms. However; I stopped supporting them when they switched to a stance supporting so many military grade weapons - of course I am aware that we can debate terms. I always figured, that in the long run, this would hurt the organization.
do you even know what military grade means? do you even know the difference in certain rounds?
Quote:
Today I cannot figure out why we would sell any weapons to any individual on a no-fly list or on an official 'watch' list. But that can also be debatable because anybody should be able to challenge that no-fly or watch list determination - but we might not want them to know they are on a watch list? Also you have to look at all of the language in any proposed bill - which is what organizations, like the NRA, do with their member's money.
you mean the UNCONSTITUTIONAL no fly list? the on that for reasons of national security that if you get on the list that you have NO recourse? do you mean the bill that was supposed to have prevented terrorists on a watch lost from buying firearms, but is just as unconstitutional as the no fly list? and that if you were to be put on THAT list you would again have no recourse because the AG could claim national security?
you have to understand that these lists are end runs around the constitution, there is no proper due process for being put on these lists, and no proper due process to for getting off the lists if you were put on there mistakenly.
Quote:
I am not anti-hunting or anti-gun ownership. But I do believe that guns are not for everybody. Some people need better training and some people should not have access period.
i can agree with this statement. but unless and until there is proper due process, you cannot restrict a persons rights.
Quote:
On the other side of the isle, we have to prevent more terrorist from coming in. You cannot have open door policies for everybody.
again i agree with this, but until the vetting process improves, we are going to have to be eternally vigilant to maintain our freedoms, and our lives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
How many people were killed by those explosives vs. the amount killed by the guns?
I'm all for gun rights, but let's not say crazy things and let's just be honest here. It is what it is.
you can thank the efficiency of our LEOs that more of these peoples plans were not carried out. they obviously had plans for more mayhem.
Quote:
I suppose you call yourself a Republican? Suppose you're all for small government and religious liberty? Suppose you consider yourself a Constitutionalist?
Pfff... No better than a Liberal if you ask me. Just the opposite side of the coin.
in what manner is a constitutionalist no better than a liberal? just because we want to uphold everyones rights? just because we want proper due process? just because we dont want the government to make end runs around the constitution, and the claim the people have no recourse due to "national security"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss
How stupid can the GOP Senators be for voting down keeping people who are on the no-fly list away from guns.
Time for the NRA to be called supporter's of Terrorism.
Stupid is as stupid does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
True, you can't fly but you can purchase a gun, makes sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedirtypirate
Some one will come here twist the truth around and say something about Obama being a Muslim. This board is insane. Truth and honest doesn't exist in some
once again, the bill that was voted down was an end run around the constitution. and it was so bad that it would have prevented ANYONE who was put on the list from being able to get themselves removed from the list due to "national security". regardless of who crafts it, bad law is bad law and needs toe be opposed at every turn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by notmeofficer
I begrudgingly and realistically agree
How about any American citizen on the list has the right of redress
Any non American living here does not
Acceptable compromise?
Non americans should never be able to access weapons ... Thry do however . easily... And we have laws ineffectively used in place to deal with them... Including deportation..which is becoming increasingly difficult under Obama
Specifically, when the Constitution says "person" instead of "citizen", it applies to all people in the country.
Further, one should not have to go to court to get back the rights that were wrongly removed from them (ie, they weren't convicted) in the first place.
TS is right, why should a person have their rights restricted just because? where is the due process in that?
Coming from someone who calls ISIS the JV Team and repeatedly says that Al Qaeda has been defeated and decimated, this would seem to be logical. To the logical, it seems insane.
He says that because according him, we shouldn't give ISIS so much credibility by fearing their capabilities. Of course, HE says ISIL, which gives them far more credibility than they deserve. He's essentially calling them by the name they prefer, acknowledging their claim of an Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (including Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Cyprus, Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine...).
Well we wouldn't want to violate the constitutional rights of those on the terror watch lists, 2nd amendment prevails.
With Obama's use of his executive regulatory powers to not follow laws he doesn't like (immigration enforcement), and effectively create laws he is unable to convince congress to pass due to lack of leadership abilities (EPA against coal industry), who thinks that he will use the terror watch list to stop conservatives from getting guns?
So long as Obama is importing radical Islamists and releasing criminals from prison, Americans need to be armed.
And don't forget the wide open border, when the countries in Latin America have the highest murder rates in the world! Oh, and strict gun laws as well, so there goes the theory of more gun laws work.
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.
