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.
Nope. I actually just want nutjobs not to own guns.
First and foremost you need to define "nut job", clearly someone that is talking to the wall is a "nut job" but where do you draw the line? Depending on where you may want to draw that line there could be millions of perfectly harmless people in this country that fit that profile. That's besides the fact most of the gun violence isn't caused by mentally impaired people, it's caused by individuals that have grown up in very violent environments, this is normal to them.
Let's suppose for a minute we can adequately define "nut job". The first issue I see with this is the medical community has a bias against guns, even if they were able to set aside that bias are they going to be erring on the side of caution and stripping a lot of people of their rights that shouldn't lose them? I know I wouldn't want to be the person that is responsible to make a fair decision because if that person goes out and kills someone people are going to be pointing the finger at you.
Last but not least if you have someone that is involved in guns and they are feeling a little nutty they may decide not to seek help if they believe they will lose their guns. This is by far the biggest issue I see.
Saying "I actually just want nutjobs not to own guns" is a pretty easy thing to do, explaining how you plan to do that is not.
Last edited by thecoalman; 12-22-2018 at 02:38 AM..
People who have inherent rights, like the right to life and to defend that life with whatever weapon they deem necessary aren't the subject of the various gun bans.
But unless you read the law and know where the trapdoors are, you'll be fooled into obeying it.
Dems have had a large enough majority to take guns a number of times in the last few decades and they didn't. In fact they didn't even try.
So armed with the knowledge that dems did not do it when they had the votes you now KNOW what you are claiming is FALSE.
next time you say it lionking it will be YOU being purposefully dishonest. I would like to think you are better than that.....
Once again this common response comes about again the "Dems once had a large enough majority but didn't".
Starting January 2009, at the beginning of the 111th Congress, in the month that Barack Obama was inaugurated president, the House of Representatives was made up of 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans. There is no question that Democrats had total control in the House from 2009-2011.
Even with numerous “blue-dog” (allegedly fiscally conservative) Democrats often voting with Republicans.....Speaker Pelosi had little difficulty passing legislation in the House. The House does not have the pernicious filibuster rule which the Senate uses. A majority vote in the House is all that’s necessary to pass legislation, except in rare occurrences
It is absolutely true that from 2009-2011, Democrats and President Obama had “total control” of the House of Representatives.
But legislation does not become law without the Senate.
The Senate operates with the 60-vote-requirement filibuster rule. There are 100 Senate seats, and it takes 60 Senate votes for “closure” on a piece of legislation....to bring that piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate for amendments and a final vote....that final vote is decided by a simple majority in most cases. But it takes 60 Senate votes to even have a chance of being voted upon.
During the first years of the Obama presidency healthcare and other issues were more important to Democrats but there is no doubt that when gun control legislation finally made a top issue that Democrats with Obama would have signed into law every gun control act just like we are seeing California Democrats do with their super majority.
Once the elections for congress came up and the congress went Republican gun control was a dead issue and Obama became a lame duck for the most part except for his executive orders
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
While this law is an old one, it was written so that we can rise up in armed opposition to a dictatorship. I believe that owning a weapon also means that you can use it with good reason without penalty. This includes shooting a dog attacking a child, shooting a venomous snake, or scaring the hell out of a bear by shooting the tree next to the bear or the bear itself if need be.
I often complain how the corporations have gotten too powerful, but also watch out for the limousine liberals because they just may tax ammunition like they tax cigarettes. Remember that rich liberals and rich conservatives are horns on the same bull. What I mean by horns on the same bull is that behind the scenes they may have assigned themselves different tasks in the effort to render a knowledgeable and bankrupt middle class powerless.
That is until they have a majority anyway. Yes I know not all Democrats even liberal ones support gun control but....
California Democrats with their super majority are going all out on new laws and restrictions including a excise tax on handguns and semi auto rifles with proceeds going to gun control groups.
That is akin to if Republicans taxed abortion to give proceeds to anti abortion groups.
Also quote: beginning in 2019, state ammunition dealers will be required to maintain logs of all sales – including those of bullets
If you like your guns you can keep your guns, no qualifications to that statement....where have we heard similar assurance?
Libs promote restrictive gun laws, which have no bearing on protecting innocent lives, that are intended accumulate to make the ownership of a gun an impossible burden.
Allows them to say we are not going to take your guns.
That's what happens when you listen to lawyer/ politicians who live in a world of sentence structure, gerunds, dangling participles, tense and punctuation, a thesaurus is their holy bible.
Has the democrat CA senator Lee, the anti-gun activist, been sentenced yet for selling all manner of weapons of war to anyone with cash?
How about taxing illegal immigrants for being here?
I realize that people are trained by whoever they get their news from to fear losing the 2nd amendment or something, but that one isn't likely to go away.
So, why not want nutjobs not to have guns?
I mean, if you're not a nutjob yourself, do you fear that others might think you are? If so, you may want to do some soul searching an re-evaluate your public image.
What these pro gun people do not realize is, most of us who want sensible gun controls OWN GUNS OURSELVES. I own guns, always have, and am a very good with one. However, I realize there are some people who should not have access to them, and there are certain guns that NO hunter or home owner needs to possess.
I can think of no reason that I would ever need a machine gun to protect myself. If you are that bad of a shot, you are dead anyway.
Some people were screaming that Obama was going to take everyone's guns when he was elected.
Never happened. But the right still has to create a boogeyman in order to scare the ignorant into voting republican.
But you keep ignoring the fact that Nancy Pelosi and Bill Clinton both said they would ban all guns if they could.
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.
