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.
I'm hearing people suggest that we give up rights protected in our Bill of Rights in hopes that we might reduce mass killings.
If we are serious about things like people being killed and crime, shouldn't we get serious.
By instituting national curfews, setting up checkpoints and alliwing police to conduct searches without warrant or cause, we can reduce crime, reduce dwi deaths, reduce drug overdoses, reduce gang activity and make everyone safer.
Isn't some inconvenience worth saving thousands of lives and reducing crime?
If you're not doing anything wrong, it shouldn't be a big deal.
It is weird how selective people are about "protecting the innocent".
Over the years tens of thousands of innocent people have died at the hands of intoxicated people.
There aren't calls for banning alcohol.
I'm not certain how many don't because they want their alcohol or how many realized prohibition didn't work because people who choose not to obey laws won't follow those laws.
I'm hearing people suggest that we give up rights protected in our Bill of Rights in hopes that we might reduce mass killings.
If we are serious about things like people being killed and crime, shouldn't we get serious.
By instituting national curfews, setting up checkpoints and alliwing police to conduct searches without warrant or cause, we can reduce crime, reduce dwi deaths, reduce drug overdoses, reduce gang activity and make everyone safer.
Isn't some inconvenience worth saving thousands of lives and reducing crime?
If you're not doing anything wrong, it shouldn't be a big deal.
Ideas like communism and socialism murdered far more people.
It is weird how selective people are about "protecting the innocent".
Over the years tens of thousands of innocent people have died at the hands of intoxicated people.
There aren't calls for banning alcohol.
I'm not certain how many don't because they want their alcohol or how many realized prohibition didn't work because people who choose not to obey laws won't follow those laws.
Oh, the old excuses....keep coming out. Next thing you know we will hear about heart disease.
Remember, we "liberals" have worked toward fixing many of these things....MADD for drunk drivers, stricter laws, strict labeling laws for food (the biggest killer), mass transit, etc.
And now you point to the fact that conservatives have stopped many of those actions......as the reason why we should not worry about terrorism by USA Citizens?
Pedro, this is fantastic for ever you. As we speak 100's of billions are being invested in self-driving tech to eliminate the vehicle deaths you speak of.
Please tell us how much is being invested in digital gun technology to accomplish the same thing? I'll wait.
Oh, the old excuses....keep coming out. Next thing you know we will hear about heart disease.
Remember, we "liberals" have worked toward fixing many of these things....MADD for drunk drivers, stricter laws, strict labeling laws for food (the biggest killer), mass transit, etc.
And now you point to the fact that conservatives have stopped many of those actions......as the reason why we should not worry about terrorism by USA Citizens?
Pedro, this is fantastic for ever you. As we speak 100's of billions are being invested in self-driving tech to eliminate the vehicle deaths you speak of.
Please tell us how much is being invested in digital gun technology to accomplish the same thing? I'll wait.
So, you don't want to reduce innocent deaths and crime?
Oh, the old excuses....keep coming out. Next thing you know we will hear about heart disease.
Remember, we "liberals" have worked toward fixing many of these things....MADD for drunk drivers, stricter laws, strict labeling laws for food (the biggest killer), mass transit, etc.
And now you point to the fact that conservatives have stopped many of those actions......as the reason why we should not worry about terrorism by USA Citizens?
Pedro, this is fantastic for ever you. As we speak 100's of billions are being invested in self-driving tech to eliminate the vehicle deaths you speak of.
Please tell us how much is being invested in digital gun technology to accomplish the same thing? I'll wait.
Why do you still support the State. Did you not watch my 2-minute clip?
Oh, the old excuses....keep coming out. Next thing you know we will hear about heart disease.
Remember, we "liberals" have worked toward fixing many of these things....MADD for drunk drivers, stricter laws, strict labeling laws for food (the biggest killer), mass transit, etc.
And now you point to the fact that conservatives have stopped many of those actions......as the reason why we should not worry about terrorism by USA Citizens?
Pedro, this is fantastic for ever you. As we speak 100's of billions are being invested in self-driving tech to eliminate the vehicle deaths you speak of.
Please tell us how much is being invested in digital gun technology to accomplish the same thing? I'll wait.
MADD has been around for YEARS, but just 2 years ago, I lost 2 friends, a husband and wife that left behind 3 young children, due to a drunk driver!!
It time something is done about the easy access to booze today!
Is it time to reduce the deaths of innocent people?
Yes, it certainly is.
In 1791, the Framers decided more people would suffer and die if govt had ANY authority to restrict or take away guns, than if the govt were forbidden to restrict or ban any of them. They put a command into the Constitution saying "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." And they even put an explanatory clause before it.
The main reason was to prevent a tyrannical government from abusing its citizens. But George Washington also had the usual domestic criminals to deal with, and some insane people just as we have today, who might randomly kill innocent people. By a gun, or a gunpowder bomb that could blow up an entire building etc. Yet the people of his time knew that it was more dangerous to give govt any power to decide who could own a gun and who couldn't, than to put up with a few nutcases who might hurt or even kill somebody.
And the Framers also knew that the people themselves were a far more effective deterrent to crime, than a hired police force who the criminals could identify by sight and dodge as it suited them when committing crimes.
They provided the most effective means to safeguard the people that has ever been developed, in our world of imperfect people. It is not perfect, since no program can be perfect throughout an entire population. But it can keep more people alive and safe, than any other "solution" offered by blinders-on leftists, then and now.
And the big-govt leftists have been fighting against it tooth and nail, ever since.
To answer your question, yes, it's time to reduce the deaths of innocent people. By trying, at last, the most effective means at hand.
MADD has been around for YEARS, but just 2 years ago, I lost 2 friends, a husband and wife that left behind 3 young children, due to a drunk driver!!
It time something is done about the easy access to booze today!
Cell phone use while driving kills almost as many.
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.
