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.
My point is the Michigan Militia DECLARED WAR on the Federal Government and they had 'scary' guns. Do those type of people really need that kinds of fire power. No domestic terrorist do not need that kind of gun. Regardless if they blew up the fed building or just one of their members did, the group as a whole declared war on the gov. -- so they were terrorist, no?
And if someone is a terrorist, will a ban on firearms keep them from obtaining them?
Omg.. ya'll can still shoot ****, you could shoot **** when the ban was in place, no one is coming around to take your guns you do own, and if this gets put on the table, you will have plenty of time to buy a new toy. I cant sit her and rehash painful things to people who dont care about anyone but their own self.
Before any proposed law, rule, regulation, etc. is enacted the following minimum items should be HONESTLY addressed:
1. What is the specific problem to be corrected?
A: People having military and law enforcement weapons that out-powers law enforcement, and puts the general public at risk. Domestic Terrorist and anti-government people creating armys to terrorize the citizens or take over the government.
2. Will this proposal correct this specific problem?
A: It will help.
3. What are the possible unintended consequences of this proposal?
A: None, as second amendment rights are not being taken away, all guns are not being banned, the guns are not being confiscated, this would only extend a previous law.
A: People having military and law enforcement weapons that out-powers law enforcement, and puts the general public at risk. Domestic Terrorist and anti-government people creating armys to terrorize the citizens or take over the government.
2. Will this proposal correct this specific problem?
A: It will help.
3. What are the possible unintended consequences of this proposal?
A: None, as second amendment rights are not being taken away, all guns are not being banned, the guns are not being confiscated, this would only extend a previous law.
Are you violating copyright laws?
Copying and pasting from the Brady Campaign or wherever you got that garbage doesn't make it so. The FBI said the ban did nothing against crime. The SCOTUS says the Second Amendment protects all firearms in common use.
Copying and pasting from the Brady Campaign or wherever you got that garbage doesn't make it so. The FBI said the ban did nothing against crime. The SCOTUS says the Second Amendment protects all firearms in common use.
Huh I was answering weedsnake who posted those questions..
read the thread before jumping down my throat.
I answered them with my OWN words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weedsnake
Before any proposed law, rule, regulation, etc. is enacted the following minimum items should be HONESTLY addressed:
1. What is the specific problem to be corrected?
2. Will this proposal correct this specific problem?
3. What are the possible unintended consequences of this proposal?
SEE?
Last edited by chasingclouds; 11-07-2008 at 11:54 AM..
Looks like I missed that post. This thread is moving quite fast, bound to happen. It looked very similar to the stuff those sites have posted hence the mistake...
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.
