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.
OWS was NOT a peaceful protest by any stretch of the imagination.
Actually it was, I walked through a number of OWS protests and not once did I feel like my life was in danger walking through the protests. It was very much peaceful, though after a while it was a bit stinky.
I would argue that people like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc are politicians. However, if you'd argue that they are not, at what point does one go from politician to tyrant? When they start making law by decree? When they and their government begin jailing/killing people for no reason?
I would say we are not at the level of tyranny yet in this country, but look around. Read up on the news. We had a president in George Bush who really paved the way for widespread government monitoring of all forms of communication. During that administration, the Pentagon had an open propaganda office, designed to steer public opinion inside the US. Under our current administration, Bush's policies have been expanded. Obama has used drone strikes to intentionally target and kill American citizens. He has authorized the military to detain and hold indefinitely US citizens anywhere in the world on his word alone.
All of this says nothing about the myriad ways government has insidiously inserted itself into my and your everyday life.
Well you take up arms and go try to kill a politician and let me know how that works out for you.
In this country, there is no good reason to kill a politician.
I'm all for spending more to enforce current laws, but why not start enforcing them and see how that works before passing new ones that won't be enforced either? It's a vicious circle that the politicians are playing in: pass gun laws -> don't enforce them-> say the current gun laws don't work -> pass more gun laws -> don't enforce them -> say the current gun laws don't work -> pass more gun laws, etc. Each time the laws get more restrictive on the law-abiding who by nature will follow the law, while the criminals sit back and chuckle as their prey becomes more vulnerable.
I agree, though I think it is important for there to be a universal background check that surpasses state borders that make it even harder for one to get a gun illegally or as someone who failed a background check in one state as they try to get a gun in another state.
I am also for ending the gunshow loophole that would force private sales to also have to do a background check when buying and selling guns.
And at the end, there needs to be more investing in enforcement to crack down on the people who are currently breaking the law.
I agree, though I think it is important for there to be a universal background check that surpasses state borders that make it even harder for one to get a gun illegally or as someone who failed a background check in one state as they try to get a gun in another state.
As has been explained before, the background check required by a dealer is run at the Federal level. It's as universal as it can get. State borders don't make a dime of difference when you go through NICS.
I am also for ending the gunshow loophole that would force private sales to also have to do a background check when buying and selling guns.
Only if it's free to the private individual. If it involves paying any sort of fee, I wouldn't support it. We need less government mandated fees in our lives, not more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
And at the end, there needs to be more investing in enforcement to crack down on the people who are currently breaking the law.
This is the point I've been trying to make. Current laws need to be enforced before anyone goes haring off passing new ones. Who knows? Some of the current laws may actually reduce firearms crime if the are effectively enforced. What we do know is that if they aren't enforced they aren't going to do a bit of good.
As has been explained before, the background check required by a dealer is run at the Federal level. It's as universal as it can get. State borders don't make a dime of difference when you go through NICS.
Only if it's free to the private individual. If it involves paying any sort of fee, I wouldn't support it. We need less government mandated fees in our lives, not more.
This is the point I've been trying to make. Current laws need to be enforced before anyone goes haring off passing new ones. Who knows? Some of the current laws may actually reduce firearms crime if the are effectively enforced. What we do know is that if they aren't enforced they aren't going to do a bit of good.
Fine with me, make it free, and use the money that is made through fines to pay for it.
Ghandi was performing disobedience against an occupying army where the Indians had no say in policy. New York has an elected government. News for you, State government has every right to regulate firearms.
No, I got your point and I am telling you there is no good reason to try and kill a politician in this country unless you are some nutjob. Which if you are, you should report yourself to the nearest authority.
My country stuck to the constitution more than that Tyrant lincoln did...
Oh let me guess, your a good ole boy who longs for the days of the Confederacy and would stake his life on the fact that one day "The South Will Rise Again!!!!"
Come on guys..... is it any wonder they call us all "gun nutz"
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmagoo
The article states that "one crazy man went nuts in Connecticut". That`s it "one crazy man". How stupid must a person be to not realize that people are getting tired of seeing bodies hauled out of schools,malls,theaters,etc.Why spend trillions fighting muslim terrorists and ignore the fact that we have a mass murder(3 or more) every 10 days on the average.
About those"law abiding citizens"...everyone who`s behind bars was a law abiding citizen at one time.
And when will people realise that banning a gun used in less than 1% of gun crime isn't going to do squat to cure the disease of gun violence?
I'm tired of people ***** footing around the issue. The fact is, freedom isn't free nor is it safe. People will die. Freedom and independance requires some amount of sacrifice and a price must be paid. I'm all about freedom of the individual and less concerned with what is best for the greater good. Don't tread on my rights because someone else does something vile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmagoo
Thinking assault weapons play no role in mass murders isn`t retarded? What`s wrong with a person who feels he has no freedom if he can`t gun down 50 people in a movie theater in less than a minute? Jim,what laws are being discussed that would leave you unable to defend your family?
To name one, magazine capacity limits. Say an intruder comes to do harm to me or mine with a couple of his buddies because they need a fix and want to take what I have. I only have a seven round mag or a 10 rounder. This guy is all hopped up on PCP so he doesn't feel pain and isn't going to go down easily. I have to empty most of my shells out on him just to get him to the ground. What do I do about the rest of them if they don't run away? What then? Not to mention they have thirty-round mags because, well, apparently they didn't get the memo on the new law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimuelojones
My history is a little fuzzy, but when did Gandi let lead fly?
I think the writer has a confused understanding of "repealing" law. To repeal a law Constitutionally, one must follow law, not let "lead fly". There is a diffrence in civil disobedience and civil unrest leading to riot.
These gun owners have every consitutional right to petition the goverment for redress of their grievences, the right to gather and to peaceably protest. To challenge the law in court and to petition the USSC for redress.
I would like to hear all thoose that claim to love thier constitutional rights follow the constitution in solving their conflicts.
[ I would have hoped that by my tone of post, peaceably would be understood]
Just for the sake of accuracy, let me say that in an extreme situation "letting led fly" is perfectly within a citizens Constitutional rights. It's called the Sceond Amendment. Thats why it was written in to the Constitution to begin with. Don't let the pansy *** politicians fool with the whole "hunting" bit. That amendment WAS placed there as a last resort for citizens to restore their rightful freedom.
Of course I'm not advocating this. I just wanted to be clear, the use of force by arms IS a protected right of the people for when or if the government steps out of the boundaries that the Constitution has set for it. You may not feel that the same meaning is applicable in the modern age. That isn't the issue. You said you wanted them to abide by the Constitution, and they would be in an extreme situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibelian
Aw ... the state of NY took away your dirty "magazines" and your penis pumps.
.
LMAO.... I just have to laugh at some of you people, on both sides! Just ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basic Problem
They should just hang Cuomo off the side of one of those tall buildings and be done with the tyrant and make that be a lesson for the next guy that runs for office in NY.
Comments like this only serve to hinder our cause, not help it. You are a part of the not-so-basic problem. Wouldn't you rather be a part of the solution?
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.
