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.
The 10 day wait, for example and/or to keep things simple. What is the big heartburn that comes from a 10 day wait? If I call my dentist today, I am about as likely to get an appointment in 10 days as I am to to get shot by a stray bullet. Help me understand the heartburn over a 10 day wait, I mean beyond the obvious want of immediate gratification, like kids have trouble accepting, please.
What if you want the gun because your ex just threatened to kill you? Do you want to wait 10 days?
As a general rule I support waiting periods but I think there need to be exceptions. If your life has been threatened there should be no waiting period. The only way I'd ever buy a gun is if I thought my life was in eminent danger and then I'd want it now not in 10 days.
People, most often women, have been killed by waiting periods. Restraining orders don't stop stalkers, abusive spouses or any other criminal. The police don't protect individuals, if someone has an immediate threat they need protection now not in2 or 7 or 10 or 30 days.
Sounds like you need a new dentist, if I have a serious toothache I can get an appointment tomorrow if not today.
We already know that there are between 3000-4000 people that should not have them are allowed to purchase guns due to the 3 business day default for Federal Backgound Checks. The average time to perform a check is around 25 days, seems like the logical improvement would be to extend the waiting period as in a large majority of cases it is not an issue.
There will always be a downside in any law but this sure seems like a reasonable approach, or we can continue to have a few thousand people to acquire guns each year that should not have them.
"I don't know if you heard, but the United States was formed on the premise that it is We The People who are in charge. The government serves US. WE are the masters, THEY are the servants, not the other way around."
I am really struggling to understand -- believe -- some of these comments. Of course we should all know why the Constitution was written, "we the people" and all that..., but what is being suggested here, contrary to anything I have written? Are there some here who don't understand how our system of government works as set up by our founding fathers? How our interests are supposed to be brokered by way of democracy?
So you, the individual, are master? Please explain to me what power or influence you have beyond the voting power we are all given. After that, how much power do you have over government and/or vice versa. Help me understand the argument here...
no, we are not to fly flagrantly in the face of our jurisprudence, however, it is to be noted that the SCOTUS is not infalliable, and decisions that are incongruent with established tradition and social norms are more than possible.
the protection of our liberty should not rest on their shoulders alone. they also benefit from healthy discourse and discussion - even when they are not directly involved in the talks
I like the sentiment. I for one have always felt that far too few people pay attention to what is going on around us and/or bother to apply any critical thinking toward politics, let alone debate the issues. However, I don't pretend or debate my ability to curb political or legal wrong doing. At best, I can only vote and/or contribute my support to elected representatives who seem most wanting to do what I think is best for me and my family and Americans in general.
After that, should a bad law be passed or argued unconstitutional, I don't know that we can do much more than allow our political and/or legal process to correct those mistakes as only those in a rightful position of power can do. IOWs, I don't really care if my neighbor wants to go on forever about how just about any gun control measure is unconstitutional. I surely hope that just because a law gets passed that my neighbor doesn't like, that he won't go vigilante (as it seems many are inclined here) to somehow exact his own version of what is right or wrong regardless the rule of law.
No, the SCOTUS is not infallible. None of us are, but get past all that rhetoric, and just what exactly is the course of action being lobbied for here? I don't get it...
When you resort to falsehoods you expose your true self. The NRA or "NRA types" is not against restrictions on the mentally ill.
Some want to know the specifics but has anyone complained that Lanza was turned down? Again, did it stop him?
Read my full comment and give me a break with the "falsehoods" business. My concern is where we all know the hard core NRA types stand when it comes to gun control measures in general, "for the most part," as I put it. You really are stretching to suggest that is a falsehood or that anyone can know what all NRA types support or don't.
to me, the only way to 'test' this sort of thing out would be, paraphrasing Pelosi,
pass the law, then find out what it does...
to me, that is not the best way to govern.
we have laws on the books that predate automobiles, and are obsolete in our era -
what is the likelyhood that if the gun control laws passed - then deemed to be ineffective, that they would be repealed?
Perhaps not, but if the law does not keep me from having my gun fun as I always have, and if the gun law helps some to feel more safe, who cares if it is repealed or not?
I would love to go on and on with some of these really curious objections to doing what we can, but I don't have that sort of time. Maybe I missed it, but so far no comment about what those perhaps actually in a position to forge public policy said last night in the DNC presidential debate.
For better more productive "discussion" about all this, I would highly recommend whatever worthy opinion be given about what was ACTUALLY said by those in the debate last night, not what Joe Blow neighbor thinks is unconstitutional...
Maybe even try not to misrepresent what was said last night by any of the candidates. We all know what wild accusations and speculations can be made by any hard core NRA type who wants nothing but to stand in the way. Hopefully, we know better, at least most of us...
"If we follow your argument to it's logical conclusion, than why even have a democracy at all? The average person couldn't possibly posses the intellect to be able to vote and make decisions on their own. They simply aren't smart enough to make these decisions. They need the government to do it for them."
If this is following my argument to it's logical conclusion, then I am a monkey's uncle. Please have mercy. Hopefully I have dispelled this nonsense with my prior comments already. Or if not, please look around and think a bit about how we as humans organize ourselves by way of family, education, business, communities, just about any organization. Of course we all have our vote and our ability to write a letter to our representative, but we don't all have the same knowledge about the issues, the same power to affect them, the same influence on what happens around us.
I believe in a system of democracy, very strongly, but I am surely not so naive to think that everyday citizens somehow control our government. That's not how it works. We delegate that power to those we deem best to assume that power on our behalf, or tell me I am wrong.
Obama has not called me for a long while to ask my opinion, so I'm just asking...
What if you want the gun because your ex just threatened to kill you? Do you want to wait 10 days?
As a general rule I support waiting periods but I think there need to be exceptions. If your life has been threatened there should be no waiting period. The only way I'd ever buy a gun is if I thought my life was in eminent danger and then I'd want it now not in 10 days.
This is ridiculous! If your life is threatened, you leave. You don't get a gun and shoot it out!
I like the sentiment. I for one have always felt that far too few people pay attention to what is going on around us and/or bother to apply any critical thinking toward politics, let alone debate the issues. However, I don't pretend or debate my ability to curb political or legal wrong doing. At best, I can only vote and/or contribute my support to elected representatives who seem most wanting to do what I think is best for me and my family and Americans in general.
After that, should a bad law be passed or argued unconstitutional, I don't know that we can do much more than allow our political and/or legal process to correct those mistakes as only those in a rightful position of power can do. IOWs, I don't really care if my neighbor wants to go on forever about how just about any gun control measure is unconstitutional. I surely hope that just because a law gets passed that my neighbor doesn't like, that he won't go vigilante (as it seems many are inclined here) to somehow exact his own version of what is right or wrong regardless the rule of law.
No, the SCOTUS is not infallible. None of us are, but get past all that rhetoric, and just what exactly is the course of action being lobbied for here? I don't get it...
[CENTER]“Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people … to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”[/CENTER]
“[N]o provision of the Constitution was meant to be without effect…” Marbury v. Madison, (1803)
Sheesh who opened the Crazy House and let the Brady Bunch out.
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.
Quaint...
