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 government can pass laws stating that it's illegal to say anything bad against the government and the SCOTUS can say it's ok, but that still doesn't make it constitutional.
Wow! So we should also take away freedom of association.
And people say we shouldn't worry about slippery slopes?
Why are you so afraid of the PC police? Are you an ACLU member?
I agree we should enforce the laws we have. we should also close the loop holes. it seems very callous of us as a nation to continue to do nothing when our kindergarten kids get mowed down, you can no longer go to a night club, movie or attend a university without this horror continuing without even trying to do something about it.
While we are at it...
Time to change the 2nd amendment text/wording to what it has now been turned into.
Quote:
Militias are illegal, because a free state no longer exist, the privilege of Citizens, age 21 and older, who have not committed a statutory crime, might be able to be issued an air rifle by the government, if there is a legit reason.
Allow people to carry a weapon if they wish, without chastising them as some scardycat, afraid of their shadow. Same goes for those that are scare of all weapons. Let them choose to be equal or the instant prey.
Do not force compliance on me to disarm, because others do not want to be armed.
It is an individuals choice how they preserve ones self.
I am not suggesting compliance to disarm. a gun is a deadly weapon and the least we can do is require education, permits, registration and insurance as we do for our cars. we could at least close the loop holes so people can bypass the background checks and buy at gun shows. all of which has nothing to do with disarming anyone that is a lawful and sensible gun owner.
Why are you so afraid of the PC police? Are you an ACLU member?
What new law that doesn't violate the 2nd amendment, would have prevented this American Citizen, from obtaining the weapons used in Orlando?
Name what more could have been legislated away, to stop him from a gun?
That's for the experts to decide. Neither you or I are qualified to determine that.
I am. The fact that you have no idea what you are talking about, but want to ban it (probably based on news service hysterics) tells me everything I need to know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan85
No sensible gun laws because the NRA and extreme right wingers don't want them. Also, because Congress is bought and paid for by the NRA.
Huh?
Answer my question from a page 4 or 5. Next time we have a homosexual pedophile should we make "sensible" laws on homosexual or "sensible" laws on black males? Nope.
The only problem is that Israel actually has quite strong gun restrictions and very low gun ownership rates, some of the lowest in the developed world.
.
.
.
Israeli guns laws, it turns out, are much stricter than America's gun laws. This may help explain why Israeli gun ownership is just one thirteenth of what it is in the U.S. To bring that number into focus, it would likely be even lower if not for mandatory military service, which means Israelis are more likely to be familiar with guns.
I think this is quite different from everybody has a right to a gun. They encourage TRAINED and LICENSED people to carry. And their laws are still much stricter than ours after easing.
“Citizens with firearms training are a multiplying force for the police in their fight against terrorism and therefore I will take measures to ease the restrictions at this time.”
.
.
.
The measures are to allow local authorities in “high priority” areas to give approval to carry weapons in certain instances, as opposed to previously when only the firearms licensing branch of the Public Security Ministry could do so.
You are right. Outside of settlements the ability to carry is limited. But I never said it wasn't. My statement was to look what happens when people actively promote carrying. Numerous attacks stopped by NON-LEO folks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn
Hard to defend against a crazed person with an AR-15. The gunman was armed with an AR-15-type semiautomatic rifle . The rifle can rapidly fire multiple high-velocity rounds. During the Orlando shooting, more than 20 rounds were fired in rapid succession. What legitimate reason do citizens need a military weapon in their arsenal?
Define "high velocity round" if you are going to use it. If you can't please stop parroting Brady and the MSM trying to sell ad time. Also, check out shooting sports like 3 Gun. Shooting more then 30 rounds in a stage is normal.
Then there is the whole point of the Constitution. We don't limit our rights when people misuse them, we punish the criminal. Or at least that is how it should be.
Why are you so afraid of the PC police? Are you an ACLU member?
So, you feel that the Bill Of Rights is a sign of being afraid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hothulamaui
I am not suggesting compliance to disarm. a gun is a deadly weapon and the least we can do is require education, permits, registration and insurance as we do for our cars. we could at least close the loop holes so people can bypass the background checks and buy at gun shows. all of which has nothing to do with disarming anyone that is a lawful and sensible gun owner.
Should we also require testing people before they can vote?
Hitler was on several German ballots and received many votes. Do you feel we should test for competency to ensure people don't vote for extremists? Maybe you believe we should say who can run for office?
What new law that doesn't violate the 2nd amendment, would have prevented this American Citizen, from obtaining the weapons used in Orlando?
Name what more could have been legislated away, to stop him from a gun?
Profilng.
He was Muslim , suspected of terrorism ties. Should have been the end of the story there.
Same thing for urban street thugs. Looks like a thug, hangs out with know gang criminals, no gun for you.
So, you feel that the Bill Of Rights is a sign of being afraid?
Should we also require testing people before they can vote?
Hitler was on several German ballots and received many votes. Do you feel we should test for competency to ensure people don't vote for extremists? Maybe you believe we should say who can run for office?
a gun is a deadly weapon. running for office or voting is not.
I am not suggesting compliance to disarm. a gun is a deadly weapon and the least we can do is require education, permits, registration and insurance as we do for our cars. we could at least close the loop holes so people can bypass the background checks and buy at gun shows. all of which has nothing to do with disarming anyone that is a lawful and sensible gun owner.
Everything you propose targets lawful, peaceful gun owners.
What does any of this have to do with terrorist attacks or criminal use of firearms? Your proposals with prevent nothing.
I am not suggesting compliance to disarm. a gun is a deadly weapon and the least we can do is require education, permits, registration and insurance as we do for our cars. we could at least close the loop holes so people can bypass the background checks and buy at gun shows. all of which has nothing to do with disarming anyone that is a lawful and sensible gun owner.
Would you support licensing, permitting, and insurance for abortion?
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.
