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 not here to repeal the 2nd Amendment. I'm not here to take away your guns."
What she really meant: "I'm not here to repeal the 2nd Amendment (completely). I'm not here to take away (every single one of) your guns, (just the ones that I don't like)."
Hillary Clinton supports the idea of an Australian-style gun confiscation scheme. Note that in the video she calls it a "buyback" instead of the mandatory confiscation (with threats of jail for noncompliance) that it actually was and she also repeats the oft-told lie about the firearms being automatic. Hillary Clinton lies through her teeth every time she talks about guns.
I do not care what it says... Reality is: The only way anyone cannot be free to do what ever they wish if not incarcerated, is for a government official handcuffed to them, that is much much bigger and badder than them.
Ever hear the term: Feel good law?
It ain't illegal until you get caught
There is no mechanism for Felon to pop up, when registering to vote. It gets even farther, if they move out of state.
That is some pretty funny stuff.
But really, here's the thing gun owners have to be a part of the conversation to figure out how to make things safer for the average citizen.
And, BTW, a majority of Democrats are also gun owners. We do not want an out and out ban on guns. That is NRA BS. We want sensible gun laws that will keep children from shooting each other, and prevent domestic disputes from leading to dead parents, and dead children. We want responsible gun owners who are trained and capable of being useful when needed.
Y'all don't realize that democrats have guns, because we Democrats don't parade about exposing our guns to the general public.
"We want sensible gun laws that will keep children from shooting each other,"
It is ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW.
When you can come up with ANY law that will STOP ANYBODY from breaking ANY law, let us know.
"and prevent domestic disputes from leading to dead parents,"
When you can STOP domestic disputes, let us know.
It is ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW.
"We want responsible gun owners who are trained and capable of being useful when needed."
The country already has MILLIONS of them.
I repeat, When you can come up with ANY law that will STOP ANYBODY from breaking ANY law, let us know.
I do not care what it says... Reality is: The only way anyone cannot be free to do what ever they wish if not incarcerated, is for a government official handcuffed to them, that is much much bigger and badder than them. Ever hear the term: Feel good law?
It ain't illegal until you get caught There is no mechanism for Felon to pop up, when registering to vote. It gets even farther, if they move out of state.
Why can't you just admit you were wrong? States vary in their policy regarding felons voting. In California a felon on parole can't vote, and of course there is no way to keep them from voting, but if they are caught it's a felony.
The way you talk is that unless you can prevent every single offense with a law then there is no reason to have the law. You seem to apply that same logic to background checks claiming that since felons can get a gun without a background check, then background checks are useless.
Do you apply that to laws against homicide, child abuse or rape, because just having the law certainly does not prevent someone from breaking it, does it?
Why can't you just admit you were wrong? States vary in their policy regarding felons voting. In California a felon on parole can't vote, and of course there is no way to keep them from voting, but if they are caught it's a felony.
The way you talk is that unless you can prevent every single offense with a law then there is no reason to have the law. You seem to apply that same logic to background checks claiming that since felons can get a gun without a background check, then background checks are useless.
Do you apply that to laws against homicide, child abuse or rape, because just having the law certainly does not prevent someone from breaking it, does it?
What use is a law if it's not enforced? Where is the common sense.
It seems readily apparent that, with all the issues facing American society these days (immigration, gay rights, abortion rights, ISIS/Afghanistan/etc, pollution, jobs/the economy, Social Security, race relations, etc.) nothing strikes a nerve like the guns issue. I can see why it's cost some politicians their jobs.
It remains to be seen if the Democrats will press the issue with any forcefulness in November.
Why can't you just admit you were wrong? States vary in their policy regarding felons voting. In California a felon on parole can't vote, and of course there is no way to keep them from voting, but if they are caught it's a felony.
The way you talk is that unless you can prevent every single offense with a law then there is no reason to have the law. You seem to apply that same logic to background checks claiming that since felons can get a gun without a background check, then background checks are useless.
Do you apply that to laws against homicide, child abuse or rape, because just having the law certainly does not prevent someone from breaking it, does it?
Nature law of self preservation has been around since the beginning of time. Murder has always meant revenge and theft has always ended in conflict. That is natural law.
With the law against murder, that means murder never happens? One day you will understand what liberty actually is.
What was wrong?
Felons register to vote every day. The mechanism to make sure they don't cast a vote isn't there in any system, not without voter ID and the magnetic bar they swipe and pops up all the info
A hypothetical gun registry would keep track of good people with no criminal record who are not a threat to society.
OK, and?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
You said you had a Sig, this is how an AR-15 or any semi auto rifle operates. You poll the trigger and they go BANG!. Pull the trigger again and they go BANG!.
Well, that's kind of a duh. But I suspect you know that's not actually the argument.
Quote:
I'm not sure how you define how any gun is more dangerous than another. A simple revolver in the hands of an expert is going to be very dangerous for the people they are shooting at. Had there been such person in that Orlando club the shooter would had a hole in his head a split second after he was viewable. That said a shotgun loaded with high velocity 00 buckshot is going to shoot 8 to 9 pellets a little smaller than the single bullet coming out of p238 you owned. 50% more velocity in about a ten inch spread. Such a gun can cause incredible damage especially in a crowded room.
I'm aware.
Quote:
Again you pull the trigger and it goes BANG! If you can justify banning the AR-15 because of function you can justify banning any semi auto rifle.
I suppose, if it were just about function.
Quote:
There is another side to that coin, women have died waiting to obtain a gun. Whether the gun would have saved their life we'll never know but gun laws left them defenseless. In addition to that being able to remove a weapon from your spouse is law that can be abused by the abuser.
That is another side, yes. I'll take it one step further and say that these women, due to their heightened fear and trauma, should also not be in possession of a gun, but their lives are in danger. Still, the current laws are woefully deficient. The judge says, "You are not allowed to be in possession of a firearm" and leaves it up to the abuser to turn them in. It's just not going to happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rigby06
PassTheChocolate
"A back ground check keeps criminals from purchasing a gun in a gun store --> LIE "
"Criminals with a record? Or someone who is about to commit a crime with no history?"
Criminals for who are already ban from buying weapons, then try and buy some at a gun store, and lie on form 4473, and then are not prosecuted.
The section I put into RED, is the hardest part, there is no way of knowing if someone is about to commit a crime that has not committed one previously. And in their lies the rub, how do you restrict someone from doing something before they have done anything wrong.
You can't. We accept that. Does anyone actually think we think crime is going to go away with these efforts? That's silly.
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.
