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.
Make no mistake, the LEFT wants to ban, and confiscate all firearms from legal, private ownership. Hillary even stated that in her campaign. She wanted Australian, and UK style gun bans, and forced confiscation. Then she got so much flak, Huma had to walk it back saying she just wanted gun buybacks, still forced, but you'd get compensated for them. Idiots. The entire push for gun registration is to eventually confiscate them. The NRA know this fact.
Let's not forget these famous words from a true leftist, still there in congress:
Quote:
If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it."
Your reliable insults toward our Country and it's citizens isolate you from relevancy and assure those like you will never win a national election any time soon. So keep it up. Everyone's listening!
that's what I thought about white supremacists, at least til y'all put Trump in office.
"Impose a mandatory 10 years minimum sentence without parole for anybody committing any felony with any arm, not just guns. The second time, the person gets life without parole."
Which would have a person who committed armed robbery or held a gun to someone's head being able to serve ten years and then go buy some guns. Which he could not do under current laws.
1. Why should people who are too dangerous to have a firearm be allowed to live free in society?
Either change the definition to allow non violent felons to automatically regain 2nd amendment rights when they have completed their sentence or keep them locked up.......violent felons...throw away the key.
Stephen Paddock was a non-violent felon.
Define "dangerous".
Define "non-violent".
So your idea of gun control is to automatically restore rights to own firearms to millions of felons that are currently barred?
Again, the most important thing is the rights of gun nuts.
They super-cede any and all other rights or concerns anyone may have.
The most important thing, again, is that powerless man-children have their toys to stroke while fantasizing about a race war or communist insurrection. We must adjust all laws, including those which commit people to mental health institutions, to make sure that unfettered access to weapons is our first priority.
Gun nuts? Just because you can't trust yourself to own, or use a gun safely, and responsibly, doesn't mean most others can't.
Location: Free State of Florida, Support our police
5,861 posts, read 3,301,312 times
Reputation: 9147
See no matter what is said no one wants to listen. Not a single opinion is changed. Its all a waste of hot air. Personally I own numerous firearms. I own thousands of rounds of ammo. Those guns and the ammo I own will never be used in a mass shooting. I will never go and hurt anyone. I am among millions and millions of other legal gun owners who obey the law. The left wants to take away the rights of gun owners. Its ban assault rifles. Ban high capacity magazines. Back ground and limits on ammo purchases. Its drip drip drip. Before you know it your rights as a gun owner are taken away. One day you are a model citizen the next some politician deems you a felon. You are never going to confiscate the weapons in this country. There still will be trillions ammo rounds out there. There will be millions of high capacity magazines available. Go ahead blame the evil boogeyman the NRA. In the end the guns and ammo will still all be here. But waste your hot air in here for something that you will never be able to control!!
Location: Free State of Florida, Support our police
5,861 posts, read 3,301,312 times
Reputation: 9147
Quote:
Originally Posted by skins_fan82
I'm pro-gun. And I AM open-minded enough to consider some compromises. However, compromise means both sides give some.
I'm a far left liberal on every single political issue except guns. Liberals need to be more willing to meet in the middle on this issue, otherwise nothing is going to change. I hvae tried talking to some of my liberal friends and family, and they have a "zero assault rifle" mindset. They feel that no private citizen in this country should be able to legally on an assault rifle. I told them they would get nowhere with that attitude.
My point is, I'm usually on the liberal side, arguing with conservatives...thinking to myself "geez, conservatives are stubborn and refuse to compromise on anything." But in this case, I find myself saying that about liberals.
Earth to democrats/anti-gun crowd: you are losing the war on guns, really badly. As it stands right now, the NRA and pro-gun crowd have just about everything they want. Unlimited amount of rifles, unlimited amount of ammo, high capacity magazines/drums (in some states), very easy to buy rifles.
So if the anti-gun crowd is currently losing, the burden is on them to reach across to the pro-gun crowd and at least offer some sort of compromise to get the ball rolling or at least maybe get an open dialogue going. If the anti-gun crowd would offer something, anything in the way of compromise, the medai would put a tremendous amount of pressure on the NRA and pro-gun politicians to address and respond.
Now granted, I know the NRA has never been willing to compromise much either, but the first step would be at least to get the media talking about it by the left offering up some sort of middle ground to start from. But to approach gun owners like me who are open-minded and willing to compromise with a "no ARs for anybody, period" mentality, nothing is going to happen.
You cant compromise with those that want to take away your guns. No doubt that if they had the opportunity they would try and take them. So there is no compromise.
Some fellow posters cited swimming pools and cars as analogy to prove that they can kill as many people as guns do.
However, it sounds similar but there is stark difference. Owners of car and swimming pool must buy liability insurance. You'd better carry at least half million dollar liability insurance if you have a swimming pool and your neighbor has kids.
But gun owners do not need to carry any liability insurance. Assuming the mass murderer in Vegas acquired all his dozens of guns legally (in many recent mass murder cases they were), what will the family of the 59 dead receive in compensation?
Nothing. But if they were hit by cars or drowned in neighbor's swimming pools, their families would.
It is time to pass legislation that mandates gun owners to buy liability insurance as car owners and home owners do.
Quoting from the article: "According to the National Center for Health Statistics, fewer than 5 percent of the 120,000 gun-related killings in the U.S. between 2001-2010 were carried out by individuals diagnosed with a mental illness."
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.
