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 don't know one single liberal who wants to ban all guns.
Now you do.
As you have been informed many times in the past, these people are doing exactly that. But somehow you keep "forgetting".
---------------------------------------
"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come." - then-Senator Joseph Biden; quoted by AP, 1993-11-18
Officials in Deerfield, Ill., unanimously approved the ordinance, which prohibits the possession, manufacture or sale of a range of firearms, as well as large-capacity magazines. Police in Deerfield will have the power to confiscate banned weapons and destroy them after determining they were not needed as evidence. - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.9f5b32b0aa01 - published April 5, 2018
"Yes, I'm denying you your rights." - Tom Bradley (Los Angeles Mayor), on constitutional rights at a "Save the Brady Bill" rally; from article by Steve Comus, Western Outdoor News, 1992-09-04
"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that .... If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime." - Mary Ann Carlson (Vermont state Senator)
"We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases." - William L. Clay (US Representative, D-MO, St. Louis); "NRA-Backed Measure May Derail Brady Bill", by Robert L. Koenig, St. Louis Post Dispatch, p. 1A, 1993-05-08
"And we should - then every community in the country could then start doing major weapon sweeps and then destroying the weapons, not selling them." - Bill Clinton (US President)
"If it was up to me, no one but law enforcement officers would own handguns ...." - Richard Daley (Chicago Mayor); Federal gun legislation press conference in Washington, D.C., 1998-11-13
"You know I don't believe in people owning guns, only the police and military. And I'm going to do everything I can to disarm this state." - Michael Dukakis (Massachusetts Governor); in conversation with Mike Yacino (Massachusetts Gun Owners' Action League) and Roy Innis (Congress of Racial Equality), 1986-06-16
"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. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." - Dianne Feinstein (US Senator, D-CA); 60 Minutes, 1995-02-05
"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State". - Heinrich Himmler
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms." - Adolf Hitler; Edict of March 18, 1938.
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal. - Janet Reno (US Attorney General), 1993-12-10
So it's not that you "don't know a single liberal who wants to ban guns".
You are simply willing to make excuses for those who do.
I meant know personally. Considering the qualification I very clearly included, that should have been self-evident.
And I don't need to make excuses for anyone. People in far away places (including both varieties of wing-nuts) are allowed to elect who ever they want. Geez, I would have thought that was pretty self-evident as well.
For years now, every time there is a horrific shooting, the same people instantly react, calling for gun bans, increased background checks, waiting periods, and other programs. Invariably some of them get enacted, and the rate of shootings, murders, etc. keep right on going, with no reduction (and sometimes they increase.
And just as inevitably, soon there is another horrific mass shooting or three. And the same people start in with the same demands: More schemes that have ailed in the past... along with blaming government for failing to do enough.
Well, in one way they are right. In giving in to these terrified hysterics and enacting their programs, the govt is wasting its time, passing useless programs instead of things that actually work, and our children keep dying.
When will they finally stop listening to the hysterics whose programs let the killers keep right on killing? When will they finally get around to trying things that have actually worked in the past?
Posting armed guards at every school, in cooperation with local police departments who know the area and know how may guards would be needed to really make a difference, has worked. It's expensive, but are our children's lives not worth the extra expense?
Or we could allow for guards of a different, and far more numerous, nature: Obey the 2nd amendment for a change, and let any law-abiding adult who wants to, carry. A teacher if they want, a deliveryman at the school, a janitor, somebody walking their dog past the campus, plus many other such.
Some demented thug who wants to shoot up the school and get tons of headlines after he's dead, would know that there's probably someone nearby with a gun who knows how to use it. So he probably won't be able to rack up the huge body count he's hoping for. And maybe some of them will decide not to do it in the first place. Presto, a reduction in shootings, without a shot being fired.
Why do the horrified spectators always call for "solutions" that have failed already? And why does the govt listen to them, and let the killings go on without restraint? Isn't it time they listened to those whose solutions are already proven to work instead?
When you hear "we must use common sense" WATCH OUT BUYER BEWARE!
See for yourself if it is common sense to you. 80% of the time, it has no common sense involved. It is depending on the stupidity of the audience.
When you hear "we must use common sense" WATCH OUT BUYER BEWARE!
See for yourself if it is common sense to you. 80% of the time, it has no common sense involved. It is depending on the stupidity of the audience.
Should read "WATCH OUT, BUYER BEWARE" or possibly "WATCH OUT BUYER, BEWARE".
Should be at least a 15 year prison sentence for commission of a crime with a firearm per occurrence, and this is not able to be plea bargained away. Rob two people at gun point that is 30 years.
1st degree Murder should be life sentence or death penalty.
Merely owning a particular type of gun should not be illegal. After all the GUN is just an inanimate non living object; it can do absolutely nothing without a human doing something to the GUN in the first place.
Should be at least a 15 year prison sentence for commission of a crime with a firearm per occurrence, and this is not able to be plea bargained away. Rob two people at gun point that is 30 years.
1st degree Murder should be life sentence or death penalty.
Merely owning a particular type of gun should not be illegal. After all the GUN is just an inanimate non living object; it can do absolutely nothing without a human doing something to the GUN in the first place.
I go along with that. I don't have a problem with license and registration either or mandatory training (maybe in High School?). Accountability should be the foremost thing. I think CC and the training involved is the way to go these days.
I go along with that. I don't have a problem with license and registration either or mandatory training (maybe in High School?). Accountability should be the foremost thing. I think CC and the training involved is the way to go these days.
Why would you, or anyone else, support registration of a tool? What other tools do you want to be registered? Hammers? Knives? Chainsaws?
Registration of firearms can serve one purpose and one purpose only: to give the government a list of people with firearms. It won't prevent people from stealing firearms, it won't prevent people from using firearms in the commission of a crime. It literally does nothing to protect a single citizen. The best argument I've seen is that it might/possibly/could lead to easier arrests when a crime is committed - which does nothing to prevent the crime in the first place.
Why would you, or anyone else, support registration of a tool? What other tools do you want to be registered? Hammers? Knives? Chainsaws?
Registration of firearms can serve one purpose and one purpose only: to give the government a list of people with firearms. It won't prevent people from stealing firearms, it won't prevent people from using firearms in the commission of a crime. It literally does nothing to protect a single citizen. The best argument I've seen is that it might/possibly/could lead to easier arrests when a crime is committed - which does nothing to prevent the crime in the first place.
Historically registration was always the first step towards confiscation. I would like to think that we as a people are enlightened enough that would no longer be the case, but I doubt it.
Registration as you indicated can not possible be used in the prevention of a crime, only in the prosecution of a crime afterwards.
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.
