Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-23-2021, 10:41 AM
 
Location: DFW
40,952 posts, read 49,183,047 times
Reputation: 55008

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by himain View Post
Those are my opinions and everyone has the right to one.
Not if you're a gun loving conservative.

 
Old 03-23-2021, 10:43 AM
Status: "I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out." (set 6 days ago)
 
35,627 posts, read 17,953,728 times
Reputation: 50650
Quote:
Originally Posted by austinnerd View Post
So if the family member states that to the "best of their knowledge" the purchaser is ok, and the purchaser then goes and commits a crime, the family member is now legally culpable? So an abusive husband wanting to prevent his wife from purchasing a firearm to defend herself can do sojust by saying that 'she has issues'? Which family member, is Aunt Bettie or Cousin Tim good enough? What are they 'vouching' anyway, what's the legal definition of that because if you don't define it and then enforce it any law would be worthless. For those who have ill intent, have you just shifted the problem vs addressing it?
Yep.

If an abusive husband wants to prevent his wife from purchasing a firearm, she should take her sister or mom when she goes to get the gun, not her husband.

What they are "vouching", is the person seems stable and they have seen no evidence to suggest the purchaser intends, or will in the future, use the gun to commit a crime.

And I think in all of our families, we can think of people we'd be extremely comfortable vouching for, and people we would be hesitant to.

If I ruled the world, that's how this would go.
 
Old 03-23-2021, 10:44 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,000 posts, read 44,813,405 times
Reputation: 13699
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC View Post
That's what I'm suggesting. He fell through the cracks. Doesn't mean he's NOT paranoid schizophrenic, just because a court hasn't removed his rights to gun ownership. Means they SHOULD have.

Anyway, I go back to the perfect system. You want to buy a gun? Bring a family member with ID who will stand there and say you're just fine, and always have been. And if you turn right around and blow away 10 people in a grocery store, that family member can be charged with aiding and abetting.

This would end.
No ID to vote = No ID to buy a gun. Both are Constitutional Rights.
 
Old 03-23-2021, 10:44 AM
 
Location: USA
31,036 posts, read 22,070,533 times
Reputation: 19078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kavalier View Post
This is the photo the Fake News is now going to run with. Makes the guy look quite white (he is not white):



Attachment 228186
Media did the same for the Multi Ethnic George Zimmerman "how can we make him as white as possible"
 
Old 03-23-2021, 10:45 AM
 
Location: Rose capitol of Texas
552 posts, read 223,175 times
Reputation: 967
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabchuck View Post
Are you replying to the right person ? I could care less what pollical slant you have. I've stated some facts, nothing more.

Our current background checks would not flag any sort of mental health issues....why ? HIPAA laws.

The NRA has NEVER stated "let him buy an
automatic rifle. They are so lightweight, and fun to shoot! Get yours today!
" They merely lobby to protect the rights of those that can legally own a firearm.
That is why I did not add quotation marks. It's called sarcasm. As in the truth in sarcasm.
The NRA did nothing, absolutely nothing to discourage people from buying guns. NRA TV
was flat out gun fetishizing. One commercial featured a young man slowly taking off his
clothes while deeply kissing a very attractive woman. All along the way, the young man
removed various guns ( several ) he had contained in his clothing. Anybody with an IQ
of a kitten would understand that the NRA was using sex appeal to sell guns. As in, she
will think you are hot and want to have sex with you if you are heavily armed with guns.

Did you ever watch NRA TV? P.S. You added the quotation marks to my sarcastic remark.
I did not quote or use quotation marks at all.
 
Old 03-23-2021, 10:46 AM
Status: "I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out." (set 6 days ago)
 
35,627 posts, read 17,953,728 times
Reputation: 50650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kavalier View Post
This is the photo the Fake News is now going to run with. Makes the guy look quite white (he is not white):



Attachment 228186
*shrug* that pic makes him look darker than the bloody leg pic. He's just not dark. In fact, he's pale.
 
Old 03-23-2021, 10:46 AM
 
Location: USA
31,036 posts, read 22,070,533 times
Reputation: 19078
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
No ID to vote = No ID to buy a gun. Both are Constitutional Rights.
Yep, ID for either one would be violating our Constitutional Rights
 
Old 03-23-2021, 10:47 AM
Status: "I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out." (set 6 days ago)
 
35,627 posts, read 17,953,728 times
Reputation: 50650
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
No ID to vote = No ID to buy a gun. Both are Constitutional Rights.
You don't have an unlimited right to vote, or to buy a gun.

Try going over to the next county and voting. Try buying a gun with a felony criminal record.
 
Old 03-23-2021, 10:49 AM
 
Location: Port Charlotte FL
4,857 posts, read 2,672,101 times
Reputation: 7709
too bad a concealed carry person couldn't have taken him out before he got so far with his killing spree..
 
Old 03-23-2021, 10:49 AM
 
26,491 posts, read 15,070,512 times
Reputation: 14638
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
No ID to vote = No ID to buy a gun. Both are Constitutional Rights.
Democrats are illogical on IDs. They have repeated so many times that you shouldn't need an ID to exercise a constitutional right when voting, simply because the media propagandized that argument and they don't think, so they don't see how illogical it is.

We need IDs to exercise the following constitutional rights: buying a gun, traveling outside the country, running for office, etc.

Very shallow thinking.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:30 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top