Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
We all know that liberals are tree huggers and would never cut or burn a tree...... :-p
We all know that liberals are tree huggers and would never cut or burn a tree...... :-p
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
That's because the Democratic Party is way too conservative for you. You would never consort with those right-wingers. :-P
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
This is the thing. No one wants your gun. You're still arguing from a position which doesn't exist.
You need to clarify your position. No one is, has, or ever will come into your home and take the gun you already own.
So you're saying......... nobody wants my AR15? SKS? AK47? Slidefire stock? 30 round mags? 100 round drums?
Funny..... because when i listen to the gun control hearings on TV, those senators have me convinced that they do in fact want them.
What about the semi automatic rifle i want for christmas this year? they want that one dont they? by "want" i mean want to prevent me from purchasing it.
funny.... i just took a stroll over to some california senator's own personal website, clicked a section called "political positions".... scrolled down to a section called "guns" and this is what i found...
I wrote the assault weapons ban that was the law of the land for a decade. Against all odds we passed that bill in 1994. Now the National Rifle Association essentially has a stranglehold on Congress. Recently I have been frustrated by Congress� unwillingness to pass commonsense measures to reduce gun violence. Even after Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was seriously injured and six others killed in a January 2011 shooting, Congress failed to ban the large-capacity ammunition feeding device that allowed the shooter to kill and injure so many people so quickly. I deeply regret this.
Stop listening to what they're saying. Read what is being proposed.
The left has an 80 year old woman as their spokesperson for guns.
seems legit.
I don't understand where you are going with this. These seems to be going off on a tangent. The point is, we do regulate where you can do certain dangerous activities even though people will break those rules. You can argue about what the effects of that are but I was never arguing that point.
No you are mischaracterizing my position. You were the one who side one side doesn't care about safety. I was saying that wasn't true and your unwillingness to accept that the other side has valid concerns prevents progress from being made between the people on both sides who care about safety.
Not at all what the implication was. My point was purely that Chicago doesn't prove or disprove the effectiveness of gun control at a national level.
I already answered this in post #616. We do have restrictions on SUVs and all cars precisely because they are dangerous.
I believe the Supreme Court already ruled that a ban on assault weapons is not unconstitutional last time the ban was in effect. We would have to wait and see regarding all semi-autos but I doubt that legislation would get passed in the first place. I agree we should not ban them but just because I disagree doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.
I do not think the government is interested in anyone's safety but their own. When i say "both sides care about safety" i'm speaking on behalf of someone who thinks banning guns would make their kids more safe, however wrong or misguided they may be. "The left doesnt care about safety", im speaking to the ones in power. Not their flock of sheep.
It's simply a coincidence that other cities where guns are wide spread are doing just fine. Chicago's only issue is guns being imported from all of the violent places surrounding them. We should all bend to chicago's will and adopt their policies..... How does this make sense? The left always finds a way to blame something else for their failure. Why cant the left ever lead by example? A state like texas can say " we did this and look at this " the liberal states always have to say "we could do this if not for this"
Then why are you speaking in such absolutes to people on this forum who are not politicians? Politicians number one priority is getting reelected. If you change the minds of their constituents, the politicians will follow.
Chicago's violence problem has been going on much longer than their strict gun control laws. As I said, Chicago's laws do not prove nor disprove gun control laws so no, it doesn't mean everywhere should adopt their policies. I haven't heard anyone on the left say that Chicago proves gun control works either.
Frustration. Recognizing that most of their base are programmed to believe what theyre told. Nothing you could ever say could change someone like Blank's mind.
I mean seriously.... look a few posts up....
My mind could definitely be changed. It's not gonna be changed with straw man arguments though.
says the person who directly told me not to listen to what his representatives are saying.
Just for giggles, why should i not listen to what theyre saying?
Gun Control: Colorado Democrats Are Ready To Spark A Revolution
Nothin to see here....
someone like Blank would have you sit quietly until the wolf is at your door.
Obama says " the police are tired of being out gunned "
I'm not convinced that the police arent something i might have to defend myself from in the future.
Here's the answer to why gun control and healthcare are linked.
Guns of Law-Abiding Husband Confiscated After Wife’s Single Voluntary Mental Health Visit | TheBlaze.com
The cognitive dissonance of the commenters on that site is perplexing. Those people are so mind blowingly disconnected from reality, its terrifying.
We allow 16 year old kids to drive them with our blessing, and as you can see, numerous deaths occured with only 2 crashes. If we can save only 1 life, we must take action, and ban these instruments of deaths and destruction. How many more families will have to suffer before we act?????
</sarcasm>
Correct, and I agree.
About Diane Feinstein's current proposal, the 1994 ban applied to a rifle or shotgun the "pistol grip" of which "protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon," the new bill would drastically expand the definition to include any "grip . . . or any other characteristic that can function as a grip." Also, the new bill adds "forward grip" to the list of prohibiting features for rifles, defining it as "a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip." Read literally and in conjunction with the reduction from two features to one, the new language would apply to every detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle.
Also, she wants to seize all of these guns by prohibiting the transfer of "assault weapons." Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs. However, under Feinstein's new bill, "assault weapons" would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government. That means that you would not be able to give your firearm that you purchased, and is your sole property, to you children. That is seizure or personal property by the government without a court order. Fourth Amendment, anyone?
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
I will now endow this thread with another professional personal opinion of mine.
bu villain... You sir, are a proper gentleman. While I do not 100% agree with the opinions you posted. Your replies are always thorough and well thought out. I honestly enjoy reading your replies and pondering the point of view.
blank... The answering a question with a question thing is getting old. You are not smarter, wiser, nor more knowledgeable than some other members on this board (albeit smarter than most, I'll give you that). Although you do put up a good front. The "Holier-than-thou" thing went out with 2010 and skinny jeans... Some people still rock it, but it's not a good look. Your replies are as predictable as hearing about Jesus being preached in my church on Sunday morning.
I always have an anterior motive. If you don't have enough info to continue the discussion, don't answer the follow up question. And dont ask broad questions when speaking on a specific topic. Simple as apple pie.
"Do you believe in socialism?"
This is not a yes or no answer. If you ask closed ended questions on a very specific topic, expect to be grilled for specifics. Politics, by its nature, doesn't work in a yes-no, left-right paradigm.
I agree on both, somewhat....
Buvillan is a gentleman and is fun to debate with. He almost makes me feel bad for being an asshole sometimes......... almost.
Blank is book smart..... which unfortunately does not always translate to common sense, something he severely lacks. Blank cherry picks moments to comment when he can recite some rehearsed politically correct rhetoric. He goes to great lengths to disguise his actual opinions on topics, that is assuming he's even capable of forming his own.
I'm going to own guns. I purchased them legally, I follow the rules, nobody will take them from me. That's final. LOL
If you believe that, may I ask why you continue to debate him?
I understand you are pointing out the over the top rhetoric that is used, but obviously that does not mean we should ban absolutely everything that has ever killed someone. Or maybe Obama means we should ban water to prevent drowning, ladders to prevent falling from height, and soap to prevent bathroom slips. If we can get past the obvious political hyperbole and focus on the issue of assessing the effectiveness of our laws regarding gun safety, we can actually move forward.
I don't believe dead people have rights under the fourth amendment. There are already rules in place for what you can give to your heirs and what part of it the government gets. This isn't breaking ground in that respect.
Not seeking to. I enjoy a good argument and a difference of opinion, but arguing with blank is like arguing with the automated service when you call the cable company. He's a rhetoric machine, he rarely offers any personal insight on a topic in fear of exposing himself. If i want to know what the Obama campaign thinks about a given topic, i'll go to website and be fed bullshit directly from the source, dont need Blank to hold the spoon.
You guys are a bunch of sweethearts. I just enjoy debate and learning other people's points of view. That's why I'm usually playing devil's advocate such as in this thread where I don't believe in an assault weapons ban but I am defending the merits of that side anyways. People's inability to view things from a different perspective is what I hope to change more than any single political view on an issue.
Why can't I be a sweetheart for viewing two different view points?
It's BS I tell ya, BS!
More people are killed by car crashes than firearms. That's an undisputable fact. Banning all forms of motorized transportation and going back to horses and wagons would reduce the amount of deaths far more than banning all privately owned firearms. If you want to pass laws to promote safety and prevent deaths, then look at where you can find the most gains.
Banning cars is not politically correct though, and banning firearms is an easier sale to the general public.
When a person dies, their possession become part of their estate, which a living person is appointed as an executor or an administrator over. The estate functions with the same rights and responsibilities as a living individual until all assests have been distributed and the estate is dissolved. I've had to handle them before, and I am handling one currently.
So, yes, the Fourth Amendment, should apply to the living administrator/executor of the estate who is legally responsible for the assest that happens to be a firearm.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Except, in this case, you're the irate customer who keeps trying to tell me your Monopoly money is just as legitimate as real currency.
Take a look at his signature. There's no debate going on at all. You'd be mislead to believe otherwise. All that comes from his keyboard is "[INSERT CONSPIRACY THEORY HERE]!!!! WE MUST DETHRONE OUR NEGRO OVERLORD"
True to form and continuing to spout rhetoric. Usually you're too self righteous to play the race card though. Me posting news links of actual events taking place are not conspiracy theories. You refuse to see the truth because you want to support the black president, yet at the same time you hide behind the excuse that people are racist towards Obama. If skin color was an issue, Obama doesnt get elected.... everyone knew he was black... he couldnt hide that..... it's everything he did hide that makes people hate him.
but yeah......
look at my signature Blank....
"no ordinary american cares about their constitutional rights" - the person who swore to defend my constitutional rights.
oh that's right......
"dont pay attention to what they say" - BlankCD
You misunderstand. The point is NOT simply to reduce as many deaths as possible, that's an oversimplification. If that was the goal, you would ban pools of water, ladders, and soap as I said in the last response.
So what happens if a person bequeaths their gun to a felon?
Why is there even still any debate on cars vs guns? lol
A gun control hearing happened this week....... in which your congressmen made the same comparisons. You think it's silly and insult me for making the comparison, yet the leaders of the free world are making the same comparison.
You honestly have no real answer to it, you just laugh it off.
Doesnt stop the president from pandering though does it? "if we can save 1 life, then we have to try"
Well, my own personal beliefs would make that a lot less likely to happen...... because felons would stay behind bars. What are the odds of me walking into a prison and selling my gun to an inmate? pretty slim. Think about the irony of the situation............. the possibility of me selling my gun to a felon is one of the major concerns anti-gun activists have. Why do we have so many felons walking the street to begin with?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
