The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 2801 - 2820 of total 5678 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Feb 14, 2013 - 02:09am PT
Your balls get squeezed because you would bitch "racial profiling" if the only people to be searched were those who fit the dangerous profile.
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Social climber
SLO, Ca
Feb 14, 2013 - 02:22am PT
The gun for self defense reality:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/02/14/oscar-pistorius-shoots-girlfriend/1918689/
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Feb 14, 2013 - 12:17pm PT
Now we are talking about mass transit, airport security, and ball groping... as if that has anything to do with gun regulations?

Like I said...


fuking idiots.

Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Feb 14, 2013 - 12:40pm PT
TSA is largely "safety theater" in much the same way as politicians who rant about assault weapons.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Feb 14, 2013 - 12:41pm PT
The well-appointed home...

Kicking it into high gear...
Kicking it into high gear...
Credit: Reilly

I guess he could use a bigger TV.
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Feb 14, 2013 - 12:43pm PT
He should really learn how to change clips,..
frank wyman

Mountain climber
montana
Feb 14, 2013 - 01:15pm PT
If the mentally deficient are not allowed to own guns then why should they be allowed to make gun laws?
Ksolem

Trad climber
Monrovia, California
Feb 14, 2013 - 01:16pm PT
...and had an Egyptian light up the El Al ticket counter with automatic gunfire within minutes of me being there.

In 2002? No automatic weapons there. One of the three dead was the attacker who was shot and then died in a hand to hand knife fight with an armed El Al guard. Both the attacker and the guard had Glock pistols.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Feb 14, 2013 - 01:27pm PT
If the mentally deficient are not allowed to own guns then why should they be allowed to make gun laws?

Because no sane person could ever argue that the gun laws being proposed would ever be used to kill people. Of course, if you are a fuking idiot, you can create a fantasy world where it does.
frank wyman

Mountain climber
montana
Feb 14, 2013 - 01:39pm PT
Working to CHANGE the system makes SENSE...But failing to find HUMOR at the same time is giving the system far more respect than it deserves..
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Feb 15, 2013 - 12:41am PT
Missouri Democrats Introduce Legislation to Confiscate Firearms - Gives Gun Owners 90 Days to Turn in Weapons
Fire it up253

Share
AP Graphics


Missouri Democrats introduced an anti-gun bill which would turn law-abiding firearm owners into criminals. They will have 90 days to turn in their guns if the legislation is passed.

Here’s part of the Democratic proposal in Missouri:

4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.



Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/02/14/missouri-democrats-introduce-legislation-confiscate-firearms-gives-gun-owners-90-days-turn-weapons?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FoxNation+%28Fox+Nation%29#ixzz2KwYblAVS






and so it begins.....
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Feb 15, 2013 - 08:29am PT
Missouri Democrats introduced an anti-gun bill which would turn law-abiding firearm owners into criminals.

No, Missouri Democrats introduced legislation to ban weapons which have no purpose in personal self-defense, weapons that have been the tool of choice in several recent mass murders, and weapons that are specifically designed for such acts of mass murder. Nobody becomes a criminal until they fail to comply with that law.

Everyone here knows that such a law will not be passed, so complaining about political posturing is fairly insincere, but I also wish such a bill had not been introduced, it distracts from more effective approaches, and provides Criminal Rights Advocates with ammunition to support their more extreme claims.

In any case, a law-abiding citizen has every right to contact his law-makers to oppose this bill. A law-abiding citizen has every right to challenge such laws in court, and if the law-abiding citizen still feels his rights have been violated, take his case all the way to the supreme court. That is what preserving, protecting and defending the constitution means.

A law-abiding citizen DOES NOT have the right to unilaterally decide that such a law is unconstitutional, declare such laws as tyranny and promote armed insurrection against such laws.

TE

Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Feb 15, 2013 - 10:29am PT
TE,, there is a thing,, known as the 2nd amendment which says all- about guns. When any body of govt comes up with new laws that are in direct conflict with that amendment, they no longer act in the interest of that amendment. It does NOT have a damm thing to do with "keeping society safer". A clear example is attempting to be set by several states. And the launguage of those proposed bills also deal with interstate sales and or transfers of those guns, which is ALSO in conflict with fed laws proposed.. Does any of this make sense? Not one teensie bit. So all those folks in NY will be selling their guns to PA folks,, and MO folks will be selling their guns all in Kansas i suppose? Does any of that make sense? People being FORCED to sell weapons? And sell them without ANY back ground check of any type... Does that make sense?
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Feb 15, 2013 - 11:33am PT
Ron that it utter bullsh#t. You can't yell out bomb threats in an airplane, despite the 1st amendment. You can't make death threats to the POTUS, despite the 1st amendment. If we the people, through our elected officials, decide we want to limit access to weapons specifically designed to kill dozens of people in minutes, we can do that... yes we can. That is how our system works. If you don't like it, MOVE.

Does any of this make sense?

The way you interpreted it and explained it... of course not!
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Feb 15, 2013 - 11:44am PT
yeah right wes.. It makes SENSE for folks to have to sell their guns to OTHER states, in direct conflict with INTERSTATE sales laws being proposed. Now tell me what that actually means?

Ok ill tell you-- that means those folks HAVE NO CHOICE but to turn them in because they break laws no matter what.. CATCH 22 as it were. And it is all bullsheet imo. And what YOU fail to realize is that proposed laws YOU support now,, WILL BE added upon in the short future. Then YOU might just have to turn in Gramps ol 22 you were shooting the other day. And DONT think for a minute that isnt long term goals of many.
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Feb 15, 2013 - 11:50am PT
Ron is arguing against leftiness and slippery slopes. Reality is too much of a challenge to debate.
frank wyman

Mountain climber
montana
Feb 15, 2013 - 12:04pm PT
Ron...Have comfort in knowing that when the next suicide bomber kills himself and others...Meh-christ will be one of his 72 virgins...
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Feb 15, 2013 - 12:29pm PT
It makes SENSE for folks to have to sell their guns to OTHER states, in direct conflict with INTERSTATE sales laws being proposed.

It doesn't say "sell" ANYWHERE in there. And that is why you are an idiot. It is perfectly legal to "Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri."
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Feb 15, 2013 - 12:39pm PT
I don't have a problem with Gramps old 22, or anything else getting taken away. I don't necessarily want it either, I'm fully in support of responsible gun ownership for self defense in the home, and subject to extensive training and regular re-assessment, even concealed weapons in public places for a deserving few.

The claim is that law-abiding people will be prosecuted if laws like this are introduced is absurd. A law-abiding citizen will follow the law, even if they don't agree with it. There is a process in place for the courts to determine whether a law is constitutional or not, it's not tyranny, it's democracy.

TE
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Feb 15, 2013 - 12:43pm PT
TE,, citizens, when deciding they want something, have NO TROUBLE becoming law breakers. Weve seen that throughout the prohibitions era, and have seen that with POT for as long as ive been alive. We see that daily with drinking and driving. Dont think guns will be any different, cus they wont be. Im not giving mine up for any body , govt or law..
Messages 2801 - 2820 of total 5678 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews