southwind
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 7,709
- Reaction score
- 3,928
Obama's secret assassins
- Thread starter traderjake
- Start date
-
- Tags
- naomi wolf the guardian
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,731
- Reaction score
- 9,009
I think we are focusing on the wrong issue. The capacity and capabilities of the weapons are secondary. What we should be focusing on is regulating access to weapons. They need to be titled, registered, back ground check for everyone and the weapons need to be secured.
Worrying about capacity and rate of fire will just get in you in a pissing match with the gun folks and nothing will get accomplished.
Worrying about capacity and rate of fire will just get in you in a pissing match with the gun folks and nothing will get accomplished.
Wonderful!...Umm..and whom should I or ANYONE reasonably trust to "regulate" access to them? Let me guess here = The same literally insane, government psychopaths that felt it needed to demand I remove the nail file (I'm not making this up) off some fingernail clippers after 911, before then being graciously allowed into the airport to take command of merely a fuel-laden jetliner...so's to presumably ensure that we didn't "hijack" our own flight with that clearly lethal fingenail clipper's "assault" nail file? You can trust these complete idiots in DC if you want. I can't imagine any even marginally sane person doing so though.
"The capacity and capabilities of the weapons are secondary. " I see, so...it's just any weapons whatsoever then?
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,731
- Reaction score
- 9,009
So other than crying and whining like a baby, do you have any idea or does your ability stop at the aforementioned skills?
The biggest problem with the issues that you mentioned is the fact that there are too many chefs in the kitchen. The same thing happened with universal health care. So many compromises were made the end result was nearly useless.
The biggest problem with the issues that you mentioned is the fact that there are too many chefs in the kitchen. The same thing happened with universal health care. So many compromises were made the end result was nearly useless.
"The capacity and capabilities of the weapons are secondary. " I see, so...it's just any weapons whatsoever then?
You fail to surprise or dissapoint in any way, by so easilly flaring up and demonstrating the definitive arrogance of the truly clueless. I certainly do have an idea, and it's a very basic one. That simple notion would be to respect the Constitution and to "Gasp!" prevent the Rights of private citizens from being further infringed...Period. I reasonably must accept that crazy people exist and can arm themselves. I accept that many thousands, and perhaps any of us, do and/or could die each year in auto accidents or from a myriad host of other reasons. I believe the best means of thwarting some murderous, rampaging psychopath with a weapon is for sane people to shoot that person down. I've no notions of life ever being even possibly made into some entirely "safe" experience, live-able only within some contrived little rubber room inside Fantasyland.
You fail to surprise or dissapoint in any way, by so easilly flaring up and demonstrating the definitive arrogance of the truly clueless. I certainly do have an idea, and it's a very basic one. That simple notion would be to respect the Constitution and to "Gasp!" prevent the Rights of private citizens from being further infringed...Period. I reasonably must accept that crazy people exist and can arm themselves. I accept that many thousands, and perhaps any of us, do and/or could die each year in auto accidents or from a myriad host of other reasons. I believe the best means of thwarting some murderous, rampaging psychopath with a weapon is for sane people to shoot that person down. I've no notions of life ever being even possibly made into some entirely "safe" experience, live-able only within some contrived little rubber room inside Fantasyland.
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,731
- Reaction score
- 9,009
No idea what the first question refers to.
Flare up? Truly clueless? OH blow it out your a$$. I an others like me are fed up with the a homicide rate that exceeds that of nearly every country aside from those that are involved in a war.
Regulating access by background checks and registration does not infringe anyone's right to own a weapon. It is the most efficient and reliable method to prevent people who should not have access to them from gaining access.
The kids at CT, CO and else where did not get knifed, run down by a car ... wtc. They were intentionally murdered with a GUN. I know you don't like that reality but that is the fact of the matter. Casualties with cars are accidents. The murders in CT and CO and others are not accidents. Cars are necessary requirement for daily life. Not so for guns.
The laws of this country grant you the right to own guns. They also grant us the right to make sure they are owned responsibly. Right now that is far from the case.
I see by your response that you have no plan other than to keep on the current path and allow 8k-9k homicides every year. That is a perfectly viable option but one that is not very popular. I guess if one of your loved ones is one of those 8k-9k your tune might change .... or not.
Flare up? Truly clueless? OH blow it out your a$$. I an others like me are fed up with the a homicide rate that exceeds that of nearly every country aside from those that are involved in a war.
Regulating access by background checks and registration does not infringe anyone's right to own a weapon. It is the most efficient and reliable method to prevent people who should not have access to them from gaining access.
The kids at CT, CO and else where did not get knifed, run down by a car ... wtc. They were intentionally murdered with a GUN. I know you don't like that reality but that is the fact of the matter. Casualties with cars are accidents. The murders in CT and CO and others are not accidents. Cars are necessary requirement for daily life. Not so for guns.
The laws of this country grant you the right to own guns. They also grant us the right to make sure they are owned responsibly. Right now that is far from the case.
I see by your response that you have no plan other than to keep on the current path and allow 8k-9k homicides every year. That is a perfectly viable option but one that is not very popular. I guess if one of your loved ones is one of those 8k-9k your tune might change .... or not.
Indeed? So...who's "us"? 😉 "grant us the right"? I don't recall much in way of many "us" refererences triumphing individual Rights. Perhaps you can enlighten us all as to where they're found within the Constitution, the Declaration or any other formative document of this Nation? Silly me...All this time I'd thought it was an issue along these lines: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Where does any "us" come into: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"...?
"Not so for guns."? " I know you don't like that reality but" the following "is the fact of the matter."
The last link's from a parent of a Sandy Hook child....apparently not among your "us" it would seem.
https://www.youtube....&v=dhXPlCjr0Vw
That clown will come on here jumping up and down for gay rights and anti second rights but never says a word when other rights are trampled daily like at an airport, or Obama killing US citizens w/o due process....so go figure East......
"who by most polls" Ah! Another critical part of the Founding Fathers' thoughts that I can't seem to find anywhere within the Constitution.
".. but never says a word when other rights are trampled daily..." Of course not sir!. After all; we're clearly not part of any grand and glorious "us" that should even be considered "worthy" of having any Rights. 😉
"...country aside from those that are involved in a war. "...?
Btw; as it's obviously escaped your notice, what with "us" never intentionally involving yourselves in any war; here's the notions of a young Marine who did indeed Serve us all in a war theater, as a great many young people currently do:
https://www.youtube....h?v=Yj8Q-0Gxg8A
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,731
- Reaction score
- 9,009
No one's rights are being infringed so that argument is moot. You have the right to bear arms. No where in the COTUS does it say that regulations cannot be placed upon the ownership of such weapons. According your line of reasoning criminals should be allowed to purchase and own weapons as well because the COTUS does not say that such person should be prohibited.
The 1st is restricted as well as the 4th. No right is absolute.
It would seem Mr CT is unaware that Fed law trumps state law. While I agree that the laws currently being proposed are indeed asinine the need for regulations on gun ownership is in my opinion very clear.
If the gun nuts had a brain they would get out in front and start to formulate legislation which would guarantee the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns while keeping the unlawful citizens away from guns. That seems to be wishful thinking as indicated by your pitiful call to "respect the Constitution and to "Gasp!" prevent the Rights oof private citizens from being further infringed...Period." as if that has worked so well.
The majority has the right to enact legislation so long as it does not conflict with the COTUS.
Stop your crying already. Your rights would not be affected by background checks and registration. The fact that you do not get behind common sense legislation and allow 9k homicides a year to happen is your own fault. The US is reactionary not proactive. The next massacre (and we all know there will be one) will result in even more draconian and insane legislatioon. The real kicker is you only have your self to blame.
Wow a marine who is against gun regulations. What next, a race car driver against racing restrictions? Police chiefs all over the country have been in favor of background checks and stricter regulation of weapons. Since they deal with the domestic results of 9k homicides each year I'll take their opinion over that of a soldier who only deals with battle ground issues.
Where a soldier serves has nothing to do with the point that I made regarding having more gun homicides in the US than any other country that is not involved in war of some kind.
