100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: A petition that just might get some attention | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quid pro Quorum.
TASTY! |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Mortman
on
Thu 01/17/13 11:35 PM
|
|
I don't think that's how a "gun free zone" works. For example, many schools are "gun free," yet police officers don't leave their sidearms in the squad car when they visit.
Now, I know that this is a cheeky little plan to make the President feel scared without his copious security, but you could be spending your time on better things. I guess you don't see the need for further gun controls in light of a few dozen first-graders getting gunned down at school, but it's clear that something has to be done. Congress certainly isn't moving in any meaningful direction on the issue, and most of the suggestions of President Obama make sense. I wish we lived in a country that could handle our guns better, and for the vast majority of gun owners, we can. I can handle the inconvenience of stuffing the handful of cartridges in one at a time through the ejector port if it means that another six-year-old won't get literally blown apart. Shooting 20-30 rounds into a target gets ridiculous as the shot groups lose their meaning. A national database that includes mental health issues is also a good idea, and then lastly, re-empowering the ATF to enforce the gun laws already on the books would be nice. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Fri 01/18/13 01:29 AM
|
|
I don't think that's how a "gun free zone" works. For example, many schools are "gun free," yet police officers don't leave their sidearms in the squad car when they visit. Now, I know that this is a cheeky little plan to make the President feel scared without his copious security, but you could be spending your time on better things. I guess you don't see the need for further gun controls in light of a few dozen first-graders getting gunned down at school, but it's clear that something has to be done. Congress certainly isn't moving in any meaningful direction on the issue, and most of the suggestions of President Obama make sense. I wish we lived in a country that could handle our guns better, and for the vast majority of gun owners, we can. I can handle the inconvenience of stuffing the handful of cartridges in one at a time through the ejector port if it means that another six-year-old won't get literally blown apart. Shooting 20-30 rounds into a target gets ridiculous as the shot groups lose their meaning. A national database that includes mental health issues is also a good idea, and then lastly, re-empowering the ATF to enforce the gun laws already on the books would be nice. They'd have a Field-day! Is that why you have so much Guncrime out in Cali,regardless of your strict Gun-Laws?Or maybe because of it!  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Fri 01/18/13 06:34 AM
|
|
I don't think that's how a "gun free zone" works. For example, many schools are "gun free," yet police officers don't leave their sidearms in the squad car when they visit. Now, I know that this is a cheeky little plan to make the President feel scared without his copious security, but you could be spending your time on better things. I guess you don't see the need for further gun controls in light of a few dozen first-graders getting gunned down at school, but it's clear that something has to be done. Congress certainly isn't moving in any meaningful direction on the issue, and most of the suggestions of President Obama make sense. I wish we lived in a country that could handle our guns better, and for the vast majority of gun owners, we can. I can handle the inconvenience of stuffing the handful of cartridges in one at a time through the ejector port if it means that another six-year-old won't get literally blown apart. Shooting 20-30 rounds into a target gets ridiculous as the shot groups lose their meaning. A national database that includes mental health issues is also a good idea, and then lastly, re-empowering the ATF to enforce the gun laws already on the books would be nice. Another gaffer who thinks the constitution and the peoples rights under it is up for sale or negotiation. The POTUS will always be protected because any more they are spineless lawyers, professors and PR men whose only weapon has ever been their mouth, their only tool a pen, but they hold the secrets of a nation even it they don't have the brains to use the knowledge wisely! They'd give up those secrets in a heartbeat to protect their own a$$e$ or their family.... but they want your guns to prevent your only protection of yours! That's the problem with America these days! Even Americans are becoming unAmerican, giving up their rights without so much as a "how do ya do" because some scripted fool on TV says it's the right thing to do and brings on some corrupt political talking head to verify it, with edited video and no evidence to back it up (all shielded under secrecy acts of course....for our own good)  . Give the gov't more power to act against us, then take away our ability to defend ourselves against them? That's exactly why the framers of the constitution felt freedom of speech and the right of the citizen to bear arms were important enough to be place as the 1st and 2nd of the amendments to our constitution! Grow a brain and a backbone! At the very least defend the only remaining hope of rights we have offering any REAL protection at all....Our Constitution!  Thank you Con for this one!  What will you REALLY give your children? A future of freedom or surveiled and enforced servitude? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'freedom' is an illusion
besides the emotions we feel , nothing in life is free or comes without some cost, (either in consequence, or responsibility) for instance we have the 'right' to exercise our religion(regulated by common sense to not include exercise of religious practices that break other laws) and 'free speech' (but not to use it to yell fire in a theater) we have the 'right' to bear arms (for a well REGULATED militia, common sense tells us before we had the branches of the military, people had to be able to protect themself somehow and to hunt,,etc,, a different culture, where plenty of people werent even considered people yet,,,) we have a right to a 'speedy trial' (no definitive description of what 'speedy' means ,,exactly) civil suits above twenty dollars should include a jury (shows how different the culture was at the time) we have the right not to be strictly HELD to the Constitution if we decide to retain other 'rights' ourself powers not given to the US in the constituion, or the states, are reserved for individuals and the right to keep and bear arms is as unspecific as the right to a 'speedy trial', speedy is given no definitive description, nor is 'arms' so we end up with the right to a trial, and the right to have protection,, we dont end up with a right to have a one week trial, or the right to have unregulated/unlimited protection,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'freedom' is an illusion besides the emotions we feel , nothing in life is free or comes without some cost, (either in consequence, or responsibility) for instance we have the 'right' to exercise our religion(regulated by common sense to not include exercise of religious practices that break other laws) and 'free speech' (but not to use it to yell fire in a theater) we have the 'right' to bear arms (for a well REGULATED militia, common sense tells us before we had the branches of the military, people had to be able to protect themself somehow and to hunt,,etc,, a different culture, where plenty of people werent even considered people yet,,,) we have a right to a 'speedy trial' (no definitive description of what 'speedy' means ,,exactly) civil suits above twenty dollars should include a jury (shows how different the culture was at the time) we have the right not to be strictly HELD to the Constitution if we decide to retain other 'rights' ourself powers not given to the US in the constituion, or the states, are reserved for individuals and the right to keep and bear arms is as unspecific as the right to a 'speedy trial', speedy is given no definitive description, nor is 'arms' so we end up with the right to a trial, and the right to have protection,, we dont end up with a right to have a one week trial, or the right to have unregulated/unlimited protection,,,, Pretty words don't ensure freedom, and it's not an illusion except maybe in your surrender eyes! If freedom were an illusion why are they trying so hard to deny it? There are some of us who believe in America and the principles it was founded on, were willing to fight and spill our blood for it, so people who believe like you could have the "right" to allow others to take those rights we fought to preserve away! Every right you give away in your ignorance is a slap to the face of every veteran who ever served their country! A PROUD American indeed! I think arrogant is a better word! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'freedom' is an illusion besides the emotions we feel , nothing in life is free or comes without some cost, (either in consequence, or responsibility) for instance we have the 'right' to exercise our religion(regulated by common sense to not include exercise of religious practices that break other laws) and 'free speech' (but not to use it to yell fire in a theater) we have the 'right' to bear arms (for a well REGULATED militia, common sense tells us before we had the branches of the military, people had to be able to protect themself somehow and to hunt,,etc,, a different culture, where plenty of people werent even considered people yet,,,) we have a right to a 'speedy trial' (no definitive description of what 'speedy' means ,,exactly) civil suits above twenty dollars should include a jury (shows how different the culture was at the time) we have the right not to be strictly HELD to the Constitution if we decide to retain other 'rights' ourself powers not given to the US in the constituion, or the states, are reserved for individuals and the right to keep and bear arms is as unspecific as the right to a 'speedy trial', speedy is given no definitive description, nor is 'arms' so we end up with the right to a trial, and the right to have protection,, we dont end up with a right to have a one week trial, or the right to have unregulated/unlimited protection,,,, Pretty words don't ensure freedom, and it's not an illusion except maybe in your surrender eyes! If freedom were an illusion why are they trying so hard to deny it? There are some of us who believe in America and the principles it was founded on, were willing to fight and spill our blood for it, so people who believe like you could have the "right" to allow others to take those rights we fought to preserve away! Every right you give away in your ignorance is a slap to the face of every veteran who ever served their country! A PROUD American indeed! I think arrogant is a better word! I think logical and realistic PARENT would be the best words keep fighting for the right of any and every joe blow to have weapons of their choice just becaue they are american I will continue to believe in dealing with the realities we face and adjusting and evolving accordingly I dont mind if people think that is 'arrogant' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Fri 01/18/13 07:18 AM
|
|
'freedom' is an illusion besides the emotions we feel , nothing in life is free or comes without some cost, (either in consequence, or responsibility) for instance we have the 'right' to exercise our religion(regulated by common sense to not include exercise of religious practices that break other laws) and 'free speech' (but not to use it to yell fire in a theater) we have the 'right' to bear arms (for a well REGULATED militia, common sense tells us before we had the branches of the military, people had to be able to protect themself somehow and to hunt,,etc,, a different culture, where plenty of people werent even considered people yet,,,) we have a right to a 'speedy trial' (no definitive description of what 'speedy' means ,,exactly) civil suits above twenty dollars should include a jury (shows how different the culture was at the time) we have the right not to be strictly HELD to the Constitution if we decide to retain other 'rights' ourself powers not given to the US in the constituion, or the states, are reserved for individuals and the right to keep and bear arms is as unspecific as the right to a 'speedy trial', speedy is given no definitive description, nor is 'arms' so we end up with the right to a trial, and the right to have protection,, we dont end up with a right to have a one week trial, or the right to have unregulated/unlimited protection,,,, Pretty words don't ensure freedom, and it's not an illusion except maybe in your surrender eyes! If freedom were an illusion why are they trying so hard to deny it? There are some of us who believe in America and the principles it was founded on, were willing to fight and spill our blood for it, so people who believe like you could have the "right" to allow others to take those rights we fought to preserve away! Every right you give away in your ignorance is a slap to the face of every veteran who ever served their country! A PROUD American indeed! I think arrogant is a better word! I think logical and realistic PARENT would be the best words keep fighting for the right of any and every joe blow to have weapons of their choice just becaue they are american I will continue to believe in dealing with the realities we face and adjusting and evolving accordingly I dont mind if people think that is 'arrogant' Delusional might be an even better word in your case since the constitution says every "joe blow" AMERICAN has that right and to think otherwise is FAR from reality! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why am I not surprised that you'd post this? Wasn't it you who posted the petition to deport Piers Morgan, too? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and most of the suggestions of President Obama make sense. I wonder if anyone really thinks it makes sense when they examine the numbers. I wish we lived in a country that could handle our guns better, and for the vast majority of gun owners, we can. So 200 million people need to have their rights restricted due to the incidence of mass killings by AR-15 wielding assailants? So, even if we are incredible charitable and pretend that criminals will be unable to get this kind of weapon after the ban, even though their is studies showing that this is unlikely to cause any difficulty in that regard, we are looking at an event which accounts for less than 1/10 of a percent of murders to begin with. Yea . . . makes sense, lets remove rights of the many for the actions of the TINY TINY TINY minority. YUP, thats the change we need! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Fri 01/18/13 08:02 AM
|
|
Why am I not surprised that you'd post this? Wasn't it you who posted the petition to deport Piers Morgan, too? This is of course a retort to the senselessness of gun free zones being able to prevent crimes like Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine or any of the other such events, but Piers Morgan was a Brit attacking my constitutional rights as an American in a country of which he has no voice except under the same constitution he is attacking, and I fought and bled for..... You bet it was me! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why am I not surprised that you'd post this? Wasn't it you who posted the petition to deport Piers Morgan, too? This is of course a retort to the senselessness of gun free zones being able to prevent crimes like Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine or any of the other such events, but Piers Morgan was a Brit attacking my constitutional rights as an American in a country of which he has no voice except under the same constitution he is attacking, and I fought and bled for..... You bet it was me! He was attacking your constitutional rights? He wasn't using free speech, which is a constitutionally protected right? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and most of the suggestions of President Obama make sense. I wonder if anyone really thinks it makes sense when they examine the numbers. I wish we lived in a country that could handle our guns better, and for the vast majority of gun owners, we can. So 300+ million people need to have their rights restricted due to the incidence of mass killings by AR-15 wielding assailants? So, even if we are incredible charitable and pretend that criminals will be unable to get this kind of weapon after the ban, even though their is studies showing that this is unlikely to cause any difficulty in that regard, we are looking at an event which accounts for less than 1/10 of a percent of murders to begin with. Yea . . . makes sense, lets remove rights of the many for the actions of the TINY TINY TINY minority. YUP, thats the change we need! fixed it for ya |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Fri 01/18/13 08:07 AM
|
|
He was attacking your constitutional rights? He wasn't using free speech, which is a constitutionally protected right? fixed it for ya Of course you are right, even non-gun owners rights would be removed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Fri 01/18/13 08:15 AM
|
|
He was attacking your constitutional rights? He wasn't using free speech, which is a constitutionally protected right? fixed it for ya Of course you are right, even non-gun owners rights would be removed. Isn't it amazing my friend? Therein lies the problem..... people just don't get it!  I wear a patch on my vest that reads "If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand!" It's about Harleys of course....but it fits this scenario perfectly! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He was attacking your constitutional rights? He wasn't using free speech, which is a constitutionally protected right? fixed it for ya Of course you are right, even non-gun owners rights would be removed. Isn't it amazing my friend? Therein lies the problem..... people just don't get it! I wear a patch on my vest that reads "If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand!" It's about Harleys of course....but it fits this scenario perfectly! Well, he can't be the one who takes away your right to own a gun. Just as you can't take away his right to free speech. So, wanting him deported for disagreeing with you is pretty lame. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He was attacking your constitutional rights? He wasn't using free speech, which is a constitutionally protected right? fixed it for ya Of course you are right, even non-gun owners rights would be removed. Isn't it amazing my friend? Therein lies the problem..... people just don't get it! I wear a patch on my vest that reads "If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand!" It's about Harleys of course....but it fits this scenario perfectly! Well, he can't be the one who takes away your right to own a gun. Just as you can't take away his right to free speech. So, wanting him deported for disagreeing with you is pretty lame. The man is promoting a A-political view to a multitude of viewers against a constitutional right, in a country to which he doesn't belong! Try it in Russia or elsewhere.... look at what happened to the female group in Russia over a simple song.... an art form.... or the creator of the film they blamed Benghazi on... what makes Piers so special? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Fri 01/18/13 08:30 AM
|
|
He was attacking your constitutional rights? He wasn't using free speech, which is a constitutionally protected right? fixed it for ya Of course you are right, even non-gun owners rights would be removed. Isn't it amazing my friend? Therein lies the problem..... people just don't get it! I wear a patch on my vest that reads "If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand!" It's about Harleys of course....but it fits this scenario perfectly! Well, he can't be the one who takes away your right to own a gun. Just as you can't take away his right to free speech. So, wanting him deported for disagreeing with you is pretty lame. The man is promoting a A-political view to a multitude of viewers against a constitutional right, in a country to which he doesn't belong, and using a constitutional right to do so! Try it in Russia or elsewhere.... look at what happened to the female group in Russia over a simple song.... an art form.... or the creator of the film they attempted to blamed Benghazi on (who went to jail even tho it came out as a lie)... what makes Piers so special? |
|
|
|
|
