100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Bloomberg leaves office today! YEAH! | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
You saying I am unstable? 
not at all,, lol I am saying IF AND WHEN someone is unstable,, they shouldn't have a GUN When they don't enforce the laws already in place, we end up with more regulation and restriction for them to ignore. Never "fixing" the problem, just creating more possibility to make criminals and victims of the innocent, destroying more rights and our ability to defend them. They've done such a great job on immigration as well! VP already explained this! No time to enforce those already on the Books,thus you need new ones! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm I wonder how many of us veterans with PTSD would pass someone's stability check? Would you give 'em a psychological evaluation? ID give EVERYONE A pysch eval before owning a gun,, yes so,how do you explain that Government has Firearms at all? 
who are you including in 'government?',, most government agencies I Am aware of that carry weapons are already tested for the use of those firearms,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You saying I am unstable?
not at all,, lol I am saying IF AND WHEN someone is unstable,, they shouldn't have a GUN Who will make those decisions? Those Unstable Idiots in Congress you can't even trust with a Penny of your Money? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm I wonder how many of us veterans with PTSD would pass someone's stability check? Would you give 'em a psychological evaluation? ID give EVERYONE A pysch eval before owning a gun,, yes so,how do you explain that Government has Firearms at all?
who are you including in 'government?',, most government agencies I Am aware of that carry weapons are already tested for the use of those firearms,,, Yeah,right,just look at those Armed Thugs across the nation who pretend to Protect and Serve! WHOM? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anti-gun theme: "I'm so thankful for my freedom that I refuse to defend it."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OR,,, EVERYONE Doesn't need nor should have a GUN, let alone military style weaponry BUT those who are stable and trained (Regardless of economic class) should have access to weapons that can be reasonably believed to be defensive in nature,,, against REALISTIC threats,,,, like crooks, and criminals, and looneys,,,, Most of what you and many other refer to as "military style" weapons are only military style cosmetically and not in function. Restricting the sale of those guns would be like restricting the tires you can buy because they could make a Prius look like it's only purpose is for racing which is dangerous. Wanna talk about loony's having access to things they shouldn't? Then look at some of the people in charge now. Who is to establish if a person is stable enough to own a gun? A politician with no background that qualifies them to make those rules and regulation? Someone that is appointed like Kathleen Sebelius who had no medical background that was appointed the Secretary of Health and Human Services and put in charge of implementing the AHA? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As I've stated before. Our gubament needs to arm us as well as they arm Barry's Muslime Bros. Shabazz and his gang are armed to the teeth and trained in south Africa. I wonder how many of them would pass a pysch test? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OR,,, EVERYONE Doesn't need nor should have a GUN, let alone military style weaponry BUT those who are stable and trained (Regardless of economic class) should have access to weapons that can be reasonably believed to be defensive in nature,,, against REALISTIC threats,,,, like crooks, and criminals, and looneys,,,, Most of what you and many other refer to as "military style" weapons are only military style cosmetically and not in function. Restricting the sale of those guns would be like restricting the tires you can buy because they could make a Prius look like it's only purpose is for racing which is dangerous. Wanna talk about loony's having access to things they shouldn't? Then look at some of the people in charge now. Who is to establish if a person is stable enough to own a gun? A politician with no background that qualifies them to make those rules and regulation? Someone that is appointed like Kathleen Sebelius who had no medical background that was appointed the Secretary of Health and Human Services and put in charge of implementing the AHA? no matter who decides, someone will find some reason or flaw in their personal lives to spread fear about their authority or decision that's life but yet, people are put into positions to set standards all the time,, with cars, with food, with poison, with bombs, with roads, and even (gasp and awe) with PERSONAL WEAPONS<,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Tue 12/31/13 12:28 PM
|
|
OR,,, EVERYONE Doesn't need nor should have a GUN, let alone military style weaponry BUT those who are stable and trained (Regardless of economic class) should have access to weapons that can be reasonably believed to be defensive in nature,,, against REALISTIC threats,,,, like crooks, and criminals, and looneys,,,, Most of what you and many other refer to as "military style" weapons are only military style cosmetically and not in function. Restricting the sale of those guns would be like restricting the tires you can buy because they could make a Prius look like it's only purpose is for racing which is dangerous. Wanna talk about loony's having access to things they shouldn't? Then look at some of the people in charge now. Who is to establish if a person is stable enough to own a gun? A politician with no background that qualifies them to make those rules and regulation? Someone that is appointed like Kathleen Sebelius who had no medical background that was appointed the Secretary of Health and Human Services and put in charge of implementing the AHA? no matter who decides, someone will find some reason or flaw in their personal lives to spread fear about their authority or decision that's life but yet, people are put into positions to set standards all the time,, with cars, with food, with poison, with bombs, with roads, and even (gasp and awe) with PERSONAL WEAPONS<,,, Yep,next time a Drunk Driver kills someone,we are going to take the Cars from every careful sober lawobservant Driver! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OR,,, EVERYONE Doesn't need nor should have a GUN, let alone military style weaponry BUT those who are stable and trained (Regardless of economic class) should have access to weapons that can be reasonably believed to be defensive in nature,,, against REALISTIC threats,,,, like crooks, and criminals, and looneys,,,, Most of what you and many other refer to as "military style" weapons are only military style cosmetically and not in function. Restricting the sale of those guns would be like restricting the tires you can buy because they could make a Prius look like it's only purpose is for racing which is dangerous. Wanna talk about loony's having access to things they shouldn't? Then look at some of the people in charge now. Who is to establish if a person is stable enough to own a gun? A politician with no background that qualifies them to make those rules and regulation? Someone that is appointed like Kathleen Sebelius who had no medical background that was appointed the Secretary of Health and Human Services and put in charge of implementing the AHA? no matter who decides, someone will find some reason or flaw in their personal lives to spread fear about their authority or decision that's life but yet, people are put into positions to set standards all the time,, with cars, with food, with poison, with bombs, with roads, and even (gasp and awe) with PERSONAL WEAPONS<,,, Yep,next time a Drunk Driver kills someone,we are going to take the Cars from every careful sober lawobservant Driver! no more than we have 'taken the guns from every careful sober gunowner' , even in the midst of gang culture and mass shootings |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OR,,, EVERYONE Doesn't need nor should have a GUN, let alone military style weaponry BUT those who are stable and trained (Regardless of economic class) should have access to weapons that can be reasonably believed to be defensive in nature,,, against REALISTIC threats,,,, like crooks, and criminals, and looneys,,,, Most of what you and many other refer to as "military style" weapons are only military style cosmetically and not in function. Restricting the sale of those guns would be like restricting the tires you can buy because they could make a Prius look like it's only purpose is for racing which is dangerous. Wanna talk about loony's having access to things they shouldn't? Then look at some of the people in charge now. Who is to establish if a person is stable enough to own a gun? A politician with no background that qualifies them to make those rules and regulation? Someone that is appointed like Kathleen Sebelius who had no medical background that was appointed the Secretary of Health and Human Services and put in charge of implementing the AHA? no matter who decides, someone will find some reason or flaw in their personal lives to spread fear about their authority or decision that's life but yet, people are put into positions to set standards all the time,, with cars, with food, with poison, with bombs, with roads, and even (gasp and awe) with PERSONAL WEAPONS<,,, Yep,next time a Drunk Driver kills someone,we are going to take the Cars from every careful sober lawobservant Driver! no more than we have 'taken the guns from every careful sober gunowner' , even in the midst of gang culture and mass shootings we have given you dozens of examples where those Members of the House and Senate have come on TV and the Press and outright declared their intention to do away with Firearms in private civilian hands,yet you still maintain those Vermin do not mean it! You trample on my rights to obtain your version of security. I will provide my security myself. You worry about yours. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have seen TWO Examples of someone from congress , not 'dozens',,,and congress is made of HUNDREDS
no one has to 'give up their gun',,,,we only have to be responsible about who 'obtains' guns in the first place and what types of 'guns' are on the streets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OR,,, EVERYONE Doesn't need nor should have a GUN, let alone military style weaponry BUT those who are stable and trained (Regardless of economic class) should have access to weapons that can be reasonably believed to be defensive in nature,,, against REALISTIC threats,,,, like crooks, and criminals, and looneys,,,, Most of what you and many other refer to as "military style" weapons are only military style cosmetically and not in function. Restricting the sale of those guns would be like restricting the tires you can buy because they could make a Prius look like it's only purpose is for racing which is dangerous. Wanna talk about loony's having access to things they shouldn't? Then look at some of the people in charge now. Who is to establish if a person is stable enough to own a gun? A politician with no background that qualifies them to make those rules and regulation? Someone that is appointed like Kathleen Sebelius who had no medical background that was appointed the Secretary of Health and Human Services and put in charge of implementing the AHA? no matter who decides, someone will find some reason or flaw in their personal lives to spread fear about their authority or decision that's life but yet, people are put into positions to set standards all the time,, with cars, with food, with poison, with bombs, with roads, and even (gasp and awe) with PERSONAL WEAPONS<,,, Losing personal choice and freedom by giving more authority to government is something liberals used to protest against. I used to be considered a liberal when it meant you believed in more liberty and not more government control. Taking freedom away from people is regressive which is why the people who promote more government shouldn't be called progressive. What's the next lie we will be told to pass new gun regulation? Will it be "If you like you gun you can keep your gun, period." We've seen how bureaucrats can take away what we were promised and how they have no regard for what the majority of people want. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Tue 12/31/13 12:52 PM
|
|
Hmm I wonder how many of us veterans with PTSD would pass someone's stability check? Would you give 'em a psychological evaluation? ID give EVERYONE A pysch eval before owning a gun,, yes Punish before they commit a Crime,hmm? Hope you gonna give one to every Motorvehicle Operator as well!
we already test drivers before we give them licenses,,, we test doctors too before we give them licenses, sometimes , a test is a good indicator of knowledge of the job or responsibility,,, ID be fine with , instead of a traditionsl psyce exame, gun owners underwent a similar TESTING process ,, maybe like the police do real time simulation to see who they are likely to shoot and how impulsively they will shoot at others,,,,,,,, So, with more police officers shooting first and asking questions later, but the courts favoring them in prosecution and sentencing, who do you elect to give those "evaluations"? Law enforcement? The courts? The gov't? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't really are about labels,, liberal, conservative, progressive,, BLAH BLAH BLAH,,,
yeah, balance is sometimes hard to achieve especially PERFECT Balance a society has individuals but the individuals make up a part of a larger unit , and large numbers need some type of agreed upon standards of comingling and existing with each other some call it organizing,, and even though everyone continues to disagree about how that is accomplished it still needs to be done,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm I wonder how many of us veterans with PTSD would pass someone's stability check? Would you give 'em a psychological evaluation? ID give EVERYONE A pysch eval before owning a gun,, yes Punish before they commit a Crime,hmm? Hope you gonna give one to every Motorvehicle Operator as well!
we already test drivers before we give them licenses,,, we test doctors too before we give them licenses, sometimes , a test is a good indicator of knowledge of the job or responsibility,,, ID be fine with , instead of a traditionsl psyce exame, gun owners underwent a similar TESTING process ,, maybe like the police do real time simulation to see who they are likely to shoot and how impulsively they will shoot at others,,,,,,,, So, with more police officers shooting first and asking questions later, but the courts favoring them in prosecution and sentencing, who do you elect to give those "evaluations"? Law enforcement? The courts? The gov't?
Id bet though, that even WITH officers shooting, whose job it is to REGULARLY Actually face dangerous people,,,, they still have a lower percentage of such killing than civilians who are much less LIKELY To be encountering dangerous individuals being that they aren't paid to do so,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Tue 12/31/13 12:59 PM
|
|
Hmm I wonder how many of us veterans with PTSD would pass someone's stability check? Would you give 'em a psychological evaluation? ID give EVERYONE A pysch eval before owning a gun,, yes Punish before they commit a Crime,hmm? Hope you gonna give one to every Motorvehicle Operator as well!
we already test drivers before we give them licenses,,, we test doctors too before we give them licenses, sometimes , a test is a good indicator of knowledge of the job or responsibility,,, ID be fine with , instead of a traditionsl psyce exame, gun owners underwent a similar TESTING process ,, maybe like the police do real time simulation to see who they are likely to shoot and how impulsively they will shoot at others,,,,,,,, So, with more police officers shooting first and asking questions later, but the courts favoring them in prosecution and sentencing, who do you elect to give those "evaluations"? Law enforcement? The courts? The gov't?
Id bet though, that even WITH officers shooting, whose job it is to REGULARLY Actually face dangerous people,,,, they still have a lower percentage of such killing than civilians who are much less LIKELY To be encountering dangerous individuals being that they aren't paid to do so,,, That is the biggest bunch of hooey ever! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People do not need 300 horse power corvettes. People do not need Luisville sluggers to play baseball. People do not need 300 dollar Gucci handbags to carry their personals. People do not need 100 dollar dinners. People do not need high speed internet. People do not need unlimited long distance. People do not need disposable diapers.
I could go on, but i think you get my point. What people need is a government, fair and impartial, who will secure the best interest of the American people, and do so in accordance with the the Constitution of the United States of America, as it was written |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Tue 12/31/13 11:14 PM
|
|
People do not need 300 horse power corvettes. People do not need Luisville sluggers to play baseball. People do not need 300 dollar Gucci handbags to carry their personals. People do not need 100 dollar dinners. People do not need high speed internet. People do not need unlimited long distance. People do not need disposable diapers. I could go on, but i think you get my point. What people need is a government, fair and impartial, who will secure the best interest of the American people, and do so in accordance with the the Constitution of the United States of America, as it was written cars have regulations , baseball has regulations on its equipment so the game is consistent and fair, handbags are an accessory that there is no reason to put a regulation on,, people are free to eat whatever and however they can afford to eat AS LONG AS THAT FOOD HAS MET REGULATIONS TO BE SERVED, internet providers even have regulations they must follow to provide service, it is written that: 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. again, the fathers specifically mentioned REGULATED it can be argued all over the place (and it is) what regulated means or how it should be applied, but it cant be IGNORED That regulate is actually a part of that amendment |
|
|
|
|
