• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mass shootings toll exceeds 900 in past seven years

oncewas said:
Just my opinion," one mass shooting and killing " is way to many! ijs:peace
Click to expand...


Then join supporting armed security in schools as the single most important step - IF you actually do care about "mass shootings."
 
oncewas said:
The only thing I refuse to do is " think for myself! " I don't need some card carrying NRA man telling me a bunch of lies and trying to put fear in my head.I leave that to the weaker of men minds.:wink2:
Click to expand...

why do so many gun restrictions spend far more time whining about the NRA than criminals with guns

is it because you find a group that advocates our rights and supports pro gun politicians to be more harmful to your goals than criminals? I suspect so because you really don't care about stopping crime but you hate the fact that the NRA funds politicians who don't espouse the far left agenda you support
 
oncewas said:
Personally,when I left the Marine Corps and Vietnam,i've had no use for AR-15 M-16 AK-47,semi or automatic Rifle. I do have a 40 Cal.Smith & Wesson Semiautomatic Pistol that have a 13 rounds magazine. But i'm not worry about the government taken it from me. And if they do take my magazines, it won't bother me to have 6 rounds clip mag.:2wave:
Click to expand...

its pretty sad that you think its ok for the government to deprive you of a weapon that holds less rounds than those issued to postal inspectors, game wardens, dog catchers, poultry inspectors, fire marshalls, Flight Deck Officers (private pilots armed by TSA), Railroad Retirement agents. Tax agents, etc
 
TurtleDude said:
why do so many gun restrictions spend far more time whining about the NRA than criminals with guns

is it because you find a group that advocates our rights and supports pro gun politicians to be more harmful to your goals than criminals? I suspect so because you really don't care about stopping crime but you hate the fact that the NRA funds politicians who don't espouse the far left agenda you support
Click to expand...

They're on the side of criminals, and against that of law-abiding citizens. That is the only rational explanation for supporting policies that will obviously have no other effect than to disarm law-abiding citizens to make them easier prey for criminals.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
They're on the side of criminals, and against that of law-abiding citizens. That is the only rational explanation for supporting policies that will obviously have no other effect than to disarm law-abiding citizens to make them easier prey for criminals.
Click to expand...

the mindset of both groups often have much in common including the desire to disarm the law abiding. short term gratification, the coveting of the property of others, and blaming anyone but themselves for their lots in life are things the left and criminals often believe in
 
oncewas said:
Personally,when I left the Marine Corps and Vietnam,i've had no use for AR-15 M-16 AK-47,semi or automatic Rifle. I do have a 40 Cal.Smith & Wesson Semiautomatic Pistol that have a 13 rounds magazine. But i'm not worry about the government taken it from me. And if they do take my magazines, it won't bother me to have 6 rounds clip mag.:2wave:
Click to expand...

Funny how you cant bring yourself to admit basic facts about what is going on. While it may not BOTHER you that they are targeting a majority of the firearms out there, that does not mean there arent people nationwide ADVOCATING for those bans. And the funny thing is...you probably believe that once they go after the ones currently on their list they wont then go after the ones you actually care about. Of course...that would be OK too, right?
 
TurtleDude said:
why do so many gun restrictions spend far more time whining about the NRA than criminals with guns

is it because you find a group that advocates our rights and supports pro gun politicians to be more harmful to your goals than criminals? I suspect so because you really don't care about stopping crime but you hate the fact that the NRA funds politicians who don't espouse the far left agenda you support
Click to expand...

Yes, we've heard all about how those gun restrictors don't care about criminals - like how the military which created GFZ's on military bases don't care if soldiers get shot.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
They're on the side of criminals, and against that of law-abiding citizens. That is the only rational explanation for supporting policies that will obviously have no other effect than to disarm law-abiding citizens to make them easier prey for criminals.
Click to expand...

Yes, the military is on the side of criminals :screwy
 
oncewas said:
All i've heard is the government wants to take our 2nd amendment rights, and i've never seen one fact of it being true. All I hear and see in the Right crying over something that the NRA want them to believe, and keep sending the checks.Again my opinion!:shoot.
Click to expand...

In places like New York,California, Illinois, Washington DC they turned the 2nd amendment into a state granted privilege.They are trying to ban civilian firearms and standard size capacity magazines for those firearms under the guise of an assault weapons ban and high capacity magazine ban.
 
jamesrage said:
In places like New York,California, Illinois, Washington DC they turned the 2nd amendment into a state granted privilege.They are trying to ban civilian firearms and standard size capacity magazines for those firearms under the guise of an assault weapons ban and high capacity magazine ban.
Click to expand...

I read recently where the Supreme Court (might have been the Illinois state SC...I'll have to find the link) has told Illinois their laws regarding concealed carry are unconstitutional and MUST be rewritten to allow for concealed carry. Additionally they must be written to where they are not oppressive for a law abiding citizen to comply with and exercise their constitutional rights Interesting to see how it plays out.
 
TurtleDude said:
its pretty sad that you think its ok for the government to deprive you of a weapon that holds less rounds than those issued to postal inspectors, game wardens, dog catchers, poultry inspectors, fire marshalls, Flight Deck Officers (private pilots armed by TSA), Railroad Retirement agents. Tax agents, etc
Click to expand...
What do I need with so much fire power,in a urban city? I don't hunt,and have enough fire power for self defense,anyone more the five feet away isn't a threat to me. My opinion!:shoot
 
43 people are murdered in the US every day.

You don't hear about the vast majority of murders, just killing sprees like Newtown that get way too much media attention (which then inspires more mass shootings)
 
oncewas said:
What do I need with so much fire power,in a urban city? I don't hunt,and have enough fire power for self defense,anyone more the five feet away isn't a threat to me. My opinion!:shoot
Click to expand...


What do you need? That's up to you. But you have no say in what I want, or need.

Why is it that Liberals think they get to decide in a free society what others should own?
 
VanceMack said:
I read recently where the Supreme Court (might have been the Illinois state SC...I'll have to find the link) has told Illinois their laws regarding concealed carry are unconstitutional and MUST be rewritten to allow for concealed carry. Additionally they must be written to where they are not oppressive for a law abiding citizen to comply with and exercise their constitutional rights Interesting to see how it plays out.
Click to expand...

From what I understand Illinois basically gave SCOTUS the middle finger regarding concealed carry.
 
jamesrage said:
From what I understand Illinois basically gave SCOTUS the middle finger regarding concealed carry.
Click to expand...

Yet to see how it all plays out, but the ruling was just made by the fed 7th court of appeals on Friday after the initial appeal was denied. So...we'll see.
 
mike2810 said:
Who gets to decide what item gets the (extra tax)? Why limit it to guns?
Lets go ahead and add an extra tax on vid games and consules, going to the violent movies, buying popcorn at the movies or a large soft drink. How about hammers, knives, slingshots, bows, etc.
Using your stance, if you can afford it pay the extra fee, it nothing, right?.

Adding extra laws and fees will not curtail the violence. We have laws making it a crime to rob banks. Bank still get robbed. Its a crime to murder, but murders still happen.
Maybe we need to get tougher on criminals and leave law abiding people alone.
Click to expand...

Don't let bloomberg read this post!!!
 
VanceMack said:
I read recently where the Supreme Court (might have been the Illinois state SC...I'll have to find the link) has told Illinois their laws regarding concealed carry are unconstitutional and MUST be rewritten to allow for concealed carry. Additionally they must be written to where they are not oppressive for a law abiding citizen to comply with and exercise their constitutional rights Interesting to see how it plays out.
Click to expand...

I would love to read about this. Hope you find that link soon! :)
 
VanceMack said:
Gun advocates: Lawmakers must pass concealed-carry in Illinois | KMOV.com St. Louis

Concealed carry: Court strikes down Illinois' ban - Chicago Tribune

Just a few to start. Understandably...MSM (which is not very keen on making firearm rights to law abiding citizens MORE accessible) has not covered it very much.
Click to expand...

Thanks!

If you can get a link on the ruling that'd be great too. In mean time I'll read these after I get back from work. :) Didn't expect such a quick reply. :)
 
oncewas said:
What do I need with so much fire power,in a urban city? I don't hunt,and have enough fire power for self defense,anyone more the five feet away isn't a threat to me. My opinion!:shoot
Click to expand...

ideally you should decide what YOU need and let the rest of us make that decision for ourselves

given every major law enforcement CIVILIAN agency has gone with 15-17 round handguns and 20-30 semi auto or select fire carbines, that suggests to me that such weapons are very suitable for the rest of us
 
oncewas said:
What do I need with so much fire power,in a urban city? I don't hunt,and have enough fire power for self defense,anyone more the five feet away isn't a threat to me. My opinion!:shoot
Click to expand...

You do realize that a gun will reach alot farther than 5 ft away right? A bow will to. So will a sling shot. And bombs can take out whole city blocks.

So....what were you saying again about anyone more than 5 ft away is no threat to you?
 
Kal'Stang said:
You do realize that a gun will reach alot farther than 5 ft away right? A bow will to. So will a sling shot. And bombs can take out whole city blocks.

So....what were you saying again about anyone more than 5 ft away is no threat to you?
Click to expand...

If anyone had the intent of doing bodily harm to me within 5ft., all bet's or off if you get my meaning.:peace
 
oncewas said:
If anyone had the intent of doing bodily harm to me within 5ft., all bet's or off if you get my meaning.:peace
Click to expand...

If they have a gun and you do not, chances are you are going to be wormbait or their "girlfriend" rather quickly
 
TurtleDude said:
If they have a gun and you do not, chances are you are going to be wormbait or their "girlfriend" rather quickly
Click to expand...

Now I understand " U " didn't get my meaning! I'll leave it right there!:blastem:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom