Survey: America wants stronger gun laws by huge margin

[haymarket]

Because its logical.

Because a whore will always spread their legs for the right price.

 

[haymarket]

Just because it is a right does not mean it can't be regulated. We pass voting laws every day, isn't that a "Constitutional right"?

You re 100% correct.

The right to vote is mentioned five different times in five different places of the Constitution. But we restrict it rather heavily telling you where you can vote, on what date you can vote, how you can vote, deadlines for registering to be able to vote in many states, and during what hours you can vote. Some of this is expanding through absentee voting but it is still restrictive for most voters.

 

[haymarket]

Think a little. A person that buys 50 guns a month is obviously abusing the system and selling them illegally. Until we use our heads there will be no change. Abortions are between a woman and her doctor we have no reason to care how many she has.

I bet if a woman had 50 abortions a month we would do something about that.

 

[Strategery]

I bet if a woman had 50 abortions a month we would do something about that.

50 heartbeats stopped=/= 50 hunks of metal bought.

And I doubt any woman has sex more than 50 times a month. Correct me if I am wrong but it doesn't seem physically possible.

 

[Chillfolks]

I bet if a woman had 50 abortions a month we would do something about that.

Well if a woman was averaging 1 and a half abortions a day something is terribly wrong with the doctors not providing the correct service. It should be looked into. Hell 50 a year is outrageous and she needs help.

 

[ataraxia]

The difference is that you must pay the state to own/operate a vehicle because that is a state issued privilege. How much do you pay to vote, to peacefully protest or to have a public defender assigned if you are charged with a crime? A key difference between an individual constitutional right and a mere state issued privilege is that a right is free and a mere state issued privilege bears a user fee. I pay about $60/year to keep a 5'x8' utility trailer tagged (for roadway use) yet nothing to keep my pistol - one is a (road use) privilege and the other is a constitutional right.

If that’s the only problem, then it’s really not a big deal. We pay public defenders with tax funds. I’m not sure why the minimal administrative costs of this could not also be covered with taxes. If that’s what it takes to have a functional system of government, then I’m OK with that.

 

[ataraxia]

I know guys that collect cars, they have 50 of them, I know guys that collect guitars, they have hundreds of them, I kow guys that collect guns, they have hundreds of them too, who are you to say what is abuse? It is a right or it isn't. Stop trying to force your opinion down our throats.

And don't insult me the "Think a little" comment, if you looked past the nose on your face you'd know we are far better off as a nation with our guns then perhaps China and their citizens are without guns? Anytime you want to live gun free, try China. I for one don't want the USA to become another China.

Forget China. Every single developed nation in the world has proper regulations of guns, from Scandinavia nations to Israel to Japan. We are also the only nation with this many massacres on a regular basis. That’s not coincidence. We have created a hell hole for ourselves- nothing to be proud of.

 

[ataraxia]

I know guys that collect cars, they have 50 of them, I know guys that collect guitars, they have hundreds of them, I kow guys that collect guns, they have hundreds of them too, who are you to say what is abuse? It is a right or it isn't. Stop trying to force your opinion down our throats.
.

People who collect and drive cars have them licensed and registered, and have a drivers license. The cars have to be street legal, and they cannot drive them drunk, or if they have any medical conditions like dementia or vision problems.

Guns are more dangerous than cars, and therefore require more, not less, regulation oversight. Otherwise, you have the hellhole situation we have right now.

 

[jet57]

You asked, I answered. That you can't dispute it to the point that you attempt to claim that I'm dodging is proof that you have no real answer to it.

Dude: trying to say the Bush and Iraq is somehow free speech is - just stupid. If you can't hack, then don't say anything at all.

You should be embarrassed.

 

[jet57]

How is it that I'm avoiding? I answered your questions directly. Or are you attempting to claim that what I said was untrue? If so then you certainly do not know the law near as well as you claim.

I asked you questions but levelheaded policies and you'er dancing around them and offering drivel.

C'mon man - think!

 

[Kal'Stang]

Dude: trying to say the Bush and Iraq is somehow free speech is - just stupid. If you can't hack, then don't say anything at all.

You should be embarrassed.

So if Bush had said nothing then we would still have gone into Iraq? Is that what you're saying? :lamo

Also, not surprised that you focused on Bush and ignored my other example of inciting riots in which people have been killed.

You're struggling here Jet.

 

[jet57]

So if Bush had said nothing then we would still have gone into Iraq? Is that what you're saying? :lamo

Also, not surprised that you focused on Bush and ignored my other example of inciting riots in which people have been killed.

You're struggling here Jet.

That's not free speech Kal. You're grasping at straws.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I asked you questions but levelheaded policies and you'er dancing around them and offering drivel.

C'mon man - think!

No, you asked me questions that you thought I would not be able to answer. But I did. And you can't dispute them so instead you continue with the doubling down instead of providing an honest answer. Or at the very least attempting to switch the goal posts. Even that would be better than doubling down.

 

[Kal'Stang]

That's not free speech Kal. You're grasping at straws.

Actually you're right, its not free speech to incite riots. However what Bush did was free speech. So, perhaps you can answer the question.... "if Bush had said nothing then we would still have gone into Iraq?"

 

[jet57]

No, you asked me questions that you thought I would not be able to answer. But I did. And you can't dispute them so instead you continue with the doubling down instead of providing an honest answer. Or at the very least attempting to switch the goal posts. Even that would be better than doubling down.

No you did not answer them Kal, you danced around the refutation with silly comparisons that have nothing to do with level headed gun polices Kal.

 

[ttwtt78640]

If that’s the only problem, then it’s really not a big deal. We pay public defenders with tax funds. I’m not sure why the minimal administrative costs of this could not also be covered with taxes. If that’s what it takes to have a functional system of government, then I’m OK with that.

I am not opposed to that idea. Currently, in Texas, a drivers license or state photo ID ($24 for six years) costs 10% of what a handgun carry license (initially $240 for five years - $140 to renew it) costs. When a simple, state issued, photo ID is called a (racially?) discriminatory burden it seems ridiculous to favor far more financially (and racially?) burdensome gun laws.

 

[jet57]

Actually you're right, its not free speech to incite riots. However what Bush did was free speech. So, perhaps you can answer the question.... "if Bush had said nothing then we would still have gone into Iraq?"

Dude!! Bush do not stand on a street corner and yell out his thoughts. He executed policies based on BS. That is not free speech. That is the president of the United States lying his ass off so he can get a war to steal oil.

 

[Kal'Stang]

No you did not answer them Kal, you danced around the refutation with silly comparisons that have nothing to do with level headed gun polices Kal.

So, not wanting people to take heavy weapons into the public to kill them is not level headed?

1: An AR-15 is not a heavy weapon. 2: It is already illegal for people to take ANY weapon into the public and kill them. So there's your level headedness.

People having a "natural right" to walk the streets and live their lives free from fear of being mowed down by a guy with an AR15 is not levelheaded?

If someone gets scared at the sight of a gun then that is their problem. While they may have a natural right to walk down the street, they do not have the natural right to force people doing something legal to stop doing that legal thing just because they can't keep crap where it belongs, in their body.

But, being able to buy guns and equipment that facilitate shooing up 500 people within 8 minutes IS levelheaded...

Nope; nothing wrong there.

Buying guns with the purpose of committing murder is already a crime. Doesn't matter if its 500 people, or one person. It's illegal.

There: Full context:

Where in any of that is a comparison? Point 1 I made: Fact. Point 2 I made: Fact. Point 3 I made: Fact. No comparisons. Just facts.

 

[yankintx]

This problem will not be solved until our Democrat politicians and candidates take a firm stand on it and campaign on a promise to repeal the 2nd Amendment, prohibit the sale of ammunition, and then trace all guns from manufacturer to end user by serial number and confiscate them. They can all be removed from citizen possession and melted down.

Afterwards all other citizen possession of firearms must be a felony and anyone found possessing a firearm should then face life-imprisonment.

We can get this done Democrats; demand your candidates run on this common sense platform.


On to victory...let's get this done.

Its not just Dems who would like the wording clarified in the 2nd.

 

[lefty louie]

Forget China. Every single developed nation in the world has proper regulations of guns, from Scandinavia nations to Israel to Japan. We are also the only nation with this many massacres on a regular basis. That’s not coincidence. We have created a hell hole for ourselves- nothing to be proud of.

Why can't I argue China, doesn't fit your line? BS move along.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Dude!! Bush do not stand on a street corner and yell out his thoughts. He executed policies based on BS. That is not free speech. That is the president of the United States lying his ass off so he can get a war to steal oil.

He didn't have to stand on a street corner. He had the Presidential Podium. And he convinced the majority of Congress to go to war with Iraq based on them supposedly having WMD's. Without him talking Congress into it based on, at best crappy info, we would not have gone to war with Iraq. Do you deny this? Do you deny that what Bush said got us into the Iraq War? Are you seriously going to deny it? All to "win" an agenda in this thread?

 

[lefty louie]

People who collect and drive cars have them licensed and registered, and have a drivers license. The cars have to be street legal, and they cannot drive them drunk, or if they have any medical conditions like dementia or vision problems.

Guns are more dangerous than cars, and therefore require more, not less, regulation oversight. Otherwise, you have the hellhole situation we have right now.

The funny part is you actually edited this.

All legal guns are licensed and registered, just like a car. What's your point again?

The guns have to be legal too, you cannot shoot a gun drunk either.

I'm not sure if certain medical conditions preclude you from owning a gun, but then again owning them is a "RIGHT" not a "Privilege", see the difference yet? I'm sure you don't.

If guns are more dangerous then cars why so many more car deaths per year then gun deaths?

You need to rethink your argument.

 

[jet57]

He didn't have to stand on a street corner. He had the Presidential Podium. And he convinced the majority of Congress to go to war with Iraq based on them supposedly having WMD's. Without him talking Congress into it based on, at best crappy info, we would not have gone to war with Iraq. Do you deny this? Do you deny that what Bush said got us into the Iraq War? Are you seriously going to deny it? All to "win" an agenda in this thread?

You don't really want me to think you're obtuse - do you Kal?

 

[jet57]

There: Full context:

Where in any of that is a comparison? Point 1 I made: Fact. Point 2 I made: Fact. Point 3 I made: Fact. No comparisons. Just facts.

Here's my post #106 again Kal

So, not wanting people to take heavy weapons into the public to kill them is not level headed?

People having a "natural right" to walk the streets and live their lives free from fear of being mowed down by a guy with an AR15 is not levelheaded?

But, being able to buy guns and equipment that facilitate shooing up 500 people within 8 minutes IS levelheaded...

Nope; nothing wrong there.

You didn't answer anything Kal; you avoided my refutation.

 

[haymarket]

50 heartbeats stopped=/= 50 hunks of metal bought.

And I doubt any woman has sex more than 50 times a month. Correct me if I am wrong but it doesn't seem physically possible.

yes - I was being a smartass and using sarcasm.