Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
going to church is a RIGHT, same as firearms ownershipyes it is.......do you support background checks for people to be able to go to church?
Do church's fire projectiles that can kill people? Who knew....
They are not comparable. What do you do for an encore, compare eating an apple with dropping an nuclear bomb? Okay, don't do checks, but let me ask you this - if some whacko who has a history of being unstable and threatening people goes postal and kills a couple of dozen people because there was no background check, are you prepared to take the moral AND criminal hit for their actions? IOW, you sign a waiver whereby you'll vouch for the guy that he WON'T do it? And if he does you can wear the criminal culpability?
[
they are both constitutionally protected rights, I'm not responsible for him or her if they abuse them
The fourth has the word 'reasonable' in it. I don't think it unreasonable that you have to have a background check.
its unreasonable for someone to have to be searched to exercise a constitutional right
Says who? Who decides what is unreasonable? If you are not a felon or have no history of mental illness you can have your peashooter. Seems reasonable to me.
Rural areas have next to no violent crime, and firearm ownership is highest in these area of the country by a long ways. People kill people not firearms. shit for brains
Go back to your mothers basement
That is same in countries that don't have a proliferation of guns. I'm sure there is a point in there somewhere. However, it is unrelated to what we are talking about.
You do know that law abiding citizens far outnumber criminals don't you?
The more law abiding citizens that are armed the less safe criminals feel committing crimes
And yet you have one of the biggest crime rates in the civilised world. Higher than most European countries that have strict gun laws. You might want to try that one again....
Rebuttal from post #7 2aguy.
You do know that your link is only an opinion. Did you really read it or just look at it just to spread your propaganda?
You may want to read the real AB109. I did not copy and paste the rest but this is some of what are mentioned in AB109.
As always------- Your only solution is you want to flood this country with more guns like Chicago.
4. What crimes are NOT covered by realignment?
Certain categories of crimes, and certain types of offenders, are not covered by realignment. Realignment is designed to deal with low-level and low-risk offenders, not people who are considered too dangerous to be rehabilitated within the community.
The following offenses and offenders are excluded from realignment:
- Violent felonies under Penal Code 667.5and offenses where the defendant has a prior conviction for one of the violent felonies under Penal Code 667.5 16
- Serious felonies under Penal Code 1192.7and offenses where the defendant has a prior conviction for one of the serious felonies under Penal Code 1192.717
- Certain sex crimes in California where the offender is Required to Register as a Sex Offender in California 18
- Certain aggravated white-collar crimes19pursuant to California Penal Code Section 186.1120
- Approximately 60 other crimes that the legislature has decided to exclude, such as California Penal Code 273.5 pc corporal injury on a spouse, California Penal Code 92 pc bribery of judges or jurors, and California Penal Code 266(h) pc pimping.21(For a list of other excluded crimes see the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Final Crime Exclusion List.).
No. They were to be ready to be called into service which was just one reason the people have the right to keep and bear arms it is not the only reasonthen why is it the right of the people?
Oh yeah the people, all people, were considered to be the militia
That's right. They were to belong to a militia. Do they all belong now? You're talking 1776 back when there were still slaves and only land owning men could vote. Things change.
What other reasons are mentioned in the second?
Be specific you mean murder rate because our rates of other crimes are not that high
And we have pockets of high crime that skew the numbers for the entire country. Most murders are criminals shooting other criminals and occur in just a handful of urban areas.
Chicago has strict gun laws and look at that shit hole?
New Hampshire has relaxed gun laws and is consistently one of the top 5 safest states in the country.
We know that most gun murders are committed by people with criminal records not by law abiding citizens.
So tell me how restricting people who don't commit crimes with guns or otherwise stop criminals from using guns.
Here's a hint for you. It doesn't
Different countries measure different rates different ways.
And yet where I live and NZ and Canada and Scandinavia and the Netherlands and Belgium and France and Ireland and and and ....have strict guns laws and have relatively low crime rates. And all countries have areas where crime rates are higher. The US is not exceptional in that regard. If all the other western countries got rid of their 'skewed' we'd all look grand and dandy. Where I come from, it's called cherry picking.
[QU
Yes...they do....they start with bans of various categories of weapons...the 4th Circuit court of appeals, clinton and obama appointees control that court, just decided that military weapons are not protected by the 2nd Amendment......which goes completely against all Legal Precedent and Supreme Court rulings on the subject......which essentially sets the ground work for banning all guns...
[QU
No...the ACLU stated that you can't just take rights away from people without actual due process, and the ACLU pointed out that only a tiny number of mentally ill people are too dangerous to own guns.......
your beef is with the ACLU...
None. Rights don't need reasonsNo. They were to be ready to be called into service which was just one reason the people have the right to keep and bear arms it is not the only reasonthen why is it the right of the people?
Oh yeah the people, all people, were considered to be the militia
That's right. They were to belong to a militia. Do they all belong now? You're talking 1776 back when there were still slaves and only land owning men could vote. Things change.
What other reasons are mentioned in the second?
If different countries have different definitions of crime than any comparison in invalid. You know like the UK not counting a homicide as murder unless there is an actual conviction.Be specific you mean murder rate because our rates of other crimes are not that high
And we have pockets of high crime that skew the numbers for the entire country. Most murders are criminals shooting other criminals and occur in just a handful of urban areas.
Chicago has strict gun laws and look at that shit hole?
New Hampshire has relaxed gun laws and is consistently one of the top 5 safest states in the country.
We know that most gun murders are committed by people with criminal records not by law abiding citizens.
So tell me how restricting people who don't commit crimes with guns or otherwise stop criminals from using guns.
Here's a hint for you. It doesn't
Different countries measure different rates different ways.
And yet where I live and NZ and Canada and Scandinavia and the Netherlands and Belgium and France and Ireland and and and ....have strict guns laws and have relatively low crime rates. And all countries have areas where crime rates are higher. The US is not exceptional in that regard. If all the other western countries got rid of their 'skewed' we'd all look grand and dandy. Where I come from, it's called cherry picking.
[QU
Yes...they do....they start with bans of various categories of weapons...the 4th Circuit court of appeals, clinton and obama appointees control that court, just decided that military weapons are not protected by the 2nd Amendment......which goes completely against all Legal Precedent and Supreme Court rulings on the subject......which essentially sets the ground work for banning all guns...
Which is ridiculous seeing that the Miller case specifically said that the Second Amendment protects military style weapons. The reason they ruled against Mr. Miller was because they said (erroneously) that the military did not use short barreled shotguns. In fact the military did use short barrelled shotguns in WWI but the Court didn't do their homework..
These stupid Moon Bats thinks banning massive number of common use firearms like AR-15s somehow still protects our right to keep and bear arms. That pretty well makes them idiots, doesn't it?
[QU
They ignored Miller, Caetano, as well as Heller....this is why left wingers shouldn't be judges or justices, the law and legal Precedent don't mean anything to them.....
you know where the shootings ARENT?
at gun shows and shooting ranges
you know where the shootings ARENT?
at gun shows and shooting ranges
[QU
Yes...they do....they start with bans of various categories of weapons...the 4th Circuit court of appeals, clinton and obama appointees control that court, just decided that military weapons are not protected by the 2nd Amendment......which goes completely against all Legal Precedent and Supreme Court rulings on the subject......which essentially sets the ground work for banning all guns...
Which is ridiculous seeing that the Miller case specifically said that the Second Amendment protects military style weapons. The reason they ruled against Mr. Miller was because they said (erroneously) that the military did not use short barreled shotguns. In fact the military did use short barrelled shotguns in WWI but the Court didn't do their homework..
These stupid Moon Bats thinks banning massive number of common use firearms like AR-15s somehow still protects our right to keep and bear arms. That pretty well makes them idiots, doesn't it?
They ignored Miller, Caetano, as well as Heller....this is why left wingers shouldn't be judges or justices, the law and legal Precedent don't mean anything to them.....
[QU
They ignored Miller, Caetano, as well as Heller....this is why left wingers shouldn't be judges or justices, the law and legal Precedent don't mean anything to them.....
We absolutely cannot ever trust Liberals with our Liberties.
its unreasonable for someone to have to be searched to exercise a constitutional right[
they are both constitutionally protected rights, I'm not responsible for him or her if they abuse them
The fourth has the word 'reasonable' in it. I don't think it unreasonable that you have to have a background check.
