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.
Is it your opinion then that guns should be handed out to every citizen like newspapers? Children, delinquents, criminals, mental heads, all should be able to exercise their God given right to bear arms so let's arm them all?? Is that the world you want to live in?
My argument is a simple constitutional one. The constitution does not grant congress the power to enact the laws you are suggesting.This is what this thread has displayed... Partisanship and paranoia are at a high. Most arguments and objections to gun regulations steam from a fear that guns will be banned or confiscated due to what has happened in some other countries throughout history.
This is the problem with small steps….we know the history of gun confiscation…it always starts with small steps…meant to protect people from guns…….and ends in confiscation….
And after each step fails to reduce the gun crime the way it was said it would…then comes the next "small" step……and when that doesn't work…the next "small" step…….
Firearms policy in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The first British firearm controls were introduced as part of the Vagrancy Act 1824, which was set up in a reaction against the large number of people roaming the country with weapons brought back from the Napoleonic wars.
The Act allowed the police to arrest "any person with any gun, pistol, hanger [dagger], cutlass, bludgeon or other offensive weapon ... with intent to commit a felonious act". This was followed by the Night Poaching Act 1828 and Night Poaching Act 1844, the Game Act 1831, and the Poaching Prevention Act 1862, which made it an offence to illegally shoot game using a firearm.
The Gun Licence Act 1870 was created to raise revenue. It required a person to obtain a licence to carry a gun outside his own property for any reason. A licence was not required to buy a gun. The licences cost 10 shillings (about £31 in 2005 terms), lasted one year, and could be bought over the counter at Post Offices.
Pistols Act 1903[edit]
The Pistols Act 1903 was the first to place restrictions on the sale of firearms.
Titled "An Act to regulate the sale and use of Pistols or other Firearms", it was a short Act of just nine sections, and applied solely to pistols.
It defined a pistol as a firearm whose barrel did not exceed 9 in (230 mm) in length and made it illegal to sell or rent a pistol to anyone unless they could produce a current gun licence or game licence, were exempt from the Gun Licence Act, could prove that they planned to use the pistol on their own property, or had a statement signed by a police officer of Inspector's rank or above or a Justice of the Peace to the effect that they were about to go abroad for six months or more.
The Act was more or less ineffective, as anyone wishing to buy a pistol commercially merely had to purchase a licence on demand over the counter from a Post Office before doing so. In addition, it did not regulate private sales of such firearms.
Does this sound familiar to anyone…….
The legislators laid some emphasis on the dangers of pistols in the hands of children and drunkards and made specific provisions regarding sales to these two groups: persons under 18 could be fined 40 shillings if they bought, hired, or carried a pistol, while anyone who sold a pistol to such a person could be fined £5.
Anyone who sold a pistol to someone who was "intoxicated or of unsound mind" was liable to a fine of £25 or 3 months' imprisonment with hard labour.
However, it was not an offence under the Act to give or lend a pistol to anyone belonging to these two groups.[64]
Not sure if you're aware of this but ---- restating a Slippery Slope fallacy over and over and over and over and over and over and over ---- doesn't make it any le&ss a Slippery Slope fallacy.
Please show us ONE country that adopted registration of weapons and then didn't follow up with confiscation. Just one. I can go all the way back to the Byzantine Empire and their registration of swords followed up by the confiscation and murder of 32,000 sword owners for my timeline.
You?
I've never looked into that and frankly, don't give a shit.
The point stands: Slippery Slope fallacy is Slippery Slope fallacy is Slippery Slope fallacy. Doesn't matter one iota how many times you repeat the same thing in hope that somebody will believe it.
Oh? So you admit that you ignore very easily researched history and instead merely parrot what your masters tell you? In other words it is you who are closed minded. Like I stated earlier dude, you talk AT people, you don't discuss anything.
Once more for the slow readers ------- I neither know nor care about that particular info. Get it? My post isn't about that. It's about logic -- which is what about 90% of my posts on this site have always been about.
It's a Slippery Slope Fallacy, that's just a fact and there ain't a damn thing any of you can do about that except to abandon it.
There is also the argument that the constitution does not grant congress the power to enact the type of law you are suggesting.The two main arguments that I hear is "Obama's laws won't effect criminals" and "Obama is trying to take our guns away so don't support anything he wants to do"
What goes over my head is how you and so many others can just characterize something as Democratic or Liberal then completely dismiss it. It is that kind of partisanship that is ruining our country. You accuse me of looking at what's in front of me like that's a bad thing. Perhaps we should all just simply look at the laws and proposals that are put in front of us in an objective way and play to the party.I see that point flew right over your head, so let's try something else:
Can you name me one major issue of Democrats that ever stopped at one place: one that never advanced as the years went on?
Your problem seems to be that you don't want to look at the big picture, you just want to look at what's in front of you. But with liberalism, it's always about the big picture.
Before Commie Care was passed, we told people it was all about more government. Opponents said it was all about the civil right that was never written about people getting medical care.
Listen to any White House spokesperson on the issue today. 14 million people now have health insurance. What does that mean? Democrats created 14 million more government dependents. The more government dependents we have in this country, the more likely Democrat voters in the future. But you think politicians actually care if you have health insurance or not? And they brag about this government dependency like it's something to be proud of. There is nothing to celebrate when we create more government dependents.
Again, look at the big picture, because the little pictures will lead you there.
I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.
Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...
Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.
View attachment 59771
Your trust in government is misplaced.
America is one of the last places where the government is concerned that the populace,if pushed to far have the ability to oust said government....and I'd prefer to keep it that way.
I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.
Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...
Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.
View attachment 59771
Your trust in government is misplaced.
America is one of the last places where the government is concerned that the populace,if pushed to far have the ability to oust said government....and I'd prefer to keep it that way.
Your premise is absurd. Our government for the most part changes every two years, during every even year we elect members of Congress who ought to be vetted by the voters after each term has been completed.
We elect a new President at least every 8 years, and members of the President's cabinet find new jobs often before the first term is complete. Military officers retire and only judges and justices of the USSC remain in power for decades.
We have the most stable system of government to have ever existed on the world's stage.
What goes over my head is how you and so many others can just characterize something as Democratic or Liberal then completely dismiss it. It is that kind of partisanship that is ruining our country. You accuse me of looking at what's in front of me like that's a bad thing. Perhaps we should all just simply look at the laws and proposals that are put in front of us in an objective way and play to the party.I see that point flew right over your head, so let's try something else:
Can you name me one major issue of Democrats that ever stopped at one place: one that never advanced as the years went on?
Your problem seems to be that you don't want to look at the big picture, you just want to look at what's in front of you. But with liberalism, it's always about the big picture.
Before Commie Care was passed, we told people it was all about more government. Opponents said it was all about the civil right that was never written about people getting medical care.
Listen to any White House spokesperson on the issue today. 14 million people now have health insurance. What does that mean? Democrats created 14 million more government dependents. The more government dependents we have in this country, the more likely Democrat voters in the future. But you think politicians actually care if you have health insurance or not? And they brag about this government dependency like it's something to be proud of. There is nothing to celebrate when we create more government dependents.
Again, look at the big picture, because the little pictures will lead you there.
Yes, the parties are now further apart more than ever. That's the trend going right now.
On the right, we have the Tea Party and Constitutionalists who are moving against the establishment. These are strict constitutionalists which is very right.
On the left, the second place contender (and first place in some areas) for the presidential bid is an admitted Socialist. The current Democrat President had the support of the US Communist party both elections. You can't get much further left than that.
So yes, we are a deeply divided country and issues like this divide us even more.
There is no pragmatism in this EO order. It's a look good--feel good proposal that won't solve one problem when it comes to firearms. Yes, that is the big picture, and the big picture here is big government.
What goes over my head is how you and so many others can just characterize something as Democratic or Liberal then completely dismiss it. It is that kind of partisanship that is ruining our country. You accuse me of looking at what's in front of me like that's a bad thing. Perhaps we should all just simply look at the laws and proposals that are put in front of us in an objective way and play to the party.I see that point flew right over your head, so let's try something else:
Can you name me one major issue of Democrats that ever stopped at one place: one that never advanced as the years went on?
Your problem seems to be that you don't want to look at the big picture, you just want to look at what's in front of you. But with liberalism, it's always about the big picture.
Before Commie Care was passed, we told people it was all about more government. Opponents said it was all about the civil right that was never written about people getting medical care.
Listen to any White House spokesperson on the issue today. 14 million people now have health insurance. What does that mean? Democrats created 14 million more government dependents. The more government dependents we have in this country, the more likely Democrat voters in the future. But you think politicians actually care if you have health insurance or not? And they brag about this government dependency like it's something to be proud of. There is nothing to celebrate when we create more government dependents.
Again, look at the big picture, because the little pictures will lead you there.
Yes, the parties are now further apart more than ever. That's the trend going right now.
On the right, we have the Tea Party and Constitutionalists who are moving against the establishment. These are strict constitutionalists which is very right.
On the left, the second place contender (and first place in some areas) for the presidential bid is an admitted Socialist. The current Democrat President had the support of the US Communist party both elections. You can't get much further left than that.
So yes, we are a deeply divided country and issues like this divide us even more.
There is no pragmatism in this EO order. It's a look good--feel good proposal that won't solve one problem when it comes to firearms. Yes, that is the big picture, and the big picture here is big government.
You just don't get it. The Soviet Union was an extremely conservative system. N. Korea is as conservative and Right Wing as a nation can get,
I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.
Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...
Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.
View attachment 59771
What goes over my head is how you and so many others can just characterize something as Democratic or Liberal then completely dismiss it. It is that kind of partisanship that is ruining our country. You accuse me of looking at what's in front of me like that's a bad thing. Perhaps we should all just simply look at the laws and proposals that are put in front of us in an objective way and play to the party.I see that point flew right over your head, so let's try something else:
Can you name me one major issue of Democrats that ever stopped at one place: one that never advanced as the years went on?
Your problem seems to be that you don't want to look at the big picture, you just want to look at what's in front of you. But with liberalism, it's always about the big picture.
Before Commie Care was passed, we told people it was all about more government. Opponents said it was all about the civil right that was never written about people getting medical care.
Listen to any White House spokesperson on the issue today. 14 million people now have health insurance. What does that mean? Democrats created 14 million more government dependents. The more government dependents we have in this country, the more likely Democrat voters in the future. But you think politicians actually care if you have health insurance or not? And they brag about this government dependency like it's something to be proud of. There is nothing to celebrate when we create more government dependents.
Again, look at the big picture, because the little pictures will lead you there.
Yes, the parties are now further apart more than ever. That's the trend going right now.
On the right, we have the Tea Party and Constitutionalists who are moving against the establishment. These are strict constitutionalists which is very right.
On the left, the second place contender (and first place in some areas) for the presidential bid is an admitted Socialist. The current Democrat President had the support of the US Communist party both elections. You can't get much further left than that.
So yes, we are a deeply divided country and issues like this divide us even more.
There is no pragmatism in this EO order. It's a look good--feel good proposal that won't solve one problem when it comes to firearms. Yes, that is the big picture, and the big picture here is big government.
You just don't get it. The Soviet Union was an extremely conservative system. N. Korea is as conservative and Right Wing as a nation can get,
FYI -- No amount of effort can keep guns out of the hands of anyone that wants one, it's impossible. People trade guns, sell guns to friends, family, and neighbors, and it's easy to buy a gun at a flea market, yard sale, or from the trunk of a car. There are many guns purchased on the black market, and many cross our borders. The whole idea of "Gun Control" is silly, ridiculous, and will not stop violent crimes, gang violence, and thugs from using them. Guns are available to anyone that wants one, from many sources, and some can not be traced.I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.
Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...
Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.
View attachment 59771
Oh good. Another day, another completely made-up bogus quote.
>> As a proud defender of our founding fathers (putting slavery to the side in the context of its times - it was still wrong), I rise again to respond to the latest false meme sighted (or falsely cited) on Facebook. George Washington did not say:The word [it's] gave it away immediately. You actually think George Washington didn't know the difference between its and it's? That's a flaming red flag. "When any nation mistrusts it is citizens"? Really?
When any nation mistrusts its citizens with guns, it is sending a clear message. It no longer trusts its citizens because it has evil plans.Nope. Nada. Nothing of the sort. It doesn't even sound like him. It certainly doesn't sound like the President George Washington who federalized militias to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. It's nowhere to be found in any official source from George himself! Check out a few:
Documents | Papers of George Washington
George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress
The Papers of George Washington Digital Edition
Geez Louise, People! If you have to rely on such false and misleading statements, offending the memory of our founders and the principles they did give us, maybe, just maybe, you should rethink what you are trying to defend - or attack. Just sayin'! <<
What exactly does it say about your position that you have to make up bogus shit in an attempt to legitimize it? How many times have I busted you on this shit now?
"It is common on the Internet to falsely attribute to someone in the past a quotation addressing something that's an issue today but not an issue at that time." -- Aristotle
"Anyone who believes everything they find in Googly Images is credible is a fucking idiot" -- Mother Theresa
------ and yet another bogus quote from the Department of Doing the Same Thing Over and Over and Expecting Different Results.
Place yer bets on which bogus quote comes next.
I haven't seen the old "Liberty's Teeth" fabrication yet. I'm goin' with that.
What goes over my head is how you and so many others can just characterize something as Democratic or Liberal then completely dismiss it. It is that kind of partisanship that is ruining our country. You accuse me of looking at what's in front of me like that's a bad thing. Perhaps we should all just simply look at the laws and proposals that are put in front of us in an objective way and play to the party.I see that point flew right over your head, so let's try something else:
Can you name me one major issue of Democrats that ever stopped at one place: one that never advanced as the years went on?
Your problem seems to be that you don't want to look at the big picture, you just want to look at what's in front of you. But with liberalism, it's always about the big picture.
Before Commie Care was passed, we told people it was all about more government. Opponents said it was all about the civil right that was never written about people getting medical care.
Listen to any White House spokesperson on the issue today. 14 million people now have health insurance. What does that mean? Democrats created 14 million more government dependents. The more government dependents we have in this country, the more likely Democrat voters in the future. But you think politicians actually care if you have health insurance or not? And they brag about this government dependency like it's something to be proud of. There is nothing to celebrate when we create more government dependents.
Again, look at the big picture, because the little pictures will lead you there.
Yes, the parties are now further apart more than ever. That's the trend going right now.
On the right, we have the Tea Party and Constitutionalists who are moving against the establishment. These are strict constitutionalists which is very right.
On the left, the second place contender (and first place in some areas) for the presidential bid is an admitted Socialist. The current Democrat President had the support of the US Communist party both elections. You can't get much further left than that.
So yes, we are a deeply divided country and issues like this divide us even more.
There is no pragmatism in this EO order. It's a look good--feel good proposal that won't solve one problem when it comes to firearms. Yes, that is the big picture, and the big picture here is big government.
You just don't get it. The Soviet Union was an extremely conservative system. N. Korea is as conservative and Right Wing as a nation can get,
Then go to the Communist web site, look up their agendas, and tell me where they differ from the Democrat party.
