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.
Cars have gotten much safer over the years. Is the same true of guns?Still, in the US, cars kill over 30,000 people per year. How odd that you want to ban or limit Second Amendment rights yet have no concern over 30K+ people killed by cars.
Cite the laws limiting how powerful and big a car can be.Why? Because there are already limits on how powerful and big they can be. Keep working on those anger issues.
Excellent! My compliments on your set up.Do you live on your own planet? If a criminal breaks into your house and steals your gun then we're all a little less safe.My life and what I do with has absolutely nothing to do with yours or anyone else's life
How does my owning a gun make you or anyone else less safe?
Let me help you out here
It doesn't
When I am not home no one can steal my guns as they are locked in a 500 lb safe with a 6 digit combination lock that is secured by concrete anchors in my basement. My house has an alarm system and I have 3 good sized dogs.
So tell me how do those guns endanger you or anyone else?
One question: If you feel such security is necessary shouldn't every gun owner be required to do the same? Or at least have some sort of minimum security standards for their guns.
No idea where you're taking me but... I've never invoked the 5th Amendment but I'm sure some guilty people have.Alan, have you ever needed your 5th Amendment rights? Can we agree that SOME people have used their 5th Amendment right to get away with a crime which allowed them to harm more people?
No doubt some guilty people have used the 5th which DIRECTLY led to them harming more people later on, so we should remove YOUR 5th Amendment rights , right?
I admire your ideological purity but not your values.I'm suggesting removing one of your enumerated rights because SOME people have misused that right.
I don't believe all rights are created equal. As important as the 5th or 2nd is, it is trumped by the right to life.
You've used the 1.5 m DGU number before but I don't recall you citing the DoJ. I know the Kleck survey found a large number but I can't find any DoJ survey, only a Kleck citation. Is the 1.5 m number Kleck's or not?No one is giving up their rights for the 2nd Amendment.......criminals killing people has nothing to do with our right to keep and bear arms.......Americans use guns to save lives 1,500,000 times a year.....according to the Department of Justice.......so guns in the hands of normal, law abiding, good people save far more lives than they take when they are misused, and used illegally.......
You are obviously just trying to cause trouble.....you should stop.
Regardless, I find it somewhat hypocritical that you accept this survey but not previous ones we discussed. As I recall you said people lie to anonymous callers. True or do you want to have it both ways?
You've used the 1.5 m DGU number before but I don't recall you citing the DoJ. I know the Kleck survey found a large number but I can't find any DoJ survey, only a Kleck citation. Is the 1.5 m number Kleck's or not?No one is giving up their rights for the 2nd Amendment.......criminals killing people has nothing to do with our right to keep and bear arms.......Americans use guns to save lives 1,500,000 times a year.....according to the Department of Justice.......so guns in the hands of normal, law abiding, good people save far more lives than they take when they are misused, and used illegally.......
You are obviously just trying to cause trouble.....you should stop.
Regardless, I find it somewhat hypocritical that you accept this survey but not previous ones we discussed. As I recall you said people lie to anonymous callers. True or do you want to have it both ways?
Don't underestimate how coercive government can be. A law saying no gun safe installed in your home (receipts required), no guns.There is no way to mandate that and enforce it unless of course you do away with the 4th amendment and allow random home searches
Just because there are seat belts in cars does not mean everyone wears them and those that don't rarely if ever get caught.
You're right about seat belts but before they were mandated you had to purchase them as an after-market item (if I recall correctly) so almost nobody did. At least now they are there if you want them and have sense enough to use them.
The declaration of Independence is not the document which establishes our legal rightsIt's an unenumerated right. It's also included in the Declaration of Independence.There is no right to life in the Bill of Rights
The Constitution does not guarantee a right to life anywhere.
The right to life is mentioned in the preamble only and the preamble is not the legally binding text of the document
Oh for the Love of God.
First of all, the ENTIRE COTUS is the legally binding document
Second of all, the COTUS does not give any of us ANY rights, we already have those rights. It in fact only gives the federal government rights and specifies which rights the government may never interfere with.
Yet both show what the Founders intended for limiting our government.The preamble is NOT the Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence is NOT the Constitution
Preamble
The Preamble to the Constitution is an introductory, succinct statement of the principles at work in the full text. It is referred to in countless speeches, judicial opinions. Courts will not interpret the Preamble to confer any rights or powers not granted specifically in the Constitution.
I don't recall seeing any jet-engine powered cars? Also, I thought some Montana roads don't have any speed limits so I'd love to have that Dodge out there.There's no limit on how powerful a vehicle may be. Government imposed limit , I mean. Dodge builds a vehicle with 707 HP right out of the factory. Now , why would they do that? The damn thing does 0-60 in <4 seconds and has a top speed of 198 MPH. Why? Obviously there is no public road where that is necessary, or legal. Should Dodge be responsible for making sure no one can use their cars to speed?
Don't underestimate how coercive government can be. A law saying no gun safe installed in your home (receipts required), no guns.There is no way to mandate that and enforce it unless of course you do away with the 4th amendment and allow random home searches
Just because there are seat belts in cars does not mean everyone wears them and those that don't rarely if ever get caught.
You're right about seat belts but before they were mandated you had to purchase them as an after-market item (if I recall correctly) so almost nobody did. At least now they are there if you want them and have sense enough to use them.
I don't recall seeing any jet-engine powered cars? Also, I thought some Montana roads don't have any speed limits so I'd love to have that Dodge out there.There's no limit on how powerful a vehicle may be. Government imposed limit , I mean. Dodge builds a vehicle with 707 HP right out of the factory. Now , why would they do that? The damn thing does 0-60 in <4 seconds and has a top speed of 198 MPH. Why? Obviously there is no public road where that is necessary, or legal. Should Dodge be responsible for making sure no one can use their cars to speed?
The anti gunners keep pushing for limits on the number of bullets normal people can have in their pistols and rifles........the reason.....if they limit the number to 10, they can ban certain types of pistols and rifles without having to call it a ban and without having to pass gun control legislation banning all of those weapons......
What is the point......who is really effected by magazine bullet limits...
Mass Public shooters....? No. They can kill easily by exchanging magazines...and actual research shows that magazine capacity has no bearing on the number of people killed...
Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN
Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN
Criminals....? No. They can get whatever they want...even in countries with complete bans and confiscation of guns....France bans all semi auto rifles and all fully auto rifles...and their criminals and their terrorists get those rifles and standard magazines easily.....
the people who are hurt....those who are law abiding...who are on their own in the face of criminal attack, who will have no help and will have to rely on their pistol to save their life........
Is there a law against it? Perhaps the reason is because a turboshaft/turbojet engine is both very expensive to buy and maintain.I don't recall seeing any jet-engine powered cars?...
I don't recall seeing any jet-engine powered cars? Also, I thought some Montana roads don't have any speed limits so I'd love to have that Dodge out there.There's no limit on how powerful a vehicle may be. Government imposed limit , I mean. Dodge builds a vehicle with 707 HP right out of the factory. Now , why would they do that? The damn thing does 0-60 in <4 seconds and has a top speed of 198 MPH. Why? Obviously there is no public road where that is necessary, or legal. Should Dodge be responsible for making sure no one can use their cars to speed?
That's an old wive's tail, there are no roads in Montana that don't have speed limits
Also, Chrysler did build a rocket powered car.
Chrysler Turbine Car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
it was not a success.
Is there a law against it? Perhaps the reason is because a turboshaft/turbojet engine is both very expensive to buy and maintain.I don't recall seeing any jet-engine powered cars?...
Chrysler one had a turbine car. It had a few drawbacks: Chrysler Turbine Car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jay Leno built a turbine powered car using a helicopter turboshaft engine. It was very expensive and completely legal: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/automobiles/14JETCAR.html
Traffic laws...they only effect law abiding car owners so why do we need them.
Needing a license to practice medicine laws... they only effect law abiding doctors so why do we need them.
Banking laws... they only effect law abiding bankers so why do we need them.
All the FDA laws...they only effect law abiding food and drug manufacturers so why do we need them
I'm beginning to see a pattern here.
again....this argument is silly....yet you guys keep going to it....
It is against the law to speed...if you do you get punished.
It is against the law to commit murder....and when you do commit murder you can be punished...
That is how laws work..they define behavior that is not allowed, and if you do it what the punishment will be.
It is against the law to use a gun to commit a crime..if you do you can be arrested...see the pattern here.....you get punished for actually committing a crime, not before you commit the crime.
Traffic laws...they only effect law abiding car owners so why do we need them.
Needing a license to practice medicine laws... they only effect law abiding doctors so why do we need them.
Banking laws... they only effect law abiding bankers so why do we need them.
All the FDA laws...they only effect law abiding food and drug manufacturers so why do we need them
I'm beginning to see a pattern here.
again....this argument is silly....yet you guys keep going to it....
It is against the law to speed...if you do you get punished.
It is against the law to commit murder....and when you do commit murder you can be punished...
That is how laws work..they define behavior that is not allowed, and if you do it what the punishment will be.
It is against the law to use a gun to commit a crime..if you do you can be arrested...see the pattern here.....you get punished for actually committing a crime, not before you commit the crime.
No dummy. Driving faster than the speed limit is not inherently dangerous. People do it every day, but most know there are times when driving fast is a terrible idea. If they aren't reckless, and use a little common sense, they probably won't have a wreck. Not everybody uses common sense so the law abiding, responsible drivers who know when to back off have their freedom to chose restricted. Same with doctors. A responsible, law abiding doctor will keep up with the latest research and do all the things needed to best serve his patients and the Hippocratic oath. Nobody needs to tell him what he should do. He knows, and gladly maintains the highest standards. All the review and licensing requirements are just a nuisance to him. None of that will stop a bad doctor from being a bad doctor. That makes at least as much sense as your silly repetitious crap.
