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.
What about Johnny Psycho that's been stalking Susie Q, sending her threats, following her around... She gets a restraining order against Johnny and he freaks out... Do you think he should be able to legally go buy a gun? If that restraining order could get registered in a database and flagged during a background check at a gun store do you think that would be worth supporting?yes, are you ok with that? if so, why?Why don't we give guns to 5 year olds?[
What strict gun controls. All we ask is that every weapon sold legally have a background check done on the person buying it. You have to admit that it just might save at least ONE life. and even one life is priceless.
Put the NRA and the Gun Nutters crede aside and do what is right for a change.
Why does a person have to get a background check when there is a Bill of Rights that says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?
Why do we need permission form the filthy ass government to enjoy an individual right enumerated in the Bill of Rights?
How come the the assumption is that a person is guilty until proven innocent? Proven innocent by a government run by filthy ass dumbass corrupt politicians elected by special interest groups?
If we just want to save one life then why don't we prevent driving, swimming pools, knifes, pesticides, Big Macs and everything else in our society that is a danger?
If you just want to save one life then how about preventing abortion on demand for the sake of convenience? That would save about a million children's lives each year.
They aren't old enough. We don't even allow 20 year olds to buy hand guns...
So we do, in fact, control who owns guns...thanks for pointing that out......
I actually think if you serve in the military you get to carry a gun off duty...even at 17.....
I don't mind having people wait for a certain age, it isn't unreasonable.....as long as at midnight they get to buy a gun on their birthday......
We can haggle over the right age......
We punish the crime, not the gun owner.....
Yeah, the majority of the time I would suspect that nothing would happen, but I just pointed out an example where something would have happened and Trump would be donzo right now... Kinda crazy if you think about it.I believe in gun control...always have.....you guys say we don't because you want gun control laws that don't work....and the morons in the movement want to punish normal gun owners.Isn't your point that there shouldn't be gun control so in a 2guy world the attendees of the rally would be able to carry?yesThank you...I missed that post.......before I reply..is this the English kid?
In that case.....no one was allowed into that area with a gun, American or English........even if he bought a gun he wouldn't have been able to get near trump...that is why he tried to steal the cops gun....and any other person there could have done the same thing....
Your point has no merit.......
There were people at Dallas, the Giffords shooting and at the NRA convention and the Republican convention and guns were allowed.........your scenario could have happened anyway......and it didn't.......
If you commit a crime with a gun, you go to jail...if you are a felon with a gun, you go to jail.......that is what we need...and to enforce it....
The Republican convention had concealed and open carry.......nothing happened......
Allowing people to carry guns at Dallas, the Giffords Rally and at the NRA and Republican conventions.......they did nothing to cause trouble......
What about Johnny Psycho that's been stalking Susie Q, sending her threats, following her around... She gets a restraining order against Johnny and he freaks out... Do you think he should be able to legally go buy a gun? If that restraining order could get registered in a database and flagged during a background check at a gun store do you think that would be worth supporting?yes, are you ok with that? if so, why?Why don't we give guns to 5 year olds?Why does a person have to get a background check when there is a Bill of Rights that says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?
Why do we need permission form the filthy ass government to enjoy an individual right enumerated in the Bill of Rights?
How come the the assumption is that a person is guilty until proven innocent? Proven innocent by a government run by filthy ass dumbass corrupt politicians elected by special interest groups?
If we just want to save one life then why don't we prevent driving, swimming pools, knifes, pesticides, Big Macs and everything else in our society that is a danger?
If you just want to save one life then how about preventing abortion on demand for the sake of convenience? That would save about a million children's lives each year.
They aren't old enough. We don't even allow 20 year olds to buy hand guns...
So we do, in fact, control who owns guns...thanks for pointing that out......
I actually think if you serve in the military you get to carry a gun off duty...even at 17.....
I don't mind having people wait for a certain age, it isn't unreasonable.....as long as at midnight they get to buy a gun on their birthday......
We can haggle over the right age......
We punish the crime, not the gun owner.....
What about Johnny Psycho that's been stalking Susie Q, sending her threats, following her around... She gets a restraining order against Johnny and he freaks out... Do you think he should be able to legally go buy a gun? If that restraining order could get registered in a database and flagged during a background check at a gun store do you think that would be worth supporting?yes, are you ok with that? if so, why?Why don't we give guns to 5 year olds?Why does a person have to get a background check when there is a Bill of Rights that says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?
Why do we need permission form the filthy ass government to enjoy an individual right enumerated in the Bill of Rights?
How come the the assumption is that a person is guilty until proven innocent? Proven innocent by a government run by filthy ass dumbass corrupt politicians elected by special interest groups?
If we just want to save one life then why don't we prevent driving, swimming pools, knifes, pesticides, Big Macs and everything else in our society that is a danger?
If you just want to save one life then how about preventing abortion on demand for the sake of convenience? That would save about a million children's lives each year.
They aren't old enough. We don't even allow 20 year olds to buy hand guns...
So we do, in fact, control who owns guns...thanks for pointing that out......
I actually think if you serve in the military you get to carry a gun off duty...even at 17.....
I don't mind having people wait for a certain age, it isn't unreasonable.....as long as at midnight they get to buy a gun on their birthday......
We can haggle over the right age......
We punish the crime, not the gun owner.....
The fact that he couldn't buy a gun at the gun range he was at and wasn't allowed to carry at the rally forced him to try and grab a gun from a cop which led to his arrest. Take those restrictions away and Trump is 6 feet underYeah, the majority of the time I would suspect that nothing would happen, but I just pointed out an example where something would have happened and Trump would be donzo right now... Kinda crazy if you think about it.I believe in gun control...always have.....you guys say we don't because you want gun control laws that don't work....and the morons in the movement want to punish normal gun owners.Isn't your point that there shouldn't be gun control so in a 2guy world the attendees of the rally would be able to carry?
In that case.....no one was allowed into that area with a gun, American or English........even if he bought a gun he wouldn't have been able to get near trump...that is why he tried to steal the cops gun....and any other person there could have done the same thing....
Your point has no merit.......
There were people at Dallas, the Giffords shooting and at the NRA convention and the Republican convention and guns were allowed.........your scenario could have happened anyway......and it didn't.......
If you commit a crime with a gun, you go to jail...if you are a felon with a gun, you go to jail.......that is what we need...and to enforce it....
The Republican convention had concealed and open carry.......nothing happened......
Allowing people to carry guns at Dallas, the Giffords Rally and at the NRA and Republican conventions.......they did nothing to cause trouble......
And anyone there could have done the same thing...the kid could have sent himself a gun in an xbox...the way the do it sometimes in England.....or he could have murdered someone and taken their gun........
None of the laws you want would have stopped him.....
The fact that he couldn't buy a gun at the gun range he was at and wasn't allowed to carry at the rally forced him to try and grab a gun from a cop which led to his arrest. Take those restrictions away and Trump is 6 feet underYeah, the majority of the time I would suspect that nothing would happen, but I just pointed out an example where something would have happened and Trump would be donzo right now... Kinda crazy if you think about it.I believe in gun control...always have.....you guys say we don't because you want gun control laws that don't work....and the morons in the movement want to punish normal gun owners.Isn't your point that there shouldn't be gun control so in a 2guy world the attendees of the rally would be able to carry?In that case.....no one was allowed into that area with a gun, American or English........even if he bought a gun he wouldn't have been able to get near trump...that is why he tried to steal the cops gun....and any other person there could have done the same thing....
Your point has no merit.......
There were people at Dallas, the Giffords shooting and at the NRA convention and the Republican convention and guns were allowed.........your scenario could have happened anyway......and it didn't.......
If you commit a crime with a gun, you go to jail...if you are a felon with a gun, you go to jail.......that is what we need...and to enforce it....
The Republican convention had concealed and open carry.......nothing happened......
Allowing people to carry guns at Dallas, the Giffords Rally and at the NRA and Republican conventions.......they did nothing to cause trouble......
And anyone there could have done the same thing...the kid could have sent himself a gun in an xbox...the way the do it sometimes in England.....or he could have murdered someone and taken their gun........
None of the laws you want would have stopped him.....
You are correct, he could kill her a number of ways... but my question is do you think we should legally sell this guy a gun?What about Johnny Psycho that's been stalking Susie Q, sending her threats, following her around... She gets a restraining order against Johnny and he freaks out... Do you think he should be able to legally go buy a gun? If that restraining order could get registered in a database and flagged during a background check at a gun store do you think that would be worth supporting?yes, are you ok with that? if so, why?Why don't we give guns to 5 year olds?
They aren't old enough. We don't even allow 20 year olds to buy hand guns...
So we do, in fact, control who owns guns...thanks for pointing that out......
I actually think if you serve in the military you get to carry a gun off duty...even at 17.....
I don't mind having people wait for a certain age, it isn't unreasonable.....as long as at midnight they get to buy a gun on their birthday......
We can haggle over the right age......
We punish the crime, not the gun owner.....
So.....in this story...Johnny Psycho gets a restraining order on him and let's say they take every single gun he owns...........how does that stop him from burying a 10 dollar Walmart hatchet in her head...?
Arlington Heights man pleads no contest to hacking wife to death in Wisconsin
An Arlington Heights man accused of hacking his wife to death with a hatchet in Wisconsin has taken a plea deal, more than a month before he was slated to go on trial.
The Journal Times of Racine reports that 39-year-old Cristian Loga-Negru pleaded no contest Friday to first-degree intentional homicide in the 2014 slaying. He's accused of killing 36-year-old Roxana Abrudan in Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, where she went to stay with her boss to hide from her husband.
Women are vulnerable because they are physically weaker than men......you can take away every gun they have and these men will kill their wives.....what you need to do is make it easier for a woman with this problem to get a gun that she can carry........a court order waiving waiting periods and permitting processes and getting her training would work a lot better to save these women........
You are correct, he could kill her a number of ways... but my question is do you think we should legally sell this guy a gun?What about Johnny Psycho that's been stalking Susie Q, sending her threats, following her around... She gets a restraining order against Johnny and he freaks out... Do you think he should be able to legally go buy a gun? If that restraining order could get registered in a database and flagged during a background check at a gun store do you think that would be worth supporting?yes, are you ok with that? if so, why?They aren't old enough. We don't even allow 20 year olds to buy hand guns...
So we do, in fact, control who owns guns...thanks for pointing that out......
I actually think if you serve in the military you get to carry a gun off duty...even at 17.....
I don't mind having people wait for a certain age, it isn't unreasonable.....as long as at midnight they get to buy a gun on their birthday......
We can haggle over the right age......
We punish the crime, not the gun owner.....
So.....in this story...Johnny Psycho gets a restraining order on him and let's say they take every single gun he owns...........how does that stop him from burying a 10 dollar Walmart hatchet in her head...?
Arlington Heights man pleads no contest to hacking wife to death in Wisconsin
An Arlington Heights man accused of hacking his wife to death with a hatchet in Wisconsin has taken a plea deal, more than a month before he was slated to go on trial.
The Journal Times of Racine reports that 39-year-old Cristian Loga-Negru pleaded no contest Friday to first-degree intentional homicide in the 2014 slaying. He's accused of killing 36-year-old Roxana Abrudan in Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, where she went to stay with her boss to hide from her husband.
Women are vulnerable because they are physically weaker than men......you can take away every gun they have and these men will kill their wives.....what you need to do is make it easier for a woman with this problem to get a gun that she can carry........a court order waiving waiting periods and permitting processes and getting her training would work a lot better to save these women........
I get it there are tons of examples where people get guns illegally and use them. I'm not going to go broken record on this... I've made my point and it makes sense if you open your mind to it.The fact that he couldn't buy a gun at the gun range he was at and wasn't allowed to carry at the rally forced him to try and grab a gun from a cop which led to his arrest. Take those restrictions away and Trump is 6 feet underYeah, the majority of the time I would suspect that nothing would happen, but I just pointed out an example where something would have happened and Trump would be donzo right now... Kinda crazy if you think about it.I believe in gun control...always have.....you guys say we don't because you want gun control laws that don't work....and the morons in the movement want to punish normal gun owners.Isn't your point that there shouldn't be gun control so in a 2guy world the attendees of the rally would be able to carry?
If you commit a crime with a gun, you go to jail...if you are a felon with a gun, you go to jail.......that is what we need...and to enforce it....
The Republican convention had concealed and open carry.......nothing happened......
Allowing people to carry guns at Dallas, the Giffords Rally and at the NRA and Republican conventions.......they did nothing to cause trouble......
And anyone there could have done the same thing...the kid could have sent himself a gun in an xbox...the way the do it sometimes in England.....or he could have murdered someone and taken their gun........
None of the laws you want would have stopped him.....
No......the police cordon stopped him......our current gun control laws stopped him...he was not a citizen....he can't buy a gun....
What gun law stopped him from grabbing that gun....or getting a gun....had he planned better he would have gotten a gun...like the guy who murdered the Member of Parliament in gun controlled England.......remember that...they confiscated guns and he shot her .......
All good questions that would need to be addressed. My recommendation would be that anybody flagged would have to go through a more thorough background check and qualifying criteria. This would take away a "heat of the moment" purchase and allow for more details to be gathered to qualify the individualYou are correct, he could kill her a number of ways... but my question is do you think we should legally sell this guy a gun?What about Johnny Psycho that's been stalking Susie Q, sending her threats, following her around... She gets a restraining order against Johnny and he freaks out... Do you think he should be able to legally go buy a gun? If that restraining order could get registered in a database and flagged during a background check at a gun store do you think that would be worth supporting?yes, are you ok with that? if so, why?
I actually think if you serve in the military you get to carry a gun off duty...even at 17.....
I don't mind having people wait for a certain age, it isn't unreasonable.....as long as at midnight they get to buy a gun on their birthday......
We can haggle over the right age......
We punish the crime, not the gun owner.....
So.....in this story...Johnny Psycho gets a restraining order on him and let's say they take every single gun he owns...........how does that stop him from burying a 10 dollar Walmart hatchet in her head...?
Arlington Heights man pleads no contest to hacking wife to death in Wisconsin
An Arlington Heights man accused of hacking his wife to death with a hatchet in Wisconsin has taken a plea deal, more than a month before he was slated to go on trial.
The Journal Times of Racine reports that 39-year-old Cristian Loga-Negru pleaded no contest Friday to first-degree intentional homicide in the 2014 slaying. He's accused of killing 36-year-old Roxana Abrudan in Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, where she went to stay with her boss to hide from her husband.
Women are vulnerable because they are physically weaker than men......you can take away every gun they have and these men will kill their wives.....what you need to do is make it easier for a woman with this problem to get a gun that she can carry........a court order waiving waiting periods and permitting processes and getting her training would work a lot better to save these women........
If you prove he is an actual danger, no.....but how do you do that? This is a country with the rule of law.......how do you know she is telling the truth? Do you think every guy with a restraining order is guilty? What about the tactic of getting the restraining order to get leverage for child custody...should he lose his right without due process...? Should he have an appeal? How long is he denied that right?
I would pay more attention to arming the woman...that will keep more of them alive...the man can easily kill the woman without a gun....but you are fixated on the gun...
Making somebody go through a bg check could be an instant thing, it doesn't need to be a process that makes the purchase of a gun any harder. And it definitely could prevent SOME criminals from getting weapons... Not all criminals but some. That's the pointI did answer that... No kind of background check. bg checks have no effect on criminals that illegally buy or steal arms. Do you claim that 100% of criminals steal or illegally obtain guns and 0% are detoured from not being able to easily buy one from a store?Yet you still can't say what type of background check a thief that STOLE my gun by entering a LOCKED vehicle on PRIVATE PROPERTY where he/she didn't belong will go through for having that gun.
The laws you support won't keep criminals from getting guns because they're criminals. They will find a way to get them. The laws you support will make it harder for those that wouldn't do the things for which you use to put those laws in place.
criminals typically use other "routes" to obtain firearms
rather then going through a system they know they would fail
If it saves one life, it's worth it. If it doesn't, I hope it's you.
Why don't we give guns to 5 year olds?[
What strict gun controls. All we ask is that every weapon sold legally have a background check done on the person buying it. You have to admit that it just might save at least ONE life. and even one life is priceless.
Put the NRA and the Gun Nutters crede aside and do what is right for a change.
Why does a person have to get a background check when there is a Bill of Rights that says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?
Why do we need permission form the filthy ass government to enjoy an individual right enumerated in the Bill of Rights?
How come the the assumption is that a person is guilty until proven innocent? Proven innocent by a government run by filthy ass dumbass corrupt politicians elected by special interest groups?
If we just want to save one life then why don't we prevent driving, swimming pools, knifes, pesticides, Big Macs and everything else in our society that is a danger?
If you just want to save one life then how about preventing abortion on demand for the sake of convenience? That would save about a million children's lives each year.
All good questions that would need to be addressed. My recommendation would be that anybody flagged would have to go through a more thorough background check and qualifying criteria. This would take away a "heat of the moment" purchase and allow for more details to be gathered to qualify the individualYou are correct, he could kill her a number of ways... but my question is do you think we should legally sell this guy a gun?What about Johnny Psycho that's been stalking Susie Q, sending her threats, following her around... She gets a restraining order against Johnny and he freaks out... Do you think he should be able to legally go buy a gun? If that restraining order could get registered in a database and flagged during a background check at a gun store do you think that would be worth supporting?I actually think if you serve in the military you get to carry a gun off duty...even at 17.....
I don't mind having people wait for a certain age, it isn't unreasonable.....as long as at midnight they get to buy a gun on their birthday......
We can haggle over the right age......
We punish the crime, not the gun owner.....
So.....in this story...Johnny Psycho gets a restraining order on him and let's say they take every single gun he owns...........how does that stop him from burying a 10 dollar Walmart hatchet in her head...?
Arlington Heights man pleads no contest to hacking wife to death in Wisconsin
An Arlington Heights man accused of hacking his wife to death with a hatchet in Wisconsin has taken a plea deal, more than a month before he was slated to go on trial.
The Journal Times of Racine reports that 39-year-old Cristian Loga-Negru pleaded no contest Friday to first-degree intentional homicide in the 2014 slaying. He's accused of killing 36-year-old Roxana Abrudan in Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, where she went to stay with her boss to hide from her husband.
Women are vulnerable because they are physically weaker than men......you can take away every gun they have and these men will kill their wives.....what you need to do is make it easier for a woman with this problem to get a gun that she can carry........a court order waiving waiting periods and permitting processes and getting her training would work a lot better to save these women........
If you prove he is an actual danger, no.....but how do you do that? This is a country with the rule of law.......how do you know she is telling the truth? Do you think every guy with a restraining order is guilty? What about the tactic of getting the restraining order to get leverage for child custody...should he lose his right without due process...? Should he have an appeal? How long is he denied that right?
I would pay more attention to arming the woman...that will keep more of them alive...the man can easily kill the woman without a gun....but you are fixated on the gun...
Making somebody go through a bg check could be an instant thing, it doesn't need to be a process that makes the purchase of a gun any harder. And it definitely could prevent SOME criminals from getting weapons... Not all criminals but some. That's the pointI did answer that... No kind of background check. bg checks have no effect on criminals that illegally buy or steal arms. Do you claim that 100% of criminals steal or illegally obtain guns and 0% are detoured from not being able to easily buy one from a store?
The laws you support won't keep criminals from getting guns because they're criminals. They will find a way to get them. The laws you support will make it harder for those that wouldn't do the things for which you use to put those laws in place.
criminals typically use other "routes" to obtain firearms
rather then going through a system they know they would fail
If it saves one life, it's worth it. If it doesn't, I hope it's you.
In 2013, there were 11,208 homicides with firearms. Reducing it by one would be 11,207. You call that successful?
[
Regulation doesn't have to mean that you don't have the right to own any gun including LAWs, full Auto AKs and M-16s, Uzis, Mac-9s, and even RPGs. Again, almost anyone can get the Firearms licenses to possess and fire these as long as they have the ability to secure the weapons. Securing an Automatic Rifle is not leaving on top of the freezer in the back porch.
[
Regulation doesn't have to mean that you don't have the right to own any gun including LAWs, full Auto AKs and M-16s, Uzis, Mac-9s, and even RPGs. Again, almost anyone can get the Firearms licenses to possess and fire these as long as they have the ability to secure the weapons. Securing an Automatic Rifle is not leaving on top of the freezer in the back porch.
I think you are a little confused about this.
The license to own a firearm is the Second Amendment. In the the Miller case the Supreme Court found the 2nd applied to military weapons.
When the filthy ass government sets up a licensing program then it becomes a portal where you must get permission to have the right that was already enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The regulations that the filthy ass government established can pertain all kinds of requirements that was never in the Bill of Rights and infringes upon our right to keep and bear arms.
What is wrong with me keeping a weapon on top of the freezer on the back porch if I want to do it? Maybe I live in a rural area and have no children at home. I can determine what is safe in my household and do not need the filthy ass government telling what to do before I am allowed to enjoy a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Either the Bill of Rights is a real document that protect us citizens from the abuses of government or it nothing more than toilet paper. The Libtards argue that it is toilet paper that can be changed willy nilly by stupid ass corrupt politicians elected by greedy special interest groups.
I am sorry. I don't need the filthy ass government telling me what to do when it comes to a Constitutional right.
[Q
Thats your opinion and you have every right to express it. I on the other hand am a gun owner but also see the benefits to some gun control... I don't think some psycho stalker who just got a retraining order against him should be able to walk into a store and buy a gun. Let him seek one out on the black market, maybe he will get one and use it... maybe he wont. I don't think people should be driving around with machine guns in their trucks and possess the ability to spray a crowd and kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds... Thats my two cents.
[Q
the question was in miller
was a sawed off shotgun useful to the military
it was sent back to the lower court to find out
A police officer observes the act and writes a citation. Unless an BATFE agent is involved in a private sale, this does not apply.It's against the law to speed. How do we enforce that law?All you ask, huh?
How do you enforce the law that demands this be done?
Indeed. How does the state prove that a private transfer took place w/o a background check?Gun shows, legal private sales, gun shops. Gun Shows and Shops are easily enforced. But it's a bit harder on private sales.
Utterly unnecessary.Now, require the AR and AK to have to have special licensing.
[Q
the question was in miller
was a sawed off shotgun useful to the military
it was sent back to the lower court to find out
The Court said in Miller that the Second applied to military weapons. The court erroneously said that the sawed off shotgun that Mr Miller had was not used by the military so therefore he was guilty. In fact the military did use sawed off shotguns in WWI and the court was wrong. At any rate Miller never showed for court to vigorously defend against the oppression of the filthy ass NFA laws so a proper verdict was never rendered.
