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.
Hey look! Jillian found a soulmate!Because duh baybee Jeezuss bleated " he who liveth by the swordeth, dyeth bt thou swordeth"
That was just before they took a rock and a piece of hammered iron and nailed him to a stick...........or so the story goes.
Militarized populace?Is there anyone who still believes in gun control?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seriously.
If you're out there, please tell us why!
because i've had to deal with it first hand, and subsequently don't believe a militarized populace is condusive to a safe populace....
Is there anyone who still believes in gun control?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seriously.
If you're out there, please tell us why!
because i've had to deal with it first hand, and subsequently don't believe a militarized populace is condusive to a safe populace....
And yet EVERY single State that loosens gun controls has violent crime rates drop and those places with restrictive gun laws are havens for murder and mayhem. Go figure.
Everyone believes in gun control. Even people who believe in the 2nd Amendment also believe that there has to be legitimate control over the posession and use of deadly weapons. You can't legally posess a fully automatic weapon and crazy people and convicted felons are prohibited from purchasing firearms. The dirty little secret is that when liberals use the word "control" they really mean "confiscation". Libs aren't satisfied with the thousands of pages of firearms laws already on the books. They want total control.
no. control seems to mean control at least for normal people.
most rightwingnuts don't acknowledge that there should be ANY controls. Crazy people aren't supposed to have to get background checked b/c they have a "right" to a gun.
btw, i think it's pretty safe to say i'm considered a "liberal".
my husband and son shoot. *shrug*
Never mind that is is true.guns/crime is a tired canard of the nra
That a tiny % of people misuse guns, everyone must have their rights infringed?try guns/idiots , and get back to me
2 things:I'm all for background checks. Everyone has the right ot drive but if you can't pass the test you don't get your license.
Even without a license you are not restricted as to what kind of car you can buy.But once you have that license you are not restricted to what type of car you can buy.
Everyone believes in gun control. Even people who believe in the 2nd Amendment also believe that there has to be legitimate control over the posession and use of deadly weapons. You can't legally posess a fully automatic weapon and crazy people and convicted felons are prohibited from purchasing firearms. The dirty little secret is that when liberals use the word "control" they really mean "confiscation". Libs aren't satisfied with the thousands of pages of firearms laws already on the books. They want total control.
no. control seems to mean control at least for normal people.
most rightwingnuts don't acknowledge that there should be ANY controls. Crazy people aren't supposed to have to get background checked b/c they have a "right" to a gun.
btw, i think it's pretty safe to say i'm considered a "liberal".
my husband and son shoot. *shrug*
I'm all for background checks. Everyone has the right ot drive but if you can't pass the test you don't get your license. But once you have that license you are not restricted to what type of car you can buy. That's were I disagree with limitations and bans on the types of weapons you can own.
guns/crime is a tired canard of the nra
try guns/idiots , and get back to me
Sigh.Nobody needs to google, what you've presented is exactly what did *not* happen, in real life.Not how it works.
The right to arms is a fundamental right, protected specifically by the constitution - restrictions on such rghts are presumed unconstitutional until shown otherwise.
As such, for a restriction to pass, the state has to show it has a compelling interest to restrict the right, and that said restriction is the least intrusive way to achieve that interest
So, unless you can show that interest, there's no way to argue the limits you support pass muster.
Once Jillan googles all this, she'll try to argue otherwise; she'll succeed in only showng that while she can copy/paste impressive-sounding words, she has no means to comprehend them.
So, have fun taking it to the Supreme.
"Common sense" says you cannot violate the Constitution, regardless how good you think an idea that does so may be. At some point, given the 2 most recent decisions from the court, someone will argue exactly what I have argued here, and will win, based on that argument.
Most women rely on their partners/husbands for protection. When the former protector becomes the villain those women need help. You would deny it to them based on what,
procrastination?
Get real.
Get real that some woman about to be attacked is going be able to voluntarily leave the crib, and go pick up a pistol, coming home, as opposed to, you know, going to the Police.
You're not too well versed on the subject are you? Attacks seem to come as a surprise (oh my gosh you mean they lay in wait?), the atackers in the vast majority of the cases have been in contact with police, usually multiple times, and in the vast majority of the time there is a Restraining Order against the hubby. But hey don't let a little thing like facts get in the way of your attitued.
I lined to the last one to show that even when guns are outlawed bad people still seem to figure out ways to harm people.....who would a thunk it
Boxer was leaving husband when attacked
Woman Says She Was Brutally Beaten, Shot By Ex-Husband - News Story - KIRO Seattle
Woman Sues Husband Over Alleged Attack - SFGate
Ex-husband left woman paralysed in frenzied axe attack - Scotsman.com News
I'm with you on background checks but waiting periods only allow women to be killed by their ex's. You should let those go. They don't halt crime and in fact make crime easier.
Conversely, they allow hot headed exes to johnny on the spot in the heat of the moment buy pull shoot.
I think that people who have a philosophy of having a gun for protection don't generally wait until it's too late to have one and if they do, then they have their own philosophy to blame.
Couple of small points:
That Constitution thing you seem to dismiss so easily.... that founded this country. It LIMITS our government to ensure Americans are free - at least that's the theory.... but I'm sure your 'research and reason' is far more valuable to us all.... not.
Secondly, and by far most importantly, the most telling part of your post is the phrase 'I think.....' In other words, you don't KNOW. Forgive me for pointing out the obvious but when it comes to domestic violence, 'I think' doesn't cut it. You need to KNOW, not think. That's why proper academic research is far more important than your 'research and reason'.
Gun control laws are pure BS. Feel good legislation by politicians that do nothing.
Gun control laws are pure BS. Feel good legislation by politicians that do nothing.
"Gun control" is a pretty broad term. Specifically?
Gun control laws are pure BS. Feel good legislation by politicians that do nothing.
"Gun control" is a pretty broad term. Specifically?
Any limitiation on a person owning any type of weapon.
"Gun control" is a pretty broad term. Specifically?
Any limitiation on a person owning any type of weapon.
Wow.
