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.
MY proposals have been aimed at 1) background checks for all gun purchases (nothing to do with "going after" honest citizens; 2) choking out shadow buyers (nothing to do with "going after" honest citizens) and 3) holding gun owners accountable for taking reasonable measures to secure their firearm. (That could be construed as going after honest citizens I guess, but if someone is incredibly careless to the point of reckless in their failure to secure their firearm - then they're probably too stupid to go around armed themselves.)
Being "careless" opens government to so much power to interpret what is and what isn't careless. If you have your gun inside your own home on your own property, that already is taking reasonable precautions. I am not really getting what you are getting at here. Are you talking about people leaving their gun on a park bench?
Got an answer, Dawg? I keep my gun in my own home, it's broken into and stolen. Explain how that is on me.
In economics you learn that taxes are also about incentivizing desired behavior.
When you say "your" precious little social polices. You mean "our". You have a vote. The tradition of safety nets grew out of the Great Depression -- Americans can not abide families and old people dying in the streets. And the notion that if you float people during a recession or transitional period, a certain percentage will find work.
We are a compassionate nation and, to some degree, believe that care for the sick and poor who can not care for themselves is a good thing for our national character.
The greatest thing about this country is if you just can't stand these traditions, then you are free to leave.
As far as pay a fine, if young people want to carry around a DNR order on their arm band or in their wallet -- saying if I get into a horrific accident, let me die -- then they don't have to pay the ACA fine. However, who's going to scrape their bodies off the streets?
Who are these people who don't think they have to have health insurance?
It's always fascinating when Dumbocrats have an accidental moment of honesty.
Think about just how fuck'n sick that statement is. We all know that taxes are intended for one purpose and one purpose only: to run the Constitutional responsibilities of government.
But a liberal looks at it (like everything else) as a way to control others and as a way to punish.
Which is what makes it all the more hilarious when they claim that raising taxes doesn't effect employment. Wait a second - you just admitted that it's a way to punish. That means you clearly realize that taxes have a tremendous negative impact.
Oops! Looks like [MENTION=39768]hazlnut[/MENTION] just fucked up and forgot - in his web of lives - what his previous narrative was. He just got caught contradicting himself. Buh-bye credibility!
Looks like you're stuck on my web of lives…
Can you maybe fill in a few details? How are you planning to do that?
Sure.
Start with free and easy access to sex education and contraceptives.
Then, fund education programs for expectant mothers and fathers. You know, parenting skills.....shit like that.
Then, make sure that every kid is well fed at all times regardless of parents ability to provide.
Then, fund education from all fronts. Facilities, technology, teachers ( free college and greater salaries ), post secondary education opportunities.
We can also legalize and regulate the sale of recreational drugs.
Need more?
The one relevant proposal you have is to address the war on drugs. Though by not ending it you only have a marginal impact on it. Other than that, you want to use this to peddle socialism.
As for the socialism side, what people need, Homey, is not more government, they need more jobs. And they get those by ending the idiotic minimum wage that prevents inner city teens from getting a job and unencumbering our economy with the endless taxes and regulations that hold it down. And government schools are certainly not the answer to a better educated population. And as for the actual thread, you have no plan at all.
Being "careless" opens government to so much power to interpret what is and what isn't careless. If you have your gun inside your own home on your own property, that already is taking reasonable precautions. I am not really getting what you are getting at here. Are you talking about people leaving their gun on a park bench?
Got an answer, Dawg? I keep my gun in my own home, it's broken into and stolen. Explain how that is on me.
Typical liberal tactic. Throw out a factoid that is a red herring and argue it as if you are arguing the point, then when you're called on it, beat a hasty retreat...
Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!
Got an answer, Dawg? I keep my gun in my own home, it's broken into and stolen. Explain how that is on me.
Typical liberal tactic. Throw out a factoid that is a red herring and argue it as if you are arguing the point, then when you're called on it, beat a hasty retreat...
Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!
LOL - excuse me for turning off my computer once in a while.
Really? is that all you got? Then you don't have much.
In your example - keeping it "in your home" may or may not be enough to avoid a charge of gross neglegence. (Apparently you haven't heard the term gross neglegence before or are painfully unaware of how it is applied in a legal sense).
Typical liberal tactic. Throw out a factoid that is a red herring and argue it as if you are arguing the point, then when you're called on it, beat a hasty retreat...
Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!
LOL - excuse me for turning off my computer once in a while.
Really? is that all you got? Then you don't have much.
In your example - keeping it "in your home" may or may not be enough to avoid a charge of gross neglegence. (Apparently you haven't heard the term gross neglegence before or are painfully unaware of how it is applied in a legal sense).
Your topic is stolen guns. If someone's gun is in their own home, explain how that can be "gross negligence" if someone breaks in and steals it.
In your example - keeping it "in your home" may or may not be enough to avoid a charge of gross neglegence. (Apparently you haven't heard the term gross neglegence before or are painfully unaware of how it is applied in a legal sense).
In your example - keeping it "in your home" may or may not be enough to avoid a charge of gross neglegence. (Apparently you haven't heard the term gross neglegence before or are painfully unaware of how it is applied in a legal sense).
Gross negligence is a legal concept which means serious carelessness. Unless you can demonstrate that a person is supposed to know their house is going to be robbed, it would not apply.
In your example - keeping it "in your home" may or may not be enough to avoid a charge of gross neglegence. (Apparently you haven't heard the term gross neglegence before or are painfully unaware of how it is applied in a legal sense).
Gross negligence is a legal concept which means serious carelessness. Unless you can demonstrate that a person is supposed to know their house is going to be robbed, it would not apply.
It could apply.
For example. If you live in an apartment complex with heavy traffic right in front of your apartment. There is a huge window in the front of your apartment. The shades are open so all this traffic can see - in plain sight - a pile of guns on your couch. Your door isn't locked. Someone would have to "break" into your house to get those guns technically, but in reality you've dangled a carrot in front of their nose and provided virtually no deterent.
Under my proposal this could meet the gross neglegence standard.
Example 2: You leave your gun laying on the passenger seat of your unlocked car while you run into the store to pick up a gallon of milk.
Example 3: You live with a person who has a criminal record or who is either too young, too mentally incomptent, too emotionally disturbed, to pass a gun purchase background check. You take no provisions to try to deny that person access to your gun.
Gross negligence is a legal concept which means serious carelessness. Unless you can demonstrate that a person is supposed to know their house is going to be robbed, it would not apply.
It could apply.
For example. If you live in an apartment complex with heavy traffic right in front of your apartment. There is a huge window in the front of your apartment. The shades are open so all this traffic can see - in plain sight - a pile of guns on your couch. Your door isn't locked. Someone would have to "break" into your house to get those guns technically, but in reality you've dangled a carrot in front of their nose and provided virtually no deterent.
Under my proposal this could meet the gross neglegence standard.
Example 2: You leave your gun laying on the passenger seat of your unlocked car while you run into the store to pick up a gallon of milk.
Example 3: You live with a person who has a criminal record or who is either too young, too mentally incomptent, too emotionally disturbed, to pass a gun purchase background check. You take no provisions to try to deny that person access to your gun.
So out of the 230K guns that are stolen that you're lamenting, you've just covered maybe 127 of them. How is that going to make any difference in a country of 300 million people?
I am not required by law to lock my car my house or hide my possessions because someone may rob me. You do realize that is what you are requiring? that the private citizen be so worried about criminal charges that they act in fear of the Government that some criminal may rob them?
I am not required by law to lock my car my house or hide my possessions because someone may rob me. You do realize that is what you are requiring? that the private citizen be so worried about criminal charges that they act in fear of the Government that some criminal may rob them?
1) I never said criminal charges. Civil liability is what I favor.
2) I am asking that gun owners be responsible gun owners. I'm asking that they take reasonable precautions to secure their weapon.
I cannot imagine that any responsible gun owner would find these provisions onerous.
I am not required by law to lock my car my house or hide my possessions because someone may rob me. You do realize that is what you are requiring? that the private citizen be so worried about criminal charges that they act in fear of the Government that some criminal may rob them?
1) I never said criminal charges. Civil liability is what I favor.
2) I am asking that gun owners be responsible gun owners. I'm asking that they take reasonable precautions to secure their weapon.
I cannot imagine that any responsible gun owner would find these provisions onerous.
No, you created the most specious examples and implied that such behavior is common. They are ridiculous examples, yet even then are not dangerous unless a CRIMINAL engages in criminal behavior. So, while you are trying to marginalize legal gun owners, you illustrate that the real problem is crime and the ineffective response to criminals that our plagues our society.
I pity the poor civil servants who ultimately will have to go door to door if they want the guns.
-Geaux
I kinda like that idea, but why send them to prison in the U.S. strip them of their citizenship and deport them to Somalia. the air fare would be a lot cheaper than supporting them here.The gun grabbers don't actually care about criminals using guns.
If they did, this would be the route they would choose.
But instead they would say "Look at all these black people in prison, this isn't fair."
Pretty much the same thing they say today.
The gun grabbers don't trust LEGAL gun owners with guns.
They don't want to own a gun, and they don't want anyone else to own one either.
That's the bottom line.
You're right. There is only one way to skin a cat. Yep
How many ways do you need?
The objective is a skinned cat...right?
You want to reduce gun crime...it's an epidemic...well then the solution is to skin the motherfucking cat, not find 35 unique ways of doing it!
Put these criminals under the jail until just being in jail looks as good as freedom...and if you find a better way down the road, we'll institute that.
The gun grabbers don't actually care about criminals using guns.
If they did, this would be the route they would choose.
But instead they would say "Look at all these black people in prison, this isn't fair."
Pretty much the same thing they say today.
The gun grabbers don't trust LEGAL gun owners with guns.
They don't want to own a gun, and they don't want anyone else to own one either.
That's the bottom line.
I am not required by law to lock my car my house or hide my possessions because someone may rob me. You do realize that is what you are requiring? that the private citizen be so worried about criminal charges that they act in fear of the Government that some criminal may rob them?
1) I never said criminal charges. Civil liability is what I favor.
2) I am asking that gun owners be responsible gun owners. I'm asking that they take reasonable precautions to secure their weapon.
I cannot imagine that any responsible gun owner would find these provisions onerous.
No, you created the most specious examples and implied that such behavior is common. They are ridiculous examples, yet even then are not dangerous unless a CRIMINAL engages in criminal behavior. So, while you are trying to marginalize legal gun owners, you illustrate that the real problem is crime and the ineffective response to criminals that our plagues our society.
