Let's get specific on the politics of GUN CONTROL

[frigidweirdo]

You Liberals are worried about guns? Seriously?

Fetuses aren't people.

View attachment 58776

Actually that's a load of rubbish. Something like 3/4 of all pregnancies end without a baby being born.

New study establishes when pregnancy starts

"Conceivably -- no pun intended – as a natural protective mechanism, the uterus tends to reject fertilized eggs that take too long to adhere to the lining because they may be less fit, the researchers say. On day 11, more than 50 percent of pregnancies fail and on day 12, that number jumps to over 80 percent."

The body isn't "pro-life", the body actually rejects a lot of pregnancies before the woman even knows she's pregnant.

Thats quite a stretch of logic. So, by extension, I can now murder someone because he may have been rejected by his mother during pregnancy anyway.

But, since he wasn't, I can simply become the middle man to make it happen.

That the way you see it?

Mark

Actually the stretch of logic is your own. I was merely pointing out that the comment that was made before is a load of rubbish and I backed it up. NOWHERE did I say anything about this being a justification for anything.

So no, I don't see your "logic".

 

[2aguy]

I don't see any power that would allow congress to mandate background checks for all sales.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the both the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clauses.

I'm very familiar with both clauses, thanks.

So are you saying that possession of a gun is commerce? Commerce among the several states?

Let's say I build myself a gun (fairly easy to do). Is that commerce? If so, with whom in another state have I engaged in commerce?

You're changing the narrative to avoid addressing the obvious. You wrote this to which I initially responded;

If you're talking about a federal law mandating background checks, then we first have to identify which of congress' enumerated powers would permit the enactment of such a law. Without the power to do so, enacting such a law would violate the constitution.

At issue were the enumerated powers of Congress to enact forms of Constitutional arms legislation. After having presented two of those authorized powers to you, you shifted the topic from congressional authority to this absurd, sophomoric argument;

I'm very familiar with both clauses, thanks.

So are you saying that possession of a gun is commerce? Commerce among the several states?

Let's say I build myself a gun (fairly easy to do). Is that commerce? If so, with whom in another state have I engaged in commerce?

That Straw Man has nothing to do with your initial assertion I quoted above. Stay on topic. If you wish to defend your assertion that Congress may not have the power to enact arms control legislation, make your case. Please refrain from these types absurd arguments.

My assertion that congress has no power to enact arms control legislation is based on the fact that that constitution does not specify that it has the power to do so. If you can cite any of congress' enumerated powers that would allow it to restrict the possession of arms by the people of the several states, feel free to cite the relevant language.

That is a broad statement which is true for some circumstances and false for others. For example, one might say the Sun never rises at midnight, but that ignores the fact that the Sun is ALWAYS rising somewhere on Earth when it's midnight somewhere else.

The National Firearms Act (1934), the first US arms control legislation, imposed fines and penalties for transferring ownership of machine guns and rifles and shotguns with barrels less than 18" long if a $200 tax was not paid by the transferor and the appropriate stamps and paperwork being lawfully obtained. That statute was ruled by SCOTUS as constitutional in US v. Miller given a violation the Act for taking a sawed-off shotgun outside of the requirements of the Act across State lines...from the opinion in Miller by Justice McReynolds;

An indictment in the District Court, Western District Arkansas, charged that Jack Miller and Frank Layton did unlawfully, knowingly, willfully, and feloniously transport in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore in the State of Oklahoma to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of Arkansas a certain firearm, to-wit, a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230, said defendants, at the time of so transporting said firearm in interstate commerce as aforesaid, not having registered said firearm as required by Section 1132d of Title 26, United States Code (Act of June 26, 1934, c. 737, Sec. 4 [§ 5], 48 Stat. 1237), and not having in their possession a stamp-affixed written order for said firearm as provided by Section 1132c, Title 2, United States Code (June 26, 1934, c. 737, Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 1237) and the regulations issued under authority of the said Act of Congress known as the "National Firearms Act," approved June 26, 1934, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States. [Emphasis Added]
< United States v. Miller >

Also, from the Syllabus of US v. Miller:

The National Firearms Act, as applied to one indicted for transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act, held:

1. Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506, and Narcotic Act cases. P. 177.

2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 178.

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon. [Emphasis Added]
< Ibid >

It is clear from the opinion in Miller that Congress framed the National Firearms Act (1934) to conform with all constitutional requirements and did not infringe on any individual Rights. The Act was a justified use of the enumerated powers of Congress in exercising their power to regulate interstate commerce. One can also find a Congressional misuse of that same power in a later case, U. S. v. Lopez (1995), where the commerce clause application was a gross overreach.

And they were wrong on miller...

 

[2aguy]

However, it wasn't Obama that did the selling, it was the fear mongers who did that.

Who are the fear mongers that everyone listened to?

That I can't answer. Who are the fear mongers who say all Arabic looking people are evil terrorists? That I don't know either, I do know they're out there though.

Nope. Those are words that the left SAY we use. We do no such thing.

Mark

Oh, I suppose there aren't lots of people on the right calling for Muslims to not be allowed to enter the US? I mean, TRUMP SAID IT and his supporters agreed with him. You don't do this, er.... rubbish.


Donald Trump: Ban all Muslim travel to U.S. - CNNPolitics.com

This was never said: ""Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," a campaign press release said."

"But his proposal was met with enthusiasm by many of his supporters, who showed their approval via social media as well as at his rally on Monday night."

""I think that we should definitely disallow any Muslims from coming in. Any of them. The reason is simple: we can't identify what their attitude is," said 75-year-old Charlie Marzka of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina."

None of this was said, according to YOU.

Nice that you forgot his whole quote...you know...where he said ....until congress can get it's act together and screen them.....nice lie though....

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't know how many rounds I'll ever need, I might have to fight a tyranical government someday so no, you can't regulated magazine (not clip) size.

You see, that's the problem with gun grabbers, they are highly uneducated but feel they are experts on the subject and refuse to deal with the real problem. The moral decay they promote.

Guy, the tyrannical government is going to have bombers and tanks. How many rounds your magazine holds would be kind of irrelevent at that point.

I hear that often, and it's pretty silly.

1) Total number of gun owners in the US = in excess of 100,000,000. Total number of military personnel continental US = about 2,300,000 give or take.

Now assuming that just half the gun owners refused to comply - a conservative estimate - they would still vastly outnumber the total military personnel available. Many if not most would have some form of military or combat arms training.

2) Aside from political appointees and the rare Democrat COs, who precisely do you think would enforce such nonsense? At least 3/4 of current military are pro-gun, and would more likely stand down, or join their friends and families on the firing line.

3) In any case, it is highly unlikely the military would sanction wanton destruction to enforce such an unconstitutional ruling.

4) You people really haven't learned a thing about the nature of insurrectionist warfare from the ME, have you.

I don't think there are 100,000,000 gun owners in the US.

There are, apparently, 1/3 of households which have guns. There could be 5 people in a household and only one of these people being an actual gun owner.

There are probably 100,000,000 guns in the US in private hands, but many people having multiple guns.

Funny, I just read an article today that women are buying guns...in droves. Methinks gun ownership is growing, not shrinking, a direct or the path the US is following.

Mark

Oh good, you read an article. So what? You didn't post the article.

So, women are buying guns in droves. Would these be women who already own guns or not?

And, get this, if the right go to war in Iraq and then mess it up and cause the emergence of ISIS in order to put the fear of God into ordinary Americans and then play up the terrorist threat at home and then the gun industry gets involved too, then what you get? You get people buying guns because they fear a ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE.

 

[2aguy]

Let's get specific about gun control? That is code for "lets don't do anything" about firearm abuse... The Second amendment was written at a time of flintlocks and muzzle loading guns, and when a militia could address an invading army of the British regulars. But, now, that is a little outdated. We are dealing with human nature now and technology, guns have advanced since 1776. Human nature, not so much. People abuse Guns, drugs, cars and each other. Perhaps it is easier to regulate guns than human nature. Or cars, or drugs, or anything else.

Let's get specific about gun control? That is code for "lets don't do anything" about firearm abuse... The Second amendment was written at a time of flintlocks and muzzle loading guns, and when a militia could address an invading army of the British regulars. But, now, that is a little outdated. We are dealing with human nature now and technology, guns have advanced since 1776. Human nature, not so much. People abuse Guns, drugs, cars and each other. Perhaps it is easier to regulate guns than human nature. Or cars, or drugs, or anything else.

And had the Founders known about the Holocaust, and the other mass murders, genocide and ethnic cleansing in the future of mankind they would have mandated that all citizens have the best and most up to date small arms to keep the government in check....and to prevent them from murdering 12 million people in gas chambers the way the Europeans did.....

 

[BluesLegend]

I don't know how many rounds I'll ever need, I might have to fight a tyranical government someday so no, you can't regulated magazine (not clip) size.

You see, that's the problem with gun grabbers, they are highly uneducated but feel they are experts on the subject and refuse to deal with the real problem. The moral decay they promote.

Guy, the tyrannical government is going to have bombers and tanks. How many rounds your magazine holds would be kind of irrelevent at that point.

I hear that often, and it's pretty silly.

1) Total number of gun owners in the US = in excess of 100,000,000. Total number of military personnel continental US = about 2,300,000 give or take.

Now assuming that just half the gun owners refused to comply - a conservative estimate - they would still vastly outnumber the total military personnel available. Many if not most would have some form of military or combat arms training.

2) Aside from political appointees and the rare Democrat COs, who precisely do you think would enforce such nonsense? At least 3/4 of current military are pro-gun, and would more likely stand down, or join their friends and families on the firing line.

3) In any case, it is highly unlikely the military would sanction wanton destruction to enforce such an unconstitutional ruling.

4) You people really haven't learned a thing about the nature of insurrectionist warfare from the ME, have you.

I don't think there are 100,000,000 gun owners in the US.

There are, apparently, 1/3 of households which have guns. There could be 5 people in a household and only one of these people being an actual gun owner.

There are probably 100,000,000 guns in the US in private hands, but many people having multiple guns.

Funny, I just read an article today that women are buying guns...in droves. Methinks gun ownership is growing, not shrinking, a direct or the path the US is following.

Mark

Oh good, you read an article. So what? You didn't post the article.

So, women are buying guns in droves. Would these be women who already own guns or not?

And, get this, if the right go to war in Iraq and then mess it up and cause the emergence of ISIS in order to put the fear of God into ordinary Americans and then play up the terrorist threat at home and then the gun industry gets involved too, then what you get? You get people buying guns because they fear a ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE.

LMAO its official, you are losing it.

 

[2aguy]

What state?

In Virginia, I had an hour's class time, one-time range qual. Class cost $50.00, CC permit cost $50.00. Five year renewals cost $50.00. No permit necessary to buy.

Both nearby DC and Maryland, strong gun control regions, recently had a per capita gun crime rate five times that of Virginia. That rate may have changed with the Heller ruling. Since pro-2A forces have won this war, I don't pay too much attention to stats anymore.

Anyway, sounds like your state makes exercising your right a government cash cow. You really should complain.

and Virginia is where crooks in NY and Maryland get most of their guns.

Not to mention guys like Cho who had no business getting a gun.

You really believe that if nearby states didn't have guns, the criminals wouldn't get them? The US Virgin Islands have some of the toughest gun laws on the planet, they are ISLANDS, SURROUNDED BY WATER, and gun crime is rampant there. Joe, if you are gonna argue, at least do some research.

Mark

Puerto Rico is an Island, and has the strictest gun control laws in the United States and it's protectorates...you can't drive across a border and get a gun.......and according to VICE t.v. it has the highest gun murder rate in the world.........

 

[MaryL]

I hate libs, I hate cons. Libs and Cons are equal opportunity enablers.I stand by my last posts. How many terrorist or random shootings have been stopped by responsible gun owners? A minuscule fraction. SO, we NEED guns? How so? Wouldn't we have been better off keeping them out of the hands of those that were the threat to begin with?

 

[2aguy]

As far as Europe, Canada and Puerto Rico and easy access to guns...

Running guns to the heart of Europe: 'Need a Kalashnikov in Belgium? No problem'

But for all the new resolve of the European Union to tighten borders and close loopholes in laws that already effectively ban private ownership of rapid-fire assault weapons, Nemac, Milan and a jaded Serbian policeman doubt it can end the trade.

The Serbian police officer, who is involved in counter-trafficking operations, said investigators uncovered maybe a third of shipments at best. The problem was the sheer volume of weapons, he explained, recounting a tale of a man who told customs officers at Serbia's border with the EU that he was a musician and had nothing to declare but his old accordion.--

----

Indeed, there is some irony that Brussels, self-styled "capital" of the European Union and also home to the NATO military alliance, has become a marketplace for such hardware.

"If you have 500 to 1,000 euros you can get a military weapon within half an hour," said Bilal Benyaich, an expert on Islamist radicals at the city's Itinera Institute think-tank.
--

This story tracks gun smuggling in Europe.....lots of it....

European Police Face Being Outgunned by Jihadists With Assault Rifles



But although the police quickly traced the weapons source in the Paris attacks, stopping criminals and other jihadist cells in Europe from acquiring assault weapons for further attacks might not be so easy, according to police officials.



French police believe rifles are on sale in French cities for between €1,000 and €1,500. Earlier this month, Philippe Capon, head of the French police union UNSA, told Bloomberg News, “The French black market for weapons has been inundated with eastern European war artillery and arms.” A French police source told TIME that the weapons from the Charlie Hebdoattack came from the Balkans.

That is not the only source of weaponry. Donald says he fears that the continent might be facing a fresh influx of weapons from North Africa in the wake of the Arab Spring revolts. In August, 2011, Libyan rebels looted large quantities of mortars, tank shells and other munitions when Moammar Gaddafi’s regime collapsed. Although most of those weapons are believed to have filtered across North and West Africa, some could also have made their way to Europe.

The arms traffickers have flourished in the absence of well-financed antiweapons units in Europe, where law enforcement has for years tended to plow money into stopping drug-dealing and other crimes. “We don’t fully understand the scale of the problem because we have not had specialized units,” says Donald, referring to law-enforcement agencies in different E.U. countries. “It is a question of priorities. Any police officer will tell you it [resources] is a constant struggle.”

The trade in illegal weapons can earn enormous profits for organized criminal gangs — enough to make the risk of capture worthwhile. Donald says recent investigations have found arms traffickers investing about €30,000 in a shipment of Balkan-era weapons, refurbishing them in their garages, then selling them for them for about 10 times the price. “That’s a huge mark-up,” he says.

As Europe struggles to crack down on illegal weapons, some police recruits face a new training exercise: Go buy a Kalashnikov rifle. Donald says that in “a city in Europe,” which he would not name, “very young officers with no training or experience” were recently told to go find an assault weapon on the streets from an illegal arms dealer. “One came back two hours later with an AK-47,” Donald says. “He bought it for €1,000.”


aanother story on ease terrorists get guns....

Getting a gun legally in Europe may be hard, but terrorists have little trouble

There’s a book about 1,000 pages thick,” said Tonni Rigby, one of only two licensed firearms dealers in Copenhagen. “You have to know all of it.”


But if you want an illicit assault rifle, such as the one used by a 22-year-old to rake a Copenhagen cafe with 28 bullets on Saturday, all it takes are a few connections and some cash.





Canada gangs get guns easily

Low-quality, semi-automatic guns from U.S. the 'weapon of choice' in Ottawa

Ottawa police believe more local gang members are carrying guns now than at any other time in the city's recent history, and low-quality, semi-automatic handguns smuggled in from the United States as the weapons of choice.
The handguns sell illegally for anywhere from $1,500 to more than $3,000 on the streets of Ottawa, and are too easy to buy, police said.





Puerto Rico...stricter gun control...highest gun murder rate..

VICE News Report: Guns in Puerto Rico - The Truth About Guns

Vice T.V. on Puerto Rican gun murders...

Guns in Puerto Rico: Locked and Loaded in the Tropics | VICE News

At 91 per cent, Puerto Rico has the world's highest overall percentage of homicides by firearms. But this statistic hasn't stopped the NRA from setting up shop, establishing their 51st chapter in Puerto Rico.

Puerto Rico's sky-high murder rates and extremely strict gun laws have only encouraged the association to fight for their constitutional rights, and arm the island with more and more guns. In 2014 alone, gun permit applications doubled, possession of guns tripled, and licenses for shooting ranges quadrupled the previous year's numbers.

Vice News traveled to Puerto Rico to look at the rising tide of firearms that are changing the commonwealth and the culture. We met up with street thugs, the Puerto Rican SWAT team, pro-gun advocates, a gun control politician, and a women's gun group, to find out how the NRA's 51st and newest testing ground is working out.

 

[Desperado]

The only acceptable definition of Gun Control is the ability to hit your target.
End of story.

 

[Centinel]

I hate libs, I hate cons. Libs and Cons are equal opportunity enablers.I stand by my last posts. How many terrorist or random shootings have been stopped by responsible gun owners? A minuscule fraction. SO, we NEED guns? How so?

I would say that a 100 lb grandma would need a gun to defend herself against a 250 lb home invader with a baseball bat. Do you think she can defend her life with hand-to-hand combat?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Guy, the tyrannical government is going to have bombers and tanks. How many rounds your magazine holds would be kind of irrelevent at that point.

I hear that often, and it's pretty silly.

1) Total number of gun owners in the US = in excess of 100,000,000. Total number of military personnel continental US = about 2,300,000 give or take.

Now assuming that just half the gun owners refused to comply - a conservative estimate - they would still vastly outnumber the total military personnel available. Many if not most would have some form of military or combat arms training.

2) Aside from political appointees and the rare Democrat COs, who precisely do you think would enforce such nonsense? At least 3/4 of current military are pro-gun, and would more likely stand down, or join their friends and families on the firing line.

3) In any case, it is highly unlikely the military would sanction wanton destruction to enforce such an unconstitutional ruling.

4) You people really haven't learned a thing about the nature of insurrectionist warfare from the ME, have you.

I don't think there are 100,000,000 gun owners in the US.

There are, apparently, 1/3 of households which have guns. There could be 5 people in a household and only one of these people being an actual gun owner.

There are probably 100,000,000 guns in the US in private hands, but many people having multiple guns.

Funny, I just read an article today that women are buying guns...in droves. Methinks gun ownership is growing, not shrinking, a direct or the path the US is following.

Mark

Oh good, you read an article. So what? You didn't post the article.

So, women are buying guns in droves. Would these be women who already own guns or not?

And, get this, if the right go to war in Iraq and then mess it up and cause the emergence of ISIS in order to put the fear of God into ordinary Americans and then play up the terrorist threat at home and then the gun industry gets involved too, then what you get? You get people buying guns because they fear a ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE.

LMAO its official, you are losing it.

Then you will have no problem proving it then, will you?

 

[80zephyr]

However, it wasn't Obama that did the selling, it was the fear mongers who did that.

Who are the fear mongers that everyone listened to?

That I can't answer. Who are the fear mongers who say all Arabic looking people are evil terrorists? That I don't know either, I do know they're out there though.

Nope. Those are words that the left SAY we use. We do no such thing.

Mark

Oh, I suppose there aren't lots of people on the right calling for Muslims to not be allowed to enter the US? I mean, TRUMP SAID IT and his supporters agreed with him. You don't do this, er.... rubbish.


Donald Trump: Ban all Muslim travel to U.S. - CNNPolitics.com

This was never said: ""Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," a campaign press release said."

"But his proposal was met with enthusiasm by many of his supporters, who showed their approval via social media as well as at his rally on Monday night."

""I think that we should definitely disallow any Muslims from coming in. Any of them. The reason is simple: we can't identify what their attitude is," said 75-year-old Charlie Marzka of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina."

None of this was said, according to YOU.

Of course there are. That is a rational decision based on logical thinking. Its not because they "look evil". Those are the words of the leftist trying to disparage the right...nothing more.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

You Liberals are worried about guns? Seriously?

Fetuses aren't people.

View attachment 58776

Actually that's a load of rubbish. Something like 3/4 of all pregnancies end without a baby being born.

New study establishes when pregnancy starts

"Conceivably -- no pun intended – as a natural protective mechanism, the uterus tends to reject fertilized eggs that take too long to adhere to the lining because they may be less fit, the researchers say. On day 11, more than 50 percent of pregnancies fail and on day 12, that number jumps to over 80 percent."

The body isn't "pro-life", the body actually rejects a lot of pregnancies before the woman even knows she's pregnant.

Thats quite a stretch of logic. So, by extension, I can now murder someone because he may have been rejected by his mother during pregnancy anyway.

But, since he wasn't, I can simply become the middle man to make it happen.

That the way you see it?

Mark

Actually the stretch of logic is your own. I was merely pointing out that the comment that was made before is a load of rubbish and I backed it up. NOWHERE did I say anything about this being a justification for anything.

So no, I don't see your "logic".

If you didn't use the comment to justify anything, why put it on the forum?

 

[frigidweirdo]

However, it wasn't Obama that did the selling, it was the fear mongers who did that.

Who are the fear mongers that everyone listened to?

That I can't answer. Who are the fear mongers who say all Arabic looking people are evil terrorists? That I don't know either, I do know they're out there though.

Nope. Those are words that the left SAY we use. We do no such thing.

Mark

Oh, I suppose there aren't lots of people on the right calling for Muslims to not be allowed to enter the US? I mean, TRUMP SAID IT and his supporters agreed with him. You don't do this, er.... rubbish.


Donald Trump: Ban all Muslim travel to U.S. - CNNPolitics.com

This was never said: ""Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," a campaign press release said."

"But his proposal was met with enthusiasm by many of his supporters, who showed their approval via social media as well as at his rally on Monday night."

""I think that we should definitely disallow any Muslims from coming in. Any of them. The reason is simple: we can't identify what their attitude is," said 75-year-old Charlie Marzka of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina."

None of this was said, according to YOU.

Of course there are. That is a rational decision based on logical thinking. Its not because they "look evil". Those are the words of the leftist trying to disparage the right...nothing more.

Mark

It's about association. People see Arabic looking people and they see there is a problem, when no problem exists.

Muslim group: two imams pulled from plane bound for North Carolina

"An airline is investigating the removal of two imams from a flight headed to North Carolina, ostensibly because passengers felt uncomfortable with their presence of the pair -- both clad in Islamic attire."

This didn't happen either, did it?

And there are other instances of such things.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Fetuses aren't people.

View attachment 58776

Actually that's a load of rubbish. Something like 3/4 of all pregnancies end without a baby being born.

New study establishes when pregnancy starts

"Conceivably -- no pun intended – as a natural protective mechanism, the uterus tends to reject fertilized eggs that take too long to adhere to the lining because they may be less fit, the researchers say. On day 11, more than 50 percent of pregnancies fail and on day 12, that number jumps to over 80 percent."

The body isn't "pro-life", the body actually rejects a lot of pregnancies before the woman even knows she's pregnant.

Thats quite a stretch of logic. So, by extension, I can now murder someone because he may have been rejected by his mother during pregnancy anyway.

But, since he wasn't, I can simply become the middle man to make it happen.

That the way you see it?

Mark

Actually the stretch of logic is your own. I was merely pointing out that the comment that was made before is a load of rubbish and I backed it up. NOWHERE did I say anything about this being a justification for anything.

So no, I don't see your "logic".

If you didn't use the comment to justify anything, why put it on the forum?

What? I used the comment to prove that the previous poster was wrong. Do you get it?

 

[Centinel]

It's about association. People see Arabic looking people and they see there is a problem, when no problem exists.

Muslim group: two imams pulled from plane bound for North Carolina

"An airline is investigating the removal of two imams from a flight headed to North Carolina, ostensibly because passengers felt uncomfortable with their presence of the pair -- both clad in Islamic attire."

This didn't happen either, did it?

And there are other instances of such things.

How is this connected to gun control?

 

[80zephyr]

I hate libs, I hate cons. Libs and Cons are equal opportunity enablers.I stand by my last posts. How many terrorist or random shootings have been stopped by responsible gun owners? A minuscule fraction. SO, we NEED guns? How so? Wouldn't we have been better off keeping them out of the hands of those that were the threat to begin with?

Do you agree with the premise that if guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns?

 

[80zephyr]

View attachment 58776

Actually that's a load of rubbish. Something like 3/4 of all pregnancies end without a baby being born.

New study establishes when pregnancy starts

"Conceivably -- no pun intended – as a natural protective mechanism, the uterus tends to reject fertilized eggs that take too long to adhere to the lining because they may be less fit, the researchers say. On day 11, more than 50 percent of pregnancies fail and on day 12, that number jumps to over 80 percent."

The body isn't "pro-life", the body actually rejects a lot of pregnancies before the woman even knows she's pregnant.

Thats quite a stretch of logic. So, by extension, I can now murder someone because he may have been rejected by his mother during pregnancy anyway.

But, since he wasn't, I can simply become the middle man to make it happen.

That the way you see it?

Mark

Actually the stretch of logic is your own. I was merely pointing out that the comment that was made before is a load of rubbish and I backed it up. NOWHERE did I say anything about this being a justification for anything.

So no, I don't see your "logic".

If you didn't use the comment to justify anything, why put it on the forum?

What? I used the comment to prove that the previous poster was wrong. Do you get it?

You used natural abortion to prove what? That abortion is OK because nature does it?

 

[Centinel]

I hate libs, I hate cons. Libs and Cons are equal opportunity enablers.I stand by my last posts. How many terrorist or random shootings have been stopped by responsible gun owners? A minuscule fraction. SO, we NEED guns? How so? Wouldn't we have been better off keeping them out of the hands of those that were the threat to begin with?

Do you agree with the premise that if guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns?

And also, none of congress' enumerated powers would allow it to outlaw guns. Just sayin.