Srsly, how has this thread gone on for so long? :wtf: :eh:
...
Come on... there is some classic stuff in here. Old ladies choking on pretzels, Rambo coming to our rescue and the stupidity of the victims getting shot in a massacre because they weren't armed in preparation of being caught in a massacre... You can't this kind of entertainment on cable T.V.
And we have a new pledge of allegiance and this bit of brilliance:
Not that that changes my mind on anything as far as this funny story goes, since I hadn't heard the rumour until after I posted the article. Just wanted to make sure the facts got cleared up.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
....does anyone need a car that can go 190MPH? Those cars are legal right? WHo and why would you need that? :corn:
you are right, no one does. I have often made the point that one major reason why I think the human race is completely retarded is that we have speed limits yet let people buy cars that go 200 km/h. It makes absolutely no sense. Cars should be able to go no faster than 100 km/h. If that.
not to mention designing two way traffic on a highway. that's just asking for trouble. yes, the roads were designed in the days of horse and buggy. which makes it even more imperative that it be updated. just like the second ammendment.
Actually all of ythe highway system in the US was developed after the invention of the car...hence the need for a highway system? :?
Sorry, the people that buy their guns legally and then go on rampages have ruined it for all of you. Tough shit.
I guess everyone who drives drunk, impaired, speeds, runs red lights, texts while driving, talks on their cell phone, falls asleep at the wheel, fails to pay attention, etc. and kills and/or injures someone and who buys their cars legally and obtains their driver's licenses legally have ruined it for everyone as well right? Just using your logic. I guess five people killed in a speeding accident isn't as important or socially relevant to five people killed by some random wacko? It doesn't make good press or isn't highly debatable on TV when running for office. It's just not sexy. BTW...there will be CONSIDERABLY MORE people killed by autos tomorrow not only in numbers but percentage of population. But screw those people...I want my car....I'm not riding a bus! There will also be more people killed by noxious gases tomrrow in th US than by firearm...legal or illegal. Ban the cars and noxious gases!!!!!
Do you seriously think there is no need for gun restrictions or are you playing devil's advocate?
The amount of driving that occurs on a daily basis makes each automobile accident cosmically insignificant- not to mention that vehicles have an actual purpose in life other than killing things or shooting beer cans. They are pretty much necessary whereas guns, well, I would be so bold as to suggest they are nothing more than 'really cool toys' or worse for many.
If we were to take the opposite extreme argument, then why aren't hand grenades, land mines, and nerve gas legal as well? There must be a line somewhere. The post you responded to said the current line gets crossed way too much for responsible society's liking. The time has come- it actually did quite a while ago. Canada recognized it. A country well-known for hunting and fishing accepted gun legislation knowing full well that it was the right thing to do. We haven't looked back at that day and cursed it. The government hasn't overrun us with tyranny. Invaders have not invaded us and left us powerless to defend ourselves. And, as a positive spinoff, accidental deaths and bloody mayhem (with exceptions of course) are not a very common occurence.
Don't get me wrong... I think responsible gun ownership is a right; however, I think the current free-for-all is a recipe for disaster. And, we've seen this recipe come to fruition over and over again- and will continue to do so. I guess some just figure it's very likely not them or theirs that will end up in the crosshairs on those black moments and given this mentality... choose to gamble on 'liberty' instead of safeguarding their loved ones?
Free for all recipe? :? And yes to answer your question...no I don't think gun laws need to be further regulated in this country. I'm still waiting for all of the articles to be publised tomorrow about the guns that weren't used in violent crimes tomorrow. SHould be about 10 million of them or so. I'll be watching the AP wire for those.
...
Actually, I thought we did.
The answer is... there is no answer. Nothing will come about... another massacre will occur... we will all be ***YAWN*** 'shocked' it has happened... AGAIN. A lot of crap tossed about... anecdotal, bullshit... bumper sticker sound bites... hot tempers... all culminating in our doing nothing about it.
...
Hey... look... a Kardashian!
Another 150 or so today killed on the US roadways.... :yawn: It will happen again tomorrow. :yawn:
Pandora you have repeated enforce the laws that we currently have. Ok fine, I just last week looked up buying a 22 caliber smallbore rifle for target shooting at my local gun club. I'm doing so just to see if can shoot as well as I once did back 30 years on my school's rifleteam. All I needed was my credit or debit card...no background check, no waiting period, no registration etc and it'll be at my door in 6 days.
I have 2 teens both 16 and they both have a debit cards they could make the very same order. Now if you had your 16 year old son or grandson he could also make the same order would you want him to have the same capability to order this rifle? I hope to order this from here in Florida...there's absolutely NOTHING, NOTHING to ENFORCE.
What would you do with your son possibly wanting to make this rifle order?
Peace
Pandora are you ducking my question? Since you've taking a great stance that our gun laws are sufficient and we can just enforce them then please answer this question i asked. Thank you.
Peace
Would that be the question about my gun ownership? because I have not seen another .
If this is the current one here about my son I will gladly answer.
To assume I duck questions is also insulting, please assume I just missed it
cause my track record certainly does not show me ducking.
As far as personal gun ownership...
I said personally I do not own a gun but that does not mean I am unprotected ...
I also told you for me to defend the second amendment I do not need to be a gun owner.
That might be you and many here.... "everyone do as I do" syndrome
I will not presume because I don't own a gun that none should or
disregard the need, the right to defend one's life.
How can anyone do that when people are being victimized at an astonishing rate?
I guess they can because they are fearful, fearful of an unreal threat.
What one should be afraid of is criminals with guns.
As long as they still have them we still need them.
So basic.
As far as the current question...
My son is 28 years old and currently not a gun owner. This will likely change
as he moves into a role to protect tender lives soon.
I have no problem with him acquiring a gun to protect himself, loved ones and property
or that of his neighbors.
As far as ordering on line for those underage, which is illegal... your FL law... A minor less than 18 years of age to possess a firearm, other than an unloaded firearm at his home, unless engaged in lawful activities.
To sell, give, barter, lend or transfer a firearm or other weapon other than an ordinary pocketknife to a minor less than the age of 18 without his parent’s permission, or to any person of unsound mind.
one would hope the parent of a 16 year keeps track of purchases on a daily basis
as there are many dangers about for that age group. If they do not guide them their son will
become a criminal in possession of an illegally acquired firearm, no different then bought on the street.
Pandora hasn't posted since I called her out on her claim of not owning a gun vs her strong stance on those who don't own one being weak and allowing themselves to be victims. I said it didn't add up, and she disappeared. I'm interested to see if she returns to explain.
I haven't posted? say what?
disappears???? how some wish
What don't you get about the statement of me personally not owning a gun?
can you read between the lines? I'll give you a hint...
I have been married to the same man for over 32 years... :fp:
and I have answered multiple times about what I meant about weakness in that post...
seems some took offense they must presume they are weak :?
I've explained that is both those who own a gun and those who do not. It is about having a plan of protection whatever means one chooses.
But I've posted this explanation like 4 times during the time I've been missing
It's also pretty scary that a cop could be that twitchy!
Another good reason to be prepared not only the ridiculous response times,
allowing crimes to be committed and criminals to get away to victimize again,
but now we have a problem with not being able to depend on some officers.
A beloved family dog, a golden retriever, was shot dead on the front lawn of our neighbors
by an officer who shot before they thought.
Isn't that scary? I mean here are 2 guys who are most likely promoters who may have been shot if this guy was packing his gun. We have to fear everyone who approaches us! What was this guy so threatened by? I've handled worse *confrontations* than that...and without a gun.
It's also pretty scary that a cop could be that twitchy!
Seriously! And if someone who is trained is that twitchy, what's a general member of the public going to be like?
Are people not individuals?
It is I would think in personal make up that dictates reactions like this.
Obviously training did not help this officer
but can we conclude it will not help another or someone licensed to carry?
Or a law abiding civilian trained responsibly?
Because a person or an officer is not dependable can we use that as the example for all
or even many?
Do you think based on this all officers should not be allowed to carry a gun?
The world has always been a violent place...I doubt it's much different today than a 100 years ago or 500 hundred years ago...we just hear about it more because of the media.
This is spot on, I was thinking about history myself and what lead up to guns being strictly
regulated pretty much banned in some countries.
It seems there was violence between countries not only between criminals
and the law abiding.
For Americans it is as though we are at war with the criminals
because it is those who resort to violence against human life.
As long as they do this there is the need for protection
and unfortunately with our social resources taxed individuals must rely
on themselves to do this.
I was also thinking about the abortion debate...
I will start by saying I am pro choice as with the gun debate.
Many gun opponents speak of the children lost to accidents,
why they want stricter laws or banning of guns entirely.
We have made abortion a right with the passing of a law....
a right to take a human life.
The number of abortions is staggering per year, lives that would have been children.
As I said I am pro choice but I would like additional restrictions put on abortion,
to spare lives.
That would be removing some rights... effecting choice.
I won't change this to an abortion debate ...
I think I made my point though.
I would not infringe on the choice nor the rights of others because I myself think
abortion is a choice way over used in the world, resulting in a horrific loss of life.
Federal law prohibits firearms dealers from selling or delivering a shotgun or rifle, or ammunition for a shotgun or rifle, to any person the dealer knows or has reasonable cause to believe is under the age of 18.5 Federal law provides no age limitations with respect to the sale of a long gun or long gun ammunition by an unlicensed person.
......Unlicensed persons may not sell, deliver or otherwise transfer a handgun or handgun ammunition to any person the transfer or knows or has reasonable cause to believe is under the age of 18.7 Exceptions are provided for temporary transfers made for specified activities, including employment, ranching, farming, target practice and hunting.8
.........Federal law provides no minimum age for the possession of long guns or long gun ammunition.
Unlicensed persons include the internet, dealers at gun shows, person to person sale... etc. Furthermore, background checks ARE NOT A REQUIREMENT for the unlicensed dealer either. So, a 16 year old could LEGALLY purchase a firearm which is not a handgun from a non licensee and, should he/she wish to purchase a handgun, since there are NO BACKGROUND CHECKS, he/she could easily do so.
g under p is absolutely correct in what he was saying.
Conclusion... maybe even mandatory strict and thorough background checks should be in place. This could close a loophole for the young ones acquiring handguns. See.. something CAN be done to try and limit illegal guns on the market. The EASE of acquiring weapons fuels this.
The name of the site says it all. It is one to promote smarter gun laws so one could say it is not neutral as there is opinion and discussion. However, it does present the factual gun laws and statistics and references it's research. The above is from: "Regulating Guns in America – An Evaluation and Comparative Analysis of Federal, State and Selected Local Gun Laws."
The Colorado shooting is bringing awareness to the
holes in laws we do have and one's not being enforced properly.
More aware of mental illness and to look and act on signs before violence.
I said personally I do not own a gun but that does not mean I am unprotected ...
I also told you for me to defend the second amendment I do not need to be a gun owner.
That might be you and many here.... "everyone do as I do" syndrome
I will not presume because I don't own a gun that none should or
disregard the need, the right to defend one's life.
Are you saying that there is a gun in your house? If there is, would you use it to shoot someone if your husband wasnt home and someone broke in and you felt threatened?
Federal law prohibits firearms dealers from selling or delivering a shotgun or rifle, or ammunition for a shotgun or rifle, to any person the dealer knows or has reasonable cause to believe is under the age of 18.5 Federal law provides no age limitations with respect to the sale of a long gun or long gun ammunition by an unlicensed person.
......Unlicensed persons may not sell, deliver or otherwise transfer a handgun or handgun ammunition to any person the transfer or knows or has reasonable cause to believe is under the age of 18.7 Exceptions are provided for temporary transfers made for specified activities, including employment, ranching, farming, target practice and hunting.8
.........Federal law provides no minimum age for the possession of long guns or long gun ammunition.
Unlicensed persons include the internet, dealers at gun shows, person to person sale... etc. Furthermore, background checks ARE NOT A REQUIREMENT for the unlicensed dealer either. So, a 16 year old could LEGALLY purchase a firearm which is not a handgun from a non licensee and, should he/she wish to purchase a handgun, since there are NO BACKGROUND CHECKS, he/she could easily do so.
g under p is absolutely correct in what he was saying.
Conclusion... maybe even mandatory strict and thorough background checks should be in place. This could close a loophole for the young ones acquiring handguns. See.. something CAN be done to try and limit illegal guns on the market. The EASE of acquiring weapons fuels this.
The name of the site says it all. It is one to promote smarter gun laws so one could say it is not neutral as there is opinion and discussion. However, it does present the factual gun laws and statistics and references it's research. The above is from: "Regulating Guns in America – An Evaluation and Comparative Analysis of Federal, State and Selected Local Gun Laws."
There are stricter regulations in place to make sure someone under 18 doesn't buy nicotine. I went to buy a bottle of wine the other day and I had to show 2 forms of ID. These loopholes are dangerous.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
The Colorado shooting is bringing awareness to the
holes in laws we do have and one's not being enforced properly.
More aware of mental illness and to look and act on signs before violence.
I said personally I do not own a gun but that does not mean I am unprotected ...
I also told you for me to defend the second amendment I do not need to be a gun owner.
That might be you and many here.... "everyone do as I do" syndrome
I will not presume because I don't own a gun that none should or
disregard the need, the right to defend one's life.
Are you saying that there is a gun in your house? If there is, would you use it to shoot someone if your husband wasnt home and someone broke in and you felt threatened?
that might be dumb, I am blonde but not that dumb
I have never held a gun... I'd go for the switchblade myself I do target practice with those
My fear is someone will hurt my dogs, I'm ready to leave this world but not at the expense
their heavenly loyalty.
I was also thinking about the abortion debate...
I will start by saying I am pro choice as with the gun debate.
Many gun opponents speak of the children lost to accidents,
why they want stricter laws or banning of guns entirely.
We have made abortion a right with the passing of a law....
a right to take a human life.
The number of abortions is staggering per year, lives that would have been children.
As I said I am pro choice but I would like additional restrictions put on abortion,
to spare lives.
That would be removing some rights... effecting choice.
I won't change this to an abortion debate ...
I think I made my point though.
I would not infringe on the choice nor the rights of others because I myself think
abortion is a choice way over used in the world, resulting in a horrific loss of life.
Call me stupid, but I do not see what you are getting at here. What exactly is the point you are trying to make as it relates to the right to bear arms?
You say you are pro choice. You say you would like to see some changes. Then you say, "I would not infringe on the choice nor the rights of others because I myself think abortion is a choice way over used in the world, resulting in a horrific loss of life."
So in summary... you are pro choice, but you want to see some changes, but maybe you don't because that would be infringing on people's rights?
I cannot have read this correctly. Please clarify!
There are stricter regulations in place to make sure someone under 18 doesn't buy nicotine. I went to buy a bottle of wine the other day and I had to show 2 forms of ID. These loopholes are dangerous.
Yes of course as it should be. Cigarettes a real danger to the young, not imagined.
The same for alcohol leading to DUI's and teen pregnancy and drug use...
something responsible gun possession does not do.
Some are assuming underage kids are buying weapons without their parents knowing...
how? Unless, of course they are doing so on the street. Which we all know criminals are doing,
whatever age. But we can not punish the law abiding thoughtful for the thoughtless
with criminal intentions.
Parents would be very negligent to not monitor their credit cards or bank accounts
their children use.
So again enforce the laws we have, punish adults who are providing
and allowing gun possession
through irresponsible parenting and irresponsible selling.
There are vastly more responsible young hunters and target shooters
owning a rifle with their parents knowledge who are safety trained
then any escaping through the cracks.
I was also thinking about the abortion debate...
I will start by saying I am pro choice as with the gun debate.
Many gun opponents speak of the children lost to accidents,
why they want stricter laws or banning of guns entirely.
We have made abortion a right with the passing of a law....
a right to take a human life.
The number of abortions is staggering per year, lives that would have been children.
As I said I am pro choice but I would like additional restrictions put on abortion,
to spare lives.
That would be removing some rights... effecting choice.
I won't change this to an abortion debate ...
I think I made my point though.
I would not infringe on the choice nor the rights of others because I myself think
abortion is a choice way over used in the world, resulting in a horrific loss of life.
Call me stupid, but I do not see what you are getting at here. What exactly is the point you are trying to make as it relates to the right to bear arms?
You say you are pro choice. You say you would like to see some changes. Then you say, "I would not infringe on the choice nor the rights of others because I myself think abortion is a choice way over used in the world, resulting in a horrific loss of life."
So in summary... you are pro choice, but you want to see some changes, but maybe you don't because that would be infringing on people's rights?
I cannot have read this correctly. Please clarify!
I said personally I do not own a gun but that does not mean I am unprotected ...
I also told you for me to defend the second amendment I do not need to be a gun owner.
That might be you and many here.... "everyone do as I do" syndrome
I will not presume because I don't own a gun that none should or
disregard the need, the right to defend one's life.
Are you saying that there is a gun in your house? If there is, would you use it to shoot someone if your husband wasnt home and someone broke in and you felt threatened?
that might be dumb, I am blonde but not that dumb
I have never held a gun... I'd go for the switchblade myself I do target practice with those
My fear is someone will hurt my dogs, I'm ready to leave this world but not at the expense
their heavenly loyalty.
Let's stop beating about the bush and avoiding giving a straight answer... you may have never held a gun but is there a gun in your house that others may use for 'protection'? Yes/No. I think that's what jonny is trying to get at.
It's also pretty scary that a cop could be that twitchy!
Another good reason to be prepared not only the ridiculous response times,
allowing crimes to be committed and criminals to get away to victimize again,
but now we have a problem with not being able to depend on some officers.
A beloved family dog, a golden retriever, was shot dead on the front lawn of our neighbors
by an officer who shot before they thought.
What are you saying here? Is it that guns are important to defend dogs or that guns are important to get the upper hand on a cop who appears to be twitchy?
Being a cop is a lot tougher than spouting rhetoric from a keyboard. I'll begin by saying I hate dogs. After one neighbour's 'family dog' attacked my son in our yard- leaving him to be treated in a hospital- I have very little patience for them. Stopping there, I would think that cops have several encounters with dogs while trying to do their dangerous work. I would think that dogs can pose a significant threat to them as they work their way on to and through a scene. If a dog appears hostile in the slightest, sorry, but I am all for them erring on the side of caution.
What exactly is the point you are trying to make as it relates to the right to bear arms?
No relation to the right to bear arms and gun ownership. Furthermore, abortion is an ethical debate, gun ownership is not. Also, is abortion mentioned in the constitution? Hmm..... Diversion.
Are you saying that there is a gun in your house? If there is, would you use it to shoot someone if your husband wasnt home and someone broke in and you felt threatened?
that might be dumb, I am blonde but not that dumb
I have never held a gun... I'd go for the switchblade myself I do target practice with those
My fear is someone will hurt my dogs, I'm ready to leave this world but not at the expense
their heavenly loyalty.
Let's stop beating about the bush and avoiding giving a straight answer... you may have never held a gun but is there a gun in your house that others may use for 'protection'? Yes/No. I think that's what jonny is trying to get at.
I have answered that question for those who are smart enough to put two and two together,
not responsible for the others
I think Jonny's question was the heart of the matter, could be wrong,
but I think he wanted to know if I would ever resort to using it.
My answer was no unless I get safety trained first, common sense yes?
Comments
There is no other way I'd rather spend my evening
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
http://www.calgaryherald.com/sports/Som ... story.html
Not that that changes my mind on anything as far as this funny story goes, since I hadn't heard the rumour until after I posted the article. Just wanted to make sure the facts got cleared up.
Actually all of ythe highway system in the US was developed after the invention of the car...hence the need for a highway system? :?
Free for all recipe? :? And yes to answer your question...no I don't think gun laws need to be further regulated in this country. I'm still waiting for all of the articles to be publised tomorrow about the guns that weren't used in violent crimes tomorrow. SHould be about 10 million of them or so. I'll be watching the AP wire for those.
Another 150 or so today killed on the US roadways.... :yawn: It will happen again tomorrow. :yawn:
Would that be the question about my gun ownership? because I have not seen another .
If this is the current one here about my son I will gladly answer.
To assume I duck questions is also insulting, please assume I just missed it
cause my track record certainly does not show me ducking.
As far as personal gun ownership...
I said personally I do not own a gun but that does not mean I am unprotected ...
I also told you for me to defend the second amendment I do not need to be a gun owner.
That might be you and many here.... "everyone do as I do" syndrome
I will not presume because I don't own a gun that none should or
disregard the need, the right to defend one's life.
How can anyone do that when people are being victimized at an astonishing rate?
I guess they can because they are fearful, fearful of an unreal threat.
What one should be afraid of is criminals with guns.
As long as they still have them we still need them.
So basic.
As far as the current question...
My son is 28 years old and currently not a gun owner. This will likely change
as he moves into a role to protect tender lives soon.
I have no problem with him acquiring a gun to protect himself, loved ones and property
or that of his neighbors.
As far as ordering on line for those underage, which is illegal... your FL law...
A minor less than 18 years of age to possess a firearm, other than an unloaded firearm at his home, unless engaged in lawful activities.
To sell, give, barter, lend or transfer a firearm or other weapon other than an ordinary pocketknife to a minor less than the age of 18 without his parent’s permission, or to any person of unsound mind.
one would hope the parent of a 16 year keeps track of purchases on a daily basis
as there are many dangers about for that age group. If they do not guide them their son will
become a criminal in possession of an illegally acquired firearm, no different then bought on the street.
Enforce the laws we have ....
I haven't posted? say what?
disappears???? how some wish
What don't you get about the statement of me personally not owning a gun?
can you read between the lines? I'll give you a hint...
I have been married to the same man for over 32 years... :fp:
and I have answered multiple times about what I meant about weakness in that post...
seems some took offense they must presume they are weak :?
I've explained that is both those who own a gun and those who do not.
It is about having a plan of protection whatever means one chooses.
But I've posted this explanation like 4 times during the time I've been missing
Another good reason to be prepared not only the ridiculous response times,
allowing crimes to be committed and criminals to get away to victimize again,
but now we have a problem with not being able to depend on some officers.
A beloved family dog, a golden retriever, was shot dead on the front lawn of our neighbors
by an officer who shot before they thought.
Are people not individuals?
It is I would think in personal make up that dictates reactions like this.
Obviously training did not help this officer
but can we conclude it will not help another or someone licensed to carry?
Or a law abiding civilian trained responsibly?
Because a person or an officer is not dependable can we use that as the example for all
or even many?
Do you think based on this all officers should not be allowed to carry a gun?
regulated pretty much banned in some countries.
It seems there was violence between countries not only between criminals
and the law abiding.
For Americans it is as though we are at war with the criminals
because it is those who resort to violence against human life.
As long as they do this there is the need for protection
and unfortunately with our social resources taxed individuals must rely
on themselves to do this.
yuuuuuup !!!
Godfather.
I will start by saying I am pro choice as with the gun debate.
Many gun opponents speak of the children lost to accidents,
why they want stricter laws or banning of guns entirely.
We have made abortion a right with the passing of a law....
a right to take a human life.
The number of abortions is staggering per year, lives that would have been children.
As I said I am pro choice but I would like additional restrictions put on abortion,
to spare lives.
That would be removing some rights... effecting choice.
I won't change this to an abortion debate ...
I think I made my point though.
I would not infringe on the choice nor the rights of others because I myself think
abortion is a choice way over used in the world, resulting in a horrific loss of life.
Federal law prohibits firearms dealers from selling or delivering a shotgun or rifle, or ammunition for a shotgun or rifle, to any person the dealer knows or has reasonable cause to believe is under the age of 18.5 Federal law provides no age limitations with respect to the sale of a long gun or long gun ammunition by an unlicensed person.
......Unlicensed persons may not sell, deliver or otherwise transfer a handgun or handgun ammunition to any person the transfer or knows or has reasonable cause to believe is under the age of 18.7 Exceptions are provided for temporary transfers made for specified activities, including employment, ranching, farming, target practice and hunting.8
.........Federal law provides no minimum age for the possession of long guns or long gun ammunition.
Unlicensed persons include the internet, dealers at gun shows, person to person sale... etc. Furthermore, background checks ARE NOT A REQUIREMENT for the unlicensed dealer either. So, a 16 year old could LEGALLY purchase a firearm which is not a handgun from a non licensee and, should he/she wish to purchase a handgun, since there are NO BACKGROUND CHECKS, he/she could easily do so.
g under p is absolutely correct in what he was saying.
Conclusion... maybe even mandatory strict and thorough background checks should be in place. This could close a loophole for the young ones acquiring handguns. See.. something CAN be done to try and limit illegal guns on the market. The EASE of acquiring weapons fuels this.
Edit: forgot to post the link to my info http://smartgunlaws.org/minimum-age-to- ... y-summary/
The name of the site says it all. It is one to promote smarter gun laws so one could say it is not neutral as there is opinion and discussion. However, it does present the factual gun laws and statistics and references it's research. The above is from:
"Regulating Guns in America – An Evaluation and Comparative Analysis of Federal, State and Selected Local Gun Laws."
Ho-ly Shiiiit! :P
Are you saying that there is a gun in your house? If there is, would you use it to shoot someone if your husband wasnt home and someone broke in and you felt threatened?
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
(wrong thread?
Happy Friday, all!
I have never held a gun... I'd go for the switchblade myself
My fear is someone will hurt my dogs, I'm ready to leave this world but not at the expense
their heavenly loyalty.
Call me stupid, but I do not see what you are getting at here. What exactly is the point you are trying to make as it relates to the right to bear arms?
You say you are pro choice. You say you would like to see some changes. Then you say, "I would not infringe on the choice nor the rights of others because I myself think abortion is a choice way over used in the world, resulting in a horrific loss of life."
So in summary... you are pro choice, but you want to see some changes, but maybe you don't because that would be infringing on people's rights?
I cannot have read this correctly. Please clarify!
The same for alcohol leading to DUI's and teen pregnancy and drug use...
something responsible gun possession does not do.
Some are assuming underage kids are buying weapons without their parents knowing...
how? Unless, of course they are doing so on the street. Which we all know criminals are doing,
whatever age. But we can not punish the law abiding thoughtful for the thoughtless
with criminal intentions.
Parents would be very negligent to not monitor their credit cards or bank accounts
their children use.
So again enforce the laws we have, punish adults who are providing
and allowing gun possession
through irresponsible parenting and irresponsible selling.
There are vastly more responsible young hunters and target shooters
owning a rifle with their parents knowledge who are safety trained
then any escaping through the cracks.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
hard to believe huh?
Let's stop beating about the bush and avoiding giving a straight answer... you may have never held a gun but is there a gun in your house that others may use for 'protection'? Yes/No. I think that's what jonny is trying to get at.
What are you saying here? Is it that guns are important to defend dogs or that guns are important to get the upper hand on a cop who appears to be twitchy?
Being a cop is a lot tougher than spouting rhetoric from a keyboard. I'll begin by saying I hate dogs. After one neighbour's 'family dog' attacked my son in our yard- leaving him to be treated in a hospital- I have very little patience for them. Stopping there, I would think that cops have several encounters with dogs while trying to do their dangerous work. I would think that dogs can pose a significant threat to them as they work their way on to and through a scene. If a dog appears hostile in the slightest, sorry, but I am all for them erring on the side of caution.
No relation to the right to bear arms and gun ownership. Furthermore, abortion is an ethical debate, gun ownership is not. Also, is abortion mentioned in the constitution? Hmm..... Diversion.
I have answered that question for those who are smart enough to put two and two together,
not responsible for the others
I think Jonny's question was the heart of the matter, could be wrong,
but I think he wanted to know if I would ever resort to using it.
My answer was no unless I get safety trained first, common sense yes?
ooOOoo... catty!
An I think your answer to jonny was 'I never held a gun...'