America's Gun Violence

Stickman12

HughFreakingDillon said:

Stickman12 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Stickman12 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Godfather. said:

Go Beavers said:

The Supreme Court upholds the ban on people convicted of minor domestic abuse to purchase guns legally. I'm curious if anyone feels like this is too much or an overstep?
bipartisanreport.com/2016/10/09/u-s-supreme-court-defiantly-cuts-legs-off-of-nra-issues-historic-ruling-video/

yes I do, minor domestic abuse is too open, meaning your wife or girlfriend can call the police and say "he hit me" even though it may never really have happened, but this is a bullshit law pushed in by bullshit politicians.

The efforts were taken in order to “close a dangerous loophole” that allowed people convicted of “minor” domestic abuse to purchase and own weapons legally. Now, the ban on felons owning firearms has been extended to include people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.

this is a step in the direction to ban firearms completely.......

Godfather.

don't hit a woman, keep your guns. pretty easy I'd say.

if you are with a woman who will lie to put you in jail, get away from that woman. also pretty easy.

sooooo...you really believe it's that easy ? and you believe limiting gun sales will make the world better ?
gun's are the last thing this country needs to worry about but these dummies in government got you guy's fooled
into believing gun's are bad and need more restrictions....it's time wake up and smell the coffee.

Godfather.

Excuse me...if people on the terrorism watch list can buy guns legally we definitely need more restrictions.

If you can't agree to that then that speaks to your intelligence not anyone else's.

The problem with the terrorist watch list is that anyone can be put on it WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. If you are going to deny someone's constitutional rights, there has to be due process. This pertains to American citizens only.

someone can also be jailed for suspicion of comitting a crime. one could argue that is a violation of one's constitutional rights as well (if the person turns out to be innocent), but public safety trumps that.

The resonanable suspicion standard requires facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a suspect has, is, or will commit a crime. Anyone can be put on the terrorist watch list with no evidence or suspicion whatsoever. To be put on that list and have a constitutional right taken away without due process is constitutional. I agree that the general principle makes sense but doesn't fall into the framework of the constitution and would set a precedence for other rights to be infringed upon.

yeah, I agree that can lead to a "slippery slope" scenario, but honestly, how often are normal law abiding citizens put on the terror watch list? (honest question, not sarcasm). and how often do those people wish to conceal and carry?

http://www.dailywire.com/news/6879/these-13-people-placed-terror-watch-list-will-blow-amanda-prestigiacomo

HughFreakingDillon

Stickman12 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Stickman12 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Stickman12 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Godfather. said:

Go Beavers said:

The Supreme Court upholds the ban on people convicted of minor domestic abuse to purchase guns legally. I'm curious if anyone feels like this is too much or an overstep?
bipartisanreport.com/2016/10/09/u-s-supreme-court-defiantly-cuts-legs-off-of-nra-issues-historic-ruling-video/

yes I do, minor domestic abuse is too open, meaning your wife or girlfriend can call the police and say "he hit me" even though it may never really have happened, but this is a bullshit law pushed in by bullshit politicians.

The efforts were taken in order to “close a dangerous loophole” that allowed people convicted of “minor” domestic abuse to purchase and own weapons legally. Now, the ban on felons owning firearms has been extended to include people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.

this is a step in the direction to ban firearms completely.......

Godfather.

don't hit a woman, keep your guns. pretty easy I'd say.

if you are with a woman who will lie to put you in jail, get away from that woman. also pretty easy.

sooooo...you really believe it's that easy ? and you believe limiting gun sales will make the world better ?
gun's are the last thing this country needs to worry about but these dummies in government got you guy's fooled
into believing gun's are bad and need more restrictions....it's time wake up and smell the coffee.

Godfather.

Excuse me...if people on the terrorism watch list can buy guns legally we definitely need more restrictions.

If you can't agree to that then that speaks to your intelligence not anyone else's.

The problem with the terrorist watch list is that anyone can be put on it WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. If you are going to deny someone's constitutional rights, there has to be due process. This pertains to American citizens only.

someone can also be jailed for suspicion of comitting a crime. one could argue that is a violation of one's constitutional rights as well (if the person turns out to be innocent), but public safety trumps that.

The resonanable suspicion standard requires facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a suspect has, is, or will commit a crime. Anyone can be put on the terrorist watch list with no evidence or suspicion whatsoever. To be put on that list and have a constitutional right taken away without due process is constitutional. I agree that the general principle makes sense but doesn't fall into the framework of the constitution and would set a precedence for other rights to be infringed upon.

yeah, I agree that can lead to a "slippery slope" scenario, but honestly, how often are normal law abiding citizens put on the terror watch list? (honest question, not sarcasm). and how often do those people wish to conceal and carry?

http://www.dailywire.com/news/6879/these-13-people-placed-terror-watch-list-will-blow-amanda-prestigiacomo

rssesq

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/judge-dismisses-newtown-families-lawsuit-against-gun-maker/ar-AAiXWES?ocid=spartandhp
I'm surprised Barbra B dismissed it outright.

josevolution

dudeman said:

I don't think that I've ever seen someone advocate for more gun violence. Regardless of your opinions on gun ownership and the law, we all want the same thing.

What is the same thing we all want I'm anti gun so I'm curious what that is ?

mcgruff10

rssesq said:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/judge-dismisses-newtown-families-lawsuit-against-gun-maker/ar-AAiXWES?ocid=spartandhp
I'm surprised Barbra B dismissed it outright.

There s a federal law that makes it illegal to sue gun manufacturers. Why are you surprised?

rssesq

I figured they'd let the exception apply just because of the high standard on the motion to dismiss, and then win it on a directed verdict after the plaintiff rests.

rssesq

it would be better "politically" for her but she does have a set. I've been before her numerous times.

unsung

mcgruff10 said:

rssesq said:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/judge-dismisses-newtown-families-lawsuit-against-gun-maker/ar-AAiXWES?ocid=spartandhp
I'm surprised Barbra B dismissed it outright.

There s a federal law that makes it illegal to sue gun manufacturers. Why are you surprised?

Why would anyone think it's ok to sue them?

If I use a chainsaw in a mass murder is it OK to sue Stihl?

Godfather.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/10/15/judge-dismisses-sandy-hook-families-lawsuit-against-gun-maker.html

Godfather.

rgambs

unsung said:

mcgruff10 said:

rssesq said:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/judge-dismisses-newtown-families-lawsuit-against-gun-maker/ar-AAiXWES?ocid=spartandhp
I'm surprised Barbra B dismissed it outright.

There s a federal law that makes it illegal to sue gun manufacturers. Why are you surprised?

Why would anyone think it's ok to sue them?

If I use a chainsaw in a mass murder is it OK to sue Stihl?

Chainsaws were invented to cut wood, guns were invented to kill things.
Not a good comparison.

Godfather.

rgambs said:

unsung said:

mcgruff10 said:

rssesq said:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/judge-dismisses-newtown-families-lawsuit-against-gun-maker/ar-AAiXWES?ocid=spartandhp
I'm surprised Barbra B dismissed it outright.

There s a federal law that makes it illegal to sue gun manufacturers. Why are you surprised?

Why would anyone think it's ok to sue them?

If I use a chainsaw in a mass murder is it OK to sue Stihl?

Chainsaws were invented to cut wood, guns were invented to kill things.
Not a good comparison.

you don't think it's o.k to sue a gun company over an incident like Sandyhook do you ?

Godfather.

rgambs

Godfather. said:

rgambs said:

unsung said:

mcgruff10 said:

rssesq said:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/judge-dismisses-newtown-families-lawsuit-against-gun-maker/ar-AAiXWES?ocid=spartandhp
I'm surprised Barbra B dismissed it outright.

There s a federal law that makes it illegal to sue gun manufacturers. Why are you surprised?

Why would anyone think it's ok to sue them?

If I use a chainsaw in a mass murder is it OK to sue Stihl?

Chainsaws were invented to cut wood, guns were invented to kill things.
Not a good comparison.

you don't think it's o.k to sue a gun company over an incident like Sandyhook do you ?

Godfather.

No, I don't.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Handguns are definitely the problem.

Ultimately with assault rifles and high capacity magazines... people have to decide whether they wish to live with periodic mass murder of the effective variety so they can own one.

There is no true need for one. It's a novelty item. Most definitely cool. Most definitely dangerous- extremely effective for killing many people in a small area in a short period of time.

unsung

And used in less than 1% of crime.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

unsung said:

And used in less than 1% of crime.

But those crimes are of the spectacular variety. I'd take steps to never see one again. Wouldn't you?

unsung

As long as it didn't include a "feel-good" ban or "common-sense" reform on firearms.

dudeman

josevolution said:

dudeman said:

I don't think that I've ever seen someone advocate for more gun violence. Regardless of your opinions on gun ownership and the law, we all want the same thing.

What is the same thing we all want I'm anti gun so I'm curious what that is ?

A safer world.

Degeneratefk

I just don't understand what you guys are so afraid of. High powered assault rifles do not bleed to be in the hands of anybody except military personnel. Why does it scare you people so much to enforce that?

JWPearl

one day there is going to be some craziness ban of things and we'll be forced to live as the government tells us to despite our loyalties and being loyal will come with a nasty price

mcgruff10

Degeneratefk said:

I just don't understand what you guys are so afraid of. High powered assault rifles do not bleed to be in the hands of anybody except military personnel. Why does it scare you people so much to enforce that?

Once the government bans these "high powered assault rifles" my question is, what is next? Where does it stop?
It's kind of like our recent rounds of negotiations in my school district, the board of ed takes and takes but never gives anything back.