« First « Previous Comments 4209 - 4248 of 4,248 Last »
@Goran_K you are right. Anons no longer have the ability to like/dislike threads or comments. The like/dislike links will just send anon users to the registration page.
Quigley saysAhahahahahahahah! This film is a sneak attack on Leftist values and communist ideas! It’s the anti-BLM movie of all time! Is that how you think blacks will interpret it?
Ahahahahahahahah! This film is a sneak attack on Leftist values and communist ideas! It’s the anti-BLM movie of all time!
It is, however, about a well regulated militia. Seems obvious that you shouldn't be able to own a gun if you are not part of a militia.
Amen. If only Democracy could overcome the $50MM+ in campaign donations from the NRA.
No there aren't. The percentage of households with guns is down 40%. The guns per household has doubled. Less of the population owns guns but the ones that do own a lot more of them. Numbers matter. Nice try sniper.
By this logic, we should get rid of all laws. Criminals don't follow them, after all.
Absolutely. The theme of his presidency is helping the working poor of all races, especially poor whites who are reviled by the SJW racists. And he really seems to mean it.Trump is the best Democratic president we've had in decades.
At the very least, people should need to buy insurance to own guns. Every time one of these shootings happens, the victim should be able to sue the insurance agency, and the true costs of ownership should be put on the users. The insurance agencies could come up with algorithms to figure out what to charge the wannabe John Wayne types.
SJW: They are going to figure out that we are the ones killing them with our globalist policies. We have to disarm them all, now!Working class: Ain't gonna happen.
Liberals: "Guns are only for the Militia"Also Liberals:"So let's have our Modern Militia be armed with Blackpowder Muskets!"
So, what exactly is the definition of "arms"?
I've read quite a bit actually, and posted a good history of Supreme Court decisions earlier in the thread.
Weapons of offence would seem to include pretty much anything and everything, from knives to nuclear weapons.
It's extremely inaccurate to say that Heller (a case about trigger locks in DC) made any finding as to AR15s whatsoever. A maxim of the court is that they only answer the question asked and nowhere in the facts or opinion is a reference to a AR15. In fact, if you read the Scalia concurrence you will see he (a textualist) likely would come down against things other then ordinary "handguns & long guns of the time". Alas, he is dead now and his findings are only dicta and not the holding.
Its entirely insufficient. When one registers under the National Firearms Act, they are fingerprinted, and subjected to a legitimate background check where usually someone comes to your town to verify what you said. Most importantly, a county sheriff or someone equivalent must personally sign off on your application, and if they take their job seriously, they likely are going to call you in for a sit down interview which is usually pretty good at excluding psychotic individuals like most of the guys in question. So again, if the objective is to stop the mass killings while keeping arms legal under the second amendment, how about we add these weapons to those that must be registered under the National Firearms Act?
Yep, I agree. Unfortunately the NRA won't allow ANY laws to be passed that might affect the ability of someone to get a assault rifle--no matter if they are mentally ill, teenaged, whatever. I'm all for a rational discussion of facts, but that's very hard to find because one side desperately wants to avoid it.
We don't have to rewrite the background check process. We have an enhanced standard since 1934 under the NFA, and we have the "normal" standard which you and I go through when we pick up a new 22 at our local cabelas. I argue that under the enhanced standard (most particularly your in person interview with the sheriff) guys like Cruz which for years went undetected will then be detected and their permits denied.
Fair enough, but we have been under this regime right here in the united states since 1934.
Didn't we already have an Assault Weapons ban, and Columbine happened?Soros is a complete nasty piece of work. He gave a speech, contents unknown, about his collaboration with Nazis at a Jewish Thing and Elie Weisel was shocked. He's never shown the least remorse about his role as a murderous Turncoat.The Netanyahu Government agrees with Orban about Soros being a threat:https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-hungary-soros/israel-backs-hungary-says-financier-soros-is-a-threat-idUSKBN19V1J4
That's correct. And their dollars have bought them a good chunk of the Congressmen and women. That's not how democracy should work.
Pretty sure that poll is not representative of the general public's feelings on the matter.
By the way, Snopes.com has Soros being a Nazi collaborator as false, even though he was the assistant of the guy who was inventorying Estates of Fled or Captured Jews during WW2.Snopes is almost as much of a joke as Polifact.
DAVID MIKKELSON: Well, other than checking out our site, a lot of different things. One is, of course, if a story is real, you're generally going to see it in more than one place. If you're finding something that seems rather sensational and it's only on one Web site and it's not something major like CNN or ABC, that's a pretty good tip that perhaps the story is just a rumor or something that someone made up.
A handful of DC based anti-gun groups, staffed by professional lobbyists and activists, underwritten largely by a literal tiny handful of wealthy individuals or foundations, is attempting to smear a multi-million person Membership Organization, the NRA, as undemocratic.You have to stand in awe.
Every real poll says otherwise.http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm 67% support a ban on assault weapons.https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/msn/poll-nearly-two-thirds-support-stricter-gun-laws/ar-BBJsIlA 64% favor tougher gun control laws vs 30% oppose.https://www.yahoo.com/news/more-americans-ever-support-stricter-210018333.html 66% favor stricter gun control laws vs. 31% oppose.
I disagree. Democracy is 1 person, 1 vote.Not 1 person with $300MM = 2000 votes. 1 person with no money = 1 vote.
Don't be ridiculous. The polling I posted above shows conclusively that the vast majority of the population is for tighter gun control. It's only the gun manufacturer $$ and their lobby that is stopping the will of the people.
In the 2016 election, the NRA spent $11,438,118 to support Donald Trump’s campaign and donated $19,756,346 to groups opposing Hillary Clinton’s. However, the bulk of the contributions have gone to House and Senate members. Here is a look at the top 10 recipients of NRA contributions.
Try being a doctor, and extend a 250 lb ghetto queen' s life as she eats her Cheetos and little Debbie donuts. Life expectancy is far more about life choices than health coverage.Obama care was a huge step backwards, but we do still have the best doctors and most accessible healthcare in the world.