rawhide Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 My point, neither party should even think of "compromise" when talking about the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Link to comment
carlfense Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 My point, neither party should even think of "compromise" when talking about the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The SC has specifically said that regulation =/= infringement . . . Link to comment
Junior Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/us/selling-a-new-generation-on-guns.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1& Interesting NY Times article about the NRA and gun manufacturers selling youth on guns. Link to comment
lo country Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 My point, neither party should even think of "compromise" when talking about the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Excellent answer. I wish I had thought of it! Link to comment
lo country Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 My point, neither party should even think of "compromise" when talking about the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The SC has specifically said that regulation =/= infringement . . . Quick question. Other than his 23 point executive order (passed IMO to completely by pass any opposition) what has Obama done to show that he is open to compromise or that he would accept anything less than a ban? My initial point being that there hasn't even been a chance for dialogue and already he is complaining that the Republicans are not getting with he program. IMO, I hope they don't. As Rawhide stated so bluntly above, the Constitution has no room for compromise. It also amazes me that those in favor of the ban try to equate their support of "hunting and sportsmen" to be in favor of the 2nd amendment. 1 Link to comment
rawhide Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Interesting statements from a freshman Representative from Oklahoma. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=reXClTNWoy8 Link to comment
zoogs Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 I was reading today for the first time about some relatively recent technology that can detect and notify, on incident, enforcement agencies of gunshots. Very cool stuff. I hope the coverage of shotspotter technology improves drastically. Link to comment
rawhide Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 The machine would go into trajectory overload in Chicago, Detroit, New York and L.A.; well, let's just say the top 20. Link to comment
carlfense Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Quick question. Other than his 23 point executive order (passed IMO to completely by pass any opposition) what has Obama done to show that he is open to compromise or that he would accept anything less than a ban? 1. There were exactly zero executive orders. I'm sure you've read otherwise and heard otherwise . . . but those sources are wrong. Executive actions are not executive orders. It's an important distinction. 2. Total ban? WTF? You must be talking about a different Obama than the current president of the United States. Where has he said anything close to that? My initial point being that there hasn't even been a chance for dialogue and already he is complaining that the Republicans are not getting with he program. IMO, I hope they don't. As Rawhide stated so bluntly above, the Constitution has no room for compromise. Eh? It also amazes me that those in favor of the ban try to equate their support of "hunting and sportsmen" to be in favor of the 2nd amendment. You've said that repeatedly and you must have a lower standard for amazement than myself. The 2d Amendment doesn't only protect guns for hunting. Anyone who claims that is wrong. Now who exactly in this current debate is claiming that? Quotes would be appreciated. 1 Link to comment
Junior Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 My point, neither party should even think of "compromise" when talking about the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The SC has specifically said that regulation =/= infringement . . . Quick question. Other than his 23 point executive order (passed IMO to completely by pass any opposition) what has Obama done to show that he is open to compromise or that he would accept anything less than a ban? My initial point being that there hasn't even been a chance for dialogue and already he is complaining that the Republicans are not getting with he program. IMO, I hope they don't. As Rawhide stated so bluntly above, the Constitution has no room for compromise. It also amazes me that those in favor of the ban try to equate their support of "hunting and sportsmen" to be in favor of the 2nd amendment. A ban on what? What exactly do you think Obama wants to ban (please provide supporting links)? Link to comment
carlfense Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Sometimes this feels like bizzaro world. Claims that Obama wants nothing less than a total ban and has never offered to compromise on that extreme position when the only proposed legislation is background checks, magazine restrictions, and a reworked AWB. Coherent it's not. Link to comment
Junior Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Sometimes this feels like bizzaro world. Claims that Obama wants nothing less than a total ban and has never offered to compromise on that extreme position when the only proposed legislation is background checks, magazine restrictions, and a reworked AWB. Coherent it's not. That's been the story for the last several years. Obama is a Muslim socialist born in Africa. What part of that is true? None of it, of course, but that doesn't stop a lot of people from believing it. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Sometimes this feels like bizzaro world. Claims that Obama wants nothing less than a total ban and has never offered to compromise on that extreme position when the only proposed legislation is background checks, magazine restrictions, and a reworked AWB. Coherent it's not. That's been the story for the last several years. Obama is a Muslim socialist born in Africa. What part of that is true? None of it, of course, but that doesn't stop a lot of people from believing it. Wow...talk about two posts that basically sum up the extremes of both sides. Link to comment
rawhide Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d791b6aa0fd9d3d8833b2efa08300033&tab=core&_cview=0 Anybody want to work for DHS and use a AR for personal defense; even though they are not good for P.D. weapons. That's what the ban is all about. 'Ceptin' the guvmint. Feinysteiny said there's no reason anyone needs an AR with high capacity magazines; well maybe she said clips Link to comment
carlfense Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Sometimes this feels like bizzaro world. Claims that Obama wants nothing less than a total ban and has never offered to compromise on that extreme position when the only proposed legislation is background checks, magazine restrictions, and a reworked AWB. Coherent it's not. That's been the story for the last several years. Obama is a Muslim socialist born in Africa. What part of that is true? None of it, of course, but that doesn't stop a lot of people from believing it. Wow...talk about two posts that basically sum up the extremes of both sides. What? Link to comment
Recommended Posts