carlfense Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 expanded only through the Supreme Court, resisted by current administration. Not expanded through legislation. You probably mean not expanded by federal legislation, right? IIRC concealed carry rights are increasing. Link to comment
carlfense Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 If they want to limit tables to FFL holders, so be it. But if they want to register a transaction between me and my neighbor or friend, then I do not agree. How about we make it simpler than limiting who can sell at a gun show: Instant background check required for all gun show sales. The NRA used to support that. Now they act like it's tyranny. Link to comment
B1G Red Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 expanded only through the Supreme Court, resisted by current administration. Not expanded through legislation. You probably mean not expanded by federal legislation, right? IIRC concealed carry rights are increasing. I agree. Link to comment
B1G Red Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Just to start, Biden, Feinstein, Schumer, Bloomberg, and although not an elected politician, a billioniare named Soros. Um Joe Biden just told people to go buy a shotgun, so I think not... and gun rights have expanded under the obama/biden tenure. expanded only through the Supreme Court, resisted by current administration. Not expanded through legislation. Do you have sources for any of your wild speculative charges? If so, I think it would be useful for the rest of us to see where you are getting your misinformation from. The fact that the present administration or senate have not introduced a single federal law that expands 2nd amendment rights, isn't speculative, How can I source something that doesn't exist. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 expanded only through the Supreme Court, resisted by current administration. Not expanded through legislation. You probably mean not expanded by federal legislation, right? IIRC concealed carry rights are increasing. I agree. in national parks. Link to comment
BIGREDIOWAN Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Still disagree that guns are the problem, they might be part of the problem, but the core issue is mental health. I stand by that and there is zero way to change my mind on it. There is a successful formula out there that increases mental health care, put some sort of restriction on firearms and helps bring down the murder rate on some level. Bad guys will not turn their guns in, they will find ways to get guns and people will continue to find ways to kill other people. What stops a nut bag from getting a bow and shooting people with arrows? Sure they'll be less people killed in the situation before the bad guy is taken out, but the core issue is still there, someone died. Blaming the situation on guns isn't a very good argument IMO because I can compare several situations and argue why something should be limited so people don't die because of X reason. Example: We should ban cars because there is too many people dying from drunk driving crashes........................are cars the problem or are people the problem? We have laws out there that are pretty strict in reference to OWI's, but it doesn't cure the issue completely. It helps some, but the problem still exists. I could put all my guns by my front door and they aren't going to go off by themselves, they don't care, I'm the one that makes the choice to fire them not anyone else. To say that some guns are okay because of hunting purposes doesn't make much sense to me because I can kill several people with a 12-gauge loaded with 00 buck with one pull of the trigger. At the core of this argument people bring up assault weapons as how they were used in Sandy Hook. From what I've heard that wasn't true, the rifle was found in the bad guys vehicle. I remember watching the live broadcast of the Sandy Hook shooting and they mentioned then that a rifle was found in the bad guys car and the bad guy didn't have a rifle with him. Now he did? I'm confused as to what really happened and can't believe anything I hear about what weapon was used. I would have to see the wounds of the children involved, the bullets themselves removed from those children, and the shell casings that were on the floor to make the correct determination into what was actually used in the situation. Just for the record I'm an independent, I voted for Obama the last two times and I voted for Bush his last time in office. 1 Link to comment
Junior Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 The fact that the present administration or senate have not introduced a single federal law that expands 2nd amendment rights, isn't speculative, How can I source something that doesn't exist. I was more referring to your charges that Biden, Feinstein, Schumer, Bloomberg, and other "slimeball" politicians that have, apparently, all tried to "ban all firearms". When, in fact, nothing of the sort has happened. Link to comment
B1G Red Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 If they want to limit tables to FFL holders, so be it. But if they want to register a transaction between me and my neighbor or friend, then I do not agree. How about we make it simpler than limiting who can sell at a gun show: Instant background check required for all gun show sales. The NRA used to support that. Now they act like it's tyranny. I've never sold a gun to anyone who I didn't know, except to a FFL dealer. So within the bounds of a gun show, if a dealer could facilitate a transfer between individuals on a normal yellow form, then I probably would not object. Cause I don;t know if the other guy is a felon or a nut job. So I don't like the intrusion, but would probably live with it. Link to comment
B1G Red Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 The fact that the present administration or senate have not introduced a single federal law that expands 2nd amendment rights, isn't speculative, How can I source something that doesn't exist. I was more referring to your charges that Biden, Feinstein, Schumer, Bloomberg, and other "slimeball" politicians that have, apparently, all tried to "ban all firearms". When, in fact, nothing of the sort has happened. To be fair, I called the politicians I support slimebags also, it's an opinion I have of most politicians once they get beyond the school board or local mayor. Link to comment
Junior Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 The fact that the present administration or senate have not introduced a single federal law that expands 2nd amendment rights, isn't speculative, How can I source something that doesn't exist. I was more referring to your charges that Biden, Feinstein, Schumer, Bloomberg, and other "slimeball" politicians that have, apparently, all tried to "ban all firearms". When, in fact, nothing of the sort has happened. To be fair, I called the politicians I support slimebags also, it's an opinion I have of most politicians once they get beyond the school board or local mayor. Great. Now that it has been established that all politicians are slimebags, do you have a source for how they have tried to ban all firearms? Or are you admitting to wild speculation? Link to comment
sd'sker Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 drunk driving is a great example of how regulations can decrease fatalities, while not unreasonably infringing on personal freedoms. drunk driving laws, and the attitude that goes with it, has dramatically changed and we have seen the benefits. that is a really apt comparison. you have a problem, you change the law, the problem is mitigated. Link to comment
carlfense Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 expanded only through the Supreme Court, resisted by current administration. Not expanded through legislation. You probably mean not expanded by federal legislation, right? IIRC concealed carry rights are increasing. I agree. in national parks. Good point. Link to comment
NebraskaHarry Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 drunk driving is a great example of how regulations can decrease fatalities, while not unreasonably infringing on personal freedoms. drunk driving laws, and the attitude that goes with it, has dramatically changed and we have seen the benefits. that is a really apt comparison. you have a problem, you change the law, the problem is mitigated. Last I checked we already had laws for murder. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 drunk driving is a great example of how regulations can decrease fatalities, while not unreasonably infringing on personal freedoms. drunk driving laws, and the attitude that goes with it, has dramatically changed and we have seen the benefits. that is a really apt comparison. you have a problem, you change the law, the problem is mitigated. Last I checked we already had laws for murder. what was that? was that an argument? i am not sure what you are responding to. Link to comment
carlfense Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 drunk driving is a great example of how regulations can decrease fatalities, while not unreasonably infringing on personal freedoms. drunk driving laws, and the attitude that goes with it, has dramatically changed and we have seen the benefits. that is a really apt comparison. you have a problem, you change the law, the problem is mitigated. Last I checked we already had laws for murder. what was that? was that an argument? i am not sure what you are responding to. Why outlaw murder? Criminals are going to kill people anyways . . . 3 Link to comment
Recommended Posts