when your side can’t win with lies and are forbidden by forum policy to curse and insult, your side quits the debate.
It would be an act of charity to advise him to exercise caution upon departure to avoid being impacted posteriorly by the protuberance on the portal.
It’s always nice to see fellow feminine voices in this debate (my screen name is not feminine sounding…). What irks me beyond belief is to have a man opposed to gun control tell me that I don’t need a gun to possibly protect myself. Elminating all guns from the hands of the bad guy would NOT eliminate my need for a gun to protect myself.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. My position is when the state deprives you of a basic civil right and at the same time deprives you of the means of protecting yourself, the state assumes an absolute liability for your protection.
I know what you mean.
I mentioned many posts ago that I am a NRA life member and have a carry permit. I go to the range once a week to practice. It’s fun seeing if I improve each time. I feel much more safe when I am out going to a meeting etc. at night.I know what you mean.
I can’t stand the fact that as a woman, people automatically assume I am pro-choice and anti-gun.
I am neither. Certainly makes for interesting converstations every once and awhile though
My wife is a nurse, and when she worked night shift, I would sometimes go to a local range comples that had and indoor range and practice. As a member, I had the combination to the gate and the indoor range.
(Emphasis in AR)
Actually it as an edict from the King of England, prior to the formation of the United States of America, that prohibited the ownership of guns by Catholics in the Maryland colony in the mid-1700s. Further, if you go into the history of some of the original colonies, many were set up as havens by/for specific religions when they were first founded. Over a period of time, trade between the colonies increased tolerance of other religions and by the time the colonies became states religious freedom was recognized (but not always practiced).
But what strikes me is that the Brady Campaign offered this case without seeing the irony. Apparently they think it’s okay to bar certain people from the exercise of their rights based on religion.Actually it as an edict from the King of England, prior to the formation of the United States of America, that prohibited the ownership of guns by Catholics in the Maryland colony in the mid-1700s. Further, if you go into the history of some of the original colonies, many were set up as havens by/for specific religions when they were first founded. Over a period of time, trade between the colonies increased tolerance of other religions and by the time the colonies became states religious freedom was recognized (but not always practiced).
However, all that said, the Brady Campaign (aka Handgun Control), and its lawyers recently cited the royal decree banning Catholic ownership of handguns when they filed a brief in the Washington DC gun ban case, which was recently overturned by the courts.
American Rifleman was not wrong it what it wrote, but they wrote more than was quoted in the posts in this thread, and the AR article more accurately described the situation. Clearly the Brady Campaign was digging deep to justify support for the Washington DC gun ban.
AGREED!
The Brady Campaign seeks to deprive us of a basic civil right.
Just my opinion, but some of these threads discuss crime, some discuss the theology of the Catholic Church as it relates to guns, some discuss the theory of gun control, etc. While there may be some overlap in discussions, most of these topics are individual topics that can stand on their own merit.
