S
- Status
J
JoshuaIsLord
Guest
Now, how do you actually enforce it?
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
It is a start. But doesn’t seem to espouse much in regard to more extensive background checks across the board beyond the 3 day waiting period. And nothing about assault weapons other than they can’t be purchased, nor can any weapon, until age 21. The same age to legally consume alcohol. Yet the NRA even opposes this relatively modest measure.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
Checking ID isn’t hard and it’s a local decision whether to arm teachers. What’s hard to enforce?
L
Luke6_37
Guest
It’s good to see the NRA lose one. Hopefully, this will start a trend. I am looking forward to the March 25th protests. If they are big, it will bring the issue back into the limelight and pressure back on Congress to do something.
K
krhill49er
Guest
gun ownership is a right any adult 18 yr and older, has the right to exercise it without permission from the govt, unless they are mentally incompetent or are a convicted felon. background checks have been required for decades and are screened by the FBI. no knee jerk reaction passing unconstitutional laws can stop a determined killer. You are responsible for your personal protection. the police. as stated numerous times by the Supreme Court have no duty under the law to protect, the individual citizen. What you are left with is deciding whether your going to be a sheepdog or a sheep.
L
Luke6_37
Guest
Lots of NRA talking points - I think I counted eight.
Last edited:
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
Constitutional issues … rather than emotional reactions.
P
pnewton
Guest
But they immediately filed a lawsuit against the bill. This sort of knee-jerk obstructionists is why I hold the NRA for the blood shed on the altar of their special interest. May God hold those accountable who have higher regard for their gun hobby, or business, than they do for life.
P
pnewton
Guest
Duplicate post. So you can cut and paste.
L
Lev
Guest
NRA sues as Florida enacts gun-control law
NRA spokesman Chris Cox said the bill “punishes law-abiding gun owners for the criminal acts of a deranged individual”.
“Preventing a responsible 20-year-old from purchasing the best tool for self-defence will not stop a deranged criminal intent on committing a crime,” the lobby group said.
The raising of legal age has nothing to do with ‘rights’. These constitutional lawyers have people so intimidated that they don’t seem to be capable of standing up for the common good anymore.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
I want people here reading the comments of the gun-grabbers to recall their words.
Next week (or month or whatever) they will be calling for “common sense gun control”.
They will hardly acknowledge this cascade of new rules, regulations and laws that continue “infringing” upon law-abiding citizens and talk as if there are NO controls on guns.
Why?
Because it never was about “common sense gun-control.”
It has always been about incrementally disarming the good law-abiding citizen.
Then they will want police incrementally disarmed too (except for the police that guard their demi-gods, the politicians . . . with internal battles amongst themselves over police that guard THEM. And THAT will depend upon the various liberals FEELINGS as to the fight amongst tnemselves over to what extent they will disarm our police).
Remember too, about some of these people who falsely reassure you about how they “really support” the Constitution and the Second Amendment.
Don’t be bamboozled by their rhetorical cursory affirmations of the Constitution.
Next week (or month or whatever) they will be calling for “common sense gun control”.
They will hardly acknowledge this cascade of new rules, regulations and laws that continue “infringing” upon law-abiding citizens and talk as if there are NO controls on guns.
Why?
Because it never was about “common sense gun-control.”
It has always been about incrementally disarming the good law-abiding citizen.
Then they will want police incrementally disarmed too (except for the police that guard their demi-gods, the politicians . . . with internal battles amongst themselves over police that guard THEM. And THAT will depend upon the various liberals FEELINGS as to the fight amongst tnemselves over to what extent they will disarm our police).
Remember too, about some of these people who falsely reassure you about how they “really support” the Constitution and the Second Amendment.
Don’t be bamboozled by their rhetorical cursory affirmations of the Constitution.
Last edited:
A
Arkansan
Guest
Has it ever occurred to you that people who disagree with you might have reasons for doing so? It might not be that they’re just less virtuous than you?
L
Lev
Guest
The question is why do they go against the tried and true global response to gun crime tragedies and never offer any alternatives except to accept the status quo?pnewton:
Has it ever occurred to you that people who disagree with you might have reasons for doing so? It might not be that they’re just less virtuous than you?
L
Luke6_37
Guest
I have no interest in banning guns, just assault weapons. Nobody has a constitutional right to one of those.
My definition of an assault weapon is any weapon that is designed to kill scores of people in a few minutes in the hands of an untrained novice.
With respect to self-defense, Pro-life means trusting trained & accountable police officers to protect your person, family & property. When that is not feasible, the next step is to defend yourself using the least lethal weapon possible, because uncompromisingly Pro-life means that even criminals have a right to life.
This rules out the types of guns that dismember people or makes their insides look like a ripe melon - which is what happened to those babies in Newtown & the young teenagers in Parkland.
I must say, the incessent repetition of all those NRA talking points has certainly helped me hone my skills as an uncompromising Pro-Life apologist against the heresy of the Pro-Gun NRA. It’s no different than talking to Pro-Choice NARAL supporters.
My definition of an assault weapon is any weapon that is designed to kill scores of people in a few minutes in the hands of an untrained novice.
With respect to self-defense, Pro-life means trusting trained & accountable police officers to protect your person, family & property. When that is not feasible, the next step is to defend yourself using the least lethal weapon possible, because uncompromisingly Pro-life means that even criminals have a right to life.
This rules out the types of guns that dismember people or makes their insides look like a ripe melon - which is what happened to those babies in Newtown & the young teenagers in Parkland.
I must say, the incessent repetition of all those NRA talking points has certainly helped me hone my skills as an uncompromising Pro-Life apologist against the heresy of the Pro-Gun NRA. It’s no different than talking to Pro-Choice NARAL supporters.
Last edited:
Assault weapons are already very difficult to get, with strict licensing, etc
Automatics
So, when the armed thug gets into my house, I ask him to pretty please wait the 10 to 15 minutes until the sheriff deputy arrives.
Placing my family at risk, as you here are asking , isn’t prolife. It’s pro-criminal
P
pnewton
Guest
Well, let’s consider the evidence. Does the NRA oppose some gun restrictions, or all gun restrictions? I have yet to hear of a bill that they endorse. To my knowledge, correct me if you know of something, any bill that might hurt gun sales, they oppose. If this action is absolute and 100%, or very close to it, which I believe it is, then money is more important than life to the NRA and at least a majority of those members.
Is there an error in this logic?
But you have a valid point. I speak too much in generalizations, that is, about principles, and seem to imply they are universal to all. Each one must examine their own motive; whether the desire to fight reasonable gun control is because they like guns, hate inconvenience, or live in fear.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
This is why I believe in the right to bear arms. Does it matter how many rounds you put into his dead body?
It matters only that I have enough to make sure my family is safe. And that should my decisionJonNC:
This is why I believe in the right to bear arms. Does it matter how many rounds you put into his dead body?
P
pnewton
Guest
And on that, I do not agree. Society has the right to limit private arms for public safety, lest some land-mine their yard to keep the darn kids off. And for the record, me and a growing number of others will fight to limit the more radical gun owners that refuse to see the need for a limit.
Last edited:
- Status