What it was about is extremely silly. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state . . .” But, a militia is not necessary to the security of a free state. They just had this fear of standing professional armies.
Let me first say that I’m very liberal and I fully support the 2nd amendment. This issue along with immigration is the only issue I agree with Republicans. I think having an armed populace safeguards against not only from a tyrannical government (yeah, right) but - more realistically - it makes a country resistant to foreign invasion. I like that. So, I’m all for guns. If I were God-King of America, we would all be able to carry weapons including flamethrowers (the Vietnam version) and surface-to-air rockets. I want a cannon, too. It’s absurd that they’re illegal when the 2nd amendment is linguistically clear in its meaning and intent: “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed”.
Second, to your point about being limited by the government: please. You’re not being oppressed by the government. You must’ve heard that on television. No one is taking your liberty away, because by voting Republican, you vote away your liberty to corporations every election cycle. Thanks to Republicans and their massive 1981 tax cut which, by the way, did not increase tax receipts as promised, is the reason the country is in all of this debt in the first place. The current crop of Republicans in Congress are domestic terrorists. Look at what those clowns did in Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and (to a lesser extent) Ohio. And if you don’t know, you ought to ask somebody.
School Vouchers: I’m against you, here. You shall not use public money to send your child to a private/charter/non-public school. If you want to send your child to a private school, then you should your own money. You should not be able to strangle public schools to the point where they’re crap, then use that as example of “government inefficiency and waste”. That’s dishonest.
Types of Guns/Magazines: I’m with you.
Seat Belts/Helmets: I agree.
Abortion: C’mon, don’t be coy, you don’t give a shit about those unborn babies. Those unborn babies will be born to single mothers who, thanks to Republicans, instead of singing to their babies, bonding with their child/baby, reading to their babies, will be flipping burgers for some private company. That baby will be scuttled from daycare-to-daycare while she works >40 hours a week for her meager benefits and a food stamp card. What’s sad is that a child’s mental health and capacity for warmth and humanity will be diminished because of it. More than likely, that child will grow up to be a burden to society, thus maintaining (and sustaining) the Ouroboros of poverty.
It is truly mind-boggling to me.
Republicans who are for preventing any fetus from being terminated simultaneously cut funding for welfare benefits, SNAP, preschool education, K-12 education, and Pell Grants - all things that would help the precious child you demand to be “saved” grow and prosper. You cannot say “The child must be born!” then in following breath declare " The benefits to help the newborn child shall be cut". From fetus to the age of adulthood costs about parent(s) $389,670 per child. Since Republicans have shrunk the welfare state into a shadow of its existence, I’m perplexed as to where Republican think these single mothers are going to get that money to raise that child. I’d really like to know.
- Honesty
From past experience, I can tell you the answer. Most will gladly take such an oath. They will also break it at the very first opportunity or excuse. We’ve seen it already, too many times.
I’m game! The moment the NRA stops controlling gunnies and ceases to exist, you are on buddy!
See?
It’s not about any single particular “reasonable” law. It’s about fear of guns, and fear of those who don’t fear them.
That’s what s…errr, nevermind.
I chuckled.
So you favor “shot placement” over “caliber size” then?
I could quote the rest of this post and about half the posts that came after it as examples of rules violations. Instead I will say one more time that this isn’t the forum for ranting and raving and insulting people. If you want to start a Pit thread, have at it. But if you want to call people liars and fools and dopes and killers, you can’t do it in this forum. I will be handing out warnings to people who “forget” this rule.
No.
Without the law, under what procedure would a judge dismiss the suit if the plaintiff pled facts that created a material dispute?
And what is that situation that one can envision, anyway?
The recall process should only be used in cases of gross negligence our misconduct. They’re not supposed to be a “do over” because you don’t like what your elected official voted or didn’t vote for, and often times play out down party lines.
…Can’t say I’m not happy to see a couple of Democrats in office go, though.
I like the idea of recalls. But then I like the idea of votes of no confidence dissolving the government and causing new elections, and the idea of more than two sizable parties.
Yes. It would be the only transaction I know of in which sales tax would be paid by the seller.
Actually, that is exactly what a recall election is for. If you’ve got gross misconduct, then what you’re looking for is an impeachment, not a recall. If you don’t want your politicians to be potentially subject to recall just because the voters don’t like them, then change that provision of your state constitution so you don’t have recalls any more.
To the first, I don’t know, you tell me, you’re the lawyer. But judges really do dismiss frivolous lawsuits against parties that shouldn’t be held liable-- Presumably, however they do it in those cases can be used here, too.
As to the situation I can envision, one possible example: Someone falsely claims to be a gun retailer, the gun company fails to do due diligence to confirm that, sells them a passel of guns wholesale, and then the fake gun retailer uses the guns to commit some crime. If the manufacturer had taken the effort to confirm, the criminal wouldn’t have gotten his arsenal. It seems reasonable to me to want to sue the manufacturer for that.
The sales tax is always paid by the seller, in the sense that it’s always the seller that delivers the tax to the government. When I go to the store and buy something, the store doesn’t send me to the corner with an envelope so I can drop the tax in the mail. Rather, they tell me what their price is, and what the government’s price is, and I pay the sum of those two numbers to the store, and they work it out from there. I see no reason why a private gun seller could not similarly say “this is the price I want for the gun, and this is the price for the necessary red tape, pay me the sum of those two numbers and I’ll take care of the rest”.
[quote=“Bob_Blaylock, post:64, topic:668555”]
To be clear, all advocates of any gun control, without exception, fall into two categories…
[ol][li]Those who are willfully on the side of tyrants and criminals, and who wish to disarm the general population in order to make them easier prey for the tyrants and criminals. They may claim that they support such laws for the sake of public safety, but they are flat-out lying when they make such claims. They know very well that gun control laws, at best, do nothing to promote public safety, and in fact, tend to make the public less safe.[/li]
…or…
[li]Those who are ignorant and gullible, and who believe the lies told by the first group.[/ol][/li][/QUOTE]
The stupid . . . it not only burns, but rots and decays. Seriously, since you are apparently capable of typing and spelling the above, you cannot seriously believe a single word of what you so utterly shamelessly say. Mods, please let this thread be switched to the Pit, as it belongs nowhere else.
Yes, I absolutely do believe it.
The idea that gun control serves any useful purpose with regard to reducing crime or violence has been solidly enough disproven. Where strict gun control has been put into place in this nation, the effect has undeniably been nothing other than to leave honest citizens unarmed and vulnerable, against criminals who continue to arm themselves with impunity. There remains no excuse for any rational, honest person to claim to support gun control for this purpose.
The only people who are made safer as a result of gun control are criminals and tyrants. If you support gun control then that is whose side you are on.
I’ll take a cite for this, please.
Warnings to both of you here. If some posters are incapable of discussing this issue civilly, they’ll get warned and be told to take their shtick to the appropriate forum. I’m not moving every gun-related thread to the Pit so people can rant and rave.
15 rounds is too many. If he was toting a six-shooter, the body count would have been much lower.