PDA

View Full Version : "Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all"


Fire Haley
01-25-2013, 04:00 PM
Feinstein: "Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all. That is not the America that our founding fathers envisioned. And that is not the America I want my children and grandchildren to live in."

S. 150. A bill to regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Congressional Record page S291.

----------------------------

Imagine if Lincoln had used that argument against the slavery abolitionists


Obamafuhrer approves

MACH1
01-25-2013, 04:08 PM
The rights of a few??? You mean every single American?

Fire Haley
01-25-2013, 04:59 PM
The rights of a few??? You mean every single American?

Gungrabbers aren't Americans...they are nanny state loyalists



I love this part ...

Feinstein Gun Control Bill to Exempt Government Officials

Not everyone will have to abide by Senator Dianne Feinstein's gun control bill. If the proposed legislation becomes law, government officials and others will be exempt.

"Mrs. Feinstein's measure would exempt more than 2,200 types of hunting and sporting rifles; guns manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action; and weapons used by government officials, law enforcement and retired law enforcement personnel," the Washington Times reports.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/feinstein-gun-control-bill-exempt-government-officials_697732.html

----------------------

laws for thee, but not for me

gotta keep them police union palms greased, why do retired cops need 'assault weapons'?

ricardisimo
01-25-2013, 09:47 PM
The rights of a few??? You mean every single American?
What do you mean by "every single American"?

MACH1
01-26-2013, 12:17 AM
What do you mean by "every single American"?

It's pretty self explanatory.

torpedoshell31
01-26-2013, 09:16 AM
The Bill of Rights was written to protect the individual from the government, not the other way around. Jefferson stated that "when people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is freedom."

ricardisimo
01-26-2013, 10:03 AM
It's pretty self explanatory.
I'm not sure if you mean every single American wants to own assault rifles. Or that they should have the right to assault rifles whether they want it or not.

Atlanta Dan
01-26-2013, 11:32 AM
Feinstein: "Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all. That is not the America that our founding fathers envisioned. And that is not the America I want my children and grandchildren to live in."

S. 150. A bill to regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Congressional Record page S291.

----------------------------

Imagine if Lincoln had used that argument against the slavery abolitionists


Obamafuhrer approves

Because everyone knows depriving someone of the right to own an AR-15 and shoot off a 30 round clip is the same as selling them into slavery

MACH1
01-26-2013, 11:50 AM
I'm not sure if you mean every single American wants to own assault rifles. Or that they should have the right to assault rifles whether they want it or not.

As of now you have a choice.


http://www.winningprogressive.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/constitution2.jpg

http://2012patriot.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/bill-of-rights.gif

Fire Haley
01-26-2013, 12:08 PM
Because everyone knows depriving someone of the right to own an AR-15 and shoot off a 30 round clip is the same as selling them into slavery

she was hyperventilating about the "Founding Fathers" - neither one of you obviously din't know what they really said

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

Atlanta Dan
01-26-2013, 02:09 PM
she was hyperventilating about the "Founding Fathers" - neither one of you obviously din't know what they really said

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

We disagree on this issue and I respect that you have grounds for your opinion - but stick it in your ear if you think you are the only one posting on this forum capable of forming a valid opinion on what the "Founding Fathers" intended and how it is to be applied to technological advances in weapons available in the 21st century. The Founders were bright guys but they were not able to divine the future (e.g. - the "Founding Fathers" said for purposes of the census slaves should count as 3/5 of a person - times have changed)

Since i know you have read the opinion of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a ban on the ownership of assault rifles and 30 round clips that the Supreme Court did not elect to review, please walk me through your basis for disagreeing with the rationale of the majority opinion that by application of the Supreme Court's decision in Heller regulation of firearms is subject to an intermediate level of scrutiny in order to determine whether such regulation runs afoul of the Second Amendment and that the right to possess any firearm is not absolute

As with the First Amendment, the level of scrutiny applicable under the Second Amendment surely “depends on the nature of the conduct being regulated and the degree to which the challenged law burdens the right.”...

We are not aware of evidence that prohibitions on either semi-automatic rifles or large-capacity magazines are longstanding and thereby deserving of a presumption of validity.* For the court to determine whether these prohibitions are constitutional, therefore, we first must ask whether they impinge upon the right protected by the Second Amendment. That is, prohibiting certain arms might not meaningfully affect “individual self-defense, [which] is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.” McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599). Of course, the Court also said the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for other “lawful purposes,” such as hunting, but self-defense is the “core lawful purpose” protected, Heller, 554 U.S. at 630....

As we did in evaluating the constitutionality of certain of the registration requirements, we determine the appropriate standard of review by assessing how severely the prohibitions burden the Second Amendment right. Unlike the law held unconstitutional in Heller, the laws at issue here do not prohibit the possession of “the quintessential self-defense weapon,” to wit, the handgun. 554 U.S. at 629. Nor does the ban on certain semi-automatic rifles prevent a person from keeping a suitable and commonly used weapon for protection in the home or for hunting, whether a handgun or a non-automatic long gun. See Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun, 86 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 150, 185 (1995) (revolvers and semi-automatic pistols are together used almost 80% of the time in incidents of self-defense with a gun); Dep’t of Treasury, Study on the Sporting Suitability of Modified Semiautomatic Assault Rifles 38 (1998) (semi-automatic assault rifles studied are “not generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes”). Although we cannot be confident the prohibitions impinge at all upon the core right protected by the Second Amendment, we are reasonably certain the prohibitions do not impose a substantial burden upon that right. As the District points out, the plaintiffs present hardly any evidence that semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds are well-suited to or preferred for the purpose of self-defense or sport. Cf. Kleck & Gertz, supra, at 177 (finding that of 340,000 to 400,000 instances of defensive gun use in which the defenders believed the use of a gun had saved a life, 240,000 to 300,000 involved handguns). Accordingly, we believe intermediate rather than strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review....

We conclude the District has carried its burden of showing a substantial relationship between the prohibition of both semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds and the objectives of protecting police officers and controlling crime. Accordingly, the bans do not violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Here is the link to the decision to the extent you want to cite to specific points in the decision to support your views

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/DECA496973477C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf



:drink:

torpedoshell31
01-26-2013, 04:39 PM
If Atlanta Dan and ricardismo want to give up their 2nd amendment right, first amendment right or any other for that matter, they are free to do so. However, don't try and use government force to take away the Bill of Rights for the rest of us who actually still believe in the constitution. Their just not understanding the reason for the 2nd amendment, to protect the citizen from the greatest threat they can face- an out of control, oppressive government.

Atlanta Dan
01-26-2013, 05:18 PM
If Atlanta Dan and ricardismo want to give up their 2nd amendment right, first amendment right or any other for that matter, they are free to do so. However, don't try and use government force to take away the Bill of Rights for the rest of us who actually still believe in the constitution. Their just not understanding the reason for the 2nd amendment, to protect the citizen from the greatest threat they can face- an out of control, oppressive government.

You believe in your version of the Constitution and I believe in my version - your version apparently maintains that the right to bear any weapon cannot be regulated - I disagree - spare me the sanctimonious crap that you have cornered the market on what the Constitution means and that anyone who disagrees with you does not "understand" constitutional law as well as you do

Vis
01-26-2013, 05:41 PM
You believe in your version of the Constitution and I believe in my version - your version apparently maintains that the right to bear any weapon cannot be regulated - I disagree - spare me the sanctimonious crap that you have cornered the market on what the Constitution means and that anyone who disagrees with you does not "understand" constitutional law as well as you do

They will argue medicine with a doctor as well

torpedoshell31
01-26-2013, 09:42 PM
Again, if you choose not to own a gun, or if you have one and want to turn in it to the government, that's fine, you are free to do so. Just don't force us who want to live in freedom instead of tyranny to do the same.

The_Joker
01-26-2013, 10:33 PM
Is it REALLY needed to own a freaking Ak-47?

Really, is it?

MACH1
01-27-2013, 12:02 AM
Is it REALLY needed to own a freaking Ak-47?

Really, is it?

http://www.puertochan.org/cgl/src/133090354613.jpg

Sure, if I choose to.

Thats not your choice to make for others.

Atlanta Dan
01-27-2013, 07:49 AM
http://www.puertochan.org/cgl/src/133090354613.jpg

Sure, if I choose to.

Thats not your choice to make for others.

Really?

You cannot choose to drive 90 miles an hour or while legally drunk although you can drive and drive after having a drink

You cannot keep a pet lion in your backyard but you can have a dog

You cannot choose not to pay taxes on your earnings

You cannot choose to possess child porn

There are lots of activities in which you cannot elect your "right" as a free man to choose

Fire Haley
01-27-2013, 10:53 AM
We disagree on this issue and I respect that you have grounds for your opinion - but stick it in your ear if you think you are the only one posting on this forum capable of forming a valid opinion on what the "Founding Fathers" intended

You still don't get it

Rights belong to individuals not groups. Using her logic you could justify any violation of our Constitutional rights for the "greater good's" safety.

The rights of "the few" is exactly what our Constitution was written for.


you take your Feinsteins and I'll raise you a Thomas Jefferson

http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Thomas_Jefferson_Quote_1.jpg

of course nanny state loyalists LIKE being slaves, they LIKE a government telling them what's good for them

yessa massa, wha ever you thinks best massa, yessa massa


"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin.

Vis
01-27-2013, 11:07 AM
You still don't get it

Rights belong to individuals not groups. Using her logic you could justify any violation of our Constitutional rights for the "greater good's" safety.

The rights of "the few" is exactly what our Constitution was written for.


you take your Feinsteins and I'll raise you a Thomas Jefferson

http://tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?get_gallery=3928

of course nanny state loyalists LIKE being slaves, they LIKE a government telling them what's good for them

yessa massa, wha ever you thinks best massa, yessa massa


"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin.



Keep the racism to yourself.

Dan gets it. He understands the rights and the limits. You know half the story and seem to apply absolutism to only the 2nd amendment. It's not your fault you lack the education on the subject but it is your fault you don't admit that you do.

Fire Haley
01-27-2013, 11:39 AM
Dan gets it. He understands the rights and the limits. You know half the story and seem to apply absolutism to only the 2nd amendment. It's not your fault you lack the education on the subject but it is your fault you don't admit that you do.

still attempting to reframe the argument I see

what rights and limits?

the ones you and the Feinsteins choose?


So the founding fathers, who raised an army of volunteers largely self-armed, who overthrow an established government, put the Second Amendment to the US Constitution in place, to secure the right to squirrel hunt?

the 2nd amendment isn't about types of guns or their uses, it's about freedom from abuse by the government itself

Which is why it's #2 on the list - right after freedom of the press

Atlanta Dan
01-27-2013, 11:44 AM
You still don't get it .

Neither does the DC Circuit Court of Appeals based upon the decision I suggested you may want to take a look at. Gun rights are not absolute - the question to be resolved (and under our constitutional system the courts make the call on that - you probably do not like that either but that has been the deal since the Supreme Court entered a decision in a case called Marbury v. Madison in 1803) is whether the restriction upon a constitutional right unduly burdens the exercise of taht right

I agree I do not get your contention that the 2nd Amendment gives an absolute right to own any firearm - neither do the courts (including the Supreme Court in the Heller and McDonald decisions entered in the past 5 years). if you are contending that you have the better argument on that walk me through why that is so based upon applicable legal precedent rather than boilerplate quotes you pulled from some website. Otherwise your argument is reduced to your opinion that you are right and I am wrong

Vis
01-27-2013, 11:52 AM
still attempting to reframe the argument I see

what rights and limits?

the ones you and the Feinsteins choose?


So the founding fathers, who raised an army of volunteers largely self-armed, who overthrow an established government, put the Second Amendment to the US Constitution in place, to secure the right to squirrel hunt?

the 2nd amendment isn't about types of guns or their uses, it's about freedom from the abuse by the government itself

The 2nd Amendment protects the rights to bear arms, it does not protect the right to bear a specific arm.

Define "Arms" as meant in the bill of rights.

Define "speedy" for the right to a speedy trial.

Define excessive bail or cruel punishment.

Define an unreasonable search.



Do you apply original intent to them all or to none? Or does it depend on which is your favorite?

MACH1
01-27-2013, 12:11 PM
Really?

You cannot choose to drive 90 miles an hour or while legally drunk although you can drive and drive after having a drink

You cannot keep a pet lion in your backyard but you can have a dog

You cannot choose not to pay taxes on your earnings

You cannot choose to possess child porn

There are lots of activities in which you cannot elect your "right" as a free man to choose

Yet people still do. Go figure.

Bottom line is it's not up to you to decide.

MACH1
01-27-2013, 12:15 PM
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/154163_466814123367445_1289353536_n.jpg

Atlanta Dan
01-27-2013, 01:12 PM
Yet people still do. Go figure.

Bottom line is it's not up to you to decide.

Oh please - people still do lots of things that have been declared illegal - just because they do it does not make it legal and does not mean that the government cannot seek to restrict the activity

It is not up to any of us as individuals (including you) to decide whether or not to regulate an activity - it is up to one part of the government through its elected representatives (it is so sad Romney lost but deal with it) to decide whether to seek to restrict an activity and for another branch of the government (the judiciary) to decide if that restriction unduly burdens the exercise of a constitutional right. An action can be bad public policy without being unconstitutional public policy - that is one reason elections matter.

Or is your position that the government cannot restrict any activity unless an individual agrees to that restriction? :noidea:

torpedoshell31
01-27-2013, 01:32 PM
If you choose not to own a firearm that is your right. If someone breaks into your house at night and threatens you with a butcher knife, you can try your best by attempting to wrestle him to the ground. I prefer to grab my 12 gauge and blow his head off. I am not telling you don't have a right to your way, so don't tell me I don't have a right to my way.

Fire Haley
01-27-2013, 02:17 PM
The 2nd Amendment protects the rights to bear arms, it does not protect the right to bear a specific arm.

Define "Arms" as meant in the bill of rights.

Define "speedy" for the right to a speedy trial.

Define excessive bail or cruel punishment.

Define an unreasonable search.



Do you apply original intent to them all or to none? Or does it depend on which is your favorite?

still trying to muddy the waters

I ask the questions around here counselor


Do you approve of Feinstein saying your rights are secondary to the nanny state's wishes?
.

That's what this thread is about.

Atlanta Dan
01-27-2013, 02:26 PM
If you choose not to own a firearm that is your right. If someone breaks into your house at night and threatens you with a butcher knife, you can try your best by attempting to wrestle him to the ground. I prefer to grab my 12 gauge and blow his head off. I am not telling you don't have a right to your way, so don't tell me I don't have a right to my way.

See my comment above - you and I both have opinions but neither of us has the legal authority to tell the other an activity is illegal - that power is reserved for the government and anyone who has view on what the government should do can contact their elected reprsentatives

And it is my understanding nobody is proposing the government take away your 12 gauge

Atlanta Dan
01-27-2013, 02:33 PM
still trying to muddy the waters

I ask the questions around here counselor


Do you approve of Feinstein saying your rights are secondary to the nanny state's wishes?
.

That's what this thread is about.

All rights are not absolute

The right to own a handgun is stronger than the right to own an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine - the weaker the right the less justification required to regulate the right - it is a balancing test to be determined by both those who enact a statute or regulation and the judiciary that determines whether the action is constitutional - IMO that is what the thread is about, without muddying the waters with rhetoric about "the nanny state" and doing what "massa" tells us to do

Not every action opposed by the proponents of smaller government is unconstitutional - sometimes you have to win elections by broadening your base if you want your agenda to prevail

:drink:

Vis
01-27-2013, 02:42 PM
still trying to muddy the waters

I ask the questions around here counselor


Do you approve of Feinstein saying your rights are secondary to the nanny state's wishes?
.

That's what this thread is about.

Her quote wasn't elegant but the proposed bill is fine. Are you arguing against the quote or the bill?

ricardisimo
01-27-2013, 05:17 PM
All rights are not absolute

The right to own a handgun is stronger than the right to own an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine - the weaker the right the less justification required to regulate the right - it is a balancing test to be determined by both those who enact a statute or regulation and the judiciary that determines whether the action is constitutional - IMO that is what the thread is about, without muddying the waters with rhetoric about "the nanny state" and doing what "massa" tells us to do

Not every action opposed by the proponents of smaller government is unconstitutional - sometimes you have to win elections by broadening your base if you want your agenda to prevail

:drink:
I'm not so sure about that. I'm a Hobbesian in this regard. Even rabid monarchists like him agreed that your obligation to preserving your own life is your supreme right and obligation. It is an absolute right. I suggest that in this case preserving my life and the lives of my fellow humans comes before my right to pack heat. That's about it.

I have to object strenuously to this idea suggested by Mom, Killer and others that the powers that be would love for us to be unarmed sheeple. I'm certain it's quite to the contrary. They obtain clear, tangible benefits from nurturing a hyper-masculine and aggressive society that is at the same time constantly stuck at 11 on the fear-o-meter. The guns secure both goals quite efficiently.

Atlanta Dan
01-27-2013, 05:48 PM
I'm not so sure about that. I'm a Hobbesian in this regard. Even rabid monarchists like him agreed that your obligation to preserving your own life is your supreme right and obligation. It is an absolute right. I suggest that in this case preserving my life and the lives of my fellow humans comes before my right to pack heat. That's about it.

I have to object strenuously to this idea suggested by Mom, Killer and others that the powers that be would love for us to be unarmed sheeple. I'm certain it's quite to the contrary. They obtain clear, tangible benefits from nurturing a hyper-masculine and aggressive society that is at the same time constantly stuck at 11 on the fear-o-meter. The guns secure both goals quite efficiently.

Good point - I will clarify

Not all rights are absolute

Fire Haley
01-28-2013, 10:53 AM
I have to object strenuously to this idea suggested by Mom, Killer and others that the powers that be would love for us to be unarmed sheeple

that's because you are only being told what to see when it benefits the elitist agenda

I am here to open your eyes....did you not know the full extent of your masters decisions to make you "safer"?


House Bills:

H.R. 21: NRA Members' Gun Safety Act of 2013. Sponsor: Rep Moran, James P., Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, And Investigations.

H.R. 34: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2013. Sponsor: Rep Rush, Bobby L., Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, And Investigations.

H.R. 65: Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2013 . Sponsor: Rep Jackson Lee, Sheila, Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, And Investigations.

H.R. 117: Handgun Licensing and Registration Act of 2013. Sponsor: Rep Holt, Rush, Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, And Investigations.

H.R. 137: Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013. Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn, Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, And Investigations.

H.R. 138: Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act. Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn, Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, And Investigations.

H.R. 141: Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2013. Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn, Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, And Investigations.

H.R. 142: Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2013. Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn, Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, And Investigations.

H.R. 226: Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act. Sponsor: Rep DeLauro, Rosa L., Referred to the Ways and Means committee.

H.R. 227: Buyback Our Safety Act. Sponsor: Rep Deutch, Theodore E., Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, And Investigations.

H.R. 236: Crackdown on Deadbeat Gun Dealers Act of 2013. Sponsor: Rep Langevin, James R., Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, And Investigations.

H.R. 238: Fire Sale Loophole Closing Act. Sponsor: Rep Meng, Grace, Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, And Investigations.

H.R. 329: To amend the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 to encourage States to provide records to the National Instant Background Check System.Sponsor: Rep Fitzpatrick, Michael G.

H.R. 404: To enhance criminal penalties for straw purchasers of firearms. Sponsor: Rep Schiff, Adam B.

H.R. 427: To prevent the illegal sale of firearms, and for other purpoes. Sponsor: Rep Quigley, Mike

H.R. 431: To restore certain authorities of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to administer the firearms laws, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Speier, Jackie


Senate Bills:

S.22: A bill to establish background check procedures for gun shows. Sponsor: Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. Referred to the Senate Judicary committee

S.33: A bill to prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Lautenberg, Frank R., Referred to the Senate Judicary committee

S.34: A bill to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or suspected dangerous terrorists. Sponsor: Sen Lautenberg, Frank R., Referred to the Senate Judicary committee

S.35: A bill to require face to face purchases of ammunition, to require licensing of ammunition dealers, and to require reporting regarding bulk purchases of ammunition. Sponsor: Sen Lautenberg, Frank R., Referred to the Senate Judicary committee

S.54: A bill to increase public safety by punishing and deterring firearms trafficking. ("trafficking = "private sales") Sponsor: Sen Leahy, Patrick J., Referred to the Senate Judicary committee

S.147: A bill to establish minimum standards for States that allow the carrying of concealed firearms. Sponsor: Sen Boxer, Barbara , Referred to the Senate Judicary committee

S.150: A bill to regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Feinstein, Dianne, Referred to the Senate Judicary committee

ricardisimo
01-28-2013, 11:02 AM
Not Australia!!!!!!!!!!

Fire Haley
01-28-2013, 11:41 AM
of course there is some hope..


Assault Weapons Ban Lacks Democratic Votes to Pass Senate

A proposed ban on sales of assault weapons would be defeated in the U.S. Senate unless some lawmakers changed their current views, based on a Bloomberg review of recent lawmaker statements and interviews.

At least six of the 55 senators in the Democratic caucus have expressed skepticism or outright opposition to a ban, the review found. That means Democrats wouldn’t have a 51-vote majority to pass the measure, let alone the 60 needed to break a Republican filibuster to bring it to a floor vote.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-25/assault-weapons-ban-lacks-democratic-votes-to-pass-senate.html

ricardisimo
01-28-2013, 11:54 AM
If ever hope needs to be based on the fact that the two parties are indistinguishable, then yes, there is always hope.

White_Steel_Wolfe
03-06-2013, 12:45 AM
Is it REALLY needed to own a freaking Ak-47?

Really, is it?

Is that your decision to make for everyone else? I didn't think so.

This mass hysteria over assault rifles is ridiculous especially considering most of the horrible shootings have been caused by hand guns and other "non" issues.

If I want to own an assault rifle that is my choice and no one else's. It's just as easy to take out huge groups of people with a small 22'' caliber just as it is a "scary" assault rifle.

Clip size doesn't matter either. Takes half a second to load a new clip. A stupid and very scarce action by some psycho shouldn't cause people to lose their rights. Guns don't kill people- people kill people whether they have a gun, knife or even a god damn spoon.

Taking guns away and regulating them doesn't hurt criminals- it only hurts the law abiding citizens.

End of story.