Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Why is that, placenta? Don't you like Americans?
So Bonzo, you've never been to California and never heard of Western Addition & the Tenderloin of SF and Compton in LA.
Now ain't that sumpin'? I am thinking the same thing about you.
Done.You have wasted enough of my time with your silliness. If you don't knock it off I will have to assume you will never post anything of substance and put you on "blocked". Which do you prefer?If you have something sensible to say, do it and stop trying to waste my time, Gracie.Over my head?
Think potsie think.
.
You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you? Or just playing coy?
Which is it....
Once again you want to play a stupid game, so tell us where in the 1st amendment does it mention, radio, television, film or the internet?
.
Oh no I am blocked by a weak minded liberal who cant outdebate me?
What else is new?
Btw I never blocked anyone in my life...
.
[
Two More NY Police Officers Die by Suicide, Bringing Total to 9
https://www.nytimes.com › 2019/08/13 › nyregion › nypd-officer-suicide
Aug 13, 2019 - Two More N.Y. Police Officers Die by Suicide, Bringing Total to 9 This ... New York police officer, succumbed to his wounds, the police said.
Oh yesYou help when you do nothing to stop them from buying their weapon of choice. You help when you allow them to load that gun with a magazine that has no use other than kill lots of people without reloadingHere we go againYes we doWe the People have a Bill of Rights.You have no Constitutional right to shoot up a school
We the People have no obligation to help you
You the Fascists have the right to dream about eliminating it.
You have no right to help those who want to shoot up a school
Not all people are the same person.
No law abiding gun owner has ever helped anyone shoot up a school
Or put lots of holes in paper targets without reloading. Or put lots of holes in rats running around a barn on a farm without reloading. Broaden your imagination a little.
Oh yes
I can see how both would be a justification for having the perfect weapon to slaughter as many people as possible
Oh yesYou help when you do nothing to stop them from buying their weapon of choice. You help when you allow them to load that gun with a magazine that has no use other than kill lots of people without reloadingHere we go againYes we doWe the People have a Bill of Rights.
You the Fascists have the right to dream about eliminating it.
You have no right to help those who want to shoot up a school
Not all people are the same person.
No law abiding gun owner has ever helped anyone shoot up a school
Or put lots of holes in paper targets without reloading. Or put lots of holes in rats running around a barn on a farm without reloading. Broaden your imagination a little.
I can see how both would be a justification for having the perfect weapon to slaughter as many people as possible
Apparently you don't follow the news. The recent demand for universal background checks referenced Seth Ator's purchase of a weapon in a private sale after failing a background check, but the fact is he made an already illegal purchase of the weapon so no amount of gun regulation could have stopped the Odessa shooting. Only a fool would imagine gun regulation would stop these mass shootings.Of course they willNone of the regulations will do that. Do you really imagine that some one who has decided to murder large numbers of people and probably die in the process will be deterred by the need to buy a gun illegally?GoodNonsense, the Odessa shooter, Seth Ator, failed a background check and then found a man who manufactured guns illegally. No regulation could have prevented that shooting. If people want drugs or guns strongly enough, and you make it too difficult to buy them legally, they will find an illegal source. Just as law enforcement has been unable to stop the sale of illegal drugs, it will be unable to stop the sale of illegal guns. Making it difficult for law abiding citizens to buy guns will not stop criminals or crazies from buying them. This call for new gun laws is a fraud. It is based on a claim that such laws will prevent mass shootings but there is no basis in fact or logic for believing that.Plenty of reasonsIn other words you can't think of any reason why these regulations would stop any murders.
Do a better job of screening who can buy a gun
Register guns and know where guns used in crimes come from
Require gun owners to be trained and thoroughly screened
The way the rest of the civilized world does it
Let’s make it difficult for those who want to conduct mass shootings
Why do you fight to make it so easy?
They do it all over the world
Why make it easier to allow that person to get his weapon of choice?
Assault weapon with large capacity magazine
By Dennis A. Henigan
The American people can overcome the gun lobby, but only if we confront, and expose, three myths that have long dominated the gun debate and given the politicians a ready excuse for inaction.
First, we must not let the opponents of reform get away with the empty bromide that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Does any rational person really believe that the Sandy Hook killer could have murdered twenty-seven people in minutes with a knife or a baseball bat? Guns enable people to kill, more effectively and efficiently than any other widely available weapon.
Second, we must challenge the idea that no law can prevent violent people from getting guns. This canard is refuted by the experience of every other western industrialized nation. Their violent crime rates are comparable to ours. But their homicide rates are exponentially lower because their strong gun laws make it harder for violent individuals to get guns.
Third, we must not accept the notion that our Constitution condemns us to the continued slaughter of our children. It is true that the Supreme Court has expanded gun rights in recent years; it is equally true that the Court has insisted that the right allows for reasonable restrictions. In his opinion in the Heller Second Amendment case, Justice Scalia listed restrictions on "dangerous and unusual weapons" among the kinds of gun laws that are still "presumptively lawful." Assault weapons that fire scores of rounds without reloading surely are "dangerous and unusual."
The tobacco control movement overcame some equally powerful mythology to fundamentally alter American attitudes toward tobacco products. The tobacco industry's effort to sow confusion and uncertainty about the link between smoking and disease eventually was exposed as a fraud. The entrenched view that smoking was simply a bad habit that individuals can choose to break was destroyed by evidence that the tobacco companies knew that nicotine was powerfully addictive and engineered their cigarettes to ensure that people got hooked and stayed hooked. The assumption that smoking harms only the smoker was contradicted by the overwhelming evidence of the danger of second-hand smoke.
Once these myths were exposed, attitudes changed, policies changed and we started saving countless lives. Since youth smoking peaked in the mid-1990s, smoking rates have fallen by about three-fourths among 8th graders, two-thirds among 10th graders and half among 12th graders. A sea change has occurred on the tobacco issue.
Similarly fundamental change can come to the gun issue as well. The myths about gun control, however, still have a hold on too many of our political leaders and their constituents. We will hear them repeated again and again in the coming weeks of intense debate. Every time we hear them, we must respond and we must persuade.
There is too much at stake to be silent.
More: Dennis A. Henigan: It Was Done on Tobacco. It Can Be Done on Guns
"The fact is we infringe upon and impose restrictions on all sorts of constitutional rights. The right to bear arms is no different."There is no guarantee that guns will be affordable, only that we have the right to bear arms and government shall not infringe on those rights. Whether the cost of a gun was a week's wage or a month's wage as it often was in colonial times is irrelevant in the discussion of 2nd amendment rights. If the goverment drove the price of guns up in order to deny people's right to be bear arms, that would be a 2nd amendment violation. However, if the government required safety devices which would increase costs and save lives, that would not be.The second amendment restricts the government's ability to infringe on a person's right to bear arms, so if the government wants to mandate devices on guns that would make them too expensive for some to buy, that would infringe on that person's right to bear arms, and the government would have to show this safety device was so essential and of such overbearing importance that the Constitution has to be set aside. We all know this is not the case and the call for these safety devices is motivated only by a desire to harass gun owners.Affordable is very subjective. For some people paying $50 is not affordable for other $3000 would be affordable. The second amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The amendment gives you you the right to bear arms, not the right to buy affordable arms. Whether you have to work a day or month to earn enough money to buy a gun is irrelevant.But a law that mandated expensive additions to guns would make them unaffordable to some buyers and violae the their right to buy a gun. The government is clearly forbidden by the second amendment from preventing an American citizen from acquiring a gun, so if the government believes these additions are important, the government should pay for them. If you are only concerned with safety and not just harassing gun owners, that should be ok with you.There is nothing in the 2nd amendment requiring guns be affordable. When the 2nd amendment was written guns were too expensive for a large segment of the population. The cost of a gun in today's dollars would be nearly a thousand dollars.But if you pass a law mandating safety devices that price the guns out of the range of a buyer, you are infringing on his or her right to bear arms. I understand Democrats always see the Constitution as an obstacle to be overcome, but real Americans see it as a document to be respected.
If the government placed a tax on the sale of guns clearly for the purpose of infringing on 2nd amendment rights, the courts would surely rule it to be violation of the 2nd amendment. However, it government caused gun prices to go up due to safety requirement which save lives, the courts would probably rule the the purpose of the action was not prevent gun ownership but to make them safer. It would really depend on the purpose.
What you do not understand is constitutional rights are not absolute. Screaming fire in a crowded auditorium would not be protected by the 1st amendment just as barring the sale of shoulder held ground to air missiles would not be considered a violation of second amendment rights, nor would requiring a safety device that would save dozens of lives each year.
The fact is we infringe upon and impose restrictions on all sorts of constitutional rights. The right to bear arms is no different.
What you libarfed anti American idiots don't understand is tobacco isn't alright, guns are. Brainless twits.By Dennis A. Henigan
The American people can overcome the gun lobby, but only if we confront, and expose, three myths that have long dominated the gun debate and given the politicians a ready excuse for inaction.
First, we must not let the opponents of reform get away with the empty bromide that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Does any rational person really believe that the Sandy Hook killer could have murdered twenty-seven people in minutes with a knife or a baseball bat? Guns enable people to kill, more effectively and efficiently than any other widely available weapon.
Second, we must challenge the idea that no law can prevent violent people from getting guns. This canard is refuted by the experience of every other western industrialized nation. Their violent crime rates are comparable to ours. But their homicide rates are exponentially lower because their strong gun laws make it harder for violent individuals to get guns.
Third, we must not accept the notion that our Constitution condemns us to the continued slaughter of our children. It is true that the Supreme Court has expanded gun rights in recent years; it is equally true that the Court has insisted that the right allows for reasonable restrictions. In his opinion in the Heller Second Amendment case, Justice Scalia listed restrictions on "dangerous and unusual weapons" among the kinds of gun laws that are still "presumptively lawful." Assault weapons that fire scores of rounds without reloading surely are "dangerous and unusual."
The tobacco control movement overcame some equally powerful mythology to fundamentally alter American attitudes toward tobacco products. The tobacco industry's effort to sow confusion and uncertainty about the link between smoking and disease eventually was exposed as a fraud. The entrenched view that smoking was simply a bad habit that individuals can choose to break was destroyed by evidence that the tobacco companies knew that nicotine was powerfully addictive and engineered their cigarettes to ensure that people got hooked and stayed hooked. The assumption that smoking harms only the smoker was contradicted by the overwhelming evidence of the danger of second-hand smoke.
Once these myths were exposed, attitudes changed, policies changed and we started saving countless lives. Since youth smoking peaked in the mid-1990s, smoking rates have fallen by about three-fourths among 8th graders, two-thirds among 10th graders and half among 12th graders. A sea change has occurred on the tobacco issue.
Similarly fundamental change can come to the gun issue as well. The myths about gun control, however, still have a hold on too many of our political leaders and their constituents. We will hear them repeated again and again in the coming weeks of intense debate. Every time we hear them, we must respond and we must persuade.
There is too much at stake to be silent.
More: Dennis A. Henigan: It Was Done on Tobacco. It Can Be Done on Guns
Liar!Hardcore NRA wingnuts need to be thinking about two words: "Compromise" and "Consensus"...
When it comes to the Constitution there is no such thing as "Compromise" and "Consensus".
Sure there is. Even the original Constitution was built on compromise and consensus.
Where were all those carry people in El Paso?Look, friend, you are searching the sky to find gravity. Here's what it is .... and I want you to read this VERY CAREFULLY.From the OP: First, we must not let the opponents of reform get away with the empty bromide that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." It may not be a claim that guns actually do kill, but it certainly is an attempt to discredit the statement.
The fact that we have mass shootings is statistically irrelevant. < 1% of gun deaths occurred as a result of mass shootings in 2018. Yes I read quite well and I "get it" Can you? Do you?
Problem > > > trigger-happy people shooting other people at random in what is called "mass shootings". You understand that, yes? I mean you "get it", right? ... GUNS + PEOPLE. Once more .... GUNS + PEOPLE. So what is the stable part and what is the variant part of the equation? I'm glad you asked me.
The stable part of the equation is GUNS. Mass shootings are carried out by the use of GUNS, not knives, cars, karaté, poison, pea-shooters, spit-balls, paper-clips, rocks or strategically-placed banana peels. Shootings - GUNS. Got it?
The variable part of the equation is PEOPLE. Do you understand? You know, the ones who are pulling the trigger. We are talking about Americans committing mass shootings and in one way or another shooting to death 200 people in the U.S. each and every day of the year. These are Americans shooting other Americans.
So, to put it simply the problem is AMERICANS with GUNS. Is that difficult to understand? No, it isn't.
On the surface there are two fundamental remedies to cure the problem about AMERICANS with GUNS:
1. Eliminate Guns.
2. Eliminate Americans.
But beneath the surface, there is another issue:
GUNS are make to shoot. That is their purpose so there isn't very much we can do about that. But there is the question of why AMERICANS are so trigger-happy. Maybe if you find the answer to that (and correct it) then guns in their hands won't be any more of a problem as guns in the hands of other nationals. Hmmmmmmm, a very large percentage of Americans are destitute – no jobs, no money, no roof over their head.
So, my earnest conviction is like this: Either remove guns from Americans or end American destitution. I don't endorse the notion of eliminating Americansbecause it's too messy .... so quit screwing around and give them jobs with fair wages for fuck's sake. If you don't want to do that then you'd better ban the gun.
Once again it's not the guns that's the problem, remind us when and where mass shootings took place before liberalism took over in the 1960's?
a garage in Chicago,
on St Valentines Day.
Dont count ... and what was it 7 people? You know I didn't know this until recently but armed civilians helped take down the shooter in the tower.
.
Done.You have wasted enough of my time with your silliness. If you don't knock it off I will have to assume you will never post anything of substance and put you on "blocked". Which do you prefer?If you have something sensible to say, do it and stop trying to waste my time, Gracie.Over my head?
Think potsie think.
.
You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you? Or just playing coy?
Which is it....
Once again you want to play a stupid game, so tell us where in the 1st amendment does it mention, radio, television, film or the internet?
.
Oh no I am blocked by a weak minded liberal who cant outdebate me?
What else is new?
Btw I never blocked anyone in my life...
.
There doesn't need to be a justification, just reasons beyond your limited understanding.Oh yesYou help when you do nothing to stop them from buying their weapon of choice. You help when you allow them to load that gun with a magazine that has no use other than kill lots of people without reloadingHere we go againYes we doWe the People have a Bill of Rights.
You the Fascists have the right to dream about eliminating it.
You have no right to help those who want to shoot up a school
Not all people are the same person.
No law abiding gun owner has ever helped anyone shoot up a school
Or put lots of holes in paper targets without reloading. Or put lots of holes in rats running around a barn on a farm without reloading. Broaden your imagination a little.
I can see how both would be a justification for having the perfect weapon to slaughter as many people as possible
In regard to weaponry, killing capacity. More people are killed with bats yearly than atom bombs but that does not mean a bat is more dangerous.I see.Hand guns are used to kill a lot more people than assault weapons because there are a lot more of them, they are more available, cheaper, and easy to carry and conceal compared to assault weapons. That does not make them more dangerous.So... confiscation.Weapons deemed too dangerous to be owned by the public should be removed but not by confiscation. Banning sales, making ownership illegal after a certain date and a buy back program would remove most of the weapons.None of your babbling changes the fact the premise that the federal government should confiscate 'assault weapons' is irrational.So your solution is just let morons and sick people get their hands on weapons causing multiple death?? Just wondering how you'd feel if a loved one of yours got shot up at a concert ,school, or church
On average, handguns are used to murder ~600x more people per year than 'assault weapons'; handguns cannot be banned.
What weapons are more dangerous than handguns, and if handguns cannot be banned, how then can weapons that are less dangerous?
Well then, if not the number of people they are actually used kill, how do you define "dangerous"?
How is that definition sound?
A clear example of a blind squirrel finding a berry. Once in a great while gov't actions make sense and are of real value to most Americans. I would guess that 80% of Americans concur that smoking in public buildings is not a good thing.Govt took actions limiting cigarettes banning smoking in workplaces and public spaces. Did a lot to reduce smokingGuns are becoming less socially acceptable
As gun owners die off, families don’t know what to do with dads gun collection
So there's no need for further action by the government to strip citizens of their firearms.
OTOH, while I can still smoke a cigar on my deck I cannot on the beach just beyond the bulkhead … a matter of 2 feet. There is no authority that gov't will not abuse and none that lefties would not cede to them.
Smoke on your deck
Your wife will not allow you to smoke in the house
Sayit I'm NOT infringing on your right to keep and bear arms JUST the type of arms ,and just who can be trusted with that responsibilityAnd you have the right to your belief but not to impose it on other Americans, Comrade Eddie.I used an M 14 on the range at Ft Bliss Completely unnecessary to have one in my homeYou missed a few talking points.We DO need to stop crazy citizens , henceforth called republicans,,,,,,How many deer do you need to kill with your automatic weapon of war??So there's no need for further action by the government to strip citizens of their firearms.
Get with it, or you won't get paid.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - 2nd A
Dead is still deadActually 2/3 of all gun deaths are suicidesNow you got it!Liberty is common sense.you sound like the '''leftists''' [******] who argue with emotion and not common sense
The Bill of Rights is common sense.
Fascists trying to eliminate weapons that cause less than 1% of murders while ignoring inner city murders is an emotional response.
Keep digging
To really impact our murder rate, you need to go after handguns which account for 2/3 of all gun deaths
But handguns are a sacred cow and can’t be touched. So we have to nibble at the edges and go after weapons that are used in mass shootings
Not all gun deaths are murders
The Government is not confiscating guns nowA clear example of a blind squirrel finding a berry. Once in a great while gov't actions make sense and are of real value to most Americans. I would guess that 80% of Americans concur that smoking in public buildings is not a good thing.Govt took actions limiting cigarettes banning smoking in workplaces and public spaces. Did a lot to reduce smokingGuns are becoming less socially acceptable
As gun owners die off, families don’t know what to do with dads gun collection
So there's no need for further action by the government to strip citizens of their firearms.
OTOH, while I can still smoke a cigar on my deck I cannot on the beach just beyond the bulkhead … a matter of 2 feet. There is no authority that gov't will not abuse and none that lefties would not cede to them.
Smoke on your deck
Your wife will not allow you to smoke in the house
Point is the whole point of the thread is totally wrong because the government never tried to confiscate tobacco products or make them illegal to buy or own, and there was never any licensing or registration required. People are pretty much free to smoke as they want, and only have to avoid annoying others. The reduction in tobacco products was totally voluntary.
Government had nothing at all to do with it.
Where did I say anything about limiting what you can say?Your speech is free as is mine You racist bastards can call us Nazis to your hearts contentSayit I'm NOT infringing on your right to keep and bear arms JUST the type of arms ,and just who can be trusted with that responsibility
So, you Nazis are NOT infringing on my right to free speech, JUST what I say and who can be trusted to convey the dogma of the party?
Yet you claim that LIMITING what I can say is NOT and infringement.
Yes, you are quite stupid, and wholly dishonest.
