should the US prohibit people under the age of 21 from purchasing or owning large capacity guns ?

[Dragonlady]

True – again, it’s a want, not a need.

But citizens are not required to justify the exercising of a right as a prerequisite to indeed do so.

And that there is no need for a citizen to want to do or possess something is not justification for government to prohibit doing or possessing that thing – such as an AR 15.

It’s solely the responsibility of government to justify its desire to place limits and restrictions on our rights and protected liberties – and absent justification, refrain from doing so.

Au contraire Mr. Jones. Women are required to jump through all kinds of legal hoops to justify their need to get an abortion. Medical tests they don't need. Men explaining to them exactly how the fetus will be destroyed. Forced to travel across state lines to exercise that right, and endure a "waiting period" before they can obtain and abortion. To enter the clinic they will then have to pass through a phalanx of anti-abortion protestors calling her a murderer, all in order to exercise her "privacy rights" to obtain a medical procedure.

The state is offering no reason to justify placing limits or restrictions on a woman's right to privacy under the 14th Amendment, they're just claiming the right doesn't exist.

 

[Dragonlady]

I know you stupid uneducated Moon Bats don't know jackshit about Biology.

Unless it is rape then every girl that gets knocks up willingly spreads out her legs.

Killing a child for birth control is morally reprehensible. Especially when it done for convenience.

There it is. She spread her legs, she deserves what happens to her.

Getting an abortion because you'll lose your job and home, and your existing children will suffer is a failing of the American economy and the American way of life.

The same political party which refuses to raise the minimum wage, pass universal health care, or mandate maternity leave for pregnant women, and refused to pass the Child Tax Benefit for low income families, now wants to ban abortion for poor women.

Rich and middle class women will still get abortions. They'll come to Canada, or go to Europe. Only the poor women will have babies, because they'll have no access to safe, legal abortions.

These laws are about power and control over poor women. She spread her legs. 60% of the women getting abortions are married or in a committed relationship. She spread her legs for her HUSBAND, jackass.

 

[Flash]

There it is. She spread her legs, she deserves what happens to her.

Getting an abortion because you'll lose your job and home, and your existing children will suffer is a failing of the American economy and the American way of life.

The same political party which refuses to raise the minimum wage, pass universal health care, or mandate maternity leave for pregnant women, and refused to pass the Child Tax Benefit for low income families, now wants to ban abortion for poor women.

Rich and middle class women will still get abortions. They'll come to Canada, or go to Europe. Only the poor women will have babies, because they'll have no access to safe, legal abortions.

These laws are about power and control over poor women. She spread her legs. 60% of the women getting abortions are married or in a committed relationship. She spread her legs for her HUSBAND, jackass.

I'm sorry bitch but your inconvenience is not enough to warrant killing a child.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Au contraire Mr. Jones. Women are required to jump through all kinds of legal hoops to justify their need to get an abortion. Medical tests they don't need. Men explaining to them exactly how the fetus will be destroyed. Forced to travel across state lines to exercise that right, and endure a "waiting period" before they can obtain and abortion. To enter the clinic they will then have to pass through a phalanx of anti-abortion protestors calling her a murderer, all in order to exercise her "privacy rights" to obtain a medical procedure.

The state is offering no reason to justify placing limits or restrictions on a woman's right to privacy under the 14th Amendment, they're just claiming the right doesn't exist.

In what fucking fantasy world are women required to "justify their need" for an abortion? What medical tests do you think are forced on them that they don't need? Why would anyone object to a doctor explaining to a patient what's going to happen? If you and your masters are going to gas about abortion "just being a medical procedure, like an appendectomy", then why would you want it to be treated differently in regards to full disclosure for an informed decision?

 

[Cecilie1200]

There it is. She spread her legs, she deserves what happens to her.

Getting an abortion because you'll lose your job and home, and your existing children will suffer is a failing of the American economy and the American way of life.

The same political party which refuses to raise the minimum wage, pass universal health care, or mandate maternity leave for pregnant women, and refused to pass the Child Tax Benefit for low income families, now wants to ban abortion for poor women.

Rich and middle class women will still get abortions. They'll come to Canada, or go to Europe. Only the poor women will have babies, because they'll have no access to safe, legal abortions.

These laws are about power and control over poor women. She spread her legs. 60% of the women getting abortions are married or in a committed relationship. She spread her legs for her HUSBAND, jackass.

This bullshit is what happens when semi-literate mouthbreathers are allowed to read "The Handmaid's Tale" and tell themselves that it's literature.

 

[Flash]

This bullshit is what happens when semi-literate mouthbreathers are allowed to read "The Handmaid's Tale" and tell themselves that it's literature.

If you go to a bookstore you will usually find The Handmaid's Tale in the Science Fiction section.

These stupid uneducated Moon Bats think it is reality.

 

[Batcat]

How about, the ability to take out an entire classroom of 40 little kids in about a minute.

Easily before the proverbial good guy with the gun shows up to get whacked too.

In Texas the good guy showed up and took out the shooter. The agent did get a slight wound in the top of his head.

 

[Donald H]

In Texas the good guy showed up and took out the shooter. The agent did get a slight wound in the top of his head.

It looks like the advice to keep an armed guard at the school had been heeded, but then the person responsible didn't take his job seriously enough to stick around.
Probably was hanging out at a donut shop down the street finishing up his coffee when he heard the commotion!
Probably the reason why he's not dead too!

 

[krichton]

I stated that the FBI statistics show that stolen guns are secondary to straw purchasers. Therefore straw purchasers should be receiving the longest sentences when a crime is committed by a person with a gun they purchased for a criminal. Murder? Anybody that goes to those extremes are not going to be bothered by life sentences. However if we use the death penalty in irrefutable cases, fast track all appeals to less than six months instead of 20 years, yes, that would be a great deterrent and you'd see murders drop like never before. If we allowed televised executions, it would have an even stronger impact.

Life sentences for crimes committed with a firearm would also be a deterrent. Why would anybody risk going to prison for life for 50 bucks in a cashiers drawer? As long as the criminal didn't hurt or kill anybody with the gun, you'd see how fast armed robberies would decline.

Bottom line is a strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried. But when these liberal thresholds give criminals a few months in jail, there is no reason for them not to carry a gun or commit a crime with one.

Link the source that says this. Stolen guns is always dead last, but not that this matters. The bottom line is, guns here always originate from a perfectly legal source and are then either purchased legally or illegally or lastly stolen. You can do this through a straw purchase, but also online, at a gun show, through a reseller willing to look the other way, etc. \ The wide prevalence of guns and their sales is how criminals eventually get them over and over. Just a few years ago, cnn got a 13 year old actor to go to a gun show to see if he can buy a gun. He paid with cash and walked right out, no questions asked. You think you can do that in any other country? lol. This is the problem, not the law.

Florida tried a mandatory 10-20-Life law 20 years ago. Nothing has changed. Gun murders have remained steady since it's enactment. Mass shootings in FL are more than ever. In some places in FL gun violence has gone up. During spring break every year guys would come and fire guns and then there would be stampedes of ppl running for their lives. It's become a tradition, despite the law. Gun violence in Florida is no different the national average. So much for mandatory sentencing.

According to what source?

The majority of crimes involving guns are committed with guns that are illegally obtained by the shooter/user.

According to the DOJ and ATF. DOJ trumps whatever nutty right wing source you get your hyper partisan information from.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There it is. She spread her legs, she deserves what happens to her.

Getting an abortion because you'll lose your job and home, and your existing children will suffer is a failing of the American economy and the American way of life.

The same political party which refuses to raise the minimum wage, pass universal health care, or mandate maternity leave for pregnant women, and refused to pass the Child Tax Benefit for low income families, now wants to ban abortion for poor women.

Rich and middle class women will still get abortions. They'll come to Canada, or go to Europe. Only the poor women will have babies, because they'll have no access to safe, legal abortions.

These laws are about power and control over poor women. She spread her legs. 60% of the women getting abortions are married or in a committed relationship. She spread her legs for her HUSBAND, jackass.

Nobody will have to go to Commida for an abortion. If Roe is reversed, states will still have the right to keep abortion just the way it is. Americans in states with strict abortion laws will just travel to a state with liberal abortion laws.

And HTF do you figure a woman would lose her job or home by not getting an abortion?

 

[Circe]

Au contraire Mr. Jones. Women are required to jump through all kinds of legal hoops to justify their need to get an abortion. Medical tests they don't need. Men explaining to them exactly how the fetus will be destroyed. Forced to travel across state lines to exercise that right, and endure a "waiting period" before they can obtain and abortion. To enter the clinic they will then have to pass through a phalanx of anti-abortion protestors calling her a murderer, all in order to exercise her "privacy rights" to obtain a medical procedure.

The state is offering no reason to justify placing limits or restrictions on a woman's right to privacy under the 14th Amendment, they're just claiming the right doesn't exist.

Sadly, this is all true. All the bullying! If men needed abortions, NONE of this would be allowed.

The "medical tests they don't need" thing is just to up the $$$ the doctors get. That has spread all over the medical industry, constant tests and procedures and prescriptions and "management" appointments for the prescriptions. What an incredible series of fraud and scamming.

 

[Lesh]

This bullshit is what happens when semi-literate mouthbreathers are allowed to read "The Handmaid's Tale" and tell themselves that it's literature.

It’s a cautionary tale that parallels what the religious right is trying for

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Perhaps, but you are also comparing apples to oranges.

What you are doing is making comparisons between near or absolute single-culture societies to ours. We are the most multi-culturial society on the planet. Without our minorities, our violent crime rate would be very comparable to the nearly all white places you speak of. In the US, 54% of our murders are committed by just 13% of our population which are blacks. Given the fact most murders are by males, most murders are committed by 7 to 8% of our population which are black males.

As we have always said, it's not the weapon, but the people.

In other words you make a law that all people in a middle-class white suburb must have a firearm in the household. Their violent crime statistics will not change. Then make a law that no guns are allowed in a high-crime minority city, their violent crime rate will not change either. They will always find a way to get guns.

In the end, by disarming law abiding citizens, what you end up with is a country where only the criminals and police have the guns.

This is a lie.

No one seeks to ‘disarm’ anyone.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Women are required to jump through all kinds of legal hoops to justify their need to get an abortion.

Which is wrong.

Citizens shouldn’t be required to justify the exercising of any right – whether it’s the right to possess a firearm or the right to privacy with regard to having an abortion.

Indeed, ‘banning’ abortion and ‘banning’ AR 15s are equally wrong and ineffective – both are unwarranted government excess and overreach.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It should be left to the individual states.

It’s too late for that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The state is offering no reason to justify placing limits or restrictions on a woman's right to privacy under the 14th Amendment, they're just claiming the right doesn't exist.

Correct, which is also wrong – the right to privacy most certainly exists.

The right to privacy is no more ‘made up’ than the individual right to possess a firearm.

It’s one of the more glaring examples of rightwing hypocrisy:

Conservatives are great advocates of “states’ rights” when it comes to something they oppose or don’t like – in this case abortion.

But “states’ rights” goes out the window when it comes to regulating firearms; conservatives sprint to the nearest Federal court seeking to overturn state firearm regulatory measures they disapprove of, contrary to the will of the people of the states.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This is a lie.

No one seeks to ‘disarm’ anyone.

You are a bald faced LIAR and you know it numerous Democratic politicians advocate disarming us all the time.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You are a bald faced LIAR and you know it numerous Democratic politicians advocate disarming us all the time.

One of the commies went on TV and stated they need to pack the courts so nobody could stop them on new gun reform.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Correct, which is also wrong – the right to privacy most certainly exists.

The right to privacy is no more ‘made up’ than the individual right to possess a firearm.

It’s one of the more glaring examples of rightwing hypocrisy:

Conservatives are great advocates of “states’ rights” when it comes to something they oppose or don’t like – in this case abortion.

But “states’ rights” goes out the window when it comes to regulating firearms; conservatives sprint to the nearest Federal court seeking to overturn state firearm regulatory measures they disapprove of, contrary to the will of the people of the states.

WTF are you talking about? States do regulate firearms along with commie cities. Do you mean to tell me that NYC has the same liberal laws as my city in Ohio? I beg to differ.

 

[yidnar]

That period lasted less than 30 years and no, The West was not nearly as violent as is portrayed on the big and little screens.

Most people were just living their lives trying to make a better life for their kids than they'd had.

and most people are living their lives trying to make a better life for their kids today .