again, you're an interfere in others lives kind of person. Can't except reality. Planes fall out of the sky and they still fly. 9/11 happened and they still fly. But those pesky guns, watch out, they'll talk to you and ask you to go to a school.
The best point made in last night's debate was Vance letting everyone know that illegal guns flow across the open borders scamala and timmy love so much. And then they want to say guns. can't think of the word for them. That really pisses me off too.
How many gun laws do we need before criminals start obeying them?
What laws do you propose that will only affect criminals and not law-abiding citizens?Ah. So nothing can be done. Pretty much what I have heard. No sweat. I have no kids in school anymore, and I have a permit and many years of training and training others to shoot for protection, if necessary. So, you won't read of white 6 being shot down, certainly not with a full magazine. Good luck to you and yours. Say hey to Goober.
Zero
I would like to see them find a way to stop and frisk, to get guns out of the hands for known felons, but that is problematic, also.
I do not have the solution, any law that would be effective would in some way affect law-abiding citizens, even if only momentarily and without financial penalty or loss of property. No "easy outs" of the mess we have created of weapons regulation, while basically restricting enforcement. How many felons would you actually allow to freely walk the streets with weapons if up to you? Zero. But, would you allow stop and frisk? Would it piss you off, if you were stopped and frisked, with weapons carry card in wallet? But, you cannot have it both ways, "all the guns, all the time, unrestrict" and police able to disarm convicted criminals carrying on the street or in their car.
That's easy - you catch one with a gun, you take it.
True. But, the Supremes already weighed in on random search without probably cause, as also protected against that, by another amendment. Some "rights" may have to be bent, but who gets to decide which ones or how much? We cannot count on any help from the US House or Senate. We are in the old west that never was.
Correct.
The bill of rights, intentionally and necessarily, takes certain policy choices off the table.
Correct.
Oh, I definetly do. I wear a Slovakian made shoulder holster, (very comfy) for my Walther PPQ M2 full size service pistol, even kayaking on rivers, just in case a snake or other varmint has to be shot in the back country.
As you say, any trammeling of rights, even momentary, will not stand up to Constitutional challenge.
Recent statistics on crime, show that criminals commit less crime after getting shot.
For some reason, that fact makes Democrats cry.
I have heard that, but I am in Tennessee. I don't think that applies here, at least among Democrats, that I know. My own brother is a dyed in the wool Democrat, possibly never voting for a Republican since Nixon. But, if somebody broke in on him, he'd grab the loaded shotgun by his bed, and blow their ass away, without a doubt.
I think it's obvious that Walz was saying that sometimes it's just the easy access to guns that is the problem.Right Tim, and it's just the forks making Americans fat.
Guns are tools…remove guns, there are other deadly tools.
I mean were it not for guns, how would Genghis Kahn have killed all those people?
He said Finland is safer....OK, what 3rd world country with a multibillion drug cartel who basically has it's own standing army borders Finland?
Drop Cook county/Chicago into Finland for one year and see what happens.
I swear, anytime I hear a dem say "I own guns I'm a hunter", I want to punch a baby seal.
Southern Democrats are more conservative than California Republicans. Same here in Kentucky.
True. I was actually born and raised in western Kentucky until last half of junior year in High School.
I was raised in So Cal, I was considered pretty conservative there, on my first visit to my family in Ohio, they considered me a raving liberal.
