So you are willing to let a ew bad apples determine how the rest of us should live and what we should be allowed to do?
No thank you.
Gun Control
- Thread starter larryselbows
- Start date
So you are willing to let a ew bad apples determine how the rest of us should live and what we should be allowed to do?
No thank you.
That right there is a game changer. People, gun owners and their supporters, will never go for it.
Because the cultural context of a baseball bat in Philadelphia is just like that of a noose in Mississippi. I certainly remember all those people strung up with baseball bats as a public warning, the burning of stadiums where white people watched games and of piles of caps on white people's lawns, the complete lack of any serious attempt to arrest the culprits, etc. What a great analogy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case
Perhaps you have a different source, but this one says that slurs were shouted, not threats. Also, it was a billy club, something much smaller.
It's interesting how who is threatening changes based on the observer, isn't it?
I agree, we will not achieve results like England. However, I think we can improve, even if not that much, by using more moderate regulations.
Yes, I'm willing to deprive you of your right to own a flame-thrower, based on how a handful of people will use it.
I mean, I have not once mentioned in this thread that Americans could or should be deprived of guns entirely, so you could not have meant that.
Fixed
Then it is a good thing that it is not up to you.
Well, if a little bit of regulation is good then a little more would be even better, right?
Thus the reason why the "gun-nuts" aren't willing to give up an inch without a fight.
FWIW, flamethrowers are not federally regulated. Some states restrict ownership, but in general, they are not illegal.
In fact, there is almost nothing that one cannot possess provided the proper paperwork and licensing is observed. You can own a tank, automatic machine guns, grenade launchers, anti-tank riffles & even small rocket propelled missiles. Granted, the paperwork and fees associated with owning such items is onerous, but, they can be had.
So are you saying we don't see more crimes committed with these weapons because *gasp* they are legal yet highly regulated? You don't say......
I suspect it has much more to do with the cost associated with owning one.
No, broken. Not one thing done in Philadelphia was more threatening than carrying around a rifle on your back.
So, what's your argument against everyone being able to own flamethrowers? Or, are you saying that we should allow everyone to own and use flamethrowers?
Depends on the goal, doesn't it?
I see farmers using "flame throwers" every fall, as part of their regular ditch maintenance program. They have trucks with propane tanks, and a fairly serviceable hose so they can do both sides of the ditch. I see no reason to worry about them, and probably even the fire department isn't worried. Usually they are "manned" by teenagers or someone who just got their learners permit, or are driving on the farm with the allowance at least locally that no license is required to operate farm equipment.
They are different from the military version of "flame throwers" which use that nasty sticky gel called napalm, and can blow a fireball a hundred feet.
That is pure opinion.
A couple guys in hate insignia, with weapons, yes not as deadly as a rifle, shouting slurs v. a guy with a rifle on his back not doing anything to anyone? Yea I am more threatened by the guys using slurs, in hate insignia holding weapons.
Well the goal of someone limiting my access to firearms is to infringe on my rights.
THis. If it was financially feasable to own tanks then more people would. Same with 50 cal humvees, RPGs,...
well, I have pure opinions too.
Anyone showing up near a voting place with bare hands and saying stuff about how you better vote. . . or else. . . is trying to intimidate voters bully style. I guess if OB doesn't see that it might mean he's a bully himself. Not being used to actually listening to opposing viewpoints, and jumping all over everyone who disagrees could be called intimidating too. Some people can be intimidating by their demeanor or body language, and most of the time I can just move on and do my business. . . but I don't think congregating at the doors to the voting place and confronting voters with threats or any kind of weapon is "peaceable assembly". It is actually an attempt to coerce others, and obstruct their right to vote their own conscience. I don't think that should ever be tolerated.
Or justified, excused, or minimized. Shame on you One Brow. You're not someone who really supports human rights.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Ridiculous.
The suggested regulations and background checks aren't infringements upon your freedom.
Some peeps here need to stop doing everything and anything to bash the President and freshen up on Democratic thought. A good starter would be reading about the "Social Contract Theory." Because... Right now, it seems like the pro gun/anti-government (except for gay marriage, stem cell research, alcoholic consumption, and abortion. For these issues the government needs to intervene) in this folks are calling for outright Anarchy.
The suggested regulations and background checks aren't infringements upon your freedom.
Some peeps here need to stop doing everything and anything to bash the President and freshen up on Democratic thought. A good starter would be reading about the "Social Contract Theory." Because... Right now, it seems like the pro gun/anti-government (except for gay marriage, stem cell research, alcoholic consumption, and abortion. For these issues the government needs to intervene) in this folks are calling for outright Anarchy.