 |
Could it be these cities your talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
60% of Gun Murders Take Place in Major Cities Which Voted for Obama
The 5 U.S. Cities With the Worst Gang Violence - Neighborhoods - The Atlantic Cities
Gun Violence Destroying Pennsylvania Cities' Black Community
Chicago, Rahmbo, toughest gun laws... how many murders last year?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I'm only 12 and this upsets me because the politicians are disagreeing with the country. We get it you have more authority than we do but we have the freedom to keep our children safe . If they put themselves in Newtowns' position they would have changed that law quicker than the speed of lightning. but its not only that all of the crazy people out there can just take someone's gun and go on a rampage!! :(
It is important that you have opinions on subjects and also be willing to defend them. The best way is through educating yourself. But you have to be very careful with what you read on the internet. Not every thing you read is true and you have to filter it. Do your own research to be able to form defendable opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by JARIXA
Having said all of that. What do your parents think of all of this mess that we are in and have you spoken with them about it? Have they also read through this thread and cheked it for accuracy?
Hello again;
So, there ARE some pro lifers who get the disconnect between supporting life in the womb at ALL costs, and supporting UNLIMITED guns in society...
ExconQuote:
More than 60 Catholic priests, nuns, scholars and two former ambassadors to the Vatican sent a letter this week saying that if marchers and politicians truly want to defend life they should support “common-sense reforms to address the epidemic of gun violence in our nation.”
They called in particular on Catholic lawmakers, naming the House speaker, John A. Boehner, and Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, both Republicans.
The key words being common sense. They don't support a ban on everything. While emotions are running high it is far to easy to overstep the problem that truly exists.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
60 that many ? I think there are more than that in my county .
Hello righty's:
Quote:
60 that many ?
ONE fruit vendor set off the Arab Spring.Quote:
They don't support a ban on everything.
We SHOULD be able to make a deal then, because nobody plans a ban on everything...
Excon
Yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Maybe the anti-gun protesters that were headed for the Harrisburg PA Gun Show that was cancelled a day or so ago, will go on a pro-life march instead. Harrisburg claims the area lost $ 80 million in business over the cancellation when more than 200 vendors, including companies like Cabelas pulled out.
I think it depends on who you talk to. There are some out there that are squalling about an all encompasing ban. Also there are talks about banning ammo.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I think the real problem is that many speaking out on the subject are not educated about what is real and what is just the truth being blown out of proportion. Also Im not overly comfortable about those that plan on making a ban for thee but not for me. That makes no sense to pretnd something doesn't exist.
As much as I admire Feinstein for her fortitude through the years as a politician. She has double speak when it comes to this debate. When she felt threatened she got a carry permit. At about the same time she also voted for banning guns in the city of SanFrancisco. There can be no debate when it is a one sided argument. It either applies or it doesn't. This does not preclude the need for secret service protection or the need for LEO's throughout the country to have the tools needed to do the job they were hired for.
Hello dad:
Don't pay attention to the kibbitzers. Pay attention to the lawmakers. Yes, Feinstein got a gun... And, her proposal doesn't BAN handguns. The Obama/Biden proposal doesn't ban handguns..
excon
Not at this point as it hasn't been formed fully yet. But there is a push for semi-automatics to be banned. That would also include many hand guns. That is why I have been pushing for education of all sides so the debate can be even and just. Otherwise those armed with misinformation are going to be much more dangerous then any gun could be.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
And to be fair so its completely clear I am in favor of defending the second amendment and also gun owners rights. So there is a bias in what I say but I try to stick to the truth.
I think they should vote on her bill immediately.. get a count... I expect there are enough Dems opposed to the bill to prevent a straight 51 % majority .Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, dad:
The targets I shot when I was a kid were NRA targets.. The distinguished pistol shot medal I won is from the NRA. I'm biased toward the Second Amendment too. I support the ENTIRE Constitution..
And, like you, I believe in "common sense" gun regulation.
excon
I know we stand in common on many sides of issues we all face. I think what my concern is that when we start talking about military style weapons then by extension the debate may include semi-automatics. As most military can atest to when being issued a firearm it usually involves 2 parts. One being a rifle (the choice of the service your in) and another is a sidearm (most likely a semiautomatic). That is why I push for education and ask that the debates stay as honest as information allows.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I skimmed through it and I see some major problems coming from it. The people that they are going to be taking guns away from aren't going to be happy.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
As I understand the ban, its for future public sales, and owners are grandfathered into it.
How weak you are? How unwilling to meet the challenge, you have been brainwashed
If you support the ENTIRE constitution you would have taken my side on not forcing the church to buy contraceptives.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I support the entire constitution, but don't think its says the church has a right to tell me what to do, nor do I give up my rights working for a church. Show me where it does. Why do some churches allow for insurance companies that offer woman's health coverage and some don't.
Can I cancel the insurance the church offers (or any employer for that matter) and get my own?
If you support the entire constitution then you support the first amendment. By doing so then you would realize that it is the churches right to tell you what to do. That is what churches do. But being a church they can not force you to do anything. The simple fact of not having the coverage that you desire doesn't constitute forcing you to do anything. The rest would be by choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
.
This whole argument is ludicrous. The Constitution says that laws cannot be made to govern the conduct of a religion or to establish a religion. The provision of health care is not the conduct of a religion, but a relationship between an employer and the employee and the government can make laws in that respect, all the government is doing is putting in place uniform laws. This is what you get when you start providing assistance to churches to conduct certain "ministries"" or allow tax deductions for contributions, you get the government dictating terms. I don't know about you but I get a little fed up with the protected persons approach associated with churches. This is not the middle ages
Maybe the solution is to make the church pay taxes like everyone else, and observe their religion as they will under the same laws of the land that govern us all. There is no tax exemptions in the constitution for churches is there? Show me.
Show me where it says a church has more rights than a business, or an individual. And I point out that ALL the churches aren't claiming their rights to deny coverages, only some. So your right, we can choose who we deal with, and who we don't.
Yes the conduct of some churches would suggest they are a business and perhaps the definition of not for profit should be tightened to define the non exempt activities much more closely. One way out of the dilemma is to remove them from any requirement to provide health cover and let them give the employees sufficient to seek their own cover. I think you would quickly see the number of ministers rise and church associated businesses fall
I'm all in favor of eliminating exempt status. A church that accepts that status quid pro quo compromises the 1st amendment establishment clause.
However ;you are crossing the line by forcing an employer ,religious or not ,to compromise their morals with this contraception mandate. But that is part and partial with my overall criticism of government mandates.
Meanwhile in Seattle ,the cops were doing a buy back program .They were giving away gift cards . Private dealers showed up and offered cash . The dealers were on site long after the cops folded their tent.
Do you have a link for this? It sounds to me like it should have been illegal. The buy back program has set values. Also it would have to be an effort through the city / county. If private dealers were there then that oversteps the line on a buy back program as those purchased during the but back are destroyed.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom there is a disconnect here, the government regulates the benefits to be provided by health care, the employee makes their own decision as to whether they avail themselves of any particular benefit. The provision of health care is part of the payment arrangement between the employer and the employee, is part of the employees pay and no different to the employee being paid and contracting their own health care. The employer is not entitled to regulate which benefits the employee is entitled to. What part of this do you not understand? This is not a moral issue, it is a labour relations issueQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Police run out of gift cards at gun buyback | Local News | The Seattle TimesQuote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
Yes the issue is what is being mandated ;it is a violation of religious conscience ,and there are many examples in our system where religious conscience exemptions apply . That's all the Obots needed to do to avoid the challenges . They created the issue .Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Thanks. After reading what happened Im not convinced it was legal at all. Also Im sure they paid nothing back to the program for all the advertizing that was there.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Your constitution left the issue of religious conscience out of the provence of government and very deliberately soQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Wrong Clete, you have it exactly bass ackwards. In a normal world if the employer is purchasing the policy the employer is the only one who has the right to decide which coverage to offer. If you don't like what your employer offers you're free to find another employer or buy your own insurance.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Hello again, Steve:
Nahhhh!Quote:
In a normal world if the employer is purchasing the policy the employer is the only one who has the right to decide which coverage to offer.
In the LEGAL world, if an employer is going to offer heath coverage to MEN, he MUST offer it to WOMEN.. It's IN the Constitution. I thought you LOVED the Constitution...
Excon
Fine eliminate mandates for free men contraception.
I don't know of any employer that only offers to coverage to one sex.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:
Yeah, I know we've been over this several hundred times, but, the law is the law, and I'm going to correct you when necessary.
Stated accurately, you're B!TCHING about the mandate that REQUIRES employers to cover both sexes, and you don't like that at all.
excon
NO, stated accurately I'm b!tching about forcing people to violate their religious beliefs. You seem to be under the ridiculous impression that all insurance policies cover Viagra or something. Fine, stop covering Viagra.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Like I said many times, my wife's insurance quit covering Nexium because "alternatives are available over the counter." Sorry, but her Nexium is medically necessary unlike the vast majority of women on contraceptives. Not once did you ever side with me on this, you'd rather force someone to violate their beliefs so women can have free birth control pills than treat my wife's medical condition. Seems to me that people are waging an actual war on MY wife and daughter while you're getting your panties in a wad over a cure without a disease that violates the first amendment in your silly "war on women."
I'm not moved by your protests, I have real issues to deal with.
Well you're not to solve anything on this forum. Jus' sayin'Quote:
I have real issues to deal with.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:55 PM. |