[paraclete]

If you legally own a gun what's wrong with registration?

[speechlesstx]

And Detroit, whose formerly pro-gin control police chief refuses to back down from encouraging citizens to own guns.

Here's the thing, the gun control crowd won't stop at whatever harmless sounding measure they're trying to get past us and there is no reason to trust them one bit. You can't have my guns.

[excon]

Hello again,

Right wingers believe we CAN'T make laws because Obama won't enforce them any way... So, it's Obama's fault that they block everything..

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

exon

[speechlesstx]

Left-wingers believe in magic and fairy dust, so what's your point?

By the way, congrats to the Seahawks...they kicked butt just like Abott will do to that sneaker wearing liar Wendy Davis.

[NeedKarma]

Left-wingers believe in magic and fairy dust

The religious right you mean.

BTW who is trying to take away your guns?

[speechlesstx]

The religious right you mean.

I didn't stutter.

[NeedKarma]

Yes you did, you make a mistake.
What does "i didn't stutter" really mean anyway? It's text, not speech.

[paraclete]

eh, eh, eh,

[speechlesstx]

NeedKarma Posts: 10,370, Reputation: 1665Uber Member #427 Report Today, 06:06 PMYes you did, you make a mistake.What does "i didn't stutter" really mean anyway? It's text, not speech.

No I did not make a mistake, that's what "I didn't stutter" means. I'll gladly put the practicality of right wingers up against the fairy dust of let wingers any day. We aren't the ones that believed Obama would slow the rise of the oceans and think you can spend money you don't have to make everyone wealthy magically.

[paraclete]

We aren't the ones that believed Obama would slow the rise of the oceans

only the climate change freaks could possibly believe that anyone can turn the tide of climate change, but the King Canutes of this world continually believe that rubbish. No the great black hope couldn't do that, or even get the population of the US covered for health care fairly, he could not reverse the GFC, but he has been able to turn the tide of republican wars. You have to face it, you have created a vortex of easy money and you are going to be swallowed by it and no politician is equal to the task of drawing back far enough. What you have done is borrowed from future generations, you have spent your grandkids wealth and what did you get for it. Absoluely nothing.

[speechlesstx]

This is why you gun control freaks terrify us. Massachusetts is considering banning innocent people from buying a gun.

What is it about school shootings that so lobotomizes the political and academic classes? Per Boston.com:

More than a year after the school shootings in Newtown, Conn., a panel of academic experts today released a long-awaited report recommending that Massachusetts tighten its gun laws, which are already considered among the toughest in the country.


The panel made 44 recommendations, including that Massachusetts join a national mental health database for screening potential gun owners, that it beef up firearms training requirements, and that it eliminate Class B gun licenses, which are seldom used.
It recommended that the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association help define a series of factors that could be used to prohibit “unsuitable persons” from acquiring firearms. The panel said the current process allows local law enforcement officials too much discretion to determine whether a person is suitable to be granted a license to carry.

This is your standard reactionary nonsense, guaranteed to have no effect in a state that already boasts some of the strongest gun-control laws in the United States and designed primarily to make people who know nothing about firearms feel better about themselves. But it is what comes next that should horrify one and all — regardless of their politics:

It also said Massachusetts should require anyone wanting to purchase a hunting rifle or a shotgun to pass those standards of suitability. That could allow local police chiefs to deny gun purchases to people who have been arrested, but not convicted, of a crime.

Let’s just repeat that, for clarity’s sake: Massachusetts is considering denying “gun purchases to people who have been arrested, but not convicted, of a crime.” In other words, an American state is thinking about denying a constitutional right to the innocent because they happen to have been picked up by authorities that couldn’t prove that they had done anything wrong. One hopes I speak for everybody here when I say, No, no, and no again. No to the abject hysteria that has slowly grown in small parts of the country; no to the ignorance that is striping like acid through reason and through the law; and no to a cabal of politicians whose disdain for the Second Amendment is so pronounced that they are happy not only to undermine that provision in pursuit of their quixotic goals but to dilute the rest of the American settlement into the bargain. Enough is enough. Where art thou, ACLU?

What's next, confiscate our guns because we have allergies? You can't have someone holding a gun that needs to sneeze.

[talaniman]

Why can't we wait and see if a person gets convicted or not before he can buy a gun? What the hurry to give a potential felon a gun depending on the charges he faces? You don't get excited about holding someone that can't make bail until they have a trial do you? Why is making a potential felon wait before he can buy a gun a big deal?

To carry your argument to the extreme as allergies is to distract the merits of the restrictions of defining a process to keep guns out of irresponsible hands. Now you say a guy can buy a gun before he is cleared of his arrest? I think you have proved that YOU are the problem with your attitude that anybody who wants a gun should have one without verifying they are law abiding honest citizens.

Your stance is irresponsible. And you are scared of US? Of course you can't see the down side of allowing people who have bailed out of jail after being arrested being able to buy a gun.

[speechlesstx]

Since when does someone lose their rights for the simple act of having been arrested? What do you not get about our rights?

[talaniman]

What could possibly go wrong giving a potential felon a gun?

[speechlesstx]

Everyone is a potential felon. Again, what do you not get about our rights?

[talaniman]

Some have greater potential than others, and an arrest is a sign of GREATER potential. Naw, make 'em wait. Just to be on the safe side for any potential victims sake.

[speechlesstx]

Obviously you don't give a damn about our rights and that's why people like me are rightfully concerned.

[talaniman]

Obviously you don't give a damn about public safety and cannot see that giving an arrested fellow the right to buy a gun is a lousy idea.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

Since when does someone lose their rights for the simple act of having been arrested?

Since ALWAYS.

Haven't you heard of people being required to hand over their passport BEFORE they're convicted? I have. It AIN'T right, I tell ya. If I was charged with murder, it would be MY preference to travel to a country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US. Do you think THAT should be rescinded???

When people make bail, and not having been convicted of ANYTHING, they're OFTEN times put under the supervision of the court. It's very similar to being on probation... They wanna KNOW what you're up to. Should THAT be rescinded?

There's more - LOTS more, but that's enough for now.

Finally, this gun thing has got you wingers so twisted into knots, that you find yourself supporting criminals in a way that I never thought possible.. That MUST be scraping hard on your right wingerism, isn't it?

excon

[speechlesstx]

Haven't you heard of people being required to hand over their passport BEFORE they're convicted?

You have a constitutional right to a passport? I didn't know that, but I do know I have a constitutional right to own a gun and I don't lose my constitutional rights when arrested, period.