- Joined
- Apr 28, 2017
- Messages
- 10,876
- Reaction score
- 4,415
- Location
- The late great Oregon
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Didn't the attached article say that the March 9 victim "succumbed to stab and gunshot wounds"?It's highly unlikely the lack of a gun would stop the cravings of a serial killer.
It's highly unlikely the lack of a gun would stop the cravings of a serial killer.
Cravings is one thing, acting on them is another.
How would Ben feel about the Patriot Act?Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
Benjamin Franklin
How would Ben feel about the Patriot Act?
Are you suggesting Ben had exceptions for giving up essential Liberty?How would he feel about 9/11 ?
Imo I think every single person who signed the declaration of independence would detest the patriot act. My single greatest disappointment in Obama was when he extended the act. I really had hope that he was the guy who would veto it.How would Ben feel about the Patriot Act?
Are you suggesting Ben had exceptions for giving up essential Liberty?
The Senate passed the extension of the Patriot Act 99 - 1.. Obama's veto would not have stood.Imo I think every single person who signed the declaration of independence would detest the patriot act. My single greatest disappointment in Obama was when he extended the act. I really had hope that he was the guy who would veto it.
The Senate passed the extension of the Patriot Act 99 - 1.. Obama's veto would not have stood.
That's the policy of the gun lobby, and doesn't work.
the government never would have had the power to enact it, because all the expansions of federal power prior to that would have never been allowed if the founders were around in the 1930sImo I think every single person who signed the declaration of independence would detest the patriot act. My single greatest disappointment in Obama was when he extended the act. I really had hope that he was the guy who would veto it.
That's the policy applied by practically everyone to practically every problem. You just want special rules for guns because you think they're yucky.
No it's not:
Take hijackings - you might not agree with the TSA but it's a pretty big preventative measure
Take car safety - what was allowed, in say the 1960's, is nothing like what is allowed today with the myriad of preventative safety measures, like seat belts, airbags, fog lights, crash tests, reversing cameras...
You want to open a restaurant ?
You can't just serve what you want, how you want - and then the Public Health authorities investigate you if someone gets food poisoning
There's a ton of safety regulations - including random inspections - that you must comply with.
Which of those examples stands for a principle that doesn't apply equally to firearms?
When a drunk or reckless driver kills 5 people in a car wreck, do Democrats as a whole go around screaming about how we need to ban vodka, or make speeding and drunk driving a felony on the first offense?
That's the policy applied by practically everyone to practically every problem
They literally knew who this guy was... but didn't lock him up.I agree. And the police need better tools to track where these guns are and who is buying them
#Stopgunviolence.
They literally knew who this guy was... but didn't lock him up.
He didn't have the right to shoot people in cold blood. But apparently, despite decades of violent behavior and multiple warrants, he was allowed suspended sentences for his crimes. Repeatedly. Apparently New York thought his right to victimize people was greater than his victim's right to life.What were you saying about "rights" ?
He didn't have the right to shoot people in cold blood. But apparently, despite decades of violent behavior and multiple warrants, he was allowed suspended sentences for his crimes. Repeatedly. Apparently New York thought his right to victimize people was greater than his victim's right to life.
Some would disagree.
No, law enforcement doesn't have the right to just lock him up. They arrested him several times, but New York's judicial system decided he should be free. It's almost as if most Americans prefer something between Russia and New York...But law enforcement have the right to just "lock him up"
You must love Russia - that's the kind of thing they do there.
No, law enforcement doesn't have the right to just lock him up...
They literally knew who this guy was... but didn't lock him up.
I gave you three examples where is was not
Motor vehicles are an essential, guns are not
That's why we tolerate road traffic deaths/injuries and constantly work to make the roads safer. Stop trying to deflect.
Quite the opposite. They were all examples of where it was.
Vodka is not essential. 100mph vehicles are not essential. Hell, in most place, privately-owned vehicles are not even essential.
It's not deflection. It's identifying the self-serving hypocrisy of the overwhelming majority of gun control advocates.
They were all examples of government passing legislation based on single incidents
Explain how it was not.
Recreational alcohol is not essential, but then neither are tobacco related products, or swimming pools, or sodas, or cheese burgers and fries
Please explain why 100 mph cars are not essential, what should be the maximum possible speed for any motor vehicle
Privately owned motor vehicles are absolutely essential to virtually every person in the USA.
Except you're completely unable to explain why.
Except you're completely unable to explain why.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?