- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I personally know a convicted violent felon who is having his gun rights restored next year. He was convicted for involuntary manslaughter for a hunting accident where he killed a friend. He's not a violent person, but he is a convicted felon of a violent crime. All things considered I have no problem with his owning firearms because as I said, he's not a violent person.I assume that means you're OK with convicted felons, even violent ones, having access to firearms.
I have a feeling that Bloomberg's cash infusion is going to be the turning point against NRA dominance regarding the Second Amendment.
So far, the Bloomberg sponsored group has not questioned whether or not the Second Amendment is an individual right. This sets them far apart from past gun control groups.
Rather, the new "Moms" group has attacked the NRA for obstructing back grounds checks via private seller loopholes, their fixation with AR-15 clones, their expansion of "Stand Your Ground" laws to new states, and support of "carry a weapon to a bar" type laws.
If this group can keep affirming the Second Amendment and only attack NRA obsessions, my guess is that they are not only going to attract anti gunner, but moderate gun owners as well.
I assume that means you're OK with convicted felons, even violent ones, having access to firearms.
The Edsel could have been improved with more market, it was ahead of it's time to be honest, but the drawback is that the concept was put on the market before the actual electronic everything could be reliable enough to sustain the car. Great concept, poor rollout due to the limitations of the day. The analogy fails on my end in retrospect because the smart guns have no potential at all on the back end, they just suck.Not really a fair comparison. The Edsel wasn't a failure because it was in inherently bad product; it was a failure because the market for automobiles shifted in a different direction, at that time, than Ford anticipated. The Edsel was a big, elegant, luxurious car, at a time when consumers were trending toward smaller, more practical cars.
Nevertheless, this “smart gun” is a product that more richly deserves the Edsel's fate:
you are ignorant as to what is going on. Every couple years someone has some "safer" gun and the anti gun assholes in office quickly bray that all guns should be "as safe". I tire of people who have no understanding of proper tactical firearms use in a civilian environment piping up about stuff that is a wet dream for gun banners
NRA = lobbying for gun manufacturers.
There comes a point where the best thing to do is just walk away, yes. If it looks like we're just going to sit there page after page and bash each-other over the head with links, never really getting anywhere, yes I will just leave a thread.You must have an incredibly fast computer. Mine is set to 10 posts per page...and....you are on page 10. No wonder I didn't see you. But now that I have.....I see you have overwhelmed the opponent with links to stats. But I don't consider that bullying...just a poor debate tactic. So what do you do when someone actually challenges your overwhelming data with other factual data? If I recall you just walk away. Again, I don't consider that bullying, either. Congratulations, you pass the non-bully test, Jerry.
If they are sufficiently dangerous as to justify stripping them of their basic rights, then I am not OK with them being allowed to be part of free society. Such need to be permanently removed therefrom, either by putting them to death, or else by keeping them in prison for life with no possibility of parole.
It is, of course, those on your side who oppose proper treatment of the most dangerous and unreformable of criminals, instead preferring to turn them loose, so that you can use them as an excuse to further violate the rights of honest citizens under the fraudulent guise of fighting crime.
Of course you do. That's yet another way for a corrupt government to violate the most essential of Constitutional rights, by imposing an arbitrary training requirement, and then making that training difficult and/or expensive to obtain. Those on your side can always be counted on to support any way that government can violate the people's rights, under the fraudulent guise of “safety”.
"My side" does that, huh? How so? Which "most dangerous and unreformable of criminals" do you see liberals clamoring to turn loose?
They used to be a good organization whose main function was to teach gun safety. But not anymore. Money changes everything and not always for the better.
Right on cue with the bullying and intimidation.
You're so worried about the government taking away your guns, but your practically first in line to have the government ban the new safety gun. Interesting, don't you think?
You clearly dont understand the difference between a challenge and a treat....typical.
A "safe gun" sounds like a oxymoron.
What's your position on the death penalty for convicted murderers?
was there any real proof of harassment?It's disappointing that only two people in this thread seem to be bothered by the woman's harassment.
If gun enthusiasts value 'rights' then they should oppose those who are harassing her and realize/recognize how creepy and dangerous THAT behavior is. What will responses be if she ends up being shot or harassed further as a result? Why? Because she thinks a product is beneficial and good and so she sells it?
How did he get the charge? Drinking during the hunt, failure to follow hunting law, or was it a negligent shot? I'm curious because I've seen a few hunting accidents without any charges filed, things can happen when you go on a hunt and fortunately laws do allow for accidents for the most part.I personally know a convicted violent felon who is having his gun rights restored next year. He was convicted for involuntary manslaughter for a hunting accident where he killed a friend. He's not a violent person, but he is a convicted felon of a violent crime. All things considered I have no problem with his owning firearms because as I said, he's not a violent person.
was there any real proof of harassment?
BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. — Belinda Padilla does not pick up unknown calls anymore, not since someone posted her cellphone number on an online forum for gun enthusiasts. A few fuming-mad voice mail messages and heavy breathers were all it took.
Then someone snapped pictures of the address where she has a P.O. box and put those online, too. In a crude, cartoonish scrawl, this person drew an arrow to the blurred image of a woman passing through the photo frame. “Belinda?” the person wrote. “Is that you?”
When the engineer isn't someone with firearms experience, it's kind of hard to put any kind of faith behind the engineer.So in other words, any and all advancements in gun technology that don't involve making them more killy should be immediately destroyed without prejudice, because otherwise the shadowy cabal of "gun banners" will rain fire and brimstone on the gun-owning community.
It is, of course, those on your side who oppose proper treatment of the most dangerous and unreformable of criminals, instead preferring to turn them loose, so that you can use them as an excuse to further violate the rights of honest citizens under the fraudulent guise of fighting crime.
"My side" does that, huh? How so? Which "most dangerous and unreformable of criminals" do you see liberals clamoring to turn loose?
What's your position on the death penalty for convicted murderers?
I'm against state sanctioned murder.
When the engineer isn't someone with firearms experience, it's kind of hard to put any kind of faith behind the engineer.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
No, but it should not be forced on anyone...
I think being as well educated as I am on gun issues gun use and gun laws should be mandatory before one posts on gun issues or more importantly, votes on a gun bill in congressThen prove it.
I think gun safety courses should be mandatory to buying and owning a gun and I seriously doubt the majority of gun owners ever took one.
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?