They are not charged with being in on every operation.
No. They are not charged with being in on every operation. They are held accountable to properly deal with those who make mistakes. If they pull a Bush, and go good job Brownie, that would be incompetent. But you are mistaken that people at the very top know every operation in complete detail. It's an unreasonable expectation.
I don't think restrictions on who can own a gun, based on capacity and/or a violent history, and/or restrictions on the type of guns you can buy, are the same as restrictions on who you can marry or whether you can be forced to bear a child. The right to bear arms was undoubtedly fundamental in the days of Red Coats and Indians and when you had to shoot your own pheasant for dinner. Today, it is probably the only explicit constitutional right that would be really difficult to defend as fundamental. The only argument it has going for it is tradition . . . much like the opposite-sex requirement of marriage.Do you own a gun? I could say the same thing about gay marriage-I am not gay and gay marriage has absolutely no relevance to my life.
same with abortion-my wife is too old to have any more kids so its not an issue that affects us either
They are briefed and know what is happening. Something as big as this they would know about and have to approve
so I asked if banning some religions was not a violation of the relevant amendment.
Banning one is a violation, banning them all is a violation
you're just a partisan wanting to believe something
I don't think restrictions on who can own a gun, based on capacity and/or a violent history, and/or restrictions on the type of guns you can buy, are the same as restrictions on who you can marry or whether you can be forced to bear a child. The right to bear arms was undoubtedly fundamental in the days of Red Coats and Indians and when you had to shoot your own pheasant for dinner. Today, it is probably the only explicit constitutional right that would be really difficult to defend as fundamental. The only argument it has going for it is tradition . . . much like the opposite-sex requirement of marriage.
Also, just because I do not own a gun does not mean the issue doesn't affect me. A lunatic with a gun can affect me on a far more serious level than seeing two men kissing on the street.
And as a side note, I always thought that abortion argument was pretty stupid. I may not be a woman, but all of us were once fetuses.
comparing religions to guns, is very silly.
I don't think restrictions on who can own a gun, based on capacity and/or a violent history, and/or restrictions on the type of guns you can buy, are the same as restrictions on who you can marry or whether you can be forced to bear a child. The right to bear arms was undoubtedly fundamental in the days of Red Coats and Indians and when you had to shoot your own pheasant for dinner. Today, it is probably the only explicit constitutional right that would be really difficult to defend as fundamental. The only argument it has going for it is tradition . . . much like the opposite-sex requirement of marriage.
Also, just because I do not own a gun does not mean the issue doesn't affect me. A lunatic with a gun can affect me on a far more serious level than seeing two men kissing on the street.
And as a side note, I always thought that abortion argument was pretty stupid. I may not be a woman, but all of us were once fetuses.
Then again a person like me with a concealed weapon license may save your life.
You have to prove that, not just assume it. That's why i say it is you who are letting your partisan side get the better of you. Prove the briefing, that they were completely inform, and you may have a point. Without that proof, you're just a partisan wanting to believe something.
Or take it, as we're statisitcally more likely to shoot ourselves or someone close to us. :coffeepap
So you continue to say Obama is incompetent and has no idea what his dept heads are doing. Another words you think Obama knows nothing about being a leader or President.
wrongOr take it, as we're statisitcally more likely to shoot ourselves or someone close to us. :coffeepap
Show proof of that
Nope. I'm saying you are factually wrong in what you think happens in government.
only to those whose arguments are specious when it comes to partial versus total elimination of constitutional rights
SCOTUS protects the right of cities, towns, and states..to implement common-sense gun regulations.
where did it say that in some place other than dicta?
common-sense was not the standard.
I would love to see 20 years of murder-rate history of a city that had very relaxed gun laws, and then in a year or two tightened the gun laws very strongly.
do we have ANY examples of this?
let us know when SCOTUS strikes down NYC's gun laws.
let us know when SCOTUS strikes down ANY big cities gun restrictions that do not outright ban gun ownership (handguns or long-guns).
Show proof of that
Anyone who has been in any gun control debate in the last decade has heard the numbers:
A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, a criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
Journal of Trauma, 1998
Stop Handgun Violence: The Facts
Anyone who has been in any gun control debate in the last decade has heard the numbers:
A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, a criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
Journal of Trauma, 1998
Stop Handgun Violence: The Facts
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?