My Connections
Not connected to anyone yet?
My answers support Susan G. Komen for the Cure® What's this?
SaxyOmega90125:
4 months ago
Probably not. Fanaticism tends to disguise itself as reason to its owner.
Report as
You have reported this
ClaraListensprechen:
4 months ago
They do but they don't care. They get paid the big bucks to care only about the people (gun corporations) that pay them the big bucks. They're paid to not care about any other thing.
Report as
You have reported this
john34621:
4 months ago
At times they are stuck between a 'Rock and hard place". It seems a lot of people are mad at them.
Report as
You have reported this
religousman:
4 months ago
via iPhone
What would you hope for
Report as
You have reported this
winetastergirl:
4 months ago
It's a bit of a difficult situation, as how do you regulate gun laws without punishing law abiding gun owners? Other countries have passed legislation on assault rifles and have been successful. But our people in this country are not as passive as other countries' citizens may be. Our government is currently rushing to pass legislation without consideration to law abiding gun owners. I do agree there needs to be a solution, but it needs to be a well thought out solution and not a sloppy one.
Report as
You have reported this
winetastergirl:
4 months ago
Thanks LS. I do believe in a right to own,, I just also believe in the responsibility of owning also. I also believe that for any law created, a law should be removed. That way everything is balanced.
Report as
You have reported this
Triciacasper:
4 months ago
via iPhone
hmmm... We are more passive? Maybe less paranoid.. Sane... Less fearful.?
Report as
You have reported this
Yes Germany, China, USSR, Cuba all did and they were just fine right? Right....
Report as
You have reported this
winetastergirl:
4 months ago
? I do believe something should be done. I don't think it should be rushed through due to current circumstances. If you look at other countries and their legislation in regards to gun laws, Our country does have a problem that can't be ignored. I am not passive, I think that gun owners need to realize that they are solely responsible for their guns, and they are not community guns to be shared with their kids, or the neighbors. Yes follow the constitution, but also follow the law. I have to tell you that it is hard to imagine the pain that loved ones go through, as a result of careless gun owners, as what happened in Connecticut. I know that i would be anything but passive if that happened to someone that I love.
Report as
You have reported this
winetastergirl:
4 months ago
You may want to revisit those stats. Red. More guns, more death by guns. That's just the way it is. It's simple math. I am not saying punish all gun owners, I am just saying that something has to change.
Report as
You have reported this
wildcatfan1993:
4 months ago
via iPhone
Sorry wine you have some fake data
Case in point a city in georgia requires each head of household to posess a firearm. After this came to be crime rates violent crimes included went down not up so more guns does not equal more death taking away guns from people you just take them from law abiding citizens not the people that mean to do harm if someone is planning on commiting a crime they arnt going to go to the local gun shop and legally buy a gun their going to get it by illegal means so gun laws wouldnt affect them at all in getting hold of firearms to wreak havockupon the now unarmed law abiding citizens
Case in point a city in georgia requires each head of household to posess a firearm. After this came to be crime rates violent crimes included went down not up so more guns does not equal more death taking away guns from people you just take them from law abiding citizens not the people that mean to do harm if someone is planning on commiting a crime they arnt going to go to the local gun shop and legally buy a gun their going to get it by illegal means so gun laws wouldnt affect them at all in getting hold of firearms to wreak havockupon the now unarmed law abiding citizens
Report as
You have reported this
MissMostly:
4 months ago
via iPhone
Wine you seem like you are assuming the legal law abiding gun owners are GIVING their guns to the wackos to commit crimes!! Where are you getting this from?? Every American has the RIGHT to protect themselves and their families CASE CLOSED. if their Re nuts out their that steal our guns ILLEGALLY and commit what does that have to do with us? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!!
Report as
You have reported this
winetastergirl:
4 months ago
No, MM, what I am saying, is SOME gun owners do not safely secure their guns from other members of the family. Aiken and WC, how do you explain that our country has more death by guns, then places like Germany for instance? I would also have to say as far as that city in Georgia, if true, seems to be a violation of our constitution, forcing families to own guns.
Report as
You have reported this
caluvox:
4 months ago
Well it seems to help gun sales, so the question is, do they feed it?
Report as
You have reported this
kwojcik:
4 months ago
No, and he was a very smart man. Hey, check out Reds comment @crawl - Doesn't it seem like everything she says actually describes herself perfectly? I'm thinking of that warped mirror world featured in Superman comics . Can you remember the name of it?
Report as
You have reported this
caluvox:
4 months ago
I know what you're talking about but I can't remember what it was called. I've dealt with her (bigred) a lot on this site, I've noticed a pattern in her, she likes to take "zingers" from debates that have been used against right-wing-nuts and turn them on there head and use them as she did below. She doesn't seem to realize people are generally deeper thinkers that see through it, but I'm sure she thinks, "if it worked for them......" :/
Report as
You have reported this
How so?
Report as
You have reported this
They think the far right will shoot him when it's always been the far left who get violent. They ignore history and use demonization to push their agenda. When that doesn't work they become really mean.
Report as
You have reported this
kwojcik:
4 months ago
The extremests on this issue express views that suggest they are exactly the people you would not want to see in possession of military grade weapons. Plenty of sane & decent gun-owners recognize the need for better back-round checks , and the need for laws that keep up with technology. At the same time, they recognise that very well funded interests profit by blocking any meaningful legislation to put any limits on weapons sales. Consequently, they feel obliged to enter the arms race themselves. And gun sales go up even more. There is a profit -motivated, fear- based marketing campagne at work here, & the hysterical extremists are their sales force.
Report as
You have reported this
The strongest argument to uphold our constitutional right to bear arms is the King George type of government we are facing right now. The gun haters/fearers are forgetting their history lessons.
Your fear of strong constitutionalists is unwarranted. Don't worry they will still protect you even if you fear them so much. They are your friends, your neighbors, your teachers, your policemen, and your political leaders. They aren't your typical demonizing liberal that would even use children to get their control measures passed to an ill informed public like King George errr...Obama is going to do tomorrow as he tells us how he will circumvent the Constitution on the backs of the 20 children who lost their life's because no one was allowed to protect them. He will use children as a backdrop for his useless executive orders making the dumbed down voters go "ahhhhhh it's for the children. He will make sure we are safe even if we lose our rights and freedoms".
Report as
You have reported this
aikenback52:
4 months ago
via iPhone
Profound statement, Red, I applaud you again.
Report as
You have reported this
kwojcik:
4 months ago
You are not facing a King George type of government. Time has moved on - it seems you haven't. Laws must keep up with technology. The beauty of a constitution is that it can be amended. It wasn't carved in stone - it is not scripture - it's an AMENDMENT.
Report as
You have reported this
caluvox:
4 months ago
The US armed forces combined with the worlds largest and best trained police, make the spirit of the second amendment a mute point. Our "pea-shooters" don't stand a chance against M1 tanks or Apache gunships, our armed forces have been perfecting the art of counter insurgency for the past 60 years. It is up to our citizen soldiers of the armed services to uphold the spirit of the second amendment under article 90 of the UCMJ "I will obey any and all "LAWFUL" orders given to me by a superior officer."
Report as
You have reported this
To amend the constitution takes all the branches of government. And yes it can be changed and sometimes should be changed. Obama (King George) is not proposing that, although I am sure he wish he could. He is by executive order, infringing on every citizens right to bear arms. That is where I and many others object. Your type of progressivism, where the constitution means nothing will only lead to a dictatorship in the end. It always has.
All these measures you speak of and he wants to do by EO, will do absolutely nothing to protect the people and absolutely everything to make us all unsafe. Where each of these mass killings occurred guns were banned. The movie shooter passed up many theaters to go to one where they were banned. How would any of these measures stopped the killings? It is a fact had at least one person had a gun, far less carriage would have occurred.
All these measures you speak of and he wants to do by EO, will do absolutely nothing to protect the people and absolutely everything to make us all unsafe. Where each of these mass killings occurred guns were banned. The movie shooter passed up many theaters to go to one where they were banned. How would any of these measures stopped the killings? It is a fact had at least one person had a gun, far less carriage would have occurred.
Report as
You have reported this
SaxyOmega90125:
4 months ago
Darnit. This started off sounding so intelligent. Then, you decided to start attacking the liberals as a whole, proved yourself ignorant and fanatical, and lost any respect I initially had for you. Not only that, but you seem to be lost in your history lesson and forgetting the present, as kwojcik said.
Caluvox, let me get this straight. You think Americans should be allowed to have as many guns as they want because if worse comes to worst, we can just call in the military? I don't even know what to say to that... although I'm not sure I need to say anything at all. I think you managed to counter yourself for me.
bigred50 (again), I have four questions for you:
1) How, exactly, will controlling guns make this country LESS safe?
2) Rocket launchers are "arms." Should you also be able to buy those at the local sports shop?
3) How much uber-conservative propaganda must one read to consider President Obama to be a King George? Do you think he's a communist, too?
Caluvox, let me get this straight. You think Americans should be allowed to have as many guns as they want because if worse comes to worst, we can just call in the military? I don't even know what to say to that... although I'm not sure I need to say anything at all. I think you managed to counter yourself for me.
bigred50 (again), I have four questions for you:
1) How, exactly, will controlling guns make this country LESS safe?
2) Rocket launchers are "arms." Should you also be able to buy those at the local sports shop?
3) How much uber-conservative propaganda must one read to consider President Obama to be a King George? Do you think he's a communist, too?
Report as
You have reported this
caluvox:
4 months ago
Saxy, I think you missed my point and in that case someone else might as well. What was meant is that when the constitution was written the state of the art firepower was a musket and a cannon. Since it should be obvious that average citizens should NEVER have access to current military grade weapons, if someone should ever attempt a Hitler style power grab, we must rely on our CITIZEN soldiers to maintain the original intent of the 2nd Amendment.
Report as
You have reported this
SaxyOmega90125:
4 months ago
I agree with that completely, but you also stated *my* point, albeit in a slightly different way. Citizens should not have access to high-grade weaponry, however, 'high-grade' doesn't necessarily mean 'current'. I don't think citizens should be allowed to have any weapons like submachine guns or assault weapons at all. In the event of a coup or invasion, a bolt-action hunting rifle would do the job well enough, especally if a decent portion of the local population happens to have some. However, assault weapons, fully-automatic weapons, and even some shotguns and bolt or semi-auto rifles, as well as extended magazines have no businss in the hands of civilians. Those weapons are designed to do one thing, and one thing only: kill people. If someone needs those to hunt, I'm pretty sure they suck.
I'm also not saying that guns should be banned. I don't believe they should be, and even if they were, it'd be a few hundred years late. I simply believe control of what is legal and what isn't should be harsher. We can't stop those weapons that have already been sold from being out there, but we can keep the number from growing.
I'm also not saying that guns should be banned. I don't believe they should be, and even if they were, it'd be a few hundred years late. I simply believe control of what is legal and what isn't should be harsher. We can't stop those weapons that have already been sold from being out there, but we can keep the number from growing.
Report as
You have reported this
I don't think they do realize it but you're right. It's to bad. I'm a gun enthusiast I hold a CCW permit I hunt and collect weapons. That being said I am for some types of control to help curb these senseless acts. Stronger background checks. Those with history of mental illness shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. Ban on high capacity magazines on semi automatic weapons. I don't think any of that will do much to infringe upon our 2nd amendment rights. If it saves one horrendous act it would be well worth it for all of us
Report as
You have reported this
aikenback52:
4 months ago
via iPhone
Once they regulate one thing, it opens the door to regulate all things
Report as
You have reported this
They have regulated assault weapons and high capacity magazines once before. That was repealed. I do understand what you're saying and don't necessarily disagree the thing is I believe some measures need to be taken in hopes of staving off at least a few horrendous events as just happened.
Report as
You have reported this
caluvox:
4 months ago
Lets take a look at the real history of the "slippery slope" and not the hype. 1934 fully automatic machine guns made illegal to the public. 1968 illegal to sell guns by mail. 1992 assault weapons ban and background checks begin. 2002 assault weapons ban lifted. 2013 ???. Doesn't look like a slippery slope to me, just commonsense regulation keeping up with technology.
Report as
You have reported this
"I don't think it will do much to infringe on the second amendment" says it all.
Report as
You have reported this
Stalin, Hitler, Mao and others are not real history? Do you think we are immune to that happening here?
Report as
You have reported this
We're talking around a half century since hitler, Stalin, and Mao had their rein. We aren't immune but this country has an entirely different history then those countries have. We have seen the failures of those societies and are wise to thst
Report as
You have reported this
There is no easy or good answer to this. Certainly doing nothing will continue giving the anti's a stronger lobby. One thing that all of us pro firearm people who live in a CCW state need to do is get our permits. Not carrying a weapon but having the permit to show support and our resolve will go along ways in retaining our rights
Report as
You have reported this
rfinet:
4 months ago
Peter, I agree with your comments on everyone who can should get a CCW. It will lend support to our gun rights. As far as banning certain guns based on looks, this is the slippery slope many of us fear. There is plenty of recent evidence from England, Austrailia and California of how the disarmament plan works. Assault rifle look a likes, all automatics, repeating rifles and shot guns, all hand guns, and then finally single shot rifles and shotguns. Why should I believe that our government won't follow the same plan? You personally probably do not need a thirty round magazine, not many people do. And arguably, a shooter with a large magazine is more dangerous than one with only a five. However at the Conn shooting the perp had plenty of time to complete his evil deed even if he had only five round magazines. End results, still twenty dead children. The size of his magazines made no difference. So if thirties are banned today, tens next year, New York is down to seven now when they get around to banning .38 revolvers, you may be unhappy with the whole feel good law crowd. Feel good laws are like drugs. As soon as they are not getting the desired results, more are needed. When that dose not work more are needed on and on. The term "common sense" keeps getting thrown around. I don't know what sense there is to controlling outlaws by passing new laws. Outlaws are only impressed by some force which prevents them from having their way. That translates to good guys with guns, not new laws.
Report as
You have reported this
Your points well taken rfinet and yes I really don't want any guns or magazines to be banned. The thing is something will be done. We know it won't be the right thing. We should all be able to agree however that by banning high capacity magazines alone will save a few lives. It's bound to. The other side to that is someone who's lost it could just as easily burned the school killing even more people. I haven't given up writing letters emails and making phone calls trying to keep anything from being banned. I have Unfortunately conceded to ( on my mind) that we are going to lose something. We are going to lose the battle but I hold high hopes of winning the war. We need to plan and speak wisely
Report as
You have reported this
Partner Sites:
Insider Pages
-
MerchantCircle
-
Urbanspoon
-
Ask Kids
-
Life123
-
Reference
-
Sendori
-
Thesaurus
By the way, if you're going to argue a point, especially a political one, you should probably work on your English. We have these things called sentences. They are useful.