33
   

The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons?

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 May, 2013 10:40 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Yo, David...good to "see" ya.

Hope the new settings are to your liking. Tough to change from NYC to almost anything else.

f.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Wed 1 May, 2013 10:44 am
@OmSigDAVID,
There's much to agree with your opinion, and bring up some good points, but the majority of Americans approve of background checks for gun purchasing.

Where do we go from here?

From my perspective, background checks will do nothing to protect Americans, because there are just too many guns already "out there" legal and illegal.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 May, 2013 10:50 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Yo, David...good to "see" ya.

Hope the new settings are to your liking. Tough to change from NYC to almost anything else.

f.
Thank u, Frank.
How r the settings new ?





David
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Wed 1 May, 2013 10:53 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Yo, David...good to "see" ya.

Hope the new settings are to your liking. Tough to change from NYC to almost anything else.

f.
Thank u, Frank.
How r the settings new ?




David


Aren't you in Florida now? I thought you were moving to Florida for good.

Or are you back in the Big Apple?


OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Reply Wed 1 May, 2013 11:13 am
@cicerone imposter,
Assuming, for the nonce,
that your statement qua what the majority of Americans
approve of is accurate, let me point out that popular opinion
of the moment has nothing to do with the extent of domestic jurisdiction,
as defined by the Supreme Law of the land in its Bill of Rights.

In your opinion,
if on 9/11/1 the majority of Americans approved of
burning all Moslems in America at the stake, or if on 12/7/41,
the majority of Americans approved of confining all persons
of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps, woud that be Constitutionally appropriate ?





David
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 May, 2013 11:14 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:

If that is true, then how can government discriminate qua
who has its "permission" to defend his or her life from the
predatory violence of animals or of criminals ?

So, you are arguing that those people that are incarcerated should be allowed to carry guns? Otherwise you would have to admit that the government can discriminate.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 May, 2013 11:20 am
@Frank Apisa,
OK, I got the idea.
I thawt that u referred to new A2K settings.

I am happy in Florida, thank u.





David
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Wed 1 May, 2013 11:22 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Straw man argument. Ownership of guns is protected by the Constitution.
Illegal sentiments AND crimes against minorities in this country is ILLEGAL.
H2O MAN
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 May, 2013 11:24 am
@OmSigDAVID,
What part of FL did you settle in?
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 May, 2013 11:33 am
@parados,
Yes, but not on the North American Continent (qua violent recidivists), if I had my way.
Concurrent jurisdiction shoud exist in federal n state governments
to BANISH violent recidivists, with capital punishment applied to
violation of the banishment, after recording their fingerprints,
dental records, retinal scans n DNA.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 May, 2013 11:35 am
@H2O MAN,
Palm Beach
izzythepush
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 1 May, 2013 11:36 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:


The US Supreme Court has held that because of
the Constitutional requirement of EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW,
government is disabled from discriminating even in so trivial
a matter as a few moments of preferential seating on a bus.


What about The Patriot Act?
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  3  
Reply Wed 1 May, 2013 11:42 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Palm Beach


Cool Very nice!
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Reply Wed 1 May, 2013 11:42 am
@cicerone imposter,
I suspect that u misunderstood me.


Incidentally, I am skeptical that any
"sentiments" can be "illegal".





David
izzythepush
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 1 May, 2013 11:52 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Yes, but not on the North American Continent (qua violent recidivists), if I had my way.
Concurrent jurisdiction shoud exist in federal n state governments
to BANISH violent recidivists,


Where would they be banished to?
H2O MAN
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 May, 2013 11:55 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Yes, but not on the North American Continent (qua violent recidivists), if I had my way.
Concurrent jurisdiction shoud exist in federal n state governments
to BANISH violent recidivists,


Where would they be banished to?

Your home.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Wed 1 May, 2013 12:06 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
No, that's the reason I capitalized AND crimes against minorities.

It begins with bigoted sentiments.
OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Reply Wed 1 May, 2013 12:09 pm
@izzythepush,
I don't care; preferably, somewhere behind 1000s of miles of water.
I know that Botany Bay is not available. The world is full of places.
America owns islands in the Aleutian chain that r closer to Japan
than to the West Coast.

Note that I don't plan to confine them there; just dump them.
OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Reply Wed 1 May, 2013 12:14 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Bigoted sentiments r equally as legal
as any other sentiments. If u disagree,
then please favor us by identifying the statute
that outlaws sentiments.





David
cicerone imposter
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 1 May, 2013 12:17 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Sentiments is okay, but not crimes against minorities for their sentiments.

It follows - logically; there must be bigoted sentiments before a crime is committed.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/29/2024 at 02:17:41