10
   

MORE THAN ONE MASS SHOOTING A DAY. THANKS, NRA

 
 
Reply Thu 3 Dec, 2015 11:20 am
So far this year we've averaged more than one mass shooting a day.The NRA and gun zealots and their toadies in Congress are the ones tearing thecountry apart, not Obama. Enough is enough
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 01:38 am

A good reason for voting for Republicans is the fact that Democrats hate our freedom just as much as the terrorists do.
revelette2
 
  6  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 08:20 am
@oralloy,
If I was a terrorist, I would love the NRA and it's supporters who make it so easy to get guns. It seems harder to adopt a pet from the Humane Society than it is to get legal guns. (a bit of a stretch, but my point is that we should make it a little harder for people to get guns to kill people.)

And before anyone of you say, well, stop the terrorist from getting guns, think about it for a moment. Unless there is a reason to suspect them other than their religion which is against the constitution of which you all keep going on about, you can't single out just Muslims from getting guns to kill people with.

Quote:
Thomas Jefferson wrote with respect to the First Amendment and its restriction on the legislative branch of the federal government in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists (a religious minority concerned about the dominant position of the Congregationalist church in Connecticut):

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.[9]


Quote:
Originally, the First Amendment applied only to the federal government, and some states continued official state religions after ratification. Massachusetts, for example, was officially Congregationalist until the 1830s.[10] In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the U.S. Supreme Court incorporated the Establishment Clause (i.e., made it apply against the states). In the majority decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote:


The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another . . . in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' . . . That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.[11]


source

Quote:
U.S. officials tell CBS News that 28-year-old Farook started searching for a wife using an online dating website. He met Tashfeen Malik and they became engaged in 2013 after he traveled to Saudi Arabia during the annual pilgrimage know as the Hajj. Farook returned to Saudi Arabia in July 2014 to bring her to the U.S. She passed a Homeland Security counterterrorism screening as part of the vetting process, and officials tell CBS News Farook was not on any U.S. terror watch lists.


source

So since Farook was not a watch list and his wife passed homeland security screening, there was not a legal reason to deny them to buy a gun. Two of the guns were bought legally.
Below viewing threshold (view)
bobsal u1553115
 
  3  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 09:02 am
@McGentrix,
Didn't even try to dispute the facts, you chose to go right for the ad hominem. You always were a class act.
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 09:04 am
@revelette2,
Nice response, if the little tweek had only the skills to to read it and inclination to do so.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 09:04 am
@bobsal u1553115,
bobsal u1553115 wrote:

Didn't even try to dispute the facts, you chose to go right for the ad hominem. You always were a class act.


what are you even babbling about? Quit using big words when you do not understand what they mean.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 09:05 am
@bobsal u1553115,
bobsal u1553115 wrote:

Didn't even try to dispute the facts, you chose to go right for the ad hominem. You always were a class act.


Actually, this entire thread is an ad hominem. I don't think McGentrix's post was at all out of line.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 09:10 am
Quote:
Have suspected terrorists been able to purchase firearms in the United States? The answer is yes, around 2,000 times. Does this fact warrant stripping the Second Amendment rights from citizens who aren’t terrorists because they’re on a government list? The answer is no. Regardless, considering terrorists get firearms in and from all parts of the world regardless of gun control restrictions or laws, it’s an irrelevant argument.


This seems like a valid argument. I disagree with it, but this is the question that needs to be answered.

The back and forth attacks on Obama and the NRA seem like ad hominems to me.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 09:12 am
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:
If I was a terrorist, I would love the NRA and it's supporters who make it so easy to get guns.

Some of the terrorists' gratitude should go to the gun control movement as well, for being such extremist nutcases.

After Sandy Hook, I was unsure of our ability to stop what I assumed would be pending legislation to limit magazine capacity. But then the gun control movement decided that they were going to focus their entire effort on banning harmless cosmetic features like a pistol grip on a rifle. That made it trivially easy to defeat them (and in the process damage Mr. Obama's second term and hand the White House to the Republicans in 2016).

It was also extremely helpful that the gun control nutcases started everything off by vehemently attacking the NRA instead of trying to talk with them. What an efficient way to get our base mobilized.

At any rate, we have to protect civil rights in America, even if it does make it easy for terrorists to get guns. It's all part of living in the last free society on earth.

Just be thankful that so far none of these spree shooters have thought of doing something. I'm not going to mention what it is.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  3  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 09:25 am
What we did in Oz was we went by need. Farmers, Rifle/Pistol Club members, Security personnel, collectors and anyone who can proof they have a genuine self defense need (very rare) can, if they are in good mental health and have no criminal record, obtain a fire arm license.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  5  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 09:25 am
@MontereyJack,
I think there are ways to have the second amendment and provide reasonable safeguards. I support background checks. I also support gun registration. When a weapon is used in a crime, it would be nice to know who it belongs to. If there are ten gun stores in a community but most of the weapons used in crimes are coming from one of them, that is useful to know.

This is a bit of an aside, but since it came up, I generally do not support the way the no-fly list is used today. A US citizen who is denied access to a common form of transportation should have the right to see the evidence against them and mount a defense. The prime example was Senator Ted Kennedy who was hassled at airports because of the list.
Quote:
In August 2004, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) told a Senate Judiciary Committee discussing the No Fly List that he had appeared on the list and had been repeatedly delayed at airports. He said it had taken him three weeks of appeals directly to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to have him removed from the list. Kennedy said he was eventually told that the name "T Kennedy" was added to the list because it was once used as an alias of a suspected terrorist. There are an estimated 7,000 American men whose legal names correspond to "T Kennedy". (Senator Kennedy, whose first name was Edward and for whom "Ted" was only a nickname, would not have been one of them.) Recognizing that as a U.S. Senator he was in a privileged position of being able to contact Ridge, Kennedy said of "ordinary citizens": "How are they going to be able to get to be treated fairly and not have their rights abused?"

The FBI as been accused of using the no fly list to coerce people into spying for them. Unlike plane flight, gun buying is a right in this country. How can you deny someone a right without a trial?
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2015 02:23 pm
@engineer,
A cop can claim they had 1 tenth of a gram of marijuana, take all the money your car and all the luggage before you are even charged. Than not charge you at all and keep all the confiscated stuff on just suspision. Not possible? It happened to someone I know.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2015 04:30 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
This is a bit of an aside, but since it came up, I generally do not support the way the no-fly list is used today. A US citizen who is denied access to a common form of transportation should have the right to see the evidence against them and mount a defense. The prime example was Senator Ted Kennedy who was hassled at airports because of the list.
Quote:
In August 2004, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) told a Senate Judiciary Committee discussing the No Fly List that he had appeared on the list and had been repeatedly delayed at airports. He said it had taken him three weeks of appeals directly to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to have him removed from the list. Kennedy said he was eventually told that the name "T Kennedy" was added to the list because it was once used as an alias of a suspected terrorist. There are an estimated 7,000 American men whose legal names correspond to "T Kennedy". (Senator Kennedy, whose first name was Edward and for whom "Ted" was only a nickname, would not have been one of them.) Recognizing that as a U.S. Senator he was in a privileged position of being able to contact Ridge, Kennedy said of "ordinary citizens": "How are they going to be able to get to be treated fairly and not have their rights abused?"

The FBI as been accused of using the no fly list to coerce people into spying for them. Unlike plane flight, gun buying is a right in this country. How can you deny someone a right without a trial?

Unfortunately "denying rights without trials" is exactly what the Democrats intend to use the background check system for.

They don't see the system as a way to prevent criminals from getting guns. They intend to use the system to block ordinary people from getting guns.

This is why it is so critical to ensure that people continue to have ways to purchase guns without being subjected to background checks.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2015 01:18 pm
@oralloy,
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2015 05:31 pm
@engineer,
Quote:
A US citizen who is denied access to a common form of transportation should have the right to see the evidence against them and mount a defense.


There been cases of citizens who found themselves half way around the world and unable to return home being on the no-fly list for no known reason.

One gentleman needed to return home by flying into some south american country and after driving to the mexico/american border walk across.

This was an american citizen with not charges again him that someone had placed him on a no-fly list for no known reason.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » MORE THAN ONE MASS SHOOTING A DAY. THANKS, NRA
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/23/2019 at 07:16:24