Who Would Vote For bush Again?

There was a local guy who stalked his wife with a gun the other day. Maybe the gun nuts among us can get him nominated in 2008.

Oh wait, forget it. He wound up shooting himself...

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

cjhsa
The fact that some idiot can go to a southern state and buys guns for sale to criminals in NYCity protects nothing. Most the guns used in NY crimes were obtained in that manner according to police statistics. How is that for protecting the first amendment? I see nothing in that amendment that requires the facilitating of crime.

NY has a crime problem, not a gun problem. And lots of crooked cops who want to disarm the citizenry. Your mayor, who claims to be a Republican, isn't. He's a chicken **** (though I know his is ill and I wish him a speedy recovery).

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Some criminals use cars to get away and risk the lives of thousands of motorists every year. We should ban cars too because criminals use them.

How do you come up with that sh*t. When was the last time someone shot and killed someone with an auto?

0 Replies

See how brain dead they are? And they let these folks VOTE.

0 Replies

cjhsa
I have news for you. NYCity happens to be one of the safest cities in the US. It would be even safer if the criminals could not so easily obtain weapons. The gun laws in place would make it much safer if they were implemented in the cracker states.

0 Replies

Right...

0 Replies

Legislate me baby.

0 Replies

Some of those states use the death penalty to take care of the problem. Take Texas. Lots of shootings + lots of executions. Makes sense, if you squint hard enough...

0 Replies

I don't know of anyone who wants to ban all guns any more than they would want to ban all cars, considering that cars kill more people than anything else. It's that driving a car is a privilege, not a right, and requires a licence. I wonder what the Founding Fathers would have thought of modern weaponry and if they would have imposed licensing to own guns? Their original thought was that it was a deterant to a despotic government taking over. I'm not sure that holds any water today.

0 Replies

In NYS you need a license to have a pistol. Owning a pistol without a valid permit is against the law. Same with driving a car. You need a license and it is against the law to drive without one.

Criminals have no regard for the law, thus the reason they are criminals. Law abiding citizens should not be tied down because of criminal activity as criminals will continue to disregard the law...

0 Replies

I am aware that the move to license guns is moving into every state and whether their should be a national law is debatable. The criteria to achieve these permits is greatly in question, however.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

In NYS you need a license to have a pistol. Owning a pistol without a valid permit is against the law. Same with driving a car. You need a license and it is against the law to drive without one.

Criminals have no regard for the law, thus the reason they are criminals. Law abiding citizens should not be tied down because of criminal activity as criminals will continue to disregard the law...

What a tired argument. Try this on:

Certain drugs are tightly controlled. Pain medications are prescribed for patients who have had surgery, but these drugs are also in demand on the street, and criminals sell and use them. Should we therefore make the drugs accessible to everyone?

0 Replies

I can't defend myself with a bag of oxycontin.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

I can't defend myself with a bag of oxycontin.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
I can't defend myself with a bag of oxycontin.

Hey, everyone, it's Butch and Sundance!

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

Certain drugs are tightly controlled. Pain medications are prescribed for patients who have had surgery, but these drugs are also in demand on the street, and criminals sell and use them. Should we therefore make the drugs accessible to everyone?

Yep. Takes the power away from the gangs and drug dealers that sell the stuff. Make it all legal.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Quote:

In NYS you need a license to have a pistol. Owning a pistol without a valid permit is against the law. Same with driving a car. You need a license and it is against the law to drive without one.

Criminals have no regard for the law, thus the reason they are criminals. Law abiding citizens should not be tied down because of criminal activity as criminals will continue to disregard the law...

As usual you miss the point. The problem is as long as guns can be freely obtained in nearby states and brought into NY illegally the licensing laws will continue to be ineffective. Control that is not national is not adequate.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

The fact that some idiot can go to a southern state and buys guns for sale to criminals in NYCity protects nothing.

Maybe some of those guns go to people who simply want to exercise their Constitutional gun rights, which the city currently is violating.

Perhaps if the city would stop denying people the guns they have the right to have, some of the so-called "illicit" gun market might just dry up.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Some criminals use cars to get away and risk the lives of thousands of motorists every year. We should ban cars too because criminals use them.

How do you come up with that sh*t. When was the last time someone shot and killed someone with an auto?

An auto doesn't have to shoot someone in order to facilitate crime.

And an auto doesn't have to shoot someone in order to kill them.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

I don't know of anyone who wants to ban all guns any more than they would want to ban all cars, considering that cars kill more people than anything else.

However, there are plenty of people who want to ban the types of guns that we have the right to have.

Lightwizard wrote:

I wonder what the Founding Fathers would have thought of modern weaponry and if they would have imposed licensing to own guns?

Why? What good does licensing do?

Lightwizard wrote:

Their original thought was that it was a deterant to a despotic government taking over. I'm not sure that holds any water today.

It applies until the Constitution is amended to change it.

0 Replies

Who Would Vote For bush Again?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know