Assault on Our Rights

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: TonyS
It’s a good thing.
When someone tells you exactly who they are, believe them.

Was going to post exactly this.

Especially when it comes from people who would deny basic rights.

a reply to: datguy

Not really. Yes I was only slightly surprised to see the response to some of these.

Background checks: Dems=91% REp=77%
we already ahve background checks

Preventing people with mental illness from buying guns: Dems=90% Rep=85%
Not really a surprise, but who are we going to get to determine who qualifies as having a mental illness?

Red Flag Laws: Dems=85% Rep=70% (this one surprised me a tad bit)
These are idiotic and will get innocent people hurt and/or killed.

Assault Weapons: Dems=83% Rep=37%
Dems can't even define what an assault weapon is, let alone take them away.

Teachers Carrying: Dems= 24% Rep= 66%
This would be common sense, if the teacher wanted to, but makes too much sense so Dems don't support it

Stricter Gun Laws will Prevent Mass Shootings: Dems= 87% Rep= 34%
This is also idiotic, taking guns from law abiding citizens will not remove them from the criminals that get them illegally to begin with. The innocent blood will be on their hands.

Admit to owning a firearm: Dems= 28% Reps= 48%
Surprised this many reps said they own one, nobody elses business what we own.

Right to own vs Protecting from Gun Violence: Dems= 9% Reps= 39%
The numbers from Dem vs Rep cities show the evidence to this one. Cities where it is legal to own a firearm and you dont have to jump through a billion hoops, are usually safer than ones you have to. IE: New York, Chicago, Seattle, LA, etc.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: TonyS
It’s a good thing.
When someone tells you exactly who they are, believe them.

Was going to post exactly this.

Especially when it comes from people who would deny basic rights.

Anyone with this much distaste for individual constitutional rights should be leading no one.
California is nuts.

Stop it. Stop it !! Lol!!! You are killing me slowly. Hahaha!a reply to: network dude

Just a simple question. . . . .

When, in any time, in the history of the world, have things improved for people when government has removed rights?

a reply to: DBCowboy

If they remove your right to live, then it ain't your problem anymore.......

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: datguy

Not really. Yes I was only slightly surprised to see the response to some of these.

Background checks: Dems=91% REp=77%
we already ahve background checks

Preventing people with mental illness from buying guns: Dems=90% Rep=85%
Not really a surprise, but who are we going to get to determine who qualifies as having a mental illness?

Red Flag Laws: Dems=85% Rep=70% (this one surprised me a tad bit)
These are idiotic and will get innocent people hurt and/or killed.

Assault Weapons: Dems=83% Rep=37%
Dems can't even define what an assault weapon is, let alone take them away.

Teachers Carrying: Dems= 24% Rep= 66%
This would be common sense, if the teacher wanted to, but makes too much sense so Dems don't support it

Stricter Gun Laws will Prevent Mass Shootings: Dems= 87% Rep= 34%
This is also idiotic, taking guns from law abiding citizens will not remove them from the criminals that get them illegally to begin with. The innocent blood will be on their hands.

Admit to owning a firearm: Dems= 28% Reps= 48%
Surprised this many reps said they own one, nobody elses business what we own.

Right to own vs Protecting from Gun Violence: Dems= 9% Reps= 39%
The numbers from Dem vs Rep cities show the evidence to this one. Cities where it is legal to own a firearm and you dont have to jump through a billion hoops, are usually safer than ones you have to. IE: New York, Chicago, Seattle, LA, etc.

Background checks = Yep, already got em.
Mental illness = You nailed it. Who gets to determine?
Red Flag Laws = They're BS and SHOULD be declared unconstitutional.
Assault weapons ban = From the same people that can't define a woman, lulz.
Teachers carrying = Best way to safeguard our children at the point where protection is needed most.
Stricter gun laws = Enforce what is already there first?
Admit to owning a gun = What guns? Something something tragic boating accident.
Right to own v gun violence = Constitutionally guaranteed (SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED) v a made up, delusional narrative. No gun has ever committed an act of violence on it's own in the history of ever.

Dumbsh!t poll.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Just a simple question. . . . .
When, in any time, in the history of the world, have things improved for people when government has removed rights?

i fixed it for ya

Bold function works
a reply to: datguy

originally posted by: PorkChop96
Bold function works
a reply to: datguy

So does quote function.

a reply to: network dude

I thought you lost your boom sticks in a fishing accident?

a reply to: chris_stibrany

We all did, then I'm pretty sure the nearby volcano erupted and filled in the lake.

a reply to: PorkChop96

Well sheet. Now that you mention it, I have never even heard of a boom stick.

originally posted by: datguy

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Just a simple question. . . . .
When, in any time, in the history of the world, have things improved for people when government has removed rights?

i fixed it for ya

Yeah thanks.

Yet no one wants to answer, especially those that want to eliminate or curtail rights.

a reply to: PorkChop96

18 to 21 might be a good idea with all these school shootings. I don't really see the issue with these things besides banning assault weapons. I don't think it should be banned but much harder to obtain.

originally posted by: Turquosie
a reply to: PorkChop96

18 to 21 might be a good idea with all these school shootings. I don't really see the issue with these things besides banning assault weapons. I don't think it should be banned but much harder to obtain.

So youre a fan of infringement.


Classy

a reply to: JinMI

Sure, if it makes it harder for people with mental issues and criminals to obtain guns; while still allowing non-criminals to obtain guns.

And not saying that this is the best approach but I don't see why we can't have a conversation about guns without it reverting to "YOU"RE INFRINGING MY RIGHTS". How are we supposed to address these mass shootings if we can't even talk about guns.

a reply to: Turquosie

Because the same rights that allow for you to have those views allow for everyone else to keep and bear arms.

a reply to: JinMI

Except I'm not advocating for banning guns, but rather discussing what we can do to help prevent criminals and the mentally ill from obtaining them.

If you can still obtain guns, but maybe have to go through some extra steps, what's the problem?

How can we curb mass shootings if people can't even consider that?

a reply to: Turquosie

If you can still obtain guns, but maybe have to go through some extra steps, what's the problem?

Thats infringement by definition.

How can we curb mass shootings if people can't even consider that?

How about by not blaming inanimate objects?


Just a thought.....