Reply With Quote
So you're ok with infringing on the rights of the mentally ill to keep and bare arms? Ok. You're going to need a cons utional amendment to get that done.
Felons sure. Violent ones can get them anyways. Boys and Girls...absolutely. I encourage it. Fully Automatic weapons....absolutely. Mentally Ill is a more difficult.
ter McGee
So you're ok with infringing on the rights of the mentally ill to keep and bare arms? Ok. You're going to need a cons utional amendment to get that done.
all you coward traitors will be tried for treason and executed when its all said and done. it's all do ented forever, everything you coward traitors are doing. not necessarily directed to the libs in here but all gun grabbers, vaccine pushers, fluoride pushers, gmo pushers, corrupt officials, all of you hoes will pay the piper someday. like it or not. the republic is awake and eyes are on you.
m>s is right. The source is . University of Chicago
Survey done by General Social Survey, or GSS, which is funded by the Joyce Foundation, a well known anti-gun liberal organization. I'm sure the survey is very unbiased.
If you want anyone here to take you seriously on the gun control debate stop using such ty biased studies, oh yeah, don't forget to turn in your firearm.
precedent always changes
It wasn't a CDC study dumbass. Reading comprehension fail.
bare arms
what a really odd choice of a picture to post.bare arms
Man kills self in front of children at Bellevue gun-safety class
Brian J. Parry is believed to have shot himself in the head with a pistol Sunday during a class at West Coat Armory, a gun range and dealer with outlets in Bellevue and Issaquah.
a man describing himself as a witness to the shooting said the dead man – identified by the Medical Examiner’s Office as Parry – stood in front of more than a dozen people participating in the class and ended his life.
Several children saw the shooting
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/M...198073701.html
Come on Darwin, you can do it!
^youre next, cmon pull it
go suck a big black hard one
put my big black hard one in your mouth and pull it ...i'll jack off on your dead body
Why is it OK to infringe on the 2nd amendment but not the 1st or 4th? Thats like saying...hey...you can have two sentences of free speech, but no large capacity paragraphs...
Another reason why I call some of them lib s.
where does the 2nd amendment, which specifies WELL REGULATED MILITIAS, preclude ANY REGULATIONS of any citizen's guns?
I'm going with the supreme courts interpretation and not idiotboobot's.
I should have the right to bear nuclear arms
the total craziness the guns-and-ammo industry behind its marketing/propaganda subsidiary the NRA has wreaked on the USA, for nothing but profit
2nd Amendment?
10 Crazy Gun Laws Introduced Since Newtown
In the wake of the Newtown massacre in December, lawmakers in nearly every state in the nation [1] have introduced gun legislation, either to strengthen gun controls or push back against them. There has also been a flurry of activity in local jurisdictions. Some of the proposals fall into the category of reasonable policy ideas, while others just seem to fire wildly, in both political directions. Here are 10 of them:
Glocks and gimlets: Allowing guns in bars has become something of a trend lately [2]. A bill introduced in South Carolina [3] would legalize concealed carry in bars and void the current law punishing the same with a fine of up to $2,000 or three years in jail. Gun owners would be required to remain sober, but the prospect of patrons packing heat in places where alcohol and at udes mix remains worrisome, especially as self-defense laws grow increasingly lax [4]. Another bill awaiting approval from the state senate in Georgia [5] would allow guns in bars and churches.
K-12 teachers packing heat: Never mind that recently armed guards in schools have forgotten their guns [6] in restrooms and fired them by mistake [7]: Lawmakers in at least six states [8] have pushed bills since Newtown to allow K-12 teachers to carry guns. A few school districts around the country already allow teachers to carry them [9]; in early March, South Dakota became the first state to sign into law a bill explicitly giving all its teachers the right to do so.
Aiming for an A+ in target practice: In January, state Sen. Lee Bright (R) introduced a bill in South Carolina that would create an elective high school class on gun safety and the 2nd Amendment taught by police officers. The class would meet [10] at a local gun range and let students fire away. One high school junior said she thought the law could make her school safer (even though students would only use the guns off-campus), but told the local news station [11], "Just getting [guns] into the hands of certain students, that could potentially harm others."
Anger management classes for ammo buyers: Florida state Sen. Audrey Gibson (D) recently proposed a law that would outlaw the sale of ammunition [12] to anyone in the state who hasn't completed at least two hours of anger management training, regardless of prior history. Gibson said the bill was inspired by a teenager shot to death during an argument over loud music, and she just wanted ammo buyers to be "introspective." [12] Her detractors have called the bill [13] uncons utional and an "insult" to gun owners.
Felony charges for guns that fire more than one round: Gun enthusiasts got worked up about New York's new assault weapons ban limiting magazines to seven rounds—the strictest in the nation [1]—but consider this: Connecticut state Sen. Edward Meyer (D), a gun-control advocate who also made news recently for wielding a BB gun [20] in a church, proposed a bill in January [21] that would make it a class C felony to own any gun made to fire more than a single round. The bill hasn't gone anywhere, but if Meyer's intentions were to rile up the right, he succeeded [22].
Busting business owners for banning guns: A bill introduced in January by Colorado state Sen. Kent Lambert (R) would require businesses open to the public to either allow concealed carry permit holders to bring their guns inside or hire armed security officers (1 for every 50 customers [23]). If a business fails to comply and violence on the premises ensues, the business would be held liable for any injuries or deaths that might've hypothetically been prevented by an armed citizen. "There's a responsibility for businesses to provide some security when they have asked people not to defend themselves," Lambert told KOAA News 5 [24].
Felony charges for introducing gun-control legislation: Last month, Missouri state Rep. Mike Leara (R) introduced a bill [25] that would charge "[a]ny member of the general assembly who proposes a piece of legislation that further restricts the right of an individual to bear arms, as set forth under the second amendment of the Cons ution of the United States" with a class D felony. In fairness, Leara told TPM [25] that he had "no illusions" about the bill passing.
Sheriff visits in your living room: A bill to ban assault weapons in Washington, introduced by state Sen. Ed Murray (D), was roundly criticized by conservatives and liberals alike for violating gun owners' civil liberties. The legislation allowed current assault weapon owners to keep their guns, but only if they allowed the local sheriff to inspect their homes once a year to ensure the guns were safely stored. Murray followed up with a revised bill without that language, telling the Seattle Times [26], "I have to admit that shouldn't be in there."
Rejecting or even arresting the feds: Speculating about a federal gun grab, lawmakers in at least 15 states [27] have introduced bills aimed at barring officials from enforcing federal gun laws. In Montana, a voter referendum championed by gun lobbyist Gary Marbut [28] would grant police the authority to arrest FBI agents trying to enforce gun laws and charge them with kidnapping [29]. In Arizona, Richard Mack has called for his fellow sheriffs to refuse to enforce federal law [30]. The proposals, the latest nullification [31] protests against the Obama administration [32], would most likely be unenforceable since, well, they violate federal law.
Requiring literally everybody to have one: Next month, the city council of Nelson, Georgia, will vote on a law that would mandate gun ownership [33] for the town's "safety, security, and general welfare" and for "emergency management." The proposal, modeled on a law in nearby Kennesaw, includes exemptions for felons, the mentally ill, and those who oppose guns. Towns in Idaho and Utah are considering similar laws. In Byron, Maine, population 140, a mandatory gun law was rejected [34] even by the man who proposed it, after he concluded that he should have just made it a recommendation.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013...n-laws-newtown
America is SO ED UP AND UN-UP ABLE ( ing up America for fun and profit is what the 1% and United Corporations of America do)
The SCOTUS has consistently upheld limits on free speech. Next time, Do a little research before posting your myopic knee jerk response.
http://www.freedomforum.org/packages...edomSpeech.htm
go yourself, asshole.
Typical en led boomer wants me to go myself because he was too lazy to do a little research before making a wildly uninformed statement in his zeal to support team red.
the typical bubba-stupid gun fellator has an AVERAGE of 9 guns, and very probably THAT's what's increasing sales, not MORE GUN OWNERS.
"I need MORE GUNs because I'm paranoid chicken with a shrinking, flaccid penis."
You are the one that is ing stupid and uninformed Mr. blue team cheerleader. Free speech is typically only constrained when it injures people or threatens national security. Classic example of yelling fire in a crowded theater or the wikileaks guy. Both are illegal acts.
There are already plenty of laws on the books making injuring or killing someone with a gun illegal.
Sorry dude. Your analogy upstream about two sentences of free speech but no high capacity paragraphs was just ing stupid. Free speech is limited and has been infringed. I can write a book on the infringement on our 4th ammendment rights since 9/11. The second ammendment is not immune.
the 1st Amendment basically applies to preventing specifically the govt from blocking speech.
There is essentially no freedom of speech in the private sector.
Assange is not a US citizen, was not on US soil, and committed no crime, but Imperial America crushes him anyway, for the MIC's incompetence and horribly bad design of their information security.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
