Guns for everyone!
Forgotten_Mom71 said:Agree. ✌💫
I was wrong. It's just to many people in my life are gone, by suicide. When I hear, put the gun in your mouth and pull the trigger. I snap .I start to remember all the lost souls. I apologize.
I see no reason to apologize doll, you misinterpreted what I said and then asked for clarification that's civil discourse. This topic at this moment is highly emotional for me and many others but just because we're emotional does not mean that we cannot present our thoughts/opinions/arguments in a (mostly
) civil and rational way.
I was wrong. It's just to many people in my life are gone, by suicide. When I hear, put the gun in your mouth and pull the trigger. I snap .I start to remember all the lost souls. I apologize.
I see no reason to apologize doll, you misinterpreted what I said and then asked for clarification that's civil discourse. This topic at this moment is highly emotional for me and many others but just because we're emotional does not mean that we cannot present our thoughts/opinions/arguments in a (mostly
) civil and rational way.
Was the killer ever arrested or investigated for domestic violence? His wife said he was violent towards her. Did she ever report him? If not, we need a way to make it safer for women to report domestic violence and get away with their children to a safe house and for family members to report suspected violence. This needs to be in place everywhere. If a woman is not being allowed to see their family, a law needs to be in place to forcibly remove them and their children until it can be determined that they are not being harmed or kept prisoner in their homes. I don't care if a man's rights will be violated when a woman's rights or child's rights are already being violated by a husband or father, or other partner in a relationship.
If this guy was abusing his wife, he should not have been allowed to own any kind of gun or other implement commonly used to murder anyone. Domestic violence laws should be in place, if they are not already, to protect spouses that are afraid to report abuse. If a family member is trying to contact a woman and not being allowed by a partner in a relationship, a law and support system should be in place in every city to rescue and remove anyone in potential danger.
This guy might never have been able to get the guns he had and should have been in jail already for domestic violence!
JJ
If this guy was abusing his wife, he should not have been allowed to own any kind of gun or other implement commonly used to murder anyone. Domestic violence laws should be in place, if they are not already, to protect spouses that are afraid to report abuse. If a family member is trying to contact a woman and not being allowed by a partner in a relationship, a law and support system should be in place in every city to rescue and remove anyone in potential danger.
This guy might never have been able to get the guns he had and should have been in jail already for domestic violence!
JJ
A few years ago during Thanksgiving dinner, my brother-in-law got up from his chair and the revolver tucked in the back of his jeans fell out. It bounced around on the floor in a room while a dozen of us were eating.
Stoopid, careless people own guns.
It's scary because they are a menace to their own society.
I say stoopid because he is constantly being banned from Facebook for calling Obama and Muslims niggers and trying to scare people into believing Liberals are going to take away everybody's guns.
We just don't want guns in the hands of stoopid, careless people.
Stoopid, careless people own guns.
It's scary because they are a menace to their own society.
I say stoopid because he is constantly being banned from Facebook for calling Obama and Muslims niggers and trying to scare people into believing Liberals are going to take away everybody's guns.
We just don't want guns in the hands of stoopid, careless people.
I think Hitler asked for the guns. We all know how that went down.
Did you know ...
http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://www.infowars.com/dhs-to-purchase-62-million-rounds-of-ar-15-ammo/&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjM4dfn4afNAhXJ8ywKHQTiC3YQFggRMAI&usg=AFQjCNHAkJalNKU3_IJfKyqxJL0eoyISVQ
Did you know ...
http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://www.infowars.com/dhs-to-purchase-62-million-rounds-of-ar-15-ammo/&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjM4dfn4afNAhXJ8ywKHQTiC3YQFggRMAI&usg=AFQjCNHAkJalNKU3_IJfKyqxJL0eoyISVQ
Republikills in Congress voted to allow people on FBI Terrorist watch list to buy guns. So they don't mind if terrorists have guns but screw the poor people... maybe the bloodthirsty Republikills figure the terrorists will only kill unarmed Democrats, as if we have a stamp on our foreheads, and will leave them alone. What do they care as long as they have their guns to protect themselves???
Poetryman said:Republikills in Congress voted to allow people on FBI Terrorist watch list to buy guns. So they don't mind if terrorists have guns but screw the poor people... maybe the bloodthirsty Republikills figure the terrorists will only kill unarmed Democrats, as if we have a stamp on our foreheads, and will leave them alone. What do they care as long as they have their guns to protect themselves???
In my experience, using names like "Republikills" and "Libtards" and such pretty much dooms what could be any worthwhile dialog.
In my experience, using names like "Republikills" and "Libtards" and such pretty much dooms what could be any worthwhile dialog.
case28 said: If the government didn't let potential terrorists buy guns legally, how would they monitor them if they bought guns on the black market?
Excellent point. Also, without legal evidence the charges can become suspect and be dropped. 'Innocent until proven guilty': cannot simply ban suspected terrorists from doing legal things that are potentially illegal or terroristic without definite evidence. If anything the legal route is a good way to catch them as it means the government and police have the upper hand and moral ground.
Excellent point. Also, without legal evidence the charges can become suspect and be dropped. 'Innocent until proven guilty': cannot simply ban suspected terrorists from doing legal things that are potentially illegal or terroristic without definite evidence. If anything the legal route is a good way to catch them as it means the government and police have the upper hand and moral ground.
Forgotten_Mom71 said:Guns don't kill people. People kill people, no matter what weapon they use.
But if you limit the type of gun and subsequent magazine size, then you potentially reduce the number of casualties.
What if the Orlando shooter had a glock with 17 rounds vs an MCX assault rifle with 30?
But if you limit the type of gun and subsequent magazine size, then you potentially reduce the number of casualties.
What if the Orlando shooter had a glock with 17 rounds vs an MCX assault rifle with 30?
Poetryman said:Was the killer ever arrested or investigated for domestic violence? His wife said he was violent towards her. Did she ever report him? If not, we need a way to make it safer for women to report domestic violence and get away with their children to a safe house and for family members to report suspected violence. This needs to be in place everywhere. If a woman is not being allowed to see their family, a law needs to be in place to forcibly remove them and their children until it can be determined that they are not being harmed or kept prisoner in their homes. I don't care if a man's rights will be violated when a woman's rights or child's rights are already being violated by a husband or father, or other partner in a relationship.
If this guy was abusing his wife, he should not have been allowed to own any kind of gun or other implement commonly used to murder anyone. Domestic violence laws should be in place, if they are not already, to protect spouses that are afraid to report abuse. If a family member is trying to contact a woman and not being allowed by a partner in a relationship, a law and support system should be in place in every city to rescue and remove anyone in potential danger.
This guy might never have been able to get the guns he had and should have been in jail already for domestic violence!
JJ
I work with a battered women's shelter and we have been working on that.
If this guy was abusing his wife, he should not have been allowed to own any kind of gun or other implement commonly used to murder anyone. Domestic violence laws should be in place, if they are not already, to protect spouses that are afraid to report abuse. If a family member is trying to contact a woman and not being allowed by a partner in a relationship, a law and support system should be in place in every city to rescue and remove anyone in potential danger.
This guy might never have been able to get the guns he had and should have been in jail already for domestic violence!
JJ
I work with a battered women's shelter and we have been working on that.
lepperochan said:it all sounds a bit mad. take the words "defence budget" and think about the colossal amount of money which it entails over yonder, and the percentage of that money which comes from the people. so I think it's only fair the government hand out ar15's to anyone who can hold one
then, the next time the government play you off one another..
.
.
You mean deborder?
then, the next time the government play you off one another..
.
.
You mean deborder?
Poetryman said:Ok, here's a radical idea from a liberal mind...
Since Republicans think everyone should own a gun, as a Constitutional right, I believe the wealthiest 1% should provide those who can't afford to protect themselves by purchasing one, an AR15 of their very own, free of charge.
I wonder how quickly Republikills would change their mind, knowing the people they hate would be able to defend themselves against those who hate them...
Isn't equality grand?
JJ.
.
There's a shock a Democrat that thinks making a person that has earned some money buy a person that didn't earn it something is the definition of equality....
Since Republicans think everyone should own a gun, as a Constitutional right, I believe the wealthiest 1% should provide those who can't afford to protect themselves by purchasing one, an AR15 of their very own, free of charge.
I wonder how quickly Republikills would change their mind, knowing the people they hate would be able to defend themselves against those who hate them...
Isn't equality grand?
JJ.
.
There's a shock a Democrat that thinks making a person that has earned some money buy a person that didn't earn it something is the definition of equality....
Poetryman said:
Well, Donald Trump may have been a Democrat in disguise but he has shown his true colors.
While there are wealthy Dems, few are billionaires. If repubs want everyone to own a gun, knowing that the vast majority of poor people are Democrats, what they really are saying is, anyone who can afford a gun should have a gun.
By the way, what country are you in? You don't show a flag in your profile and I am wondering if your opinion about an American issue is from someone living elsewhere. Republican can mean something entirely different in another country.
The question stands, will the wealthy who want guns pay for the poor to stand our ground on equal terms?.
.
.I am an American but less proud than I used to be. I am not wealthy but I would happily buy a family without a gun that couldn't afford it one. Only I would choose the AR 10.. You have a good plan let's do it we don't need the rich...
Well, Donald Trump may have been a Democrat in disguise but he has shown his true colors.
While there are wealthy Dems, few are billionaires. If repubs want everyone to own a gun, knowing that the vast majority of poor people are Democrats, what they really are saying is, anyone who can afford a gun should have a gun.
By the way, what country are you in? You don't show a flag in your profile and I am wondering if your opinion about an American issue is from someone living elsewhere. Republican can mean something entirely different in another country.
The question stands, will the wealthy who want guns pay for the poor to stand our ground on equal terms?.
.
.I am an American but less proud than I used to be. I am not wealthy but I would happily buy a family without a gun that couldn't afford it one. Only I would choose the AR 10.. You have a good plan let's do it we don't need the rich...
IronFears said:Owning a firearm is a right, so your Constitution says, but back in the 1780, when north america wasn't really a safe place to live, a large land with few people, often hostile people, and not a guaranteed protection provided by the police. To allow firearms nowdays, I can't see any valid reason, i feel more safe in a country where firearms are forbidden, what if i have a car crash and some nut will get out from his car with a firearm? Only police and army should be allowed to use firearms, not the people..
.
What planet do you live on? This is what you call safe? The cops don't stop crime they are reactive. Without the fear of those of us that have guns, no one would be safe from thugs the cops can't stop them just try to catch them later. The countries and even the States that have strict gun laws all have the worst crime rates.look it up you shouldn't feel safer . your government learned how an armed people won't stand for abuse.. How you chaps doing now?
.
What planet do you live on? This is what you call safe? The cops don't stop crime they are reactive. Without the fear of those of us that have guns, no one would be safe from thugs the cops can't stop them just try to catch them later. The countries and even the States that have strict gun laws all have the worst crime rates.look it up you shouldn't feel safer . your government learned how an armed people won't stand for abuse.. How you chaps doing now?
