GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Which politician will be the first one to say "Now is not the time to talk about gun control" first? (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1294575)

Robbie 02-15-2018 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2MuchMark (Post 22205793)

What the US really needs is gun control that: Prevents mentally ill, criminals, anyone with any record at all, from buying, owning or carrying a gun. To me this is common sense. It lets good people like you and me own guns AND makes the world alot safer at the same time.

And when it comes to sniper rilfes, OK, but with restrictions such as small magazines. At LEAST small magazines. Maybe high capacity magaines can be available "for rent" only at the shooting range or something... Is this so bad?

Am I wrong here?
I don't think you're "wrong".

But you have to realize that the United States is based on the constitution.

It's a right to own guns. The 2nd amendment specifically says that Congress shall make no law restricting that.

I think that all of this loophole b.s. trying to make "gun control" laws is unconstitutional and leads to the govt. having more control over people...for instance, declaring that a citizen is crazy and institutionalizing them against their will (which is being openly discussed on CNN "panels").

Our founding fathers had the wisdom to create mechanisms to change the Constitution.
Congress has done it before.
For instance...they created the 16th amendment to legalize income tax (they didn't even hesitate on that one lol)

They have the power to begin the process to repeal the 2nd amendment.
Once that amendment is repealed...then all the arguments stop.

But they don't have the balls to do it.

And of course the NRA and companies that make guns are going to lobby against that and do their best to sway any decision.
That's what they SHOULD do. It's their 1st amendment right. And I don't blame them at all.

But repealing the 2nd amendment is truly the only way to disarm citizens.

You can't have "rights" and then just decide to take them away because we are upset over this horrible incident.

What's needed is thoughtful action to legally CHANGE that "right" to fit in with a society that now has no regard for human life.

The Porn Nerd 02-15-2018 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 22205893)
I don't think you're "wrong".

But you have to realize that the United States is based on the constitution.

It's a right to own guns. The 2nd amendment specifically says that Congress shall make no law restricting that.

I think that all of this loophole b.s. trying to make "gun control" laws is unconstitutional and leads to the govt. having more control over people...for instance, declaring that a citizen is crazy and institutionalizing them against their will (which is being openly discussed on CNN "panels").

Our founding fathers had the wisdom to create mechanisms to change the Constitution.
Congress has done it before.
For instance...they created the 16th amendment to legalize income tax (they didn't even hesitate on that one lol)

They have the power to begin the process to repeal the 2nd amendment.
Once that amendment is repealed...then all the arguments stop.

But they don't have the balls to do it.

And of course the NRA and companies that make guns are going to lobby against that and do their best to sway any decision.
That's what they SHOULD do. It's their 1st amendment right. And I don't blame them at all.

But repealing the 2nd amendment is truly the only way to disarm citizens.

You can't have "rights" and then just decide to take them away because we are upset over this horrible incident.

What's needed is thoughtful action to legally CHANGE that "right" to fit in with a society that now has no regard for human life.
I agree in spirit with what you are saying Robbie. I too think the 2nd Amendment should be repealed - but then a NEW Amendment (whatever # we are up to) to allow gun ownership but under very strict guidelines. This way we preserve the integrity of the Constitution and get what we both want (I think).

But as to the "integrity of the Constitution" (to humbly quote myself): What about the 4th Amendment? The 5th? Even the 1st? "Freedom zones"? What the FUCK are those? And why do people go along with them and get herded into them like sheeple instead of demanding their 1st Amendment Rights to congregate and protest wherever the fuck they feel like it? (OK as long as they aren't hurting anyone or obstructing daily life activities.)

"You can have 'freedom of speech' but only in this restricted pen over here. Now get in the cage and wave your little signs." ????? So it seems to me Gov't picks and chooses what part of the Constitution they like and suits their agendas and which parts they don't like. Kinda like The Bible. LOL

thommy 02-15-2018 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 22205893)

It's a right to own guns. The 2nd amendment specifically says that Congress shall make no law restricting that.
but when did they make this law ?

and WHY and for WHAT ?

we both know good enough that times have changed a lot since then.

2000 years ago the bible was the law. millions of people have been killed because they found the excuse in the bible.

a constitution mirrors the problems of the time when it was written.
to keep it as an unchangeable dogma is not smart is is dumb.
you can 1 to 1 compare it with the problems caused by conservative islam.
they also do nothing else as doing what is written in a hundred of years old book.

so how can this go together ?
america wanted to be the most progressive civilization of the planet and is not even able to liberate itself from obsolete laws ?

why not burn witches again ?

btw this 2nd amendment is not really an american invention.
it has itīs roots in england - so nothing really unique or original what you would lose.

The Porn Nerd 02-15-2018 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thommy (Post 22205993)
but when did they make this law ?

and WHY and for WHAT ?

we both know good enough that times have changed a lot since then.

2000 years ago the bible was the law. millions of people have been killed because they found the excuse in the bible.

a constitution mirrors the problems of the time when it was written.
to keep it as an unchangeable dogma is not smart is is dumb.
you can 1 to 1 compare it with the problems caused by conservative islam.
they also do nothing else as doing what is written in a hundred of years old book.

so how can this go together ?
america wanted to be the most progressive civilization of the planet and is not even able to liberate itself from obsolete laws ?

why not burn witches again ?

btw this 2nd amendment is not really an american invention.
it has itīs roots in england - so nothing really unique or original what you would lose.
The US Constitution is not a static old document that never changes. This why we have "amendments", meaning add-ons or additions to the original Constitution. So we DO change with the times (remember slavery?)

My proposal is the most Democratic. We cannot simply change the 2nd Amendment (or amend the Amendment if you will). No, we would have to abolish the 2nd Amendment and then ADD a "new" Amendment.

This new Amendment would be based on the current 2nd Amendment but include background checks, stricter control laws like IDs, etc. The debate would get most heated when discussing what type of guns (and ammunition) will be legal and which is not. But America should have a National Special Amendment Vote to see how the Country feels. What with all the shootings, almost daily now, this is an Emergency situation and our Dear Leaders should show leadership and get the ball rolling on changing the Constitution ASAP.

onwebcam 02-15-2018 03:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd (Post 22206015)
The US Constitution is not a static old document that never changes. This why we have "amendments", meaning add-ons or additions to the original Constitution. So we DO change with the times (remember slavery?)

My proposal is the most Democratic. We cannot simply change the 2nd Amendment (or amend the Amendment if you will). No, we would have to abolish the 2nd Amendment and then ADD a "new" Amendment.

This new Amendment would be based on the current 2nd Amendment but include background checks, stricter control laws like IDs, etc. The debate would get most heated when discussing what type of guns (and ammunition) will be legal and which is not. But America should have a National Special Amendment Vote to see how the Country feels. What with all the shootings, almost daily now, this is an Emergency situation and our Dear Leaders should show leadership and get the ball rolling on changing the Constitution ASAP.
Sorry there's not a single person in Washington I would trust to amend anything as far as the constitution is concerned. A collective is even more frightening. :1orglaugh

There's no need to change the constitution. A law will change nothing.. That's already proven fact.. Gun free zone? Thats what gets shot up.. Gun ban? Chicago.

MaDalton 02-15-2018 04:04 PM
https://www.wired.com/story/pro-gun-...ampaign=buffer

thommy 02-16-2018 01:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd (Post 22206015)
The US Constitution is not a static old document that never changes. This why we have "amendments", meaning add-ons or additions to the original Constitution. So we DO change with the times (remember slavery?)

My proposal is the most Democratic. We cannot simply change the 2nd Amendment (or amend the Amendment if you will). No, we would have to abolish the 2nd Amendment and then ADD a "new" Amendment.

This new Amendment would be based on the current 2nd Amendment but include background checks, stricter control laws like IDs, etc. The debate would get most heated when discussing what type of guns (and ammunition) will be legal and which is not. But America should have a National Special Amendment Vote to see how the Country feels. What with all the shootings, almost daily now, this is an Emergency situation and our Dear Leaders should show leadership and get the ball rolling on changing the Constitution ASAP.
of course - there have been a few changes and each one has been based on the idea of what the founding fathers wanted to accomplish.

in the case of the 2nd amendment you do not even have to go that far and just take a look at what's in the original text.

I do not know where the opinion comes from the 2nd Amendment would give the civilian individual the right to carry weapons. this is not what the 2nd amendment say because in the original text is written:

Quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.?
now lets ask the oxford dictionary what the "militia" means.

so i think we can agree that a militia is not an individual person, ok ?

the reasons for such a civil defense were probably that there was no real united America at that time and the aftermath of the civil war was still too fresh.
since this militia did not exist as an institution, there was nothing left but to raise the civilian population to this rank.

but this gap of the missing militia was later filled by the national guard.
if the national guard had already existed at this time, the 2 constitutional amendment would have referred precisely to this militia.

if a sheriff makes you a helper today and say "watch 'til I'm back" then you will have to return the sheriff star and the service pistol after his return

of course, the sight of this fact has just been prevented by the powerful ones who make hundreds of billions of dollars a year and who think so immoral that even a gunman is used as an advertisement to sell more weapons.

anyone who closes their eyes to this logic takes nothing more than his right to stupidity because he is led astray with false arguments

NewNick 02-16-2018 06:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by onwebcam (Post 22206025)
A law will change nothing.. That's already proven fact.
Ok - might as well get rid of all the laws then.

And disband the police, and close up all of the courts.

Oh and I am going to come around to your house and take whatever I want.

You are one dumb motherfucker, and every time you open your mouth the normal folks suffer a collective mix of shame and embarrassment that you are actually the same species as the rest of us.

The only proven fact is what a fucking weapon you are.

:1orglaugh:helpme:1orglaugh

thommy 02-16-2018 07:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewNick (Post 22206833)
Ok - might as well get rid of all the laws then.

And disband the police, and close up all of the courts.

Oh and I am going to come around to your house and take whatever I want.

You are one dumb motherfucker, and every time you open your mouth the normal folks suffer a collective mix of shame and embarrassment that you are actually the same species as the rest of us.

The only proven fact is what a fucking weapon you are.

:1orglaugh:helpme:1orglaugh
hahahahaaaaaaa.

true - why did we not check that yet that laws are changing nothing and make a simple anarchy.

this guy is SO UNBELIEVABLE MAD !!!

Paul Markham 02-16-2018 03:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd (Post 22205383)
I don't know but I know this is all Hillary's fault. :(
The problem has been during her time in office. So she must share the blame.

This is an American problem because you keep voting for the people who only listen to you when they want your vote. Then when they get it they only listen to their funders.

An easy solution would be the police issue gun licenses. If more police are needed to issue licenses an appropriate fee will cover the costs. That, of course, includes sales at gun shows. It will slowly weed out the guns in the hands of the wrong type of people.

Paul Markham 02-16-2018 03:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2MuchMark (Post 22205451)
Instead of calling it an "American Problem", why not just call it a problem?
What other country is there where children are shot at school on a regular basis?

onwebcam 02-16-2018 03:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewNick (Post 22206833)

Oh and I am going to come around to your house and take whatever I want.
Bring it. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Paul Markham 02-16-2018 03:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thommy (Post 22205715)
oh you found it in 5 seconds but did not have another minute to read it ?



so WHAT is not correct except the fact that you WANT it not correct ?
Quote:
The Obama administration estimated that the reporting requirement would cover ?approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent.?

Trump opposed the rule, the White House said, because it ?could endanger the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens.? Other critics of the SSA?s rule included the National Rifle Association and the American Civil Liberties Union, two groups that are usually on opposite sides on gun-related issues.
It does not say Obama passed the law and Trump has repealed it.

Can you link us to that info please.

Bladewire 02-16-2018 03:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 22207821)
It does not say Obama passed the law and Trump has repealed it.

Can you link us to that info please.
Trump Repeals Rule Designed To Block Gun Sales To Certain Mentally Ill People

Paul Markham 02-16-2018 03:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 22205893)
But they don't have the balls to do it.

And of course the NRA and companies that make guns are going to lobby against that and do their best to sway any decision.
That's what they SHOULD do. It's their 1st amendment right. And I don't blame them at all.

But repealing the 2nd amendment is truly the only way to disarm citizens.

You can't have "rights" and then just decide to take them away because we are upset over this horrible incident.

What's needed is thoughtful action to legally CHANGE that "right" to fit in with a society that now has no regard for human life.
They would if voters turned their backs on them and voted for people that will force change.

Bladewire 02-16-2018 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 22207827)
They would if voters turned their backs on them and voted for people that will force change.
Trump is responsible for what Trump is doing you're blaming everyone but Trump what the fuck is wrong with you Paul?

It's like anything that Trump does wrong you blame anybody but Trump it's like Trump blaming anybody but the Russians when the Russians do something wrong. You're using the same Playbook.

Paul Markham 02-16-2018 03:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd (Post 22206015)
The US Constitution is not a static old document that never changes. This why we have "amendments", meaning add-ons or additions to the original Constitution. So we DO change with the times (remember slavery?)

My proposal is the most Democratic. We cannot simply change the 2nd Amendment (or amend the Amendment if you will). No, we would have to abolish the 2nd Amendment and then ADD a "new" Amendment.

This new Amendment would be based on the current 2nd Amendment but include background checks, stricter control laws like IDs, etc. The debate would get most heated when discussing what type of guns (and ammunition) will be legal and which is not. But America should have a National Special Amendment Vote to see how the Country feels. What with all the shootings, almost daily now, this is an Emergency situation and our Dear Leaders should show leadership and get the ball rolling on changing the Constitution ASAP.
My proposal of making it the job of the police to issue licenses, would, of course, provide all the necessary background checks. Someone has to have a reason to buy a gun of a specific kind. Handgun with a single shot right up to semi-automatics, one or as many as they want. They have to give the police a good reason to own a product designed to kill.

Paul Markham 02-16-2018 03:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thommy (Post 22206579)
of course - there have been a few changes and each one has been based on the idea of what the founding fathers wanted to accomplish.

in the case of the 2nd amendment you do not even have to go that far and just take a look at what's in the original text.

I do not know where the opinion comes from the 2nd Amendment would give the civilian individual the right to carry weapons. this is not what the 2nd amendment say because in the original text is written:



now lets ask the oxford dictionary what the "militia" means.

so i think we can agree that a militia is not an individual person, ok ?

the reasons for such a civil defense were probably that there was no real united America at that time and the aftermath of the civil war was still too fresh.
since this militia did not exist as an institution, there was nothing left but to raise the civilian population to this rank.

but this gap of the missing militia was later filled by the national guard.
if the national guard had already existed at this time, the 2 constitutional amendment would have referred precisely to this militia.

if a sheriff makes you a helper today and say "watch 'til I'm back" then you will have to return the sheriff star and the service pistol after his return

of course, the sight of this fact has just been prevented by the powerful ones who make hundreds of billions of dollars a year and who think so immoral that even a gunman is used as an advertisement to sell more weapons.

anyone who closes their eyes to this logic takes nothing more than his right to stupidity because he is led astray with false arguments
It was the war of Independence. They had just finished fighting the British, Indians ruled most of the mid-west and the odds of getting held up, killed or maimed made owning a gun necessary. Now more students die from legally owned guns than illegal.

More than 80% of guns used in mass shootings obtained legally | MSNBC

Bladewire 02-16-2018 03:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 22207839)
My proposal of making it the job of the police to issue licenses, would, of course, provide all the necessary background checks. Someone has to have a reason to buy a gun of a specific kind. Handgun with a single shot right up to semi-automatics, one or as many as they want. They have to give the police a good reason to own a product designed to kill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 22207821)
It does not say Obama passed the law and Trump has repealed it.

Can you link us to that info please.
Trump Repeals Rule Designed To Block Gun Sales To Certain Mentally Ill People

thommy 02-16-2018 03:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 22207821)
It does not say Obama passed the law and Trump has repealed it.

Can you link us to that info please.
paul, I copied and pasted this part FROM THE DOCUMENT HE POSTED here to prove me wrong.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/tr...-control-rule/

Rochard 02-16-2018 04:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 22207821)
It does not say Obama passed the law and Trump has repealed it.

Can you link us to that info please.
You should not be debating American politics. You really have no clue.

Obama passed the law, Trump repealed it. They did this very quietly. Now the White House is refusing to release a picture of Trump signing the repeal.

Rochard 02-16-2018 04:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 22207839)
My proposal of making it the job of the police to issue licenses, would, of course, provide all the necessary background checks. Someone has to have a reason to buy a gun of a specific kind. Handgun with a single shot right up to semi-automatics, one or as many as they want. They have to give the police a good reason to own a product designed to kill.
The government already enforces this - In fact, the FBI does.

In the United States you do not need to prove a reason to own a firearm of any type. If you clear a background check, you can buy whatever you want.

The Porn Nerd 02-16-2018 05:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thommy (Post 22206579)
of course - there have been a few changes and each one has been based on the idea of what the founding fathers wanted to accomplish.

in the case of the 2nd amendment you do not even have to go that far and just take a look at what's in the original text.

I do not know where the opinion comes from the 2nd Amendment would give the civilian individual the right to carry weapons. this is not what the 2nd amendment say because in the original text is written:



now lets ask the oxford dictionary what the "militia" means.

so i think we can agree that a militia is not an individual person, ok ?

the reasons for such a civil defense were probably that there was no real united America at that time and the aftermath of the civil war was still too fresh.
since this militia did not exist as an institution, there was nothing left but to raise the civilian population to this rank.

but this gap of the missing militia was later filled by the national guard.
if the national guard had already existed at this time, the 2 constitutional amendment would have referred precisely to this militia.

if a sheriff makes you a helper today and say "watch 'til I'm back" then you will have to return the sheriff star and the service pistol after his return

of course, the sight of this fact has just been prevented by the powerful ones who make hundreds of billions of dollars a year and who think so immoral that even a gunman is used as an advertisement to sell more weapons.

anyone who closes their eyes to this logic takes nothing more than his right to stupidity because he is led astray with false arguments
Well the REAL problem is we have this corrupt branch of Gov't in the US called the Supreme Court. THEY are the ones who interpret the Constitution (and the 2nd Amendment specifically) and have upheld a lot of illogical, ridiculous things, like:

* 2nd Amendment means ANYONE (and everyone) can own a gun. Period. (Wrong)
* Money is "free speech". (Wrong)
* A Corporation has the same rights as individual human beings. (Wrong)
* They would allow the vote to stop being counted in Florida and give the 2000 Election to George W. Bush - but just this one time in this particular case. (Wrong)
* A News organization has no responsibility to tell the truth. (Wrong)

I could go on but you can see how each of these Decisions directly affected American society, and not for the good. So the Supreme Court is flawed and corrupt and keeps the power balance the way they want it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 22207801)

This is an American problem because you keep voting for the people who only listen to you when they want your vote. Then when they get it they only listen to their funders.
This is true in every country. Being British by birth you should know better.

Robbie 02-16-2018 07:16 PM
Well...I'm glad that Porn Nerd has come along to interpret the Constitution better than the Judicial Branch can.

Boy if Trump were to criticize the Supreme Court...Porn Nerd would be standing alongside Nancy Pelosi screaming for "impeachment" because he is "undermining our Democracy".

Porn Nerd...we are on a porn message board. You can have your OPINION on what you THINK the Constitution says.
But reality is...neither of us knows shit about shit when it comes to that and secondly...nothing we think means shit about shit. lol

tony286 02-16-2018 08:41 PM
This could all be fixed and everyone can have any gun they wanted. They have to take a 12 saturday class and pass a test at the end. That would weed out all the crazies and it would cut down, on the idiots that leave loaded guns around kids.

The Porn Nerd 02-16-2018 08:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 22208133)
Well...I'm glad that Porn Nerd has come along to interpret the Constitution better than the Judicial Branch can.

Boy if Trump were to criticize the Supreme Court...Porn Nerd would be standing alongside Nancy Pelosi screaming for "impeachment" because he is "undermining our Democracy".

Porn Nerd...we are on a porn message board. You can have your OPINION on what you THINK the Constitution says.

But reality is...neither of us knows shit about shit when it comes to that and secondly...nothing we think means shit about shit. lol
Of this we are in total agreement. LOL

Oh - and I have been railing against The Court for years, including Democratic appointed judges. The examples I gave go back decades.

Acepimp 02-16-2018 08:58 PM
Hey Thommy and BladeLiar:

Today?s #FakeNews: Liberal Media Pushes Lie That Trump Made It Easier for Mentally Ill to Buy Guns (VIDEO)

Do you clowns ever stop pushing FAKE NEWS?

:rasta

Robbie 02-17-2018 01:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd (Post 22208223)
Of this we are in total agreement. LOL

Oh - and I have been railing against The Court for years, including Democratic appointed judges. The examples I gave go back decades.
My opinion is that it's Federal Judges who seem to try and "legislate from the bench".

The Supreme Court doesn't seem to do that in my opinion. They take their duty pretty seriously I think.
I don't always agree with them. But it's interesting to read their opinions on cases and get insight into their approach to interpreting the Constitution.

thommy 02-17-2018 01:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acepimp (Post 22208233)
Hey Thommy and BladeLiar:

Today?s #FakeNews: Liberal Media Pushes Lie That Trump Made It Easier for Mentally Ill to Buy Guns (VIDEO)

Do you clowns ever stop pushing FAKE NEWS?

:rasta
you talking about fake news and refer to thegatewaypundit ????
this is one of the biggest fake news sources on this planet, you honk.

why you get your fucking information not on the sources where they are ??
are you too dumb to find them?

HERE is the Public Law No: 110-180


Quote:
Public Law No: 110-180 (01/08/2008)
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the Senate on December 19, 2007. The summary of that version is repeated here.)

NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 - Title I: Transmittal of Records - (Sec. 101) Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to: (1) authorize the Attorney General to obtain electronic versions of information from federal agencies on persons disqualified from receiving firearms; (2) require federal agencies to provide such information to the Attorney General, not less frequently than quarterly; and (3) require federal agencies to update, correct, modify, or remove obsolete records and notify the Attorney General of such actions to keep the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) up to date. Requires the Attorney General to submit annual reports to Congress on the compliance of federal agencies with such reporting requirements.
and here you fucking fake news eater is the H.J.Res.40 signed by your liar

Quote:
This joint resolution nullifies the ?Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007? rule finalized by the Social Security Administration on December 19, 2016. The rule implements a plan to provide to the National Instant Criminal History Background Check System the name of an individual who meets certain criteria, including that benefit payments are made through a representative payee because the individual is determined to be mentally incapable of managing them. (Current law prohibits firearm sale or transfer to and purchase or possession by a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective.)
and if you want to tell me now that congress.gov is also a fake news site than go to hell you stupid fucktard.

pimpmaster9000 02-17-2018 02:03 AM
its better that kids die than, god forbid, politicians do something that is not in their financial and political interest so please stop it with this complaining shit...the gravy train has no brakes! :2 cents::2 cents::2 cents:

Paul Markham 02-17-2018 02:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 22207897)
You should not be debating American politics. You really have no clue.

Obama passed the law, Trump repealed it. They did this very quietly. Now the White House is refusing to release a picture of Trump signing the repeal.
I missed the link. I was asking for it.

Paul Markham 02-17-2018 02:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 22207899)
The government already enforces this - In fact, the FBI does.

In the United States you do not need to prove a reason to own a firearm of any type. If you clear a background check, you can buy whatever you want.
Then the law is guilty of allowing the wrong people to possess guns.

Paul Markham 02-17-2018 02:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd (Post 22207983)
This is true in every country. Being British by birth you should know better.
In what country do school shootings happen on a regular basis?

Bladewire 02-17-2018 02:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 22208345)
I missed the link. I was asking for it.
I posted it here twice for you Paul, this is the third time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bladewire (Post 22207825)

Acepimp 02-17-2018 09:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thommy (Post 22208339)
you talking about fake news and refer to thegatewaypundit ????
this is one of the biggest fake news sources on this planet, you honk.

why you get your fucking information not on the sources where they are ??
are you too dumb to find them?

HERE is the Public Law No: 110-180

and here you fucking fake news eater is the H.J.Res.40 signed by your liar

and if you want to tell me now that congress.gov is also a fake news site than go to hell you stupid fucktard.
Hey Thommy, i realize you can't help that you're mentally challenged / Low I.Q. gullible idiot, so I'll try to be nice to you.

"The repeal of the Obama-era regulation, "doesn't allow people to buy guns who have been properly adjudicated by a court of law as mentally ill or unstable."

"The Obama-era rule was designed to take away people's rights without due process of law. It would have flagged the names of people who, for example, have an anxiety disorder or depression which keeps them from working, and who, as the SSA puts it, ‘need help in managing [their] personal money affairs,'"

Also, it's worth noting that there are already regulations on firearm purchases by persons who have a documented history of mental illness, or who have shown themselves to be a danger.

Reporters resurrect bogus narrative that Republicans made it 'easier' for the mentally ill to buy guns

You think an older person who let's their son or daughter manage their check book is mentally ill?? That's not accurate, and the social security administration doesn't need to be infringing on people's rights. Also, Gateway Pundit is not fake, dumbass. Now do us all a favor and...

2MuchMark 02-17-2018 09:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 22205893)
I don't think you're "wrong".

But you have to realize that the United States is based on the constitution.

It's a right to own guns. The 2nd amendment specifically says that Congress shall make no law restricting that.
Hi Robbie,

What you are saying makes sense. (Please tell all your righty friends that I agree with you sometimes!) :)

The 2nd ammendment says:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So now, completely legally speaking, you're right.

Of course, it could be argued that this is incomplete, and that it is too old, and that it is too vague. People who want this changed like me, will say that.

Other people will scream violation of rights if it is changed, and see this as a slight degradation of American rights. I think this argument has been used already.

Morally, you could ask the question : What is more important: An old and out of date law, or my child's safety? Of course, everyone would say safety, and probably add some but's in there somewhere....

Couldn't this be changed to something like "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed EXCEPT... legally defined criminals, or people with legally defined mental illness? And wouldn't this improve the 2nd amendment over all?

The Porn Nerd 02-17-2018 10:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 22208349)
In what country do school shootings happen on a regular basis?
Ahh but that was not your original comment Paul (to which I replied):

"This is an American problem because you keep voting for the people who only listen to you when they want your vote. Then when they get it they only listen to their funders. "

Of course few countries have this mass shooting in schools problem the USA has. But manipulating the electorate happens EVERYWHERE, in every country. Especially Great Britain.

Don't change the argument.

bronco67 02-17-2018 03:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helix (Post 22205471)
The common denominator of these mass shootings is psychiatric drugs. Those types of drugs do have the side effects of violence and suicide. Stop the drugging of America to stop the shootings.
The common denominator in all shooting is guns. You can't definitively say all mass killers are on drugs, but you can say they all used a gun.

Helix 02-17-2018 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bronco67 (Post 22208985)
The common denominator in all shooting is guns. You can't definitively say all mass killers are on drugs, but you can say they all used a gun.
The frequency of these shootings has dramatically increased since the widespread use of the psychotropic drugs. If it was just the guns then we would have seen shootings like this since the founding of our country.

tony286 02-17-2018 04:32 PM
https://youtu.be/LORVfnFtcH0


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:36 PM.
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc