yes, we need free expression, rational discource what we don't need are grenade launchers in the hands of my neighbor who had a bad day
Homeland Security Chief declares war on the 2nd Amendment.....'matter of national security'
- Thread starter achilles28
- Start date
hit him with a phaser and you won't have to worry about a puny grenade launcher
Well see, here we go. This is one of the primary reasons we can't get any movement on this issue. We cannot prohibit or deny people based upon what the might do. If that's the case then we better take away everyone's drivers license because they might be having a bad day and decide to drive like a f'n maniac. So long as this is a hard line position of the gun control advocates, there isn't going to be much of an effort on the other side to be reasonable.
In Canada, if you utter a threat, beat your wife, or exhibit other forms of mental illness, they take your guns and the right to purchase them away. Not forever, but you then have the burden to prove you can be trusted with them.
Why do you think that passing a gun control law will get rid of the guns you dislike?
If there is a demand, there will be a supply.
Utter a threat is not the same as I "might" utter a threat, or I "might" beat my wife, or I "might" develop some mental illness. Prohibiting a person from purchasing a high capacity weapon based upon what they might do is the preverbal slippery slope that the never bend an inch types in the NRA argue. Until the left takes that off the table, the criminalizing of the innocent before they do anything wrong, we aren't going to see any movement.
So why pass a behavior control law to get rid of behaviors, like murder, we dislike? We know the law against murder isn't going to stop murders...
Some states and cities, eg NYC, have laws like this. So who gets a CC permit? Celebs, politicos, the well-connected. The ordinary citizen doesn't. In Washington, DC the fact that you live, work or travel in a crime-ridden area is not deemed adequate justification. I have a problem with that. I also have a problem with the concept that I have to justify my desire to own a firearm or carry one to a government bureaucrat.
Let's face it, our government is currently incompetent and intentionally pursuing suicidal policies. But we have to get their permission to protect ourselves?
We have a chief of Homeland Security who views "rightwing" extremists as an equal threat to islamist terrorists, although of course neither he nor DHS are allowed to use those terms. He sees radical gun control as a good idea, since it has been so effective in Europe no doubt. A former official said they were forced to scrub a long list of potential terrorists when Obama came into office.
We have a president and most of the congress who want to let in tens of thousands of additional muslims from conflict-ridden lands. It is conceded by all that they cannot be adequately screened. They don't see that as a problem because "most" adherents to what our president calls the "great religion" of islam do not go out and commit terrorist acts themselves. Neither do most of the muslims in Brussells but they provide a sea the terrorists can swim in.
The FBI had this Orlando shooter under such scrutiny that they sent in an undercover agent to try and monitor him. Yet they are only apparently able to run an investigation for three months and then must drop it if nothing turns up. Why?
We keep hearing that the FBI does not have the manpower to monitor all these potential threats. At the same time our leaders want to geometrically expand the number of potential terrorists. In what world does that make any sense at all?
We have a president and most of the congress who want to let in tens of thousands of additional muslims from conflict-ridden lands. It is conceded by all that they cannot be adequately screened. They don't see that as a problem because "most" adherents to what our president calls the "great religion" of islam do not go out and commit terrorist acts themselves. Neither do most of the muslims in Brussells but they provide a sea the terrorists can swim in.
The FBI had this Orlando shooter under such scrutiny that they sent in an undercover agent to try and monitor him. Yet they are only apparently able to run an investigation for three months and then must drop it if nothing turns up. Why?
We keep hearing that the FBI does not have the manpower to monitor all these potential threats. At the same time our leaders want to geometrically expand the number of potential terrorists. In what world does that make any sense at all?
