Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
But the song says "land of the free", so what are you talking about?Well, nothing apart from being able to afford it, to find a country that will take you, and getting a job as an immigrant. It's a bit more than "nothing"
When toddlers kill 20 people a year, the price is too high.
And the irony is you are not even free, you have the highest incarceration rates of any developed country, and are ruled by plutocrats. The only real freedom Americans have is the freedom to live in constant fear.
What rights are impeded that Americans feel that you would not want a gunshot heard. I can understand it in certain law enforcement of military situations... But why in a civil situation.Well, either one of two things hunting or maybe they just feel that our rights should not be limited in such a way.
They need their silencers to protect their right to have silencers.What rights are impeded that Americans feel that you would not want a gunshot heard. I can understand it in certain law enforcement of military situations... But why in a civil situation.
If someone thinks a country other than the USA is safer and better in all the ways they value, then nothing stops them from moving there.
In the meantime, people who value freedom along with the risks involved will stay right here in America.
Freedom comes with a price.
You think half a thousand people being shot up at a concert is a fair price to pay for your liberty?Freedom comes with a price.
Actually it is debatable whether 20 is too high when you compare it. I am NOT saying that death is good by any means, but there are certain risks you take to live in soceity and at the end of the day 20 people is less than two a month.Well, nothing apart from being able to afford it, to find a country that will take you, and getting a job as an immigrant. It's a bit more than "nothing"
When toddlers kill 20 people a year, the price is too high.
And the irony is you are not even free, you have the highest incarceration rates of any developed country, and are ruled by plutocrats. The only real freedom Americans have is the freedom to live in constant fear.
I do not understand the question.What rights are impeded that Americans feel that you would not want a gunshot heard. I can understand it in certain law enforcement of military situations... But why in a civil situation.
Overall, how often does them happen? When it comes to toddlers shooting 20 people a year that is less than two a month and so really if you asks me that is worth the risks it is called raising children right, but accidents DO happen and yes sadly sometimes they ARE fatal. As for the Las Vegas shooting you cannot control everything gun control only hurts those who mean no harm. Also, and I know it would bee hard for the victims and their families to see it this way, but there were over 22k people at that concert plus a number of other people on the scrip that means that even with this event most people were not hurt or killed going just by raw numbers taking the human aspect out of it. Mentally and emotionally I am sure that all the victims could benefit from help, but in terms of injury and death if you look at it just raw numbers that comes out to less than 1/4.You think half a thousand people being shot up at a concert is a fair price to pay for your liberty?
Would say that to the families of the victims?
Do you think they would agree their loved one was a fair trade so someone else can have a gun?
Actually it is debatable whether 20 is too high when you compare it. I am NOT saying that death is good by any means, but there are certain risks you take to live in soceity and at the end of the day 20 people is less than two a month.
Accidents happen. I do not know a person alive that feels that toddlers should have access to guns or even that people who give them access should not face charges, but to use that as a reason to say we need to regulate guns is where I have the issue. How about encouraging teaching gun safety with penalties for people who do allow toddlers to have access to guns ( If the toddler uses the gun) Those already are in place. but for that to be the reason to apply strict gun control does not make any sense.20 people killed by infants under 3 years of age is 20 too many. I see no debate in that at all. Why would anyone want to live in a society where some amount of infants killing people is acceptable.
I'm yet to see any second ammendment advocate coherently explain where the line should be.
Some do some do not. Not everyone who supports the idea of the second amendment opposes any and all gun control.agreed
Congress and the court set the limits
2nd amendment advocates have no limits
Do I really need to post the 1994 federal law. Of course, it is different by jurisdiction. Federal law would cover the entire country and NOT change by jurisdiction,At the very beginning it says that the definition varies by jurisdiction. Yes, it goes on to give a general idea, but still no definition that has been accepted EVERYWHERE.
Accidents happen. I do not know a person alive that feels that toddlers should have access to guns or even that people who give them access should not face charges, but to use that as a reason to say we need to regulate guns is where I have the issue. How about encouraging teaching gun safety with penalties for people who do allow toddlers to have access to guns ( If the toddler uses the gun) Those already are in place. but for that to be the reason to apply strict gun control does not make any sense.
Nonsense.You cannot ban something just because it CAN be used for harm. Do we ban cars?
I apologize. A sheriff that doesn't obey the law should be more than fired; he should be arrested. But yes, he could be re-elected.Depends on where they live. I know around here the sheriff is elected not otherwise hired, so rather or not they would be fired would depend on how the voters in that particular jurisdition felt about the issue.
Perhaps not. But people are trying to say that since some guns are illegal, then it's ok to push the boundaries of what should be illegal--and it doesn't take long to see that the gun ban crowd is happy to push it all the way to a ban on every gun in America. Even our legislators have admitted this:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?