Or just remove one tiny word from the 2nd amendment and you get "The right to keep bear arms".
Printable View
Or just remove one tiny word from the 2nd amendment and you get "The right to keep bear arms".
Roar!
Hand guns are a no no. If they come in, I leave. It's understood. That's always been my small start.Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
I wouldn't care if I get shot. I have a partial death wish, anyway. But kids live here. They have all taken the hunter safety course. and friends don't have access to the cabinet where the rifles are. and the kids are much more concerned with blogging for human rights and playing Mario cart on the Wii.
You do realize that this thread is in a section called "SERIOUS Discussions", don't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sancho
Or am I just missing something?
Mmm, yes, you're just missing something:Quote:
Originally Posted by HCabret
The last part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sancho
But if I might digress into seriousness for a moment, it does seems to me there is a fundamental difference between the death penalty where somebody is strapped to a gurney and and given a lethal injection and an execution where somebody is strapped to a rack in a public square and stretched until his spine cracks and his innards spill out.
That's a good start.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kemijost
Also,
What is a well regulated militia?
Does licencing/registering guns infringe a person's right to bear arms?
For me to own a shotgun, I had to have referees of unblemished reputation and a police interview and inspection to get a licence. It took about three months (for background checks) and then the same process has to be gone through every 5 years. The conditions of the licence are strict too. It sounds difficult, but its no problem really.
I suppose these are infringements to having a gun, but we Brits don't have a "right" to them anyway.
It would, perhaps, be a step towards a solution if the right to bear arms was limited to the kind of arms which were available at the time the amendment was written.
Awful news this morning from Colorado.
Ideologically driven murderer attacks a soft target, shoots random unarmed people at an abortion clinic, in order to make a statement. Terrorism pure and simple.
the initial shooting(s) took place outside a planned parenthood in an area where other businesses exist. he ended up inside the planned parenthood when responders appeared.
there is absolutely no evidence at this point the shooter was "ideologically driven" or was "making a statement."
and to that last point, if he wanted to make a statement, he wouldn't be killing "random people." he'd be either killing the people who ran the clinic, or the protestors out in front of it.
Ok, the incedent has been reported differently over here. we'll just call it murder for now.
theres reporting like that here too.
i think its pretty easy sometimes when there are such strong feelings involved to jump to easy conclusions. this one's got the double whammy of guns and abortion, so maybe all the more so.
The attack began inside the PP clinic when the terrorist burst in and began shooting people. This fact has been widely reported and corroborated by police sources. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/1...enthood-216230 https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/...-springs/1892/ http://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article46899985.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by bounty
If this isn't terrorism, then I don't know what terrorism is.
The terrorist was quoted as saying "no more baby parts" after he attacked the Planned Parenthood clinic. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ft-three-dead/
its possible he did say that about "no more baby parts"---but i'll be more inclined to believe it when I see a transcript of him saying so, an affidavit, or at least a corroborated and recognizable source as opposed to "unidentified law enforcement sources."
This is a direct quote from the ny times article:
“Just minutes earlier, on Friday morning around 11:30, a gunman had gone to the parking lot of a Planned Parenthood center here and unleashed a barrage of bullets, turning a bustling snow-covered shopping center into a tableau of chaos and fear that lasted for more than five hours.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/us...-shooting.html
according to that then, he did not walk into a planned parenthood and start shooting people. if we are to believe the ny times, the shooting, as I said in my first post, began in the parking lot.
I don't know what the truth is, but im inclined to believe the parking lot based on the fact that there aren't 20 or 30 dead people, especially doctors, nurses and administrators INSIDE the planned parenthood.
and lydgate, sorry---"conservative politicians spreading lies?" the law allows for pp to sell body parts. pp sells body parts. medical research companies buy body parts from pp. my goodness you might as well say calling the sky blue is a lie.
"assault weapon" aside for a moment (I don't know what he had as I write this), the same, or more damage could have been done with a shotgun or a hunting rifle. want to ban those too?
The language of hatred, begets hatred.