Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die: Swingers Discussion 2165031082

155
Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die: Swingers Discussion 2165031082

Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

TOPIC: Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die

GoTo Page: Less ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... More

Start

82 to 91 of 532

End

User Details are only visible to members.	Big: Unlike a object which fewer people use (guns) much less own, alcohol is so ingrained into our being as civilizations that banning its production is impossible without replacing it with some form of devotion... This is only possible if that forced devotion is done at the threat of death. Fire arms and guns on the other hand have no key function in your day to day employment (unless you are law enforcement, military, manufacturing said weapons or a few select other cases), with more and more people being unable to afford the time to go hunting, much less shooting, the sports of fire arms are dying. Bottom line, fewer people care about guns and your side refuses to allow any social changes to be made to fix the gangs, so you are going to lose the guns. It really is that simple.
Hazle Township PA			Username hidden (4842 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Once again, our lawmakers cloak unpassable legislation in base-pleasing rhetoric The Senate Judiciary Committee last week approved a measure that would reinstitute the assault weapons ban. Big news, right? The bill will now head to the entire Senate for a vote... unless of course Republicans filibuster... but nevertheless, this is big, right? Wrong. The New York Times story detailing the measure's passage described the bill as "almost certain to fail if brought before the entire Senate." It "has almost zero chance of even receiving a hearing in the House." Nor should it be since all available evidence suggests that an assault weapons ban would have a negligible impact on safety. Of course, that point is one of substance, and nothing about the debate over the proposed AWB has anything to do with whether it will or will not work. Everything about the proposed renewal of the AWB is theatrics and serves as yet another example of the triumph of style at the expense of substance in our national politics. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is a very bright woman and a very good politician. When she proposed the new AWB, she knew there was a zero percent chance that it would become law. But she also knew that the people who voted for her are, by and large, anti-gun. More importantly, as the author of the original Brady Bill, Sen. Feinstein is widely viewed as the darling of the anti-gun movement and its allies. By proposing the AWB, Sen. Feinstein can tell all of the donors who care about the gun issue that she fought for the most aggressive legislation possible, and that she will keep fighting — which will lead to more donations. So everyone wins right? Wrong. The biggest loser is the American people. Political symbolism has value, but there are too many problems that Congress might actually have the capacity to solve for our leaders to be spending all of their time focused on proposals both sides know will never make it to the president's desk. That applies to House Republicans and Senate Democrats (stop wasting time on gun control measures you know will not pass). Our leaders must get out of the habit of wasting taxpayer resources drafting, amending, debating, and voting on legislation that has no chance of becoming law. Solve the problems you can, and save the individual wish lists for public speeches and your Maddow/Hannity appearances.
Tulare CA			Username hidden (1881 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	16,000 dui deaths last year.8,000 gun deaths last year.35% of gun deaths are alcohol related.so alcohol drives up alcohol related deaths to 18,000 deathes per year.and brings down gun deaths to 6,000 deathes per year.so alcohol is three times more likely to be involed in deaths.so what is the vdick doing about something that is more deadly then guns.nothing.not a thing.nada.zip.why?.money.............BS
Kingston TN			Username hidden (1928 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	fjep: "Dufus, there is a process for changing the constitution, he made no claim it could not be changed. The very notion it is a "living document" left to change by some political tard is ignorance, whether it is a conservative, liberal, or libertarian that thinks so. If it was intended by the founders to be changed by warm and fuzzy they would not have put a safety valve(amendment) process to change it in the document. But I doubt a moron could understand that." What liberal has said anything about changing it without the amendment process?
Hazle Township PA			Username hidden (4842 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Dufus, there is a process for changing the constitution, he made no claim it could not be changed. The very notion it is a "living document" left to change by some political tard is ignorance, whether it is a conservative, liberal, or libertarian that thinks so. If it was intended by the founders to be changed by warm and fuzzy they would not have put a safety valve(amendment) process to change it in the document. But I doubt a moron could understand that.
Sanford NC			Username hidden (18796 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Vacp: " No it was written to be taken as it is written not changed. You will not find in any statement from any of the writers saying it is to be changed as time goes on. In fact you will find the oppisite" You were quite clear. It cannot change (if it could, it would be a living document) and you said no founding fathers thought it ought to be changed. (I found two such fathers who admitted it isn't perfect and one admits it ought to be changed) We all know how it changes, the right just don't want to change it to meet today's needs. You live in the past and this are going to be left there.
Hazle Township PA			Username hidden (4842 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	We have already amended the constitution. That is why I said if they want to change it, put it before the states to ratify a change. I guess I should have said it cannot be interpreted to mean what you want it to. Changes must be made to it by due process.I guess I should have stated it better.
Berryville VA			Username hidden (1477 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Vacp: Please read the following. ht tps://ww w.constitutionfacts.co m/?section=funZone&page=famousQuotes.cfm “I confess that there are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.” — Benjamin Franklin, 1787 ht tp://w ww.worldofquotes.co m/topic/Constitution/1/index.ht ml “Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” Benjamin Franklin ht tp://ww w.goodreads.c om/quotes/tag/constitution “The dead should not rule the living” ? Thomas Jefferson ht tp://ww w.famguardian.o rg/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1000.h tm No work of man is perfect. It is inevitable that, in the course of time, the imperfections of a written Constitution will become apparent. Moreover, the passage of time will bring changes in society which a Constitution must accommodate if it is to remain suitable for the nation. It was imperative, therefore, that a practicable means of amending the Constitution be provided.
Hazle Township PA			Username hidden (4842 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Well maybe were you live at. But any place around here you will hear they don't want it and will not do it. Once again it all depends on were you live at.It is no different than talking to people on the street in Chicago want gun control. Then go to Houston don't want gun control. So no different that a poll. No it was written to be taken as it is written not changed. You will not find in any statement from any of the writers saying it is to be changed as time goes on. In fact you will find the oppisite
Berryville VA			Username hidden (1477 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Vacp: All nations without a living documents fall violently or decend into caste systems. Secondly the founding fathers themselves made it in a manner that it can be altered and expected it to be so altered. Lastly I wasn't just talking polls, but the general view of people on the street. Most people are for the 2nd amendment, but most people do demand that the government know what weapons you have.
Hazle Township PA			Username hidden (4842 post)

GoTo Page: Less ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... More

Start

82 to 91 of 532

End

TOPIC: Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die