165
Docs getting politically nosey : Swingers Discussion 217497
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

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsPoliticsDocs getting politically nosey
TOPIC: Docs getting politically nosey
Created by: norcalcouple100
Original Starting post for this thread:
GoTo Page: 1 2 3 4
 1 to 10 of 35   End
User Details are only visible to members.
SS disability, SSI, Government employment, the military, law enforcement, being bonded, Flying, entering Government buildings, etc etc etc etc....ALL compel you to give up certain rights

Rosemont IL
 
 
Username hidden
(3771 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"There are many situations in which you can voluntarily waive your rights, and most are not gun related. "

yep, such as worker compensation or rather the ability to sue for damages which worker comp doesn't cover.

Hazle Township PA
 
 
Username hidden
(6873 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Outdoors...no it's really not scary There are many situations in which you can voluntarily waive your rights, and most are not gun related. No one forces anyone to get a C3 FFL...It's a choice

Rosemont IL
 
 
Username hidden
(3771 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
" Do you agree objects that cause death by blunt force trama are used to kill more people than people kill with all forms of rifiles? " ========

I don't know, because there's a sizable category of "firearms undetermined or uncategorized" deaths.

Nobody would agree that all blunt objects are "hammers". It's just easier to say, I guess. Never mind that it makes you sound stupid to confuse the terms.

I understand there are hundreds of different guns, maybe thousands, available. Each and every kind has been used in a certain number of deaths, and these numbers have nothing to do with how dangerous a single gun is.

You're more likely, statistically, to be in an auto accident within 50 miles of your home. Does this mean it's more dangerous to drive close to home, rather than far from home?

Flat Rock NC
 
 
Username hidden
(2984 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"People like you will have a list of everyone who has a C3. And have no knock ability to search .."

This IS scary!

Flat Rock NC
 
 
Username hidden
(2984 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Not yet? That is pretty open ended don't ya think? Has a flying saucer landed on the white house lawn? Not yet

Rosemont IL
 
 
Username hidden
(3771 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"Have people with C3 FFLs had their weapons confiscated recently without cause?" Not yet....

Tulare CA
 
 
Username hidden
(1880 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"I want a class 3 FFL to own one." 1st step in confiscation and banning them. To get a C3, FFL you waver your 4A rights. People like you will have a list of everyone who has a C3. And have no knock ability to search

Really? Have people with C3 FFLs had their weapons confiscated recently without cause? The list of those with a C3 is already public record What's the problem?

Rosemont IL
 
 
Username hidden
(3771 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
From reviewing the conversation which has taken place here, I have come to the conclusion that;

A) the right feels any restriction on weapons is the beginnings of a ban. They have a point. B) the left feels that for a weapon of (x) fire power, one ought to be licensed to carry or own. They have a point.

Both sides have good arguments, both sides cancel each others arguments and nothing is done, unless the supporting arguments are studied.

Right:

1) more guns in the hands if responsible owners will lead to a more defended population. 2) when under siege by an enemy with superior fire power, you need superior fire power. 3) state rights vs federal law/control

Left:

1) no one is responsible until proven so and everyone must be re-tested often. 2) the average person isn't put under siege by persons with assault rifles and the average round from an assault rifle will penetrate the average home. Thus making the use of the assault weapon a threat to bystanders in any densely populated area. 3) because more liberals are living in the cities, travel between cities more often and generally have fewer freedoms to begin with as a result of our lifestyles, we do not feel that giving up control to a centeral government over a diverse fifty states government is a problem.

So far no one has obtained the surperior argument. We must study further.

Population densities control lawmakers.

If this is true, than the cities rule unchallenged. Obviouslly this this true as the gun issue would have been resolved by now. What is true about is is that over time, liberal leaning laws have become the standard rule of law.

As such, the above statement about population densities is in fact true, but occurs slowly.

From this study, one can conclude that the liberals will get their way. What the right must do is learn how to compermize, study where and why the greatest harm is caused by and fix it.

Cowboy mentalities won't fix this problem. Hard data will and arguing over hammers vs rifle statistics is pointless as the left isn't arguing actual damage, but protential damage of the weapon.

I wish there were better statistics for which type of weapons are used in murders. I believe that hand guns and other smaller weapons are used most often in murders which grip headlines rather than assault weapons. Most of the data is simply too superficial to conclude this with facts.

Hazle Township PA
 
 
Username hidden
(6873 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I see dumb ass is back

Berryville VA
 
 
Username hidden
(1750 posts)
GoTo Page: 1 2 3 4
 1 to 10 of 35   End
TOPIC: Docs getting politically nosey