Sotomayor's views on guns prompt questions

Status
Not open for further replies.
In the 1990's there was cartoon in a Hustler magazine. the 'toon depicted a pimp getting an award for getting guns off the streets. the caption read something about the pimp starting a program that had his hookers performing fellatio in exchange for guns...


i bet that is a program that would get the street thugs and gang members to turn in their guns... it just might work!!! :hmm:
 
Daredevel7 said:
Perhaps I should rephrase my question. Instead of banning them, what about putting gun control laws in place? What would it take for you to start thinking "Okay maybe we do need some sort of limitations...."?
Click to expand...

I've already stated we need to fix the flaws and listed some :cool2:
 
C.C.Sinned said:
In the 1990's there was cartoon in a Hustler magazine. the 'toon depicted a pimp getting an award for getting guns off the streets. the caption read something about the pimp starting a program that had his hookers performing fellatio in exchange for guns...


i bet that is a program that would get the street thugs and gang members to turn in their guns... it just might work!!! :hmm:
Click to expand...

Work on street thugs and gang members? I doubt it cuz gang members are already getting sex from the women in the gang...street thugs usually commit crimes to support their drug addictions so I doubt sex would help much.
 
shel90 said:
For me, I dont care if gun ownership is enforced or banned cuz I know criminals would find anything to use as weapons and as for accidential shooting..people need to get some common sense if they are going to own guns.
Click to expand...

criminal is the least of the concern. Look at the big picture.... which is exactly the reason why the founding fathers wrote it as Amendment 2.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Perhaps I should rephrase my question. Instead of banning them, what about putting gun control laws in place? What would it take for you to start thinking "Okay maybe we do need some sort of limitations...."?
Click to expand...

we already have limitations, restrictions, regulations, control. Why it seems not to be working? it's because they're placing limitations, restrictions, regulations, and control on law-abiding citizens that doesn't even apply to criminals.
 
Jiro said:
we already have limitations, restrictions, regulations, control. Why it seems not to be working? it's because they're placing limitations, restrictions, regulations, and control on law-abiding citizens rather than focusing on criminals. a completely wrong approach.
Click to expand...

No limitations then?
 
Daredevel7 said:
No limitations then?
Click to expand...

I had to rephrase my post but message's still same. Well - wanna know what state has no gun control, regulation, restriction, limitation? It's the only state in USA - Vermont! guess what! it has one of the lowest crime rate! :eek:

Like I said - empower the law-abiding citizens. regulate more on manufacturers, distributor, and transporter (for ie. report the loss of cargo full of guns).
 
*WARNING: to Reba and sensitive others, you should skip this post*
shel90 said:
Work on street thugs and gang members? I doubt it cuz gang members are already getting sex from the women in the gang...street thugs usually commit crimes to support their drug addictions so I doubt sex would help much.
Click to expand...

we don't know till it is tried.
maybe if mrs obama were to fight the war on guns this way, it have results.... after all first ladies always stand for some platform, Michelle can make her stand on her knees.... :twisted:



I'll try to stop the freaky jokes now :o
 
Jiro said:
I had to rephrase my post but message's still same. Well - wanna know what state has no gun control, regulation, restriction, limitation? It's the only state in USA - Vermont! guess what! it has one of the lowest crime rate! :eek:

Like I said - empower the law-abiding citizens. regulate more on manufacturers, distributor, and transporter (for ie. report the loss of cargo full of guns).
Click to expand...

:werd: damn straight.

and the 5 day waiting period isn't all that bad either. it helps with the background checks, false ID and all that....


the last part if for the other readers since you know that already jiro.
 
this is something I don't mind admitting that I struggle to understand some American views.

don't you think times have moved on and the need for change is here? when the rules were written it was for a differen't need, we didn't have armies and police to protect us (hold you're tongue that's a diff debate)

someone said it's undemocratic? how so? are you saying being stopped for doign somethnig to protect others is undemocratic? so we should allow under age sex? let the slave trade carry on unopposed? sell drugs, allow prostitution? of course not, we need protecting from ourselves sometimes.

no one is saying guns should be banned completely, just that you need to have a reason to own one, sporting/hunting etc. the same arguement came up here in the UK too, but it's worked, we don't nearly have as many gun deaths these days, and when we do the illegal guns have more often than not came from ireland and alot of them came from the US sent over to support the IRA, so your lax gun laws are affecting more countires than just the US.
but being the worst capitalist country in the world a ban will never happen because of the money gun sales generate and the ridiculous power the money makers have over your senate.
why can't you look further than your shores, and see how much better other countries are with less guns being available.
 
Macian said:
this is something I don't mind admitting that I struggle to understand some American views.

don't you think times have moved on and the need for change is here? when the rules were written it was for a differen't need, we didn't have armies and police to protect us (hold you're tongue that's a diff debate)

someone said it's undemocratic? how so? are you saying being stopped for doign somethnig to protect others is undemocratic? so we should allow under age sex? let the slave trade carry on unopposed? sell drugs, allow prostitution? of course not, we need protecting from ourselves sometimes.

no one is saying guns should be banned completely, just that you need to have a reason to own one, sporting/hunting etc. the same arguement came up here in the UK too, but it's worked, we don't nearly have as many gun deaths these days, and when we do the illegal guns have more often than not came from ireland and alot of them came from the US sent over to support the IRA, so your lax gun laws are affecting more countires than just the US.
but being the worst capitalist country in the world a ban will never happen because of the money gun sales generate and the ridiculous power the money makers have over your senate.
why can't you look further than your shores, and see how much better other countries are with less guns being available.
Click to expand...

:gpost:

I have seen some people who own guns but dont go hunting or anything...asked them what were they for. They said to collect as a hobby. Uhhh ok.
 
Macian said:
this is something I don't mind admitting that I struggle to understand some American views.

don't you think times have moved on and the need for change is here? when the rules were written it was for a differen't need, we didn't have armies and police to protect us (hold you're tongue that's a diff debate)

someone said it's undemocratic? how so? are you saying being stopped for doign somethnig to protect others is undemocratic? so we should allow under age sex? let the slave trade carry on unopposed? sell drugs, allow prostitution? of course not, we need protecting from ourselves sometimes.

no one is saying guns should be banned completely, just that you need to have a reason to own one, sporting/hunting etc. the same arguement came up here in the UK too, but it's worked, we don't nearly have as many gun deaths these days, and when we do the illegal guns have more often than not came from ireland and alot of them came from the US sent over to support the IRA, so your lax gun laws are affecting more countires than just the US.
but being the worst capitalist country in the world a ban will never happen because of the money gun sales generate and the ridiculous power the money makers have over your senate.
why can't you look further than your shores, and see how much better other countries are with less guns being available.
Click to expand...

hence my post - Like I said - empower the law-abiding citizens. regulate more on manufacturers, distributor, and transporter (for ie. report the loss of cargo full of guns).
 
Jiro said:
hence my post - Like I said - empower the law-abiding citizens. regulate more on manufacturers, distributor, and transporter (for ie. report the loss of cargo full of guns).
Click to expand...

or simply just ban owning them unless you have a reason, self defence isn't one of them and protecting property isn't either, or else it would and has descended into the mess you have now, with lots of gun deaths. it's so bad there the change won't be easy but it needs doing.
I find The US to be one of the slowest countires to accept change in the world.
global warming/co2 emmisions, you opposed it for years and years even holding the rest of the world up.
now it's guns, the US is supposed to be the biggest superpower yet you are not leading the way, more like following like a spoilt kid who doesn't like being told they are wrong, the guns debate is no differen't.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Perhaps I should rephrase my question. Instead of banning them, what about putting gun control laws in place? What would it take for you to start thinking "Okay maybe we do need some sort of limitations...."?
Click to expand...
We already have limitations and controls.

Current laws about crimes that involve guns are not enforced, and there are too many loopholes in gun sales that end up in criminal hands.
 
Macian said:
this is something I don't mind admitting that I struggle to understand some American views.

don't you think times have moved on and the need for change is here? when the rules were written it was for a differen't need, we didn't have armies and police to protect us (hold you're tongue that's a diff debate)

someone said it's undemocratic? how so? are you saying being stopped for doign somethnig to protect others is undemocratic? so we should allow under age sex? let the slave trade carry on unopposed? sell drugs, allow prostitution? of course not, we need protecting from ourselves sometimes.

no one is saying guns should be banned completely, just that you need to have a reason to own one, sporting/hunting etc. the same arguement came up here in the UK too, but it's worked, we don't nearly have as many gun deaths these days, and when we do the illegal guns have more often than not came from ireland and alot of them came from the US sent over to support the IRA, so your lax gun laws are affecting more countires than just the US.
but being the worst capitalist country in the world a ban will never happen because of the money gun sales generate and the ridiculous power the money makers have over your senate.
why can't you look further than your shores, and see how much better other countries are with less guns being available.
Click to expand...
The authors of the Constitution did have a good reason for armed citizenry. It was to ensure that the citizens could protect themselves from a tyrannical government, and even rebel against that government if necessary.

Historical background:

1. US: During the American Revolution from England, the colonies' rebels had very few guns. They used pikes and pitchforks, or whatever they could find. Most soldiers brought their own personal guns with them. There weren't enough guns for the military to issue them. But the volunteers who did have their own guns used those, and also the experience they had in handling the guns. The other unarmed volunteers, when they finally got guns, needed a lot of training because they were inexperienced with guns. Our Constitution's authors didn't want to let that happen again. They wanted the people themselves to be ready to take up arms against tyrannical leaders.

2. World: The German government ensured an easy collection of Jews and dissidents by collecting up all their guns first.

Unarmed civilians are not just at the mercy of criminals but sometimes at the mercy of their own governments.

Hunting, target shooting, home defense, and gun collecting aren't the reasons for our 2nd Amendment but they support the readiness of citizens.

Americans are also free to not have guns. No one is forced to buy or use a gun. For those who don't want guns in their homes, I respect their decision.
 
Reba said:
The authors of the Constitution did have a good reason for armed citizenry. It was to ensure that the citizens could protect themselves from a tyrannical government, and even rebel against that government if necessary.

Historical background:

1. US: During the American Revolution from England, the colonies' rebels had very few guns. They used pikes and pitchforks, or whatever they could find. Most soldiers brought their own personal guns with them. There weren't enough guns for the military to issue them. But the volunteers who did have their own guns used those, and also the experience they had in handling the guns. The other unarmed volunteers, when they finally got guns, needed a lot of training because they were inexperienced with guns. Our Constitution's authors didn't want to let that happen again. They wanted the people themselves to be ready to take up arms against tyrannical leaders.

2. World: The German government ensured an easy collection of Jews and dissidents by collecting up all their guns first.

Unarmed civilians are not just at the mercy of criminals but sometimes at the mercy of their own governments.

Hunting, target shooting, home defense, and gun collecting aren't the reasons for our 2nd Amendment but they support the readiness of citizens.

Americans are also free to not have guns. No one is forced to buy or use a gun. For those who don't want guns in their homes, I respect their decision.
Click to expand...

that just confrims my view hat the need for them is outdated, everything you stated is from the past, and will never happen again, it's hardly a vaild point in a debate.
 
Macian said:
that just confrims my view hat the need for them is outdated, everything you stated is from the past, and will never happen again, it's hardly a vaild point in a debate.
Click to expand...
Will never happen again? There will be no more dictators or tyrants? :grouphug: Lovely!
 
Reba said:
Will never happen again? There will be no more dictators or tyrants? :grouphug: Lovely!
Click to expand...

you know deep down you wont have one in the states, and the armed forces will take care of the rest, I'm surprised at your apparent sarcasm reba lassie:hmm:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top