How about police coming inside, once a year, to have a look around?

[Moonbeam]

Uhhh...seriously? Who here that is for the second amendment is saying the death of kids (or anyone not a criminal) is a good thing - BEYOND YOU?

Nobody, obviously. What is beyond you is that if you stand for something that leads to killing you can be accused of supporting such killing. If no legislation regarding gun violence and the easy access of guns means children will continue to die. perhaps in growing numbers, you will be seen as abetting such murders.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Nobody, obviously. What is beyond you is that if you stand for something that leads to killing you can be accused of supporting such killing. If no legislation regarding gun violence and the easy access of guns means children will continue to die. perhaps in growing numbers, you will be seen as abetting such murders.

Guns are not easy access. You have to go through background checks. You have to show you're old enough. I've been checked and cross checked by the FBI more times than someone with top level clearance just in the course of buying a few firearms. Moreover, support of firearms being able to be purchased is not equivalent to supporting their ILLEGAL USE. No one in the pro-gun movement - be it the NRA, SAF or the people on this forum - are advocating that more things such as sandy hook happen.

I mean, hell - taking what you've just said, if you're behind religion you must approve of the crusades. Or Jihads. If you support Obama you then must support all the deaths he has incurred with drone strikes - some of them kids. You do not get to simply draw a connection because you want one to exist. Your logic does not hold.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Nobody, obviously. What is beyond you is that if you stand for something that leads to killing you can be accused of supporting such killing. If no legislation regarding gun violence and the easy access of guns means children will continue to die. perhaps in growing numbers, you will be seen as abetting such murders.

Guns are not easy access. You have to go through background checks. You have to show you're old enough. I've been checked and cross checked by the FBI more times than someone with top level clearance just in the course of buying a few firearms. Moreover, support of firearms being able to be purchased is not equivalent to supporting their ILLEGAL USE. No one in the pro-gun movement - be it the NRA, SAF or the people on this forum - are advocating that more things such as sandy hook happen.

I mean, hell - taking what you've just said, if you're behind religion you must approve of the crusades. Or Jihads. If you support Obama you then must support all the deaths he has incurred with drone strikes - some of them kids. You do not get to simply draw a connection because you want one to exist. Your logic does not hold.

You win.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Nobody, obviously. What is beyond you is that if you stand for something that leads to killing you can be accused of supporting such killing. If no legislation regarding gun violence and the easy access of guns means children will continue to die. perhaps in growing numbers, you will be seen as abetting such murders.

Guns are not the problem. A murderer doesn't suddenly not be one because he can't get a gun. And if bans work so well, why is pot so readily and relatively easily available 😕

Stupid bans don't work, except to remove said item from the law-abiding citizen who isn't a threat to anyone in the first place.

For someone who pretends to be so smart, you really should stop and think for a moment instead of simply parroting your party's chorus.

 

[Rifter]

I dont see the issue unless the police abuse the power?

We have had this on the books in canada for years, i know over 30 people with gun licences and none of them have ever had the police show up to inspect them ever.

 

[pcgeek11]

I dont see the issue unless the police abuse the power?

We have had this on the books in canada for years, i know over 30 people with gun licences and none of them have ever had the police show up to inspect them ever.

It isn't if they do it or not. It is giving them the lawful ability to do it. Here in the US it is against the Constitution.

 

[Rifter]

It isn't if they do it or not. It is giving them the lawful ability to do it. Here in the US it is against the Constitution.

Ok then im more confused than i was before???? You cant pass a law thats against the consitution can you? so why is this even a issue?

 

[pcgeek11]

Ok then im more confused than i was before???? You cant pass a law thats against the consitution can you? so why is this even a issue?

It really isn't an issue. The 4th amendment protects us against illegal search and seizure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

They could pass the law, but it wouldn't hold up in a court of law. Like some states have laws allowing MJ use, but it is against still Federal law.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Ok then im more confused than i was before???? You cant pass a law thats against the consitution can you? so why is this even a issue?

you can pass a law against the constitution until it's ruled unconstitutional.

sometimes it's blatantly obvious that it's against the constitution (this, patriot act, etc) - unreasonable search and seizure. so politicians generally don't bother trying to push it through (except patriot act obviously)

another good example is new york's recently passed gun law - it was introduced prior to vote for less than 10 minutes. the only way they could get it through legislature is by steamrolling it through. now it will likely go through the lengthy process of being challenged in the courts, or perhaps repealed based on the way counties in NY state are voting against it.

other times it can be much trickier and requires court ruling (ACA for example).

 

[michal1980]

Ok then im more confused than i was before???? You cant pass a law thats against the consitution can you? so why is this even a issue?

Because the libs want to take away as many rights as the can with respect to guns.

Plus if you pass a law that's against he constitution someone still needs to spend millions of dollars fighting it.



Its also a liberal tactic, try to pass something hyper radical, so that they can 'compromise' with just a radical bill. The MSM will never call them out, and like they are right now, will carry water for them. The number of clearly political anti-gun stories being ran as "news" is getting to be sickening.

 

[boomerang]

 

[PokerGuy]

The number of clearly political anti-gun stories being ran as "news" is getting to be sickening.

You're so right about that. Just about every night some crappy leftist media outlet has something about increasing violence and how we have to do something to stem the tide of gun deaths and violence. Of course the statistics prove otherwise, but the leftist media are (as usual) pushing a political agenda disguised as news.

 

[Genx87]

Ok then im more confused than i was before???? You cant pass a law thats against the consitution can you? so why is this even a issue?

States will pass laws that are against the constitution then intimidate their population into complying. For instance these laws that make it illegal to video tape police officers doing their job. Many states have a law on the books. This clearly violates the constitution. But the states will use these laws to intimidate people into not video taping police officers. For many people they dont know better and comply. For many others they do it without knowing then plea out because they dont know better. For a select few they will fight the ridiculous charges and the DA will prolong the process as a form of intimidation until dropping charges at the 12th hour to avoid having the law ruled unconstitutional in the courts.

But for the vast majority of people all they see is video taping the police is illegal and comply. Regardless if it violates the constitution. I suspect if this were passed similar intimidation would be used. They would show up and make it clear people are breaking the law if they arent allowed in. Many will comply. A few wont. And the few that dont comply will have charges dropped against them. But it still costs money to defend themselves in court.

 

[ch33zw1z]

You're so right about that. Just about every night some crappy leftist media outlet has something about increasing violence and how we have to do something to stem the tide of gun deaths and violence. Of course the statistics prove otherwise, but the leftist media are (as usual) pushing a political agenda disguised as news.

So you are a righty who watches leftist media outlets every night? you need a hobby 🙂

 

[Matt1970]

It has nothing to do with smart. It has to do with the fact that democrats are open to self correcting. Read, open to it, not perfect or perfectly self correcting. And it says why right in the article and in my post. Learn to read what is written not see the same shit written as is in your head. You are a brainwashed goon and all you can see is the shit brainwashed into you. You are a robot and a puppet. Start to examine yourself so you can think for yourself instead of vomit what you were force fed at your favorite partisan tit. You are too old to be nursing.

It's funny how that self correcting only comes after hearing public backlash at their proposal.