CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
So what, Hellno. I have no problem with that. All those countries are allies of ours in the middle East. We need them to be well armed in case we need them.
The Arabs have a saying....the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Hillary is going to make a splendid president!! So much experience!
OP forgot Pakistan. Hillary loves Pakistan, calling them our friends in southeast Asia. WTF! What about the secular, non-communist India? How come she supports Pakistan, a country where there is extreme religious segregation and government funded terrorism.
The arabs are also pretty fucked up. They are conservative as a population and women weren't even allowed to drive until recently (and only in some areas). If you aren't muslim, they send out a religion police to see if you have non-muslim worship items. Then they burn down your house with you in it.
These stories come from experience and my ancestors.
But guess what? Arabia has oil and Pakistan is loved by China because it's moving towards communism. That is why we give money to them.
Pakistan isn't our ally. We don't ally with terrorists.
Donald Trump wouldn't be better though, he'd anger the oil land muslims and destroy the world's economy.
The second amendment was setup so that we could avoid free standing armies (exactly like what we have) and balance power between the nation and the state (along with appeasing the states that used the militias as slave patrols, etc.)
So, should we disband the military or are you at war with the second amendment, conservative??
Federalist 28:
"To the People of the State of New York:
THAT there may happen cases in which the national government may be necessitated to resort to force, cannot be denied. Our own experience has corroborated the lessons taught by the examples of other nations; that emergencies of this sort will sometimes arise in all societies, however constituted; that seditions and insurrections are, unhappily, maladies as inseparable from the body politic as tumors and eruptions from the natural body; that the idea of governing at all times by the simple force of law (which we have been told is the only admissible principle of republican government), has no place but in the reveries of those political doctors whose sagacity disdains the admonitions of experimental instruction.
Should such emergencies at any time happen under the national government, there could be no remedy but force. The means to be employed must be proportioned to the extent of the mischief. If it should be a slight commotion in a small part of a State, the militia of the residue would be adequate to its suppression; and the national presumption is that they would be ready to do their duty. An insurrection, whatever may be its immediate cause, eventually endangers all government. Regard to the public peace, if not to the rights of the Union, would engage the citizens to whom the contagion had not communicated itself to oppose the insurgents; and if the general government should be found in practice conducive to the prosperity and felicity of the people, it were irrational to believe that they would be disinclined to its support.
If, on the contrary, the insurrection should pervade a whole State, or a principal part of it, the employment of a different kind of force might become unavoidable. It appears that Massachusetts found it necessary to raise troops for repressing the disorders within that State; that Pennsylvania, from the mere apprehension of commotions among a part of her citizens, has thought proper to have recourse to the same measure. Suppose the State of New York had been inclined to re-establish her lost jurisdiction over the inhabitants of Vermont, could she have hoped for success in such an enterprise from the efforts of the militia alone? Would she not have been compelled to raise and to maintain a more regular force for the execution of her design? If it must then be admitted that the necessity of recurring to a force different from the militia, in cases of this extraordinary nature, is applicable to the State governments themselves, why should the possibility, that the national government might be under a like necessity, in similar extremities, be made an objection to its existence? Is it not surprising that men who declare an attachment to the Union in the abstract, should urge as an objection to the proposed Constitution what applies with tenfold weight to the plan for which they contend; and what, as far as it has any foundation in truth, is an inevitable consequence of civil society upon an enlarged scale? Who would not prefer that possibility to the unceasing agitations and frequent revolutions which are the continual scourges of petty republics?
Let us pursue this examination in another light. Suppose, in lieu of one general system, two, or three, or even four Confederacies were to be formed, would not the same difficulty oppose itself to the operations of either of these Confederacies? Would not each of them be exposed to the same casualties; and when these happened, be obliged to have recourse to the same expedients for upholding its authority which are objected to in a government for all the States? Would the militia, in this supposition, be more ready or more able to support the federal authority than in the case of a general union? All candid and intelligent men must, upon due consideration, acknowledge that the principle of the objection is equally applicable to either of the two cases; and that whether we have one government for all the States, or different governments for different parcels of them, or even if there should be an entire separation of the States, there might sometimes be a necessity to make use of a force constituted differently from the militia, to preserve the peace of the community and to maintain the just authority of the laws against those violent invasions of them which amount to insurrections and rebellions.
Independent of all other reasonings upon the subject, it is a full answer to those who require a more peremptory provision against military establishments in time of peace, to say that the whole power of the proposed government is to be in the hands of the representatives of the people. This is the essential, and, after all, only efficacious security for the rights and privileges of the people, which is attainable in civil society.1
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.
The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny. But in a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!
It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority. Projects of usurpation cannot be masked under pretenses so likely to escape the penetration of select bodies of men, as of the people at large. The legislatures will have better means of information. They can discover the danger at a distance; and possessing all the organs of civil power, and the confidence of the people, they can at once adopt a regular plan of opposition, in which they can combine all the resources of the community. They can readily communicate with each other in the different States, and unite their common forces for the protection of their common liberty.
The great extent of the country is a further security. We have already experienced its utility against the attacks of a foreign power. And it would have precisely the same effect against the enterprises of ambitious rulers in the national councils. If the federal army should be able to quell the resistance of one State, the distant States would have it in their power to make head with fresh forces. The advantages obtained in one place must be abandoned to subdue the opposition in others; and the moment the part which had been reduced to submission was left to itself, its efforts would be renewed, and its resistance revive.
We should recollect that the extent of the military force must, at all events, be regulated by the resources of the country. For a long time to come, it will not be possible to maintain a large army; and as the means of doing this increase, the population and natural strength of the community will proportionably increase. When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations? The apprehension may be considered as a disease, for which there can be found no cure in the resources of argument and reasoning."
Do you know what "infringed" means? restricted, limited, lessened, etc. Your right can't be lessened if that is the way it was in the beginning.
You were required to enroll in the militia:
"I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."
The Progressive wrote -" "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The Progressive wrote -" "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Have you missed something ?
The Fathers were clearly referring to the people in a well organized militia. Not wack jobs who shoot up night clubs and schools. Do you not understand? Have you missed something?
Us Pro Gun Control people don't exactly have a war on the 2nd Amendment, as you claim.
Rather, we simply feel that it has been misinterpreted. And this includes being misinterpreted by the Supreme Court.
We feel that when they wrote it originally, the Founding Fathers were referring to "a well-organized militia" when they spoke of a right to bear arms.
And we feel that times have changed very drastically since then. We don't need militias anymore. They don't even exist! We have Law Enforcement, the military, and National Guard troops for that stuff.
And we feel that there is no doubt that if those same Founding Fathers were around today and saw all the mass shootings and gun violence, that they too would admit the times were now so much different that they would not hesitate to re-write the wording of that 2nd Amendment so as to make this very clear to all.
We also think--well, we know!--that the Founding Fathers NEVER approved assault rifles for mass consumption. Since they did not exist then. So had they known that they would exist some day, they would have taken steps to outlaw their ridiculously easy purchase.
So, again, we are not at WAR with the 2nd Amendment, per se. We are at war simply debating the interpretation of it. And claiming that the Gun Lobby and the absurdly powerful NRA have taken advantage of the mistaken interpretation so as to further their own greedy agendas.
Hope this helps you realize what we think.
Oh....read this, from a guy named Michael Waldman who wrote a book explaining what I just said............
"But when you actually go back and look at the debate that went into drafting of the amendment, you can squint and look really hard, but there's simply no evidence of it being about individual gun ownership for self-protection or for hunting. Emphatically, the focus was on the militias. To the framers, that phrase "a well-regulated militia" was really critical. In the debates, in James Madison's notes of the Constitutional Convention, on the floor of the House of Representatives as they wrote the Second Amendment, all the focus was about the militias. Now at the same time, those militias are not the National Guard. Every adult man, and eventually every adult white man, was required to be in the militias and was required to own a gun, and to bring it from home. So it was an individual right to fulfill the duty to serve in the militias."
Again, read the quote I supplied from that guy who wrote the book.
He clearly believes--as I do--that the FF's were talking of the rights of the Militias not to be infringed upon. Back then, citizens HAD to be in militias when needed! Such is not the case today.
Please read his quote. Since it sounds like you did not. thanks.
So you believe that the Second Amendment only applies to militias, don't believe that they had any sort of sort of foresight that weapons technology would advance, and therein I can safely assume that you don't believe that the Second Amendment was put in place as a means for the people to remove a tyrannical government. Let's establish some context, by looking at some history and correct those misconceptions.
I'll start with weapons technology. The existence of the puckle gun tosses that garbage argument aside. the puckle gun being effectively a crew served machine gun. Also the fact that there were never any restrictions on any weapons, to include cannons and other military weapons. The only regulations that even existed surrounded storage of gun powder, which was only put in place to prevent making a fire worse, should one break out.
Next, who is the militia?
10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
In 1774, Great Britain enacted a ban on the import all firearms and gunpowder.
On April 19, 1775, the Battles of Lexington and Concord sparked the beginning of the Revolutionary war. British Governor of Massachusetts, General Gage, was ordered to destroy all military supplies in Concord; this is too including their weapons, obviously. The Colonists resisted and a battle ensued. The spark was England's attempt to disarm the colonists. This wasn't the first time that he had attempted to disarm the Colonists, but this was the first time that the attempt had resulted in shots being fired and then quickly into an all-out battle.
Gage continued his attempts to disarm the Colonists in Massachusetts. He proclaimed that any armed civilian was traitor. He allowed them to hand over their arms peacefully, but after only 2,600 guns were handed over in Boston, it was clear that the Colonists were refusing. May 25, 1775, London dispatched more troops to the Colonies, under order to seize all public armories and secret collections of arms.
On July 8th, 1775, the Continental Congress sent an open letter to Great Britain issuing the warning, “men trained to arms from their Infancy, and animated by the Love of Liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.”
July 4th, 1776 the Declaration of Independence is signed. Here an excerpt from the document, in favor of disposing a tyrannical government, for all of the reasons listed.
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
So, it is clear that the Founder’s believed that, when left with no other recourse in the face of a tyrannical government, violent revolution was the only option. They exhausted their options and the government actively pursued a campaign to disarm the people.
Now, with a bloody war fought over liberty (the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views) they were quite aware of that fact that a government could become a tyranny. They were aware that it could happen again.
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." — Daniel Webster
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."— James Madison (attributed to Madison, by his contemporaries
“History, in general, only informs us what bad government is.”-Thomas Jefferson (1807)
“It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.”-Thomas Paine
So, the Founding Fathers knew that a government could go bad, but what were their thoughts on dealing with such a government?
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”-Thomas Jefferson
“When a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise the original rights of self defense – to fight the government.” – Alexander Hamilton
But how would the “people” have the ability to fight the government if they themselves were not allowed to own weapons? Well, that’s because they believed in the individual’s right to weapon ownership and that the militia was in fact the people.
10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
“…that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms.” –Alexander Hamilton(Federalist Paper #29)
“The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, … or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.”- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Major John Cartwright (5 June 1824).
“Here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offence."- John Adams as defense attorney for the British soldiers on trial for the Boston Massacre. Reported in L. Kinvin Wroth and Hiller B. Zobel, ed., Legal Papers of John Adams (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1965), 3:248.
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”-James Madison Federalist No. 46 1788
“That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state.” George Mason Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People", later adopted by the Virginia ratification convention (1788)
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” - Patrick Henry Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention (June 5, 1788), reported in Elliot, Debates of the Several State Conventions 3:45.
“[A]rms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.”- Thomas Paine, as quoted in "Thoughts On Defensive War" (1775), by T. Paine, Pennsylvania Magazine (July 1775).
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” -Noah Webster, writing under the nom de plume of "A Citizen of America", as quoted in An Examination Into the Leading Principles of the Constitution (17 October 1787).
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms...To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always posses arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them...The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.”- Melancton Smith, Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788.
“The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people.” - Fisher Ames, Letter to F.R. Minoe, June 12, 1789 (reporting to Minoe on the amendments proposed by Madison).
"Give me liberty, or give me death!"- Patrick Henry
So, I’ve established a historical precedence prior to the war and during the early days of a tyrannical government attempting to disarm their people. I’ve shown that the Founding Fathers recognized this tactic and had taken notice of the trend around the world and across history. I’ve shown that the Fathers did in fact believe in the right to bear arms by the individual, as well as overthrowing oppressive governments. Oh and they had foresight enough to know weapons would advance.
Last, but not least. Stop saying assault rifle. You sound dumb.
Us Pro Gun Control people don't exactly have a war on the 2nd Amendment, as you claim.
Rather, we simply feel that it has been misinterpreted. And this includes being misinterpreted by the Supreme Court.
We feel that when they wrote it originally, the Founding Fathers were referring to "a well-organized militia" when they spoke of a right to bear arms.
And we feel that times have changed very drastically since then. We don't need militias anymore. They don't even exist! We have Law Enforcement, the military, and National Guard troops for that stuff.
And we feel that there is no doubt that if those same Founding Fathers were around today and saw all the mass shootings and gun violence, that they too would admit the times were now so much different that they would not hesitate to re-write the wording of that 2nd Amendment so as to make this very clear to all.
We also think--well, we know!--that the Founding Fathers NEVER approved assault rifles for mass consumption. Since they did not exist then. So had they known that they would exist some day, they would have taken steps to outlaw their ridiculously easy purchase.
So, again, we are not at WAR with the 2nd Amendment, per se. We are at war simply debating the interpretation of it. And claiming that the Gun Lobby and the absurdly powerful NRA have taken advantage of the mistaken interpretation so as to further their own greedy agendas.
Hope this helps you realize what we think.
Oh....read this, from a guy named Michael Waldman who wrote a book explaining what I just said............
"But when you actually go back and look at the debate that went into drafting of the amendment, you can squint and look really hard, but there's simply no evidence of it being about individual gun ownership for self-protection or for hunting. Emphatically, the focus was on the militias. To the framers, that phrase "a well-regulated militia" was really critical. In the debates, in James Madison's notes of the Constitutional Convention, on the floor of the House of Representatives as they wrote the Second Amendment, all the focus was about the militias. Now at the same time, those militias are not the National Guard. Every adult man, and eventually every adult white man, was required to be in the militias and was required to own a gun, and to bring it from home. So it was an individual right to fulfill the duty to serve in the militias."
I'm sure that since they didn't foresee the Internet with its ridiculous ease of spreading mass misinformation, they would curtail the 1st Amendment. The Internet is dangerous, and a great tool against American interests.
Also cars. Most dangerous invention ever.
And pools. They kill more people than guns. And many are kids.
You do realize don't you the USA is and has been for a long time the leading exporter of arms in the entire world? We're half of the entire world arms market. Pointing to any President or Secretary of State and saying they sold arms is essentially saying they did their job promoting the US military industrial complex.
It's comparable to pointing to a country we sold food to and saying we're giving nutrition to terrorists. In fact I'm sure we do sell food to countries where terrorists benefit from it. But that's because we sell food pretty much everywhere, just like we sell weapons pretty much everywhere.
She IS NOT opposed to the Second Amendment, she's made that PERFECTLY CLEAR (to those who listen), many times! She is only asking for REASONABLE gun restrictions. By the way, polls show that those restrictions are wanted by 90% +/- of the American people ... including 70% of NRA Members! It's just the NRA hierarchy and to many "Congressmen" that don't want them. (Follow THAT money!) THOSE "weapons deals" are sanctioned by the Defense Department and other agencies.
If these numbers are correct, than I will admit that I was wrong and misinformed on the topic.
As for the US not taking migrants, I mean refugees. the US is under no obligation to open it's door to a giant wave of the people. the majority of the refugees are actually economic migrants and of the refugees, the majority are fighting aged males. Besides, I don't know why the US would want to open it's door to all of the cultural chaos that happening in Europe.
if a person commits rape in a park - that is not a reason to get rid of the law against rape - it is better to educate women, setup a light, a phone, etc. to help prevent the next one...
just one of those crazy progressive ideas I guess...
What does that nonsense have to do with guns ? What you Progressives live for is to make it difficult for law abiding gun owners yet never addressing the criminals with guns !
You PROGRESSIVES are so ignorant that it should be beyond comprehension but it isn't. Let's go to school PROGRESSIVE and school you as to your ignorance ! This will be fun ! Are you aware that all the parts to build a AR-15 can be bought without a background check and that includes the receiver. Now how will your laws stop gun manufacture by private citizens ?
You CONSERVATIVES are so ignorant that it should be beyond comprehension but it isn't. Let's go to school CONSERVATIVE and school you as to your ignorance ! This will be fun ! Are you aware that AN ENTIRE AR-15 can be bought without a background check??
How do you completely stop the private manufacture of automatic weapons? you don't - yet somehow people aren't using automatic weapons in their terror attacks - now why is that, conservative?
How do you completely stop the private manufacture of automatic weapons? You are saying AR-15's are automatic weapons ? Where did you get that information ?
That I can actually believe. But don't think that's a unilateral decision on her part. Our government sells weapons freakin everywhere and all of Washington touches the process somewhere along the line, from our budget hyping the military industrial complex to all the nuances of domestic and international politics thereafter. Bullet the blue sky, baby.
Like Reagan was trying to hide about selling guns to Iran?? At least SHE would get the guns to the GOOD guys in Libya, we'd already taken out many of the bad guys, including their leader.
Face it. You're only trying to make up another smear story. None of them have stuck so far except for the fact that "If a lie is told often enough, and loud enough, it becomes truth!"
