Ban hands and feet

[Darnell 8,478]

I have no issues with killing with hands and feet.

Why do you ?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Now you're making the argument in favor of banning firearms rather than just certain rifles. Awesome.

Not in favor of that at all, but at least it would be logical and sincere and would have a strong argument that it could possibly reduce the gun violence.

Once again calling for a ban on assault looking scary TV Hollywood guns, is absolutely totally and with out question stupidity. It is designed to take an ignorant uninformed constituency and get them fired up and supporting people they think are taking action.

This is much easier than addressing the real problem. That is large % of our population that is government dependent and keeps spitting out more and more of the same. A culture that glorfies violance and worships wastiods like Lindsay Lohan, Kardashians, Ignorant ####### multi-millionaire TV preachers, Thug Pro sports players, and foul mouthed misogynistic rap stars.

Gone are the days when a man was respected because he was honest and raised productive self reliant children.

If any of you think banning a Hollywood looking weapon is going to make one bit of difference in the "You owe me" spoiled rotten to the core American society then you are part of the problem not part of the solution.

[Darnell 8,478]

If any of you think banning a Hollywood looking weapon is going to make one bit of difference in the "You owe me" spoiled rotten to the core American society then you are part of the problem not part of the solution.

Actually, I advocate bringing back legallized dueling (blood and death) to overcome this 'you owe me' societal norm.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

For all you geniuses with a big social conscience, did you know more people were killed in 2011 by hands and feet than assault rifles ?

Maybe we should do a hands and feet buy back program or make registered offenders wear plastic around their hands and feet.

The liberal hysteria and stupidity, and dumb politician grandstanding never fails to amaze me. We must save lives they cry. This is for the children. No it's not. It's a polotical ploy by left wing polotcians who do not have a frank clue what they are doing, to erode more of the right power base and demonize normal people, who just want to work, pay their fair share, raise non-idiot government dependent morons, and be left alone.

http://www.fbi.gov/a...tables/table-20

Herschel...

Here is who you are arguing with...

When one of these school shootings occurs, people immediately call the police. You are arguing with people that do not think a policeman in a school is a good thing...but lauded all over Bill Clinton when he suggested that the temporary,(5 year) partial (20%) subsidy of "100,000 new police officers on our streets" would reduce crime!

The same people that have always wanted gun control and for whom "gun control" is always the answer...unless...Unless you point out that the state with no restriction on carrying guns is the state with the lowest crime, THEN everything BUT guns is the reason for low crime. If putting guns into the hands of good people does not REDUCE crime then taking guns out of their hands cannot reduce crime.

Relax. Obama (who will never stand for election again) and Biden (who will never stand for election again and cannot spell assault rifle) can blabber all they want and they can propose all they want. It won't happen. Why?

1. Heller Decision

2. McDonald decision

3. The Dems have not yet recovered from 1994, the last time that Dems that need to stand for election voted for a federal gun law.

what WILL happen? All sorts of laws will be proposed, most will die in committee, they will be sponsored by Dems in safe seats, one or two will make it to the floor for a vote (probably in the senate, doubtful in the house)and Dems in safe seats will vote for them but they will fail. OR, the NRA will insert a "poison pill" such as reciprocity for concealed carry and the people that "support" the bill will vote against it. Anything in the House is DOA, unless they can get a discharge petition...not likely.

Obama will never see an Act to sign. Half the people will be pissed off but won't do anything about it and Obama does not need to be re-elected...he tried.

The individual RIGHT to keep and bear arms, particularly of the type suitable for military use, is settled law. There is nothing to debate here. Exisiting state bans on "guns that look like assault weapons" are being challenged using those decisions and will be reversed. Only the crime Mecca of Illinois continues to ban anyone from carrying concealed handguns.

For the moment, the P&R subforum is pretty light on anything to debate.

what would I like to see? There is an 11% excise tax on all firearms and ammunition since 1937 (Pittman/Robertson Act) which was proposed and supported by gunowners and those funds are earmarked for wildlife management and have been creidited with saving many game and non-game species of wildlife. GUN OWNERS pay for it. I would like to see the NRA propose a "School Security" tax of a fixed percentage or perhaps a fixed tax on each sale of firearms, excise taxes are levied at the manufacturer level and easy to collect. These funds would be used to staff our schools with police officers to protect our children and GUN OWNERS would ante up the price.

But how is a tax legal on a right? Simple, it applies only to the sale of NEW firearms from the manufacturer giving citizens and legal residents the OPTION to pay the tax or not by purchasing new or used firearms. (I add that for the inevitibale person that wants to BAN ownership of firearms suddenly concerning themselves with prtecting my "right" to tax free guns...you know it would happen)

Now if someone wants to tell me WHAT is wrong with police officers in our schools paid for by firearms owners...please have at it! Tell me the downside of this.

Edited December 28, 2012 by Gary and Alla

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Herschel...

Here is who you are arguing with...

When one of these school shhotings occurs, people immediately call the police. You are arguing with people that do not think a policeman in a school is a good thing...but lauded all over Bill Clinton when he suggested that the temporary partial subsidy of "100,000 new police officers on our streets" would reduce crime

The same people that have always wanted gun control and for whom "gun control" is always the answer...unless...Unless you point out that the state with no restriction on carrying guns is the state with the lowest crime, THEN everything BUT guns is the reason. If putting guns into the hands of good people cannot REDUCE crime then taking guns out of their hands cannot reduce crime.

Relax. Obama (who will never stand for election again) and Biden (who will never stand for election again and cannot spell assault rifle) can blabber all they want and they can propose all they want. It won't happen. Why?

1. Heller Decision

2. McDonald decision

3. The Dems have not yet recovered from 1994, the last time that Dems that need to stand for election voted for a federal gun law.

what WILL happen? All sorts of laws will be proposed, most will die in committee, they will be sponsored by Dems in safe seats, one or two will make it to the floor for a vote (probably in the senate, doubtful in the house)and Dems in safe seats will vote for them but they will fail. OR, the NRA will insert a "poison pill" such as reciporcity for concealed carry and the people that "support" the bill will vote against it. Anything in the House is DOA, unless they can get a discharge petition...not likely.

Obama will never see an Act to sign.

The individual RIGHT to keep and bear arms, particularly of the type suitable for military use, is settled law. There is nothing to debate here. Exisiting state bans on "guns that look like assault weapons" are being challenged using those decisions and will be reversed. Only the crime Mecca of Illinois continues to ban anyone from carrying concealed handguns.

For the moment, the P&R subforum is pretty light on anything to debate.

what would I like to see? There is an 11% excise tax on all firearms and ammunition since 1937 (Pittman/Robertson Act) which was proposed and supported by gunowners and those funds are earmarked for wildlife management and have been creidited with saving many game and non-game species of wildlife. GUN OWNERS pay for it. I would like to see the NRA propose a "School Security" tax of a fixed percentage or perhaps a fixed tax on each sale of firearms, excise taxes are levied at the manufacturer level and easy to collect. These funds would be used to staff our schools with police officers to protect our children and GUN OWNERS would ante up the price.

But how is a tax legal on a right? Simple, it applies only to the sale of NEW firearms from the manufacturer giving citizens and legal residents the OPTION to pay the tax or not by purchasing new or used firearms. (I add that for the inevitibale person that wants to BAN ownership of firearms suddenly concerning themselves with prtecting my "right" to tax free guns...you know it would happen)

Now if someone wants to tell me WHAT is wrong with police officers in our schools paid for by firearms owners...please have at it! Tell me the downside of this.

Your right about everything you said, except it being an argument . An argument would require a position other than.. Nana nana boo you can't do math and deliverance pictures.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

But how is a tax legal on a right? Simple, it applies only to the sale of NEW firearms from the manufacturer giving citizens and legal residents the OPTION to pay the tax or not by purchasing new or used firearms. (I add that for the inevitibale person that wants to BAN ownership of firearms suddenly concerning themselves with prtecting my "right" to tax free guns...you know it would happen)

Now if someone wants to tell me WHAT is wrong with police officers in our schools paid for by firearms owners...please have at it! Tell me the downside of this.

You may be onto something here. Even more money could be raised if E-Verify was made mandatory and businesses were fined for employing illegals. Is there anyone in Washington that has the balls to propose this?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

You may be onto something here. Even more money could be raised if E-Verify was made mandatory and businesses were fined for employing illegals. Is there anyone in Washington that has the balls to propose this?

E-verify is Mandatory here in Ga.. The big farmers and conservatives are raising hell at the Republican senators now saying it is an undue burden. Oh the Irony I have been using it for years. It akes about 15 mins to set up and about 2 mins to verify a candidate

Me thinks the big burden is no more Mexicans to pick onions. and do cheap farm work .

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

E-verify is Mandatory here in Ga.. The big farmers and conservatives are raising hell at the Republican senators now saying it is an undue burden. Oh the Irony I have been using it for years. It akes about 15 mins to set up and about 2 mins to verify a candidate

Me thinks the big burden is no more Mexicans to pick onions. and do cheap farm work .

Yes and no. No problem with hiring American workers and paying whatever wage is neceesary to attract and retain them, give them benefits etc...and raise the price of onions to pay for it...EXCEPT that the Mexicans can go to Alabama and pick onions and the Alabama farmers can sell onions for less than Georgia farmers.

IF we made it mandatory for EVERYONE then it will be less "of a burden". We also need to heavily penalize anyone that does not do it.

[himher 634]

Nice try at playing dumb.

Do you have any (intelligent or valid or wity) comment about the number of people beaten to death vs. the number of people killed with rifles (or thank you as you pointed out knives or blount instruments or other weapons)

Why ban assault rifles?

You're a pawn in a game dude.

For all you mathematically challenged gun nuts:

8,583 > 728 - not the other way around!

Per the link you provided, out of the total of 12,664 murders, 8,583 were committed with a firearm. That's five times as many as were committed with knives or cutting instruments (the next highest category at 1,694), fives times as many as were killed with other weapons (1,659) and almost twelve times as many as were murdered with hands, fists and feet (728).

The truth (which gun nuts have declared war on) is that there's nothing used to murder as much as the tool designed for that very purpose. The math (which you apparently also declared war on) supports that statement.

Edited December 28, 2012 by himher

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

You may be onto something here. Even more money could be raised if E-Verify was made mandatory and businesses were fined for employing illegals. Is there anyone in Washington that has the balls to propose this?

OK, but it has nothing to do with guns.

I am against FINES for punishment. Why? Fines require DUE PROCESS. The due process will cost the government more than the fines bring in and delay the punishment and the results.

TAXES are the answer, either tax penalties or tax incentives. Taxes require no "due process" they are levied by a legislative body and elections are all the "due process" we get. Settled law. It has been done for decades for every cause known to government including "obamacare". We know how to do it for everything else, why not to protect legal rights of workers?

[spookyturtle 9,465]

E-verify is Mandatory here in Ga.. The big farmers and conservatives are raising hell at the Republican senators now saying it is an undue burden. Oh the Irony I have been using it for years. It akes about 15 mins to set up and about 2 mins to verify a candidate

Me thinks the big burden is no more Mexicans to pick onions. and do cheap farm work .

Yes and no. No problem with hiring American workers and paying whatever wage is neceesary to attract and retain them, give them benefits etc...and raise the price of onions to pay for it...EXCEPT that the Mexicans can go to Alabama and pick onions and the Alabama farmers can sell onions for less than Georgia farmers.

IF we made it mandatory for EVERYONE then it will be less "of a burden". We also need to heavily penalize anyone that does not do it.

It should be mandatory for everyone and it would be great to use American workers, especially now that so many are unemployed.

[웃 910]

Bans do not work. If they didn't work with God (In the beginning He had a failed state-wide apple ban) then how arrogant to think they will work with humans.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Nice try at playing dumb.

Do you have any (intelligent or valid or wity) comment about the number of people beaten to death vs. the number of people killed with rifles (or thank you as you pointed out knives or blount instruments or other weapons)

Why ban assault rifles?

You're a pawn in a game dude.

Are you against police officers in schools paid for by gun purchasers? Why?

[Boggy1974 124]

smh...slow day/night is my guess.