Are Democrats finally starting to get it...?

[mgeoffriau]

Originally Posted by bd

So it would be OK with you if the "Bloods", the "Crips", MS-13 and any other of the innumerable gang members in New York City had the same right to open carry as a rancher in Montana? Just strap their shotguns across their backs and head out down the street for a bagel?

Yes. They are going to carry guns illegally anyway, at least this way they can see my pistol on my hip, and know that I am not helpless.

[NewXD40fun]

Originally Posted by bd

I knew you wouldn't/couldn't answer the question.

The Yellow Elephant is proud of you.

bd

Originally Posted by bd

So it would be OK with you if the "Bloods", the "Crips", MS-13 and any other of the innumerable gang members in New York City had the same right to open carry as a rancher in Montana? Just strap their shotguns across their backs and head out down the street for a bagel?

Maybe your question of who should NOT have Second Amendment rights would be easier to answer if you applied your liberalspeak to all of what you call our “DIVERSE” society.

Please make a list of all the “diverse” groups of people you are referring to so you can pick and chose who else should not have the Constitutional right to own firearms.

Only then can I properly answer your question of who should be stripped of their Constitutional rights to satisfy our "diverse" society as you call it.







Tom

[bd]

Originally Posted by NewXD40fun

Maybe your question of who should NOT have Second Amendment rights would be easier to answer if you applied your liberalspeak to all of what you call our “DIVERSE” society.

Please make a list of all the “diverse” groups of people you are referring to so you can pick and chose who else should not have the Constitutional right to own firearms.

Only then can I properly answer your question of who should be stripped of their Constitutional rights to satisfy our "diverse" society as you call it.







Tom

Nice try, but I knew you were scared to answer the question.

bd

[NewXD40fun]

Originally Posted by bd

Nice try, but I knew you were scared to answer the question.

bd

As long as I was able to show your true liberal extremism for everyone to see I am happy.

It's not my fault you are too afraid to admit your liberalism and then resort to calling everyone else 'afraid' so you can hide. You should be proud to be a Liberal, as least you can stand for something.












tom

[bd]

NewXD40fun,

What type of gun laws are "necessary" for a citizen of NYC compared to one living in Montana?

bd

[UberDuper]

Wouldn't it be cool if we could selectively apply the first amendment on a state by state or city by city basis? Perhaps the 14th, 15th, and 16th as well.

UD.

[Waldo]

Originally Posted by bd

Do you think it would be appropriate for New York City in this day and age to approve open carry?

Do you think open carry should be restricted in Montana because it's illegal in NYC?

Like I said it's just practical common sense. It's a big old country we have. There are just some things that are not a "one size fits all" with the diverse population in the United States.

bd

Yes, and No.

Who would hijack airplanes if we passed out Glock 17s at the gate?

[Brickboy240]

I hate to be a wet blanket on this article, but no...they don't get it.

No biggie, several Republicans don't get it either.

The word "hunting" was brought up so many times, I almost stopped reading it. The Second Ammendment was NOT written with hunting in mind. Not at all. Why do such highly educated people come to this conclusion? The actual word "hunting" is nowhere in the Constitution. Do the word search yourself if you think I am full of it.

Even Harvard-educated Teddy Kenedy goes on about "hunting" when gun control is bought up. So does Yale-educated John Kerry. How can a Harvard or Yale graduate read the Constitution and the writings of the framers and glean this from what they read? I am pretty sure that reading comprehension WAS stressed in these ivy league establishments - we got a healthy dose of it here in hayseed hick, fly-over country Texas (as they see us), so I am pretty sure they got it as well.

Either the politicians that bring up hunting are ignorant, themselves about the intentions of our founders or they are hoping their constituents are ignorant on the issue. Either way, the true meaning of the Second Ammendment is not being discussed by the Democrats in that article...sorry.

- Brickboy240

[UberDuper]

Originally Posted by bd

NewXD40fun,

What type of gun laws are "necessary" for a citizen of NYC compared to one living in Montana?

bd

Weren't you the one asked this question? Specifically because you suggested that NYC required more/different gun laws then Montana.

Asking NewXD40fun to answer this question seems odd to me since his argument is that there shouldn't be any discrepancy between the gun rights of those in Montana and those in NYC. So the obvious answer from his point of view would be, "None."

Unless, of course, I'm misunderstanding the question entirely.

UD.

[Waldo]

Originally Posted by bd

So it would be OK with you if the "Bloods", the "Crips", MS-13 and any other of the innumerable gang members in New York City had the same right to open carry as a rancher in Montana? Just strap their shotguns across their backs and head out down the street for a bagel?

..........

bd

That would be just fine as long as they had a permit to carry the gun. You cant get a permit with a felony.

Remember when Marion Barry got robbed? Do you know why they robbed HIM? Because they knew he didnt have any way to shoot back.

I promise you that if NYC had a carry permit process just like most other states the crime rate would go down. The biggest thing robbers are scared of isnt the police, its that the guy they rob has a gun too.

If a gangster robs someone in San Fransisco or New York or DC they know they best the victim can do is mace or stab them. In the game of "gun, mace, knife" (the real world version of rock, paper, sissors) the gun wins 99.9 percent of the time.

Think about it, if a hunter knew that a deer could shoot back do you think 90% of hunters would still be out there? Hell no! But they know the deer cant do ****. Its sitting duck.

Its no wonder gun control doesnt bring down crime rates. It doesnt make sense.

Put your emotion to the side and look at facts for once.