So many people think that it will just never happen to them. But talk to anyone that it has happened to and they will tell you just how totally helpless they felt.:sssh:

If he keeps his campaign promise, nearly all restrictions on abortion will soon be removed in every state and no amendment will be required. Liberals know that they can best advance their agenda by packing the courts with like-minded judges not through the amendment process. They will use the same tactics that they have used to advance other causes that the majority of Americans oppose.

 

Is that true of Conservatives as well as Liberals? Just asking your opinion.

Of course, there's no proof that having a gun stops things from happening to them. It's simply a "peace of mind" thing.

Is that true of Conservatives as well as Liberals? Just asking your opinion.

Certainly not to the same extent. Conservatives are much more inclined to push for legislation and ballot initiatives to address their concerns as opposed to seeking a judge willing to impose the will of the minority upon the majority. Of course, it helps that there are far more conservatives in this nation than liberals.

Can anyone that does not see a problem with this bill tell me one thing...

 

 

How would taking finger prints help deter a crime?

No takers?

Of course, there's no proof that having a gun stops things from happening to them. It's simply a "peace of mind" thing.

 

You think a burglary or rape or assault has never been stopped or prevented when the (potential) victim was able to pull a gun on the assailant? Ever?

Of course, there's no proof that having a gun stops things from happening to them. It's simply a "peace of mind" thing.

 

It has been estimated by the FBI that yearly 1.5-2.5 million crimes of all types are stoped by guns.

I'm trying hard to figure out why some are so offended by my position, and why the vehemence against my beliefs in the matter.

 

RTS, you mentioned my dog wouldn't deter a .357. Well, I doubt anything I may hypothetically own would do so, if I were surprised by a home invader.

 

There is simply no logical explanation why a gun is NECESSARY in the average citizen's life as a defense mechanism. Everyone throws out worst-case scenarios, but the reality is, even those are not preventable by excercising the right to own a gun.

 

I'm not "offended" by it at all. You are very articulate and passionate in your beliefs and opinions. I just happen to very, very much disagree with them and the logic you use as a basis. Opinions such as completely discounting the fact that today's world is indeed full of violent crime - whether it has personally impacted you or not - and that a gun is a legitimate and useful defense against such crimes. We can agree to disagree whether gun ownership deters such crime, but tell me exactly how would this new bill help in that process anyways? This misguided bill will do nothing to cure the problem of violent crime or prevent a situation like what occurred on the school bus when Blair Holt was killed because it only impacts law-abiding citizens and not violent criminals. Criminals who, quite frankly, probably wouldn't even know if such the bill was passed (which it hopefully won't be), much less abide by the requirements of the bill.

 

Ultimately, I have the right to own a gun for whatever reason I want, even if for no other reason than to plink Coke cans in my backyard or display on the wall of my home office. And I shouldn't have my government make it increasingly difficult, burdensome, or instrusive for me to do so, especially under the disingenuous and insulting claim that this bill will help control/prevent/deter crimes committed with weapons.

You think a burglary or rape or assault has never been stopped or prevented when the (potential) victim was able to pull a gun on the assailant? Ever?

 

 

OK....let me break it down:

 

Yes, there is evidence that a gun stopped a burglary or assault etc.

Yes, there is evidence that a dog has done so as well.

 

 

I didn't say never. However, how can one say that nothing has ever happened to one BECAUSE they had a gun? If someone breaks into your home, and you have a gun, the crime was still committed. If your home is not broken into, and you have a gun, there's no way you can say definitively that your house hasn't been broken into BECAUSE you had a gun. You can't say a crime has been prevented by a gun, if there wasn't even an attempt.

 

Does that make sense?

Certainly not to the same extent. Conservatives are much more inclined to push for legislation and ballot initiatives to address their concerns as opposed to seeking a judge willing to impose the will of the minority upon the majority.

Sure, that must be why conservatives have wanted to make picking Supreme Court judges such a big issue to rally the troops in the last few presidential campaigns.

No takers?

Fingerprinting everybody would generate jobs. People would be required to take the fingerprints and to sell the gloves that first time criminals would need to avoid carelessly leaving their fingerprints on their gun or at the scene of the crime. However, I am still opposed to fingerprinting, even in a recession.

Sure, that must be why conservatives have wanted to make picking Supreme Court judges such a big issue to rally the troops in the last few presidential campaigns.

What type of Supreme Court judges have conservatives sought? Answer: Strict constructionists who do not rely on public opinion polls or cite decisions of foreign courts in making decisions. Conservatives do not need a Supreme Court inventing the constitutional right to bear arms, that right is already in there - near the top of the list of our Bill of Rights.

OK....let me break it down:

 

Yes, there is evidence that a gun stopped a burglary or assault etc.

Yes, there is evidence that a dog has done so as well.

 

 

I didn't say never. However, how can one say that nothing has ever happened to one BECAUSE they had a gun? If someone breaks into your home, and you have a gun, the crime was still committed. If your home is not broken into, and you have a gun, there's no way you can say definitively that your house hasn't been broken into BECAUSE you had a gun. You can't say a crime has been prevented by a gun, if there wasn't even an attempt.

 

Does that make sense?

Wow , not really. I would say unlawfully entering was committed , but any further crime may be foiled !

Wow , not really. I would say unlawfully entering was committed , but any further crime may be foiled !

 

 

True, but there was still a crime committed before the defensive use of the weapon was introduced.

 

A crime was not prevented. Possibly changed, but not prevented.

OK....let me break it down:

 

Yes, there is evidence that a gun stopped a burglary or assault etc.

Yes, there is evidence that a dog has done so as well.

 

 

I didn't say never. However, how can one say that nothing has ever happened to one BECAUSE they had a gun? If someone breaks into your home, and you have a gun, the crime was still committed. If your home is not broken into, and you have a gun, there's no way you can say definitively that your house hasn't been broken into BECAUSE you had a gun. You can't say a crime has been prevented by a gun, if there wasn't even an attempt.

 

Does that make sense?

 

Well, I at least now see what you were trying to say.

 

And there's no way you can prove that a crime hasn't been prevented because a criminal was concerned that a potential victim was armed.

 

And, more importantly, there's absolutely no way you can prove that this law will do ANYTHING to prevent/deter/control crime in the slightest. So please tell me the point of the law?