Senator Larry Martin?

[muddy05tiger]

The newspaper publishing locations is hardly the government coming after your guns. So yes, it is far fetched to think the government was going to do something. This is purely a matter of capitalism (newdpaper wants to sell copies) and freedom of information.

Waiting periods TOTALLY make sense - not sure how you could not see this. John walks in on his wife cheating on him. John walks to pawn shop and buys gun. John shoots cheating wife and dude. With a waiting period, John would have to wait 3-10 days for said gun. He would then have time to think about shooting his wife, and would probably not do it. As you can see, waiting periods can very easily lower the number of "crimes of passion."

And NYC doesn't "stop and frisk" anymore. Has the crime rate gone up?

Depending on the source, you can argue stop and frisk made crime go down.

If some guy is going to kill his wife in an act of passion, he's doesn't need a gun to do it. I've never seen evidence that crimes of passion go down because of waiting periods.

The newspaper had demand for issues being sold because ppl wanted to know who had guns, and many of those ppl don't want their neighbors to have a gun at all.

Many cities would outright outlaw guns IF THEY COULD. The 2nd Amendment has stopped that. Again, look at Chicago, DC, and even the laws of NJ. Will the federal govt come get them? Maybe not. Will local/state governments come after them? Yes, absolutely.

 

[SWUtigers]

Mostly that you feel like talking shit about everybody's posts but never actually have anything to add yourself. You have one claim to fame, and it's one stupid thing that you think that makes you so popular.


What it boils down to is that you're just so douchy that it just irks me.

Those potato threads were merely out of fun and most took it rather well. Apparently it rustled you more than most which is truly pathetic. And I didn't know I was "famous" here on TI. LOL

Glad to know I'm living rent free in your little brain of yours.

Seriously lighten the fvck up.

 

[ddot7]

Those laws may or may not make sense. But what is almost certain is they won't lower gun violence. Most guns out there killing people in terrorist or criminal activities weren't obtained through legal means.

But if liberals want all these checks I will trade you that for universal ID verification for voters and removal of all sanctuary provisions for illegal immigration. Oh wait, I forgot, liberals get to pick and choose what laws and parts of the Constitution they follow.

What do you mean by "most"? In a basic sense I'm sure you mean over 50% but what's the number? And aren't "most" instances where someone is killed by a gun (sorry, a person using a gun) criminal activities at a minimum? I assume this excludes self defense. Are we only looking at killings or gun violence as a whole? Just looking for clarification because that would give a little more clarity about what percentage of shootings involve illegal guns.

Either way, most is not all, correct? If those killings can be reduced, what's the problem? Are background checks and certain restrictions preventing you from your right to keep & bear arms?

Also, those who like to refer to the 2nd amendment and how liberals are trying to take your rights away, what is the language and its intent?

 

[IMBlessed]

I realize no one cares about facts but I thought I would give a few.

300 more people were killed in car accidents last year than by guns. A large majority of those accidents were caused by traffic violations (speeding, dui, texting/talking)

According to several articles more than 90% of gun deaths were by gang members or repeat violent offenders. Pretty sure not many gang members walk in a gun store and purchase a gun. If you are a violent offender it is illegal to own a gun.

MADD article states more than 28 million Americans admit to driving drunk. 10,000 DUI deaths per year.

I'm pretty good with my bow and arrow. So I will go along with the libs if they are ready to ban pot, alcohol, cell phones and cars. Now with that sad I have absolutely no problem addressing the flea market gun sales loop hole

Would have been nice if your last sentence was first.
I am always intrigued when someone compares apples to oranges! If your stats about gang violence & guns are correct, then how are these illegal guns aquired? Why not make it as difficult as possible for criminals, mentally ill or other malcontents to get guns?
As a gun owner & hunter, I have a serious problem with illegal weapons in our community. Yes, you can go into any community in America and purchase a gun quicker than buying a can of beer! I propose if someone is illegally selling weapons - Prosecute!
By the way, some of the leading mass murders/headliners in our country the past year were with legally purchased weapons i.e. Charleston & Utah - I know hatred & Freedom Fighter, Right!

 

[IMBlessed]

Those laws may or may not make sense. But what is almost certain is they won't lower gun violence. Most guns out there killing people in terrorist or criminal activities weren't obtained through legal means.

But if liberals want all these checks I will trade you that for universal ID verification for voters and removal of all sanctuary provisions for illegal immigration. Oh wait, I forgot, liberals get to pick and choose what laws and parts of the Constitution they follow.

Well wait a second there Con! Isn't your last paragraph advocation choosing & picking laws & parts of the constitution to follow? Universal ID verification for voters was initially used to restrict People the right to vote, thus Voting Right Act of 68 (That whole Civil Rights Thing) was written to amend the Constitution! Please, Please contact your Federal Legislatures; ConS controll Congress, but refuse to Pass sanctuary provisions for illegal immigration. Unlike the late President Regan, ConS do not want to pass any immigration laws! Tell the ConS to Stop the Con!
Can we please arrest & prosecute those that are Selling Illegal Guns? Common sense gun laws does not mean Law Abiding Americans like Me, will loose my Rights, signed I Own Guns!
Finally as a Retired Military, gun owning American - I do not have problems with Picture ID to Vote, Common Sense Gun Laws, NSA being NSA & Term Limits among other things!

 

[clemsonfn8]

1) because those laws wont do any good, and multiple studies have shown that ....even the one the president order the CDC to conduct as part of his executive orders related to guns

2) guns sold without background checks has really been blown out of proportion. Very few guns are sold that way, and none of the crime we hear about is traced backed to those guns. Most crimes are committed with stolen guns. Most of the mass shootings were committed by someone illegally buying someone else a gun, or holes in the background check system.

The laws are in place....and people are going to break them. Passing more laws won't solve any problems.

And you neighbor doesn't own an automatic weapon. No one does unless they have a Class 3 permit. I cant recall of any major shooting where the person used an automatic weapon. The LA bank robberies back in the 90s used automatic rifles, but they were modified by them.

Automatic weapon has been way over used as well. My AR15 is no more automatic than any other semi automatic rifle, shotgun, or handgun. One trigger pull equals one bang. I love when people talk about the gun show loophole and people purchasing firearms without background checks. Go to any gun show and ask the person selling it if you can purchase it under the table without the background check. It doesn't happen like that. I am in the process of obtaining my Federal Firearms License and I can tell you for a fact the ATF will have your butthole puckered tightly with all the procedures and laws FFL's have to follow.

 

[cemtiger]

Pickens County residents, please vote him out of office. He is an anti second amendment obstructionist.

Senator Martin is a personal friend of mine. Please tell me how he is "an anti second amendment obstructionist". As others have said, he is one of the truly good guys that is not afraid to stand up for what he thinks is right.

 

[Willence]

Well wait a second there Con! Isn't your last paragraph advocation choosing & picking laws & parts of the constitution to follow? Universal ID verification for voters was initially used to restrict People the right to vote, thus Voting Right Act of 68 (That whole Civil Rights Thing) was written to amend the Constitution! Please, Please contact your Federal Legislatures; ConS controll Congress, but refuse to Pass sanctuary provisions for illegal immigration. Unlike the late President Regan, ConS do not want to pass any immigration laws! Tell the ConS to Stop the Con!
Can we please arrest & prosecute those that are Selling Illegal Guns? Common sense gun laws does not mean Law Abiding Americans like Me, will loose my Rights, signed I Own Guns!
Finally as a Retired Military, gun owning American - I do not have problems with Picture ID to Vote, Common Sense Gun Laws, NSA being NSA & Term Limits among other things!

Replying to your posts is like replying to something written in another language @IMBlessed . But I will give it a try. I produce my ID every time I vote. It is required. Others can do the same things. People not having to produce an ID is an inequality! I thought you were against those? It puts at risk the legitimacy of my vote as someone else who shouldn't be voting could cancel out my vote. I am for every single American being able to vote. But having an ID should be a requirement. It's not the stifle people's ability to vote. It's for the legitimacy of our Republic. I'm not sure where you ever got into the voting rights act. What did I say that made you think I was against that?

Secondly, W. Bush put forth an Immigration Bill that would have done a lot of the things the left wanted. It was stopped by Harry Reid. Might want to learn a little history before you go spouting off talking points of the left wing websites. I can assure you they don't know much at all about history! Democrats do not want immigration solved. They block it every time it comes up. It's much better for them to have people living in fear and staying in the shadows. I am against that and I think we need to stop it. I would imagine you do to. So please talk to your leaders and tell them to stop blocking everything!

 

[Willence]

What do you mean by "most"? In a basic sense I'm sure you mean over 50% but what's the number? And aren't "most" instances where someone is killed by a gun (sorry, a person using a gun) criminal activities at a minimum? I assume this excludes self defense. Are we only looking at killings or gun violence as a whole? Just looking for clarification because that would give a little more clarity about what percentage of shootings involve illegal guns.

Either way, most is not all, correct? If those killings can be reduced, what's the problem? Are background checks and certain restrictions preventing you from your right to keep & bear arms?

Also, those who like to refer to the 2nd amendment and how liberals are trying to take your rights away, what is the language and its intent?

I do not own a gun. Never have. The Constitution says what it says. It doesn't say what it doesn't say. That's the basis of my opinion. There's not been one mass shooting (that I am aware of) that was perpetrated by someone with a gun they purchased and were licensed to use. Maybe I am wrong about that but that's my recollection here. You have to ask yourself, do you want to do something to hurt gun ownership or do you want to stop mass shootings? If it's the latter, focus in other areas...especially mental health and dealing with our challenges with radicalized Muslims.

Also, there are countless liberals we hear saying they want to take all guns from. They want to do what Australia did. No way in hell would anyone want to give these people a foot in the door. Liberals are world famous for having a mangled leg that's bleeding out and instead they focus on what's wrong with their shoulder. No ability to deal with the real problem. Political agendas trump everything!

Counter question, why won't liberals allow late term abortion bans? Why won't they allow some common sense reforms on abortion? The answer is because if they give pro-life people a foot in the door, they'll want to take away everything. And they are right, I do want to take away everything except abortion is not something that is constitutionally necessary to our republic. The right to bear arms is...

 

[ddot7]

I do not own a gun. Never have. The Constitution says what it says. It doesn't say what it doesn't say. That's the basis of my opinion. There's not been one mass shooting (that I am aware of) that was perpetrated by someone with a gun they purchased and were licensed to use. Maybe I am wrong about that but that's my recollection here. You have to ask yourself, do you want to do something to hurt gun ownership or do you want to stop mass shootings? If it's the latter, focus in other areas...especially mental health and dealing with our challenges with radicalized Muslims.

Also, there are countless liberals we hear saying they want to take all guns from. They want to do what Australia did. No way in hell would anyone want to give these people a foot in the door. Liberals are world famous for having a mangled leg that's bleeding out and instead they focus on what's wrong with their shoulder. No ability to deal with the real problem. Political agendas trump everything!

Counter question, why won't liberals allow late term abortion bans? Why won't they allow some common sense reforms on abortion? The answer is because if they give pro-life people a foot in the door, they'll want to take away everything. And they are right, I do want to take away everything except abortion is not something that is constitutionally necessary to our republic. The right to bear arms is...

I appreciate that you didn't answer any of my questions and instead decided to try to change the conversation.

 

[nextoffensivecoord]

I do not own a gun. Never have. The Constitution says what it says. It doesn't say what it doesn't say. That's the basis of my opinion. There's not been one mass shooting (that I am aware of) that was perpetrated by someone with a gun they purchased and were licensed to use. Maybe I am wrong about that but that's my recollection here. You have to ask yourself, do you want to do something to hurt gun ownership or do you want to stop mass shootings? If it's the latter, focus in other areas...especially mental health and dealing with our challenges with radicalized Muslims.

Also, there are countless liberals we hear saying they want to take all guns from. They want to do what Australia did. No way in hell would anyone want to give these people a foot in the door. Liberals are world famous for having a mangled leg that's bleeding out and instead they focus on what's wrong with their shoulder. No ability to deal with the real problem. Political agendas trump everything!

Counter question, why won't liberals allow late term abortion bans? Why won't they allow some common sense reforms on abortion? The answer is because if they give pro-life people a foot in the door, they'll want to take away everything. And they are right, I do want to take away everything except abortion is not something that is constitutionally necessary to our republic. The right to bear arms is...

There is a whole lot of fail in your post (and some truth). But your last two sentences cannot go without comment. The second amendment says, word for word (for those of you that interpret the constritution that way): "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 "right to bear arms" is not expressely defined as allowing every person to own whatever firearm they want. The Supreme Court broadened the text to basically mean that, so for all of you conservatives that hate "activist judges" legislating from the bench, you can thank activist judges for allowing 13 guns per person to be a reality. Allowing my neighbor to own a semi-automatic has nothing to do with keeping a well-regulated militia.

 

[MillerHighLife21]

I don't like coming on here and talking politics but I really want to know something. I have friends who will give money to the NRA over and over but won't give a dime to children's medical center. He says it is for them to lobby to not take people's guns away. I told him I don't see that happening. I really believe that all people want is to tighten up on certain aspects like having permits and righting up on the mass sells at jockey lots with no background checks. My question is why would anyone be against those types of laws? I'm not a gun guy never even owned one but don't have any problems with people owning them at all. I just don't understand why my friend wouldn't be for some changes in the laws for gun rights. Under no circumstance do I think my next door Nabor should own an automatic weapons.

Most of the problem is that you can't regulate anything around private sales without registration and registration is totally opposed because it is the gateway piece to everything else.

 

[Willence]

It says people should be able to own guns as it helps with maintaining a well regulated militia.

Access to good food being necessary to maintain a healthy state, the right of people to farm their own lands shall not be infringed. Get it now?

 

[Willence]

Learn more about the revolutionary war and you'll understand what a militia is. There is even a movie about it or at least somewhat. We didn't want to have to maintain a large professional army. Our citizenry played an integral role in gaining our freedom. It is all there and it is all clear for those that read it objectively.

 

[iceheart08]

Well said, sir. While there certainly are people that would to eliminate guns, the VAST majority of the country believes in common-sense reforms, like universal background checks and a waiting period. After such items are completed, then you get to hunt or protect yourself as you see fit. The people that claim the government is creating a registry just to come after your guns are ultra right-wing lunatics.

And many of those people claiming that the government is going to take their guns are also asking for the government to track Muslims and people with mental health problems... Like Donald Trump and the NRA.

 

[Orangeoveralls]

It says people should be able to own guns as it helps with maintaining a well regulated militia.

Access to good food being necessary to maintain a healthy state, the right of people to farm their own lands shall not be infringed. Get it now?

Yes the self-evident need for our species to have food is just like our need for guns.

 

[muddy05tiger]

You can read many of the framers' opinions on the 2nd Amendment here: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html

And another source that dissects the linguistics of the time: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3830&context=lcp

 

[Willence]

Yes the self-evident need for our species to have food is just like our need for guns.

I never said that. You said that. I was just making an easy to understand example. The self-evident need for you to try and poke holes in something you don't agree with to pursue your agenda is alarming. The manner in which the extremes for each side seem to want to bulldoze over society to get what they want makes it very evident there is a need for us to defend ourselves from those seeking power. As has been proven throughout history...every time!

 

[MillerHighLife21]

Yea about the right wing lunatics thing:

NY paper uses FOI to publish map of registered gun owners: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/01/0...owners-journal-news-is-a-target.html?referer=

NJ gun law to require all guns be smart guns if available:

NY seven round magazine law: http://mobile.buffalonews.com/?arti...but-rules-against-seven-bullet-limit-20151019

And the fun one, gun confiscation letters that snopes cites as not gun confiscation letters because they only tell registered gun owners to sell the guns or remove them from the state: http://www.snopes.com/connecticut-gun-confiscation/

Along with NY letters to sell or remove from the state gun that are over the capacity limit: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/05/nypd-targets-owners-multi-clip-shotguns-rifles.html

No no...it's the gun owners who are crazy since this concept clearly has no basis in reality

 

[Willence]

Yea about the right wing lunatics thing:

NY paper uses FOI to publish map of registered gun owners: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/01/0...owners-journal-news-is-a-target.html?referer=

NJ gun law to require all guns be smart guns if available:

View embedded media

NY seven round magazine law: http://mobile.buffalonews.com/?articleRedirect=1&url=http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/state/appeals-court-upholds-safe-act-but-rules-against-seven-bullet-limit-20151019

And the fun one, gun confiscation letters that snopes cites as not gun confiscation letters because they only tell registered gun owners to sell the guns or remove them from the state: http://www.snopes.com/connecticut-gun-confiscation/

Along with NY letters to sell or remove from the state gun that are over the capacity limit: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/05/nypd-targets-owners-multi-clip-shotguns-rifles.html

No no...it's the gun owners who are crazy since this concept clearly has no basis in reality

Nice job. There are a lot more out there in addition to these.

 

[Orangeoveralls]

I never said that. You said that. I was just making an easy to understand example. The self-evident need for you to try and poke holes in something you don't agree with to pursue your agenda is alarming. The manner in which the extremes for each side seem to want to bulldoze over society to get what they want makes it very evident there is a need for us to defend ourselves from those seeking power. As has been proven throughout history...every time!

Lol, can u please tell me what u think my "agenda" is with respect to this epidemic of gun violence?

Look at all the crazy hyperbole in ur post . Friggin nuts.

Dude, u r one of the extremes.

 

[Willence]

Lol, can u please tell me what u think my "agenda" is with respect to this epidemic of gun violence?

Look at all the crazy hyperbole in ur post . Friggin nuts.

Dude, u r one of the extremes.

You can think so if you want. I would presume that for me to be an extremist, I would first have to own a gun. But if you mean in viewpoint, perhaps to you I seem that way. I am infinitely able to compromise and work with people on all sides. That is what this nation needs. We have to work together. But we can't re-write our Constitution without going through the appropriate process to do that.

I am deeply concerned about gun violence. Why do people shoot others? Does the gun tell them they have to do that? Does the gun cry out to them like the One Ring? What causes the unnecessary violence we have in our society (which is factually far below what it's been in decades)? Why do terrorists, when they don't have guns, resort to using bombs to blow up huge numbers of people?

You say you want to solve all these problems but you're focused on an object instead of looking at the people who perpetrate these crimes? That's what's called an anti-gun agenda. One need look no further than places in our country that have very strict gun laws and we can see it doesn't stop the violence.

Nuts is another word for insane. Insane is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Gun laws don't work. There are a lot of areas around guns that I would willingly compromise. I admit that I am troubled by some of the weapons I see but it isn't my place to decide what's best for others. If I saw those people killing others, I would change my tune but that's not what happened.

I spend a good chunk of my time talking politics with people who are of opposite views to my own. I really want to understand how others see things. I've learned a lot from them in certain areas. This isn't one of them though because there is an absolute unwillingness to face the cultural issues we have which lead to this kind of violent and unbalanced mindset.

What do you think stricter gun laws will do? What is your vision?

 

[MillerHighLife21]

You can think so if you want. I would presume that for me to be an extremist, I would first have to own a gun. But if you mean in viewpoint, perhaps to you I seem that way. I am infinitely able to compromise and work with people on all sides. That is what this nation needs. We have to work together. But we can't re-write our Constitution without going through the appropriate process to do that.

I am deeply concerned about gun violence. Why do people shoot others? Does the gun tell them they have to do that? Does the gun cry out to them like the One Ring? What causes the unnecessary violence we have in our society (which is factually far below what it's been in decades)? Why do terrorists, when they don't have guns, resort to using bombs to blow up huge numbers of people?

You say you want to solve all these problems but you're focused on an object instead of looking at the people who perpetrate these crimes? That's what's called an anti-gun agenda. One need look no further than places in our country that have very strict gun laws and we can see it doesn't stop the violence.

Nuts is another word for insane. Insane is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Gun laws don't work. There are a lot of areas around guns that I would willingly compromise. I admit that I am troubled by some of the weapons I see but it isn't my place to decide what's best for others. If I saw those people killing others, I would change my tune but that's not what happened.

I spend a good chunk of my time talking politics with people who are of opposite views to my own. I really want to understand how others see things. I've learned a lot from them in certain areas. This isn't one of them though because there is an absolute unwillingness to face the cultural issues we have which lead to this kind of violent and unbalanced mindset.

What do you think stricter gun laws will do? What is your vision?

 

[nextoffensivecoord]

You can think so if you want. I would presume that for me to be an extremist, I would first have to own a gun. But if you mean in viewpoint, perhaps to you I seem that way. I am infinitely able to compromise and work with people on all sides. That is what this nation needs. We have to work together. But we can't re-write our Constitution without going through the appropriate process to do that.

I am deeply concerned about gun violence. Why do people shoot others? Does the gun tell them they have to do that? Does the gun cry out to them like the One Ring? What causes the unnecessary violence we have in our society (which is factually far below what it's been in decades)? Why do terrorists, when they don't have guns, resort to using bombs to blow up huge numbers of people?

You say you want to solve all these problems but you're focused on an object instead of looking at the people who perpetrate these crimes? That's what's called an anti-gun agenda. One need look no further than places in our country that have very strict gun laws and we can see it doesn't stop the violence.

Nuts is another word for insane. Insane is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Gun laws don't work. There are a lot of areas around guns that I would willingly compromise. I admit that I am troubled by some of the weapons I see but it isn't my place to decide what's best for others. If I saw those people killing others, I would change my tune but that's not what happened.

I spend a good chunk of my time talking politics with people who are of opposite views to my own. I really want to understand how others see things. I've learned a lot from them in certain areas. This isn't one of them though because there is an absolute unwillingness to face the cultural issues we have which lead to this kind of violent and unbalanced mindset.

What do you think stricter gun laws will do? What is your vision?

I do think you are pretty right wing, but I would not call you an extremist. @Earle36 and @tigerGUY are definitely extremists. I find it interesting though that you think that gun owners are right wing extremists.

 

[Willence]

I do think you are pretty right wing, but I would not call you an extremist. @Earle36 and @tigerGUY are definitely extremists. I find it interesting though that you think that gun owners are right wing extremists.

I didn't word that very well. I was saying that for me to be an extremist on guns, you'd think I would own a gun. Sorry!

I am pro-liberty. I don't want our government to infringe upon our protected freedoms. The path to enslavement is paved with good intentions. I recognize you don't often agree with me but we have rounded into speaking to each other in a respectful manner which I am very happy about. I want you to be free to disagree with me. I can't say that you haven't at least made me think about my positions with some of the things you said. I am thankful for that as well. It's good for us to be forced to defend our viewpoints and beliefs. It helps us stop seeing each other as enemies.

When we started, you and I were nasty toward each other. Now, not so much and why? It's because through dialogue we've come to see that while we don't agree, we can at least respect each other's viewpoints. That's a victory. Now imagine if there were millions of victories like that around the nation?

Ultimately, I want to be free. I want people to have equality in every ways possible. The problem is that the things we're focused on, like environment, education, family, etc. can never be equal. All we can do is remove any additional impediments and help others in every way we can. That includes a healthy safety net. That includes a lot of things that aren't present now. Together, accepting one another in good faith, we can achieve this. I'd like to ask you to listen to this video if you will. It's a great summary of what I feel are core beliefs that we should have in our country.

 

[tigerGUY]

I do think you are pretty right wing, but I would not call you an extremist. @Earle36 and @tigerGUY are definitely extremists. I find it interesting though that you think that gun owners are right wing extremists.

To think you don't know me from a web site is assinine.

 

[IMBlessed]

Replying to your posts is like replying to something written in another language @IMBlessed . But I will give it a try. I produce my ID every time I vote. It is required. Others can do the same things. People not having to produce an ID is an inequality! I thought you were against those? It puts at risk the legitimacy of my vote as someone else who shouldn't be voting could cancel out my vote. I am for every single American being able to vote. But having an ID should be a requirement. It's not the stifle people's ability to vote. It's for the legitimacy of our Republic. I'm not sure where you ever got into the voting rights act. What did I say that made you think I was against that?

Secondly, W. Bush put forth an Immigration Bill that would have done a lot of the things the left wanted. It was stopped by Harry Reid. Might want to learn a little history before you go spouting off talking points of the left wing websites. I can assure you they don't know much at all about history! Democrats do not want immigration solved. They block it every time it comes up. It's much better for them to have people living in fear and staying in the shadows. I am against that and I think we need to stop it. I would imagine you do to. So please talk to your leaders and tell them to stop blocking everything!

Wow sure was a lot of personal attacks, but I digress!
My original response was to Your comment irt Libs desire to circumvent the Constitution & a willingness to trade Voting ID & Immigration Reform for comprehensive gun laws.
Now understanding & appreciating you acknowledging an inability to understand my response, I shall try again;
1. Please re-read the above paragraph, irt my original response.
2. Please re-read the last paragraph of, never mind. What I wrote previously never ever contested your desire for immigration reform, your position was well established. I informed of my desire to do such & asked that you inform your elected officials of your desire. Furthermore, I will contest your statement that Speaker Reid & Liberals in the Senate, defeated President Bush immigration bill: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-idUSN274264382007062
- So as you can see the ConS/Republicans then, 2007 & now with President Obama continue to fight against immigration reform. The ConS/Republican are fearful that immigration reform will increase the Liberals voting block - ask Rush! Yep, ConS trying to Con!
- For the record My Leader is God & he has provided me with A Wife of 31 years to help keep me grounded! I am an Independent Thinking & Voting American!
3. Finally, in my last paragraph I informed of my military service & not having a problem with Voter ID, but my problem is with Voter Supression! Yes, even I was not allowed to vote, because showing my military ID was not accepted in the 70's & 80's but a Voter Card without photo was required. I do not want to bore or cloud your mind with know & historical illegal voter suppression laws/rules in Our Country, but will continue to do my homework prior to responding to you and trust you will do the same. Take care & I tried to keep this as simple as possible.

 

[IMBlessed]

I didn't word that very well. I was saying that for me to be an extremist on guns, you'd think I would own a gun. Sorry!

I am pro-liberty. I don't want our government to infringe upon our protected freedoms. The path to enslavement is paved with good intentions. I recognize you don't often agree with me but we have rounded into speaking to each other in a respectful manner which I am very happy about. I want you to be free to disagree with me. I can't say that you haven't at least made me think about my positions with some of the things you said. I am thankful for that as well. It's good for us to be forced to defend our viewpoints and beliefs. It helps us stop seeing each other as enemies.

When we started, you and I were nasty toward each other. Now, not so much and why? It's because through dialogue we've come to see that while we don't agree, we can at least respect each other's viewpoints. That's a victory. Now imagine if there were millions of victories like that around the nation?

Ultimately, I want to be free. I want people to have equality in every ways possible. The problem is that the things we're focused on, like environment, education, family, etc. can never be equal. All we can do is remove any additional impediments and help others in every way we can. That includes a healthy safety net. That includes a lot of things that aren't present now. Together, accepting one another in good faith, we can achieve this. I'd like to ask you to listen to this video if you will. It's a great summary of what I feel are core beliefs that we should have in our country.

View embedded media

Amen!

 

[DuckDitchTiger]

Senator Martin is a personal friend of mine. Please tell me how he is "an anti second amendment obstructionist". As others have said, he is one of the truly good guys that is not afraid to stand up for what he thinks is right.

Ask him why he is holding up the open carry bill in committee? Let the Senate vote on it.

 

[ddot7]

Ask him why he is holding up the open carry bill in committee? Let the Senate vote on it.

Is that what you're saying makes him an "anti second amendment obstructionist"?

 

[iceheart08]

open carry laws are ****ing stupid.

 

[iceheart08]

Is that what you're saying makes him an "anti second amendment obstructionist"?

rational imo.

 

[DuckDitchTiger]

Let the Senate vote on it. He is a typical politician that knows what's best for you. Georgia and North Carolina have no problems with it. Holding it up in committee and preventing a vote is obstructing.

 

[IMBlessed]

Let the Senate vote on it. He is a typical politician that knows what's best for you. Georgia and North Carolina have no problems with it. Holding it up in committee and preventing a vote is obstructing.

I agree, Sen. McConnell, what DuckDotchTiger wrote!

 

[nextoffensivecoord]

Let the Senate vote on it. He is a typical politician that knows what's best for you. Georgia and North Carolina have no problems with it. Holding it up in committee and preventing a vote is obstructing.

Or maybe he's just not BATSHIT CRAZY

 

[nextoffensivecoord]

Ask him why he is holding up the open carry bill in committee? Let the Senate vote on it.

Open carry is probably the absolute stupidest idea I have ever heard. Literally. The WORST. There is NOTHING good that could come from open carry except a bunch of dumbasses with tiny penises thinking they can take the law into their own hands.

 

[SWUtigers]

Let the Senate vote on it. He is a typical politician that knows what's best for you. Georgia and North Carolina have no problems with it. Holding it up in committee and preventing a vote is obstructing.

Liberals would have you believe that strict gun laws would keep the populace safe. They're wrong.

 

[iceheart08]

Liberals would have you believe that strict gun laws would keep the populace safe. They're wrong.

what purpose does open carry serve then?

 

[DuckDitchTiger]

what purpose does open carry serve then?

It is your Constitutional Right.

 

[Fanofthehill]

Gun violence rates in America are 20 times higher than any other highly developed country.

We spend the the same relative % of our healthcare $ on mental health that these countries do, 6-8%.

we do not have 20 times more violent mentally disturbed untreated people in this country than the rest of the civilized world.

To say it is a mental health issue is absurd and completely unsupported by fact.

Take Chicago and LA out of the equation and the numbers are much more favorable. Just a few cities in America have the problems that skew the rest of the nation