Gun control debate (merged)

#14,226
#14,226
NorthDallas40 said:
Yet it still seems to happen every damn day
Click to expand...
LOL, they seemed to care more about the doorbell cam than what was behind the door. It looked like the homeowner got the best of the unarmed guests. Too bad they both didn't have guns. I'll take what dipshits don't see for $2000 Alex.

The 2A dipshits telling everyone they "need" a gun to protect themselves.

I do ,on the other hand, recommend all women carry a gun at all times.
 
Last edited:
#14,234
#14,234
1972 Grad said:
There is your new Nazi (Democrat) Party.
Click to expand...
You mean this guy didn't sway any opinions at the Richmond gun rally? I'm shocked.

usa-guns_rally-1.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: bnhunt
#14,235
#14,235
On Friday, Northam signed an "extreme risk protective order," also known as a "red flag" law, which allows for the temporary removal of firearms from people deemed to be at high risk of harming themselves or others. Virginia now joins the 19 other states and Washington, DC, in having passed some type of "red flag" law, Northam's statement said.
The governor also signed a bill requiring background checks for all state gun sales and a bill that limits the purchase of handguns to one a month.
He also signed a bill that requires a person to report the loss or theft of a firearm within 48 hours, or face a civil penalty of up to $250 and one that raises the punishment for leaving a "loaded, unsecured firearm" that endangers anyone under the age of 14.
 
#14,236
#14,236
Mick said:
On Friday, Northam signed an "extreme risk protective order," also known as a "red flag" law, which allows for the temporary removal of firearms from people deemed to be at high risk of harming themselves or others. Virginia now joins the 19 other states and Washington, DC, in having passed some type of "red flag" law, Northam's statement said.
The governor also signed a bill requiring background checks for all state gun sales and a bill that limits the purchase of handguns to one a month.
He also signed a bill that requires a person to report the loss or theft of a firearm within 48 hours, or face a civil penalty of up to $250 and one that raises the punishment for leaving a "loaded, unsecured firearm" that endangers anyone under the age of 14.
Click to expand...
I understand why most of you don't like the first part of this, although I have no issue with it, but what are your issues with the part in bold. It seems to me that "loaded, unsecured firearms" should not be around children.
 
#14,237
#14,237
bnhunt said:
I understand why most of you don't like the first part of this, although I have no issue with it, but what are your issues with the part in bold. It seems to me that "loaded, unsecured firearms" should not be around children.
Click to expand...

I would have to read the language but, it’s a private property issue IMO.
 
#14,239
#14,239
bnhunt said:
I understand why most of you don't like the first part of this, although I have no issue with it, but what are your issues with the part in bold. It seems to me that "loaded, unsecured firearms" should not be around children.
Click to expand...
If you knew anything about firearms legislation, everyday lawyer, you’d know there are already many states, my state of residence is one of them, which hold firearms owners responsible for negligent firearms security resulting in injury to a minor.

And no you probably don’t actually understand why we don’t like the first part either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and Rickyvol77
#14,240
#14,240
bnhunt said:
I understand why most of you don't like the first part of this, although I have no issue with it, but what are your issues with the part in bold. It seems to me that "loaded, unsecured firearms" should not be around children.
Click to expand...
Why should victims be fined for not reporting stolen property? If your pillhead nephew goes into your house and steals guns why are you responsible for the illegal acts of another? If your counter is “lock your guns up inside your house” that sounds to me a lot like “don’t dress like that if you don’t want to be raped”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and Rickyvol77
#14,243
#14,243
NorthDallas40 said:
If you knew anything about firearms legislation, everyday lawyer, you’d know there are already many states, my state of residence is one of them, which hold firearms owners responsible for negligent firearms security resulting in injury to a minor.

And no you probably don’t actually understand why we don’t like the first part either.
Click to expand...
I absolutely understand why you don't like the first part as you want no restrictions on your "right" to the unfettered possession of firearms.
 
#14,244
#14,244
bnhunt said:
I absolutely understand why you don't like the first part as you want no restrictions on your "right" to the unfettered possession of firearms.
Click to expand...
And there you go showing your complete cluelessness again.

Once the right is revoked how is it restored? Who gets a say? And how can they accurately determine risk? Read people’s minds? Take one comment on social media out of context?

No damn way you’re a lawyer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, joevol33 and Rickyvol77
#14,247
#14,247
bnhunt said:
I absolutely understand why you don't like the first part as you want no restrictions on your "right" to the unfettered possession of firearms.
Click to expand...

Aren’t you the one that was bringing up other rights like freedom of assembly and religion and asking why we don’t defend them like we do our 2a? There’s a thread over 👉🏼 Talking about a Democratic governor trying to keep American citizens from assembling in church ... you seem to be silent on the matter .
 
#14,249
#14,249
0nelilreb said:
Aren’t you the one that was bringing up other rights like freedom of assembly and religion and asking why we don’t defend them like we do our 2a? There’s a thread over 👉🏼 Talking about a Democratic governor trying to keep American citizens from assembling in church ... you seem to be silent on the matter .
Click to expand...
As with the 2A, if it takes reasonable restrictions of individuals' rights, especially in times of national crisis, to protect the general public, then I am okay with it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top