Kansas Right to Bear Arms Question, C...

Kansas Right to Bear Arms Question, Constitutional Amendment Question 1

Created by CitizenTopix on Oct 7, 2010

3,514 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Other (explain below)

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#4676 Jan 10, 2013
Midnight Roamer wrote:
<quoted text>
And the populace is unarmed. How easy to kill with an edged weapon when there are no guns.
The old get a cat to get rid of a rat argument. But it'd be better to eliminate both rats and cats in this theoretical model.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#4677 Jan 10, 2013
Hey wrote:
If you take away the guns they will just blow you up.
Who?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#4678 Jan 10, 2013
BTW, here's what Senator Dick Durbin is proposing. I've yet to see a rational argument against such:

Bar those with a history of serious mental instability or violent crime from owning weapons;
* Outlaw the sale of weapons that are strictly for military use and have no useful purpose in sport, hunting, or self defense;
* Ban magazine clips with more than ten rounds from civilian use;
* Restrict the number of firearms a person can buy in a month;
* Require firearms within the reach of children to have protective locks.

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#4679 Jan 10, 2013
The Kangaroo wrote:
BTW, here's what Senator Dick Durbin is proposing. I've yet to see a rational argument against such:
Bar those with a history of serious mental instability or violent crime from owning weapons;
* Outlaw the sale of weapons that are strictly for military use and have no useful purpose in sport, hunting, or self defense;
* Ban magazine clips with more than ten rounds from civilian use;
* Restrict the number of firearms a person can buy in a month;
* Require firearms within the reach of children to have protective locks.
The rational argument is called the 2nd ammendment.
door king

Corpus Christi, TX

#4680 Jan 10, 2013
You mean the "well regulated" part?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#4681 Jan 10, 2013
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>The rational argument is called the 2nd ammendment.
sorry, that's not correct. What mthe amendmentsays or does not nsay is irrelevant tompublic policy.
Marat

Junction City, KS

#4682 Jan 10, 2013
When the economy fails, and Society is rioting, govt. doesn't want citizen with heavy weapons challenging them. Citizens without defense will be easier to control when Marshall law is imposed upon our country. That may be closer than we think.
Sammi

Lake Orion, MI

#4683 Jan 10, 2013
GOVI ALTAY wrote:
<quoted text>Awwwhhh!!! did the mean ole' Americans hurt your little libtrash sensitivities with our 2nd amendment? Huh? Run off to beddie-bye and cry your little DNC candyass-self to sleep.
Did You eat an extra bowl of stupid today, or what? I too am an American. I just don't have to go to bed in fear of life, or prove that I'm somebody because I "can" have a weapon that kills people, and animals.
You remind me of the joke:
Why does a dog lick his ba___s?... because He can.
barry sorento

Denison, KS

#4684 Jan 10, 2013
The Kangaroo wrote:
<quoted text>
sorry, that's not correct. What mthe amendmentsays or does not nsay is irrelevant tompublic policy.
Do you consider all the admentments irrelavant or just the you don't agree with?
So Silly

Junction City, KS

#4685 Jan 10, 2013
The Kangaroo wrote:
<quoted text>
Assertion proves nothing.
Only because of presidential privelege. By that reasoning you must insist that anything held secret as evidence of culpability and possibly treason by any of our past presidents is all assertion and proves nothing. Correct?
gunowner

United States

#4686 Jan 10, 2013
The Kangaroo wrote:
BTW, here's what Senator Dick Durbin is proposing. I've yet to see a rational argument against such:
Bar those with a history of serious mental instability or violent crime from owning weapons;
* Outlaw the sale of weapons that are strictly for military use and have no useful purpose in sport, hunting, or self defense;
* Ban magazine clips with more than ten rounds from civilian use;
* Restrict the number of firearms a person can buy in a month;
* Require firearms within the reach of children to have protective locks.
I could deal with these regulations it is all the other ones being proposed that I am worried about.
There id one question though would someone explain to me exactly what type of firearms they are considering to be military grade?
The last time I checked a civilian model AR-15 is nothing more than a semi-automatic .223 caliber rifle that happens to be modeled after the military M-16. Likewise the AR-10 is a semi-auto .308 modeled after the M-4 neither of the civilian models are capable of full auto.
Most every argument I have heard is that they are going after these rifels simply because they look like assault rifles now isn't judging something strictly by looks profiling? For what it is worth I can buy a dress up kit for my Ruger 10-.22 and make it look like an assault rifle but that doesn't make it one.
door king

Corpus Christi, TX

#4687 Jan 10, 2013
They go after them because you can fire dozens of shots very rapidly without reloading. That's a lot of firepower to put in the hands of an idiot. And yes, there is an element of going after them because they resemble military rifles.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#4688 Jan 10, 2013
barry sorento wrote:
<quoted text>Do you consider all the admentments irrelavant or just the you don't agree with?
doesn't matter. It's not an argument against the proposals.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#4689 Jan 10, 2013
So Silly wrote:
<quoted text>
Only because of presidential privelege. By that reasoning you must insist that anything held secret as evidence of culpability and possibly treason by any of our past presidents is all assertion and proves nothing. Correct?
-15 word salad

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#4690 Jan 10, 2013
gunowner wrote:
<quoted text> I could deal with these regulations it is all the other ones being proposed that I am worried about.
And these are?
GOVI ALTAY

Wichita, KS

#4691 Jan 10, 2013
Sammi wrote:
<quoted text>
Did You eat an extra bowl of stupid today, or what? I too am an American. I just don't have to go to bed in fear of life, or prove that I'm somebody because I "can" have a weapon that kills people, and animals.
You remind me of the joke:
Why does a dog lick his ba___s?... because He can.
Are you equally offended with Homeboy Holder and Obama's Dept Of Justice selling black-market ASSAULT RIFLES to Mexican drug cartels,(Google Fast And Furious), or is it just law-biding Americans you have a grudge with?
door king

Corpus Christi, TX

#4692 Jan 11, 2013
GOVI ALTAY wrote:
<quoted text>Are you equally offended with Homeboy Holder and Obama's Dept Of Justice selling black-market ASSAULT RIFLES to Mexican drug cartels,(Google Fast And Furious), or is it just law-biding Americans you have a grudge with?
They didn't sell the weapons; gun dealers sold the weapons, and continute to sell weapons which are then legally resold with no regulations or oversight whatsoever to secondary buyers. Controlling this is what really concerns gunphuques. They can no longer profit from death if they become responsible for what happens to the weapons they sell. All those gun collections instantly become worthless if you can't resell to private parties.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#4693 Jan 11, 2013
GOVI ALTAY wrote:
<quoted text>Are you equally offended with Homeboy Holder and Obama's Dept Of Justice selling black-market ASSAULT RIFLES to Mexican drug cartels,(Google Fast And Furious), or is it just law-biding Americans you have a grudge with?
More Rethuglican propaganda spam from Jerry. Mexican Drug Cartels are men of great honor compared to him and his ilk.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#4694 Jan 11, 2013
Interesting take on "Old Hsandsome Joe"'s relationship with NRA, AKA the Paranoid Schizophrenic Lobby:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/w...

Especially this part:

"More recently, Biden offended gun rights activists at a 2007 Democratic presidential debate. In response a questioner who had submitted a YouTube video of himself holding an assault rifle, Biden suggested the man might have mental problems.

Ill tell you what, if that is his baby, he needs help, Biden said.I dont know that he is mentally qualified to own that gun.

That sort of thing makes me proud to be a 'Murican, to have a Vice President who calls a spade a spade.
gunowner

United States

#4695 Jan 11, 2013
Now this is to funny. Obama and the rest of the gun grabbers in Washington screwed themselves.
Senate Amendment 3276,Sec2716 part C of Obamacare will conflict any bill or executive order passed to control or regulate guns

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Lawrence Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Chicken Plant Thu Jersey Steer 5
Anyone know Jessica Manlove (Aug '14) Sep 13 L HUDSON 2
John Peppercorn,Pope,pastor,preacher Sep 13 L HUDSON 1
How did Cindy Helms Rice die? (Jan '16) Sep 13 lowdown 17
Hip Hop Audtions for 8-17 year olds! Sep 10 L HUDSON 2
Hi I'm John Peppercorn Sep 10 L HUDSON 2
#Legit #pain n #anxiety meds (Jun '15) Sep 9 L HUDSON 5

Lawrence Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Lawrence Mortgages