Gun Control Debate - Greensburg, IN

Discuss the national Gun Control debate in Greensburg, IN.

Would you support a ban on handguns?

Greensburg opposes
Oppose
 
33
Support
 
9

Vote now in Greensburg:

Comments (Page 5)

Showing posts 81 - 100 of168
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
liberal waiting on check

Olive Branch, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85
Dec 26, 2012
 
Kathy wrote:
<quoted text>
are about
Agreed! But keep in mind most people who get a gun legally won't commit a crime with it.
ban the NRA, ban companies that sell video games that promote violence, ban movie productions that promote violence, ban the gun shows, ban the local gun shops, also ban the prolifers who shoot up abortion clinics.
liberal waiting on check

Olive Branch, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#86
Dec 26, 2012
 
just a thought wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me in the text of that amendment where it says "the right to have an ak-47 and m-16"
believe it or not, in my hometown there is a gunshop(double barrel gunshop is the name of the business)within 500ft or less of an elementary school that sells the same type weapon used in the shootings at newtown , CT. some idiot would not have to go far to get his gun, we pray nothing like this (newtown, ct) never happens again. i hope none of those guns (sold at double barrel gunhop) ever show up on the city streets or the local elementary school. do not feel pregnant and alone, the NRA has got these southern rednecks brainwashed too. BAN THE NRA!
liberal waiting on check

Olive Branch, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#87
Dec 26, 2012
 
Law wrote:
<quoted text>Well, if you want to be a strict reader of the 2nd Amendment, you won't find "waiting period" or "background check" in there.
duh? BAN THE NRA!
Nopo

Greenwood, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#88
Dec 26, 2012
 
If one wants to belong to an organization that supports the Second Amendment, other than the NRA, then what organization would that be?
liberal waiting on check

Olive Branch, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89
Dec 26, 2012
 
Law wrote:
<quoted text>Well, if you want to be a strict reader of the 2nd Amendment, you won't find "waiting period" or "background check" in there.
dah? i think you need a background check. are you a felon? please check my spelling this time mr big bad gun owner. please do not come and shoot me.
just a thought

Greensburg, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#90
Dec 26, 2012
 
liberal waiting on check wrote:
<quoted text>believe it or not, in my hometown there is a gunshop(double barrel gunshop is the name of the business)within 500ft or less of an elementary school that sells the same type weapon used in the shootings at newtown , CT. some idiot would not have to go far to get his gun, we pray nothing like this (newtown, ct) never happens again. i hope none of those guns (sold at double barrel gunhop) ever show up on the city streets or the local elementary school. do not feel pregnant and alone, the NRA has got these southern rednecks brainwashed too. BAN THE NRA!
Do not feel pregnant and alone?
Law

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#91
Jan 1, 2013
 
just a thought wrote:
Everyone uses the right to bare arms as their argument for having guns correct.
[/QUOTE}
No. There is no argument. It IS a right.

[QUOTE who="just a thought"]
You also say read it nowhere does it say "waiting period" blah blah blah. So please show me where it says you have the right to an assault rifle?
"...the right of the people to keep and bear ARMS, shall not be infringed."
Got it now?
just a thought wrote:
I agree people have a right to buy and use guns but no where does it say that your are entitled to specific weapons.
That's right. It makes NO stipulation to the arms that I CAN have. It says nothing about "assault rifles" not being allowed. Got it now?
Law

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#92
Jan 1, 2013
 
just a thought wrote:
<quoted text>
An assault rifle is a select-fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It is not to be confused with assault weapons.[1] Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies. Assault rifles are categorized in between light machine guns, which are intended more for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which fire a pistol cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge.
And all of the mass shootings have been done with semi-autos. No select fire used.
Law

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#93
Jan 1, 2013
 
just a thought wrote:
I agree that guns don't kill people, idiots with guns kill people.
Idiots with cars kill people.
Idiots with explosives kill people.
Idiots with knives kill people.
Idiots with blunt instruments kill people.
just a thought wrote:
I just think the laws need to be a bit tighter not take away anything. I think every gun needs to have the serial number registered and if you sell your gun it needs a title transfer kinda like a vehicle so guns can be tracked
Why? What business is it of the governments? Do you want to regulate firearms like automobiles?
Law

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94
Jan 1, 2013
 
Nopo wrote:
Why should anyone, except the military or law enforcement, have a weapon that emits more than one projectile for a single squeeze of the trigger?
First, why should only the military and law enforcement have them? Why does law enforcement need them?
Second, when was the last shooting perpetrated with a weapon that shot more than one projectile with each trigger pull?
Third, full-autos are legal for citizens to buy with a required background check ad tax stamp. So when was the last time a full-auto was used in a crime or mass shooting?
Nopo wrote:
Its true that people kill people, but why would a civilian need a rapid fire weapon unless he/she has intent to kill another person?
Why are there so amny rapid-fire weapons in the hands of people that have NEVER been used to kill anyone? Why do you project your own dark side onto others you don't even know?
Law

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95
Jan 1, 2013
 
Nopo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it okay to rapid-fire at targets?
Why is it not?
Nopo wrote:
What is one practicing for?
Accuracy.
Nopo wrote:
A rapid-fire assault?
Yes!
Nopo wrote:
Rapid-fire hunting?
Is that what YOU think?
Nopo wrote:
Rapid-fire at fish in a barrel?
Is that what YOU think?
Law

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#96
Jan 1, 2013
 
just a thought wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a right to protect with a weapon but please tell me where it states what firearms you can own.
Is there a point in your question?
just a thought wrote:
Just because 1 kind of weapon is being pushed to outlaw how does that take away your right?
"Shall not be infringed."
just a thought wrote:
You can't go but a nuclear bomb can you?
Do you not know the difference between arms and ordnance? Even as someone who would be responsible with it you can't own it.
just a thought wrote:
Taking assault weapons away is not taking away any rights.
It's an infringement on the right.
just a thought wrote:


It's like a kid you give them a little extra freedom and they mess up what do you do? You rein them in and ground them or timeout that's what this is
If you can't comprehend the difference between rights and liberties vs. parental discipline, you're beyond hope.
Law

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97
Jan 1, 2013
 
Nopo wrote:
Don't take away the right to arms. Take away the multiple-fire weapons that only military and law enforcement have a use.
Why do they need them?
Law

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98
Jan 1, 2013
 
just a thought wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me in the text of that amendment where it says "the right to have an ak-47 and m-16"
Show me the text that says you can't. It DOES say "...the right of the peopel to keep and bear ARMS, shall not be infringed."
Law

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99
Jan 1, 2013
 
just a thought wrote:
<quoted text>
Every amendment is restricted. Proof 1st amendment you have the right to free speech but you can also be sued for slander and libel.
BZZZZZT!!! Wrong! That is not a restriction of the 1st Amendment. Slander and libel is an infringement on the rights of another.
just a thought wrote:
Everything in the constitution is regulated like the rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If killing people makes you happy does this mean you cannot be arrested for it?
Wow!! You really don't get it, do you? Rights and liberties do not give you the right to infringe on another person's rights or liberties. That's NOT regulation of the right. If anything, it's a guarantee of rights and liberties.
just a thought wrote:
Everything is regulated.
No it's not. When was the last time anyone was proscuted for improper exercise of a right?
just a thought wrote:
I am all for guns but I do think Indiana gun laws needs a change especially since you do not have to register your weapons or have to notify of a private sale
Why should that make a difference? It has never been proven to be beneficial.
Law

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100
Jan 1, 2013
 
just a thought wrote:
<quoted text>
So you would be ok with your neighbor buying an atomic bomb and storing it in their back yard?
Still haven' figured out the difference between arms and ordnance?
Law

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101
Jan 1, 2013
 
Nopo wrote:
<quoted text>
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote about limitations on free speech, such as standing in a crowded theater and yelling, "FIRE!"
And he was wrong. I can indeed yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. In fact, I am obligated to yell "FIRE" where people might otherwise be harmed.
Yelling "FIRE" in a theater where no fire exists is not prosecuted as an improper use of the 1st Amendment. So explain that fact.
Law

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102
Jan 1, 2013
 
just a thought wrote:
<quoted text>
It was stated that people should be able to buy any weapon if they can afford it and that's what the bomb statement was in reply to.
Because you had no honest reply. That's why you alluded to bombs. Admit it.
just a thought wrote:
I think gun laws in Indiana need reformed
So?
Law

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103
Jan 1, 2013
 
just a thought wrote:
<quoted text>
By change I mean. Every weapon in Indiana should be registered,
Most control freaks agree with you.
just a thought wrote:
...and no it does not show contempt it said that people should be able to buy a tank if they had the money
Oh, so now it's tanks. You really can serve up those strawman arguments.
Law

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104
Jan 1, 2013
 
liberal waiting on check wrote:
<quoted text>
ban the NRA,
Okay. Let's ban the ACLU too!
liberal waiting on check wrote:
triple sales tax on fire arms and amo, this will help get guns off the streets and help the government with the upcomming budget crisis when obama returns from HI
Right. Make self defense a means tested operation.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 81 - 100 of168
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

19 Users are viewing the Greensburg Forum right now

Search the Greensburg Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Consultant: spending will exceed revenues 2 hr Visitor 8
stacey rice &melissa white 3 hr booya 3
Hey Big Spender! 8 hr Visitor 11
most dangerous areas of greensburg to live in (Jun '13) Wed Steve 47
Airport (Nov '11) Wed Visitor 7,498
Place your orders... Jul 8 Hoosier Hillbilly 1
Ask a question, start a debate, post a tip, or... Jul 8 Hoosier Hillbilly 1

Related Topics

Greensburg Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]