Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Bring to the bargining table
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Lurker66" data-source="post: 2034505" data-attributes="member: 24459"><p>Murph, i can only answer a couple of your points in your response.</p><p></p><p>By making things mandatory and how it relates to freedom. We have a right to vote, to bear arms ect. That doesnt mean one MUST excersize a right, but we are FREE to, if we choose. Making things MANDATORY kinda nullifies rights, thus freedom is diminished.</p><p></p><p>As for debates, yes, they are part of the process. Usually it works like this. Me n you sit down, i propose something, we debate the pros n cons, we present our arguments against the pro n cons, if we are still at odds and cant reach a compromise, we take what we have, present it to congress, let them debate on the floor, then it gets voted on.</p><p></p><p>Anyway im really only interested in what could gun owners could concede without loseing the right to bear arms. For me personally, i think we ought to try to make it easier to adjudicate people with diagnosed mental issues. </p><p></p><p>Also i think its pointless to ask a gun buyer if they are addicted to drugs. If a drug addict can lie, they can buy. Do we want addicts to buy guns? I mean being an illegal drug addict is like being a felon except they havent been caught. So if a person commits felonious acts but hasnt got caught, and can tell a lie on a form for a generic background check, are we OK with that?</p><p></p><p>I dunno what the solutions are but it needs to be discussed, argued and debated.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lurker66, post: 2034505, member: 24459"] Murph, i can only answer a couple of your points in your response. By making things mandatory and how it relates to freedom. We have a right to vote, to bear arms ect. That doesnt mean one MUST excersize a right, but we are FREE to, if we choose. Making things MANDATORY kinda nullifies rights, thus freedom is diminished. As for debates, yes, they are part of the process. Usually it works like this. Me n you sit down, i propose something, we debate the pros n cons, we present our arguments against the pro n cons, if we are still at odds and cant reach a compromise, we take what we have, present it to congress, let them debate on the floor, then it gets voted on. Anyway im really only interested in what could gun owners could concede without loseing the right to bear arms. For me personally, i think we ought to try to make it easier to adjudicate people with diagnosed mental issues. Also i think its pointless to ask a gun buyer if they are addicted to drugs. If a drug addict can lie, they can buy. Do we want addicts to buy guns? I mean being an illegal drug addict is like being a felon except they havent been caught. So if a person commits felonious acts but hasnt got caught, and can tell a lie on a form for a generic background check, are we OK with that? I dunno what the solutions are but it needs to be discussed, argued and debated. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Bring to the bargining table
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
