Menu
By:
Filters
What's new

United Police States of Obama

Red Omen said:
Can't, sorry. Because politics.
Click to expand...
The county my parents (and most of the time me) live in (in Texas) just changed from a completely dry county to a mostly-wet county. We can buy beer and wine at the grocery store and liquor at liquor stores only. This is a far cry from other places I've visited where you can get all the liquor you want from the local convenience store. (<--- I'm not saying that that is a good idea)
 
I don't know if alcohol is sold on Sundays here or not. I don't the there would be a perceptible shift in debauchery in any case.
 
Keleynal said:
My point is, your obvious breach of civil rights is my legitimate protection of the sanctity of marriage. Should such an important debate come down to an executive order, or a unilateral decision by a small, powerful group of people? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

I don't mean this question to sound pointed, I'm asking in all honesty, but what is the sanctity of marriage and how is it threatened by homosexuals? I've given this a lot of thought but I can't come up with a way in which it can harm marriage as an institution.

When I say that I want gay marriage to be legal I am in no way, shape or form saying that churches/synagogues/mosques/etc. should be required to perform them; they're protected from that by freedom of religion. What I hope homosexuals have someday is the same rights and protections enjoyed by heterosexuals under state and federal law. Including but not limited to taxes, the ability to raise children, pension and retirement benefits, healthcare, visitation rights in hospitals and things of that nature.

Given this, I don't see how homosexuals could not be a protected class. Their lives are directly and negatively impacted by current federal and state laws, the changing of which has no perceivable (at least to me at this time) harm to anyone else, and the changing of which is being blocked by a majority group of the population.

As the elected representative of the country, Obama has a responsibility to voice his opinion on public matters, particularly when they may require federal action. As Red Omen pointed out however he has in no way circumvented California's authority on this issue and asides from issuing this brief is concentrating actual legal action on the federal level against DOMA.
 
If it's an actual federal case that's being argued, then I back off of my condemnation of Obama for getting involved. What have a problem with is national intervention onrush state matters. What you are describing is a different ball game entirely.

As for you question about homosexual marriage, I really don't want to debate that one again. I've got several pages of posts that I already wrote on the topic, and I'm still feeling burnt out on it.

Suffice to say that my moral viewpoint is different than many here. It's not my intention to throw out catchphrases that get people riled up, so I apologize for my poor choice of words. For the sake of keeping this discussion on track, I'm just going to sidestep it for now.
 
This will be a short but comical rant IMO.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/09/at-least-5-reportedly-stabbed-on-lone-star-college-campus/

We gotta ban knives now. They are extremely dangerous. 2 suspects stabbed 14 people at a college and 12 are hospitalized. They are a danger to society, butterknives, pocket knives, even plastic knives.
They are pointy and can hurt people at an alarming rate and speed.
We need a movement to put this at the Top priority list on things in congress.

The end :)
 
It's a lot easier to murder twenty-six people in less than five minutes with a Bushmaster than a knife. Better range, for one thing.

Case in point - did you notice how many fatalities that knife attack produced?
 
A knife has many meaningful purposes that do not include attacking/killing people, a gun's purpose is quite explicit in comparison.
 
Jia said:
A knife has many meaningful purposes that do not include attacking/killing people, a gun's purpose is quite explicit in comparison.
Click to expand...
In the hands of a "sane" person it wouldn't take an innocent life. These are all tools. Tools don't kill people. People kill people
 
Baldoraxx said:
In the hands of a "sane" person it wouldn't take an innocent life. These are all tools. Tools don't kill people. People kill people
Click to expand...

Yet one cannot kill 10 people in ten seconds with a knife.

Just like you CAN use a fork to eat soup, but you wouldn't.

So while YES people KILL people. The weapons they have make it MUCH MUCH easier.
 
tr1age said:
Yet one cannot kill 10 people in ten seconds with a knife.

Just like you CAN use a fork to eat soup, but you wouldn't.

So while YES people KILL people. The weapons they have make it MUCH MUCH easier.
Click to expand...
It does make it easier, but trying to get rid of said weapons doesn't keep them out of hands of criminals.

It just diminishes our right to protect ourselves from said criminals

Banning drugs doesn't keep them out of hands of criminals.[DOUBLEPOST=1365598129,1365596936][/DOUBLEPOST]A 7'-6" person plays basketball and a group of 5'-10" are playing as well and they complain that it is MUCH EASIER for him to play. Should he not play?
 
Baldoraxx said:
It does make it easier, but trying to get rid of said weapons doesn't keep them out of hands of criminals.

It just diminishes our right to protect ourselves from said criminals

Banning drugs doesn't keep them out of hands of criminals.[DOUBLEPOST=1365598129,1365596936][/DOUBLEPOST]A 7'-6" person plays basketball and a group of 5'-10" are playing as well and they complain that it is MUCH EASIER for him to play. Should he not play?
Click to expand...

one is a game one is life.

Criminals and the people who are taking mommy and daddy's weapons are two different categories of people. I don't think guns need to be taken away I just think they need much tougher regulations and annual re-registration just like a vehicle.
 
tr1age said:
one is a game one is life.

Criminals and the people who are taking mommy and daddy's weapons are two different categories of people. I don't think guns need to be taken away I just think they need much tougher regulations and annual re-registration just like a vehicle.
Click to expand...
Mommy and daddy SHOULD have them securely locked in a gun safe. Which they should be from the start, all of my guns are in gun safes and i don't have kids yet. I think the issue here is not tougher regulations. It all falls back to the mentality of a person.

I would want someone before purchasing a firearm have to go to a therapist and get a pass on their mental bill. (I know that will never fly but that is my opinion)

All these laws are doing is hindering the law-abiding citizens in their right to defend themselves. If you look at the drug war, we have been fighting it for YEARS and it hasn't slowed down one bit.

What we need to do is be able to enforce the laws we already have. They want tougher background checks? We already have background checks, they took my thumbprint when i got my CWP. We need to enforce the laws already in place before setting done more.

I also see it from your point of view Tristan and i like the re-registration. I can see that happening but i say every 3 years because someone who has 8 guns doesn't want to have to go and re-register at 8 different times
 
Baldoraxx said:
Mommy and daddy SHOULD have them securely locked in a gun safe. Which they should be from the start, all of my guns are in gun safes and i don't have kids yet. I think the issue here is not tougher regulations. It all falls back to the mentality of a person.

I would want someone before purchasing a firearm have to go to a therapist and get a pass on their mental bill. (I know that will never fly but that is my opinion)

All these laws are doing is hindering the law-abiding citizens in their right to defend themselves. If you look at the drug war, we have been fighting it for YEARS and it hasn't slowed down one bit.

What we need to do is be able to enforce the laws we already have. They want tougher background checks? We already have background checks, they took my thumbprint when i got my CWP. We need to enforce the laws already in place before setting done more.

I also see it from your point of view Tristan and i like the re-registration. I can see that happening but i say every 3 years because someone who has 8 guns doesn't want to have to go and re-register at 8 different times
Click to expand...

Do it like Tax season :) By said date for all guns lol.
 


Watched this today and was baffled by the ignorance. Now I am not anti or pro gun anything but these people are just fucking idiots. "Uhm coffee makes you jittery and then you have a gun and you will have a gun while being jittery!"

The dude reading the paper in starbucks with a visible fire arm I can almost guarantee you is NOT going to shoot you. But the fucked up dude who walks in hiding one probably will. Idiots. Then they will want the first guy to protect them..... sigh.

This whole article just pisses me off: http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/starbucks-promotes-gun-agenda/
 
tr1age said:


"Uhm coffee makes you jittery and then you have a gun and you will have a gun while being jittery!"
Click to expand...

Wow lol i heard that and i was like that is complete stupidity.

I agree with you, the guy who open carrys is more than likely not going to open fire because people are going to be more aware of them than the guy who has the gun hidden. I conceal carry because it is easier and less likely to have the cops called on you (personal experience, funny story cause i knew the cop)
 
I'm pretty pro gun. It state explicitly in the constitution that we have the right to bear arms as U.S. citizens. Now does that mean everyone should be able to go out and buy one? No, not necessarily. What should be done, in my opinion, is to treat guns like we treat cars. Both have the potential to be dangerous, if used by the wrong people. Honestly, I think we need a license system. Use a firearm while intoxicated? License revoked. Threaten people with your firearm? License revoked. Meanwhile, people who follow the rules are free to own guns. Also, we need to increase the punishment for illegally owning guns.

Gun ownership is a proud American tradition. The actions of the irresponsible, the mentally ill, and others should not limit the rights of others.
 
Let me shock some of my liberal colleagues by saying that I am very disappointed the gun legislation didnt get through the Senate. I thought the new regulations made a lot of sense.
 
The reason IMO that it didn't pass is because they fear it will lead to a national registry. (Oh and welcome back Kel)
 
Barack_Obama_campaign_button_pin_LOL_Cat.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom