This puts the "nuts" in "Gun Nuts"
Sep 11, 2013 09:11:05 #
jbrown wrote:
"There is a controversy in Iowa where the sta... (show quote)
I see nothing wrong with that. I have a blind friend who could swat a fly on the wall and rarely miss! Their aim could possibly be more accurate than many novice 'shooters', and they may need the added protection more than a sighted person, who knows?
Sep 11, 2013 09:13:28 #
richard-sports wrote:
I vote to give all the 2nd Amendment gun nuts a musket.
That is what the weapon of choice was when the 2nd Amendment was written and passed.
Let us stick to the letter of the Constitution and give 'em all muskets. Then there can be no arguments about the law.
That is what the weapon of choice was when the 2nd Amendment was written and passed.
Let us stick to the letter of the Constitution and give 'em all muskets. Then there can be no arguments about the law.
I doubt if Dick-Sports would know a musket from his bro sargies 9mm...
Sep 11, 2013 09:17:03 #
wireman8 wrote:
In my humble opinion, I feel that the ADA has grown legs of it's own and is now becoming a monster that no one can control.
Is this not a common trait of most well intended, government programs? Support sunset laws!
Sep 11, 2013 09:21:46 #
Wellhiem wrote:
May be, but if the car had been around in 1776 would people now be driving without the need for insurance? I'd also just like to point out that "the right to bare arms", is an amendment to the constitution. Therefore the constitution is not carved in stone.
Horses, buggies, and boats were around then, yet they didn't include insurance requirements for those.
And while it is true that the "the right to bare arms" is an amendment to the constitution, it is in the section referred to as "The Bill of Rights", which was put there by the First Congress for the specific purpose of enumerating freedoms not explicitly indicated in the main body of the Constitution. Also keep in mind that those first ten amendments have not been altered since they were Ratified into the Constitution, so they have been in stone since written.
Sep 11, 2013 09:52:02 #
jbrown wrote:
"There is a controversy in Iowa where the sta... (show quote)
The problem is no one knows how to think anymore. The idiots that write all these rules and regulations are all incompetent and are incapable of thinking.
Sep 11, 2013 09:59:36 #
If libtards were as enthusiastic about putting felons in jail as they are about attacking the disabled they might be more credible. As usual, they don't know what they're talking about. How many of these vision-impaired gun permit holders have accidentally shot anyone or have committed any kind of crime? This law has been in effect for several years and no such problem has come to light. The fact is that blind people tend to develop their other senses more than the sighted do and have been both target shooting and even hunting with guns and bows for years. The blind have climbed Mt. Everest and other major peaks around the world and have participated in most every type of sport which requires skill and accuracy. Ever heard of the U.S. Blind Golfers Association? how are those folks able to hit a golf ball and get it into a hole hundreds of yards away? Being blind doesn't mean you have to give up your rights.
Sep 11, 2013 10:15:10 #
Wellhiem wrote:
Cars are also inanimate objects but do require insurance. If owning a gun also required liability insurance, that may go some way to tackleing the problem.
I'm sure that would work just as well for guns as it does for cars. The good honest citizens all insure their cars. The criminal aliens and lowlifes don't insure their cars. Good liberal thinking though.
Sep 11, 2013 10:15:53 #
jfrrn117 wrote:
"Cars are also inanimate objects but do require insurance. If owning a gun also required liability insurance, that may go some way to tackleing the problem."
Excellent idea, liability insurance.
Also, as I told my children,the privilege of driving a car is something you earn, not a right.
Excellent idea, liability insurance.
Also, as I told my children,the privilege of driving a car is something you earn, not a right.
Yes, driving is a privilege. Gun ownership is a right.
Sep 11, 2013 10:23:13 #
LDB415 wrote:
I'm sure that would work just as well for guns as it does for cars. The good honest citizens all insure their cars. The criminal aliens and lowlifes don't insure their cars. Good liberal thinking though.
I agree. You'll never stop law breakers from breaking the law unless those laws are enforced.
Sep 11, 2013 10:37:26 #
ole sarg
Loc: south florida
Could it be that the ADA people are pointing out the absurdity of the law in Iowa regarding gun ownership!
In short, they are seeking reasonable limits on who should own a gun.
l
In short, they are seeking reasonable limits on who should own a gun.
l
Sep 11, 2013 10:44:14 #
venturer9
Loc: Newton, Il.
I think the law it terminally stupid... but I also take umbrage with the title..
"This puts the Nuts in Gun Nuts"
In reading the article I found absolutely no inference or claim that ANY GUN NUT (sorry gun nuts) had any input or even any comments on the subject.... just another cheap shot at those that favor guns..... By the way, I do not own a gun nor have I had one since I was 14, 60yrs ago..
A more apt title would have been
"This puts the idiocy in bureaucracy and Politics"
Mike
"This puts the Nuts in Gun Nuts"
In reading the article I found absolutely no inference or claim that ANY GUN NUT (sorry gun nuts) had any input or even any comments on the subject.... just another cheap shot at those that favor guns..... By the way, I do not own a gun nor have I had one since I was 14, 60yrs ago..
A more apt title would have been
"This puts the idiocy in bureaucracy and Politics"
Mike
Sep 11, 2013 10:51:58 #
jbrown wrote:
I didn't invent the term "gun nuts". Furthermore this post can be read that I am either a supporter or not of gun rights, or that I am neutral, or that I support the US Supreme Court even when they are wrong or if I disagree with them.
p.s. When I look in the mirror, I see Robert Redford without the warts.
p.s. When I look in the mirror, I see Robert Redford without the warts.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Sep 11, 2013 10:52:44 #
BW326 wrote:
Denying "common sense" is also a slippery slope.
Imagine a blind man with an AK-47 in his hands. I think you'd probably agree with me that anyone who thinks that's a good idea is "nuts".
Imagine a blind man with an AK-47 in his hands. I think you'd probably agree with me that anyone who thinks that's a good idea is "nuts".
I bet the NRA thinks that is greatest thing since sliced bread! :mrgreen:
Sep 11, 2013 11:01:49 #
Wellhiem wrote:
May be, but if the car had been around in 1776 would people now be driving without the need for insurance? I'd also just like to point out that "the right to bear arms", is an amendment to the constitution. Therefore the constitution is not carved in stone.
Amend it then, don't ignore it.
Sep 11, 2013 11:03:24 #
richard-sports wrote:
I vote to give all the 2nd Amendment gun nuts a musket.
That is what the weapon of choice was when the 2nd Amendment was written and passed.
Let us stick to the letter of the Constitution and give 'em all muskets. Then there can be no arguments about the law.
That is what the weapon of choice was when the 2nd Amendment was written and passed.
Let us stick to the letter of the Constitution and give 'em all muskets. Then there can be no arguments about the law.
There can be arguments about the law. Have you never heard of lawyers?
As for the letter of the law, it doesn't say muskets, it says "arms."
So much for your understanding of "letter of the law."
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.