Look into the cause at a root level and not at the immediate perceived problem. Whether the "something" is obesity deaths (300,000), automobile deaths (37,000), or pick your topic, there is always a root cause deeper then what the news media reports and most people are willing to see. Once you locate the root problem then you address the root problem in a sensible and sane manner, based less in feelings and emotions and more in facts and reason.
IF the gun laws are based in respecting Constitutional rights, then they can be discussed. Otherwise...
None of the proposals you put forward have respected the Constitution. You've openly dismissed the intent of the Founders, so no, you don't respect the Constitution and as such none of your proposals are valid.
his laws are worthless as crime control measures: that of course is not the real goal-harassing gun owners is
Not an opinion. Unarguable fact. Or are you now going to claim you didn't dismiss and denigrate the clearly stated intent of the Founders?
Just another fallacy in along list of them... not respecting the Constitution does not mean his proposals are invalid. Keep failing... you are good at it.
I could care less about the intent of some racist guys from 200 years ago. They wrote it....now we interpret it for modern america.
Oh, I see now, an adaptation of; Fruit of the poisonous tree, the Men that penned the Constitution were Racists, so Ergo, you can simply dismiss or vacate any Legal parameters they crafted as far as Civil Rights, because they were Racist. So to get back at them, you will misinterpret them in every sense. Now that is a perfect example of Spurious, vacuous, fatuous reasoning and a far stretch too.....
To “interpret” is to explain the meaning ie. the intention. I think the word “modify” better describes what you’re talking about. If we’re going to ignore the intention and invent new meanings, why use the document for guidance at all?
Thank you for your opinion. But you are wrong. What I am talking about is how to explain the meaning of those words IN A MODERN CONTEXT. Do you believe in free speech? Did the founders INTEND that to apply to words typed on a computer? Did they INTEND to make exceptions for threatening the president (they didn't for old George).
Dianne Feinstein admitted to such being the case, on national news no less. She admitted openly that no firearm-related restriction, either those that existed or those that were being proposed, would have prevented Stephen Paddock from acquiring any firearms.
Yea, the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Comittee probably doesn’t have a more valid opinion than yours. The Judiciary Committee's oversight of the DOJ includes all of the agencies under the DOJ's jurisdiction, such as the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Committee considers presidential nominations for positions in the DOJ, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the State Justice Institute, and certain positions in the Department of Commerce and DHS. It is also in charge of holding hearings and investigating judicial nominations to the Supreme Court, the U.S. court of appeals, the U.S. district courts, and the Court of International Trade. The Standing Rules of the Senate confer jurisdiction to the Senate Judiciary Committee in certain areas, such as considering pyroposed constitutional amendments and legislation related to federal criminal law,human rights law, immigration, intellectual property, antitrust law, and internet privacy.
I agree with her educated opinion that no existing or proposed law can keep a citizen that is legally eligible from purchasing firearms. As it should be. Such is the case in the Vegas shooter situation.
Glad to know you consider her very educated on gun rights and that you respect her opinions. Better never bring her up again. LOL
