Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by K9Buck, Jan 13, 2020.
...for people to obtain conceal-carry permits in jurisdictions run by Democrats?
Probably because being a liberal doesn't mean you are a Democrat.
Because they lie??
You get around.
I do have a scooter.
Because they're ok with some people having guns. Themselves, their friends, their security details, celebrities, the wealthy and well connected...
Its just the common folk that need to be disarmed.
Well, I ask and liberals/leftists/Democrats always tell me that they're ok with people having guns. When I ask why it's virtually impossible to obtain a conceal-carry permit where Democrats are in charge, they don't have a good answer.
Its actually fairly easy to get one in CA. All you have to do is regularly transport your wealthy employers money, and they'll get you a CCW right quick. Protecting rich peoples money is important even in Dem/Prog enclaves.
As is to be expected when the value of a human life is currently less than the tax collected on the sale of a single tobacco product.
That cop should have been charged. I take it you agree.
Do you support the high taxation of cigarettes in NYC as well as enforcing those laws?
The matter of Eric Garner is not what is being discussed. Rather it is the fact that tobacco products remain available on the legal market, despite it being proven beyond doubt that they serve no beneficial purpose, and amount to nothing more than a poisonous substance that expose so many to illness and death. The only reason they remain legal is because the united states government can collect a tax on their sale and purchase. In essence the government has concluded that the value of a human life is of less value than what it collects in revenue on the sale of a pack of cigarettes.
Should they be outlawed? What else should be outlawed?
And yet, few liberals aren't.
They understand their dreams of a state monopoly on force cannot be realized so long as the people remain armed.
Such efforts would ultimately prove to be no more beneficial to the public than current efforts in the so-called "war on drugs" has been, or previous attempts at prohibiting alcoholic beverages. The more addictive vices are outlawed and restricted, the more the public demands access to such until the criminal element is considered the hero for giving the public what it wants, even if it is not good for them. Alcoholic beverages, illicit narcotic substances, firearms, pornography, whatever the subject of focus to be, efforts at prohibition only serve to make a bad situation even worse.
As far as you know yet you fail to show any real significant numbers to back up yer opinion so it fails a a fact..
The purpose of gun control laws is to give government more power.
Everything else is a lie..
This is a simple issue leftist want your gun pryed out of your cold dead hand.
Keep telling yourself that.
Leftists here like @gabmux don't want to touch this one. They'll laugh at you and claim that "nobody wants to keep you from having a gun" but they won't answer this simple question.
Because politicians already enjoy the luxury of armed security. Another thing I noticed about Democrats is that they don't use turn signals while driving. Can anyone explain why?
Exactly....if you wan’t one too, get permit.
Such a notion is more a theoretical concept of thought rather than a possibility, when those empowered to authorize permits are not obligated to authorize them to anyone on the basis they do not like the individual applying for one.
The 2A is my 'permit.'
Don't like it? Amend it.
Gee, I’ve had no problem renewing mine for decades. Of course, I’m not on the terrorist watch list, which doesn’t seem to bother conservatives.
Just show them your DD form 214. They’re partial to military types.
I suppose your permit to yell fire in a crowded theater is the 1A .
Nope. None of your rights are absolute. You need permits whenever the gov says so. You can make up s.h.i.t that you don’t, but it’s not true.
Separate names with a comma.