Talk of The Villages Florida
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Talk of The Villages Florida (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/)
-   The Villages, Florida, Political talk (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-political-talk-88/)
-   -   Does the majority rule in America (anymore)? (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-political-talk-88/does-majority-rule-america-anymore-159614/)

Guest 08-15-2015 01:59 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1100020)
The majority also ruled when they went to the polls on election day 2012 and reelected Barack Obama, who supported same-sex marriage, as opposed to Mitt Romney, who thinks marriage is only between one man and one woman.

BTW: when this Supreme Court ruling came down, 37 states had already legalized same-sex marriage, including Florida.
So, when a GOP candidate is elected in 2016, you will say that the majority now thinks that marriage is between one man and one woman?

Guest 08-15-2015 02:14 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1100140)
So, when a GOP candidate is elected in 2016, you will say that the majority now thinks that marriage is between one man and one woman?
If that is the candidate's position and if that candidate is elected, that would be the assumption. We won't know what the candidate's position is until a candidate is elected and the GOP platform is written at next year's convention. For instance, Donald Trump has not voiced his opinion on same-sex marriage.

Guest 08-15-2015 03:30 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1099926)
When a major majority of the population believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and 9 people in black robes overrule probably close to 300 million citizens that is no longer a democracy but an anatherchy. The supreme court was established to interpret the constitution, not legislate from the bench. That belongs to Congress!
Dear Guest: The Supreme Court's majority decision was based on flawed logic and bad law. The progressives on this bench engaged in judicial activism.

As to the majority of the population the wrong question is being presented. The question isn't are you in favor of same sex marriage? Rather the question should have been do you believe the definition of marriage should continue to defined as being between one man and one woman?

What the Supreme Court did was to negate the definition of what is a man or what is a woman and by blurring that distinction they have opened a pandora's box.

This issue should not have been left to the supreme court but to individual states or as a referendum.

Roe v Wade was also bad law and has divided this nation since its ruling. The same sex marriage decision is roe v Wade on steroids

Personal Best Regards:

Guest 08-15-2015 03:31 PM
Some here are erroneously trying to make us believe that since The president is a democrat elected by the majority.
Yes to a point. More accurately he was elected by the majority of those who voted.
He in no way represents the real majority.
The gay marriage issue just happened to be rammed through the political and judicial system and does not represent the way the real majority of Americans feel.

If there were a nation wide referendum on the subject of the definition, the real majority would have defeated what has been done recently.

So it is helpful to define the participation of select events.

Guest 08-15-2015 05:21 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1100181)
Dear Guest: The Supreme Court's majority decision was based on flawed logic and bad law. The progressives on this bench engaged in judicial activism.

As to the majority of the population the wrong question is being presented. The question isn't are you in favor of same sex marriage? Rather the question should have been do you believe the definition of marriage should continue to defined as being between one man and one woman?

What the Supreme Court did was to negate the definition of what is a man or what is a woman and by blurring that distinction they have opened a pandora's box.

This issue should not have been left to the supreme court but to individual states or as a referendum.

Roe v Wade was also bad law and has divided this nation since its ruling. The same sex marriage decision is roe v Wade on steroids
Well, learn to live with both same sex marriage and Roe v. Wade. BOTH are the law of the land!

Guest 08-15-2015 05:28 PM
[QUOTE=Guest;1100182]Some here are erroneously trying to make us believe that since The president is a democrat elected by the majority.
Yes to a point. More accurately he was elected by the majority of those who voted.
He in no way represents the real majority.
The gay marriage issue just happened to be rammed through the political and judicial system and does not represent the way the real majority of Americans feel.
---------

If you actually feel that Pres. Obama was elected by a majority of those who actually voted, how is that different than any other President who has been elected? Only the people who cast a vote can be counted.

I have a good buddy in The Villages who does not vote and he just says, "Don't blame me, I don't vote."

Once again, if you can cite a recent Gallup poll or other credible poll about same sex marriage, do so.

Guest 08-15-2015 06:14 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1100182)
Some here are erroneously trying to make us believe that since The president is a democrat elected by the majority.
Yes to a point. More accurately he was elected by the majority of those who voted.
He in no way represents the real majority.
The gay marriage issue just happened to be rammed through the political and judicial system and does not represent the way the real majority of Americans feel.

If there were a nation wide referendum on the subject of the definition, the real majority would have defeated what has been done recently.

So it is helpful to define the participation of select events.

One political party is totally out of touch with reality. The polls are always skewed, the wrong people voted, the wrong questions were asked, but this one may take the cake. To repeat the quote "the president was elected by the majority of those who voted". As if this is a bad thing and not the way things have been done since this country was founded and the way countries around the world count their votes.

This particular party needs to ask itself why have we lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections, and what can we do to turn this around, and why have we lost the women's vote every year since 1988. There is still time to do some soul searching before the next presidential election.

Guest 08-15-2015 07:37 PM
:rant-rave:" More accurately he was elected by the majority of those who voted.
He in no way represents the real majority.":rant-rave:

Huh? Are not Presidents elected by a majority of people who vote? This has to be the strangest statement that was EVER posted on TOTV.

Guest 08-15-2015 08:58 PM
Dear Guest: The Supreme Court's majority decision was based on flawed logic and bad law. The progressives on this bench engaged in judicial activism.

We don't have a nine member Supreme Court. There are three Republican leaning judges voting as a block. There are four Democratic leaning judges voting as a lock. Justice Roberts, and Justice Kennedy are the only two that base their decisions on the case at hand. Every decision that is controversial is going to be decided by Roberts and Kennedy. The decision will be either 5/4 or 6/3.

You can't call the four progressive judges activists, and not call the three conservatives activists. They are both doing the same thing.

Guest 08-15-2015 09:13 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1100275)
Dear Guest: The Supreme Court's majority decision was based on flawed logic and bad law. The progressives on this bench engaged in judicial activism.

We don't have a nine member Supreme Court. There are three Republican leaning judges voting as a block. There are four Democratic leaning judges voting as a lock. Justice Roberts, and Justice Kennedy are the only two that base their decisions on the case at hand. Every decision that is controversial is going to be decided by Roberts and Kennedy. The decision will be either 5/4 or 6/3.

You can't call the four progressive judges activists, and not call the three conservatives activists. They are both doing the same thing.
Just a very minor correction to your post. The word is "bloc" and not "block".

As stated in an earlier post, the justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The President will try to nominate a judge with the same political leanings.

Guest 08-15-2015 09:36 PM
It doesn't matter if you feel that the same sex marriage decision was flawed. It is now the law of the land.

There is nothing to do about it now. Same sex marriages are just as legal as two sex marriages.

Guest 08-16-2015 05:38 AM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1100284)
It doesn't matter if you feel that the same sex marriage decision was flawed. It is now the law of the land.

There is nothing to do about it now. Same sex marriages are just as legal as two sex marriages.
Dear Guest: so let me get this straight if the Supreme Court decides that eminent domain should be expanded to include entire cities being removed for the benefit of the government it would be the law of the land and we better get use to it.? Dred Scott (circa 1887) affirming slavery was the law of the land so should blacks have just accepted their fate?

I don't care what people do in their private lives but the decision made was pure politics and deeply flawed as was Roe v Wade. Even the plaintiff in the Roe case regretted her decision and fights for its repeal.

So here we are deeply divided over another issue that if handled properly would have prevented this wide divide.

Despite what the Supreme court ruled biology clearly defines a man ans woman and their respective roles in marriage and procreation. And despite trans gender operations etc the DNA clealy speaks to the sex of this individual .

Personal Best Regards:

Guest 08-16-2015 06:09 AM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1100284)
It doesn't matter if you feel that the same sex marriage decision was flawed. It is now the law of the land.

There is nothing to do about it now. Same sex marriages are just as legal as two sex marriages.
Any law can be changed or modified. Not that it will happen because anyone not PC is ostracized by the loud minority. But, with a conservative in the White House and congressional majority, the PC avalanche can be slowed. Maybe the PC minority will be hushed enough so that the moral majority can lead properly. Because without morality, America will definitely fall. Of course, liberals love anarchy, because they hold more power over the people that way. The dependent are easily lead by the gold ring in their noses.

Guest 08-16-2015 07:17 AM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1100310)
Dear Guest: so let me get this straight if the Supreme Court decides that eminent domain should be expanded to include entire cities being removed for the benefit of the government it would be the law of the land and we better get use to it.? Dred Scott (circa 1887) affirming slavery was the law of the land so should blacks have just accepted their fate?

I don't care what people do in their private lives but the decision made was pure politics and deeply flawed as was Roe v Wade. Even the plaintiff in the Roe case regretted her decision and fights for its repeal.

So here we are deeply divided over another issue that if handled properly would have prevented this wide divide.

Despite what the Supreme court ruled biology clearly defines a man ans woman and their respective roles in marriage and procreation. And despite trans gender operations etc the DNA clealy speaks to the sex of this individual .

Personal Best Regards:
Wow! Your American history is way off! The Dred Scott decision was 1857 - which was before the Civil War.

Guest 08-16-2015 08:38 AM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1100326)
Wow! Your American history is way off! The Dred Scott decision was 1857 - which was before the Civil War.
And out of all he said, that was what you picked out to comment on? Wow! Can anyone say "grasping at straws?"

Guest 08-16-2015 09:14 AM
The Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court was in 1857 which was BEFORE the Civil War. The Chief Justice had the opinion that slaves were personal property of their owner no matter if the owner went into free territory.

Moot point since slavery was abolished by an amendment to the US Constitution.

You should be glad that the Supreme Court decided that same sex marrriage is legal in all the USA. Now, when your grandson or granddaughter tells you they are getting married to their lover of the same sex, you can rejoice in their happiness.

Guest 08-16-2015 05:43 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1100369)
The Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court was in 1857 which was BEFORE the Civil War. The Chief Justice had the opinion that slaves were personal property of their owner no matter if the owner went into free territory.

Moot point since slavery was abolished by an amendment to the US Constitution.

You should be glad that the Supreme Court decided that same sex marrriage is legal in all the USA. Now, when your grandson or granddaughter tells you they are getting married to their lover of the same sex, you can rejoice in their happiness.
You agree that Dred Scott was a mistake, yet you cannot see this particular decision as something that could be a bad one !!

You do recall that about 10 years ago, a same sex couple was breaking the law by simply showing their love and still break the law in almost 1/2 the countries of the world ?

Problem today is if you are able to get political traction and power on ANY issue and then slam it in the face of everybody, it suddenly becomes mainstream.

Guest 08-16-2015 05:58 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1100539)
You agree that Dred Scott was a mistake, yet you cannot see this particular decision as something that could be a bad one !!

You do recall that about 10 years ago, a same sex couple was breaking the law by simply showing their love and still break the law in almost 1/2 the countries of the world ?

Problem today is if you are able to get political traction and power on ANY issue and then slam it in the face of everybody, it suddenly becomes mainstream.
You do recall that over 10 years ago Massachusetts, under Governor Mitt Romney, became the first state in the country to legalize same-sex marriage and started what would become a wave, eventually encompassing 37 states before the Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage to be legal in all 50 states.

Guest 08-16-2015 06:03 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1100545)
You do recall that over 10 years ago Massachusetts, under Governor Mitt Romney, became the first state in the country to legalize same-sex marriage and started what would become a wave, eventually encompassing 37 states before the Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage to be legal in all 50 states.
Since you mentioned Gov Romney's name for some reason, it should be noted that he was totally opposed to the ruling.

And he and I and everyone respect the law and abide by it. As with Dred Scott, all court decisions are correct and moral.

Guest 08-16-2015 06:04 PM
Mass. was the first state that made same sex marriages legal. Gays didn't throw it in the face of Mass. residents quite the opposite. There was a petition to reverse the same sex law in Mass. It had enough signatures. The state legislature didn't allow the petition to get on the ballot; therefore, it was never voted on.

The legislators knew the law would be reversed, if it was voted on. Mass. residents lived with it, and there was no great harm done. No harm; no foul. Let them dance in the streets on Gay Pride Day, and march in the St. Patrick's Day parade. Who cares!

Guest 08-17-2015 05:49 AM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1100369)
The Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court was in 1857 which was BEFORE the Civil War. The Chief Justice had the opinion that slaves were personal property of their owner no matter if the owner went into free territory.

Moot point since slavery was abolished by an amendment to the US Constitution.

You should be glad that the Supreme Court decided that same sex marrriage is legal in all the USA. Now, when your grandson or granddaughter tells you they are getting married to their lover of the same sex, you can rejoice in their happiness.
Ah, so now we understand your problem.

Guest 08-17-2015 05:56 AM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1100547)
Mass. was the first state that made same sex marriages legal. Gays didn't throw it in the face of Mass. residents quite the opposite. There was a petition to reverse the same sex law in Mass. It had enough signatures. The state legislature didn't allow the petition to get on the ballot; therefore, it was never voted on.

The legislators knew the law would be reversed, if it was voted on. Mass. residents lived with it, and there was no great harm done. No harm; no foul. Let them dance in the streets on Gay Pride Day, and march in the St. Patrick's Day parade. Who cares!
Gotta love those Gay Pride parades. Makes all that gay marriage stuff understandable. It's so fun to watch humans act silly and dress like weirdos. It helps all us straights understand their mentality and take them seriously. :a20:

Guest 08-17-2015 08:20 AM
It is a good thing that they dress like weirdos. The alternative is skin tight pants, not that their manhood is that noticeable anyway. It is much better for the environment that they parade in the streets. Tip toeing through the tulips ruined the poor flowers for years in the Public Gardens.

They finally had to leave their umbrellas home too. When the wind picked up, there was real competition for air space with the drones. They couldn't get rid of the pesky drones with a flick of the wrist. It had to be so depressing.

Guest 08-17-2015 08:36 AM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1100761)
It is a good thing that they dress like weirdos. The alternative is skin tight pants, not that their manhood is that noticeable anyway. It is much better for the environment that they parade in the streets. Tip toeing through the tulips ruined the poor flowers for years in the Public Gardens.

They finally had to leave their umbrellas home too. When the wind picked up, there was real competition for air space with the drones. They couldn't get rid of the pesky drones with a flick of the wrist. It had to be so depressing.
A homophobe Tea Bag poster. How original he is with his homophobic quips.

Or is it maybe he protests too much??? Hmmmm?

Guest 08-17-2015 02:07 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1100770)
A homophobe Tea Bag poster. How original he is with his homophobic quips.

Or is it maybe he protests too much??? Hmmmm?
"homophobe" and "Tea B..." are at the opposite ends of the spectrum, as you would know. Just saying. Obviously, you liberals (ref: Debbie Whatshername) have a hard time with definitions and terms, and are not motivated enough to research when given ample time. Please have your troll manager call me so that we can plan a counseling session for you. :jester:

Guest 08-17-2015 04:40 PM
A homophobe Tea Bag poster. How original he is with his homophobic quips.

Since I am as far away as you can get from a Tea Partyer, I must be quite original. You literally have no sense of humor at all. Lighten up! You will live longer.

Guest 08-17-2015 04:54 PM
homophobe" and "Tea B..." are at the opposite ends of the spectrum, as you would know. Teabagging is a slang term for the sexual act of a man placing his scrotum in the mouth of a willing sexual partner for pleasure or onto the face or head of another person.

Well, you certainly got it right when you said they are opposite ends of the spectrum.

By the way, I am the person you said was walking lock step with Debbie Whatshername. Now, it appears that you are defending me.

I am a true independent. I just got hit by both sides, and I am laughing like hell at them.

Guest 08-17-2015 07:17 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1101040)
homophobe" and "Tea B..." are at the opposite ends of the spectrum, as you would know. Teabagging is a slang term for the sexual act of a man placing his scrotum in the mouth of a willing sexual partner for pleasure or onto the face or head of another person.

.
If you go back to all the posts on this thread, yours is the only one who used the sexual slang term which you described in a vile way not becoming a gentleman.

The other poster said Tea Bag which is the perfectly accepted word for one way - albeit not a good way - to brew a cup of tea.

As that poster suggested, I googled Tea Partiers Hats and came up with a pageful of Tea Party delegates all wearing different hats with tea bags hanging down from the brims.

Now, get your shorts unkinked and try to stay on topic.

The majority who voted has ruled on the election of Pres. Obama and will rule on the next President. I only wish I could vote in your elections but being still a Brit, I cannot do so.

Guest 08-17-2015 08:44 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1101098)
If you go back to all the posts on this thread, yours is the only one who used the sexual slang term which you described in a vile way not becoming a gentleman.

The other poster said Tea Bag which is the perfectly accepted word for one way - albeit not a good way - to brew a cup of tea.

As that poster suggested, I googled Tea Partiers Hats and came up with a pageful of Tea Party delegates all wearing different hats with tea bags hanging down from the brims.

Now, get your shorts unkinked and try to stay on topic.

The majority who voted has ruled on the election of Pres. Obama and will rule on the next President. I only wish I could vote in your elections but being still a Brit, I cannot do so.
Actually, the majority does NOT elect the president. They are elected by electoral votes. Close though. I am not a member of the Tea Party, although I agree with their ideology. I can understand why a Brit would not care for the Tea Party.

Guest 08-17-2015 08:49 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1099352)
I was inspired to create this thread by a comment in anothe thread. I have lifted/copied their statement that I felt neede a separate focus:

"We are a country of majority. The majority makes the rules. Like it or not."

With all the focus and effort on special interests and minority groups (not just race intended) and the ability continuously displayed day after day where the minority(count) rules.

Schools that limit or eliminate something deemed offensive by one person gets accomplished.
A small group that voices opposition to a writing or book or representation they do not like gets approval.
Then the larger issues like ACA where the majority of Americans were against it and it was passed (before read!).
And currently the the Iran nuclear agreement that most of Americans are against is being pushed even with threats by Obama.

So no, based on the current political, special interest, lobbyists and minority group progress I do not believe the majority rules as it once did.

And I do embrace the statement made by the poster quoted above:

LIKE IT OR NOT!!





Here is the short answer to you whining - ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.

Maybe - just maybe - if the R's gave their nomination to a moderate who didn't put his foot in his mouth every second and who didn't go around alienating huge blocks of voters you'd stop crying about the majority not ruling like it once did. Presumably, you mean back in the 40's or 50's when everybody was white

Have some earth shattering news for you - it's 2015, Hispanics are the fastest growing block of voters, 51% of the electorate are women.

Deal with it

Guest 08-20-2015 01:51 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1099352)
I was inspired to create this thread by a comment in anothe thread. I have lifted/copied their statement that I felt neede a separate focus:

"We are a country of majority. The majority makes the rules. Like it or not."

With all the focus and effort on special interests and minority groups (not just race intended) and the ability continuously displayed day after day where the minority(count) rules.

Schools that limit or eliminate something deemed offensive by one person gets accomplished.
A small group that voices opposition to a writing or book or representation they do not like gets approval.
Then the larger issues like ACA where the majority of Americans were against it and it was passed (before read!).
And currently the the Iran nuclear agreement that most of Americans are against is being pushed even with threats by Obama.

So no, based on the current political, special interest, lobbyists and minority group progress I do not believe the majority rules as it once did.

And I do embrace the statement made by the poster quoted above:

LIKE IT OR NOT!!
Leftists have historically been authoritarian and only feign the democratic process until they can grab power. Then they shove their enlightened truth down the throats of the u enlightened

Guest 08-20-2015 02:06 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1101131)
Here is the short answer to you whining - ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.

Maybe - just maybe - if the R's gave their nomination to a moderate who didn't put his foot in his mouth every second and who didn't go around alienating huge blocks of voters you'd stop crying about the majority not ruling like it once did. Presumably, you mean back in the 40's or 50's when everybody was white

Have some earth shattering news for you - it's 2015, Hispanics are the fastest growing block of voters, 51% of the electorate are women.

Deal with it
You are correct, elections do have consequences. Obama blatantly proves that point. In a negative way, of course.
Of course you make everything into a racial, sexual deviant or gender issue. But, I take that for granted considering your ignorance.
Talking about alienating huge blocks of voters? We'll see how this election fares for the left Obama has alienated just about everyone with his flip-flopping policies.
If you think women are dumb enough to vote with the left this time, I think you are in for a rude awakening. Women work today. They don't need liberal welfare. And they want a real woman to vote in as the first female president. Hilary is not their choice. And do you really think that Hilary will get the Latin vote? I don't think so. And she definitely won't get the Independent vote, and that is what will be the deciding factor in this election.

If the Dems want a winning candidate for 2016, they had better ditch Hilary. She has no chance of winning the election. Then again, keep her and make it easier for us.

Guest 08-29-2015 11:03 AM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1099352)
I was inspired to create this thread by a comment in anothe thread. I have lifted/copied their statement that I felt neede a separate focus:

"We are a country of majority. The majority makes the rules. Like it or not."

With all the focus and effort on special interests and minority groups (not just race intended) and the ability continuously displayed day after day where the minority(count) rules.

Schools that limit or eliminate something deemed offensive by one person gets accomplished.
A small group that voices opposition to a writing or book or representation they do not like gets approval.
Then the larger issues like ACA where the majority of Americans were against it and it was passed (before read!).
And currently the the Iran nuclear agreement that most of Americans are against is being pushed even with threats by Obama.

So no, based on the current political, special interest, lobbyists and minority group progress I do not believe the majority rules as it once did.

And I do embrace the statement made by the poster quoted above:

LIKE IT OR NOT!!
As long as 90 percent of Americans supported national background checks after the Connecticut killings of our children and NOTHING got done, then you can easily say that the numerical majority no longer has a chance to succeed, however the financial majority, those with BIG money, will always win.

Guest 08-29-2015 11:04 AM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1102321)
You are correct, elections do have consequences. Obama blatantly proves that point. In a negative way, of course.
Of course you make everything into a racial, sexual deviant or gender issue. But, I take that for granted considering your ignorance.
Talking about alienating huge blocks of voters? We'll see how this election fares for the left Obama has alienated just about everyone with his flip-flopping policies.
If you think women are dumb enough to vote with the left this time, I think you are in for a rude awakening. Women work today. They don't need liberal welfare. And they want a real woman to vote in as the first female president. Hilary is not their choice. And do you really think that Hilary will get the Latin vote? I don't think so. And she definitely won't get the Independent vote, and that is what will be the deciding factor in this election.

If the Dems want a winning candidate for 2016, they had better ditch Hilary. She has no chance of winning the election. Then again, keep her and make it easier for us.
It all depends on who runs against Hillary … if its Trump she will win probably 40 states.

Guest 08-29-2015 12:30 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1099821)
I am a God fearing liberal Christian. If you read Jesus's teachings, you will be reading the teachings of a liberal by today's standards. Why do conservatives assume they are the only Christians? Why do they assume they are in the majority? The conservatives want to repeal the Affordable Care Act. I think most residents of The Villages are conservatives. How many of them would support repealing Medicare? How many would volunteer or vote for taking away their Medicare benefits? What is so bad about making complete health care, not just emergency health care, available for everybody? There are some things, e.g. military, first responders, infrastructure construction and maintenance, etc. are best done by government; why not health care?
The Federal government does not have a great track record
of running large programs in a cost effective efficient manner!
Name one program that is not loaded with inefficiency and waste!
I don't believe God wants us to waste the resources he gives us!

Guest 08-29-2015 12:31 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1106036)
It all depends on who runs against Hillary … if its Trump she will win probably 40 states.
If she isn't in prison!

Guest 08-29-2015 12:35 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1106032)
As long as 90 percent of Americans supported national background checks after the Connecticut killings of our children and NOTHING got done, then you can easily say that the numerical majority no longer has a chance to succeed, however the financial majority, those with BIG money, will always win.
I believe you are mistaken in your 90%.

By the way, there is a background check requirement whenever you purchase a gun from a licensed dealer.

Most folks do not have a problem with a background check, but that is very costly and does next to no good, other than to spotlight possible convicted felon purchasers. As far as a national gun registration, no way. No one is going to register their guns with the fear of the government possibly attempting to confiscate them whenever they please. Besides, most of your gun related crimes are perpetrated using unregistered, black market or stolen guns. You don't have to fear honest gun owners.....unless you are the bad guy.

Guest 08-29-2015 01:25 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1106080)
If she isn't in prison!
if Bush and Cheney stayed out of prison there is just no hope that Hillary will ever see the inside of one.

I take that back, Bush and Cheney should not have been put in prison, they should have been hung by street lamps with piano wire and left to rot for the deaths of our finest in a made up war.

Guest 08-29-2015 01:29 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1106081)
I believe you are mistaken in your 90%.

By the way, there is a background check requirement whenever you purchase a gun from a licensed dealer.

Most folks do not have a problem with a background check, but that is very costly and does next to no good, other than to spotlight possible convicted felon purchasers. As far as a national gun registration, no way. No one is going to register their guns with the fear of the government possibly attempting to confiscate them whenever they please. Besides, most of your gun related crimes are perpetrated using unregistered, black market or stolen guns. You don't have to fear honest gun owners.....unless you are the bad guy.
it was very close to 90 percent, maybe high 80s.

it seems to me that these latest mass killings were by mental retards who were able to buy a weapon legally.

Call it what you want, but if it even stops one idiot from getting a gun and shooting up a theatre then it is well worth it.

This whole crackpot theory of people worried that the government is coming to take your guns away was just a weapon industry tactic to get scared people to buy more guns while they still can.

Guest 08-29-2015 02:21 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 1100326)
Wow! Your American history is way off! The Dred Scott decision was 1857 - which was before the Civil War.
Dear guest My history is not of its my keyboarding skills


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:24 PM.
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.32 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.