Open and honest debate about gun control...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yea, one online "news" source used this line today.

"House To Vote On Major Gun Control Measures For First Time In Decades."

Yea right, first time in decades. Plus they threw out the same old lies about what the law is intended to do.

No, they don't want an open honest debate. Sad.


 
All I can say is "Wow, and AMEN". I am not on any social media, but I am sharing this with everyone I know, THANK YOU FOR POSTING!!!

I am not on social media either, but my wife is. She actually texted it to me this afternoon, and after doing a quick search and not finding anything (color me surprised) I just had to share it.
 
Old stuff. Matters not that a few people in politics are on our side. We are being eaten alive by the communist - socialist eliminates in Washington and in state governments as well. Follow the money - everything, and I do mean everything - is for sale. We are fighting the global elite . These are the guys that print the money.
 
AMEN!

The left is absolutely dependent on political sleight-of-hand, misconceptions, knee-jerk reactions and the ignorance of the masses. If every voter was in possession of facts, not filtered through a leftist agenda, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
 
Next generation voters (Millennials, Generation Z) are fully immersed in Google, Youtube, Social Media and have access to videos like these and most do not obtain their news from traditional media outlets:


Anti-gun supporter has no response when asked who the defenseless [woman] should rely on to protect them




Ben Shapiro torches gun control supporter with rapid fire facts


Gun rights woman makes a total fool out of clueless BBC reporter


John Stossel - "More Guns, Less Crime"


Dana Loesch and John Stossel on Gun Control Myths
 
Last edited:
More "realistic" discussion on gun control. At 5:45 minute mark of video when asked, "If my life was in danger, I would kill", everyone agreed and their comments are very interesting and revealing.

Pro-gun vs anti-gun: Is there middle ground?




Liberals for gun ownership and gun rights - "I don't want to give up any of my constitutional rights!"


Ron Paul - Progressives should defend gun rights


In response to racist violence, more African Americans look to bear arms


Pro-gun LGBT group "Pink Pistols" fight hate crime with firearms
 
Last edited:
You really want to shake up a gun grabber? Tell them about DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. 489 U.S. 189, (1989) where a social work agency could not be sued for failing to protect a client, which restates Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) where the D.C. police were held not liable for failing to protect two individuals who reported crimes and the police failed to respond for hours despite taking the call.

The Supreme Court reiterated this idea in Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), where the Supreme Court ruled ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband. This happened even though a Castle Rock police officer gave explicit promises to the women that they would be protected by seeking the order.

The gist of it is police did not owe a specific duty to provide police services to the plaintiffs based on the public duty doctrine because the promises are to the society as a whole and not to any specific individual. If you really want to make them mad, tell them that the only time that you can sue for failure to be protected by the government is if the state has you in custody via arrest, jail, or prison (and to some extent schools for certain reasons due to other laws).

https://infogalactic.com/info/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County
https://infogalactic.com/info/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
https://infogalactic.com/info/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales
 
No, because there is no mutual trust and respect, therefore, no honest discussion let alone problem solving can take place.
 
The gist of it is police did not owe a specific duty to provide police services to the plaintiffs based on the public duty doctrine because the promises are to the society as a whole and not to any specific individual.
Yep, they are there to help if they can and happen to get there in time, or to mop up and investigate afterwards. You cannot sue them for failing to protect you, and they have no duty to do so. Even, as posted, if you have a restraining order against someone, and they are beating your door down, they don't have to try to save you, because they are not legally responsible to do so. And how could they be? They can't be.
 
So work for it. The alternative is to sit in your basement, mumbling over your stack of high cap magazines.
Yes, no matter how bad it looks, we have to keep working to convince fence sitters and get the non hardcore antis to really talk about it. Nothing better than a convert to convince others.
 
Yes, no matter how bad it looks, we have to keep working to convince fence sitters and get the non hardcore antis to really talk about it. Nothing better than a convert to convince others.
And millennials and Gen Zers are more likely watch and be convinced by videos like in post #18 than reading a long paragraph of argument. Their attention span is short. You have like 1-2 sentences before you lose their attention.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top