|
|
Post by Mink on Nov 3, 2008 0:24:30 GMT -5
I'm not arguing, in fact I agree with the abortion clinics. Like I said, people who want or need it will do what they have to do.
Travelling 5 miles is not a big deal and it shouldn't be for gun stores either.
Now, because the thread regards the Chicago area where crime is higher, I should think this would be a welcome to most citizens.
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Nov 3, 2008 1:14:48 GMT -5
Travelling 5 miles is not a big deal and it shouldn't be for gun stores either. GOOD. You be the one to champion that idea for abortion clinics. It's been nice knowing you. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Nov 3, 2008 14:35:02 GMT -5
When was Chicago ever safe? I wonder if the mob still runs its' operations. Yes, but now it is the Murder Capital. That used to be Detroit. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Nov 3, 2008 14:36:10 GMT -5
I don't touch the gun issue just because of the enthusiasts here would take offense, but if I lived in Chicago, I would feel better if those thugs didn't have weapons. Regardless, Chicago and the crime-infested areas are a social issue. Obama didn't have to pick this area to help, but he did and for him to run for president after Bush ruined the country, reflects that he tackles tough situations. One thing Republicans rarely touch are these kind of social issues like in Chicago. I guess these people aren't American- enough. Well, I would call that a false sense of security. There is no way you can get rid of all weapons, at all. As long as trees exist, so do some very fine weapons. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Nov 3, 2008 14:36:58 GMT -5
I don't touch the gun issue just because of the enthusiasts here would take offense, but if I lived in Chicago, I would feel better if those thugs didn't have weapons. Regardless, Chicago and the crime-infested areas are a social issue. Obama didn't have to pick this area to help, but he did and for him to run for president after Bush ruined the country, reflects that he tackles tough situations. One thing Republicans rarely touch are these kind of social issues like in Chicago. I guess these people aren't American- enough. Please explain what is ruined about this country. Clearly. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Nov 3, 2008 14:38:39 GMT -5
What have the Republicans done about these social issues? There aren't any, remember? |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Nov 3, 2008 14:40:20 GMT -5
Yep, it does. Daily, Barry, et al. They are listed in the OP. Well, if you're going to point at politicians, you've got the top two crooks leaving the highest offices in the next few months. And exactly how does foreign policy fit in with Chicago? Please explain where the Constitution allows such things. Tell me, exactly what have they stolen? They lowered your taxes and had a great economy until the Democrats got power in the House. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Nov 3, 2008 14:43:44 GMT -5
Surefire said: Their stance/s on guns, I believe is most negative towards assault weapondry and not so much at eliminating all guns. This socialist categorizing is just that and not necessarily true, but sound bytes of the right wing. Ok, lets just be plain and straight forward here. Are you an idiot? Have you lived with your head in the sand for the last 35 years or so? What was Feinsteins biggest mistake she made as Mayor of San Francisco? Come on, you can do it. I bet I don't even have to answer for you on this one. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Nov 3, 2008 14:48:03 GMT -5
Surefire: Did you have any problem with Bush taking your right to privacy? I didn't see Feinstein on 60 minutes. Do you have a link? There is not a guaranteed right to privacy in the Constitution. The word privacy is no where to be found in the Constitution. There is a right to be secure in your home, possessions, papers and effects. See: Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Nov 3, 2008 14:55:47 GMT -5
I think the point Subdjoe was making was that this is an easy way to ban gun stores. How many areas do NOT have schools within 5 miles? Then there is no threat of banning them. Are you logically challenged? Such a law would close every single gun shop in Petaluma City limits. That would be an absolute ban, so there is a huge threat. How do you leap across such chasms? This country is doomed if even a quarter of the electorate is as logically challenged as you are. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Nov 3, 2008 14:59:00 GMT -5
The three stooges are going to make the "neocons" look like childs play. Only the extreme tinfoil left will be happy four years from now. Moderates (including the blue dog left), centralists, and the right are not going to recognize this as America. This may be hard for some to believe now, but if the first admendment is still intact 4 years from now (given the leadership, it could be severely infringed) we will have the ability to take bets on this in this forum. Of course if Pelosi & friends get their way, it may no longer be legal to post negative comments about their regime on a message board. You are getting extreme now. It was Bush who scared people from posting opinions. There is no doubt that Pelosi, Reed and Feinstein have detractors in their own party, but I think you are fearing the unknown and listening to too much fear from the right who are losing power. Mostly I think you fear the ban of guns, which is a legitimate fear, but as for the other things you mention, I'm not that convinced. You have been just as vitriolic and hateful in your speech towards Bush on these boards for eight years. How many agents have been knocking on your doors? Honest now, tell us. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Nov 3, 2008 15:09:42 GMT -5
Yeah... perhaps in the middle of rural Kansas, or Alaska. How many metro DMAs have lots of space without schools within 5 miles? I cannot name many. Well, Alaska is a given. They have guns galore up there, but it is not heavily populated either. Since Chicago is heavily populated, they would have to move the gun shops farther out on the skirts of the city. Would that matter, as long as they have their gun shops? Yes, it would matter, since rents are probably higher. And, Alaska has over a half million people. With all of those guns, they only had 44 murders in 2007. Not sure how many were gun deaths though. |
|
