Got feedback on the new design? We're Listening! Send us Feedback

Our view on firearms control: Sellers at gun shows can skirt background checks »

Posted by: STONERS 1 year, 2 months ago

9.7

Scale of 1 to 10

Read: 16

Propped: 117

Comments: 248

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Prop it

Officials from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) joined with local police to crack down hard. They flooded two Richmond events with officers, aggressively confronted would-be gun buyers and conducted mass follow-up checks to verify that buyers actually lived where they said they did.

Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com

Join the Discussion

+ Add Comment

Comments So Far: 248

0%
STONERS1 year, 2 months ago

"Regardless, rules for gun shows are a place the two sides should be able to agree. The shows are a perfectly legal way for enthusiasts and dealers to meet, talk, buy and sell. But unscrupulous buyers and sellers skirt the law and use them to channel guns to people the law says shouldn't have them."

Reply
66 Replies
- 0%
  LordyLordy1 year, 2 months ago
  
  I'm sorry but I've always been against "GUN CONTROL" laws, or the nazi gestapo tactics that have been used to enforce them.
  I am however in favor of "Criminal Control", and when a criminal or an individual committs a crime using a firearm, you not only charge them but you lock them up in jail and keep them there, not turn them loose so they can do it again. Over 85% and the numbers are probably higher of the crimes done in this country are repeat offenders. Accidental deaths will always occur. So do car accidents.
  This is just a government gestapo type tactic to deprive YOU of your right to bear arms, and in a country that is supposed to be of and for and by the people, take two guesses why your government officials want all your guns?
  I will always fall on the side of Criminal Control not gun control. Gun control sounds reasonable but it is stupid thinking. It has rarely if ever solved anything.
  
  Reply
  50 Replies
  - 0%
    LordyLordy1 year, 2 months ago
    
    You do not arrest someone simply because they have a firearm, nor register their firearms...because this gives your government a list of all the people who possess firearms. The Germans thought this was a great idea, so did the French. When the Germans came in they simply took the lists, went door to door, and if you didn't surrender the firearm, you were shot. Many Jews during WWII would have given their right arm for a handgun, had they only known what was coming.
    I'm sorry, with our current "big brother" mentality, this could but would happen here.
    You Bush and Cheney haters ought to take note. Neither of these men will probably go after your right to bear arms but I can promise you Ted Kennedy will. He has already tried, successfully in a number of Eastern States. There are people who you do NOT ever want to have this much control over you. If you ever do, you can count on your fingers the number of years you will remain free as a nation.
    Reply
    25 Replies
    - 0%
      Blackadder19641 year, 2 months ago
      
      The gun lobby in Australia was also pretty strong, we actually had higher a gun ownership than the U.S. After the Port Arthur massacre the Government bought back over 600000 guns and tighted laws considerably, after 11 years the world has not ended, while gun crime is about the same suicide and domestic gun violence is down 60%.
      I have no strong feeling about guns one way or the other, my grandfather and uncles all had guns when I was small, but the 2nd Amendment rights of the U.S. date back to when everybody had muskets, if their ever was a case of invasion or Government turning against the people, unless you live in a Chuck Norris movie, a few hunting rifles and pistols won't make an difference.
      
      Reply
      17 Replies
      - 0%
        Redneck1 year, 2 months ago
        
        Where do you obtain your data? I have read that strong arm robbery and breaking and entering when residents may be expectyed to be at home has gone up over 30%! Why? Because they know no one has a gun to stop them! Many of the guns that were to be destroyed were actually sold to criminals! They have been taken from criminals!! The Gun crime rate should be zero since there are no guns in Australia now!!! :-)
        The Government cannot nor will truly protect the citizens.
        As to muskets and longrifles in the 1770's those were state of the art arms. The law does not change because there is advancement of technology!! The issue is English Common law which honors the right of individuals to defend themselves against all reasonable types of assault!! The Bill of rights says these rights are God-given and natural and therefore universal. They do not "date back to 1770's" they date back to ADAM! Merely the weapons have changed!!
        Reply
        15 Replies
        
        0%
        Blackadder19641 year, 2 months ago
        
        The figures are for Australia, which has never had a big history of gun related "breaking and entering" because pistols have always been hard to get, bank robbery is different as professional criminals will always get guns no matter what the gun laws are.
        The point with the musket was in the 1770s every one from farmer to solider had the same, in fact usually the private weapon was better than the military, this was true even up to the time of Custer, they had 1 shot cartridge loaders, the indians had many different rifles including many Winchesters.
        My point being today the best a citizen could legally buy is a rifle/pistol against a modern auto military weapon you would be toast.
        "English common" law isn't much of a fall back, unless on special duty even the police there don't carry guns.
        The law and society does change all the time which is why you can't shoot someone for stealing your horse or shoot a slave trying to escape!
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        IncaQueen1 year, 2 months ago
        
        In many of the Western states not only can you shoot a man trying to steal your horses or your cattle, but they do not have to be armed. It's still range law. Many Californians who moved into Montana thought they could let their dogs chase their neighbors cattle. Most died of lead poisoning. People who raise livestock cannot afford to have dogs, wild or domestic, chasing their cattle. The danger to the cattle for one, and the fact that they sell them by the pound!
        Reply
        
        0%
        GODIMMAD1 year, 2 months ago
        
        "The law does not change because there is advancement of technology!! "
        Really so having peds online talking and showing kids gross pics of themselves should still be legal to?
        The basic right to bare arms. Thats it. It doesnt say what arms you are allowed or not allowed to have. In your world, we all should be able to have Bradleys right! I am a strong conservative and I think your outta line on this one. I believe that we all should be able to own guns to protect ourselves but I not sure about the missle laucher being needed. What they are wanting is just to have the existing law for everyone so only the law abiding citz have guns. Not the thugs or cons...Get over it. Too me its like the border issues....they have the laws....they better enforce them!
        Reply
        12 Replies
        
        0%
        bhgrich1 year, 2 months ago
        
        >Really so having peds online talking and showing kids
        >gross pics of themselves should still be legal to?
        That makes no sense. It was illegal to do this before the Internet was available, and it is illegal now.
        Think of it this way; when the freedom of speech was guaranteed as a right, there was no Internet. When the Bill of Rights was written, there was basically only pen and paper and your voice.
        So, for the anti-gunners to now say "well, there was only muskets back then and that is all you should have now" would be the same as saying "there was only pen and ink back then, therefore you have no freedom of speech when it comes to television, radio, the Internet etc."
        Applying your "ped logic" above, since there is the *potential* that a few people will misuse this new technology (the Internet), we should ban all men from having access to it. That is the same as saying no one needs an AR15, because someone may use it for ill purposes.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        GODIMMAD1 year, 1 month ago
        
        ">Really so having peds online talking and showing kids
        >gross pics of themselves should still be legal to?
        That makes no sense. It was illegal to do this before the Internet was available, and it is illegal now. "
        How was it illegal to do this online before the internet existed? Please explain!!!
        I agree that the full auto AR-15 should be banned from the public. This one of the few times that I think that the govt should step in over free enterprise to recrict the sale of a fully auto assualt rifle which in its name says what it is made for....assult.
        Why are you fighting with me and agreeing with me to make some point that I already made?
        
        Reply
        
        0%
        IncaQueen1 year, 2 months ago
        
        You have far too much trust in your government. Some is reasonable. They're not wanting the law abiding citizens to have guns; otherwise, they'd enforce the laws on the criminals. They haven't enforced the border laws either. They simply arrest the border patrol and put them in jail instead. A burglar robs your home, you shoot him, the police arrest you for having the weapon and firing it in city limits, and the lawyer gets the burglar off, who then sues you, and gets a nice settlement for his injury. This is more likely how that scenerio will play out.
        Now, give me a .38 special. He's right. A gaping chest wound and not only does the guy forget about raping me, he also forgets to steal my TV, my valuables, or anything else.
        Reply
        9 Replies
        
        0%
        PapaWolf1 year, 1 month ago
        
        >>Now, give me a .38 special. He's right. A gaping chest wound and not only does the guy forget....
        Wow. That's a slight change in your post below:
        >>Were it not for the Christain churches there would clearly be no morality in the US at all
        I guess it's a "selective morality" thing.
        Reply
        7 Replies
        
        0%
        bhgrich1 year, 1 month ago
        
        What is immoral about protecting yourself?
        Reply
        6 Replies
        
        0%
        IncaQueen1 year, 1 month ago
        
        I guess this guy thinks its ok to rape and rob you, especially a woman.
        If I recall the Bible stories, Jesus himself cursed the tree that bore no fruit, and also turned over the changers at the money tables. I'd say that was rather physical wouldn't you?
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        PapaWolf1 year, 1 month ago
        
        >>I guess this guy thinks its ok to rape and rob you, especially a woman.
        Now that's just a stupid statement. Enough said.
        Reply
        
        0%
        IncaQueen1 year, 1 month ago
        
        What is immoral about protecting yourself?
        Nothing. This is not murder, it's self defense.
        If I went out looking for you to shoot you, yes, but when I find you in my home, un-invited, I haven't consented to anything, nor am I willing to let you rape me and say, oh, that's ok, it might hurt your self esteem to say NO. Wrong. Of course men like this think its funny. They would.
        Reply
        
        0%
        PapaWolf1 year, 1 month ago
        
        >>What is immoral about protecting yourself?
        I'm not sure. But ask Jesus why He, the most powerful being in the universe, didn't defend himself. Or ask the earlier Church Fathers & Mothers / Saints who were persecuted why they didn't defend themselves? They were subject to crucifixion, impalement, burning alive, thrown to wild beasts, & other gruesome acts of violence against their persons.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        bhgrich1 year, 1 month ago
        
        >> I'm not sure.
        I believe you.
        People twist Our Lord's Passion quite often to fit their argument. It does not sound like you understand what His sacrifice was for, or why the martyrs allowed themselves to be martyred. You are not martyred simply because you allow yourself to be raped and/or killed.
        Would you give the same advice to your mother -- to allow herself to be attacked even if she had a very effective way to defend herself?
        Usually the people who argue that you can't be a Christian AND defend yourself are either anti-Christian, anti-gun, pacifists or all three.
        
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        PapaWolf1 year, 1 month ago
        
        You make a valid point. And I do know why He sacrificed Himself.
        I just find opening a gaping wound in a man's chest a bit on the extreme side.
        >>You are not martyred simply because you allow yourself to be raped and/or killed.
        That would be an interesting discussion, one for which I'm a bit too tired (not to mention at work) to discuss right now.
        Reply
        
        0%
        GODIMMAD1 year, 1 month ago
        
        "otherwise, they'd enforce the laws on the criminals. "
        I dont trust the govt most of the time but I do believe in the law. I dont want to give the criminal control nor the government. I like a sensible side to it. Why does a person with a criminal record need a gun?? Why do they by them legally or not. This issue is only about how to close a loophole to protect us as Americans. Most of us, including me, would stand up if the govt tried to take all away but full auto's or criminals having a gun, come on, they lost that privillage by doing the crime. If you want more protection, move to Missouri here. We have just made it legal to shoot someone on our prop stealing anything!!! Crooks dont like MO.
        Reply
      - 0%
        IncaQueen1 year, 2 months ago
        
        Wrong. In some cities in the U.S. they have such strong anti gun laws, and yet their crime rates are some of the highest in the nation. The criminals know you have no guns, and if you get a concealed weapons permit, you are immediately a target for the leftist police who patrol these cities.
        Reply
    - 0%
      Bacalao1 year, 2 months ago
      
      Lordy did you watch Red Dawn yesterday? I did. It shows the "possible" validity of your point.
      Reply
      3 Replies
      - JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
        
        0%
        IncaQueen1 year, 2 months ago
        
        Right on to both of those comments...
        Reply
      - 0%
        IncaQueen1 year, 2 months ago
        
        I saw Red Dawn. That ought to make anyone think twice.
        Reply
    - JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.2 Replies
      - 0%
        IncaQueen1 year, 2 months ago
        
        I disagree with you here. Bush isn't behind it, in fact one of the things old Rumsfeldt did that I liked, and I'm not sure I even liked him, was that any police agency that collected data in the process of investigating a crime, such as a list of weapons, serial numbers, who owns them, if the person was not a criminal, they were supposed to destroy them, to protect your 2nd amendment rights. That old Ted Kennedy has been at the forefront of the anti gun lobby for years, and if you think simply losing two brothers to assisins are his motivation, think again. They were both either Arabs or communist sympathizers that shot them both, and one with a rifle that isn't even on the handgun lists.
        Wrong analogy JohnQPublic. You just hate Bush so bad you're willing to blame everything on him. More people were murdered or vanished during the Clinton administration than either of the Bush administrations.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
  - 0%
    ZippySpincycle1 year, 2 months ago
    
    Clearly, the only way to secure our liberty is to start arresting and executing anyone that you consider a leftist.
    Reply
    1 Reply
    - 0%
      IncaQueen1 year, 2 months ago
      
      No, just the ones who chant I hate Americans, caught carrying assault rifles, sometimes just recently fired, and who if you turned them loose would kill your wife and your childen, just as easily as they would kill you.
      Unreasonable to keep them in jail?
      That isn't left thinking, that is stupid thinking!
      Reply
  - 0%
    Ruggaboo1 year, 2 months ago
    
    Then the phony bitches got the nerve to whimper when people call 'em traitors.
    Liberals are Un-American.
    Reply
  - JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
  - 0%
    elzorro21621 year, 2 months ago
    
    Typical shortsighted ignorant ranting out of Faux News overexposure to their "talking points". You need to read other sources that would debunk all those myths you just espoused.
    Z
    Reply
    1 Reply
    - 0%
      IncaQueen1 year, 2 months ago
      
      sadly enough secondchance is only telling the truth.
      Reply
  - JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.3 Replies
    - JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.2 Replies
      - 0%
        IncaQueen1 year, 2 months ago
        
        You need to go take your meds.
        ...or go change your slip?
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
  - JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.2 Replies
    - JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
      - 0%
        IncaQueen1 year, 1 month ago
        
        So the BATF was created by Bush? I think you need to go read your history books, and take a few days off your meds. They're clouding your memory with your hate.
        Reply
  - JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
  - JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.9 Replies
    - 0%
      IncaQueen1 year, 2 months ago
      
      Sorry, if it were not for the Christian churches in America, the only virgin left in America would be an ugly 4th grader that could outrun her brother.
      Were it not for the Christain churches there would clearly be no morality in the US at all. While I may not like sometimes what their preachers say from their pulpits they have as much right to speak and the same political process as the rest of us. That is what democracy and America is all about.
      
      Reply
      8 Replies
      - JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.3 Replies
        
        0%
        Redneck1 year, 1 month ago
        
        NO O O O! You do not want the churches paying taxes! Those who pay taxes find advocates in the form of lobbists!! If you want to see your agenda continue do not awaken that sleeping giant with taxation!! LOL
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
        
        0%
        IncaQueen1 year, 1 month ago
        
        This sounds like a man who is filled with nothing but hate, and nothing good can come of it, in fact exactly the opposite. What you sow you shall reap.
        You're just angry they will arrest you for having sex with a 16 year old girl? or maybe a boy? Of course if your neighbor catches you with his wife, in Texas he'll shoot both of you. I guess you'd better think twice before you unzip.
        Without the Christian churches there would quite literally be NO morality in this country. They are the benchmark. None of us are perfect but if we all practiced what is preached, or at least try, this country would be a much better place to live. As it is, we're headed for the gutter.
        Reply
      - 0%
        PapaWolf1 year, 2 months ago
        
        >>Sorry, if it were not for the Christian churches in America, the only virgin left in America would be an ugly 4th grader that could outrun her brother
        This is sheer lunacy. Christianity is NOT the only religion with morals. For that matter, you don't have to be religious to have morals.
        It's offensive to me as a Christian hearing & seeing alleged Christians who believe they have a free pass to do anything because they're "saved." They profess their Christianity but have no problems with torture, capitol punishment, or dropping bombs on innocent men, women & children's heads.
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        IncaQueen1 year, 1 month ago
        
        You obviously haven't bothered to read your Bible. The Christian God is a god of Love; however, His patience is not without crossing. In many instances they were commanded to kill every last man, woman, child, and all of their livestock. You think the flood was by accident? Oh, just a big fluke of rain, the 10,000 year storm?
        I coordially invite you to hop on a plane and take your message to Iran, and see how well you are received. I think your monitor says it all PapaWolf....you been to Grandma's house lately, and how about little red riding hood. You been offering her cookies and milk?
        Without the Christian churches there would quite literally be NO morality in this country. They are the benchmark. None of us are perfect but if we all practiced what is preached, or at least try, this country would be a much better place to live. As it is, we're headed for the gutter.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        PapaWolf1 year, 1 month ago
        
        >>You obviously haven't bothered to read your Bible.
        I've read my Bible a few times - in the middle of reading it again.
        What you reference is from the OLD TESTAMENT. being a Christian, I tend to follow more the NEW Testament - you know, the one where Jesus Christ said things like "Love your enemy" and "Turn the other cheek" and on & on.
        The OT is HISTORY & prophecy of the coming of Christ. Christians should try to follow the teachings of Christ & the Apostles. Or do you believe it's still good practice to stone someone for adultery, or own slaves, as stated in the OT?
        Reply
        
        0%
        PapaWolf1 year, 1 month ago
        
        >>Without the Christian churches there would quite literally be NO morality in this country.
        And this has GOT to be unparalleled arrogance - as well as hypocrisy. There are a LOT of other "moralities" that aren't the sole province of Christian churches. And why is it I see "Christians" who have no problem blowing up innocent people for being in or near a hospital that ALSO provides abortions. Or are willing allow TORTURE to spread our good Christian values.
        If that's your idea of Christianity, I think I'll stick with mine.
        And which set of moral values do you think we should follow? Some denominations don't allow drinking. Some don't allow dancing. Some allow no work after sunset. Some preach the evils of interracial marriage.
        So which do you want?
        Reply
- 0%
  mark-stevens1 year, 2 months ago
  
  To arm a militia that is what the second says... I suppose the Weathermen would qualify... or MS13 or Timothy Mcvie
  The Iraqi government is at this time trying to disarm the population ... I think the NRA is over there fighting for their right to bear arms and have as many militias they think they need
  Reply
  8 Replies
  - 0%
    gringo-viejo1 year, 2 months ago
    
    No, that is not what the second says.
    Your reference to Militia ommited two key words, "a WELL REGULATED militia...."
    Reply
  - 0%
    Bruedaddy1 year, 2 months ago
    
    The law in Iraq states that every home is allowed to have 1 AK47. They don't say anythng about bullets....do they even have any?
    Question: why aren't they organizing and defending themselves against "insurgents"?
    Reply
    5 Replies
    - JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.3 Replies
      - 0%
        IncaQueen1 year, 2 months ago
        
        Of course just like our own citizens they don't wander around handing out ammunition to private citizens.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
        
        0%
        IncaQueen1 year, 1 month ago
        
        Be sure and kneel this morning and face East...your friends are apparently on that side. Can you say the word Sh-eite...or is it, in your case BShiiiit?
        Reply
    - 0%
      IncaQueen1 year, 2 months ago
      
      " Question: why aren't they organizing and defending themselves against "insurgents"?"
      Because when they do, as soon as the insurgents know who they are, not only kill them, but blow up their women and children first! I wonder how many of you have enough grit to stand up against that, considering your next door neighbor, for a buck, would sell you out.
      Reply
  - JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
- 0%
  ABANOCLA1 year, 2 months ago
  
  Really glad the Gov has the time and manpower to do this. if now they only could have INS sweep into places like TYSON foods and so forth:)
  Reply
  2 Replies
  - 0%
    IncaQueen1 year, 2 months ago
    
    They did...and the ACLU lawyers now have them tied up in court.
    I'm sorry but I'm of Latina origin, but I'm a U.S. Citizen, so have several generations of my family, in fact they've worn the uniform of this country, and fly its flag, not a Mexican or Cuban flag.
    You come here, you work here. You pay taxes, you teach your young English along with yourself. And you may have pride in your heritage but you don't hang your old country's flag outside your house, especially on the 4th, Memorial Day...and you sure as heck don't protest a nativity scene during Christmas. What about the word "Christ" in Christmas does anyone, even a moron, not understand? I rejoice with the Jews when they celebrate I think it Hanucka. It's not my holiday but they certainly have a right to theirs too.
    Reply
    1 Reply
    - JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
- 0%
  memestryker1 year, 2 months ago
  
  This is the usual feel-good response to a non-existent problem. Sociopathy, psychopathy, malignant narcissism, etc. occur in the population and those people will always break the law and get access to whatever they want, whether it's buying guns, people, or anything else.
  We are so side-tracked by limiting law-abiding people from buying guns that we aren't focused on problems such as criminals who aren't charged for crimes because of technicalities, laws and regulations that favor criminals over law-abiding citizens, criminals who are so evil that people won't even testify in courts to take them off the streets out of fear, and on and on.
  Law-abiding citizens buying guns is a non-issue statistically. They don't commit crimes. And law-abiding people giving up more of our freedoms because we don't have answers to the social problems that lead people to lead lives of crime or become gang-bangers makes absolutely no sense.
  
  Reply
- 0%
  jrannis1 year, 2 months ago
  
  Sounds like backlash in honor or the New York Mayor they had the gun raffle in honor of.
  I would expect this in Virginia, very close to DC and the Patriot Act goof balls you Neo Cons got suckered into voting for.
  
  Reply
- 0%
  mark-stevens1 year, 1 month ago
  
  LOOK UP MACHINE GUN ON MYSPACE... that gets real scary watching farmers with machine guns playing "fire fight", or some 19 year old kid unloading a clip at 600 rounds a minute!!
  
  Reply
0%
dunkirk1 year, 2 months ago

Im always amazed at the right wing stance on this. THey alawys appeaq to want restrictions on anything a person could ever possibly want to do with the exception of who can buy a gun. THen its anything/anyone goes.
Reply
45 Replies
- 0%
  queenb7271 year, 2 months ago
  
  That does seem a bit odd doesn't it? It's the only time they're in favor of "small government".
  Reply
  34 Replies
  - 0%
    el-jefe1 year, 2 months ago
    
    This right-winger is for smaller government nearly all across the board.
    Please don't confuse neocons with the more traditional conservatives. Many conservatives view neocons as liberals in conservative's clothing.
    Reply
    25 Replies
    - 0%
      elzorro21621 year, 2 months ago
      
      El jefe are you a Hispanic? I am proud to be Hispanic, and why would any self respecting, hispanic be against big government? That is going against your own people, civil rights and social justice.
      Z
      Reply
      10 Replies
      - 0%
        el-jefe1 year, 2 months ago
        
        I'm not Hispanic (my handle is a nickname that was given to me by an Anglo and a Hispanic). However, I do know several Hispanics who do think the same way I do about big government.
        I happen to believe that social justice doesn't necessarily flow like milk from Washington.
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        0%
        Petom11 year, 2 months ago
        
        "Social justice flows from the barrel of a gun"
        -Mao Zedong
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        kobzikov1 year, 2 months ago
        
        Actually the correct quote by Mao is:
        "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
        Reply
        
        0%
        LordyLordy1 year, 2 months ago
        
        No...the quote you need is:
        "God may have creeted man, but Colonel Colt made them equals!'
        Even a 100 pound woman can defend herself against a 200 pound bully, even a rapist if you will. A gaping chest wound usually changes their mind about wanting to rape you ladies, and you don't even have to carefully aim. The chest is quite large and the bigger the bully the easier he is to hit.
        Reply
        
        0%
        elzorro21621 year, 2 months ago
        
        Just like there are "Uncle Tom" African Americans (ex.Condi, Clarence Thomas), there are submissive and gullible Hispanics, such as those you know.
        Furthermore, Republicans' track record on social justice issues leaves a lot to be desired!
        Z
        Reply
      - 0%
        2Labs1 year, 2 months ago
        
        Aaaa.. What???
        Why is it that a self respecting hispanic should favor big government? This I've got to hear.
        
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        0%
        spikecwc1 year, 2 months ago
        
        The reference is probably because of the pandering by the Left to the Hispanics, and the promise of Social Security to the Illegals.
        At least, that is how it sounds.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        Bacalao1 year, 2 months ago
        
        You must not be from SoFla. Many especially older Cubans are very right wing. They voted for Reagan, Bush, Bush II. Look up the reps from SoFla and their political affiliation.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        el-jefe1 year, 2 months ago
        
        I'm in Texas, and we have some conservative Hispanics here. They're harder to find than in SoFla, but they're out there.
        I just love it when some visitor to the state asks some of my Hispanic friends how long they're family has been in Texas, and is shocked to find the answer is, "6 generations".
        Reply
        
        0%
        kobzikov1 year, 2 months ago
        
        Probably the same reason any self-respecting African-American should favor big government.
        The federal government is pretty much the only thing standing between enforcement of Civil Rights Acts and 14th Amendment and lack thereof.
        Reply
    - 0%
      cherev1 year, 2 months ago
      
      Let's try not scapegoating the "neocons", shall we? Conservatives need to stick together, not tear ourselves apart.
      Reply
      1 Reply
      - 0%
        dunkirk1 year, 2 months ago
        
        Is that part of the party above ALL (i.e. truth, country, etc) that they seem to profess.
        Reply
    - 0%
      LordyLordy1 year, 2 months ago
      
      It is always the liberals who pass the most laws taking away your freedom not conservatives. Most right wingers want as little government regulation as possible, free trade, free enterprise...exactly the opposite. It's the libs who think they can make everything think exactly as them and if you don't they'll shout you down at a meeting. I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican but I've been to enough forum type meetings to have spotted that pattern some time ago.
      People who are afraid of their own shadows, afraid to stand up for themselves...are usually the first to go after the guns, thinking they are doing the right thing, when in actuality they are not, in fact it makes the situation worse. The criminals are still armed and now they know you are not.
      Reply
      10 Replies
      - 0%
        dunkirk1 year, 2 months ago
        
        "Most right wingers want as little government regulation as possible"
        ReaLLY? ANd the Patriot Act is a Democratic law?? THe gay marriage amendent which would be the first amendment since Prohibition to take away rights is a Dem amendment?? ROFLMAO, seems all the REPUBLICVANS do is SAY they are for less govt, under EVERY Republican President since the 60's the govt has grown. Keep spinning.
        Reply
        8 Replies
        
        0%
        Redneck1 year, 2 months ago
        
        Where is it stated "the right of a man to marry a man" or "a woman an woman?" Most conservatives do want less government and less regulation. But they do not wish the redefining of mores or culture by law! So to restrict the reconstructions who are redefining words in the Consitution which had a strict definition when it was written they are attempting to write laws which limit the Courts from doing just that!!
        Reply
        7 Replies
        
        0%
        ind061 year, 2 months ago
        
        So naturally, since it's not stated in the Bible, there is a pressing need for a constitutional amendment banning it.
        You know, the Bible doesn't specifically say you can barbecue outdoors so maybe we should ban that too.
        That sucks, I like a good barbecue. :(
        Reply
        6 Replies
        
        0%
        Redneck1 year, 2 months ago
        
        I do not understand your ??point?? Who mentioned the Bible?
        The statment was with regard to the laws of the USA. There is no law that says there is a "RIGHT" for a man to "marry" a man etc. There are laws defining marriage and resticting who may marry whom in every state in the union. Sexual activity is not a "RIGHT" under the Constitution. It is a choice. It is a decision. It is not a complusion! And it is not a RIGHT with equal protection under the law say equal with age, race, gender, etc. which are not choices. Those we protect from unequal treatment.
        Reply
        5 Replies
        
        0%
        kobzikov1 year, 2 months ago
        
        You are completely confused about how Constitution works and what the word "RIGHT" means in the context.
        Constitution specifies what federal government can do and the amendments limit government powers even further. Government doesn't need to pass laws to tell people that they have a right to do something. Read 10th Amendment.
        There is no need for a federal law defining marriage, just like there is no need for a federal law regulating outdoor barbecue. The fact that there are laws in every state regulating marriage implies that it's part of State rights and an amendment on federal level would be unconstitutional. In general, laws place restrictions on someone's rights, they don't grant rights.
        And right is always a choice. Like the right to bear arms. No right is a compulsion! 2nd Amendment doesn't mean that everyone has to be armed, it means that everyone has a choice to be armed.
        continued...
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        0%
        kobzikov1 year, 2 months ago
        
        And what concerns sexual activity then it's not a part of Constitution, because government can't engage in it, but individuals can. Which is why sex among an infinite number of things that people do every day without government intervention falls into the powers delegated to the people by 10th Amendment.
        Since there are restrictions placed pretty much on every right, it is also the case with sex. For example, it has to be consensual or the parties involved have to be above the age of consent. And the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment applies equally to all who engage in sex regardless of their race, gender, religion, etc.
        Your understanding of equal protection clause seems to be lacking as well, but I'll explain that later.
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        el-jefe1 year, 2 months ago
        
        Uh, by definition, no constitutional amendment can be "unconstitutional".
        If Congress passed and the states ratified a new amendment legalizing slavery, it would be up to the courts to figure out how to enforce the new amendment without violating the 14th amendment. And should something that bizarre ever come to pass, I'd be glad that I wasn't sitting on the bench!
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        kobzikov1 year, 2 months ago
        
        Sure it can. Just because Congress managed to pass a law or an amendment of some kind it doesn't mean that it's not contradictory to Constitution or that it can't be struck down by Supreme Court.
        There are plenty of unconstitutional laws on the books and as long as no one brings suit against state or federal government regarding the laws or amendments and until Supreme Court hears the case and decides them to be unconstitutional they'll remain in force, despite being unconstitutional. Take War Powers Act or Military Commission Act of 2006.
        What concerns Congress passing and states ratifying an amendment legalizing slavery then it would automatically repeal 13th amendment and parts of 14th amendment. Just like 21st amendment repealed 18th. Constitution is a rational document, regardless of how irrational American lawmakers are or decide to be.
        Reply
        
        0%
        kobzikov1 year, 2 months ago
        
        Right and privilege are synonyms. As a matter of fact, privilege is a specialized right.
        Either way, there is no way to compare right to a privilege without proper context something that you failed to introduce in the first place.
        In the end, the fact that you are the one who introduced the term privilege into the discussion shows that your conclusion about my understanding is unwarranted at best. I mentioned both state and individual rights, which one are you talking about? And what privileges are you talking about anyway? Got any concrete examples?
        Reply
      - JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
    - 0%
      queenb7271 year, 2 months ago
      
      The right-winger is for small government when it fits their needs (healthcare, trade). Usually when it has to do with money or guns. They're for big government when they want to tell people how to live their lives (gay marriage, abortion).
      Many liberals view neocons as extreme right-wingers. Don't try to push them off on us. They grew out of conservative ideology.
      Reply
  - 0%
    cherev1 year, 2 months ago
    
    What color is the sky in your world? Conservatives are always in favor of small government.
    Reply
    7 Replies
    - 0%
      dunkirk1 year, 2 months ago
      
      Wow and yet the last several REPUBLICANS ALL grew the govt. Oh yeah I forgot REPUBLICANS who do that aren't REPUBLICAN. And God didnt make little green apples.
      Reply
      5 Replies
      - 0%
        LordyLordy1 year, 2 months ago
        
        They've actually cut back the government, not grown it. You been listening to OpED again?
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        dunkirk1 year, 2 months ago
        
        ROFLMAO yeah its all in everyones imagination that the govt has shrunk. got links??
        Reply
      - 0%
        spikecwc1 year, 2 months ago
        
        "Wow and yet the last several REPUBLICANS ALL grew the govt. Oh yeah I forgot REPUBLICANS who do that aren't REPUBLICAN. And God didnt make little green apples."
        Since your reply was to what cherev posted, it is necessary to point out that cherev did not say REPUBLICANS
        Here's what cherev said:
        "Conservatives are always in favor of small government."
        I don't see the word *REPUBLICAN* in that post. Did I miss something?
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        dunkirk1 year, 2 months ago
        
        SO you're saying Conservatives arent REPUBLICANS. REPUBLICANS are really liberals? ROFLMAO
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        el-jefe1 year, 2 months ago
        
        A lot of conservative Republicans regard the current group in power as "the guys who hijacked my party".
        Reply
    - 0%<

Hello!

Our view on firearms control: Sellers at gun shows can skirt background checks »

Scale of 1 to 10

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com

Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 248

STONERS1 year, 2 months ago

LordyLordy1 year, 2 months ago

LordyLordy1 year, 2 months ago

Blackadder19641 year, 2 months ago

Redneck1 year, 2 months ago

Blackadder19641 year, 2 months ago

IncaQueen1 year, 2 months ago

GODIMMAD1 year, 2 months ago

bhgrich1 year, 2 months ago

GODIMMAD1 year, 1 month ago

IncaQueen1 year, 2 months ago

PapaWolf1 year, 1 month ago

bhgrich1 year, 1 month ago

IncaQueen1 year, 1 month ago

PapaWolf1 year, 1 month ago

IncaQueen1 year, 1 month ago

PapaWolf1 year, 1 month ago

bhgrich1 year, 1 month ago

PapaWolf1 year, 1 month ago

GODIMMAD1 year, 1 month ago

IncaQueen1 year, 2 months ago

Bacalao1 year, 2 months ago

JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.1 Reply

IncaQueen1 year, 2 months ago

IncaQueen1 year, 2 months ago

JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.2 Replies

IncaQueen1 year, 2 months ago

JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.

ZippySpincycle1 year, 2 months ago

IncaQueen1 year, 2 months ago

Ruggaboo1 year, 2 months ago

JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.

elzorro21621 year, 2 months ago

IncaQueen1 year, 2 months ago

JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.3 Replies

JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.2 Replies

IncaQueen1 year, 2 months ago

JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.

JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.2 Replies

JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.1 Reply

IncaQueen1 year, 1 month ago

JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.

JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.9 Replies

IncaQueen1 year, 2 months ago

JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.3 Replies

Redneck1 year, 1 month ago

JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.1 Reply

IncaQueen1 year, 1 month ago

PapaWolf1 year, 2 months ago

IncaQueen1 year, 1 month ago

PapaWolf1 year, 1 month ago

PapaWolf1 year, 1 month ago

mark-stevens1 year, 2 months ago

gringo-viejo1 year, 2 months ago

Bruedaddy1 year, 2 months ago

JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.3 Replies

IncaQueen1 year, 2 months ago

JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.1 Reply

IncaQueen1 year, 1 month ago

IncaQueen1 year, 2 months ago

JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.

ABANOCLA1 year, 2 months ago

IncaQueen1 year, 2 months ago

JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.

memestryker1 year, 2 months ago

jrannis1 year, 2 months ago

mark-stevens1 year, 1 month ago

dunkirk1 year, 2 months ago

queenb7271 year, 2 months ago

el-jefe1 year, 2 months ago

elzorro21621 year, 2 months ago

el-jefe1 year, 2 months ago

Petom11 year, 2 months ago