DaVinci

Members
  • Content

    3,518
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never
  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by DaVinci

  1. People having them and it being legal are not the same. Worst argument you have even attempted to use.
  2. The 10th does not PROTECT marijuana. Show me where marijuana is PROTECTED like I asked. Don't get me wrong, I agree the 10th applies... but the 10th does not PROTECT marijuana like the 2nd protects firearms.
  3. And you still having nothing of substance to add?
  4. I did, what I saw was you incorrectly claiming something said something it didn't say. Not hard to see what you were trying to do.
  5. If you did that, it was an illegal purchase... you committed a crime.
  6. wow, you replied with nothing of substance.....Who would've thought that ... !
  7. No, they are not. Nope.... http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth Of the 30,000 seized, only ~4,000 could be traced and only 3,480 could be traced to the US. And many of the cartels are using grenades... Now, I can tell you can't get a grenade in the US.
  8. 1986, not 1984. May 19, 1986 to be exact.
  9. AND do you know one of the biggest sources of weapons in Mexico????-- The Mexican Army. More than 150,000 soldiers deserted in the last six years, according to Mexican Congressman Robert Badillo. Many took their weapons with them. The Mexican government seized 2,239 grenades in 2008-2009... You can't get them in the US* *Well, you CAN but it is a LONG process and good luck with the attempt.
  10. And Gore has not written any pieces on how global warming is bogus.... Does that make him less credible as well?
  11. Do they allow shooting at a bar?
  12. Just like drinking and driving is a bad idea..... The difference is that to prevent drinking and driving most people don't try to ban cars.
  13. Where in the Constitution is skydiving?
  14. Please show me where in the Constitution that marijuana is protected... Cause I can't find it. BTW, I actually support legalization of marijuana.... But your argument does not really make sense.
  15. Not hard to understand if you look at it using another Amendment. Would you support a city that passed a law that required a person living there to be a Christian? Would you support a State that required everyone to go to church? I would hope not, and you would be supported by the Constitution. In the end, the Constitution says that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed". So, supporting the State when it is aligned with the Constitution is not hard to understand. Supporting the State when it is aligned with the Constitution but not with the Fed should also not be hard to understand. And BTW, this is not a new law.... It has been on the books for 10 years. The only new part is the fines for ignoring it. But, you posed a very good question, I hope I explained my side sufficiently.
  16. Not directed at you John- Huh, more guns, LESS crime. Didn't happen Doesn't look it Didn't happen Didn't happen Seems in this case it is not really debatable... Crime went down. Duh.... So here is a look at *10 years* of data... and when you add in FL and TX it is pretty easy to see that CHL/CWP does not ADD to any danger. You can debate that it does not reduce crime if you want... But it is perfectly clear that respecting a persons 2nd Amendment rights does not make "blood flow in the streets"
  17. None of what you wrote applies here. This is not about prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill This is not about such a school or government building.
  18. You have no idea what you are talking about. BTW, how did that illegal handgun purchase in Miami work out for you?
  19. Why is it so hard for you to admit that the cop was wrong? When the guy tried to tell the cop he had a gun, he was told to 'shut up'. He had HANDED his CHL to the officer with his ID. When the cop found the gun, he went nutz. And how is this not a threat?
  20. So you just made it up then... Why not just admit it? Like I said, honestly answer the question I asked first. Man up and provide the proof, or admit you made it up. You refusing to back up your BS claims is not surprising to me.
  21. No, that is what you failed to grasp. You said "Bush would have bombed Saddam to get him". I said, correctly, that he sent a Delta team in. You are barking, but just making noise. By definition, it was a PA. Man up and admit it instead of running away. Some say the EXACT same thing about Iraq holding free elections. That the end justified the invasion. Nope, but I am not Obama blind like you are Bush blind. Yet the *facts show he sent in a Delta team*.... Once again, you have nothing but hot air and insults.