RE: Feinstein's Bill

RE: Feinstein's Bill (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/28/2013 2:02:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Nor should anyone be assigned to protect the families of citizens. Where do you people come up with this from? Why shouldn't there be, Tazzy?

mnottertail -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/28/2013 2:04:37 PM)
Because we provide for the COMMON defense. And there is a reason for that.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/28/2013 2:06:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Because we provide for the COMMON defense. And there is a reason for that. What is the reason for that, MN? What is being defended when the "common" defense is provided?

mnottertail -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/28/2013 2:08:28 PM)
The nation, the constitution, the deal we are in, together.

tazzygirl -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/28/2013 2:17:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Nor should anyone be assigned to protect the families of citizens. Where do you people come up with this from? Why shouldn't there be, Tazzy? Funny how had this been suggested two years ago, the screaming would have been government is trying to take your children government is fascist government is wasting tax dollars If you get kidnapped, its bad. If the President's child gets kidnapped, it affects his ability to lead this country. Why does no one talk about the SS that protects Boehners family? Suddenly the people who found fault with this service years ago want them now protecting their children? This service they were decrying just a few years ago is now what they are complaining they want in schools protecting their children? Talk about massive hypocrisy.

mnottertail -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/28/2013 2:26:24 PM)
And they still protect W when he chokes on a pretzel, and his drunken slut daughters.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/28/2013 7:14:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Nor should anyone be assigned to protect the families of citizens. Where do you people come up with this from? Why shouldn't there be, Tazzy? Funny how had this been suggested two years ago, the screaming would have been government is trying to take your children government is fascist government is wasting tax dollars If you get kidnapped, its bad. If the President's child gets kidnapped, it affects his ability to lead this country. Why does no one talk about the SS that protects Boehners family? Suddenly the people who found fault with this service years ago want them now protecting their children? This service they were decrying just a few years ago is now what they are complaining they want in schools protecting their children? Talk about massive hypocrisy. Don't take my question as support for the idea. And, you didn't answer my question. You gave perfect example of why the President's children should be protected, but not any reason why no one should be assigned to protect the family of American citizens.

tazzygirl -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/28/2013 8:01:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Nor should anyone be assigned to protect the families of citizens. Where do you people come up with this from? Why shouldn't there be, Tazzy? Funny how had this been suggested two years ago, the screaming would have been government is trying to take your children government is fascist government is wasting tax dollars If you get kidnapped, its bad. If the President's child gets kidnapped, it affects his ability to lead this country. Why does no one talk about the SS that protects Boehners family? Suddenly the people who found fault with this service years ago want them now protecting their children? This service they were decrying just a few years ago is now what they are complaining they want in schools protecting their children? Talk about massive hypocrisy. Don't take my question as support for the idea. And, you didn't answer my question. You gave perfect example of why the President's children should be protected, but not any reason why no one should be assigned to protect the family of American citizens. Yes, I did.

jlf1961 -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/28/2013 8:53:07 PM)
In a time when Cities, States and even the Federal Government are cutting personnel in Law Enforcement, it is indeed a valid question. I live in a part of the county where the fastest response time for the Sheriff's department is 20 minutes. Last year, due to lack of funding, the Sheriff's office cut 25 deputies. It is already being discussed to cut another 25. Now some Brain Dead Female senator wants to ban weapons, including pistols, because of the rare incident committed usually by people with a history of mental instability, and she is not proposing raising funds for the treatment of those individuals. Her ban is going to cost tax payers to enforce it, cost gun owners to keep the guns grandfathered, and this is conceived as fair and equal treatment under the law. Rates right up there with the city and town ordinances limiting places a person can smoke in public. And I thought Bush was bad with the patriot acts.

tazzygirl -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/28/2013 10:24:38 PM)
Not when taken in context with the photo you posted. To say you have no protection is misleading, as you intended it to be. But to claim that the SS must protect my family as they do the First Family is something I will never agree with.

jlf1961 -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/28/2013 10:51:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Not when taken in context with the photo you posted. To say you have no protection is misleading, as you intended it to be. But to claim that the SS must protect my family as they do the First Family is something I will never agree with. The picture was mean as a comparison, not that the Secret Service should protect families. You do realize that the President of the United States has more protection than any other world leader presently, and the detail was mimiced by the Soviet Union during the cold war. The British pm has four officers assigned in two vehicles when he is moving in a car, two London police, as I understand, stand guard outside the residence. He does not have a fleet of aircraft for him to choose from when he flies, and he is the leader of a nuclear armed country. Now if I may point out, all that security failed to protect JFK, and did not prevent Saint Ronald from being shot. And federal funding to states and cities are being cut, State funds are being cut, and State and Local law enforcement agencies, Sheriff's departments and fire departments are being cut. Now with the lowered Federal Tax Revenues, spending has not been significantly cut in the military, and there has been no cuts in the secret service detail assigned to the President, former presidents, speaker of the house and every other individual with secret service protective details. Why then is the protection for the public being cut, and no significant changes are being made in protective details that cost significantly more? So, how is it justified to cut police and fire protection AND ban weapons and charge an ownership fee for the grandfathered weapons? I know you are not in favor of a complete ban, but there are a lot of interrelated aspects that will be impacted. And all of this comes down to equal protection under the law. The private individual should have some sense of security that when they dial 9/11, the can expect a quick response. Now is it really fair that I get charged a fee to keep the grandfathered weapons I own, over and above the taxes I paid on those weapons? They do not fall under the control of the NFA, until this bill is passed, then many american gun owners get screwed in the ass without a kiss or lube.

tazzygirl -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/28/2013 11:27:08 PM)
quote: The picture was mean as a comparison, not that the Secret Service should protect families. You do realize that the President of the United States has more protection than any other world leader presently, and the detail was mimiced by the Soviet Union during the cold war. And? quote: Now if I may point out, all that security failed to protect JFK, and did not prevent Saint Ronald from being shot. Again.. and? quote: And federal funding to states and cities are being cut, State funds are being cut, and State and Local law enforcement agencies, Sheriff's departments and fire departments are being cut. And why are they being cut? quote: Now with the lowered Federal Tax Revenues, spending has not been significantly cut in the military, and there has been no cuts in the secret service detail assigned to the President, former presidents, speaker of the house and every other individual with secret service protective details. As to the military, it should never have gotten as bloated as it is, especially with the military asking for it not to be. As to the rest, I have no issue with it. quote: Why then is the protection for the public being cut, and no significant changes are being made in protective details that cost significantly more? So, how is it justified to cut police and fire protection AND ban weapons and charge an ownership fee for the grandfathered weapons? President Obama isnt cutting those. States and locals are. And I wont need an AK 47 to kill someone coming in through my door. quote: And all of this comes down to equal protection under the law. The private individual should have some sense of security that when they dial 9/11, the can expect a quick response. Now is it really fair that I get charged a fee to keep the grandfathered weapons I own, over and above the taxes I paid on those weapons? Your anger is misplaced. Why are the states and locals cutting your protection? quote: They do not fall under the control of the NFA, until this bill is passed, then many american gun owners get screwed in the ass without a kiss or lube. Again, misplaced anger. We had a bloated government to contend with. States screwed you, local governments screwed you, yet you want to lay all that blame on the federal government as they attempt to make changes that, frankly, needed to be changed a while ago. You should be angry at those who put us all into this position instead of those who got left the situation to handle. Is it any wonder why the GOP keeps tossing up loser candidates?

imdoingitagain -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/28/2013 11:42:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 And if the guns were removed from Joe public there would be no need to assign anyone to protect citizens. Yes, because removing guns from "Joe public" would solve everything. I seriously want to live in this utopian society that some of you guys seems to have found.

jlf1961 -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/28/2013 11:49:39 PM)
The federal government provides some of the funding to the states, and through them to the towns and cities, to provide for police and fire services. Federal, state and local tax revenues are down. So instead of the powers that be cutting expenses to maintain a decent deterrent to provide a nominal or better protection of the public, they are cutting funding to various programs that cover social and service areas of the budget and not in areas where the expense is way over the top. Come on Tazzy, what, pray tell, is the reason for a presidential fleet of vehicles that are mostly redundant, Protective details for cabinet officers and senate and house leaders, and former presidents, former first ladies, former first kids that even the smallest detail is significantly larger than the the largest protective detail of a nuclear armed countries leaders? Take the Beast for instance, any one of the presidential limousines. The windows will damn near stop a 20 mm round, and exceed by a large amount the minimum protection needed to stop a fifty cal heavy machine gun bullet. Although a price tag has not been announced, each limousine is assumed to cost US$300,000. Other countries are satisfied with enough armor to stop a large caliber rifle round, with a significantly lower cost. Hell billionaires dont go to that extreme in their protected vehicles, and they can afford it easily. Is it really necessary to protect former first kids for life? or former presidents, or former first ladies? And, then Feinstein comes along and wants me to pay a fee for each weapon she thinks is responsible for the high number of gun deaths in this country, after I paid taxes, and followed every legal requirement in order to purchase the damn things. You want to stop kids from being killed in schools, provide the funding to put four or five police officers in every damn public school in the country. Dont cut funding for the treatment of the mentally ill, increase it. The last ban accomplished nothing, why is this one going to miraculously be better. The premise is the same except this time they want to charge the gun owners for owning the guns. Now, you tell me, how is this equal protection under the law, and is not biased against a certain percentage of the population? And it has been proven that all that protection is not perfect, refer to the two incidents I pointed out. A smaller protective detail and above average ballistic vest would be more effective.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/29/2013 5:39:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Nor should anyone be assigned to protect the families of citizens. Where do you people come up with this from? Why shouldn't there be, Tazzy? Funny how had this been suggested two years ago, the screaming would have been government is trying to take your children government is fascist government is wasting tax dollars If you get kidnapped, its bad. If the President's child gets kidnapped, it affects his ability to lead this country. Why does no one talk about the SS that protects Boehners family? Suddenly the people who found fault with this service years ago want them now protecting their children? This service they were decrying just a few years ago is now what they are complaining they want in schools protecting their children? Talk about massive hypocrisy. Don't take my question as support for the idea. And, you didn't answer my question. You gave perfect example of why the President's children should be protected, but not any reason why no one should be assigned to protect the family of American citizens. Yes, I did. Nope. You gave a reason why the President's family should be protected. We are in agreement on that. But, if we were to offer to provide protection to the family of every American citizen, that would not mean we stop protecting the President's family. The President's family is still protected, either way. Why shouldn't we assign someone to protect the family of every American citizen?

mnottertail -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/29/2013 8:29:21 AM)
quote: Why shouldn't we assign someone to protect the family of every American citizen? Typical teabagger entitlement, borrow and spend, grow government. Maybe under homeland security?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/29/2013 9:33:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: Why shouldn't we assign someone to protect the family of every American citizen? Typical teabagger entitlement, borrow and spend, grow government. Maybe under homeland security? Where did I say I was in favor of this? Oh, that's right. I didn't. Thanks for playing, MN.

mnottertail -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/29/2013 9:39:25 AM)
I answered a question I felt like weighing in on. Where did I say you were in favor of it? I appreciate your encouraging me to play, but you need to get in the game, first of all, and up your game considerably, sport.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/29/2013 10:28:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I answered a question I felt like weighing in on. Where did I say you were in favor of it? I appreciate your encouraging me to play, but you need to get in the game, first of all, and up your game considerably, sport. You responded to my question by calling it "typical teabagger entitlement, borrow and spend, grow government." As a supporter of the Tea Party Movement, I can't say this is "typical" of a group that is all for increased individual responsibility. You didn't even answer the question. You're almost like a fan screaming for a penalty flag to be thrown at a baseball game.

mnottertail -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/29/2013 10:34:26 AM)
I think you need remedial english, you sure don't understand it. For as little as you know about actual facts, you sure are telling everybody what they mean. Individual protection for every american would be typical of the teabaggers fiscal irresponsible, unrealistic, unconstitutional, borrow and spend, bigger government ideology that they are trying to legislate. That is the answer, and it answers the question. And it ain't happening, them inept teabaggers down there in the house ain't done shit, can't do shit, and wont do shit except borrow and spend, and we have ample evidence in real life, in camera, and in situ, to demonstrate that.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625