In partnership with CBSSports.com
The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web
The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts
"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion
"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion
This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion
The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I am also glad that our president cares about curbing needless deaths.
Read the Heller decision. Restraints and reasonable prohibitions are not unconstitutional.
Your arguments have no basis in fact or law.
How did Columbine happen during the last assault weapons ban?
None of the guns used by either thug at Columbine were classified as "assault" weapons under the original AWB drafted by Clown Show Joe Biden and signed by Bubba Clinton.
Which tells us that the new AWB, if it passes, won't do anything to stop the next Columbine.
But the gun-grabbers will feel good that something was done.
This post was edited by Murky Waters 18 months ago
And the families of the victims will feel good that we at least tried to do something.
For me that's what these minor bans are about. Us trying to say we care, will sacrifice things like our high capacity clips, and will do what we can to address the problem even though shootings are almost impossible to stop. It's a show of good faith.
Taking away rights in the name of making a small group of people feel good. Change we can believe in!
and that folks, in a nut shell, is the liberal mind. won't solve shit, does nothing to address the problem, but gosh darn we all fell so good.
And if the gun-grabbers eventually get their way -- and that's what this is all about, not Sandy Hook -- the family of the woman in Atlanta who defended herself and her children won't feel so good.
Violence is caused by mindsets, cultural expectations, etc. Those are the things we need to change. Public attitudes as expressed by things like legislation are what help to change these things. Refusing to do anything sends the message that we don't care - or all I care about is my own freedom to own assault rifles and high capacity clips.
Here's an interesting example. In the middle ages a person wrote a book about a man who became depressed and eventually took his own life. This book was shocking at the time because no one wrote about this sort of thing. No one talked about this. But the book became popular and led to rash of suicides across Europe. It's all about the power of an idea.
Oh I see, the ability to mechanically load 11 bullets into a gun is 100% unreasonable according to you, in accordance with the Constitution. Well that settles it then
Nobody's grabbing all your guns. For tough guys you sure do act like whiney victims.
BTW, the percentage of innocent people killed by guns in the home is far greater than the percentage of people defended by guns.
So why do conservatives oppose gay marriage? You know a ban is not going to change behavior, right? What is your motivation?
and the results of those feel good actions be ignored. I bet it felt good when lawmakers declared schools, shopping malls, movie theaters, etc... gun free zones. They care! They care! They care sooooo much!!
But it also felt good for the VT guy (who didn't have "assault rifles" or "high capacity clips"), the Aurora guy, the Newtown guy, etc... as well... they knew where they could do the most damage and they send their thanks to the feel-gooders as well.
To preserve the sanctity of marriage is probably the most common reason. I'm a conservative and couldn't care less if gays want to get married. But that should be a state's issue
Protests against French President Francois Hollande’s proposal to allow same-sex marriage drew hundreds of thousands of people into the streets in Paris.
No idea. I support it.
Well it has been held to be a fundamental right that states cannot interfere with - Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
State's rights are really a dead issue.
This was a race-based decision. Apples to oranges
I would have happy if they would just take the time to learn what "semi auto" means.
Not really in the sense that marriage was determined to be a right that the States cannot infringe upon for improper purposes. Tot he extent homosexuality can be placed into protected class category it is spot on.
Where does it state that marriage is a right that the States cannot infringe upon?
I quoted it. You can't infringe upon it for an "improper purpose". As such, "To the extent homosexuality can be placed into protected class category it is spot on".
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.."
That's your quote I believe you're basing it on. So exactly how is gay marriage fundamental to our very existence and survival?
OK. I support bans on assaults weapons and high capacity clips to preserve the sanctity of life.
why not ban handguns then, they have violated the sanctity of life more than assault weapons ever have/will?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports