Rick Santorum

[LTCcarrier]

OK, no need to chase me off this site. I will leave it right after I do some housecleaning in posts I participated in. That will be right after late Sunday and Sunday night football. Oops, I guess I just sealed my doom by not boycotting the NFL. Now you can question my patriotism. But I am a patriot that put his life on the line for 30 years. How about you? Semper Fi.

I put my life on the line as a police officer. We thank you for your service but I disagree with your position that supports gun control. As a former police officer, prosecutor and person with degree in Criminology, I never believed that gun control in any form does anything to prevent or reduce crime.

[JAKIII]

Well I am opposed to bump stocks too. So shall I apply the same names used to demean Santorum to myself?

By the way, the word “infringe”means “to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights).” In Heller SCOTUS held that the right to bear arms was an individual right. But it was subject to regulation. It is no different that other individual rights like that of free speech and to vote. Like arms, voting ans speech are regulated. I am continually amazed at the venom that is spewed here by some when someone expresses an opinion contrary to their own. Sad.

OK, no need to chase me off this site. I will leave it right after I do some housecleaning in posts I participated in. That will be right after late Sunday and Sunday night football. Oops, I guess I just sealed my doom by not boycotting the NFL. Now you can question my patriotism. But I am a patriot that put his life on the line for 30 years. How about you? Semper Fi.

Got your six Top, even though I don't agree with everything you post.

Today I watched the Eagles beat the Cardinals and Packers beat the Cowboys, and enjoyed both games immensely.

And I'd take Santorum back in a minute over Toomey.

[JenniferG]

Santorum got beat by the man with no brains... badly. Some of you here voted for the man with no brains. Thanks.

[archie19]

I will admit to being a democrat in the past but no more. I also will admit to voting for the man with no brain as he was, was, A rated by the NRA. What I saw in Santorum was a belief on my part that he was a republican senator rather than a PA senator ,beside some hypocrisy as previously mentioned. Unfortunately for my previous vote, the senator with no brains was the exact same thing, a demoncrat senator rather than a PA senator. I have sinned, please forgive me....

[JAKIII]

I will admit to being a democrat in the past but no more. I also will admit to voting for the man with no brain as he was, was, A rated by the NRA. What I saw in Santorum was a belief on my part that he was a republican senator rather than a PA senator ,beside some hypocrisy as previously mentioned. Unfortunately for my previous vote, the senator with no brains was the exact same thing, a demoncrat senator rather than a PA senator. I have sinned, please forgive me....

No forgiveness needed. EVERY swingin dick (and token split-tail) in this forum knows that Katie McGinty would have been a train wreck for PA.

[archie19]

and I did not make the mistake of voting for it...

[Sandcut]

Well I am opposed to bump stocks too. So shall I apply the same names used to demean Santorum to myself?

By the way, the word “infringe”means “to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights).” In Heller SCOTUS held that the right to bear arms was an individual right. But it was subject to regulation. It is no different that other individual rights like that of free speech and to vote. Like arms, voting ans speech are regulated. I am continually amazed at the venom that is spewed here by some when someone expresses an opinion contrary to their own. Sad.

No, but you need to fully think through what it is you are agreeing with.

You are opposed to bump stocks, presumably due to their capacity to allow semiautomatic rifles to fire rapidly. However, one doesn't need a bump fire stock to bump fire a semiauto rifle. With a little practice you can bump fire using only the belt loop on your pants. Using the same logic that you are using on bump fire stocks do you also oppose civilian possession of belt loops?

No. That would be retarded. So the only rational argument that could then be made is that the only way to prevent bad people from bump firing without banning both stocks and belt loops would be to prohibit semiautomatic rifles altogether.

Is that what you are proposing?

[raxar]

OK, no need to chase me off this site. I will leave it right after I do some housecleaning in posts I participated in. That will be right after late Sunday and Sunday night football. Oops, I guess I just sealed my doom by not boycotting the NFL. Now you can question my patriotism. But I am a patriot that put his life on the line for 30 years. How about you? Semper Fi.

The fact that your response was an emotionally based non-sequitur speaks volumes about the validity of your argument. The only reason you brought up your military service was the hope that I hadn't served and as such would be too embarrassed to respond

Unfortunately for you the man with the gay storm trooper avatar is beyond shame, and does not consider military service a substitute for reasoned argument.

You cannot make the argument "I believe in the second amendment, but "x" should be banned". If banning bumpfire stocks would prevent criminals from using them then the only logical conclusion to draw is that banning guns entirely would stop every crime committed with them.

All you're doing is arguing degrees. You are saying there is a certain amount of violence we should tolerate criminals having the ability to perpetrate, because you personally like the tool they use to perpetrate it. That is a losing argument regardless of how long you were in the military.

[eagleclaw]

i know, that is why one really has to conscious of the definition of words like infringe. The Framers were as they chose their words wisely. It is OK to not like the affect of a definition of a word, but you cannot change it meaning. Simple fact is that infringe means not unlawfully alter a right. Regulations are mostly lawful altering of rights. You have the right to vote but if you are convicted felon you cannot vote in most states. That is the lawful regulation of a Constitutional Right.

If you are still here , after reading your post I have a question.Where do you stand on legislation to ban semi autos also known as an “assault weapons ban” , magazine capacity limitations and universal background checks?

[allenr]

If you are still here , after reading your post I have a question.Where do you stand on legislation to ban semi autos also known as an “assault weapons ban” , magazine capacity limitations and universal background checks?

I am opposed to ans on assault rifles. Rifles account for about 3% of all nonsuicide deaths. There are no stats that indicate what % of the involved rifles were assault style. Hand guns are the second most used weapon in non suicide deaths. The the first place goes to other means like knives, clubs, hands and feet, etc. I have no problem with large capacity magazines. I oppose universal background checks because the majority of guns used in crime were never cleared for sale by a background check.