It's a compromise

[gabosaurus]

While the lot of you are running around like chickens with your heads cut off, squawking about your Second Amendment rights, take some time to consider what is going on here.
I think Obama knows he has no chances in Hades of getting an assault weapons ban. What he does want is universal background checks and closing of the gun show loopholes.
One of the other compromises he wants is gun registration. No one would have to give up any of their weapons. There would be no forced confiscation.
I believe there is a poll out showing 84 percent of adults are in favor of background checks. A lot of gun owners favor registration, because it would allow them to recover weapons if they are stolen.
It's like the budget fight -- give and take.

[jafar00]

Well said. Obama has to do something to stem the tide of almost daily massacres by people who got hold of guns and shouldn't have.

If Obama doesn't regulate guns, I wouldn't blame you for arming yourself quite heavily in order to defend yourselves from your neighbours.

It won't be long before most middle class homes have one or two of these parked out front as family getaway vehicles.

http://www.texansforpeace.org/endthewar/Graphicsendthewar/Photosofsoldiers%20and%20fighting/M1AbramsTanksBaghdad072806.jpg

And why not? Isn't it your 2nd Amendment right to have a tank?

[jimnyc]

You 2 do realize that nothing has really changed? Maybe a few things behind the scenes, but this won't end up in any bans other than perhaps some clips. And it sure as hell isn't going to do anything to prevent criminals from doing what they do. Even if everything he wants goes 100% across the board, he would be getting rid of things that account for such a minimal amount of deaths, less than 3%.

[aboutime]

The TWO POSTS BELOW are examples of EDUCATIONALLY CHALLENGED "BLANKS" BEING FIRED INTO THE WILDERNESS OF LIBERALISM, where everything is FINAL.

[jimnyc]

And why not? Isn't it your 2nd Amendment right to have a tank?

Oh, and NO, and I don't believe you'll find a 2nd amendment supporter stating otherwise.

[MtnBiker]

Well said. Obama has to do something to stem the tide of almost daily massacres by people who got hold of guns and shouldn't have.

If Obama doesn't regulate guns, I wouldn't blame you for arming yourself quite heavily in order to defend yourselves from your neighbours.

It won't be long before most middle class homes have one or two of these parked out front as family getaway vehicles.

http://www.texansforpeace.org/endthewar/Graphicsendthewar/Photosofsoldiers%20and%20fighting/M1AbramsTanksBaghdad072806.jpg

And why not? Isn't it your 2nd Amendment right to have a tank?

Oh my God, that's a great idea! Can you imagine having a tank for protection, how awesome would that be? They cost something like $4,300,000 each and that is if you have a contract to buy 9,000 of them. So practically anybody could pick one up at their local gun shop.

[Missileman]

Well said. Obama has to do something to stem the tide of almost daily massacres by people who got hold of guns and shouldn't have.



Where in hell do you get your news? Almost daily massacres is the biggest pile of horseshit I've ever seen posted.

[aboutime]

Where in hell do you get your news? Almost daily massacres is the biggest pile of horseshit I've ever seen posted.


Missileman. jafar doesn't care about accuracy, or sources. Remember....just last week AL GORE made 500 Million dollars with jafar's best, most reliable source.....4322 And, jafar has been proven to be a not-so-reliable teller of anything known as Truth, where Honesty might come into play.

[Robert A Whit]

While the lot of you are running around like chickens with your heads cut off, squawking about your Second Amendment rights, take some time to consider what is going on here.
I think Obama knows he has no chances in Hades of getting an assault weapons ban. What he does want is universal background checks and closing of the gun show loopholes.
One of the other compromises he wants is gun registration. No one would have to give up any of their weapons. There would be no forced confiscation.
I believe there is a poll out showing 84 percent of adults are in favor of background checks. A lot of gun owners favor registration, because it would allow them to recover weapons if they are stolen.
It's like the budget fight -- give and take.

That is not what he wants.

What he wants, he can't have.

[Little-Acorn]

I think a compromise is a very good idea, with a lot to recommend it.

Here's my suggestion.

The gun-haters agree to repeal all their so-called "gun control" laws. And law-abiding citizens agree not to throw the gun-haters in jail for their years of violations of our rights.

Once that's in place, then we can work on a second compromise:

The gun-haters agree to pay reparations for the property damage caused by criminals to their houses, cars, workplaces, etc., as well as fallen property values while the responsible citizens were not permitted to defend any of it; and the responsible citizens will agree not to hold the gun-haters criminally liable for the assaults, physical trauma, hospital bills, injuries, and DEATHS caused by those criminals for the last several decades while the victims were prevented from defending themselves by the gun-haters.

You know, compromise is an excellent idea. I'm liking this whole concept more and more.

What do the rest of you think?

[Robert A Whit]

While the lot of you are running around like chickens with your heads cut off, squawking about your Second Amendment rights, take some time to consider what is going on here.
I think Obama knows he has no chances in Hades of getting an assault weapons ban. What he does want is universal background checks and closing of the gun show loopholes.
One of the other compromises he wants is gun registration. No one would have to give up any of their weapons. There would be no forced confiscation.
I believe there is a poll out showing 84 percent of adults are in favor of background checks. A lot of gun owners favor registration, because it would allow them to recover weapons if they are stolen.
It's like the budget fight -- give and take.

How would you like to have a background check just for being a citizen of the USA?

[Missileman]

While the lot of you are running around like chickens with your heads cut off, squawking about your Second Amendment rights, take some time to consider what is going on here.
I think Obama knows he has no chances in Hades of getting an assault weapons ban. What he does want is universal background checks and closing of the gun show loopholes.
One of the other compromises he wants is gun registration. No one would have to give up any of their weapons. There would be no forced confiscation.
I believe there is a poll out showing 84 percent of adults are in favor of background checks. A lot of gun owners favor registration, because it would allow them to recover weapons if they are stolen.
It's like the budget fight -- give and take.

A gun doesn't have to be registered to be recovered if stolen. A police report that it was stolen that includes a serial number is all that's needed.

[Kathianne]

You 2 do realize that nothing has really changed? Maybe a few things behind the scenes, but this won't end up in any bans other than perhaps some clips. And it sure as hell isn't going to do anything to prevent criminals from doing what they do. Even if everything he wants goes 100% across the board, he would be getting rid of things that account for such a minimal amount of deaths, less than 3%.

In general I agree with you. However, I think this 'move' may convince many that wanted to follow the law, to get off the grid.

[Robert A Whit]

All Obama managed to do is get a run on guns going.

How stupid can that man be?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

In general I agree with you. However, I think this 'move' may convince many that wanted to follow the law, to get off the grid.

The really smart ones got off the grid at least a decade back, some even 2 decades back and they saw further than most. Of course many bought their guns by way of private sales so no government info kept on them. I sold all my guns that I bought like that .. Yep, sold 'em all. Sold the ammo too. -;)--Tyr

[jafar00]

Where in hell do you get your news? Almost daily massacres is the biggest pile of horseshit I've ever seen posted.

I get much of it from Reuters Twitter feed. It pops up on my desktop.

I went looking for the one that happened yesterday but ended up finding a whole bunch of other shootings instead.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/3-found-shot-to-death-in-sandy-springs/nTyYf/
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/14/year-old-boy-shot-roxbury-recovering-pastor-says/FyzTUe9xLiXQGcPPrO1RtO/story.html
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8956919
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/found-shot-death-car-bronx-st-article-1.1241152


The conversation became heated and moved outside. At around 12:40 a.m., two groups of men exchanged gunfire outside the bar. A 40-year-old man was shot in the buttocks while sitting in his car.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-shot-butt-kansas-city-bar-fight-article-1.1241223#ixzz2ICYUy9Yx

Wow. Most bar fights in Australia involve fists only or the occasional "glassing".

When you have 2 groups of drunken men exchanging fire outside a bar, you have to reconsider your opposition to taking their guns away. Those 2 groups of men clearly do not deserve to carry firearms.

http://wgntv.com/2013/01/16/2-shot-in-gage-park/
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/Teen-shot-at-Detroit-gas-station-is-a-high-school-senior-3-are-in-custody/-/1719418/18155262/-/p9sr90z/-/index.html

I think this might be the one I heard about yesterday.

Another school shooting :/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/16/administrator-shot-at-st-louis-college-expected-to-fully-recover/

[aboutime]

What Obama and the gun haters in congress all did today was create an UNDERGROUND aspect of society that didn't exist before. At least, not for LAW ABIDING citizens, when we all knew. The criminals, and the Justice Department had weapons that were never registered, or documented the way Obama claims...THEY NOW WILL BE.

To me. It just seems that Obama will do anything possible to create a wider, bigger divide between WE THE PEOPLE. And, eventually. With Obama's, and the Democrat help. He will cause the Knowledgeable, Educated Americans to become the bigger enemy of those Less Educated, Less knowledgeable Americans who FELL FOR THE OBAMA LIES...and voted for him twice.

Obama wants, and needs US to fight among ourselves....while he plays the Liberal version of John Wayne...waiting for the battles to begin...CALLED THE CRISIS TOO GOOD TO WASTE...that he will claim he single handedly solved by BRINGING everyone together again.

That's how Phonies, Cowards, and Idiots work. And the only people they fool are THEMSELVES.

[red states rule]

While the lot of you are running around like chickens with your heads cut off, squawking about your Second Amendment rights, take some time to consider what is going on here.
I think Obama knows he has no chances in Hades of getting an assault weapons ban. What he does want is universal background checks and closing of the gun show loopholes.
One of the other compromises he wants is gun registration. No one would have to give up any of their weapons. There would be no forced confiscation.
I believe there is a poll out showing 84 percent of adults are in favor of background checks. A lot of gun owners favor registration, because it would allow them to recover weapons if they are stolen.
It's like the budget fight -- give and take.

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz011613dAPR20130115114543.jpg

[red states rule]

Well said. Obama has to do something to stem the tide of almost daily massacres by people who got hold of guns and shouldn't have.

If Obama doesn't regulate guns, I wouldn't blame you for arming yourself quite heavily in order to defend yourselves from your neighbours.

It won't be long before most middle class homes have one or two of these parked out front as family getaway vehicles.

http://www.texansforpeace.org/endthewar/Graphicsendthewar/Photosofsoldiers%20and%20fighting/M1AbramsTanksBaghdad072806.jpg

And why not? Isn't it your 2nd Amendment right to have a tank?

The only problem with what Obama and libs are trying to is addressed in the US Constitution. Here is what the authors had to say
The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment


"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."
"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State" http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

[Missileman]

I get much of it from Reuters Twitter feed. It pops up on my desktop.

I went looking for the one that happened yesterday but ended up finding a whole bunch of other shootings instead.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/3-found-shot-to-death-in-sandy-springs/nTyYf/
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/14/year-old-boy-shot-roxbury-recovering-pastor-says/FyzTUe9xLiXQGcPPrO1RtO/story.html
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8956919
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/found-shot-death-car-bronx-st-article-1.1241152

[/COLOR][/FONT]
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-shot-butt-kansas-city-bar-fight-article-1.1241223#ixzz2ICYUy9Yx

Wow. Most bar fights in Australia involve fists only or the occasional "glassing".

When you have 2 groups of drunken men exchanging fire outside a bar, you have to reconsider your opposition to taking their guns away. Those 2 groups of men clearly do not deserve to carry firearms.

http://wgntv.com/2013/01/16/2-shot-in-gage-park/
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/Teen-shot-at-Detroit-gas-station-is-a-high-school-senior-3-are-in-custody/-/1719418/18155262/-/p9sr90z/-/index.html

I think this might be the one I heard about yesterday.

Another school shooting :/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/16/administrator-shot-at-st-louis-college-expected-to-fully-recover/

One guy getting shot in the ass does not a massacre make. BTW, I thought they spoke a derivative of English in Australia, but apparently massacre is defined a lot differently there than here.

I also don't scream to take away everyone's automobile when some idiot drives drunk and kills someone...can you rationally reason why?

[darin]

Fuck compromise; NEVER compromise on freedom or truth.

Compromise = Lose, Lose. :(

[Marcus Aurelius]

Well said. Obama has to do something to stem the tide of almost daily massacres by people who got hold of guns and shouldn't have.

If Obama doesn't regulate guns, I wouldn't blame you for arming yourself quite heavily in order to defend yourselves from your neighbours.

It won't be long before most middle class homes have one or two of these parked out front as family getaway vehicles.

http://www.texansforpeace.org/endthewar/Graphicsendthewar/Photosofsoldiers%20and%20fighting/M1AbramsTanksBaghdad072806.jpg

And why not? Isn't it your 2nd Amendment right to have a tank?

Point 1: link to source showing 'almost daily massacres' please. And two or three a year is not 'almost every day'. For the sake of argument, lets call every 3rd day 'almost daily'. Please produce 121 links to incidents in the last year where a massacre like you described, occured.

Point 2: So, because Obama can't regulate guns, everyone should arm themselves to protect themselves from people who arm themselves. Do you ever think about what you post, or do you just let it spill out like gabby and Mundane?

Point 3: A tank is a 'vehicle', which is 'armed'. It is not, itself, an 'arm'. So no, we do not have a 2nd amendment right to a tank.



Dumb ass.

[jimnyc]

Yeah, compromise, sure. If liberals think it's a good idea for law abiding gun owners to prove who they are, you know, registration and such - then why won't they get behind voters "registering" and proving who they are and having ID?

[jimnyc]

I get much of it from Reuters Twitter feed. It pops up on my desktop.

I went looking for the one that happened yesterday but ended up finding a whole bunch of other shootings instead.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/3-found-shot-to-death-in-sandy-springs/nTyYf/
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/14/year-old-boy-shot-roxbury-recovering-pastor-says/FyzTUe9xLiXQGcPPrO1RtO/story.html
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8956919
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/found-shot-death-car-bronx-st-article-1.1241152

[/COLOR][/FONT]
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-shot-butt-kansas-city-bar-fight-article-1.1241223#ixzz2ICYUy9Yx

Wow. Most bar fights in Australia involve fists only or the occasional "glassing".

When you have 2 groups of drunken men exchanging fire outside a bar, you have to reconsider your opposition to taking their guns away. Those 2 groups of men clearly do not deserve to carry firearms.

http://wgntv.com/2013/01/16/2-shot-in-gage-park/
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/Teen-shot-at-Detroit-gas-station-is-a-high-school-senior-3-are-in-custody/-/1719418/18155262/-/p9sr90z/-/index.html

I think this might be the one I heard about yesterday.

Another school shooting :/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/16/administrator-shot-at-st-louis-college-expected-to-fully-recover/

Let's not play silly games like finding shootings around America and posting them to make it look like an onslaught. I can go through the Islamic countries and make it look like Hell is raining down and it's a terrorist paradise.

But yes, we have some nutters in the States, like every other country. No different than this guy returning and barreling into a crowd in front of bar. It's the idiot behind the "weapon" at fault, not the object. We shouldn't even think about amending the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens based on what some assholes do.

[Abbey Marie]

I wonder at the naivete of people who think we don't need to worry about the government taking away our second amendment rights. Do they really think, with all the evidence in the world to the contrary, that our government will never usurp it's Constitutional powers? Heck, Obama is already doing it. Just look around the world at all the countries and times that people have become victims of an overzealous, power-hungry leader. Human nature continues to suck, and we are not immune.

[tailfins]

I get much of it from Reuters Twitter feed. It pops up on my desktop.

I went looking for the one that happened yesterday but ended up finding a whole bunch of other shootings instead.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/3-found-shot-to-death-in-sandy-springs/nTyYf/
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/14/year-old-boy-shot-roxbury-recovering-pastor-says/FyzTUe9xLiXQGcPPrO1RtO/story.html
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8956919
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/found-shot-death-car-bronx-st-article-1.1241152

[/COLOR][/FONT]
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-shot-butt-kansas-city-bar-fight-article-1.1241223#ixzz2ICYUy9Yx

Wow. Most bar fights in Australia involve fists only or the occasional "glassing".

When you have 2 groups of drunken men exchanging fire outside a bar, you have to reconsider your opposition to taking their guns away. Those 2 groups of men clearly do not deserve to carry firearms.

http://wgntv.com/2013/01/16/2-shot-in-gage-park/
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/Teen-shot-at-Detroit-gas-station-is-a-high-school-senior-3-are-in-custody/-/1719418/18155262/-/p9sr90z/-/index.html

I think this might be the one I heard about yesterday.

Another school shooting :/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/16/administrator-shot-at-st-louis-college-expected-to-fully-recover/


Why not ban drinkable alcohol? There's no constitutional right to keep and bear booze.

[jimnyc]

Why not ban drinkable alcohol? There's no constitutional right to keep and bear booze.

It is banned in many places, outside of the USA, and the penalty for drinking is rather harsh. That's why people from those countries, being against the 2nd amendment, doesn't surprise me very much.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/bg011713dAPR20130117014511.jpg

[jafar00]

One guy getting shot in the ass does not a massacre make. BTW, I thought they spoke a derivative of English in Australia, but apparently massacre is defined a lot differently there than here.

I also don't scream to take away everyone's automobile when some idiot drives drunk and kills someone...can you rationally reason why?

Gunshot victims are the result of a deliberate action. A very small proportion are shot due to accidents. It is the other way around for cars killing people.


Let's not play silly games like finding shootings around America and posting them to make it look like an onslaught. I can go through the Islamic countries and make it look like Hell is raining down and it's a terrorist paradise.

Tyr already has a thread for that :D


But yes, we have some nutters in the States, like every other country. No different than this guy returning and barreling into a crowd in front of bar. It's the idiot behind the "weapon" at fault, not the object. We shouldn't even think about amending the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens based on what some assholes do.

If you have a lot of nutters who shouldn't have guns shooting people, there should be all the more reason to make it more difficult to get your hands on one.


Why not ban drinkable alcohol? There's no constitutional right to keep and bear booze.

It wouldn't hurt. A lot of drunks can't control themselves or their temper after a few drinks.

[red states rule]

This is a step up for Obama. His last gun control plan was exporting guns to Mexico which led to the murder of a US border agent and thousands of Mexicans. If only he would go after CRINIMALS and nit guns maybe he would actually make a difference

[jimnyc]

If you have a lot of nutters who shouldn't have guns shooting people, there should be all the more reason to make it more difficult to get your hands on one.

Harsher background checks I can support. I can go along with 'certain' medical conditions barring one from owning/buying. I agree that certain people shouldn't have their hands anywhere near a gun - but law abiding citizens shouldn't lose ANY rights because of criminal actions of another.

[red states rule]

Harsher background checks I can support. I can go along with 'certain' medical conditions barring one from owning/buying. I agree that certain people shouldn't have their hands anywhere near a gun - but law abiding citizens shouldn't lose ANY rights because of criminal actions of another.

Perhaps Jafar would rather see people stop using guns, and start beheading their victims, blowing them up with car bombs, or using airplanes to crash into building

[Missileman]

Gunshot victims are the result of a deliberate action. A very small proportion are shot due to accidents. It is the other way around for cars killing people.

A minscule fraction of weapons are used to harm another person.

As for drunk driving accidents, you're argument about it not being a deliberate act is fantasy and fallacy, unless you can link me to some stories where people were forced to consume alcohol and then forced to drive.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr already has a thread for that :D


I sure do and you have refuted none of the incidents I post there from the linked source!!!!
And as Jim says , it makes Islam look like hell because it reveals the truth about its goals, its Jihad and the absolute lack of mercy, decency or humanity existing within its teachings. Jihad is a core part of Islam and those Jihadists murder with pure joy, murder innocent women and children delibewrately!!! -Tyr

[aboutime]

I sure do and you have refuted none of the incidents I post there from the linked source!!!!
And as Jim says , it makes Islam look like hell because it reveals the truth about its goals, its Jihad and the absolute lack of mercy, decency or humanity existing within its teachings. Jihad is a core part of Islam and those Jihadists murder with pure joy, murder innocent women and children delibewrately!!! -Tyr



jafar is endlessly here to prove liberals, and those who support terrorism always talk out of their 4343.

[Kathianne]

I'm thinking that if the left is all 'up in arms' about arms, the right responds, which means they aren't paying so much attention to the deficit and the $4 billion daily being added to it.



http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/bg011713dAPR20130117014511.jpg

[cadet]

Well said. Obama has to do something to stem the tide of almost daily massacres by people who got hold of guns and shouldn't have.

Lol, spoken like an imbecile.
I'd like to point one thing out, and one thing only. The more people per area, the more crime. That doesn't necessarily mean % wise.
America's freaking huge, there is a crap load of people here. One STATE here is the size of most COUNTRIES elsewhere. Of course there's more crime. (% wise less though)

It's like... say we have 2 groups of people, one has 10 people, and 5 of which are murderers.
And another has 100 people and 10 of which are murderers.
that first group has half as many murderers! Oh but wait... group two is 10 times bigger.

That's what i think about you and your daily murder. I guarantee that if you take all of Europe, there crime is more than, or equal to, the United States.

[red states rule]

I'm thinking that if the left is all 'up in arms' about arms, the right responds, which means they aren't paying so much attention to the deficit and the $4 billion daily being added to it.

Kat, given the election results, the only event that will wake this country up to the severe damage Obama is doing to the nation, is when one of those government issue checks is returned NSF. Then you will see outrage over the debt and deficit

[bingster]

You 2 do realize that nothing has really changed? Maybe a few things behind the scenes, but this won't end up in any bans other than perhaps some clips. And it sure as hell isn't going to do anything to prevent criminals from doing what they do. Even if everything he wants goes 100% across the board, he would be getting rid of things that account for such a minimal amount of deaths, less than 3%.

As I've told you before, I agree that much won't be accomplished with this legislature. More, just isn't politically feasible. I think the background piece is most important, however. If the 40% of guns purchased that aren't currently going through background checks actually did go through background checks, some of these folks won't be legally getting guns. Strengthening laws that are already on the books is another piece- an item which the NRA has always and is currently in favor of. I've read that gun trafficking and straw man sales are huge in Texas and an issue in New Youk. By the way here's a link in which the NRA says it's not affiliated with manufacturers http://eddieeagle.nra.org/ According to the Violence Protection Agency and about a dozen websites, it used to be on their front page.

My issue with the NRA is it's extremism. It used to support gun control measures and was for (according to Wiki) the 1934 and 1968 gun control bills. If they can't support "assault weapons bans", so be it. Not coming out in support of background checks, I think, sullies their image. It seams to me, how can you be for safety and not care who gets the guns?

[bingster]

Lol, spoken like an imbecile.
I'd like to point one thing out, and one thing only. The more people per area, the more crime. That doesn't necessarily mean % wise.
America's freaking huge, there is a crap load of people here. One STATE here is the size of most COUNTRIES elsewhere. Of course there's more crime. (% wise less though)

It's like... say we have 2 groups of people, one has 10 people, and 5 of which are murderers.
And another has 100 people and 10 of which are murderers.
that first group has half as many murderers! Oh but wait... group two is 10 times bigger.

That's what i think about you and your daily murder. I guarantee that if you take all of Europe, there crime is more than, or equal to, the United States.

That's why gun death stats are done "per capita". You are mistaken in your argument.

[Robert A Whit]

Harsher background checks I can support. I can go along with 'certain' medical conditions barring one from owning/buying. I agree that certain people shouldn't have their hands anywhere near a gun - but law abiding citizens shouldn't lose ANY rights because of criminal actions of another.

We have licenses to drive, to pilot airplanes, to fish, to hunt, etc.

Who would support a one time background check where you get a plastic ID card and when you want to buy guns, you show the card?

[Little-Acorn]

I think a compromise is a very good idea, with a lot to recommend it.

Here's my suggestion.

The gun-haters agree to repeal all their so-called "gun control" laws. And law-abiding citizens agree not to throw the gun-haters in jail for their years of violations of our rights.

Once that's in place, then we can work on a second compromise:

The gun-haters agree to pay reparations for the property damage caused by criminals to their houses, cars, workplaces, etc., as well as fallen property values while the responsible citizens were not permitted to defend any of it; and the responsible citizens will agree not to hold the gun-haters criminally liable for the assaults, physical trauma, hospital bills, injuries, and DEATHS caused by those criminals for the last several decades while the victims were prevented from defending themselves by the gun-haters.

You know, compromise is an excellent idea. I'm liking this whole concept more and more.

What do the rest of you think?

Looks like no one has any objection or criticism of my suggestion above.

When do you liberals plan to begin repealing your so-called "gun control" laws?

[Robert A Whit]

As I've told you before, I agree that much won't be accomplished with this legislature. More, just isn't politically feasible. I think the background piece is most important, however. If the 40% of guns purchased that aren't currently going through background checks actually did go through background checks, some of these folks won't be legally getting guns. Strengthening laws that are already on the books is another piece- an item which the NRA has always and is currently in favor of. I've read that gun trafficking and straw man sales are huge in Texas and an issue in New Youk. By the way here's a link in which the NRA says it's not affiliated with manufacturers http://eddieeagle.nra.org/ According to the Violence Protection Agency and about a dozen websites, it used to be on their front page.

My issue with the NRA is it's extremism. It used to support gun control measures and was for (according to Wiki) the 1934 and 1968 gun control bills. If they can't support "assault weapons bans", so be it. Not coming out in support of background checks, I think, sullies their image. It seams to me, how can you be for safety and not care who gets the guns?

I don't agree with that at all.

We resent said laws as proposed because they don't hurt the bad guy, they hurt the rest of us.

WE are not the problem. And those bad guys that are the problem won't follow laws to begin with.

How on earth can you claim the NRA is extreme? As compared to the constitution you mean?

Don't you already believe the Constitution has extreme amendments?

[Missileman]

That's why gun death stats are done "per capita". You are mistaken in your argument.

Actually, he's not.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html


A breakdown of the statistics, which were compiled into league tables by the
Conservatives, revealed that violent crime in the UK had increased from 652,974
offences in 1998 to more than 1.15 million crimes in 2007.

It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the
UK, making it the most violent place in Europe.

Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by
Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland.

By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per
100,000 population.

[tailfins]

Actually, he's not.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

Figures don't lie, but liars figure.

[jimnyc]

As I've told you before, I agree that much won't be accomplished with this legislature. More, just isn't politically feasible. I think the background piece is most important, however. If the 40% of guns purchased that aren't currently going through background checks actually did go through background checks, some of these folks won't be legally getting guns. Strengthening laws that are already on the books is another piece- an item which the NRA has always and is currently in favor of. I've read that gun trafficking and straw man sales are huge in Texas and an issue in New Youk. By the way here's a link in which the NRA says it's not affiliated with manufacturers http://eddieeagle.nra.org/ According to the Violence Protection Agency and about a dozen websites, it used to be on their front page.

My issue with the NRA is it's extremism. It used to support gun control measures and was for (according to Wiki) the 1934 and 1968 gun control bills. If they can't support "assault weapons bans", so be it. Not coming out in support of background checks, I think, sullies their image. It seams to me, how can you be for safety and not care who gets the guns?

Is this what you are talking about on that page?


It is not affiliated with any firearm or ammunition manufacturers or with any businesses that deal in guns and ammunition.

Affiliated would mean in business with them, literally helping sell guns and such. How is this a lie? They may lobby for laws and rights, but that doesn't mean they are affiliated with manufacturers and selling guns for them. Also, a company can be FOR safety and AGAINST intrusive checks on law abiding citizens. You look at one angle and refuse to see that the other angle may be legit too. Someone needs to and should stick up for gun owners and ensure the government doesn't reach too far in their checks, to the point it would be an invasion of privacy. Certain things should be available when a check is done for guns, but that doesn't mean the government should have a blank check to receive anything and everything they like.

Where are the lies you say they are always telling, and/or hiding things from the public view?

[ConHog]

Well said. Obama has to do something to stem the tide of almost daily massacres by people who got hold of guns and shouldn't have.

If Obama doesn't regulate guns, I wouldn't blame you for arming yourself quite heavily in order to defend yourselves from your neighbours.

It won't be long before most middle class homes have one or two of these parked out front as family getaway vehicles.

http://www.texansforpeace.org/endthewar/Graphicsendthewar/Photosofsoldiers%20and%20fighting/M1AbramsTanksBaghdad072806.jpg

And why not? Isn't it your 2nd Amendment right to have a tank?

Perfectly legal to own a tank in the US Jafar, as long as the gun is permanently disabled. The GUN is what is illegal. Not the tank.

[Voted4Reagan]

Well said. Obama has to do something to stem the tide of almost daily massacres by people who got hold of guns and shouldn't have.

If Obama doesn't regulate guns, I wouldn't blame you for arming yourself quite heavily in order to defend yourselves from your neighbours.

It won't be long before most middle class homes have one or two of these parked out front as family getaway vehicles.

http://www.texansforpeace.org/endthewar/Graphicsendthewar/Photosofsoldiers%20and%20fighting/M1AbramsTanksBaghdad072806.jpg

And why not? Isn't it your 2nd Amendment right to have a tank?

no... as it is considered a weapon of mass destruction it is illegal....

You may own one if the gun is not functional... i know a guy that has 30 of them...

[jafar00]

no... as it is considered a weapon of mass destruction it is illegal....

You may own one if the gun is not functional... i know a guy that has 30 of them...

Where do you draw the line between the right to bear arms and a gun that is too big?

[aboutime]

Where do you draw the line between the right to bear arms and a gun that is too big?


jafar. Guess you have comprehension problems. You have been told. We can own a tank, or as many tanks as we can afford. But their weaponry must be disabled, and there is no ammunition available. Get it?

[Voted4Reagan]

jafar. Guess you have comprehension problems. You have been told. We can own a tank, or as many tanks as we can afford. But their weaponry must be disabled, and there is no ammunition available. Get it?

we cant get an M1 Abrhams, a Leopard, a Challenger or even an Israeli Merkava.... because they are currently still the MBT's for their respective nations.


I can own a t-72, a Sherman, a T34 or any other that isnt in production provided the gun is disabled.

so the outdated obsolete crap that most arab countries have is open to import....

got to laugh.... to this day Arabs still think they can take on an Abrhams with a t-72.....

No wonder they cant win a War...

[jimnyc]

What's a used tank without a gun run for these days? I can't imagine they are very street legal either! So basically, I assume most people that would do so are making it a nice lawn ornament?

[ConHog]

What's a used tank without a gun run for these days? I can't imagine they are very street legal either! So basically, I assume most people that would do so are making it a nice lawn ornament?

Just as souvenirs. They of course have NO practical value.

[Voted4Reagan]

What's a used tank without a gun run for these days? I can't imagine they are very street legal either! So basically, I assume most people that would do so are making it a nice lawn ornament?

Street Legal....sans Machine guns4361

[ConHog]

Street Legal....sans Machine guns

Tanks? Um No. They are not street legal. Or have you seen tanks which meet DOT standards?

[Voted4Reagan]

Tanks? Um No. They are not street legal. Or have you seen tanks which meet DOT standards?

Wheel vehicles like the APC I showed above can be registered....

Track Vehicles are not....

Next question

[aboutime]

Wheel vehicles like the APC I showed above can be registered....

Track Vehicles are not....

Next question


Smart, wealthy people who happen to own those Tanks know they are NOT street legal. Which explains WHY we never see them out in traffic. Unless, in special cases. Some Loony guy decides to cause hate and discontent until he exercises his Suicide by Cop agenda.

Like this...
http://youtu.be/3vESIVemfG8

[ConHog]

Wheel vehicles like the APC I showed above can be registered....

Track Vehicles are not....

Next question

wheeled vehicles are NOT tanks. Therefor the statement that wheeled vehicles can be made road legal has absolutely ZERO to do with tanks. So my statement that tanks can NOT be made road legal is 100% correct.

[Voted4Reagan]

wheeled vehicles are NOT tanks. Therefor the statement that wheeled vehicles can be made road legal has absolutely ZERO to do with tanks. So my statement that tanks can NOT be made road legal is 100% correct.
Where did I say that TANKS are Street Legal?

I said they are LEGAL TO OWN...

Everyone knows you can't drive a track vehicle on a street....

So please point out where I said you could??

What are you trying to prove CONHOG? That you can put words in peoples mouths and skew the conversation? Seriously? after 6 months off you come back and act like a common troll?

I showed an APC that you can register... and at 30 tons it's as heavy as a sherman tank was...

so stop trolling or keep up with the conversation

[ConHog]

Where did I say that TANKS are Street Legal?

I said they are LEGAL TO OWN...

Everyone knows you can't drive a track vehicle on a street....

So please point out where I said you could??

What are you trying to prove CONHOG? That you can put words in peoples mouths and skew the conversation? Seriously? after 6 months off you come back and act like a common troll?

I showed an APC that you can register... and at 30 tons it's as heavy as a sherman tank was...

so stop trolling or keep up with the conversation

Let's follow the conversation , shall we?

Jimmy said

What's a used tank without a gun run for these days? I can't imagine they are very street legal either! So basically, I assume most people that would do so are making it a nice lawn ornament?

No mention of wheel vehicles ,he ONLY asked about tanks

you replied

Street Legal....sans Machine guns

again you were responding to Jim about tanks, no mention of APCs

to which I replied

Tanks? Um No. They are not street legal. Or have you seen tanks which meet DOT standards?

THEN 3 minutes after I posted the above post you edited your sans machine guns post and added a picture of an APC

Sir you have you been caught being blatantly dishonest in this thread. Just admit you didn't realize tanks are tracked vehicles and move on instead of pretending like I put words in your mouth.


Unbelievable how dishonest some people are.

[SassyLady]

I get much of it from Reuters Twitter feed. It pops up on my desktop.

I went looking for the one that happened yesterday but ended up finding a whole bunch of other shootings instead.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/3-found-shot-to-death-in-sandy-springs/nTyYf/
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/14/year-old-boy-shot-roxbury-recovering-pastor-says/FyzTUe9xLiXQGcPPrO1RtO/story.html
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8956919
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/found-shot-death-car-bronx-st-article-1.1241152

[/COLOR][/FONT]
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-shot-butt-kansas-city-bar-fight-article-1.1241223#ixzz2ICYUy9Yx

Wow. Most bar fights in Australia involve fists only or the occasional "glassing".

When you have 2 groups of drunken men exchanging fire outside a bar, you have to reconsider your opposition to taking their guns away. Those 2 groups of men clearly do not deserve to carry firearms.

http://wgntv.com/2013/01/16/2-shot-in-gage-park/
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/Teen-shot-at-Detroit-gas-station-is-a-high-school-senior-3-are-in-custody/-/1719418/18155262/-/p9sr90z/-/index.html

I think this might be the one I heard about yesterday.

Another school shooting :/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/16/administrator-shot-at-st-louis-college-expected-to-fully-recover/

Perhaps you should let us know what your definition of a "massacre" is.

[DragonStryk72]

While the lot of you are running around like chickens with your heads cut off, squawking about your Second Amendment rights, take some time to consider what is going on here.
I think Obama knows he has no chances in Hades of getting an assault weapons ban. What he does want is universal background checks and closing of the gun show loopholes.
One of the other compromises he wants is gun registration. No one would have to give up any of their weapons. There would be no forced confiscation.
I believe there is a poll out showing 84 percent of adults are in favor of background checks. A lot of gun owners favor registration, because it would allow them to recover weapons if they are stolen.
It's like the budget fight -- give and take.

Why does he want something we already have? We already have mandatory background checks, with the added point that court rulings showed up. That's how the sandy hook killer got turned down. Gun control did everything it could have possibly done. So if these laws being brought up as a response to sandy hook can do nothing to prevent another sandy hook, what the hell is their point?

[Kathianne]

Why does he want something we already have? We already have mandatory background checks, with the added point that court rulings showed up. That's how the sandy hook killer got turned down. Gun control did everything it could have possibly done. So if these laws being brought up as a response to sandy hook can do nothing to prevent another sandy hook, what the hell is their point?

Keeps the convo away from debt and no budget. Not to mention Libya and now Algiers.

[Voted4Reagan]

Let's follow the conversation , shall we?

Jimmy said

What's a used tank without a gun run for these days? I can't imagine they are very street legal either! So basically, I assume most people that would do so are making it a nice lawn ornament?

No mention of wheel vehicles ,he ONLY asked about tanks

you replied

Street Legal....sans Machine guns

again you were responding to Jim about tanks, no mention of APCs

to which I replied

Tanks? Um No. They are not street legal. Or have you seen tanks which meet DOT standards?

THEN 3 minutes after I posted the above post you edited your sans machine guns post and added a picture of an APC

Sir you have you been caught being blatantly dishonest in this thread. Just admit you didn't realize tanks are tracked vehicles and move on instead of pretending like I put words in your mouth.


Unbelievable how dishonest some people are.

The Picture of the Russian APC an and the "SANS" Machine guns were posted in the same reply....

it is YOU SIR that didnt keep up...

and since I have a friend that owned a Tank Museum here on Long Island I know the difference well... and have actually driven some APCS as well as Tanks from his Collection

the WWII Half Track was always a favorite to rip around the potato fields in the Winter....

why dont you go back on VACATION... seriously...all you do is look to provoke people.....

not working here.....

[mundame]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...of-Europe.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html)


A breakdown of the statistics, which were compiled into league tables by the
Conservatives, revealed that violent crime in the UK had increased from 652,974
offences in 1998 to more than 1.15 million crimes in 2007.

It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the
UK, making it the most violent place in Europe.

Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by
Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland.

By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per
100,000 population.




Right, violent crime is substantially worse in England than America, because the police there pretty much abdicate enforcement of the law, but they also totally prevent any self-defense of any kind. I read a book about this, it's really shocking. Not so much of their violence is guns as ours, but they get a lot of guns smuggled in from Serbia for use by their criminals. A lot of violence is assault, which they charge as "grievous bodily harm," but they don't seem to care. Drunks do it; they have severe and frequent binge drinking in England, far worse than anything here. They don't have many prisons, and they just let crime happen! I think it's very important that not happen here.

[taft2012]

...all you do is look to provoke people.....

not working here.....

Maybe you should report him.

[tailfins]

Right, violent crime is substantially worse in England than America, because the police there pretty much abdicate enforcement of the law, but they also totally prevent any self-defense of any kind. I read a book about this, it's really shocking. Not so much of their violence is guns as ours, but they get a lot of guns smuggled in from Serbia for use by their criminals. A lot of violence is assault, which they charge as "grievous bodily harm," but they don't seem to care. Drunks do it; they have severe and frequent binge drinking in England, far worse than anything here. They don't have many prisons, and they just let crime happen! I think it's very important that not happen here.

The way they handle that in Brazil is if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. People just get tired of trying to handle things legally. If you get a criminal record for defending yourself and can't find a job, just start selling drugs and knocking off pharmacies yourself. However, the system is corrupt enough to get several chances to buy off the person in front of you whether it be the cop, the prosecutor, the judge or even the jailer.

[hjmick]

A gun doesn't have to be registered to be recovered if stolen. A police report that it was stolen that includes a serial number is all that's needed.

Registration just makes it easier to confiscate if that time comes...

[ConHog]

The Picture of the Russian APC an and the "SANS" Machine guns were posted in the same reply....

it is YOU SIR that didnt keep up...

and since I have a friend that owned a Tank Museum here on Long Island I know the difference well... and have actually driven some APCS as well as Tanks from his Collection

the WWII Half Track was always a favorite to rip around the potato fields in the Winter....

why dont you go back on VACATION... seriously...all you do is look to provoke people.....

not working here.....

no they weren't I replied with quote BEFORE you edited that is why the time stamp on my reply with quote is THREE minutes before your edit of same post and does NOT include the picture.

You edited your post after my comment that tanks weren't street legal. PERIOD. Its not that big of deal unless you continue.

Calling out dishonesty is NOT provoking people. If you feel it is, then report me. Doesn't change the FACT that you are being dishonest about what was posted. You edited the post 3 minutes after I quoted it without a picture to include a picture. ANYONE can look at the facts and see that.

[Little-Acorn]

It's a compromise


I think a compromise is a very good idea, with a lot to recommend it.

Here's my suggestion.

The gun-haters agree to repeal all their so-called "gun control" laws. And law-abiding citizens agree not to throw the gun-haters in jail for their years of violations of our rights.

Once that's in place, then we can work on a second compromise:

The gun-haters agree to pay reparations for the property damage caused by criminals to their houses, cars, workplaces, etc., as well as fallen property values while the responsible citizens were not permitted to defend any of it; and the responsible citizens will agree not to hold the gun-haters criminally liable for the assaults, physical trauma, hospital bills, injuries, and DEATHS caused by those criminals for the last several decades while the victims were prevented from defending themselves by the gun-haters.

You know, compromise is an excellent idea. I'm liking this whole concept more and more.

What do the rest of you think?

(To get the thread back onto subject after yet another hijacking by jafar, conhog, v4r and the usual purse-fight practitioners)

[Drummond]

I sure do and you have refuted none of the incidents I post there from the linked source!!!!
And as Jim says , it makes Islam look like hell because it reveals the truth about its goals, its Jihad and the absolute lack of mercy, decency or humanity existing within its teachings. Jihad is a core part of Islam and those Jihadists murder with pure joy, murder innocent women and children delibewrately!!! -Tyr

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Exactly.

I'm fascinated by Jafar's critical attitude to the US on a subject like US gun control ... when he's supportive of Hamas !

Given the argument you evidently want to advance, Jafar, I suggest you try comparing the US Constitution to the Hamas Charter. Then explain to us why you think you've any reputable latitude AT ALL for criticising the US.

[aboutime]

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Exactly.

I'm fascinated by Jafar's critical attitude to the US on a subject like US gun control ... when he's supportive of Hamas !

Given the argument you evidently want to advance, Jafar, I suggest you try comparing the US Constitution to the Hamas Charter. Then explain to us why you think you've any reputable latitude AT ALL for criticising the US.


Sir Drummond. It has become very obvious how jafar, and members like Conhog only come here to Bully, and throw Mud Balls to instigate, and perpetuate losing arguments they cannot win. So. Like good Terrorist-wannabe's. They never let down with their uselessness backed by a hatred...Not only for any Westerner...but more so for the SELF HATRED they have for themselves.

If they can't destroy everyone around them as their primary reason for coming here. Then they won't allow anyone else to exist as long as any disagreement exists.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Registration just makes it easier to confiscate if that time comes...

Exactly, tis' why they want it too. -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Exactly.

I'm fascinated by Jafar's critical attitude to the US on a subject like US gun control ... when he's supportive of Hamas !

Given the argument you evidently want to advance, Jafar, I suggest you try comparing the US Constitution to the Hamas Charter. Then explain to us why you think you've any reputable latitude AT ALL for criticising the US.

Jafar's support of Hamas and his new found condemnation of American gun ownership rights don't jive at all.
I doubt that he can give a reasonable and sensible explanation.. Will be interesting should he even try.-Tyr

[Voted4Reagan]

This is why SO many have ConHog on Ignore....

[ConHog]

This is why SO many have ConHog on Ignore....

For pointing out their lies? Quite possibly.

You EDITED that post to include a picture of an APC after I responded to it. It's right there for everyone to see my man.

[taft2012]

For pointing out their lies? Quite possibly.

You EDITED that post to include a picture of an APC after I responded to it. It's right there for everyone to see my man.

Epic pwnage. :clap:

[bingster]

Is this what you are talking about on that page?



Affiliated would mean in business with them, literally helping sell guns and such. How is this a lie? They may lobby for laws and rights, but that doesn't mean they are affiliated with manufacturers and selling guns for them. Also, a company can be FOR safety and AGAINST intrusive checks on law abiding citizens. You look at one angle and refuse to see that the other angle may be legit too. Someone needs to and should stick up for gun owners and ensure the government doesn't reach too far in their checks, to the point it would be an invasion of privacy. Certain things should be available when a check is done for guns, but that doesn't mean the government should have a blank check to receive anything and everything they like.

Where are the lies you say they are always telling, and/or hiding things from the public view?

I'm not for a blank check. Let's just make the same required background checks that are currently in place for licensed gun dealers be required for all other gun purchases/sales. Currently, there is nothing in place to prevent me from buying 20 guns from a license dealer and reselling them to anyone else who can't pass a background check.

I call it affiliated when millions of dollars come from the gun manufactures and are called "corporate partners" on the NRA website.
4369

[Kathianne]

I'm not for a blank check. Let's just make the same required background checks that are currently in place for licensed gun dealers be required for all other gun purchases/sales. Currently, there is nothing in place to prevent me from buying 20 guns from a license dealer and reselling them to anyone else who can't pass a background check.

I call it affiliated when millions of dollars come from the gun manufactures and are called "corporate partners" on the NRA website.
4369

I don't know where you live or what the laws are there. Here however, if you are a registered owner and sell, you are required to copy all the information from the buyer's gun registration card, then list all serial numbers of guns sold. If any of those guns were called into question via crime or some other issue, they could be traced back to you, the original owner. It would be incumbent on you to show the documentation of whom you sold the weapons to, the date, and the amount.

[ConHog]

I don't know where you live or what the laws are there. Here however, if you are a registered owner and sell, you are required to copy all the information from the buyer's gun registration card, then list all serial numbers of guns sold. If any of those guns were called into question via crime or some other issue, they could be traced back to you, the original owner. It would be incumbent on you to show the documentation of whom you sold the weapons to, the date, and the amount.

no such requirement in Arkansas nor most southern states Kath. I personally believe there should be , but currently there is not.

[Voted4Reagan]

For pointing out their lies? Quite possibly.

You EDITED that post to include a picture of an APC after I responded to it. It's right there for everyone to see my man.



blah blah blah...

Another thread ruined by.... CONHOG...

[aboutime]

blah blah blah...

Another thread ruined by.... CONHOG...


V4R. What most of us are now able to see, and understand with all of this RETREAD kind of posting that existed before our nice Lull here is. Despite denials, and seeing little, if any changes. There really are some very troubled, challenged, distorted people among us who still believe ONLY THEY can be right, and correct all the time. While, everyone else is always wrong, and should be prevented from introducing the Truth in any fashion that is 180 degree's out from their opinion.

[Voted4Reagan]

V4R. What most of us are now able to see, and understand with all of this RETREAD kind of posting that existed before our nice Lull here is. Despite denials, and seeing little, if any changes. There really are some very troubled, challenged, distorted people among us who still believe ONLY THEY can be right, and correct all the time. While, everyone else is always wrong, and should be prevented from introducing the Truth in any fashion that is 180 degree's out from their opinion.

old friend.... as with Opinionated and Lensy and Cautionary Tales.... CONHOG Will be marginalized .... there are far better debaters here then hims ... He comes back after 6 months and goes right back to the same over the top posting style...

basically the sign of a child seeking attention...

his kind gets real old real fast.....

I wont give his arguments much weight.... they are basically self glorifying on how wonderful he perceives himself to be...

Boring and Narcissistic... who would have thought the two could exist in on person.... ?

But thats ConHog for you

[aboutime]

old friend.... as with Opinionated and Lensy and Cautionary Tales.... CONHOG Will be marginalized .... there are far better debaters here then hims ... He comes back after 6 months and goes right back to the same over the top posting style...

basically the sign of a child seeking attention...

his kind gets real old real fast.....

I wont give his arguments much weight.... they are basically self glorifying on how wonderful he perceives himself to be...

Boring and Narcissistic... who would have thought the two could exist in on person.... ?

But thats ConHog for you


Guess that's the punishment some people get, and deserve when they pretend to Impersonate Obama, and are convinced...they really are Obama-like.

Too bad. Thankfully. I have taken the hint, and will silently, just watch it SELF-DESTRUCT in FIVE SECONDS.

[bingster]

I don't know where you live or what the laws are there. Here however, if you are a registered owner and sell, you are required to copy all the information from the buyer's gun registration card, then list all serial numbers of guns sold. If any of those guns were called into question via crime or some other issue, they could be traced back to you, the original owner. It would be incumbent on you to show the documentation of whom you sold the weapons to, the date, and the amount.

That's the first I've heard of that. Very good point, but I'm surprised I haven't heard of it before. In fact, I read somewhere that gun dealers are required to destroy documents of gun sales after a ridiculously short time period. Would that paperwork be the documentation you're talking about?

After a quick search I found this link:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0500.htm

[bingster]

I'm not for a blank check. Let's just make the same required background checks that are currently in place for licensed gun dealers be required for all other gun purchases/sales. Currently, there is nothing in place to prevent me from buying 20 guns from a license dealer and reselling them to anyone else who can't pass a background check.

I call it affiliated when millions of dollars come from the gun manufactures and are called "corporate partners" on the NRA website.
4369

The above facts joined by their unwillingness to support common sense measures (background checks) that up to 95% of the American public wants makes me suspicious of their motives. Every time the NRA speaks, gun sales go up, and the NRA income increases. Supporting anything that would really be defined as safe or responsible would slow the cash flowing into their coffers. They are much more comfortable allowing the gun culture to believe that Obama wants to take their guns away.

In fact, this is a condition described in the 2000 CDC study that made measuring the effects of gun control so difficult. Every time gun control is proposed, gun sales vastly increase, and therefore so do the deaths. It's not the gun control that's ineffective, it's the conspiracy fearing gun-buying frenzy that makes the studies "inconclusive".

[jimnyc]

I'm not for a blank check. Let's just make the same required background checks that are currently in place for licensed gun dealers be required for all other gun purchases/sales. Currently, there is nothing in place to prevent me from buying 20 guns from a license dealer and reselling them to anyone else who can't pass a background check.

I call it affiliated when millions of dollars come from the gun manufactures and are called "corporate partners" on the NRA website.
4369

Go to the "ring of freedom" site by the NRA and go to that page you speak of - then point out to me the manufacturers. Looks like websites and magazines.

http://www.nragive.com/#/ringoffreedom/wall/partners

[bingster]

That's the first I've heard of that. Very good point, but I'm surprised I haven't heard of it before. In fact, I read somewhere that gun dealers are required to destroy documents of gun sales after a ridiculously short time period. Would that paperwork be the documentation you're talking about?

After a quick search I found this link:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0500.htm

The Tiahrt Amendment requires that NICS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System) background check records be destroyed within 24 hours, and this makes it harder for law enforcement authorities to catch law-breaking gun dealers who falsify their records. It also makes it more difficult to identify and track down straw purchasers who buy guns on behalf of criminals who wouldn't be able to pass a background check, or prohibited purchasers who buy firearms themselves due to errors in the background check process.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayors_Against_Illegal_Guns_Coalition#cite_note-MAIGTiahrt-15)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

old friend.... as with Opinionated and Lensy and Cautionary Tales.... CONHOG Will be marginalized .... there are far better debaters here then hims ... He comes back after 6 months and goes right back to the same over the top posting style...

basically the sign of a child seeking attention...

his kind gets real old real fast.....

I wont give his arguments much weight.... they are basically self glorifying on how wonderful he perceives himself to be...

Boring and Narcissistic... who would have thought the two could exist in on person.... ?

But thats ConHog for you

A twofer amigo. Both very insightful and inciting to boot. Kudos, :beer:--Tyr

[ConHog]

A twofer amigo. Both very insightful and inciting to boot. Kudos, :beer:--Tyr

Don't be mad about me absolutely , positively, unequivocally caught your buddy V4R posting misinformation, then editing his post after corrected, then denying he edited his post Tyr. I though you valued honesty my friend?

If you're as honest as you claim, look at the times stamp and the contents of the posts in question and there is ZERO doubt that I caught the man red handed in a lie. And THAT is why is he upset. A bigger man would simply say "yes you're right, I simply didn't realize tanks were tracked vehicles only" and it would be over.

[mundame]

I see tanks all over the roads here often, everyone does, although once I didn't see a whole convoy parked by the side of the road until I was right next to them, because of the camouflage. It was summer, and the road was edged with trees.

However, the tanks are always on flatbed trucks, not driving on the roads.

[ConHog]

I see tanks all over the roads here often, everyone does, although once I didn't see a whole convoy parked by the side of the road until I was right next to them, because of the camouflage. It was summer, and the road was edged with trees.

However, the tanks are always on flatbed trucks, not driving on the roads.

yeah , tracked vehicles aren't real good for paved roads. :laugh2:

[Kathianne]

yeah , tracked vehicles aren't real good for paved roads. :laugh2:

It's been years, but I've seen tracked vehicles going from Maywood reserve site towards Chicago on I290.

[red states rule]

I'm not for a blank check. Let's just make the same required background checks that are currently in place for licensed gun dealers be required for all other gun purchases/sales. Currently, there is nothing in place to prevent me from buying 20 guns from a license dealer and reselling them to anyone else who can't pass a background check.

I call it affiliated when millions of dollars come from the gun manufactures and are called "corporate partners" on the NRA website.
4369

So Bingster, please explain why criminals will obey any new laws passed to restrict the sale and possession of guns and ammo. Why not enforce the existing laws on the book instead of ignoring them. Case in point - David Gregory on Meet the PRess broke one of the DC gun laws live on the air - and NOTHING is going to be done about it. If I did the same thing, I would been had the cuffs slapped on me in a heartbeat
The Washington, D.C. attorney general won’t prosecute NBC’s David Gregory for holding up a high-capacity ammunition magazine on national television (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-nbcs-david-gregory-violate-d-c-gun-law-on-national-tv/), the office announced Friday.
“[The office of the attorney general] has determined to exercise its prosecutorial discretion to decline to bring criminal charges against Mr. Gregory, who has no criminal record, or any other NBC employee based on the events associated with the December 23, 2012 broadcast,” D.C. Attorney General Irvin Nathan wrote in a letter to NBC attorney Lee Levine provided to TheBlaze.
“OAG has made this determination, despite the clarity of the violation of this important law, because under all of the circumstances here a prosecution would not promote public safety in the District of Columbia nor serve the best interests of the people of the District to whom this office owes its trust,” the letter stated.
Nathan described it as a “very close decision” and not one the office came to “lightly or easily.”
Gregory held up what he said was a magazine (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/23/did-nbcs-david-gregory-violate-d-c-gun-law-on-national-tv/) able to carry 30 bullets during a “Meet the Press” interview with National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre following the Newtown, Conn. elementary school massacre. In Washington, D.C., where “Meet the Press” tapes, it is illegal to possess a magazine capable of holding 10 or more rounds of ammunition. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/11/d-c-attorney-general-wont-press-charges-against-david-gregory-for-ammunition-magazine-incident/

[bingster]

So Bingster, please explain why criminals will obey any new laws passed to restrict the sale and possession of guns and ammo. Why not enforce the existing laws on the book instead of ignoring them. Case in point - David Gregory on Meet the PRess broke one of the DC gun laws live on the air - and NOTHING is going to be done about it. If I did the same thing, I would been had the cuffs slapped on me in a heartbeat

Part of Obama's executive orders WAS to enforce current laws. Some criminals will still get the weapons, but why make it so easy that Al Qaeda put out a training video on how easy it is to get guns. Most gun owners and over 90% of this country believes in background checks. Didn't see the David Gregory thing.

[fj1200]

yada yada yada...

Another thread ruined by.... CONHOG...

Did you or did you not edit a post three minutes after CH replied to it?

Did you or did you not post a picture of an APC (apparently not a tank) after Jim referred to a tank (which apparently is a tank)?

[fj1200]

The above facts joined by their unwillingness to support common sense measures (background checks) that up to 95% of the American public wants makes me suspicious of their motives. Every time the NRA speaks, gun sales go up, and the NRA income increases. Supporting anything that would really be defined as safe or responsible would slow the cash flowing into their coffers. They are much more comfortable allowing the gun culture to believe that Obama wants to take their guns away.

It's not their job to support "common sense measures" as they are an advocacy group. Progressives who desire nationalized healthcare, which 95% of the public doesn't want, are highly unlikely to support common sense deregulation of the health care industry.


In fact, this is a condition described in the 2000 CDC study that made measuring the effects of gun control so difficult. Every time gun control is proposed, gun sales vastly increase, and therefore so do the deaths. It's not the gun control that's ineffective, it's the conspiracy fearing gun-buying frenzy that makes the studies "inconclusive".

Do you have a link to studies that correlates gun deaths to gun control proposals?

[red states rule]

Part of Obama's executive orders WAS to enforce current laws. Some criminals will still get the weapons, but why make it so easy that Al Qaeda put out a training video on how easy it is to get guns. Most gun owners and over 90% of this country believes in background checks. Didn't see the David Gregory thing.

Obama has not enforced the existing gun laws for the last 4 years. If Obama was serious about that he would start with investagting the Fast and Furious hun running operation that resulted in the murder of hundreds of people including US Border agent Brian Terry

So criminals will still get guns, and yet it will be harder for law abiding citizens to do so. Once again you show how these polices will put law abiding citzens at the mercy of criminals

As far a David Gregory - it is another exampled of liberals being above the law and getting a pass from their fellow liberals