Obama To Unveil Gun Control Reforms In Near Future, 7/7/11

[Sasquatchvnv]

The answer is so simple.

Appropriate punishment for crimes.

If we held the knuckleheads accountable for their actions, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Not gonna happen though, no money, power, or control in it. What a scummy system we are born into.

 

[fuhr52]

Trismn - I will respond - I guess I am liberal based on previous blogs. Exactly what is the president going to do - all I hear is maybe , and might and possibly. I for one feel that there should be a means of limiting criminals, and mentally ill and those that hav been kicked out of our military from having guns. All I have heard on here is that the second amendment is a right but the concepts of repsonsibily seems to have been forgotten. I also feel that if the president puts fire arms restictions out there he will lose his race for the presidency, especially if the gun owners and the NRA push the point. I feel that the so called conservatives can come up with a negative complaint about anything - health care is too exspenve but we dont want reform - we want our gun rights but we dont want to be held repsonsible for the actions of those that have guns. We want to speed but we dont think anyone should break the law unless it is for one of our own justifiable reasons. In short you want the cake and the ice cream and dont want to pay for it.
sometimes I feel that trying to have a conversation on this board is like talking to a group of fanactics
let the flames begin - I know that they are acoming.

James Ruby

Are you sure your a liberal? Never heard a true liberal admit to supporting capital punishment. It's the liberals that are constantly blamming someone else when something goes wrong. Presonal responsibility isn't in there vocabulary. Like to know how more gun laws are going to take a bite out of crime when we are letting criminals out of jail because we are shutting down jail beds. We are cutting back on public safety because of tight budgets but we have plenty of money for social services. So lets restrict the ability of the law abiding citizen the means to protect them selves. Wouldn't want the criminals to get hurt ripping people off. We have laws on the books now to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and convicted criminals but we don't inforce them because we don't want to offend anyone. But I guess as long as the liberals feel good about their intensions all is good. Being as you are a liberal that's what's most important, right?

 

[deadeye]

The answer is so simple.

Appropriate punishment for crimes.

If we held the knuckleheads accountable for their actions, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Not gonna happen though, no money, power, or control in it. What a scummy system we are born into.

Someday the high n mighty in DC will find a way to make money and have the power and control to imprison the criminals, too bad it will be the outspoken among us that manage to survive the impending clash.

 

[VW_Factor]

sellers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can't escape it," he wrote.'

I'm all about hearing ideas that ANYONE has about how to accomplish and regulate something that which cannot be regulated.. Criminal activities and criminals.

More laws don't do anything. There is a reason people call them criminals, and its because they don't follow the laws.

 

[VW_Factor]

You should read up on the gun laws. Those things you mentioned are already illegal (federal crimes, even). What do you propose we do? Make it double-dog illegal?

I do get a kick out of it sometimes, when someone mentions just that. "That should be illegal!" they say..

"It already is illegal to do *crime*". Oh....

 

[drew]

More laws don't do anything. There is a reason people call them criminals, and its because they don't follow the laws.

Maybe someone should get the pols a dictionary so they'll be able to look up what a criminal is and not waste so much time and energy creating laws that only burden those who actually follow the laws. Of course, I believe burdening lawful firearm owners is their goal. I'm just waiting to see what ruse they select.

In case anyone is actually interested criminal is defined as "A person who has committed a crime." Crime is defined as "an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law" or "illegal activities". They were pretty close between the couple of dictionaries I consulted.

 

[Trlsmn]

Hmmm, seems JRugby is the only Liberal brave enough to step up, I wasn't actually counting him among the "Obama's not going to take your gun" guys though. So where are they now? Where's Bugeye, Iomatic, CEF1959, et cetera, et cetera, etc..? Lets discuss this guys, don't be fair weather Democratic gun rights activists, really I want to know "what now", now that you've heard it from your masters mouth. Am I being provocative? Yes, of course, it doesn't change the facts though.

"And now for something completely different"

 

[HollisOR]

I know I can not trust the D's, especially O and his group of D's, on protecting the 2nd Amendment and I am not too sure about the R's either.

 

[Trlsmn]

I know I can not trust the D's, especially O and his group of D's, on protecting the 2nd Amendment and I am not too sure about the R's either.

Don't trust the Republicans either, they have a proven track record of banning guns.

 

[fuhr52]

I know I can not trust the D's, especially O and his group of D's, on protecting the 2nd Amendment and I am not too sure about the R's either.

They are all cut from the same cloth these days.

 

[jedi1354]

Don't trust the Republicans either, they have a proven track record of banning guns.

I believe Reagan is responsible at least partially for the 1986 nfa stuff. and the reason a mac 10 that could hardly have been given away in 1980 now sells for 3500 bucks.

 

[PinkhamR]

So, what do you all think the time frame for this happening might be ????

 

[Scott]

Trismn - I will respond - I guess I am liberal based on previous blogs. Exactly what is the president going to do - all I hear is maybe , and might and possibly. I for one feel that there should be a means of limiting criminals, and mentally ill and those that hav been kicked out of our military from having guns. All I have heard on here is that the second amendment is a right but the concepts of repsonsibily seems to have been forgotten. I also feel that if the president puts fire arms restictions out there he will lose his race for the presidency, especially if the gun owners and the NRA push the point. I feel that the so called conservatives can come up with a negative complaint about anything - health care is too exspenve but we dont want reform - we want our gun rights but we dont want to be held repsonsible for the actions of those that have guns. We want to speed but we dont think anyone should break the law unless it is for one of our own justifiable reasons. In short you want the cake and the ice cream and dont want to pay for it.
sometimes I feel that trying to have a conversation on this board is like talking to a group of fanactics
let the flames begin - I know that they are acoming.

James Ruby

I did not pay much attention to your post except keeping guns of the hands of people that got kicked out of the service. Why is that? I served and there are hundreds of reasons why people get kicked out. Being gay is one, so you are saying gay people should not have guns? What about a medical discharge, hardship discharge, and many others.

That was just a stupid liberal comment. You should think before you write..................

 

[HollisOR]

I did not pay much attention to your post except keeping guns of the hands of people that got kicked out of the service. Why is that? I served and there are hundreds of reasons why people get kicked out. Being gay is one, so you are saying gay people should not have guns? What about a medical discharge, hardship discharge, and many others.

That was just a stupid liberal comment. You should think before you write..................

2X, not a happy camper. He should bifurcate the issue rather than be all over the place. I would figure, Liberal means open to things rather than restrictive. When it comes to fire arms and some other issues they are pretty restrictive. I think there are two meanings of the terms, liberal and conservative. There are the regular meanings then there are political meanings. Political liberals like to think they are open minded, but are they. The are very closed minded, they follow their agenda just like their political adversaries, the political conservatives.

As far as other people go I am pretty liberal. Leave me alone, if you want a M & M marriage fine, leave me alone. If you want to buy a Ma Deuce and you can afford it, sure why not. Take responsibilities for your actions work for me. I want to be left alone and I do not want to accept responsibility for your actions. A person home is their castle, so the castle doctrine should be a recognize law of the land.

I am not against giving a helping hand, I will gladly do it freely, just don't tell me I have to do it.

Should criminals own guns? If they ripped off a pack of cigs from a vending machine....... who cares. If they have a proven propensity violence, **** no.

What about crazy people, depends.

And like Scott state, so a person was not meant for the military life. Well there is a learning experience. Should they loose any rights, **** no. Now if they have a proven propensity of violence to others, than yeah... don't let them have firearms.

People should be able to choose their idea what it means to have life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and be responsible for their choices. A M1 Thompson in the hands of a lawful citizen will be lawfully used, so why shouldn't they have one?

One of the best sigs on this forum goes something like this. Gun control is like restricting car ownership to drivers who do not drink to stop drunk driving. Punish the perp not the honest citizen.

 

[iomatic]

Hmmm, seems JRugby is the only Liberal brave enough to step up, I wasn't actually counting him among the "Obama's not going to take your gun" guys though. So where are they now? Where's Bugeye, Iomatic, CEF1959, et cetera, et cetera, etc..? Lets discuss this guys, don't be fair weather Democratic gun rights activists, really I want to know "what now", now that you've heard it from your masters mouth. Am I being provocative? Yes, of course, it doesn't change the facts though.

"And now for something completely different"

Oh I'm watching, but as mentioned before there's no use in my response because most I receive in return is noise, childish name-calling, and ad hominem attacks.

Not what I would call intelligent discussion and dialogue (and yes, I'm partly to blame). Basically I give up on the Right to have an intelligent, moderately thoughtful conversation without vitriol, if I hadn't made this point clear before.

Flame on, I'll just watch.

 

[HollisOR]

Iomatic, sort of my thoughts. We have we the people. That is all of use. As one member commented that D's and R's are cut from the same cloth. What is a better way to divide we the people than through partisan politics. D's over here, R's over there. Like high school rivals but with far great impact on the lives around us. There some good politicians and some play us for chumps.

Because of partisan politics members of both sides do reduce a discussion to as you stated, "noise, childish name-calling, and ad hominem attacks"

It is a serious conflict and the stakes are high. Unity is probably our best hope to restore our nation to "We the People".

 

[Trlsmn]

Oh I'm watching, but as mentioned before there's no use in my response because most I receive in return is noise, childish name-calling, and ad hominem attacks.

Not what I would call intelligent discussion and dialogue (and yes, I'm partly to blame). Basically I give up on the Right to have an intelligent, moderately thoughtful conversation without vitriol, if I hadn't made this point clear before.

Flame on, I'll just watch.

So now that there is proof contradicting the platform you have been standing on you bury your head in the sand? Nice, glad to see you're objective, OK moving on then.

By all means, fell free to place digital fingers in your digital ears and play an mp3 of "La, La, La, I can't hear you!"

 

[Mr. Ben]

No..we don't want to be responsible for the actions of THOSE that have guns.. As conservatives..we believe in Individual responsibility where each person is responsible for their own decisions and actions..a concept you libs just don't grasp.. As a responsible gun owner..and hard core supporter of our Constitution..and Second Amendment in particular..no one is more offended or apalled by the criminal misuse of a firearm than I am.. However..unlike those on your side of the issue..I say hold those individuals responsible..and hand down swift..non-negotiable..severe penalties for those actions..

As for the "flames"..you yourself claim..by your own post..to be a Liberal.. I can't flame you any worse than that..

I 100% agree with this post.

 

[Stomper]

I am a very strong supporter of the death penalty - I want something done before a mental midget goes out and wipes out another 13 people.


James Ruby

I want something done before another "mental midget" votes for Obama again in the next election.

 

[JGRuby]

All you have to do is provide a real republican candidate that the majority of the populace supports more than Obama - if Obama is as bad as everyone thinks that should be a cake walk - what are you worried about? Maybe even Sarah Palin might be the next president based on this logic.

James Ruby