OBAMA THROWS A FIT

[GandD 5,966]

The only thing I can come up with that isn't full of loopholes (in fact has zero loopholes) is to decrease violent criminals.

We all know that would work. At least I think we do. I personally don't think that can be accomplished without giving up way more rights than owning personal arrsenals and probably not even then. How do you stop crime on a national level? Humans haven't figured that out yet

[himher 634]

exactly.

yay!

Dear lib: Celebrate and horray the right for criminals to freely walk the streets somewhere else

We all know that would work. At least I think we do. I personally don't think that can be accomplished without giving up way more rights than owning personal arrsenals and probably not even then. How do you stop crime on a national level? Humans haven't figured that out yet

Crime is nearly zero in Saudi. But criminals are dealt with differently.

[GandD 5,966]

Drugs enter this country every day ...We cannot stop it. How would you stop guns from entering the same way ,perhaps on the same shipment. Place a call to your drug supplier and say ....ship me a dozen AK-15's or 30 glocks for my home boys. You want to take away my right to own a gun while you cannot control or will not control the criminals.

You probably wouldn't. It would lessen the abundancy of guns though. Guns and drugs are USED for two different purposes though. One to get high and one to kill someone or a game animal I suppose.

[decocker 7,198]

Dear lib: Celebrate and horray the right for criminals to freely walk the streets somewhere else

aw. no thanks. i like it here. i think it's more important that we try and make sure we punish the people who do wrong and make sure that laws are in place to protect those who do things right.

but you sound a little down, like there is no hope. no reason to try. need a hug?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Drugs enter this country every day ...We cannot stop it.

We could, if we had the will. The problem is, the majority of the population looks the other way, while the rest are users, dealers, and just plain corrupt. If they really wanted to dry up the supply, it could be done in six months tops. It would cause a lot of pain, and it would get bloody, but it could be done. I have seen it first hand. If you are involved in the drug trade, the authorities know. However, there just isn't the will to do anything but knock off a few of the folks that are being too obvious about it. There is easy money in drugs, and many in law enforcement get paid to look the other way. Like guns, too many Americans are hooked on things that are slowly killing the country that made this all possible.

[GandD 5,966]

Crime is nearly zero in Saudi. But criminals are dealt with differently.

Think that's the root cause? Stop taking a liberal approach to dealing with criminals huh? I feel like Saudi Arabia would be the Christian conservatives paradise if they would just replace Islam with Christianity as a state religion. Maybe hang a couple criminals in the ol town square so others won't take the risk right? That always works. Worked flawlessly in the dark and Middle Ages. Really hit a high note during the French Revolution in my opinion.

On a side note, Saudi Arabia has less issues with banned drugs and alcohol. I suppose their approach to this could be used to "ban" guns as well as potential smugglers? So it is possible?

[himher 634]

aw. no thanks. i like it here. i think it's more important that we try and make sure we punish the people who do wrong and make sure that laws are in place to protect those who do things right.

but you sound a little down, like there is no hope. no reason to try. need a hug?

You kidding? I'm not the one whining to the air over the gun vote LOL and I will never put myself in a position where the rights and interests of a convicted criminal or confessed violent mentally ill person will supercede the rights of the law abiding people around them. Like you do. So I'm quite fine.

[himher 634]

Think that's the root cause? Stop taking a liberal approach to dealing with criminals huh? I feel like Saudi Arabia would be the Christian conservatives paradise if they would just replace Islam with Christianity as a state religion. Maybe hang a couple criminals in the ol town square so others won't take the risk right? That always works. Worked flawlessly in the dark and Middle Ages. Really hit a high note during the French Revolution in my opinion.

On a side note, Saudi Arabia has less issues with banned drugs and alcohol. I suppose their approach to this could be used to "ban" guns as well as potential smugglers? So it is possible?

Except for that troublesome little constitutional thing.

So you folks are going to need to figure out how to deal with the people who misuse them. HINT: It's not by letting them through the revolving doors of justice or treating them nicely after they are caught, tried, and convicted. That's not working out at all.

[GandD 5,966]

Except for that troublesome little constitutional thing.

Which part were you referring to?

[himher 634]

Which part were you referring to?

The 2nd ammendment to it. You know, the one that was recently upheld by the Supreme Court. That one. Very troublesome.

Edited April 19, 2013 by himher

[decocker 7,198]

You kidding? I'm not the one whining to the air over the gun vote LOL and I will never put myself in a position where the rights and interests of a convicted criminal or confessed violent mentally ill person will supercede the rights of the law abiding people around them. Like you do. So I'm quite fine.

whining to the air?

i'm not sure why you think background checks are going to supercede the rights of law abiding people. why do you think that law abiding people will be stopped from owning guns because of background checks at gunshows/internet?

[GandD 5,966]

The 2nd ammendment to it. You know, the one that was recently upheld by the Supreme Court. That one. Very troublesome.

This was a good talk. We clearly lined out that we disagree. I enjoyed it. Lets do it again!

[himher 634]

whining to the air?

i'm not sure why you think background checks are going to supercede the rights of law abiding people. why do you think that law abiding people will be stopped from owning guns because of background checks at gunshows/internet?

I am afraid that there will be no more support for background checks, none, until the background check system that is in place starts getting enforced. They passed a background check requirement, which is complied with, along with penalties for attempting to purchase guns when you are prohibited from owning them. They do not enforce those penalties and never have. Therefore, what purpose for expanding the background checks if not to track actual transactions? A law with goal of tracking constitutionally protected transactions supercedes the rights of law abiding people. There are thousands of attempts to illegally obtain guns annually and these are thousands of potential criminals that can be stopped. No more tracking and calling until these transactions are cracked down on and it can be demonstrated that these criminals are stopped. Choosing not to stop them implies that tracking the gun is more important than the criminal while pretending that the point of the law is to track the criminal and this lie is not OK to American gun owners.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I am afraid that there will be no more support for background checks, none, until the background check system that is in place starts getting enforced.

There is no background check requirement for internet firearm sales and there is no background check requirement for private seller transactions at gun shows. That is where criminals that cannot acquire a firearm from a licensed dealer because they fail the background check that the licensed dealer is required to perform obtain their firearms without any hassle whatsoever. What's the point of having any background checks at all if there are two avenues where anyone can acquire a firearm no questions asked? Exactly, there's no point. It's the same as requiring ID checks for alcohol sales at the bar but not at the ball park and then claiming that there are effective laws in place to prevent minors from buying alcohol. Which raises another question: should we also lock up 18-20 year olds that try to buy booze but fail?

Face it, the NRA and a minority of Senators enslaved to it has ensured that criminals continue to have free and unfettered access to firearms. That was their priority. That criminals can freely buy guns. All the window dressing that you keep presenting here isn't changing that fact.

Edited April 20, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog

[himher 634]

There is no background check requirement for internet firearm sales and there is no background check requirement for private seller transactions at gun shows. That is where criminals that cannot acquire a firearm from a licensed dealer because they fail the background check that the licensed dealer is required to perform obtain their firearms without any hassle whatsoever. What's the point of having any background checks at all if there are two avenues where anyone can acquire a firearm no questions asked? Exactly, there's no point. It's the same as requiring ID checks for alcohol sales at the bar but not at the ball park and then claiming that there are effective laws in place to prevent minors from buying alcohol. Which raises another question: should we also lock up 18-20 year olds that try to buy booze but fail?

Face it, the NRA and a minority of Senators enslaved to it has ensured that criminals continue to have free and unfettered access to firearms. That was their priority. That criminals can freely buy guns. All the window dressing that you keep presenting here isn't changing that fact.

If you care about gun violence then you care about locking up the people who do or want to use guns to commit violence. If you care about gun ownership more than gun violence then you care about making a list of the people who do or want to use guns to commit violence but do not care that they freely walk the streets. The list is made. Go work on it or stf up about gun violence.

The NRA doesn't have near the power and clout of the 40,000,000 non-member gun owning HOUSEHOLDS. Those are the people who spoke and the people who want to expand unenforced laws may be a majority but they are not a 60-40 majority and certainly won't get this through the house anyway.

Live with that, stop complaining about it, and figure out a way to control criminals - not the constitutionally protected tools they use to commit the crimes.

Edited April 20, 2013 by himher