Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 133
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,486
    vCash
    1500
    the idea that criminals will find a means to commit crime is not a valid argument. That is the logic of a child and it should infuriate any of you who are being told that by your media source,that they think so little of you ability to reason.
    Gun safety isnt about preventing Crime. How many ways do you need to be told that before you can absorb it?
    STORK WAS RIGHT!
    Mcfadden is useless

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,547
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    I have to say I think this ban will have little effect. (little is better than nothing) What would have an effect is a national tracking database for guns, and giving the ATF some goddamn teeth. The thing I most hate about this situation is that the NRA keeps talking about how we have enough laws and the way to deal with gun violence is to enforce those laws. Meanwhile they are sneaking legislation into bills to castrate the ATF and make that impossible. **** those hypocritical *******s.
    I wonder why you think a ban will have little effect?

    If you believe Mother Jones then the majority of mass killers since 1982 have gotten their guns legally. The trend to me is that high capacity clips are becoming more and more common with these killings and even if the rate was steady the number of dead would be less on a 10 round clip. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...-shootings-map

    IMO we have to attack the problem like we attacked meth use. We found the source of meth (India manufacturing companies) and we stop that import. Next the common theme was to use over the counter drugs to make it so we aggressively went at that.

    I believe meth use has drop down 50% since we aggressively went after it. So if complexed manufacturing is required we can limit the supply of high capacity rounds and the effectiveness of these mass killings.

    By tracking, limiting supply and addressing the mental health problem I could see all of these having a big impact on not just mass killings but murder rates involving 1 or 2 people.
    Last edited by Pacerlive; 01-18-2013 at 12:17 PM.

  3. #78
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Castle Grayskull
    Posts
    2,119
    vCash
    1500
    I don't really see why people would be opposed to this proposal. It's a fairly moderate proposal that doesn't contain extreme ideas. I would actually expect that there are a lot of pro-gun control advocates that would like to see much more done than what the President is proposing.

    I'm a fairly moderate person, politically speaking. I used to be more conservative, but I would say that I'm slightly left of middle now. I still hold onto some of the core conservative ideals involving smaller government and personal freedoms. I guess my idea as to what those mean has changed. The gun control issue illustrates my feelings pretty well. I don't really see how trying to eliminate high-capacity magazines and assault weapons is some radical means to taking away our rights and creating a tyranny. Allowing the CDC to perform studies into gun violence also seems like an innocuous move that could only yield positive results. I fail to see how having more information is a bad thing?

    I honestly feel like so much of this backlash against gun control is rooted in the politically-charged divisive atmosphere in this country. I cannot believe how many people subscribe to the selfish and, at times, insane rhetoric coming from the NRA and other politically motivated sources.

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,958
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerlive View Post
    I wonder why you think a ban will have little effect?

    If you believe Mother Jones then the majority of mass killers since 1982 have gotten their guns legally. The trend to me is that high capacity clips are becoming more and more common with these killings and even if the rate was steady the number of dead would be less on a 10 round clip. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...-shootings-map

    IMO we have to attack the problem like we attacked meth use. We found the source of meth (India manufacturing companies) and we stop that import. Next the common theme was to use over the counter drugs to make it so we aggressively went at that.

    I believe meth use has drop down 50% since we aggressively went after it. So if complexed manufacturing is required we can limit the supply of high capacity rounds and the effectiveness of these mass killings.

    By tracking, limiting supply and addressing the mental health problem I could see all of these having a big impact on not just mass killings but murder rates involving 1 or 2 people.
    Mass killings are an incredibly rare event. Even if you stop all mass shootings our gun violence problem is pretty much completely intact. That is why. Also I believe that people will kill multiple people with handguns instead of assault riffles... maybe they only kill 13 instead of 16. We are talking a fraction of a fraction. I think those lives are worth it, but I think that there are other measures we could take to affect a far greater change in our violent culture (allow the ATF to actually do their job, work on poverty levels).

    Some dude on here claimed to have an illegal M16... That should be tracked and confiscated.
    Last edited by flips333; 01-18-2013 at 02:56 PM.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,547
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    Mass killings are an incredibly rare event. Even if you stop all mass shootings our gun violence problem is pretty much completely intact. That is why. Also I believe that people will kill multiple people with handguns instead of assault riffles... maybe they only kill 13 instead of 16. We are talking a fraction of a fraction. I think those lives are worth it, but I think that there are other measures we could take to affect a far greater change in our violent culture (allow the ATF to actually do their job, work on poverty levels).

    Some dude on here claimed to have an illegal M16... That should be tracked and confiscated.
    Mass killings are a fraction but high capacity clips are used a lot in gun violence. Take Oakland Ca. for example. In 2012 10% of all guns seized by the police had high capacity clips.

    Now Caly has a law against high capacity clips but you can drive 4 hours away and get a clip in Reno Nevada. Having a ban on all high capacity clips as a nation makes sense for limiting gun violence. Also clip manufactures aren't required to have a serial number so there is no way of knowing where they came from.

    For me its not just about banning assault style weapons from the public but those clips that make them even more effective which are used in handguns as well which make up the majority of gun related crime.

    As for tracking guns I think thats a no brainer and I would add armor piercing ammo as well. Private sales should be illegal since quite a few criminals get guns through that method as well.

    http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/hi...nt?oid=3436991
    Last edited by Pacerlive; 01-18-2013 at 04:31 PM.

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    40,370
    vCash
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by ShockerArt View Post
    I don't really see why people would be opposed to this proposal. It's a fairly moderate proposal that doesn't contain extreme ideas. I would actually expect that there are a lot of pro-gun control advocates that would like to see much more done than what the President is proposing.

    I'm a fairly moderate person, politically speaking. I used to be more conservative, but I would say that I'm slightly left of middle now. I still hold onto some of the core conservative ideals involving smaller government and personal freedoms. I guess my idea as to what those mean has changed. The gun control issue illustrates my feelings pretty well. I don't really see how trying to eliminate high-capacity magazines and assault weapons is some radical means to taking away our rights and creating a tyranny. Allowing the CDC to perform studies into gun violence also seems like an innocuous move that could only yield positive results. I fail to see how having more information is a bad thing?

    I honestly feel like so much of this backlash against gun control is rooted in the politically-charged divisive atmosphere in this country. I cannot believe how many people subscribe to the selfish and, at times, insane rhetoric coming from the NRA and other politically motivated sources.
    The way I see it is that if you know anything about history radical changes don't happen overnight.... Just go back and look at all the laws they pushed through using 9/11 as a driving force to pass desired legislature. It is the same thing here....

    It is all about control. You can't tell me that our government is trying to pass gun control laws because they care about our lives.... Because they are perfectly fine with millions of people dying in events involving alcohol.

  7. #82
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Castle Grayskull
    Posts
    2,119
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by steelcityroller View Post
    The way I see it is that if you know anything about history radical changes don't happen overnight.... Just go back and look at all the laws they pushed through using 9/11 as a driving force to pass desired legislature. It is the same thing here....

    It is all about control. You can't tell me that our government is trying to pass gun control laws because they care about our lives.... Because they are perfectly fine with millions of people dying in events involving alcohol.
    My point was that this proposal is being portrayed as being way more radical than it actually is. The only logical reason I could see for opposing it is that it could be argued that this will be a costly undertaking for a somewhat vague and minimal effort.

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,958
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by steelcityroller View Post
    The way I see it is that if you know anything about history radical changes don't happen overnight.... Just go back and look at all the laws they pushed through using 9/11 as a driving force to pass desired legislature. It is the same thing here....

    It is all about control. You can't tell me that our government is trying to pass gun control laws because they care about our lives.... Because they are perfectly fine with millions of people dying in events involving alcohol.
    It's about control over what? You say it's not about care for lives, your reasoning is a little misguided... but ignoring that what is the motive? What do they get to control because joe-bob can only have 7 bullets in his gun at a time?

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    7,707
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    It's about control over what? You say it's not about care for lives, your reasoning is a little misguided... but ignoring that what is the motive? What do they get to control because joe-bob can only have 7 bullets in his gun at a time?
    I think part of the issue is that its seen as an opening chip at the Second Amendment by those on the right. That the changes proposed now while being fairly minor are just the first step. That once its proven that this step doesn't work then all of the sudden it will be time to start pushing for more and more. Now I am not 100% certain that that is the end game for those on the left but its the worry from those opposing it now.
    French writer Alexis de Tocqueville warned about when visiting this fledgling democracy in the early 19th century that this "American republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,618
    vCash
    1500
    1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.

    2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.

    3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.

    4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.

    5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.

    6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.

    7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.

    8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.

    9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.

    10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.

    11. Nominate an ATF director.
    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.

    12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.

    13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.

    14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.

    15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies
    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.

    16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.

    17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.

    18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.

    19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.

    20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.

    21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.

    22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.

    23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.

    I'm sorry but this made-up stuff about the Obama EO's being a threat to the 2nd Amendment is just that...made-up.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,958
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by hoosiercubsfan View Post
    I think part of the issue is that its seen as an opening chip at the Second Amendment by those on the right. That the changes proposed now while being fairly minor are just the first step. That once its proven that this step doesn't work then all of the sudden it will be time to start pushing for more and more. Now I am not 100% certain that that is the end game for those on the left but its the worry from those opposing it now.
    This is still not an answer to the question I asked.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    7,707
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    This is still not an answer to the question I asked.
    As I said its the initial chip in the armor. Kind of like if you have kids if you give an inch they will wind up taking a mile type of situation. Whether Cletus has 6 bullets or 7 is pretty irrelevant. Either way its not going to do anything to reduce gun crime in America. Even if you went around and collected every clip/gun that held more than 7 rounds gun crime would remain the same. Once that is seen as being a failure what is next? Do they throw their hands in the air and proclaim that's the best that can be done? Or do they move for further restrictions? Or do they move for more drastic reforms? As far as the rest of your questions seemed like you aimed those at steelcity. Not interested in getting into that debate lol. This is simply my opinion on the reason your getting such an intense backlash against the gun rights groups.
    French writer Alexis de Tocqueville warned about when visiting this fledgling democracy in the early 19th century that this "American republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    32,376
    vCash
    1490
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.


    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.


    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.


    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.


    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.


    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.


    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.


    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.


    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.


    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.


    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.


    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.


    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.


    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.


    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.


    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.


    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.


    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.


    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.


    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.


    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.


    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.


    Not a threat to the 2nd Amendment.

    I'm sorry but this made-up stuff about the Obama EO's being a threat to the 2nd Amendment is just that...made-up.

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,958
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by hoosiercubsfan View Post
    As I said its the initial chip in the armor. Kind of like if you have kids if you give an inch they will wind up taking a mile type of situation. Whether Cletus has 6 bullets or 7 is pretty irrelevant. Either way its not going to do anything to reduce gun crime in America. Even if you went around and collected every clip/gun that held more than 7 rounds gun crime would remain the same. Once that is seen as being a failure what is next? Do they throw their hands in the air and proclaim that's the best that can be done? Or do they move for further restrictions? Or do they move for more drastic reforms? As far as the rest of your questions seemed like you aimed those at steelcity. Not interested in getting into that debate lol. This is simply my opinion on the reason your getting such an intense backlash against the gun rights groups.
    They deserve the backlash. an organization can't use "enforce the gun laws already on the books" as their talking point meanwhile castrating the agency that would do just that and expect people to take that organization seriously.

    Not to mention this fantasy of a tyrannical government is also nutty.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,266
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by hoosiercubsfan View Post
    As I said its the initial chip in the armor. Kind of like if you have kids if you give an inch they will wind up taking a mile type of situation. Whether Cletus has 6 bullets or 7 is pretty irrelevant. Either way its not going to do anything to reduce gun crime in America. Even if you went around and collected every clip/gun that held more than 7 rounds gun crime would remain the same. Once that is seen as being a failure what is next? Do they throw their hands in the air and proclaim that's the best that can be done? Or do they move for further restrictions? Or do they move for more drastic reforms? As far as the rest of your questions seemed like you aimed those at steelcity. Not interested in getting into that debate lol. This is simply my opinion on the reason your getting such an intense backlash against the gun rights groups.
    The underlying problem with this part of the discussion, is, it is based on one part of what was recommended and saying it does not do everything. It will reduce some part of gun crime. Getting a better handle on the secondary market will reduce some part of gun crime. Having a more efficient ATF will reduce some part of gun crime. None of which, infringes on anyone's 2nd amendment rights.
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •