Why restrict 'good' gun owners, resident asks President Obama at town hall

[MickeyW]

Great quote. I'm just not sure it means what you think it means because we don't have 'tyranny of the majority' in this country thanks to our fore fathers insight to put constitutional limits and separation of powers on the legislative body subject to review by the judiciary....not to mention term limits and a whole slew of other mechanisms to prevent tyranny.

But if I was talking about tyranny it would the tyranny of a minority controlling and poisoning the national dialogue on the subject of gun rights and regulations to the point that the majority has no rights and is no longer safe from getting massacred in their own country and the government is paralyzed from doing anything about it because of the tyranny of the minority.

Poppycock. The only people poisoning any dialogue are the Liars on the Left! The dialogue is wholly misdirected to the gun, when it's the mental health system and the criminals that need controlling.

To wit: The Boston Globe for Thursday with their poison photo and poison words!

I sent out the alert tonight and have 32 people who have agreed to shop gun stores or online guns stores in the morning in DIRECT protest of the Boston Globe.
They in turn are talking to many others, and so on.......

 

[MickeyW]

Why was it hysterical? Do you oppose our civil rights?

Yes moot....do you?

 

[MickeyW]

I asked why YOU think it's hysterical. Why would you ridicule someone, anyone, who is sticking up for our civil rights?

Apparently so.........

Moot's history on this board is hostility to gun rights mainly because she sees most gun owners as conservatives. so the answer is-based on my review of her past history-is an undoubted yes

Must be.........

In general, liberals are all for The Constitution, until it no longer suits their agenda.

I've been saying that for decades.

If he and the Dems consistently proposed such strict gun controls (bg checks, waiting periods, etc)....its probably because after each massacre, more and more people are demanding for their leaders to do more about the gun violence than just a moment of silence and a prayer and hope all will be forgotten. But a small group of wealthy and powerful people have poisoned the well of civil and national dialogue on gun regulation and influenced policy makers to ignore the pleas of the people, But I think the vast majority of people have finally reached a breaking point and are going to start demanding that government do their constitutional duty to protect all the people's rights instead of just the rights of the wealthy few and corporate interests capitalizing the ignorance and fear of a minority to divide the country with.

Well moot, you got that all ass backwards!

well 42 years of dealing with ACLU has proven to me that they tend not to care about rights normally exercised by conservatives-like assembly and the second amendment

Sad state of affairs.

de Tocqueville wrote about exactly what you're suggesting 180 years ago -

History repeats itself.

What part of "you'd have to watch the video to understand" did you not understand?

Why do you continue to dodge the question with a question. I watched the video, obama is a lying POS as always. Nothing hysterical about it.

So please ANSWER the Question put to you!!!!!

 

[MickeyW]

1:14: He says that him, Hillary, Democrats are not hell bent on taking folks guns away is not true. That is a lie. Hillary is on record as saying that Scalia got it wrong in the Heller decision. If he had voted against instead of for that would have kept individuals in DC from owning handguns that were made after 1975, and rifles were required to be either disassembled or have a trigger lock on with the bullets placed in a different room than the gun. Diane Feinstein is on record for saying "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban picking up everyone of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in I would have done it." She is still a Senator and still pushes to take guns away from law abiding people.

1:24: Isn't a lie but it is a truth told in a way to disassemble and to hide his true intentions. The reason that more guns have been sold during his Presidency is due to the very fact that he pushed for the AR-15 to be banned. One of the most common types of guns owned in America. The ONLY reason that he did not sign any legislation that banned "assault style weapons" like he wanted was due to the very real fact that such legislation never made it to his desk. Those laws were killed due to the legislative process denying it. Laws that he pushed for, not tried to stop.

1:39: Another disassembling answer. He may not have outright stated that he wants to confiscate any guns, but he does want to ban most "assault style weapons" from being owned. Only reason people would still be able to own them is due to the Grandfather clause...assuming such a clause was put into any law that banned such guns. If it wasn't then yes, people would be required to turn them in, IE: gun confiscation. And if it was put in then when the owners died those guns would have to be turned in as no new permits would be issued for such guns. In other words a back door confiscation.

3:09: Congress will not allow CDC to study gun control. What he doesn't tell you is that according to the CDC, a study that they did at the request of Obama mind you, it is better to allow citizens to own guns. It is also useless to study "gun" violence for the simple fact that guns do not cause violence. PEOPLE do. So what needs to be studied isn't guns, but the reasons that PEOPLE commit crimes, and how to better help those that are mentally disturbed. Studying "gun violence" is nothing more than a red herring.

3:48: Background checks: How did a background check stop any of the last 5 major news worthy mass shootings? Background checks are worthless. Now of course he's talking about UBC's and not just BC's. UBC's is not within the Federal Governments purview. They are not allowed to regulate intrastate commerce, only interstate commerce.

4:23: NRA is responsible for not allowing him to deny guns to people on the No Fly List. Wrong. The Constitution does not allow him to ban people that are on the No Fly List from owning guns. Not the NRA. Amendments 5-7. Read em. Study them and the history of them and the history of why they were proposed and accepted into the Constitution.

4:38: Being a sympathizer with ones enemies is not enough of a reason to deny them their Rights. If that were the case then the Federal Government could take the guns away from every single person that has said a good word about Putin or any other group/person that doesn't hold the US in high esteem.

You for President! :applaud:applaud

That's a lot of time, patience and work Kal'Stang and I have to admit, I'm too lazy to indulge moot's fancy and gross errors. However, you did a superb job.

 

[iguanaman]

He starts out saying that he never proposed confiscating guns and while that's true it also ignores the issue. He and Hillary and a number of others have consistently and constantly proposed rules which restrict lawful individuals ability to obtain the firearms of their choice. He has, in fact, expressed appreciation for the laws of other nations which HAVE confiscated firearms. He also goes on to talk about the watch list stuff and outright suggests that the 5th Amendment is hindering him from doing what he wants to do.

I would suggest that if ANY elected official believes that it's in the best interests of the nation or of their office to circumvent, obviate or negate one of the most fundamental rights we have in this nation then they are also willing to circumvent, obviate or negate any of the other rights. As we see in the Senate today, the Democrats are a threat to the Constitution and to the people of this nation.

Yes it would have been just horrible if the Orlando shooter couldn't just walk in and buy that AR-15. It would better to sell that gun to a 100 terrorists just like him than deprive even one average Joe the pleasure of adding yet another gun to his collection. Gun collecting is the backbone of our nation, without it there is just Football.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Great quote. I'm just not sure it means what you think it means because we don't have 'tyranny of the majority' in this country thanks to our fore fathers insight to put constitutional limits and separation of powers on the legislative body subject to review by the judiciary....not to mention term limits and a whole slew of other mechanisms to prevent tyranny.

But if I was talking about tyranny it would the tyranny of a minority controlling and poisoning the national dialogue on the subject of gun rights and regulations to the point that the majority has no rights and is no longer safe from getting massacred in their own country and the government is paralyzed from doing anything about it because of the tyranny of the minority.

What Rights are taken from you by me owning a gun? Sounds to me like the same stupid argument that the Right pushed to try and deny homosexual's their rights to marry. It was invalid then, its invalid now.

 

[Dragonfly]

I think he's right.

Yep.

And the responses you got to this are 100% spot on exactly what Obama talks about.
Even the notion of having just a discussion is viewed as :
"they're comin' to take our gunz".

It's sadly pathetic.

We can put somebody on a no-fly list and that's fine, but don't you DARE restrict them from buying any kind of gun they want.

 

[Moot]

1:14: He says that him, Hillary, Democrats are not hell bent on taking folks guns away is not true. That is a lie. Hillary is on record as saying that Scalia got it wrong in the Heller decision. ..... Diane Feinstein is on record for saying ....

Heller ruled that banning handguns was unconstitutional....but it didn't rule that gun regulations were. Feinstein is an extremist...every party has a few. For the right wing it's the NRA.

Nothing in your comments proves that Obama is a liar or wants to take folks guns away.

1:24: Isn't a lie but it is a truth told in a way to disassemble and to hide his true intentions. The reason that more guns have been sold during his Presidency is due to the very fact that he pushed for the AR-15 to be banned. One of the most common types of guns owned in America.....

If AR-15s are common it's because after every massacre the pro gun-righters rush out to buy guns just like the ones that the killers used. Since massacres are getting common it stands to reason that assault style weapons would be too.

Nothing in your comments proves that Obama lied or wants to take folks guns away.

1:39: Another disassembling answer. He may not have outright stated that he wants to confiscate any guns, but he does want to ban most "assault style weapons" from being owned. Only reason people would still be able to own them is due to the Grandfather clause...assuming such a clause was put into any law that banned such guns. If it wasn't then yes, people would be required to turn them in, IE: gun confiscation. ...

Do you live in a war zone...most people in this country don't. I really don't care if assault weapons are banned or not...but I think they should be regulated if they aren't.

You're not a mind reader, so if Obama didn't outright say he wants to confiscate guns....then he didn't say it.

3:09: Congress will not allow CDC to study gun control. What he doesn't tell you is that according to the CDC, a study that they did at the request of Obama mind you, it is better to allow citizens to own guns. It is also useless to study "gun" violence for the simple fact that guns do not cause violence. ....Studying "gun violence" is nothing more than a red herring.

That's not true. What someone didn't tell you is that the CDC didn't do a study. So you were lied to...but it wasn't by Obama. Four Surgeon Generals disagree with you that a study on gun violence is useless. It wasn't useless when they did studies on car accident fatalities.

President Obama ordered the CDC to get back to studying the causes of gun violence. But the agency didn't move because of the 1996 budget language that has been reauthorized every year by Congress.....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...l-call-on-cdc-to-resume-gun-violence-studies/​

Nothing in your comments prove Obama is a liar or wants to take folks guns away.

3:48: Background checks: How did a background check stop any of the last 5 major news worthy mass shootings? Background checks are worthless. Now of course he's talking about UBC's and not just BC's. UBC's is not within the Federal Governments purview. They are not allowed to regulate intrastate commerce, only interstate commerce.

Last weeks mass killer probably could've been stopped if the FBI had been notified that a suspect removed off the terrorist watch list was trying to buy a gun. So if you think back ground checks are worthless...then you're probably in the minority...even among gun owners.

Nothing in your comments proves that Obama is a liar or wants to take folks guns away.

4:23: NRA is responsible for not allowing him to deny guns to people on the No Fly List. Wrong. The Constitution does not allow him to ban people that are on the No Fly List from owning guns. Not the NRA. Amendments 5-7. Read em. Study them and the history of them and the history of why they were proposed and accepted into the Constitution.

That's not true. The NRA is directly responsible for allowing terrorists wannabes on No Fly Lists to buy guns.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/u...ress-grow-with-chief-lobbyists-role.html?_r=0

Why does NRA allow guns for terrorists? (Opinion) - CNN.com

Nothing in your comments proves that Obama lied or tried to take anyone guns away....except the terrorists.

4:38: Being a sympathizer with ones enemies is not enough of a reason to deny them their Rights. If that were the case then the Federal Government could take the guns away from every single person that has said a good word about Putin or any other group/person that doesn't hold the US in high esteem.

Oh boy, another slippery slope fallacy....weeeeeeeee.

 

[Moot]

Spot On!



Nothing you have to share, is funny! More like pathetic.

Why do we need to defend ourselves from this crap in the first place.

Who are you to suggest that we need to? Who are you to make up your own rules?

Right and I bet you think your **** doesn't stink, too.

Why do you need to be on this thread in the second place?

Well, who do I have to be to make my own rules on my own thread? Who are you to say I can't?

 

[Moot]

Yep.

And the responses you got to this are 100% spot on exactly what Obama talks about.
Even the notion of having just a discussion is viewed as :
"they're comin' to take our gunz".

It's sadly pathetic.

We can put somebody on a no-fly list and that's fine, but don't you DARE restrict them from buying any kind of gun they want.

Exactly. A wannabe terrorist is too dangerous to fly on an airplane, but not too dangerous to buy as many guns and explosives as he wants. It's enough to make your head spin.

 

[MickeyW]

Yes it would have been just horrible if the Orlando shooter couldn't just walk in and buy that AR-15. It would better to sell that gun to a 100 terrorists just like him than deprive even one average Joe the pleasure of adding yet another gun to his collection. Gun collecting is the backbone of our nation, without it there is just Football.

Personally, I like auto racing....Indy cars, SCCA and F1

As for Mateen....he was legal to buy. Who's fault is that? Not the NRA, not the gun's, not people who own ARs, and as far as the No Fly List....that's bull**** unless they reorganize the entire program.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Heller ruled that banning handguns was unconstitutional....but it didn't rule that gun regulations were. Feinstein is an extremist...every party has a few. For the right wing it's the NRA.

Nothing in your comments proves that Obama is a liar or wants to take folks guns away.

You skipped the part where Hillary is on record as stating that Scalia was wrong in his ruling. You're right that it didn't rule that gun regulations were unconstitutional. In fact it said that current regulations such as background checks and gun free zones were constitutional. So if Hillary believes in regulations, and believes that Scalia made the wrong ruling...what does that tell you? Answer: That she believes guns should be banned from civilian use. And yeah, Feinstein is an extremist. An extremist that is still on the Senate and has been for decades. Why would she continue to be voted into her office if there were not people that agreed with her stance?

If AR-15s are common it's because after every massacre the pro gun-righters rush out to buy guns just like the ones that the killers used. Since massacres are getting common it stands to reason that assault style weapons would be too.

Nothing in your comments proves that Obama lied or wants to take folks guns away.

You're forgetting the part where after each massacre Obama has pushed for more and more gun regulation, including banning "assault style weapons". It was his push of gun bans that caused those people to go out and buy more guns.

And fyi: AR-15's were common before Obama even reached office.

...but I think they should be regulated if they aren't.

They are regulated. Just as much as any other gun is regulated.

You're not a mind reader, so if Obama didn't outright say he wants to confiscate guns....then he didn't say it.

Don't need to be a mind reader to see the writing on the wall.

That's not true. What someone didn't tell you is that the CDC didn't do a study. So you were lied to...but it wasn't by Obama. Four Surgeon Generals disagree with you that a study on gun violence is useless. It wasn't useless when they did studies on car accident fatalities.

Nothing in your comments prove Obama is a liar or wants to take folks guns away.

CDC Study: Use of Firearms for Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’

You were saying? Note where it states that Obama commissioned this study as part of 23 executive orders signed in January 2013.

Last weeks mass killer probably could've been stopped if the FBI had been notified that a suspect removed off the terrorist watch list was trying to buy a gun. So if you think back ground checks are worthless...then you're probably in the minority...even among gun owners.

Nothing in your comments proves that Obama is a liar or wants to take folks guns away.

If he was removed off the watch list why would the FBI have been warned that he was trying to buy guns? If he was removed off the watch list how would denying people on that watch list guns have stopped him from buying guns? And I'll note here that you ignored the Constitutional Amendments that prevent peoples Rights from being taken away without due process.

That's not true. The NRA is directly responsible for allowing terrorists wannabes on No Fly Lists to buy guns.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/u...ress-grow-with-chief-lobbyists-role.html?_r=0

Why does NRA allow guns for terrorists? (Opinion) - CNN.com

Nothing in your comments proves that Obama lied or tried to take anyone guns away....except the terrorists.

The NRA sticks up for our Constitutional Rights to bear arms. You can blame the NRA all that you want. But in the end all that they are doing is preventing the government from violating the Constitution. Surely even you would agree that we should not be violating the Constitution? And banning people that have not even been charged with a crime, much less convicted of any crime, from exercising a Right held by The People and written into the Constitution is most certainly a violation of the Constitution and our Rights. And not everyone on that watch list are even remotely terrorists. 80 year old grandmothers and babies (literally) have been shown to be on that list.

Oh boy, another slippery slope fallacy....weeeeeeeee.

Where did I say that it would happen? You need to learn the difference between a slippery slope and an example.

 

[MickeyW]

Yep.

And the responses you got to this are 100% spot on exactly what Obama talks about.
Even the notion of having just a discussion is viewed as :
"they're comin' to take our gunz".

It's sadly pathetic.

We can put somebody on a no-fly list and that's fine, but don't you DARE restrict them from buying any kind of gun they want.

It's sadly true liberals are coming to take our guns, they talk about it often...just baby steps than bigger and bigger steps, and Kal'Stang is spot on! The pathetic thing is those liberals who are suckers for obama's lies and double talk.....and he does it everyday.

Heller ruled that banning handguns was unconstitutional....but it didn't rule that gun regulations were. Feinstein is an extremist...every party has a few. For the right wing it's the NRA.

Nothing in your comments proves that Obama is a liar or wants to take folks guns away.



If AR-15s are common it's because after every massacre the pro gun-righters rush out to buy guns just like the ones that the killers used. Since massacres are getting common it stands to reason that assault style weapons would be too.

Nothing in your comments proves that Obama lied or wants to take folks guns away.



Do you live in a war zone...most people in this country don't. I really don't care if assault weapons are banned or not...but I think they should be regulated if they aren't.

You're not a mind reader, so if Obama didn't outright say he wants to confiscate guns....then he didn't say it.



That's not true. What someone didn't tell you is that the CDC didn't do a study. So you were lied to...but it wasn't by Obama. Four Surgeon Generals disagree with you that a study on gun violence is useless. It wasn't useless when they did studies on car accident fatalities.

President Obama ordered the CDC to get back to studying the causes of gun violence. But the agency didn't move because of the 1996 budget language that has been reauthorized every year by Congress.....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...l-call-on-cdc-to-resume-gun-violence-studies/​

Nothing in your comments prove Obama is a liar or wants to take folks guns away.



Last weeks mass killer probably could've been stopped if the FBI had been notified that a suspect removed off the terrorist watch list was trying to buy a gun. So if you think back ground checks are worthless...then you're probably in the minority...even among gun owners.

Nothing in your comments proves that Obama is a liar or wants to take folks guns away.



That's not true. The NRA is directly responsible for allowing terrorists wannabes on No Fly Lists to buy guns.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/u...ress-grow-with-chief-lobbyists-role.html?_r=0

Why does NRA allow guns for terrorists? (Opinion) - CNN.com

Nothing in your comments proves that Obama lied or tried to take anyone guns away....except the terrorists.



Oh boy, another slippery slope fallacy....weeeeeeeee.

Nothing extreme about the NRA....they just talk common sense and liberals can't process that. God knows why.

No the NRA is not responsible for letting people on no fly lists to buy guns, when the Feds take someone off that list....that law is being underlined by the NRA and they are only highlighting that law. Nothing more.

Highlighted above...........Do you realize how idiotic that sounds???? If they were removed from the list, then their rights are restored! The End! Sheeeesh moot!!!

If you want to bitch about something....go rag on the Feds...not on the NRA or gun owners!

 

[Kal'Stang]

That's not true. What someone didn't tell you is that the CDC didn't do a study. So you were lied to...but it wasn't by Obama. Four Surgeon Generals disagree with you that a study on gun violence is useless. It wasn't useless when they did studies on car accident fatalities.

To expand on this since I couldn't in my last post due to character limit. I don't care what 4 people that are anti-gun stated. Fact of the matter is that guns do not cause violence. If you want to reduce gun violence then study the reasons for crime. Guns do not go out and commit violence by themselves. It takes people to commit violence. I'm no expert and yet even I know that the best way to reduce overall crime, including gun violence, is based on several factors...none of which involve focusing on guns. Education, poverty, reasons for recidivism among criminals are all reasons that we have crime and gun violence, reducing/improving all of those would reduce crime over all if done correctly and it would reduce it drastically. Studying how to improve our mental health programs and implementing them would also reduce gun violence even further.

 

[MickeyW]

Exactly. A wannabe terrorist is too dangerous to fly on an airplane, but not too dangerous to buy as many guns and explosives as he wants. It's enough to make your head spin.

Your entire post is a ................LIE!

Please don't head spin any longer moot..............Stop with your hysteria!

 

[iguanaman]

To expand on this since I couldn't in my last post due to character limit. I don't care what 4 people that are anti-gun stated. Fact of the matter is that guns do not cause violence. If you want to reduce gun violence then study the reasons for crime. Guns do not go out and commit violence by themselves. It takes people to commit violence. I'm no expert and yet even I know that the best way to reduce overall crime, including gun violence, is based on several factors...none of which involve focusing on guns. Education, poverty, reasons for recidivism among criminals are all reasons that we have crime and gun violence, reducing/improving all of those would reduce crime over all if done correctly and it would reduce it drastically. Studying how to improve our mental health programs and implementing them would also reduce gun violence even further.

The problem is that there is no other legal way that madman could have killed 49 people so quickly. Bombs are illegal and difficult to obtain here. Guns may not cause violence but they certainly facilitate it. Denying that is not helpful.

 

[Ntharotep]

Yep.

And the responses you got to this are 100% spot on exactly what Obama talks about.
Even the notion of having just a discussion is viewed as :
"they're comin' to take our gunz".

It's sadly pathetic.

We can put somebody on a no-fly list and that's fine, but don't you DARE restrict them from buying any kind of gun they want.

No U.S. citizen should lose a single Constitution-granted right without being prosecuted in a court of law.
Its really a no brainer.

 

[jonny5]

Please have the civility and decency to hear the man out before responding, dismissing, calling him names, twisting his words, etc. If you think he's lying about something in the video ...quote him or show the time number and say why you think he's lying. Backing up your claim with links to credible sources without asking would be much appreciated.

When asked why he wants to restrict gun access for all owners, rather than just bad actors, President Barack Obama said, "It's just not true. ...There have been more guns sold since I've been president than just about any time in U.S. history."

He spoke at a town hall in Elkhart, Indiana, on June 1, 2016, hosted by PBS NewsHour co-anchor Gwen Ifill.​

I think he's right.

Because hes been stopped from passing more restrictive laws. The question was why he WANTS to restrict ownership for "good" guys and he didnt really answer. He basically said 'because ISIS sympthizers want one". Fine, so block people charged with terrorism crimes from buying guns. Not sure why we need to ban certain guns altogether and make law abiding citizens jump through hoops. Especially when most violent gun crime is not caused by terrorist sympathizers, but regular citizens. Is he going to put every thug in Chicago on the no fly list?

 

[Ntharotep]

The problem is that there is no other legal way that madman could have killed 49 people so quickly. Bombs are illegal and difficult to obtain here. Guns may not cause violence but they certainly facilitate it. Denying that is not helpful.

You'd be surprised.
The gun was probably the easiest way (I haven't read enough to see how he obtained the gun) but explosives can be made a lot more simply than some people realize.

 

[iguanaman]

You'd be surprised.
The gun was probably the easiest way (I haven't read enough to see how he obtained the gun) but explosives can be made a lot more simply than some people realize.

LOl That is why we have so many bombing incidents here. Not.

 

[jonny5]

Exactly. A wannabe terrorist is too dangerous to fly on an airplane, but not too dangerous to buy as many guns and explosives as he wants. It's enough to make your head spin.

Fine, lets change it to

"Theyre comin for our right to due process

Gunz are the least of our worries, since anyone can buy one with out a background check from a private non-ffl seller. The fact that the govt can secretly prevent you from getting on a plane is a much bigger problem.

 

[jet57]

Please have the civility and decency to hear the man out before responding, dismissing, calling him names, twisting his words, etc. If you think he's lying about something in the video ...quote him or show the time number and say why you think he's lying. Backing up your claim with links to credible sources without asking would be much appreciated.

When asked why he wants to restrict gun access for all owners, rather than just bad actors, President Barack Obama said, "It's just not true. ...There have been more guns sold since I've been president than just about any time in U.S. history."

He spoke at a town hall in Elkhart, Indiana, on June 1, 2016, hosted by PBS NewsHour co-anchor Gwen Ifill.​

I think he's right.

Very very good OP; nice catch. The questioner posed every argument that the pro gun side uses and every one of those arguments was shot right down through reasonable logic and proof of point.

The gun radical comeuppance is rolling through the door right now.

 

[VanceMack]

If he and the Dems consistently proposed such strict gun controls (bg checks, waiting periods, etc)....its probably because after each massacre, more and more people are demanding for their leaders to do more about the gun violence than just a moment of silence and a prayer and hope all will be forgotten. But a small group of wealthy and powerful people have poisoned the well of civil and national dialogue on gun regulation and influenced policy makers to ignore the pleas of the people, But I think the vast majority of people have finally reached a breaking point and are going to start demanding that government do their constitutional duty to protect all the people's rights instead of just the rights of the wealthy few and corporate interests capitalizing the ignorance and fear of a minority to divide the country with.

Background checks were done in ALL of these mass shootings. No nonexistent "gun show loopholes" used. Waiting periods would have been COMPLETELY irrelevant and were in fact used in Florida. You know that to be true. So do they. Yet...EVERY TIME..."We need UNIVERSAL background checks. We have to close the gun show loopholes. We need waiting periods."

Meanwhile you continue to ignore the day to day violence and the perpetrators.

Its all agenda driven ideological bull****. And you know it.

 

[Kal'Stang]

The problem is that there is no other legal way that madman could have killed 49 people so quickly. Bombs are illegal and difficult to obtain here. Guns may not cause violence but they certainly facilitate it. Denying that is not helpful.

There is no legal way to kill people period.

And yeah, guns facilitate killing people. That is why they were invented after all. They put everyone on equal footing. But they are not in and of themselves responsible for gun violence. Do you deny that improving our education system, improving our poverty rate to where people aren't in poverty, reducing recidivism rate, and improving our mental health programs would all reduce crime over all, including gun violence, drastically? None of which requires a single new gun control law. In fact it could, and should, reduce gun control laws.

 

[jet57]

He starts out saying that he never proposed confiscating guns and while that's true it also ignores the issue. He and Hillary and a number of others have consistently and constantly proposed rules which restrict lawful individuals ability to obtain the firearms of their choice. He has, in fact, expressed appreciation for the laws of other nations which HAVE confiscated firearms. He also goes on to talk about the watch list stuff and outright suggests that the 5th Amendment is hindering him from doing what he wants to do.

I would suggest that if ANY elected official believes that it's in the best interests of the nation or of their office to circumvent, obviate or negate one of the most fundamental rights we have in this nation then they are also willing to circumvent, obviate or negate any of the other rights. As we see in the Senate today, the Democrats are a threat to the Constitution and to the people of this nation.

The issue is terrorism in the US. During WWII, law abiding American citizens were restricted in meant purchasing, flour and sugar purchasing, gasoline purchasing and were not allowed to turn on the their porch lights, or allow room light to show through a window. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.

Are we NOT at war with terrorism? Are we NOT at war with street crime?

How can you sit and just obstruct our abilities to short circuit our enemies in a time of need?