Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Obama 'backs assault weapons ban'

assault weapons ban barack obama

  • Please log in to reply
439 replies to this topic

#301    Beckys_Mom

Beckys_Mom

    Sarcastic Muppet..!

  • Member
  • 51,196 posts
  • Joined:01 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ireland

  • "I hate pretentious people. I mean, what is the point in applying exorbitantly extensive vocabulary, it is just straightforwardly unnecessary".

Posted 13 January 2013 - 02:15 AM

View PostStellar, on 13 January 2013 - 01:19 AM, said:

So once again, are you saying there's no point in controlling who has a gun?

Excellent question..

Posted ImageRAW Berris... Dare you enter?

If there's a heaven...I hope to hell I get there !

#302    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 13,970 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 13 January 2013 - 02:34 AM

View PostStellar, on 12 January 2013 - 10:58 PM, said:

And you're saying that therefore controlling who has guns is unnecessary?



They are more likely because guns are so easily accessible.
The only way to accomplish what most in the gun control crowd want is to have all the guns turned in or otherwise confiscated.  It just isn't going to happen - ever.  There are other, reasonable actions that can be taken - and should be taken.  But that will never solve the problem totally and it will also never satisfy the GC crowd.  We live in a grossly violent culture and guns are a part of that.  Measure to make the problem better need to include the media and movies first and foremost but I doubt seriously that this will happen because they are buddies of the crowd that want to remove the guns.  All I can say is that if honest dialogue and REAL change on fundamental levels is the goal then I'm all in and I think most gun owners will support reasonable solutions.  But if it is truly about a gun grab?  Bring the pain and we'll all just share it.  THIS ONE they will have to bleed for.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...

#303    Hawkin

Hawkin

    LiverEatenJohnson

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,724 posts
  • Joined:21 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • Some say he is dead.
    Some say he will never be.

Posted 13 January 2013 - 03:12 AM

View PostStellar, on 13 January 2013 - 01:45 AM, said:

Care to answer my question any time soon? Or is your sole purpose in this thread to derail the topic with references to abortion?

I'm using abortion just for a basis of comparison and making a point like B_M was with toothpaste and shampoo.
What I was attempting to tell you earlier is that a weapon is useless, unless a human hand is on the trigger and
a human brain to think to carry out the crime. If someone is hell bent on committing a violent crime they will carry
out the task with or without a gun. Ted Kaczynski (the unibomber) and Timothy McVeigh proved that by inflicted
mass casualties making bombs out of household items. But nobody was screaming to ban fertilizer, wire, pipes,
nuts and bolts to keep people from building bombs. But if guns were used, then there would be an outcry for
a ban. It's a Double Standard. Instead of people thinking for themselves, they allow the media to influence their minds.

It's good to have some skepticism so you won't be gullible & naïve. But to much skepticism
can make you narrow minded to all possibilities no matter how unconventional.

#304    aztek

aztek

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,111 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2006

Posted 13 January 2013 - 05:30 AM

View PostBeckys_Mom, on 13 January 2013 - 02:15 AM, said:

Excellent question..
and i'll answer.

no, there is no point to try to control who has a gun. absolutely waste of time.

you physically can not control who has a gun, plain and simple. crooks buy guns on black market,  how are you thinking controlling their guns.???

you can't, so you and others from "safe country" think you need to take my guns away, cuz if i don't have them crooks wont have where to get them, or steel from, this is absolute fallacy. it is proven all over the world, in countries where guns are banned criminals still have them. they can not be stealing them from legal owners, there aren't any. there is no way for straw buys to occur, how do they get them????

RESIDENT TROLL.

#305    Hawkin

Hawkin

    LiverEatenJohnson

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,724 posts
  • Joined:21 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • Some say he is dead.
    Some say he will never be.

Posted 13 January 2013 - 06:06 AM

View Postaztek, on 13 January 2013 - 05:30 AM, said:

and i'll answer.

no, there is no point to try to control who has a gun. absolutely waste of time.

you physically can not control who has a gun, plain and simple. crooks buy guns on black market,  how are you thinking controlling their guns.???

you can't, so you and others from "safe country" think you need to take my guns away, cuz if i don't have them crooks wont have where to get them, or steel from, this is absolute fallacy. it is proven all over the world, in countries where guns are banned criminals still have them. they can not be stealing them from legal owners, there aren't any. there is no way for straw buys to occur, how do they get them????

Agreed aztek. During the Prohibition Years between 1920-1933 when alcohol was prohibited to the public it went underground
and Organized Crime (Al Capone) bootlegged it and setup Speakeasies and people went to these establishments to drink.
A lot of people even died and went blind drinking alcohol made with rusty radiators. Eventually FDR dissolved the law.
My point to those that don't understand is that if they have a Prohibition on Guns, the same will happen as it did with alcohol.
And most likely Organized Crime will have the black market on guns (making big money) as it did with alcohol.

It's good to have some skepticism so you won't be gullible & naïve. But to much skepticism
can make you narrow minded to all possibilities no matter how unconventional.

#306    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,919 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 January 2013 - 06:20 AM

View PostMag357, on 13 January 2013 - 06:06 AM, said:

Agreed aztek. During the Prohibition Years between 1920-1933 when alcohol was prohibited to the public it went underground
and Organized Crime (Al Capone) bootlegged it and setup Speakeasies and people went to these establishments to drink.
A lot of people even died and went blind drinking alcohol made with rusty radiators. Eventually FDR dissolved the law.
My point to those that don't understand is that if they have a Prohibition on Guns, the same will happen as it did with alcohol.
And most likely Organized Crime will have the black market on guns (making big money) as it did with alcohol.
Law enforcement can't even keep guns from the criminals, who in many cases are already prohibited from having guns.  The FAILure is undeniable.  The prohibitionists are betting that maybe if we keep doing more of the same, and extend their rose colored expectations that they can keep guns out of the hands of every undesirable if they can only include the entire population of the country, then they'll have success!    They want less guns, less gun crime, a more vulnerable population and more violent crime.   I wonder if some of these people are so gung ho about assaulting our 2nd Amendment because of their politics and wanting to stick it to their fake stereotype of the typical gun owner they read about on their liberal blogsite.

"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#307    Hawkin

Hawkin

    LiverEatenJohnson

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,724 posts
  • Joined:21 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • Some say he is dead.
    Some say he will never be.

Posted 13 January 2013 - 06:44 AM

View PostYamato, on 13 January 2013 - 06:20 AM, said:

Law enforcement can't even keep guns from the criminals, who in many cases are already prohibited from having guns.  The FAILure is undeniable.  The prohibitionists are betting that maybe if we keep doing more of the same, and extend their rose colored expectations that they can keep guns out of the hands of every undesirable if they can only include the entire population of the country, then they'll have success! They want less guns, less gun crime, a more vulnerable population and more violent crime.   I wonder if some of these people are so gung ho about assaulting our 2nd Amendment because of their politics and wanting to stick it to their fake stereotype of the typical gun owner they read about on their liberal blogsite.

Exactly. The prohibitionist ideology is something like this...To remove a cancer off someones arm is to amputate the entire arm instead of surgically removing the cancer.

It's good to have some skepticism so you won't be gullible & naïve. But to much skepticism
can make you narrow minded to all possibilities no matter how unconventional.

#308    aztek

aztek

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,111 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2006

Posted 13 January 2013 - 07:06 AM

might as well try yo control rotation of the earth, you'll be just as successful.

RESIDENT TROLL.

#309    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,868 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 13 January 2013 - 03:18 PM

View Postaztek, on 13 January 2013 - 01:51 AM, said:



so you have no answer,   just as i tough.
oh, btw, this is INTERNET, grow some skin. if you can't take that, no wonder you scared sh,,less of guns and ppl that want to keep them.

:rolleyes:  do you enjoy arguing with yourself and claiming you won? I have all the answers I need, I personally don't care if you feel you've won any sort of argument. If you want my answers you can answer my questions first. Otherwise, I don't really care.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#310    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 13 January 2013 - 03:33 PM

Quote

:rolleyes:  do you enjoy arguing with yourself and claiming you won? I have all the answers I need, I personally don't care if you feel you've won any sort of argument. If you want my answers you can answer my questions first. Otherwise, I don't really care.

Actually its a dead issue that will result in dead people if persued.


#311    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,868 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 13 January 2013 - 03:41 PM

View PostMag357, on 13 January 2013 - 03:12 AM, said:



I'm using abortion just for a basis of comparison and making a point like B_M was with toothpaste and shampoo.
What I was attempting to tell you earlier is that a weapon is useless, unless a human hand is on the trigger and
a human brain to think to carry out the crime. If someone is hell bent on committing a violent crime they will carry
out the task with or without a gun. Ted Kaczynski (the unibomber) and Timothy McVeigh proved that by inflicted
mass casualties making bombs out of household items. But nobody was screaming to ban fertilizer, wire, pipes,
nuts and bolts to keep people from building bombs. But if guns were used, then there would be an outcry for
a ban. It's a Double Standard. Instead of people thinking for themselves, they allow the media to influence their minds.

So are you saying we shouldn't control access to guns?

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#312    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,868 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 13 January 2013 - 03:44 PM

View Postaztek, on 13 January 2013 - 05:30 AM, said:


and i'll answer.

no, there is no point to try to control who has a gun. absolutely waste of time.

you physically can not control who has a gun, plain and simple. crooks buy guns on black market,  how are you thinking controlling their guns.???

you can't, so you and others from "safe country" think you need to take my guns away, cuz if i don't have them crooks wont have where to get them, or steel from, this is absolute fallacy. it is proven all over the world, in countries where guns are banned criminals still have them. they can not be stealing them from legal owners, there aren't any. there is no way for straw buys to occur, how do they get them????

Finally an answer. So then by your argument, we should remove background checks and just allow anyone, criminal or psychopath, walk into wal mart and walk out with a gun?

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#313    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 13 January 2013 - 03:55 PM

Under the original process of delinquent behavior and the 2nd Amendment a criminal was given there gun back after they served there time. The right to bear arms could only be removed by a special judicial process that and ultimately was determined on a case by case basis. I dont beieve the insane have ever been allowed to own and use firearms. But I could be wrong though on that. I believe a couple states still have this law although the feds trumped it.


#314    Hawkin

Hawkin

    LiverEatenJohnson

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,724 posts
  • Joined:21 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • Some say he is dead.
    Some say he will never be.

Posted 13 January 2013 - 04:57 PM

View PostStellar, on 13 January 2013 - 03:41 PM, said:

So are you saying we shouldn't control access to guns?

Here's your answer.

http://lumosity.com

It's good to have some skepticism so you won't be gullible & naïve. But to much skepticism
can make you narrow minded to all possibilities no matter how unconventional.

#315    aztek

aztek

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,111 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2006

Posted 13 January 2013 - 07:01 PM

View PostStellar, on 13 January 2013 - 03:44 PM, said:

Finally an answer. So then by your argument, we should remove background checks and just allow anyone, criminal or psychopath, walk into wal mart and walk out with a gun?
that is not my argument, that is your imagination again., we already have background checks in place, there is no argument as to remove them, i personally question their effectives, since crooks don't get their checks run on black markets, and it is their guns you want to control, not mine, i did pass background checks, and my guns are registered,  and i do have enough trainig, at least  enough for range masters to sign of on my range card. but for the sake of shutting up clueless anti gunners, i would leave background checks in place.

Edited by aztek, 13 January 2013 - 07:04 PM.

RESIDENT TROLL.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users