Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Kowalski

New Gun Law Push

246 posts in this topic

Days after mass shootings in both of his hometowns, President Barack Obama urged his most ardent supporters Saturday "to get back up and go back at it" and help push stalled legislation out of Congress so dangerous people won't get their hands on guns.

"We can't rest until all of our children can go to school or walk down the street free from the fear that they will be struck down by a stray bullet," Obama said in a keynote speech to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's annual awards dinner.

Legislation calling for expanded background checks failed to clear the Senate earlier this year despite a strong push by Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, people whose loved ones had been killed by gunfire and other gun-control advocates.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/22/obama-urges-new-gun-law-push-at-cbc-dinner/?intcmp=latestnews#ixzz2ff6ScOgH

​Here He goes with the, "It's for the children" line..... :no:

​And when he does that, I think of this....

​Link: http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

That's gun control in a nutshell.....

Oh, by the way.....

388241_10151262559887740_491056992_n.jpg

Hmmmm......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an example of the failure of representative democracy -- single interest voters, in this case those with some sort of emotional attachment to their guns -- can override the wishes of the majority by concentrating their vote and scaring the politicians (or even electing their members).

The average voter makes decisions based on many issues, the single-interest voter doesn't, and hence can run a given issue in spite of what most want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an example of the failure of representative democracy -- single interest voters, in this case those with some sort of emotional attachment to their guns -- can override the wishes of the majority by concentrating their vote and scaring the politicians (or even electing their members).

The average voter makes decisions based on many issues, the single-interest voter doesn't, and hence can run a given issue in spite of what most want.

There is a reason we have a second amendment. To protect ourselves from criminals, and a corrupt government.

I am not "emotionally attached" to my guns, but they are mine, and no one is taking them from me.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a reason we have a second amendment. To protect ourselves from criminals, and a corrupt government.

I am not "emotionally attached" to my guns, but they are mine, and no one is taking them from me.

The Second Amendment is an anachronism. Your second sentence belies your claim.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 months out from major Congressional elections - never gonna happen.

He's all bluster at this point.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 months out from major Congressional elections - never gonna happen.

He's all bluster at this point.

Sad but true. More people will die unnecessarily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we already have like 20000 gun laws on books, yea, few new once sire will work. NOT

i bet he wont even mention mental health , again

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad but true. More people will die unnecessarily.

tens of thousands die each year in dui accidents, don't see you complaining about that.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason you have a second amendment, is because a million years ago when the amendments were completed, you carried your gun around with you everywhere. Im pretty sure we are in the 21st century... well I am, i know some people are still suck in other generations. Shame really.

I beleive in most of the amendments, but I also think it holds americans back too.... Times change... times change.

Im lucky i wasnt brought up in such a psychotic... OH i mean patrioatic country.

Cheers.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tens of thousands die each year in dui accidents, don't see you complaining about that.

You ever hear of "Two wrongs don't make a right?"
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason you have a second amendment, is because a million years ago when the amendments were completed, you carried your gun around with you everywhere. Im pretty sure we are in the 21st century... well I am, i know some people are still suck in other generations. Shame really.

I beleive in most of the amendments, but I also think it holds americans back too.... Times change... times change.

Im lucky i wasnt brought up in such a psychotic... OH i mean patrioatic country.

Cheers.

My understanding is that Madison gave into pressure from southerners who wanted to be sure the Federal government did not disarm their state militias, which was the way the southern states had for suppressing slave revolts. He did not include it with the important rights of the First Amendment because he didn't think it as important.

So the reason for the amendment is long past. We also have to note that modern guns were not dreamed of back then, when it took several minutes to get off a second shot. If you want to take the amendment seriously you have to rule out modern guns from its scope and limit it to the old muskets. A second reason why the amendment is an anachronism. Of course the whole Constitution is by now an anachronism, as we see from the gridlock when President is one party and Congress or part of Congress is another. The Constitution provides no way of dealing with parties nor with this sort of gridlock, unlike most governments in the world that have Parliamentary systems.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an example of the failure of representative democracy -- single interest voters, in this case those with some sort of emotional attachment to their guns -- can override the wishes of the majority by concentrating their vote and scaring the politicians (or even electing their members).

The average voter makes decisions based on many issues, the single-interest voter doesn't, and hence can run a given issue in spite of what most want.

Frank do you have a poll to back up that statement? The anti-gun crowd IS very vocal...but there is a reason they haven't managed to get their way yet. And it isn't because they are a majority on the issue - that is counter-intuitive.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why talk about taste of pineapple if you never tasted it??

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frank do you have a poll to back up that statement? The anti-gun crowd IS very vocal...but there is a reason they haven't managed to get their way yet. And it isn't because they are a majority on the issue - that is counter-intuitive.

also antigunners wont to anything other than bi..tch and moan. and use tragedies to their advantage. pro gunners (nra) actually affect politics with our contributions, i,m not aware of any antigunner sending their own hard earned money to take someones guns away.

money talks, b.s. walks

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also antigunners wont to anything other than bi..tch and moan. and use tragedies to their advantage. pro gunners (nra) actually affect politics with our contributions, i,m not aware of any antigunner sending their own hard earned money to take someones guns away.

money talks, b.s. walks

.

Edited by The Id3al Experience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im lucky i wasnt brought up in such a psychotic... OH i mean patrioatic country.

Cheers.

you're so lucky, m8.

makes me wanna move to NZ now. lol NOT

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

don't be shy, tell us how you really feel. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that Madison gave into pressure from southerners who wanted to be sure the Federal government did not disarm their state militias, which was the way the southern states had for suppressing slave revolts. He did not include it with the important rights of the First Amendment because he didn't think it as important.

So the reason for the amendment is long past. We also have to note that modern guns were not dreamed of back then, when it took several minutes to get off a second shot. If you want to take the amendment seriously you have to rule out modern guns from its scope and limit it to the old muskets. A second reason why the amendment is an anachronism. Of course the whole Constitution is by now an anachronism, as we see from the gridlock when President is one party and Congress or part of Congress is another. The Constitution provides no way of dealing with parties nor with this sort of gridlock, unlike most governments in the world that have Parliamentary systems.

Your "understanding" is so off.

Maybe the second amendment was made because we just finished using our guns to get independent from the British....

and there is no such thing as a "unimportant" amendment :td:

Edited by spartan max2
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that Madison gave into pressure from southerners who wanted to be sure the Federal government did not disarm their state militias, which was the way the southern states had for suppressing slave revolts. He did not include it with the important rights of the First Amendment because he didn't think it as important.

So the reason for the amendment is long past. We also have to note that modern guns were not dreamed of back then, when it took several minutes to get off a second shot. If you want to take the amendment seriously you have to rule out modern guns from its scope and limit it to the old muskets. A second reason why the amendment is an anachronism. Of course the whole Constitution is by now an anachronism, as we see from the gridlock when President is one party and Congress or part of Congress is another. The Constitution provides no way of dealing with parties nor with this sort of gridlock, unlike most governments in the world that have Parliamentary systems.

You love that unequivocal slave argument. To take it seriously is to conclude it states the right to bear 'arms'. Not arms of the day. Not arms of a certain style. Just arms. Everyone likes to argue times change and I must agree. We bear our arms according to the times. Gridlock is what happens when people don't govern within the constitution. And it's not about pleasing the parties. It's about the parties pleasing US. It seems that you want someone to rule down with an iron fist, tell everybody to knock it off and make unchallengeable decisions. Here, the citizens are the only ones who can wail that fist. Do I really have to get into all of the reasons why I disagree with what you want for US?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're so lucky, m8.

makes me wanna move to NZ now. lol NOT

Wouldnt make a hasty move like that, we are a bunch of 'who cares' people, which also isnt the best. but hey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The picture in the first post says a lot. The government wants to maintain the illusion of freedom, which is why it tries to avoid gun control. At the same time, the government works closely with arms manufacturers which not only sell weapons to the public but, together with the defense industry, sells even more powerful armaments to the police and military. As an added bonus (for the government), the military and police costs, not to mention those for surveillance systems and one of the most extensive prison systems in the world, are passed on to the public.

Thus, the public gets its arms and a false sense of security, if not of freedom. The arms manufacturers profit from sales to the public and to the police and military. The government uses the increase in gun ownership, among others, as justification for boosting armaments to the police and even the military. In addition, it uses false flags to initiate conflict abroad, which not only justifies the large amounts spent on the military but also gives the defense industry the opportunity to profit by selling to the government's "enemies." The financial elite profits from investments in the arms industry, the defense industry, and in various businesses with counterparts in other countries after they are softened up by the military. Again, all military, police, and security costs are passed on to the public.

On top of that, what is actually more critical is ammo, and probably like food, water, fuel, and medicine, there is only a few weeks' worth of that in various towns and cities. That's because the economy operates on a just-in-time system, where trucks have to move 24/7 across thousands of miles to deliver goods, with inventories kept low and products moved quickly to keep prices down. Given any disruption of that system, police and military, outside caring for their immediate families, will likely secure supply areas to ensure goods are available for continued operations, especially given artillery, tanks and armored vehicles, ground-attack aircraft, anti-personnel bombs, and chemical weapons. As for citizens, they may turn on each other:

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/5-reasons-why-american-riots-will-be-the-worst-in-the-world_08102011

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole thingy, if it goes anywhere, will end up in something cosmetic like banning guns with a carrying handle, and that is about as useful as tits on a bull. What we need is a law that insures that guns stay out of the hands of half-wits, incompetent, brain damaged and criminals. But with all the political correctness (plus the help of the NRA) it will never happen.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nra has nothing against taking guns away from felons, and mentaly sick. drop this anti nra liecrusade, facts show you are fos again. otoh, keep lying, the way you do it, it actually helps nra.

Edited by aztek
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nra has nothing against taking guns away from felons, and mentaly sick. drop this anti nra liecrusade, facts show you are fos again. otoh, keep lying, the way you do it, it actually helps nra.

To know who has a brain damage and a gun first you need a registry of brain damaged and second a registry of who has a gun, now who is against the second?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we don't have braindead registry, but we do nave nibc fbi database, if nibc says you brain dead no one will sell you a gun. just like they say no to felons now, we don't need another registry that does same thing. now bigger question is who is against brain-dead registry?? not nra

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.