Gunowner quiz on Obama

[soberups]

I'm not sure what your saying here....you want to arm college dormitories while they play "beer funnel drinking games" between studies.....????

A teacher or an adult student carrying concealed with a permit could have put a stop to the killing, but the law that was supposed to keep them safe actually guranteed that the murderer was the only one with a gun.

I would be willing to bet you that his last few victims would have given anything to have the means to defend themselves.

The waiting period didnt save them. One-gun-a-month didnt save them. The "gun free zone" signs all over campus didnt save them...and obeying the law sure as hell didnt save them either.

Those 32 people arent dead because of "gaps in record keeping." The killer planned his attack for weeks or even months in advance. He was a criminal who had no intention of obeying the law, and every intention of committing mass murder. The only way to stop someone like that is to shoot them before they shoot you.

 

[trplnkl]

"joesix pack", LOL Diesel! Isnt this the truth.

Its amazing how fear works. The poster who spelled out all the circumstances involved if OBAMA was to appoint new supreme court justices is the prime example of fear.

Possibly fear based on Obama's record. Anyone that does not take into account O's stance on gun control and other issues not concerning taxes and the economy are missing something much larger than a few extra bucks on their paycheck.

The time involved in appointing a new member of the high court, then waiting for a case to make it into the high court calendar could take decades.

Using Nancy Pelosi as a scapegoat in congress to say that the democratic majority will pass ANY legislation that would ban guns nationally (despite state laws) is rediculous at best.

You wouldn't have to wait for a case to make it to the SC, the law would be in the works before the new judge was appointed and it would only take one judge replacement to swing the vote.

Democrats in the house and senate still have to face re-election when there terms are up, so taking away your precious guns isnt something that looks good on their resume during a campaign. They are NOT that stupid.
Oh yeah they are. Every anti-gun law that has been passed was introduced by a democrat.


Democrats have guns, not only republicans. Although, there are those in politics that would have you believe otherwise.
As a party platform, gun control is pretty high on the list of " things to do".

As for the 2nd amendment, I dont want to open that can of worms, we will just have to agree on disagreeing on this one.
Really not much to disagree on, well unless you think it's a good idea to ignore what the 2nd amendment says and let SC justices make laws from the bench.

4 justices share my view and 5 share the other side of the argument. No sense on us fighting over it.
Just one judge replacement from a swing as stated earlier.

This is still a political hot potatoe in the election arena. Only when the majority of americans change their minds on gun ownership will politicians brave the waters and move to take away guns.
Don't kid yourself and don't try to kid me, if elected even you will be surprised just what Obama is capable of.

Other than that, give this one a rest, you will never see OBAMA move in any direction to take guns away from you. There's a second term to deal with in 4 years.
He's not elected yet.

 

[trplnkl]

Thats not such a silly gun law......Plan ahead for hunting season, buy your arsenal in advance. Same with Target and Clay Pigeon competitions or your just want a gun for home protectection. There are 32 young people dead due to "gaps" in record keeping you say. More like NRA lobbying for more personal privacy be withheld on behalf of gun mfg's. Thats unacceptable this day and age.
It's pretty hard to plan ahead for an unexpected "good deal" that comes up. Ever notice how many gun sales come up the weekend just before dove season opens? No, I suppose you have.



I'm not sure what your saying here....you want to arm college dormitories while they play "beer funnel drinking games" between studies.....????

The nut job was going to kill as many people as he could, period. Even if the back ground check had kept him for obtaining the weapons he could have found a way to get illegal guns elsewhere or if that failed he could have made bombs to get the job done. You can get detailed instructions on the internet on how to build bombs from everyday materials anyone can buy at the grocery store. The one and only thing you can really blame the VTech killings on it the man himself.

"beer funnel drinking games" between studies.....???? maybe they should take away all vehicles too, drunk students kill people with their cars as well. I'm thinking maybe they should keep the beer out of the dorms.
Blaming guns for the atrocities that people commit just makes no sense at all.

 

[tieguy]

The shooting rampage by a student on the campus at Virginia Tech ring a bell. Wasn't he diagnosed with mental illness that was never forwarded to a nat'l background check data base. He woke up one morning, went to a gun shop in Roanoke,slapped down a credit card and bought a Glock 19 handgun and some ammo for $500 and walk out. The rest is history.

Look, you can already legally posses a gun , and then go out and commit and be convicted of a violent crime or a mental illness, when you get out of the clink, you should not be able to purchase a gun legally or have to wait ten years or whatever the state has declared. You lose that right, isn't that a right wing talking point, take responsibility for your own actions?

Last time I looked I believe the VA tech shooter did take responsibility for his actions.

 

[outamyway]

The nut job was going to kill as many people as he could, period. Even if the back ground check had kept him for obtaining the weapons he could have found a way to get illegal guns elsewhere or if that failed he could have made bombs to get the job done. You can get detailed instructions on the internet on how to build bombs from everyday materials anyone can buy at the grocery store. The one and only thing you can really blame the VTech killings on it the man himself.

"beer funnel drinking games" between studies.....???? maybe they should take away all vehicles too, drunk students kill people with their cars as well. I'm thinking maybe they should keep the beer out of the dorms.
Blaming guns for the atrocities that people commit just makes no sense at all.

I know I'm gonna get flamed for this but here it goes:

What scares me about the Cho incident is there were no reports of anyone fighting back, only that some tried to stop him by barricading themselves INSIDE class rooms with no other escape. According to reports he fired 197 rounds. He must have had to stop shooting multiple times in order to reload. I can't believe that many people(men and women, not kids) would not take any opportunity to try and save themselves or others, given the chance.

Maybe there were a couple that did try, and didn't get to him fast enough. But I just keep seeing these people sitting at their desks while Cho walked by pulling the trigger or I see them cowering in the corner ready to take what's about to be given. Reports said there were 203 rounds left on him after he committed suicide, which means he could have kept going.

He had to take his own life for others to be saved. That scares me.

 

[toonertoo]

A teacher or an adult student carrying concealed with a permit could have put a stop to the killing, but the law that was supposed to keep them safe actually guranteed that the murderer was the only one with a gun.

I would be willing to bet you that his last few victims would have given anything to have the means to defend themselves.

The waiting period didnt save them. One-gun-a-month didnt save them. The "gun free zone" signs all over campus didnt save them...and obeying the law sure as hell didnt save them either.

Those 32 people arent dead because of "gaps in record keeping." The killer planned his attack for weeks or even months in advance. He was a criminal who had no intention of obeying the law, and every intention of committing mass murder. The only way to stop someone like that is to shoot them before they shoot you.

This has been discussed before, but bears repeating. One armed custodian, principal, or regular guy or gal, could have cut these losses with one good shot. Where better to go with a gun and a heart full of rage, than a gun free zone.

 

[soberups]

I know I'm gonna get flamed for this but here it goes:

What scares me about the Cho incident is there were no reports of anyone fighting back, only that some tried to stop him by barricading themselves INSIDE class rooms with no other escape. According to reports he fired 197 rounds. He must have had to stop shooting multiple times in order to reload. I can't believe that many people(men and women, not kids) would not take any opportunity to try and save themselves or others, given the chance....

Unfortunately, the liberal mindset we are bombarded with is that we should submit to violence. We should disarm ourselves. We are not capable or competent enough to do something so bold as to take responsibilty for our own safety, we should instead meekly wait for the police to come and save us. God forbid that any of us mere civilians should ever protect ourselves with one of those icky guns....Nancy Pelosi would get her granny panties in a knot over something like that. We just need to give up our guns....for the children.

 

[soberups]

"... By calling attention to a well-regulated militia for the security of the Nation, and the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fear of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the 2nd amendment, will ever be a major danger to our Nation, the amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic military-civilian relationship, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the 2nd Amendment will always be important." - John friend. Kennedy

 

[diesel96]

OOh great, bunch of hero wannabes 'protecting' our children. I picture a Angolina Jolee teenybopper smacking her gum eating three bullets and some guy putting two more in his foot as he tries to live out his Dirty Harry fantasy. Oh yeah, we are NRA conservatives, we can handle life or death situations even though we have no clue what it's like. But we watch a lot of violence on TV so that qualifies us. Lets put guns in our childrens hand..Brillant!

trplnkl



"beer funnel drinking games" between studies.....???? maybe they should take away all vehicles too, drunk students kill people with their cars as well. I'm thinking maybe they should keep the beer out of the dorms.
Blaming guns for the atrocities that people commit just makes no sense at all.

Guns and extreme college aged drinking binges, great combo with guns.

 

[trplnkl]

Guns and extreme college aged drinking binges, great combo with guns.

That's not what I said and your bleeding heart just will not let you see it. My point is to remove the "extreme college aged drinking binges" from the college campuses. I guess you're one of those parents that provides the beer for your high school kid's beer bashes and thinks it safer because they are home and supervised. What a hero you are.
The next time some nut decides to destroy the lives of masses of kids on a college campus the would be victims can throw empty beer cans at him.

The NRA promotes gun safety and training for any individual that owns a gun. I would no more just hand over a gun to anyone(no mater their age) without making sure they knew what they were doing with it.

 

[Jagger]

If the lawmakers' will was for the American people to have a clear unambiguous right to keep and bear arms, why did they make an Amendment with two parts that didn't coincide, knowing full well that there was a well established common law rule of construction, which dictated, that in such a case, the means (the right of the people) should be sacrificed to the end (a well regulated militia)?

 

[diesel96]

That's not what I said and your bleeding heart just will not let you see it. My point is to remove the "extreme college aged drinking binges" from the college campuses. I guess you're one of those parents that provides the beer for your high school kid's beer bashes and thinks it safer because they are home and supervised. What a hero you are.
The next time some nut decides to destroy the lives of masses of kids on a college campus the would be victims can throw empty beer cans at him.

The NRA promotes gun safety and training for any individual that owns a gun. I would no more just hand over a gun to anyone(no mater their age) without making sure they knew what they were doing with it.

And you think your going to stop college age kids from drinking? What planet are you from?
Your not one of those FLDS Texas polygomus sect parent who feel the need of 24hr supervision is God's plan of keeping your women and children in line.
Now that we traded insults maybe we can have a civilized discussion.
What makes you the authority to hand over a gun to some wild eyed testosterone filled college boy in the same class as my kid.
How about beefed up better organized security for starters, this is not the old west amigo.

It's pretty hard to plan ahead for an unexpected "good deal" that comes up. Ever notice how many gun sales come up the weekend just before dove season opens? No, I suppose you have.

Great move Sherlock, let's have a few sacrificial lambs in the form of a mother buring her child so you can benefit from a gun sale.

 

[soberups]

What makes you the authority to hand over a gun to some wild eyed testosterone filled college boy in the same class as my kid.
How about beefed up better organized security for starters, this is not the old west amigo.

Standard pacifist liberal dogma. The sheeple-oops I mean people---cant be trusted with guns. Hand someone a gun and they instantly turn into a wild eyed testosterone filled lunatic. Only the government and the police can be trusted with guns, only the government and police can protect us.

You are right about it not being the old west. In the old west, a man could arm and defend himself. Here today in the "new west"...we cower in fear and helplessness, so that a few pillow-biting gun haters can draw 1000 foot "gun free zone" lines on maps and wallow in their warm and fuzzy feeling of safety.

 

[soberups]

Great move Sherlock, let's have a few sacrificial lambs in the form of a mother buring her child so you can benefit from a gun sale.

I know a mother who recently buried her son. He wrapped his motorcycle around a telephone pole at 100 MPH. Lets ban those high-powered motorcycles, they arent necessary for transportation. No one needs to be able to go more than 45 or 50 MPH on one anyway. They are big and scary, and lots of big scary men ride them so we need to ban them. Ban them for the children.

 

[The Other Side]

I know a mother who recently buried her son. He wrapped his motorcycle around a telephone pole at 100 MPH. Lets ban those high-powered motorcycles, they arent necessary for transportation. No one needs to be able to go more than 45 or 50 MPH on one anyway. They are big and scary, and lots of big scary men ride them so we need to ban them. Ban them for the children.

Why not ban the ignorant instead? Where is it safe to ride a motorcycle on a public street over 100 mph in the first place? Before we ban a product, we need to ban the ignorant from obtaining one.

Unfortunately, the ability to buy a motocycle or any other deadly weapon isnt prohibited by a persons IQ.

 

[soberups]

If the lawmakers' will was for the American people to have a clear unambiguous right to keep and bear arms, why did they make an Amendment with two parts that didn't coincide, knowing full well that there was a well established common law rule of construction, which dictated, that in such a case, the means (the right of the people) should be sacrificed to the end (a well regulated militia)?

Because the founding fathers distrusted standing armies, they wanted the final authority and security of the nation to rest in the hands of the armed citizen.

Back then, when danger threatened it was the responsibility of every free man to arm himself and join the local militia. The armed citizen was seen by the founding fathers as a vital part of the system of checks and balances, and the last line of defense against a tyrannical government.

That is why we Americans are "citizens" of a nation and not "subjects" of the Crown of England.

The 2nd amendment is in the Bill of Rights because it gurantees the security of all the others. Without the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution is just a piece of paper.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms"
-Thomas Jefferson-

"The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peacable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
-Samuel Adams, at Massachusetts US Constitution ratification convention, 1788-

 

[Catatonic]

I did not match on any but I am a Libertarian, so if you had been asking same questions about cars, baseball bats or cans of green beans, I would have answered the same.
The questions were obviously selected and positioned along the lines of constitutional rights of the individual.
Neither the Democrats or the Republicans have a very good record in this area.

 

[diesel96]

Standard pacifist liberal dogma. The sheeple-oops I mean people---cant be trusted with guns. Hand someone a gun and they instantly turn into a wild eyed testosterone filled lunatic. Only the government and the police can be trusted with guns, only the government and police can protect us.

You are right about it not being the old west. In the old west, a man could arm and defend himself. Here today in the "new west"...we cower in fear and helplessness, so that a few pillow-biting gun haters can draw 1000 foot "gun free zone" lines on maps and wallow in their warm and fuzzy feeling of safety.

I love how you paint a picture of only a "man's man" carrys guns. And those opposed to gun ownership to any unchecked, unstable Tom, Dick or Harry is a pillow-biting liberal wimp. How quickly you forget the origin of this debate is not banning gun ownership, it's maintaining a cooling off period and prohibiting gun sales to felons and the mentally unstable. Remember your talking to a fellow gun(s) owner who only wants checks and balances on legal distribution on products that's main purpose is to kill.

I know a mother who recently buried her son. He wrapped his motorcycle around a telephone pole at 100 MPH. Lets ban those high-powered motorcycles, they arent necessary for transportation. No one needs to be able to go more than 45 or 50 MPH on one anyway. They are big and scary, and lots of big scary men ride them so we need to ban them. Ban them for the children.

The sole purpose of these machines are not to kill. Many countries use motorcyles as a way of life. It takes personal responsibility to ride one of these as to not get killed. Those who choose to ride accept the consequences of wrapping themselves around a telephone pole. Those who are not properly license and not recieved training can not ride legally. Same theory applies to gun ownership, except people leave their motorcycles in the parking lot, not the classroom.

Because the founding fathers distrusted standing armies, they wanted the final authority and security of the nation to rest in the hands of the armed citizen.

Back then, when danger threatened it was the responsibility of every free man to arm himself and join the local militia. The armed citizen was seen by the founding fathers as a vital part of the system of checks and balances, and the last line of defense against a tyrannical government.

That is why we Americans are "citizens" of a nation and not "subjects" of the Crown of England.

The 2nd amendment is in the Bill of Rights because it gurantees the security of all the others. Without the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution is just a piece of paper.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms"
-Thomas Jefferson-

"The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peacable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
-Samuel Adams, at Massachusetts US Constitution ratification convention, 1788-

Again, your not getting that argument from me....Just don't support any degenerate allowed to plop down a credit card, go thru a half background check and walk out a few minutes later armed to the tee like Rambo.

 

[soberups]

.....

 

[trplnkl]

And you think your going to stop college age kids from drinking? What planet are you from?
I'm from the real world and I never suggested we could stop all college age kids from drinking, what I suggested was to remove the beer drinking from the campus which should not be all that difficult to do. We are talking about a pretty defined, closed area. Maybe some of that beefed up security would help.
Your not one of those FLDS Texas polygomus sect parent who feel the need of 24hr supervision is God's plan of keeping your women and children in line.
That's so weak, not ever worthy of a reply.
Now that we traded insults maybe we can have a civilized discussion.
What makes you the authority to hand over a gun to some wild eyed testosterone filled college boy in the same class as my kid.
I never said I would hand over a gun to a wild eyed testosterone filled kid. I would make certain that the kid in question was well trained and a responsible individual, THEN I would consider it. Then the "kid" would have the possible opportunity to stop the nut job before he slaughters you kid. IF that happened you would be calling him a hero and not a wild eyed.....
How about beefed up better organized security for starters, this is not the old west amigo.
How about it? I'm all for beefed up, better security. How much of that security do you suppose it would have taken to stop the VTech nut case? I wonder how many armed KKs were in the area of where the VTech killings too place? How many would it have taken?

[/color][/color]

Great move Sherlock, let's have a few sacrificial lambs in the form of a mother buring her child so you can benefit from a gun sale.

Oh no Genius , don't worry about anyone else's rights as long as you can feel safe that the "Guns Banned" signs will stop nut jobs from wreaking havoc. Oh wait, that's right, it has already been proven time and time again, the signs don't protect anyone except the very people we need protecting from.
We should not be disarming responsible, knowledgeable citizens.