Obama urges tighter background checks on gun buyers

[knapplc]

So... because people are killed in transportation accidents, we should allow Joe on the Street to carry assault weapons?

We're really proposing this as a viable argument in favor of guns? SMH

 

[sd'sker]

If you're dead-set against gun ownership, I suggest that you organize a grass-roots campaign to get an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibits the ownership of guns. It's that simple. Then every gun in the U.S. will magically disappear. Kinda like liquor and beer did between 1920 and 1933.

The fact is that the argument over gun control is pretty much settled. We should be working on automobile control - 7,630 people died in vehicle crashes in the first quarter of this year - a 13% increase over the same period in 2011. Outlaw cars? The Constitution doesn't include owning them as a right.

http://www.cnn.com/2...ties/index.html

when did i ever say i was against gun ownership?

also, as far as the cars argument? first, it is ridiculous. second, you really like telling people what they should be more concerned about as a way of diversion. third, it is funny that you bring up cars and the framers not guaranteeing our right to own cars, drive cars, drive on interstates. i mean, that is just another example of those silly framers lacking any foresight to try and legislate concepts they could never fathom (you know, like cars, an air force, or high capacity automatic weapons).

(i know i said i was out of this conversation, and i really wanted to be, but just like the framers could never imagine such dangerous weapons and our complex, contemporary society, i could not have imagined how ridiculous this would get after my unceremonious exit).

 

[HeyBurke]

If you're dead-set against gun ownership, I suggest that you organize a grass-roots campaign to get an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibits the ownership of guns. It's that simple. Then every gun in the U.S. will magically disappear. Kinda like liquor and beer did between 1920 and 1933.

The fact is that the argument over gun control is pretty much settled. We should be working on automobile control - 7,630 people died in vehicle crashes in the first quarter of this year - a 13% increase over the same period in 2011. Outlaw cars? The Constitution doesn't include owning them as a right.

http://www.cnn.com/2...ties/index.html

Cars aren't specifically designed with killing people in mind. Guns, on the other hand, are, Mr. Strawman.

Gun ownership is guaranteed by the Constitution. Car ownership, on the other hand, is not. And dying by accident in a head-on collision with a drunk driver is probably no more acceptable to the victim than dying as a result of a drive-by shooting.

What does gun ownership have to do with car ownership? Nada. Zilch. Zero. Nothing. You know you can't back up your arguments with fact and reason so you have to bring strawmen into it to make yourself feel better.

 

[bennychico11]

More people are killed by guns than baseball bats.

Ergo, we should outlaw guns!

 

[rawhide]

Alcohol and tobacco kill more people than cars and guns and baseball bats and idiots.

 

[Yossarian]

If you're dead-set against gun ownership, I suggest that you organize a grass-roots campaign to get an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibits the ownership of guns. It's that simple. Then every gun in the U.S. will magically disappear. Kinda like liquor and beer did between 1920 and 1933.

The fact is that the argument over gun control is pretty much settled. We should be working on automobile control - 7,630 people died in vehicle crashes in the first quarter of this year - a 13% increase over the same period in 2011. Outlaw cars? The Constitution doesn't include owning them as a right.

http://www.cnn.com/2...ties/index.html

Cars aren't specifically designed with killing people in mind. Guns, on the other hand, are, Mr. Strawman.

Gun ownership is guaranteed by the Constitution. Car ownership, on the other hand, is not. And dying by accident in a head-on collision with a drunk driver is probably no more acceptable to the victim than dying as a result of a drive-by shooting.

What does gun ownership have to do with car ownership? Nada. Zilch. Zero. Nothing. You know you can't back up your arguments with fact and reason so you have to bring strawmen into it to make yourself feel better.

I'll try to explain it so even you get it. If you're so anxious to ban things that kill people, why not first start with the big killers - I used cars as an example, but the fact is that tobacco and alcohol also kill people. The problem with most leftists' arguments against gun ownership is that danged old, outdated Constitution. It guarantees that we can own guns. It does not guarantee that we can use drugs (to include alcohol), tobacco, or cars. So, which do the left-wingers go after - the one guaranteed by the Constitution. Then they somehow pretend that they, and not I, argue with facts and reason.

And I don't have to bring strawmen in to make me feel better. The Constitution makes me feel just fine. It's the leftists who get their panties in a wad when someone uses a gun to kill. Why do they do that, when by all accounts the fight over gun control is over. Because it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy for taking a stand.

 

[HSKR]

I've stated it before and I know I am in the minority on the subject but I've never understood why people think we need the right to bear arms at least in the context of the kind of arms one can get their hands on these days. You really think a semi automatic with a 100 round magazine is going to help you overthrow a tyrannical government when they have tanks, drones and F-22's? I heard some jackball on the radio today trying to explain how he needs a gun like an AR-15 to shoot coyotes. If you really think you need guns like that to hunt, you are either a terrible hunter or just lazy. You want a rifle or shotgun to hunt? I'm fine with that. You want a handgun that shoots 6 or 10 rounds for personal protection? Fine with that as well. But to have guns that are designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible (thus the name assault) and say they are for personal protection or for hunting or hell even target practice, sorry I just don't buy it. Hopefully someday our country evolves out the stone age with this issue.

Last I checked the people we are fighting in Afghanistan dont have trillions worth of weapons etc, and they will be a burr in our a$$ until we pull out of there.

So the only guns they are using are ones that are legal here? Ummm, no.

http://icasualties.org/oef/

Look at the numbers of casualties by IED's. I guess you want those legal here too then? Bad analogy. I'll stand by my previous statement.

 

[HeyBurke]

If you're dead-set against gun ownership, I suggest that you organize a grass-roots campaign to get an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibits the ownership of guns. It's that simple. Then every gun in the U.S. will magically disappear. Kinda like liquor and beer did between 1920 and 1933.

The fact is that the argument over gun control is pretty much settled. We should be working on automobile control - 7,630 people died in vehicle crashes in the first quarter of this year - a 13% increase over the same period in 2011. Outlaw cars? The Constitution doesn't include owning them as a right.

http://www.cnn.com/2...ties/index.html

Cars aren't specifically designed with killing people in mind. Guns, on the other hand, are, Mr. Strawman.

Gun ownership is guaranteed by the Constitution. Car ownership, on the other hand, is not. And dying by accident in a head-on collision with a drunk driver is probably no more acceptable to the victim than dying as a result of a drive-by shooting.

What does gun ownership have to do with car ownership? Nada. Zilch. Zero. Nothing. You know you can't back up your arguments with fact and reason so you have to bring strawmen into it to make yourself feel better.

I'll try to explain it so even you get it. If you're so anxious to ban things that kill people, why not first start with the big killers - I used cars as an example, but the fact is that tobacco and alcohol also kill people. The problem with most leftists' arguments against gun ownership is that danged old, outdated Constitution. It guarantees that we can own guns. It does not guarantee that we can use drugs (to include alcohol), tobacco, or cars. So, which do the left-wingers go after - the one guaranteed by the Constitution. Then they somehow pretend that they, and not I, argue with facts and reason.

And I don't have to bring strawmen in to make me feel better. The Constitution makes me feel just fine. It's the leftists who get their panties in a wad when someone uses a gun to kill. Why do they do that, when by all accounts the fight over gun control is over. Because it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy for taking a stand.

You do realize that the Constitution was written in a way that we could amend it in the future, correct? Thomas Jefferson even said that the amendments should expire after 19 years. Don't try and lecture me over the Constitution. I took an oath to protect that document with my life when I joined the Marine Corps. I took the time to educate myself over it. It's nutty right wingers like you who need some perspective.

 

[sd'sker]

yossarian's long and rich tradition of telling us how to prioritize our concerns, what we should be concerned about, and that if it is not (according to him) the biggest related issue, it is not worth discussion.

I'll try to explain it so even you get it. If you're so anxious to ban things that kill people, why not first start with the big killers- I used cars as an example, but the fact is that tobacco and alcohol also kill people. The problem with most leftists' arguments against gun ownership is that danged old, outdated Constitution. It guarantees that we can own guns. It does not guarantee that we can use drugs (to include alcohol), tobacco, or cars. So, which do the left-wingers go after - the one guaranteed by the Constitution. Then they somehow pretend that they, and not I, argue with facts and reason.

Some of you leftists spend a lot of time predicting what the "knuckle draggers" are going to do when you should worry about what the free-loaders, racists, and anarchists do if 1) George Zimmerman goes free 2) President Obama is voted out of office 3) Obamacare is not fully enacted 4) work requirements for welfare is reinstated, and 5) Fast and Furious reveals that both the President and AG are guilty of covering up the extent of the scandal. I would say there will likely be rioting, but we have already seen that from OWS. And the NBPP won't be happy until Zimmerman is strung up. When the freeloaders, racists, and anarchists erupt, they won't care if you're a leftist or not.

All I am saying is that with the the U.S. education system has bigger problems than insensitivity and closed-mindedness. Of course, bashing Texans is always great fun, so carry on.

also, his problem with the "leftists'" argument regarding guns makes not sense whatsoever.

 

[sd'sker]

leftists have gone after all of those. nader called out the entire industry. not to mention cars serve a necessary purpose for our economy and daily lives, and as such safety features are continuing to evolve. tobacco use is becoming more and more limited, where it can only hurt the person who is old enough to smoke and chooses to do so. alcohol had been regulated to the point where almost any amount consumed will prohibit your right to drive. still, not sure what your point was or if you actually believe the constitution should never be ratified and we should continue living under all the pretenses of the 18th century society.

 

[sd'sker]

Antonin Scalia: There Are 'Undoubtedly' Limits To A Person's Right To Carry Guns (VIDEO)

Scalia pointed out Sunday that that the Second Amendment "obviously" doesn't apply to weapons that can't be hand-carried, and modern-day weapons like "hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes" weren't factored in at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

​

“My starting point and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time,” he said. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne. So we’ll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.”

​

 

[Yossarian]

still, not sure what your point was or if you actually believe the constitution should never be ratified and we should continue living under all the pretenses of the 18th century society.

Bad news for you...the Constitution was ratified. Or were you so excited that you meant to type the word "amended"? I'm the guy who suggested you gun control advocates start a campaign to amend the Constitution to ban owning arms.

 

[Yossarian]

You do realize that the Constitution was written in a way that we could amend it in the future, correct? Thomas Jefferson even said that the amendments should expire after 19 years. Don't try and lecture me over the Constitution. I took an oath to protect that document with my life when I joined the Marine Corps. I took the time to educate myself over it. It's nutty right wingers like you who need some perspective.

Don't play the "veteran card" on me. I spent a few years in uniform too. Plus, I believe you guys should work on amending the Constitution - make it illegal to own any gun. Get back to me on that...

 

[Yossarian]

Antonin Scalia: There Are 'Undoubtedly' Limits To A Person's Right To Carry Guns (VIDEO)

Scalia pointed out Sunday that that the Second Amendment "obviously" doesn't apply to weapons that can't be hand-carried, and modern-day weapons like "hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes" weren't factored in at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

​

“My starting point and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time,” he said. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne. So we’ll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.”

​

I saw that this morning too - I thought that was a good interview. I doubt if you're buying his book...right? The key word is "bear."

 

[HeyBurke]

You do realize that the Constitution was written in a way that we could amend it in the future, correct? Thomas Jefferson even said that the amendments should expire after 19 years. Don't try and lecture me over the Constitution. I took an oath to protect that document with my life when I joined the Marine Corps. I took the time to educate myself over it. It's nutty right wingers like you who need some perspective.

Don't play the "veteran card" on me. I spent a few years in uniform too. Plus, I believe you guys should work on amending the Constitution - make it illegal to own any gun. Get back to me on that...

I'm not 'pulling the veteran card'. I'm simply stating why I have so much passion about this issue. People like you are exactly what's wrong with this country. So complacent and so stuck in the past, that any proposed change is nails on the chalkboard to you. It really disgusts me that you and your ilk get away with that. The fact that you're a veteran makes it even worse.