Obama urges tighter background checks on gun buyers

Yossarian said:
BIGREDIOWAN said:
Yossarian said:
Address the post and not the poster.
Click to expand...
I observed no personal attack thus far, you are baiting people into arguments just as much as they are alledgedly baiting you based on what you're trying to get across in your post above. The bat swings both ways here..................while the conversation is somewhat heated, it is NOT against board rules. It is a debate and with a debate during the debate someone might say "you said this" or "you meant this" a personal attack would be, "you are a moron and a waste of space." We are splitting hairs here...........

Now, back to the subject....................They can try and make guns harder and harder to get by making background checks more in-depth, but that'll only keep the guns out of the law abiding citizens hands. Criminals are still going to get guns, there is nothing they can do to stop that and the sooner they realize that the better. Also, I hear the argument all the time, "I support people having hunting rifles, but not assault rifles like AK-47's or AR-15's." Is there really a difference? I can kill someone with a hunting rifle just as easily as I can with a assault rifle. It works vise versa too................I'm sure I could kill a deer with a AR-15 just as easily as I could with a 30-30.
Click to expand...
Just following your guidance. I have been kinda' alert to personal attacks ever since that poster called me a liar. I considered that "personal."

Now, back to the subject....the argument is settled - the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting game. It's about arming people to kill other people.
Click to expand...
that is a wonderful point. now who are those armed people supposed to be killing? movie goers? sikhs at temple? the queen and her grand army? the amendment is rather anachronistic when considering the technology at hand.

gun control and regulations do have a lot to do with hunting game, so it seems salient and germane.

i would say it comes down to reasonableness. guns for personal protection and hunting seem reasonable. guns that are used in armed combat do not.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If the Aurora shooter had multiple weapons, it's a moot point.

I am more curious as to why the shooter didn't take on the police that responded. Probably because he doesn't like getting shot at and might possibly forfeit his oh so precious life.

So my argument is a CCW may have prevented some loss of life. Hint, hint I said may have prevented some loss of life.

The first time you hear a projectile whiz past your ear you either react in one of two ways; duck or honor the threat and fire in that direction. Maybe there are more ways to react than my simplistic theory/experience.

Many accepted "HUNTING" weapons also have detachable mags, granted usually only 4-6 rounds. But if you carried pockets full of said mags, who is the brave unarmed person that is going to rush you hoping you can't reload fast enough?? Without too much trouble, I can squeeze off 4 rounds from a bolt action pretty fast and still hit pretty much whatever I'm shooting at. It's going to be an off duty policeman, military person or someone of that ilk that would attempt disarming a shooter. Most everyone else is either on the floor wounded/dying; on the floor paralyzed in fear or headin' for the exits with everyone else. Just to let you know; I feel it is the duty of all LEO's to carry off duty; not just for our safety but for theirs also. SHEEPDOGS RULE

I actually am not against gun control even though being a card carrying "Life" NRA member. I don't mind waiting 14-30 days for all the checks to be performed to pickup my purchase. What I do mind is seeing people that commit crimes using firearms EVER seeing the light of day again. If people that use firearms to commit crimes realize their life has just turned into a LARGE turd sammich and they are going to eat that the rest of their lives; may cause them pause, and to reflect on their priorities. The bleeding hearts that allow these POS's to be paroled are f'ing nuts. And the same people whining that our prisons are too dangerous. Tough sh#t once again. Do the crime, take your lumps. I have a really great idea that takes the jails of Arizona many steps further.

I better stop here and step away from the keyboard :D whew don't wanna scare the kids :) Yes I am a salt/pepper haired person :+ no freakin' blue hair ya mealy mouthed little . . . ... ......... SWEET

 
rawhide said:
The first time you hear a projectile whiz past your ear you either react in one of two ways; duck or honor the threat and fire in that direction. Maybe there are more ways to react than my simplistic theory/experience.

Many accepted "HUNTING" weapons also have detachable mags, granted usually only 4-6 rounds. But if you carried pockets full of said mags, who is the brave unarmed person that is going to rush you hoping you can't reload fast enough?? Without too much trouble, I can squeeze off 4 rounds from a bolt action pretty fast and still hit pretty much whatever I'm shooting at. It's going to be an off duty policeman, military person or someone of that ilk that would attempt disarming a shooter. Most everyone else is either on the floor wounded/dying; on the floor paralyzed in fear or headin' for the exits with everyone else. Just to let you know; I feel it is the duty of all LEO's to carry off duty; not just for our safety but for theirs also. SHEEPDOGS RULE
Click to expand...
what do zodiac signs have to do with anything?

also, i do not think even the bleeding hearts will have any sympathy for mass murders. that guy was deranged though, i do not think life in prison was ever a concern or even a thought. i respect your thoughts and we are arguing in the hypothetical realm now (as i think a mob could have apprehended him as he reloaded, especially because he would not have been mowing down people as he was able to with an automatic assault rifle), so we may have to just leave it at that. reasonable minds can differ.

 
i did not want this to turn into a sword debate, but:

http://chzfailnation.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/epic-fail-probably-bad-news-getting-medieval-on-your-a$$.png

 
knapplc said:
Yossarian said:
carlfense said:
Yossarian said:
Address the post and not the poster.
Click to expand...
So you did notice the "and" in the supremacy clause?

We've made progress. :thumbs
Click to expand...
As long as you continue to post on the taxpayers' dollar, we have not made progress.
Click to expand...
This is the end of this line of personal attacks. This kind of comment has zero to do with the topic.
Click to expand...
Is this is directed at Yossarian's comment and not at my post about the supremacy clause? Or both?

(BTW, my thoughts regarding violations of board rules don't really matter . . . but Yossarian's quips don't bother me.)

 
knapplc said:
Yossarian said:
carlfense said:
Yossarian said:
Address the post and not the poster.
Click to expand...
So you did notice the "and" in the supremacy clause?

We've made progress. :thumbs
Click to expand...
As long as you continue to post on the taxpayers' dollar, we have not made progress.
Click to expand...
This is the end of this line of personal attacks. This kind of comment has zero to do with the topic.
Click to expand...
Let me make sure i have this right. carl calls me a liar and says I'm stupid...I complain about a public employee (carl) spending his time at work on the internet, and I get warned about personal attacks. I'm just trying to understand the boundaries here, but I believe I have it figured out.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rawhide said:
I had forgotten about this incident:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/suspect-in-colo-church-sh_n_1450313.html
Click to expand...
If you're posting this as a support for people shooting back at shooters, the fact that the person who returned fire was an off-duty police officer is crucial to that scenario.

Weekend/casual shooters with gun permits returning fire in a shootout situation can't be counted on to aim that well, and that's the problem. Instead of bullets flying around from the shooter, now you have bullets flying around from the shooter and 1, 2, 5 or 10 people, and inevitably you're going to have more injuries and deaths.

 
Back
Top