In both cases, it is not the gun manufacturer or the NRA’s fault; it’s the government’s failure to enact policies with sound logic, instead of shooting from the hip (pun intended) that more gun control is needed: People on terror watchlists and with certain mental health issues should be flagged for further investigation or denied access. WHY HASN’T THAT LIST BEEN COMPILED in a national database that becomes part of the standard background check?
You do know that the Orlando shooter was not on any such list. Quite the contrary, he was a certified security guard most likely granting him even easier access to guns than your average citizen. The problem with him is that the left passed rules to law enforcement entities putting time limits on investigations. They reached points where they had to prosecute or drop all investigations and not having enough evidence to prosecute, they dropped investigations. Perhaps we should allow investigations to proceed longer for terrorism suspects. As long as we can trust law enforcement departments not to do what the IRS did in targeting opponents of the party currently occupying the White House instead of justifiable suspects.
“The problem with him is that the left passed rules to law enforcement entities putting time limits on investigations.”
Untrue, the only time limit is after an arrest. They have a certain amount of time to charge the person or let them go. They can investigate anything for as long as they want to.
The FBI opened what is known as a preliminary investigation — one of hundreds that the bureau handles at any one time and that typically last six months. Comey said the investigation was extended once with the approval of an FBI supervisor at the Joint Terrorism Task Force in Miami.
You cite an article that states he was investigated 3 times.
How does this relate to your above statement that the left passed rules to law enforcement entities putting time limits on investigations.
You’re right, they typically are 6 months, but in three investigations they did not find anything and continue to assert that he had no internal ties to ISIL. You’re making assumptions that are not backed.
June 21, 2016 at 9:26 am
Dave says:
Like or Dislike:
4
4
“The FBI opened what is known as a preliminary investigation — one of hundreds that the bureau handles at any one time and that typically last six months.”
Limited to 6 months
“Comey said the investigation was extended once with the approval of an FBI supervisor”
Extended with approval.
June 20, 2016 at 3:44 pm
GoldC says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
That is precisely my point – how could he have been investigated and those investigations dropped? Were they too stupid to see it through or are these fanatics smarter than our systems?
Anyone ever legitimately investigated (as in his case) for terrorism and certain discoveries made should not only not be able to obtain a new firearm, but should have those already registered confiscated.
More liberal groups were investigated than conservative groups,and the conservative groups were largely anti-tax groups, which are the exact groups that should be investigated.
I’m going to help out a bit here Dave, a good link by the way!
Actu:
“In a letter to congressional Democrats, the inspector general also said that 100 percent of Tea Party groups seeking special tax status were put under IRS review, while only 30 percent of the progressive groups felt the same pressure.”
You mentioned that they were the exact same companies that should be reviewed. Well, 100% of them were, but like for like companies only had 30% review from liberal companies.
Hmmm…
Also, is this you being a hypocrite regarding Muslims? Well, more terror is done from Islam and more terrorist groups exist from Islam than any other group.
These are exactly the groups we should be investigating, and considering for actions to prevent terror are they not?
Unfortunately time continued to move on from that talking point and FOI requests and the information gained in those documents don’t support this particular conspiracy theory.
Actually Bob, I’m not being a hypocrite. The Tea Party was an anti-tax organization so obviously they should be more scrutinized when applying for tax exemptions. I have no problem investigating Muslim terror groups. What you are actually getting at is investigating all Muslims, which I’m not in favor of because it doesn’t work, and unlike you I’m not a bigot. Because you are about as likely to be killed by a right wing terrorist in the US since 9-11 you must agree we should crack siren on all right wingers, right? By your own logic it would be hypocritical not to.
June 24, 2016 at 5:56 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“Which I’m not in favor of because it doesn’t work, and unlike you I’m not a bigot.”
Oh really now? Limiting Muslim Terrorist group searches to Muslims doesn’t work? How many non Muslims are in Muslim Terrorist groups?
There is a link, and it is not bigoted. You are wrong on the former, and bigotry requires more than simply stating demographics exist.
Is it bigoted to say that more black folks are engaged in crime in Chicago?
No. It’s not. It is a literal fact.
I am not bigoted, and fuck you for saying it.
Moving on to your other links:
Our link already directed this. 30% of liberal associations applying for a special tax status were inspected, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of conservative ones were. It is not a conspiracy theory. Your links are an aggregate in the first point.
So on one end you said that conservative companies are more likely to be those types of groups.
100% of those groups were targeted. Your list here, is not broken out into those groups.
For all you know, there are simply less tea party groups. So taking the number of total doesn’t work, even when comparing what wording they used for targeting. You need to compare the amount of firms who have a special status that were actually audited. Yours does not go over that. It goes over how many groups are tea party or progressive and were targeted for screening based on progressive or conservative naming etc.
The second link is from the first, how did you not notice that? Or maybe you did and just thought I wouldn’t see the .jpg? I’m thinking it is the first and you thought you had two links, and you didn’t read them.
Now, why this doesn’t matter:
100% of tea party groups that applied for a special status were targeted. 30% of liberal ones that applies were. That is equal to equal parameters.
You’re wrong here. That’s all there is to it.
June 24, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So your link says there are say 15 liberal groups that have naming schemes that include “blue”
And there are say 12 that have naming schemes that include “red”.
Did you read your link? So these groups could be targeted based on that basis.
However, how many total progressive firms are there? How many total conservative?
How many ultimately that applied out of the total of both those groups, were audited? How many even applied for a special tax status? In the total of your number it doesn’t say. It just says of total liberal companies vs total conservative.
The total in the case of the liberal for who applied for a special status was 30% the total in the case of the conservative was 100%.
So every single one that applied from your list, was audited. Whereas only 30% were audited in the liberal case.
June 21, 2016 at 12:33 am
actu says:
Like or Dislike:
5
5
That hasn’t happened because “government” can’t enact sound policy due to the Republicans blocking any laws infringing on the right to gun ownership the Supreme Court enacted fairly recently. Supporting gun regulations is a career ender for most Republicans largely thanks to the NRA.
If gun control was so important to the Democrats, why didn’t they do something when they controlled all three branches of the govt when Obama was first elected.
They shoved Obamacare down our throats. Why not gun control?
Because they are hypocrites, that’s why.
Illinois, Obama’s home state when he was a senator, has some of the toughest gun control laws on the books. How’s that working for them?
Obama needs to start enforcing laws before he wants to put more controls in.
Republicans don’t favor inefficient gun laws, not sound gun law control.
For example limits on clips or bullets. If I’m someone who hunts for my food, and I suck with a bow, it’s going to be pretty hard to hit a Deer with one clip of 10 bullets. I guess I can’t hunt anymore now, because I’m a danger to society by owning more bullets.
Republicans didn’t support that.
You might want to inform Republicans who have passed gun law changes that they don’t do that. The NRA doesn’t like it, but the NRA does not lead the republicans.
Except the Republicans who filibustered background checks at gun shows and over the Internet, because obviously nobody would go there
As for your stupid NRA link, they only opposed it because it would allow states in places that want background checks and tougher regulations to make it more difficult to get guns, not because it’s smart, reasonable etc.
Except I have already shown why they stopped those bills, and it had nothing to do with what you’re saying.
See my other link.
That’s from your perspective regarding the NRA. The point is the NRA didn’t agree with the republican. So clearly the NRA doesn’t own the republicans.
June 20, 2016 at 1:52 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
8
10
GoldC, you asked, “WHY HASN’T THAT LIST BEEN COMPILED in a national database that becomes part of the standard background check?”
Ask a senate Republican.
“The dynamics of the gun debate have changed little in Congress in recent years, despite high-profile shootings in places like Charleston, S.C.; Newtown, Conn.; and San Bernardino, Calif. Most Republicans and a handful of Democrats, mindful of public support for gun rights and well financed by the National Rifle Association, have largely balked at attempts to close loopholes in background check laws and to prevent those accused of domestic abuse and those on terrorism watch lists from getting firearms. Republicans, arguing that the list of people affected would be too broad and that the measure would not offer proper due process, have put forward a competing one. That bill would require the government to delay, during a 72-hour review period, the purchase of a gun by anyone who is a terrorism suspect or has been the subject of a terrorism investigation within the last five years. Both measures are expected to fail.” – NY Times
Dave, the security agencies are still not sharing info with one another. You can have someone suspected of Terrorism activities on the watch list and Homeland Security might not have the info. By the way, the Orlando shooter was indirectly working for Homeland Security and they didn’t even know it. The only thing a liberal knows is to try to take the guns away from law abiding citizens. I saw where the gays are now wanting to get guns to protect themselves.
The problem with putting people on “lists” without due process (and actually preventing them from buying guns) is that the gov’t controls who goes on the list.
In a perfect world, we could trust the govt to only put people on that deserve to be there (assuming they could actually make that decision accurately 100% of the time). Unfortunately, we cannot trust the govt because it would be very easy to “make up” lists with names that the govt has a problem with (aka..witch hunts). God forbid we get to the point of a completely tyrannical govt, because they could add everyone’s name to the list and we would not be able to protect ourselves from the govt (which is the REAL purpose behind the 2nd Amendment).
This quote is incorrect, and is spoken from the perspective of a person as opposed to your own perspective or others.
Republicans have been against OBAMA’s loop hole closing methods.
That’s about all. So now we have you being polarized again blaming Republicans for shootings.
Yeah…How about you just stop the whole people will die, children will starve, the poor will be subdued, the rich will dominate, the sky will RAIN BLOOD type of chicken little statements about republicans M’kay.
Agreed. If this was not a gun free zone, then the law abiding citizens could have protected themselves. The answer is less gun control, not more. When was the last time you heard of a mass shooting at a gun range?
He picked it because he suffered from mental problems due to being a closeted homosexual, and believing in crazy religious views that said his natural feelings were sins. It reminds me of another supposed Christian here who never misses a chance to rip gays, transsexuals, or anybody different.
Since his ex came out today saying it was based on his homosexuality and revenge I assume you will change your mind now. Just joking, I will wait for your updated talking points one they are fed to you through Fox.
June 22, 2016 at 5:00 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Actu – I have not seen today’s alleged revelation. The original “statements” came from a Brazilian reporter based on comments made by the ex-wife’s current fiancée.
Sounds like someone is cashing in to me. (That wasn’t a Fox News talking point…I made it up all by myself!)
I’ll say it again…believe whatever story you want to believe. I’ll base my opinion on what the killer actually SAID!
June 22, 2016 at 6:59 pm
actu says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
The guy remained anonymous and the journalists confirmed his identity and that the FBI had spoken to him. Your “cashing in” hypothesis makes no sense unless you are dead set on clinging to your theory regardless of the facts.
The shooter claimed to belong to multiple groups which are in fact in conflict with each other,he had no clue about actual Muslim extremacy. I know conservatives like you are used to not knowing shit about anything, and you clearly will continue that, but multiple people have come forward saying he was angry about gays, Latino people,etc.
June 22, 2016 at 7:04 pm
actu says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Also, you dismiss comments from a person with intimate knowledge of the killer when you were unaware 2 seconds before that the person even spoke. You are a clown wwho refuses to even consider anything you haven’t already accepted.
June 22, 2016 at 7:51 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Actu –
Are you the one with the intimate knowledge about him being gay? If not, shut up because you are only repeating what you are hearing and summarizing and opining, too.
So what, if he was gay, too. Does it dismiss the fact that he was Muslim and pledged allegiance to ISIS. So what that he claimed to belong to conflicting groups. Did he support certain aspects of both groups and didn’t give a rat’s tail about their differences? Did he even know they had differences? Nobody knows because he was a fricking nutjob.
FACTS: He was a Muslim, he hated gays, he wanted to be a terrorist.
You liberals are trying to spin that his gay psyche got the better of him and that he was only claiming to be a terrorist. No one knows what was going on in this guys head. The majority of the evidence that we know, point that he was a radical Islamic terrorist that hated gays (whether he was one or not).
You’re the clown who won’t accept the facts because your a sheep that follows his masters voice.
June 22, 2016 at 10:25 pm
actu says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
But,I based my opinion on what multiple people who know him have said, you are basing yours on what you want to be true, and admittedly dismissing facts the second you hear about them. You are clueless .
June 23, 2016 at 8:53 am
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
I’m not dismissing the facts. My opinion is weighted based on what the terrorist said. Your opinion is based upon what others who knew the terrorist and what they are saying/speculating about why he did it.
Has anyone of those intimate acquaintances said that the terrorist TOLD them he was going to kill the gays because he was a closet gay? I don’t think so. Even if they claimed he did, it would possibly be considered hearsay in a court of law.
Apparently, you just want to dismiss what the guy actually said, on the 911 tapes and in front of the victims. You might want to look in the mirror when you say the word clueless.
Point taken, Integrity; however, gay people were not his target, nor who he claims he was acting against or on behalf of in his 911 calls. Those who have read Agent’s comments for any length of time would suspect it was his homophobia showing. I don’t believe that I’m wrong, but if that was not Agent’s intent, I stand corrected.
June 21, 2016 at 8:32 am
CL PM says:
Like or Dislike:
5
1
I don’t think it qualifies as a “mass” shooting, but Navy Seal Chris Kyle and his friend Chad Littlefield were killed at a gun range.
Correct B Right. Our President still thinks Climate Change is our biggest security threat. He will protect his buddies in the Muslim community at all costs.
Agent–are you one of those “parody” accounts, kind of like that poster “Rosie” who pops up now and then? You honestly can’t be serious with the “protect his buddies in the Muslim community at all costs”, can you?
You think maybe it’s possible that the Orlando shooter didn’t kill everyone because he was a Muslim terrorist, but because he himself was gay and couldn’t handle it because his father wouldn’t accept him? I guess either way it gives you an excuse to hate Muslims (or gays, for that matter), right?
No. I don’t accept justification of violence. I don’t buy that for one second, and I frankly find it insulting.
No one is accepted in high school. When it isn’t gay behavior it is something else. In our generation, it is clear that gay people receive more protection and less bullying than any bullied class in high school. I dealt with having my head hit into a brick wall, people calling me a certain nick name I won’t say here, and being called many names. If I shot up a club, it would be my choice not hate against gays that caused it.
Now on the Muslim religion, that religion actually does support killing of your enemies in present day. The only way to say it doesn’t, is to claim not all Muslims agree with their own faith. Some passages say mercy, but there are others that quite clearly say to kill non-believers, unless they convert, and considering being gay is an offense…This is why it is ok to murder gays in many Islamic nations. This is not coincidence. It is the Muslim religion, and those that agree with it condone it. That’s the end of it. When you go to a Muslim and you show them the passage and they say “well I don’t believe that” then they aren’t a Muslim, or they are indoctrinated enough to ignore it, which means they are a fanatic. Muslims do have serious issues and it is time to start identifying that fact.
Also,
Obama seems ok with Christian Terrorist, not radical Christian Terrorist, so he does seem to have some buddying ideals with the Muslim faith and double standards.
We shouldn’t insult an entire religion based on the actions of one person after all, should we?
This is why I believe in God. The BLIP I mentioned. Obama is not dumb. But BLIP, he is suddenly ok with Christian terrorism but not calling Muslim terrorism Muslim terrorism, or even radical Muslim Terrorism. And when he does that, he says it is in order to ensure we don’t get on a high horse. Maybe that is the idea of telling Muslims, hey, your religion has some screwed up stuff in it if you aren’t careful?
This will end up with SCOTUS if this judge decides to legislate from the bench. I have not heard of any remote evidence that this mfgr had any involvement in the direct sale of the guns used in this shooting. That would be like suing Ford because a 3 time DUI offender killed a bus load of kids.
Cars are not designed to kill people, guns are. If this was opened to product liability they would immediately start using technology that would limit these types of killings. Learn the basics before making stupid analogies.
“If this was opened to product liability they would immediately start using technology that would limit these types of killings.”
Really? And how exactly would that happen? How does the gun know whether a good guy or bad guy is pulling the trigger. Pretty much how the left thinks, they don’t.
It doesn’t, which is why companies wouldn’t sell products designed to kill a large number of people in a short period of time. The only use for these weapons are war and mass killings.
A weapon designed to kill a large number of people is a full automatic weapon with a large clip. More commonly known as a machine gun. Which anybody who knows anything about guns knows are illegal to ordinary citizens. Those are the weapons designed for war.
June 21, 2016 at 1:43 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
8
2
Actu –
Actually, guns are designed to shoot bullets or paintballs, Einstein. Knives are designed to cut things. Baseball bats are designed to hit balls. Ropes are designed to tie things up.
What PEOPLE do with these items, can kill other people. A gun does not walk into a nightclub on its own and start shooting by itself. A car does not drive into a crowd by itself.
The proximate cause (if you are an insurance person and know what that means) of ANY shooting is the PERSON and not the gun.
Learn to apply logic before making stupid responses.
Guns are protected in the US solely because they are intended to be used by people in a well-regulated militia to kill people. These guns are designed to shoot bullets into people. A lot of bullets very quickly. If there is nothing wrong with them, and they are not being designed or sold in a negligent manner remove the protection and let citizens decide on a case by case basis.
Thanks for your opinion, but, you are wrong based on the Constitution.
June 22, 2016 at 7:01 pm
actu says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
How so? It’s not even debatable.
June 22, 2016 at 7:56 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Now who’s the one that’s refusing to accept anything because they have already made up their own mind? Even when it is in black and white?
Read the Constitution and the District of Columbia vs. Heller SCOTUS opinion.
Maybe, we are talking two different things. What part of your comment is not debatable?
June 20, 2016 at 4:48 pm
wayne smith says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
14
4
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Or in this case, over 3 hours away. The fact that politicians, mainly Democrats, would try to pin this on the NRA is deplorable.
Could this have turned out any worse if legal carry was permitted by patrons who had a chance to defend themselves? Liberals soil themselves with the concept of freedom, but I guarantee a patron would have wished at least one person had a gun so during those long telephone conversations someone could have gone up to this guy and finished him off.
Cars aren’t designed to kill people, and cars do not have this protection, so yes, remove the protection like with cars and let courts and citizens decide on a case by case basis as they do with cars.
Provide examples of cars designed for killing instead of transportation, and then a bunch of cases where dozens of people were intentionally killed because of the characteristics of the car and you have an actual analogy instead of the apologist BS you are pushing.
Guns are designed to shoot bullets. People decide if they want to use them for war, defense, sport or recreation. Provide examples when a gun killed a person without human intervention.
Regarding the protection for cars, the reason why car mfgrs don’t have protection is because the car can harm someone if it was not made correctly (i.e. airbags, gas tank design). I am not certain, but I believe gun mfgrs can be sued if the gun was not made properly and it malfunctions and harms someone.
FYI car mfgrs cannot be sued because someone driving it while impaired kills others, unless there is an alleged defect in the car.
Question…are knives designed for killing? How do they compare to guns? I guess we ought to make you have a background check the next time you buy a butcher knife.
Why can’t you admit that it takes a person to actually use the gun? Is it really that difficult to comprehend?
June 20, 2016 at 5:26 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
8
4
There was an armed security guard at the nightclub. Good guy with a gun. I also don’t know of any bar owner that could honestly say they think it’s a good idea for patrons who are going to be consuming alcohol to bring guns into the establishment. Yes, it had the potential to turn out worse, more people could have been caught in the cross fire.
Captain, one report I heard this weekend said that the security guard at the club was not armed. Not sure which report is right. Not sure why a guard would be unarmed. Did he return fire or was he killed too?
I read the fact check article, and yes, there was ONE armed security guard/cop that had a gun. He apparently came running when he heard gun fire and engaged with the assailant. It sounds like he only had his service weapon and knew he could not match the fire power.
If you read the transcript, Trump said “But if you had guns in that room, if you had — even if you had a number of people having them strapped to their ankle or strapped to their waist, where bullets could have flown in the other direction right at him, you wouldn’t have had the same kind of a tragedy.”…meaning if there were others in the nightclub that where armed, it may have been a different story.
Also, the cop is also trained to be concerned about innocent victims. The assailant did not care who was shot.
I can’t say for certain, but if the attack occurred in a Texas nightclub, the outcome might have been different.
so trump said the people in the club should’ve had guns
the NRA said people should not be at a club drinking with firearms.
who do you support here: trump (“It’s too bad some of the people killed over the weekend didn’t have guns attached to their hips”) or the NRA (“No one thinks that people should go into a nightclub drinking and carrying firearms,” said Chris Cox…”That defies common sense. It also defies the law.”)
June 21, 2016 at 2:59 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Confused –
They are too separate statements of fact.
If people in the nightclub had guns, the outcome might have been different.
Guns and alcohol don’t (usually) mix.
What if there were people there that had guns and weren’t drinking? I’d support that. Maybe they are the designated drivers?
June 21, 2016 at 4:21 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
0
4
“What if there were people there that had guns and weren’t drinking?”
there are so many holes in your theory it’s impossible to cover them all.
have you gone out to a bar, restaurant, sports event or night club recently? even designated drivers have 1 or 2 drinks.
but hey, let’s play by your theory for a moment.
someone walks into a bar with a gun & claims to be a designated driver so they get to come in with their gun.
now say they order a drink. what happens to the gun? does the bartender take it away? what if it’s a concealed weapon and the bartender doesn’t know?
so say the bartender has their gun because they’re drinking. oh wait. they just bought the drink for someone else – do they get their gun back? what if their friend lets them have some of their drink? do they lose the gun again?
say the place took their gun because they decided to drink. how exactly do you plan on giving them their gun back? do they have to come back when they’re sober? is there a coat-check ticket they have to use to get their gun? what if they lose it? where are all these guns being stored during the night anyway?
June 21, 2016 at 5:12 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
Confused –
And there lies the conundrum that we face every day.
Democrat/liberals want to penalize all people, including responsible ones, and forbid us to protect ourselves with gun free zones. This creates a bigger target because the irresponsible criminals know they can go to these places and not be challenged.
Responsible people wanting to protect themselves will more often than not, even while having a few drinks at a night club, be responsible with their firearm.
Yes, there will be some idiots that won’t be responsible, but they are likely to find a way to be an idiot anyway.
I would actually feel safer walking into a night club that publicized guns were allowed and knowing that a portion of the population might have guns on them, than one that states it is a gun free zone. (FYI…I don’t own a gun.)
The reputation of the establishment is going to dictate whether it is usually a safe environment or not.
June 22, 2016 at 8:57 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Did the Twin Peaks in Waco allow guns? I honestly don’t know, but am curious. That bar and restaurant has a good reputation (at least here in town) but had one of the worst gang shootouts in history of biker gang shootouts.
June 22, 2016 at 1:59 pm
Rhonda says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Ohio’s concealed handgun law allows a person to carry their gun into a class D bar/restaurant if they are not drinking or under the influence of alcohol, and there are no signs posted prohibiting guns. If you intend to drink, you can’t carry it in. I regularly carry my gun in my purse into a local bar. I don’t drink and if I were going to, I’d go to my car, unload the gun, put the bullets in the trunk, and the unloaded gun elsewhere in the car which is what Ohio law says I have to do. I have found that people who have their concealed handgun license take it very seriously and follow the law strictly. Our friends tell me they feel safer knowing I have it with me just in case. Their are no loop holes to common sense when carrying a handgun.
Rhonda, you sound like a responsible gun owner. Let me personally thank you for helping to protect the unprotected.
June 22, 2016 at 4:15 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
I agree with Dave specific to his reply to Rhonda.
YAY RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER!!!
June 22, 2016 at 5:46 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
The problem is not where you agree.
The problem is when you see an irresponsible gun owner, and then try to regulate the responsible ones, with no evidence that it will have any large affect.
Where is your evidence that banning automatic weapons would be beneficial?
You don’t say yay responsible gun owner just to patronize them and then simultaneously say “BUT we just have to take your rights away, because less than .001 percent of gun owners per year kill someone with them, and of those less than half are automatic weapons, but you know, we’ll ban them just the same because reasons and you could kill more people with an assault weapon!”
Don’t patronize gun owners for image points Confused.
June 23, 2016 at 10:48 am
Dave says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Bob, automatic weapons are already banned. What’s your point?
June 23, 2016 at 12:16 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I was being sincere when I wrote YAY RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER! I was not patronizing Rhonda, I was commending her.
June 23, 2016 at 2:01 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Dave,
At first I thought you were being sarcastic, but now I think you may have been serious.
Are you referring to the assault rifle ban?
That expired some time ago, and while democrats have been trying to get it established again republicans have been stopping them.
“I was being sincere when I wrote YAY RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER! I was not patronizing Rhonda, I was commending her.”
It is patronizing when you say yay a responsible gun owner, especially when you say “but guns need to be regulated”
It’s the same as saying go you! But guns are bad because of other people, really now.
You are patronizing her. You’re still going to go out there and try to support gun regulation, as you have mentioned, for assault weapons. Is the irresponsible if she owns an assault weapon? That would be patronizing to believe that. Do you believe that owning one in general is irresponsible? Then you support regulating responsible gun owners for the irresponsible, so saying yay a responsible gun owner by default holds the implied “but” by default.
No matter which way you cut the cake, that comment was patronizing.
June 23, 2016 at 2:47 pm
Rhonda says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
As it turns out I do own an assault rifle – it’s my favorite gun of all that I own. It’s purely for fun and target shooting but I would not be afraid to use it to defend if needed. Patronizing or not, I work very hard to be a responsible gun owner. That is an area where more focus needs to be given. The majority of gun owners are responsible. We are condemned for owning guns by a very small percentage of non-responsible owners.
June 20, 2016 at 5:46 pm
Paul Bartomioli says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
The AR platform rifle has been sold since 1963. Some questions I have, what is “military grade?” and why, if the legal standing is sound, why does the plaintiff’s case rely on twisting the law, as Culhane said:
“With Congress seemingly paralyzed on this issue, certain state court judges — depending on what state you’re in — might approach the case with some kind of urge to do something about it,” Culhane said. “A creative interpretation of the law like this might be a way to do that.”
Why are gun manufacturers allowed to sell assault rifles to individuals in the first place? They are weapons of war and designed to kill. The gun manufacturers just need a market for their product so they are happy to sell them to anyone so they can keep making money.
If only it was as hard to buy a gun in TX as it is to get an abortion.
Gun manufacturers may sell currently legal assault weapons to enable US citizens to protect themselves against CRIMINALS who could obtain assault rifles illegally.
Allowing only single-shot pistols to be sold legally would give criminals with assault weapons obtained illegally a big advantage in home invasions or other types of violent confrontation; e.g. night club, school, church, etc.
Carol,
Do you know the difference between an assault rifle and a so-called assault weapon?
What on a gun makes it a ‘weapon of war’?
In your opinion is hunting a valid use of a firearm? If so, how would you require guns to be made so that they are lethal enough for a deer but not for a human?
These liberal idiots forget the real purpose behind the 2nd Amendment, which is to allow the citizens the ability to arm themselves against a tyrannical government…which we are getting closer and closer to.
So the government can have better weapons so it would be easier to stop a revolution. Riigghhttt!!
June 21, 2016 at 3:04 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
no, everyone can have the same weapons! if the gov’t gets to have MP-5s, for example, then citizens should be able to buy them too.
June 22, 2016 at 2:28 pm
Dave says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
So confused, what other Bill of Rights (the first 10 and most important amendments) would you have us abolish. I see you and your ilk are working really hard on killing the First Amendment too, stifling free speech and minimizing religious freedom. What next?
June 22, 2016 at 2:36 pm
Mr. Mister says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Confused,
I think the 1st Amendment needs to be updated because the Framers of the Constitution couldn’t possibly have foreseen the internet and how it allows the free spread of ideas!
/tongue-in-cheek alert/
June 22, 2016 at 2:45 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Dave,
Please quote exactly where confused said he/she wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment?
If you need to change what someone says just to make your point, you lose.
June 22, 2016 at 4:04 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
dave – i wrote “we can all have MP5’s.” clearly i am not advocating for getting rid of the 2nd amendment!
what makes you think i want to get rid of the 2nd amendment when i said we should all be able to own the same weapons as our government?!?
June 22, 2016 at 7:18 pm
actu says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
The Constitution only specifies a well-regulated militia in order to maintain a free state, referring to freedom from government oppression, as people here have written. It does not say we can have guns for personal protection in places like bars, a policy so stupid it is hard to believe anyone is taking the people making it seriously.
June 23, 2016 at 9:16 am
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Actu –
Please stop. You are really showing your ignorance of the Constitution and the purpose behind the right to bear arms. Please do some research and you will see it was meant for self-defense of the individual.
June 23, 2016 at 10:53 am
Dave says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Ron,
“no. people just realize the second amendment needs to be updated”
Update the 2nd Amendment? We’ve never had an update to any Amendment. All we have done is to repeal Amendments. In essence he’s talking repeal and replace.
June 23, 2016 at 10:55 am
Dave says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Confused, you said:
“no. people just realize the second amendment needs to be updated”
Since we don’t “update” Amendments, I clearly read your intent to Repeal.
June 23, 2016 at 11:28 am
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
just because we have not updated amendments does not mean (a) we can’t, (b) we shouldn’t or (c) the only option to change an amendment is to repeal it.
i stand by my statement: the 2nd amendment needs to be UPDATED, not repealed.
you don’t think amendments can be updated and they can only be enacted or repealed? fine. then I’d argue we need to enact a 28th amendment that brings the 2nd amendment into the 21st century. again – i do not want to repeal the 2nd amendment.
June 21, 2016 at 3:17 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
integrity matters,
By your logic, the 2nd amendment does not apply to hunting rifles, handguns, shotguns or semi-automatic weapons. None of those are capable of stopping a tyrannical government.
By the way, I am still waiting to see the list of well-regulated militias to all of these gun owners belong.
This coming from a 2nd Amendment supporter who has no problem with each citizen owning guns.
Not true, Ron. All of those guns mentioned are arms that can assist in defending against a tyrannical government.
Furthermore, the “well regulated militia” and “right to bear arms” are mutually exclusive. One does not have to be part of a well-regulated militia to be able to bear arms.
FYI – here is a link to help you with finding the list of well regulated militias, by state, as constitutionally protected.
Yes true. If the U.S. military comes knocking on your door, do you honestly believe that your .357, 12-gauge or 30.06 is going to stop them? Good luck.
If they are mutually exclusive, and the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to allow just anyone to own a gun or guns, why does the amendment even mention a well regulated militia? Would it not just read, “Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”? Then you would be right.
I never said there were not well regulated state militias. Does every gun owner belong to one of these? Of course not. That was my point.
June 22, 2016 at 5:44 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Ron,
I’ve said it before, I don’t own a gun. But if I did, and if I was going to participate in a revolution, I wouldn’t wait for the military to come knock on my door. By the way, part of the problem with “gun-control” that the libs want, is the list of people who own guns and what types of guns they have so they CAN come knock on the door and take them away if they deemed it in the “best interest” of the country (aka tyranny).
Regarding your language question, I think it is obvious that the framers wanted the citizens to have the legal right to form a militia. Separately, they gave the right to citizens to bear arms (primarily for personal protection). Read the District of Columbia vs. Heller opinion for more detail.
Also, you said “I am still waiting to see the list of well-regulated militias to all of these gun owners belong.” You didn’t ask for a list of gun owners that belong to militias. For the record, gun owners do not have to belong to a militia. The Constitution does not say or imply that. Using your logic, if they did mean that, why didn’t they say it that way?
June 23, 2016 at 7:43 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
integrity matters,
I guess we are playing the interpretation game. If that is the case, we will have to agree to disagree how to interpret the 2nd Amendment.
I have read the opinion of that case. Have you read the dissent? If it was a 9-0 vote, I would agree with you. However, legal scholars far more qualified than you or I cannot even agree on the true intent of the amendment..
June 22, 2016 at 8:59 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
If you think any of the weapons you can purchase on the market are going to stop the US Military, you are more off your rocker than I previously thought. HA, yeah, fight off a tyrannical government. The strongest military force in the world. Good luck! WOLVERINES!!!!!!
Tell that to the Viet Cong, ISIS and many other Guerrilla fighters. Good thing about the US military, they despise Obama and his ilk as much as Obama hates the military. I’m fairly confident that when the left goes too far, the military will side with US citizens.
June 22, 2016 at 2:52 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
Dave,
You said, “I’m fairly confident that when the left goes too far, the military will side with US citizens.” That must mean you do not believe the citizens need guns to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. Either that or you believe it would be a government controlled by the right that would become tyrannical.
I’ll let you decide which.
June 22, 2016 at 7:23 pm
actu says:
Like or Dislike:
1
4
If only Obama lioed the military as much as Bush and the Republicans so he could create another BS war to needlessly kill 6700+ soldiers.
June 23, 2016 at 11:08 am
Dave says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Actu, same old tired liberal, lie. I know when your ilk say this, you have lost the argument.
Bush did not lie about weapons of mass destruction. It was bad intelligence. The Israelis, Germans, French, British and US intelligence departments all believed Iraq had them. No lie. Bad intelligence. You want an example of a flat out lie? How about this one? Obama, Susan Rice and others (including Hillary) describing the attacks on Benghazi the result of a protest of a bad video. They all knew within hours of the attack that it was a coordinated terrorist attack on of all days 9/11. And then Obama compounded the lie by saying during the debate with Romney that the day after the attack in his Rose Garden speech, that he had called it a terrorist attack, when in truth all he did was mention terrorism but not not call Benghazi a terrorist attack. Then Candy Crawley lied and agreed and was ultimately fired by CNN. There’s some real lies for you actu.
June 22, 2016 at 2:43 pm
Mr. Mister says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
IM,
I’m not calling people who are pro-gun-control idiots, but I do think if anyone would answer the questions I asked above we could have a more meaningful conversation rather than a flame war.
integrity, you sound a lot like Thomas Jefferson, one of our greatest Presidents. He had a lot of suspicion on the motives of the government and did everything he could to protect the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution.
integrity, veterans such as myself took an oath to defend the country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. We appear to have a whole lot of domestic enemies in this country who want to strip the citizens of their guns and right to self defense. I noticed that Democrats in Congress are staging a sit in to force their agenda. I say turn out the lights on them and lock the doors. They might not like it, but it is the right thing to do.
Have you noticed that not one of the liberals on this site have tried to defend Carol on her ridiculous abortion comment?
June 22, 2016 at 6:01 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
integrity, I did notice. You may not see it until another 50 posts. My guess is Planet or Ron.
June 21, 2016 at 2:04 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
5
1
Carol
If only people were more responsible about getting pregnant and abortions, there wouldn’t be MILLIONS of babies KILLED every year. There are more babies killed by abortions than there are people killed by guns, EVERY YEAR.
11,208 deaths to about 100,000,000 gun owners. That’s pretty responsible in my eyes. Also note that most of these murders were with a handgun. So much for benefits of banning automatic guns.
Also, they are used for defense 2.5 million times per year. How many rapes could be prevented with a gun, or robberies in process? So to save 11,000 people, we enable criminals. I might add in these 11,000 the number of innocents shot is not broken down in my wiki link. I’ll look more into it later when I have more time.
Whereas abortion is between 900,000 to 1.2 million per year.
In 2014 there were 3.98 million births
974,000 abortions
This means of 4.954 million viable mothers, almost 20% of them aren’t fit to be mothers apparently. I say we need to regulate abortions. Those are insane numbers. 20% of womb owners are irresponsible, whereas it would appear that only .0001 percent of gun owners are irresponsible at max per year assuming that 100% of all deaths from guns are irresponsible, which is, in itself, an irresponsible assumption.
If we saw a statistic like this with guns to blacks…It would be taken seriously.
Remind me…Is this taken seriously?
Hey confused, do you take this seriously?
Hey actu, is this a problem?
Hey Planet, is this a problem?
Hey Ron, Is this a problem? Is it serious?
Is abortion out of control, to any of the 4 people I just referenced? I’m genuinely curious. Do any of you see this as a problem of run away abortion? Or do you think abortion regulation would put the rights of women under attack from rich white men (in Captain’s scenario) or by religion (In Ron’s scenario) or God knows what in the others.
Thanks for all the facts on this. This just proves that the liberal democrats do not care about HUMAN rights or that black lives matter.
If black lives really mattered, they would try to stop the killing of black babies. They are all hypocrites and they should be ashamed of themselves. This makes me sick.
The most dangerous thing to a black man is the government.
Even more so than gun murders.
It is sick. How many black kids never even got a chance?
June 22, 2016 at 5:52 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Carol?? Ron?? Confused?? Planet?? Are you out there? Hello??
No one wants to debate me on whether abortion control legislation is more important to human life than gun control legislation?
I see…when its a personal choice, a person should have that choice. Because the choice to kill a baby is so much more important than the choice to own whatever gun a person wants to own.
Nope, I stand corrected on your position on abortion. I apologize. Thanks for agreeing with me.
June 23, 2016 at 1:15 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
You’re pro life but don’t find it important enough to vote regarding,
You have previously mocked republicans for passing abortion regulations,
…
Really Ron, this is why I called you a Catholic Apologetic in the past.
I don’t believe you hold that belief you just said, that or you do and for some reason think that when republicans try to do abortion laws it is wrong somehow in a contradictory fashion.
June 24, 2016 at 8:03 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Bob,
Please provide my voting record, other than the office of the president. Not for whom you think I voted, the actual candidates.
When have I mocked Republicans for passing abortion regulations? Citation needed. More likely, I have criticized them for only caring about abortion during the campaign season just to get our votes.
When did I say I was pro-life? I am against abortions based on my own personal beliefs. However, unlike you, I do not believe that, in a secular nation, we should make laws or force people to make decisions based on religion.
If one can make an argument that the fetus is not a human being until it reaches a stage in which he/she can be viable outside of the womb, and therefore is completely dependent upon the mother’s body, it is a part of the mother’s body and not yet his/her own person. I am not saying that is what I believe, but if someone does, that should be respected. If that is the case, then that person should be able to make decisions based on their own body.
In my opinion, the heart of the abortion debate is the lack of a universal acceptance as to what stage do we define the fetus as a person. We have our opinion that it is at conception. Others believe otherwise.
June 22, 2016 at 10:30 pm
actu says:
Like or Dislike:
0
4
Nobody wants to debate you because you are an ignoramus who denies science. No, a zygote that is smaller than a pinhead, or the size of your brain, is not the same or as important as actual living humans who are murdered because ammosexuals have deranged fantasies about being vigilantes like George Zimmerman.
Really?? Deny science? Do you deny that what is inside a pregnant female is not a baby human that is living (regardless of what you want to call it)?
You think a poor defenseless yet-to-be born living child in the womb is not as important as a living human that is outside of the womb? Now that is deranged and it is obvious you have no common sense.
June 23, 2016 at 4:03 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
integrity, our professorial Constitutional scholar President said that he was frustrated with the Constitution because it kept saying what couldn’t be done. No wonder he keeps trying to do Executive Orders which is writing law that a President does not have Constitutional authority to do. He just got shot down again (excuse the pun) on his immigration order. He either gets challenged/sued by Congress or the Supremes on every issue. He should just give up, go golf and retire from public life. Worst President in history.
I am convinced more and more each day that Obama is a traitor. If it wasn’t for the Constitutional laws that we have, he would have taken over this country and turned it into a dictatorship. He’s gotten as close as a person could so far.
I’m glad the law was upheld with the SCOTUS tie. I wish it was a 8-0 vote to erase any doubt from the left.
June 23, 2016 at 6:07 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
integrity, a lot of people think this country is a Democracy which is a lie. It was set up as a Constitutional Republic and even with some flaws, it is far superior to a Democracy which only invites chaos, much like Democrats seem to prefer. Just look at what Obama has done to this country in a little more than 7 years. He is the great divider as shown on every issue and problem and offers the exact opposite of doing the right thing. No wonder the problems seem so great. Time to change it all out in November.
June 23, 2016 at 11:21 am
Rhonda says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
AR’s can kill, but so can any other gun. That mentality says all guns must be taken away which then takes away our constitutional right to bear arms. I own an AR and it is my favorite gun. I only use it to shoot targets for fun. It is my right to do that. When you start banning stuff, it snowballs, then all guns are banned – 1 constitutional right down and which one will be next? I myself don’t want what our country was founded on taken away from me.
uhh. guys? don’t the secret service and other government-hired security forces have to go through background checks and training before they’re hired and given weapons? if so, that’s why we’re not fearful of them. if they don’t have to be trained or researched to see if they’re on the terrorist watch list, then i’m fearful of their weapons too.
3) If the gov’t gets to use a Schwerer Gustav, citizens should be able to buy and use it too
4) The 2nd amendment should be updated so gun buyers are (a) checked against the terrorist watch list and (b) ensure they have some form of gun safety training.
That’s it.
EVERYONE GETS TO KEEP THEIR GUNS EXCEPT POTENTIAL TERRORISTS AND PEOPLE WHO CAN’T PASS GUN SAFETY CLASSES.
No republicans are against safety classes and getting a gun legally.
No republicans support laws to give potential terrorists guns.
Also, you have in this post said you are against automatic weapons. So you’re not for citizens owning guns. You’re for them owning “reasonable” guns, which to me considering my numbers above is completely unreasonable.
Your position keeps changing. You’re ok with gun laws, except this, except that, except somehow you can’t explain republicans are causing terrorists and jack offs to get guns!
Derp.
You’re being lied to by democrats. It’s that simple.
June 23, 2016 at 8:02 am
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
“Also, you have in this post said you are against automatic weapons.”
oh did i?
where did I say i wanted to ban automatic weapons?
i’ve said citizens should be able to use the same weapons the gov’t can.
i included MP5’s and even Gustav’s for two different examples.
nowhere did i say or imply i wanted to ban automatic weapons.
stop putting words in my mouth, liar.
June 23, 2016 at 11:30 am
Dave says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
“I like the 2nd Amendment”
“The 2nd amendment should be updated”
Are you schizophrenic?
“If the gov’t gets to use a Schwerer Gustav, citizens should be able to buy and use it too”
So you don’t like the fact that the government can buy fully automatic rifles (machine guns) and we cannot? Like many liberals, not well thought out.
June 23, 2016 at 12:20 pm
Mr. Mister says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
confused,
Thank you for advancing the conversation. I’m giving you an thumbs-up for that alone.
Everyone wants to keep terrorists from getting guns.
However, keeping guns out of the hands of those on a no-fly list runs straight into the due process clause of the Constitution. Who is on the list is classified, how they got there is classified, who put them on there is classified, and the criteria used to decide if they can come off is classified.
You can’t remove a civil liberty due to such an opaque & legally unaccountable process.
June 23, 2016 at 12:24 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
I like the 1st amendment, but I don’t think people should be able to yell “fire” in a movie theater.
I like the 2nd amendment, but I don’t think people should be able to buy guns if they can’t board a plane.
That doesn’t make me a schizophrenic.
“So you don’t like the fact that the government can buy fully automatic rifles (machine guns) and we cannot? Like many liberals, not well thought out.”
How many times do I have to say the same thing before you understand?
LAWFUL CITIZENS WHO AREN’T ON A TERRORIST WATCH LIST SHOULD BE ABLE TO OWN WHATEVER WEAPONS THE GOV’T CAN USE.
IF THE GOV’T CAN USE A GUSTAV, CITIZENS SHOULD BE ABLE TO LEGALLY BUY ONE TOO.
So no – I don’t like it if the gov’t can use a weapon that citizens cannot lawfully buy themselves. Got it yet??
June 23, 2016 at 12:44 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
edit:
My “so NO” reply wasn’t a response to your question as I tweaked what you said a little bit in my reply. i apologize for any confusion. let me answer your actual question
edit: YES, I do not like it if the government has weapons that citizens cannot buy.
June 23, 2016 at 2:03 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
My interpretation of Confused’s position is that, if the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to allow the citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, they should be allowed access to the same weaponry as said government. Otherwise, the 2nd Amendment, as the right has interpreted the intent, is useless as written.
How is that Confused?
June 24, 2016 at 2:48 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
I agree, Integrity. I need an atom bomb so I can defend myself against the tyrannical government. They have nukes so I get them, too.
June 22, 2016 at 3:08 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
Dave, I am with you on the armed citizenry. I am confident that our US Military hates the liberals and if faced with 150 million armed citizens, they would switch pretty fast and decide they were not given lawful orders. What US soldier would want to go against relatives and friends if it came down to that?
“The simplistic interpretation that it’s caused by cooling is false. Antarctic sea ice is complex and counter-intuitive.”
I doubt you will click on the link and take the time to read the article and look at the data though, so feel free to reply with some insulting and ignorant comment about how the article and liberal millennial atheist Muslims are wrong even though you didn’t bother to read it or take the time to try and understand it.
June 22, 2016 at 5:15 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
See proximate cause of said war.
If your side is so adamant on taking guns to start a war over it, rather than let someone have guns, well,
See usa – war, civil.
It takes two sides. Nothing Agent said would start a civil war, but what you said demands one.
Well, I have quite many friends who served in Iraq and I’m pretty sure they didn’t appreciate a President who lied them into a war. Agent, you seriously need to branch out, man! The world is bigger than Hannity and El Rushbo.
Oh Agent, same line, different forum I see. Your material gets old. You are like Kenny Bania on Seinfeld. “Oh, this is gold, Yogi…gold!”
But, I’ll play your suit – just tend to your god forsaken state, raped and beaten by continuous Acts of God! And, keep your hand palm-out so ol’ Uncle Sam can keep you all afloat down there. And in some cases, I realize being afloat down in Tejas isn’t a good thing.
I said good day sir!
June 22, 2016 at 5:14 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Bush did not lie them into a war, though Clinton and Gore lied them both into and out of one several times.
Wait, is Iraq a threat now or isn’t it? Do they or do they not need help?
Hey Hillary! Another round of Iraq bombing, on the house!
The White House that is.
– Obama
P.S. Boots on the ground suck and never works. Just scorch the ground and when Cruz says he will bomb people say that he would be the person who truly scorches the ground and puts people at risk, not you and I!
Well, Planet, I have young man that I fostered that did two tours in Iraq. He has TOLD me, that he did not appreciate Obama forbidding them to defend themselves. He is especially bitter since he saw his friend get his head blown off by a sniper. They could not fight back. They had to call the Iraqi army in to try to get the sniper. Of course, the sniper was long gone by the time the Iraqi army showed up.
Obama lied about a video causing the Benghazi attack so he could get re-elected. I guess you’re okay with that though.
integrity, we do know that our President does not like answering the phone at 3:00 AM nor did his Secretary of State. His first reaction was to find an excuse like a stupid video that no one saw and promote it. After all, fundraising is much more fun than going to the situation room and trying to save American lives.
June 23, 2016 at 11:34 am
Dave says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
Ah Captain, the same old liberal lie. Let me repeat:
Bush did not lie about weapons of mass destruction. It was bad intelligence. The Israelis, Germans, French, British and US intelligence departments all believed Iraq had them. No lie. Bad intelligence. You want an example of a flat out lie? How about this one? Obama, Susan Rice and others (including Hillary) describing the attacks on Benghazi the result of a protest of a bad video. They all knew within hours of the attack that it was a coordinated terrorist attack on of all days 9/11. And then Obama compounded the lie by saying during the debate with Romney that the day after the attack in his Rose Garden speech, that he had called it a terrorist attack, when in truth all he did was mention terrorism but not not call Benghazi a terrorist attack. Then Candy Crawley lied and agreed and was ultimately fired by CNN. There’s some real lies for you Captain.
Yogi, in view of the Ft Hood shootings where the MUSLIM murdered so many unarmed soldiers, I am for arming soldiers on military posts so they can defend themselves. Depending on the MP’s for response is far too slow as it was demonstrated in that attack.
Yogi, Breaking News: The Brits have voted to exit the European Union (Brexit). The Globalization crowd is crying in their beer since the people of Britain have awakened. They don’t much like how it has been going in the wonderful European economy and being strapped to bail out Greece and others. They also don’t like admitting 350,000 Muslims who do nothing but stir up trouble and chaos. Maybe mass deportations will be next in order. This country can learn from them and take similar actions. It is time to put this country first and not a bunch of elitist idiots who like one world order.
Can you name 1 actual change that will happen because of Britain’s exit from the EU? Not “they COULD deport 350,000 Muslims in the future” or “they COULD do this or that”
I’m asking you to tell us ONE thing that DEFINITELY changed with this decision. You know, some kind of fact to indicate you know what this decision really means TODAY.
Thanks for not insulting me in you reply since I’m just asking you to provide a fact, not an opinion.
The inherit vice of Capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherit blessings of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
The British people are tired of Progressive Socialists just like we are tired of Obama. James Cameron, the newly resigned Prime Minister had a close friendship with Obama. Need we say more?
dude – you could’ve just said “no, i do not know the actual impact of this decision.” that would’ve been a lot quicker.
June 24, 2016 at 4:03 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
dude, no amount of explanation on any subject would ever sink in with you. Stay tuned for the impact of this decision. Stay tuned to what Angela Merkel will do as well. I don’t think she wants to support Europe on her own which is almost the case as it is. Progressive Socialism is the biggest economic failure in history. Every country that has tried it has failed, most miserably.
June 23, 2016 at 2:30 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Ron “My interpretation of Confused’s position is that….the citizens…should be allowed access to the same weaponry as said government.”
THANK YOU!! Finally someone gets what I’ve been saying.
I don’t understand why some people here keep trying to tell me that I want to take their guns away, or that I think automatic weapons should be illegal, or that I’m patronizing someone when I sincerely commend them for being a responsible gun owner.
You want a gun, fine. The government wants a gatling gun? Sure, as long as every citizen can get a gatling gun too! Why can’t anyone else understand this line of thinking?!?
“I get what everyone is saying. That is the power of being an analytical Independent, not some emotional Conservative or Liberal.
The righties especially hate those who think and are not sheep.”
That last line removes your ability to be independent.
Also, your description of Confused may be what confused says he agrees with now, however, he is clearly advocating getting rid of automatic weapons and is focusing on what might do that. His primary argument starts at automatic weapons = bad and the founding fathers didn’t consider this. He has said as much.
He is not starting with whether or not arms are meant to defend from a tyrannical government (otherwise he would not say the above as it is irrelevant to having equal weapons, see the contradiction or no? The conservatives see this and are calling him out on it, they are not being blind sided, YOU are), ergo why when Agent said come and get them and see what happens, confused said see US – War, Civil.
Ironically, you are incapable of seeing double speak from democrats. A weakness you have from not being an independent.
Bob, Ron has professed to be an Independent many times and studied all the candidates positions before voting on the last day. He then selected Obama twice as his President. He is nothing more than a Democrat in sheeps clothing. Being from liberal NY gives him no standing and it gives true Independents a bad name. Most of them are Conservative, not liberal dirt bags.
I don’t know why but that surprises me. Though it sometimes surprises me I’m from WA State.
Although, even though I’m not like leftists here I certainly do have the style of speech of a Washingtonian.
I actually throw in swear words sometimes specifically because I’m tired of talking like a Washingtonian smart ass.
I’m sometimes far too focused on the structure of my speech and it’s common around here.
June 24, 2016 at 5:32 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Bob, where have you been for the past 4 or 5 years? I confirmed Ron was from Buffalo long ago and that explains his know it all NY rhetoric. I can’t prove it and the leftist’s won’t admit it, but I believe most of them are either from NY or in a neighboring state that are equally Progressive with high taxation, high regulation and with dufus governors. They don’t appear to be proud of their state, that is for sure. I cut you some slack for being from Washington State. I am sure you have a burden to carry. Hopefully, your office is not so liberal that you have issues with some of the employees at the water cooler. Aren’t these word parsing liberals fun? Angry trolls! I see you do lose your temper from time to time when they call you a dolt, idiot, bully all the time. They are all resistant to hearing the truth and perhaps the brain washing in college did the trick with them.
Need a funny for the end of the week. How about British paper headlines on Brexit! See EU later!
June 23, 2016 at 4:15 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
If there was the smallest chance I would argue citizens should not be allowed automatic weapons, I would not have kept posting if you want MP5’s or a gatling gun or a Schwerer Gustav, you can have one so long as the government gets to use those weapons too.
Google Schwerer Gustav.
Look at the kind of gun I’m saying people can have so long as it’s legal across the board and the gov’t gets to use them too.
If I’m saying you can have one of those, there’s no way in hell I would try to argue a smaller weapon should be banned!
Stop mischaracterizing what I wrote. I have not “outright said automatic weapons should not be in the hands of the citizens”.
I have literally said the exact opposite of that about a dozen times!
I said the 2nd amendment needs to be updated so people on a terrorist watch list can’t buy guns. That’s the only way I’ve suggested we amend the 2nd amendment.
Suggesting it has to be amended does automatically (pun intended!) mean I want to ban automatic weapons. I have already explained 12 times what I meant when I said it should be amended and not once did I say I felt automatic weapons should be banned.
I know double speak when I see it, you are used to lying like this because your leaders do it.
What did you mean then, when you said this?
“no. people just realize the second amendment needs to be updated because it was written ~100 years before the first automatic weapon was ever made.”
You’re trying to say the aspect that you don’t care about weapons solely to make it ok to pass democrat laws. Don’t worry they won’t take your guns. That’s a lie, and they will. They are aiming for it.
When they quote the number of deaths from assault rifles and then try to pass clip bans and ammo limits, that is trying to remove them. They already passed a law to remove them, it just expired a few years back.
You’re following your leaders well, but I’m not an idiot confused.
If you believe the facet that made the law dated was “automatic” weapons, that was your starting point, not whether the government had equal weapons.
Back then automatic stationary weapons existed. So if you believed it was about having equal weapons the amendment would not have been dated based on automatic ones.
June 23, 2016 at 4:30 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
You clarified and back petaled only after people called you on this.
The automatic weapons is what you said made it dated and need to be revised.
So how does it need to be revised then, if you didn’t mean to remove automatic weapons? You’re lying here.
You know you lost and now you’re saying the government should have the same weapons. Well then, it doesn’t need to be updated if you think we should all have the weapons you mentioned, as all would be automatic weapons. Sooooo….Yeah. I’m not stupid Confused, I know what you meant.
June 23, 2016 at 4:36 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
The amendment doesn’t need modifying. It states well enough you are allowed to own weapons.
If you mean to state within reason, that means you aren’t for equal weapons for the state and person.
If you mean to state safely and regulated, that wording doesn’t need to be included with the right to bear arms. The regulation of the government on that can be passed through laws as to how to register guns, juts like everything else. Amendments don’t deal with that, and if you believe so you clearly don’t know how the government should handle this or how it works.
You’re either ignorant here or you’re lying.
The conservatives calling you out are not misinformed however.
June 23, 2016 at 4:55 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
yes – i said the 2nd amendment was written before automatic weapons. that’s a fact. i used that as a point of reference to indicate things have changed since the law was enacted.
i never meant “we need to get rid of automatic weapons” and i apologize if that’s what you thought i was saying.
that was not my intent, I could have phrased it better, and as you can see, I have gone WELL out of my way to make that abundantly clear for 12+ posts now.
you can believe my sincere mea culpa of that phrasing and look at what I have written to try to explain that comment in the dozen posts since then and we can have a civil discussion about gun laws, or not.
June 23, 2016 at 5:14 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
“yes – i said the 2nd amendment was written before automatic weapons. that’s a fact. i used that as a point of reference to indicate things have changed since the law was enacted.
i never meant “we need to get rid of automatic weapons” and i apologize if that’s what you thought i was saying.
that was not my intent, I could have phrased it better, and as you can see, I have gone WELL out of my way to make that abundantly clear for 12+ posts now.
you can believe my sincere mea culpa of that phrasing and look at what I have written to try to explain that comment in the dozen posts since then and we can have a civil discussion about gun laws, or not.”
And you later then said the see US War – Civil in regards to if the government comes to get the guns, instead of “that would be unlawful”. You focused on the gun owner and not what would have obviously been a violation of rights. I’m not inclined to believe you.
If we are going to talk about gun rights starting at the amendment which whether or not automatic weapons existed at the time is irrelevant (they did by the way)
We should absolutely have a discussion about gun regulation (not the amendment which is a dishonest conversation)
From there, if you’re not ok with automatic weapon bans, go tell that to the democrats that banned them in 1996 I believe it was.
Go tell the democrats who insist on and have fought after each shooting to ban clips over a certain size and how much ammo one can buy.
Don’t go telling the republicans they are anti gun law because they are fighting those measures, and because they are calling clear steps toward gun control clear steps toward gun control.
I have already showed republicans who passed laws the NRA didn’t like for regulation.
You just stated they were not for sound gun control because they don’t support Obama’s methods.
When Obama passes a gun law that involves say mental health, and ties that with other gun regulations, and the republicans deny it, they are not denying mental health issues. They are denying the crap section of the law.
So instead of dishonestly saying they are against all gun regulation like your leaders do, you could have an honest discussion about it.
The first bill is the one Obama mentioned that Republicans didn’t pass, that would supposedly prevent private gun sales which he said was a risk.
“This bill would require all gun sales to go through dealers, eliminating private gun sales. It would require background checks for all transfers of guns. It would require carry permit holders to provide adequate reason that they are “worthy of public trust” and have “good reason” to carry a firearm. It would allow the Attorney General to deny the sale or transfer of a firearm.”
Do you see how a republican might be ok with expanded background checks…
But AGAINST the clear attempt of a gun grab with the wording:
“It would require carry permit holders to provide adequate reason that they are “worthy of public trust” and have “good reason” to carry a firearm”
This same wording is used in other countries who eventually confiscated guns, like oh say Australia? I don’t care if Australia has ended mass shootings (supposedly) if numbers I provided are any indication of how many crimes are prevented by gun ownership I will take that over stopping what was I believe 15 shootings in 13 years…Or was it 17 mass shootings in 13 years?
This law was passed like this on purpose, and I have shown this before on oh say the discrimination laws and gay rights laws that impose CRIMINAL liability for saying anything that might slander a gay, with no protection for religious entities or beliefs. This wording would literally trigger for saying being gay is a sin. The republicans in WA State agreed to pass it with amendment. The democrats refused, and then said they were against gay rights.
Same thing here with gun control. They passed it with gun control measures, and when the republicans said they wouldn’t pass it they said why are you against expanded background checks?
They aren’t. It’s the same tactic, every, single, god, damn, time.
And I’m sick of it.
This is why I have zero tolerance for fraudulent people on this issue. Absolutely Zero. The democrats are 100% for a fact lying on this, and they lie on several similar issues to cause class warfare, which the republicans simply don’t do.
They don’t send in a law with these types of provisions to try and seed it through until they get their way.
If they do show me comparable laws they have tried this with.
June 23, 2016 at 5:25 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Look, I’m not sure if you’re just stupid on the issue (and this is not my way of insulting you, I am stupid on many issues) or if you’re lying, I probably shouldn’t call you a liar.
But when reading my posts and my concerns, you would do well to be cautious of any statements that republicans are against gun sound gun control or extremely polarized beliefs regarding something if you have not solidly researched the issue to see why republicans might reject it and if there was validity to their rejection.
At that point it might reveal the intent of democrats, because that one I just showed you?
That one proves they tried to set up a similar method that Australia passed before taking guns, and then they said why don’t you approve this? And whined like a bully.
They punched the republicans in the face, then backed off and said look everyone! They won’t pass it! Let’s get em! GET THOSE SOUTHERN HICKS KILLING YOUR KIDS IN MASS SHOOTINGS!!! GET THEM!!!
And this polarized behavior is for a fact what they are doing. They may as well be going out there starting a war to win their elections.
It’s sick.
June 24, 2016 at 8:07 am
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Bob, you must be replying to someone else because I never “stated Republicans were not for sound gun control because they don’t support Obama’s methods”, I never said “republicans don’t pass laws the NRA doesn’t like”, and I never said “[Republicans] are against all gun regulation.”
Hell, I never even said Obama or Republicans or Democrats at all! It seems that you are intent on debating things I never said and things I don’t believe instead of what I’ve posted as my beliefs – not the beliefs of a political party, my own thoughts on the matter I’ve reiterated a dozen times here.
We can’t have an honest discussion if you keep putting words in my mouth, claiming I said things I never said, or arguing my beliefs are different than what I actually posted.
I’ll try to restart this conversation fresh and hope you’re able to respond to the points I make and not arguments Democrats say, which I don’t actually agree with in the first place. Let’s try again.
I think lawful citizens should be able to own automatic weapons. I think if the government says you’re unsafe to board a plane because you’re a suspected terrorist, you should not be able to own a gun. I think if you cannot get a driver’s license because you have multiple DUIs on your driving record, you should not be able to own a gun. Do you agree with my beliefs here or disagree? If you disagree, why?
June 24, 2016 at 9:40 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Confused,
There are certain posters on this blog that need to put words into our mouths in order to make their narratives about us work. I do not think I need to name names, but will upon request.
They are dishonest at best.
June 24, 2016 at 12:40 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Ron,
I’ll post to you first:
I am correct about my posts to confused. I am not putting words in his mouth, I am holding him accountable.
You however, supported a group of people who said that I WAS FOR KILLING Muslims, by association.
Some people here do put words and beliefs into mouths. It is not me.
You are one of those people, but I hold people accountable.
You claim often you are what I am. That is until I show you aren’t actually analyzing facts and are instead arguing narrative. Do you understand the difference?
What you just argued was narrative. You argue republicans supposedly do this all the time. That’s narrative.
I know when someone is backing out of something that they have made it clear what their opinion is regarding.
June 24, 2016 at 12:51 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
By the way Ron:
I noticed that you didn’t chime in when UW did what you should consider to be far worse than my holding confused accountable here (as he was swearing etc)
And simultaneously you have said here that it is republicans who do this behavior more often.
Hmmmmmmmmmm
HHHMMMMMM!!!!!
Perhaps you ignore it when democrats do it, and then choose to focus on trying to find it from republicans?
While that is actually not what is occurring here?
Maybe false equivalency with a liberal bias is your issue? Perhaps you should consider the facts instead of supporting your republicans are worse at this item narrative?
Perhaps?
This is one of the biggest reasons we get into it hardcore. I find you to be the biggest hypocrite.
June 24, 2016 at 1:19 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
As for you Confused:
I don’t have time to argue back and forth on this with you.
You’re being mislead and are dishonest with even yourself.
The republicans are not against sound gun control, they are not for terrorists having guns as Obama has been saying lately, they are not for mentally unstable people having guns as Obama said before that, they are not against background checks as Obama said before that, and every law he tried to pass since then he has tied the wording or similar wording to having to have a “reason” to own a gun as part of the law, dishonestly restricting gun access while he says that isn’t what he is doing.
Then he goes to a shooting range and people go look! He likes guns!
It reminds me of Putin’s publicity stunts. Look! I’m petting a tiger, RAWR! I’m strong!
The only conclusion one can draw is democrats are against gun ownership, and republicans are not.
Anything beyond that as far as you have taken it with “sound gun control” is because you’re lying to yourself, or you’re being lied to by democrats.
June 24, 2016 at 1:45 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I’m going to also run back real quick for one last comment Ron,
Which will reveal you for the type of person you are:
I’m telling confused he’s not being upfront about his beliefs, or doesn’t know better what is going on in the field.
He’s telling Agent that Agent will start a civil war for his guns.
Which is more damaging to society? Which one is a more dishonest and partisan comment to make?
Which one gets done more often by the leftists on this site?
You’re going to destroy the world!
You’re going to start a civil war!
Or
You’re not accurate on this, here is what you have said, here are the laws themselves, the republicans are not blocking sound gun law. Here is you saying automatic proved the law was dated, here is you going against gun owners instead of saying that the government would be violating the gun owner’s rights and therefore are blaming them unjust fully, here is why I don’t believe you.
I am not putting words in his mouth. I’m daring to believe he either doesn’t know what he’s talking about or he’s being dishonest.
And there is not one damn thing wrong with that. It’s called, being Independent.
June 23, 2016 at 3:35 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
You have outright said automatic weapons should not be in the hands of citizens. So are you saying we should disarm our military and send them out there with pistols?
That is the default assumption here if you maintain that position.
While you have backpedaled and tried to say you are ok with people having the same guns as the government, you have out right said people should not own automatic guns in the past. If you wish to change that stance, you might want to tell the conservatives here who are holding you to it.
Bob, we had Gatling guns in the Civil War. That was pretty automatic back then. Crank the handle and it could churn out the bullets just like a machine gun.
Bob, I saw an interesting political cartoon this morning. Picture a line in front of a gun store. A guy behind a lady said – did you hear about the Democrats holding a sit in at Congress over Gun Control? The lady replied – Yes, that is why I am here.
Hmm, I get the joke but I wish it were more funny.
These guys keep trying to slyly throw in the gun control, and every time there is a shooting they then try to pull at heartstrings saying they are just passing common sense background checks, while throwing in wording that makes you have to have a “reason” to have a gun, and prove that you are an honest citizen.
How in the hell do you even do that?
The right to gun ownership is infringed the moment you have to prove you have a reason to own a gun.
That is the government saying you don’t have one, whereas the law was designed so you would tell the government they didn’t have a reason to deny you one.
It’s the ultimate irony.
To see them try to throw that wording in there again and again, after each massacre, lie to the public about their agenda, and then claim since the republicans didn’t support it that they are for terrorists having guns, shooters having guns, etc, makes me sick
Bob – you reiterated your democratic/republican arguments in your response to me which leads me to believe you didn’t accurately read my post or that you didn’t read it at all. Let me try again.
I never “stated Republicans were not for sound gun control because they don’t support Obama’s methods”, I never said “republicans don’t pass laws the NRA doesn’t like”, and I never said “[Republicans] are against all gun regulation.”
Hell, I never even said Obama or Republicans or Democrats at all! It seems that you are intent on debating things I never said and things I don’t believe instead of what I’ve posted as my beliefs – not the beliefs of a political party, my own thoughts on the matter I’ve reiterated a dozen times here.
I’ll try to restart this conversation fresh and hope you’re able to respond to the points I make and not arguments Democrats say, which I don’t actually agree with in the first place. Let’s try again.
I think lawful citizens should be able to own automatic weapons. I think if the government says you’re unsafe to board a plane because you’re a suspected terrorist, you should not be able to own a gun. I think if you cannot get a driver’s license because you have multiple DUIs on your driving record, you should not be able to own a gun. Do you agree with my beliefs here or disagree? If you disagree, why?
Disregarding that you’re almost certainly wrong about never having said anything about this issue, I don’t want to take the time to prove you wrong and I have no reason to. I would rather you say the words with your own mouth which would be a better tool against the liberals here who constantly reiterate these talking points. In that point, I only have three questions:
1: Do you in fact believe that republicans are blocking attempts at background checks, mental health checks, and gun safety laws?
2: Do you believe Obama has tried to pass laws inhibiting gun ownership and it is a goal with democrats? I showed you some examples so I would hope your answer would be yes, instead of ACTU’s answer of no.
3: Would you vote for a republican if he had publicly denounced Obama regarding gun ownership and consider it a positive at that?
I went back to check a few of your gun statements, and while your statements here do in fact seem to be poorly worded when it came to the law being dated and using the word “automatic”,
You have in the past said some comments that suggest you are not against gun ownership that would suggest you probably did just word your automatic gun comment poorly.
I still have some red flags with how you worded things to Agent though with the Civil war comment instead of focusing on the violation of rights.
Bob, it is not too hard to tell who is winning this argument between you and Confused. He is so “confused” he wants to re-start the conversation after you handed him his head for numerous posts. Aren’t these word parsing liberals fun? Nothing sinks in and if you offer facts and common sense, they just go right back to their talking points without catching their breath. That is why I stopped responding to them. Rosenblatt is terrible about word parsing so he went on my list some weeks ago.
of course i’m not anti-gun! that’s why i kept writing “You want a gun, fine. The government wants a gatling gun? Sure, as long as every citizen can get a gatling gun too!” That’s a pretty pro-gun position, yeah?
bob, please don’t fall into the trap of a word parsing liberal. You can post facts all day to them and they will still not get it and then ask you to explain once again. It is a complete waste of time. It is kind of like trying to explain why Obamacare was a disaster. They will keep asking why rather than look at the mountain of evidence.
confused, you have insulted me hundreds of times, sweared, called me every name imaginable on this blog on numerous subjects and you suddenly object to my post??????? You can dish it out, but can’t take it.
June 24, 2016 at 2:27 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
It seems you are still intent on debating the beliefs of a political party and/or affiliation as you are not responding to my arguments I’ve reiterated a dozen times.
How about a little quid pro quo?
Answer what I have asked you multiple times and I will be happy answer your questions. Please respond to what I am asking and not what Democrats or others on this site have said.
I think if the government says you’re unsafe to board a plane because you’re a suspected terrorist, you should not be able to own a gun. If you cannot get a driver’s license because you have multiple DUIs on your driving record, I feel you should not be able to own a gun.
Do you agree with my beliefs here or disagree? If you disagree, why?
Quid pro quo does not apply for this. It’s your beliefs on the matter that are in question, mine are clear.
I am willing to let the aspect go only if I see that you are actually pro gun, my three questions are relevant to that.
Your question is not relevant to the argument.
Do I agree with your belief that anyone should be allowed to own a gun? Yes.
Do I think you’re being honest, your most recent post is again making me believe you’re not.
My questions are relevant to backing up that you are against gun control. This is especially true of 1 and 2, less so on 3.
It is a partisan issue. So if you don’t even know who is for guns, who is against, and you wrongfully believe that republicans are against regulations (which I accused you of, and you need to straighten it out, you just prior were ok with saying you never said that, now I’m worried as you’re saying you also never said contrary to that and refuse to say contrary to that, this sounds like intentional manipulation to me).
I am clever confused. I’m not going to fall for fraudulent gun support.
Answer 1 and 2. 3 I don’t care so much about. I just answered your question.
And I expect you to back up your beliefs on 1 and 2 by the way.
If you believe republicans are against these things, you need to prove it.
I have already shown how they are not, and it is actually the sections of the law that Obama hid in there saying you have to prove you have a reason and are trust worthy enough to have a gun that they have an issue with.
You have now said that you never said that republicans are against sound gun control, but given your last comment I have a feeling you’re about to, which would mean I did not misrepresent your beliefs, which you certainly tried to say I did.
We are going to have a proper conversation. You can’t wiggle out of this one. That’s why you don’t want to answer the question.
I’m willing to admit I was wrong if you clarify on 1 and 2. You’re not however willing to admit you were either wrong about my “characterization” of you or alternatively state your actual position. You don’t want your position to be known, do you?
In both cases, it is not the gun manufacturer or the NRA’s fault; it’s the government’s failure to enact policies with sound logic, instead of shooting from the hip (pun intended) that more gun control is needed: People on terror watchlists and with certain mental health issues should be flagged for further investigation or denied access. WHY HASN’T THAT LIST BEEN COMPILED in a national database that becomes part of the standard background check?
You do know that the Orlando shooter was not on any such list. Quite the contrary, he was a certified security guard most likely granting him even easier access to guns than your average citizen. The problem with him is that the left passed rules to law enforcement entities putting time limits on investigations. They reached points where they had to prosecute or drop all investigations and not having enough evidence to prosecute, they dropped investigations. Perhaps we should allow investigations to proceed longer for terrorism suspects. As long as we can trust law enforcement departments not to do what the IRS did in targeting opponents of the party currently occupying the White House instead of justifiable suspects.
“The problem with him is that the left passed rules to law enforcement entities putting time limits on investigations.”
Untrue, the only time limit is after an arrest. They have a certain amount of time to charge the person or let them go. They can investigate anything for as long as they want to.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-had-closely-scrutinized-the-orlando-shooter-before-dropping-investigation/2016/06/13/838e9054-3177-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html
The FBI opened what is known as a preliminary investigation — one of hundreds that the bureau handles at any one time and that typically last six months. Comey said the investigation was extended once with the approval of an FBI supervisor at the Joint Terrorism Task Force in Miami.
You cite an article that states he was investigated 3 times.
How does this relate to your above statement that the left passed rules to law enforcement entities putting time limits on investigations.
You’re right, they typically are 6 months, but in three investigations they did not find anything and continue to assert that he had no internal ties to ISIL. You’re making assumptions that are not backed.
“The FBI opened what is known as a preliminary investigation — one of hundreds that the bureau handles at any one time and that typically last six months.”
Limited to 6 months
“Comey said the investigation was extended once with the approval of an FBI supervisor”
Extended with approval.
That is precisely my point – how could he have been investigated and those investigations dropped? Were they too stupid to see it through or are these fanatics smarter than our systems?
Anyone ever legitimately investigated (as in his case) for terrorism and certain discoveries made should not only not be able to obtain a new firearm, but should have those already registered confiscated.
More liberal groups were investigated than conservative groups,and the conservative groups were largely anti-tax groups, which are the exact groups that should be investigated.
Stating a lie does not make it fact although the left tries time and time again. The truth:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/treasury-irs-targeted-292-tea-party-groups-just-6-progressive-groups/article/2532456
Treasury: IRS targeted 292 Tea Party groups, just 6 progressive groups
I’m going to help out a bit here Dave, a good link by the way!
Actu:
“In a letter to congressional Democrats, the inspector general also said that 100 percent of Tea Party groups seeking special tax status were put under IRS review, while only 30 percent of the progressive groups felt the same pressure.”
You mentioned that they were the exact same companies that should be reviewed. Well, 100% of them were, but like for like companies only had 30% review from liberal companies.
Hmmm…
Also, is this you being a hypocrite regarding Muslims? Well, more terror is done from Islam and more terrorist groups exist from Islam than any other group.
These are exactly the groups we should be investigating, and considering for actions to prevent terror are they not?
You just say whatever befits your liberal agenda.
Unfortunately time continued to move on from that talking point and FOI requests and the information gained in those documents don’t support this particular conspiracy theory.
http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/irs_foia-65.jpg
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2014/04/23/3429722/irs-records-tea-party/
Actually Bob, I’m not being a hypocrite. The Tea Party was an anti-tax organization so obviously they should be more scrutinized when applying for tax exemptions. I have no problem investigating Muslim terror groups. What you are actually getting at is investigating all Muslims, which I’m not in favor of because it doesn’t work, and unlike you I’m not a bigot. Because you are about as likely to be killed by a right wing terrorist in the US since 9-11 you must agree we should crack siren on all right wingers, right? By your own logic it would be hypocritical not to.
“Which I’m not in favor of because it doesn’t work, and unlike you I’m not a bigot.”
Oh really now? Limiting Muslim Terrorist group searches to Muslims doesn’t work? How many non Muslims are in Muslim Terrorist groups?
There is a link, and it is not bigoted. You are wrong on the former, and bigotry requires more than simply stating demographics exist.
Is it bigoted to say that more black folks are engaged in crime in Chicago?
No. It’s not. It is a literal fact.
I am not bigoted, and fuck you for saying it.
Moving on to your other links:
Our link already directed this. 30% of liberal associations applying for a special tax status were inspected, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of conservative ones were. It is not a conspiracy theory. Your links are an aggregate in the first point.
So on one end you said that conservative companies are more likely to be those types of groups.
100% of those groups were targeted. Your list here, is not broken out into those groups.
For all you know, there are simply less tea party groups. So taking the number of total doesn’t work, even when comparing what wording they used for targeting. You need to compare the amount of firms who have a special status that were actually audited. Yours does not go over that. It goes over how many groups are tea party or progressive and were targeted for screening based on progressive or conservative naming etc.
The second link is from the first, how did you not notice that? Or maybe you did and just thought I wouldn’t see the .jpg? I’m thinking it is the first and you thought you had two links, and you didn’t read them.
Now, why this doesn’t matter:
100% of tea party groups that applied for a special status were targeted. 30% of liberal ones that applies were. That is equal to equal parameters.
You’re wrong here. That’s all there is to it.
So your link says there are say 15 liberal groups that have naming schemes that include “blue”
And there are say 12 that have naming schemes that include “red”.
Did you read your link? So these groups could be targeted based on that basis.
However, how many total progressive firms are there? How many total conservative?
How many ultimately that applied out of the total of both those groups, were audited? How many even applied for a special tax status? In the total of your number it doesn’t say. It just says of total liberal companies vs total conservative.
The total in the case of the liberal for who applied for a special status was 30% the total in the case of the conservative was 100%.
So every single one that applied from your list, was audited. Whereas only 30% were audited in the liberal case.
That hasn’t happened because “government” can’t enact sound policy due to the Republicans blocking any laws infringing on the right to gun ownership the Supreme Court enacted fairly recently. Supporting gun regulations is a career ender for most Republicans largely thanks to the NRA.
Hey Actu –
If gun control was so important to the Democrats, why didn’t they do something when they controlled all three branches of the govt when Obama was first elected.
They shoved Obamacare down our throats. Why not gun control?
Because they are hypocrites, that’s why.
Illinois, Obama’s home state when he was a senator, has some of the toughest gun control laws on the books. How’s that working for them?
Obama needs to start enforcing laws before he wants to put more controls in.
Republicans don’t favor inefficient gun laws, not sound gun law control.
For example limits on clips or bullets. If I’m someone who hunts for my food, and I suck with a bow, it’s going to be pretty hard to hit a Deer with one clip of 10 bullets. I guess I can’t hunt anymore now, because I’m a danger to society by owning more bullets.
Republicans didn’t support that.
You might want to inform Republicans who have passed gun law changes that they don’t do that. The NRA doesn’t like it, but the NRA does not lead the republicans.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150617/north-carolina-house-votes-to-remove-important-right-to-carry-provision-from-pro-gun-bill
This is the NRA trying to say a republican is bad, of course, but the republican still went for what he thought were common sense reforms.
Just because they don’t support Obama’s doesn’t mean they don’t support common sense.
Except the Republicans who filibustered background checks at gun shows and over the Internet, because obviously nobody would go there
As for your stupid NRA link, they only opposed it because it would allow states in places that want background checks and tougher regulations to make it more difficult to get guns, not because it’s smart, reasonable etc.
Except I have already shown why they stopped those bills, and it had nothing to do with what you’re saying.
See my other link.
That’s from your perspective regarding the NRA. The point is the NRA didn’t agree with the republican. So clearly the NRA doesn’t own the republicans.
GoldC, you asked, “WHY HASN’T THAT LIST BEEN COMPILED in a national database that becomes part of the standard background check?”
Ask a senate Republican.
“The dynamics of the gun debate have changed little in Congress in recent years, despite high-profile shootings in places like Charleston, S.C.; Newtown, Conn.; and San Bernardino, Calif. Most Republicans and a handful of Democrats, mindful of public support for gun rights and well financed by the National Rifle Association, have largely balked at attempts to close loopholes in background check laws and to prevent those accused of domestic abuse and those on terrorism watch lists from getting firearms. Republicans, arguing that the list of people affected would be too broad and that the measure would not offer proper due process, have put forward a competing one. That bill would require the government to delay, during a 72-hour review period, the purchase of a gun by anyone who is a terrorism suspect or has been the subject of a terrorism investigation within the last five years. Both measures are expected to fail.” – NY Times
Again you know that any such rule would not have prevented Orlando, San Bernardino, Sandy Hook, etc.
Dave, the security agencies are still not sharing info with one another. You can have someone suspected of Terrorism activities on the watch list and Homeland Security might not have the info. By the way, the Orlando shooter was indirectly working for Homeland Security and they didn’t even know it. The only thing a liberal knows is to try to take the guns away from law abiding citizens. I saw where the gays are now wanting to get guns to protect themselves.
This list is the only change to gun laws needed; especially with domestic abuse… Even if those tend to not be mass, they are among the most frequent.
I’m generally republican and support the Second Amendment, but with common sense, please.
Gold C –
The problem with putting people on “lists” without due process (and actually preventing them from buying guns) is that the gov’t controls who goes on the list.
In a perfect world, we could trust the govt to only put people on that deserve to be there (assuming they could actually make that decision accurately 100% of the time). Unfortunately, we cannot trust the govt because it would be very easy to “make up” lists with names that the govt has a problem with (aka..witch hunts). God forbid we get to the point of a completely tyrannical govt, because they could add everyone’s name to the list and we would not be able to protect ourselves from the govt (which is the REAL purpose behind the 2nd Amendment).
This quote is incorrect, and is spoken from the perspective of a person as opposed to your own perspective or others.
Republicans have been against OBAMA’s loop hole closing methods.
That’s about all. So now we have you being polarized again blaming Republicans for shootings.
Yeah…How about you just stop the whole people will die, children will starve, the poor will be subdued, the rich will dominate, the sky will RAIN BLOOD type of chicken little statements about republicans M’kay.
It just shows your ignorance on the matter.
Agreed. If this was not a gun free zone, then the law abiding citizens could have protected themselves. The answer is less gun control, not more. When was the last time you heard of a mass shooting at a gun range?
Actually, the shooter picked the softest target he could so he could get the maximum results. A Gay nightclub???????
He picked it because he suffered from mental problems due to being a closeted homosexual, and believing in crazy religious views that said his natural feelings were sins. It reminds me of another supposed Christian here who never misses a chance to rip gays, transsexuals, or anybody different.
I guess this is the latest spin to get it away from him being a Muslim terrorist, right Actu??
If he was so crazy because he was a closet gay, why didn’t he just kill himself and not 49 others?
I know you liberals are used to being lied to, but maybe, he was telling the truth when he said was supporting ISIS.
Go ahead…make up any story/reason you want. One of you might believe it.
Since his ex came out today saying it was based on his homosexuality and revenge I assume you will change your mind now. Just joking, I will wait for your updated talking points one they are fed to you through Fox.
Actu – I have not seen today’s alleged revelation. The original “statements” came from a Brazilian reporter based on comments made by the ex-wife’s current fiancée.
Sounds like someone is cashing in to me. (That wasn’t a Fox News talking point…I made it up all by myself!)
I’ll say it again…believe whatever story you want to believe. I’ll base my opinion on what the killer actually SAID!
The guy remained anonymous and the journalists confirmed his identity and that the FBI had spoken to him. Your “cashing in” hypothesis makes no sense unless you are dead set on clinging to your theory regardless of the facts.
The shooter claimed to belong to multiple groups which are in fact in conflict with each other,he had no clue about actual Muslim extremacy. I know conservatives like you are used to not knowing shit about anything, and you clearly will continue that, but multiple people have come forward saying he was angry about gays, Latino people,etc.
Also, you dismiss comments from a person with intimate knowledge of the killer when you were unaware 2 seconds before that the person even spoke. You are a clown wwho refuses to even consider anything you haven’t already accepted.
Actu –
Are you the one with the intimate knowledge about him being gay? If not, shut up because you are only repeating what you are hearing and summarizing and opining, too.
So what, if he was gay, too. Does it dismiss the fact that he was Muslim and pledged allegiance to ISIS. So what that he claimed to belong to conflicting groups. Did he support certain aspects of both groups and didn’t give a rat’s tail about their differences? Did he even know they had differences? Nobody knows because he was a fricking nutjob.
FACTS: He was a Muslim, he hated gays, he wanted to be a terrorist.
You liberals are trying to spin that his gay psyche got the better of him and that he was only claiming to be a terrorist. No one knows what was going on in this guys head. The majority of the evidence that we know, point that he was a radical Islamic terrorist that hated gays (whether he was one or not).
You’re the clown who won’t accept the facts because your a sheep that follows his masters voice.
But,I based my opinion on what multiple people who know him have said, you are basing yours on what you want to be true, and admittedly dismissing facts the second you hear about them. You are clueless .
I’m not dismissing the facts. My opinion is weighted based on what the terrorist said. Your opinion is based upon what others who knew the terrorist and what they are saying/speculating about why he did it.
Has anyone of those intimate acquaintances said that the terrorist TOLD them he was going to kill the gays because he was a closet gay? I don’t think so. Even if they claimed he did, it would possibly be considered hearsay in a court of law.
Apparently, you just want to dismiss what the guy actually said, on the 911 tapes and in front of the victims. You might want to look in the mirror when you say the word clueless.
You are such a Neanderthal, Agent.
Just curious…what makes agent a Neanderthal for that comment? If the shooter wanted to target gays, wouldn’t a gay club be the softest target?
If not, what do you think it would be?
Point taken, Integrity; however, gay people were not his target, nor who he claims he was acting against or on behalf of in his 911 calls. Those who have read Agent’s comments for any length of time would suspect it was his homophobia showing. I don’t believe that I’m wrong, but if that was not Agent’s intent, I stand corrected.
I don’t think it qualifies as a “mass” shooting, but Navy Seal Chris Kyle and his friend Chad Littlefield were killed at a gun range.
Protect yourselves people. The government cannot and will not do it for you.
Correct B Right. Our President still thinks Climate Change is our biggest security threat. He will protect his buddies in the Muslim community at all costs.
Agent–are you one of those “parody” accounts, kind of like that poster “Rosie” who pops up now and then? You honestly can’t be serious with the “protect his buddies in the Muslim community at all costs”, can you?
You think maybe it’s possible that the Orlando shooter didn’t kill everyone because he was a Muslim terrorist, but because he himself was gay and couldn’t handle it because his father wouldn’t accept him? I guess either way it gives you an excuse to hate Muslims (or gays, for that matter), right?
No. I don’t accept justification of violence. I don’t buy that for one second, and I frankly find it insulting.
No one is accepted in high school. When it isn’t gay behavior it is something else. In our generation, it is clear that gay people receive more protection and less bullying than any bullied class in high school. I dealt with having my head hit into a brick wall, people calling me a certain nick name I won’t say here, and being called many names. If I shot up a club, it would be my choice not hate against gays that caused it.
Now on the Muslim religion, that religion actually does support killing of your enemies in present day. The only way to say it doesn’t, is to claim not all Muslims agree with their own faith. Some passages say mercy, but there are others that quite clearly say to kill non-believers, unless they convert, and considering being gay is an offense…This is why it is ok to murder gays in many Islamic nations. This is not coincidence. It is the Muslim religion, and those that agree with it condone it. That’s the end of it. When you go to a Muslim and you show them the passage and they say “well I don’t believe that” then they aren’t a Muslim, or they are indoctrinated enough to ignore it, which means they are a fanatic. Muslims do have serious issues and it is time to start identifying that fact.
Also,
Obama seems ok with Christian Terrorist, not radical Christian Terrorist, so he does seem to have some buddying ideals with the Muslim faith and double standards.
http://nationalreport.net/obama-refers-colorado-shooter-christian-terrorist-press-briefing/
We shouldn’t insult an entire religion based on the actions of one person after all, should we?
This is why I believe in God. The BLIP I mentioned. Obama is not dumb. But BLIP, he is suddenly ok with Christian terrorism but not calling Muslim terrorism Muslim terrorism, or even radical Muslim Terrorism. And when he does that, he says it is in order to ensure we don’t get on a high horse. Maybe that is the idea of telling Muslims, hey, your religion has some screwed up stuff in it if you aren’t careful?
Maybe.
Meanwhile in Chicago, 13 killed and 43 wounded in shootings over the Father’s Day weekend.
Yep, sure enough, those gun control laws are working well.
I live in Chicago. Very sad. So far the solution has been to be tougher on cops. Appears not to be working.
This will end up with SCOTUS if this judge decides to legislate from the bench. I have not heard of any remote evidence that this mfgr had any involvement in the direct sale of the guns used in this shooting. That would be like suing Ford because a 3 time DUI offender killed a bus load of kids.
Cars are not designed to kill people, guns are. If this was opened to product liability they would immediately start using technology that would limit these types of killings. Learn the basics before making stupid analogies.
“If this was opened to product liability they would immediately start using technology that would limit these types of killings.”
Really? And how exactly would that happen? How does the gun know whether a good guy or bad guy is pulling the trigger. Pretty much how the left thinks, they don’t.
It doesn’t, which is why companies wouldn’t sell products designed to kill a large number of people in a short period of time. The only use for these weapons are war and mass killings.
A weapon designed to kill a large number of people is a full automatic weapon with a large clip. More commonly known as a machine gun. Which anybody who knows anything about guns knows are illegal to ordinary citizens. Those are the weapons designed for war.
Actu –
Actually, guns are designed to shoot bullets or paintballs, Einstein. Knives are designed to cut things. Baseball bats are designed to hit balls. Ropes are designed to tie things up.
What PEOPLE do with these items, can kill other people. A gun does not walk into a nightclub on its own and start shooting by itself. A car does not drive into a crowd by itself.
The proximate cause (if you are an insurance person and know what that means) of ANY shooting is the PERSON and not the gun.
Learn to apply logic before making stupid responses.
Guns are protected in the US solely because they are intended to be used by people in a well-regulated militia to kill people. These guns are designed to shoot bullets into people. A lot of bullets very quickly. If there is nothing wrong with them, and they are not being designed or sold in a negligent manner remove the protection and let citizens decide on a case by case basis.
Thanks for your opinion, but, you are wrong based on the Constitution.
How so? It’s not even debatable.
Now who’s the one that’s refusing to accept anything because they have already made up their own mind? Even when it is in black and white?
Read the Constitution and the District of Columbia vs. Heller SCOTUS opinion.
Maybe, we are talking two different things. What part of your comment is not debatable?
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Or in this case, over 3 hours away. The fact that politicians, mainly Democrats, would try to pin this on the NRA is deplorable.
Could this have turned out any worse if legal carry was permitted by patrons who had a chance to defend themselves? Liberals soil themselves with the concept of freedom, but I guarantee a patron would have wished at least one person had a gun so during those long telephone conversations someone could have gone up to this guy and finished him off.
This? Yes, but also there would be tens of thousands more shootings due to alcohol,accidents, etc.
You can make the same comment about cars. Try to focus on the person, not the weapon of choice.
Cars aren’t designed to kill people, and cars do not have this protection, so yes, remove the protection like with cars and let courts and citizens decide on a case by case basis as they do with cars.
Provide examples of cars designed for killing instead of transportation, and then a bunch of cases where dozens of people were intentionally killed because of the characteristics of the car and you have an actual analogy instead of the apologist BS you are pushing.
Guns are designed to shoot bullets. People decide if they want to use them for war, defense, sport or recreation. Provide examples when a gun killed a person without human intervention.
Regarding the protection for cars, the reason why car mfgrs don’t have protection is because the car can harm someone if it was not made correctly (i.e. airbags, gas tank design). I am not certain, but I believe gun mfgrs can be sued if the gun was not made properly and it malfunctions and harms someone.
FYI car mfgrs cannot be sued because someone driving it while impaired kills others, unless there is an alleged defect in the car.
Question…are knives designed for killing? How do they compare to guns? I guess we ought to make you have a background check the next time you buy a butcher knife.
Why can’t you admit that it takes a person to actually use the gun? Is it really that difficult to comprehend?
There was an armed security guard at the nightclub. Good guy with a gun. I also don’t know of any bar owner that could honestly say they think it’s a good idea for patrons who are going to be consuming alcohol to bring guns into the establishment. Yes, it had the potential to turn out worse, more people could have been caught in the cross fire.
Captain, one report I heard this weekend said that the security guard at the club was not armed. Not sure which report is right. Not sure why a guard would be unarmed. Did he return fire or was he killed too?
Perplexed and anyone else who may be interested in facts regarding the Orlando massacre, here you go:
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/orlando-club-had-armed-security/
planet –
I read the fact check article, and yes, there was ONE armed security guard/cop that had a gun. He apparently came running when he heard gun fire and engaged with the assailant. It sounds like he only had his service weapon and knew he could not match the fire power.
If you read the transcript, Trump said “But if you had guns in that room, if you had — even if you had a number of people having them strapped to their ankle or strapped to their waist, where bullets could have flown in the other direction right at him, you wouldn’t have had the same kind of a tragedy.”…meaning if there were others in the nightclub that where armed, it may have been a different story.
Also, the cop is also trained to be concerned about innocent victims. The assailant did not care who was shot.
I can’t say for certain, but if the attack occurred in a Texas nightclub, the outcome might have been different.
so trump said the people in the club should’ve had guns
the NRA said people should not be at a club drinking with firearms.
who do you support here: trump (“It’s too bad some of the people killed over the weekend didn’t have guns attached to their hips”) or the NRA (“No one thinks that people should go into a nightclub drinking and carrying firearms,” said Chris Cox…”That defies common sense. It also defies the law.”)
Confused –
They are too separate statements of fact.
If people in the nightclub had guns, the outcome might have been different.
Guns and alcohol don’t (usually) mix.
What if there were people there that had guns and weren’t drinking? I’d support that. Maybe they are the designated drivers?
“What if there were people there that had guns and weren’t drinking?”
there are so many holes in your theory it’s impossible to cover them all.
have you gone out to a bar, restaurant, sports event or night club recently? even designated drivers have 1 or 2 drinks.
but hey, let’s play by your theory for a moment.
someone walks into a bar with a gun & claims to be a designated driver so they get to come in with their gun.
now say they order a drink. what happens to the gun? does the bartender take it away? what if it’s a concealed weapon and the bartender doesn’t know?
so say the bartender has their gun because they’re drinking. oh wait. they just bought the drink for someone else – do they get their gun back? what if their friend lets them have some of their drink? do they lose the gun again?
say the place took their gun because they decided to drink. how exactly do you plan on giving them their gun back? do they have to come back when they’re sober? is there a coat-check ticket they have to use to get their gun? what if they lose it? where are all these guns being stored during the night anyway?
Confused –
And there lies the conundrum that we face every day.
Democrat/liberals want to penalize all people, including responsible ones, and forbid us to protect ourselves with gun free zones. This creates a bigger target because the irresponsible criminals know they can go to these places and not be challenged.
Responsible people wanting to protect themselves will more often than not, even while having a few drinks at a night club, be responsible with their firearm.
Yes, there will be some idiots that won’t be responsible, but they are likely to find a way to be an idiot anyway.
I would actually feel safer walking into a night club that publicized guns were allowed and knowing that a portion of the population might have guns on them, than one that states it is a gun free zone. (FYI…I don’t own a gun.)
The reputation of the establishment is going to dictate whether it is usually a safe environment or not.
Did the Twin Peaks in Waco allow guns? I honestly don’t know, but am curious. That bar and restaurant has a good reputation (at least here in town) but had one of the worst gang shootouts in history of biker gang shootouts.
Ohio’s concealed handgun law allows a person to carry their gun into a class D bar/restaurant if they are not drinking or under the influence of alcohol, and there are no signs posted prohibiting guns. If you intend to drink, you can’t carry it in. I regularly carry my gun in my purse into a local bar. I don’t drink and if I were going to, I’d go to my car, unload the gun, put the bullets in the trunk, and the unloaded gun elsewhere in the car which is what Ohio law says I have to do. I have found that people who have their concealed handgun license take it very seriously and follow the law strictly. Our friends tell me they feel safer knowing I have it with me just in case. Their are no loop holes to common sense when carrying a handgun.
Rhonda, you sound like a responsible gun owner. Let me personally thank you for helping to protect the unprotected.
I agree with Dave specific to his reply to Rhonda.
YAY RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER!!!
The problem is not where you agree.
The problem is when you see an irresponsible gun owner, and then try to regulate the responsible ones, with no evidence that it will have any large affect.
Where is your evidence that banning automatic weapons would be beneficial?
You don’t say yay responsible gun owner just to patronize them and then simultaneously say “BUT we just have to take your rights away, because less than .001 percent of gun owners per year kill someone with them, and of those less than half are automatic weapons, but you know, we’ll ban them just the same because reasons and you could kill more people with an assault weapon!”
Don’t patronize gun owners for image points Confused.
Bob, automatic weapons are already banned. What’s your point?
I was being sincere when I wrote YAY RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER! I was not patronizing Rhonda, I was commending her.
Dave,
At first I thought you were being sarcastic, but now I think you may have been serious.
Are you referring to the assault rifle ban?
That expired some time ago, and while democrats have been trying to get it established again republicans have been stopping them.
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/the-federal-assault-weapons-ban.htm
“I was being sincere when I wrote YAY RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER! I was not patronizing Rhonda, I was commending her.”
It is patronizing when you say yay a responsible gun owner, especially when you say “but guns need to be regulated”
It’s the same as saying go you! But guns are bad because of other people, really now.
You are patronizing her. You’re still going to go out there and try to support gun regulation, as you have mentioned, for assault weapons. Is the irresponsible if she owns an assault weapon? That would be patronizing to believe that. Do you believe that owning one in general is irresponsible? Then you support regulating responsible gun owners for the irresponsible, so saying yay a responsible gun owner by default holds the implied “but” by default.
No matter which way you cut the cake, that comment was patronizing.
As it turns out I do own an assault rifle – it’s my favorite gun of all that I own. It’s purely for fun and target shooting but I would not be afraid to use it to defend if needed. Patronizing or not, I work very hard to be a responsible gun owner. That is an area where more focus needs to be given. The majority of gun owners are responsible. We are condemned for owning guns by a very small percentage of non-responsible owners.
The AR platform rifle has been sold since 1963. Some questions I have, what is “military grade?” and why, if the legal standing is sound, why does the plaintiff’s case rely on twisting the law, as Culhane said:
“With Congress seemingly paralyzed on this issue, certain state court judges — depending on what state you’re in — might approach the case with some kind of urge to do something about it,” Culhane said. “A creative interpretation of the law like this might be a way to do that.”
Why are gun manufacturers allowed to sell assault rifles to individuals in the first place? They are weapons of war and designed to kill. The gun manufacturers just need a market for their product so they are happy to sell them to anyone so they can keep making money.
If only it was as hard to buy a gun in TX as it is to get an abortion.
Gun manufacturers may sell currently legal assault weapons to enable US citizens to protect themselves against CRIMINALS who could obtain assault rifles illegally.
Allowing only single-shot pistols to be sold legally would give criminals with assault weapons obtained illegally a big advantage in home invasions or other types of violent confrontation; e.g. night club, school, church, etc.
Got any other easy questions?
Carol,
Do you know the difference between an assault rifle and a so-called assault weapon?
What on a gun makes it a ‘weapon of war’?
In your opinion is hunting a valid use of a firearm? If so, how would you require guns to be made so that they are lethal enough for a deer but not for a human?
Mr Mister
These liberal idiots forget the real purpose behind the 2nd Amendment, which is to allow the citizens the ability to arm themselves against a tyrannical government…which we are getting closer and closer to.
no. people just realize the second amendment needs to be updated because it was written ~100 years before the first automatic weapon was ever made.
So the government can have better weapons so it would be easier to stop a revolution. Riigghhttt!!
no, everyone can have the same weapons! if the gov’t gets to have MP-5s, for example, then citizens should be able to buy them too.
So confused, what other Bill of Rights (the first 10 and most important amendments) would you have us abolish. I see you and your ilk are working really hard on killing the First Amendment too, stifling free speech and minimizing religious freedom. What next?
Confused,
I think the 1st Amendment needs to be updated because the Framers of the Constitution couldn’t possibly have foreseen the internet and how it allows the free spread of ideas!
/tongue-in-cheek alert/
Dave,
Please quote exactly where confused said he/she wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment?
If you need to change what someone says just to make your point, you lose.
dave – i wrote “we can all have MP5’s.” clearly i am not advocating for getting rid of the 2nd amendment!
what makes you think i want to get rid of the 2nd amendment when i said we should all be able to own the same weapons as our government?!?
The Constitution only specifies a well-regulated militia in order to maintain a free state, referring to freedom from government oppression, as people here have written. It does not say we can have guns for personal protection in places like bars, a policy so stupid it is hard to believe anyone is taking the people making it seriously.
Actu –
Please stop. You are really showing your ignorance of the Constitution and the purpose behind the right to bear arms. Please do some research and you will see it was meant for self-defense of the individual.
Ron,
“no. people just realize the second amendment needs to be updated”
Update the 2nd Amendment? We’ve never had an update to any Amendment. All we have done is to repeal Amendments. In essence he’s talking repeal and replace.
Confused, you said:
“no. people just realize the second amendment needs to be updated”
Since we don’t “update” Amendments, I clearly read your intent to Repeal.
just because we have not updated amendments does not mean (a) we can’t, (b) we shouldn’t or (c) the only option to change an amendment is to repeal it.
i stand by my statement: the 2nd amendment needs to be UPDATED, not repealed.
you don’t think amendments can be updated and they can only be enacted or repealed? fine. then I’d argue we need to enact a 28th amendment that brings the 2nd amendment into the 21st century. again – i do not want to repeal the 2nd amendment.
integrity matters,
By your logic, the 2nd amendment does not apply to hunting rifles, handguns, shotguns or semi-automatic weapons. None of those are capable of stopping a tyrannical government.
By the way, I am still waiting to see the list of well-regulated militias to all of these gun owners belong.
This coming from a 2nd Amendment supporter who has no problem with each citizen owning guns.
Not true, Ron. All of those guns mentioned are arms that can assist in defending against a tyrannical government.
Furthermore, the “well regulated militia” and “right to bear arms” are mutually exclusive. One does not have to be part of a well-regulated militia to be able to bear arms.
FYI – here is a link to help you with finding the list of well regulated militias, by state, as constitutionally protected.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_us.htm
integrity matters,
Yes true. If the U.S. military comes knocking on your door, do you honestly believe that your .357, 12-gauge or 30.06 is going to stop them? Good luck.
If they are mutually exclusive, and the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to allow just anyone to own a gun or guns, why does the amendment even mention a well regulated militia? Would it not just read, “Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”? Then you would be right.
I never said there were not well regulated state militias. Does every gun owner belong to one of these? Of course not. That was my point.
Ron,
I’ve said it before, I don’t own a gun. But if I did, and if I was going to participate in a revolution, I wouldn’t wait for the military to come knock on my door. By the way, part of the problem with “gun-control” that the libs want, is the list of people who own guns and what types of guns they have so they CAN come knock on the door and take them away if they deemed it in the “best interest” of the country (aka tyranny).
Regarding your language question, I think it is obvious that the framers wanted the citizens to have the legal right to form a militia. Separately, they gave the right to citizens to bear arms (primarily for personal protection). Read the District of Columbia vs. Heller opinion for more detail.
Also, you said “I am still waiting to see the list of well-regulated militias to all of these gun owners belong.” You didn’t ask for a list of gun owners that belong to militias. For the record, gun owners do not have to belong to a militia. The Constitution does not say or imply that. Using your logic, if they did mean that, why didn’t they say it that way?
integrity matters,
I guess we are playing the interpretation game. If that is the case, we will have to agree to disagree how to interpret the 2nd Amendment.
I have read the opinion of that case. Have you read the dissent? If it was a 9-0 vote, I would agree with you. However, legal scholars far more qualified than you or I cannot even agree on the true intent of the amendment..
If you think any of the weapons you can purchase on the market are going to stop the US Military, you are more off your rocker than I previously thought. HA, yeah, fight off a tyrannical government. The strongest military force in the world. Good luck! WOLVERINES!!!!!!
Tell that to the Viet Cong, ISIS and many other Guerrilla fighters. Good thing about the US military, they despise Obama and his ilk as much as Obama hates the military. I’m fairly confident that when the left goes too far, the military will side with US citizens.
Dave,
You said, “I’m fairly confident that when the left goes too far, the military will side with US citizens.” That must mean you do not believe the citizens need guns to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. Either that or you believe it would be a government controlled by the right that would become tyrannical.
I’ll let you decide which.
If only Obama lioed the military as much as Bush and the Republicans so he could create another BS war to needlessly kill 6700+ soldiers.
Actu, same old tired liberal, lie. I know when your ilk say this, you have lost the argument.
Bush did not lie about weapons of mass destruction. It was bad intelligence. The Israelis, Germans, French, British and US intelligence departments all believed Iraq had them. No lie. Bad intelligence. You want an example of a flat out lie? How about this one? Obama, Susan Rice and others (including Hillary) describing the attacks on Benghazi the result of a protest of a bad video. They all knew within hours of the attack that it was a coordinated terrorist attack on of all days 9/11. And then Obama compounded the lie by saying during the debate with Romney that the day after the attack in his Rose Garden speech, that he had called it a terrorist attack, when in truth all he did was mention terrorism but not not call Benghazi a terrorist attack. Then Candy Crawley lied and agreed and was ultimately fired by CNN. There’s some real lies for you actu.
IM,
I’m not calling people who are pro-gun-control idiots, but I do think if anyone would answer the questions I asked above we could have a more meaningful conversation rather than a flame war.
integrity, you sound a lot like Thomas Jefferson, one of our greatest Presidents. He had a lot of suspicion on the motives of the government and did everything he could to protect the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution.
integrity, veterans such as myself took an oath to defend the country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. We appear to have a whole lot of domestic enemies in this country who want to strip the citizens of their guns and right to self defense. I noticed that Democrats in Congress are staging a sit in to force their agenda. I say turn out the lights on them and lock the doors. They might not like it, but it is the right thing to do.
Agent
Have you noticed that not one of the liberals on this site have tried to defend Carol on her ridiculous abortion comment?
integrity, I did notice. You may not see it until another 50 posts. My guess is Planet or Ron.
Carol
If only people were more responsible about getting pregnant and abortions, there wouldn’t be MILLIONS of babies KILLED every year. There are more babies killed by abortions than there are people killed by guns, EVERY YEAR.
Integrity,
The number isn’t small either in the difference.
11,208 deaths to about 100,000,000 gun owners. That’s pretty responsible in my eyes. Also note that most of these murders were with a handgun. So much for benefits of banning automatic guns.
https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm
Also, they are used for defense 2.5 million times per year. How many rapes could be prevented with a gun, or robberies in process? So to save 11,000 people, we enable criminals. I might add in these 11,000 the number of innocents shot is not broken down in my wiki link. I’ll look more into it later when I have more time.
Whereas abortion is between 900,000 to 1.2 million per year.
In 2014 there were 3.98 million births
974,000 abortions
This means of 4.954 million viable mothers, almost 20% of them aren’t fit to be mothers apparently. I say we need to regulate abortions. Those are insane numbers. 20% of womb owners are irresponsible, whereas it would appear that only .0001 percent of gun owners are irresponsible at max per year assuming that 100% of all deaths from guns are irresponsible, which is, in itself, an irresponsible assumption.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
The numbers for the guns.
In other words, there is more evidence that abortion needs to be regulated than guns.
But liberals certainly will never admit to that.
If gun owners were as irresponsible with guns as mothers were with abortions,
We would have 20,000,000 gun deaths per year and we would all be wiped out in 5.
That should also show the abortion issue is very serious.
In New York more blacks were aborted than born recently. It’s not the only city like this.
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/nov/25/cynthia-meyer/cynthia-meyer-says-more-black-babies-are-aborted-n/
If we saw a statistic like this with guns to blacks…It would be taken seriously.
Remind me…Is this taken seriously?
Hey confused, do you take this seriously?
Hey actu, is this a problem?
Hey Planet, is this a problem?
Hey Ron, Is this a problem? Is it serious?
Is abortion out of control, to any of the 4 people I just referenced? I’m genuinely curious. Do any of you see this as a problem of run away abortion? Or do you think abortion regulation would put the rights of women under attack from rich white men (in Captain’s scenario) or by religion (In Ron’s scenario) or God knows what in the others.
Bob,
Thanks for all the facts on this. This just proves that the liberal democrats do not care about HUMAN rights or that black lives matter.
If black lives really mattered, they would try to stop the killing of black babies. They are all hypocrites and they should be ashamed of themselves. This makes me sick.
The most dangerous thing to a black man is the government.
Even more so than gun murders.
It is sick. How many black kids never even got a chance?
Carol?? Ron?? Confused?? Planet?? Are you out there? Hello??
No one wants to debate me on whether abortion control legislation is more important to human life than gun control legislation?
I see…when its a personal choice, a person should have that choice. Because the choice to kill a baby is so much more important than the choice to own whatever gun a person wants to own.
Please, one of you liberals try to defend this.
integrity matters,
If I was pro-abortion or a liberal, I might.
Anything else?
Nope, I stand corrected on your position on abortion. I apologize. Thanks for agreeing with me.
You’re pro life but don’t find it important enough to vote regarding,
You have previously mocked republicans for passing abortion regulations,
…
Really Ron, this is why I called you a Catholic Apologetic in the past.
I don’t believe you hold that belief you just said, that or you do and for some reason think that when republicans try to do abortion laws it is wrong somehow in a contradictory fashion.
Bob,
Please provide my voting record, other than the office of the president. Not for whom you think I voted, the actual candidates.
When have I mocked Republicans for passing abortion regulations? Citation needed. More likely, I have criticized them for only caring about abortion during the campaign season just to get our votes.
When did I say I was pro-life? I am against abortions based on my own personal beliefs. However, unlike you, I do not believe that, in a secular nation, we should make laws or force people to make decisions based on religion.
If one can make an argument that the fetus is not a human being until it reaches a stage in which he/she can be viable outside of the womb, and therefore is completely dependent upon the mother’s body, it is a part of the mother’s body and not yet his/her own person. I am not saying that is what I believe, but if someone does, that should be respected. If that is the case, then that person should be able to make decisions based on their own body.
In my opinion, the heart of the abortion debate is the lack of a universal acceptance as to what stage do we define the fetus as a person. We have our opinion that it is at conception. Others believe otherwise.
Nobody wants to debate you because you are an ignoramus who denies science. No, a zygote that is smaller than a pinhead, or the size of your brain, is not the same or as important as actual living humans who are murdered because ammosexuals have deranged fantasies about being vigilantes like George Zimmerman.
Really?? Deny science? Do you deny that what is inside a pregnant female is not a baby human that is living (regardless of what you want to call it)?
You think a poor defenseless yet-to-be born living child in the womb is not as important as a living human that is outside of the womb? Now that is deranged and it is obvious you have no common sense.
integrity, our professorial Constitutional scholar President said that he was frustrated with the Constitution because it kept saying what couldn’t be done. No wonder he keeps trying to do Executive Orders which is writing law that a President does not have Constitutional authority to do. He just got shot down again (excuse the pun) on his immigration order. He either gets challenged/sued by Congress or the Supremes on every issue. He should just give up, go golf and retire from public life. Worst President in history.
Agent,
I am convinced more and more each day that Obama is a traitor. If it wasn’t for the Constitutional laws that we have, he would have taken over this country and turned it into a dictatorship. He’s gotten as close as a person could so far.
I’m glad the law was upheld with the SCOTUS tie. I wish it was a 8-0 vote to erase any doubt from the left.
integrity, a lot of people think this country is a Democracy which is a lie. It was set up as a Constitutional Republic and even with some flaws, it is far superior to a Democracy which only invites chaos, much like Democrats seem to prefer. Just look at what Obama has done to this country in a little more than 7 years. He is the great divider as shown on every issue and problem and offers the exact opposite of doing the right thing. No wonder the problems seem so great. Time to change it all out in November.
AR’s can kill, but so can any other gun. That mentality says all guns must be taken away which then takes away our constitutional right to bear arms. I own an AR and it is my favorite gun. I only use it to shoot targets for fun. It is my right to do that. When you start banning stuff, it snowballs, then all guns are banned – 1 constitutional right down and which one will be next? I myself don’t want what our country was founded on taken away from me.
A question that is impossible for a liberal Democrat to answer truthfully:
“Why don’t you fear the guns held by your bodyguards?”
Ooops! I meant to say ‘liberal Democrat politician’.
Yogi, a liberal Progressive mind is a diseased mind. They don’t know right from wrong and show it with every post.
It’s impossible for them to answer because they can’t be truthful.
See Obama and HilLIARy for examples.
uhh. guys? don’t the secret service and other government-hired security forces have to go through background checks and training before they’re hired and given weapons? if so, that’s why we’re not fearful of them. if they don’t have to be trained or researched to see if they’re on the terrorist watch list, then i’m fearful of their weapons too.
OK, I see you get the point about WHAT creates the danger in regard to a gun. It’s not the gun, it’s the…
Partly because they are given MILITARY grade weapons, we are not.
how is my stance so difficult to understand?
1) I like the 2nd amendment
2) Citizens should be able to own guns
3) If the gov’t gets to use a Schwerer Gustav, citizens should be able to buy and use it too
4) The 2nd amendment should be updated so gun buyers are (a) checked against the terrorist watch list and (b) ensure they have some form of gun safety training.
That’s it.
EVERYONE GETS TO KEEP THEIR GUNS EXCEPT POTENTIAL TERRORISTS AND PEOPLE WHO CAN’T PASS GUN SAFETY CLASSES.
Roger that?
That last phrase is extremely dishonest.
No republicans are against safety classes and getting a gun legally.
No republicans support laws to give potential terrorists guns.
Also, you have in this post said you are against automatic weapons. So you’re not for citizens owning guns. You’re for them owning “reasonable” guns, which to me considering my numbers above is completely unreasonable.
Your position keeps changing. You’re ok with gun laws, except this, except that, except somehow you can’t explain republicans are causing terrorists and jack offs to get guns!
Derp.
You’re being lied to by democrats. It’s that simple.
“Also, you have in this post said you are against automatic weapons.”
oh did i?
where did I say i wanted to ban automatic weapons?
i’ve said citizens should be able to use the same weapons the gov’t can.
i included MP5’s and even Gustav’s for two different examples.
nowhere did i say or imply i wanted to ban automatic weapons.
stop putting words in my mouth, liar.
“I like the 2nd Amendment”
“The 2nd amendment should be updated”
Are you schizophrenic?
“If the gov’t gets to use a Schwerer Gustav, citizens should be able to buy and use it too”
So you don’t like the fact that the government can buy fully automatic rifles (machine guns) and we cannot? Like many liberals, not well thought out.
confused,
Thank you for advancing the conversation. I’m giving you an thumbs-up for that alone.
Everyone wants to keep terrorists from getting guns.
However, keeping guns out of the hands of those on a no-fly list runs straight into the due process clause of the Constitution. Who is on the list is classified, how they got there is classified, who put them on there is classified, and the criteria used to decide if they can come off is classified.
You can’t remove a civil liberty due to such an opaque & legally unaccountable process.
I like the 1st amendment, but I don’t think people should be able to yell “fire” in a movie theater.
I like the 2nd amendment, but I don’t think people should be able to buy guns if they can’t board a plane.
That doesn’t make me a schizophrenic.
“So you don’t like the fact that the government can buy fully automatic rifles (machine guns) and we cannot? Like many liberals, not well thought out.”
How many times do I have to say the same thing before you understand?
LAWFUL CITIZENS WHO AREN’T ON A TERRORIST WATCH LIST SHOULD BE ABLE TO OWN WHATEVER WEAPONS THE GOV’T CAN USE.
IF THE GOV’T CAN USE A GUSTAV, CITIZENS SHOULD BE ABLE TO LEGALLY BUY ONE TOO.
So no – I don’t like it if the gov’t can use a weapon that citizens cannot lawfully buy themselves. Got it yet??
edit:
My “so NO” reply wasn’t a response to your question as I tweaked what you said a little bit in my reply. i apologize for any confusion. let me answer your actual question
edit: YES, I do not like it if the government has weapons that citizens cannot buy.
My interpretation of Confused’s position is that, if the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to allow the citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, they should be allowed access to the same weaponry as said government. Otherwise, the 2nd Amendment, as the right has interpreted the intent, is useless as written.
How is that Confused?
I agree, Integrity. I need an atom bomb so I can defend myself against the tyrannical government. They have nukes so I get them, too.
Dave, I am with you on the armed citizenry. I am confident that our US Military hates the liberals and if faced with 150 million armed citizens, they would switch pretty fast and decide they were not given lawful orders. What US soldier would want to go against relatives and friends if it came down to that?
see: usa – war, civil
also, how’s that global cooling down in texas?
now you see how wrong you are when you say “oh, it’s cold in the north this winter – that’s proof that global warming is a lie!”
75 below zero at the South Pole. How is that cap melting going on right now?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice-intermediate.htm
“The simplistic interpretation that it’s caused by cooling is false. Antarctic sea ice is complex and counter-intuitive.”
I doubt you will click on the link and take the time to read the article and look at the data though, so feel free to reply with some insulting and ignorant comment about how the article and liberal millennial atheist Muslims are wrong even though you didn’t bother to read it or take the time to try and understand it.
See proximate cause of said war.
If your side is so adamant on taking guns to start a war over it, rather than let someone have guns, well,
See usa – war, civil.
It takes two sides. Nothing Agent said would start a civil war, but what you said demands one.
Well, I have quite many friends who served in Iraq and I’m pretty sure they didn’t appreciate a President who lied them into a war. Agent, you seriously need to branch out, man! The world is bigger than Hannity and El Rushbo.
Tend to your dead chickens and stay off the blog if you don’t have anything to contribute to the subject matter.
Oh Agent, same line, different forum I see. Your material gets old. You are like Kenny Bania on Seinfeld. “Oh, this is gold, Yogi…gold!”
But, I’ll play your suit – just tend to your god forsaken state, raped and beaten by continuous Acts of God! And, keep your hand palm-out so ol’ Uncle Sam can keep you all afloat down there. And in some cases, I realize being afloat down in Tejas isn’t a good thing.
I said good day sir!
Bush did not lie them into a war, though Clinton and Gore lied them both into and out of one several times.
Wait, is Iraq a threat now or isn’t it? Do they or do they not need help?
Should we do another bombing round?
Hey Hillary! Another round of Iraq bombing, on the house!
The White House that is.
– Obama
P.S. Boots on the ground suck and never works. Just scorch the ground and when Cruz says he will bomb people say that he would be the person who truly scorches the ground and puts people at risk, not you and I!
Lots of Love!
Well, Planet, I have young man that I fostered that did two tours in Iraq. He has TOLD me, that he did not appreciate Obama forbidding them to defend themselves. He is especially bitter since he saw his friend get his head blown off by a sniper. They could not fight back. They had to call the Iraqi army in to try to get the sniper. Of course, the sniper was long gone by the time the Iraqi army showed up.
Obama lied about a video causing the Benghazi attack so he could get re-elected. I guess you’re okay with that though.
integrity, we do know that our President does not like answering the phone at 3:00 AM nor did his Secretary of State. His first reaction was to find an excuse like a stupid video that no one saw and promote it. After all, fundraising is much more fun than going to the situation room and trying to save American lives.
Ah Captain, the same old liberal lie. Let me repeat:
Bush did not lie about weapons of mass destruction. It was bad intelligence. The Israelis, Germans, French, British and US intelligence departments all believed Iraq had them. No lie. Bad intelligence. You want an example of a flat out lie? How about this one? Obama, Susan Rice and others (including Hillary) describing the attacks on Benghazi the result of a protest of a bad video. They all knew within hours of the attack that it was a coordinated terrorist attack on of all days 9/11. And then Obama compounded the lie by saying during the debate with Romney that the day after the attack in his Rose Garden speech, that he had called it a terrorist attack, when in truth all he did was mention terrorism but not not call Benghazi a terrorist attack. Then Candy Crawley lied and agreed and was ultimately fired by CNN. There’s some real lies for you Captain.
Yogi, in view of the Ft Hood shootings where the MUSLIM murdered so many unarmed soldiers, I am for arming soldiers on military posts so they can defend themselves. Depending on the MP’s for response is far too slow as it was demonstrated in that attack.
Yogi, Breaking News: The Brits have voted to exit the European Union (Brexit). The Globalization crowd is crying in their beer since the people of Britain have awakened. They don’t much like how it has been going in the wonderful European economy and being strapped to bail out Greece and others. They also don’t like admitting 350,000 Muslims who do nothing but stir up trouble and chaos. Maybe mass deportations will be next in order. This country can learn from them and take similar actions. It is time to put this country first and not a bunch of elitist idiots who like one world order.
Can you name 1 actual change that will happen because of Britain’s exit from the EU? Not “they COULD deport 350,000 Muslims in the future” or “they COULD do this or that”
I’m asking you to tell us ONE thing that DEFINITELY changed with this decision. You know, some kind of fact to indicate you know what this decision really means TODAY.
Thanks for not insulting me in you reply since I’m just asking you to provide a fact, not an opinion.
Allow Winston Churchill to answer your question.
The inherit vice of Capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherit blessings of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
The British people are tired of Progressive Socialists just like we are tired of Obama. James Cameron, the newly resigned Prime Minister had a close friendship with Obama. Need we say more?
dude – you could’ve just said “no, i do not know the actual impact of this decision.” that would’ve been a lot quicker.
dude, no amount of explanation on any subject would ever sink in with you. Stay tuned for the impact of this decision. Stay tuned to what Angela Merkel will do as well. I don’t think she wants to support Europe on her own which is almost the case as it is. Progressive Socialism is the biggest economic failure in history. Every country that has tried it has failed, most miserably.
Ron “My interpretation of Confused’s position is that….the citizens…should be allowed access to the same weaponry as said government.”
THANK YOU!! Finally someone gets what I’ve been saying.
I don’t understand why some people here keep trying to tell me that I want to take their guns away, or that I think automatic weapons should be illegal, or that I’m patronizing someone when I sincerely commend them for being a responsible gun owner.
You want a gun, fine. The government wants a gatling gun? Sure, as long as every citizen can get a gatling gun too! Why can’t anyone else understand this line of thinking?!?
I get what everyone is saying. That is the power of being an analytical Independent, not some emotional Conservative or Liberal.
The righties especially hate those who think and are not sheep.
“I get what everyone is saying. That is the power of being an analytical Independent, not some emotional Conservative or Liberal.
The righties especially hate those who think and are not sheep.”
That last line removes your ability to be independent.
Also, your description of Confused may be what confused says he agrees with now, however, he is clearly advocating getting rid of automatic weapons and is focusing on what might do that. His primary argument starts at automatic weapons = bad and the founding fathers didn’t consider this. He has said as much.
He is not starting with whether or not arms are meant to defend from a tyrannical government (otherwise he would not say the above as it is irrelevant to having equal weapons, see the contradiction or no? The conservatives see this and are calling him out on it, they are not being blind sided, YOU are), ergo why when Agent said come and get them and see what happens, confused said see US – War, Civil.
Ironically, you are incapable of seeing double speak from democrats. A weakness you have from not being an independent.
Bob, Ron has professed to be an Independent many times and studied all the candidates positions before voting on the last day. He then selected Obama twice as his President. He is nothing more than a Democrat in sheeps clothing. Being from liberal NY gives him no standing and it gives true Independents a bad name. Most of them are Conservative, not liberal dirt bags.
Woah, he’s from NY?
I don’t know why but that surprises me. Though it sometimes surprises me I’m from WA State.
Although, even though I’m not like leftists here I certainly do have the style of speech of a Washingtonian.
I actually throw in swear words sometimes specifically because I’m tired of talking like a Washingtonian smart ass.
I’m sometimes far too focused on the structure of my speech and it’s common around here.
Bob, where have you been for the past 4 or 5 years? I confirmed Ron was from Buffalo long ago and that explains his know it all NY rhetoric. I can’t prove it and the leftist’s won’t admit it, but I believe most of them are either from NY or in a neighboring state that are equally Progressive with high taxation, high regulation and with dufus governors. They don’t appear to be proud of their state, that is for sure. I cut you some slack for being from Washington State. I am sure you have a burden to carry. Hopefully, your office is not so liberal that you have issues with some of the employees at the water cooler. Aren’t these word parsing liberals fun? Angry trolls! I see you do lose your temper from time to time when they call you a dolt, idiot, bully all the time. They are all resistant to hearing the truth and perhaps the brain washing in college did the trick with them.
Need a funny for the end of the week. How about British paper headlines on Brexit! See EU later!
If there was the smallest chance I would argue citizens should not be allowed automatic weapons, I would not have kept posting if you want MP5’s or a gatling gun or a Schwerer Gustav, you can have one so long as the government gets to use those weapons too.
Google Schwerer Gustav.
Look at the kind of gun I’m saying people can have so long as it’s legal across the board and the gov’t gets to use them too.
If I’m saying you can have one of those, there’s no way in hell I would try to argue a smaller weapon should be banned!
Stop mischaracterizing what I wrote. I have not “outright said automatic weapons should not be in the hands of the citizens”.
I have literally said the exact opposite of that about a dozen times!
I said the 2nd amendment needs to be updated so people on a terrorist watch list can’t buy guns. That’s the only way I’ve suggested we amend the 2nd amendment.
Suggesting it has to be amended does automatically (pun intended!) mean I want to ban automatic weapons. I have already explained 12 times what I meant when I said it should be amended and not once did I say I felt automatic weapons should be banned.
I know double speak when I see it, you are used to lying like this because your leaders do it.
What did you mean then, when you said this?
“no. people just realize the second amendment needs to be updated because it was written ~100 years before the first automatic weapon was ever made.”
You’re trying to say the aspect that you don’t care about weapons solely to make it ok to pass democrat laws. Don’t worry they won’t take your guns. That’s a lie, and they will. They are aiming for it.
When they quote the number of deaths from assault rifles and then try to pass clip bans and ammo limits, that is trying to remove them. They already passed a law to remove them, it just expired a few years back.
You’re following your leaders well, but I’m not an idiot confused.
If you believe the facet that made the law dated was “automatic” weapons, that was your starting point, not whether the government had equal weapons.
Back then automatic stationary weapons existed. So if you believed it was about having equal weapons the amendment would not have been dated based on automatic ones.
You clarified and back petaled only after people called you on this.
The automatic weapons is what you said made it dated and need to be revised.
So how does it need to be revised then, if you didn’t mean to remove automatic weapons? You’re lying here.
You know you lost and now you’re saying the government should have the same weapons. Well then, it doesn’t need to be updated if you think we should all have the weapons you mentioned, as all would be automatic weapons. Sooooo….Yeah. I’m not stupid Confused, I know what you meant.
The amendment doesn’t need modifying. It states well enough you are allowed to own weapons.
If you mean to state within reason, that means you aren’t for equal weapons for the state and person.
If you mean to state safely and regulated, that wording doesn’t need to be included with the right to bear arms. The regulation of the government on that can be passed through laws as to how to register guns, juts like everything else. Amendments don’t deal with that, and if you believe so you clearly don’t know how the government should handle this or how it works.
You’re either ignorant here or you’re lying.
The conservatives calling you out are not misinformed however.
yes – i said the 2nd amendment was written before automatic weapons. that’s a fact. i used that as a point of reference to indicate things have changed since the law was enacted.
i never meant “we need to get rid of automatic weapons” and i apologize if that’s what you thought i was saying.
that was not my intent, I could have phrased it better, and as you can see, I have gone WELL out of my way to make that abundantly clear for 12+ posts now.
you can believe my sincere mea culpa of that phrasing and look at what I have written to try to explain that comment in the dozen posts since then and we can have a civil discussion about gun laws, or not.
“yes – i said the 2nd amendment was written before automatic weapons. that’s a fact. i used that as a point of reference to indicate things have changed since the law was enacted.
i never meant “we need to get rid of automatic weapons” and i apologize if that’s what you thought i was saying.
that was not my intent, I could have phrased it better, and as you can see, I have gone WELL out of my way to make that abundantly clear for 12+ posts now.
you can believe my sincere mea culpa of that phrasing and look at what I have written to try to explain that comment in the dozen posts since then and we can have a civil discussion about gun laws, or not.”
And you later then said the see US War – Civil in regards to if the government comes to get the guns, instead of “that would be unlawful”. You focused on the gun owner and not what would have obviously been a violation of rights. I’m not inclined to believe you.
If we are going to talk about gun rights starting at the amendment which whether or not automatic weapons existed at the time is irrelevant (they did by the way)
We should absolutely have a discussion about gun regulation (not the amendment which is a dishonest conversation)
From there, if you’re not ok with automatic weapon bans, go tell that to the democrats that banned them in 1996 I believe it was.
Go tell the democrats who insist on and have fought after each shooting to ban clips over a certain size and how much ammo one can buy.
Don’t go telling the republicans they are anti gun law because they are fighting those measures, and because they are calling clear steps toward gun control clear steps toward gun control.
I have already showed republicans who passed laws the NRA didn’t like for regulation.
You just stated they were not for sound gun control because they don’t support Obama’s methods.
When Obama passes a gun law that involves say mental health, and ties that with other gun regulations, and the republicans deny it, they are not denying mental health issues. They are denying the crap section of the law.
So instead of dishonestly saying they are against all gun regulation like your leaders do, you could have an honest discussion about it.
A post coming on this.
http://poorrichardsnews.com/there-are-31-gun-control-bills-active-in-congress/
What do you notice in a few of these bills?
The first bill is the one Obama mentioned that Republicans didn’t pass, that would supposedly prevent private gun sales which he said was a risk.
“This bill would require all gun sales to go through dealers, eliminating private gun sales. It would require background checks for all transfers of guns. It would require carry permit holders to provide adequate reason that they are “worthy of public trust” and have “good reason” to carry a firearm. It would allow the Attorney General to deny the sale or transfer of a firearm.”
Do you see how a republican might be ok with expanded background checks…
But AGAINST the clear attempt of a gun grab with the wording:
“It would require carry permit holders to provide adequate reason that they are “worthy of public trust” and have “good reason” to carry a firearm”
This same wording is used in other countries who eventually confiscated guns, like oh say Australia? I don’t care if Australia has ended mass shootings (supposedly) if numbers I provided are any indication of how many crimes are prevented by gun ownership I will take that over stopping what was I believe 15 shootings in 13 years…Or was it 17 mass shootings in 13 years?
This law was passed like this on purpose, and I have shown this before on oh say the discrimination laws and gay rights laws that impose CRIMINAL liability for saying anything that might slander a gay, with no protection for religious entities or beliefs. This wording would literally trigger for saying being gay is a sin. The republicans in WA State agreed to pass it with amendment. The democrats refused, and then said they were against gay rights.
Same thing here with gun control. They passed it with gun control measures, and when the republicans said they wouldn’t pass it they said why are you against expanded background checks?
They aren’t. It’s the same tactic, every, single, god, damn, time.
And I’m sick of it.
This is why I have zero tolerance for fraudulent people on this issue. Absolutely Zero. The democrats are 100% for a fact lying on this, and they lie on several similar issues to cause class warfare, which the republicans simply don’t do.
They don’t send in a law with these types of provisions to try and seed it through until they get their way.
If they do show me comparable laws they have tried this with.
Look, I’m not sure if you’re just stupid on the issue (and this is not my way of insulting you, I am stupid on many issues) or if you’re lying, I probably shouldn’t call you a liar.
But when reading my posts and my concerns, you would do well to be cautious of any statements that republicans are against gun sound gun control or extremely polarized beliefs regarding something if you have not solidly researched the issue to see why republicans might reject it and if there was validity to their rejection.
At that point it might reveal the intent of democrats, because that one I just showed you?
That one proves they tried to set up a similar method that Australia passed before taking guns, and then they said why don’t you approve this? And whined like a bully.
They punched the republicans in the face, then backed off and said look everyone! They won’t pass it! Let’s get em! GET THOSE SOUTHERN HICKS KILLING YOUR KIDS IN MASS SHOOTINGS!!! GET THEM!!!
And this polarized behavior is for a fact what they are doing. They may as well be going out there starting a war to win their elections.
It’s sick.
Bob, you must be replying to someone else because I never “stated Republicans were not for sound gun control because they don’t support Obama’s methods”, I never said “republicans don’t pass laws the NRA doesn’t like”, and I never said “[Republicans] are against all gun regulation.”
Hell, I never even said Obama or Republicans or Democrats at all! It seems that you are intent on debating things I never said and things I don’t believe instead of what I’ve posted as my beliefs – not the beliefs of a political party, my own thoughts on the matter I’ve reiterated a dozen times here.
We can’t have an honest discussion if you keep putting words in my mouth, claiming I said things I never said, or arguing my beliefs are different than what I actually posted.
I’ll try to restart this conversation fresh and hope you’re able to respond to the points I make and not arguments Democrats say, which I don’t actually agree with in the first place. Let’s try again.
I think lawful citizens should be able to own automatic weapons. I think if the government says you’re unsafe to board a plane because you’re a suspected terrorist, you should not be able to own a gun. I think if you cannot get a driver’s license because you have multiple DUIs on your driving record, you should not be able to own a gun. Do you agree with my beliefs here or disagree? If you disagree, why?
Confused,
There are certain posters on this blog that need to put words into our mouths in order to make their narratives about us work. I do not think I need to name names, but will upon request.
They are dishonest at best.
Ron,
I’ll post to you first:
I am correct about my posts to confused. I am not putting words in his mouth, I am holding him accountable.
You however, supported a group of people who said that I WAS FOR KILLING Muslims, by association.
Some people here do put words and beliefs into mouths. It is not me.
You are one of those people, but I hold people accountable.
You claim often you are what I am. That is until I show you aren’t actually analyzing facts and are instead arguing narrative. Do you understand the difference?
What you just argued was narrative. You argue republicans supposedly do this all the time. That’s narrative.
I know when someone is backing out of something that they have made it clear what their opinion is regarding.
By the way Ron:
I noticed that you didn’t chime in when UW did what you should consider to be far worse than my holding confused accountable here (as he was swearing etc)
And simultaneously you have said here that it is republicans who do this behavior more often.
Hmmmmmmmmmm
HHHMMMMMM!!!!!
Perhaps you ignore it when democrats do it, and then choose to focus on trying to find it from republicans?
While that is actually not what is occurring here?
Maybe false equivalency with a liberal bias is your issue? Perhaps you should consider the facts instead of supporting your republicans are worse at this item narrative?
Perhaps?
This is one of the biggest reasons we get into it hardcore. I find you to be the biggest hypocrite.
As for you Confused:
I don’t have time to argue back and forth on this with you.
You’re being mislead and are dishonest with even yourself.
The republicans are not against sound gun control, they are not for terrorists having guns as Obama has been saying lately, they are not for mentally unstable people having guns as Obama said before that, they are not against background checks as Obama said before that, and every law he tried to pass since then he has tied the wording or similar wording to having to have a “reason” to own a gun as part of the law, dishonestly restricting gun access while he says that isn’t what he is doing.
Then he goes to a shooting range and people go look! He likes guns!
It reminds me of Putin’s publicity stunts. Look! I’m petting a tiger, RAWR! I’m strong!
The only conclusion one can draw is democrats are against gun ownership, and republicans are not.
Anything beyond that as far as you have taken it with “sound gun control” is because you’re lying to yourself, or you’re being lied to by democrats.
I’m going to also run back real quick for one last comment Ron,
Which will reveal you for the type of person you are:
I’m telling confused he’s not being upfront about his beliefs, or doesn’t know better what is going on in the field.
He’s telling Agent that Agent will start a civil war for his guns.
Which is more damaging to society? Which one is a more dishonest and partisan comment to make?
Which one gets done more often by the leftists on this site?
You’re going to destroy the world!
You’re going to start a civil war!
Or
You’re not accurate on this, here is what you have said, here are the laws themselves, the republicans are not blocking sound gun law. Here is you saying automatic proved the law was dated, here is you going against gun owners instead of saying that the government would be violating the gun owner’s rights and therefore are blaming them unjust fully, here is why I don’t believe you.
I am not putting words in his mouth. I’m daring to believe he either doesn’t know what he’s talking about or he’s being dishonest.
And there is not one damn thing wrong with that. It’s called, being Independent.
You have outright said automatic weapons should not be in the hands of citizens. So are you saying we should disarm our military and send them out there with pistols?
That is the default assumption here if you maintain that position.
While you have backpedaled and tried to say you are ok with people having the same guns as the government, you have out right said people should not own automatic guns in the past. If you wish to change that stance, you might want to tell the conservatives here who are holding you to it.
Bob, we had Gatling guns in the Civil War. That was pretty automatic back then. Crank the handle and it could churn out the bullets just like a machine gun.
Bob, I saw an interesting political cartoon this morning. Picture a line in front of a gun store. A guy behind a lady said – did you hear about the Democrats holding a sit in at Congress over Gun Control? The lady replied – Yes, that is why I am here.
Hmm, I get the joke but I wish it were more funny.
These guys keep trying to slyly throw in the gun control, and every time there is a shooting they then try to pull at heartstrings saying they are just passing common sense background checks, while throwing in wording that makes you have to have a “reason” to have a gun, and prove that you are an honest citizen.
How in the hell do you even do that?
The right to gun ownership is infringed the moment you have to prove you have a reason to own a gun.
That is the government saying you don’t have one, whereas the law was designed so you would tell the government they didn’t have a reason to deny you one.
It’s the ultimate irony.
To see them try to throw that wording in there again and again, after each massacre, lie to the public about their agenda, and then claim since the republicans didn’t support it that they are for terrorists having guns, shooters having guns, etc, makes me sick
It divides the country.
Bob, the cartoon was not meant to be funny, just true. Let me know if you need a jolly cartoon or story and I will supply it.
Bob – you reiterated your democratic/republican arguments in your response to me which leads me to believe you didn’t accurately read my post or that you didn’t read it at all. Let me try again.
I never “stated Republicans were not for sound gun control because they don’t support Obama’s methods”, I never said “republicans don’t pass laws the NRA doesn’t like”, and I never said “[Republicans] are against all gun regulation.”
Hell, I never even said Obama or Republicans or Democrats at all! It seems that you are intent on debating things I never said and things I don’t believe instead of what I’ve posted as my beliefs – not the beliefs of a political party, my own thoughts on the matter I’ve reiterated a dozen times here.
I’ll try to restart this conversation fresh and hope you’re able to respond to the points I make and not arguments Democrats say, which I don’t actually agree with in the first place. Let’s try again.
I think lawful citizens should be able to own automatic weapons. I think if the government says you’re unsafe to board a plane because you’re a suspected terrorist, you should not be able to own a gun. I think if you cannot get a driver’s license because you have multiple DUIs on your driving record, you should not be able to own a gun. Do you agree with my beliefs here or disagree? If you disagree, why?
Disregarding that you’re almost certainly wrong about never having said anything about this issue, I don’t want to take the time to prove you wrong and I have no reason to. I would rather you say the words with your own mouth which would be a better tool against the liberals here who constantly reiterate these talking points. In that point, I only have three questions:
1: Do you in fact believe that republicans are blocking attempts at background checks, mental health checks, and gun safety laws?
2: Do you believe Obama has tried to pass laws inhibiting gun ownership and it is a goal with democrats? I showed you some examples so I would hope your answer would be yes, instead of ACTU’s answer of no.
3: Would you vote for a republican if he had publicly denounced Obama regarding gun ownership and consider it a positive at that?
I went back to check a few of your gun statements, and while your statements here do in fact seem to be poorly worded when it came to the law being dated and using the word “automatic”,
You have in the past said some comments that suggest you are not against gun ownership that would suggest you probably did just word your automatic gun comment poorly.
I still have some red flags with how you worded things to Agent though with the Civil war comment instead of focusing on the violation of rights.
But I’m willing to disregard it.
Bob, it is not too hard to tell who is winning this argument between you and Confused. He is so “confused” he wants to re-start the conversation after you handed him his head for numerous posts. Aren’t these word parsing liberals fun? Nothing sinks in and if you offer facts and common sense, they just go right back to their talking points without catching their breath. That is why I stopped responding to them. Rosenblatt is terrible about word parsing so he went on my list some weeks ago.
Over 200 comments, not even 1 from me, yet you drag my name in here just to insult me. That speaks volumes about you, troll.
And when I say went back I don’t mean on this insurance post.
I went back much further and found a comment about regulating or paying for classes for gun ownership.
You sided with the pro gun folks rather quickly and corrected yourself.
That being the case I imagine you can’t be anti gun. You really should be more careful with phrasing.
of course i’m not anti-gun! that’s why i kept writing “You want a gun, fine. The government wants a gatling gun? Sure, as long as every citizen can get a gatling gun too!” That’s a pretty pro-gun position, yeah?
bob, please don’t fall into the trap of a word parsing liberal. You can post facts all day to them and they will still not get it and then ask you to explain once again. It is a complete waste of time. It is kind of like trying to explain why Obamacare was a disaster. They will keep asking why rather than look at the mountain of evidence.
bob and i are trying to have a civil discussion here, agent. i would appreciate you not lobbing out insults in the middle of it.
also, i already told you more than once that i think obamacare was a super duper failure. it’s time to move on from that trope.
confused, you have insulted me hundreds of times, sweared, called me every name imaginable on this blog on numerous subjects and you suddenly object to my post??????? You can dish it out, but can’t take it.
It seems you are still intent on debating the beliefs of a political party and/or affiliation as you are not responding to my arguments I’ve reiterated a dozen times.
How about a little quid pro quo?
Answer what I have asked you multiple times and I will be happy answer your questions. Please respond to what I am asking and not what Democrats or others on this site have said.
I think if the government says you’re unsafe to board a plane because you’re a suspected terrorist, you should not be able to own a gun. If you cannot get a driver’s license because you have multiple DUIs on your driving record, I feel you should not be able to own a gun.
Do you agree with my beliefs here or disagree? If you disagree, why?
Quid pro quo does not apply for this. It’s your beliefs on the matter that are in question, mine are clear.
I am willing to let the aspect go only if I see that you are actually pro gun, my three questions are relevant to that.
Your question is not relevant to the argument.
Do I agree with your belief that anyone should be allowed to own a gun? Yes.
Do I think you’re being honest, your most recent post is again making me believe you’re not.
My questions are relevant to backing up that you are against gun control. This is especially true of 1 and 2, less so on 3.
It is a partisan issue. So if you don’t even know who is for guns, who is against, and you wrongfully believe that republicans are against regulations (which I accused you of, and you need to straighten it out, you just prior were ok with saying you never said that, now I’m worried as you’re saying you also never said contrary to that and refuse to say contrary to that, this sounds like intentional manipulation to me).
I am clever confused. I’m not going to fall for fraudulent gun support.
Answer 1 and 2. 3 I don’t care so much about. I just answered your question.
And I expect you to back up your beliefs on 1 and 2 by the way.
If you believe republicans are against these things, you need to prove it.
I have already shown how they are not, and it is actually the sections of the law that Obama hid in there saying you have to prove you have a reason and are trust worthy enough to have a gun that they have an issue with.
You have now said that you never said that republicans are against sound gun control, but given your last comment I have a feeling you’re about to, which would mean I did not misrepresent your beliefs, which you certainly tried to say I did.
We are going to have a proper conversation. You can’t wiggle out of this one. That’s why you don’t want to answer the question.
I’m willing to admit I was wrong if you clarify on 1 and 2. You’re not however willing to admit you were either wrong about my “characterization” of you or alternatively state your actual position. You don’t want your position to be known, do you?
This is insanely frustrating. Be direct confused.
Just wanted to add the 200th comment.