EXCLUSIVE: Journalist Accosted By Security Over Mayor Bloomberg Gun Control Question

page: 12
54
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5
Not sure what you are getting at, but most weapons in the hands of criminals originate with "legal" purchases that are resold to criminals?


Indeed all weapons start out legally manufactured and purchased legally by a dealer or individual who either has a FFL or a background check. Then some are stolen (by a criminal) and sold to another (criminal) or used.

Even in the case of a straw man purchase using say a gang banger or girlfriend or even a willing patsy with no record it is a criminal act to purchase a weapon for or with the intent to gift it to a person who is prohibited by law from owning or possessing a firearm. i.e. felons, the mentally incompetent etc.

None of the new proposed laws by Frankenstein will stop that from happening - lawful people buy guns and criminals steal them. The criminals still end up with the guns.

The only real way would be to ban firearms all together which is unconstitutional...


Originally posted by Indigo5
No doubt in rural areas..but in cities, guns are often stolen from homes...in Chicago an ex-cop had 23 guns stolen from his home...that ended up sold on the street to criminals...again...just saying...in more populated places, owning a gun doesn't mean you won't get broken into.


So, because there are criminals who steal guns no one should be able to have them? I don't see your point here. The LEO who owned the firearms did it legally and stored them safely. # happens. If I'm not home someone (if they are willing to get by some big cattle dogs) can get mine too...they won't if I am home.

There is no way to prevent firearm theft altogether and no reason to penalize law abiding citizens for the actions of some criminals. I really don't see how limiting the size of my magazine and or style of the rifle will make us all that much more safe.

I say perhaps we should actually throw the book at the crooks rather than the citizen.

The difference as I see it is the crooks are entitled to representation and a defense - we citizens are not...we are simply an easy target for the politicians to exploit to get more votes from people who don't understand the real problem is criminals themselves. Perhaps we'd have fewer of them if we stopped coddling them.




posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Indigo5
 





I am confused? Didn't the President suggest 20 some-odd ways to enforce current laws and crack down on the bad guys getting guns? And the NRA went ballistic and responded with an ad about the Presidents children?

You are the one trying to confuse the issue with this statement.

What does the President's failure to prosecute gun crimes in his first four years have to do with banning assault rifles, limiting magazine size and pistols/magazines?


No ...you seem confused, but not alone.

The President calls for Universal Background Checks...closing the gun-show loophole....the NRA shouts hell no....Wayne LaPierre did it just today at the hearing...No Closing the gun-show loophole...no universal background checks!!!

And an assault wepaons ban at the federal level, though hugely unlikely right now, gets closer to reality every-time the gun lobby refuses to entertain any solutions that might in some small way reduce guns in the hands of crazy folks and criminals.

Hell...90% of Americans want universal background checks...NRA?...Hell no! If you don't bend, you break and "break" is a federal level ban of some sort.

www.washingtonpost.com...

And that is how they are related...refuse to engage in a rational discussion...and absent that rational input, states and eventually the Federal gov will go it alone absent input from the opposition.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Indigo5
 




And as far as "illegal" and "legal" guns...ALL guns begin as legal guns...when they leave the manufacturer...why is it hellfire when someone suggests we try to prevent that gun getting into the hands of criminals?

I am sure that you are not that naive to believe that a whole class of guns will cease to exist if they are banned.

Do you believe that heroin purchased on the streets of your hometown today has been in the US since 1970? Or do you think that maybe they bring fresh shipments in from Afghanistan once in a while?


The argument that something shouldn't be done because it will not 100% eliminate the problem is poor logic.

The NRA made the same argument today with Wayne LaPiere lashing out over the suggestion of Universal Backround checks.

It's a failing argument that does gun advocates no good.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

And an assault wepaons ban at the federal level, though hugely unlikely right now, gets closer to reality every-time the gun lobby refuses to entertain any solutions that might in some small way reduce guns in the hands of crazy folks and criminals.

SO, we the people need to give up more freedoms, because the minority want to restrict ownership of certain types of firearms.



Originally posted by Indigo5

Hell...90% of Americans want universal background checks...NRA?...Hell no! If you don't bend, you break and "break" is a federal level ban of some sort.

No they don't.
What is the membership numbers of the NRA as compared to the Brady Camp and other Anti-gun groups?
record firearms and firearm related item sales shows that your dishonesty is again getting in your way.



Originally posted by Indigo5
And that is how they are related...refuse to engage in a rational discussion...and absent that rational input, states and eventually the Federal gov will go it alone absent input from the opposition.

I love that. So a Govt making decisions against the Peoples Rights, because they "have to act".
Typical Progressive mindset of "You have to do something" regardless if the action is wrong or illegal.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Pardon me If I jump in... You forgot to mention how Lapierre mentioned the countless unenforced laws that are already on the books. Simply adding laws to the pile of redundancy accomplishes nothing. Especially if said laws are not enforced. Our court system is overwhelmed as is the prison system. Judges pass down reduced sentences, paroles are issued early, lawyers and criminals file frivolous lawsuits etc etc etc...

Time to get serious about throwing the book at thugs who use a firearm to commit a crime. Get serious about throwing away the key for repeat offenders etc etc etc.

Wise words from today's hearing

Mark Mattioli, whose six-year-old son James perished inside of the school, testified that a plethora of new gun laws isn’t the answer and that, instead, personal responsibility, accountability and civility are the best path forward. He made his comments as intense debate surrounding gun control and the causal factors behind the shooting continue to be at the forefront of public discussion.

The grieving father, who ended up receiving a standing ovation, said that he believes in “simple, few gun laws” and that there are already “more than enough on the books.” Mattioli contends that “the problem is not gun laws” and that these regulations simply need to be enforced.

“How do we expect to have any impact on a society and say, ‘We’re going to pass a law. Hey this is inexcusable. We can’t allow any more of this. Let’s pass a law that will change the course of the future’ when we don’t enforce the laws that we have on the books — the most important laws?,”


We do have a problem in this country. It is cultural. The moral fabric of the nation seems to be frayed beyond repair. Have we slipped far enough down hill that we can't climb back up again? The culture of violence as an accepted norm is the problem. Gang stalking and random beatings given out by school aged kids who film themselves doing it just for kicks is the problem. How did they learn that this is somehow acceptable in society??

Time to address the root problem for a change. Guns or no guns the violent and the insane in our society will find a way to get even with those who they think have wronged them. The drug addicts will always need a fix and will do anything to get it... blah blah blah..
edit on 30-1-2013 by jibeho because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   


It's a failing argument that does gun advocates no good.
reply to post by Indigo5
 


We prefer the term 'freedom advocates'.

It's the freedom thing that you don't seem to get.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 



The argument that something shouldn't be done because it will not 100% eliminate the problem is poor logic.

The NRA made the same argument today with Wayne LaPiere lashing out over the suggestion of Universal Backround checks.

It's a failing argument that does gun advocates no good.


Kinda like the war on drugs, and terrorism??? Yea, right! Trillions later, the problems are worse than they were before the government got their greedy little hands in it and tried to tell America it was all in the name of keeping us safe?
Okay, I got ya.........



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


I noticed that you totally bypassed the fact that Obama did nothing in his first term to enforce the laws that are on the books.

They may actually make the Ft. Hood shooter shave!



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Here's a softball for you I5, should the Ft. Hood shooter be tried for killing all those people?



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Here's a softball for you I5, should the Ft. Hood shooter be tried for killing all those people?


Up until today they could not even agree that he should face the death penalty for killing 13 innocent people


A judge has decided a Fort Hood shooting suspect still can face the death penalty if convicted in the worst mass shooting on a U.S. military installation.

The judge, Col. Tara Osborn, on Wednesday denied Maj. Nidal Hasan's request to remove the death penalty as a punishment option.


Read more: www.foxnews.com...

3 years and this puke is still awaiting his fate....



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


Yes.
Obama said that there was no evidence of a hate crime, even though he shouted "Allah Ahkbar" as he shot some of his victims.

Now what reason would Obama have to deny what is clearly a hate crime?

If a Christian fundementalist shot three people while screaming "Praise Jesus", not only would it get more news coverage, but it would be a hate crime, and the perp would have been tried and executed by now.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
They may actually make the Ft. Hood shooter shave!


I can tell you this from my heart. I took no pleasure from breaking most men in an interrogation session…

However, in this dudes particular case; I would love nothing more than to have access to him with some rendition authority off shore somewhere for about 90-180 days.

I would do more than make him shave. When I got done...well, he'd be clean shaven for sure.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Indigo5
 


I noticed that you totally bypassed the fact that Obama did nothing in his first term to enforce the laws that are on the books.



If you are SERIOUS...if you honestly are open to actual discussion and ideas that don't outright support your worldview...Your answer here...here's hoping for actual honest discussion...

www.thedailyshow.com...



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho

Up until today they could not even agree that he should face the death penalty for killing 13 innocent people


A judge has decided a Fort Hood shooting suspect still can face the death penalty if convicted in the worst mass shooting on a U.S. military installation.

The judge, Col. Tara Osborn, on Wednesday denied Maj. Nidal Hasan's request to remove the death penalty as a punishment option.


Read more: www.foxnews.com...


No...they always thought he should face the death penalty...the only one who disagreed was Hasan? And they denied the request.



The judge, Col. Tara Osborn, on Wednesday denied Maj. Nidal Hasan's request to remove the death penalty as a punishment option.


Remove...as in the death penalty has been on the table?...Denied the request?...as in he asked for it to be taken off the table and they said no?

And what does this have to do with the topic?



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Here's a softball for you I5, should the Ft. Hood shooter be tried for killing all those people?


Yes...And???



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Not responding to your nonsense until you answer the question you tried to deny...

You have already argued that Kids, Criminals and the mentally ill should be able to freely buy guns...

So should folks be able to carry guns onto airplanes?



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by spacedog1973
 



We've gone over this before; security is mandatory for certain positions and also common sense. This is the same flawed argument used against Obama and his children's school. This type of journalism is basic, fundamentally flawed and pointless. It is no way compares to civilians and anyone who tries to make the comparison is a fool.

we have gone over this before. no one tried to shoot up the school that obama's daughters attend. people have, however, shot up school campuses and a movie theater were guns were banned (indeed, the only theater out of 7 possible theaters that specifically prevented concealed carry with a sign at the entrance), and no armed guards existed.

why is that?
the options are:
a) obama's daughters aren't a target
or
b) the presence of guns dissuades violence



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Here's a softball for you I5, should the Ft. Hood shooter be tried for killing all those people?


Yes...And???
Why hasn't he been tried?



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Indigo5
 


I noticed that you totally bypassed the fact that Obama did nothing in his first term to enforce the laws that are on the books.



If you are SERIOUS...if you honestly are open to actual discussion and ideas that don't outright support your worldview...Your answer here...here's hoping for actual honest discussion...

www.thedailyshow.com...
sorry. I am not at home right now and the video from a television show on Comedy Network will not play on my Galaxy III.
I guess you could not put your reply into words. That's okay. It isn't like I haven't seen this from you before.

I am going to go down to the Mexican border and get some free Obama guns from the ATF. You are right, he has been proactive on guns these last four years.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
Why hasn't he been tried?


What to be really mad…he’s still getting paid!

He is an O4 – he probably has over 12 years of service so let’s go with the base $6853.00.

Now since he is incarcerated he might not be getting BAH but if he is married he probably is because that is for the family so there is another $1200.00 or so. They probably suspended his physicians incentive thank Hades. That’s as much as 25K incentive they give military doctors to off-set the money they’d make in private practice.





top topics
 
54
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join