Jenksismyhero Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Even if what you say is true, the fact remains that there hasn't been an uptick in crime either. So the vigilante nonsense is just that, nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 10, 2014 -> 05:20 PM) Obama finally speaks today to Tumblr users. ... Obama asked about school shootings said ... “My biggest frustration so far is the fact that this society has not been willing to take some basic steps to keep guns out of the hands of people who can do just unbelievable damage,” Obama said. “We’re the only developed country where this happens…It happens once a week. And it’s a one-day story.” The president said he is astonished that the Sandy Hook shooting a year and a half ago did not result in a change in gun laws. (A bill to strengthen background checks failed in the Senate last year.) “I have been in Washington for a while now and most things don’t surprise me. The fact that 20 6-year-olds were gunned down in the most violent fashion possible, and this town couldn’t do anything about it was stunning to me,” Obama said, referring to Washington, D.C. He added: “The country has to do some soul searching about this.” -- Yay! I approve of his statements! That is a total crock of s***. I hate nothing more than condescending people in power pointing fingers and saying "IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jun 11, 2014 -> 12:00 AM) Yes, point to one instance where it may have come in handy. Does that suddenly outweigh all the other times it hasn't? What's the net result here? What did Obama say that you actually disagree with? Are you assuming that is the only one? I just posted that because it popped onto my news feed last night. The net result is THAT family is alive today, and at least one of the bad guys is not. There were weekly stories coming from detroit for a while where home owners were using firearms to successfully defend themselves from armed and dangerous invaders. There are many instances where it doesn't even make it into papers or news because the mere presence of a gun causes the bad guys to leave. “My biggest frustration so far is the fact that this society has not been willing to take some basic steps to keep guns out of the hands of people who can do just unbelievable damage,” Obama said. “We’re the only developed country where this happens…It happens once a week. And it’s a one-day story.” What basic steps do you want? You have states where you have gotten everything that the antis claim would curb violence, yet it hasn't curbed violence. After a while the proposed steps are just too much. A background check every time you want to buy ammo? An FFl just to loan a gun to a friend while at a range? Yeah, that's going to stop crime. The president said he is astonished that the Sandy Hook shooting a year and a half ago did not result in a change in gun laws. (A bill to strengthen background checks failed in the Senate last year.) Again, what did he want passed that would have stopped that? Already laws requiring firearms to be locked up, etc. Yet he broke the law (and his mom ignored the law) and was successful in killing people anyway. “I have been in Washington for a while now and most things don’t surprise me. The fact that 20 6-year-olds were gunned down in the most violent fashion possible, and this town couldn’t do anything about it was stunning to me,” Obama said, referring to Washington, D.C. Also stunning was the speed at which the anits jumped on the situation to try and push their side before the bodies were even cold. Worse than ambulance chasers. And again, what would he have had done that would have stopped THAT? He added: “The country has to do some soul searching about this.” Many people have. People have a right to defend themselves. The family I posted previously had every right to live as those kids did. You just want to be able to choose the victors. Police have NO duty to protect you. I was in a situation where I almost had to use my gun to protect me and my family. I called police, and they came by a minute after the bad guys left. Had they continued up my driveway, they would have been 50 seconds too late to prevent shots being fired. My biggest issue with what he said was that he said nothing. 'We need to pass something. We need to do something. blah blah blah.' Propose something. Propose something that would solve the problem you CLAIM to want to solve (Obama, not you), not f*** over people who want to protect themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jun 11, 2014 -> 10:32 AM) That is a total crock of s***. I hate nothing more than condescending people in power pointing fingers and saying "IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT." Eh, we haven't done s*** since Newtown. It's not for lack of proposals from Obama and others in Congress or overwhelming popular approval; it's because of a small but intense guns rights lobby and backers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Eh, we haven't done s*** since Newtown. It's not for lack of proposals from Obama and others in Congress or overwhelming popular approval; it's because of a small but intense guns rights lobby and backers. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/12...wtown.html?_r=0 About 1,500 state gun bills have been introduced since the Newtown massacre. 178 passed at least one chamber of a state legislature. 109 have become law. Passed are such gems as New Jersey - Encodes permit holders' information on new identification cards and requires gun buyers to show that they have undergone safety training. Maine - Makes it a crime to possess firearms in public and refuse to provide information at the request of law enforcement officers. Connecticut - Requires background checks for all gun, ammunition and magazine sales, and creates a registry of weapons offenders. Maryland - Requires applicants for handgun licenses to submit fingerprints to the state police. California - Adds all semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines to a list of banned assault weapons. (So now a Marlin .22 semi auto is classified as an assault gun. LOL) New York - Strengthens a ban on assault weapons and restricts magazines to seven bullets. California - Makes it illegal to leave a loaded firearm in a place where a child may gain access to it. Well DUH! California - Requires owners of long guns to earn safety certificates like those required of handgun owners. None of which would have prevented Sandy Hook, or almost any of the other shootings. There were several states that strengthened their reporting laws for people with mental issues, but many more of those are being tied up by the ACLU and mental health advocates. So they have done something. Just nothing that would have made a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Total number of gun bills doesn't say anything one way or another. One of those in that count would be Illinois' CC bill. Another would be Georgia's "Guns Everywhere" bill. As the graphic in your own link shows, it's almost a 2:1 ratio of loosening gun laws. And when states like Colorado passed some tightening measures, the small-but-intense pro gun groups launched successful recall campaigns. And if you'll notice, at least one of your examples isn't an enacted law: California - Adds all semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines to a list of banned assault weapons. (So now a Marlin .22 semi auto is classified as an assault gun. LOL) This is marked as "vetoed" on the interactive graphic. New York did pass some relatively strict laws, but overall, we haven't done s*** since Newtown to restrict guns. More often than not, we've made it easier to get and carry them. I found this one odd, though: California States that only individuals, not organizations, may be issued permits to possess assault weapons, .50-caliber rifles or machine guns. So if some security force for say a nuclear facility wanted to equip their force with .50 caliber rifles, would some individual within the company need to get a permit? What happens if they leave? Why not just let the company get the permit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Alaska Nullifies, or prohibits the enforcement of, federal firearms laws in the state. Kansas Nullifies federal firearms laws in the state. lol, pretty sure we settled the whole nullification thing a while back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 11, 2014 -> 11:35 AM) Total number of gun bills doesn't say anything one way or another. One of those in that count would be Illinois' CC bill. Another would be Georgia's "Guns Everywhere" bill. As the graphic in your own link shows, it's almost a 2:1 ratio of loosening gun laws. And when states like Colorado passed some tightening measures, the small-but-intense pro gun groups launched successful recall campaigns. And if you'll notice, at least one of your examples isn't an enacted law: This is marked as "vetoed" on the interactive graphic. New York did pass some relatively strict laws, but overall, we haven't done s*** since Newtown to restrict guns. More often than not, we've made it easier to get and carry them. I found this one odd, though: So if some security force for say a nuclear facility wanted to equip their force with .50 caliber rifles, would some individual within the company need to get a permit? What happens if they leave? Why not just let the company get the permit? Well what more would YOU like to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 What I personally want isn't the issue. You were criticizing Obama for not making a policy speech and for not offering anything. witesox was criticizing him for pointing fingers at an unwilling society. But Obama and Congress made proposals after Newtown in early 2013 that were shot down by the gun lobby. As your link notes, there have been 1500 state-level gun laws proposed, some which are more restrictive. We had the whole Manchin-Toomey bill. It's not like ideas aren't out there and haven't been presented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 11, 2014 -> 11:50 AM) What I personally want isn't the issue. You were criticizing Obama for not making a policy speech and for not offering anything. witesox was criticizing him for pointing fingers at an unwilling society. But Obama and Congress made proposals after Newtown in early 2013 that were shot down by the gun lobby. As your link notes, there have been 1500 state-level gun laws proposed, some which are more restrictive. We had the whole Manchin-Toomey bill. It's not like ideas aren't out there and haven't been presented. So you would rather just b**** about nothing being done, or not enough being done. Yes, Obama offered nothing in his speech and conversation other than 'we need to do something'. Well, some things have been done. And none of them would have stopped what he claims they would have. Some things have been proposed, most were pretty absurd and also would not have stopped Sandy Hook. other than the mental health ones, what else out there do you think we need? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 No, you're missing the point of my responses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 "People have offered up ineffectual and needless bills, so it's unfair to criticize them for the ineffectual and needless bills that have not become law. Instead, we should point the finger at the people who are against the ineffectual and needless bills." Is that the gist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 (edited) Nope, D for effort. edit: but it does highlight that regardless of what proposals anyone comes up with, they'll be decried as ineffectual and needless by people who oppose gun restrictions. Edited June 11, 2014 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 11, 2014 -> 01:13 PM) Nope, D for effort. edit: but it does highlight that regardless of what proposals anyone comes up with, they'll be decried as ineffectual and needless by people who oppose gun restrictions. When they're made in response to random acts of violence that happen to involve guns, they are for the most part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 11, 2014 -> 01:13 PM) Nope, D for effort. edit: but it does highlight that regardless of what proposals anyone comes up with, they'll be decried as ineffectual and needless by people who oppose gun restrictions. I think some of the mental health related ones may have a slight impact. So there blows that statement all to hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts