By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Call your Congressman tomorrow as Obama is giving his speech!

JoeTheBro said:

About 70% of America is strongly against these gun laws, we will not let it pass!

What is your problem with Obama's proposals?  As a gun owner, I can't see anything to get upset about.  Stronger background checks?  Why is that bad?  The NRA's prized gun-show loopholes might not be as big?  So what?  Why do people want these loopholes to exist?  Ten bullet clips?  Why does anyone need more than that?  What is the big deal?



Around the Network

Hahahahaha oh man this is GOLD.



pokoko said:
JoeTheBro said:

About 70% of America is strongly against these gun laws, we will not let it pass!

What is your problem with Obama's proposals?  As a gun owner, I can't see anything to get upset about.  Stronger background checks?  Why is that bad?  The NRA's prized gun-show loopholes might not be as big?  So what?  Why do people want these loopholes to exist?  Ten bullet clips?  Why does anyone need more than that?  What is the big deal?

Restructuring is great as long as it doesn't limit freedom. I'm fine having to wait an extra month to buy a gun if it means wackos won't get them. The problem is Obama is acting outside of his power to do this. In addition it is a shift in direction which will of course be followed with more laws and more restrictions every time a tragedy happens. In fact that's probably why I'm against this so much. They are riding the emotions of the Sandy Hook tragedy in order to get more people to back the move. These laws would have not stopped any of the recent mass shootings yet they use them as the evidence that we need these laws. So I guess I'm against how and why these laws are being made, not the laws themselves.



JoeTheBro said:

These laws would have not stopped any of the recent mass shootings yet they use them as the evidence that we need these laws. So I guess I'm against how and why these laws are being made, not the laws themselves. 

I understand what you're saying but that just doesn't cut it for me.  It doesn't matter if these regulations would have prevented any one particular incident.  Reduced clips have the potential to save lifes, especially the lives of policemen in stand-off situations.  Will it ever happen?  I don't know, and it doesn't matter--the fact that it might prevent a death is enough.  As far as I know, there is no pressing need for larger clips.  If anyone knows of one, they're welcome to post it.

The big one for me is the attempt at taking away the NRA's precious gun show loopholes.  That's one I don't understand.  My family used to support the NRA, until I realized they only really care about the people who sell guns.  Again, can someone explain why these loopholes should exist?

I really don't see much reason to oppose any of these measures.



pokoko said:
JoeTheBro said:

About 70% of America is strongly against these gun laws, we will not let it pass!

What is your problem with Obama's proposals?  As a gun owner, I can't see anything to get upset about.  Stronger background checks?  Why is that bad?  The NRA's prized gun-show loopholes might not be as big?  So what?  Why do people want these loopholes to exist?  Ten bullet clips?  Why does anyone need more than that?  What is the big deal?


As a gun owner I have no problem with better background checks and required background checks at gun-shows. I do have a problem with magazine restrictions. When I go out to target shoot I want to load up several large capacity mags so I don't have to stop and reload mags all the time. When it's cold outside it's a bitch to stand there with your gloves off and push cold metal into cold metal. Magazine restrictions won't stop criminals from breaking the law so there's no reason why I shouldn't be alowed to do what I want with my property.



Around the Network

stop watching Fox News...



stop watching Fox News...



pokoko said:

JoeTheBro said:

These laws would have not stopped any of the recent mass shootings yet they use them as the evidence that we need these laws. So I guess I'm against how and why these laws are being made, not the laws themselves. 

I understand what you're saying but that just doesn't cut it for me.  It doesn't matter if these regulations would have prevented any one particular incident.  Reduced clips have the potential to save lifes, especially the lives of policemen in stand-off situations.  Will it ever happen?  I don't know, and it doesn't matter--the fact that it might prevent a death is enough.  As far as I know, there is no pressing need for larger clips.  If anyone knows of one, they're welcome to post it.

The big one for me is the attempt at taking away the NRA's precious gun show loopholes.  That's one I don't understand.  My family used to support the NRA, until I realized they only really care about the people who sell guns.  Again, can someone explain why these loopholes should exist?

I really don't see much reason to oppose any of these measures.

The gun show "loopholes" you are talking about really don't have anything to do with guns and everything to do with your right to sell or trade your property. Guns are no different than cars and videos games or shoes and toasters as far as ownership rights are concerned. Right now I have the right to sell you a car or a gun in a private transaction. Many people at gun shows are private sellers who don't own gun stores. The professional sellers with booths at gun shows do run background checks. I personly don't have a problem if gun shows were required to run background checks before you could leave with a gun, but it would really just mean that people would walk outside make a private transaction and then walk back in to their booth. You have the right to do what you want with your property. You can sell it if you want to who you want. Guns are property and you have the righ to sell or gift them to who you want without the governement being involved. That's why gun shows, full of private sales,  aren't required to do background checks while the gun stores with FFL's are. I've been to gun shows where all the booths run background checks and I've been to gun shows with some private sellers that don't, but I've never been to a gun show with no background checks at all the booths.



obama: let's look at some science before we go banning violent games.

Popukace: he's taking our guns!

Seriously guys, the research is going to ahow that games have very little influence. What are you all going nuts for?



pokoko said:

Ten bullet clips?  Why does anyone need more than that?  What is the big deal?

Why does anyone need to prove that they need something in a supposedly free country?

Why is a seven round magazine so much better than a ten round one? It isn't, obviously, but the real reason for limiting the number of rounds is that it's part of a long game with a ratchet effect. The next time the media decides to stroke its ban-boner over some terrible shooting, the limit would go down to five rounds. Then three. Then magazines would be outlawed altogether.

That and, of course, the pressing need for politicians to be seen as "doing something". Even if that something is utterly useless.