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

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

DraconianAC on 16 January 2013

I doubt my call to Dianne Feinstein would be useful to you OP since I support the effort to "Limit the access to assault rifles" to anyone.

Usually when children prove to be irresponsible with how they go about their business, a new rule has to made so that they don't harm others or themselves (primarily others). I'm sure the government would care less that people own assault riffles & grenades in their bunkers if people would be responsible and not blow up or kill each other. The problem arises from the irresponsible half that missuses these tools and the community doesn't care to self regulate their practices. Some people don't like to police themselves, so I guess the government has to spend more freaking money to enact policies that will limit the damage and satisfy the other half of their constituents that call out for a change in policy.

If you wan to play the blame game, blame the NRA/gun community. Their past obstructionism maybe one of the biggest reason why the administration is revisiting assault gun restrictions now. I own a gun, and I am not paranoid about these restrictions. In the end, if the government really wanted to target you or your organization, Their military power will trash any weapon you could buy. Guns & riffles are just false security when measured against the government; legislation like the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, etc. are the things people should be paranoid about.



Around the Network
RedInker on 16 January 2013

Im so glad I live in a country where not just anybody can buy a gun. Result? Less people walking into schools and killing kids. Vote Obamas right people. You no longer live in the wild west.



fordy on 16 January 2013
DraconianAC said:
I doubt my call to Dianne Feinstein would be useful to you OP since I support the effort to "Limit the access to assault rifles" to anyone.

Usually when children prove to be irresponsible with how they go about their business, a new rule has to made so that they don't harm others or themselves (primarily others). I'm sure the government would care less that people own assault riffles & grenades in their bunkers if people would be responsible and not blow up or kill each other. The problem arises from the irresponsible half that missuses these tools and the community doesn't care to self regulate their practices. Some people don't like to police themselves, so I guess the government has to spend more freaking money to enact policies that will limit the damage and satisfy the other half of their constituents that call out for a change in policy.

If you wan to play the blame game, blame the NRA/gun community. Their past obstructionism maybe one of the biggest reason why the administration is revisiting assault gun restrictions now. I own a gun, and I am not paranoid about these restrictions. In the end, if the government really wanted to target you or your organization, Their military power will trash any weapon you could buy. Guns & riffles are just false security when measured against the government; legislation like the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, etc. are the things people should be paranoid about.


this.

I should add, if the government eventually creates intelligent killing cyborgs for the military, what chance would your guns have at that point? They already have unmanned drones to take out people that they don't agree with. Your guns wont help with those...

The NRA wouldn't be so partisan about this if it weren't for the fact that the majority IN the NRA (ie. the gun owners) don't have the say for he organisation, rather a conglomerate of gun manufacturers and gun retailers, who broadcast their desires as opinions of the entire group. Remember what the NRA was founded on: correct and proper firearm usage.



killerzX on 16 January 2013
Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:
 

Because i fundamentally don't see why you think what you're doing is safety. You say "safety," i see "threat."

you see the need to control people take away peoples rights make  people less safe. i see the need to protect myself from said things.

but if you are so threatened by lawful gun owners, im sure you wouldnt mind putting a sign in your front yard stating you are gun free. you know, so we can know you arent a threat.

facts be damned, if it makes progressive anti-constitutionalists happy, do it!

As far as studies go, what seems to work in your favor is that: home invasions are reduced if its possible the occupant is armed, and that being armed in the face of a robbery helps to deter the robber.

The need to win a firefight and these abhorrent "stand your ground" laws are not really supported by much of anything. You shouldn't be wanting to win a firefight, because that means killing someone, which you shouldn't want to do. All you should want is to stop them.

There may be a need to have weapons (or something that looks like a weapon), but the need to really use them is really vaguely defined.

so are you admitting that not only are such laws unconstitutional, but they are ineffective?

they will not stop crime, will not stop murderers. it will be completely inneffective, and will only harms lawful gun owners who wish to be able enjoy their previously constitutionally protected rights.

mag limits has never stopped any crime, has not reduced crime. yet you still wish for more laws like this. this shows that for you and people like you, gun control isnt about reducing crime, its about control.



kain_kusanagi on 16 January 2013
fordy said:
kain_kusanagi said:

Excuse me for not hitting F5 all day to jump on every quote of a poll's data. I responded to a discussion between polls. You are the one that made the assumptions.

I'm just saying, the approach you took looked like an incredibly partisan attempt of "well that path doesn't work. Let's destroy it"

That being said, would you have said anything about the initial post had the reply not come through to counteract it? Would some evidence in other threads show the contrary at all?


I responded to a poll data debate. I typicaly don't go looking for it. But as a human being with bias I'm sure I'm more apt to point out the pointlessness of polls when a poll is beyond stupid.



Around the Network
fordy on 16 January 2013
kain_kusanagi said:


I responded to a poll data debate. I typicaly don't go looking for it. But as a human being with bias I'm sure I'm more apt to point out the pointlessness of polls when a poll is beyond stupid.


Just like voting, right?



bouzane on 16 January 2013

@MDMAlliance

Seriously, I could just modify one of the game consoles that I own to disperse the explosive dust then ignite it. I wouldn't need to leave my house if I wanted to make an explosive capable of leveling the largest building in my city. There is nothing that the government can do, literally nothing. I could simply use the most ubiquitous components and I don't even need to buy a thing, they're lying around everywhere.

@Torillian

That sounds like a sensible alternative which would, depending upon the details, do little to harm individual liberty. However, I do not simply support or oppose laws and regulations based upon whether or not I think they will be effective. I would require unbiased, scientific studies to definitively demonstrate that this would indeed prove to effectively prevent such crimes.



NobleTeam360 on 16 January 2013
bouzane said:
Ckmlb1 said:
NobleTeam360 said:

Obama has broke so many laws domestic and internationally that he should of been impeached a long time ago. 

If the Repubicans in congress had any grounds to impeach Obama they would have already done it (they don't have anything). They impeached Clinton for lying about a blowjob...


Bill Clinton wasn't doing his best to bring America to its knees, he was actually correcting the looming debt crisis that the banks are relying on to effectively end American independance. Obama on the other hand has no problem with playing ball, he is wracking up an unpayable amount of debt while pandering to the will of the international banks *cough* bailout *cough*. Why on earth would anybody impeach Obama when he is cooperating with your foreign masters?


This.



Ckmlb1 on 16 January 2013
dsgrue3 said:

It took police 20 minutes to arrive at Sandy Hook elementary school.

Adam Lanza could have inflicted as much damage as he wanted with smaller clips. Stupid discussion. This doesn't prevent anything.

Drunk driving laws don't prevent every drunk driver, should we not having laws against drunk driving? 



XBL Gamertag: ckmlb, PSN ID: ckmlb

Mr Khan on 16 January 2013
killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:
 

Because i fundamentally don't see why you think what you're doing is safety. You say "safety," i see "threat."

you see the need to control people take away peoples rights make  people less safe. i see the need to protect myself from said things.

but if you are so threatened by lawful gun owners, im sure you wouldnt mind putting a sign in your front yard stating you are gun free. you know, so we can know you arent a threat.

facts be damned, if it makes progressive anti-constitutionalists happy, do it!

As far as studies go, what seems to work in your favor is that: home invasions are reduced if its possible the occupant is armed, and that being armed in the face of a robbery helps to deter the robber.

The need to win a firefight and these abhorrent "stand your ground" laws are not really supported by much of anything. You shouldn't be wanting to win a firefight, because that means killing someone, which you shouldn't want to do. All you should want is to stop them.

There may be a need to have weapons (or something that looks like a weapon), but the need to really use them is really vaguely defined.

so are you admitting that not only are such laws unconstitutional, but they are ineffective?

they will not stop crime, will not stop murderers. it will be completely inneffective, and will only harms lawful gun owners who wish to be able enjoy their previously constitutionally protected rights.

mag limits has never stopped any crime, has not reduced crime. yet you still wish for more laws like this. this shows that for you and people like you, gun control isnt about reducing crime, its about control.

I'm suggesting that the studies likewise suggest that it doesn't matter what kind of gun you have, so long as you are armed, so why do we need these weapons that are only good for war and rebellion?



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.