President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[tater1977]

Secret Service agents: Hillary is a nightmare to work with

http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-ser ... work-with/

[SF-Dano]

For what its worth....

Putin on US, ISIS, Libya, Iraq, ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykb5sxTl1Rw

[S2M]

I love it...

As the aftermath continued to sink in, some residents worried that the lessons of another American mass shooting might not match the call to action that Obama had articulated.

“I think people here will buy more guns,” Whan said. “It’s their attitude that it keeps them safe.”

At the nearby Roseburg Gun Shop, defiant customers queued in line.

And herein lies the problem. Your answers, and it is the same for most republicans are REACTIVE ones. You want to arm everyone like it's the wild west. Your cartoon lampoon only reinforces this. Instead of solving the problem, you want to put a VERY poor band-aid over it. You're thinking is no different than pro-choicers. 'Fuck it...let's just have unsafe sex...roll the dice...if I get pregnant, I can always get an 'AFTERMATH abortion'

You are more concerned with your RIGHT, than anything else. Next you're gonna tell us that the Holocaust happened because of disarming practices.

Criminal gunmen DO NOT care about whether others have guns. They do what they do...Also, you have ZERO rights as a human being. When you are born you essentially have no rights. Being an AMERICAN affords you certain rights. Most are arbitrary, subjective, and most importantly....Culturally relative.

[slucero]

And herein lies the problem. Your answers, and it is the same for most republicans are REACTIVE ones. You want to arm everyone like it's the wild west. Your cartoon lampoon only reinforces this. Instead of solving the problem, you want to put a VERY poor band-aid over it. You're thinking is no different than pro-choicers. 'Fuck it...let's just have unsafe sex...roll the dice...if I get pregnant, I can always get an 'AFTERMATH abortion'

You are more concerned with your RIGHT, than anything else. Next you're gonna tell us that the Holocaust happened because of disarming practices.

Criminal gunmen DO NOT care about whether others have guns. They do what they do...Also, you have ZERO rights as a human being. When you are born you essentially have no rights. Being an AMERICAN affords you certain rights. Most are arbitrary, subjective, and most importantly....Culturally relative.

The actual truth is that the "Wild West"... really wasn't that wild at all... most people simply assume that violence was pervasive, even more so than in modern-day America... it's a myth that people believe as truth. Simply google "the wild west wasn't really that wild" and one can find lots of info.

W. Eugene Hollon’s book “Frontier Violence: Another Look” provides the following:

• In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides. This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.
• In Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870.

A simple look at the FBI's 2007 Uniform Crime Report statistics shows us the following regarding the aforementioned gun control “paradise” cities of the east:

• DC – 183 Murders (31 per 100,000 residents)
• New York – 494 Murders (6 per 100,000 residents)
• Baltimore – 281 Murders (45 per 100,000 residents)
• Newark – 104 Murders (37 per 100,000 residents)

So using the "wild west" as some sort of phrase to equate armed citizens equaling more violence is patently FALSE. In fact, using it at all only justifies arming the population.. The simple fact is that the "wild west" was pretty peaceful, and much of it had to do with the simple fact that everyone was armed.

On a per capita basis.... the more armed the populace, the less violent it is... the facts reflect it.

As far as "rights" go... you are also wrong there. The Constitution, from which all law flows, acknowledges specifically the "inalienable rights" all Americans are born with, and further assigns the Federal Government the task of protecting them. Self protection is one, and the the 2nd Amendment is specified as one of the means to address a specific issue, which James Madison (known as the "Father" of the Constitution) wrote an essay on. You can read it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46

Its also a fact that gun crime is worst where anti-gun laws are strictest... in fact Detroit just supplanted Chicago for the top spot. In 2014, after Illinois was forced by the higher courts to start granting concealed carry permits, burglary and motor vehicle theft FELL 20 percent and 26 percent, and Chicago's homicide rate FELL to a 56-year low. An armed populace again equals lower crime.

I don't recall Obama mentioning that the school was a "gun free zone", and that even the security guard on the campus couldn't carry weapons. The simple truth is that "gun free zones" protect no one except the criminal.

There's a reason CA Senator Diane Feinstein has a conceal carry permit.... even though she has a security detail...

[S2M]

And herein lies the problem. Your answers, and it is the same for most republicans are REACTIVE ones. You want to arm everyone like it's the wild west. Your cartoon lampoon only reinforces this. Instead of solving the problem, you want to put a VERY poor band-aid over it. You're thinking is no different than pro-choicers. 'Fuck it...let's just have unsafe sex...roll the dice...if I get pregnant, I can always get an 'AFTERMATH abortion'

You are more concerned with your RIGHT, than anything else. Next you're gonna tell us that the Holocaust happened because of disarming practices.

Criminal gunmen DO NOT care about whether others have guns. They do what they do...Also, you have ZERO rights as a human being. When you are born you essentially have no rights. Being an AMERICAN affords you certain rights. Most are arbitrary, subjective, and most importantly....Culturally relative.

The actual truth is that the "Wild West"... really wasn't that wild at all... most people simply assume that violence was pervasive, even more so than in modern-day America... it's a myth that people believe as truth. Simply google "the wild west wasn't really that wild" and one can find lots of info.

W. Eugene Hollon’s book “Frontier Violence: Another Look” provides the following:

• In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides. This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.
• In Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870.

A simple look at the FBI's 2007 Uniform Crime Report statistics shows us the following regarding the aforementioned gun control “paradise” cities of the east:

• DC – 183 Murders (31 per 100,000 residents)
• New York – 494 Murders (6 per 100,000 residents)
• Baltimore – 281 Murders (45 per 100,000 residents)
• Newark – 104 Murders (37 per 100,000 residents)

So using the "wild west" as some sort of phrase to equate armed citizens equaling more violence is patently FALSE. In fact, using it at all only justifies arming the population.. The simple fact is that the "wild west" was pretty peaceful, and much of it had to do with the simple fact that everyone was armed.

On a per capita basis.... the more armed the populace, the less violent it is... the facts reflect it.

As far as "rights" go... you are also wrong there. The Constitution, from which all law flows, acknowledges specifically the "inalienable rights" all Americans are born with, and further assigns the Federal Government the task of protecting them. Self protection is one, and the the 2nd Amendment is specified as one of the means to address a specific issue, which James Madison (known as the "Father" of the Constitution) wrote an essay on. You can read it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46

Its also a fact that gun crime is worst where anti-gun laws are strictest... in fact Detroit just supplanted Chicago for the top spot. In 2014, after Illinois was forced by the higher courts to start granting concealed carry permits, burglary and motor vehicle theft FELL 20 percent and 26 percent, and Chicago's homicide rate FELL to a 56-year low. An armed populace again equals lower crime.

I don't recall Obama mentioning that the school was a "gun free zone", and that even the security guard on the campus couldn't carry weapons. The simple truth is that "gun free zones" protect no one except the criminal.

There's a reason CA Senator Diane Feinstein has a conceal carry permit.... even though she has a security detail...

3 things:

1) One cannot determine cause & effect from a correlation

2) Showing a statistical skew to your side of the argument doesn't assuage those 1062 murders.

3) The right for INDIVIDUALS to own guns is only a SEVEN year old ruling, from Scalia's Heller decision. For close to 200 hundred years it referred to a 'well-regulated militia', basically giving the states the right to form militias. Furthermore, there is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. And four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia.

[The_Noble_Cause]

The simple fact is that the "wild west" was pretty peaceful, and much of it had to do with the simple fact that everyone was armed.

WRONG. Tombstone, the most famous old west town, had strict gun laws. So did Dodge City. BTW Gunsmoke was not a documentary.

[Boomchild]

I doubt that we will ever see the day that personal gun ownership will be revoked in the U.S.. I think a good question to ask is what percentage of gun violence is committed with guns that were obtained legally as opposed to illegally. I'm not just talking about the random mass shootings but all of them. The shootings that occur around the country day in and day out. Sorry, but I don't think the answer is that only law enforcement and the military are allowed to have firearms.

[S2M]

I doubt that we will ever see the day that personal gun ownership will be revoked in the U.S.. I think a good question to ask is what percentage of gun violence is committed with guns that were obtained legally as opposed to illegally. I'm not just talking about the random mass shootings but all of them. The shootings that occur around the country day in and day out. Sorry, but I don't think the answer is that only law enforcement and the military are allowed to have firearms.

By asking that question you are, in fact, proving the opposition's point. If people are committing these murders with legally obtained firearms...what does THAT say? It says that background checks aren't foolproof, and aren't that great a litmus test as to a person's state of mind.

Folks just have an unhealthy fascination with owning firearms. People can't see past {It's my right}.

Let me tell you a thing about RIGHTS. If people had the right to eat SHIT, and that was being taken away....folks would bitch about that too.

[Boomchild]

By asking that question you are, in fact, proving the opposition's point. If people are committing these murders with legally obtained firearms...what does THAT say? It says that background checks aren't foolproof, and aren't that great a litmus test as to a person's state of mind.

Folks just have an unhealthy fascination with owning firearms. People can't see past {It's my right}.

Let me tell you a thing about RIGHTS. If people had the right to eat SHIT, and that was being taken away....folks would bitch about that too.

Yes people will bitch about many things when it comes to rights. But it's not just for the sake of complaining as you infer. It's because we live in a country that has the most personal freedoms then any other part of the world. Something that people fought and died for. As far as the question I stated here, you reply using the point of "if people are" which doesn't prove anything. Maybe that is what you believe but that's doesn't make it a fact. Unless you have legitimate research that supports it.

The resolution to the problem is neither having every single person armed nor is it taking away the ability to own a firearm if one chooses to do so. Both positions are "band aids" on the actual problem. You have to address the root of the problem. Which is what causes people to use a firearm in a criminal manner. The number of people in this country that legally own a firearm for various legal reasons far out number those that have firearms that use them to commit crimes.

The position of that people should not have the right to own a firearm because a certain segment of society uses them for criminal or malicious acts is like saying we should ban the practice of Islam because a segment of people of that religion use it to restrict human rights, commit malicious acts and mass murder.

[Monker]

The simple fact is that the "wild west" was pretty peaceful, and much of it had to do with the simple fact that everyone was armed.

WRONG. Tombstone, the most famous old west town, had strict gun laws. So did Dodge City. BTW Gunsmoke was not a documentary.

You are exactly right.

When I looked into it, as slucero suggested, what I found is these towns had stricter gun control laws than anything being considered today. Most required visitors to "check in" in their guns when entering the town and they could pick them up when the left. Some even gave the authorities the right to shoot dead anybody openly carrying a gun.

So, essentially, slucero's statistics are facts that prove why strict gun control works.

And, some general comments here

Saying these mass shootings can not be prevented is complete bullshit. Just like with Sandy hook, this guy had obvious mental issues and should have never owned a gun...let alone 20 or whatever he had.

I was watching O'Reilly and a caller said he was on campus and had a concealed carry permit. So, obviously guns were not so restricted as someone claimed. in fact, this guy (idiot) was going to go after the shooter but authorities told him to stay out of it. Encouraging this type of vigilantism with your nutty cartoons and the "best way to stop a bad guy with a gun in a room is with a good guy with a gun in the room" is so completely unrealistic.

And, BTW, comparing this to abortion by saying all pro-choice people go about having unprotected sex because they can always have an abortion is just as fucking retarded as the argument you were posting against.

I am sick of this whole thing, quite honestly. IMO, if you want to own a gun, you should have to get a permit first, and have it renewed every year. And, if you carry without the permit, there should be hefty jail time..including some community service working with victims of violent crimes.

If your argument is so pro gun rights that you can not see that doing nothing solves nothing, then you are so hung up on your right that you are literally for the right of people to commit mass murder with a gun. it's their right....THAT is what you are saying.

[Monker]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arjXlpz5T8g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuDTidbziZI

[Monker]

The resolution to the problem is neither having every single person armed nor is it taking away the ability to own a firearm if one chooses to do so. Both positions are "band aids" on the actual problem. You have to address the root of the problem. Which is what causes people to use a firearm in a criminal manner. The number of people in this country that legally own a firearm for various legal reasons far out number those that have firearms that use them to commit crimes.

That is just all crap.

The root of the problem is that people in this country have it stuck in their heads that they have a God given right to own a gun. That's bullshit. Guns were not in Eden. Cain and Able did not get into a gunfight. Guns were invented by man to kill people. That is the bottom line truth. They were not invented for hunting. Guns were not even viable for hunting until shotguns and rifling came about. The ONLY reason pistols exist is for people to kill each other.

So, an unstable person who collects guns starts using them for their intended purpose and we are all perplexed by it? How fucking mentally challenged are YOU people? The fact that some of you all probably own guns is why these murders keep happening.

The position of that people should not have the right to own a firearm because a certain segment of society uses them for criminal or malicious acts is like saying we should ban the practice of Islam because a segment of people of that religion use it to restrict human rights, commit malicious acts and mass murder.

That is no longer what is happening. Essentially, people want to keep the guns out of these wackos...but, the insane right fights this as trampling on the rights of gun owners. So, THEIR argument means the right of insane people to own a gun outweighs everybody else's right to live. They are uncompromising assholes who literally do resolve to keep their right to own a gun until they are shot in the head by a fellow insane gun owner and their gun is pried from their cold, dead, fingers.

That is what we are dealing with here.

[Boomchild]

That is just all crap.

The root of the problem is that people in this country have it stuck in their heads that they have a God given right to own a gun. That's bullshit. Guns were not in Eden. Cain and Able did not get into a gunfight. Guns were invented by man to kill people. That is the bottom line truth. They were not invented for hunting. Guns were not even viable for hunting until shotguns and rifling came about. The ONLY reason pistols exist is for people to kill each other.

So, an unstable person who collects guns starts using them for their intended purpose and we are all perplexed by it? How fucking mentally challenged are YOU people? The fact that some of you all probably own guns is why these murders keep happening.

To me it's not about a God given right. I simply believe that in a free society people should have the right to protect themselves by the use of a firearm. What is crap and bullshit is that not allowing citizens to own fire arms is going to stop mass killings and the illegal gun trade. The problem is our society and that people who obviously need mental help aren't getting it. You have to solve the issue at it's source and not the result.

That is no longer what is happening. Essentially, people want to keep the guns out of these wackos...but, the insane right fights this as trampling on the rights of gun owners. So, THEIR argument means the right of insane people to own a gun outweighs everybody else's right to live. They are uncompromising assholes who literally do resolve to keep their right to own a gun until they are shot in the head by a fellow insane gun owner and their gun is pried from their cold, dead, fingers.

That is what we are dealing with here.

No the actual point here is that some people think all people that own a gun either are or going to turn crazy. Which isn't what is happening. I don't know anyone that has come out and said they support unstable people having the right to own a firearm. Next thing we will hear is that the pro gun supporters want convicted criminals to be able to get gun permits. Sorry but you can't stop all the crazy people out in the world and therefore you are going to have these types of events with or without legal gun ownership.

[S2M]

By asking that question you are, in fact, proving the opposition's point. If people are committing these murders with legally obtained firearms...what does THAT say? It says that background checks aren't foolproof, and aren't that great a litmus test as to a person's state of mind.

Folks just have an unhealthy fascination with owning firearms. People can't see past {It's my right}.

Let me tell you a thing about RIGHTS. If people had the right to eat SHIT, and that was being taken away....folks would bitch about that too.

Yes people will bitch about many things when it comes to rights. But it's not just for the sake of complaining as you infer. It's because we live in a country that has the most personal freedoms then any other part of the world. Something that people fought and died for. As far as the question I stated here, you reply using the point of "if people are" which doesn't prove anything. Maybe that is what you believe but that's doesn't make it a fact. Unless you have legitimate research that supports it.

The resolution to the problem is neither having every single person armed nor is it taking away the ability to own a firearm if one chooses to do so. Both positions are "band aids" on the actual problem. You have to address the root of the problem. Which is what causes people to use a firearm in a criminal manner. The number of people in this country that legally own a firearm for various legal reasons far out number those that have firearms that use them to commit crimes.

The position of that people should not have the right to own a firearm because a certain segment of society uses them for criminal or malicious acts is like saying we should ban the practice of Islam because a segment of people of that religion use it to restrict human rights, commit malicious acts and mass murder.

False equivalency...you should know better than that.

[Monker]

Monker wrote:

Cain and Able did not get into a gunfight

Here's a clue Monk, he's still dead. People will kill with all kinds of things when they feel the need arise. Hammers, fire, water, pillows, ROCKS, hatchets, blunt objects, and hell even duct tape, pressure cookers and airplanes.

Here's a bigger clue. I agree with you...they are equivalent and you should not have a 'right' in the Constitution to own a gun..just a you don't have a right guaranteed in the Constitution to own a pillow. Thank you for supporting my point.

Also, I have not heard of multiple cases over the last 20yrs of mass murders where the murderer was using pillows. However, there are multiple cases where the killer used a gun and had mental issues. Therefore, I do not support a license to own a pillow or rock, but I do support laws to force gun owners to maintain an up to date license to own a pillow, but I do support a yearly license to be issued to own a gun.

[Monker]

He wanted to replace the atmosphere? He's a fucking alien! Let the Russians do what they please to the alien invaders. They are all abductors and anal probers anyway.

Just backing my post up eariler about Odessa Ukraine, a city where citizens are not allowed to own weapons. Only local police are armed.

"Odessa’s bureaucrats had forgotten public service and had instead become glorified racketeers, he continued. This is why he would be sacking half of them, and establishing a one-stop-shop to issue government licences. “We are cutting criminals out of the process,” he insisted.

Back in his office, Mr Saakashvili told The Independent he was determined to change the atmosphere inside the regional administration. “When I came to replace my predecessor there were 40 armoured cars parked outside the building,” he said. A week later, the vehicles were no longer there. “Officials told me they were the governor’s own private vehicles, which tells its own story,” he said.



As Odessa’s new governor, appointed by Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko in May, he said he would serve as “a man of the people”, travelling on ordinary buses and being open to the public, despite the obvious security threat. “I was calm when Putin [threatened] to kill me, so why should I care about local mafia chiefs?” he said.

Mr Saakashvili sees similarities between Georgia in 2004, when he became that country’s president, and the situation he inherits today in Odessa. Both were renowned for their criminality and mafia rule; in fact, “some of the Georgian gangsters actually relocated here”, he says."

Most people are pulling for him, but don't expect him to wake up one morning, or have his office rearranged with a bomb. I know he fired about 40% of the police force. I wish him the best. odessa is a nice place to visit.

[Monker]

Ah, so you believe the US is comparable to emerging and developing nations, like Ukraine. Yeah, your words and opinions are VERY credible. Sure.

Moron.

Monker wrote:

Guns were invented by man to kill people.

So were knives, guillotines, electric chairs, swords, bow and arrows, trebuchets, cannons, tanks, RPGs, Fighter Jets, dirty bombs, smart bombs, pentobarbital, and on and on...
And by the way S2M, I cant find anywhere where it is against the law now to eat shit, so once again you are full of it.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=is ... o+eat+shit

In Ukraine, people are banned from owning guns. The local governments are owned by Russian Mafia. One local Mayor in Odessa was elected to try to run them out of town. He had many death threats, the police, owned by the Mafia, went after him after he fored over half of them, and I believe, he's been run out of office. Last I checked, he was in deep trouble. This the result of monkers kind of government.

[Monker]

Monker wrote:

Guns were invented by man to kill people.

So were knives, guillotines, electric chairs, swords, bow and arrows, trebuchets, cannons, tanks, RPGs, Fighter Jets, dirty bombs, smart bombs, pentobarbital, and on and on...

And by the way S2M, I cant find anywhere where it is against the law now to eat shit, so once again you are full of it.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=is ... o+eat+shit

yeah, well, when people start showing up in classrooms with electric chairs and guillotines to commit mass murder, you will have a point. Otherwise, you are just being your normal ditto-head self who can't get past ..the worthless propaganda that you continually post here...all to protect the rights of the mentally ill to own a stock pile of guns and then use them to kill people.

[Monker]

[
To me it's not about a God given right. I simply believe that in a free society people should have the right to protect themselves by the use of a firearm.

And, you would be wrong. There are already laws to keep guns out of the hands of certain people like criminals. But, since there is barely any way to proactively enforce this these people still get guns.

What is crap and bullshit is that not allowing citizens to own fire arms is going to stop mass killings and the illegal gun trade.

see Slucero's post...he already proved this wrong. So does the crackdown in Australia and other countries. If you want a gun, fine, go through a strict process to get a license and renew it yearly.

The problem is our society and that people who obviously need mental help aren't getting it. You have to solve the issue at it's source and not the result.

That makes absolutely no difference. Even people who ARE getting help should not be allowed to own a gun. They do not have a right to a gun. Period. Neither do criminals. Period. And, parents who knowingly raise their mentally ill child by taking them out shooting, which happened in Sandy Hook, should have all of their guns taken away too, for being so negligently responsible for implanting in these already disturbed minds that owning and shooting guns is OK for them to do. It's not. How many times do these murders have to take place before we as a nation learn that?

No the actual point here is that some people think all people that own a gun either are or going to turn crazy.

Nobody is saying that. What I am saying, repeatedly is the mentally ill are the ones who are doing these shootings. So, this nation should do what it takes to keep their hands off of guns. And, yes, I think you have to be a loopy yourself to not see that by now. So, those actually arguing against such a thing are probably the next shooters.

I don't know anyone that has come out and said they support unstable people having the right to own a firearm.

They vehemently oppose ANY gun control legislation to help address the issue. What I am saying is they are so protective of their own 'right' they do not see they are also protecting the 'right' of the mentally ill to own a gun and eventually murder people.

Next thing we will hear is that the pro gun supporters want convicted criminals to be able to get gun permits.

They basically do when they oppose legislation to help keep guns out of their hands. They are wrapping their 'right' along with the criminals'. That is exactly what they are doing.

Sorry but you can't stop all the crazy people out in the world and therefore you are going to have these types of events with or without legal gun ownership.

That is true. But, we as a society should make it as difficult as possible. To go about saying, "well, they are going to get a gun anyway..." is a VERY lame excuse for not taking action after so many mass murders. Why are these same people not for making marijuana legal...because anybody can get it if they really want it anyway. Why are they so anti-abortion...when it was illegal, you could still get it if you really want it. Maybe if abortion doctors used a pistol to abort the pregnancy they would be forced to be pro-choice.

[Boomchild]

Here's a clue Monk, he's still dead. People will kill with all kinds of things when they feel the need arise. Hammers, fire, water, pillows, ROCKS, hatchets, blunt objects, and hell even duct tape, pressure cookers and airplanes.

Exactly. The Boston bombers didn't use guns to commit mass murder and carnage. They used a pretty simple pressure cooker bomb. If you take away one option form some sick person to commit these acts, they will just move on to another. The alternative could end up being more deadly then the use of a firearm. But, because banning gun ownership makes a good sound bite and is simpler then solving the root cause of the problem people are fooled into thinking it's going to stop the sick people from being able to harm people.

[Boomchild]

And, you would be wrong. There are already laws to keep guns out of the hands of certain people like criminals. But, since there is barely any way to proactively enforce this these people still get guns.

Of course they have laws against criminals owning guns. I didn't say that those should have the right to own one. I said it's my belief that in a free society people should have the right to protect themselves with a firearm. You seem to think that this means ownership without any kind of permit or background check. This is not what I would advocate. Believe it or not but not everyone that believes in personal firearm ownership agrees on all of the viewpoints expressed about it. Logically, you have to have a system that is able to stop people with mental health issues from obtaining a firearm.

[Monker]

Here's a clue Monk, he's still dead. People will kill with all kinds of things when they feel the need arise. Hammers, fire, water, pillows, ROCKS, hatchets, blunt objects, and hell even duct tape, pressure cookers and airplanes.

Exactly. The Boston bombers didn't use guns to commit mass murder and carnage. They used a pretty simple pressure cooker bomb. If you take away one option form some sick person to commit these acts, they will just move on to another. The alternative could end up being more deadly then the use of a firearm. But, because banning gun ownership makes a good sound bite and is simpler then solving the root cause of the problem people are fooled into thinking it's going to stop the sick people from being able to harm people.

And, the result of such terrorist acts is The Patriot Act, Homeland Security, the TSA and all of the extra security at airports, and on and on and on...most of such passed under the last Republican president. But, try to pass gun control legislation to stop mentally ill from owning a gun - and they do whatever it takes to stop it. One FAILED shoe bomb and suddenly every pair of shoes have to be scanned before entering an airplane. Multiple mass murders by mentally ill using guns and we can't scan the brain of those wanting to own a gun. That is hypocritical and wrong.

[Monker]

And, you would be wrong. There are already laws to keep guns out of the hands of certain people like criminals. But, since there is barely any way to proactively enforce this these people still get guns.

Of course they have laws against criminals owning guns. I didn't say that those should have the right to own one. I said it's my belief that in a free society people should have the right to protect themselves with a firearm. You seem to think that this means ownership without any kind of permit or background check. This is not what I would advocate. Believe it or not but not everyone that believes in personal firearm ownership agrees on all of the viewpoints expressed about it. Logically, you have to have a system that is able to stop people with mental health issues from obtaining a firearm.

Then what is your suggestion? What suggestion would both address the issue and pass the critical eye of the Republican right and the NRA?

[slucero]

The simple fact is that the "wild west" was pretty peaceful, and much of it had to do with the simple fact that everyone was armed.

WRONG. Tombstone, the most famous old west town, had strict gun laws. So did Dodge City. BTW Gunsmoke was not a documentary.

Once again you (and Monker) are are dead wrong.. and obfuscating like mad.. (nice try)

Frontier towns like Tombstone only barred the carrying of guns in public. (you didn't omit that part on purpose didn't ya? )

There were no restriction on people owning guns, and those who lived IN the towns owned guns.. they just didn't carry them in public. Outside of towns there were no gun restrictions...

That is LESS gun control.. and the net result, as the statistics I posted reflect, is an armed populace equaling less homicide per 100,000 residents.

When simply comparing Abilene then vs Baltimore in 2007... Baltimore, with all its restrictive gun ownership laws, has a homicide rate 45 times greater than Abilene's which had no gun ownership laws yet did not allow open carry in public.

That's a FACT.

[The_Noble_Cause]

The simple fact is that the "wild west" was pretty peaceful, and much of it had to do with the simple fact that everyone was armed.

WRONG. Tombstone, the most famous old west town, had strict gun laws. So did Dodge City. BTW Gunsmoke was not a documentary.

Once again you (and Monker) are are dead wrong.. and obfuscating like mad.. (nice try)

Frontier towns like Tombstone only barred the carrying of guns in public. (you didn't omit that part on purpose didn't ya? )

There were no restriction on people owning guns, and those who lived IN the towns owned guns.. they just didn't carry them in public. Outside of towns there were no gun restrictions...

That is LESS gun control.. and the net result, as the statistics I posted reflect, is an armed populace equaling less homicide per 100,000 residents.

When simply comparing Abilene then vs Baltimore in 2007... Baltimore, with all its restrictive gun ownership laws, has a homicide rate 45 times greater than Abilene's which had no gun ownership laws yet did not allow open carry in public.

That's a FACT.

Lol. Its soo obvious you are just googling and making shit up as you go along. You claimed that the Wild West embodied some sort of NRA utopia where no regulation existed. Now you are specifying just what type of meddlesome bureacratic red tape rules were in place. Keep on spinning...

[JBlake]

This week, Arizona passed two bills to stop Obama dead in his tracks.

The first bill, Arizona House Bill 2368, introduced by Rep. Bob Thorpe (R-Flagstaff), prevents the state of Arizona from funding any executive orders issued by President Obama, or policy directives issued by the Department of Justice.

The Arizona State Legislature website described the bill as prohibiting “this state or any of its political subdivisions from using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer or cooperate with an executive order issued by the President of the U.S. that has not been affirmed by a vote of Congress and signed into law as prescribed by the U.S. Constitution.”

However, the defiant bill does not stop there. It also “prohibits this state or any of its political subdivisions from using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer or cooperate with a policy directive issued by the U.S. DOJ to law enforcement agencies in this state that has not been affirmed by a vote of Congress and signed into law as prescribed by the U.S. Constitution.”

The legislation, if passed, would effectively make Arizona independent of federal laws.

The second bill, House Bill 2643, stops state and local governments from using state funds to enforce and implement the Affordable Care Act.

Both bills passed the Arizona House and will now move to the Senate.

I love those two words in the same sentence. I really really do.

[JBlake]

Very interesting turn of events over the past few days. Odumbo is arming the Syrian rebels and Russia is putting their dicks in the dirt while supporting the current Syrian government. From what I'm hearing, we drop a bomb or two per target while the Russians are dropping ten or more. They are definitely making sure no one's left smiling about anything.

And then today I'm reading that Cuba is now involved and siding with the same side Russia is on. Funny cause didn't this current American administration just get all warm and cuddly with Cuba. And now Cuba is basically joining the other side in Syria.

What's Odumbo and that horse's ass Kerry got to say now?

[Monker]

HAMMER ATTACK IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
11m
1 man is dead, as many as 10 injured in hammer attack in Lillooet, British Columbia - @CP24
read more



HAMMER ATTACK IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
6m
Hospital in British Columbia: 2 victims of hammer attack are in critical condition, 2 in serious condition and 6 others with non-life threatening injuries - @CP24
read more on cp24.com


I'll be damned...wonder if this will make the news here?

Oh, great, now Republicans are going to want a Constitutional Amendment that says people have the right to own a hammer. Thrilling.

[Boomchild]

Oh, great, now Republicans are going to want a Constitutional Amendment that says people have the right to own a hammer. Thrilling.

Yep right after the progressive liberals start calling for a ban on or licenses for them. Which wouldn't surprise me one bit. Just think of the revenue each state could make on the licenses alone.

[S2M]

Why the fuck won't anyone, politician, or otherwise, bring up Boortz's Fair Tax? In one fell swoop it would get rid of the horrendous tax code, close loopholes, and expand the tax base. Not everyone works, but everyone spends.