Gun Control or Obamacare which is worse

Gun Control or Obamacare which is worse

Posted in the Forrest City Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Guest

Memphis, TN

#1 Jan 19, 2013
Any ideas
Guest

West Memphis, AR

#2 Jan 19, 2013
Neither they are equally important and sorely needed right now. We need less talk and more action.

“The Dawg is In!”

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#3 Jan 19, 2013
Guest wrote:
Neither they are equally important and sorely needed right now. We need less talk and more action.
I agree.

We are going to need Obamacare to pay for the hospital bills incurred when the crooks end up possessing all the guns.

Makes perfect sense. They go hand in hand.

Yes we can!

Banned

“This town is nuts...”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#4 Jan 19, 2013
You've lost your mind. Obama's action on gun control is a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution. Not only will it do nothing to prevent gun violence, it's going to divide this country like nothing else could. What's more anti-American than to use a Presidential Order to pass legislation that you know Congress would vote down otherwise? We have a process for passing laws in this country that requires the majority of our elected officials to agree upon said law. Presidential Orders are meant to save time when implementing policy that is generally accepted and viewed as necessary by the general public. Obama is abusing his authority as President in order to infringe on our Constitutional rights. It's unprecedented and it's unacceptable.
Winter

West Memphis, AR

#5 Jan 19, 2013
Scuba Dawg wrote:
<quoted text>I agree.

We are going to need Obamacare to pay for the hospital bills incurred when the crooks end up possessing all the guns.

Makes perfect sense. They go hand in hand.

Yes we can!
We need Obamacare to pay for preventative care and other medical needs and we need gun control so we don't spend money on stupid people shooting each other over who can get the wing or drumstick. YES WE SHOULD!
Winter

West Memphis, AR

#6 Jan 19, 2013
Banned wrote:
You've lost your mind. Obama's action on gun control is a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution. Not only will it do nothing to prevent gun violence, it's going to divide this country like nothing else could. What's more anti-American than to use a Presidential Order to pass legislation that you know Congress would vote down otherwise? We have a process for passing laws in this country that requires the majority of our elected officials to agree upon said law. Presidential Orders are meant to save time when implementing policy that is generally accepted and viewed as necessary by the general public. Obama is abusing his authority as President in order to infringe on our Constitutional rights. It's unprecedented and it's unacceptable.
In the end... HE DID THE RIGHT THING. THESE THINGS WOULD'VE PASSED EASILY IF PROPOSED BY A LIGHTER HUE OF PERSON. REPUBLICANS MET WHEN HE WAS ELECTED AND DECIDED TO NOT PASS A THING HE WANTED AND HE TRIED HARD TO COMPROMISE HIS WHOLE FIRST YEAR. BUMP YOU NOW! DEAL WITH HIM NOW AS HE IS THE DULY ELECTED POTUS!!!!!!! OHHHHH YEAH!!!

Banned

“This town is nuts...”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#7 Jan 19, 2013
What he did would not have passed through Congress and wasn't the right thing to do. Banning assault weapons and high-cap magazines will do nothing to prevent gun violence. It's nothing more than a stepping stone to infringe on the 2nd Amendment. Some of you might want to inform yourself on this issue before you speak on it publicly. Almost every semi-auto handgun sold since the Brady Bill expired came with one or more high-cap magazines. You can't get them back. There are millions of them on the streets in this country so banning them is pointless. Do you know what the difference is between a high-cap magazines and a magazine that will still be legal after this legislation is made into law? Six bullets.

The shooting in CT did not involve an assault rifle but that kid did have high-cap mags in both pistols. Would the country have been less outraged if he would have only killed 18 kids because he had 12 less bullets? Of course not. What if he had brought an extra magazine for each pistol? He could have killed 10 or 15 more kids with weapons that will still be legal after Obama's restrictions are in place.

School shootings can be stopped completely in this country but not by placing restrictions on the guns used in these killings. Why is it that no one ever walks into a Federal Building and kills 15 people? Because you have to go through metal detectors with armed guards before you get inside a Federal Building, that's why? Why do Federal Employees deserve to be protected while they are at work but your children don't deserve that same protection while they are at school? How many more school shootings have to take place before liberals recognize the need to take real action to stop this from happening again. Federal Buildings, prisons, and other facilities are secure from anyone trying to gain access with a weapon. Why not schools?

Please pull your heads out of your asses and see this problem for what it is so that you can recognize the difference between a real solution and the smoke screen that liberals are using to attempt to infringe on rights that the founding father's of our country viewed important enough to include them in our nation's Constitution.
Alabasta

Hughes, AR

#8 Jan 19, 2013
I would have to say gun control is worse.
Chit Mon

West Memphis, AR

#9 Jan 19, 2013
Guest wrote:
Any ideas
We're waiting for you to illuminate us, brainiac, or are you just barking like a rabid dog in the dark of night?

“The Dawg is In!”

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#10 Jan 19, 2013
Winter wrote:
<quoted text>We need Obamacare to pay for preventative care and other medical needs and we need gun control so we don't spend money on stupid people shooting each other over who can get the wing or drumstick. YES WE SHOULD!
Taking the guns away from responsible people is not the answer. Do you think a thug, a drug dealer, a terrorist, a murderer, or criminal in general is going to hand over their firearm because the government told them to? That is not the answer. The states with the strictest gun laws are the ones with the highest murder rates. Why don't thugs flourish in states where it is legal to carry opened fire arms? Most weapons used in mass shootings are stolen, so how are stricter gun laws going to help.

How about stricter prison sentences?

I do agree there need to be better training courses and background checks for people thought to be mentally incapable. The concealed handgun class in Arkansas is a joke, anyone can easily pass. It needs to be tightened up. Parents and guardians need to liable when they allow their guns to be used by their children.

As far as Obamacare? That's a joke. Why don't you explain to me how the shrinking working class is going to pay for the healthcare of the growing needy? We are already trillions in debt.

I'll wait for your answer. Enlighten me.

“The Dawg is In!”

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#11 Jan 19, 2013
Banned wrote:
What he did would not have passed through Congress and wasn't the right thing to do. Banning assault weapons and high-cap magazines will do nothing to prevent gun violence. It's nothing more than a stepping stone to infringe on the 2nd Amendment. Some of you might want to inform yourself on this issue before you speak on it publicly. Almost every semi-auto handgun sold since the Brady Bill expired came with one or more high-cap magazines. You can't get them back. There are millions of them on the streets in this country so banning them is pointless. Do you know what the difference is between a high-cap magazines and a magazine that will still be legal after this legislation is made into law? Six bullets.

The shooting in CT did not involve an assault rifle but that kid did have high-cap mags in both pistols. Would the country have been less outraged if he would have only killed 18 kids because he had 12 less bullets? Of course not. What if he had brought an extra magazine for each pistol? He could have killed 10 or 15 more kids with weapons that will still be legal after Obama's restrictions are in place.

School shootings can be stopped completely in this country but not by placing restrictions on the guns used in these killings. Why is it that no one ever walks into a Federal Building and kills 15 people? Because you have to go through metal detectors with armed guards before you get inside a Federal Building, that's why? Why do Federal Employees deserve to be protected while they are at work but your children don't deserve that same protection while they are at school? How many more school shootings have to take place before liberals recognize the need to take real action to stop this from happening again. Federal Buildings, prisons, and other facilities are secure from anyone trying to gain access with a weapon. Why not schools?

Please pull your heads out of your asses and see this problem for what it is so that you can recognize the difference between a real solution and the smoke screen that liberals are using to attempt to infringe on rights that the founding father's of our country viewed important enough to include them in our nation's Constitution.
You also have armed guards in federal buildings. The only mass shooting on a federal ground in recent history was in Arizona. All other times, these losers attack on grounds they know are unarmed.

“The Dawg is In!”

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#12 Jan 19, 2013
Winter wrote:
<quoted text>In the end... HE DID THE RIGHT THING. THESE THINGS WOULD'VE PASSED EASILY IF PROPOSED BY A LIGHTER HUE OF PERSON. REPUBLICANS MET WHEN HE WAS ELECTED AND DECIDED TO NOT PASS A THING HE WANTED AND HE TRIED HARD TO COMPROMISE HIS WHOLE FIRST YEAR. BUMP YOU NOW! DEAL WITH HIM NOW AS HE IS THE DULY ELECTED POTUS!!!!!!! OHHHHH YEAH!!!
Typing in caps does not not make you seem any smarter.
Winter

West Memphis, AR

#13 Jan 20, 2013
Scuba Dawg wrote:
<quoted text>Typing in caps does not not make you seem any smarter.
DIDN'T WANT TO PHONE IS IN NEED OF REPAIR. I WANT SOME LEGISLATION TO ADDRESS GUN SHOWS AND LAX RULES ON THEM. I WANT SMALLER GUN MAGAZINES. COMMON SENSE THINGS. I DON'T CARE ABOUT LEGAL GUN OWNERSHIP. I ALSO WOULD LIKE EXISTING LAWS APPLYING TO GUN OWNERSHIP BE UPHELD!

“The Dawg is In!”

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#14 Jan 20, 2013
Winter wrote:
<quoted text>I DON'T CARE ABOUT LEGAL GUN OWNERSHIP. I ALSO WOULD LIKE EXISTING LAWS APPLYING TO GUN OWNERSHIP BE UPHELD!
Say what?
Winter

West Memphis, AR

#15 Jan 20, 2013
Scuba Dawg wrote:
<quoted text>Say what?
Say that!
traveller

United States

#16 Jan 20, 2013
Both are bad, one no worse than the other,in that both reduce your liberty and freedom. One by one, little by little, we are being stripped of all our Constitutional rights and slipping ever closer to a police state.
Strip searches to travel by air, even domestically.
Obama care calls for national database of all medical records.
Legislate and regulate your guns, so you can't defend yourself.
Better wake up, who knows what's next,pay attention because its happening now.
Whatever

Fort Worth, TX

#17 Jan 21, 2013
Forget Prison, I think they should go back too old school and bring back the HANGINGS!!!!!!
Whatever

Fort Worth, TX

#19 Jan 21, 2013
Banned wrote:
You've lost your mind. Obama's action on gun control is a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution. Not only will it do nothing to prevent gun violence, it's going to divide this country like nothing else could. What's more anti-American than to use a Presidential Order to pass legislation that you know Congress would vote down otherwise? We have a process for passing laws in this country that requires the majority of our elected officials to agree upon said law. Presidential Orders are meant to save time when implementing policy that is generally accepted and viewed as necessary by the general public. Obama is abusing his authority as President in order to infringe on our Constitutional rights. It's unprecedented and it's unacceptable.
Let it divide ! This is a changed country, you have a socialist man in office, What do you expect?
Whatever

Fort Worth, TX

#20 Jan 21, 2013
traveller wrote:
Both are bad, one no worse than the other,in that both reduce your liberty and freedom. One by one, little by little, we are being stripped of all our Constitutional rights and slipping ever closer to a police state.
Strip searches to travel by air, even domestically.
Obama care calls for national database of all medical records.
Legislate and regulate your guns, so you can't defend yourself.
Better wake up, who knows what's next,pay attention because its happening now.
YUUP!!!, socialism!!!
Winter

United States

#21 Jan 21, 2013
Whatever:/

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Forrest City Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Poll Did you vote today? (Jun '10) 2 hr bookmiller shannon 33,421
Hugs or Drugs 22 hr Future 1
Need a mobile mechanic Sun Customer 2
News State trooper charged for hitting juvenile off-... (Jan '16) Jan 21 disgusted 156
Cody R Flowers Jan 20 typical 2
Looking for Farming jobs Jan 20 Breakfast At 2
Carpet cleaning Jan 17 Jon don 1

Forrest City Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Forrest City Mortgages