Comments
201 - 220 of 323 Comments Last updated Jan 31, 2013
Well

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#212
Jan 20, 2013
 
Lets ask the people of Syria what is the best way to reduce gun violence?

“Walk With Me In Hell”

Since: Nov 11

Hell, Norway

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#213
Jan 20, 2013
 
Well wrote:
Lets ask the people of Syria what is the best way to reduce gun violence?
Who cares about Syria?
Well

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#214
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SATAN_64 wrote:
<quoted text>Who cares about Syria?
Lets apply the leftist vision of the 2nd amendment to the Syrian conflict where the government of Syria is facing a tough challenge from Syrians who wish to get rid of a tyrannical government. The leftist Second Amendment would read: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear certain arms suitable for hunting and sporting purposes and for arms suitable for defensive purposes not to exceed magazine capacities of 10 rounds of ammunition shall not be infringed unless government determines otherwise."

Leftists should only support the use of firearms by the people of Syria that they would support us having to rid our own government and that would be the types of firearms that leftists approve of and do not include assault weapons.

Do you think the United States government is providing assault weapons to the Syrian resistance or at least approves of other nations providing assault weapons to the Syrian resistance? If Syrians can use assault weapons to rid themselves of a tyrannical government, why should Americans not be permitted to possess assault weapons to get rid of their government in the event it ever behaved as the Syrian government? Or should we rely on the free people of Syria or other nations to provide assault weapons to Americans in the event we needed such weapons to get rid of our government since obviously many Americans do not believe the 2nd amendment protects the right to own assault weapons?

“Walk With Me In Hell”

Since: Nov 11

Hell, Norway

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#215
Jan 20, 2013
 
Well wrote:
<quoted text>Lets apply the leftist vision of the 2nd amendment to the Syrian conflict where the government of Syria is facing a tough challenge from Syrians who wish to get rid of a tyrannical government. The leftist Second Amendment would read: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear certain arms suitable for hunting and sporting purposes and for arms suitable for defensive purposes not to exceed magazine capacities of 10 rounds of ammunition shall not be infringed unless government determines otherwise."
Leftists should only support the use of firearms by the people of Syria that they would support us having to rid our own government and that would be the types of firearms that leftists approve of and do not include assault weapons.
Do you think the United States government is providing assault weapons to the Syrian resistance or at least approves of other nations providing assault weapons to the Syrian resistance? If Syrians can use assault weapons to rid themselves of a tyrannical government, why should Americans not be permitted to possess assault weapons to get rid of their government in the event it ever behaved as the Syrian government? Or should we rely on the free people of Syria or other nations to provide assault weapons to Americans in the event we needed such weapons to get rid of our government since obviously many Americans do not believe the 2nd amendment protects the right to own assault weapons?
I don`t give two shits about the leftist encroachment of my 2nd amendment rights, because i know that if they attempt a serious push at a law banning guns, then we will have a civil war, and i can go down my shitlist.

As far as Syria is concerned, i hope all the Middle East goes to war, and kills each other out. We have no business being over there taking sides with any of them. Let them do what they`ve done for thousands of years.
Well

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#216
Jan 20, 2013
 
SATAN_64 wrote:
<quoted text>I don`t give two shits about the leftist encroachment of my 2nd amendment rights, because i know that if they attempt a serious push at a law banning guns, then we will have a civil war, and i can go down my shitlist.
As far as Syria is concerned, i hope all the Middle East goes to war, and kills each other out. We have no business being over there taking sides with any of them. Let them do what they`ve done for thousands of years.
I agree with your attitude toward government encroachment. The Framers felt the same way.

Since: Sep 09

o------------><-----------o

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#217
Jan 20, 2013
 
I'm still waiting.

But all I'm seeing is a lot of empty rhetoric spiced with words such as Liberal, Obama, and gonna gonna gonna take our guns.

Do you know why?

Because you guys have no idea what-so-ever on how to really reduce violence without ..... drum-roll please ..... more efficient gun laws.
SpeakUp

Harwood Heights, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#218
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

SATAN_64 wrote:
<quoted text>I don`t give two shits about the leftist encroachment of my 2nd amendment rights, because i know that if they attempt a serious push at a law banning guns, then we will have a civil war, and i can go down my shitlist.
As far as Syria is concerned, i hope all the Middle East goes to war, and kills each other out. We have no business being over there taking sides with any of them. Let them do what they`ve done for thousands of years.
I only wish you'd voiced that opinion to your prior President before he started this ball rolling. If you'll recall, General Powell did warn him "if you start it, you own it". Just think, a Republican is the root behind the progressive end of our Nation.

Since: Sep 09

o------------><-----------o

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#219
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

SATAN_64 wrote:
<quoted text>I don`t give two shits about the leftist encroachment of my 2nd amendment rights, because i know that if they attempt a serious push at a law banning guns, then we will have a civil war, and i can go down my shitlist.
As far as Syria is concerned, i hope all the Middle East goes to war, and kills each other out. We have no business being over there taking sides with any of them. Let them do what they`ve done for thousands of years.
No one is attempting to take guns from normal citizens ..... only from criminals and mentally unstable ones. But for some reason the Republicans don't want that to happen.

As for a serious push for a law banning guns (which there is not)..... all it would have to be is one banning the production and sale of ammunition. Then guns would be paperweights.

“Walk With Me In Hell”

Since: Nov 11

Hell, Norway

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#220
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

___Jenny___ wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is attempting to take guns from normal citizens ..... only from criminals and mentally unstable ones. But for some reason the Republicans don't want that to happen.
As for a serious push for a law banning guns (which there is not)..... all it would have to be is one banning the production and sale of ammunition. Then guns would be paperweights.
Mayhaps you feel that way, but others with your affiliations are seeking the complete ban of firearms. Unless you listen and take notice of ALL the leftist ideas, how will you know how to react?

Dems want to make MORE laws, but are not interested in enforcing the one we have now. Biden just stated he didn`t have time or resources to enforce the laws we have on the books. What make him think he can enforce new ones?

Since: Sep 09

o------------><-----------o

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#221
Jan 23, 2013
 
I'm still waiting. It is a simple question and worded clearly enough for even southeastern Kentucky gun-nuts to understand.

What should be done about gun violence?
polly want a cracker

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#222
Jan 23, 2013
 
___Jenny___ wrote:
I'm still waiting. It is a simple question and worded clearly enough for even southeastern Kentucky gun-nuts to understand.
What should be done about gun violence?
the answer lies inside your husband's britches. trust me on this one. let him shoot the solution straight to your brain.
the only answer

Winchester, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#223
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

___Jenny___ wrote:
I'm still waiting. It is a simple question and worded clearly enough for even southeastern Kentucky gun-nuts to understand.
What should be done about gun violence?
The only solution is to confiscate guns and ban them, period. There only can and will be no gun violence when there are NO Guns.

“Walk With Me In Hell”

Since: Nov 11

Hell, Norway

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#224
Jan 24, 2013
 
___Jenny___ wrote:
I'm still waiting. It is a simple question and worded clearly enough for even southeastern Kentucky gun-nuts to understand.
What should be done about gun violence?
I`m waiting for the answer to my question, as well...

Don`t tell me that you are like Speakup and ignore questions that you know the obvious answer to, but are unwilling to relinquish the answer.

Since: Nov 08

Corbin Ky.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#225
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

___Jenny___ wrote:
Enough smaller things pertaining to different elements of gun violence can cut away at things like peeling an onion.
For example. How many people are shot due to drinking? People drinking are more apt to become angry and when armed more easily use that gun when they normally would handle it differently. Also, studies and interviews of people in prisons have shown a vast number committed their crimes while drinking or doing drugs. Heck, as a side issue ..... how many gun 'accidents' happen while drinking?
Make it a crime (subject to a citation or arrest) to drink while in possession of a gun. I don't mean be drunk, but drink. It is illegal to drive a car with an open container of alcohol in the vehicle ..... why not for carrying a gun and drinking?
Here is a very good point. With alcohol related deaths far outreaching gun deaths, why don't you see more DUI deaths in the news. If the govt. was trying to ban alcohol, every case of DUI deaths would be plastered in the news.

"gun deaths vs alcohol deaths

alcohol related deaths out number gun related deaths by more than 100 to one but we have gotten so used to dui related deaths that we hardly notice unless one happens to someone we know or someone in our community

why not the same uproar over alcohol related deaths as gun related deaths or perhaps more

how many dui related deaths achieve national headlines vs how many gun related deaths."

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.p...

Since: Nov 08

Corbin Ky.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#226
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

___Jenny___ wrote:
I'm still waiting. It is a simple question and worded clearly enough for even southeastern Kentucky gun-nuts to understand.
What should be done about gun violence?
I have owned guns since 1961 and I have never killed anyone so what is it you would have me do? Please answer this one at least.

You want to refer to me and others as "gun-nuts" because we believe in our constitutional rights to own one, why use derogatory comments if you expect an honest debate?

Since: Nov 08

Corbin Ky.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#227
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

___Jenny___ wrote:
I'm still waiting. It is a simple question and worded clearly enough for even southeastern Kentucky gun-nuts to understand.
What should be done about gun violence?
We have people driving on our highways that clearly should not be driving so should we ban all cars or should we do our best to make sure they are tested and denied the privilege if they are incompetent?

Adam Lanza tried to purchase a rifle just prior to the school shooting but because of tough gun laws in his state he was denied. What else do you want?
Okay

Hazard, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#228
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

___Jenny___ wrote:
I'm still waiting. It is a simple question and worded clearly enough for even southeastern Kentucky gun-nuts to understand.
What should be done about gun violence?
Nothing. Clear enough.

Since: Sep 09

o------------><-----------o

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#229
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Still nothing from you guys ..... so expect our proposals to have a far greater chance of being passed ..... after all, they are the 'only' proposals.
Well

Hazard, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#230
Jan 24, 2013
 
No they're not and they're not your proposals in any event. There's something the media once labeled the "loyal opposition" which, at that time, was just a joke about Republicans. However, later when Republicans controlled everything the media had to use the same term to describe Democrats or be labeled biased (surely not the media). So, the loyal opposition still exists. For every proposal there is an equal and opposite one. Dem proposals will not get through the House. The Democrats, now worried about mid terms, are backing off there December rage. Republican we know won't let it get by. Even Harry has said six to eight months before anything will be considered. What will be done? Barring another mass shooting. Nothing.

By the way are your Glocks 9's or 40's. How many rounds to they hold. Well, you probably don't have them anymore. Wouldn't want to be a hypocrite no would you.
Okay

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#231
Jan 24, 2013
 
___Jenny___ wrote:
Still nothing from you guys ..... so expect our proposals to have a far greater chance of being passed ..... after all, they are the 'only' proposals.
I can give you one or several depending on what you actually want to do. If you want to close the gun loophole that is really a minor problem, and reduce, but not eliminate gun violence, you simply institute a waiting period and you expand the knowledge base of the current instant check system. During the waiting period you conduct a comprehensive background check. Primarily all you've really done is eliminated gun shows but there may be an off chance that the background check find an occasional buyer that might slip through. You will not stop anyone who has not committed a crime or has been identified as mentally incapable of owning a gun. But that's been done. You may be too young to remember its origins but I'm sure you've heard of the Brady Group. James Scott "Jim" Brady is a former Assistant to the President and White House Press Secretary under President Ronald Reagan. He was shot in the attempt on President Reagan's life and paralyzed. As a Republican under Reagan I'm sure he would have supported the right to own guns with minimal control. But getting shot changed his values so he went to the other side. For what purpose is the question?

The Brady Group pushed for and got a National three day waiting period, which effectively killed one of their sworn enemies, gun shows. However, they continued to push and got the instant check which is located in VA because VA was the first to have a working system. Well, what did that do? Put gun shows back in business and allowed the Brady Group to continue to raise money. It's all about money.

The second thing which I have said for years is make sure all sales go through an FFL holder. That would automatically ensure compliance with the waiting list and background check.

Then you have the point of real control which is ammunition. So, if someone buys ammo they should sign a statement that they own a gun chambered for it and whether it's a rifle or pistol and show positive I.D. But, wait that's been done too. As a matter of fact when I started shooting that's the only way you could buy ammo. Why the change? Simple, it helped the economy. It's all about money. If you want to attack guns, attack the ammo. but how much have you heard of that. Very little you say. Why? Because the shooting sports are second only to golf and by very little in terms of money spent. It would hurt the economy to actually ban them fully. It's all about money.

So, let's look at some of the proposals. Reduce the capacity of magazine to ten. Assuming that someone who is crazy would not simply pay what it takes to purchase some of the millions of large cap magazines, simply tape some together. Or if you're really nuts modify the rifle to fire from a belt. Both the AR and AK are easily modified.

Get rid of the pistol grip and or flash hider or don't allow the flash hider to count as part of the barrel length. Big deal. You can still shoot just as fast and flash hider makes no difference.

So, there you go. The main thing I would look at would be the waiting period, no sales except through an FFL, and more comprehensive background checks. How much would really help? Very little. How much would it hurt? Not at all.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••
•••
Keavy Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Keavy Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Keavy People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Keavy News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Keavy
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••