Why is this so hard?

Why is this so hard?

There are 60 comments on the CNN story from Apr 10, 2013, titled Why is this so hard?. In it, CNN reports that:

Candles burn next to a lighted tree at a makeshift shrine in Newtown, Connecticut, commemorating the victims of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CNN.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
amc

San Juan, Philippines

#1 Apr 10, 2013
its so hard because after people have lost all of their rights and are being arrested and jailed for the most menial offenses with no recourse by police that are out of control, the one right people will not surrender is the right to defend themselves against tyranny which is what this fight is ALL ABOUT.
Americans will soon be at war with their government and the whole world will have a front row seat.

you better cheer for the American citizens to win or youll be next.

Since: Feb 11

Nearer than you would like

#2 Apr 10, 2013
amc wrote:
its so hard because after people have lost all of their rights and are being arrested and jailed for the most menial offenses with no recourse by police that are out of control, the one right people will not surrender is the right to defend themselves against tyranny which is what this fight is ALL ABOUT.
Americans will soon be at war with their government and the whole world will have a front row seat.
you better cheer for the American citizens to win or youll be next.
Your grammar and logic teachers must have died from embarrassment.

The Constitution guarantees the right for to bear arms, if you are in a militia. Are you?

Even if we extend that privilege to every adult citizen, why is it so incomprehensible as to require a standardized background check?

Now, before you head explodes, try this easy one: If high capacity magazines are okay for everybody to own, why not explosive rounds too?

It is always great fun to see the challenged attempt to maneuver this minefield. I can't wait to see your pitiful reply.
myth

Francesville, IN

#3 Apr 10, 2013
ChaunceyGardiner wrote:
<quoted text>
Your grammar and logic teachers must have died from embarrassment.
The Constitution guarantees the right for to bear arms, if you are in a militia. Are you?
Even if we extend that privilege to every adult citizen, why is it so incomprehensible as to require a standardized background check?
Now, before you head explodes, try this easy one: If high capacity magazines are okay for everybody to own, why not explosive rounds too?
It is always great fun to see the challenged attempt to maneuver this minefield. I can't wait to see your pitiful reply.
UH , NO . because the militia is needed to defend the constitution against All enemies both foreign and domestic , the Duty and right of the people to keep and carry arms is necessary to insure peace and to thwart off those who would seek to remove freedom . A standing army in time of peace does not remove the right of the people to defend themselves , others , or the constitution . There already is background checks . It isn't too difficult to get a list of all registered firearms . But there is no Law that can prevent a person from stealing those lawful weapons and using them to commit a crime . The militia is NOT a constant Military it is simply citizens .
myth

Francesville, IN

#4 Apr 10, 2013
ChaunceyGardiner wrote:
<quoted text>
If high capacity magazines are okay for everybody to own, why not explosive rounds too?
How nice of you to compare Nuclear weapons to the ability to own a simple box to carry a few rounds of ammo .Are you just that dumb ?
Guest

New Madrid, MO

#5 Apr 10, 2013
ChaunceyGardiner wrote:
<quoted text>
Your grammar and logic teachers must have died from embarrassment.
He is not a native English speaker judging from his isp.
ChaunceyGardiner wrote:
<quoted text>
The Constitution guarantees the right for to bear arms, if you are in a militia. Are you?
The SCOTUS has refuted this erroneous and far to often used assumption and has established the individuals right, period.
ChaunceyGardiner wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if we extend that privilege to every adult citizen, why is it so incomprehensible as to require a standardized background check?


First it is a right, not a privilege. It is not called the Bill of Privileges after all.
On to your point, It is not incomprehensible at all, as a matter of fact it is basically the law in every state already.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which allows the seller to check a buyer’s eligibility with a search that usually takes less than a minute. The system was fully launched in 1998. Before selling a gun, the gun store worker calls in to the FBI or other designated law enforcement agency to run a check against the system’s records. If the prospective buyer’s record doesn't raise a red flag – possible triggers include a person having been adjudicated as mentally ill or being sought by law enforcement – the sale is cleared to go through.

That 40% firearms are sold without background checks figure that the Pres. keeps blathering on about is a two decade old fact from before the background checks were the law , that 40% simply doesn't exist anymore.

That said all loopholes in the current system do need plugged, straw purchases, gun show sales, and the like. Most everyone Pro-gun agrees with that. National registries however are a no no and should not even be considered. History teaches exactly where that road leads.
ChaunceyGardiner wrote:
<quoted text>
Now, before you head explodes, try this easy one: If high capacity magazines are okay for everybody to own, why not explosive rounds too?
Magazine capacity relates to ammunition type how? So if I have a two round magazine, explosive rounds are ok. And I guess it begs the question which mass shooter used explosive rounds that would need such a question posed in the first place?
I'm not aware of a single one.
myth

Francesville, IN

#6 Apr 10, 2013
That 40% may be from the governments clandestine dealings like with Mexican druggies or Somalia or like that . How many stolen guns of the total gun crimes ?
Hood Rich

Wanchese, NC

#7 Apr 10, 2013
I'm sorry but if those other people came here before him how was I supposed to know he was coming here? Who came up with the idea of Chris anyway? He deleted my real myspace when I had that ass pic but not the fake one (Andy) sounds kind of gay to me. Why do people do sh*t like this? To prove you're smarter than me? Well guess what you're not. I thought my college loans and interests were bad, I didn't even know you could get loans outside of school.
CTM

United States

#8 Apr 10, 2013
ChaunceyGardiner wrote:
<quoted text>
Your grammar and logic teachers must have died from embarrassment.
The Constitution guarantees the right for to bear arms, if you are in a militia. Are you?
Even if we extend that privilege to every adult citizen, why is it so incomprehensible as to require a standardized background check?
Now, before you head explodes, try this easy one: If high capacity magazines are okay for everybody to own, why not explosive rounds too?
It is always great fun to see the challenged attempt to maneuver this minefield. I can't wait to see your pitiful reply.
......Are you friends with these crooked politicians? This bunch here in Connecticut could give lessons to Saddam Hussein. The town hall here is so nervous about people who know where to look they have litterally sent police to their door and told them they would be arressted for showing up in town hall. The victims families are being paid at this point to parade their sorrow through Congress and the Senate. America is not in decline, it's in a landslide and you want to "poo-poo" on what to you appear to be a few simple rights. Maybe after you are educated you can return with something of value to offer.
myth

Francesville, IN

#9 Apr 10, 2013
Guest wrote:
<quoted text>
He is not a native English speaker judging from his isp.
<quoted text>
The SCOTUS has refuted this erroneous and far to often used assumption and has established the individuals right, period.
<quoted text>
First it is a right, not a privilege. It is not called the Bill of Privileges after all.
On to your point, It is not incomprehensible at all, as a matter of fact it is basically the law in every state already.
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which allows the seller to check a buyer’s eligibility with a search that usually takes less than a minute. The system was fully launched in 1998. Before selling a gun, the gun store worker calls in to the FBI or other designated law enforcement agency to run a check against the system’s records. If the prospective buyer’s record doesn't raise a red flag – possible triggers include a person having been adjudicated as mentally ill or being sought by law enforcement – the sale is cleared to go through.
That 40% firearms are sold without background checks figure that the Pres. keeps blathering on about is a two decade old fact from before the background checks were the law , that 40% simply doesn't exist anymore.
That said all loopholes in the current system do need plugged, straw purchases, gun show sales, and the like. Most everyone Pro-gun agrees with that. National registries however are a no no and should not even be considered. History teaches exactly where that road leads.
<quoted text>
Magazine capacity relates to ammunition type how? So if I have a two round magazine, explosive rounds are ok. And I guess it begs the question which mass shooter used explosive rounds that would need such a question posed in the first place?
I'm not aware of a single one.
Who are you ? And why doesn't your proxy show up ? LOL welcome to Club Anonymous Proxy .
amc

Quezon City, Philippines

#10 Apr 10, 2013
ChaunceyGardiner wrote:
<quoted text>
Your grammar and logic teachers must have died from embarrassment.
The Constitution guarantees the right for to bear arms, if you are in a militia. Are you?
Even if we extend that privilege to every adult citizen, why is it so incomprehensible as to require a standardized background check?
Now, before you head explodes, try this easy one: If high capacity magazines are okay for everybody to own, why not explosive rounds too?
It is always great fun to see the challenged attempt to maneuver this minefield. I can't wait to see your pitiful reply.
mall cop? you 2nd sentence negates your 1st sentence and further negates your validity.

your feeble attempts to mine me for info are amusing.

Since: Feb 11

Nearer than you would like

#11 Apr 11, 2013
myth wrote:
<quoted text>UH , NO . because the militia is needed to defend the constitution against All enemies both foreign and domestic , the Duty and right of the people to keep and carry arms is necessary to insure peace and to thwart off those who would seek to remove freedom . A standing army in time of peace does not remove the right of the people to defend themselves , others , or the constitution . There already is background checks . It isn't too difficult to get a list of all registered firearms . But there is no Law that can prevent a person from stealing those lawful weapons and using them to commit a crime . The militia is NOT a constant Military it is simply citizens .
The insecure are always in fear. Thanks for wearing that scarlet letter.

I see you are unable to address the fact that a background check does not diminish the Constitution. Sooge.

Since: Feb 11

Nearer than you would like

#12 Apr 11, 2013
Let's see if LOL copies that.
Jay Wallace

Quezon City, Philippines

#13 Apr 11, 2013
10,000 deaths by fire arms. 190,000 by medical mistakes your doctor is more likely to kill you

Since: Feb 11

Nearer than you would like

#14 Apr 11, 2013
amc wrote:
<quoted text>
mall cop? you 2nd sentence negates your 1st sentence and further negates your validity.
your feeble attempts to mine me for info are amusing.
Fluffer, my second sentence was a statement of law. It is clear that this topic is beyond your pay grade.

I was hardly 'mining'. You fled to the land of lady boys, fluffer. The question was rhetorical and sarcastic. ROTFLMAO!
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#15 Apr 11, 2013
Guest wrote:
<quoted text>
He is not a native English speaker judging from his isp.
<quoted text>
The SCOTUS has refuted this erroneous and far to often used assumption and has established the individuals right, period.
<quoted text>
First it is a right, not a privilege. It is not called the Bill of Privileges after all.
On to your point, It is not incomprehensible at all, as a matter of fact it is basically the law in every state already.
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which allows the seller to check a buyer’s eligibility with a search that usually takes less than a minute. The system was fully launched in 1998. Before selling a gun, the gun store worker calls in to the FBI or other designated law enforcement agency to run a check against the system’s records. If the prospective buyer’s record doesn't raise a red flag – possible triggers include a person having been adjudicated as mentally ill or being sought by law enforcement – the sale is cleared to go through.
That 40% firearms are sold without background checks figure that the Pres. keeps blathering on about is a two decade old fact from before the background checks were the law , that 40% simply doesn't exist anymore.
That said all loopholes in the current system do need plugged, straw purchases, gun show sales, and the like. Most everyone Pro-gun agrees with that. National registries however are a no no and should not even be considered. History teaches exactly where that road leads.
<quoted text>
Magazine capacity relates to ammunition type how? So if I have a two round magazine, explosive rounds are ok. And I guess it begs the question which mass shooter used explosive rounds that would need such a question posed in the first place?
I'm not aware of a single one.
"First it is a right, not a privilege".

Did "God" give you those "rights" too?

If you think you have "rights" you are sadly mistaken.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#16 Apr 11, 2013
Viagra?
amc

Quezon City, Philippines

#17 Apr 11, 2013
ChaunceyGardiner wrote:
<quoted text>
Fluffer, my second sentence was a statement of law. It is clear that this topic is beyond your pay grade.
I was hardly 'mining'. You fled to the land of lady boys, fluffer. The question was rhetorical and sarcastic. ROTFLMAO!
as expected, it went right over your swollen head little flip.

i had to google fluffer. you would have intimate knowledge of such things.
the water cooler and all of your admirers awaits your arrival.

Since: Feb 11

Nearer than you would like

#19 Apr 11, 2013
It is always interesting to see people ignore the questions they are afraid to answer.

How do background checks prevent legally entitled people to obtain firearms?

What capacity magazine is necessary for you to defend yourself?

Should American adults have access to any type of firearm available?

Should American citizens have the right to buy armor piercing rounds? Explosive rounds? Incendiary rounds?

Take your time.
amc

Quezon City, Philippines

#20 Apr 11, 2013
ChaunceyGardiner wrote:
It is always interesting to see people ignore the questions they are afraid to answer.
How do background checks prevent legally entitled people to obtain firearms?
What capacity magazine is necessary for you to defend yourself?
Should American adults have access to any type of firearm available?
Should American citizens have the right to buy armor piercing rounds? Explosive rounds? Incendiary rounds?
Take your time.
you make it all to obvious as to WHO IS AFRAID.

you fear is with very good reason flip 007. now have your lunch and get back to work peon.

Since: Feb 11

Nearer than you would like

#21 Apr 11, 2013
That would be interesting if not for your two mistakes - I am not a Filipino and I don't need a gun to defend myself.

Give your boyfriend a hug before shutting the lights. Make sure the aluminum foil is in place so the government can't read your minds. Nighty night, fluffer. Maybe in your dreams you won't be my bitch. ROTFLMAO!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
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.

Sandy Hook Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Sandy Hook Father Lenny Pozner/Leonard Pozner H... Wed Bill Hicks 1
News Maker of AR-15 used at Sandy Hook wants marketi... Tue Israel Did 911 1
News Watch: Bethel Fire Department Launches Video Ca... Jun 21 Mee 2
News Diners: You know them, they know you (Jan '09) Jun 16 hipchef99 15
News Barack Obama to go to Orlando to pay respects t... Jun 15 RalphB 10
Prison making swings or wood work. Apr '16 Just asking 1
News Newtown Action Alliance Endorses Hillary Clinton Mar '16 The Farce is Strong 2

Sandy Hook Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Sandy Hook Mortgages