VADoc

Duluth, GA

#4526 Feb 16, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
The majority of gun regulations are state laws Doc. You, being the quasi-expert marksman that you claim to be, might already know that.
Apparently, your zealous opposition to the President has clouded your vision.
woof
Yes they are state laws. Do you want to look at the state and local gun laws in Illinois? I mean if they have the most gun laws and they are working then why do they have such a high murder rate in Chicago? If it's a states law issue then the president needs to shut up about gun laws and remove his latest executive orders. My statement is still valid. If the current laws on the books are not being properly enforced then how will a few more suddenly solve the problem. It won't.

Sorry if me not blindly following the president ruffles your feathers. I'm sure you just loved everything bush did right?
Adif understanding

United States

#4527 Feb 16, 2013
Black Rhino wrote:
<quoted text>
You won't build a rep off of me, sheep...Once one of your bullshit inbred reasons for being a sheep are thwarted, you run to some other bullshit subject to divert from you blatant stupidity.
Nothing you've said constitutes any substance at all.
Come to terms with the fallacies of your herd...Tea baggers, GOP...it doesn't matter..
Your redneck backwoods old white man elite governmental prisoner way of thinking is done.
America has spoken. You are free to catch the next plane to Switzerland and be rid of this great country. You won't be missed.
I'm sorry, but you are completely clueless. There is a difference between tea party and GOP, democrats are joining the tea party to skew primaries, and your denial means nothing.

All you need to do is to keep on rambling. I don't think anyone who has read the crap you write agrees with you. Stay delusional, it might work for the weak minded ghetto bunnies, but not with anyone with half a clue.
Adif understanding

United States

#4528 Feb 16, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Will there be trials first or just executions?
Depends on who puts you against the wall. LA PD, just execution. Obama, depends on if there is a drone near by. Bush JR, you will rot in a jail in a foreign country waiting to find out. It all depends on who is coming after you.

Since: Oct 12

Rock Forever

#4529 Feb 16, 2013
The problem is stopping criminals and headcases from getting guns as easy. Nobody is trying to stop regular people from having guns, just stop as many criminals from it. The repubs should be as interested in doing this as libs.

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#4530 Feb 16, 2013
Lost In The Continuum wrote:
The problem is stopping criminals and headcases from getting guns as easy. Nobody is trying to stop regular people from having guns, just stop as many criminals from it. The repubs should be as interested in doing this as libs.
There are countless laws already on the books to prevent that. And none of them could have stopped Aurora or Newtown.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#4531 Feb 16, 2013
Lost In The Continuum wrote:
The problem is stopping criminals and headcases from getting guns as easy. Nobody is trying to stop regular people from having guns, just stop as many criminals from it. The repubs should be as interested in doing this as libs.
The laws have been proven not to work. The Democrats know this, therefore there must be another reason they want new laws. If it were an honorable reason they'd be shouting it from the rooftops, therefore since they're not, it is not unreasonable to assume it is for a dishonorable one, and THAT is what needs guarding against.
too much crime

London, KY

#4532 Feb 16, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>There are countless laws already on the books to prevent that. And none of them could have stopped Aurora or Newtown.
Each time a law is proposed it gets watered down by repubs. The laws we got aren't working and that means they need replacing with ones that will work.

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#4533 Feb 16, 2013
too much crime wrote:
<quoted text>
Each time a law is proposed it gets watered down by repubs. The laws we got aren't working and that means they need replacing with ones that will work.
Really? How many Republicans are there in Chicago "watering down" gun laws? How about in DC? Detroit? St. Louis? NYC?
There are already thousands of laws on the books. Criminals don't obey laws. That's why they're criminals.

Since: Sep 09

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

#4534 Feb 16, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
The laws have been proven not to work. The Democrats know this, therefore there must be another reason they want new laws. If it were an honorable reason they'd be shouting it from the rooftops, therefore since they're not, it is not unreasonable to assume it is for a dishonorable one, and THAT is what needs guarding against.
The NRA is basically saying 'do nothing'. Violent crime is far too high. Something 'badly' needs changing. As for the NRA, a couple months ago they fought against improving background checks ..... they said it was an invasion of privacy and would be used to harass gun owners.

What is important is what any new gun laws are. If done properly and the right laws put into place, over time it can work to reduce gun crimes. And do it without taking guns from normal gun-owners.

We are constantly changing laws in other things when we see a problem isn't being solved. And by making changes things have improved. Look at traffic deaths. Deaths from firearms are predicted to outnumber car fatalities by 2015. Why? Because better laws (required seat-belts, harsher penalties for drunk driving, intersection cameras, etc) and enforcement concerning driving cars is reducing the number of auto-related deaths. It's working.

But are we doing the same concerning gun violence? Nope, no action is taking place to reduce gun problems. Why is that? Only because the NRA and gun fanatics falsely scream 'they're gonna take my guns!'
Adif understanding

United States

#4535 Feb 16, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
The laws have been proven not to work. The Democrats know this, therefore there must be another reason they want new laws. If it were an honorable reason they'd be shouting it from the rooftops, therefore since they're not, it is not unreasonable to assume it is for a dishonorable one, and THAT is what needs guarding against.
Democrats tend not to think things through and act for the sake of acting instead of accomplishing meaningful results. The democrats do not know something everyone else is missing, they know they need to look like they are doing something in order to be compassionate. Take Obama's jobs council for instance, they met 4 times and provided absolutely no recommendations outside of grow the economy and the jobs will come. Nancy Pelosi said unemployment compensation was the most important stimulation the economy needed. After Obama spoke about needing gun control and everything he wanted changed, Joe Biden confided that none of the changes in laws being pushed would have prevented any of the mass shootings nor will it save lives.

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#4536 Feb 16, 2013
___Jenny___ wrote:
<quoted text>
The NRA is basically saying 'do nothing'. Violent crime is far too high. Something 'badly' needs changing. As for the NRA, a couple months ago they fought against improving background checks ..... they said it was an invasion of privacy and would be used to harass gun owners.
What is important is what any new gun laws are. If done properly and the right laws put into place, over time it can work to reduce gun crimes. And do it without taking guns from normal gun-owners.
We are constantly changing laws in other things when we see a problem isn't being solved. And by making changes things have improved. Look at traffic deaths. Deaths from firearms are predicted to outnumber car fatalities by 2015. Why? Because better laws (required seat-belts, harsher penalties for drunk driving, intersection cameras, etc) and enforcement concerning driving cars is reducing the number of auto-related deaths. It's working.
But are we doing the same concerning gun violence? Nope, no action is taking place to reduce gun problems. Why is that? Only because the NRA and gun fanatics falsely scream 'they're gonna take my guns!'
One name for you is sufficient, DayStar.
BTW, nothing is going to change because law abiding people aren't the problem. Just ask this guy:

Below are Senator Reid’s remarks as prepared for delivery:

“I am so pleased that Wayne LaPierre is with us today. We have stood together in so many battles over the years.

“Just a few years ago we worked to protect our gun manufacturers from junk lawsuits. And as a result of that legislation, America’s gun companies are still America’s gun companies. That good law protected thousands of good jobs.

“Wayne and I also stood together to defeat the so-called Assault Weapons Ban. I voted against the ban when it was first proposed, I voted against it when folks tried to renew it, and I will continue to oppose it.
http://www.reid.senate.gov/newsroom/pr_100327...

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#4537 Feb 16, 2013
___Jenny___ wrote:
<quoted text>
The NRA is basically saying 'do nothing'.
No they're not. They're saying to fully enforce existing laws.
Violent crime is far too high.
Law abiding people aren't committing these crimes, so what good is going to come from further restricting them?

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#4538 Feb 16, 2013
Black Rhino wrote:
<quoted text>
You won't build a rep off of me, sheep...Once one of your bullshit inbred reasons for being a sheep are thwarted, you run to some other bullshit subject to divert from you blatant stupidity.
Nothing you've said constitutes any substance at all.
Come to terms with the fallacies of your herd...Tea baggers, GOP...it doesn't matter..
Your redneck backwoods old white man elite governmental prisoner way of thinking is done.
America has spoken. You are free to catch the next plane to Switzerland and be rid of this great country. You won't be missed.
"redneck" "backwoods" mentioned in the same sentence with "elite"

Only in the left...

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#4539 Feb 16, 2013
___Jenny___ wrote:
<quoted text>
Violent crime is far too high.

<quoted text>

Only because the NRA and gun fanatics falsely scream 'they're gonna take my guns!'
As to the first one, violent crime has been dropping since 1991.

As to the second, Democratic legislators in Missouri and California have introduced real confiscation bills in those state legislatures. The California one may pass, an then spark civil war.

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#4540 Feb 16, 2013
Lost In The Continuum wrote:
The problem is stopping criminals and headcases from getting guns as easy. Nobody is trying to stop regular people from having guns, just stop as many criminals from it. The repubs should be as interested in doing this as libs.
If a prohibited person so much as touches a firearm, its a felony. The laws already ban them from having guns, but in California its known that the state DOJ has a list of 40K prohibited persons that illegally have guns, but will not arrest them. Joe Biden admitted that they will not prosecute people who lie on Form 4473.

Since: Sep 09

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

#4541 Feb 16, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>Really? How many Republicans are there in Chicago "watering down" gun laws? How about in DC? Detroit? St. Louis? NYC?
There are already thousands of laws on the books. Criminals don't obey laws. That's why they're criminals.
The larger older cities naturally have more crime. That's the reason they had to try regulating guns in the first place. But local gun laws will not work if all a criminal has to do is drive outside the city limits or across a state line to get guns. Any attempt to reduce it has to be done nationwide.

If someone is irresponsible with a car what do we do? We take away their right to drive, we take away their license. What do we do if someone is irresponsible with a gun? Nothing, unless they commit a felony. As a side note, we don't allow felons have guns, so why do we let people convicted of drug offences? They should be included in those laws. How many crimes are committed by people high or drunk? Which brings up another law I think needs enacting. Make it against the law to carry a gun while drinking. We don't allow drivers to do it but we allow people to carry guns while drinking alcohol?

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#4542 Feb 16, 2013
___Jenny___ wrote:
<quoted text>
The larger older cities naturally have more crime. That's the reason they had to try regulating guns in the first place. But local gun laws will not work if all a criminal has to do is drive outside the city limits or across a state line to get guns. Any attempt to reduce it has to be done nationwide.
If someone is irresponsible with a car what do we do? We take away their right to drive, we take away their license. What do we do if someone is irresponsible with a gun? Nothing, unless they commit a felony. As a side note, we don't allow felons have guns, so why do we let people convicted of drug offences? They should be included in those laws. How many crimes are committed by people high or drunk? Which brings up another law I think needs enacting. Make it against the law to carry a gun while drinking. We don't allow drivers to do it but we allow people to carry guns while drinking alcohol?
Because "drug offense" can mean just a ticket for having a joint. Smoking weed doesn't make someone unqualified to own firearms, you would have to disarm most of Colorado if that was true.

We already ban people from carrying while intoxicated, but there is an exemption, if you are a COP!

Since: Sep 09

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

#4543 Feb 16, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
If a prohibited person so much as touches a firearm, its a felony. The laws already ban them from having guns, but in California its known that the state DOJ has a list of 40K prohibited persons that illegally have guns, but will not arrest them. Joe Biden admitted that they will not prosecute people who lie on Form 4473.
Is your solution the same as the NRA which is do nothing, let violent crime continue as is, and to pipe as many guns as possible onto the streets for criminals to use?

If you guys don't have active ideas and proposals to reduce violence then don't be surprised when proposals by others become bills and laws. But 'do nothing' is not acceptable.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#4544 Feb 16, 2013
___Jenny___ wrote:
<quoted text>
The larger older cities naturally have more crime. That's the reason they had to try regulating guns in the first place. But local gun laws will not work if all a criminal has to do is drive outside the city limits or across a state line to get guns. Any attempt to reduce it has to be done nationwide.
If someone is irresponsible with a car what do we do? We take away their right to drive, we take away their license. What do we do if someone is irresponsible with a gun? Nothing, unless they commit a felony. As a side note, we don't allow felons have guns, so why do we let people convicted of drug offences? They should be included in those laws. How many crimes are committed by people high or drunk? Which brings up another law I think needs enacting. Make it against the law to carry a gun while drinking. We don't allow drivers to do it but we allow people to carry guns while drinking alcohol?
Uhh... no we don't.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.15

Since: Sep 09

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

#4545 Feb 16, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
Because "drug offense" can mean just a ticket for having a joint. Smoking weed doesn't make someone unqualified to own firearms, you would have to disarm most of Colorado if that was true.
We already ban people from carrying while intoxicated, but there is an exemption, if you are a COP!
What law bans someone from carrying a gun while intoxicated? I know of none. In my state (Kentucky) there is no such law and I haven't heard of that law being in Ohio.

Only a law which says you cannot carry a gun in a bar. But there needs to be a law which states it's illegal to carry one while 'drinking', not intoxicated, but if even drinking.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CIA Torture Report Comes Out Tomorrow 9 min Trash Collector 255
Should Witchcraft or Pagan Shops be 18+ ? 1 hr I Do Know 12
Merry Christmas! What's your favorite memory? 1 hr Blemhein LMAO 207
Eric Garner died over cigarette tax enforcement. 5 hr d pantz 74
What makes GlitterSucks so annoying? (Nov '12) 6 hr They cannot kill ... 470
chanukah hanukkah day 2 6 hr They cannot kill ... 1
Obscene Bumber Stickers 7 hr They cannot kill ... 8
Columbus Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 2:30 pm PST

NBC Sports 2:30PM
Manziel looking for better showing in second start - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 2:54 PM
Manziel says Browns were "a little off" on Sunday
NBC Sports 3:31 PM
Cam Newton practices for first time since car accident
Bleacher Report 4:00 PM
Breaking Down Cleveland's Game Plan vs. Carolina
Bleacher Report 5:47 PM
Denver Broncos vs. Cincinnati Bengals Betting Odds, Analysis, NFL Pick