Gun Control Under Obama

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.

Hugh Victor Thompson III

“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.

Hugh Victor Thompson III

“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.

Hugh Victor Thompson III

“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.

Hugh Victor Thompson III

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#4546 Feb 16, 2013
___Jenny___ wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Senator Reid and loads of other Democrats disagree with you.
Nothing's going to change. Give it up and admit it. The minute Obama tapped Crazy Uncle Joe to "take the lead," I knew it was over for you people.
Adif understanding

United States

#4547 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?
I am so surprised that yet another dolt can spew such crap. We do not take your drivers license away because your mom was irresponsible with a car. We do not take your license away because you might some day do it. And yet you are attempting to equate suspending someone's drivers license as equal to taking something away from people who committed absolutely no violation of any law. If someone is irresponsible and violates the laws, ban them from having guns, but until then, don't punish them.

Also, you are loosing sight of the big picture. The US is not in a vacuum in this world. If all guns were banned in the US, we would simply goto south America or Mexico and get them. New York and Illinois have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation and you can find them being sold out of cars in alleys. They also have one of the largest murder rates with more people being killed in Illinois this year then Coalition forces in a freakin war zone. Californian has more murders per year then we lost US soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq from the start of the wars up to 2009 when Bush started pulling troops out of Iraq (Yes, obama was in office but it was Bush's SOFA agreement that caused the withdraw).

What you are missing it that it is the people, not the guns. Get rid of guns and it will be knives and ball bats and clubs and everything else.

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#4548 Feb 16, 2013
___Jenny___ wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
We have concealed carry in Ohio, I advocate that more people start carrying.

In the states that don't have it (IL,CA,NY,MD,NJ,HI,MA) and the District of Columbia, I advocate it being extended there.

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
Tyre King 19 min A slave since 1913 15
Why is Trump still in this race? 34 min Duke for Mayor 49
Jews 🔯 1 hr the real BizzyBee 1
GlitterSucks Autopsy Results 1 hr the real BizzyBee 9
Betty White dead at 94 1 hr the real BizzyBee 18
News Democratic Party hears message to ban together 1 hr the real BizzyBee 2
News Columbus shootings: Familes want investigation 1 hr the real BizzyBee 1
Trump's Wall 2 hr Go Blue Forever 783
Donald Trump - Hillary Clinton Presidential Debate 11 hr White Fangs 37

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages