Gun control debate heating up in statehouses

Dec 21, 2012 Full story: NBC29 2,688

By The Associated Press Your daily look at late-breaking news, upcoming events and stories that will be talked about Friday: President Barack Obama says his administration has received an outpouring of support for stricter gun laws following last week's elementary school massacre in Connecticut, telling respondents to an online... President Barack ... (more)

Full Story

“Denny Crain”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#2409 Jan 31, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
The first victim in Newtown was heavily armed and now she's dead because of it – clearly the argument for more guns is hardly the answer to the problem. An argument can be made that the 2nd amendment is hopelessly outdated and obsolete – every gun needs to be registered on a yearly bases and require liability insurance. The wingnuz clinging to their guns like a baby clinging to its woobie is reminiscent to the creationist nonsense! We know more about nature and its evolutionary continuum than ever before and we know it clearly and without a doubt, yet here are the wingnuz, knowing it better by regression like a bunch of degenerates! Next time you see a member of Congress pushing a pro-gun agenda, ask them why they feel the U.S. government needs to be overthrown. Ask them why they support terrorism. The Second Amendment has been voided by history and was never in place for any of the reasons the NRA, any senator or congressman has given as a reason for opposing sensible gun regulation since Reconstruction. Besides, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with gun-control in a modern society!
What do you mean the first to die was heavily armed? That isn't true at all. What other parts of the constitution do you want to throw in the trash. There is a way to amend the constitution and it isn't by a poll. What is sensible gun regulation because what you want isn't possible at all. You just make only the criminals to be armed. The only way to stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun

Since: Nov 11

Salt Lake City, UT

#2410 Jan 31, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Besides, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with gun-control in a modern society!
Perhaps in your little portion of "modern society" the rest of us choose to let people to have the ability to protect themselves - if they choose to. You are apparently either afraid of firearms or think somebody will force you to own or carry a firearm. A person may be armed and still not survive. But the odds of that are not as much those of an unarmed person surviving.

Can you argue the fact that the unarmed principal lunged at the shooter in Newtown? She had nothing and what happened was in all of the papers. Will you disagree that if she, and/or the person behind her had a firearm the shooter MAY have been stopped? The only definite thing we know from that incident is being unarmed DIDN'T help at all.

Nobody I know of intends to overthrow the government. The intent is to keep the government from overthrowing the people.

Now you may begin the duck, dodge swirl & twisting of words.

Since: Nov 11

Salt Lake City, UT

#2411 Jan 31, 2013
Denny CranesPlace wrote:
<quoted text>What do you mean the first to die was heavily armed? That isn't true at all.
I suspect he/she/it is talking about the mother being murdered after he stole (per bf2626 had implied consent to take on his own) her firearms.

You should read back and see the twisting that goes on when the "musket only in the 2nd amendment" is countered with "printing press only in the first amendment" - the tap dance isn't pretty but it is a sight.
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#2412 Jan 31, 2013
Denny CranesPlace wrote:
<quoted text>What do you mean the first to die was heavily armed? That isn't true at all. What other parts of the constitution do you want to throw in the trash. There is a way to amend the constitution and it isn't by a poll. What is sensible gun regulation because what you want isn't possible at all. You just make only the criminals to be armed. The only way to stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun
The first victim was the shooter’s mom cut down with here own arsenal, stop letting the NRA do the thinking for you – yemoron!!
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#2413 Jan 31, 2013
duzitreallymatter wrote:
<quoted text>Perhaps in your little portion of "modern society" the rest of us choose to let people to have the ability to protect themselves - if they choose to. You are apparently either afraid of firearms or think somebody will force you to own or carry a firearm. A person may be armed and still not survive. But the odds of that are not as much those of an unarmed person surviving.
Can you argue the fact that the unarmed principal lunged at the shooter in Newtown? She had nothing and what happened was in all of the papers. Will you disagree that if she, and/or the person behind her had a firearm the shooter MAY have been stopped? The only definite thing we know from that incident is being unarmed DIDN'T help at all.
Nobody I know of intends to overthrow the government. The intent is to keep the government from overthrowing the people.
Now you may begin the duck, dodge swirl & twisting of words.
No one is going to take your gun - yemoron!!

“Denny Crain”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#2414 Jan 31, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
The first victim was the shooter’s mom cut down with here own arsenal, stop letting the NRA do the thinking for you – yemoron!!
The first to die owned guns but that doesn't mean she was armed when she was murdered by her son

Since: Nov 11

Salt Lake City, UT

#2415 Jan 31, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is going to take your gun - yemoron!!
I didn't see that anywhere in my post. But you did confirm my suspicion you would duck, dodge, swirl & twist words. Surprise, surprise!

But notably absent, from your response, was an answer from you to my questions.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#2416 Jan 31, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
The first victim was the shooter’s mom cut down with here own arsenal, stop letting the NRA do the thinking for you – yemoron!!
A couple handguns, an AR, and a shotgun does not an arsenal make. And what is your proof that she had any of these on her person when she was shot??? She would have to actually have one on her person in order to be considered "armed".
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#2417 Jan 31, 2013
Denny CranesPlace wrote:
<quoted text>The first to die owned guns but that doesn't mean she was armed when she was murdered by her son
Hit your head today falling off your pink unicorn - yemoron?
Tray

Ripley, MS

#2418 Jan 31, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is going to take your gun - yemoron!!
THAT is absolutely correct.
Tray

Ripley, MS

#2419 Jan 31, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
The first victim in Newtown was heavily armed and now she's dead because of it – clearly the argument for more guns is hardly the answer to the problem. An argument can be made that the 2nd amendment is hopelessly outdated and obsolete – every gun needs to be registered on a yearly bases and require liability insurance. The wingnuz clinging to their guns like a baby clinging to its woobie is reminiscent to the creationist nonsense! We know more about nature and its evolutionary continuum than ever before and we know it clearly and without a doubt, yet here are the wingnuz, knowing it better by regression like a bunch of degenerates! Next time you see a member of Congress pushing a pro-gun agenda, ask them why they feel the U.S. government needs to be overthrown. Ask them why they support terrorism. The Second Amendment has been voided by history and was never in place for any of the reasons the NRA, any senator or congressman has given as a reason for opposing sensible gun regulation since Reconstruction. Besides, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with gun-control in a modern society!
Why do police carry guns? Why do secret service carry guns? If they don't work and cause more harm than good then shouldn't they give up theirs first? Drum roll please.

Since: Nov 11

Salt Lake City, UT

#2420 Jan 31, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> Why do police carry guns? Why do secret service carry guns? If they don't work and cause more harm than good then shouldn't they give up theirs first? Drum roll please.
Cue the crickets...

Since: Sep 09

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

#2421 Jan 31, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>That just shows how great and effective the strict Gun Control laws of Chicago are working for the law abiding citizens of Chicago for years and the Pro Gun Control fanatics want to expand that kind of Society Chicago is experiencing and turn the rest of the United States into a Society like Chicago, No Thanks!.
Chicago girl who was in Washington during Obama inauguration is shot dead
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/chicag...
Right as I type this there is a bad situation in Alabama. An armed man got on a school bus and killed the bus driver and kidnapped a 5 year old off the bus. He didn't know the boy, he just picked one of the children at random. He's holding the child in an underground bunker and for three days police have been unable to get into it without the boy being killed. Alabama is a gun state where guns are legal.

A few days ago a six year old girl was shot in New Mexico. Someone Began shooting at someone out on the street and a stray bullet went though her bedroom wall and hit her in bed. New Mexico is a gun state where guns are legal.

Violence is 'everywhere'. It's just worse in older larger cities. But killing is everywhere.

Don't let your hatred for your own President warp your mind. There's too much violence and it has to be stopped.

Since: Sep 09

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

#2422 Jan 31, 2013
duzitreallymatter wrote:
<quoted text>This has to be a misprint with the news media. Chicago has a tough gun ban.
See my last post.

Btw, gun laws do not work if all a criminal has to do is drive out of the city limits or to anther state to get guns. Criminals find that easy to do. The proof is that so many criminals have them.

What this is about is getting as many as possible out the hands of criminals and dangerous people.

Since: Nov 11

Salt Lake City, UT

#2423 Jan 31, 2013
___Jenny___ wrote:
<quoted text>
See my last post.
Btw, gun laws do not work if all a criminal has to do is drive out of the city limits or to anther state to get guns. Criminals find that easy to do. The proof is that so many criminals have them.
What this is about is getting as many as possible out the hands of criminals and dangerous people.
I will bet none of them have to drive out of the gun ban area to buy them. What isn't being admitted (or perhaps understood) by the anti-gun advocates is the criminals are not slowed down by a ban, background checks, magazine capacity, etc. What a ban does is keep the non-criminals from protecting themselves - the way the criminals (and LEOs) can.

Since: Nov 11

Salt Lake City, UT

#2424 Jan 31, 2013
___Jenny___ wrote:
<quoted text>
There's too much violence and it has to be stopped.
How about banning plea bargaining gun crimes? The gun crime is almost always plea bargained out of the charges. This will only cause the criminals issues.
Ronald

Minneapolis, MN

#2425 Jan 31, 2013
duzitreallymatter wrote:
<quoted text>How about banning plea bargaining gun crimes? The gun crime is almost always plea bargained out of the charges. This will only cause the criminals issues.
How about EXECUTION for anyone discharging a firearm in the direction of a person?

Except in cases of bonified self defense.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#2426 Jan 31, 2013
The elected who keep the control of personal protection close to the people is wise.
Washington DC, and the politicians of northern California should take the chair in the corner.
CTM

Sandy Hook, CT

#2427 Jan 31, 2013
RayOne wrote:
The elected who keep the control of personal protection close to the people is wise.
Washington DC, and the politicians of northern California should take the chair in the corner.
.......We are seeing more and more politicians betraying the people for their own gain. Not being anti-semetic, but I still haven't heard of a jew politician backing up the second amendment. As for the betrayal, Sen. Blumenthal from Ct. wrote a lot of Feinsteins anti-gun bill. From Connecticut, home of the Enfield Rifle, from Enfield ,Ct. Also the home of Sturm-Ruger, Charter Arms and Colt. It's become apparent why the politicians have bought off the parents of the slain children,(the constant anti-gun parade), but now I ask, how? How does one justify not asking for the true motive of such a crime? How does one find the strength to go on "tour"? How does one not cry?

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#2428 Jan 31, 2013
The monsters aways seem to have money.

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.

Barack Obama Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 8 min KiMare 3,027
Obama: Racism, bias in US will take time to tackle 10 min Zeppelin 537
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 12 min concerned American 1,155,780
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 14 min Earthling-1 49,318
Ruble crisis could shake Putin's grip on power 33 min Brilliant Bolshevik 126
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 52 min wojar 182,080
Who is the worst president since WWII ? 1 hr Zeppelin 1,110
More from around the web