Obama may push for ban on assault wea...

Obama may push for ban on assault weapons

There are 667 comments on the The Indian Express story from Oct 17, 2012, titled Obama may push for ban on assault weapons. In it, The Indian Express reports that:

Democratic President Barack Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney engaged in a rare tussle over gun control on Tuesday, and Obama opened the door to pushing for a ban on assault weapons if he wins a second term.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Indian Express.

Since: Jul 12

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#578 Nov 27, 2012
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Again. Grasp the concept! Criminals are criminals by definition because they break, and do not care about the consequences of, the law.
Parking tickets and rapists. I get it.

Since: Jul 12

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#579 Nov 27, 2012
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW, police get off on power. If they get a free pass on vehicular homicide, I don't want to be on the road with them.
I never said I agree with the law, I don't. But that does not mean it does not exist.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#580 Nov 27, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>You can accept my word for it or not. That is up to you.

I was playing off of your statement, there are differences between the two. But this is the second time you play silly games in your quest to see how far silly we can go.

Then it is a failure.

The fact you no so little about criminals does not elude me though. All thieves are not murderers and all murderers are not prior criminals. Some are willing to risk a short ride while others really don't give a damn.

Your attempt to put illegal parking in the same category as murder or rape (all illegal activities performed by people who break the law) would have one supposing that you just believe in one penalty for all crime.
Now who is being silly? Show where I stated anything about illegal parking, all thieves being murderers, or all murderers being prior criminals. More smoke and mirrors. It's come to be expected of you.

I know when someone is putting words in my mouth because they can't debate the facts.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#581 Nov 27, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>I never said I agree with the law, I don't. But that does not mean it does not exist.
Show where I stated it doesn't exist. I simply stated a fact about my perspective.
You need to cut back on your estrogen replacement dosage. I think it's affecting your comprehension, and I know it's affecting your diarrhea of the mouth.

Since: Jul 12

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#582 Nov 27, 2012
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Now who is being silly? Show where I stated anything about illegal parking, all thieves being murderers, or all murderers being prior criminals. More smoke and mirrors. It's come to be expected of you.
I know when someone is putting words in my mouth because they can't debate the facts.
Did you or did you not make a statement about "criminals" not caring about laws and/or consequences?

That statement essentially put all criminals at the same level.

Again, you are the only one blowind smoke and using mirrors.

Either SOME criminals care about laws and consequences or none do. Which is it?

Because as soon as you agree SOME care then we are right back where I took you. A thief may actually care if he gets caught up in a murder.

Since: Jul 12

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#583 Nov 27, 2012
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Show where I stated it doesn't exist. I simply stated a fact about my perspective.
You need to cut back on your estrogen replacement dosage. I think it's affecting your comprehension, and I know it's affecting your diarrhea of the mouth.
Show where I said you said it does not exist. If you can not I would say that your remark about me pertains to you.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#584 Nov 27, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>Did you or did you not make a statement about "criminals" not caring about laws and/or consequences?

That statement essentially put all criminals at the same level.

Again, you are the only one blowind smoke and using mirrors.

Either SOME criminals care about laws and consequences or none do. Which is it?

Because as soon as you agree SOME care then we are right back where I took you. A thief may actually care if he gets caught up in a murder.
I did state criminals do not care about laws or their consequences. It does not put all criminals at the same level. Please show where I stated that it did. Again, you are putting words in my mouth.

If a person knowingly breaks a law, they obviously do not care about that law or the consequences of breaking that law. That statement in no way implies that someone that doesn't care about jay walking laws and consequences, automatically doesn't care about murder laws and consequences or rape laws and consequences.
So yes, again, it is you utilizing the smoke and mirrors.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#585 Nov 27, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>Show where I said you said it does not exist. If you can not I would say that your remark about me pertains to you.
okb2 wrote:
I never said I agree with the law, I don't. But that does not mean it does not exist.

“Hello Trump”

Since: Jan 07

Goodby Hillary

#586 Nov 27, 2012
Black Friday saw a record number of NCICs for firearms with the FBI,154,XXX.

Rifling patterns/markings/stria mean squat. Can you say barrel change? Relatively cheap and any shadetree gunsmith can do it. Also any bore lapping kit will change bore markings. Firing pins can be changed. Bolt faces can be reground. And the serial number NEVER changes. Dispose of the changed parts and nothing can be proved.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#587 Nov 27, 2012
okimar wrote:
Black Friday saw a record number of NCICs for firearms with the FBI,154,XXX.

Rifling patterns/markings/stria mean squat. Can you say barrel change? Relatively cheap and any shadetree gunsmith can do it. Also any bore lapping kit will change bore markings. Firing pins can be changed. Bolt faces can be reground. And the serial number NEVER changes. Dispose of the changed parts and nothing can be proved.
I didn't want to educate any criminals out there, but thanks. You are absolutely correct.

Since: Jul 12

Washington, DC

#588 Nov 27, 2012
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
I did state criminals do not care about laws or their consequences. It does not put all criminals at the same level. Please show where I stated that it did. Again, you are putting words in my mouth.
If a person knowingly breaks a law, they obviously do not care about that law or the consequences of breaking that law. That statement in no way implies that someone that doesn't care about jay walking laws and consequences, automatically doesn't care about murder laws and consequences or rape laws and consequences.
So yes, again, it is you utilizing the smoke and mirrors.
You made a blanket statement. Show where it shows any distinction at all. It does not. In no way did you draw any distinction between a Jaywalker and a murderer. And when you do, you will be admitting I was correct. Which is worse?

Why do you want to continue this ridiculous line? Are you trying to think of something else?

Since: Jul 12

Washington, DC

#589 Nov 27, 2012
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
okb2 wrote:
I never said I agree with the law, I don't. But that does not mean it does not exist.
That is correct, the law exists and I have to live with it. It says nothing about you having said it is non-existant nor does it imply that you said it.

Quite unlike a blanket statement about criminals not caring about the law or consequences.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#590 Nov 27, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>You made a blanket statement. Show where it shows any distinction at all. It does not. In no way did you draw any distinction between a Jaywalker and a murderer. And when you do, you will be admitting I was correct. Which is worse?

Why do you want to continue this ridiculous line? Are you trying to think of something else?
Priceless!
I stated : by definition, criminals do not care about breaking the law and the consequences. Definitions are blanket descriptions of a word.
Does the definition of criminal include every type of criminal, or simply state that it is someone that breaks the law or commits a crime?

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#591 Nov 27, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>That is correct, the law exists and I have to live with it. It says nothing about you having said it is non-existant nor does it imply that you said it.

Quite unlike a blanket statement about criminals not caring about the law or consequences.
It certainly did imply that I thought or stated it is non-existant.

Just admit you put words in my mouth on multiple occasions.

Since: Jul 12

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#592 Nov 28, 2012
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Priceless!
I stated : by definition, criminals do not care about breaking the law and the consequences. Definitions are blanket descriptions of a word.
Does the definition of criminal include every type of criminal, or simply state that it is someone that breaks the law or commits a crime?
But that is not a true definition. However, by definition people who have broken the law are criminals. Your definition discounts both people who have weighed the risk of getting caught and decided to break the law anyway (most speeders), those who break the law unintentionally (0.8 BAC after one beer), those that limit themselves to a particular spectrum of crime (non-violent vs. violent or gun carrying [5-year minimum] to non-gun carrying) and those that do not really care about the law or its consequences on a temporary basis (crimes of passion).

Someone who speeds knows they are breaking the law. But that in no way, shape or form indicates that they would murder nor care about the consequences.

Since: Jul 12

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#593 Nov 28, 2012
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
It certainly did imply that I thought or stated it is non-existant.
Just admit you put words in my mouth on multiple occasions.
Admit to what? Now you are putting words in my mouth indicating that I put them in yours.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#594 Nov 28, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>But that is not a true definition. However, by definition people who have broken the law are criminals. Your definition discounts both people who have weighed the risk of getting caught and decided to break the law anyway (most speeders), those who break the law unintentionally (0.8 BAC after one beer), those that limit themselves to a particular spectrum of crime (non-violent vs. violent or gun carrying [5-year minimum] to non-gun carrying) and those that do not really care about the law or its consequences on a temporary basis (crimes of passion).

Someone who speeds knows they are breaking the law. But that in no way, shape or form indicates that they would murder nor care about the consequences.
You just keep on insisting that I said something I didn't. Then with your last paragraph, once again, say something that I have already said, to use as your own point.
Since you can't accept anything I say, and insist on debating what you say I am saying instead, I'll just leave it to you, your estrogen overload, and the mirror.

“Hello Trump”

Since: Jan 07

Goodby Hillary

#595 Nov 28, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
But that is not a true definition. However, by definition people who have broken the law are criminals. Your definition discounts both people who have weighed the risk of getting caught and decided to break the law anyway (most speeders), those who break the law unintentionally (0.8 BAC after one beer), those that limit themselves to a particular spectrum of crime (non-violent vs. violent or gun carrying [5-year minimum] to non-gun carrying) and those that do not really care about the law or its consequences on a temporary basis (crimes of passion).
Someone who speeds knows they are breaking the law. But that in no way, shape or form indicates that they would murder nor care about the consequences.
Not according to liberals.... Illegal aliens are merely undocumented workers.... Casual pot smokers are people suffering from a malady of illnesses for which they have a script for pot... Head busting union thugs are just workers expressing their right to organize collectively... Drug gang members are misunderstood inner-city youths long denied educational opportunities for meaningful jobs... And finally,whacked out mass shooters are ALL tea party loons who need help(tho so far not a ONE has been proven to be a tea party member)....

Since: Jul 12

Washington, DC

#596 Nov 28, 2012
okimar wrote:
<quoted text>Not according to liberals.... Illegal aliens are merely undocumented workers.... Casual pot smokers are people suffering from a malady of illnesses for which they have a script for pot... Head busting union thugs are just workers expressing their right to organize collectively... Drug gang members are misunderstood inner-city youths long denied educational opportunities for meaningful jobs... And finally,whacked out mass shooters are ALL tea party loons who need help(tho so far not a ONE has been proven to be a tea party member)....
Illegal aliens are criminals.

Pot Heads are criminals according to federal law.

Anyone doing violence to another without reason and authorization is a criminal.

Drug gang members are not criminals until they break a low. being a member of a gang should not be illegal.

Whacked out mass shooters are NRA members AND criminals.
Dr Freud

Moscow, Russia

#597 Nov 28, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Illegal aliens are criminals.
Pot Heads are criminals according to federal law.
Anyone doing violence to another without reason and authorization is a criminal.
Drug gang members are not criminals until they break a low. being a member of a gang should not be illegal.
Whacked out mass shooters are NRA members AND criminals.
Got yo 'bama pho' yet?

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.

Mitt Romney Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Democrats aim to blast Trump for favoring wealthy 4 hr Lawrence Wolf 1,109
News GOP at war with itself (Mar '16) 5 hr Tm Cln 4,013
News Top Clinton and Romney campaign heads to jointl... Jul 19 Marco R s Secret ... 3
News The costs of unraveling Obamacare (Jun '12) Jul 5 Geezer 5
News Romney on minimum wage: 'We ought to raise it' (May '14) Jun 25 Backroom healthcare 30
News Romney claims outsider role in tea party speech (Sep '11) Jun 24 Backroom healthcare 38
News Mitt Romney surges, leads Obama in polls (Oct '12) Jun 24 BOTH partys Crooks 11
More from around the web