Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Sep 16, 2013, at 8:02 PM:
Obama is back on crack. 80 to 90% agree with him? He is spending to much time on Democrat Underground.
" Appearing on ABC News's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" on Sunday, President Barack Obama said he had 80 to 90 percent of the country agreeing with him in favor of gun control, but the he could not get gun-control legislation enacted because of a "faction of the Republican Party."
This is why I can't stand to watch him speak. It's bad enough reading his transcripts later or even his comments like the one you posted Regret.
It's just outrageous, fabricated lies. It reminds me of the Nazi or Communist propaganda machine.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Sep 16, 2013, at 8:10 PM
I wonder what his grades were in mathematics? Or does he just not count those who disagree with him? And this massacre today occurred in an area with some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Perhaps if the shooter had been prosecuted in previous gun-related incidents this could have been avoided. But that would speak to the failure of the justice department.
-- Posted by Robert* on Mon, Sep 16, 2013, at 8:17 PM
The gang is loading the anti-gun propaganda into the liberal press machine as we speak. Remember, they wont let a good crisis go to waste.
We should be hearing all the liberal lies coming out in the morning news shows
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Sep 16, 2013, at 8:19 PM
"Why is it always the Republican Party ?"
Because Bush had nothing to do with present politics.
Robert is right. This happened in one of the strictest gun areas so the anti-gun laws must not be working. Chicago is also a good example. You can count on the AR-15 being blamed. When the prices go up this time I'm going to sell.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Sep 16, 2013, at 8:26 PM
"The Government could shut down Oct1"
Like last time? Remember all of the dire straight we were facing?
Grandma isn't going to get her check.
Thousands of government workers would be out of a job.
Thousands of teacher layoffs.
More than 373,000 seriously ill people losing mental health services.
1,200 fewer inspections of dangerous work sites. 125,000 poor households going without vouchers. 600,000 women could be dropped from the Women, Infants and Children Program.
Air-travel delays are likely across the country.
It didn't happen.
Kinda like when the Drug enforcement agents fuel card didn't work and they used it as propaganda. Turned out it was expired.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Sep 16, 2013, at 9:28 PM
Guess we've got to start being terrorized of Buddhists.
"...in an area with some of the strictest gun laws in the nation."
The guy is from Texas which explains a lot. Possibly that's where he got his weapons, not in DC.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Sep 16, 2013, at 9:34 PM
Texas? Just because he was from Texas? I have a cousin from Texas that is more liberal than you.
Who gave him secret clearance? Seems the Obama administration is letting just about anyone on military yards nowadays.
""He did have a secret clearance. And he did have a CAC (common access card)," said Thomas Hoshko, CEO of "The Experts," which was helping service the Navy, Marine Corps intranet as a subcontractor for a Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Services contract.
Asked when he was supposed to start work, Hoshko said in a telephone interview: "That's what I got to find out, if he was supposed to start today ... It's not clear to me.""
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Sep 16, 2013, at 9:48 PM
I think I see blame the gun coming.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Sep 16, 2013, at 11:34 PM
Feinstein has already started; headline on Drudge.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Sep 16, 2013, at 11:44 PM
Common,
If loose gun laws in Texas are the problem, why is the rate of gun violence in Texas lower than in D.C. and Chicago. Guns are a tool just like a monkey wrench. The same monkey wrench that can be used to install your furnace and thus provide heat for your home can also be used to knock your neighbor's brains out. For some reason, a large group of people in our inner cities find using a gun to settle disagreements is acceptable. Addressing that issue would solve the problem. Blaming the tool solves nothing. A gun, like a knife or a baseball bat, is an inanimate object which takes on a purpose in the hands of its owner. The problem lies in the brain of the owner, not the tool in his hands.
-- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 6:17 AM
But it is easier and more convenient to point the finger at something than to address the root of the problem. And so the nation goes.
-- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 6:18 AM
I guess it stands to reason that as Obama cherry picks polls to support his anti-gun agenda,miccheck cherry picks a link like politifalse to support the cherry picker.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 6:23 AM
Quinnipiac University. .... now there is a household name.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 8:25 AM
"...than to address the root of the problem."
There is no question that crazy people are a problem.
Crazy people with guns are a bigger problem.
So what do you propose to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people? How about something really simple, like more effective and widespread background checks.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 8:40 AM
Common,
How about, when you make it a gun free zone, you assume the responsibility to make sure it is a gun free zone, for the protection of those who you will not allow a gun. That seems very simple to me.
Why do you make the assumption the government will be any more adept at enforcing more gun regulations when they cannot enforce their gun free zones? Or who they give security passes to for that matter.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 8:51 AM
You would know this...how? -- Posted by Spaniard on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 8:09 AM
Because I didn't go to a liberal school with a history teacher that taught us the US had little to do with ending Hitler's reign. Or that it was the Russians - who signed a pact with Germany early on - that really were responsible for ending Hitler's reign. The pact secretly divided other countries up providing Germany and Russia with control over more geography.
Google it.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 9:01 AM
Micheck,
I really do not care who they are... I do not believe 92% or even 50% of Americans support background checks as proposed by Obama's last failed attempt, Background Checks yes, background checks as last proposed by Obama and company NO.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 9:18 AM
"Background Checks yes, background checks as last proposed by Obama and company NO."
What's the difference?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 9:23 AM
So what do you propose to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people? How about something really simple, like more effective and widespread background checks.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 8:40 AM
That would probably not be a problem but folks like Feinstein can't stop there. They will pump it up to a complete ban if they have a chance. So why give an inch?
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 9:24 AM
What's the difference?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 9:23 AM
Don't act stupid Common, it was not limited to background checks, it was a gun control bill. If you don't know that go check it out for yourself.
There is a difference in gun control and checking a citizen out for for what is in his/her background, to see if they are eligible to purchase a gun.
Now since you saw fit to reply to my comment to someone else, how about answering the one directed to you. Or is it too difficult for you?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 9:30 AM
"...how about answering the one directed to you."
Sure, what's the question?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 12:34 PM
Bullies always pick on those who are weaker and unable to defend themselves. I wonder how many of the 12 victims of yesterday's shooting might be alive today if someone there had been armed and able to return fire?
For those of you who support gun-free zones........why is it that most of these shootings occur at schools, theatres, and......yes, military bases where possession of firearms is already restricted?
-- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 12:47 PM
"...how about answering the one directed to you."
Sure, what's the question?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 12:34 PMCommon,
OK Common read below..............
How about, when you make it a gun free zone, you assume the responsibility to make sure it is a gun free zone, for the protection of those who you will not allow a gun. That seems very simple to me.
Why do you make the assumption the government will be any more adept at enforcing more gun regulations when they cannot enforce their gun free zones? Or who they give security passes to for that matter.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 8:51 AM
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 1:57 PM
Common,
I know you're out there, I saw you posting on another thread. My question is above, waiting for that answer you promised.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 2:56 PM
Well, we knew it was coming.... and to use the Rahm_Emanuel rule of government, we have the necessary crisis to start this crap all over again.
An incompetent leader along with a bureaucracy of incompetents, who cannot implement current laws and policies want some more crap rained down on the heads of law abiding citizens. There are background checks in place that should have stopped this lunatic, not to mention the policy at the naval yard of a gun free zone that they could not enforce. Oh and let's don't forget that the lunatics background precluded him from security clearance if the government could or would enforce their own regulations.
I think the crap that really ticks me off is that the government assumes we are so freaking stupid that we cannot see through their ploy. The Leftist Wingnuts cannot, we already know that, they are accessories to this foolishness.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 4:10 PM
"Why do you make the assumption the government will be any more adept at enforcing more gun regulations when they cannot enforce their gun free zones?"
Of course there should be a gun-free zone. Because one crazy guy smuggles a gun into the Navy Yard does not change that. The last thing we need is a gang of gun-toting cowboys on military installations.
The NRA fantasy about the good guy with a gun vanquishing the bad guy with a gun is a fable that could have worked for Wyatt, but not for Wayne.
Imagine if the Navy Yard were populated with concealed carry fanatics. The shooter would have killed 12, and the CC fanatics would have likely killed a dozen more in their own version of a circular firing squad.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 5:53 PM
"Of course there should be a gun-free zone."
The question was not about if or not there should be a gun free zone.
It was about the impotence of the government in enforcing their own rules. They require you do not have a gun to defend yourself and then carelessly allow a lunatic into the gun free zone with a gun. Once again the government looks foolish and incompetent.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 6:23 PM
If what I am hearing on the news right now is factual.... it is government not guns that killed the 12 people at the navy yard yesterday!
Reportedly with some of the things going on with the shooter, the police were concerned enough to warn the navy about him. Instead of increasing their attention to this guys qualification for security clearance the navy apparently did nothing.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 6:37 PM
"The NRA fantasy about the good guy with a gun vanquishing the bad guy with a gun is a fable that could have worked for Wyatt, but not for Wayne."
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 6:59 PM
"You have some strange idea that everyone that carries a gun is some sort..." of a hero.
Clearly it's speculation, but what would have occurred if the Navy Yard guards had come across a civilian with a gun out supposedly trying to take down the shooter. They would have shot at him. Then if there were two or three, shooting at someone, then each other, then the guards could have been shooting at the CC heros. Complete chaos.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 7:08 PM
'The last thing we need is a gang of gun-toting cowboys on military installations.'
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 5:53 PM
Are you calling our military a 'gang of gun-toting cowboys'?
They are trained and should be allowed the opportunity to defend themselves in any situation.
-- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 7:17 PM
"Here ya go"
(CNN) -- The gunman shot three people on the second floor of an Oregon mall, then ran.
Shoppers hid behind racks as the man, wearing a vest and a mask, ran down a corridor and to a back hallway that led downstairs.
By then, he likely heard the sirens as dozens of police vehicles converged on the Clackamas Town Center in Happy Valley.
He then took his own life.
On December 11, 2012, a shooting occurred at the Clackamas Town Center in unincorporated Clackamas County, outside the City of Portland Oregon, United States. The gunman, 22-year-old Jacob Tyler Roberts, ran into the shopping center wearing tactical clothing and a hockey mask and opened fire on shoppers and employees with a stolen Stag Arms AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, firing 16 shots, killing two people and seriously wounding a third person before committing suicide. (ref source-Clackamas County Sheriff's Office publicly release police reports) Roberts had no connection to any of his victims, and it was believed to be a random act of violence.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 7:39 PM
"...our military a 'gang of gun-toting cowboys'?"
Not in the least. I'm referring to any concealed carry civilians that may have been allowed in there, not the military, were it not a "gun-free" zone.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 7:45 PM
Turns out the shooter was a liberal that was a Obama voter.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 7:52 PM
And as it was stated the media conveniently left off:
"I heard three shots and turned and looked at Casey and said, 'are you serious?,'" he said.
The friend and baby hit the floor. Meli, who has a concealed carry permit, positioned himself behind a pillar.
"He was working on his rifle," said Meli. "He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side."
The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.
"As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them," he said.
Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision.
"I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli. "I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."
The gunman was dead, but not before taking two innocent lives with him and taking the innocence of everyone else.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 7:56 PM
Also The liberals were too hasty to say he had an AR-15 so they could start building their propaganda.
He came in with a shotgun only.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 8:01 PM
Not in the least. I'm referring to any concealed carry civilians that may have been allowed in there, not the military, were it not a "gun-free" zone.
So, in your opinion, anyone who defends himself or his family is a 'gun-toting cowboy'?
-- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 8:18 PM
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 9:24 PM
There is no reason for civilians to carry concealed weapons on military bases.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 9:58 PM
I suggest we declare Washington, DC a 'gun free zone'. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If 'gun free zones' are all that is needed to protect our children they are all that is needed to protect our politicians.
-- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 10:03 PM
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 10:16 PM
Here we go. Change the constitution via textbook.
"The authors of United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination have taken it upon themselves to change the Constitution of the United States. The high school textbook contains a summary of each Amendment that alters the initial intent in which they were created.
The textbook notes the Second Amendment as, "The people have a right to keep and bear arms in a state militia."
The actual Second Amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 10:32 PM
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 10:23 PM
Regrets,
The deceitful changing of the Constitution to teach our students is a work of the Leftist Wingnuts and is absolutely wrong. But, if you try to get vocal about it you get nutcases blustering that you are paranoid. We have one on here that constantly accuses anyone who disagrees with him as paranoid.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 10:57 PM
There is no reason for civilians to carry concealed weapons on military bases.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 9:58 PM
For what reason should military personnel not be able to? Should,they not have the same right to protect themselves as anyone else? Why is it acceptable for politicians to be protected with guns at their place of work, but not military personnel at their place of work? Or for that matter, children in their schools?
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 11:02 PM
Common labels those of us who support CC as 'gun-toting cowboys' and assumes that anyone with a CC would fire indiscriminately and endanger others. Two points:
1. He would be offended if I labeled him and made baseless assumptions concerning his character.
2. He does not address the root of the problem. I live on the county line in a rural area. If I do not have the ability to protect myself and the six other people under my roof, who can I depend on? I am not a privileged member of society with 24 hour protection (members of Congress, etc.) LEO will not show up at my doorway except to pick up the pieces and investigate after the 'incident'.
3. Declaring an area a 'gun-free zone' obviously does nothing to protect those people within that zone. Witness the recent shooting and others.
4. Criminals (by definition) do not respect the law. When we take away the law-abiding citizen's ability to defend himself, what do we replace it with? A police state? Is this an improvement?
Common, you believe in 'gun-free zones'. I disagree with you but I respect your right to your opinion. All I want to know is this: How are you going to protect me in your 'gun-free zone'? It hasn't worked yet. Criminals seem to think they are shooting galleries. And I tend to believe them.
-- Posted by Robert* on Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 6:53 AM
"1. He would be offended if I labeled him and made baseless assumptions concerning his character."
Robert,
Couple of points.... after reading Common's ravings for the past few years, those would not be "baseless" assumptions.
And, while I live in town, I have still declared the immediate area around me to be a 'criminal fre area' with me to be the enforcer of that area, absent the armed protection the privileged in this country get to enjoy.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 7:49 AM
The pact secretly divided other countries up providing Germany and Russia with control over more geography.Complete and utter ignorance. -- Posted by Spaniard on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 7:17 PM
Not a thing I said is untrue. So you go to the attack mode again.
You've dug another hole Spaniard. Quit digging.
First: "The US had little to do with ending Hitler's reign". Again, one of the more ignorant things said on SO. I noticed you quit digging that hole and gave it up. What a bold face lie.
Now: you deny that a pact was signed between Germany and Russia that not only was a "non aggression" pact but it also provided both countries with control over more geography.
I learned this in my history class in high school and later in college. Since that isn't enough for you, here is wikipedia:
Molotov--Ribbentrop Pact -- "In addition to stipulations of non-aggression, the treaty included a secret protocol that divided territories of Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland into Nazi and Soviet "spheres of influence", anticipating potential "territorial and political rearrangements" of these countries. Thereafter, Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939. The Soviet Union would not invade Poland until the Nomonhan incident was officially concluded by the Molotov--Togo agreement, which it was on 15 September 1939, taking effect on 16 September, at which time Stalin ordered Soviet forces to invade Poland on 17 September 1939.[3]
Now slice this to say "It wasn't Russia, it was the Soviet Union". That's all you have left. You are the ignorant one. Now tell us what your commie teacher told you. Or what you read in Pravda. The more layers that come off this Spaniard onion are revealing your communist sympathies. And I don't say that lightly.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 9:01 AM
Dug and Spaniard;
A little material for your discussion. I am no great fan of Wikipedia but it is sometimes helpful. I copied and pasted from a similar discussion.
Here is a few facts for the record. 1. The British Airforce destroyed the bulk of the Luftwaffe single handed leading to allied air superiority that the Germans never regained. Imagine all those Stuka's, HE-111'S, and ME-109'S that were either destroyed during the Battle of Britain or tied up defending Germany from Allied Bombing being transferred to the Russian Front. 2. Without the Western allies Hitler would have been able to transfer the bulk of his mechanized and better units to the eastern front instead of tying them down in France. awaiting the allied invasion. 3. American trucks and Construction equipment (leased to Russia) helped move those tank factories deep into Russia during 1941-1942 before the Germans could capture them. American Tanks (Shermans and Grants),half tracks, Artillery, Ammunition, and spare parts leased to the Russians helped defend those factories until the Russians could get their factories up and running. We shipped Shermans to Russia while our forces were still using Grants in Africa. 4. Stalin was carrying on secret peace negotiations with Germany (through Switzerland) from 1943 thru 1944. He believed that with the possible Allied Defeat on D-Day,1944 that Hitler would be able to transfer the bulk of his Western forces to Eastern Europe, (because the Western Powers would not be able to invade Europe for at least 2-years).
If Stalin was so confident that he could defeat the Germans by himself why was he so pushy about opening a 2nd front. Large German Forces were tied down in France and there was really no change in forces facing him in eastern Europe. I believe he wanted to see if the allies were going to be successful on D-Day and if not conclude his peace talks and save face if the Western Allies failed
All the Allies played a critical role assisting each other/
1. England destroyed the Luftwaffe gaining Allied Air Superiority as well as jointly defeating the Germans and Italians in N. Africa/ Europe With the USA. 2. Russia came back from 1941 and opened up a front and advanced nonstop to Berlin. 3. America provided War Materials, Ships, Aircraft, and etc...to both England and Russia immediately upon entering the war. And immediately began building and preparing the US Military for the invasion of Africa/Fortress Europe.
-- Posted by Robert* on Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 9:45 AM
The pact secretly divided other countries up providing Germany and Russia with control over more geography.Complete and utter ignorance. -- Posted by Spaniard on Tue, Sep 17, 2013, at 7:17 PM
Do we have a short memory?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 9:55 AM
"How are you going to protect me in your 'gun-free zone'?"
Why do I have any responsibility to protect you?
I would think you need to talk to your sheriff's office about what they are going to do.
"It hasn't worked yet."
Neither of us know whether it has worked or not. You don't know how many shootings may have been prevented by "gun-free" zones.
In most cases they are set up because allowing guns results in a higher probability of a shooting occuring.
It is no different than the problem of keeping guns in your home. If you do, there is a higher probability that one family member will injure or kill another with one of your guns, than you will ever have to protect them from a home invasion.
That's why there are gun free zones. And a military base is the last place that needs "protection" from the "George Zimmermans" of the country.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 3:29 PM
"Let's give the White House it's way , take all guns away from all citizens."
First of all, that statement is complete idiocy. No one has ever proclaimed that all guns would be taken away by anyone. That is pure NRA propaganda. How could anyone with a modicum of sense believe that?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 3:35 PM
"How are you going to protect me in your 'gun-free zone'?"
Why do I have any responsibility to protect you?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 3:35 PM
If you were the one who took away my ability to protect myself, you have made it your responsibility.
-- Posted by Joe Dirte on Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 4:06 PM
"...one who took away my ability to protect myself..."
Beg your pardon, but I don't believe I have taken anything away from you.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 4:09 PM
That's why there are gun free zones. And a military base is the last place that needs "protection" from the "George Zimmermans" of the country.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 3:29 PM
I have lost count in the order of stupid statements.... but that one ranks right up there with the top entries!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 4:18 PM
"...don't take guns away from citizens."
You're example is Australia. They have a murder rate of 1.0 per 100,000 people. We have a murder rate of 4.8 per 100,000 people.
How is that a problem?
Then find a quote from the US government that says there are actual plans in place to confiscate all guns from all Americans.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 4:27 PM
"...statement is complete idiocy."
"Do NOT call me an idiot again..."
If you look back, you'll see I did not call you an idiot.
I said that the statement that the White House wants to "take all guns away from all citizens" was idiotic. Get it? And when you find an actual quote from the White House stated in unambiguous terms, that they want to "take all guns away from all Americans" I will apologize profusely.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 4:36 PM
"I have lost count in the order of stupid statements...."
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 4:18 PM
I have not...
The number of stupid statements by "Wheels" stands at 75,903 since January, 2009.
Don't have a stroke, I was just kidding...
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 4:42 PM
"...don't go there again."
Of course not. After I see the quote from the President saying he wants to take all guns from all Americans.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 4:49 PM
"Did you read the increase in crimes after guns were taken away?"
Yes, but there are a large number of circumstances effecting rates. Furthermore the crime rate is so low in Australia that minor fluctuations show up that are not accounted for and skew the results. The murder rate in the US is 5 times higher than that in Australia.
The case for gun "control" has never been made by the administration. The key issues currently being debated are stringent background checks (for which legal gun owners should not resist) and the elimination of high capacity magazines. This should not deter any legal gun owner from protecting him or herself.
On the other hand you can and will again see the NRA screaming how the "gumint" is after your guns, send us money and we'll stop them from confiscating your squirrel rifle. So much BS. Sadly the vast majority of NRA memebers have no objection and support more effective background checks, but the leadership beats the drum against non-existant threats.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 6:53 PM
I'm not going to call this an Oxymoron but it does come from the guy, I have seen called a moron and who is only a heartbeat away from the Presidency.
We need more stringent background checks to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals, so sayeth Common and the Leftists.
Large magazines and AR 15s should be outlawed sayeth the Leftists. Arm yourself with a shotgun sayeth Joe Biden, you don't need those large magazines and AR 15s.
And after 4 1/2 years as Vice President, danged if Uncle Joe ain't right on something.
The killer took his advice obtained a shotgun legally..... because the Federal Government fell on it's arse in vetting people and making sure people with mental problems are on the no gun list. Uncle Joe was right, he did not need a large magazine, with the choke out, my best information says the shotgun would hold 5 shots, and he sure did not need an AR 15, the shotgun did an admirable job of slaughter. The guy could have done worse with a single homemade bomb. If he got a shotgun into the no gun zone he easily could have taken a small bomb in.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 7:12 PM
I would think you need to talk to your sheriff's office about what they are going to do.
Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 3:29 PM
I don't have to call the sheriff's office. My son-in-law is a deputy sheriff.
This is what will happen. I will call 911. They will arrive after the perpetrator has left, investigate, and file a report. Maybe they will catch a suspect at a later date; maybe not.
The one thing they will NOT do is prevent an incident from happening. They merely attempt to bring the criminal to justice after the fact. My family and the insurance company repair whatever damage was done as best we can.
-- Posted by Robert* on Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 7:44 PM
"You're example is Australia. They have a murder rate of 1.0 per 100,000 people. We have a murder rate of 4.8 per 100,000 people".
They don't have the intercity thugs to pump their numbers up. Also they don't have the Democrat welfare state that promotes singe family households that cause those numbers to be outrageous.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 7:55 PM
"You will be labeled a FOX/Rush worshipper...as if this is worse then an Obama worshipper"
The Leftist Wingnuts may label me any way they deem necessary, but it doesn't make me that.
I worship no man or object. Do respect a lot of people, once they earn it. Don't owe respect to any man, if he doesn't earn it. You do owe people the benefit of the doubt, until they prove differently.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 8:14 PM
75,914 and counting
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 9:06 PM
"...living more dangerously than he realizes."
It is very simply that I do not feel the risk of living here necessitates carrying or keeping guns.
Others that feel differently are welcome to own guns. It does not bother me in the least.
When you insist that every crazy guy on the street has the right to as many semi-automatic weapons as he wants to, it does bother me. That's why I am for more stringent background checks, incorporating a waiting period, and the outlawing of future production, import and sales of magazines holding more than 6 rounds. If it was good enough for Wyatt, it should be good enough for Wayne
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 9:15 PM
Why do we have to put words in people's mouths?
'When you insist that every crazy guy on the street has the right to as many semi-automatic weapons as he wants to, it does bother me.'
I don't know that anyone on these threads has made that argument.
-- Posted by Robert* on Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 9:20 PM
"...anyone on these threads has made that argument."
How about consistent claims that "backgound checks won't work." How about opposition to reinstating the assault weapons ban.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 9:33 PM
Check here for facts about the Australian success with gun control.
-- Posted by Robert* on Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 9:59 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 9:15 PM
Common.
Your reference to cowboys when talking about guns and concealed carry is an insult to all law abiding citizens that do want to own them as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.
If you don't want to own them don't, but try not to be such an a*****e when discussing the issue.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 10:01 PM
How often do armed citizens prevent a crime in this country?
-- Posted by Robert* on Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 10:03 PM
How about consistent claims that "backgound checks won't work." How about opposition to reinstating the assault weapons ban.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 9:33 PM
Who made that claim? I will make a statement though. Background checks as operated currently by our incompetent government are not working when they could if anybody at government level paid attention. That man who just shot up the naval facility should never have passed. The government is so busy with checking phone calls and e-mails they do not have time to take care of business. This man was known to have fired a gun in anger, not prosecuted but not properly noted in his record either. That alone should have precluded him from getting a shotgun
And now your lunacy wants no more than 6 shots in a magazine. Look what that guy did with 5. The gun is not the problem. The problem is paranoid people like yourself and incompetency on the part of government. Constantly wanting more and more power over people and totally incompetent in enforcing current laws. We don't even need to get into how he smuggled the gun in under the noses of government.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 10:11 PM
"...one who took away my ability to protect myself..."
Beg your pardon, but I don't believe I have taken anything away from you.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Sep 18, 2013, at 4:09 PM
It wouldn't suprise me in the least to learn you have a hand in decisions like "Gun Free" zones on military property. Judging by many of your statements, you seem like a perfect match for a federal politician.
-- Posted by Joe Dirte on Thu, Sep 19, 2013, at 8:17 AM
Joe,
He certainly has the right mentality for it.... control the masses. They can be a danger to the health of bloated government.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Sep 19, 2013, at 8:21 AM
Wheels,
I hear tell members of Congress receive a nice benefits package and fair wages. Could be a great career choice.
Well, I'm off. Gonna grab my ten gallon hat, strap on my spurs and go practice my quick draw for a spell pilgrim
-- Posted by Joe Dirte on Thu, Sep 19, 2013, at 8:39 AM
Don't shoot your aaaahhh.... toe off.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Sep 19, 2013, at 8:49 AM
I think this guy has a point when it comes to protecting the public.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Sep 19, 2013, at 12:18 PM
Two good articles, Wheels. Thank you.
-- Posted by Robert* on Thu, Sep 19, 2013, at 12:28 PM
Robert,
At least you and I think so. :-)
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Sep 19, 2013, at 12:32 PM
One definite way to tell if a person has passed Government back ground checks is to tattoo a number on their arms .
Like the Nazi's did the Jews...
-- Posted by *Rick. on Thu, Sep 19, 2013, at 1:45 PM
Whoa, whoa, no! I don't want to be tattooed!
May a thousand fleas invade your armpits. ;-)
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Sep 19, 2013, at 2:21 PM
*Rick,
First you have to make it against the law for private artists to tattoo numbers on their arms.
-- Posted by Robert* on Thu, Sep 19, 2013, at 2:21 PM
"And now your lunacy..."
That's right, keeping guns with high capacity magazines out of the hands of mentally unstable individuals is lunacy.
Tolerating the killing of school kids and doing nothing except saying obviously teachers need guns, that's lunacy.
Putting up with 250 shootings this year involving 4 or more victims and doing nothing, that's lunacy.
Suffering a murder rate 5 times as high as a country like Australia, and claiming we can't do anything about it, that's lunacy.
Claiming that the second amendment allows every person to own any kind of gun possible, that's lunacy.
Believing NRA propaganda about CC heroes stopping crime, making armed first responders shoot first rather than having to ask, "Are you the good guy with a gun, or are you the bad guy with a gun?" That's lunacy.
Claiming that background checks are ineffectual, after reasonable questions and content has been emasculated by Congress, that's lunacy.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Sep 19, 2013, at 5:04 PM
CSM: Trying to convince some of these screballs on here of anything reasonable is lunacy.
-- Posted by left turn on Thu, Sep 19, 2013, at 5:14 PM
"And now your lunacy..."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Sep 19, 2013, at 5:04 PM
That's right, keeping guns with high capacity magazines out of the hands of mentally unstable individuals is lunacy.
Answer #1: Common nobody said we should allow mentally unstable persons to have guns. Read the real problem and solution. http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topi...
Tolerating the killing of school kids and doing nothing except saying obviously teachers need guns, that's lunacy.
Answer #2: Nobody is tolerating anything, If you want to do something about it refer to Answer #1 above.
Putting up with 250 shootings this year involving 4 or more victims and doing nothing, that's lunacy.
Answer #3: Get your Leftist friends to do something about the mental illness problem and quit hassling innocent citizens.
Suffering a murder rate 5 times as high as a country like Australia, and claiming we can't do anything about it, that's lunacy.
Answer #4: Get your facts straight.
Claiming that the second amendment allows every person to own any kind of gun possible, that's lunacy.
Answer #5 Show me where it doesn't
Believing NRA propaganda about CC heroes stopping crime, making armed first responders shoot first rather than having to ask, "Are you the good guy with a gun, or are you the bad guy with a gun?" That's lunacy.
Answer #6 I don't belong to the NRA, I don't read their information and I don't contribute to their causes. Unlike you, I think for myself.
Claiming that background checks are ineffectual, after reasonable questions and content has been emasculated by Congress, that's lunacy.
Answer #7 I submit to you the fact that this mentally ill shooter from Monday passed a background check. And you say they are effective. I passed a background check to buy a firearm. My son passed a background check and was detained because of a similar name and he had to prove he was not the fellow with the similar name. I passed because there is nothing more serious on my record than a speeding ticket from years ago. Why was Monday's shooter not caught in the background check? Prove to me that didn't happen because of government incompetence. Prove to me that he didn't pass through a security check to get into a gun free zone with a shotgun for any other reason than government's inability to police their own rules.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Sep 19, 2013, at 5:29 PM
CSM: Trying to convince some of these screballs on here of anything reasonable is lunacy.
-- Posted by left turn on Thu, Sep 19, 2013, at 5:14 PM
Still taking potshots Lefty?
Keep it up and the going will get tough and you will have to head for the exit again, as usual.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Sep 19, 2013, at 5:31 PM
CSM: Wheels recognized what screwballs I was talking about. He was trying to defend himself. I will have to give him credit for recognizing himself as a screwball. LOL
-- Posted by left turn on Thu, Sep 19, 2013, at 5:43 PM
No Lefty, all I recognized was you taking potshots at your superiors. You did use an "s" as in plural. You're like a kid when the teacher's backs is turned. All blow and no go!.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Sep 19, 2013, at 6:02 PM
-- Posted by *Rick. on Tue, Sep 24, 2013, at 10:17 AM
Doesn't Chicago already have aome of the strongest gun control laws in America?
Working like a charm isn't it? Leave the citizens unarmed and it is like shooting fish in a barrel for the criminal element.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Sep 24, 2013, at 10:25 AM
Leave the citizens unarmed and it is like shooting fish in a barrel for the criminal element. -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Sep 24, 2013, at 10:25 AM
Did you see the news in the Post Dispatch this morning? An off-duty officer from St. Charles was jogging with his friend last night in Forest Park. They were approached by "3 males in hoodies" who pulled a gun and said they were going to rob them.
The officer - carrying his weapon - shot 5 times. 1 thud dead, 1 thug shot in the neck and the other thug shot in the buttocks.
Karma sucks doesn't it?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Sep 24, 2013, at 10:28 AM
Dug,
No I didn't read that. I guess I miss a good article now and then but I always get mad when I read the Post Disgrace.... so I don't.
It's a shame the off-duty officer doesn't run in Forest Park every night for a couple of months with the same results. St. Louis's crime wave would be favorably affected.
Guess it would be presumptuous of me to take a guess on the ethnic background of the "hoodie" wearing perps turned victims. Wonder if Obama had any sons that looked like these perps. Further wonder, did the off-duty officer try to understand them, or will there have to be a "Beer Summit" called to chastise this off-duty officer.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Sep 24, 2013, at 10:42 AM
Forgot to mention.... it appears the off-duty officer exhibited perfect "Gun Control".
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Sep 24, 2013, at 10:43 AM
-- Posted by Joe Dirte on Tue, Sep 24, 2013, at 12:04 PM
Joe,
It is a good thing that I didn't know that was all it took to get suspended from school. I think your just being a "racist". ;-)
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Sep 24, 2013, at 12:21 PM
rick
According to the liberals it is
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Sep 24, 2013, at 7:19 PM
Obama ain't no liberal ..I dunno what he is...
-- Posted by *Rick. on Tue, Sep 24, 2013, at 7:51 PM
He is a far left wacko Rick.
Kind of a quiet day again.
Where have all the Leftists gone,
Long time passing.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Sep 24, 2013, at 8:23 PM
THe leftists are on the main page fighting for Obamacare using their usual tactics - name calling and BS. It's the article about Peter Kinder. Kinder's got their dander in a mess...
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Sep 24, 2013, at 8:34 PM
Dug,
Now that is a group of, what should I say here, Kinder isn't my favorite politician. And that little clown stunt at the State Fair kind of cinched thing. Dug, what in hell is the problem that we got about as many so goofy called conservatives as we do Leftist wingnuts?
I will go and take a peek.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Sep 24, 2013, at 8:40 PM
I agree Wheels.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Sep 24, 2013, at 9:14 PM
Dug,
Been on the phone.... that chatter over on the Kinder article was pathetic.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Sep 24, 2013, at 10:33 PM
-- Posted by *Rick. on Wed, Sep 25, 2013, at 1:32 PM
This sounds discriminatory to the gang-bangers the Army has been training in tactics and urban warfare. The skills the gang-bangers are taking back to the streets after their hitch is up.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Wed, Sep 25, 2013, at 9:00 PM
Would this apply to gunrunning such as in 'operation fast and furious' and supplying arms to al Queda backed rebels in Syria?
-- Posted by Robert* on Thu, Sep 26, 2013, at 2:26 PM
Menu
Obama is back on crack. 80 to 90% agree with him? He is spending to much time on Democrat Underground.
" Appearing on ABC News's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" on Sunday, President Barack Obama said he had 80 to 90 percent of the country agreeing with him in favor of gun control, but the he could not get gun-control legislation enacted because of a "faction of the Republican Party."
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/obama-gun-control-we-had-80-90...
Replies (104)