First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Obama wants you to take your guns before he implodes the economy.
796 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / Bronx
Offline
Posted 12/22/12

sarrukin wrote:


Eddy120876 wrote:


sarrukin wrote:


Eddy120876 wrote:

Can we stop this "Obama is taking my right away" crap. I mean seriously can you point to me any rights that were taken away? Can't find one then no need to spew crap. Only right wing nut jobs believe that the President wants to take your rights yet can't prove a damn thing. Ps if you love your guns good for you since you know most have been buying more guns since President Obama became the Potus.


Will Obama try to take our guns? chances are no, but I've seen plenty of liberal and foreign commentators between now and last Friday stating that is exactly what they would want to happen. are these people apt to get what they want? probably not...would I be naive not to be on my guard against those types of people, absolutely yes.

also as far as rights being taken away...
NDAA (goodbye due process and habeous corpus)
patriot act (bye 4th amendment)
drone stikes killing American Citizens (due process again)
TSA groping me every time i go to the air port (4th amendment)
death tax (right to property)
"progressive" income tax (right to keep what I earn)
people have been detained for what they write on the internet (there goes 1st amendment)
federal government threatening the state of Texas with a blockade in the event Texes passes a law to restrict the TSA (bye 10 amendment)

i can go on and on and on...if you really think you arent losing rights on daily basis, you are naive...or are you one of those people who only complain about rights and war when a republican is in office. (by the way im not a republican)


NDAA-Section 1022 declares that “No amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2013 may be used to construct or modify any facility in the United States . . . to house any individual detained at Guantanamo for the purposes of detention or imprisonment in the custody or under the control of the Department of Defense unless authorized by Congress.” This section, which exists already in current law, prevents the closure of Guantanamo by preventing the Defense Department from replacing it with any state-side facility.

See that has to get Veto by the president and created by congress so you see (no created by the President) ps when ever the president demanded that those accuse of terrorism to be tried in America Fox started calling the president and asking him not to do so because those so call terrorist will get away with a lot of rights.
Patriot Act created by congress and approved by exPresident Bush,resign because the Republicans demanded a compromise and right wing on Fox demanded because we need to protect America from terrorism.


Drones killing American.....Any evidence about that?
Progressive tax ask the Republican that keep stalling about that
Umm the guy that go arrested for the internet post is a lie he was demoted and when he was advice to stop making inflammatory post about the commander in chief. FYI once you sign the dotted line your 1st amendment go out of the door.


http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-30/politics/politics_targeting-us-citizens_1_al-awlaki-yemeni-embassy-drone-missile?_s=PM:POLITICS

http://rt.com/usa/news/marine-arrest-facebook-us-204/

I'm not a republican, so saying "but the republicans do this and that and Fox said blah blah blah" doesn't work on me, i was fighting these rights violations when bush was in office too.

It doesn't frankly matter who the hell is responsible for taking rights away from people, the end result is the same, the people lose freedom either way.


Again about the Marine he got arrested because he was a dumb ass. I have friend and family in the military also worked for the Army and when you sign the dotted line your personal views and 1st amendment go out the door. So he knew was he was doing because he's C.O told him to stop and he proceeded to post any ways.heres what it says:

Article 88 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) makes it a crime for a commissioned officer to use "contemptuous words" against the President, Vice-President, Secretary of Defense, and other specified high government officials. Enlisted members can be prosecuted under Article 134 for using similar words. The words have to be "to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, or conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces." Military members have gotten into trouble for calling officials "fascists," "thieves," murderers" "tyrants" "fools" and "gangsters." This law is selectively enforced. Some officers didn't get in trouble for saying bad things about President Clinton, for example. Article 117 of the UCMJ outlaws using "provoking or reproachful words or gestures" towards someone else in the military. The more real danger, however, if from saying things that could make other members desert, disobey lawful orders, or refuse to do their jobs. That kind of speech could violate Article 82 of the UCMJ, which makes it a crime for someone in the military to ask someone else to desert or mutiny (disobey orders as a group).

Again the drone killing the child is regrettable but did not happen in US soils. So mistakes are made specially when we have to deal with the CIA. Again Fox is the one that get this right wing nut jobs rile up about your rights been taken. Yet they forgot they gave Ex president Bush the power to do so because of 9/11
25221 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Texas
Offline
Posted 12/22/12
Brandon Raub was not in the military when he made the comments he was detained over, you're thinking about a different story.

the drone killing was not a "mistake" it was an ordered hit that set a precedent for killing American Citizens without due process of the law.

like I said, you're the type of person who complained about these issues when Bush was in office, and now that hes not you don't have anything to complain about. you and people like you are partisan hypocrites and so are republicans who do the same thing.
44366 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Alaska
Offline
Posted 12/22/12

Tethler
Like the guy that recently went into a school in China and stabbed 20 kids? Oh yeah, none of them died. And sure, it was a loaded question. However, he said "keep your statistics away from my rights" implying that despite evidence of gun control working in other parts of the world he still wants no change.


Heh, only 9 were admitted to a hospital. What does that tell you? Shitty knife or shitty user.

Gun control is working? Are you SURE about that?
Lets take a look at a fucking great example. Australia. Total gun control at it's max.
Know what has happened since then? crime has gone up, and in some areas more than 60%.
Which is something that is expected to happen.

It is shown EVERYWHERE, the more restrictive laws against the citizens, the higher the crime rate.
25221 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Texas
Offline
Posted 12/22/12 , edited 12/22/12

micdeath wrote:


Tethler
Like the guy that recently went into a school in China and stabbed 20 kids? Oh yeah, none of them died. And sure, it was a loaded question. However, he said "keep your statistics away from my rights" implying that despite evidence of gun control working in other parts of the world he still wants no change.


Heh, only 9 were admitted to a hospital. What does that tell you? Shitty knife or shitty user.

Gun control is working? Are you SURE about that?
Lets take a look at a fucking great example. Australia. Total gun control at it's max.
Know what has happened since then? crime has gone up, and in some areas more than 60%.
Which is something that is expected to happen.

It is shown EVERYWHERE, the more restrictive laws against the citizens, the higher the crime rate.


gun control supporters only care about reducing gun related crimes (because guns are so scary), they couldn't care less about other violent crime rates going up.
6612 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / North Dakota
Offline
Posted 12/22/12

Tethler wrote:


Jdaimond wrote:

I think that most everyone agrees that banning gun ownership would only keep us people that want to hunt and protect our loved ones from doing so while bad people (the kind of people we dont want to have guns) will still have guns, just illegaly. Anybody who disagrees with that is somewhat uneducated.


Sure, some criminals will still have guns. However, the vast majority of criminals aren't professional criminals. Most crimes are crimes of opportunity committed by individuals that are not career criminals. How many of these people that commit gun related crimes do you think would know how to go about finding a gun on the black market? If I wanted to go rob a bank and wanted a gun to do so I personally do not know anyone that would sell me a gun. What makes you think every criminal does?


Jdaimond wrote:

Personally i do believe the following should be in order.

Much better background checks should be made.
Alot of people like to own ''assault weapons" for which is not wrong but classes to own them should be taken and licences should only be given to those deemed worthy by professionals.
hunting rifles dont pose much of a threat because even in the hands of a expert, average hunting firearms does not stack up to ar-15s or m16s.


I agree with you 100% on this point. Though i think these steps should be the bare minimum. Personally I wouldn't be bothered if there was a full ban on all guns. Do I think this will ever happen in the US? Not a snowballs chance in hell. The current conversations about an assault weapons ban and a ban on extended ammunition clips are a good start though.


Jdaimond wrote:
Obama is messing with things he doesnt know anything about and thinking like a child. ''guns are hurting people so i will ban them'', what about cigarettes?
quick example....second hand smoke killed more than 3 times as many people as guns did last year. SECOND SECOND SECONDhandsmoke. The reason he wont ban cigarettes is because when people die from smoke its much more subtle. Doesnt make as big a commotion as shootings do.


First off, Obama has done literally nothing during his term as president to restrict guns. In fact, he has passed 2 bills that expand gun rights. You can look here for a timeline of his gun control track record. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/20/obama-gun-control-timeline_n_2338860.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HP%2FPolitics+%28Politics+on+The+Huffington+Post%29

Second, the cigarette example is bad because you are harming yourself with cigarettes. With guns you are inflicting harm on others.

For someone that calls others "uneducated" for disagreeing with your clearly uninformed opinion, you could do with a bit of education yourself.


the uneducated part was just for dramatic affect, it was a joke and i certainly dont reply to others opinions with such judgemental remarks.
You must have scanned through my post to fast because you did not see the part where i said SECONDHAND SMOKE. That means smoke you inhaled from others smoking. If i was talking about firsthand smoking i would state that 6 million people die around the world every year from it but I wasnt. I wont say you need to do some educate yourself on smoking because frankly, thats kinda rude.

For your part about the blackmarket, forget the black market. Guns are gonna become the thing every criminal salesman on the streets is gonna start buying because now people cant just buy them in stores. What would the government do, destroy all guns, go to your home and search for them, take them and not pay you the money you spent on them? there is no way that guns will only be available on the black market. Also, i lived close to the ghetto in georgia, needless to say it would not be hard to find guns in the ghetto.
42866 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Memphis, TN
Offline
Posted 12/22/12 , edited 12/22/12

Lexxuk wrote:


moonhawk81 wrote:

I congratulate you on your nation's low firearms-related murder rate. Honestly, I do. However, I must kindly invite you to keep your statistics away from my rights. Rights, I might add, that I spent 8 years in uniform protecting, including the right of my fellow citizens to disagree with me. . .


The armed forces are a really special breed of people, I have friends in the services (Army, Royal Navy) and family who have been in the services (father, RN, brother RAF, grandfather, Merchant Navy etc.) and I respect your stance on wishing to protect the rights of people within your country to murder almost 10,000 people a year with a gun as well as protecting their rights to take their guns up and shoot you when you fulfil your duty to protect your president and the people revolt with the guns that you protected. Sorry that's a bit flippant but, well, we in the UK are not perfect when it comes to gun crimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre 17 deaths

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre 18 deaths (very, very much like your recent massacre, Andy Murray - the tennis player - was in that school at the time)

Maybe it's a difference between European and American mindset, your "right to bear arms" is a right that is, in principle, a right to kill people (and even your government), over here we're more inclined to give people the right to life (it's enshrined in the Human Rights Act in fact) but I think if any country in Europe were to have 75,000 (non fatal) gun related incidents per year, it might just make them think that something should change.

/edit @ above - oh, zombies? Now that's a different matter, though during the zombie invasion you would eventually run out of bullets so you should consider a sword, or a chainsaw and cheerleader outfit.


Is this disdain of y'all's towards guns the reason we have to run over and save Britain every time Europe boils over into war? Maybe if y'all were a little more familiar and comfortable with firearms you could defend yourselves. We are communicating in English rather than German, correct? Gee, thank Americans and their GUNS!
42866 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Memphis, TN
Offline
Posted 12/22/12 , edited 12/22/12

Tethler wrote:


moonhawk81 wrote:


I congratulate you on your nation's low firearms-related murder rate. Honestly, I do. However, I must kindly invite you to keep your statistics away from my rights. Rights, I might add, that I spent 8 years in uniform protecting, including the right of my fellow citizens to disagree with me. . .


So you're saying that you're fine with the occasional massacre as long as you keep the right to own a small piece of metal that launches out smaller pieces of metal.


I don't mind debating someone. But please have the decency to state your own opinion rather than just trying to put words into someone else's mouth. No decent human being is "fine with the occasional massacre." What a terrible thought!

*Sorry for the double post--don't really know how to combine separate quotes. . .
64240 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Oregon
Offline
Posted 12/22/12

sarrukin wrote:


micdeath wrote:


Tethler
Like the guy that recently went into a school in China and stabbed 20 kids? Oh yeah, none of them died. And sure, it was a loaded question. However, he said "keep your statistics away from my rights" implying that despite evidence of gun control working in other parts of the world he still wants no change.


Heh, only 9 were admitted to a hospital. What does that tell you? Shitty knife or shitty user.

Gun control is working? Are you SURE about that?
Lets take a look at a fucking great example. Australia. Total gun control at it's max.
Know what has happened since then? crime has gone up, and in some areas more than 60%.
Which is something that is expected to happen.

It is shown EVERYWHERE, the more restrictive laws against the citizens, the higher the crime rate.


gun control supporters only care about reducing gun related crimes (because guns are so scary), they couldn't care less about other violent crime rates going up.


I support gun control because gun related crimes are high, yes. That does not mean I am unconcerned about other types of crimes. They are not mutually exclusive.
796 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / Bronx
Offline
Posted 12/22/12

sarrukin wrote:

Brandon Raub was not in the military when he made the comments he was detained over, you're thinking about a different story.

the drone killing was not a "mistake" it was an ordered hit that set a precedent for killing American Citizens without due process of the law.

like I said, you're the type of person who complained about these issues when Bush was in office, and now that hes not you don't have anything to complain about. you and people like you are partisan hypocrites and so are republicans who do the same thing.


Hey this is funny the FBI got a message from users that were saying Raub was posting about starting a revolution. Same thing a kid did after a friend posted that she was going to go into her school and kill people. See that was different. The Drone killing happen after they got a tip about a terrorist group meeting you can blame that on bad Intel and CIA not thinking.
64240 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Oregon
Offline
Posted 12/22/12

moonhawk81 wrote:


Tethler wrote:


moonhawk81 wrote:


I congratulate you on your nation's low firearms-related murder rate. Honestly, I do. However, I must kindly invite you to keep your statistics away from my rights. Rights, I might add, that I spent 8 years in uniform protecting, including the right of my fellow citizens to disagree with me. . .


So you're saying that you're fine with the occasional massacre as long as you keep the right to own a small piece of metal that launches out smaller pieces of metal.


I don't mind debating someone. But please have the decency to state your own opinion rather than just trying to put words into someone else's mouth. No decent human being is "fine with the occasional massacre." What a terrible thought!

*Sorry for the double post--don't really know how to combine separate quotes. . .


Advocating for little to no restriction on firearms is advocating for a situation in which occasional massacres are more likely to occur. That is the exchange being made for the right to easy access to these weapons. As the summary of a Harvard review of gun violence states:

"Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide."

Here is the link to several studies (that have the sources listed) if you feel like taking a look:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html
64240 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Oregon
Offline
Posted 12/22/12

Jdaimond wrote:


the uneducated part was just for dramatic affect, it was a joke and i certainly dont reply to others opinions with such judgemental remarks.
You must have scanned through my post to fast because you did not see the part where i said SECONDHAND SMOKE. That means smoke you inhaled from others smoking. If i was talking about firsthand smoking i would state that 6 million people die around the world every year from it but I wasnt. I wont say you need to do some educate yourself on smoking because frankly, thats kinda rude.

For your part about the blackmarket, forget the black market. Guns are gonna become the thing every criminal salesman on the streets is gonna start buying because now people cant just buy them in stores. What would the government do, destroy all guns, go to your home and search for them, take them and not pay you the money you spent on them? there is no way that guns will only be available on the black market. Also, i lived close to the ghetto in georgia, needless to say it would not be hard to find guns in the ghetto.


Apologies for overlooking the secondhand smoke part of your argument. The city I live in already has laws against smoking in public places. A certain number of feet from building exits, bus stops, etc. No smoking in bars. I think it's been pretty effective so far.

As I said, I don't think there will ever be a full gun ban in the US. It won't happen. Not under Obama or any other president in the near future.
64240 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Oregon
Offline
Posted 12/22/12

micdeath wrote:


Gun control is working? Are you SURE about that?
Lets take a look at a fucking great example. Australia. Total gun control at it's max.
Know what has happened since then? crime has gone up, and in some areas more than 60%.
Which is something that is expected to happen.

It is shown EVERYWHERE, the more restrictive laws against the citizens, the higher the crime rate.


You mind showing your source? From what I can see, the homicide rate has dropped since the 1996 gun ban.


"In the seven years prior to 1997, firearms were used in 24 percent of all Australian homicides. But most recently, firearms were used in only 11 percent of Australian homicides, according to figures for the 12 months ending July 1, 2007. That’s a decline of more than half since enactment of the gun law to which this message refers."

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/
44366 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Alaska
Offline
Posted 12/22/12

Tethler wrote:


micdeath wrote:


Gun control is working? Are you SURE about that?
Lets take a look at a fucking great example. Australia. Total gun control at it's max.
Know what has happened since then? crime has gone up, and in some areas more than 60%.
Which is something that is expected to happen.

It is shown EVERYWHERE, the more restrictive laws against the citizens, the higher the crime rate.


You mind showing your source? From what I can see, the homicide rate has dropped since the 1996 gun ban.


"In the seven years prior to 1997, firearms were used in 24 percent of all Australian homicides. But most recently, firearms were used in only 11 percent of Australian homicides, according to figures for the 12 months ending July 1, 2007. That’s a decline of more than half since enactment of the gun law to which this message refers."

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

I get my info straight from the actual source. Not from a MEDIA OUTLET.

http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/6/%7B0B619F44-B18B-47B4-9B59-F87BA643CBAA%7Dfacts11.pdf
What is the AIC? Why it is the Australian Institute of Criminology of course.

I have a questions JUST for you. Why did you only focus on homicides as your example?
Do you auto-equate gun violence to murders?


64240 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Oregon
Offline
Posted 12/22/12

micdeath wrote:

I get my info straight from the actual source. Not from a MEDIA OUTLET.

http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/6/%7B0B619F44-B18B-47B4-9B59-F87BA643CBAA%7Dfacts11.pdf
What is the AIC? Why it is the Australian Institute of Criminology of course.

I have a questions JUST for you. Why did you only focus on homicides as your example?
Do you auto-equate gun violence to murders?




factcheck.org uses reliable sources and summarizes the data from those sources (one of the sources listed was the AIC). It isn't opinion based.

I focused on homicides because this is a debate on gun control. Sure, I suppose gun related assaults might be relevant to the discussion. However, when you lump all crime together and say it went up after a gun ban went into place it's misleading. White collar crime might have very little to do with guns. For example, a rise in identity theft probably has no correlation to a gun ban. Now if you can show me that gun related crimes went up after the gun ban went into place then you've got a good point.

According to the link you provided:

Homicides are down
Assaults are up (they don't list if a weapon was involved)
Sexual assault is up
Robbery is down
Vehicle theft is down
Fraud is down
Drug arrests look about the same

These are also raw numbers taken over a 14 year period and don't take into account population growth. The actual crime rate probably differs from the raw numbers a bit.
Posted 12/22/12
Firearm sales have been insane for the past week in the United States. I know. I've seen it first hand. People are paranoid and freaked out over protection and an assault weapon ban which will not likely happen. Now, I can see some different legislation for gun control, such as more rigid policies on obtaining a firearm, but there is not likely to be a full on ban of all firearms and/or mandatory seizures of all firearms from American civilians. Not only would that be unconstitutional, but absofuckinglutely bogus.

I decided to participate in the gun buying craze (though more reasonably) and get a .308 bolt-action tactical rifle, which will be coupled with a sniper scope. The exact details of my rifle build I will keep to myself unless inquired about them through PM.

Again, second amendment, people. America will keep her firearms. If not, it's mob rule. Guaranteed.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.