The Constitution, The Second Amendment and BHO

Replies

• T=

  

  Tom === Thomas S. Tierney

  Feb 2, 2013

  No well hung man EVER said that.
  

  ReactReply
• MA

  

  ManOfWicklow

  Feb 2, 2013

  [quote]No well hung man EVER said that.[/quote]If they hanged him properly, he wouldn't be able to say anything.

  ReactReply
• T=

  

  Tom === Thomas S. Tierney

  Feb 2, 2013

  [quote]Can I ask why so many in the USA feel they need to have a gun? Has crime escalated to such a level? Is it so unsafe for 'me/us' as a tourist?[/quote]We don't NEED them. We just WANT them.
  

  ReactReply
• CH

  

  Christopher

  Feb 2, 2013

  [quote][quote]Can I ask why so many in the USA feel they need to have a gun? Has crime escalated to such a level? Is it so unsafe for 'me/us' as a tourist?[/quote]We don't NEED them. We just WANT them.
  [/quote]It doesn't take a PhD in psychology and a lifetime of studying Freud to surmise that perhaps there is some overcompensation going on for a perceived lack of "manhood". Now, oh what could strapping a big, powerful, and mean  looking gun with a hard looking shaft oops barrel compensate for?

  ReactReply
• CH

  

  Christopher

  Feb 2, 2013

  [quote][quote]Reality time, kids: no one is interested in your opinions on guns in the US. Let that reality sink in, and we'll all just get along.
  [/quote]Real reality time, NiMA:Please don't think you speak for the majority of Americans
  [/quote]Oh Please, he doesn't even represent the people of his own state. In fact, based on all of the most recent polls NiMa doesn't even represent all of the NRA members who believe that more background checks, and a host of other gun controls are necessary.
  I can't even understand why the NRA and NiMA's object to fully vetting those who buy weapons. If you buy a car at a dealership - it needs to be registered and insured to drive it off the lot. If you go to a car show and buy a show car - it needs to be registered and insured to drive it. When you buy a car from a private party you need to have it registered and insured before you drive it on public roads. Additionally, in all cases the car not only needs to be registered but the driver licensed.
  Then, why oh why if you buy a gun at a gun show instead of a store does one circumvent the  background check? Could it be the gun and ammo manufacturers want to supply those who would never pass a vetting? Could it be that profit has gotten in the way of public safety and the public good?

  ReactReply
• MA

  

  ManOfWicklow

  Feb 2, 2013

  Regulating the sale of used guns and the sale of guns at fairs would help keep guns from entering into the hands of criminals.
  
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  Absolute nonsense.  If anybody wants a gun, they will always find a way of getting it.  I can pick up a phone and order any weapons or even explosives, without any problem.

  ReactReply
• BA

  

  babyseal

  Feb 2, 2013

  Obama is taking the first step

  ReactReply
• CH

  

  Christopher

  Feb 2, 2013

  [quote]Regulating the sale of used guns and the sale of guns at fairs would help keep guns from entering into the hands of criminals.
  
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  Absolute nonsense.  If anybody wants a gun, they will always find a way of getting it.  I can pick up a phone and order any weapons or even explosives, without any problem.[/quote]Perhaps that is a problem with regulation in the UK.
  Interesting, NiMA complains that non-Americans express their opinions on this topic. Since he has not objected to you, he must only object to those who don't share his opinion. Another surprise.

  ReactReply
• CH

  

  Christopher

  Feb 2, 2013

  [quote][quote...I am not one of the stirrers, who's sole purpose on here is to cause total disruption of the forum.[/quote]And what exactly is your purpose here? To try being the court jester who normally illustrates his lack of intellectual ability to add to a conversation, so he inserts pictures of cats in an attempt to amuse himself?

  ReactReply
• MA

  

  ManOfWicklow

  Feb 2, 2013

  [quote]Interesting, NiMA complains that non-Americans express their opinions on this topic. Since he has not objected to you, he must only object to those who don't share his opinion. Another surprise.[/quote]No surprise to any normal person. My opinions often differ to NIMA's, but I am not one of the stirrers, who's sole purpose on here is to cause total disruption of the forum.

  ReactReply
• T=

  

  Tom === Thomas S. Tierney

  Feb 2, 2013

  [quote][quote][quote]Can I ask why so many in the USA feel they need to have a gun? Has crime escalated to such a level? Is it so unsafe for 'me/us' as a tourist?[/quote]We don't NEED them. We just WANT them.
  [/quote]It doesn't take a PhD in psychology and a lifetime of studying Freud to surmise that perhaps there is some overcompensation going on for a perceived lack of "manhood". Now, oh what could strapping a big, powerful, and mean  looking gun with a hard looking shaft oops barrel compensate for? [/quote]Well I'll be damned!!!!!  I never thought of that. I guess if I were the one with the perceived lack of "manhood' I would have thought of it, like you did.
  

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Feb 2, 2013

  It's Topher, short for Christopher.
  "One failed shoe bomber attempt, and we all now take off our shoes for airport screenings.  31 school shootings since Columbine and no more gun regulation"  John Oliver.

  ReactReply
• T=

  

  Tom === Thomas S. Tierney

  Feb 2, 2013

  Damn! There you go, confusing people with logic.
  

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Feb 2, 2013

  Learn to spell and you might be worth reading.  Also, stop using profanity.  It displays your ignorance.

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Feb 3, 2013

  There you go again.  I know how difficult it is for you to form words of more than two syllables, but try.  You don't seem to be posting any logic or truth.  Just invective.

  ReactReply
• ST

  

  Steve

  Feb 3, 2013

  here's an excerpt from today's New York Times editorial, backing up the point our island's mayor made to a community meeting, when he announced that his wife and children were homewithouta gun, because they were safer that way.
  
  Ask yourself this: Would you wear a seat belt if it were twenty times more likely to choke you than to save you? Would wear blaze orange in the woods if it were twenty times more likely to get you shot at than to save you? Then why would you keep a gun in the house if it's twenty times more likely to cause harm than good?
  
  ***********
  
  [congressional testimony by advocate Sue Trotter> related the story of Sarah McKinley, an 18-year-old Oklahoma woman who shot and killed an intruder on New Years Eve 2011, when she was home alone with her baby. The story was telling, but not in the way she intended, as Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, pointed out. The woman was able to repel the intruder using an ordinary Remington 870 Express 12-gauge shotgun, which would not be banned under the proposed statute. She did not need a military-style weapon with a 30-round magazine.
  
  But there is a more fundamental problem with the idea that guns actually protect the hearth and home. Guns rarely get used that way. In the 1990s, a team headed by Arthur Kellermann of Emory University looked at all injuries involving guns kept in the home in Memphis, Seattle and Galveston, Tex. They found that these weapons were fired far more often in accidents, criminal assaults, homicides or suicide attempts than in self-defense. For every instance in which a gun in the home was shot in self-defense, there were seven criminal assaults or homicides, four accidental shootings, and 11 attempted or successful suicides.
  
  The cost-benefit balance of having a gun in the home is especially negative for women, according to a 2011 review by David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Far from making women safer, a gun in the home is a particularly strong risk factor for female homicides and the intimidation of women.
  
  In domestic violence situations, the risk of homicide for women increased eightfold when the abuser had access to firearms, according to a study published in The American Journal of Public Health in 2003.
  
  Further, there was no clear evidence that victims access to a gun reduced their risk of being killed. Another 2003 study, by Douglas Wiebe of the University of Pennsylvania, found that females living with a gun in the home were 2.7 times more likely to be murdered than females with no gun at home.
  
  Regulating guns, on the other hand, can reduce that risk. An analysis by Mayors Against Illegal Guns found that in states that required a background check for every handgun sale, women were killed by intimate partners at a much lower rate. Senator Patrick Leahy, the Judiciary Committee chairman, has used this fact to press the case for universal background checks, to make sure that domestic abusers legally prohibited from having guns cannot get them.
  
  As for the children whose safety Ms. Trotter professes to be so concerned about, guns in the home greatly increase the risk of youth suicides. That is why the American Academy of Pediatrics has long urged parents to remove guns from their homes.
  
  The idea that guns are essential to home defense and womens safety is a myth. It should not be allowed to block the new gun controls that the country so obviously needs.
  
  

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Feb 3, 2013

  This will clearly be discounted by people on the right calling the NYT a "liberal rag".  Counter to what people on here are saying, statistics, logic, and reason, are not a friend to the far right wing and the gun lovers.
  

  ReactReply
• ST

  

  Steve

  Feb 3, 2013

  Let "them" speak for themselves.
  
  There's an illusion about risk, that makes us underestimate risks if we have any degree of control. Control makes it easy to imagine  that we are the exception. That's why the passenger feels more endangered by aggressive driving that the driver does. That's why we'll take risks in our own workshop that would be unthinkable in an industrial setting where the employer makes us do it, or in our own kitchen that would be unthinkable in a restaurant. That's why we imagine that it's more likely to be killed by a shark than by a fallen vending machine (you don't control the shark; the vending machines fall because people shake them.) And that's why we imagine that we'll beat the odds if it'suswho own the gun.
  

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Feb 3, 2013

  You still just don't seem to comprehend that nobody is trying to take your gun away, and you fly off in leaps of paranoia and fantasy.  Where is the problem in licensing and registering all firearms?  If you could possibly calm down and not fly off the handle at any progress in the debate.

  ReactReply
• FF

  

  FF32404

  Feb 3, 2013

  Steve, every time you post, it seems you love to spout off all these statistics!  Except the studies you cite are so flawed, they mean nothing!  The statistic that the left often uses that a firearms is 63% more likely to be used on the owner than on a bad guy is one of the most over used and inaccurate stastics around.  It was based on a specific county in Washington State which was manipulated to include all types of firearms deaths including intentional suicides.  It's flawed because the report made it seem like someone had their gun used against them during a crime!  The other major flaw on statistics from the left is that these studies almost 100% of the time fail to include that most defensive uses of firearms happen with the gun never being fired!  In fact it's the majority!  Also, someone else mentioned that those of us on the pro gun side of this issue will cite that the NYT "is a liberal rag" which is is, but most, if not, all of your studies you cite are by left wing professors and universities.  If you want to cite studies that include real crime statistics, they must include direct stastics from the FBI uniform crime reports which is the only organization compiling such statistics that mean anything.
  Honestly, if you want to read a book about the relationship of firearm ownership to crime, I invite you to borrow, buy, or somehow obtain "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott.  It really doesn't matter what you personally believe, but all statistics aside, if people in this country don't want to own firearms, that's fine.  IF you live in a country outside of the US which doesn't allow it's sheep to own guns, that's fine too.  For those of you who honestly believe that our governement or people in our government don't want to take our guns away, I say believe what you want, however no one can explain a legitimate reason why they would want us to register our firearms except to know where they are when they decide to ban them and take them away!

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Feb 3, 2013

  You trust your government to do a lot more crucial and personal things than register your firearms.  And it's ironic that you site studies from gun control advocates as being leftist and bias and then you site John Lott, who works for Fox, is a member of one of the most right wing think tanks, and writes with Grover Norquist, who has done more damage to the republicans than most.  Please don't call people who believe in gun control and citizens of other countries that do "sheep".  It's always so laughable that U.S. gunowners think that those of us who aren't are somehow "less free".  That only entitles us to call you a gun nut lunatic.

  ReactReply
• FF

  

  FF32404

  Feb 3, 2013

  [quote]You trust your government to do a lot more crucial and personal things than register your firearms.  And it's ironic that you site studies from gun control advocates as being leftist and bias and then you site John Lott, who works for Fox, is a member of one of the most right wing think tanks, and writes with Grover Norquist, who has done more damage to the republicans than most.  Please don't call people who believe in gun control and citizens of other countries that do "sheep".  It's always so laughable that U.S. gunowners think that those of us who aren't are somehow "less free".  That only entitles us to call you a gun nut lunatic.[/quote]Lott wrote the book before he got hired by Fox, oh but I forgot, it's easier to denigrate the man because you think he's a conservative instead of reading what he wrote and trying to debate it!  I'm not criticizing the fact that the studies the left cites are from lefties, I'm stating that their facts are wrong, misleading and flat out inaccurate!  One of the posters on this thread actually posted statistics from the Violence Policy Center who has never used the FBI crime reports as their sources!  God knows where they get them from but none of them makes a bit of sense!  Unlike most here, you seem to be a very hateful person!  You can't seem to get through a thread without directly attacking the person, rather than having a civil debate!  Every time you are told you are wrong, you get more rabid too!  Kind of sad!
  

  ReactReply
• ST

  

  Steve

  Feb 3, 2013

  I daresay mostoffensiveuses of guns are committed without the gun being fired, as well. I grant that a proportion - as the NYT-cited studies acknowledge - of gun-in-home deaths are suicides. I would note the "I'm-in-control-so-I'm-an-exception" illusion: I'm sureno onewho brings a gun into the home thinks they or their loved ones are a firearms suicide risk, and a good number of them are proven wrong.
  
  I have not argued for coming to take your gun away. It's not going to happen. You are doubtless being fund-raised, and your vote solicited, with scare stories. I submit that you are being suckered. That's your affair.
  
  Have you ever, outside military service, been threatened with lethal violence? I have - by gun, by knife, and by means unspecified from a Mob enforcer and by a solider of fortune and his bodyguard.  Have you ever awakened to find a burglar at the foot of your bed? I have, in a hotel in Los Angeles. Have you ever actually had the Feds tap your phone and come into your home  to make ever-so-polite threats? I have, by the FBI. There's a rainbow on my driver's license because of where I live, but I am no sunshine-and-rainbows "leftie."  If I thought I would be safer with a gun, I'd get one. Legally. But I'd keep quiet about it.
  
  
  

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Feb 3, 2013

  Oh my dear FF, I have no hate.  I think that your statements reflect your own issues.  It's called projection.  You, gasman, and NiMa exhaust a lot of energy hating on anyone who differs in their opinion.  You reject any evidence from anyone that doesn't agree with you.  Keep your guns.  No one is trying to take them away.  Unless you have a grenade launcher...which I'm beginning to suspect.  Paranoia will destroy you.

  ReactReply