Republicans Sat In For Oil. Democrats Are Sitting In For Gun Control.

[Pumpkin Row]

As I explained earlier, laws are for people that follow them. I never said do away with all laws, I'm pointing out that it's inherently stupid to enforce a law that disarms law abiding citizens, while ignoring that it won't disarm criminals.

Then why have speed limits?

You clearly aren't understanding what I'm saying. I'll try to use simple words. Laws are for those that follow them. For example, if you don't want law-abiding citizens to saw their arms off, then you'll make a law that says not to do that. Criminals will still do it, but the majority of people, the law abiding citizens will not. That's what laws are for. However, there comes a difference when talking about self defense laws. If you make a law banning guns, law-abiding citizens will follow that law, criminals will not. you've effectively made law-abiding citizens easy targets.

Another matter entirely, I think we only need speed limits in areas like towns, and places with housing.

You make it sound like someone is trying to disarm citizens. That's not the case. Responsible gun owners simply want responsible gun laws: universal background checks, ban on assault-style weapons, a limit on clip/magazine capacities - along with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, being fed accurate and current information including mental health and domestic abuse data.

You basically just said that you want criminals to have more effective weapons than law-abiding citizens. Assault weapons are most effective for self protection. Besides, government background checks are worthless. The Orlando shooter was investigated twice, and no doubt got a background check during his purchase.

Eventually, criminals and terrorists will be using biological and nuclear weapons. Do you want citizens to also have biological and nuclear weapons?

Explosives are not for self defense. There's no parallel here. Guns are for killing multiple attackers, or shooting a single attacker multiple times, explosives are for a wide range.

 

[HenryBHough]

Eventually, criminals and terrorists will be using biological and nuclear weapons. Do you want citizens to also have biological and nuclear weapons?

So we agree that those users will be Obama's pet (not citizens) illegals?

 

[Lakhota]

Then why have speed limits?

You clearly aren't understanding what I'm saying. I'll try to use simple words. Laws are for those that follow them. For example, if you don't want law-abiding citizens to saw their arms off, then you'll make a law that says not to do that. Criminals will still do it, but the majority of people, the law abiding citizens will not. That's what laws are for. However, there comes a difference when talking about self defense laws. If you make a law banning guns, law-abiding citizens will follow that law, criminals will not. you've effectively made law-abiding citizens easy targets.

Another matter entirely, I think we only need speed limits in areas like towns, and places with housing.

You make it sound like someone is trying to disarm citizens. That's not the case. Responsible gun owners simply want responsible gun laws: universal background checks, ban on assault-style weapons, a limit on clip/magazine capacities - along with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, being fed accurate and current information including mental health and domestic abuse data.

You basically just said that you want criminals to have more effective weapons than law-abiding citizens. Assault weapons are most effective for self protection. Besides, government background checks are worthless. The Orlando shooter was investigated twice, and no doubt got a background check during his purchase.

Eventually, criminals and terrorists will be using biological and nuclear weapons. Do you want citizens to also have biological and nuclear weapons?

Explosives are not for self defense. There's no parallel here. Guns are for killing multiple attackers, or shooting a single attacker multiple times, explosives are for a wide range.

Criminals also have automatic weapons. Should citizens also have automatic weapons?

 

[chikenwing]

Indeed.

How gullible and ignorant does anyone have to be, any more, to believe that the effect of any gun control law, or the intention behind any gun control law, is to “prevent more massacres”. It's not about massacres; it's not about public safety. It's about corrupt public servants, seeking to become our masters.

Gun control measures like the wee tiny ones being proposed currently will not prevent massacres, that's true. It is about public safety, however. I do not like to see so many Americans bamboozled into believing that our government is our enemy. Who sits in congress? They live in our neighborhoods, our state, and we send them to Washington to do our bidding. They are not sinister, friend, and they are not allowed to become our masters.

Gun control measures in general will not accomplish anything other than increasing the crime rate, because criminals do not follow laws. We've seen the results of gun control, they ALWAYS increase crime rates.

When they're trying to take away our ability to protect ourselves, yes, they're our enemies. The government is taking away our rights, that makes them our enemies. We do not want to be rules by tyrants, and people like you, that are assuming they'll fulfill their role as they're supposed to, as opposed to how they want to, that being the way that nets them the most power and control, are delusional. Even if the current administration was trustworthy, and they aren't, there's no guarantee that the next will be.

You mean like speed limits don't stop all speeders? Interesting...

They don't. You just proved my point. People on this road drive 75, and the speed limit is 55. They don't care. Besides, speed limits are for pulling people over so they can fine you. It's a tax collecting measure.

So, it has nothing to do with saving lives...? It's all about the money...? Interesting...

Nothing that had been put out there ,will do anything but hurt the honest guy.
Come up with something that will work,but not infringe on my constitutional rights,untill then enforce the laws we have.
We need affordable oil,we don't need more unless laws.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

it'll only disarm those that actually follow said law.
It would have stopped the Orlando shooter from buying the gun used in the attack, which would at least be a bit of a load off my conscience. For him to have freely and legally bought that rifle after being investigated by the FBI for terrorist activities twice.....it's humiliating that we are so bound up in debate over gun ownership that we allow that in this country.

Once again, you demonstrate just how spectacularly gullible and ignorant you are.

No, there is not any gun control law that has ever been enacted or proposed, that would have prevented that murdering scumbag from obtaining his gun and using it to slaughter so many unarmed, defenseless victims.

Criminals will be able to obtain guns, regardless of what the law says. Only those who obey the law are prevented from being armed, by laws that violate the Second Amendment; and the result is to make good people easy victims for armed, violent criminals.

Whether by malice or by ignorance, if you are in favor of any gun control laws, then you are on the side of tyrants, terrorist, and criminals—who benefit from having their prospective victims unarmed and vulnerable—and against that of honest, law-abiding Americans.

 

[bucs90]

When gas is over $4 a gallon it hurts everyone. So...thank you Republicans for fighting to keep fuel costs down.

I need oil.
I want guns.

GOP fought for both. Dems oppose both.

Fucking easy choice.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Democrats are protesting what they see as a lack of action in the wake of the Orlando nightclub shootings, which left 49 people dead.

TRANSLATION: Democrats are still trying to fool people into thinking that more laws will reduce the number of crimes that criminals would commit with a gun, despite clear and repeated evidence that demonstrates otherwise.

The reasons Democrats keep demanding rule already proven ineffective, rather than following laws demonstrated to work, remains unclear.

The Democratic party has long taken the side of criminals, sex perverts, drug abusers, and other degenerates; over that of honest, decent Americans. Gun control is just one example. The Democratic party first openly adopted gun control as one of its planks, back in the 1960s or 1970s, in response to criticism that it was “soft on crime”. Gun control was adopted by them, because it was a way to appear to be doing something against crime, without actually going against the interest of criminals who were (and still are) an important constituency of the Democrats.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

You clearly aren't understanding what I'm saying. I'll try to use simple words. Laws are for those that follow them. For example, if you don't want law-abiding citizens to saw their arms off, then you'll make a law that says not to do that. Criminals will still do it, but the majority of people, the law abiding citizens will not. That's what laws are for. However, there comes a difference when talking about self defense laws. If you make a law banning guns, law-abiding citizens will follow that law, criminals will not. you've effectively made law-abiding citizens easy targets.

Another matter entirely, I think we only need speed limits in areas like towns, and places with housing.

You make it sound like someone is trying to disarm citizens. That's not the case. Responsible gun owners simply want responsible gun laws: universal background checks, ban on assault-style weapons, a limit on clip/magazine capacities - along with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, being fed accurate and current information including mental health and domestic abuse data.

You basically just said that you want criminals to have more effective weapons than law-abiding citizens. Assault weapons are most effective for self protection. Besides, government background checks are worthless. The Orlando shooter was investigated twice, and no doubt got a background check during his purchase.

Eventually, criminals and terrorists will be using biological and nuclear weapons. Do you want citizens to also have biological and nuclear weapons?

Explosives are not for self defense. There's no parallel here. Guns are for killing multiple attackers, or shooting a single attacker multiple times, explosives are for a wide range.

Criminals also have automatic weapons. Should citizens also have automatic weapons?

Absolutely, yes.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Really? Then why is Obama patrolling the border?

Is Obama patrolling the borders? When has he done that? How often, in fact, does he go anywhere near the borders, much less spend any time patrolling them?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You make it sound like someone is trying to disarm citizens. That's not the case.

You might as well stop repeating this lie. Nobody with better than a room-temperature IQ believes it, any more, and you just make yourself look very stupid by repeating it, as if you're fooling anyone. The Democrats have done a very, very poor job of hiding their true intentions regarding this matter.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Criminals also have automatic weapons. Should citizens also have automatic weapons?

Why not?

The 1939 U.S. vs. Miller ruling held that what was most protected by the Second Amendment were weapons which had an application for use in connection with a militia. This woudlmean weapons comparable to those that are standard issue to our soldiers. In modern terms, this would mean true assault rifles (not the fraudulently-labeled “assault weapons”) capable of both semiautomatic and fully-automatic operation, such as the M-16 and M-4 rifles that we currently issue to our soldiers; weapon which our corrupt government absolutely refuses to allow us to have as civilians.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

When gas is over $4 a gallon it hurts everyone. So...thank you Republicans for fighting to keep fuel costs down.

I need oil.
I want guns.

GOP fought for both. Dems oppose both.

It certainly makes it clear which party is on the side of the American people, and which party is not, doesn't it?

 

[chikenwing]

You clearly aren't understanding what I'm saying. I'll try to use simple words. Laws are for those that follow them. For example, if you don't want law-abiding citizens to saw their arms off, then you'll make a law that says not to do that. Criminals will still do it, but the majority of people, the law abiding citizens will not. That's what laws are for. However, there comes a difference when talking about self defense laws. If you make a law banning guns, law-abiding citizens will follow that law, criminals will not. you've effectively made law-abiding citizens easy targets.

Another matter entirely, I think we only need speed limits in areas like towns, and places with housing.

You make it sound like someone is trying to disarm citizens. That's not the case. Responsible gun owners simply want responsible gun laws: universal background checks, ban on assault-style weapons, a limit on clip/magazine capacities - along with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, being fed accurate and current information including mental health and domestic abuse data.

You basically just said that you want criminals to have more effective weapons than law-abiding citizens. Assault weapons are most effective for self protection. Besides, government background checks are worthless. The Orlando shooter was investigated twice, and no doubt got a background check during his purchase.

Eventually, criminals and terrorists will be using biological and nuclear weapons. Do you want citizens to also have biological and nuclear weapons?

Explosives are not for self defense. There's no parallel here. Guns are for killing multiple attackers, or shooting a single attacker multiple times, explosives are for a wide range.

Criminals also have automatic weapons. Should citizens also have automatic weapons?

Citizen do own full auto weapons
If you had to defend yourself against a full auto gun in a killers hands,what would you want?

 

[Lakhota]

You make it sound like someone is trying to disarm citizens. That's not the case. Responsible gun owners simply want responsible gun laws: universal background checks, ban on assault-style weapons, a limit on clip/magazine capacities - along with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, being fed accurate and current information including mental health and domestic abuse data.

You basically just said that you want criminals to have more effective weapons than law-abiding citizens. Assault weapons are most effective for self protection. Besides, government background checks are worthless. The Orlando shooter was investigated twice, and no doubt got a background check during his purchase.

Eventually, criminals and terrorists will be using biological and nuclear weapons. Do you want citizens to also have biological and nuclear weapons?

Explosives are not for self defense. There's no parallel here. Guns are for killing multiple attackers, or shooting a single attacker multiple times, explosives are for a wide range.

Criminals also have automatic weapons. Should citizens also have automatic weapons?

Citizen do own full auto weapons
If you had to defend yourself against a full auto gun in a killers hands,what would you want?

Yeah, I'm aware you can legally buy automatic weapons - but there are many restrictions and controls in place.

 

[Lakhota]

You make it sound like someone is trying to disarm citizens. That's not the case.

You might as well stop repeating this lie. Nobody with better than a room-temperature IQ believes it, any more, and you just make yourself look very stupid by repeating it, as if you're fooling anyone. The Democrats have done a very, very poor job of hiding their true intentions regarding this matter.

I was raised on a farm. Been hunting and shooting since I was about 6 years old. I'm now 69 and remain an avid gun owner and hunter. I own many guns and I cherish them all. There are many others like me who disagree with the NRA mentality. Most responsible gun owners want responsible gun laws. I am just as opposed to the so-called "gun grabbers" as I am to the rigid NRA mentality. I was a proud NRA member for many years - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.

How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Which is more important? Big oil or trying to prevent more massacres?

Did the Chicago and DC ban on guns prevent more massacres?

Indeed.

How gullible and ignorant does anyone have to be, any more, to believe that the effect of any gun control law, or the intention behind any gun control law, is to “prevent more massacres”. It's not about massacres; it's not about public safety. It's about corrupt public servants, seeking to become our masters.

Gun control measures like the wee tiny ones being proposed currently will not prevent massacres, that's true. It is about public safety, however. I do not like to see so many Americans bamboozled into believing that our government is our enemy. Who sits in congress? They live in our neighborhoods, our state, and we send them to Washington to do our bidding. They are not sinister, friend, and they are not allowed to become our masters.

Gun control measures like the wee tiny ones being proposed currently will not prevent massacres, that's true. It is about public safety, however.

The total ban on private gun ownership in the city of Chicago didn't improve public safety.
Why would the wee tiny one?

 

[jknowgood]

Which is more important? Big oil or trying to prevent more massacres?

WASHINGTON — Advocates praised a group of House Democrats for staging a sit-in to demand a vote on gun control Thursday. Some representatives gave moving accounts of how they nearly died because of gun violence. Yet House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) dismissed their desperate attempt to prevent more deaths from gun violence as a “publicity stunt.”

Several news articles have pointed out that Republicans staged their own sit-in in 2008. But there’s a key difference between the 2016 sit-in and the 2008 edition: Republicans were demanding a vote on offshore oil drilling. Democrats are protesting what they see as a lack of action in the wake of the Orlando nightclub shootings, which left 49 people dead.

The 2008 sit-in came as gas prices hit historic highs and a long-standing congressional moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf was about to expire. Republicans were turning up the pressure to open up new areas to drilling. Former Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) declared he was “not leaving until we call this Congress back into session and vote for energy independence.” Others compared the sit-in to the Boston Tea Party. They concluded their protest by singing “God Bless America.”

In some of ways, the two sit-ins are similar. The party in power cut the lights and microphones and adjourned. They dismissed it as political theater. Both protests are timed just months before a contentious presidential election. Each sought to capitalize on public sentiment.

More: Republicans Sat In For Oil. Democrats Are Sitting In For Gun Control.

I suspect many Republicans have conveniently forgotten about the oil sit-in in 2008.

I would give you a little credit if you didn't support the open boarder which is letting more of the people that will do more killing.

Oh, so now you're talking about "borders"...? Who said I support open borders?

Your an Obama puppet that's why.

Really? Then why is Obama patrolling the border?

Lol, is that what you call boarder patrol picking up illegals and driving them all over the united states?

 

[Lakhota]

Which is more important? Big oil or trying to prevent more massacres?

WASHINGTON — Advocates praised a group of House Democrats for staging a sit-in to demand a vote on gun control Thursday. Some representatives gave moving accounts of how they nearly died because of gun violence. Yet House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) dismissed their desperate attempt to prevent more deaths from gun violence as a “publicity stunt.”

Several news articles have pointed out that Republicans staged their own sit-in in 2008. But there’s a key difference between the 2016 sit-in and the 2008 edition: Republicans were demanding a vote on offshore oil drilling. Democrats are protesting what they see as a lack of action in the wake of the Orlando nightclub shootings, which left 49 people dead.

The 2008 sit-in came as gas prices hit historic highs and a long-standing congressional moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf was about to expire. Republicans were turning up the pressure to open up new areas to drilling. Former Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) declared he was “not leaving until we call this Congress back into session and vote for energy independence.” Others compared the sit-in to the Boston Tea Party. They concluded their protest by singing “God Bless America.”

In some of ways, the two sit-ins are similar. The party in power cut the lights and microphones and adjourned. They dismissed it as political theater. Both protests are timed just months before a contentious presidential election. Each sought to capitalize on public sentiment.

More: Republicans Sat In For Oil. Democrats Are Sitting In For Gun Control.

I suspect many Republicans have conveniently forgotten about the oil sit-in in 2008.

I would give you a little credit if you didn't support the open boarder which is letting more of the people that will do more killing.

Oh, so now you're talking about "borders"...? Who said I support open borders?

Your an Obama puppet that's why.

Really? Then why is Obama patrolling the border?

Lol, is that what you call boarder patrol picking up illegals and driving them all over the united states?

Who does that?

 

[jknowgood]

I would give you a little credit if you didn't support the open boarder which is letting more of the people that will do more killing.

Oh, so now you're talking about "borders"...? Who said I support open borders?

Your an Obama puppet that's why.

Really? Then why is Obama patrolling the border?

Lol, is that what you call boarder patrol picking up illegals and driving them all over the united states?

Who does that?

Tell me again what did the supreme court stop Obama from doing last week?

 

[chikenwing]

You make it sound like someone is trying to disarm citizens. That's not the case.

You might as well stop repeating this lie. Nobody with better than a room-temperature IQ believes it, any more, and you just make yourself look very stupid by repeating it, as if you're fooling anyone. The Democrats have done a very, very poor job of hiding their true intentions regarding this matter.

I was raised on a farm. Been hunting and shooting since I was about 6 years old. I'm now 69 and remain an avid gun owner and hunter. I own many guns and I cherish them all. There are many others like me who disagree with the NRA mentality. Most responsible gun owners want responsible gun laws. I am just as opposed to the so-called "gun grabbers" as I am to the rigid NRA mentality. I was a proud NRA member for many years - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.

How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby

Your post history suggests something very different.