Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[M14 Shooter]

The first problem is so many American's love guns.

Sorry that you don't enjoy freedom.

That love affair keeps money flowing into the NRA...

... because people who hate guns keep trying to impose that hatred on others by continually laying needles and mindless restriction on the right sf the law abiding.
That is, the NRA is powerful because you make it necessary,.

 

[regent]

That some American men seem to have some kind of love affair or need for guns is becoming clearer, the next question is why, not the defense or Constitution thing but why, really why. Is it the manhood rite of passage or fear or just what creates this seemingly love for a piece of metal that can kill people.
I guess the first time I experienced this love affair was entering basic training. We newbies entered the barracks and told to pick our bunks, but so many of the new recruits instead ran to the rifle racks on the wall and began examining the locked rifles. Bunk location or locked rifle which seemed more important? I still remember the looks on those touching the rifles, curiosity or adoration I couldn't figure.

 

[regent]

That some American men seem to have some kind of love affair or need for guns is becoming clearer, the next question is why, not the defense or Constitution thing but why, really why. Is it the manhood rite of passage or fear or just what creates this seemingly love for a piece of metal that can kill people.
I guess the first time I experienced this love affair was entering basic training. We newbies entered the barracks and told to pick our bunks, but so many of the new recruits instead ran to the rifle racks on the wall and began examining the locked rifles. Bunk location or locked rifle which seemed more important? I still remember the looks on those touching the rifles, curiosity or adoration I couldn't figure.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The first problem is so many American's love guns. That love affair keeps money flowing into the NRA and that lobby aids the manufacturers of guns to fight any gun laws. Until the gun manufacturers are forced to share some responsibility for their products as do auto, drug and other manufacturers, we will not change. It all begins with the American gun-love affair.

So you have a problem with Americans loving guns. Got it.

You also have a problem with Americans freely donating their own money to the NRA....much like Pro-abortionists keep funding Planned Parenthood, that believes in the right to abort / murder a baby at any stage of an abortion, dissect it, and sell the parts of for cash and Lamborghinis...So in essence you oppose anyone giving money to organizations you disapprove of. Got it.

You have a problem with CONSERVATIVE lobbyists but are ok with Liberal Lobbyists, such as those for Planned Parent hood that kick back MILLIONS to politicians to keep ensuring they can kill/dissect/sell baby parts at any point during pregnancy while receiving tax payer dollars to do so. Got it.

Perhaps if you recognized the fact that a MASSIVE number more of babies are murdered by an organization that dissects and sells the parts from dead babies - an organization that is PROTECTED by Liberals - than there are Americans killed by guns in this country each year. Abortions kill far more human beings...but Liberals circled the wagons to ensure those murders continue while blaming an organization like the NRA for gun deaths in the US.


BOTTOM LINE:
The NRA did not kill the people in Oregon.
Not one gun killed anyone in Oregon on its own.
Not one existing law could prevent the attack in Oregon.
Not one future law that could be passed could prevent such an attack.
Despite these facts, Liberals / Obama demonize the NRA and want to pass new anti-gun laws (which they KNOW will do nothing).

I just don't understand why the gun-love affairs. Have any studies been done on this or is it all a mystery?

What they should really study are the gun haters.

I'm not much into NASCAR, so when I see it on television, I simply turn it off. I don't call people who enjoy racing race car lovers or anything like that.

If I go to a bar and it ends up being a sports or Karaoke bar, I don't question why people like such places, I simply go to another quieter bar.

If my neighbor buys a bright canary yellow car, I don't care why he bought the car, I don't have to drive the ugly thing.

It's too bad more of the country don't think like we conservatives. If somebody else gets enjoyment out of something you don't, why should you care?

 

[Baron]

The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

Liberals arm criminals but disarm law-abiding people.They do it because all criminals always vote for liberals.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

Liberals arm criminals but disarm law-abiding people.They do it because all criminals always vote for liberals.

It's a little deeper than that in my opinion.

Each party would love to expand their base. One of the largest and strongest bases Democrats have are victims. Democrats love victims and victims love Democrats.

So for Democrats to expand their base, they need more victims besides the ones they already have. You know, victims of big oil, victims of corporations, victims of Big Pharma, war on women and so on.

If Democrats were ever able to disarm law abiding Americans, we become victims to the armed criminals.

How do victims combat something larger than them? Big Government.

If we ever ran out of victims in this country, the Democrat party would only be mentioned in history books, and Democrats know that. Democrats don't care about guns that much, they care about people being able to defend themselves and not needing government to do it for them.

 

[Baron]

Democrats don't car about guns that much, they care about people being able to defend themselves and not needing government to do it for them.

We do not need a Big Government with Dems and RINOs.The Tea Party with the Holy Bible and lot of conservative churches are enough.A back to the Traditional Values will make America great again.Hopefully Donald knows it and will flush all leftists inventions down the toilet.

 

[regent]

Well we may not care much for the reasons why people buy certain objects but manufacturers may be very interested. I would think some companies some spend money on discovering why people buy automobiles, shaving lotion, and guns, Be interesting to know what Colt has discovered about the attraction of guns. If it was the macho thing, I don't think they would tell us but you can bet their advertisements would reflect the attraction. What is the attraction of guns? Is it fear, rite of passage, or even to have more strength than others?

 

[regent]

Well we may not care much for the reasons why people buy certain objects but manufacturers may be very interested. I would think some companies some spend money on discovering why people buy automobiles, shaving lotion, and guns, Be interesting to know what Colt has discovered about the attraction of guns. If it was the macho thing, I don't think they would tell us but you can bet their advertisements would reflect the attraction. What is the attraction of guns? Is it fear, rite of passage, or even to have more strength than others?

 

[danielpalos]

The first problem is so many American's love guns. That love affair keeps money flowing into the NRA and that lobby aids the manufacturers of guns to fight any gun laws. Until the gun manufacturers are forced to share some responsibility for their products as do auto, drug and other manufacturers, we will not change. It all begins with the American gun-love affair.

So you have a problem with Americans loving guns. Got it.

You also have a problem with Americans freely donating their own money to the NRA....much like Pro-abortionists keep funding Planned Parenthood, that believes in the right to abort / murder a baby at any stage of an abortion, dissect it, and sell the parts of for cash and Lamborghinis...So in essence you oppose anyone giving money to organizations you disapprove of. Got it.

You have a problem with CONSERVATIVE lobbyists but are ok with Liberal Lobbyists, such as those for Planned Parent hood that kick back MILLIONS to politicians to keep ensuring they can kill/dissect/sell baby parts at any point during pregnancy while receiving tax payer dollars to do so. Got it.

Perhaps if you recognized the fact that a MASSIVE number more of babies are murdered by an organization that dissects and sells the parts from dead babies - an organization that is PROTECTED by Liberals - than there are Americans killed by guns in this country each year. Abortions kill far more human beings...but Liberals circled the wagons to ensure those murders continue while blaming an organization like the NRA for gun deaths in the US.


BOTTOM LINE:
The NRA did not kill the people in Oregon.
Not one gun killed anyone in Oregon on its own.
Not one existing law could prevent the attack in Oregon.
Not one future law that could be passed could prevent such an attack.
Despite these facts, Liberals / Obama demonize the NRA and want to pass new anti-gun laws (which they KNOW will do nothing).

I just don't understand why the gun-love affairs. Have any studies been done on this or is it all a mystery?

What they should really study are the gun haters.

I'm not much into NASCAR, so when I see it on television, I simply turn it off. I don't call people who enjoy racing race car lovers or anything like that.

If I go to a bar and it ends up being a sports or Karaoke bar, I don't question why people like such places, I simply go to another quieter bar.

If my neighbor buys a bright canary yellow car, I don't care why he bought the car, I don't have to drive the ugly thing.

It's too bad more of the country don't think like we conservatives. If somebody else gets enjoyment out of something you don't, why should you care?

In a nutshell, here is the problem: gun lovers are simply too unwilling to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.

“Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her. - ”G.K. Chesterton

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well we may not care much for the reasons why people buy certain objects but manufacturers may be very interested. I would think some companies some spend money on discovering why people buy automobiles, shaving lotion, and guns, Be interesting to know what Colt has discovered about the attraction of guns. If it was the macho thing, I don't think they would tell us but you can bet their advertisements would reflect the attraction. What is the attraction of guns? Is it fear, rite of passage, or even to have more strength than others?

Maybe the idea that we can freely protect ourselves and others.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I wasn't talking about protection. The invasion of Iraq wasn't about protection. It was about oil.

What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?

Why did we go there if it was not about oil?

What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?

I've told you this before, and you keep coming up with the same nonsense. It was ABOUT oil, it wasn't what oil the US got.

 

[kaz]

thanks for focusing on drugs. how about robbery? should it not be outlawed because criminals don't listen to the law?

Robbery is already outlawed. Are people frisked, searched, or arrested BEFORE they commit a crime, just in case and in order to prevent robberies in the future? No... You don't stop crime by targeting law-abiding citizens. Doing so does nothing to stop crime. It is a great example of how more gun control legislation - targeting law-abiding citizens before a crime occurs - will NOT stop shootings like in Oregon.

the point dear, is that the argument that requiring better gun laws won't work because "bad guys" won't listen to them is idiotic.

What's idiotic is that you think that is what is being argued. The point is that you are taking guns from honest citizens in your vain attempt to keep guns from criminals. Stop doing that

 

[kaz]

The first problem is so many American's love guns. That love affair keeps money flowing into the NRA and that lobby aids the manufacturers of guns to fight any gun laws. Until the gun manufacturers are forced to share some responsibility for their products as do auto, drug and other manufacturers, we will not change. It all begins with the American gun-love affair.

So our choices are we have a "love affair" with guns or we'll let you disarm us and leave us as undefended prey to criminals. Hmm. Your choices are you're an idiot or ... sorry, that's all I've got

 

[kaz]

The first problem is so many American's love guns. That love affair keeps money flowing into the NRA and that lobby aids the manufacturers of guns to fight any gun laws. Until the gun manufacturers are forced to share some responsibility for their products as do auto, drug and other manufacturers, we will not change. It all begins with the American gun-love affair.

So you have a problem with Americans loving guns. Got it.

You also have a problem with Americans freely donating their own money to the NRA....much like Pro-abortionists keep funding Planned Parenthood, that believes in the right to abort / murder a baby at any stage of an abortion, dissect it, and sell the parts of for cash and Lamborghinis...So in essence you oppose anyone giving money to organizations you disapprove of. Got it.

You have a problem with CONSERVATIVE lobbyists but are ok with Liberal Lobbyists, such as those for Planned Parent hood that kick back MILLIONS to politicians to keep ensuring they can kill/dissect/sell baby parts at any point during pregnancy while receiving tax payer dollars to do so. Got it.

Perhaps if you recognized the fact that a MASSIVE number more of babies are murdered by an organization that dissects and sells the parts from dead babies - an organization that is PROTECTED by Liberals - than there are Americans killed by guns in this country each year. Abortions kill far more human beings...but Liberals circled the wagons to ensure those murders continue while blaming an organization like the NRA for gun deaths in the US.


BOTTOM LINE:
The NRA did not kill the people in Oregon.
Not one gun killed anyone in Oregon on its own.
Not one existing law could prevent the attack in Oregon.
Not one future law that could be passed could prevent such an attack.
Despite these facts, Liberals / Obama demonize the NRA and want to pass new anti-gun laws (which they KNOW will do nothing).

I just don't understand why the gun-love affairs. Have any studies been done on this or is it all a mystery?

that's because you're stupid, there isn't a love affair any more than carpenters have love affairs with power saws. do you have a point on the OP post or you just going to keep masturbating?

 

[kaz]

That some American men seem to have some kind of love affair or need for guns is becoming clearer, the next question is why, not the defense or Constitution thing but why, really why. Is it the manhood rite of passage or fear or just what creates this seemingly love for a piece of metal that can kill people.
I guess the first time I experienced this love affair was entering basic training. We newbies entered the barracks and told to pick our bunks, but so many of the new recruits instead ran to the rifle racks on the wall and began examining the locked rifles. Bunk location or locked rifle which seemed more important? I still remember the looks on those touching the rifles, curiosity or adoration I couldn't figure.

If you only think of killing people when you think of guns then that's just you being a sick ****. You should be prohibited from buying a gun

 

[kaz]

Well we may not care much for the reasons why people buy certain objects but manufacturers may be very interested. I would think some companies some spend money on discovering why people buy automobiles, shaving lotion, and guns, Be interesting to know what Colt has discovered about the attraction of guns. If it was the macho thing, I don't think they would tell us but you can bet their advertisements would reflect the attraction. What is the attraction of guns? Is it fear, rite of passage, or even to have more strength than others?

Obviously in your case, they would focus their marketing on phallic symbols since you're obsessed with them. As for the rest of us, it's sporting (skeet, ...), hunting and defense. For me it's also a collection, I have historical weapons passed down for generations.To confuse defense with attacking and harming people is sick. You are mentally unbalanced that you do that. Are you seeking professional help? I hope so for the safety of those around you

 

[kaz]

I wasn't talking about protection. The invasion of Iraq wasn't about protection. It was about oil.

What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?

Why did we go there if it was not about oil?

What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?

I've told you this before, and you keep coming up with the same nonsense. It was ABOUT oil, it wasn't what oil the US got.

So we went over there for oil, but that we didn't take any isn't relevant to that?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I wasn't talking about protection. The invasion of Iraq wasn't about protection. It was about oil.

What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?

Why did we go there if it was not about oil?

What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?

I've told you this before, and you keep coming up with the same nonsense. It was ABOUT oil, it wasn't what oil the US got.

So we went over there for oil, but that we didn't take any isn't relevant to that?

No, again, it's ABOUT oil, not they went there for oil. See the difference?

Like I told you before. It was about making sure OPEC couldn't make a strong cartel.

Look at OPEC in 2000.
Hugo Chavez was trying to bring them together to control production of all OPEC countries strictly so they could control oil prices. This clearly goes against US interests. Oil is an important part of the economy.

Now, the US doesn't need to import oil from Iraq. It just needs oil prices to be lower worldwide. If Iraq increases production, the US can buy from Venezuela, Canada, Russia, whoever, for cheaper.

There were four OPEC countries (out of 12) who seriously opposed the US in 2000.

Venezuela, Iraq, Iran and Libya.

In 2002 the US helped a coup d'etat against Hugo Chavez. It failed.
In 2003 the US invaded Iraq.
In 2005 the US started a process of tougher sanctions against Iran, Bush froze assets in Iran. December 2006 sanctions were passed in the UN and the US barred an Iranian bank from dealing with the US.

2010 the US impossed even tougher sanctions against Iran.
Then in 2011 the US, under heavy pressure from John McCain, bombed Libya.
There have also been tough sanctions against Venezuela recently.

Compare this to no sanctions against the Saudis, no bombing, no invasions, nothing. Why? Oh, they're friends and the US won't do anything.

More action has been taken against the four OPEC countries since 2001 than against any other country.
Afghanistan was for other reasons, but helped in the "War on OPEC" because they're Muslim and the biggest players (except Venezuela) in OPEC are Muslim countries. So it was helping to prepare the way to taking out such countries.

 

[kaz]

What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?

Why did we go there if it was not about oil?

What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?

I've told you this before, and you keep coming up with the same nonsense. It was ABOUT oil, it wasn't what oil the US got.

So we went over there for oil, but that we didn't take any isn't relevant to that?

No, again, it's ABOUT oil, not they went there for oil. See the difference?

Like I told you before. It was about making sure OPEC couldn't make a strong cartel.

Look at OPEC in 2000.
Hugo Chavez was trying to bring them together to control production of all OPEC countries strictly so they could control oil prices. This clearly goes against US interests. Oil is an important part of the economy.

Now, the US doesn't need to import oil from Iraq. It just needs oil prices to be lower worldwide. If Iraq increases production, the US can buy from Venezuela, Canada, Russia, whoever, for cheaper.

There were four OPEC countries (out of 12) who seriously opposed the US in 2000.

Venezuela, Iraq, Iran and Libya.

In 2002 the US helped a coup d'etat against Hugo Chavez. It failed.
In 2003 the US invaded Iraq.
In 2005 the US started a process of tougher sanctions against Iran, Bush froze assets in Iran. December 2006 sanctions were passed in the UN and the US barred an Iranian bank from dealing with the US.

2010 the US impossed even tougher sanctions against Iran.
Then in 2011 the US, under heavy pressure from John McCain, bombed Libya.
There have also been tough sanctions against Venezuela recently.

Compare this to no sanctions against the Saudis, no bombing, no invasions, nothing. Why? Oh, they're friends and the US won't do anything.

More action has been taken against the four OPEC countries since 2001 than against any other country.
Afghanistan was for other reasons, but helped in the "War on OPEC" because they're Muslim and the biggest players (except Venezuela) in OPEC are Muslim countries. So it was helping to prepare the way to taking out such countries.

Oil is indirectly the cause of the invasion. We are in the middle east because of oil. That makes us the target of terrorists and their supporters like Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. But the proximate cause of the invasion was to provide stability and fight terror. The idea that W, McCain and Obama are working together for oil is ridiculous and Iraq as I already pointed out wasn't worth actually invading for one of those votes. OPEC is an ever decreasing powerful organization controlling a smaller and smaller percentage of the world's oil and they have thus an ever diminishing ability to control oil prices. Spending hundreds of billions for that isn't a payback