Oregon said Obama stay away..so guess who's coming to Roseburg?

[LoneLaugher]

You have a right to defend yourself. You've only had a right to be armed with a gun for hat purpose since 2008......according to a 5-4 Supreme Court decision. If you honestly admit that.....and stop with the lie about what he founders wanted.....we can begin to have a discussion about what steps to take moving forward.

 

[NYcarbineer]

By the way, Ray, your avatar tells me all I need to know about you and your character. You are definately part of the problem.

Yep, people that cherish the ability to protect themselves are a huge problem in this country.

So felons and the insane deserve an equal right to 'protect' themselves, with guns?

What does that have to do with anything I said?

It has to do with your opinion on gun rights. Answer the question.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

By the way, Ray, your avatar tells me all I need to know about you and your character. You are definately part of the problem.

Yep, people that cherish the ability to protect themselves are a huge problem in this country.

So felons and the insane deserve an equal right to 'protect' themselves, with guns?

What does that have to do with anything I said?

It has to do with your opinion on gun rights. Answer the question.

I don't think that felons or mentally challenged people should have access to guns and neither did the Supreme Court. They ruled that yes, there can be restrictions in certain cases.

Our argument is not that these people should have firearms, our argument is that there is nothing you can really do to prevent it. Making it harder on law abiding citizens to obtain or keep firearms is not a solution. Plus the fact it's all political and not for the benefit of all.

Democrats want to put up as many hurdles as possible for all gun owners. If you don't believe me, look at what it takes to own or carry a firearm in a non-gun friendly state compared to a friendly gun state.

 

[NYcarbineer]

By the way, Ray, your avatar tells me all I need to know about you and your character. You are definately part of the problem.

Yep, people that cherish the ability to protect themselves are a huge problem in this country.

So felons and the insane deserve an equal right to 'protect' themselves, with guns?

What does that have to do with anything I said?

It has to do with your opinion on gun rights. Answer the question.

I don't think that felons or mentally challenged people should have access to guns and neither did the Supreme Court. They ruled that yes, there can be restrictions in certain cases.

Our argument is not that these people should have firearms, our argument is that there is nothing you can really do to prevent it. Making it harder on law abiding citizens to obtain or keep firearms is not a solution. Plus the fact it's all political and not for the benefit of all.

Democrats want to put up as many hurdles as possible for all gun owners. If you don't believe me, look at what it takes to own or carry a firearm in a non-gun friendly state compared to a friendly gun state.

Why allow individuals to legally sell guns to felons and crazy people then?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yep, people that cherish the ability to protect themselves are a huge problem in this country.

So felons and the insane deserve an equal right to 'protect' themselves, with guns?

What does that have to do with anything I said?

It has to do with your opinion on gun rights. Answer the question.

I don't think that felons or mentally challenged people should have access to guns and neither did the Supreme Court. They ruled that yes, there can be restrictions in certain cases.

Our argument is not that these people should have firearms, our argument is that there is nothing you can really do to prevent it. Making it harder on law abiding citizens to obtain or keep firearms is not a solution. Plus the fact it's all political and not for the benefit of all.

Democrats want to put up as many hurdles as possible for all gun owners. If you don't believe me, look at what it takes to own or carry a firearm in a non-gun friendly state compared to a friendly gun state.

Why allow individuals to legally sell guns to felons and crazy people then?

How is one to determine who is crazy or not? Why should it be up to a private seller to restrict who they sell a gun to unless they are a licensed dealer? The restrictions are already on the buyer. If the buyer doesn't adhere to those restrictions, they are breaking the law.

 

[Camp]

So felons and the insane deserve an equal right to 'protect' themselves, with guns?

What does that have to do with anything I said?

It has to do with your opinion on gun rights. Answer the question.

I don't think that felons or mentally challenged people should have access to guns and neither did the Supreme Court. They ruled that yes, there can be restrictions in certain cases.

Our argument is not that these people should have firearms, our argument is that there is nothing you can really do to prevent it. Making it harder on law abiding citizens to obtain or keep firearms is not a solution. Plus the fact it's all political and not for the benefit of all.

Democrats want to put up as many hurdles as possible for all gun owners. If you don't believe me, look at what it takes to own or carry a firearm in a non-gun friendly state compared to a friendly gun state.

Why allow individuals to legally sell guns to felons and crazy people then?

How is one to determine who is crazy or not? Why should it be up to a private seller to restrict who they sell a gun to unless they are a licensed dealer? The restrictions are already on the buyer. If the buyer doesn't adhere to those restrictions, they are breaking the law.

I have put guns in gun shops with licensed gun dealers and sold guns on consignment. That insures all my guns are sold with background checks. Cost me a few dollars for the dealers commission, but I find it worth the expense. Maybe having all people selling their guns could be asked to do this.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So felons and the insane deserve an equal right to 'protect' themselves, with guns?

What does that have to do with anything I said?

It has to do with your opinion on gun rights. Answer the question.

I don't think that felons or mentally challenged people should have access to guns and neither did the Supreme Court. They ruled that yes, there can be restrictions in certain cases.

Our argument is not that these people should have firearms, our argument is that there is nothing you can really do to prevent it. Making it harder on law abiding citizens to obtain or keep firearms is not a solution. Plus the fact it's all political and not for the benefit of all.

Democrats want to put up as many hurdles as possible for all gun owners. If you don't believe me, look at what it takes to own or carry a firearm in a non-gun friendly state compared to a friendly gun state.

Why allow individuals to legally sell guns to felons and crazy people then?

How is one to determine who is crazy or not? Why should it be up to a private seller to restrict who they sell a gun to unless they are a licensed dealer? The restrictions are already on the buyer. If the buyer doesn't adhere to those restrictions, they are breaking the law.

lol, first you concede you believe that the mentally challenged should not have guns, now you're claiming we can't determine who those people are.

Why should it be up to a private seller to restrict who they sell a gun to unless they are a licensed dealer?

Because we've determined that certain categories of people should not be able to buy guns.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What does that have to do with anything I said?

It has to do with your opinion on gun rights. Answer the question.

I don't think that felons or mentally challenged people should have access to guns and neither did the Supreme Court. They ruled that yes, there can be restrictions in certain cases.

Our argument is not that these people should have firearms, our argument is that there is nothing you can really do to prevent it. Making it harder on law abiding citizens to obtain or keep firearms is not a solution. Plus the fact it's all political and not for the benefit of all.

Democrats want to put up as many hurdles as possible for all gun owners. If you don't believe me, look at what it takes to own or carry a firearm in a non-gun friendly state compared to a friendly gun state.

Why allow individuals to legally sell guns to felons and crazy people then?

How is one to determine who is crazy or not? Why should it be up to a private seller to restrict who they sell a gun to unless they are a licensed dealer? The restrictions are already on the buyer. If the buyer doesn't adhere to those restrictions, they are breaking the law.

lol, first you concede you believe that the mentally challenged should not have guns, now you're claiming we can't determine who those people are.

Why should it be up to a private seller to restrict who they sell a gun to unless they are a licensed dealer?

Because we've determined that certain categories of people should not be able to buy guns.

Correct which is why we have laws against them buying guns.

 

[pcquantum]

You have a right to defend yourself. You've only had a right to be armed with a gun for hat purpose since 2008......according to a 5-4 Supreme Court decision. If you honestly admit that.....and stop with the lie about what he founders wanted.....we can begin to have a discussion about what steps to take moving forward.

Hey let's all get our guns and go meet Obama. That will show him!!

 

[LoneLaugher]

You have a right to defend yourself. You've only had a right to be armed with a gun for hat purpose since 2008......according to a 5-4 Supreme Court decision. If you honestly admit that.....and stop with the lie about what he founders wanted.....we can begin to have a discussion about what steps to take moving forward.

Hey let's all get our guns and go meet Obama. That will show him!!

An outstanding first post. You've managed to ride the line between intelligent thinking person with a note of sarcasm and a crazed nutjob with ODS.

Well done. I look forward to when ou fall off that line.

 

[Synthaholic]

By the way, Ray, your avatar tells me all I need to know about you and your character. You are definately part of the problem.

Yep, people that cherish the ability to protect themselves are a huge problem in this country.

Who is your gun protecting you from on an internet web forum, wingnut?

 

[Synthaholic]

It has to do with your opinion on gun rights. Answer the question.

I don't think that felons or mentally challenged people should have access to guns and neither did the Supreme Court. They ruled that yes, there can be restrictions in certain cases.

Our argument is not that these people should have firearms, our argument is that there is nothing you can really do to prevent it. Making it harder on law abiding citizens to obtain or keep firearms is not a solution. Plus the fact it's all political and not for the benefit of all.

Democrats want to put up as many hurdles as possible for all gun owners. If you don't believe me, look at what it takes to own or carry a firearm in a non-gun friendly state compared to a friendly gun state.

Why allow individuals to legally sell guns to felons and crazy people then?

How is one to determine who is crazy or not? Why should it be up to a private seller to restrict who they sell a gun to unless they are a licensed dealer? The restrictions are already on the buyer. If the buyer doesn't adhere to those restrictions, they are breaking the law.

lol, first you concede you believe that the mentally challenged should not have guns, now you're claiming we can't determine who those people are.

Why should it be up to a private seller to restrict who they sell a gun to unless they are a licensed dealer?

Because we've determined that certain categories of people should not be able to buy guns.

Correct which is why we have laws against them buying guns.

Why do you believe that they will follow the law?

I thought the only people who obey gun laws are lawful people?

 

[Ernie S.]

Yep, people that cherish the ability to protect themselves are a huge problem in this country.

So felons and the insane deserve an equal right to 'protect' themselves, with guns?

What does that have to do with anything I said?

It has to do with your opinion on gun rights. Answer the question.

I don't think that felons or mentally challenged people should have access to guns and neither did the Supreme Court. They ruled that yes, there can be restrictions in certain cases.

Our argument is not that these people should have firearms, our argument is that there is nothing you can really do to prevent it. Making it harder on law abiding citizens to obtain or keep firearms is not a solution. Plus the fact it's all political and not for the benefit of all.

Democrats want to put up as many hurdles as possible for all gun owners. If you don't believe me, look at what it takes to own or carry a firearm in a non-gun friendly state compared to a friendly gun state.

Why allow individuals to legally sell guns to felons and crazy people then?

Now you're being willfully stupid. It has been explained sev3eral times that it is a felony to sell guns to a felon or an insane person.
Doing so could land you in jail for 10 years.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't think that felons or mentally challenged people should have access to guns and neither did the Supreme Court. They ruled that yes, there can be restrictions in certain cases.

Our argument is not that these people should have firearms, our argument is that there is nothing you can really do to prevent it. Making it harder on law abiding citizens to obtain or keep firearms is not a solution. Plus the fact it's all political and not for the benefit of all.

Democrats want to put up as many hurdles as possible for all gun owners. If you don't believe me, look at what it takes to own or carry a firearm in a non-gun friendly state compared to a friendly gun state.

Why allow individuals to legally sell guns to felons and crazy people then?

How is one to determine who is crazy or not? Why should it be up to a private seller to restrict who they sell a gun to unless they are a licensed dealer? The restrictions are already on the buyer. If the buyer doesn't adhere to those restrictions, they are breaking the law.

lol, first you concede you believe that the mentally challenged should not have guns, now you're claiming we can't determine who those people are.

Why should it be up to a private seller to restrict who they sell a gun to unless they are a licensed dealer?

Because we've determined that certain categories of people should not be able to buy guns.

Correct which is why we have laws against them buying guns.

Why do you believe that they will follow the law?

I thought the only people who obey gun laws are lawful people?

I don't know if they'll follow the law or not. If they don't, then they have to suffer the consequences, but that doesn't mean two people should suffer because only one didn't adhere to their gun restrictions.

 

[JQPublic1]

Wiat. Stop! Pull yourself together... If a stranger answers a newspaper add and buys a gun from the owner, there is NO background check...capice? SAME FOR A GUN SHOW... GUNS ARE SOLD TO STRANGERS WITH NO QUESTIONS ASKED.... re you always this stupid or are you having a senior moment?

Correct! No background check, but it is STILL a felony Why does it need to be a felony to sell a gun to a felon TWICE? Is a criminal then twice as likely to break or follow the law?
I doubt you have ever touched a gun, let alone sold one so I'll educate you. LEGAL gun owners take their responsibilities rather seriously. We tend to value our freedom and rights to the point where we make it our duty to know who we hand a gun to.
No one I have ever sold to was a criminal. Every one was known to me to be of good character.
Street thugs who sell guns out of the trunk of their cars are already criminals and prohibited from possessing weapons, much less selling them. They don't take anything seriously, especially their duty to their fellow man. They don't care who they sell to as long as the person ahas enough money so that they can get their next bag of heroin. Making private sales of guns by criminals to criminals is redundant and stupid, stupid.

Good character can be a subjective thing. Whenever guns change hands with no paper trail or documentation there is always the chance for ulterior things to occur. Your modus operandi
is admirable but why should the society at large trust you or anyone else to do the right thing just because YOU decide who is or is not a person of good character? I know, it doesn't really matter since guns are all over the place and even thugs have plenty of them.

But thugs do not generally go to churches or schools to commit mass murder. Further, the loser nerds who perpetrate those kind of killings are too afraid to go in to thug territory to buy their guns. Those type of killers usually go the legal route. typically they have no criminal record and appear to be just ordinary joes protected by the 2nd Amendment. Even YOu might have sold a gun to any of them.

It would be possible that someone with my sense of responsibility may have sold a weapon to someone like Adam Lanza's mother, but I believe she acquired her weapons by retail sales with background checks, records; the whole 9 yards.
Her son murdered her. Circumstances of that are unknown. Could it be that he killed his mother because she was trying to prevent the rampage her son was about to go on? Interesting twist, but it can never be more than a supposition.....
Other school shooters stole weapons from parents as well and yes, some purchased their weapons legally.
Those that purchased their weapons were subject to background checks. NONE, to my knowledge bought weapons from a private seller at a gun show. None acquired weapons that they wouldn't have obtained if all private sales were subject to background checks. Your proposals would have accomplished NOTHING but inconveniencing tens of thousands of sane, law abiding persons as they tried to purchase a legal product in a legal transaction between them and another person who had every right to legally sell a firearm.
SUGGEST SOMETHING THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY WORK.

What proposals did I make?

You tell me? I assume you want "to close the gun show loophole" like other idiotic Liberals. #1. There is no loophole and #2, requiring background checks for all private sales would be ineffective at anything but infringing the rights of law abiding citizens.

Propose something that would work.

You assume too much! CORN-servatives always pull the "liberal"card when someone disagrees with them.. or... in this case, when they ASSUME someone disagrees with them. Perhaps that is why the GOP can't find a Speaker of the House...they are too obsessed calling each other "liberals while seeing themselves as the staunch "conservative."

I am a proponent of the 2nd Amendment. I know the history of the recent shooters and how they got their weapons. Analyzing that knowledge I have already given my views on the issue of at least deterring mass shootings to some degree. Here is the link:

How to deter mass shootings: | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[JQPublic1]

It would be possible that someone with my sense of responsibility may have sold a weapon to someone like Adam Lanza's mother, but I believe she acquired her weapons by retail sales with background checks, records; the whole 9 yards.
Her son murdered her. Circumstances of that are unknown. Could it be that he killed his mother because she was trying to prevent the rampage her son was about to go on? Interesting twist, but it can never be more than a supposition.....
Other school shooters stole weapons from parents as well and yes, some purchased their weapons legally.
Those that purchased their weapons were subject to background checks. NONE, to my knowledge bought weapons from a private seller at a gun show. None acquired weapons that they wouldn't have obtained if all private sales were subject to background checks. Your proposals would have accomplished NOTHING but inconveniencing tens of thousands of sane, law abiding persons as they tried to purchase a legal product in a legal transaction between them and another person who had every right to legally sell a firearm.
SUGGEST SOMETHING THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY WORK.

How do you know how many killings have been prevented by background checks already?
You're saying that they don't work...how do you know?

I would guess..... none. Perhaps you have some data to prove me wrong?
The one recent mass shooter that could not have passed a background check acquired guns without one, didn't he?

My GOD man! A box of rocks has 70 IQ points on you.

This guy in Oregon got his guns from a family member. So did the Charleston shooter. So did the Sandy Hook shooter. Ft Hood? He was legal to purchase and own a gun. The Colorado movie shooter purchased all his guns legally.

For the life of me, I can't see where this registration thing would prevent any past or future mass shootings. These Democrat politicians put these ideas in the heads of their constituents and like robots, they ask no questions. Just follow orders and repeat what you've been told.

Unbelievable.

I agree with most of what you say but I don't buy the "democrats putting ideas in people's head" canard. The American people, regardless of party affiliation, are smarter than that. They can see through the bullshit of either party. That is how Obama became president despite the republican blitz by Limnbugh radio and Fox news.

OMG, it's like somebody wrote this for a show.

First you say that Democrat politicians are not brainwashing their followers with what to say and what to think, and then you finish with the typical Fox News and Limbaugh line.

You can't make this stuff up!

Politicians are good at what they do... Democrats and GOPers do try to convince us that their respective party is the one that is best for the nation and the common good. To keep what they tell us in perspective all we have is history and common sense on our side. Good citizens are neither republican OR democrat nor are they totally liberal or conservative on every issue.
If you are, then you are not a good citizen..you are a sheep that one party has finally subjugated into their bloc.

 

[JQPublic1]

You gotta admit. It's funny. Chicago has stringent gun laws. But Chicago is completely surrounded by Rednecks selling guns like popcorn.

So you got all these rednecks selling guns to thugs and then complaining that so many thugs illegally own guns so that proves the laws don't work? It's like them saying government doesn't work and the entire time making sure it doesn't work. What are Rednecks good for? What do the bring to the country?

I know, I know, I can't think of anything either.

The problem in liberal Chicago is not rednecks buying guns. The problem is that there is so much crime that judges are forced to slap people on the hands when they are caught illegally possessing a firearm. They simply go back out into the street, get another gun and they're ready for warfare.

Sounds like another anecdote with no real substance. Besides rednecks SELLING guns could be part of the problem.

Rednecks are not out in the streets of Chicago selling guns to brothers. Read up on Chicago sometime. There are plenty of stories out there about the overcrowded prisons that make it near impossible to lock up everybody with a gun.

If you're trying to solve a problem or come close to it, you have to look at what worked in the past. Stop and Frisk produced some amazing results in NYC. Now that it's gone, the tide is swinging the other way. So what's the problem? Liberals and liberalism.

It wasn't liberalism that put the skids on Stop and Frisk, it was the US Constitution!

So the US Constitution jumped out and made DeBlaahzio put a stop to it?

If you don't know what I meant you need to look it up... I won't waste my time on you!

 

[JQPublic1]

So felons and the insane deserve an equal right to 'protect' themselves, with guns?

What does that have to do with anything I said?

It has to do with your opinion on gun rights. Answer the question.

I don't think that felons or mentally challenged people should have access to guns and neither did the Supreme Court. They ruled that yes, there can be restrictions in certain cases.

Our argument is not that these people should have firearms, our argument is that there is nothing you can really do to prevent it. Making it harder on law abiding citizens to obtain or keep firearms is not a solution. Plus the fact it's all political and not for the benefit of all.

Democrats want to put up as many hurdles as possible for all gun owners. If you don't believe me, look at what it takes to own or carry a firearm in a non-gun friendly state compared to a friendly gun state.

Why allow individuals to legally sell guns to felons and crazy people then?

How is one to determine who is crazy or not? Why should it be up to a private seller to restrict who they sell a gun to unless they are a licensed dealer? The restrictions are already on the buyer. If the buyer doesn't adhere to those restrictions, they are breaking the law.

That is the crux of the entire issue. Not even background checks can uncover a person's undiagnosed mental condition nor can it predict subsequent future mental impairment . Should we forbid casual drinkers who sometimes get inebriated to own guns? There wont be a record of temporary mental impairment anywhere. It only take one time to get drunk and get your gun to settle a score or perceived disrespect. Frankly, guns just can't be controlled in this country. If you can't control 'em you had better be ready to confront them. See post #1235!

 

[Sally Vater]

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What does that have to do with anything I said?

It has to do with your opinion on gun rights. Answer the question.

I don't think that felons or mentally challenged people should have access to guns and neither did the Supreme Court. They ruled that yes, there can be restrictions in certain cases.

Our argument is not that these people should have firearms, our argument is that there is nothing you can really do to prevent it. Making it harder on law abiding citizens to obtain or keep firearms is not a solution. Plus the fact it's all political and not for the benefit of all.

Democrats want to put up as many hurdles as possible for all gun owners. If you don't believe me, look at what it takes to own or carry a firearm in a non-gun friendly state compared to a friendly gun state.

Why allow individuals to legally sell guns to felons and crazy people then?

How is one to determine who is crazy or not? Why should it be up to a private seller to restrict who they sell a gun to unless they are a licensed dealer? The restrictions are already on the buyer. If the buyer doesn't adhere to those restrictions, they are breaking the law.

That is the crux of the entire issue. Not even background checks can uncover a person's undiagnosed mental condition nor can it predict subsequent future mental impairment . Should we forbid casual drinkers who sometimes get inebriated to own guns? There wont be a record of temporary mental impairment anywhere. It only take one time to get drunk and get your gun to settle a score or perceived disrespect. Frankly, guns just can't be controlled in this country. If you can't control 'em you had better be ready to confront them. See post #1235!

Actually that's been our point all along: the only way to take out a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Perhaps with the exception of the movie theater shooting, armed people in all those other places might have minimized the casualties and death. The idea that people may be armed might have scared off the shooters completely.

Now if we start labeling people who we judge mentally incompetent to own a firearm, that would likely result in less people with psychological disorders seeking help just to stay off of that list. If we see somebody getting bombed at a bar, do we follow them home and report to authorities where they live so they too can join that list?

It's a tough situation. But one thing I can jump on the wagon with are locking up people that buy guns for other people not allowed by law to own a firearm. That's not to say if you are selling one of your guns, it's up to you to do a background check. But if a murder weapon is purchased by a legal person and that weapon is used in a few weeks or months time in a murder, that person should be held responsible because it's obvious why he or she purchased that weapon in the first place.