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

[Ray From Cleveland]

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!

Its obvious you didn't know what I meant. That is somebody has to make the charge of unconstitutionality before a law is judged unconstitutional.

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

How do they suffer the consequences when they take that gun, commit mass murder, then turn that gun on themselves?

I can already tell that you're not really a "thinker".

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

There were good guys with guns in Oregon. They said they didn't engage because they were worried the cops would mistake them for the shooter.

Is that not a valid concern?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

There were good guys with guns in Oregon. They said they didn't engage because they were worried the cops would mistake them for the shooter.

Is that not a valid concern?

You must have read something I didn't see yet, because according to what I read, there was ONE person there with a gun but he was in a different building than the shooter. He started to head towards that building but was stopped by a school official who instructed him not to get involved.

However, think of the lives that could have been saved if that one person was in the classroom where the shooter conducted his murder spree. I doubt we would have the casualty and deaths they had when the shooter finished.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

How do they suffer the consequences when they take that gun, commit mass murder, then turn that gun on themselves?

I can already tell that you're not really a "thinker".

I'm not a thinker? It was you that didn't specify mass murderers alone.

I was considering all people who are getting guns illegally. With suicidal maniacs, there is no deterrent from them getting a gun.

 

[idb]

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.

How do they suffer the consequences when they take that gun, commit mass murder, then turn that gun on themselves?

I can already tell that you're not really a "thinker".

I'm not a thinker? It was you that didn't specify mass murderers alone.

I was considering all people who are getting guns illegally. With suicidal maniacs, there is no deterrent from them getting a gun.

So, you're saying if access to guns was more difficult then there would be less shootings?
Interesting theory.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

I was considering all people who are getting guns illegally. With suicidal maniacs, there is no deterrent from them getting a gun.

There's the deterrent to selling them a gun, by making the seller liable if he doesn't do a background check on the maniac.

 

[rdean]

So, your arguments are;
1; No law will stop all criminals from being criminals so there's no point in having a law.
2; It's really hard so there's no point in trying.

No, my point is if we are going to create a new law, why punish those who are law biding citizens? 2) Why create a law that would not solve the problem you are looking to solve?

You want to create new laws that might do some good? Great. Build more prisons and have a law that anybody caught with a firearm that's not supposed to have one is an automatic 10 years in prison plus whatever years they may add on if they committed a crime with that gun.

Talking about policies that don't work...increasing the prison population would be exhibit A.

How many of Chicago's distinguished citizens housed at Menard Correctional Center shot someone in a drive by last week?

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.

You sure about that? Got some evidence?
And you are saying gun laws are good?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, my point is if we are going to create a new law, why punish those who are law biding citizens? 2) Why create a law that would not solve the problem you are looking to solve?

You want to create new laws that might do some good? Great. Build more prisons and have a law that anybody caught with a firearm that's not supposed to have one is an automatic 10 years in prison plus whatever years they may add on if they committed a crime with that gun.

Talking about policies that don't work...increasing the prison population would be exhibit A.

How many of Chicago's distinguished citizens housed at Menard Correctional Center shot someone in a drive by last week?

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.

You sure about that? Got some evidence?
And you are saying gun laws are good?

If you need me to Google it for you, I'll do that when I have more time. But yes, Chicago courts let gun toters out of jail with little time spent if any.

Our gun laws are good, but as I stated earlier, I would make one law for people that purchase guns simply for the purpose of giving that gun to somebody not permitted to possess a firearm. This can be detected by how long the buyer owns that gun until the time it is used in a commission of a crime.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

[

I was considering all people who are getting guns illegally. With suicidal maniacs, there is no deterrent from them getting a gun.

There's the deterrent to selling them a gun, by making the seller liable if he doesn't do a background check on the maniac.

So if I'm selling my gun outright, how do I do a background check on the person wanting to buy my gun? And if we could possibly do that, what's stopping somebody from coming over to buy my gun, and he bats me over the head because he realizes I have to (by law) run some kind of check on him before selling that gun?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

How do they suffer the consequences when they take that gun, commit mass murder, then turn that gun on themselves?

I can already tell that you're not really a "thinker".

I'm not a thinker? It was you that didn't specify mass murderers alone.

I was considering all people who are getting guns illegally. With suicidal maniacs, there is no deterrent from them getting a gun.

So, you're saying if access to guns was more difficult then there would be less shootings?
Interesting theory.

I don't know where I said that, but if it makes you happy...........

 

[JQPublic1]

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.

We are pretty much in agreement across the board here. I would add that the legal decision to bar a person from buying a gun must necessarily also include a legal decision to bar them from owning a gun. There are probably a lot of nut cases already armed to the teeth. If they are barred from buying a gun, tomorrow, so what? They already bought them years ago. Will those guns have to be confiscated even though the person has never used his/her guns in a violent manner or even been violent themselves in any way? As you can see, this whole national gun control issue would be problematic in all sorts of ways. It is just best to leave it alone and let the states deal with it on their own.

 

[JQPublic1]

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!

Its obvious you didn't know what I meant. That is somebody has to make the charge of unconstitutionality before a law is judged unconstitutional.

Then I take it you haven't heard about the lawsuit and resultant court ruling that the methods used by NYPD in their Stop and Frisk frenzy were unconstitutional. The stops were arbitrary and capricious, being statistically discriminatory towards Blacks and Hispanics.


The ruling came after a decade in which the number of police stops in the city ballooned. In 2011, almost 700,000 New Yorkers were stopped by police, a 600 percent increase from 2002. Almost 90 percent of the people stopped that year were completely innocent of a criminal offense, and 87 percent of those stopped were black or Latino.

NYPD Can't Just Stop And Frisk People For The Hell Of It Anymore, Says Memo

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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!

Its obvious you didn't know what I meant. That is somebody has to make the charge of unconstitutionality before a law is judged unconstitutional.

Then I take it you haven't heard about the lawsuit and resultant court ruling that the methods used by NYPD in their Stop and Frisk frenzy were unconstitutional. The stops were arbitrary and capricious, being statistically discriminatory towards Blacks and Hispanics.


The ruling came after a decade in which the number of police stops in the city ballooned. In 2011, almost 700,000 New Yorkers were stopped by police, a 600 percent increase from 2002. Almost 90 percent of the people stopped that year were completely innocent of a criminal offense, and 87 percent of those stopped were black or Latino.

NYPD Can't Just Stop And Frisk People For The Hell Of It Anymore, Says Memo

And now gun and violent crime have increased--particularly in the black community.

 

[Mertex]

The retarded may not obey laws, but if there is a law not to sell them guns.....they can't buy any legally. They will have to exercise a lot more effort to get them, which at least makes it harder for them to get them and longer. And some may not be able to at all. Allowing them to buy them is downright inhumane, but you don't care do you?

Thugs have no problems getting guns whether they're legal or not.

Yep. you are proof of that?

What a pig.

Roseburg doesn't want him there, asked him to stay away, has been quite public about it.

So of course he's got to come and harass us on our own turf.

This isn't going to end well.


Obama Not Welcome In Roseburg, Says Local Newspaper Publisher


"President Obama will travel to Roseburg, Ore. on Friday to meet with the families of victims of the mass shooting at a community college there last week, White House officials said."

Obama to visit Roseburg Friday

How many threads would we get if he didn't go?

Of course he has to go, it's our 57th state.

But he still has a Law degree and obviously earned it... Did you ever edit the Harvard Law review? SOme say he was president of the Law review, I don't know for sure but some people are saying that> Heh heh heh~!

Yeah, and don't forget he won the Nobel Peace prize. He earned that too. What a piece of fluff!

FFS! Affirmative action gone awry.

'
You're just jealous because Doofus George couldn't write himself out of a paper bag......nor talk his way out of one. And it seems like none of the 20 clowns trying to win the Republican candidacy are any better.

 

[Mertex]

Dispense with projections. No one is saying Obama is a supreme being. He is the US president, though, and as long as he holds that office he is due the respect that comes with it.
You and many others aren't going to respect the US president and many of you seem to love Putin the communist more than your own duly elected Christian leader.

ANTI-GUN? Obama has not said anything to make anyone believe he is ant-gun. He is for stricter control over who can buy guns legally. I do disagree with him on that point because guns are still going to be made and sold illegally to people who know how to circmvent the law. Obama is not trying to abrogate the 2nd amendment and take guns away...not even from nut jobs who already own them. They just won't be able to add to their already impressive arsenals if Obama get's his way. Responsible citizens will still be able to buy unlimited quantities but not those who don't pass the background checks. The latter mental cases will just be stuck with the ten or so weapons they already have.

First off is that respect is not given--respect is earned, and DumBama has not earned any respect simply because he became President.

Secondly you say that Obama is not anti-gun. In his address to the nation on this school shooting, he pointed to two of our allies (Australia and Great Britain) and doted on their success with firearms in their countries. Okay, so what was the key to their supposed success? They confiscated guns from all of their citizens.

I don't know who Dumbama is so I can't discuss anything concerning him.


I don't remember hearing Obama dote on the success of Great Britain or Australia in reference to firearms. Maybe I missed that part. However, neither did I not hear him make any statement that could even be construed to abrogate the 2nd Amendment. BTW, he couldn't do it anyway, he doesn't have the power. He merely suggested that voters use their power to select people/politicians who will reform gun control laws to keep legally obtained guns out of the hands of mentally ill or violent people. Trouble is, it is too late for that; but , that does not equate to taking guns away from anybody. Obama's plan merely seems to hinge on background checks for all future gun purchases; both private AND retail!

Look dummy! Show me one law; any law, that the mentally ill and violent people will obey. How many damn laws does it take to say "Thou shalt now kill"?

The retarded may not obey laws, but if there is a law not to sell them guns.....they can't buy any legally. They will have to exercise a lot more effort to get them, which at least makes it harder for them to get them and longer. And some may not be able to at all. Allowing them to buy them is downright inhumane, but you don't care do you?

It's already against the law to sell a gun to an insane person, dolt.

How's THAT working out.

I guess their not enforcing it or retards like you wouldn't have guns.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What a pig.

Roseburg doesn't want him there, asked him to stay away, has been quite public about it.

So of course he's got to come and harass us on our own turf.

This isn't going to end well.


Obama Not Welcome In Roseburg, Says Local Newspaper Publisher


"President Obama will travel to Roseburg, Ore. on Friday to meet with the families of victims of the mass shooting at a community college there last week, White House officials said."

Obama to visit Roseburg Friday

You don't get to dictate what Obama does, and neither does that Republican rag of a newspaper. If the family members of the victims don't want to meet with him, they won't.

Excuse me? Last time I checked, MR. Obama was our employee. Furthermore, it's THEIR town, so that does convey some right for them to say, "Stay the **** out."

More to the point - one that liberals never seem to get - it's just incredibly arrogant and crass of him.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sad assed losers.

The grieving town Obama desperately needs to run out and comfort for a photo op, despite them not wanting him? Nice.

 

[Ernie S.]

First off is that respect is not given--respect is earned, and DumBama has not earned any respect simply because he became President.

Secondly you say that Obama is not anti-gun. In his address to the nation on this school shooting, he pointed to two of our allies (Australia and Great Britain) and doted on their success with firearms in their countries. Okay, so what was the key to their supposed success? They confiscated guns from all of their citizens.

I don't know who Dumbama is so I can't discuss anything concerning him.


I don't remember hearing Obama dote on the success of Great Britain or Australia in reference to firearms. Maybe I missed that part. However, neither did I not hear him make any statement that could even be construed to abrogate the 2nd Amendment. BTW, he couldn't do it anyway, he doesn't have the power. He merely suggested that voters use their power to select people/politicians who will reform gun control laws to keep legally obtained guns out of the hands of mentally ill or violent people. Trouble is, it is too late for that; but , that does not equate to taking guns away from anybody. Obama's plan merely seems to hinge on background checks for all future gun purchases; both private AND retail!

Look dummy! Show me one law; any law, that the mentally ill and violent people will obey. How many damn laws does it take to say "Thou shalt now kill"?

The retarded may not obey laws, but if there is a law not to sell them guns.....they can't buy any legally. They will have to exercise a lot more effort to get them, which at least makes it harder for them to get them and longer. And some may not be able to at all. Allowing them to buy them is downright inhumane, but you don't care do you?

It's already against the law to sell a gun to an insane person, dolt.

How's THAT working out.

I guess their not enforcing it or retards like you wouldn't have guns.

I've had 4 background checks in the last year, dolt.

 

[koshergrl]

Crazy ppl need to be locked up and stay locked up. That would cut the anti gun chatter here by about 99 percent. The only people who want to deny good people the choice to defend themselves are people who want to do harm.