 |
Hello again, Steve:
It's true.. That's why we need comprehensive background checks. You don't want to leave it up to individual psychiatrists and cops do you??Quote:
Remember that Aurora shooter... Well if police would have listened to his psychiatrist it could have been prevented.
You DO? Dude!
Excon
If the cops won't follow up on a clear threat then how exactly do you suppose they're going to do with background checks?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:
It's got NOTHING to do with the cops. It has to do with gun shops. IF someone is in the database, when they apply to buy a gun, they'll get turned DOWN.Quote:
If the cops won't follow up on a clear threat then how exactly do you suppose they're going to do with background checks?
It's true that the database will have to be accurate, and that presents problems in and of itself. But, if we DID have that system, the Aurora shooter would NOT have been able to buy a gun..
Maybe one of the reasons you're not FOR background check is because you don't UNDERSTAND them. Otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned the COPS doing background checks.. That, or you're just throwing around some BS.
Excon
excon WANTS a database of who's got guns so big brother can start to take them off us... thats basically what he admits to in this post. And that's the ONLY reason they would even NEED a database...Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello smoothy:
Let me help you with your reading comprehension.. I said if you're IN the database, you can't buy a gun... Therefore, only the people who we DON'T want to buy guns, need to be IN the database.
Over to you, winger.
excon
Dude, I know how background checks work and they apparently did nothing to stop Holmes from buying weapons. Why would anyone who appears "normal" and has no record be stopped by a background check?
On the other hand police HAD the info they needed to stop him and they didn't bother to act on it, just as they are supposed to do when someone prohibited attempts to buy a gun.
Even Colorado's Democrat governor said if he hadn't had guns he would have found a way to create "horror."
Hickenlooper recognized the problem and in typical liberal fashion tried to solve it by addressing something else. It IS a "human problem" in great part due to liberal policies and ideology as I have argued before, not a gun problem. You can't tolerate stay at home moms, don't think kids need a mom and a dad, undermine parents in school, despise discipline, parade a bunch of Hollywood hypocrites who glorify violence and fill kid's minds with filth and sex and refuse to acknowledge the humanity of unborn (and sometimes born) babies - then you get pi$$ed about guns.Quote:
Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper suggested this morning on “This Week” that even if Aurora shooting suspect James Holmes did not have access to guns, he would have found a way to create “horror.”
“This wasn’t a Colorado problem. This is a human problem,” Hickenlooper said. “Even if he didn’t have access to guns, this guy was diabolical…he would have found explosives. He would have found something…he would have done something to create this horror.”
Dude!
Your fear of big brother has seriously compromised your common sense. This has never been about taking anything from YOU guys, or anyone else. Just clear process for public safety, not just for kids in school, but all of us.
Database is a database... you don't apply to by a gun if you don't plant to buy a gun... so everyone in that database OWNS a gun...Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Anyone that trusts the government would NOT do something both wrong and unconstitutional with that secret info... is either a fool or oblivious to past events. The only other option is they know and expect them to do just that.
Hello again, Steve:
If you want to throw up straw men, you don't have to.. There's PLENTY of murders that WON'T be stopped by a background check... But, that isn't the right argument... I'm talking about the FUTURE murders that WON'T be committed because we didn't let some bad guy buy guns.
Over to you, Dude.
excon
Hello again, smoothy:
Let me help you with computer knowledge.. IF we want a database to INCLUDE only the people we WANT in it, then that's the ONLY people IN it. If YOU'RE not in it, you can buy a gun. If you are, you can't.
Now, that's not to say that the government wouldn't CHEAT. But, we don't make laws with that assumption.
Over to you, winger.
excon
And you actually believe that's how the government operates? Give them an inch and they take a mile.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
There is a wide gap between theoretical and actual.
Hello again, smoothy:
Do I believe my government obeys the law? For the most part, yes. I don't think it's every man for himself.
excon
I don't oppose background checks, I think I've made that clear. I OPPOSE the overly intrusive bill that Schmucky is trying to get through. Even the ACLU has issues with it. Meanwhile I get no response from your side about addressing the human problem. This is the culture you wanted and created, what did you expect would happen when you made moms, dads, God and innocent life irrelevant, utopia?
If he (or she) ISN'T in a national database, no gun will be sold to that person.
Devil's advocate Neil Steinberg had a thought-provoking column in today's Chicago Sun-Times --
"Thus school shootings, particularly Newtown, set off this agonized national debate on doing something about guns — increasing background checks, banning assault rifles, whatever they might be — none of which address the core problem: loons getting guns and killing people. ... We’d do a lot better, rather than fixate on clip capacity, to address the holes in our national soul that make people seek out so many guns in the first place — the powerlessness, the fear, the anxiety."
Mass shootings not a big problem - Chicago Sun-Times
Hello again, Steve:
If we live in a center right country, how did it get so liberal? The judiciary is STOCKED with George W. Bush appointees, yet we're getting more liberal...
The days of God, Guns and Gays are over. Bummer for you.
excon
Nice deflection. It solves nothing but nice deflection.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I believe they follow the law only when its serves their interests... the problem is following the law hasn't been in this administrations best interests so they ignore it.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Just for fun --
There was a bit of confusion at the sporting goods store this morning.
When I was ready to pay for my purchases of gun powder and bullets the cashier said, "Strip down, facing me."
Making a mental note to complain to my congressman about the gun registry people running amok, I did just as she had instructed.
When the hysterical shrieking and alarms finally subsided, I found out that she was referring to my credit card.
I have been asked to shop elsewhere in the future.
Good one !Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Lmao!! :)
That was funny.
The CDC says 1 in 5 teen boys have been diagnosed with ADHD ,and that doctors medicate 2/3 of the diagnosed with Ritalin or similar drugs .Where once teen boys had their energy channeled into physical activities like playing football ,now they do less physically demanding activities like shoot them up video games ;and when they show their fueled up aggression ;take a pill.
Yep, the DSM is the tool of doctors and big pharma. Another shining example of corporatism taking over your society.
Better have a talk with those parents.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hello again,
If you believe the polls (and most Republicans DON'T), 90% of the people believe we should have a comprehensive background check.
Politically speaking, HOW can Republicans say no?
excon
That's because we are smart enough to know those polls are written for... paid for and designed for... the answer the people having them desire... which is pushing their communist anti-american agenda.
We already have background checks.
Hello again, smoothy:
I'll mark you down as a disbeliever in polls.
excon
Hello again, righty's
At least smoothy understood my question..
I'm NOT asking about the BILL. I'm asking about how the Republicans think they'll survive with 90% of the people against them?
excon
I understood the question and it isn't as cut and dried as you make it, 48 percent also believe background checks could lead to government confiscation of legally-owned guns. I'm also betting that if they knew what else Schmucky's bill would they would oppose it. Regardless, our second amendment rights are not determined by polls.
I don't disbelieve polls... I an skeptical of those from unknown and unrespected sources.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Reliability with polls is purely based on proper design... they have to be designed from the start to be impartial.. many aren't.
What are the poll #s on a national gun registry ? Don't think you can have one without the other .
90% of the poplation isn't against us... thats what a biased poll designed to be pro-communist said... that poll was faulty in its very design.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Meaning I flushed a wad of toilet paper this morning that was more useful than that poll was.
Hello again, Steve:
So, you think this is a WINNER for Republicans.. I'll mark that down.
excon
Hello again, tom and smoothy:
I'll mark you guys down as thinking this is a winner for the GOP, too.
Actually, because NONE of you addressed my question, I'll bet you all KNOW it's you guys shooting yourselves in the foot once again...
Gerrymandered districts or NOT, you guys will be handed your walking papers in 2014.
excon
Sorry buddy, your psychological warfare doesn't work on me. I'm not one iota concerned about fallout from not ramming through Schmucky's bill. It's a bad bill and it needs to go down.
Dream on... most Democrats I know are disgusted by what the democrat party is doing... and will be voting Republican next election. Of course there are some that are dumb as rocks and aren't smart enough to see how bad Owebama and his band of useful idtiots have screwed everything up that think Owebama is making things better... despite a total lack of evidence to back that up.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Take a vote and end the drama. What's so hard about that?
What was so hard about the Senate putting out a budget every year?
Lets have a vote outlawing leftist "media" pushing propaganda instead of facts. And leftist speech.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Those are no more protected rights than our right to own guns are after all.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:57 AM. |