Ask Me Help Desk - Gun control past debates

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Explaining away actions by capitalists only enforces the capitalists nature of the NRA and the true nature of their endeavors. Make money.

Unlike Planned Parenthood which makes its millions off the taxpayers.

Quote:

Planned Parenthood reports record year for abortions
January 7, 2013 | 3:59 pm

In its latest annual report for fiscal year 2011 to 2012, Planned Parenthood reveals that it performed 333,964 abortions in 2011 – a record year for the organization.

According to annual reports, the organization performed 332,278 abortions in 2009, 329,445 in 2010, making the total number of abortions in three years to 995,687.

Planned Parenthood reported receiving a record $542 million in taxpayer funding, according to a Susan B. Anthony List analysis of the report, in the form of government grants, contracts, and Medicaid reimbursements. The amount is 45 percent of Planned Parenthood’s annual revenue.

“While government subsidies to Planned Parenthood have reached an all time high, so too has the number of lives ended by this profit-driven abortion business,” SBA List’s President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement. “Destroying nearly one million children in three years is not health care and does not reflect a concern for vulnerable women and girls.”

Contraceptive services at Planned Parenthood have dropped by 12 percent since 2009, and cancer screening & prevention services have dropped by 29 percent.

Funny how you libs want to take away our constitutional right to have a gun because some wacko kills someone, but defend far more legal murders on the taxpayer dollar in the name of "health care."

Quote:

Funny how you libs want to take away our constitutional right to have a gun

Can you offer up some proof that liberals want to repeal the 2nd amendment?

I said nothing about repeal, they'll do it through regulations.

Quote:

Funny how you libs want to take away our constitutional right to have a gun because some wacko kills someone,

Wrong the debate is which guns you have a right too!

Quote:

but defend far more legal murders on the taxpayer dollar in the name of "health care."

Wrong! Abortions are legal, so its not murder, you believe it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Wrong the debate is which guns you have a right too!

Until they tax ammo so high it makes them irrelevant (except for those of us who know how to load our own). I'm sure these docs proposals to tax the hell out of guns and ammo and intrude on our lives isn't the only ideas floating out there.

Quote:

Harvard doctors call for massive federal tax ‘on all firearms and ammunition’

A trio of public health doctors from Harvard University argued Monday that the federal government should institute “a new, substantial national tax on all firearms and ammunition” to pay for programs that “reduce gun violence.”

They wrote that the practice of periodic government safety inspections of automobiles should be expanded to include firearms, “including documentation of home storage and safety measures.” And they compared the enforcement of speed limits on roadways to now-common proposals to restrict the sale and possession of high-capacity magazines that can hold dozens of rounds of ammunition.

Drs. Dariush Mozaffarian, David Hemenway and David Ludwig wrote that public health crusades against cigarette smoking, accidental poisonings and unsafe driving should be the new models for responding to gun violence like the Dec. 14 school shooting in Newtown, Conn.

Read more: Harvard public health docs call for new federal tax on guns, ammunition to 'reduce gun violence' | The Daily Caller

The nannies won't stop, you'd be a fool to think they won't go after our guns and control our lives any way they can.

Quote:

Wrong! Abortions are legal, so its not murder, you believe it is.

I said it was legal. Doesn't make it any less a murder in my book.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I said nothing about repeal, they'll do it through regulations.

Or executive fiat .Biden said today he prepared 19 EOs

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

This week here in China a man took a large knife ( sorta looked like a short sword) and stabbed 20 children here.

They don't need guns to kill and cause violence. A crazy person will use the weapon they can get.

Pour gas and set them on fire and so on.

You are very right. No firearm law should be strict.

Where the right screws up is assuming every gun owner is a lawful responsible citizen. Trust but verify.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Where the right screws up is assuming every gun owner is a lawful responsible citizen. ...

As opposed to making claims with no basis in reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Where the right screws up is assuming every gun owner is a lawful responsible citizen. Trust but verify.

The problem is playing the blame game. Some gun owners are not responsible citizens, their political hue is not in question although the right does seem to have a higher population of looneys than the left. The issue isn't whether citizens should be allowed to possess firearms, the question is what firearms they are permitted to possess...

Should they possess heavy weapons? This question isn't even on the table yet is just a pertinent. Should they possess military weapons? should they possess semi-automatic weapons? Do they have the right to stockpile ammunition?

Too often legally-owned guns end up in the hands of minors who play with them and maybe shoot themselves or someone else accidentally, of a family member bent on suicide, or of a family member seeking revenge during a fight. Most of the guns legally owned are never used for hunting or to thwart a home invader. My husband owns more guns than I wish to know abfout. Two were found by our sons when they were young, once when we were changing the beds (the gun was between the mattress and box spring) and once when putting away clothes (the gun was in my husband's sock drawer).

Gun ownership also has to be responsible. Mention that to Adam Lanza's mother.

Lots of dead people IS reality. And don't holler about YOUR rights without acknowledging a better idea. What would you propose to help those dead people, and the ones who will surely die?

The issue really is no one needs more than one gun for self protection or for joining a duly appointed militia. Every provision of the constitution or a Law passed by the Congress cannot be properly implemented without regulation to instruct the various arms of government how to implement the provisions. The 2nd amendment does not constitute a right to open a gun shop or to traffic in arms yet there are mores arms dealers than supermarkets

Hello again,

May I just say, that the right wing doesn't catch the prevailing winds TODAY any more than they did in 2012.

There WILL be gun control. There SHOULD be gun control. We're Going to take the word MASS out of mass shootings, whether YOU like it or not.

Exon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

May I just say, that the right wing doesn't catch the prevailing winds TODAY any more than they did in 2012.

There WILL be gun control. There SHOULD be gun control. We're GONNA take the word MASS out of mass shootings, whether YOU like it or not.

exon

I agree with you Ex, the existing situation is a recipe for disaster, in fact it is anarchy

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

May I just say, that the right wing doesn't catch the prevailing winds TODAY any more than they did in 2012.

There WILL be gun control. There SHOULD be gun control. We're GONNA take the word MASS out of mass shootings, whether YOU like it or not.

exon

Nice to see libs still don't give a sh*t about our concerns, just ram some more crap through. One of these days they'll go to far for even you.

In response to Obama's latest imperial decree (surrounded by children naturally), I give you Marco Rubio:

Quote:

“I think it’s completely misplaced. Because here’s the issue in this public policy debate that’s different from others: There is a constitutional right to bear arms,” Rubio said. “I did not create that and he cannot erase that. It is in the Constitution. If they want to change the Constitution, if they want to believe the Second Amendment should not be in there or if they believe it should be rewritten in the 21st century then let them have the guts to stand up and propose that.”

Waiting for Dems to give an honest response...

No one is taking away anyone's guns.

Who were the children?

If everyone had single shot muskets I don't think there would be an issue.

Good point karma but you cannot reverse history

Quote:

No one is taking away anyone's guns.

Not yet, but this debate is bizzaire, you are exporting your debate to other places, Mexico watches, hoping there will be greater control in the US, Australia has reinitiated the gun control debate in a nation where gun related deaths are low because there are increasing imports of guns. What is really needed is the business as usual for the arms manufacturers needs to be curbed. It is good pension funds are withdrawing financial support from investment in arms manufacture, if you hurt them in the hip pocket, sanity might return

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

No one is taking away anyone's guns.

Who were the children?

Ones that wrote letters and some from the school where the shooting happened. It is a true shame our president hides behind children.

Obviously you don't read your own constitution, or have knowledge of the court cases that have already been decided by SCOTUS. I gave you these links before but obviously a review is needed.

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Quote:

Originally Posted by califdadof3

Ones that wrote letters and some from the school where the shooting happened. It is a true shame our president hides behind children.

Is that really your opinion "hiding behind children"? Rather he is protecting children because children are for some pecular reason the victims of these gun rampages in a number of cases, meanwhile the parents rant and rave about rights rather than protecting children

Looks to like he is in front of the children he wants to protect. I guess that infringes on your rights too?

Yes you can't stand between a gunnut and his victim, you must wait until he kills someone, then lament the horror

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

Is that really your opinion "hiding behind children"? rather he is protecting children because children are for some pecular reason the victims of these gun rampages in a number of cases, meanwhile the parents rant and rave about rights rather than protecting children

Yes it is my opinion that he is hiding behind the children. That is all part of his MO. They didn't need to be there at the news conference. He put them there as props. That is very sad to me to try to use children in such a manner.

That's my take too. The Obots use kids as props

Indoctrinated Lib-Kids Shriek About How Horrible The World Will Be If We Don't Reelect Obama - YouTube

Quote:

Originally Posted by califdadof3

Yes it is my opinion that he is hiding behind the children. That is all part of his MO. They didnt need to be there at the news conference. He put them there as props. That is very sad to me to try to use children in such a manner.

Any excuse not to get the message, he is not hiding behind children but reinforcing the message effectively, and obviously it hit home because I can hear the bleating from here

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

any excuse not to get the message, he is not hiding behind children but reinforcing the message effectively, and obviously it hit home because I can hear the bleating from here

Are we talking about the same man that endorses infantacide? He is using the children for pawns in his game. It is not about reinforcing anything. Nothing really changed with what happened today except the erosion of yet more rights and his taking back parts of what he and his cronies already had put into law. He repealed sections of his own law with the stroke of a pen.

Endorses infantacide?? Oh boy!!

Someone is really peed off over there about loss of an inappropriate weapon. Let's face this, this is not about gun rights, this is about pride and ego. The "my gun is bigger than your gun" lobby is in full flight, retreating into their eighteenth century nirvana. I can hear the "you'll never take our freedom" shout from here. When you see the bare buttocks on the hill side, shoot

As Obama pointed out 900 people have died in a month from gun violence, do these people care, obviously not, it didn't happen to them, yet...

The issue has become large because it is out of control, laws flauted, innocents massacred, common sense no where in sight

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Looks to like he is in front of the children he wants to protect. I guess that infringes on your rights too?

Bullsh*t. Obama doesn't give a crap about you or the children. Stop being so naïve Tal.

Michael Ramirez Political Cartoons 01/16/2013 - Investors.com

http://www.investors.com/image/RAMFN...BD-COL.jpg.cms

Speech refer above, your pride and ego is showing

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

Someone is really peed off over there about loss of an inappropriate weapon. Let's face this, this is not about gun rights, this is about pride and ego. The "my gun is bigger than your gun" lobby is in full flight, retreating into their eighteenth century nirvana. I can hear the "you'll never take our freedom" shout from here. When you see the bare buttocks on the hill side, shoot

As Obama pointed out 900 people have died in a month from gun violence, do these people care, obviously not, it didn't happen to them, yet...................

The issue has become large because it is out of control, laws flauted, innocents massacred, common sense no where in sight

Sure he pointed it out. It is part of the grand plan. But lets look at real numbers.

According to 2011 statistics in the last 30 days:

1,441,666 people died from cardio vascular diseases of some form

383,333 people died from diabetes

133,055 people died from cancer

3,123 people died from drug overdoses

2,692 people died from traffic accidents

852 people died in drunk driving incidents

So really, the liberals could care LESS about the U.S. public. If they did they would be banning hearts, sugar, cancer, drugs (oh wait, they ARE banned), cars and alcohol. Pfft, 900 gun deaths make up less than .001% of the total deaths from just these 6 categories. And they wonder why we question "gun legislation" and their claim they are saving innocent lives.

Source:
900 people died in the last 30 days from guns says Obama

Tom all you have demonstrated is the debate needs to widen to ban more weapons. If a ban doesn't work then perhaps financial penalties would work. Let's see, if we valued a human life at a million dollars then each year those who killed using a gun would owe 10 billion dollars, if you did the same for those killed by automobile, at fault drivers would owe 30 billion dollars

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Bullsh*t. Obama doesn't give a crap about you or the children. Stop being so naive Tal.

Obviously you don't care either because you rather holler about your own rights and beliefs, and do nothing about the killing of the born babies.

Make them have a baby, and let a nut kill them. That's crazy!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by califdadof3

Sure he pointed it out. It is part of the grand plan. But lets look at real numbers.

According to 2011 statistics in the last 30 days:

1,441,666 people died from cardio vascular diseases of some form

383,333 people died from diabetes

133,055 people died from cancer

3,123 people died from drug overdoses

2,692 people died from traffic accidents

852 people died in drunk driving incidents

So really, the liberals could care LESS about the U.S. public. If they did they would be banning hearts, sugar, cancer, drugs (oh wait, they ARE banned), cars and alcohol. Pfft, 900 gun deaths make up less than .001% of the total deaths from just these 6 categories. And they wonder why we question "gun legislation" and their claim they are saving innocent lives.

source:
900 people died in the last 30 days from guns says Obama

Not true Obamacare addresses some of these issues but there is such a thing as personal responsibility, something that is as much out the window in the gun debate and it is in the health debate

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

Not true Obamacare addresses some of these issues but there is such a thing as personal responsibility, something that is as much out the window in the gun debate and it is in the health debate

Personal responsibility is at the forefront of the debate. And obamacare doesn't do anything for most of that list.

But here is some more informal reading if you would like from the other side of the pond.

Guns save lives « Abundant Truth

Hello again,

I don't know how SOME people can't get that a shooter with a HUGE magazine can kill a lot more people than a shooter with a small magazine..

Instead, they'll show me a picture of a hammer and say, LOOKIE HERE.

excon