Barak Obama's stance on the Second Amendment and his voting record on Guns (1 Viewer)

Previous Next
Status
Not open for further replies.
Semper said:
If someone wants to kill someone they will find a way to do it. If that guy at VT didnt have a gun, maybe he would have made a bomb, or driven a car through a window.
Click to expand...

I'm sure he would have tried to find another way...but again, we'll never know if he could have been stopped simply by being ineligible to buy a gun. Sometimes in these situations, from what I've read, the killer has a very intricate plan in place, and there's a power in watching the steps unfold as they imagined. But put a significant interruption in those plans, such as "no, you're not allowed to buy this gun", and instead of trying to find another way, they just stop, at least for the moment, until/if they form another plan. And in this time, they just might put up enough additional red flags for someone to notice and get him the help he needs. Again, saying that the criminals will find a way to get a gun, or that an unstable person like the VT killer would have found another method is probably true, but IMO shouldn't be an excuse for not trying to eliminate at least that 2-3% that might be stopped by more thorough background checks, waiting periods, etc. My child might be in that 2-3% that is stopped....and that's enough for me.
 
TulsaSaint said:
You know, I'm not a huge fan of guns, and I know my bringing up Brazil (where I travel all the time) as an example gets old, but I think the comparison is relevant here. Brazil has very strict gun control laws, but in Rio de Janeiro, for example, the murder rate (mostly by guns) is 239 per 100,000, a rate far higher than even New Orleans. Armed gangs of drug traffickers control most of the slums, and the police won't even go in. The terrified (and probably somewhat paranoid) upper classes spend billions of dollars on security guards, home security systems, high walls with electric and razor-wire fences around their homes. ATM machines don't work after 10:00 p.m. because assailants used to hold motorists up at gunpoint late at night and make them go from ATM to ATM making withdrawals. You don't have to stop at traffic lights after midnight because of the risk of carjackings. And most of this violence appears to be gun-related. So I'm not sure the gun control laws are really working. It could be that like most laws in Brazil, they just aren't enforced; I don't know. But criminals who want guns seem to have no trouble getting them, no matter how strict the laws are.
Click to expand...

Well the US is a little more rigidly controlled. I'm sure (well, I'm guessing, and you can correct me on this) the blackmarket and therefore smuggling is much more prevalent in Brazil then in the US.

So, by simple virtue of outlawing guns, preventing their manufacture in the US, and trying to prevent their import, you could make a serious dent in the availability of guns. Criminals would still ultimately be able to get them the same way they get drugs, but after a time (as the guns currently in circulation start to fall out of circulation) it would be harder and significantly more expensive to acquire a gun.

So from a strictly "crime prevention" aspect, yes, outlawing all guns would probably help.

That said, there is a ethical, philosophical, and constitutional issue involved that's higher then simply "are we safer if we do this?"

Interestingly enough the same point could be made for things like expanded wire taps (i.e. trading a freedom for secruity), which kind of exposes the terrible hypocrisy of both parties (that both would be willing to trade one freedom for secruity but strongly opposes trading another).
 
gun control in the sense that we shouldnt be able to buy assault rifles, but not for hunting rifles and pistols...

oh and obama is the ONLY candidate to provide an extensive plan to build NOLA. obama is also the only candidate to not take one red cent from a lobbyist or PAC.
 
Shawn said:
Of these three, which is the most fun to blow the brains out of?
Click to expand...
Well Quail are pretty easy to hit where I hunt down in south Texas. Woodcock are more challenging and fun because you have to hunt in dence follage and heavy briars. Its challeging for my Setters as well but when they take off you have to be ready with a improved cylinder shotgun because they will dissappear in the trees quick and you need the widest shot pattern available. They taste good too.
 
just make it harder to buy guns. i am going to pay the 500 dollar fee to have automatic weapons and get a clearance from the FBI background check. make it to where you need a license to own and go through a weapons handling class. omg i just created jobs. so what case solved.
 
yeah, like i said, only one with an ACTUAL plan to fix NOLA and the only one that hasnt taken cash from the same folks that have bastageized our political process...

dont comment on that racist. stick to making mentally challenged comments...
 
Superfan said:
just make it harder to buy guns. i am going to pay the 500 dollar fee to have automatic weapons and get a clearance from the FBI background check. make it to where you need a license to own and go through a weapons handling class. omg i just created jobs. so what case solved.
Click to expand...

if you wanna shoot automatic weapons, join the damn military and get off your couch...
nah, dont bother, guys like me have taken up your slack...
no damn reason to own auto weapons.
 
primadox said:
I'm sure he would have tried to find another way...but again, we'll never know if he could have been stopped simply by being ineligible to buy a gun. Sometimes in these situations, from what I've read, the killer has a very intricate plan in place, and there's a power in watching the steps unfold as they imagined. But put a significant interruption in those plans, such as "no, you're not allowed to buy this gun", and instead of trying to find another way, they just stop, at least for the moment, until/if they form another plan. And in this time, they just might put up enough additional red flags for someone to notice and get him the help he needs. Again, saying that the criminals will find a way to get a gun, or that an unstable person like the VT killer would have found another method is probably true, but IMO shouldn't be an excuse for not trying to eliminate at least that 2-3% that might be stopped by more thorough background checks, waiting periods, etc. My child might be in that 2-3% that is stopped....and that's enough for me.
Click to expand...

For the sake of conversation, and, im not saying I feel this way myself, but, there are quite a few people who feel that Students should be allowed to carry concealed on campus. This is something I am seriously riding the fence on. One has to be careful. Even i a student carried on campus and could prevent the VT, or NIU shootings for that matter, theres no garentee. This topic can be a huge can of worms, but there is a degree of logic in this line of thinking.

Ideally, as you say, it might be nice to be able to tell a person, who could be on the brink of taking 10 or 20 lives that he wont have access to a gun in order to do it, maybe giving him/her more time to think on it, and a chance they could change their minds.

On the other hand, should there be restrictions placed on people with past mental issues, and some would say, even light ones. it could pose interesting situations. For example, Ohio's Concealed carry permits cant be given to anyone who has any kind of a criminal record. that makes sense, but this includes things that happen prior to age 18, and it also includes expunged records.

So, what happens if rules and/or laws are put on the books to work in this way.Now, lets say you have a 26 year old woman who is being maliciously stalked by a wackjob, perhaps and ex bf or husband, who wants to purchase a handgun and learn self defense techniques. However, she has a small history of teenage mental issues. She could be put into a position where she wont be allowed to buy a firearm.

I am aware of the arguments on this, she could use pepper spray, a tazer, etc. I am only bringing this up for conversation, because ome of this goes into a fine line.
 
i lost my legs in iraq and am a linguist for the govt arabic and Chinese now. i just like to shoot.
 
arabic huh???
when and where did you learn arabic and who were you with???
 
LSSpam said:
Well the US is a little more rigidly controlled. I'm sure (well, I'm guessing, and you can correct me on this) the blackmarket and therefore smuggling is much more prevalent in Brazil then in the US.

So, by simple virtue of outlawing guns, preventing their manufacture in the US, and trying to prevent their import, you could make a serious dent in the availability of guns. Criminals would still ultimately be able to get them the same way they get drugs, but after a time (as the guns currently in circulation start to fall out of circulation) it would be harder and significantly more expensive to acquire a gun.

So from a strictly "crime prevention" aspect, yes, outlawing all guns would probably help.

That said, there is a ethical, philosophical, and constitutional issue involved that's higher then simply "are we safer if we do this?"

Interestingly enough the same point could be made for things like expanded wire taps (i.e. trading a freedom for secruity), which kind of exposes the terrible hypocrisy of both parties (that both would be willing to trade one freedom for secruity but strongly opposes trading another).
Click to expand...

Ive seen estimates of 280 million guns in the US, at least 25 years before a dent was actually felt if guns were banned. Im not sure how factually correct that is, and am willing to correct as needed. Anyway, along with the 2nd just existing, is this one of those "you cant unring a bell" things?
 
i am lying. i wanted you to think before you spoke. i do know some arabic. i like to shoot. i like the element of sharp shooting and rapid fire shooting vs. the death element in war. i thought about the marines but i wanted to use my degree in the civilian field. i didnt want to have to be called up over and over and the politics in washington is sad. good for you, you are in the military. i admire that fact and think it is a tremendous honor to wear a uniform of the united states of america. i still like to shoot. i hate to hunt. i just going to the range put up my osama bin laden picture 150 yards away and fire.
 
shoot all you want but you dont need to shoot a fully auto, and its blatantly obvious you were lying. its also obvious that you are, for the most part, full of ****. your posts are pretty piss poor...
 
i wrote that in response to this.

if you wanna shoot automatic weapons, join the damn military and get off your couch...
nah, dont bother, guys like me have taken up your slack...
no damn reason to own auto weapons.


assuming i am a couch potato and not military personnel. oh he takes up my slack by the way. you are too inflammatory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Previous Next

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

    Share this page

     

    Twitter

    Back
    Top Bottom