oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

I wonder if there is any chance that people of the controlling party could be thinking like that. When one fires a gun there is a rapid t***spiration of heat from the gun so maybe they will begin to do that attempt to get rid of guns. Surely they aren't that stupid, are they?

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/04/08/guns-responsible-for-global-wa

the patriot Loc: Kentucky

Yes they are that stupid. The American people are that stupid. I hear people talk about African American, Irish American,Mexican American and so on. My Question is Are you American or African, or Irish, or Mexican? Make up your mind. The same goes for political parties, are you democrat, republican,tea party, constitutional party, or are you AMERICAN first?I have to admit that I have been in tears thinking about how I fought for freedom for this country just to have a bunch of i***ts give them away. Why did I waste my time and put my life on the line for the likes of people that only care about self and will gladly give their right away for a phone. I wonder what they are going to do when they are no longer needed to support those that seek to destroy this nation and they sent to the camps and forced to work for the socialist government? Wake up America for we are falling.

Arizona_Don

I am aware most of the following is an opinion but it is also a legitimate concern and should be to all law abiding citizens.

Can any new gun control law prevent a massacre? That seems to be the question.

All the new gun control laws proposed are interesting. I think we have to look at the underlying reasoning that make them either reasonable or not.

If the objective of a new gun law is to “in the end” ban all guns ask yourself what would be the best way to go about that? Which is the best furtive way to get that done? Does anyone consider passing laws that don’t work a step in the right direction toward that end? In order to understand what is going on lets examine that.

Would it not be reasonable to expect any gun control whether existing or proposed should be rescinded if it has restricted or will further restrict the law abiding citizen while having absolutely no effect on the criminal. After all what is the intent of the law or what is its perceived goal? To restrict the law abiding citizen or to restrict the law breaker? What laws could be passed to only effect the law breaker? It is impossible to take the guns out of the hands of the crazies like the people who massacred citizens in Newtown, Connecticut— Minneapolis, Minnesota— Oak Creek, Wisconsin— Aurora, Colorado--- Seattle, Washington and all the others, and not (restrict) the law abiding citizens second amendment rights by only considering guns and gun laws. It should also be realized all the laws now on the books did not stop any of these (it is said there are currently between 9000 and 20,000, gun control laws on the books throughout the United States). Consequently shouldn’t there be a movement to rescind them now since it has been proven over and over they do not work. I don’t hear anyone voicing that opinion. If a law, any law, doesn’t do what it was passed (intended) to do, or is no longer enforced or possible to enforce it, why does it remain on the books. Appeasement? Laziness, ignorance? Why?

If the objective is to solve the massacre problem then lets get rid of the “controls” that haven’t worked. Like “gun free zones.” Every massacre that has occurred recently with the exception of only the Tucson shooting was done in a gun free zone. In the case of the Tucson shooting it was an armed citizen who actually stopped the shooter (although not with a gun but he was armed). Why isn’t that pointed out? It should be obvious to everyone by now gun free zones don’t work at all. They in fact have the opposite effect, they encourage massacres and may have actually contributed to some.

It is already illegal to murder people with the punishment of up to and including the death penalty. Therefore, how can anyone think passing another law with lesser punishment, regarding guns, to stop the murderer will ever work? Further consideration of the real problem should also allow those congressmen who can still think to realize criminals will not give up their weapons, they’re already breaking the law having them, will another law make them give them up? I do not understand why we cannot get that through the thick heads of those, mostly liberal progressives, who advocate gun control and/or confiscation! Who is it gun confiscation will benefit the most? With research it appears it will be either the law breakers or a tyrannical government that benefits the most. In any case the citizens will not become more secure with gun control. This is the way it has been done many times before. Have we learned anything?


Who exactly is it the law makers who propose these new restrictive gun laws are fooling? Law abiding citizens or themselves? Let us consider this with an open mind. If the new laws that are proposed are passed and don’t work, and it seems impossible that they will, more restrictive laws will then have to be passed down the road possibly after more innocent folks are murdered. So if the real goal of those proposing these new laws is to confiscate all the guns (as we all suspect and some have proclaimed) this is the way to do it. Pass more and more restrictive gun laws that don’t work but will get some citizens begging for more restrictive laws, which they will do. This will carry out until those same citizens are begging for confiscation and if enough do it will get done and they (those who advocate confiscation) will have reached their goal. This way it is possible to restrict guns away from the law abiding citizen and not rescind the second amendment. Keep in mind however, no law will ever take weapons away from the law breakers. Anyone who thinks that is possible is not awake yet. Ask the Australians. If all the (hand) guns were confiscated how is it gun crimes are up?

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

I think your opinion fits most of the people here. The problem is that our legislators just can't see that v****g for new gun laws may just result in them not being re-elected. Most of them know better but like in the Senate only those who have to re-run in 2014 and are Democrats are willing to seem to agree with you and I. The rest lean left with Obama and the rest of his people. Now they want us to believe that it is not gun control they want. That is a dirty word in this nation but Obama is in Connecticut trying to get our guns this very evening. Too many of the people are willing to go along with all those libs from the other former British colonies and accept it all. I have an Australian internet friend who is nearly as conservative as I am who thinks the Australian thing has been successful. We have to be careful what topic we write about because of this disagreement.

FEDUP

When is everybody going to realize that stopping violence is not why Obama is trying to pass so many gun control bans. Every socialist dictator wannabe disarms the citizens. I know why he is trying to disarm because they are preparing for mayor civil unrest when our national economy fails. Every socialist state has done that!

The Dutchman

Does this ring any bells?

The Dutchman

Give this a read: What a bunch of morons!
Which 46 Senators V**ed to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N
These Senators v**ed to let the UN take our guns. They need to lose the e******n. We have been betrayed.46 Senators V**ed to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.

Over the weekend, we came four v**es away from the United States Senate giving our Constitutional rights over to the United Nations. In a 53-46 v**e, the senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from ente ring into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
The Statement of Purpose from the bill read:
To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S., and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo.
Astonishingly, 46 of our United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.
Here are the 46 senators that v**ed to give your rights to the U.N.
Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY) Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCask**l (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)Nelson (D-FL) Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

The Dutchman

Then watch this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0nm1qDT19g&feature=player_embedded

The Dutchman

Makes about as much sense as this:

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

I think it would have taken more than 50 v**es to approve that treaty, but then these guys must not be worried about having to be re-elected in 2014 since they probably would go into the campaign deep in the hole from that v**e. If they were ratifying a treaty it would have taken 67 v**es, though. Having 46 people admit that they were willing to give up our 2nd Amendment in that manner would have been very sad, and it was.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Maybe some of those who are thinking we should give up our guns will realize how stupid they were in supporting things like this. I think it is pretty obvious that what you are saying is what we need to see,

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

I just came up with an idea about that castration part. Only the man who has been responsible for neighborhood kids would know how many were probably his and castration may well be the only intelligent answer. We could count up the a******ns in the neighborhood, also.

Now seriously speaking, you are so right with that one.