[vector]

doesnt matter dems had control
keep pushing this issue tho
and in 2014 we will party like its 1994

DA they needed 60 votes

[vector]

How about this according to Gallup only 4% of Americans think gun control is an impportant issue in this country

I think gallup had mitt winning we all know how that turned out

[vector]

How about having you abortionists watch a video of our most innocent human beings being murdered by abortion?

why didn't your boys try to do something about it in early 2000's when they had control of the house, senate and president?

[WideMiddle03]

We will see. 90% of america wanted this. Consensus is that republicans lose a lot more seats in 2014. Get back to me then.

shouldnt u have been working
u say u work 6-7 days a week
how about this
2014 we bet republicans win you have to get a job

DA they needed 60 votes

why didn't your boys try to do something about it in early 2000's when they had control of the house, senate and president?

well you had a head start on the senate
53 democrats 45 republicans 2 independints that regularly side with the democrats
why didnt your boys WORK when obama was elected
had house senate and president
answer that da

[TheRealVille]

shouldnt u have been working
u say u work 6-7 days a week
how about this
2014 we bet republicans win you have to get a job





well you had a head start on the senate
53 democrats 45 republicans 2 independints that regularly side with the democrats
why didnt your boys WORK when obama was elected
had house senate and president
answer that da

I'm off, waiting on an operation. No doubt you don't know me, or my situation. :biggrin:


Your boys used the filibuster, and stopped the majority.

[WideMiddle03]

I'm off, waiting on an operation. No doubt you don't know me, or my situation. :biggrin:


Your boys used the filibuster, and stopped the majority.

all you had to do was get 60 votes
if 90% of the country supported it, as you're polsl suggest, you wouldve easily gotten it
sertainly u dont believe that 90% of people support it :biglmao:

[PaintsvilleTigerfan]

I always give out to more freedom not less. I am not a gun nut because I oppose restrictions on the second amendment. The gun is no more than a rock it's just an object, how it is used can be a crime. I have posted on here where people have been killed with everything from knifes to subway trains.

The question remains why the big deal on assault weapons when rifles are used in less than 3-4% of crimes. Could it be that this is the only type of weapon where a population could defend themselves from a tyrannical government.

The second amendment was written with that very thing in mind(as it had just happened).

Should people fear their government? Check history and see.

Less than 1% actually and that category includes all rifles, as "assault weapon" is a term made up by the liberal propaganda machine. More people died by claw hammer than "assault rifle" last year. The truth is that handgun control incorporated realized they would never get their goal of a handgun ban so went after the mythical assault weapons. It is all a huge lie and they know. The boy at Virginia Tech didn't need a assault rifle. And Lanza wouldn't have either.

[TheRealThing]

all you had to do was get 60 votes
if 90% of the country supported it, as you're polsl suggest, you wouldve easily gotten it
sertainly u dont believe that 90% of people support it :biglmao:

90% support gun control huh? You know, depending on where the poll is done, (like the campus of a liberal college)) and how you ask the question, maybe a large percentage said they were for expanded back ground checks and maybe most of them didn't have the first clue what they were even talking about. I guarantee you 90% of Americans across this country are NOT in favor of new gun control laws. Heck, we've got enough gun control laws on the books as things are and they can't seem to enforce those, much less new ones.

Obama getting up yesterday and saying 85% of Americans were in favor of expanding back ground checks is misleading at best. Don't let anybody tell you one can just walk into a gun show and buy a gun without a background check. I've been to quite a few of them and I've always seen gun purchasers go through a check. This whole deal is just more politicizing so that the liberals can get some kind of ground breaking gun control legislation on the books. Boys, they want your guns and they're just looking for any inroad they can dream up to do it. Dianne Feinstein admitted exactly that with out mincing words when she said if she had her way they'd all be taken up. I mean, if they can use something like health care regs to start seizing guns up in New York, you know they are deadly serious.

[TheRealVille]

I always give out to more freedom not less. I am not a gun nut because I oppose restrictions on the second amendment. The gun is no more than a rock it's just an object, how it is used can be a crime. I have posted on here where people have been killed with everything from knifes to subway trains.

The question remains why the big deal on assault weapons when rifles are used in less than 3-4% of crimes. Could it be that this is the only type of weapon where a population could defend themselves from a tyrannical government.

The second amendment was written with that very thing in mind(as it had just happened).

Should people fear their government? Check history and see.

What? Do you actually think a few guys with AR's could fight the US military?

[nky]

Wolverines!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TheRealThing]

What? Do you actually think a few guys with AR's could fight the US military?

They've been doing a pretty good job of it over in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last ten years or so. And, if memory serves, Russian soldiers faired even worse than we did. And, for the record, one wouldn't even need an AR. A 22 rifle and plenty of ammo in the hands of somebody who is a decent shot could wreak havoc.

Kentucky long rifles normally used to hunt with, certainly got the attention of more than a few British in the days of the American Revolution. And, any man worth his salt, would defend his family against millions of potential guerilla fighters presently 'stationed' on American soil via the arms wide open immigration policies of liberals who, always allow ideology to over shadow reality and common sense.

Whether ball bats, rocks, pressure cookers, pipe guns (and bombs), knives or molotov cocktails. Anything can be used as a weapon. What I'd like to know is when will these liberal geniuses figure out that the only people who are ever going to be willingly 'regulated', are those who are naturally law abiding citizens. It's in their nature to behave and it is this character trait which has allowed us to be a self governing society in the first place. The foolishness of trying to step up our efforts to exceptionalize everybody in the Arab world inside of two decades has become apparent. The end result has been the fact that we have brought in the wolves to dwell with the sheep. You know, to let them see the light? No amount of free stuff puts a dent in these guys desire to destroy us. And, what does this administration want so desperately? Why, to disarm those sheep. We can't have American citizens running around defending themselves against the throngs of imported terrorists, that wouldn't be civilized.

[TheRealVille]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/kentuck...tml?iid=EL

[nky]

^ another example of
A. poor parenting - not locking up a gun, storing a loaded weapon where a 5 year can get to it
or
B. lack of gun safety training- permitting someone access to a weapon who can grasp the basic ideas of safety is criminal
or
C. WTF

but then again how would have the Senate bill done anything in this case

[TheRealVille]

They've been doing a pretty good job of it over in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last ten years or so. And, if memory serves, Russian soldiers faired even worse than we did. And, for the record, one wouldn't even need an AR. A 22 rifle and plenty of ammo in the hands of somebody who is a decent shot could wreak havoc.

Kentucky long rifles normally used to hunt with, certainly got the attention of more than a few British in the days of the American Revolution. And, any man worth his salt, would defend his family against millions of potential guerilla fighters presently 'stationed' on American soil via the arms wide open immigration policies of liberals who, always allow ideology to over shadow reality and common sense.

Whether ball bats, rocks, pressure cookers, pipe guns (and bombs), knives or molotov cocktails. Anything can be used as a weapon. What I'd like to know is when will these liberal geniuses figure out that the only people who are ever going to be willingly 'regulated', are those who are naturally law abiding citizens. It's in their nature to behave and it is this character trait which has allowed us to be a self governing society in the first place. The foolishness of trying to step up our efforts to exceptionalize everybody in the Arab world inside of two decades has become apparent. The end result has been the fact that we have brought in the wolves to dwell with the sheep. You know, to let them see the light? No amount of free stuff puts a dent in these guys desire to destroy us. And, what does this administration want so desperately? Why, to disarm those sheep. We can't have American citizens running around defending themselves against the throngs of imported terrorists, that wouldn't be civilized.

How much of America's firepower are they actually using? Are they bombing the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Could America wipe most of those people off of the face of the earth if they really wanted to? See how a bunch of guys trying to overthrow the government fair against all that "sky" power.

[TheRealVille]

^ another example of
A. poor parenting - not locking up a gun, storing a loaded weapon where a 5 year can get to it
or
B. lack of gun safety training- permitting someone access to a weapon who can grasp the basic ideas of safety is criminal
or
C. WTF

but then again how would have the Senate bill done anything in this case

I'm a sensible gun owner. I see a need for increased regulation, if it can slow down gun violence. I will gladly let them check me until the cows come home. Oh wait,....................they already have. :Thumbs: BTW, I'm in the company of the majority of gun owners, and American citizens.

[Hoot Gibson]

I'm a sensible gun owner. I see a need for increased regulation, if it can slow down gun violence. I will gladly let them check me until the cows come home. Oh wait,....................they already have. :Thumbs: BTW, I'm in the company of the majority of gun owners, and American citizens.

Gun control is doomed for failure, thanks to a Texas law student named Cody Wilson. In 10 to 20 years, anybody who wants a gun will be able to print one. Open source designs are becoming available, the cost of 3D printing will plummet and the quality of the products that they produce will soar, just as it did with laser printers. That genie is out of the bottle and no amount of laws and regulations will put it back. High capacity magazine designs are already available for download and I have seen videos of them being used.

[SKINNYPIG]

I'm a sensible gun owner. I see a need for increased regulation, if it can slow down gun violence. I will gladly let them check me until the cows come home. Oh wait,....................they already have. :Thumbs: BTW, I'm in the company of the majority of gun owners, and American citizens.

I also am a sensible gun owner, had my first one given to me at the age of 7. I would also like to see a "slow down" in gun violence. When we buy guns from retailers right now (even at gun shows) we get checked "until the cows come home", unless of course you are purchasing weapons for the Mexican drug cartel under the current admin's Fast & Furious program...then no paperwork required.

I would support anything that does not infringe on our rights and would slow down gun violence. I just ain't seen anything yet.

[TheRealVille]

I also am a sensible gun owner, had my first one given to me at the age of 7. I would also like to see a "slow down" in gun violence. When we buy guns from retailers right now (even at gun shows) we get checked "until the cows come home", unless of course you are purchasing weapons for the Mexican drug cartel under the current admin's Fast & Furious program...then no paperwork required.

I would support anything that does not infringe on our rights and would slow down gun violence. I just ain't seen anything yet.

The check they do now is not very extensive on the buyer, and doesn't include gun shows, and internet sales. I would gladly go back to the 3 day wait while they do a more extensive check. The NRA and some of the republicans lied about this last background check bill, saying it would create a registry. This bill, in fact, made keeping a registry a criminal offense.

[TheRealVille]

^ A look at the "no" voters approval ratings drops clearly shows where America is on this.

[SKINNYPIG]

The check they do now is not very extensive on the buyer, and doesn't include gun shows, and internet sales. I would gladly go back to the 3 day wait while they do a more extensive check. The NRA and some of the republicans lied about this last background check bill, saying it would create a registry. This bill, in fact, made keeping a registry a criminal offense.

Then we just disagree. Although I'm nearly certain that retail vendors at gun shows do background checks just as they do at their stores.

Not being snide when I say this but, public opinion and polls mean nothing to me. I tend to inform myself then form my opinions. So, I couldn't care less what the majority of gun owners think.

[TheRealThing]

Then we just disagree. Although I'm nearly certain that retail vendors at gun shows do background checks just as they do at their stores.

Not being snide when I say this but, public opinion and polls mean nothing to me. I tend to inform myself then form my opinions. So, I couldn't care less what the majority of gun owners think.

The last two gun shows I've gone to use the very same background application they use at gun stores.

[TheRealVille]

The last two gun shows I've gone to use the very same background application they use at gun stores.

Did you buy a new gun? You're opposed to a more extensive check, and maybe a small waiting period?

[TheRealThing]

Did you buy a new gun? You're opposed to a more extensive check, and maybe a small waiting period?

When are enough laws enough RV? The second amendment guarantees me and you "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

We live in the information age. There are so many cross referencing data bases out there, the chance that a dangerous person illegally buying a gun is practically non-existent. New laws and waiting periods, expanded background checks (what ever that is) and on and on merely add more layers of bureaucracy. What makes you think that further complicating the matter of legal gun purchases will make any difference to those who intend to commit a crime with one? Most gun crimes involve unregistered guns by criminals.

You just keep sidestepping the obvious here. In which of the recent acts of mayhem involving guns, would expanded background checks have made the first scintilla of difference? I don't like what happens any more than you do. The difference between us is I realize there are volumes of gun laws on the shelves and people who are determined to shoot somebody really don't give a darn. One law or one million laws, people are still going to commit crimes. Adding more laws to govern the law abiding isn't going to deter even one of these guys. On the other hand, if a guy like James Holmes runs into a few guys who are packin in a theater or the like, things would likely turn out much different if he has to fight his way through a hail of hot lead coming his way.

No background check is going to keep criminals from getting guns, or knives, swords, pressure cookers, pipe guns, or clubs. But, if we keep making it more difficult for law abiding folks to get guns as you suggest, we may succeed in helping disarm would be targets for the criminals. We have enough laws, enforcing the ones we have is where we fall short.

[PaintsvilleTigerfan]

The check they do now is not very extensive on the buyer, and doesn't include gun shows, and internet sales. I would gladly go back to the 3 day wait while they do a more extensive check. The NRA and some of the republicans lied about this last background check bill, saying it would create a registry. This bill, in fact, made keeping a registry a criminal offense.

You have to go through a background check if you order a gun online. How bout you learn the actual laws before you campaign to destroy our rights. And btw for a universal background check law to work there would have to be a registry of all guns in the us otherwise how would the government know you sold it without getting a check done? But as a liberal you blame the NRA and don't apply the least bit of common sense

[TheRealVille]

You have to go through a background check if you order a gun online. How bout you learn the actual laws before you campaign to destroy our rights. And btw for a universal background check law to work there would have to be a registry of all guns in the us otherwise how would the government know you sold it without getting a check done? But as a liberal you blame the NRA and don't apply the least bit of common sense

There's nothing in your 2nd right that says that you can't have a more extensive check done on you, and it also says nothing about a waiting period.

[Hoot Gibson]

There's nothing in your 2nd right that says that you can't have a more extensive check done on you, and it also says nothing about a waiting period.

What part of "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" do you not understand? Suppose Obama decides that the waiting period should be 30 days, or 1 year, or 10 years? Suppose that he decided that the background check should include a full blown IRS audit of the past 10 years and a thorough examination of all of your medical history?

What if the federal government decided that part of the background investigation would include a polygraph examination done at your expense?

At what point do you Obama followers believe that the federal government would be infringing upon our 2nd Amendment rights?

[TheRealVille]

What part of "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" do you not understand? Suppose Obama decides that the waiting period should be 30 days, or 1 year, or 10 years? Suppose that he decided that the background check should include a full blown IRS audit of the past 10 years and a thorough examination of all of your medical history?

What if the federal government decided that part of the background investigation would include a polygraph examination done at your expense?

At what point do you Obama followers believe that the federal government would be infringing upon our 2nd Amendment rights?

No one is keeping legal, law abiding persons from keeping, and bearing arms. You know as well as anybody that they only check for criminal records.

[Hoot Gibson]

No one is keeping legal, law abiding persons from keeping, and bearing arms. You know as well as anybody that they only check for criminal records.

My question to you was, at what point will the federal government's gun control laws become an infringement? Have you ever opposed a federal gun control law that was proposed by a Democrat, and if not, then were is your red line?

[TheRealVille]

My question to you was, at what point will the federal government's gun control laws become an infringement? Have you ever opposed a federal gun control law that was proposed by a Democrat, and if not, then were is your red line?

My red line is when they don't allow law abiding citizens to own one. I have always been for more extensive checks, even years before this topic came up as of late. I've also been a gun owner for all of my adult life.

[Hoot Gibson]

My red line is when they don't allow law abiding citizens to own one. I have always been for more extensive checks, even years before this topic came up as of late. I've also been a gun owner for all of my adult life.

Then a 10 year waiting period that required a polygraph exam as part of a background check would be fine with you? That's very interesting. What about a $10.00/round tax on ammo? No problem?

Past gun control measures have obviously failed to reduce the amount of crimes created with guns in this country. It is obvious that liberals intend to continue exploiting every major crime that involves guns, whether the perpetrator acquired those guns legally or not, to push for an ever increasing amount of regulation on law-abiding gun owners.

Criminals will continue to ignore gun control laws as they have always done. As the federal government incrementally increases the cost of gun ownership through laws, regulations, and additional taxes, otherwise law-abiding citizens will rightfully seek ways around what they consider infringements on their constitutional rights as well.