Colorado Shooting Rekindles Gun Control Debate

Le Jimbo wrote:

<quoted text>You are funny. They were a member before there was a membership........are you related to John Kerry. He was a big talker pretending to be a big hunter as well.

Hey, he was a man that stood for what he believed. He believed he was taxes enough and watered the tree of liberty with his own blood......among others.

Les Spambot wrote:

I keep comparing commmon sense with your lifestyle.......it won't work.....my posts are heavy on the moron.

Well-said, looney toons...:)

harvey wrote:

<quoted text>
Well-said, looney toons...:)

Fourth straight year...
ANOTHER TRILLION-DOLLAR DEFICIT

Debacle turns Dem convention into pro-abortion celebration...Leave it to liberals to celebrate killing babies.



Michelle Obama 'Guest Editor' for Website Featuring Sex Tips...dis is hows Bo da dog and I’s does its. I axed Barack, but he just be a limp dick.

CHICAGOLAND: Valerie Jarrett's Role In Controversial Housing Developments... Jarrett a well know slum lord in the Chicago area has bilked the system for years while keeping minorities in run down properties she has failed to maintain or has abandoned after the government paid for them.

Les Spambot wrote:

Four straight years...
OVER 73 THOUSAND WORTHLESS POSTS
Debacle turns Dem convention into pro-abortion celebration...Leave it to liberals to celebrate killing babies.
Michelle Obama 'Guest Editor' for Website Featuring Sex Tips...dis is hows Bo da dog and I’s does its. I axed Barack, but he just be a limp dick.
CHICAGOLAND: Valerie Jarrett's Role In Controversial Housing Developments... Jarrett a well know slum lord in the Chicago area has bilked the system for years while keeping minorities in run down properties she has failed to maintain or has abandoned after the government paid for them.

Spamming, trolling, and race-baiting won't win it for your R & R boys, dumbshit. Although they MIGHT get you that pony you've been dreaming of!

LOL

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>
I will go one step further, a person with a concealed carry permit is no more proactive than a policemen and has less authority to intervene before a crime is committed.
Either a crime is being committed and the CCP individual intervenes preventing a worse crime from being committed perhaps, or the chances are the CCP individual is committing a crime by preventing something that has not happened.
On the other hand, a policeman can become involved based on reasonable suspicion.

Now you’re starting to understand. A CCW holder is also reactive. No need for action until a crime is being committed.

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>
Liberals? Hardly. The worst school tragedy was the result of one of the original TEA Party members (long before they were organized) in a place called Bath, MI.
But I will say this, there has been a move within society to make the world safe. Sad to say it has served the purpose of removing commonsense as people just act more and more like idiots because they don't do a proper risk assessment based on behavior and circumstance. You only have to look at the way people drive today to see that.

The liberal reaction. Try again.

The way people drive today? I’ve been behind the wheel nearly 40 years. It hasn’t change much other than there are far more cars on the road.

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>
First, what I consider sensible you may not.
Second, sensible gun laws impact criminals more than those that are law-abiding. A law abiding citizen is going to be able to purchase a gun (with certain exceptions) within the law and a criminal will be forced to obtain a gun outside the law or will be limited in the number of ways they can obtain a gun.
Right now we only do background checks if a gun is bought from a dealer when it is the property of the dealers business and not the dealer personally.
So a criminal if free to purchase a gun from an individual with no background check at all.
IF background checks were required with all sales, then the criminal would be limited to purchasing stolen guns.
NOTE: Yes, I know that no system is 100% effective, so lets not get into an argument over exceptions.

Name one gun law that impacts criminals more than law abiding citizens? Better yet, name one gun law which actually prevents crime.

Criminals would be limited to only stolen guns? How do you come to that conclusion?

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>
You have trouble recognizing a barb traded with someone that has been on the threads a long time.
I thought that claiming Jimbo was 200 years old may have been a clue.

Now I’m supposed to take your imagination into account when posting?

just another guy wrote:

<quoted text>
What is your definition of sensible gun control laws? That was the question EC asked and you missed the mark with your post.
What is sensible?
Limiting the number of guns purchased?
A waiting period?
Background checks?
Limits on types?
Limits on magazine capacity?

I didn’t expect an answer. I’ve yet to receive an answer to that question from anyone. If I do, usually it’s registration.

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>
Who said that they gave the gift of a gun with instructions to take it to school?
How much did you give to have your children? By the time they reach school age how much have you spent on them?
One day they might want to drive the car to school, if you let them it better be a $399 car or you will be a liar.

ANY gift given to my children passes my permission to even have much less carry to school. I have spent a small fortune on my children but they have never been allowed to carry expensive items to school. My sons had guns just as i did around 7 years old but they were trained by me to be responsible and they were not toys. Needless to say I nor my children have ever misused any gun. I would never turn a 10 year old loose in a car so the price is not relevant. I had a car and drove to school upon getting my license and proving to my dad I was capable of using it responsibly the same as my children but not at age 10. I didn't set the age at 10 I just responded to the post about a child at age 10 you are now calling me a liar and changing the age of the post. What's the matter? Can't keep your debate going without cheating on the quotes or pulling an NBC? So typical of DA LIB's.

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>
Isn't there some place you stated that any law limiting carry was unConstitutional? Any law is a pretty broad blanket which would include a 10-year old wouldn't it?
And again, we still have not discussed infringing a felon's right to carry.

How much should you give for a 10 year old child's car?

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>First, what I consider sensible you may not.

Second, sensible gun laws impact criminals more than those that are law-abiding. A law abiding citizen is going to be able to purchase a gun (with certain exceptions) within the law and a criminal will be forced to obtain a gun outside the law or will be limited in the number of ways they can obtain a gun.

Right now we only do background checks if a gun is bought from a dealer when it is the property of the dealers business and not the dealer personally.

So a criminal if free to purchase a gun from an individual with no background check at all.

IF background checks were required with all sales, then the criminal would be limited to purchasing stolen guns.

NOTE: Yes, I know that no system is 100% effective, so lets not get into an argument over exceptions.

Criminals obtain guns outside the law now. What makes you think adding more red tape for the law abiding is going to change that?

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey, he was a man that stood for what he believed. He believed he was taxes enough and watered the tree of liberty with his own blood......among others.

Well I voted for Johnny Tremain, and his sons of liberty. They had the liberty tree......in Boston before it turned Marxist. So sad, the 13 colonies were the first to go down the path of marxism.....

Tray wrote:

<quoted text> How much should you give for a 10 year old child's car?

Not over $15.99

harvey wrote:

<quoted text>
Spamming, trolling, and race-baiting won't win it for your R & R boys, dumbshit. Although they MIGHT get you that pony you've been dreaming of!
LOL

SCUTTER: Obama Has Created More Jobs Than the Reagan Recovery...

Ryan Mocks:'Imaginary'... RYAN WAS NICE, I WOULD HAVE SAID DELUTIONAL OR OUTRIGHT LIES.........

THE DESPERATION OF THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN IS BECOMING MORE AND MORE EVIDENT.

just another guy wrote:

<quoted text>
What is your definition of sensible gun control laws? That was the question EC asked and you missed the mark with your post.
What is sensible?
Limiting the number of guns purchased?
A waiting period?
Background checks?
Limits on types?
Limits on magazine capacity?

remembeer, I stated my idea of sensible and yours may vary.

1. The 2nd Ammendment was written to allow the citizens to stand against a tyrancial government. In order to do that you need weapons that are at least defensive in nature that are effective against the weapons your may be subject to attack by. Therefore I don't really care if you have a SAM, anti-Tank weapon,.50 machinegun, 40 mm grenage launcher, Claymore mines, or any number of smaller weapons.

2. You should be able to openly carry whereever you go PROVIDED that when in a business or dwelling the owner agrees with your carrying.

3. No waiting period. I don't care about that either. The Colorado guy waited to make his attack, so could anyone else.

4. 100% background check and registration.

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
The liberal reaction. Try again.
The way people drive today? I’ve been behind the wheel nearly 40 years. It hasn’t change much other than there are far more cars on the road.

No, it (driving) has changed a lot. A lot less courtesy and a lot more risk taking. 40 years ago people talked to truck drivers with their headlights, you hardly see that anymore at all. The also used to not just respect each other, but trucks got a great deal of respect due to their size. And you never saw idiots purposely driving in the left lane going as slow or slower then other traffic.

And blowing up the school was a Republican action of the day. When have you heard a liberal complain that taxes for schools was too high?

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
Name one gun law that impacts criminals more than law abiding citizens? Better yet, name one gun law which actually prevents crime.
Criminals would be limited to only stolen guns? How do you come to that conclusion?

Define "impact?" Are you going to use the fact that if it forces him to hold his breath 2 seconds it is an impact or the fact that it limits his ability to purchase a weapon as an "equal" impact?

I think we could agree that any law has "some" impact. But if the intent is to keep a weapon out of a criminals hands then going down and filling out a piece of paper that keeps a criminal from getting a gun could hardly be considered an "impact."

I don't intend to get into a pissing contest with you over the word "impact." What you see as impact I will see as being responsible.

Do you think gun owners have any responsibility at all to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them?

If so, what should be the limits of their responsibility?

If not, well that says more about you than anything else.

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
I didn’t expect an answer. I’ve yet to receive an answer to that question from anyone. If I do, usually it’s registration.

I have given you my answer. Now provide us with your answer to the same question.

What do you consider to be sensible gun laws?

Prep-for-Dep wrote:

<quoted text>
Criminals obtain guns outside the law now. What makes you think adding more red tape for the law abiding is going to change that?

At this time a criminal can easily obtain a gun from a legal gunowner selling a gun.

Believe it or not, they still walk into gun stores and try to buy a gun, but thanks to background checks they are unsuccessful.

I suspect that with mandatory checks they will be less successful purchasing guns from legal owners selling guns.

We both know that no system is perfect. However, demanding a perfect system or no system would be like doing away with murder laws because every once is a while a murder is committed and no one is caught.