PureX
Well-known member
Pffhhtt! :loser:
NRA Refuse To Debate Obama In Public
- Thread starter PureX
- Start date
Because sales spike after each shooting. Never fails. Lots of Americans think the best, sane response to a massacre is buying more of the stuff that enables it.
LoneStar
New member
I concur.
Ah, so the actual situation was not at all what the thread title indicates.
lain:
musterion
Well-known member
Is that why? I think not... If and I do say IF, people felt safe would they rush out & buy guns? Legally I might add?
Is your problem with guns or the extremely small minority of illegal possessors of weapons that use them to inflict harm on others? There are what 300 million in the US and only about 10,000-11,000 homicides with guns per year most of which can be attributed to urban gang violence? Seems like a pretty small number given the amount of gun & gun owners out there. Did I already mention that your King Obama has decided not to prosecute violent offenders? Yea, maybe I did.
Gun sales spike after massacres because enough suckers are convinced the latest shooting is the big one that'll finally--magically--convince Washington to come get all the guns in the great Big Gun Rapture that's been predicted by hucksters for decades (and with the same success rate as dippie dispies who predict the actual big event). It's very, very predictable. You convince enough rubes "they're finally coming, honest this time!" enough times and get them trained to send you money and believe your every word and the first instinct after a shooting will be "Well, the big bad guys are finally coming, so I better stock up."
This is what happens all. The. Time.
Neither, really. There are certain kinds of guns I think aren't necessary in the private sector, and that probably speak more to psychological and physical insecurity issues than anything else. Would getting rid of them change a whole bunch? On the balance, likely not, though every bit to steward this place is a step in the right direction.
In the grand scheme illegal guns bother me, sure, as much as other petty crimes can really "bother" any regular guy on the street.
My bigger problem comes from the violent country and culture I live in, the heartsick society we have, and the idiocy, recklessness for its own sake, and smug, stupid, strutting armchair Rambos, thugs, and assorted nincompoops who (rightly) give gun owners a bad name.
Yeah, see, this is what I'm talking. This kind of stupid.
NRA Refuse To Debate Obama In Public
This is the same NRA whose tentacles have reached into the halls of Congress preventing federal money from being used to study gun violence in America for the last 20 years.
No other commercial product, particularly one associated with the deaths of approximately 650 000 Americans in the last 2 decades, has been granted such blanket immunity from federal government scrutiny.
The NRA has enjoyed a virtual "gag order" stifling any and all constructive analysis of the impact of 300 million private guns on America society since 1996.
The NRA has absolutely no interest in debating the merits of background checks, given that its grand strategy is to prevent any and all meaningful discussion of the topic based on current data.
This is the same NRA whose tentacles have reached into the halls of Congress preventing federal money from being used to study gun violence in America for the last 20 years.
No other commercial product, particularly one associated with the deaths of approximately 650 000 Americans in the last 2 decades, has been granted such blanket immunity from federal government scrutiny.
The NRA has enjoyed a virtual "gag order" stifling any and all constructive analysis of the impact of 300 million private guns on America society since 1996.
The NRA has absolutely no interest in debating the merits of background checks, given that its grand strategy is to prevent any and all meaningful discussion of the topic based on current data.
Truth hurts doesn't it......:loser:
Obama does not know what he is talking about with gun shows. here us what really happens, and I am not sure why this is so, but it is a fact. those at gun shows are always the same type of people, average Americans. with a love for many traditional values, as well, they like guns, rifles, shotguns pistols, you name it. They do not buy these guns to resell them, albeit some gun show sellers do this as a hobby and for making money, the customers are not buying guns for resale.
Now, Obama made a statement, they cross the border and buy these guns, with the intent to sell them off for profit. This is false, they never do this! What may happen is some, over time, may trade them to friends and these friends may trade them to friends, and eventually, they are not in the hands if that traditional gun show person. then, maybe they are not cared for and might be stolen, and not reported.
Now the reason they go unreported is because these people often feel that the best thing is to keep the authorities from knowing too much about their gun interests. They worry about the gun control issue. Some may eventually get away from decent folks.
The main way the criminals come to own guns is through buyers who are not part of the hunting, gun culture, who are whimsical and buy only for protection, then decide they rather not have it and sell it off to anyone who wishes to buy it. The other way is they lose the gun, they have it stolen and are too lazy and irresponsible to report it.
Almost all illegal use of guns fall into three narrow categories: semiautomatic pistols with high capacity magazines, semiautomatic rifles with high capacity magazines, and short shotguns, like the 'defender' models and sawed off shotguns. you hardly ever see anyone committing a crime with a high powered rifle, or a full length shotgun, yet these are the main types of guns that interest people at gunshows.
Someone should explain this to Obama, and until he has at least that much right, people like me are not going to listen to him!
Now i have been around these gun shows for near 50 years and i am not going to respond to some kid telling me I am wrong about it.
I will, however, listen to reason on how to better manage the future sales of new firearms, and maybe the issue evolving around the most sought after firearms by criminals.
It has to be realistic, though, there is no sense in makes anyone register a long bird gun, or a deer rifle.
Concealed permits help keep a check on the most dangerous guns, the small ones. There is an issue about responsibility, and that issue not reporting stolen guns is one issue I do agree with on control because most of the guns used in crimes are stolen, or they were purchased by someone who procures guns illegal and sells them to criminals.
There is another issue, mental illness and gin ownership. This is the main problem in these atypical criminal acts where there is not short term benefit motive, as when one robs a store, but only a ill need to destroy life. These people should have their records in the data files, and that is one thing Obama seems to have in mind, yet this seems threatening because there is so much fear over this issue, it boggles my mind.
Funny, it seems one cannot talk about being for controlling these mental cases or the whole things goes up in smoke. Now, i do not get this? most gun owners are not mentally ill. Why be so concerned about not allowing mentally disturbed persons from owning guns?
These nuts do the most horrible crimes that threatened legitimate gun owners. so, consider, the mental illness issue is not anyone who sees a psychiatrist, or even someone who has been in a psychiatric hospital, it is only for those who cannot care for themselves, and those who have been involuntary committed to a mental hospital and kept over the 72 hour evaluation and stabilization period.
Why have mentally disturbed persons possession of firearms anyway?
Funny, it seems one cannot talk about being for controlling these mental cases or the whole things goes up in smoke. Now, i do not get this? most gun owners are not mentally ill. Why be so concerned about not allowing mentally disturbed persons from owning guns?
These nuts do the most horrible crimes that threatened legitimate gun owners. so, consider, the mental illness issue is not anyone who sees a psychiatrist, or even someone who has been in a psychiatric hospital, it is only for those who cannot care for themselves, and those who have been involuntary committed to a mental hospital and kept over the 72 hour evaluation and stabilization period.
Why have mentally disturbed persons possession of firearms anyway?
Sawed-off shotguns are not protected by the Second Amendment because they are of no military use. I would argue that tiny handguns are in the same category and are also not protected by the Second Amendment, but the laws don't agree. You're right that they are the most dangerous; because they are so small; for crime, and for negligence.
'Odd thing to say.
'Never disputed that.
You mentioned smaller guns. They're currently legal. I just don't think they'd survive being taken to court. I wondered if we agreed on something.
What i agree on is that small pistols are used most in street crimes. Also in mass murder, yet the edge they have is street crime. no, they should not be banned, but they should be held by reasonable and responsible owners. You do not lose them. now that is something i find most resistance in my crowd, they think I an too harsh on losing handguns. There have been some biog fights on this issue, and my point is if you have to take them downtown to a baseball game at night, in a bad neighborhood, then have some way to lock them up so the thief would have to dismantle the car to get it. Or do not take them.
Then they add, well what if one wants to hit some bars after the ballgame, and that is where I get upset! They keep asking for more.
I heard Obama tonight speak and there is one things he does much better than me. He has a gift, a propensity for posturing and speaking with long intense pauses, like a preacher! This is his big talent, he knows how to address an audience. What he is actually saying is another matter.
This reminds me of the Roman lawyers who won their cases, not on evidence and argument, but eloquence of speech.
Now it seems they are saying that he is beginning to back off in his big gun control push, and if some I know are right about legacies, then it makes sense, if he tries all this hated gun nonsense, he will be treated as a bad president, even if gun laws change, he will be seen as one who tried to play dictator.
You remind me that also smaller handguns are easier to just plain lose. To misplace. To have . . . to literally have one fall out of your pocket. You can get your car keys confused and mixed up with a so-called "mouse" gun. They're bad news, and they aren't what is meant in the Second Amendment by "arms," not in my opinion, and I believe not in the Supreme Court's opinion either, in potential.
On the other hand, I do think that the Second Amendment does protect the right to keep and bear all firearms up to an S.A.W., because even though an M-60 is called a "squad" automatic weapon, it is merely a plain old rifle with a heavy barrel so that it can fire thousands of rounds continuously without malfunctioning due to excessive heat.
oatmeal
Well-known member
Would Obama debate on Fox News or on the Mark Levin show or on the Rush Limbaugh show?
Why not?