# NRA rolls out new ads



## Ninja (Sep 22, 2008)

> Wouldn't want to be Obamessiah; right now he is probably looking like a deer caught in the headlights.
> 
> Here are two of the new ads: CLICK HERE
> 
> ...



Transsylvania Phoenix: NRA Is Out With New Ads Gunning For Barack

Who cost Bubba the House in '94?

Who cost Gore the Presidency in '00?

Who cost Kerry the Presidency in '04?

Who's gonna cost Obama the Presidency in '08?


----------



## Ninja (Sep 22, 2008)

Weeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!! 

[youtube]58Z9p3CR-ys[/youtube]

[youtube]xVFp6bxiREY[/youtube]

[youtube]ebXA7EpEVLw[/youtube]

[youtube]76aW2LuQKe8[/youtube]

Political Realm: Ad Wars: NRA Takes Aim At Obama-Biden


----------



## Ninja (Sep 22, 2008)




----------



## CrimsonWhite (Sep 22, 2008)

Ninja said:


>


The day they take my guns away is the day that I won't need anymore.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 22, 2008)

Well Bob Barr is the only candidate running who gets an A+ from the NRA.  He's even on one of their committee's.


----------



## necritan (Sep 22, 2008)

Yup.....they're gun-grabbers all right. 

I say....get your assault weapons while you still can.....stock-pile the ammo too.


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 22, 2008)

Didn't Obama say that they cling to guns and religion as a _voting _issue, because they had become convinced that the bigger issues (jobs, opportunity) were never gonna change? 

If ya, then the ads are a little ironic.


----------



## necritan (Sep 22, 2008)

Caligirl said:


> Didn't Obama say that they cling to *Rights* as a _voting _issue, because they had become convinced that the bigger issues (jobs, opportunity) were never gonna change?
> 
> If ya, then the ads are a little ironic.



There....I fixed it for ya.


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 22, 2008)

Well hell's bells I am glad to keep our gun, we used it not long ago too when we thought there was an intruder. 

Someone should fact check those ads. Here in the Republik of Kalifornistan lead bullets have poisoned like 20% of the condor population, so they talk about banning them, but it sure isn't hell about restricting hunting. They'd replace em with non-lead bullets.

Who knows what those ammo restriction statistics were really abou in those ads. Its not like they said. And ninja didn't link any of the actual legislation.


----------



## Chris (Sep 22, 2008)

One million Americans have been killed by guns since 1960.

The NRA has killed more Americans than any terrorist ever will.


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 22, 2008)

Chris said:


> One million Americans have been killed by guns since 1960.
> 
> The NRA has killed more Americans than any terrorist ever will.



Ya and high cholesterol kills more yet. And traffic accidents. And medical malpractice. And drug overdoses. And old age.  And birth defects. And swimming pools. And influenza. 

Hunting is the greenest way to get protein in your diet. It is almost completely carbon neutral. It also drastically reduces lyme disease, and other zoonotic illnesses (plague, rabies, etc) which affects over 20,000 americans a year. The benefits of hunting far outweigh the costs. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. 

Of course, it might kill you if you did. 



> *CAUSES OF DEATH *
> 10. Machinery
> Deaths per year: 350
> 
> ...



We should ban cars and all other forms of motor vehicles. We should make a law against them.


----------



## Chris (Sep 22, 2008)

Caligirl said:


> Ya and high cholesterol kills more yet. And traffic accidents. And medical malpractice. And drug overdoses. And old age.  And birth defects. And swimming pools. And influenza.
> 
> Hunting is the greenest way to get protein in your diet. It is almost completely carbon neutral. It also drastically reduces lyme disease, and other zoonotic illnesses (plague, rabies, etc) which affects over 20,000 americans a year. The benefits of hunting far outweigh the costs. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
> 
> ...



Where did you get those bogus numbers.

Click below to read the real numbers.....

VPC - Handgun Ban Fact Sheet

Overall Firearm-Related Deaths

Since 1962, more than one million Americans have died in firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings. Handguns were used in more than 650,000 of these fatal shootings.

In 1997&#8212;the most recent year available&#8212;there were 89 firearm deaths per day, or a firearm death every 16 minutes.

In homes with guns, a member of the household is almost three times as likely to be the victim of a homicide compared to gun-free homes.


Handguns and Homicide

On the average, if someone gets shot and killed, four out of five times it will be with a handgun. In 1997, for example, handguns were used in 79.4 percent of all firearm homicides.

From 1990 to 1997, handguns were used in a majority (55.6 percent) of all homicides; that is, they were used in murder more than all other weapons combined.

From 1990 to 1997, there were 293,781 firearm deaths&#8212;homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings.

From 1990 to 1997 in the United States there were more than&#8212;


160,000 homicides

110,000 firearm homicides

89,000 handgun homicides

Handgun homicides hit record highs in the early 1990s, peaking in 1993. That year there were 13,258 such killings&#8212;out of a total of 16,120 firearm homicides.
As part of an overall drop in crime, in 1997 handgun homicides fell to 8,503.


Suicide

The largest category of firearms fatality is suicide, not homicide. In 1997, 54 percent of all gun deaths were suicides, and 42 percent were homicides.

About six out of 10 suicides are committed with firearms.

For firearm suicides, it is estimated that handguns are used twice as often (69 percent) as rifles and shotguns.

For all suicides, it is estimated that more than four out of 10 were committed with handguns.

From 1990 to 1997&#8212; 


there were more than 147,000 suicides committed with a firearm 

an estimated 90,000 involved a handgun

People living in a household with a gun are almost five times more likely to die by suicide than people living in a gun-free home.

Self Defense

For every time a gun in the home is used in a self-defense homicide, a gun will be used in&#8212; 


1.3 unintentional deaths

4.6 criminal homicides 

37 suicides

In 1997 there were 15,690 homicides.

Of these, 8,503 were committed with handguns.

Among handgun homicides, only 193 (2.3 percent) were classified as justifiable homicides by civilians.

For every time in 1997 that a civilian used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 43 people lost their lives in handgun homicides alone.

Costs

For every firearm death, there are nearly three gun injuries requiring emergency medical treatment.

By conservative estimates, gunshot injuries cost about $4 billion a year in medical expenses.


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 22, 2008)

Why would I do that? 

Guns is a complete nonissue. Neither candidate is running on it. And a hell of a lot of hunters like the repubs on gun control but like the dems on environment. It's a wash. 

talk to someone else about it.


----------



## elvis (Sep 22, 2008)

Chris said:


> One million Americans have been killed by guns since 1960.
> 
> The NRA has killed more Americans than any terrorist ever will.



Guns don't kill people. People kill people.


----------



## necritan (Sep 22, 2008)

Chris said:


> One million Americans have been killed by guns since 1960.
> 
> The NRA has killed more Americans than any terrorist ever will.



Thats it?? The NRA kills people??


----------



## necritan (Sep 22, 2008)

Chris said:


> One million Americans have been killed by guns since 1960.
> 
> The NRA has killed more Americans than any terrorist ever will.



You sound like your girlfriend "Kirk"......Why don't you be really smart and tell us all how many of those gun related deaths were commited with an illegaly owned gun.....or...even better....enlighten us all as to how many robberies , rapes , murders , assaults , car-jackings , etc were *PREVENTED* by use of firearm.

You are a dildo......wait..sorry..those serve a purpose.


----------



## necritan (Sep 22, 2008)

Caligirl said:


> Well hell's bells I am glad to keep our gun, we used it not long ago too when we thought there was an intruder.
> 
> Someone should fact check those ads. Here in the Republik of Kalifornistan lead bullets have poisoned like 20% of the condor population, so they talk about banning them, but it sure isn't hell about restricting hunting. They'd replace em with non-lead bullets.
> 
> Who knows what those ammo restriction statistics were really abou in those ads. Its not like they said. And ninja didn't link any of the actual legislation.



Condors are doomed anyways...nature wants them out...we weren't around to kill off the dinosaurs...right?


----------



## jschuck12001 (Sep 22, 2008)

You cant ban something that has been legal forever.  People will still find a way to get their guns.


----------



## Ninja (Sep 22, 2008)

Caligirl said:


> Well hell's bells I am glad to keep our gun, we used it not long ago too when we thought there was an intruder.
> 
> Someone should fact check those ads. Here in the Republik of Kalifornistan lead bullets have poisoned like 20% of the condor population, so they talk about banning them, but it sure isn't hell about restricting hunting. They'd replace em with non-lead bullets.
> 
> Who knows what those ammo restriction statistics were really abou in those ads. Its not like they said. And ninja didn't link any of the actual legislation.



You're absolutely wrong about the lead ammo killing Condors. 

I remember looking it up on the DFG website after that retard Pedro Nava introduced AB 821. Most Condors died from ingesting copper bullets IIRC.

You've been duped. 

And every charge leveled against Obama by the NRA is backed up either by his voting record or comments he's made in public.


----------



## greenpartyaz (Sep 22, 2008)

Ninja said:


> Transsylvania Phoenix: NRA Is Out With New Ads Gunning For Barack
> 
> Who cost Bubba the House in '94?
> 
> ...



Certainly not mindless idiots like you and your NRA goons!


----------



## Ninja (Sep 22, 2008)

Oh great. The retard spammed his VPC *LIES* again. I'm shocked!


----------



## Ninja (Sep 22, 2008)

Caligirl, check your PMs.


----------



## Luissa (Sep 22, 2008)

Ninja said:


> You're absolutely wrong about the lead ammo killing Condors.
> 
> I remember looking it up on the DFG website after that retard Pedro Nava introduced AB 821. Most Condors died from ingesting copper bullets IIRC.
> 
> ...


Wow! A democrat who is for gun control and doesn't have the support of the NRA! Big SURPRISE! How many guns do you think McCain owns?


----------



## jschuck12001 (Sep 22, 2008)

Caligirl said:


> Well hell's bells I am glad to keep our gun, we used it not long ago too when we thought there was an intruder.
> 
> Someone should fact check those ads. Here in the Republik of Kalifornistan lead bullets have poisoned like 20% of the condor population, so they talk about banning them, but it sure isn't hell about restricting hunting. They'd replace em with non-lead bullets.
> 
> Who knows what those ammo restriction statistics were really abou in those ads. Its not like they said. And ninja didn't link any of the actual legislation.



How did you use it if you "thought" there was an intruder?


----------



## Ninja (Sep 22, 2008)

Luissa27 said:


> Wow! A democrat who is for gun control and doesn't have the support of the NRA! Big SURPRISE! How many guns do you think McCain owns?



McCain said during one of the debates that the last firearm he handled was the 1911 on his hip when he was shot down. 

When you've been through so much torture that you're physically unable to use a keyboard to send an email, it can be kinda hard to safely handle and fire guns, ya know?

Regardless, his voting record speaks for itself. He is the candidate who will uphold the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Luissa (Sep 23, 2008)

Ninja said:


> McCain said during one of the debates that the last firearm he handled was the 1911 on his hip when he was shot down.
> 
> When you've been through so much torture that you're physically unable to use a keyboard to send an email, it can be kinda hard to safely handle and fire guns, ya know?
> 
> Regardless, his voting record speaks for itself. He is the candidate who will uphold the Bill of Rights.


And like the repugs on abortion do you really think Obama is going to do anything about gun control. It is part of our constitution and with the majority of the supreme court being republican I don't see it going anywhere. You guys have your guns, we have our abortions.
Obama is our Palin!
And really McCain could probably still shoot from the hip even with his arm problems.lol


----------



## jschuck12001 (Sep 23, 2008)

Ninja said:


> McCain said during one of the debates that the last firearm he handled was the 1911 on his hip when he was shot down.
> 
> When you've been through so much torture that you're physically unable to use a keyboard to send an email, it can be kinda hard to safely handle and fire guns, ya know?
> 
> Regardless, his voting record speaks for itself. He is the candidate who will uphold the Bill of Rights.



This is a waste, there is no way the Dems will change the 2nd amendment even if they wanted to it will never happen.


----------



## Ninja (Sep 23, 2008)

jschuck12001 said:


> This is a waste, there is no way the Dems will change the 2nd amendment even if they wanted to it will never happen.



Getting ¾ of the states to repeal the 2A will never happen. 

Democrats will just try to neuter it into obscurity - either by banning aesthetic features (like bayonet lugs, "conspicuously-protruding" pistol grips, collapsible stocks, etc) like Clinton did in 1994 when he signed the ban on so-called "assault weapons," caliber restrictions, "green ammo laws" like the one we have in California that bans lead ammo for hunting under the guise of saving condors even though most Condors are killed by copper, banning standard-capacity magazines, longer waiting periods, CCW bans, serialized ammo, microstamping, etc, etc, etc.


----------



## Luissa (Sep 23, 2008)

Ninja said:


> Getting ¾ of the states to repeal the 2A will never happen.
> 
> Democrats will just try to neuter it into obscurity - either by banning aesthetic features (like bayonet lugs, "conspicuously-protruding" pistol grips, collapsible stocks, etc) like Clinton did in 1994 when he signed the ban on so-called "assault weapons," caliber restrictions, "green ammo laws" like the one we have in California that bans lead ammo for hunting under the guise of saving condors even though most Condors are killed by copper, banning standard-capacity magazines, longer waiting periods, CCW bans, serialized ammo, microstamping, etc, etc, etc.


So you should be able to shoot someone and get away with it! Good Idea! 
There has to be some limit to ownership!


----------



## Ninja (Sep 23, 2008)

Luissa27 said:


> So you should be able to shoot someone and get away with it! Good Idea!


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 23, 2008)

jschuck12001 said:


> How did you use it if you "thought" there was an intruder?



We pulled it out of the closet and loaded it before looking for the perp. 

Then afterwards, we went outside and started shooting streetlights for fun. Woke the neighbors but what the hell. Well, you know, we were already  up.   /kidding


----------



## Luissa (Sep 23, 2008)

Ninja said:


>


I knew you would like that one!


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 23, 2008)

Ninja said:


> Caligirl, check your PMs.



I am not a liberal.  I am smack in the middle.  That's why the economic problems are my fault. (Sorry about those.)

Anyway, I've heard both sides about the lead bullet/condor thing but the point is a legislator could vote against a certain type of ammo for reasons that have NOTHING to do with trying to restrict your gun ownership. Where's the legislation the ads talk about? We have no idea what Obama (Or McCain) actually voted on.

I'd be more worried about Palin who doesn't give two shits to seriously polluing streams which does a real number on fishing. 

Cleaner mining: Opinion | adn.com



> Palin aggressively opposed the "clean water initiative" on the August ballot in Alaska (which then failed), favoring instead foreign mining company desires for fewer government regulations controlling their toxic effluent into salmon streams.



Sarah Palin's record on environment is abysmal


----------



## KittenKoder (Sep 23, 2008)

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.


----------



## jschuck12001 (Sep 23, 2008)

Caligirl said:


> We pulled it out of the closet and loaded it before looking for the perp.
> 
> Then afterwards, we went outside and started shooting streetlights for fun. Woke the neighbors but what the hell. Well, you know, we were already  up.   /kidding



Holly cow, I can just picture you and your husband, with a gun, in the dark walking through your house looking for a perp.  I'm just glad you didnt shoot the cat or the dog.


----------



## del (Sep 23, 2008)

Luissa27 said:


> And like the repugs on abortion do you really think Obama is going to do anything about gun control. It is part of our constitution and with the majority of the supreme court being republican I don't see it going anywhere. You guys have your guns, we have our abortions.
> *Obama is our Palin!*
> And really McCain could probably still shoot from the hip even with his arm problems.lol



and there's you problem in a nutshell.......


----------



## Silence (Sep 23, 2008)

if people are really going to base their vote on gun laws when our economy is in the shitter good luck to ya.  

Obama has said that he believes in the 2nd amendment but he sees no reason why there can't be a ban on certain weapons.  

it doesn't need to be a free for all.


----------



## Ninja (Sep 23, 2008)

Silence said:


> if people are really going to base their vote on gun laws when our economy is in the shitter good luck to ya.



Yep. It's just the Constitution. Which obviously means little if any more to you and your ilk than a roll of Charmin.


----------



## Seraph (Sep 23, 2008)

I dont know why either side is making an issue out of it, seeing as its obviously not guns but Americans that are the problem. Many other countries have guns, but they dont shoot each other anywhere near as much as Americans. Maybe solving the real reasons for gun crime are just too hard?


----------



## LOki (Sep 23, 2008)

Chris said:


> One million Americans have been killed by guns since 1960.



Prove this.



Chris said:


> The NRA has killed more Americans than any terrorist ever will.



Prove this.


----------



## LOki (Sep 23, 2008)

Chris said:


> Where did you get those bogus numbers.
> 
> Click below to read the real numbers.....
> 
> ...



This all looks like people killing people--show me how guns have killed anyone.


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 23, 2008)

Ninja said:


> Yep. It's just the Constitution. Which obviously means little if any more to you and your ilk than a roll of Charmin.



No one is going to do anything to the second amendment. It is a complete nonissue.

Why are you clinging to it?


----------



## Navy1960 (Sep 23, 2008)

As one of those so called  "clinging to your gun types" I don't see a reason why, weapons such as an M107 .50 Cal and heavy caliber weapons and  semi-automatic assault weapons cannot be permitted in a stricter manner. However, if someone is hit in the head with a glock 23 vs. a M107 they are going to be just as dead, just less left over with the M107. Thats not the point though, the point is, it's the person on the "trigger" together with the gun that makes it a weapon.  So if you plan on banning weapons, when do we start banning the  people on the "trigger" who don't deserve to own them? i.e. the irresponsible ones? When you have someone, that uses a gun no matter what it is to commit a crime, then rather than blaming the gun, you need to prosecute the person and not the gun. Just a thought!!


----------



## Ninja (Sep 23, 2008)

Caligirl said:


> No one is going to do anything to the second amendment.



In post #28 I listed draconian gun control measures that are on the table at the federal level. Some of them have already been enacted at the state level. 

As I said, the 2A isn't going ANYWHERE, and the Democrats know this, so they'll follow the Brady Plan of neutering it into obscurity and irrelevance.


----------



## elvis (Sep 23, 2008)

Caligirl said:


> Didn't Obama say that they cling to guns and religion as a _voting _issue, because they had become convinced that the bigger issues (jobs, opportunity) were never gonna change?
> 
> If ya, then the ads are a little ironic.



In the same speech, he said people cling to anti-trade.  Of course Ohioans cling to antitrade because "free trade" sent half the steelworkers' jobs to Mexico.


----------



## elvis (Sep 23, 2008)

Chris said:


> One million Americans have been killed by guns since 1960.
> 
> The NRA has killed more Americans than any terrorist ever will.



How many fatalities have there been in automobile accidents since 1960?  Maybe we should outlaw cars, too.


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 23, 2008)

So I went to fact check .org and as suspected the NRA ads are complete poopaganda.

FactCheck.org: NRA Targets Obama


----------



## Modbert (Sep 23, 2008)

Caligirl said:


> So I went to fact check .org and as suspected the NRA ads are complete poopaganda.
> 
> FactCheck.org: NRA Targets Obama



Of course, any viable President Candidate whoever wants to run for public office can't say they will ban guns completely. Even the most Right wing Republicans are smart enough to know that.

Obama doesn't want to take your guns away, he wants to make sure people who shouldn't have guns by law shouldn't have them.

Though looks like it might be a little too late for that.


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 23, 2008)

Are you saying the ads are accurate? Factcheck.org says they are not.


----------



## Ninja (Sep 23, 2008)

Caligirl said:


> Are you saying the ads are accurate? Factcheck.org says they are not.



I'm much more versed in the subtleties of gun control and what Obama's proposed than anyone at factcheck.org.

The ads are accurate. 

P.S. Robert - Your are a little gun ignorant shit. Save face and do not debate this with me.


----------



## Modbert (Sep 23, 2008)

Ninja said:


> I'm much more versed in the subtleties of gun control and what Obama's proposed than anyone at factcheck.org.
> 
> The ads are accurate.
> 
> P.S. Robert - Your are a little gun ignorant shit. Save face and do not debate this with me.



These ads aren't accurate. Now your accusing factcheck.org of being wrong?

Even YOUR Messiah John McCain and Sarah Palin misquoted factcheck.org in order to make themselves look better on something.

I'm not a little ignorant gun shit either. I believe people should have a right to own firearms, however I don't believe everyone does.


----------



## Ninja (Sep 23, 2008)

FactCheck.org compares the NRA's claims to the positions posted on Obama's website (which of course are based on political expedience). 

I compare them to his voting history, statements he's made in public and questionnaires he completed while running for the Illinois State Senate. 

FactCheck.org exposes their bias as soon as they call SB 2165 (which the retards couldn't even get right - they referred to it as AB 2165 - nice fact checking, FactCheck.org) a "loophole." 

*TELL HALE FUCKING DEMAR SB2165 WAS CREATING A FUCKING LOOPHOLE!!!!!!!!!*

Personally I think the NRA pulled it's punches. They were SOFT on him. The ads don't even touch the tip of the iceberg with regards to this no-talent ass clown's gun control hard-on.


----------



## Modbert (Sep 23, 2008)

Ninja said:


> FactCheck.org compares the NRA's claims to the positions posted on Obama's website (which of course are based on political expedience).
> 
> I compare them to his voting history, statements he's made in public and questionnaires he completed while running for the Illinois State Senate.
> 
> ...



Gun Control is not taking away your guns.

Though feel free to complain when someone breaks into your house and harms your family or yourself because they were allowed to get a gun because of no gun control laws.

Tell me how you'll feel then.

There are certain people in this country who either have lost the right to own a gun, aren't fit to have a gun, or have abused their right.


----------



## Ninja (Sep 23, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Gun Control is not taking away your guns.
> 
> Though feel free to complain when someone breaks into your house and harms your family or yourself because they were allowed to get a gun because of no gun control laws.
> 
> ...



This has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand. But whatever, I'm always down to send a snot-nosed brat running to his Power Rangers action figures for comfort after having his ass handed to him. 

In Obama's ideal world we'd be able to have bolt-action rifles - HE HAS INDICATED IN THE PAST THAT HE'D SUPPORT A COMPLETE BAN ON ALL SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARMS - and break-open shotguns - 
so that Biden would be able to keep his overpriced Italian piece of crap. That WOULD constitute taking away my guns so you've already been proven wrong. Besides which, for the umpteenth time, I've already enumerated various GUN CONTROL measures - if that makes you happy - that are currently on the table at the federal level (some of which have already been enacted at the state level) because you fucking libtarded idiots have realized that in the wake of _Heller _an outright ban is impossible. Not to mention that more than ¼ of the States would tell the gun banners to go fuck themselves if a repealment to the 2A ever came up for a vote. 

Banning firearms because they have certain aesthetic features that do nothing to to enhance a bullet's ballistics or lethality, *WHICH IS WHAT OBAMA HIMSELF ADMITS HE SUPPORTS*, will do nothing to keep me or anyone else safer. Deadbolts, a guard dog, and a girlfriend who's a dead-aim with a 1911 keep me sleeping sound. 

Golly, if only we could outlaw bayonet lugs. Imagine how many drive-by bayonetting that would prevent! Imagine if we could do away with $0.99 injection-molded plastic pistol grips - that would make AR-15s so much safer! How many kids need to die before we ban collapsible buttstocks and barrel shrouds, Robert?   

The solution is simple but it'll never be enacted because Obama and his ilk are beholden to the ACLU and their medical privacy wacko buddies.


----------



## Modbert (Sep 23, 2008)

Ninja said:


> This has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand. But whatever, I'm always down to send a snot-nosed brat running to his Power Rangers action figures for comfort after having his ass handed to him.
> 
> In Obama's ideal world we'd be able to have bolt-action rifles - HE HAS INDICATED IN THE PAST THAT HE'D SUPPORT A COMPLETE BAN ON ALL SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARMS - and break-open shotguns -
> so that Biden would be able to keep his overpriced Italian piece of crap. That WOULD constitute taking away my guns so you've already been proven wrong. Besides which, for the umpteenth time, I've already enumerated various GUN CONTROL measures - if that makes you happy - that are currently on the table at the federal level (some of which have already been enacted at the state level) because you fucking libtarded idiots have realized that in the wake of _Heller _an outright ban is impossible. Not to mention that more than ¼ of the States would tell the gun banners to go fuck themselves if a repealment to the 2A ever came up for a vote.
> ...



You should get that foam off your mouth first off.

Second, in Obama's ideal world and reality are two different things. In someone's ideal world, we would have no need for guns but that doesn't mean they don't support them currently.

Stop trying to scare people with fear tactics. Barack Obama isn't going to try and take away your guns.

This is for you Ninja, your right to bear arms.


----------



## Ninja (Sep 23, 2008)

Not even an attempt to refute my assertions.

Damn, this little bitch gave up easy.

Why? *BECAUSE I HAVE THE FACTS AND THE TRUTH ON MY SIDE* 

Go watch Care Bears or something.


----------



## Modbert (Sep 23, 2008)

Ninja said:


> Not even an attempt to refute my assertions.
> 
> Damn, this little bitch gave up easy.
> 
> ...



Why waste my time refuting bullshit, drivel, and more bullshit?

What YOU consider the truth and what is fact is two different things.

I do love however your trying to make me seem like I'm anti gun. I'm pro gun, but I want gun control laws.

I've seen the types of people in this country, some shouldn't even have the right in the first place to have guns, some have lost their rights to have guns,etc.

Unless you want to be able to give those lovely violent felons a bunch of guns?


----------



## Navy1960 (Sep 23, 2008)

Actually, Obama's writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Q: You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?
A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions. 
2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008 

Barack Obama on Gun Control

Here is a little something about Obama's views on gun control , for everyone to take a look at.


----------



## Ninja (Sep 23, 2008)

You've been vanquished on the FACTS and now you've resorted to fallacious arguments. Typical liberal 



Robert_Santurri said:


> Unless you want to be able to give those lovely violent felons a bunch of guns?


----------



## Modbert (Sep 23, 2008)

Ninja said:


> You've been vanquished on the FACTS and now you've resorted to fallacious arguments. Typical liberal



Fool, posting a little tidbit of my entire post means nothing.

I've addressed your points, you can think all you want that Barack Obama is going to take away your guns but have fun living in delusion land.


----------



## Ninja (Sep 23, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Fool, posting a little tidbit of my entire post means nothing.
> 
> I've addressed your points, you can think all you want that Barack Obama is going to take away your guns but have fun living in delusion land.



You have not addressed ONE SINGLE FUCKING FACT that I've cited, much less refuted any of them. 

I warned you not to debate gun control with me, Robbie. Your idiotic talking points are no match for FACTS, LOGIC, and REASON. 

The fact that you're being such a whiny little bitch about it shows how much it stings 

Oh well, we knew you were an idiot. 

Anyone intelligent want to debate me? Caligirl?


----------



## Ninja (Sep 23, 2008)

Navy1960 said:


> Actually, Obama's writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:
> 
> 35. Do you support state legislation to:
> a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
> ...



Don't show Robbie. The TRUTH is kind of hard for him to deal with. Like last year when he found out Santa Claus isn't real


----------



## Modbert (Sep 23, 2008)

Ninja said:


> Don't show Robbie. The TRUTH is kind of hard for him to deal with. Like last year when he found out Santa Claus isn't real



So if we compare John McCain's view points from 1996 and now, we'd find a bunch of flip flops. What's your point? People can't change their view on things?


----------



## Modbert (Sep 23, 2008)

Ninja said:


> You have not addressed ONE SINGLE FUCKING FACT that I've cited, much less refuted any of them.
> 
> I warned you not to debate gun control with me, Robbie. Your idiotic talking points are no match for FACTS, LOGIC, and REASON.
> 
> ...



I've debated what you said.

You just post GOP drivel, what you consider insults, and things are not even related to the topic.

I'm so glad you think calling me a kid is a insult, I'm 17. I'm willing to bet you weren't even 1/4 this educated on the issues at my age.


----------



## HoleInTheVoid (Sep 23, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Gun Control is not taking away your guns.
> 
> Though feel free to complain when someone breaks into your house and harms your family or yourself because they were allowed to get a gun because of no gun control laws.
> 
> ...


Um-m-m-m...

...where is it legal for a convicted felon to own a gun absent a gubernatorial restoration of rights?


----------



## Modbert (Sep 23, 2008)

HoleInTheVoid said:


> Um-m-m-m...
> 
> ...where is it legal for a convicted felon to own a gun absent a gubernatorial restoration of rights?



I'm saying if there were no gun control laws and everyone was free to own a gun then VIOLENT (I cap the word violent for a reason) felons would be able to own a gun.


----------



## Ninja (Sep 23, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> So if we compare John McCain's view points from 1996 and now, we'd find a bunch of flip flops. What's your point? People can't change their view on things?



Yes Robbie, John McCain one proposed banning handguns, and all semiautomatic firearms, and supported the DC handgun ban, and thinks cities have the right to ignore the Constitution, and wanted 1 month waiting periods, and banning rifles with so-called "assault weapons" features like flash hiders, and collapsible buttstocks, and "conspicuously-protruding" pistol grips, and standard-capacity magazines, and bayonet lugs, and flash hiders, and caliber restrictions for civilians, and 500% ammo and firearm tax increases, and... Oh, whatever, you get the picture.

Hmm, what does Eugene Volokh have to say about FactCheck.org's mockery of fact-checking?



> FactCheck.org is an excellent project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. It a non-partisan organization which provides factual evaluations of the claims of and about political figures. I have cited it in my own writing, and will continue to do so. However, that FactCheck has a well-deserved reputation for accuracy and good judgment does not mean that its work is infallible, as the VC has pointed out previously. The Encyclopedia Britannica also has a well-deserved reputation for accuracy and impartiality, but the Britannica sometimes contains errors or overstatements.
> 
> FactChecks September 22, 2008, report on the National Rifle Associations advertising critical claims that the NRA distorts Obama's position on gun control beyond recognition. FactCheck itself, though, has overstated its claims, and made several errors.
> 
> ...



The Volokh Conspiracy - FactCheck flubs Obama gun fact check:







*They're called FACTS, bitch. Learn 'em. Live 'em. *


----------



## Modbert (Sep 23, 2008)

Ninja said:


> Yes Robbie, John McCain one proposed banning handguns, and all semiautomatic firearms, and supported the DC handgun ban, and thinks cities have the right to ignore the Constitution, and wanted 1 month waiting periods, and banning rifles with so-called "assault weapons" features like flash hiders, and collapsible buttstocks, and "conspicuously-protruding" pistol grips, and standard-capacity magazines, and bayonet lugs, and flash hiders, and caliber restrictions for civilians, and 500% ammo and firearm tax increases, and... Oh, whatever, you get the picture.
> 
> Hmm, what does Eugene Volokh have to say about FactCheck.org's mockery of fact-checking?
> 
> ...



You should probably know the fact that it's illegal on this board to post full articles then huh?



> Volokh is a libertarian-leaning conservative. He is noted for his scholarship on the First and Second Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as on copyright law. He advocates campus speech rights and religious freedom, and opposes racial preferences, having worked as a legal advisor to California's Proposition 209 campaign. He is a critic of what he sees as the overly broad operation of American workplace harassment laws, including those relating to sexual harassment.


 - Wikipedia

What a surprise you get a Conservative's POV Ninja. You continue to surprise me.


----------



## Modbert (Sep 23, 2008)

Oh and here's something about your Messiah Mumbles McCain (MMM haha) from Newsweek.

McCain's Silence on "Terror Gap" In Gun Law | Newsweek Periscope | Newsweek.com


----------



## Ninja (Sep 23, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> I'm willing to bet you weren't even 1/4 this educated on the issues at my age.



Well golly Robert age 17 I'd already qualified for the most grueling state high school wrestling tournament in the country, had destroyed the SAT and had been granted acceptance into one of the best Universities in the country. 

My only regret is that I didn't spend any time on message boards! 
*
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

            

Oh, and BTW - there were idiots in my SAT prep class just as ill-informed as you are now. Current events and politics came up during essay prep.


----------



## Ninja (Sep 23, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> What a surprise you get a Conservative's POV Ninja. You continue to surprise me.



is this Fallacious Argument day?

First the Strawman, now the TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE of a genetic fallacy?

Retarded 

Not that the source matters - since we're dealing with the cold, hard FACTS that you can't refute, but that "Conservative's POV" comes from a faculty member at one of the best law schools in the country.

Sucks to be you, Robbie.


----------



## HoleInTheVoid (Sep 23, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> I'm saying if there were no gun control laws and everyone was free to own a gun then VIOLENT (I cap the word violent for a reason) felons would be able to own a gun.



What you're doing is engaging in a strawman argument.

Not even the most avid RKBA'er (myself for example) advocates guns in the hands of criminals. Actually we prefer dead criminals, which is why we prefer guns in our hands.


----------



## Modbert (Sep 23, 2008)

Ninja said:


> Well golly Robert age 17 I'd already qualified for the most grueling state high school wrestling tournament in the country, had destroyed the SAT and had been granted acceptance into one of the best Universities in the country.
> 
> My only regret is that I didn't spend any time on message boards!
> *
> ...



You do realize the SAT is not even accepted in more and more schools as a way to judge entries into college? Schools like Wake Forest are no longer requiring SAT scores.

Wake Forest joins schools dropping SAT requirement - Boston.com

And I didn't know wrestling had anything to do with intelligence? Unless your trying to infer something else like saying it's wrong for me to be here.

And trying to insult my intelligence? Beautiful, really. That really shows you have nothing to say except try to belittle others in order to make yourself look better. Notice I say try because you fail at it.


----------



## Modbert (Sep 23, 2008)

Ninja said:


> is this Fallacious Argument day?
> 
> First the Strawman, now the TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE of a genetic fallacy?
> 
> ...





The source doesn't matter? Half the BS I hear from you is how the source doesn't matter when I POST SOMETHING. But of course when it's from you, it's a okay.

Doublethink and double standard much?


----------



## Modbert (Sep 23, 2008)

HoleInTheVoid said:


> What you're doing is engaging in a strawman argument.
> 
> Not even the most avid RKBA'er (myself for example) advocates guns in the hands of criminals. Actually we prefer dead criminals, which is why we prefer guns in our hands.



I'm not engaging in a strawman argument.

If you don't want felons to have guns, then you make measures like Gun Control laws. Whats not simple about that logic? 

Unless you feel we rather should go around shooting them, which is what you said in you rather prefer dead criminals.


----------



## Ninja (Sep 23, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> The source doesn't matter? Half the BS I hear from you is how the source doesn't matter when I POST SOMETHING. But of course when it's from you, it's a okay.
> 
> Doublethink and double standard much?



Another lie. But even if true, yet ANOTHER logical fallacy:

Fallacy: Two Wrongs Make a Right

I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell ya!



Time for Taco Tuesday. Have fun doing your homework, Robbie


----------



## del (Sep 23, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> I'm saying if there were no gun control laws and everyone was free to own a gun then VIOLENT (I cap the word violent for a reason) felons would be able to own a gun.



and if there was no up, there'd be no down.
 keep swinging.


----------



## Modbert (Sep 23, 2008)

Ninja said:


> Another lie. But even if true, yet ANOTHER logical fallacy:
> 
> Fallacy: Two Wrongs Make a Right
> 
> ...



It is true but that's not the reason I think the article is BS in general.

I just find it ironic you post from a source that is Right Wing but if I dare post anything that's not Fox News you flip out.


----------



## elvis (Sep 23, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> I'm saying if there were no gun control laws and everyone was free to own a gun then VIOLENT (I cap the word violent for a reason) felons would be able to own a gun.



You mean the way machine guns are illegal, and yet violent felons still somehow get their hands on them?  Tell me, how do gun control laws eliminate drive-by shootings?


----------



## necritan (Sep 23, 2008)

Ninja said:


> You have not addressed ONE SINGLE FUCKING FACT that I've cited, much less refuted any of them.
> 
> I warned you not to debate gun control with me, Robbie. Your idiotic talking points are no match for FACTS, LOGIC, and REASON.
> 
> ...



I'd debate you on this one......but unfortunately I'm in total agreement.


----------



## Modbert (Sep 23, 2008)

elvis3577 said:


> You mean the way machine guns are illegal, and yet violent felons still somehow get their hands on them?  Tell me, how do gun control laws eliminate drive-by shootings?



Did I ever say that gun control laws prevent felons from getting guns?

Tell me where I said that. It's a measure TO Prevent them from getting guns but doesn't prevent it completely.

Just like making drugs illegal and yet people still get their hands on them.


----------



## HoleInTheVoid (Sep 23, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> I'm not engaging in a strawman argument.
> 
> If you don't want felons to have guns, then you make measures like Gun Control laws. Whats not simple about that logic?


Except the laws already exist.

Gun control advocates want new laws that, regardless of their intent, only effect law-abiding citizens.

For example, gun-free zones.

Absolutely moronic.



> Unless you feel we rather should go around shooting them, which is what you said in you rather prefer dead criminals.


Go around shooting who? We're not going around anywhere shooting anyone. Generally the criminals reveal themselves by being in your home in the middle of the night.

But when a man is put on trial for defending his home against an invader the law has done something grievously wrong.


----------



## elvis (Sep 23, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Did I ever say that gun control laws prevent felons from getting guns?
> 
> Tell me where I said that. It's a measure TO Prevent them from getting guns but doesn't prevent it completely.
> 
> Just like making drugs illegal and yet people still get their hands on them.



You said if there were no gun laws, violent felons would be able to get their hands on guns, as if the gun control laws keep guns out of felons hands  They already get their hands on guns with the restrictions in place.


----------



## Modbert (Sep 23, 2008)

I don't get where Ninja thinks Gun Control laws are a bad thing.

Am I wanting to take your guns away? No

Am I wanting to make sure there are laws in place so least the country will be a little safer? Yes

Do I believe that criminals can still get their hands on guns if they really wanted? Of Course

Would I support Barack Obama's view on Guns if it was his current stance from what Navy posted? No

When and if the day the comes where the Gov't tries to take away your guns, I'll stand right up there with you. It reminds me of a quote.

When they took the 4th Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs. 
When they took the 6th Amendment, I was quiet because I am innocent. 
When they took the 2nd Amendment, I was quiet because I don't own a gun. 
Now they have taken the 1st Amendment, and I can only be quiet. 
 Lyle Myhr

I've debated on this board in support of the 2nd amendment. I was severely against the fact that people's guns were taken away from them during Hurricane Katrina. (Though thankfully there is a law against such measures now.)

I'm not out to take your guns, so for those trying to paint me with that brush are misleading.


----------



## Modbert (Sep 23, 2008)

elvis3577 said:


> You said if there were no gun laws, violent felons would be able to get their hands on guns, as if the gun control laws keep guns out of felons hands  They already get their hands on guns with the restrictions in place.



Well yes, Violent felons would be able to get their hands on guns (MORE EASIER) I should say.

That better? And that's now a fact isn't it?


----------



## HoleInTheVoid (Sep 23, 2008)

OK, I'll bite: What is a responsible, 2nd Amend. friendly form of gun control that does not currently exist and when do we know we have infringed upon a right?

Nothing accusatory here, just asking to avoid any misunderstandings.


----------



## elvis (Sep 23, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Well yes, Violent felons would be able to get their hands on guns (MORE EASIER) I should say.
> 
> That better? And that's now a fact isn't it?



It's hard to tell.  In the innercity, I dont think it would be any easier for people to get uzi's than it is now.


----------



## Modbert (Sep 23, 2008)

HoleInTheVoid said:


> Except the laws already exist.
> 
> Gun control advocates want new laws that, regardless of their intent, only effect law-abiding citizens.
> 
> ...



For your 1st point, perhaps the current laws need to be revised or better enforced then. We have too many innocent and accidental gun deaths in this country, never mind the amount of criminals who can get their hands on guns.

To the gun-free zones, I can see certain areas being gun free zones. I.E: School zones, playgrounds,etc. 

On your second point: I mistook that then, I thought you were saying we would go around shooting criminals.

I believe in the right if someone invades your home, trying to harm you then you have the right to respond in fashion with a gun or weapon of choice.

I agree that when a man is on trial for defending his home and family from criminals against an invader of the law who's intent was to harm is when the law is wrong.


----------



## Modbert (Sep 23, 2008)

HoleInTheVoid said:


> OK, I'll bite: What is a responsible, 2nd Amend. friendly form of gun control that does not currently exist and when do we know we have infringed upon a right?
> 
> Nothing accusatory here, just asking to avoid any misunderstandings.



Look what I said above. If that doesn't explain my views then I'm willing to reanswer your question.


----------



## necritan (Sep 23, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Did I ever say that gun control laws prevent felons from getting guns?
> 
> Tell me where I said that. It's a measure TO Prevent them from getting guns but doesn't prevent it completely.
> 
> Just like making drugs illegal and yet people still get their hands on them.




I'm going to try and be gentle.....

Obama and Biden want more "Gun Control".......yet we already have it in place. Felons aren't allowed to by guns.....it's the law. 

What then do you think they are referring to???

What they want are gun restrictions.......for example....here in the Golden state.... the attorney general has deemed that no handgun's available right now fit the loaded chamber indicator criteria. Do you know what that does???

For one.....many handguns are devoid of loaded chamber indicators.....and the ones that are....are left out too because they are insufficient to qualify by ruling of the AG.


Qualify for what you may ask......??? The California Approved Roster of Handguns. Handguns must be on this list before you buy them from a dealer....if not....no handgun. No guns to put on this list anymore and....."Poof".....theres the gun control we are hearing about.

Ninja has spoken about the government "nuetering" the 2nd.....and that is what is happening in California. Restrict the guns to the point of extinction.....thats their plan.

Does this make any sense to ya?????


----------



## Modbert (Sep 23, 2008)

elvis3577 said:


> It's hard to tell.  In the innercity, I dont think it would be any easier for people to get uzi's than it is now.



Maybe in the inner city where illegal guns are already rampant, easier to get,etc. It all depends on what city your talking about. The same can be said for certain country sides too.

But the only thing is where do the people in the inner cities get the guns from? Not the people who use them, rather the people who use them get them from.

Illegal gun dealers.

I feel there is a need for Gun Control laws but at the same time not step over it's boundries and infrige on people's rights to bear arms.


----------



## elvis (Sep 23, 2008)

HoleInTheVoid said:


> OK, I'll bite: What is a responsible, 2nd Amend. friendly form of gun control that does not currently exist and when do we know we have infringed upon a right?
> 
> Nothing accusatory here, just asking to avoid any misunderstandings.



If we have to let the government know anything about our purchase of a firearm, our rights have been infringed upon.

When it is illegal to own any firearm, including a machine gun, our rights have been infringed upon.


----------



## HoleInTheVoid (Sep 23, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Look what I said above. If that doesn't explain my views then I'm willing to reanswer your question.



no, you're fine; we cross-posted.

SERIOUS QUERY: If a killer was bent on mass murder do you think he would seek out a gun range or a gun-free zone?


----------



## elvis (Sep 23, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Maybe in the inner city where illegal guns are already rampant, easier to get,etc. It all depends on what city your talking about. The same can be said for certain country sides too.
> 
> But the only thing is where do the people in the inner cities get the guns from? Not the people who use them, rather the people who use them get them from.
> 
> ...



That's just it.  When alcohol was illegal, Al Capone made millions selling alcohol illegally, just like drug lords today make millions or billions.


----------



## Modbert (Sep 23, 2008)

necritan said:


> I'm going to try and be gentle.....
> 
> Obama and Biden want more "Gun Control".......yet we already have it in place. Felons aren't allowed to by guns.....it's the law.
> 
> ...



It makes sense to me certainly. I don't live in CA so that's certainly new for me to hear. Thank you for bringing that up.

I personally rather not see that happen.

At this point I'm not debating for MORE gun control, just gun control in general.

If we would have more gun control, I just rather not see it infrige on people's rights but that seems tougher to do these days.


----------



## necritan (Sep 23, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> For your 1st point, perhaps the current laws need to be revised or better enforced then. We have too many innocent and accidental gun deaths in this country, never mind the amount of criminals who can get their hands on guns.
> 
> To the gun-free zones, I can see certain areas being gun free zones. I.E: School zones, playgrounds,etc.
> 
> ...



Please dont use accidental gun deaths as a reason for gun control......how many kids drown in pools each year as a result of negligence??

Also......how many *less* people would have died if some law-abiding teachers were packing at Columbine and V. Tech?????


----------



## Modbert (Sep 23, 2008)

HoleInTheVoid said:


> no, you're fine; we cross-posted.
> 
> SERIOUS QUERY: If a killer was bent on mass murder do you think he would seek out a gun range or a gun-free zone?



Gun-Free zone obviously. But that's why we need to rely on Police.

Besides, I'm not naive and I know that people will still carry these guns in the gun-free zones.

But that's going into whole another debate like whether teachers should be allowed to carry guns because of things like Columbine,etc.


----------



## Modbert (Sep 23, 2008)

necritan said:


> Please dont use accidental gun deaths as a reason for gun control......how many kids drown in pools each year as a result of negligence??
> 
> Also......how many *less* people would have died if some law-abiding teachers were packing at Columbine and V. Tech?????



How ironic is it that I brought that up in a post made at the same time.

We are thinking on the same page here.


----------



## Modbert (Sep 23, 2008)

elvis3577 said:


> That's just it.  When alcohol was illegal, Al Capone made millions selling alcohol illegally, just like drug lords today make millions or billions.



Exactly, trust me your talking to someone who is a big supporter to end "The War on Drugs" but again that is a whole another debate. Also, someone who knows all about Prohibition and the Mafia.

Alcohol and Guns are two different things. Though together make a dangerous combo. THAT we can all agree upon no?


----------



## necritan (Sep 23, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Alcohol and Guns are two different things. Though together make a dangerous combo. THAT we can all agree upon no?



Agreed


----------



## necritan (Sep 23, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> But that's why we need to rely on Police.



I....for one....will not rely on Police. They react to....rather than prevent....crime. 

They are not required to take or deliver a bullet to save me......nor can I shove an officer of the law down my pants to be there at all times.


----------



## Modbert (Sep 23, 2008)

necritan said:


> I....for one....will not rely on Police. They react to....rather than prevent....crime.
> 
> They are not required to take or deliver a bullet to save me......nor can I shove an officer of the law down my pants to be there at all times.



If you look at it that way then yes. I agree with you 100% there.

I can tell you straight out that personally I don't rely on the police though in a utopian world we should rely on the police; too bad we don't live in one of those.

I remember reading more then a few books about Columbine, and I agree many lives could of been saved if some teachers were packing heat. I remember reading how the police did nothing and just waited. And I realized that could be my school one day if someone ever went psycho.

It's a scary thought really.


----------



## necritan (Sep 23, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> If you look at it that way then yes. I agree with you 100% there.
> 
> I can tell you straight out that personally I don't rely on the police though in a utopian world we should rely on the police; too bad we don't live in one of those.
> 
> ...



Yes it is.....my son is in school and it frightens me to know that the teachers are armed with nothing but very sharp pencils if some wacko tried to hurt or kidnap the children.


----------



## Modbert (Sep 23, 2008)

necritan said:


> Yes it is.....my son is in school and it frightens me to know that the teachers are armed with nothing but very sharp pencils if some wacko tried to hurt or kidnap the children.



How old is your son if you don't mind me asking?

And I know how you can feel that way. I try to not let it bother me but with each tragedy the thought comes to the forefront of one's mind.


----------



## necritan (Sep 23, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> How old is your son if you don't mind me asking?
> 
> And I know how you can feel that way. I try to not let it bother me but with each tragedy the thought comes to the forefront of one's mind.



He is 6.


----------



## Modbert (Sep 23, 2008)

necritan said:


> He is 6.



I see, I can see why you would be worried.

Someone like me would least have the ability to know how to escape,etc when your son would have more of a problem. I do hope that day never dawns upon us though where that has to be a problem, and I'm sure you feel the same way.


----------



## LOki (Sep 25, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Gun Control is not taking away your guns.


They most certainly are--you should try actually reading some of them to find out what they are really about, rather than relying upon what their proponents claim they're about.



Robert_Santurri said:


> Though feel free to complain when someone breaks into your house and harms your family or yourself because they were allowed to get a gun because of no gun control laws.
> 
> Tell me how you'll feel then.


Nice. Except the gun control laws don't prevent criminals from getting gun, they prevent the victims of criminals from getting guns--these victims often get shot, and are not able then to make this complaint of yours.



Robert_Santurri said:


> There are certain people in this country who either have lost the right to own a gun, aren't fit to have a gun, or have abused their right.


Fine. So go after THEM, rather than the rest of us. Put THEM on a list; make THEM get a permit to have a gun; require THEM to register THEIR guns--leave the rest of us alone.


----------



## LOki (Sep 25, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> I'm saying if there were no gun control laws and everyone was free to own a gun then VIOLENT (I cap the word violent for a reason) felons would be able to own a gun.


There ARE gun contol laws, and violent felons are still able to own guns. Why is this? 

It's because the actual point of gun control laws is not to disarm violent felons--the point of gun control is to disarm regular folks.


----------



## busara (Sep 25, 2008)

LOki said:


> There ARE gun contol laws, and violent felons are still able to own guns. Why is this?
> 
> It's because the actual point of gun control laws is not to disarm violent felons--the point of gun control is to disarm regular folks.



Loki, youre making a lot of claims here. can you actually back it up?


i saw one of these adds yesterday. it looked like it was made in a highschool videography class. theyre just trying to scare people into thinking that the evil liberals will take all their guns. made me laugh


----------



## LOki (Sep 25, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Well yes, Violent felons would be able to get their hands on guns (MORE EASIER) I should say.
> 
> That better? And that's now a fact isn't it?


I would prefer that violent felons just got their guns at Wal-Mart--I would really prefer that violent felons could walk into a 7-11 and purchase a gun, without so much as an I.D. check, to the current state of affairs where a violent felon MUST make a black-market purchase, or break into someone's home, to get a gun; to the current state of affairs where bureaucratic and financial obstacles are placed (unconstitutionally, by our government) between regular folks having guns to defend themselves from aggressors--including violent felons.


----------



## Ravi (Sep 25, 2008)

Ninja said:


> McCain said during one of the debates that the last firearm he handled was the 1911 on his hip when he was shot down.
> 
> When you've been through so much torture that you're physically unable to use a keyboard to send an email, it can be kinda hard to safely handle and fire guns, ya know?
> 
> Regardless, his voting record speaks for itself. He is the candidate who will uphold the Bill of Rights.


Ninja, I'm curious. Have you ever refrained from posting lies?


----------



## LOki (Sep 25, 2008)

busara said:


> Loki, youre making a lot of claims here. can you actually back it up?


I have made two claims here. Can you refute them?



busara said:


> i saw one of these adds yesterday. it looked like it was made in a highschool videography class. theyre just trying to scare people into thinking that the evil liberals will take all their guns. made me laugh


I don't think the anti-rights movement is confined to "liberals"; the gun control record of the "conservative" in office speaks for itself.


----------



## Mauser (Sep 25, 2008)

Silence said:


> if people are really going to base their vote on gun laws when our economy is in the shitter good luck to ya.
> 
> Obama has said that he believes in the 2nd amendment but he sees no reason why there can't be a ban on certain weapons.
> 
> it doesn't need to be a free for all.



Wanting to ban semi-automatic rifles and being opposed to concealed carry tells me that regardless of what he might say.....he really doesn't support the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## busara (Sep 25, 2008)

LOki said:


> I have made two claims here. Can you refute them?
> 
> I don't think the anti-rights movement is confined to "liberals"; the gun control record of the "conservative" in office speaks for itself.



the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim


----------



## busara (Sep 25, 2008)

Mauser said:


> Wanting to ban semi-automatic rifles and being opposed to concealed carry tells me that regardless of what he might say.....he really doesn't support the 2nd Amendment.



so not wanting people to carry around AK47's and not wanting people to secretely carry a handgun is the same as not supporting any form of gun ownership? your logic is flawed


----------



## LOki (Sep 25, 2008)

busara said:


> the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim


The burden of refuting claims is upon the one who is refuting the claims.

Is your position that it is NOT apparent that there are gun control  laws? If so, you're a retard.

Is it also your postion that it is NOT apparent that felons get guns? If so, you're  retarded.

Since gun control laws have little effect upon felons who cannot legally possess guns, yet still do; who do not submit themselves to background checks, waiting periods, licensing applications and fees, registration applications and fees, or any other gun control law--who do you suspect is actually burdened by such laws? If you cannot even fathom a guess, you're profoundly retarded.


----------



## busara (Sep 25, 2008)

LOki said:


> Is your position that it is NOT apparent that there are gun control  laws? If so, you're a retard.
> 
> Is it also your postion that it is NOT apparent that felons get guns? If so, you're profoundly retarded.





i said no such thing.

you said all gun control laws do are make it harder for victims to get guns, but do nothing to keep them away from criminals. do you have evidence for this? you dont need to be a bitch about it.


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Sep 25, 2008)

busara said:


> i said no such thing.
> 
> you said all gun control laws do are make it harder for victims to get guns, but do nothing to keep them away from criminals. do you have evidence for this? you dont need to be a bitch about it.



It is a relative assumption considering criminals are less likely to adhere to gun control laws. Law abiding citizen, ie. "victims" are more likely to adhere to these laws. That makes Loki's statement relatively true. You don't need evidence to prove what is already proven.


----------



## busara (Sep 25, 2008)

CrimsonWhite said:


> It is a relative assumption considering criminals are less likely to adhere to gun control laws. Law abiding citizen, ie. "victims" are more likely to adhere to these laws. That makes Loki's statement relatively true. You don't need evidence to prove what is already proven.





oh, ok this statement "It's because the actual point of gun control laws is not to disarm violent felons--the point of gun control is to disarm regular folks." is _RELATIVELY _proven, so it shouldnt be questioned.


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Sep 25, 2008)

Silence said:


> if people are really going to base their vote on gun laws when our economy is in the shitter good luck to ya.
> 
> Obama has said that he believes in the 2nd amendment but he sees no reason why there can't be a ban on certain weapons.
> 
> it doesn't need to be a free for all.



When Obama can define the term "bear arms" correctly he can tell me that he "believes" in the second amendment.


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Sep 25, 2008)

busara said:


> oh, ok this statement "It's because the actual point of gun control laws is not to disarm violent felons--the point of gun control is to disarm regular folks." is _RELATIVELY _proven, so it shouldnt be questioned.



It may not be the direct goal to disarm what Loki calls "regular folks" but it is the direct result, yet criminals still have guns.


----------



## busara (Sep 25, 2008)

CrimsonWhite said:


> It may not be the direct goal to disarm what Loki calls "regular folks" but it is the direct result, yet criminals still have guns.



it is the direct result because you say it is relatively true? all im asking for is some numbers, not your conjecture


----------



## elvis (Sep 25, 2008)

CrimsonWhite said:


> It may not be the direct goal to disarm what Loki calls "regular folks" but it is the direct result, yet criminals still have guns.



You're just clinging to guns because you are bitter.


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Sep 25, 2008)

busara said:


> it is the direct result because you say it is relatively true? all im asking for is some numbers, not your conjecture



There are no numbers. It is simply accepted. Like the sky is blue, fire is hot, and water is wet. You don't need numbers to realize that gun laws restrict law abiding citizens from buying guns, while criminals will continue to acquire guns in a not so legal manner. 

Are you really this dumb? Is this really that difficult to grasp?


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Sep 25, 2008)

elvis3577 said:


> You're just clinging to guns because you are bitter.



Yep, thats me. I'm bitter. Guess I better cling to my religion to.


----------



## elvis (Sep 25, 2008)

CrimsonWhite said:


> Yep, thats me. I'm bitter. Guess I better cling to my religion to.



And don't forget the anti-trade.


----------



## busara (Sep 25, 2008)

CrimsonWhite said:


> There are no numbers. It is simply accepted. Like the sky is blue, fire is hot, and water is wet. You don't need numbers to realize that gun laws restrict law abiding citizens from buying guns, while criminals will continue to acquire guns in a not so legal manner.
> 
> Are you really this dumb? Is this really that difficult to grasp?



so you stoop to insults. way to be mature.

it ISNT commonly accepted. where are your numbers that gun control laws have had no effect on the number of criminals getting weapons while it is keeping future victims of crimes from getting them when desired? you cant claim something to be fact without any evidence to support it!! is that hard for YOU to understand?


----------



## Mauser (Sep 25, 2008)

busara said:


> so not wanting people to carry around AK47's and not wanting people to secretely carry a handgun is the same as not supporting any form of gun ownership? your logic is flawed



First....an AK47 is an automatic rifle, not a semi-automatic rifle.  

Secondly.....if a person is licensed by their state to carry a concealed weapon, then I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do so.

I should also mention that Obama has, in the past, supported a total ban on all forms of semi-automatic weapons.....both rifles and pistols.

When Barack Obama talks about the 2nd Amendment, he immediately begins talking about hunting and sport shooting.  Apparently, he believes it merely protects our right to keep and bear sporting goods.  He also says that we should be able to own firearms to defend ourselves.....but apparently this right to self defense ends when we leave our home.

I seriously wonder if he has any clue at all as to the purpose of the Amendment.


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Sep 25, 2008)

busara said:


> so you stoop to insults. way to be mature.
> 
> it ISNT commonly accepted. where are your numbers that gun control laws have had no effect on the number of criminals getting weapons while it is keeping future victims of crimes from getting them when desired? you cant claim something to be fact without any evidence to support it!! is that hard for YOU to understand?



My dad once told me that you cannot debate someone that you have to educate first. 

Not everything can be supported by numbers. Not everything is studied and just because you don't accept it, does not mean that it isn't true. I could take the explanation that I just gave you into a court room and it would stand as fact.


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Sep 25, 2008)

busara said:


> so not wanting people to carry around AK47's and not wanting people to secretely carry a handgun is the same as not supporting any form of gun ownership? your logic is flawed



My right to carry a gun is protected by the constitution. Hence the term "bear arms."


----------



## LOki (Sep 25, 2008)

busara said:


> oh, ok this statement "It's because the actual point of gun control laws is not to disarm violent felons--the point of gun control is to disarm regular folks." is _RELATIVELY _*proven, so it shouldnt be questioned*.


Strawman.

Question away.

It is patently obvious that requiring background checks is in no way meant to prevent folks who do do not submit themeslves to background checks (violent felons, for instance) from getting guns.

It is also patently obvious that requiring gun registration is in no way meant to prevent folks who do not register their guns (violent felons, for instance) from getting guns.

It is also patently obvious that requiring waiting periods is in no way meant to prevent folks who do not observe waiting periods (violent felons, for instance) from getting their guns right now.

It is also patently obvious that criminalizing ownership of guns is in any way meant to prevent criminals (violent felons, for instance) from getting guns.

The patently obvious truth is that background checks, waiting periods, and gun registration are the baby steps toward criminalizing gun ownership for decent, law-abiding folks--the victims of violent felons--rather than the criminals themselves.  This is the patently clear intent of such legislation, otherwise these laws would not infringe upon the rights of decent, law-abiding folks to legally obtain guns--they'd be able to walk right into any Wal-Mart, bait shop, hardware store, or sporting goods store and buy any gun they desired without having to produce anything but legal tender.

The obvious point of gun control legislation is to prevent just that--the ability of decent, law abiding folks to legally obtain any gun they choose without the permission, interference, or any other infringment upon their right, by the government.


----------



## busara (Sep 25, 2008)

CrimsonWhite said:


> My dad once told me that you cannot debate someone that you have to educate first.
> 
> Not everything can be supported by numbers. Not everything is studied and just because you don't accept it, does not mean that it isn't true. I could take the explanation that I just gave you into a court room and it would stand as fact.



you could easily have said that there is no evidence to support the claim. if you cant back up a claim, it WONT hold up in court. all i wanted was evidence that gun control laws have no effect on criminals getting guns. simply saying 'its obvious' isnt enough. and im not trying to debate, i am asking for the facts. guess the fact is that there is no concrete evidence to support the claim.


----------



## Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

CrimsonWhite said:


> My dad once told me that you cannot debate someone that you have to educate first.



Yep. Busara's one of the "we need to ban assault weapons" types. The problem is, he thinks that when his favorite anti-gun politicians talk about assault weapons, they're talking about machine guns.

Probably thought Obama was talking about machine guns when he reference AK-47s during his speech.

Busara has a weak, malleable mind and enjoys being lied to. I'd say debate is a waste of time. 

I still note that no one has refuted the NRA ads. Suck it, bitchs.


----------



## busara (Sep 25, 2008)

Ninja said:


> Yep. Busara's one of the "we need to ban assault weapons" types. The problem is, he thinks that when his favorite anti-gun politicians talk about assault weapons, they're talking about machine guns.
> 
> Probably thought Obama was talking about machine guns when he reference AK-47s during his speech.
> 
> ...



ninja, you havent had a viable debate on this board either. you just say shit and then leave without any evidence. as i said, im not looking to debate. i just wanted to see some evidence to back up the claims, and i have yet to see any. but yeah, that makes me unreasonable. i support the 2nd, i just dont see the need to own huge ass guns. but that isnt the issue here. the issue is claims without factual support


----------



## Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

busara said:


> you just say shit and then leave without any evidence.



A brass-faced lie. This thread proves you wrong.

Next.


----------



## busara (Sep 25, 2008)

Ninja said:


> A brass-faced lie. This thread proves you wrong.
> 
> Next.



sure ninja. sure.

oh yeah, and just ignore the fact that im just looking for some facts for the question i asked. no one else is providing them. can you?


----------



## Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

"My dad once told me that you cannot debate someone that you have to educate first."

Agreed. Busara's living proof of this. Maybe when he goes and learns what an "assault weapon" is so he doesn't come off as a gun-ignorant twerp, we can have a nice debate.

I personally don't care about felons having firearms. I care about them using firearms to commit crimes. So rather than look at the relationship between gun control laws and the number of criminals getting weapons (which seems impossible to accurately measure), I look at the relationship between gun control laws and the crime rate. There's a treasure trove of info on this. Do some research on this after learning what an "assault weapon" is, busara.


----------



## busara (Sep 25, 2008)

Ninja said:


> "My dad once told me that you cannot debate someone that you have to educate first."
> 
> Agreed. Busara's living proof of this. Maybe when he goes and learns what an "assault weapon" is so he doesn't come off as a gun-ignorant twerp, we can have a nice debate.
> 
> I personally don't care about felons having firearms. I care about them using firearms to commit crimes. So rather than look at the relationship between gun control laws and the number of criminals getting weapons (which seems impossible to accurately measure), I look at the relationship between gun control laws and the crime rate. There's a treasure trove of info on this. Do some research on this after learning what an "assault weapon" is, busara.



i know what an assualt rifle is. and i know about the relationship between gun control and crime rates. all i did was ask if the claim about gun control having no effect on criminals getting guns while making future victims have less could be factually substantiated. why? because i like having information, but so far it hasnt been backed up. 

you all are so in love with your guns you took my question as being an attack on guns in general.


----------



## Ravi (Sep 25, 2008)

Hey, Ninja, you whiney ass little neg repper. Quit lying that McCain can't use a keyboard, it makes him look stoopid.


----------



## Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Hey, Ninja, you whiney ass little neg repper. Quit lying that McCain can't use a keyboard, it makes him look stoopid.



Man is it funny watching a grown woman whine about something as inconsequential and meaningless as a neg rep


----------



## Ravi (Sep 25, 2008)

Ninja said:


> Man is it funny watching a grown woman whine about something as inconsequential and meaningless as a neg rep


You're welcome.


----------



## busara (Sep 25, 2008)

Ninja said:


> Man is it funny watching a grown woman whine about something as inconsequential and meaningless as a neg rep



if their meaningless why do you take the time to give them out?


----------



## Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

busara said:


> if their meaningless why do you take the time to give them out?



Because it's hilarious watching grown men and women whine about them.

Makes me have a lollercoaster


----------



## busara (Sep 25, 2008)

Ninja said:


> Because it's hilarious watching grown men and women whine about them.
> 
> Makes me have a lollercoaster



ahhh, easily amused. i see


----------

