Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[2aguy]

You know…Haliburton has done work for every administration…right…….even the rapist clinton…and I would bet they also got contracts under obama…...

 

[kaz]

I wasn't talking about protection. The invasion of Iraq wasn't about protection. It was about oil.

What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?

 

[2aguy]

I wasn't talking about protection. The invasion of Iraq wasn't about protection. It was about oil.

What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?

See..now you are just throwing in the truth to make the lefties look stupid.......

 

[frigidweirdo]

I wasn't talking about protection. The invasion of Iraq wasn't about protection. It was about oil.

What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?

Jeez, I have to explain this almost every time.

In 1999 Hugo Chavez took over the leadership of Venezuela, but 2001 he had the leaders of OPEC strongly supporting his wish to make OPEC a strong cartel. This goes against the US's interests. They don't want OPEC controlling oil prices.

In 2002 the US helped with a coup against Hugo Chavez. In 2003 they invaded Iraq. Two of the four OPEC countries that oppose the US and were supporters of Chavez's policy.

It was about oil, not in the US getting oil from Iraq, but the US not having to put up with OPEC's strong cartel policies.

Right now it's the Saudis at the head of this policy. They can't rely on Iraq or Libya to follow them, so it's Iran, suffering from US imposed sanctions, so they need the money, and therefore need to pump out oil, hence why the sanctions are in place. The same with the sanctions imposed on Venezuela by Obama. However they seem to doing well enough as it is. The US sees the Saudis (and their lack of human rights and their craziness) as allies and won't do anything, so they target Iran and Venezuela, the two OPEC countries who oppose the US.

 

[kaz]

I wasn't talking about protection. The invasion of Iraq wasn't about protection. It was about oil.

What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?

Jeez, I have to explain this almost every time.

In 1999 Hugo Chavez took over the leadership of Venezuela, but 2001 he had the leaders of OPEC strongly supporting his wish to make OPEC a strong cartel. This goes against the US's interests. They don't want OPEC controlling oil prices.

In 2002 the US helped with a coup against Hugo Chavez. In 2003 they invaded Iraq. Two of the four OPEC countries that oppose the US and were supporters of Chavez's policy.

It was about oil, not in the US getting oil from Iraq, but the US not having to put up with OPEC's strong cartel policies.

Right now it's the Saudis at the head of this policy. They can't rely on Iraq or Libya to follow them, so it's Iran, suffering from US imposed sanctions, so they need the money, and therefore need to pump out oil, hence why the sanctions are in place. The same with the sanctions imposed on Venezuela by Obama. However they seem to doing well enough as it is. The US sees the Saudis (and their lack of human rights and their craziness) as allies and won't do anything, so they target Iran and Venezuela, the two OPEC countries who oppose the US.

We invaded a country for one vote in OPEC which is ever increasingly an irrelevant organization as their percent of the oil market continues to shrink with global oil exploration. Tighten the tin foil, I think it's loose...

 

[jon_berzerk]

I wasn't talking about protection. The invasion of Iraq wasn't about protection. It was about oil.

What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?

Jeez, I have to explain this almost every time.

In 1999 Hugo Chavez took over the leadership of Venezuela, but 2001 he had the leaders of OPEC strongly supporting his wish to make OPEC a strong cartel. This goes against the US's interests. They don't want OPEC controlling oil prices.

In 2002 the US helped with a coup against Hugo Chavez. In 2003 they invaded Iraq. Two of the four OPEC countries that oppose the US and were supporters of Chavez's policy.

It was about oil, not in the US getting oil from Iraq, but the US not having to put up with OPEC's strong cartel policies.

Right now it's the Saudis at the head of this policy. They can't rely on Iraq or Libya to follow them, so it's Iran, suffering from US imposed sanctions, so they need the money, and therefore need to pump out oil, hence why the sanctions are in place. The same with the sanctions imposed on Venezuela by Obama. However they seem to doing well enough as it is. The US sees the Saudis (and their lack of human rights and their craziness) as allies and won't do anything, so they target Iran and Venezuela, the two OPEC countries who oppose the US.

We invaded a country for one vote in OPEC which is ever increasingly an irrelevant organization as their percent of the oil market continues to shrink with global oil exploration. Tighten the tin foil, I think it's loose...

--LOL

well put

 

[frigidweirdo]

I wasn't talking about protection. The invasion of Iraq wasn't about protection. It was about oil.

What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?

Jeez, I have to explain this almost every time.

In 1999 Hugo Chavez took over the leadership of Venezuela, but 2001 he had the leaders of OPEC strongly supporting his wish to make OPEC a strong cartel. This goes against the US's interests. They don't want OPEC controlling oil prices.

In 2002 the US helped with a coup against Hugo Chavez. In 2003 they invaded Iraq. Two of the four OPEC countries that oppose the US and were supporters of Chavez's policy.

It was about oil, not in the US getting oil from Iraq, but the US not having to put up with OPEC's strong cartel policies.

Right now it's the Saudis at the head of this policy. They can't rely on Iraq or Libya to follow them, so it's Iran, suffering from US imposed sanctions, so they need the money, and therefore need to pump out oil, hence why the sanctions are in place. The same with the sanctions imposed on Venezuela by Obama. However they seem to doing well enough as it is. The US sees the Saudis (and their lack of human rights and their craziness) as allies and won't do anything, so they target Iran and Venezuela, the two OPEC countries who oppose the US.

We invaded a country for one vote in OPEC which is ever increasingly an irrelevant organization as their percent of the oil market continues to shrink with global oil exploration. Tighten the tin foil, I think it's loose...

Increasingly irrelevant? Are you sure? The US govt felt it was relevant enough to take out Saddam Hussein and Hugo Chavez.

I don't understand what you mean by "one vote in OPEC".

You seem to be trying to ignore what happened in 2003 and why.

 

[kaz]

Another shooting in Oregon, another gun free zone, another case where the only one who didn't follow the law was the criminal. Did the left learn anything from this? Um...no...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Another shooting in Oregon, another gun free zone, another case where the only one who didn't follow the law was the criminal. Did the left learn anything from this? Um...no...

On the contrary -- things proceed according to their plan.

 

[kaz]

AVG-JOE

So, Joe, you're yet another liberal who keeps repeating the ridiculous idea that not being able to buy a gun legally means criminals can't get guns. Why so, Joe? In a country with 310 million guns and open borders, how are you going to keep them from criminals exactly?

 

[danielpalos]

I wasn't talking about protection. The invasion of Iraq wasn't about protection. It was about oil.

What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?

Why did we go there if it was not about oil?

 

[danielpalos]

Another shooting in Oregon, another gun free zone, another case where the only one who didn't follow the law was the criminal. Did the left learn anything from this? Um...no...

That we need better aqueducts and better roads and more, well regulated militia?

 

[kaz]

I wasn't talking about protection. The invasion of Iraq wasn't about protection. It was about oil.

What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?

Why did we go there if it was not about oil?

What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models. They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here. Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.

This is where they will do their famous routine called: If a law hasn't stopped something 100% then its a waste of time

I told ya'll this shit on page 3. This is the classic republaccusers bait. Ask for suggestions so all they have to do is pull the trigger and shoot down everyone elses stuff while not providing one suggestion themselves unless its "status quo"

 

[Wildman]

GUN CONTROL LAW

those who are in control of the gun must not have evil intentions.

pretty simple and to the point.

 

[danielpalos]

I wasn't talking about protection. The invasion of Iraq wasn't about protection. It was about oil.

What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?

Why did we go there if it was not about oil?

What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?

Special pleading much? Iraq does not exist in a vacuum in the Middle East. Just socialism bailing out the wealthiest under our form of Capitalism.

 

[jillian]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

keep teenagers from having sex.... whats yours?

i'm so bored with gun obsessed loons trying to say that guns shouldn't be regulated because some bad guys will still get guns but never once question drunk driving laws, criminal statutes or any other law that governs criminal behavior.

as if any of them were 100%.

idiotic question... but typical rightwnignut garbage.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

Could do as they do in China, KSA, and elsewhere and execute violent criminals first offense. There some reason we want violent predators having the opportunity to reoffend?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

keep teenagers from having sex.... whats yours?

i'm so bored with gun obsessed loons trying to say that guns shouldn't be regulated because some bad guys will still get guns but never once question drunk driving laws, criminal statutes or any other law that governs criminal behavior.

as if any of them were 100%.

^^^
Clear indication that you do not understand the argument.

 

[paulitician]

Dumb assholes could quit handing firearms to their children. That means you, ya camo-wearing redneck fucktards.


11-year-old charged with murdering 8-year-old after argument about puppies

An argument between two children over puppies turned tragic Saturday when an 11-year-old boy killed his 8-year-old neighbor with a shotgun, according to authorities in Jefferson County, Tenn.

The 11-year-old has been charged with first-degree murder in the girl’s death, Jefferson County Sheriff Bud McCoig told The Washington Post. Authorities aren’t releasing the names of either child, but Latasha Dyer told ABC affiliate WATE that her daughter, McKayla, was killed...

More:
11-year-old charged with murdering 8-year-old after argument about puppies