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

[frigidweirdo]

Oil is indirectly the cause of the invasion. We are in the middle east because of oil. That makes us the target of terrorists and their supporters like Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. But the proximate cause of the invasion was to provide stability and fight terror. The idea that W, McCain and Obama are working together for oil is ridiculous and Iraq as I already pointed out wasn't worth actually invading for one of those votes. OPEC is an ever decreasing powerful organization controlling a smaller and smaller percentage of the world's oil and they have thus an ever diminishing ability to control oil prices. Spending hundreds of billions for that isn't a payback

I disagree about it being the indirect cause. Bush went in there for maybe more than one reason, however the main one was to disrupt the unity of OPEC. Why Iraq and not the others? Well Saddam being Saddam. Issues from his father's presidency will also be a factor. Saddam being a problem in the region will also be another reason. But not reason enough to go to war. WMDs were not an issue. They became an issue because Bush wanted them to become an issue.

Yes, the US is in the Middle East because of the oil, and yes it makes the US a target. Why does the US need to be in the Middle East? Products are bought from all around the world. Why is oil so special? We both know why this is so.

You think Bush went in to provide stability? If you do that makes him even more of a failure.

The first thing here is, is it the presidents, or is it those who work behind the scenes and control presidents, control US politics with their money, and they get things to happen? How much would Bush have benefited compared to how much his benefactors would benefit? You get millions of dollars from people to become president, you then start handing out the favors right?

Where does Obama come into this? If you look at the Libya situation you see John McCain putting immense amounts of pressure on Obama to bomb Libya. If you look at the Syria Civil War, you see McCain telling Obama NOT to invade, not to bomb. What's the difference between the two countries exactly? Both have dictators, both in the Middle East sort of area, one's OPEC the other isn't. Guess which one McCain went for!

Obama caved in. No doubt many advisers were telling him to do it too for whatever reason, how much pressure was put on Obama by big money and how much of the pressure came from Obama being a politician who wanted to come out smelling of roses. He saw the "Arab Spring", wanted to be associated with democracy and thought it would help, pressure comes to bomb from the right, he sees it from the political advantage side of it. A poor decision.

What links Bush, McCain and Obama here? Maybe not much. I'd say McCain probably gets a lot of money from people with special interests, through PACs through other means.

Sen. John McCain: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Senator 2016 | OpenSecrets

57% of what he earns for his campaign comes from large donations, 13% from PACs, "other" is 26%. In 2010 he raised $18 million. But it's not just money for his campaign, but also for the party as a whole.

He gets money from pro-Israeli groups, for oil and gas industry, all sorts of things. So many ways to filter money into the pockets of the politicians, it's crazy.

OPEC is an ever decreasing powerful organization. Why? Iraq War, Libyan bombing, sanctions against Iran and Venezuela, that's why. However in 2000 Chavez was making good progress on making it much stronger.

See oil prices rise around this time?

 

[kaz]

Oil is indirectly the cause of the invasion. We are in the middle east because of oil. That makes us the target of terrorists and their supporters like Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. But the proximate cause of the invasion was to provide stability and fight terror. The idea that W, McCain and Obama are working together for oil is ridiculous and Iraq as I already pointed out wasn't worth actually invading for one of those votes. OPEC is an ever decreasing powerful organization controlling a smaller and smaller percentage of the world's oil and they have thus an ever diminishing ability to control oil prices. Spending hundreds of billions for that isn't a payback

I disagree about it being the indirect cause. Bush went in there for maybe more than one reason, however the main one was to disrupt the unity of OPEC. Why Iraq and not the others? Well Saddam being Saddam. Issues from his father's presidency will also be a factor. Saddam being a problem in the region will also be another reason. But not reason enough to go to war. WMDs were not an issue. They became an issue because Bush wanted them to become an issue.

Yes, the US is in the Middle East because of the oil, and yes it makes the US a target. Why does the US need to be in the Middle East? Products are bought from all around the world. Why is oil so special? We both know why this is so.

You think Bush went in to provide stability? If you do that makes him even more of a failure.

The first thing here is, is it the presidents, or is it those who work behind the scenes and control presidents, control US politics with their money, and they get things to happen? How much would Bush have benefited compared to how much his benefactors would benefit? You get millions of dollars from people to become president, you then start handing out the favors right?

Where does Obama come into this? If you look at the Libya situation you see John McCain putting immense amounts of pressure on Obama to bomb Libya. If you look at the Syria Civil War, you see McCain telling Obama NOT to invade, not to bomb. What's the difference between the two countries exactly? Both have dictators, both in the Middle East sort of area, one's OPEC the other isn't. Guess which one McCain went for!

Obama caved in. No doubt many advisers were telling him to do it too for whatever reason, how much pressure was put on Obama by big money and how much of the pressure came from Obama being a politician who wanted to come out smelling of roses. He saw the "Arab Spring", wanted to be associated with democracy and thought it would help, pressure comes to bomb from the right, he sees it from the political advantage side of it. A poor decision.

What links Bush, McCain and Obama here? Maybe not much. I'd say McCain probably gets a lot of money from people with special interests, through PACs through other means.

Sen. John McCain: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Senator 2016 | OpenSecrets

57% of what he earns for his campaign comes from large donations, 13% from PACs, "other" is 26%. In 2010 he raised $18 million. But it's not just money for his campaign, but also for the party as a whole.

He gets money from pro-Israeli groups, for oil and gas industry, all sorts of things. So many ways to filter money into the pockets of the politicians, it's crazy.

OPEC is an ever decreasing powerful organization. Why? Iraq War, Libyan bombing, sanctions against Iran and Venezuela, that's why. However in 2000 Chavez was making good progress on making it much stronger.

See oil prices rise around this time?

Libya was Obama's decision, McCain didn't make him, that's ridiculous. And the only reason Obama didn't attack Syria was that Putin outflanked him

 

[frigidweirdo]

[

Libya was Obama's decision, McCain didn't make him, that's ridiculous. And the only reason Obama didn't attack Syria was that Putin outflanked him

I didn't say it wasn't Obama's decision, did I?

What I did say was that Obama made the decision under pressure from McCain. Why did McCain put so much pressure on Obama over Libya and not Syria? Why did McCain not even bother talking about the Ivory Coast. You tell me.

No, Obama didn't not invade Syria because of Russia.

Look here.

First clashes were 15th February 2011.
The 27th February the anti-Gaddafi coalition formed.

25th February, 10 days after it started

BBC - Mark Mardell's America: Too much or too little?

"Politicians, including John McCain and former, mainly Republican, officials from the left and right have written to president Obama, urging him to take tougher measures including introducing a no-fly zone over Libya, using the US Air Force to stop Col Gaddafi's jets from bombing their own people."



27th February and McCain is critical of Obama over Libya. We're talking 12 days after the first clashes. He was advocating supplying arms and bombing.
Sens. McCain, Lieberman critical of Obama over Libya

He said the US should "stand up for Democracy" and ""America leads," McCain told CNN's "State of the Union" from Cairo. "They're looking to America for leadership, for assistance, for moral support and ratification of the sacrifices they've made in the defense of democracy. America should lead.""

""Get tough," McCain said. However, he stopped short of advocating that U.S. ground forces enter Libya to help oust Gadhafi. Instead, the United States should supply and equip a provisional government, McCain said."

McCain: No ground forces in Libya

Same day McCain said:

"I'm not ready to use ground forces," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

As if he were President.

""Providing the so called provisional government … with the equipment and material they could use and the no fly zone I think could send a very strong message," he said on "Meet the Press." "I'm not ready to use ground forces or further intervention than that.""

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?MonthDisplay=2&YearDisplay=2011

McCain's press releases.

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=4f232501-d649-45df-d2f8-629e4b6f5ebb

22nd February, "
STATEMENT BY SENATORS McCAIN AND LIEBERMAN CONDEMNING THE VIOLENCE IN LIBYA"


That's enough of that. Let's compare this to Syria.

It started on the 15th March 2011 with protests. Security forces fired on protesters.


Syrian rebels don't want U.S. aid, at least for now - Washington Times


McCain: No military solution to Syria crisis

27th April

"Sen. John McCain called Wednesday for sanctions and arrest warrants to be issued for Syria's President Bashar Assad and his inner circle, but said military intervention was not a solution to the crisis."

So, one month 12 days after it started McCain's saying no military action. No no fly zones, nothing but sanctions.

McCain talks about military options in Syria

October 2011, seven months AFTER it started and McCain's finally considering bombing Syria. Took him 12 days to consider bombing Libya.

Why was McCain so different on putting pressure on Obama on these two different Civil Wars?

 

[easyt65]

If the Federal Government - the Liberals - want guns out of the hands of US citizens they should lead by example:

Demand the Secret Service no longer carry guns. Prevent any security guarding Presidents, VPs, their families, Congress and their families - all of them - from carrying guns. The day we see that happen I will hand over mine..... Since it will never happen I have nothing to worry about.

And again, any new anti-gun legislation submitted should have to answer 'YES' to the following 3 questions before even being considered:
1. Would any law have prevented the Oregon shooting? (NO!)
2. Would this NEW law have prevented the Oregon shooting? (NO!)
3. Would criminals obey this law? (NO!)

Next....

 

[kaz]

If the Federal Government - the Liberals - want guns out of the hands of US citizens they should lead by example:

Demand the Secret Service no longer carry guns. Prevent any security guarding Presidents, VPs, their families, Congress and their families - all of them - from carrying guns. The day we see that happen I will hand over mine..... Since it will never happen I have nothing to worry about.

And again, any new anti-gun legislation submitted should have to answer 'YES' to the following 3 questions before even being considered:
1. Would any law have prevented the Oregon shooting? (NO!)
2. Would this NEW law have prevented the Oregon shooting? (NO!)
3. Would criminals obey this law? (NO!)

Next....

Good point, since citizens are then safe from guns, the police won't need them either

 

[easyt65]

Why was McCain so different on putting pressure on Obama on these two different Civil Wars?

Who the hail cares what McCain says or doesn't say or what kind of 'pressure' McCain can assert?! You REALLY think the old, white Rhino fart could put any kind of pressure that would make Obama do something?


Libya was ALL OBAMA! Obama, just like he would do later in Syria, armed TERRORISTS - guys who had been recruiting for about a decade from Libya jihadists from all over to go to Afghanistan and Iraq to kill US troops. THEN he took the country to war ON HIS OWN to help Al Qaeida - perpetrators of 9/11/01 (and 9/11/12) - take over their own country - LIBYA...and all it cost us was the lives of 4 Americans, to include the 1st US Ambassador to be killed in over 30 years! (Can you say 'Treason'?!)

McCain sure as hell didn't "FORCE' Obama to go to war on his own to help Al Qaeida! OBAMA was President, not McCain. Only the President can take a country to war on his own, not McCain! I am so sick of this blame-shifting B$! Obama's a big boy, and he's proved time and again he's man enough to do whatever he wants no matter what....he just hasn't proven he's man enough to take responsibility yet.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That some American men seem to have some kind of love affair or need for guns is becoming clearer,

Mindless partisan bigotry.

the next question is why, not the defense or Constitution thing but why, really why. Is it the manhood rite of passage or fear or just what creates this seemingly love for a piece of metal that can kill people.

More mindless partisan bigotry

 

[regent]

The first problem is so many American's love guns. That love affair keeps money flowing into the NRA and that lobby aids the manufacturers of guns to fight any gun laws. Until the gun manufacturers are forced to share some responsibility for their products as do auto, drug and other manufacturers, we will not change. It all begins with the American gun-love affair.

So our choices are we have a "love affair" with guns or we'll let you disarm us and leave us as undefended prey to criminals. Hmm. Your choices are you're an idiot or ... sorry, that's all I've got

If that's the only solution then this nation is in trouble. If gun manufacturers put some effort and money into trying to solve the problem instead of relying on the NRA to keep the government at bay maybe something could be worked out that would reduce the spur of the moment, and the gang killings. To come up with solutions is not the job of these boards; That is why we employ legislators to solve problems. But why would legislators try to solve the problem when so many people love their guns and the NRA is such an effective lobby?

 

[easyt65]

... That is why we employ legislators to solve problems. But why would legislators try to solve the problem when so many people love their guns and the NRA is such an effective lobby?

Just remember that those same elected officials demonstrated the complete insane lack of common sense God gave a door knob by handing over THOUSANDS of assault weapons AND GRENADES to Mexican Drug Cartels KNOWING that one they handed these weapons over they would NOT be able to track, control, or recover them...resulting in the deaths of more than 350 people (so far), to include 1 US Border Patrol Agent and a member of the United States military!

(1/2 way joking...) Based on this, I am all for complete gun control - politicians / this administration should not only NOT be allowed to handle fire arms with out appropriate supervision but should not be able to tell US what needs to be done to solve gun violence.

 

[peach174]

That some American men seem to have some kind of love affair or need for guns is becoming clearer,

Mindless partisan bigotry.

the next question is why, not the defense or Constitution thing but why, really why. Is it the manhood rite of passage or fear or just what creates this seemingly love for a piece of metal that can kill people.

More mindless partisan bigotry

Exactly, they always spew that BS and totally ignore how many millions of women own guns.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The first problem is so many American's love guns. That love affair keeps money flowing into the NRA and that lobby aids the manufacturers of guns to fight any gun laws. Until the gun manufacturers are forced to share some responsibility for their products as do auto, drug and other manufacturers, we will not change. It all begins with the American gun-love affair.

So our choices are we have a "love affair" with guns or we'll let you disarm us and leave us as undefended prey to criminals. Hmm. Your choices are you're an idiot or ... sorry, that's all I've got

If that's the only solution then this nation is in trouble. If gun manufacturers put some effort and money into trying to solve the problem instead of relying on the NRA to keep the government at bay maybe something could be worked out that would reduce the spur of the moment, and the gang killings.

As long as people have guns, people will murder people with guns.
The only way to stop this: Destroy all guns and destroy all the means to make them.
Then be prepared to go after knives....

 

[regent]

The first problem is so many American's love guns. That love affair keeps money flowing into the NRA and that lobby aids the manufacturers of guns to fight any gun laws. Until the gun manufacturers are forced to share some responsibility for their products as do auto, drug and other manufacturers, we will not change. It all begins with the American gun-love affair.

So our choices are we have a "love affair" with guns or we'll let you disarm us and leave us as undefended prey to criminals. Hmm. Your choices are you're an idiot or ... sorry, that's all I've got

If that's the only solution then this nation is in trouble. If gun manufacturers put some effort and money into trying to solve the problem instead of relying on the NRA to keep the government at bay maybe something could be worked out that would reduce the spur of the moment, and the gang killings.

As long as people have guns, people will murder people with guns.
The only way to stop this: Destroy all guns and destroy all the means to make them.
Then be prepared to go after knives....

Few suggest that all auto accidents will be ended with safer cars, it is the reduction of deaths with safer cars that is the goal. That should be the goal of gun manufacturers and government, reduction of needless gun deaths.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Few suggest that all auto accidents will be ended with safer cars, it is the reduction of deaths with safer cars that is the goal. That should be the goal of gun manufacturers and government, reduction of needless gun deaths.

I fully support any and every gun control law that does 2 tings:
-Prevents criminals from getting guns
-Does not infringe on the rights of the law abiding
When you find one, let me know.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

outlawing drugs has worked so well.

thanks for focusing on drugs. how about robbery? should it not be outlawed because criminals don't listen to the law?

Murder is already against the law. Cars aren't illegal despite being the preferred means of getting away from the bank.

 

[Ernie S.]

The first problem is so many American's love guns. That love affair keeps money flowing into the NRA and that lobby aids the manufacturers of guns to fight any gun laws. Until the gun manufacturers are forced to share some responsibility for their products as do auto, drug and other manufacturers, we will not change. It all begins with the American gun-love affair.

Gun makers already have a civil responsibility to provide a product that is safe to operate and works as intended. Car manufacturers have the identical civil responsibility. If a car fails due to a manufacturing defect and kills someone, the company should and will be held liable.
The same with a gun. IF a gun malfunctions and someone is hurt or killed as a result, the company should and will be liable.
Now, if you get drunk and hop in your Prius and mow down some kids at the bus stop, how can Toyota be held responsible?
Doesn't Smith and Wesson deserve the same consideration?

 

[regent]

Few suggest that all auto accidents will be ended with safer cars, it is the reduction of deaths with safer cars that is the goal. That should be the goal of gun manufacturers and government, reduction of needless gun deaths.

I fully support any and every gun control law that does 2 tings:
-Prevents criminals from getting guns
-Does not infringe on the rights of the law abiding
When you find one, let me know.

As mentioned that is the job of the legislators, but why should legislators even touch that problem? Most legislators know of America's love affair with the gun and they know the NRA is making sure that there is no third party in that love affair. How many guns will be sold in the US this year because people are frightened by people with guns? Is there a correlation between the number of guns in America and the needless deaths by guns? Are we using fear to sell more guns that creates more fear?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Now, if you get drunk and hop in your Prius and mow down some kids at the bus stop, how can Toyota be held responsible?
Doesn't Smith and Wesson deserve the same consideration?

I asked the same question,
All I heard in response was the chirping of crickets.

 

[Ernie S.]

Well we may not care much for the reasons why people buy certain objects but manufacturers may be very interested. I would think some companies some spend money on discovering why people buy automobiles, shaving lotion, and guns, Be interesting to know what Colt has discovered about the attraction of guns. If it was the macho thing, I don't think they would tell us but you can bet their advertisements would reflect the attraction. What is the attraction of guns? Is it fear, rite of passage, or even to have more strength than others?

Smith and Wesson makes pink guns. Would that work for you?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Few suggest that all auto accidents will be ended with safer cars, it is the reduction of deaths with safer cars that is the goal. That should be the goal of gun manufacturers and government, reduction of needless gun deaths.

I fully support any and every gun control law that does 2 tings:
-Prevents criminals from getting guns
-Does not infringe on the rights of the law abiding
When you find one, let me know.

As mentioned that is the job of the legislators, but why should legislators even touch that problem?

So... you have heard of no such proposal for a law.
Thank you.

 

[Ernie S.]

Well we may not care much for the reasons why people buy certain objects but manufacturers may be very interested. I would think some companies some spend money on discovering why people buy automobiles, shaving lotion, and guns, Be interesting to know what Colt has discovered about the attraction of guns. If it was the macho thing, I don't think they would tell us but you can bet their advertisements would reflect the attraction. What is the attraction of guns? Is it fear, rite of passage, or even to have more strength than others?

Why are you posting this crap twice?