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

[frigidweirdo]

Who cares? I would assume people who are interested in the truth.
On the other hand we have you, who just seem interested in partisan bull.
Oh well.

WHO CARES? I thought you said people want to know the TRUTH...then Liberals push the idea that John McCain FORCED Obama to help invade Libya on his own to help Al Qaeida take over Libya?!
(Yeah, THAT'S searching for / proposing 'Truth'! No, that's call more Obama 'Blame-Shifting'!)

And you accuse ME of 'partisan bull' when YOU and other Liberals try to blame OBAMA'S WAR on McCain?!

Did I say "FORCED"? No, I did not. I said he put pressure on Obama. Obama being the quintessential politician who does what is required to be a popular politician.

Are you saying that without the Republicans breathing down Obama's neck on this issue that he would have bombed Libya anyway? No, you're not. You're merely attacking. If you have a point to make, make it, if not, feck off.

 

[kaz]

Who cares? I would assume people who are interested in the truth.
On the other hand we have you, who just seem interested in partisan bull.
Oh well.

WHO CARES? I thought you said people want to know the TRUTH...then Liberals push the idea that John McCain FORCED Obama to help invade Libya on his own to help Al Qaeida take over Libya?!
(Yeah, THAT'S searching for / proposing 'Truth'! No, that's call more Obama 'Blame-Shifting'!)

And you accuse ME of 'partisan bull' when YOU and other Liberals try to blame OBAMA'S WAR on McCain?!

Did I say "FORCED"? No, I did not. I said he put pressure on Obama. Obama being the quintessential politician who does what is required to be a popular politician.

Are you saying that without the Republicans breathing down Obama's neck on this issue that he would have bombed Libya anyway? No, you're not. You're merely attacking. If you have a point to make, make it, if not, feck off.

Yes, he would have attacked anyway. And even more so Syria if Putin hadn't bitch slapped him. McCain had nothing to do with it, it was Obama. Seriously, if liberals crap in your pants it was the fault of Republicans, you're responsible for nothing

 

[Ernie S.]

Did I say I condoned crime in the inner city? I grew up in Bridgeport a part of Chicago's South side, home of the, now gone, Chicago stockyards, or as Sinclair called it "The Jungle."

Really? is that all you have? You can only carry one thought at a time? There was a lot in my post you could have answered, criticized or at least commented on, yet you pick on one sentence that Mother Jones prepared you for?

You gave me one of your life's stories and I gave you one back. How should I have responded to your experience with weapons, in awe, sad, angry or what. I gotta be honest life stories as evidence are not good sources.

The point is, with all that exposure to guns, neither me, my father or my children have used a gun to commit a crime.
Perhaps more exposure, rather than less is the answer.
Or maybe just having a father in the home is all that's needed. Or is it the fact that my father and I raised out children to be responsible about everything, including firearms?

OH I know! EBT cards cause gun crimes.

Good for you.

Why did I know you would have nothing of substance to add?

 

[Ernie S.]

Who cares? I would assume people who are interested in the truth.
On the other hand we have you, who just seem interested in partisan bull.
Oh well.

WHO CARES? I thought you said people want to know the TRUTH...then Liberals push the idea that John McCain FORCED Obama to help invade Libya on his own to help Al Qaeida take over Libya?!
(Yeah, THAT'S searching for / proposing 'Truth'! No, that's call more Obama 'Blame-Shifting'!)

And you accuse ME of 'partisan bull' when YOU and other Liberals try to blame OBAMA'S WAR on McCain?!

Did I say "FORCED"? No, I did not. I said he put pressure on Obama. Obama being the quintessential politician who does what is required to be a popular politician.

Are you saying that without the Republicans breathing down Obama's neck on this issue that he would have bombed Libya anyway? No, you're not. You're merely attacking. If you have a point to make, make it, if not, feck off.

Yes, he would have attacked anyway. And even more so Syria if Putin hadn't bitch slapped him. McCain had nothing to do with it, it was Obama. Seriously, if liberals crap in your pants it was the fault of Republicans, you're responsible for nothing

If McCain and the GOP had any influence over obama, there would be no ACA. the argument is bullshit. The tin pot dictator will either force somrthing trough Congress with bribes, threats or rules changes or issue another "executive order".

 

[regent]

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?

So you see guns as a passage to manhood? I wonder if it is possible to become an adult male, strong and brave without gun, I suspect many do it without the crutch.

It's amazing how many of you liberals claim to have military service and be experienced with guns, yet this is your childish, bigoted attitude towards anyone who supports gun rights. But it's not your attitude of course, it's everyone else.

The idea anyone with your attitude would be in the military or even shoot a gun is scary. Fortunately, your idiotic views are because you're a blue city slicker who hasn't ever touched a gun and wouldn't because they are magic firing sticks that emanate evil to you. You just have the stupid liberal notion that it's a powerful argument to say you're one of us, so it's OK to hate guns and gun users. I know guns, so it's OK to hate them. I am a Republican, so it's OK to think they are all racist. You try it all the time. Trust me, it never works.

I spent most of my military in the Pacific during WWii as a PFC infantry. My division had over 300 days of combat on New Guinea and Luzon including recapture of Bataan. I came home a little early on the good ship "Bountiful" and by the time we arrived at Letterman the war was over. That has nothing to do with wanting an effective gun control. Something is wrong when a society allows its children to be blown away to keep manufacturers in the bucks.

 

[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?

So you see guns as a passage to manhood? I wonder if it is possible to become an adult male, strong and brave without gun, I suspect many do it without the crutch.

It's amazing how many of you liberals claim to have military service and be experienced with guns, yet this is your childish, bigoted attitude towards anyone who supports gun rights. But it's not your attitude of course, it's everyone else.

The idea anyone with your attitude would be in the military or even shoot a gun is scary. Fortunately, your idiotic views are because you're a blue city slicker who hasn't ever touched a gun and wouldn't because they are magic firing sticks that emanate evil to you. You just have the stupid liberal notion that it's a powerful argument to say you're one of us, so it's OK to hate guns and gun users. I know guns, so it's OK to hate them. I am a Republican, so it's OK to think they are all racist. You try it all the time. Trust me, it never works.

I spent most of my military in the Pacific during WWii as a PFC infantry. My division had over 300 days of combat on New Guinea and Luzon including recapture of Bataan. I came home a little early on the good ship "Bountiful" and by the time we arrived at Letterman the war was over. That has nothing to do with wanting an effective gun control. Something is wrong when a society allows its children to be blown away to keep manufacturers in the bucks.

The profit of gun makers is irrelevant to the number of children being blown away.
What is more relevant is children being born to children, children growing up in a home without a strong father figure, children growing up exposed to a gangster culture that glorifies raping women, shooting law enforcement officers and declares that one color life is all that matters.
What would help is responsible people that pay their own way through life instead of expecting Uncle Sam to reward their irresponsibility.
I've told you all several times in the last week that I have a proposal that would reduce gun related homicides in Chicago by 70% by the first of the year. No one has asked for the solution.

 

[Vigilante]

The only plan liberals have is to RUN THEIR MOUTHS and DO NOTHING...the perfect example of LIBERAL GUN CONTROL....

 

[Vigilante]

Remember these are the same assholes that say we can't DEPORT 10 million ILLEGALS, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE!!!

 

[kaz]

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?

So you see guns as a passage to manhood? I wonder if it is possible to become an adult male, strong and brave without gun, I suspect many do it without the crutch.

It's amazing how many of you liberals claim to have military service and be experienced with guns, yet this is your childish, bigoted attitude towards anyone who supports gun rights. But it's not your attitude of course, it's everyone else.

The idea anyone with your attitude would be in the military or even shoot a gun is scary. Fortunately, your idiotic views are because you're a blue city slicker who hasn't ever touched a gun and wouldn't because they are magic firing sticks that emanate evil to you. You just have the stupid liberal notion that it's a powerful argument to say you're one of us, so it's OK to hate guns and gun users. I know guns, so it's OK to hate them. I am a Republican, so it's OK to think they are all racist. You try it all the time. Trust me, it never works.

I spent most of my military in the Pacific during WWii as a PFC infantry. My division had over 300 days of combat on New Guinea and Luzon including recapture of Bataan. I came home a little early on the good ship "Bountiful" and by the time we arrived at Letterman the war was over. That has nothing to do with wanting an effective gun control. Something is wrong when a society allows its children to be blown away to keep manufacturers in the bucks.

Strawman. It has to do with your view that gun right advocates have a romantic relationship with our guns. Not you of course, the rest of us. It's stupid, bro

 

[regent]

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?

So you see guns as a passage to manhood? I wonder if it is possible to become an adult male, strong and brave without gun, I suspect many do it without the crutch.

It's amazing how many of you liberals claim to have military service and be experienced with guns, yet this is your childish, bigoted attitude towards anyone who supports gun rights. But it's not your attitude of course, it's everyone else.

The idea anyone with your attitude would be in the military or even shoot a gun is scary. Fortunately, your idiotic views are because you're a blue city slicker who hasn't ever touched a gun and wouldn't because they are magic firing sticks that emanate evil to you. You just have the stupid liberal notion that it's a powerful argument to say you're one of us, so it's OK to hate guns and gun users. I know guns, so it's OK to hate them. I am a Republican, so it's OK to think they are all racist. You try it all the time. Trust me, it never works.

I spent most of my military in the Pacific during WWii as a PFC infantry. My division had over 300 days of combat on New Guinea and Luzon including recapture of Bataan. I came home a little early on the good ship "Bountiful" and by the time we arrived at Letterman the war was over. That has nothing to do with wanting an effective gun control. Something is wrong when a society allows its children to be blown away to keep manufacturers in the bucks.

Strawman. It has to do with your view that gun right advocates have a romantic relationship with our guns. Not you of course, the rest of us. It's stupid, bro

Not the rest of us, but enough of the rest of us to make it difficult to pass meaningful legislation. Probably most of us have love affairs of some types for inanimate objects, antiques, fast cars, polo mallets, but with guns it can be costly. Look at this thread for examples, of course no one is likely to say, I love guns but you might do your homework and do some research on America's love affair with guns. If we do have a love affair with guns, why? What need does it fill?

 

[Ernie S.]

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

So you see guns as a passage to manhood? I wonder if it is possible to become an adult male, strong and brave without gun, I suspect many do it without the crutch.

It's amazing how many of you liberals claim to have military service and be experienced with guns, yet this is your childish, bigoted attitude towards anyone who supports gun rights. But it's not your attitude of course, it's everyone else.

The idea anyone with your attitude would be in the military or even shoot a gun is scary. Fortunately, your idiotic views are because you're a blue city slicker who hasn't ever touched a gun and wouldn't because they are magic firing sticks that emanate evil to you. You just have the stupid liberal notion that it's a powerful argument to say you're one of us, so it's OK to hate guns and gun users. I know guns, so it's OK to hate them. I am a Republican, so it's OK to think they are all racist. You try it all the time. Trust me, it never works.

I spent most of my military in the Pacific during WWii as a PFC infantry. My division had over 300 days of combat on New Guinea and Luzon including recapture of Bataan. I came home a little early on the good ship "Bountiful" and by the time we arrived at Letterman the war was over. That has nothing to do with wanting an effective gun control. Something is wrong when a society allows its children to be blown away to keep manufacturers in the bucks.

Strawman. It has to do with your view that gun right advocates have a romantic relationship with our guns. Not you of course, the rest of us. It's stupid, bro

Not the rest of us, but enough of the rest of us to make it difficult to pass meaningful legislation. Probably most of us have love affairs of some types for inanimate objects, antiques, fast cars, polo mallets, but with guns it can be costly. Look at this thread for examples, of course no one is likely to say, I love guns but you might do your homework and do some research on America's love affair with guns. If we do have a love affair with guns, why? What need does it fill?

Meaningful legislation that infringes upon the rights of the law abiding while having nearly zero impact on its goal is hardly meaningful. Propose something, ANYTHING that stands a chance in hell of preventing the next school shooting and I may listen. Registration and private sale background checks have been discarded. Come up with something that will work, PLEASE.

 

[regent]

Until some responsibility is put on the gun manufacturers I doubt if there is a solution. America puts all kinds of responsibilities on other tools, and on the one tool used, and meant to kill, we have nothing of value.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Until some responsibility is put on the gun manufacturers I doubt if there is a solution. America puts all kinds of responsibilities on other tools, and on the one tool used, and meant to kill, we have nothing of value.

The only time we hold the manufacturers of other tools responsible for their product is when there is a defect. Other than that, we don't sue the people that make hammers when we hit ourselves on the hand.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Who cares? I would assume people who are interested in the truth.
On the other hand we have you, who just seem interested in partisan bull.
Oh well.

WHO CARES? I thought you said people want to know the TRUTH...then Liberals push the idea that John McCain FORCED Obama to help invade Libya on his own to help Al Qaeida take over Libya?!
(Yeah, THAT'S searching for / proposing 'Truth'! No, that's call more Obama 'Blame-Shifting'!)

And you accuse ME of 'partisan bull' when YOU and other Liberals try to blame OBAMA'S WAR on McCain?!

Did I say "FORCED"? No, I did not. I said he put pressure on Obama. Obama being the quintessential politician who does what is required to be a popular politician.

Are you saying that without the Republicans breathing down Obama's neck on this issue that he would have bombed Libya anyway? No, you're not. You're merely attacking. If you have a point to make, make it, if not, feck off.

Yes, he would have attacked anyway. And even more so Syria if Putin hadn't bitch slapped him. McCain had nothing to do with it, it was Obama. Seriously, if liberals crap in your pants it was the fault of Republicans, you're responsible for nothing

I disagree.

Obama's policy has been one of withdrawing from the supposed "war on terror" that Bush started.

Possibly Obama went into Libya because of the whole Arab Spring thing, but it seems very telling that McCain was so vocal and so quick to be vocal on Libya, and Obama went into Libya, and so slow and so not caring on Syria, and Obama didn't go into Syria.

I'm not looking for whose fault it is, I'm not looking to play silly childish games here. I'm discussing WHAT HAPPENED, looking for THE TRUTH. I'm saying what I see. Not passing out blame. Obama was the one who bombed Libya, ultimately he is responsible for this.
The questions I am trying to answer is why. Also I'm looking at whether this was Obama slipping into politician mode and not following what seems to have been a fairly steady policy of reversing what Bush did.

But then all you see if some pathetic game that is destroying the US.

 

[regent]

Until some responsibility is put on the gun manufacturers I doubt if there is a solution. America puts all kinds of responsibilities on other tools, and on the one tool used, and meant to kill, we have nothing of value.

The only time we hold the manufacturers of other tools responsible for their product is when there is a defect. Other than that, we don't sue the people that make hammers when we hit ourselves on the hand.

Perhaps shooting innocent people could be classified as a defect?
As some may know one company was working on a "Smart Gun" that shoots only when the shooter is using a wrist band that communicates with the gun. One store began selling the smart gun and then received hate mail and threats and dropped selling the gun. Nobody fools with the NRA.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Until some responsibility is put on the gun manufacturers I doubt if there is a solution. America puts all kinds of responsibilities on other tools, and on the one tool used, and meant to kill, we have nothing of value.

The only time we hold the manufacturers of other tools responsible for their product is when there is a defect. Other than that, we don't sue the people that make hammers when we hit ourselves on the hand.

Perhaps shooting innocent people could be classified as a defect?
As some may know one company was working on a "Smart Gun" that shoots only when the shooter is using a wrist band that communicates with the gun. One store began selling the smart gun and then received hate mail and threats and dropped selling the gun. Nobody fools with the NRA.

the NRA was sending hate mail? Any reliable link to that?

If criminals can get access to guns, what's stopping them from getting access to the wrist bands that belong with the gun?

That's besides the fact that in a self-defense situation such as an intruder breaking into your home in the middle of the night, you don't have time to fool around with technology. You need a gun and you probably need it within a matter of a few seconds.

 

[regent]

Until some responsibility is put on the gun manufacturers I doubt if there is a solution. America puts all kinds of responsibilities on other tools, and on the one tool used, and meant to kill, we have nothing of value.

The only time we hold the manufacturers of other tools responsible for their product is when there is a defect. Other than that, we don't sue the people that make hammers when we hit ourselves on the hand.

Perhaps shooting innocent people could be classified as a defect?
As some may know one company was working on a "Smart Gun" that shoots only when the shooter is using a wrist band that communicates with the gun. One store began selling the smart gun and then received hate mail and threats and dropped selling the gun. Nobody fools with the NRA.

the NRA was sending hate mail? Any reliable link to that?

If criminals can get access to guns, what's stopping them from getting access to the wrist bands that belong with the gun?

That's besides the fact that in a self-defense situation such as an intruder breaking into your home in the middle of the night, you don't have time to fool around with technology. You need a gun and you probably need it within a matter of a few seconds.

Until some responsibility is put on the gun manufacturers I doubt if there is a solution. America puts all kinds of responsibilities on other tools, and on the one tool used, and meant to kill, we have nothing of value.

The only time we hold the manufacturers of other tools responsible for their product is when there is a defect. Other than that, we don't sue the people that make hammers when we hit ourselves on the hand.

Perhaps shooting innocent people could be classified as a defect?
As some may know one company was working on a "Smart Gun" that shoots only when the shooter is using a wrist band that communicates with the gun. One store began selling the smart gun and then received hate mail and threats and dropped selling the gun. Nobody fools with the NRA.

the NRA was sending hate mail? Any reliable link to that?

If criminals can get access to guns, what's stopping them from getting access to the wrist bands that belong with the gun?

That's besides the fact that in a self-defense situation such as an intruder breaking into your home in the middle of the night, you don't have time to fool around with technology. You need a gun and you probably need it within a matter of a few seconds.

The NRA doesn't have to send hate mail it only posts the latest news and bingo. It was only a beginning like one wheel brakes.

 

[Ernie S.]

Until some responsibility is put on the gun manufacturers I doubt if there is a solution. America puts all kinds of responsibilities on other tools, and on the one tool used, and meant to kill, we have nothing of value.

The gun manufacturers ARE responsible. They provide a tool that works as it is designed to work; that does exactly what the consumer wants it to do. Because people occasionally use it to commit murder, does not make the manufacturer at fault or in the least bit culpable. NOW, if someone came at me with a knife and I drew my weapon in self defense and it failed to make a loud scary noise which resulted in me getting stabbed, THEN the gun manufacturer could be held liable.
Is Estwing held liable because its hammers occasionally bend nails?

 

[Ernie S.]

Until some responsibility is put on the gun manufacturers I doubt if there is a solution. America puts all kinds of responsibilities on other tools, and on the one tool used, and meant to kill, we have nothing of value.

The only time we hold the manufacturers of other tools responsible for their product is when there is a defect. Other than that, we don't sue the people that make hammers when we hit ourselves on the hand.

Perhaps shooting innocent people could be classified as a defect?
As some may know one company was working on a "Smart Gun" that shoots only when the shooter is using a wrist band that communicates with the gun. One store began selling the smart gun and then received hate mail and threats and dropped selling the gun. Nobody fools with the NRA.

My GOD man! My gun sits on my night stand at night. I would likely never get used to wearing a wrist band or suppose I did get used to wearing it and someone came when I was gone and my wife couldn't operate the weapon to defend HER self? THAT my friend is what you want isn't it? To make guns so inconvenient and difficult to use that people give up purchasing them for self defense?
There are already 310 million "dumb" guns out there now. Do you propose we retrofit them all with this technology? Or maybe just those you can trace through data collected through "universal background checks"?
FIX THE DAMNED PROBLEM. The problem is the person attached to the trigger finger of the murder weapon, not the weapon itself.
What do you suggest that might actually work?

 

[kaz]

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

So you see guns as a passage to manhood? I wonder if it is possible to become an adult male, strong and brave without gun, I suspect many do it without the crutch.

It's amazing how many of you liberals claim to have military service and be experienced with guns, yet this is your childish, bigoted attitude towards anyone who supports gun rights. But it's not your attitude of course, it's everyone else.

The idea anyone with your attitude would be in the military or even shoot a gun is scary. Fortunately, your idiotic views are because you're a blue city slicker who hasn't ever touched a gun and wouldn't because they are magic firing sticks that emanate evil to you. You just have the stupid liberal notion that it's a powerful argument to say you're one of us, so it's OK to hate guns and gun users. I know guns, so it's OK to hate them. I am a Republican, so it's OK to think they are all racist. You try it all the time. Trust me, it never works.

I spent most of my military in the Pacific during WWii as a PFC infantry. My division had over 300 days of combat on New Guinea and Luzon including recapture of Bataan. I came home a little early on the good ship "Bountiful" and by the time we arrived at Letterman the war was over. That has nothing to do with wanting an effective gun control. Something is wrong when a society allows its children to be blown away to keep manufacturers in the bucks.

Strawman. It has to do with your view that gun right advocates have a romantic relationship with our guns. Not you of course, the rest of us. It's stupid, bro

Not the rest of us, but enough of the rest of us to make it difficult to pass meaningful legislation. Probably most of us have love affairs of some types for inanimate objects, antiques, fast cars, polo mallets, but with guns it can be costly. Look at this thread for examples, of course no one is likely to say, I love guns but you might do your homework and do some research on America's love affair with guns. If we do have a love affair with guns, why? What need does it fill?

Just more of your ridiculous bigotry