The Great Gun Debate

[BigJim13]

Ok. Neither of you got my points. That's fine, I wrote a lot and its easy to pick one part over the rest. 1. I was agreeing with you about the parties and presidents. I did not bring up the pres to bash, it was part of my point. As far as wmds go, guess what every intelligence report and agency told him that for a fact they were in the country. Not sticking up for the guy but I see that getting used a ton. He didn't lie, he was miss led. I will make it clear I dislike both current and previous, the only thing I'll say for bush was at least he didn't make an excuse to blame everyone else for his F ups.

And no they were nor campaign speeches, he was not running for office he was in meetings and doing interviews about upcoming legislation he wanted to pass.

This has strayed so far from the course of debate I'm going to take a break for the evening. This is why I usually stay out of political related sh!t because it never accomplished anything. I'm going to play tiger woods golf now

Couldn't agree more about getting strayed from the topic. The Walking Dead is on now so I'm going to watch that.

 

[eclark53520]

It's part of another point. It would seem that those who are so pro gun right and against limiting their right to own, don't feel the same way about other rights being limited. That's just my point of view though, I could be wrong.

It can be turned around, if your so against the 4th being trampled, you should be against the second being trampled as well. Limiting rights is wrong. Period.

The whole marriage thing needs to go one way. Remove marriage from the tax code completely. Remove it from all governmental control. Its a religious sanction and should never have been regulated in any way by the government.

 

[BigJim13]

It can be turned around, if your so against the 4th being trampled, you should be against the second being trampled as well. Limiting rights is wrong. Period.

The whole marriage thing needs to go one way. Remove marriage from the tax code completely. Remove it from all governmental control. Its a religious sanction and should never have been regulated in any way by the government.

I am against rights being trampled, but understand that all rights have limits.

 

[dedicatedhacker]

There was never any clear evidence that Iraq had WOMD. Anymore than North Korea, Iran or any other country. It never ceases to amaze me the amount of excuses that one sector of the political arena will put out to excuse what happened under an Administration. You assume he didn't lie and was misled based on little more than your closer affiliation with that political party. You are right, that is not the topic though.

Topic is what steps should we take to make this country safer from violent gun use. Has nothing to do with Obama and his administration. Lets hear more about how you think this country should progress and not what a bunch of politicians trying to gain political capital are doing.

Mine is simple:

1) Requirement to complete gun safety courses from people such as yourself before being able to purchase their first gun.
2) A complete overhaul of the "War on Drugs" to reduce the violence that breeds from millions of dollars that exist on the black market in regards to drugs
3) A balanced budget in this country and a reduction in our debt so that we can start spending tax payer money on educating our kids in our schools better and affording them a secure place to do so.

He could have lied for all I know, either way its a moot point and I don't care. My answer? If someone has a gun, the only deterrent is a gun or multiple guns. I.e. allow all legal citizens who can prove they can safely and proficiently use a weapon, conceal or open carry anywhere they want. That will drop gun violence like a rock in a pond. Simple, easy and proven to work.

 

[eclark53520]

I am against rights being trampled, but understand that all rights have limits.

Ok, the second has been restricted for decades. Now the country seemingly wants more. Lets say we reach a middle ground, ten year go by and another school shooting. Outrage, the country yells for more laws. They reach a middle ground again, and again, and again, until they're just plain banned. They always want a middle ground, well, its not middle ground anymore. Its just taking what they can get until they can get more next time. Im done negotiating my rights.

And guess what, there will still be people killed with guns after that. The only difference is that good people will have no legitimate defense.

 

[BigJim13]

Ok. Neither of you got my points. That's fine, I wrote a lot and its easy to pick one part over the rest. 1. I was agreeing with you about the parties and presidents. I did not bring up the pres to bash, it was part of my point. As far as wmds go, guess what every intelligence report and agency told him that for a fact they were in the country. Not sticking up for the guy but I see that getting used a ton. He didn't lie, he was miss led. I will make it clear I dislike both current and previous, the only thing I'll say for bush was at least he didn't make an excuse to blame everyone else for his F ups.

And no they were nor campaign speeches, he was not running for office he was in meetings and doing interviews about upcoming legislation he wanted to pass.

This has strayed so far from the course of debate I'm going to take a break for the evening. This is why I usually stay out of political related sh!t because it never accomplished anything. I'm going to play tiger woods golf now

Were those speeches before or after Newtown? Up until Newtown, I had not heard Obama talk hardly at all about guns and gun control. Now granted, I don't listen to all of his speeches or keep up with what's going on in Washington as much as I should. So its possible that I missed something he said prior to Newtown.

Newtown flipped a switch and reignited the gun debate in this country. And say what you will about what I believe. As I have said befre, from what I have seen so far on the national scene, the biggest threat to gun ownership is the HARD line stance on gun ownership that people like Wayne Lapierre have taken.

 

[Wi-Golfer]

There was never any clear evidence that Iraq had WOMD.

Seriously? You don't consider Sarin gas a WMD?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

 

[Dogfish Head]

Seriously? You don't consider Sarin gas a WMD?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

As far as I know, George Bush Jr didn't invade Iraq in 1988. Plus, his Secretary of Defense during most of his term helped facilitate the transfer of that WMD to Iraq during the 1980's. So while I do consider the use of Sarin gas a WoMD, the lack of finding any of it on any large scale from 2003 until we left last year, means to me that it didn't exist and they were no more of a threat to us than any other Middle Eastern country during that time frame.

 

[Wi-Golfer]

As far as I know, George Bush Jr didn't invade Iraq in 1988. Plus, his Secretary of Defense during most of his term helped facilitate the transfer of that WMD to Iraq during the 1980's. So while I do consider the use of Sarin gas a WoMD, the lack of finding any of it on any large scale from 2003 until we left last year, means to me that it didn't exist and they were no more of a threat to us than any other Middle Eastern country during that time frame.

Or perhaps Saddam figured out a better hiding spot for it? The guy obviously had it and used it, why would he afterwards turn around and get rid of everything?

 

[Dogfish Head]

Or perhaps Saddam figured out a better hiding spot for it? The guy obviously had it and used it, why would he afterwards turn around and get rid of everything?

Sound Foreign Policy right there.

 

[WWBDD]

Or perhaps Saddam figured out a better hiding spot for it? The guy obviously had it and used it, why would he afterwards turn around and get rid of everything?

That's awesome.

 

[MIKE1218]

I don't think is is a gun free zone issue. There are quite a few mass killings that have happened in society where members of the public were able to carry guns freely. Aurora, CO is an example. Even malls where shootings have happened have had armed security on premises.

This is false. It is believed that the particular theater was chosen because it is the only one that was a GUN FREE ZONE.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/10/did-colorado-shooter-single-out-cinemark-theater/

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund

 

[Dogfish Head]

This is false. It is believed that the particular theater was chosen because it is the only one that was a GUN FREE ZONE.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/10/did-colorado-shooter-single-out-cinemark-theater/

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund

I like how you used the word false and then followed it up with opinions and the use of the word "believed", which do not constitute fact.

I agree that gun free zones don't really do much to help anything though, regardless of whether my point had any barring on the situation.

 

[MIKE1218]

I like how you used the word false and then followed it up with opinions and the use of the word "believed", which do not constitute fact.

I agree that gun free zones don't really do much to help anything though, regardless of whether my point had any barring on the situation.

My point is that Aurora CO was a gun free zone... You implied that it was not. It does not matter why he chose that theater or that the articles I linked are opinion. I just grabbed two independent articles that both state the theater was gun free. If i wanted to argue the significance of gun free zones i would have. The fact is that he did choose a gun free zone.

 

[Dogfish Head]

Fair enough on the fact that it was a gun free zone.