Bev--- I have several things I want to address with you.... please hear me out before getting upset or angry..
1. I am not a democrat.... NOT EVEN CLOSE.. I only vote for them when the republicans act like whiny babies because they lost.. Fox news is insufferable and their hypocrisy gets shown literally EVERY SINGLE DAY...Its so funny when they show before and after videos of their pundits saying one thing and then when a dem does it, saying the exact opposite.. They even go in public and tell people they won the house by gerrymandering and tried to win the presidency by refusing suffrage to elderly and poor people who don't have id's even though there hasn't been ONE credible case of voter id fraud in the past 30 years.
First of all, I'm not angry. I've had this message board for about 12 years now, and it's not the first debate I've been in - even though it wasn't a debate until you posted. But for your insistence that you're nowhere near being a Democrat, I'll defer to such great adages as, "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..."
2. I don't care one way or another about Roe V. Wade but I think if your against the best thing to do is convince people not to have abortions and make the law obsolete..
You make a good point. We should convince people not to break the law; instead of restricting the hands of those who obey the law, just in case the criminals can't be convinced. Got it.
3. I find it HIGHLY HIGHLY offensive for you to quip about me making things up.. Here is the REPUBLICAN version of the support of the things Obama is proposing.
http://fox4kc.com/2013/01/14/poll-gun-c ... s-support/ For a non partisan view go to Nate Silver's site and if you average in everything Obama is proposing it averages to right over 60 percent. Some things are more than 80 percent and some are around 40 but the average support is 60 percent.. You can have your opinions but you do not get your own set of facts.
I find it highly highly amusing that you would presume yourself informed enough about guns to go toe-to-toe with a career law enforcement officer, lol. That aside, I'm sorry you're so easily offended. I didn't set out to offend you, but had I known you'd take offense anyway, I would have put a little more effot into it. But if it makes the sting a little less, I don't trust any mainstream media - including Fox. I call them the PFM, which is short for Poo-Flinging Monkeys, all of them. But calling Nate Silver non-partisan is like calling Tom Selleck a queer. (I haven't begun to tap my offensive prowess)
4. Yes, posting pictures of suffering people will stir up emotional support for your cause.. I don't happen to have pictures of 20 blown off children's heads from Sandy hook to show you or any other of the 50,000 plus victims of a firearm per year either to help my cause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violen ... ted_States. I suppose your right to have a 100rd banana clip is more important than those kids. I do know that if the government really wanted your guns, they could take them.. Really, they could.... Or the supreme court could have upheld limitations to the 2nd amendment and chipped away at them BUT THEY DIDN'T they upheld it.. And consistently do so..
Posting pictures of what our government actually did - put it's own citizens of Japanese descent BEHIND WIRE is a reminder to history of what can happen when the government has a knee-jerk reaction. It's not designed to draw sympathy for the people in the picture. I can't believe you don't get that point, but then I guess you just ... don't. It didn't and hasn't happened to you, ergo - it can never happen. If you think we have become so evolved that we're past this, in my opinion you're deluded. At the end of this post you will see a picture of a warning given to the citizens of Indiana by a President - long before the country decided to indefinitely detain it's Japanese population. It was true then, and it's true now. You cannot outrun history.
But you're right, posting pics of 20 kids with their heads blown off wouldn't better promote your cause, because it wasn't the guns but the man behind the guns who did it. However, I can tell you this; if Sandy Hook had had an armed security guard posted on the premises, Adam Lanza would have never stepped foot near those children. Mass shooters never willingly walk into a war zone. They go where they know they will meet no resistance. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Keep up the good work trying to make us all sitting ducks. I am having no part of it. I will become a lawbreaker first. My advice? Pick your battles. It isn't worth pi$sing off the entire armed public over semantics. The gun laws we have are fine if they're enforced. Additional laws are just ineffective fodder to appease the left that
something is being done.
5, Yes, comparing the stooges is CLEARLY like playing first person shooters where you can literally rape and watch people who look pretty realistic get blown away by the thousands for no reason. Or watching BRUTAL murders on tv from age 2 to 20. That kind of stuff has an effect on people that didn't happen with Ozzie and Harriet. Your argument that this is comparing apples to apples is ludicrous.
If you really believe that, then there's your fight.
THERE'S YOUR RED LIGHT ISSUE, not gun control. We didn't need the bloody-gory sensation to be entertained; that's your generation's thirst. But even so, I'd like to see some
real statistics about the number of people who play these games and go rogue, compared to the number of people who went rogue on a crowd of people before the games were invented. Contrary to your beliefs, these mass killings are no more frequent than they've ever been. And they've been going on since the days of muskets. (If you need sources, I'll be happy to dig them up. ) As kids, we had easier access to guns than kids do these days - HELL, we got them as Christmas gifts, but we didn't go out and shoot up our class with them.
ps. thank you for running the board, you do a great job but on this subject you are on the wrong side of history.
You're welcome. Having voted in 11 presidential elections, I feel I have more history to draw upon than you, but here's some history I know I'm not on the wrong side of: We had an assault weapons (semi-auto) ban in effect for ten years and it didn't budge the crime rate or death by gun rate one iota. It was a useless piece of legislation because it doesn't address the real problem, and neither Democrats or Republicans saw any point in renewing it.
Restricting is infringement, and Infringement is unconstitutional, period, and any elected official who disobeys the Constitution has committed treason. If you or anyone else expects gun rights advocates to roll over so misguided feel-gooders can modify those rights to suit them, good luck with all that. We're accustomed to the Left presuming to know what's best for everyone, and trying to make their opinions law. You'll have an easier time taking your own advice; you will have to try to make the 2nd Amendment obsolete. Good luck with all that.
For those of you who oppose any new legislation, to whom I addressed my original post anyway, here are a few pics from the Indiana rally. I have many more on my facebook page, and so does Guns Across America's facebook page.
My son, Ryan and me preparing to head downtown.
Ryan, and my 15-year-old grandson, Sam.
Sam and is grandmama in the background march.
Hundreds, perhaps as many as 1,000 showed for the event on little notice. they came from all over the state.
I like the lady's sign in front of me, lol.
We'd do well to remember this one.
Because of mandates laid down by our forefathers and early leaders who knew a Republic wouldn't last left alone, and would have to constantly be fought for.
I can move this thread to the Gun Legislation forum when it gets cold.
One more thing. bucks, why do you feel debating is personally dangerous? Hyperbole much?