- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Apparently Obama wants to use the Arizona tragedy to **** on the 2nd amendment. Of course I am sure all the anti-2nbd amendment loons will try to argue that this is not true. They will also try to say that the 2nd amendment proponents are being paranoid.
Obama eyes 'common sense' US gun control - Yahoo! News
WASHINGTON (AFP) – President Barack Obama says it's time for US lawmakers to tackle the divisive issue of gun control in hopes of preventing tragedies like the Tucson shooting spree that killed six people.
In an opinion column published Sunday in the Arizona Daily Star, the main Tucson newspaper, Obama argued that improving the system of background checks on gun purchasers should be the first "common sense" step that neither side of the gun debate should oppose.
"I know that every time we try to talk about guns, it can reinforce stark divides," Obama wrote in a rare public commentary on the gun control issue.
"However, I believe that if common sense prevails, we can get beyond wedge issues and stale political debates to find a sensible, intelligent way" to make the nation "a safer, stronger place."
Tucson was the location of a January 8 shooting spree that killed six people, including a federal judge and a nine-year-old girl.
US Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was among the wounded, shot in the head while holding an open-air political event when alleged gunman Jared Loughner opened fire.
Following the attack, Americans largely "refrained from finger-pointing, assigning blame or playing politics with other people's pain," Obama wrote.
You don't know squat about me. Unfortunately, I know much too much about you.
this has nothing to do with Down Under
The Harvard study was international, which is probably why you're ignoring it.
Councilman's source on Australia was sour. However, your conversation was not centered on Australia, but internationally.Australia wasn't mentioned in the Study.
This story by it's title alone would fit nicely in Media Bias.
When Are the Conservatives going ro just state the facts when wackos like Obama attack the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.
More guns means safer for and it's overlooked and lied about every time this comes up.
I don't think any background checks would prevent what happened in AZ. If a crazy wants to kill a governor, then they will find the weapons, legal or not.
I would be in favour of background checks if it didn't require the government to have access to all your personal details. Rewarding states that "provide the most data" is a couched way of saying that states will be rewarded for wanton surveillance and databasing of citizens who are doing nothing wrong. The Fed has no business obtaining my personal information or using it to prevent me from purchasing a gun. That's up to my home state, and even then they better have a damn good reason for doing it.
Whenever the Fed wants to streamline anything, it usually involves stepping on state sovereignty. Yes, it's true, one state could require a background check while the other doesn't require anything, so I could just cross the border. That's just something we have to live with in a system that is supposed to respect state sovereignty.
In AZ the governor made a public appearance and got shot. Maybe we should stop governors from appearing in public without bulletproof glass around them, a la the pope.
I don't think any background checks would prevent what happened in AZ. If a crazy wants to kill a governor, then they will find the weapons, legal or not
HTML:Since if they want to they are going to lets make it easier for them
I would be in favour of background checks if it didn't require the government to have access to all your personal details. Rewarding states that "provide the most data" is a couched way of saying that states will be rewarded for wanton surveillance and databasing of citizens who are doing nothing wrong. The Fed has no business obtaining my personal information or using it to prevent me from purchasing a gun. That's up to my home state, and even then they better have a damn good reason for doing it.
HTML:Yes lets do background checks without checking the background
Whenever the Fed wants to streamline anything, it usually involves stepping on state sovereignty. Yes, it's true, one state could require a background check while the other doesn't require anything, so I could just cross the border. That's just something we have to live with in a system that is supposed to respect state sovereignty.
HTML:Let's do it by city or town, hey why even bother
In AZ the governor made a public appearance and got shot. Maybe we should stop governors from appearing in public without bulletproof glass around them, a la the pope.
HTML:So let me see if I have this right, you want background checks that limit the scope of the check, the federal government can not have the results of the background check, if a person wants to hold public office they should not appear in public without a bullet proof glass enclosure. I am in favor of robo-cop technology. A fine for any person who ever leaves home without their AK47, an extra magazine of ammunition and their bullet proof light weight glass enclosure.
Other than keeping a weapon out of someone who is actually mentality screwed up there is no such thing as reasonable control. Who are you or anyone else to do decide if we lowly citizens cant have AK-47s? Government thugs can get copies, gang bangers, mobsters can get them but the lowly citizen cant? Why should a man who has served his debt to society get his right to defend himself be taken away from him?
Fixed for you
Pity you're so uninformed. Still.
Every family in Iraq was afforded one AK-47 in their household for self-defense. Where were the liberal anti-gunners protesting against that policy? The selective outrage over firearms is astounding.
Obama wants to reward the reporting of data which is illegal to collect in my state.
Then it will remain illegal in your state, right? At least I hope so.
Obama talks a smooth game. But like a magician he distracts his audience while his hands are doing something entirely different.
He might REALLY mean well this time, but his track record is leads to other conclusions.