Are Pugs REALLY concerned about guns getting into the wrong hands?

[Bo-4]

Now THAT sounds like a really good conspiracy theory. Do you have any PROOF of what you wrote here or are we supposed to take your word as the truth??? Any links besides right wing links that prove NOTHING???

They don't need no steenking proof Nina. Pugs go on hunches. Those hunches are ofttimes crazy as hell, but without them, their conspiracy theories and constant anger over same.. they're lost. ;-)

 

[Bo-4]

I believe that Sarge (and Doc) proved the point of my post. Radical Marxist with a racist chip? LOL!!

Yeah, I know. It's really hard to accept the fact that you people elected a person who is a radical Marxist, who has a racist chip on his shoulder, and who is choosing which laws to enforce and not enforce.

I'll guarantee you this, you won't want to live in what he's turning this country into.

And anyone who watches the hate spewing bile that comes out of BSNBC, let alone uses it as a point of reference is----I better not say.

 

[KnotaFrayed]

Why are Libbies only concerned with keeping guns out of the hands of taxpaying, law-abiding citizens....????

I have my theories.......

The article seems to indicate otherwise, but here might be an example of what some "law abiding tax, paying citizens" do the moment they go from being law abiding to law breaking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

In addition, I see an awful lot of "law abiding" citizens breaking the law out on the highway quite often. Do you suppose they're all "Libbies" or do you suppose that like selling arms to Iran to fund the Contras, they just make up their own rules with regard to being "law abiding"?

 

[jammer]

Sort of reminds me of the right's reaction to the Terry Schiavo case. The republicon lead Congress had to have a special session, President Bush had to cancel one of his vacations, and they screamed about it for months. Then silence.....

 

[jammer]

That would involve "TRUTH," Bo....you ain't interested in that....

So, please, forget I even posted, and continue with your broad stereotyping and rant on Conservatives....

In other words, you got nothing. Typical.

 

[jammer]

Doc didn't admit shit, Nina.

Speak for Nina.

Let Doc speak for Doc.

I hardly think you will be thrilled, if I begin to speak for you.....

So speak Doc and enlighten us all with your brillant "theories".

 

[Bo-4]

Sort of reminds me of the right's reaction to the Terry Schiavo case. The republicon lead Congress had to have a special session, President Bush had to cancel one of his vacations, and they screamed about it for months. Then silence.....

You forgot about the most awesome part, where Rick Santorum led them in prayer!

 

[marvin martian]

We aren't Doc.. not in the slightest. Maybe you could share your evidence that we (or Obama) are?

It's simple logic. New gun laws will obviously only apply to those who follow the law, hence, those who don't follow the law (and never will, i.e. criminals) will not be affected by new gun laws. They will continue to steal, sell and use guns illegally, while our so-called government is out making new laws rather than enforcing the ones that already exist.

Now, I, as a law abiding gun owner, have yet more roadblocks to protecting myself and my family, while the illegal alien walks around packing his .45 caliber Eric Holder special as he goes to the polls to vote (without ID, of course) for another term for Barack Obama so he can get his free work permit, continue to carry his illegal gun and maybe buy another one from the Department of (In)Justice with his next welfare check. See?

 

[Doc]

What can I say, Bo-Superior: I am, but a "Racist Hick, who clings to my guns an bible."

THAT is what you [Unwelcome language removed] think about me and mine.

So [Unwelcome language removed] it...

LOL...and you wonder why I would want to share a nation with you and yours????

 

[YouCantHandleDaTruth]

That would involve "TRUTH," Bo....you ain't interested in that....

So, please, forget I even posted, and continue with your broad stereotyping and rant on Conservatives....

Yeap, conservatives say crap and then don't want to back it up....normal no?

Regards

 

[GordonGecko]

Doc? Still waiting on your "theories"....are they secrets???

 

[KnotaFrayed]

It's simple logic. New gun laws will obviously only apply to those who follow the law, hence, those who don't follow the law (and never will, i.e. criminals) will not be affected by new gun laws. They will continue to steal, sell and use guns illegally, while our so-called government is out making new laws rather than enforcing the ones that already exist.

Now, I, as a law abiding gun owner, have yet more roadblocks to protecting myself and my family, while the illegal alien walks around packing his .45 caliber Eric Holder special as he goes to the polls to vote (without ID, of course) for another term for Barack Obama so he can get his free work permit, continue to carry his illegal gun and maybe buy another one from the Department of (In)Justice with his next welfare check. See?

The illegal alien gets his gun from where? People without guns or people that either have guns or are selling them to people that buy them illegally?

Is there a gun manufacturer that makes guns illegally and sells them illegally totally on the black market or do guns have to come through a legal source at some point to later be stolen by criminals, illegally sold to criminals, sold legally to people who either plan to use them illegally or don't plan to use them illegally, but end up using them illegally?

Are all "citizens" of Washington, D.C. totally allowed to keep and bear arms without a single infringement?

The notion of a "law abiding citizen" as some eternal proof that anyone will automatically and eternally remain so is similar to the suggestion that live humans will automatically and eternally remain so. It is a lost leader/red herring with regard to any reasoning for anyone to own a gun.

In addition, if one reads the Second Amendment, what does it say is "necessary to the security of a free State"?

 

[marvin martian]

The illegal alien gets his gun from where? People without guns or people that either have guns or are selling them to people that buy them illegally?

Is there a gun manufacturer that makes guns illegally and sells them illegally totally on the black market or do guns have to come through a legal source at some point to later be stolen by criminals, illegally sold to criminals, sold legally to people who either plan to use them illegally or don't plan to use them illegally, but end up using them illegally?

Are all "citizens" of Washington, D.C. totally allowed to keep and bear arms without a single infringement?

Do you really not understand how this works? Criminals steal guns, either from other criminals or from law-abiding gun owners. They may also buy guns illegally from other criminals. They then use those guns to commit crimes. The government making more laws infringing on my ability to legally purchase and own a gun does jack shit to the criminal who doesn't care about the law.

Now, if the government decided to actually go after the criminals buying, selling and using guns illegally, that might help. Instead, we have Eric Holder selling guns to drug lords so they can kill Americans, we have retarded municipalities banning legal gun ownership thus ENSURING that when a gun-toting criminal invades a home, he will encounter little or no resistance while he kills, rapes and robs, and we have morons in Washington who either sincerely or insincerely believe that forcing legal gun dealers to report sales to law-abiding citizens (who already passed a background check) will somehow help anything.

Mexico, Venezuela and Cuba (among others) have all banned legal gun ownership. And their crimes rates are virtually nonexistent, right?!?!

 

[gabriel]

the more guns there are, the more opportunities to steal or lose them.

 

[Dawg]

one death.....what ya smoking today Bo

 

[gabriel]

if you dont want to share a nation with them, when can we expect your emigration?

 

[shintao]

GOP enables gun sales --> Mexico



"The ATF has reported that there are 6,700 holders of Federal Firearms Licenses operating in the Southwest border areas of Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. But Republicans attached a rider to the 2013 fiscal-year budget that would prohibit spending by the ATF to enforce a rule requiring FFLs to report multiple sales of rifles. This would provide the bureau with enhanced ability to track possible straw purchases, one of the key ways guns make their way into Mexico. But the rider was attached by those who view the ATF move a measure to control legitimate gun sales.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...us?detail=hide

You know Julie, Freedom requires we pay a price for it, if we want it. The freeness of the abortion issue is no laws dealing with the subject, not more regulations and hoops women have to jump through. The death of cells and fetuses is the price or sacrifice we pay for abortion freedom.

The same is true of guns and the freedom to own weapons of our choice without hindrance by government or others. After all, that is what the Constitution you chose to live under states on guns. "Shall Not Be Infringed." And people dying is the price we pay, or the sacrifice we must make to have that freedom. I oppose any gun law, period.

With that said, doesn't it make more sense to stake an agent at gun stores to do whatever it is they wish to do, than to restrict my right by placing me under suspicion for buying a couple of guns at one time? Are we dead set on making ourselves prisoners in our own country by laws? Do we really need abortion, gun, cars, etc. laws to infringe on our freedoms? I say not. I want you to have freedom.

Take this to heart. "Everytime you take away someone else's Freedoms, you have just limited your own." ~ Shintao

 

[KnotaFrayed]

Do you really not understand how this works? Criminals steal guns, either from other criminals or from law-abiding gun owners. They may also buy guns illegally from other criminals. They then use those guns to commit crimes. The government making more laws infringing on my ability to legally purchase and own a gun does jack shit to the criminal who doesn't care about the law.

Now, if the government decided to actually go after the criminals buying, selling and using guns illegally, that might help. Instead, we have Eric Holder selling guns to drug lords so they can kill Americans, we have retarded municipalities banning legal gun ownership thus ENSURING that when a gun-toting criminal invades a home, he will encounter little or no resistance while he kills, rapes and robs, and we have morons in Washington who either sincerely or insincerely believe that forcing legal gun dealers to report sales to law-abiding citizens (who already passed a background check) will somehow help anything.

Mexico, Venezuela and Cuba (among others) have all banned legal gun ownership. And their crimes rates are virtually nonexistent, right?!?!

Some people apparently have some trouble with comprehension.

We're talking about gun control (like background checks: an "infringement" as would be dissallowing felons to keep and bear arms, IF you interpret the Amendment as you and some others appear to) and the right to keep and bear arms based on what the Constitution says is "necessary to the security of a free State".

If you cared about illegals having guns in their hands, you would work on their being fewer guns in the world, to buy legally (to later be stolen or used illegally by the person that bought them legallY) to buy illegally, from people who stole the guns from people who had them legally or those who bought them legally, through a straw purchase (for potential illegal use) or those who bought the legally and used them legally, up until the time they used them illegally/criminally.

I believe if you go to that Amendment, you'll find the answer to that which is "necessary to the security of a free State".

Intelligent people comprehend and know a ban on gun ownership will not prevent people from having guns, thus many are not talking about total bans, especially for those who belong to "well-regulated Militia" as being "necessary to the security of a free State" who are trained in the use of firearms and warfare. Those thinking about a total ban also do not hope or believe guns will no longer be present, but it realize it would make it easier to investigate the reasons someone would have a gun in their posession and suggest that those with weapons in their possession likely possess them, not only illegally, but for an intent to use them illegally or in the commission of an illegal act.

Currently, the person who bought their firearms legally driving on their way to shoot a politician and 12 other people could not have their intent questioned. If they had those firearms illegally, they might be thwarted in their carrying out their crime. Intellgent people realize that the chance they will not be thwarted is just as high.

Jared Loughner was subdued without a firearm being used to subdue him in a state that is a strong advocate of every citizen being armed with firearms.

That leaves the questions:

A firearm was used to shoot 13 people by an armed citizen.
No firearms were used to subdue the person who used the firearm in a place where people advocate for every citizen being armed to stop just a thing from occurring.

Which was more effective in cutting the act of an armed citizen short, armed citizens or unarmed citizens?


How can Holder or anyone else go after people who own guns illegally if one interprets the 2nd Amendment as NO infringments upon citizens "keeping and bearing arms"?

If a criminal uses a straw purchaser to buy firearms legally, how does one track where the weapons go and how they are used in the commission of crimes and tracking the hands the firearms go through?

You say you want people to do things like track illegal gun running, then when they do so, you call the person you asked to do the tracking, the criminal.

 

[marvin martian]

the more guns there are, the more opportunities to steal or lose them.

That's where the LAW ENFORCEMENT part comes in. But instead, Eric Holder is too busy selling guns to Mexican drug lords so they can kill American cops and innocent bystanders. I guess he's got his own set of priorities...

 

[marvin martian]

Some people apparently have some trouble with comprehension.

Yes they do, as illustrated by your total fail on comprehending my point...

In a "free state" where my attorney general is selling guns to Mexican drug lords so they can kill cops, I think we need to step up what we need to secure our free state...