• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Who says Obammer ain't for gun control?

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
What people are saying, pre-election mumbo-jumbo, is that he has not proposed any major anti-gun legislation.

But when he is a lame duck president, that will all change I'm sure. Odd that people don't note that, huh?

Nobody says he's a pro-gun politician; not at all. Just that he is hands-off now.

Hopefully the senate goes republican & that will kill or minimize any anti-gun legislation.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
What people are saying, pre-election mumbo-jumbo, is that he has not proposed any major anti-gun legislation.

But when he is a lame duck president, that will all change I'm sure. Odd that people don't note that, huh?

Nobody says he's a pro-gun politician; not at all. Just that he is hands-off now.

Hopefully the senate goes republican & that will kill or minimize any anti-gun legislation.

Obama needs a liberal court even if he is reelected.
 

beebobby

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
847
Location
, ,
Obama needs a liberal court even if he is reelected.

As would Romney who has spoken, rallied & voted in support of:

The Brady Act, Mandatory Firearms ID Cards, Waiting Periods, Federal Feinstein Gun Ban, as well as of course passing the Mass. Semi-Auto Ban.
During his Gubernatorial debate (C-Span 2002) he said "We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them."
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
It's funny, this topic comes up every few months. Some person states that there are individuals who are arguing that President Obama ain't for gun control. I have yet to run into an individual, on this forum, hell, on any forum I've been too, that argues President Obama is not anti-gun.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
It's funny, this topic comes up every few months. Some person states that there are individuals who are arguing that President Obama ain't for gun control. I have yet to run into an individual, on this forum, hell, on any forum I've been too, that argues President Obama is not anti-gun.

Yea, its as funny as saying that Romney didn't support gun control measures that Obamalama would love to pass nationally.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Yea, its as funny as saying that Romney didn't support gun control measures that Obamalama would love to pass nationally.

I relish the moment you either throw your vote away on Principle, to some tea party type, or vote for Romney. LOL, hilarious, those are your two options.
 

beebobby

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
847
Location
, ,
It's OK if Romney signed an AWB, but it's not OK that Obama has stated that he wouldn't sign an AWB. Classic ODS.

Who says Romney ain't for gun control?
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
It's OK if Romney signed an AWB, but it's not OK that Obama has stated that he wouldn't sign an AWB. Classic ODS.

Who says Romney ain't for gun control?

Romney signed a bill on a STATE law in a state that repeatedly elected Ted(blond in every pond) Kennedy. It is what the majority of his constituents want, and probably what you want also. Romney is not perfect but he is one hell of a lot better than Barry(up yours citizens) Obama who has shown he could care less what his constituents want. Besides there are plenty more reasons than just the 2A to get the moonbat out of the white house.
 

rushcreek2

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
909
Location
Colorado Springs. CO
Here's some facts to chew on.

Obama is the son of Marxists , the grandson of Marxists, was mentored by a Marxist, launched his presidential campaign in the home of a Marxist/terrorist who wrote his first autobiography, has staffed the Whitehouse with Marxists, and unsurprisingly is behaving in office like a Marxist.

Romney is the ONLY other choice.
 
Last edited:

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
President Obama has not hidden his own thoughts that gun violence is a problem. (Firearms kill approximately the same number of people in the US as cars do.) BUT he has repeatedly said that it is not a power the federal government has (he is a constitutional scholar, and believes that gun control falls to the states or the People, not the Feds.)
I do not expect this to be a factor during or after the election anywhere outside NYC. After all, the twelve killed in Aurora do not represent the problem we have with gun crime. It is the 50 people killed with guns every day by common criminals. (yes, I said 50 a day, but the total is about 100 a day if you include suicides.). In a country of 300 million people and over 100 million guns, it's a relatively small number.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
President Obama has not hidden his own thoughts that gun violence is a problem. (Firearms kill approximately the same number of people in the US as cars do.) BUT he has repeatedly said that it is not a power the federal government has (he is a constitutional scholar, and believes that gun control falls to the states or the People, not the Feds.)
I do not expect this to be a factor during or after the election anywhere outside NYC. After all, the twelve killed in Aurora do not represent the problem we have with gun crime. It is the 50 people killed with guns every day by common criminals. (yes, I said 50 a day, but the total is about 100 a day if you include suicides.). In a country of 300 million people and over 100 million guns, it's a relatively small number.

Please provide a cite for what you stated in bold?

From CDC 2008

Firearm homicides

Number of deaths: 11,493
Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.7

Motor vehicle traffic deaths

Number of deaths: 34,485
Deaths per 100,000 population: 11.2
 
Last edited:

beebobby

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
847
Location
, ,
Here's some facts to chew on.

Obama is the son of Marxists , the grandson of Marxists, was mentored by a Marxist, launched his presidential campaign in the home of a Marxist/terrorist who wrote his first autobiography, has staffed the Whitehouse with Marxists, and unsurprisingly is behaving in office like a Marxist.

Romney is the ONLY other choice.

You forgot "secret mooslim". ODS much? And you are going to vote for a man who prays to the god Elohim on the planet Kolob who beamed down to earth to have sex with Mary to create Jesus! Good choice!
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
You forgot "secret mooslim". ODS much? And you are going to vote for a man who prays to the god Elohim on the planet Kolob who beamed down to earth to have sex with Mary to create Jesus! Good choice!

Any choice other than the moonbat that is currently in the whitehouse~~ABO
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
CDC 2009 preliminary data (what you quote...
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/default.htm

Specifically, injury as opposed to illness:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
"...
Mortality

All injury deaths
Number of deaths: 177,154
Deaths per 100,000 population: 57.7

Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 34,485
Deaths per 100,000 population: 11.2

All poisoning deaths
Number of deaths: 41,592
Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.5

All firearm deaths
Number of deaths: 31,347
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.2
..."

"...
Mortality
All suicides
Number of deaths: 36,909
Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.0
Cause of death rank: 10

Firearm suicides
Number of deaths: 18,735
Deaths per 100,000 population: 6.1
..."

About half of homicides are listed as involving a handgun in any given year.
But homicide includes non-murder killings (homicide is strictly the death at the hands of another)

I'm not going to quibble about the accurate death toll, I only intended to point out that the issue is big enough to think about, but much smaller than most other causes of death. And to show that any one crazy guy does not a problem make. We probably need to be concerned about stopping everyday crime rather than devoting scarce resources to infrequent events.

The Aurora shooter was not someone prohibited from buying or owning a gun until he had criminal intentions, or committed a crime. And we don't want a new law excluding people who drop out of a PhD program from owning a gun (something I did 7 years ago to take gainful employment), nothing else would have stopped this guy, except an outright ban.
 

The Airframer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2012
Messages
171
Location
Virginia Beach
nothing else would have stopped this guy, except an outright ban.

From what I've gathered from press releases, an "outright ban" of guns probably would have resulted in a higher death toll. Let's say our dropout honor student with an obvious knack for chemistry (as evident from his rigged apartment), was banned from owning/purchasing/finding on the black-market a firearm, what kind of ban do you suppose would have stopped him from taking those same explosives from his apartment to the theater? Do you propose an outright chemical ban and outright firearms ban would have prevented this lunatic from mass murder? He was determined to kill--plain and simple, and no laws were going to get in his way.
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
From what I've gathered from press releases, an "outright ban" of guns probably would have resulted in a higher death toll. Let's say our dropout honor student with an obvious knack for chemistry (as evident from his rigged apartment), was banned from owning/purchasing/finding on the black-market a firearm, what kind of ban do you suppose would have stopped him from taking those same explosives from his apartment to the theater? Do you propose an outright chemical ban and outright firearms ban would have prevented this lunatic from mass murder? He was determined to kill--plain and simple, and no laws were going to get in his way.

Some people have forgot about Oklahoma City...
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
First, I actually haven't heard anyone, except mayor Bloomberg, calling for an all-out firearms ban. And I'm not proposing any sort of new restrictions. I simply said that the President needs to be talking about everyday crime, not the one-off, crazy guys. This seems to be what may be actually happening, aside from renewed talk of high-cap bans (which I expect to see, because it is low-hanging political fruit, "who in the world needs 30 rounds to hunt deer" <rolleyes>)
 
Top