Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This has been going on for 6 years since Obama was elected, "the black president is coming for yours guns" particularly after the down turn in 2008 the right wing blogs were predicting unrest in the cities and people needed to be prepared. The NRA and gun manufacturers have been a prime source of paranoia to those that will listen. You can see some of these people on these boards echoing the same sentiment, some were even burying their guns in the backyard.
Well to be fair "the black president is coming for your guns" has also been implicitly promoted by that black president, it does guarantee a block vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
Gun sales are at all time highs while crime has decreased so why do you think people need all these guns the last several years.
Which then leads to the question of. If as you say gun sales are at all time highs, and crimes have decreased, why do we need further action on gun control? Clearly the number of guns and number of crimes are not connected.
I am a liberal in most issues I also served in the military, graduated ranger school, I been deployed in combat I am not what you would call anti gun, I do not want to ban guns, but it strikes me as a good idea that everyone that buys a gun should have a background check, what is the argument against that, provided the government figures out a way that private citizens can do one at no cost, other than slippery slope arguments.
Well to be fair "the black president is coming for your guns" has also been implicitly promoted by that black president, it does guarantee a block vote..
He has proposed gun control as have many prior presidents but this is different, the scale, fear and paranoia. To this point the only difference has been Obama allowing guns in national parks, on the state level changes have been all over the spectrum but nothing has happened on the federal level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
Which then leads to the question of. If as you say gun sales are at all time highs, and crimes have decreased, why do we need further action on gun control? Clearly the number of guns and number of crimes are not connected.
Although we have made progress we still have the highest gun homicide rate of any civilized country, not just attributing that to guns but we do have some very relaxed laws,
Not a lunatic. His opinion is that the mere mention of gun control laws causes many gun owners to cringe and jump to the worst of conclusions. Over and over in this post you've seen people state things that are completely unsupported by any factual information (citing blogs and extremely unreliable sources). They're claiming it's going to be a law (it wouldn't be a law). They're even pointing out that any time gun control issues are brought to the forefront ammo and firearm sales increase - ALL of these things support his idea.
Obama could ask that background checks become more extensive or propose that we close the gun show loophole and people would be saying "he's trying to take our guns". It happens all the time.
Perhaps people are saying that because Obama has said he wants our guns.
As for supporting his ideas, why when they are far fetched and fantasy. Study up, it may enlighten you if you let it.
And yet another Red Herring. Any substance to offer? Miss the point? Sorry, I didn't bring my microscope to view your "point". The question is about a Bill in the Senate, and you throw in a useless comment about a candidate's standing in a Primary race - brilliant!!!! What a point!
Actually, I did get your point. It was to distract attention from the content of the bill, or, in other words, a RED HERRING!!!
You seem to consider yourself the expert in the Red Herring category. Why? Because you constantly use them?
I hate the fact that Dems believe that stopping law abiding citizens from owning guns will somehow prevent criminals and terrorists from using guns to kill innocent people. It's such a ridiculous fallacy...
Google "most definition". My story hasn't changed simply because you don't understand the definition of words. Also it's not really a story.
I wanted to add... My use of most and many is really how you aim to discredit me? I mean... Really? There's nothing else in my entire post that you could stop and say "that's not right" or "I disagree". You went with my use of most and many which, in this case, was totally and completely accurate.
To quote others in this thread, words have meaning. Your misuse of them indicates your lack of knowledge on the subject, you merely state your current opinion while attempting to dismiss any who disagree or challenge you. Poor tactics.
Maybe congress but certainly not the 85% of the citizens that support background checks
Citation of your statistics if you can. Yes, many do support background checks, and many claim that they are needless as there already are sufficient background checks. You know, the laws that we already have that Obama refuses to enforce.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
