Obama's speech - Page 20

Obama's speech

This is a discussion on Obama's speech within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by TX expat See, I have a slightly different take. I'm not really concerned with someone with 20 IQ points less than me ...

Page 20 of 20 FirstFirst ... 101617181920
Results 286 to 300 of 300
Like Tree373Likes

Thread: Obama's speech

  1. #286
    Senior Member Array CanuckQue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Maritimes Canada
    Posts
    1,169
    Quote Originally Posted by TX expat View Post
    See, I have a slightly different take. I'm not really concerned with someone with 20 IQ points less than me having a gun near me because I have a gun on me.
    Naw, that's only useful against someone who's obviously hostile. I'm more worried about dummies than criminals :)

    That's where my bias comes in. I'm biased against the dummies who might make mistakes and don't want them having guns.
    There WILL be patents with this (simple) discovery. That, and "type III levers". It's untapped wealth, waiting for you who Google. Or your kids. People expanding on the potential are welcome to elucidate; I didn't phrase it well


  2. #287
    VIP Member Array Doghandler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    West Branch
    Posts
    2,314

    Re: Obama's speech

    Quote Originally Posted by TX expat View Post
    Ha, sure they do. They illustrate how you, excuse me, how Liberals are more concerned with their agenda than they are with the actual "problem". You won't solve any problems by trying to legislate the free will of law abiding people. Law abiding people are inherently not the problem because they are law abiding.

    Guns aren't the problem. Would there be fewer gun deaths if there were no guns? Absolutely. And there are plenty of nations that have adopted that view as national law, so go live there if that appeals to you. America, however, was founded on a set of core principles that prohibit our government from taking certain rights away; the right to keep and bear arms is among them. The incredibly insightful men that created our Bill of Rights understood that in order for a truly free people to remain so, they absolutely had to retain the right to defend the rights that they drafted in the BoR. The Second Amendment is about the right to protect our way of life; it's not about restricting "certain types" of firearms because they are have the potential to be dangerous. The fact that they are dangerous is the whole point of insuring that they will not be infringed.

    Once again, if the core tenets that make America unique don't appeal to you, the exit door is always open to you. Trying to change this country to fit a view that runs contrary to the very things that make us unique, is not, in my opinion, acceptable.
    Your argument might hold water, TX expat, but for the childish open door comment to top it off .

    ...
    The problem with the world is grown-ups behaving like unsupervised children.
    There is a solution but we are not Jedi... not yet.
    Doghandler

  3. #288
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Doghandler View Post
    Your argument might hold water, TX expat, but for the childish open door comment to top it off .

    ...
    The problem with the world is grown-ups behaving like unsupervised children.
    Sorry but it wasn't childish, I'm stating a fact. There are places that have significant restrictions on firearms. If that's what you want/need to feel "safe" then going to live there is a simple way to get what you are seeking. Taking a fundamental, defined right away from the people, should not be.
    1MoreGoodGuy and Aceoky like this.

  4. #289
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,080
    Quote Originally Posted by mulle46 View Post
    where is personal accountability in that? Sounds like you are assigning blame on everyone and everything beside the shooter?
    I assigned no blame. I stated the fact, the reality. Our society has many problems which
    lead to a high murder rate. Wide availability of guns happens to be one of them. That doesn't mean
    gun ownership should be abolished, not anymore than it means all the liquor stores should be shuttered.
    It means only what it is. These are contributors to a high murder rate. Obviously when a crime occurs,
    whether it is a gun crime or a DUI, the responsibility is or ought to be solely on the person who
    did the crime. Prohibition clearly never works, whether it is booze, drugs, guns. I'm not arguing for
    prohibition.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  5. #290
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I assigned no blame. I stated the fact, the reality. Our society has many problems which
    lead to a high murder rate. Wide availability of guns happens to be one of them. That doesn't mean
    gun ownership should be abolished, not anymore than it means all the liquor stores should be shuttered.
    It means only what it is. These are contributors to a high murder rate. Obviously when a crime occurs,
    whether it is a gun crime or a DUI, the responsibility is or ought to be solely on the person who
    did the crime. Prohibition clearly never works, whether it is booze, drugs, guns. I'm not arguing for
    prohibition.
    Uh, wait... So you agree that gun laws are not the answer? Because to use your own comparison, nobody has ever made a serious push to ban the sale of alcoholic beverages, or ban automobiles, and intoxicated drivers kill more people than guns do. So if it's fine to ignore the "tool" in one instance, we really don't have any business looking at the "tool" of the other.
    Aceoky likes this.

  6. #291
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,080
    Quote Originally Posted by TX expat View Post
    Uh, wait... So you agree that gun laws are not the answer? Because to use your own comparison, nobody has ever made a serious push to ban the sale of alcoholic beverages, or ban automobiles, and intoxicated drivers kill more people than guns do. So if it's fine to ignore the "tool" in one instance, we really don't have any business looking at the "tool" of the other.
    I stated that prohibition is not the answer. There is however a huge difference between
    blanket prohibition as was tried with alcohol and with certain drugs, and what Scalia approved
    of in Heller--- reasonable regulation. We do have the latter with all of our dram shop laws. See?
    We have some of the regulation with existing laws in each of the states and for some items with the
    Feds. Between prohibition and doing nothing there exists a wide universe of options.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  7. #292
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I stated that prohibition is not the answer. There is however a huge difference between
    blanket prohibition as was tried with alcohol and with certain drugs, and what Scalia approved
    of in Heller--- reasonable regulation. We do have the latter with all of our dram shop laws. See?
    We have some of the regulation with existing laws in each of the states and for some items with the
    Feds. Between prohibition and doing nothing there exists a wide universe of options.
    Um... Dram Shop Laws are in place to establish liability when alcohol is sold to people under certain conditions. So if a bar sells alcohol to a minor and he gets drunk and injures himself or others, the party that sold the alcohol can be held accountable. If a bar continues to serve alcohol to someone who is very inebriated and they go drive off later and kill someone, they bar can be held responsible to an extent. So is that what you are looking for? You want the gun shops to be held accountable for injury caused by the guns they sell? Or maybe the gun manufacturers? Because Dram Shop laws are not regulation laws that apply to everyone; they are conditional laws based on the individual circumstance.
    Aceoky likes this.

  8. #293
    VIP Member
    Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    6,714
    Quote Originally Posted by TX expat View Post
    Ha, sure they do. They illustrate how you, excuse me, how Liberals are more concerned with their agenda than they are with the actual "problem". You won't solve any problems by trying to legislate the free will of law abiding people. Law abiding people are inherently not the problem because they are law abiding.

    Guns aren't the problem. Would there be fewer gun deaths if there were no guns? Absolutely. And there are plenty of nations that have adopted that view as national law, so go live there if that appeals to you. America, however, was founded on a set of core principles that prohibit our government from taking certain rights away; the right to keep and bear arms is among them. The incredibly insightful men that created our Bill of Rights understood that in order for a truly free people to remain so, they absolutely had to retain the right to defend the rights that they drafted in the BoR. The Second Amendment is about the right to protect our way of life; it's not about restricting "certain types" of firearms because they are have the potential to be dangerous. The fact that they are dangerous is the whole point of insuring that they will not be infringed.

    Once again, if the core tenets that make America unique don't appeal to you, the exit door is always open to you. Trying to change this country to fit a view that runs contrary to the very things that make us unique, is not, in my opinion, acceptable.
    Nice post TX expat.

    I tried to click "like" more than once but nothing happened.
    TX expat and Aceoky like this.
    Regards,
    1MoreGoodGuy
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member


    Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!

  9. #294
    VIP Member Array Doghandler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    West Branch
    Posts
    2,314

    Re: Obama's speech

    Quote Originally Posted by TX expat View Post
    Sorry but it wasn't childish, I'm stating a fact. There are places that have significant restrictions on firearms. If that's what you want/need to feel "safe" then going to live there is a simple way to get what you are seeking. Taking a fundamental, defined right away from the people, should not be.
    It's rude, disruptive and dangerous to formulate an argument and threaten expulsion for those who disagree. You never know who could be guarding the door.

    ...
    The problem with the world is grown-ups behaving like unsupervised children.
    There is a solution but we are not Jedi... not yet.
    Doghandler

  10. #295
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Doghandler View Post
    It's rude, disruptive and dangerous to formulate an argument and threaten expulsion for those who disagree. You never know who could be guarding the door.

    ...
    The problem with the world is grown-ups behaving like unsupervised children.
    Um yeah... Maybe you need to go back and reread what I wrote. I offered him a logical path to a place where firearms are more heavily legislated and out of the hands of the masses. Regardless of what you'd like to accuse me of, I most certainly didn't "threaten expulsion" or anything even remotely close. As if I could "threaten" such a thing anyway. So while you'd like to demonize what I suggested, my suggestion was nothing more 'threatening' than telling someone they should move to a new neighborhood if that person was complaining about feeling unsafe in their current neighborhood. I could care less if he agrees with me or not. I support the First Amendment as strongly as I support the Second. He has every right in the world to suggest whatever the heck he wants to, but when those suggestions go beyond what he's going subject himself to and delves into what he believes I should be subject to, I'm going to make my opinion known.

    Personally, I'd say it's a heck of a lot more rude, disruptive and dangerous to make false accusations based on personal bias or lack of reading comprehension... I know it's a heck of a lot more dangerous to think that the rights of the people should be legislated away from all of the people simply because it would provide a false sense of security to some of the people.
    1MoreGoodGuy and Aceoky like this.

  11. #296
    VIP Member Array Doghandler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    West Branch
    Posts
    2,314

    Re: Obama's speech

    Fair enough.

    ...
    The problem with the world is grown-ups behaving like unsupervised children.
    TX expat and 1MoreGoodGuy like this.
    There is a solution but we are not Jedi... not yet.
    Doghandler

  12. #297
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,080
    Quote Originally Posted by TX expat View Post
    Um... Dram Shop Laws are in place to establish liability when alcohol is sold to people under certain conditions. So if a bar sells alcohol to a minor and he gets drunk and injures himself or others, the party that sold the alcohol can be held accountable. If a bar continues to serve alcohol to someone who is very inebriated and they go drive off later and kill someone, they bar can be held responsible to an extent. So is that what you are looking for? You want the gun shops to be held accountable for injury caused by the guns they sell? Or maybe the gun manufacturers? Because Dram Shop laws are not regulation laws that apply to everyone; they are conditional laws based on the individual circumstance.
    It appears on additional checking that I misused the term Dram Shop. I only meant that
    we do regulate the sale of liquor.

    While as a general matter I don't think your LGS should be liable for the use of what they have
    sold, I think there certainly could well be situations in which a reasonable person would have
    and should have known to not sell to the buyer, and if they have done so in a particularly aggravated
    manner, I have no problem with hold them responsible for the consequences.

    I'm fairly certain some gun shop owners regularly turn down an occasional customer who
    could pass the NICS but who just makes them feel uncomfortable completing the sale.

    This of course has nothing to do with Lanza as he didn't buy the guns he used.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  13. #298
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    It appears on additional checking that I misused the term Dram Shop. I only meant that
    we do regulate the sale of liquor.

    While as a general matter I don't think your LGS should be liable for the use of what they have
    sold, I think there certainly could well be situations in which a reasonable person would have
    and should have known to not sell to the buyer, and if they have done so in a particularly aggravated
    manner, I have no problem with hold them responsible for the consequences.

    I'm fairly certain some gun shop owners regularly turn down an occasional customer who
    could pass the NICS but who just makes them feel uncomfortable completing the sale.

    This of course has nothing to do with Lanza as he didn't buy the guns he used.
    I'm sure you are correct, I'd bet there are plenty of gun shops, and even private parties, that cancel sales due to nothing more than getting a bad feeling about someone. On your other point, we already do have equitable laws concerning gun sales. We have age restrictions, background checks and certain use restrictions (i.e. carrying laws) concerning firearm sales, just like we have for alcohol (only no background checks for booze!). And as a further point, when someone has a problem with drinking and driving, we may put limits or restrictions on their availability to alcohol or automobiles, but we most certainly do not try and make restrictions to the law abiding public. The "punishment" always follows the individual. If that's the case with drunk driving, why would you apply any different standards to firearms? The firearm isn't any more responsible for the death than the automobile.
    1MoreGoodGuy likes this.

  14. #299
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,126
    For crying out loud, how many threads and posts do we have on our board talking about how just owning a gun or just having a CHL is insufficient; that additional training is important. Do you really think you can take that 23 year old young woman teaching 2nd grade and get her additional training without all manner of additional problems cropping up? Let's see-- liability, collateral damage, accidents, a teacher or principal gone bad. Plus, dealing with the mass murder issue from the perspective of a school shooting omits the numerous incidents which occurred away from the classroom.
    Thought no.1.

    Do we really want 23 year old woman driving nuclear submarines, piloting some of the most sophisticated aircraft that mankind has ever seen or even driving an M1 Abrams tank? How about the ones with their hands on the controls of our nuclear missiles?
    Yet they do. And they have less education than most teachers.



    Thought no. 2.

    Not the same you say. It can be. Its not about 23 year old teachers that don't meet YOUR expectations or standards, its about MINDSET.
    Given the proper mindset, I would rather have an armed 23 year old second grade teacher that was able to meet a threat than to have some liberal utopian think that by laying in the fetus position in a corner of a dark classroom, thinking she was somehow being a good citizen by not offering resistance.

    Thought no. 3.
    I know and have trained many teachers to carry a handgun. I would not hesitate to let them carry a gun in school if they were able to do so. It beats the liberal idea of playing dead and hoping that your attacker passes you by.


    Thought no. 4.
    Any one that thinks NICS is a deterrent or even a good thing ought to be excommunicated for being too silly to be an American.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  15. #300
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,888
    And with that.....this old thread is now closed.
    Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ

Page 20 of 20 FirstFirst ... 101617181920

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

900 exempted weapons
,
feinstein 900 exempt guns
,

feinstein 900 exempted weapons list

,

finstines 120 guns list

,

list of 900 exempted weapons

,
obama lied about 900 dead from guns in last month
,

obama speech

,
obama speech against concealed carry proof
,
obama's speech on gun control jan. 16th 2012
,

obamas speech over ccw

,
president obamas speech on gun control januuary 16th, 2013
,
quote ?swim together or sink together?
Click on a term to search for related topics.