Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Is everyone tired of the political gun debate?

Is everyone tired of the political gun debate?

+2
ZVUGKTUBM
boards of FL
6 posters

Is everyone tired of the political gun debate?

Is everyone tired of the political gun debate? I_vote_lcap65%Is everyone tired of the political gun debate? I_vote_rcap 65% [ 13 ]
Is everyone tired of the political gun debate? I_vote_lcap35%Is everyone tired of the political gun debate? I_vote_rcap 35% [ 7 ]
Total Votes : 20


Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

boards of FL

boards of FL

Is everyone tired of the political gun ownership debate?


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

I'm growing tired of it. The conservatives are right on this one. Liberals need to let this shit go. Lets just all agree to instill background checks at gun shows and perhaps a few other point of sales and then lets all move on.


_________________
I approve this message.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Who starts most of the gun threads? PaceDog. Then he bumps them up to the top when they are ignored.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest

Is everyone tired of the political gun debate? Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR9Up4BWZoozARddiZJn-PXzBk8foeVymmd0FOtlVzr2788Muhv

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-k9mDPInVU

Razz

Guest


Guest

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Who starts most of the gun threads? PaceDog. Then he bumps them up to the top when they are ignored.

Wrong answer LT. You guys harp on it more than I.

When people stop trying to take our guns, then the rest of us will SHUT THE HECK UP.

2seaoat



I for one do not feel the right discussion has even begun.......discussing things doomed to fail is futile, but hopefully the discussion will evolve to common sense and real policy which improves gun safety...........people got tired of the seat belt, air bag, and cigarette debates also.....but we are all safer with those discussions and the manufactures of those dangerous products being responsible for improved safety.

Ultimately this is a question of liability and insurance.....it will not bring back people's lives when they have been murdered, but like cigarettes if you are going to manufacture something which is inherently dangerous........you will pay when it harms people and we can try to limit the use of those products.....not ban them.

Markle

Markle

I'm tired of it because there is nothing proposed which would have prevented any of the attacks the attacks are being USED to take away our 2nd Amendment rights.

Worse, it is taking valuable time from the two important issues of our time. The budget, cutting spending, the debt and immigration.

2seaoat



I'm tired of it because there is nothing proposed which would have prevented any of the attacks the attacks are being USED to take away our 2nd Amendment rights.


How is the second amendment rights being taken away when Scalia has clearly said that restrictions are certainly allowed under the second amendment........a restriction on use of arms is not the same thing as taking away second amendment rights.......you need to read the most conservative member of the United States Supreme Court before you start giving your interpretation of the second amendment.......Scalia's opinion matters.....your fantasy about what you think the second amendment means is fun to discuss, but it is not connected to the law.

Guest


Guest

PACEDOG#1 wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Who starts most of the gun threads? PaceDog. Then he bumps them up to the top when they are ignored.

Wrong answer LT. You guys harp on it more than I.

When people stop trying to take our guns, then the rest of us will SHUT THE HECK UP.


Show me where any proposed legislation currently on the table will "take away our guns".

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Who starts most of the gun threads? PaceDog. Then he bumps them up to the top when they are ignored.

Wrong answer LT. You guys harp on it more than I.

When people stop trying to take our guns, then the rest of us will SHUT THE HECK UP.


Show me where any proposed legislation currently on the table will "take away our guns".

There isn't, and the NRA is peddling fear. So was the Bible thumper screaming at the intersection of Palafox & Garden during Jazzfest...he startled me he was so loud...might have caused an accident.

Yes...I'm tired of hearing about it, especially from our "Christian" forum members. But no one killed one of my children.

Guest


Guest

I'm tired of the debate and ready for the vote. I can't imagine why anyone would oppose background checks for gun owners. A four year old just shot a 6 year old a day or so ago. I'm tired of gun owners who are not responsible. Most are, I know that, but some are not. If the kid who shot the babies in Newtown had a responsible mother, there would have been no shootings.

Guest


Guest

bluemoon wrote:I'm tired of the debate and ready for the vote. I can't imagine why anyone would oppose background checks for gun owners. A four year old just shot a 6 year old a day or so ago. I'm tired of gun owners who are not responsible. Most are, I know that, but some are not. If the kid who shot the babies in Newtown had a responsible mother, there would have been no shootings.

How does a background check presume responsibility? Tell me. This ought to be interesting. The only thing a background check can do is see if you have a criminal record. That is why criminals do not buy guns where background checks are performed.

Guest


Guest

PACEDOG#1 wrote:
bluemoon wrote:I'm tired of the debate and ready for the vote. I can't imagine why anyone would oppose background checks for gun owners. A four year old just shot a 6 year old a day or so ago. I'm tired of gun owners who are not responsible. Most are, I know that, but some are not. If the kid who shot the babies in Newtown had a responsible mother, there would have been no shootings.

How does a background check presume responsibility? Tell me. This ought to be interesting. The only thing a background check can do is see if you have a criminal record. That is why criminals do not buy guns where background checks are performed.

I know you won't agree, but a background check should also ask if a gun buyer has ever been treated for mental illness. This isn't the wild west anymore. It's too bad that kind of question might go against the privacy act.
If you think you need your gun to protect yourself against your democratically elected government, you've got some screws loose somewhere. Guns should be for hunting and home protection. No one wants to take yours away if you are a stable, responsible person. There's no law like that even being talked about.
It's just that paranoid lunatics and criminals don't need guns. I don't know why anyone would disagree with that.

Guest


Guest

bluemoon wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:
bluemoon wrote:I'm tired of the debate and ready for the vote. I can't imagine why anyone would oppose background checks for gun owners. A four year old just shot a 6 year old a day or so ago. I'm tired of gun owners who are not responsible. Most are, I know that, but some are not. If the kid who shot the babies in Newtown had a responsible mother, there would have been no shootings.

How does a background check presume responsibility? Tell me. This ought to be interesting. The only thing a background check can do is see if you have a criminal record. That is why criminals do not buy guns where background checks are performed.

I know you won't agree, but a background check should also ask if a gun buyer has ever been treated for mental illness. This isn't the wild west anymore.
If you think you need your gun to protect yourself against your democratically elected government, you've got some screws loose somewhere. Guns should be for hunting and home protection. No one wants to take yours away if you are a stable, responsible person.
Paranoid lunatics and criminals don't need guns.

.........................................

He had to pass a background check to get a FL teaching license.

And if he's anywhere near the rarified air he brags about, I'm sure the D0D has done some background research for his USAF job.

You need a background check to teach kids. You don't need one to slaughter them.


When straw purchases and other gun show loopholes are closed, he's really gonna go DEFCON 5 on us.

Guest


Guest

William wrote:
bluemoon wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:
bluemoon wrote:I'm tired of the debate and ready for the vote. I can't imagine why anyone would oppose background checks for gun owners. A four year old just shot a 6 year old a day or so ago. I'm tired of gun owners who are not responsible. Most are, I know that, but some are not. If the kid who shot the babies in Newtown had a responsible mother, there would have been no shootings.

How does a background check presume responsibility? Tell me. This ought to be interesting. The only thing a background check can do is see if you have a criminal record. That is why criminals do not buy guns where background checks are performed.

I know you won't agree, but a background check should also ask if a gun buyer has ever been treated for mental illness. This isn't the wild west anymore.
If you think you need your gun to protect yourself against your democratically elected government, you've got some screws loose somewhere. Guns should be for hunting and home protection. No one wants to take yours away if you are a stable, responsible person.
Paranoid lunatics and criminals don't need guns.

.........................................

He had to pass a background check to get a FL teaching license.

And if he's anywhere near the rarified air he brags about, I'm sure the D0D has done some background research for his USAF job.

You need a background check to teach kids. You don't need one to slaughter them.


When straw purchases and other gun show loopholes are closed, he's really gonna go DEFCON 5 on us.


"You need a background check to teach kids. You don't need one to slaughter tham."
That's the best two sentences I've seen about gun ownership.

Guest


Guest

bluemoon wrote:
William wrote:
bluemoon wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:
bluemoon wrote:I'm tired of the debate and ready for the vote. I can't imagine why anyone would oppose background checks for gun owners. A four year old just shot a 6 year old a day or so ago. I'm tired of gun owners who are not responsible. Most are, I know that, but some are not. If the kid who shot the babies in Newtown had a responsible mother, there would have been no shootings.

How does a background check presume responsibility? Tell me. This ought to be interesting. The only thing a background check can do is see if you have a criminal record. That is why criminals do not buy guns where background checks are performed.

I know you won't agree, but a background check should also ask if a gun buyer has ever been treated for mental illness. This isn't the wild west anymore.
If you think you need your gun to protect yourself against your democratically elected government, you've got some screws loose somewhere. Guns should be for hunting and home protection. No one wants to take yours away if you are a stable, responsible person.
Paranoid lunatics and criminals don't need guns.

.........................................

He had to pass a background check to get a FL teaching license.

And if he's anywhere near the rarified air he brags about, I'm sure the D0D has done some background research for his USAF job.

You need a background check to teach kids. You don't need one to slaughter them.


When straw purchases and other gun show loopholes are closed, he's really gonna go DEFCON 5 on us.


"You need a background check to teach kids. You don't need one to slaughter tham."
That's the best two sentences I've seen about gun ownership.

.........................................
Thanx.

If a business does a rigorous background check on all job applicants, the chances of an undocumented worker getting a job with them is slim to none.

It won't stop all undocumented folk from working but it does eliminate one place they can hide and scam.


The stats don't lie. There have been thousands of folk prevented from purchasing a gun because of a dirty background check.

Guest


Guest

bluemoon wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:
bluemoon wrote:I'm tired of the debate and ready for the vote. I can't imagine why anyone would oppose background checks for gun owners. A four year old just shot a 6 year old a day or so ago. I'm tired of gun owners who are not responsible. Most are, I know that, but some are not. If the kid who shot the babies in Newtown had a responsible mother, there would have been no shootings.

How does a background check presume responsibility? Tell me. This ought to be interesting. The only thing a background check can do is see if you have a criminal record. That is why criminals do not buy guns where background checks are performed.

I know you won't agree, but a background check should also ask if a gun buyer has ever been treated for mental illness. This isn't the wild west anymore. It's too bad that kind of question might go against the privacy act.
If you think you need your gun to protect yourself against your democratically elected government, you've got some screws loose somewhere. Guns should be for hunting and home protection. No one wants to take yours away if you are a stable, responsible person. There's no law like that even being talked about.
It's just that paranoid lunatics and criminals don't need guns. I don't know why anyone would disagree with that.

Is everyone tired of the political gun debate? Z

So now you want violate Hippa?

That's interesting... Does this mean that all information about mentally disturbed people will be made public. In which case I want the papers to print that and other items every month in the news also like, how much everyone receives in entitlements. Should be fascinating reading seeing who gets food stamps, HUD assistance, SSDI, etc...

After all if carry permits are public information and you want to violate Hippa and make that available to anyone who asks then ALL government information about an individual should be part of the public domain.

Let's not be afraid of making public all this stuff.

After all we're all one big happy community.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCQ0vDAbF7s

Smile

Guest


Guest

Federal law already prohibits sales of guns to the mentally ill.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/opinion/donohue-background-checks/index.html

I guess it's not as complicated as you think it could be. I haven't seen any lists of people turned down for buying a gun because they are mentally ill. The government must already be handling it okay.

Guest


Guest

bluemoon wrote:Federal law already prohibits sales of guns to the mentally ill.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/opinion/donohue-background-checks/index.html

I guess it's not as complicated as you think it could be. I haven't seen any lists of people turned down for buying a gun because they are mentally ill. The government must already be handling it okay.

Is everyone tired of the political gun debate? Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQpdGNVpMQRnJDCkybuyV2oh0k48GqBY4uYk4Lrq7jROxO21eRT

The government also prevents that information from being disclosed to other agencies due to Hippa. So it might just be as complicated as I thought...

Of course we could just do away with Hippa and make all that information available to the general public like I suggested and then everyone will know what everyone else's personal problems are and they won't be a personal problem anymore because everyone will know about them now won't they?

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Yhq1EwO5E

Smile

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Markle wrote:I'm tired of it because there is nothing proposed which would have prevented any of the attacks the attacks are being USED to take away our 2nd Amendment rights.

Worse, it is taking valuable time from the two important issues of our time. The budget, cutting spending, the debt and immigration.


Once again folks, the things that rule Herr Markle are: 1. money 2. racism.

Why doesn't that surprise you? Reality.

Guest


Guest

Wordslinger wrote:
Markle wrote:I'm tired of it because there is nothing proposed which would have prevented any of the attacks the attacks are being USED to take away our 2nd Amendment rights.

Worse, it is taking valuable time from the two important issues of our time. The budget, cutting spending, the debt and immigration.


Once again folks, the things that rule Herr Markle are: 1. money 2. racism.

Why doesn't that surprise you? Reality.

Is everyone tired of the political gun debate? 2Q==

I don't see anything racist in Markle's post...

...and there's nothing wrong with being a fiscal conservative..... unless you're a supposedly enlightened progressive liberal running wild with a government credit card.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmeQdAApnUY

Rolling Eyes

Markle

Markle

Senate Aide: Gun Law Wouldn't Have Stopped Newtown Massacre

4:00 PM, Apr 10, 2013 • By DANIEL HALPER

Republican Pat Toomey and Democrat Joe Manchin announced a gun bill compromise to expand background checks earlier today. The legislation is in direct response to the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December.

"This amendment won't ease the pain ... but nobody here, not one of us in this great capital of ours in good conscious could sit by and not try to prevent a day like that from happening again," Manchin told the press at today’s announcement.

But aides on Capitol Hill admit that there is not a thing in the bill that would have prevented the killer, Adam Lanza, from killing 26 at the school in Newtown, Connecticut.

“There’s nothing in this legislation that addresses the fact pattern at Sandy Hook,” a senior Senate aide told me on the phone.

The aide explains that the bill expands on the background-check system already in place, but that the system doesn’t work properly.

“They are expanding on a broken system that we know will fail,” says the aide.

Under this law, I’m told, Adam Lanza would still have been able to steal the so-called assault weapon that his mother legally owned—and use it to shoot up the school.

But what about a similar sort of massacre, I ask. Is there anything in the bill that would prevent that?

“No,” said the aide, who has reviewed all the details released of the bill (but not the bill itself—since it has not yet been released). “Nothing in the bill.”

So how does one explain the legislation? “It’s clearly—Congress wanted to do something after what happened at Sandy Hook,” the aide explains. “They wanted to do something."

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Is everyone tired of the political gun debate?

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum