Reasonable Gun Control
 

The President has said it is insane to allow people who are on the "No Fly List" to legally purchase guns. The Republicans in Congress will not even discuss the issue. Why not? Is it just because the Democrat President has a very good idea and the Republicans will not go along with ANY idea from this President? Yep, that is the reason.

I also heard a snippet from one of Ted Cruz's speeches in Iowa. He was literally ranting and said it is a "God given right" for Americans to own guns. Where in the Bible does it mention that Americans can own guns?

I also noticed that the President now calls "gun control legislation, "gun safety legislation". Kinda like how the Left's old "global warming" terminology evolved into the new "climate change". Both seem to be more palatable to those with their heads buried in the sand.

Changing names is not important. You did not answer: 1. Do you think the President is right in saying it is insane to allow persons on the No Fly List to be able to legally purchase guns and ammunition?

2. Where in the Bible does it specifically mention that Americans have the right to own guns?

Terrorists and criminals don't have to buy guns legally to do an illegal deed. Besides both of the terrorists were NOT on on the no-fly list. None of the people who cross our borders are vetted and there is now way to vet refugees who have no papers.
Another thing many people on the no-fly list are on it by mistake. The govt. could put everyone on the no-fly list and then no-one could buy a gun.

Feeling paranoid?

Looneytune Jerry Falwell, Jr, wants all the students at Liberty University to carry guns.

How about all students carrying guns at the Florida-Florida State game?

This would make for some very tense moments when someone does not get their way.

Where in the Quaran....
 

does it say muslim's must kill non-muslims?

The reason...since you ask....isn't because he's a democrat...only a person with an infantile mind would think that....the reason is because he's an idiot....you must feel a great connection with him...

Would this have made ANY difference in ANY of the mass shootings? Why is it that when liberals want to fix something, they do it stupidly? It's like a liberal seeing someone killed in a car accident, will say lets paint the cars red, instead of something logical like let's put in seatbelts. Is it really reasonable to do something, just for the sake of acting like you are doing something? Even when it doesn't do anything?

No is the answer to your question. It is a stupid idea that will make no difference. If you want to stop terrorism, you have to have a good intelligence system. Period.

Just more Obama security theatre
 

Columnist Jim Geraghty wrote: "He (Obama) ominously declared, "this is a matter of national security", yet for some reason, all of those people on the no-fly list and the terror watch list who allegedly represent a national security threat aren't being arrested. Earlier today Rep. Stephen Lynch (D., Mass.) disclosed that a congressional investigation recently found that at least 72 people working at the Department of Homeland Security also "were on the terrorist watch list."

You know who wasn't on the no-fly list? The San Bernardino shooters. Nor was the Fort Hood shooter. Nor the Boston bombers. Nor the Chattanooga shooter. In other words, no perpetrator of any major attack on American soil was on the no-fly list."

None of that matters to Liberals. Just pass some, any, meaningless legislation and it will help them sleep better at night.

We already have "reasonable gun control." What more do we need? Tell you what, how about gun safety? Teach all high school kids gun safety and gun law. Make it mandatory that ALL children go through it, unless they are conscientious objectors of war and violence and will never have an occasion to handle a fire arm. Either that or institute a military conscript program and draft everyone for a year or two and give them discipline and military training.

We have gun laws and we have back ground checks. There is absolutely no way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, so figure out a deterrent, hard punishment for gun related violations.

No fly list??? What a stupid idea. Only a moron would come up with an idea like that.

waste of time bait thread.

I think you would have to change the 2nd amendment to do what you want,and I really dont think you want that. The more rights that are taken away the worse off this country gets. The best thing to do is make it mandatory for every American citizen to learn how to use a gun and have one. This should be subsidized by the federal government. Do the proper back round checks that we do now. Then it should be open carry. That will end a lot of violence.

IMO we should be like Switzerland. Every law bidding citzen (not convicted crinmals or declare insane, that the f$$king list they should also be monitoring) household issued government fully automatic m16 in 308 calb., two cans ammo minimum, And require two years of military training.:police: It just may come to that one day?

I'll hold off on the issue 9mm Glock as being too much:wave:

At least it appears that everyone on here is on board with the same conclusion that worrying about the "no fly" list is just stupid. When have we ever had an occasion to get shot at by someone on the "no fly" list? Maybe Obama should go back to making executive orders declaring National Coffee week or something.

There is a bigger issue here in that internationalist are using every means for what they term a global reset. A global reset means that America becomes a shell of its former self. Obama is an internationalist and he has demonstrated that he can not hide his disdain for America.

The Daily Beast on behalf of progressives makes the ridiculous claim that the 2nd Amendment was written to protect white slave owners from a servile insurrection.

The foundation for the 2nd Amendment is a result of the following historical fact:

James II a catholic was faced with his nation becoming overwhelming Protestant. He tried to use his authority to restrict the rights of Protestants. James II was overthrown in the Glorious Revolution. The monarchs William III and Mary II created the English Bill of Rights with said right being the right to bear arms.

The founders (colonist) were faced with the same situation from Britain and hence included the 2nd Amendment as they recalled British history and the rationale for the English Bill of Rights.

Progressive seem to ignore history. James II represents the rule of men
whereas the 2nd amendment represents the rule of law.
This nation was founded upon the principle of the rule of law.
We must protect all of our rights

The gun control issue is a red herring perpetrated by progressives

We must not let anyone restrict our rights.

The term "reasonable gun control" is an opening to taking away all rights.

As a citizen of this nation you must choose either to follow the rule of law or to follow the rule of men. In my humble view its a no brainer because when government chooses they usually choose wrong. when government rules its people become subservant.

Again this is all about the bigger plan called global reset and I for one believe in American exceptionalism even if Obama the Terrible does not.

Personal Best Regards:

Already working
 

As you are quite aware, facts mean nothing to liberals. Liberal, juvenile rhetoric and name calling is within their ideological guidelines.

Less control please
 

Dear Guest: Your exactly right. The unfortunate fact is that progressives cannot deal with the reality of evil. So they inveigh against guns instead of what motivates people to use gun to achieve their horribles.

New York City had an excellent best gun control policy. It was called "stop and frisk" which kept guns out of the hands of the people who should not be carrying them "bad guys". But along comes a progressive, actually a marxist and the effective measure is eliminated.

So let's follow the logic
If guns kill people then we need gun control.

Vehicles are used to kill people so lets have vehicle control

Pressure cookers were used to kill people so let's have pressure cooker control

Box cutters were used to kill people so let hav box cutter control

Shoes were used to try and kill people so let's have shoe control

Underwear were used to attempt to kill people so let's have underwear control.

Or we could admit that we have in our midst Islamic terrorists who hate our way of life

Or we could admit that our mental health system is a total disaster and needs to be reworked to help mental health patents and their families

But that requires serious and deep thinking and mostly logical approaches something progressives seem to be lacking these days . and yet they rally for safe spaces.

Personal Best Regards:

Control politicians
 

Little known fact. To date, precisely one person placed on the “no-fly” list has been responsible for the death of an American citizen, and that person is dearly departed Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy.

And he didn't even use a gun, so I guess that rules out the one possibility. Maybe anyone on the "no-fly" list should be banned from purchasing an automobile...:1rotfl:

Now that is just going to ruin the day for some hot air distributing partisan parrots!

And this one will surely cause the ratchet jawing hammering by anti gunners to take pause!!

I think I heard some heads exploding.

Since college and pro sports events are gun free zones, it stands to reason that terrorists will come there and run onto the field and spray the crowds with bullets.

Why not encourage all attendees at college and pro sports events to carry guns and extra ammo to all the events?

Now, what could possibly go wrong with that plan?

Maybe the highlight is not what you intended to say, because it would be the least effective.

Given the suicidal bomber shooter they would more likely plan and do something where the crowds are the greatest and the least immediate threat to them....allowing more time to do more damage.....as a result the tunnels and access ways before, during and after the events are high density with people.

And the obvious density of any section in the stands.

In any event the need for situational awareness is a must. And the need for see something say something to become a real tool for prevention.....appologies are much easier to do than condolences.

Maybe I have not thought out the places where terrorists would get the most victims - as it seems you have.

However, the point still stands. At college and pro sports events, there will be up to 90,000 people in attendance - all in a gun free zone. Wouldn't this be a perfect soft target? Why screen for guns on spectators instead of encouraging everyone to pack their guns and ammo in case of a terrorist attack?

You do realize that the shooting in Oregon did NOT take place in a gun free zone. There were people packing on campus but did not engage the shooter.

The last school shooting in Aurora Colorado also did not take place in a gun free zone as an armed guard was on campus.

These facts fly in the face of the GUN FREE ZONE myth

Do you or anybody else know if the gun packing were even in the vacinity of the shooters??

"...an armed guard was on campus..."? Does anybody know if the armed gurad was in the vacinity of the shotter(s)?

If one can't supply the facts of the matter/situation there is no value added from the multitude of assumptions or guesses about the role played.

Maybe it sounds good to the uninformed!

Exactly. And then when you call them out on it, they suddenly disappear. Hit and run cowards....just like terrorists.

Hoping to come upon some intelligent exchange of ideas about gun ownership I read this thread. I can only assume there are two posters trying to out Hannity themselves on this forum. I can believe more than two would make some of the statements I read.

Ignoring those that do not contribute to your quest, what did you have in mind regarding "...ideas about gun ownership..."?

This forum is a lost cause as long as the GUEST identification continues.

It seems so often that one guy or two have an ongoing conversation with themselves to generate some fun.

It is also unfair not to know who the posters are that destroy anyone else having an open conversation.

Shame but it is a reality.

A distraction from Obama’s many national security failures
 

We are several days removed from the nonsensical Obama suggestion of limitations on certain citizen's rights. We see the left wing LA Times (and others) now admitting that restricting anything to a group of citizens who have never been convicted of any crime (or even accused) is clearly unconstitutional. Surely this must have occurred to our ex constitutional professor President. To think not would mean he's a complete dolt. I can't go there even though I don't think he's the sharpest tack in the drawer. I prefer option B.

Option B is a "stray voltage" campaign. Obama is taking incoming fire on his national security failures from the San Bernardino events. Change the topic by making a proposal so outlandish as to grab the attention of the talking heads. The topic cannot have a direct connection to the recent event, must be controversial, and, ideally, have no chance of actually doing or changing anything. Just get them talking about something else.

Democrats are very good at this. They can count on their legion of operatives and the main stream media (but I repeat myself) to go along. The entire topic will evaporate in the end.

It is very likely that all or some of the posters in favor of this Obama proposal are part of the campaign. To think otherwise would mean that some of our neighbors are sentient beings who have grown to older age and actually believe that it is perfectly sensible to restrict the rights of citizens who have been put on a secret list by unknown people for an unknown reason. That would mean they are truly dolts. I don't believe that.

Sure, like anyone is going to believe that. Trolling for a reaction? Is this good enough for you? Bye..:wave:

This forum is no place for a respectful exchange of ideas on anything. I've seem more intelligent statements written in a Waffle House bathroom stall. It is a little unfortunate as are a great number of very intelligent residents in this community that might join if there was a little more civility. I don't consider myself one of the intelligent ones, I'm here only for the entertainment.

As long as we have our Congress taking all their contributions from the NRA, we will not have reasonable gun control.

Like the the democrats don't take contributions from every tom dick and Harry. :Screen_of_Death:

buried in that comment somewhere is a contrived definition of what reasonable gun control means.

There are some of us who believe what is in place now is reasonable. The problem as in so many of our laws of the land is the slective enforcement.

Add to the already reasonable gun control laws all the additional laws and rules like in NY and CA there should be a pretty good coverage.

The single biggest problem in trying to reach a reasonable conclusion is the plethora of folks who have absolutely no idea what the hell they are talking about when comes to the laws, what is being done or not done...as well as the kinds of weapons covered or not covered.

Most who babble about gun control know what they hear on the television set from the just as uninformed media. And of course they all watch the gun laden movies to round out their knowledge.

The above commentary of how uninformed too many are also applies to all the gun ignorant anti gunners in Washington!

Typical political farse!