In one of the recent threads, a poster stated that countries with stricter gun control had murder rates higher than the US. No doubt this is true.

How about countries that have much less government intervention in gun control than the US? Maybe some of the conservatives would like living in countries such as Somalia, Afghanistan, Sudan, Central African Republic, or Congo. No gun control from the government in those countries.

Personally, I feel that the hunting rifles, shotguns, target shooting or personal protection pistols are fine.

I stand corrected. My earlier post that no candidate would touch gun control. Hats off to POTUS for having the guts to go there.

Again Mitt Romney had his facts entirely wrong when he said yesterday that the alleged Colorado shooter, James Holmes, had gotten his guns illegally.

Originally Posted by Posh 08

I stand corrected. My earlier post that no candidate would touch gun control. Hats off to POTUS for having the guts to go there.

That's funny.

that is not what he said!!

btk

Originally Posted by billethkid

that is not what he said!!

btk

The L.A. Times reported, "It’s unclear what Romney meant when he said the gunman should not have had “any kind of weapons,” since Romney has repeatedly said he does not believe existing gun laws should be changed.

The 100-round drum that Holmes allegedly possessed would have been illegal under a federal assault weapons ban that expired nearly a decade ago, and it is illegal in Massachusetts under a state law that Romney signed while governor."

Let's not get into the weasel-wording of meaningless quotes and misquotes on what Mr. Romney said. His heart is in the right place and he is a good man. Everyone steps on his tongue now and then. In a Presidential candidate, it is exaggerated most times.

Originally Posted by billethkid

that is not what he said!!

btk

Read exactly what he said to Brian Williams on NBC News.


Mitt Romney: 'Many' Of Aurora Shooting Suspect's Weapons Were Illegal

N

Originally Posted by janmcn

Again Mitt Romney had his facts entirely wrong when he said yesterday that the alleged Colorado shooter, James Holmes, had gotten his guns illegally.

He doesn't even know when his "Sweet Heart's" horse is showing in London. Not a man for detail IMO.

been to a lot of horse shows....eh?
For those who frequent them it is not at all unusual to "not know" what time a specific rider will be up in an event.

It really is not a national news worthy instance let alone value adding or not for a POTUS candidacy.....eh?

I will just wait on the sidelines until something of substance affecting the United States and we the people comes up for discussion.

Picking fly specs outta da pepper is so boring!

btk

Originally Posted by billethkid

been to a lot of horse shows....eh?
For those who frequent them it is not at all unusual to "not know" what time a specific rider will be up in an event.

It really is not a national news worthy instance let alone value adding or not for a POTUS candidacy.....eh?

I will just wait on the sidelines until something of substance affecting the United States and we the people comes up for discussion.

Picking fly specs outta da pepper is so boring!

btk

He is showing that he can't handle all the details of campaign and family. He does not know what DAY of the event.
And no, I'm not part of the Horsey Set.

Oh horsefeathers to Mitt!!!

Originally Posted by buggyone

In one of the recent threads, a poster stated that countries with stricter gun control had murder rates higher than the US. No doubt this is true.

How about countries that have much less government intervention in gun control than the US? Maybe some of the conservatives would like living in countries such as Somalia, Afghanistan, Sudan, Central African Republic, or Congo. No gun control from the government in those countries.

Personally, I feel that the hunting rifles, shotguns, target shooting or personal protection pistols are fine.

Agree that everyday firearms like shotguns, handguns, target shooting, and other weapons should be legal. I still am having a lot of trouble buying the 2nd Amendment arguments that we need citizens with weapons like with those that 18th Century militias had with respect to the everyday situations they faced. They had to hunt to survive often and had to fend off Native American attacks as well as those from the various enemies of the English government, then of the US government. (fighting French invaders then English invaders)

Some people have to get their minds out of the Colonial mindset that the Framers of the US Constitution had. This is no longer their kind of world. Now we have assault weapons that can be modified to fire weapons at a very fast rate of speed. Why would anyone need an assault weapon of this kind in any everyday situation?? Even one that is not fully automatic?

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Agree that everyday firearms like shotguns, handguns, target shooting, and other weapons should be legal. I still am having a lot of trouble buying the 2nd Amendment arguments that we need citizens with weapons like with those that 18th Century militias had with respect to the everyday situations they faced. They had to hunt to survive often and had to fend off Native American attacks as well as those from the various enemies of the English government, then of the US government. (fighting French invaders then English invaders)

Some people have to get their minds out of the Colonial mindset that the Framers of the US Constitution had. This is no longer their kind of world. Now we have assault weapons that can be modified to fire weapons at a very fast rate of speed. Why would anyone need an assault weapon of this kind in any everyday situation?? Even one that is not fully automatic?

I heard one goofy conservative radio host saying the law abiding citizen should have access to all the weapons that are available to non-law abiding people so we will be on equal footing with them when they come up our driveway to destroy our families. How about that for paranoia?

I have no dog in this hunt because I do not care to own a gun. However I am 100% on the side of those who desire to protect the 2nd Amendment because they recognize that this fight is not about placing a ban on certain type of weapons but the beginning of placing a ban on all weapons. The pros and cons will continue concerning gun control but it is only a distraction blocking the real societal problems that create the killings in a movie theatre in Colorado or a gangland killings in Chicago. We fall for it everytime because it is easy to exploit because its popular and because after all the jawboning stops the media is able to move on to the next big story leaving once again the real problem to fester once again an to eventually burst.

If certain weapons were banned I am sure this young man would have developed some sort of bomb or chemical created out of every day products and caused the same amount of damage if not more. This specious argument over gun control is good for politicians because they have a bone to throw at us voters and at least deflecting real issues. What about directing funds to help people such as this young man with his special needs? Are you kidding why would a politician work to fund this sort of need when they can build bridges to nowhere that provide more votes.

Originally Posted by buggyone

I heard one goofy conservative radio host saying the law abiding citizen should have access to all the weapons that are available to non-law abiding people so we will be on equal footing with them when they come up our driveway to destroy our families. How about that for paranoia?

That does seem paranoid. I can see an argument for that in many countries that do not have a government in any real sense of the word. Like with those African and Asian countries that are ruled more by warlords than by the government. http://www.usnews.com/news/slideshow...rican-warlords