trident
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:The nra are too powerful . They dont care at all. Its all about the right to bear arms for them. Its strange that they started off as a gun safety organization arent their legal avenues?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
lukerobinho wrote:BETHFC wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:SlyGoat36 wrote:Munrubenmuz wrote:Nothing will ever change in America, it's too deep seated. Glenn A's ideas above are a possible but you're talking 100+ years to make a change in their psysche.
With respect to the other items (alcohol, baseball bats, knives) kill people argument that is constantly trotted out can you please give it a miss?
A gun is SPECIFICALLY designed to kill. The others aren't.
That is the critical difference.
imagine one man committing mass murder at a campus with a baseball bat :lol: Pro-gun people should just be sterilised and put into exile. Depends on your definition of what pro-gun is lol. -PB Any moron who thinks liberal gun laws allow citizens to 'protect' themselves. The police and army are in big trouble then. They're no longer allowed guns are as defensive weapon and tool of self preservation Interesting times ahead Why would the police and army give theirs up? The intention would be to give them an advantage like in Oz. Police have guns and can resolve situations without them turning into a shoot out.
|
|
|
|
|
AzzaMarch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
The problem is low voter turn-out in Primaries and General Elections for Congress, as well as gerrymandering of electoral boundaries.
You get a situation where, because so few seats are marginal in Congressional elections that the competitive race is the primary. Not many people (except the extremists) vote in Primaries, so politicians try to attract the votes of said extremists.
In many states the electoral boundaries are not set by independent bureaucrats like here, they are set by elected officials who draw them to maximise the benefit to their party. It's really an outrage how undemocratic Congressional elections are!
|
|
|
|
|
AzzaMarch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
Its also a strong argument for compulsory voting like we have here. When so few people vote you really allow extreme views in. In 2014: "Only 36.4% of eligible voters voted in this year’s midterm elections, down from 40.9% who voted in 2010" So essentially people are getting voted in with as little as 17.2% of the adult population voting for them. http://time.com/3576090/midterm-elections-turnout-world-war-two/
|
|
|
|
trident
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
correct
Mexico has compulsory voting and they were able to introduce extremely tough gun control measures in 1971.
Even with all the other criminal activity and problems that occur there, you dont hear of nutjobs shooting up schools on a monthly basis.
|
|
|
|
|
u4486662
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.8K,
Visits: 0
|
America is a juvenile, immature nation that "burns people at the stake" rather than looking at system wide problems whenever something bad happens. This is one of the reasons they still have the death penalty and "zero tolerance" with drugs rather than harm minimisation. And why you hear crap like guns don't kill people, people kill people. Let me tell you, guns definitely kill people. They are yet to shake their Wild West ways.
|
|
|
|
|
lukerobinho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
trident wrote:correct
Mexico has compulsory voting and they were able to introduce extremely tough gun control measures in 1971.
Even with all the other criminal activity and problems that occur there, you dont hear of nutjobs shooting up schools on a monthly basis. lol you must be trolling. the death toll from mexicos drug war is horrific and there's shootouts galore. Its safe to say if a criminal needs a weapon in mexico they'll have no problem getting one
|
|
|
|
|
lukerobinho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:The nra are too powerful . They dont care at all. Its all about the right to bear arms for them. Its strange that they started off as a gun safety organization Their mentality probably shifted when the governments did
|
|
|
|
trident
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
lukerobinho wrote:trident wrote:correct
Mexico has compulsory voting and they were able to introduce extremely tough gun control measures in 1971.
Even with all the other criminal activity and problems that occur there, you dont hear of nutjobs shooting up schools on a monthly basis. lol you must be trolling. the death toll from mexicos drug war is horrific and there's shootouts galore. Its safe to say if a criminal needs a weapon in mexico they'll have no problem getting one generally speaking, criminals only shoot other criminals we're talking about keeping the innocent citizens safe here from crazy nutjobs that shoot up schools crazy nutjobs wont be able to obtain firearms in Mexico. how do you think they would go about it?
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
trident wrote:MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:The nra are too powerful . They dont care at all. Its all about the right to bear arms for them. Its strange that they started off as a gun safety organization arent their legal avenues? No one is game enough to take the nra on. They are too powerful and have milllions . Also lukerobinho you must be a scared little boy . All you see is danger everywhere. If your not too careful a leftie gun control greenie will creep up on you and try to make you a leftard :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
lukerobinho wrote:MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:The nra are too powerful . They dont care at all. Its all about the right to bear arms for them. Its strange that they started off as a gun safety organization Their mentality probably shifted when the governments did Ah no.
|
|
|
|
trident
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:trident wrote:MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:The nra are too powerful . They dont care at all. Its all about the right to bear arms for them. Its strange that they started off as a gun safety organization arent their legal avenues? No one is game enough to take the nra on. They are too powerful and have milllions . Also lukerobinho you must be a scared little boy . All you see is danger everywhere. If your not too careful a leftie gun control greenie will creep up on you and try to make you a leftard :lol: ah, Koch brothers
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
Its a sad sad shame that after sandy hook the gun loving luntatic fringe would rather they keep their guns then have kids being safe. My uncle is a gun nut . He is one of the fringe that the nra target and he actually believes it. Hell he called out a former national hero of the philippines because he should've kept quiet about marcos' corruption and human rights issues .
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
That's the problem though, these retarded Americans literally believe their freedoms are under threat.....
|
|
|
|
|
lukerobinho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
trident wrote:lukerobinho wrote:trident wrote:correct
Mexico has compulsory voting and they were able to introduce extremely tough gun control measures in 1971.
Even with all the other criminal activity and problems that occur there, you dont hear of nutjobs shooting up schools on a monthly basis. lol you must be trolling. the death toll from mexicos drug war is horrific and there's shootouts galore. Its safe to say if a criminal needs a weapon in mexico they'll have no problem getting one generally speaking, criminals only shoot other criminals we're talking about keeping the innocent citizens safe here from crazy nutjobs that shoot up schools crazy nutjobs wont be able to obtain firearms in Mexico. how do you think they would go about it? Ahh that must be why bus loads of students go missing and then turn up months later in mass graves
|
|
|
|
|
lukerobinho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
Haven't seen this in the Aus media Victims family refused to used as props by Obama Quote:Though you might not hear this from the mainstream media (shock) it sure looks like President Obama will receive a less-than-warm welcome from the folks in Roseburg, Oregon during his visit Friday. Community leaders there have vocally expressed their opposition to have the president “come to our community and stand on the corpses of our loved ones to make some kind of political point,” noting that “it isn’t going to be well received not by our people not by our families and not even by our elected officials.”
Now, the father of one of the shooting’s survivors has confirmed he and his family indeed will not meet with President Obama when he comes to town, saying they refuse to be “used as props” to support an agenda.
Via BizPacReview:
The father of one of the survivors of last week’s shooting at an Oregon college said his family has no intention of meeting with President Barack Obama when the president visits the area later this week.
Stacy Boylan, father of Umpqua Community College student Ana Boylan, openly questions Obama’s motives for coming to Roseburg — with good reason, considering the president said “we should politicize” shootings such as that which occurred last week.
Ana continues to recover after being shot in the back by the gunman.
I do believe it was Rahm Emmanuel [who] said, ‘Never let a good tragedy go to waste,’” Boylan told Fox News host Megyn Kelly in an appearance, Tuesday, on the “The Kelly File.”
Boylan, a staunch Second Amendment supporter, went on to say that Obama’s visit “is completely to support his gun control agenda.” He was also highly critical of gun-free zones, saying gunmen target these areas knowing they’re not going to be met with resistance.
“Gun-free zones are a problem, they’re an issue,” he said. “They’re a target for crazy people.”
When asked specifically if he will see Obama on Friday if the president wants to meet with families of the victims, Boylan said he has spoken to his daughter and other family members and they’ve decided that they will not be used as props to support a gun control agenda.
“On principle, I find that I am in disagreement with his policies on gun control, and therefore, we will not be attending the visit,” he replied.
It’s refreshing in these times to see someone act on principle, rather than a desire for their brush with celebrity — or the drive to politicize so transparent in our president. (Though I have to give credit where it’s due; kinda gotta hand it to President Obama for openly admitting he was going to politicize this tragedy — before he walked it back later.)
Meanwhile, has anyone heard about President Obama’s plans to visit the families of any of more than 50 people shot in Chicago — in one weekend alone? Or how about the victims of the mass shooting in Baltimore that happened yesterday?
Yeah, didn’t think so. http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/10/oregon-shooting-victims-father-says-no-to-obama-youll-love-the-reason-why/
|
|
|
|
|
AzzaMarch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
I don't get this argument by some that anytime someone talks gun control they are "politicizing a tragedy". It is already political!
Obama is just reflecting a sentiment held by the majority of americans on this issue.
IF those families did not want to be part of it, fair enough. But it is laughable to say Obama's "politicizing" guns.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 23K,
Visits: 0
|
Scotch&Coke wrote:trident wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:It will NEVER change in America, no matter how many lives would be saved.
- The structure of their political system (compared to ours) makes it very hard to bring in top-down changes
- The country is awash with guns, there are more guns than people
- The way their Supreme Court has interpreted the 2nd amendment means they would have to change their constitution to rescind gun rights
- As a society they just have different values - seemingly their "right to bear arms" is just more important to them than the right to live with a low likelihood of getting shot! so change the constitution! You might as well try and change the Bible. The same shit storm will be kicked up with potential patriot groups literally trying to rise up and take on the Government and its military. People are being influenced by fear mongers and people who are scared do really stupid things Constitution has been amended numerous over the last two centuries. Including at least one amendment which directly contradicted a previous amendment. The alternative to changing the amendment would be to load the Supreme Court with anti-gun judges, then challenge the legal definition of the 2nd amendment and have it re-interpreted.
|
|
|
|