Jump to content
Cemeterys Gun Blob

Obama Starting Gun Control Talks with or without NRA

Recommended Posts

I stand behind my statements just as hard as i stand behind my rights as an american. ha and that includes my right to free speech and expression on what i think. New Jersey has to lead the way when it comes to gun control. other states are making it easy to get firearms in the hands of people who should not have them. and its causing problems.. other states are making it easy and its putting our 2nd amendment right in jeopardy. i Mean what do we care? it will still be the same here. Its my opinion that boths sides of the argument have good points. We will never get anywhere in this fight unless we take the other side into consideration and make changes. But they have to be willing to do the same. thats all im saying about that. as for loughner.. if he lived in nj it never would of happened. and thats fact. if arizona had nj gun laws he would of been throwing rocks instead of shooting. fact. NJ needs to step up and lead the way.. so people will have to wait..yea it absolutly sucks! but thats life. And dont think for 1 second that if washington revoked our 2nd amendment right i wouldnt be standing outside of the whitehouse protesting along with the millions of other gun owners across our nation. But i truely believe its not there intenet to do that. yea.. they might want to do that.. but know they cannot. Its my opinion that states just need to come up with stricter processing thats all.

 

 

just a couple things....

 

the problem with gun laws is they do not address the core problem.. and that problem is violent crime... as long as man has existed he has committed violent acts against his fellow man.. man probably first sharpened stones into crude weapons... later as man developed metal he made spears and swords.. and then later firearms... walk around your house and I bet I can find dozens of items in your own home that have been used to take human life.. everything from that gun in your safe... to the butcher knife in your kitchen.... to the car in your garage.. right down to the fertilizer you use for your garden have ALL been used to take human life.. when man decides to take life.. or inflict harm... the avenue by which that individual does it as far as I am concerned is irrelevant.. you say you agree to make gun laws stricter.. to follow the NJ standard... gun laws did not stop Timothy McVeigh from taking an enormous amount of human life.. he did not fire a single shot... the terrorist on 911 committed one of the largest terrorist attacks on our own soil... not a single firearm involved.. laws already exist against murder.. the LAW says you can not kill another person in cold blood.. so what benefit does outlawing a gun have... or making it "harder" to get a gun.. if you outlawed every gun tomorrow.... and totally banned them... it would do nothing... I have said it before... you won't hear stories on the news about shootings.. you will instead hear about stabbings... people don't shoot one another because guns are "easy" to get... look at how strict we are... do you think a single thug in Atlantic City, Camden, Newark.. cares that guns are illegal to carry without a permit?

 

Carry conceal is a perfect example to illustrate why NJ gun laws do NOT work.. you have a situation in which it is virtually impossible to get a carry permit in NJ.. this by your logic would imply that then no one is carrying guns around.. by your logic.. the law keeps us safe because it regulates firearms.... the law being as it is keeps me from being able to carry in NJ.. why? because I am a law abiding citizen... and I follow the law.. but ironically.. it did not protect the following people.. it did not take the gun out of the criminals hand..

 

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/plainfield_man_31_is_fatally_s.html

 

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/elizabeth_man_is_fatally_shot.html

 

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/newark_man_is_fatally_shot_ano.html

 

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/02/police_issue_arrest_warrant_in.html

 

at the end of the day the gun is an inanimate object.. just like any other.. does it make more sense to a)overly legislate and control the item to the point where it limits the use and ownership for law abiding citizens? or b)create legislation that more aggressively punishes those guilty of committing violent crimes? Arrest someone for gun violence... what will net more of a positive result for the community? a)locking this individual up for 25 years or b)locking him up for 5 years and reducing the amount of handguns someone can LEGALLY buy to 2 a year?... this individual is a CRIMINAL.. he does not care about laws.. and has already shown that.. the administrative bs that goes along with NJ gun policy does nothing to actually curb crime..

 

also you say NJ should be the model.. we without question have one of the most ridiculous gun policies in the nation... we take groups of guns and make them legal or illegal based on how they look.. as if that somehow matters...take an AR15.... NJ says you can have gun 1 that shoots the EXACT same round the EXACT same way as gun 2 which you can't have.. and the ONLY difference between the two is gun 2 has a bayonet lug.. HOW IS THAT PROTECTING THE PUBLIC... I have never in my years of living heard of someone attacked by someone with a bayonet mounted on the end of a gun? or how abotu the 15 round mag limit? do you really think that this impacts crime in ANY way? I just don't get it man..

 

the simplest way to put it is how it has been put a million times over...

Gun laws do not prevent crime because there are already laws against hurting one another...

Gun laws are simply administrative nonsense intended to limit the rights of the people....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are all correct. And i also covered my opinon on the criminals as well. and you are also correct by underlining the word CONVICTION. u are abolutely right and thats part of the problem.. charged and convicted are 2 different things. and that must change as well.. he didnt have a pipe or whatever he had to only stare at it. I respect everyones opinion and i might be a tade out of the loop on it but its obvious and also a fact that the states where it is easier to purchase firearms are the states with higher gun crime. thats the way it is. it needs to be fixed by stricter background, and im all for it. becuase when that starts happening crime will drop. Not all the way i understand that because you still have that gun in a dark ally illegally. But when gun crime in america drops the debate and the threat of our 2nd amendemt right being taken away will drop as well. Criminals and the mentally ill have to be handled in a different manner as i already stated. i Kno criminals will always have them. that is why we are at a dead end on this whole debate in this country. something needs to be done about them. And criminals in nj steal guns from us.. people who have followed the rules.. did the right things. waited for them to run strict background checks on us to make sure the people in this state are safe. im all for it. We should be an example to the rest of this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phrase of the day:

 

Don't Feed The Troll.

 

 

for what it's worth.. I have spoken to this individual a few times through PM because we live in the same area.. and honestly I do not believe him to be a "troll"... he obviously just has different views than some of us..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh no no no. my opinion is based on purchasing only. carrying is a whole different issue. and i dont have much of an opinion on carrying. i guess if ur allowed to have them ur allowed to carry em. im stating from a purchasing stand point only. sorry i was not clear on that. apologies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are all correct. And i also covered my opinon on the criminals as well. and you are also correct by underlining the word CONVICTION. u are abolutely right and thats part of the problem.. charged and convicted are 2 different things. and that must change as well.. he didnt have a pipe or whatever he had to only stare at it. I respect everyones opinion and i might be a tade out of the loop on it but its obvious and also a fact that the states where it is easier to purchase firearms are the states with higher gun crime. thats the way it is. it needs to be fixed by stricter background, and im all for it. becuase when that starts happening crime will drop. Not all the way i understand that because you still have that gun in a dark ally illegally. But when gun crime in america drops the debate and the threat of our 2nd amendemt right being taken away will drop as well. Criminals and the mentally ill have to be handled in a different manner as i already stated. i Kno criminals will always have them. that is why we are at a dead end on this whole debate in this country. something needs to be done about them. And criminals in nj steal guns from us.. people who have followed the rules.. did the right things. waited for them to run strict background checks on us to make sure the people in this state are safe. im all for it. We should be an example to the rest of this country.

 

 

you don't get it..

 

"stricter background checks" don't address the problem because most of your locals involved in violent shootings do not go to the local PD and legally buy guns..

these same members are carrying all day long with no carry permits..

 

your error is in thinking that LAW will regulate the lawless..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh no no no. my opinion is based on purchasing only. carrying is a whole different issue. and i dont have much of an opinion on carrying. i guess if ur allowed to have them ur allowed to carry em. im stating from a purchasing stand point only. sorry i was not clear on that. apologies.

 

 

how often do you think your local "latin king" walks into buds gun shop and legally buys a firearm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i used my example. it came to my attention that jard loughner had purchased the glock 19 AFTER he had been charged with drug parphanalia. and was allowed to purchase. like i stated... if that were nj they would of told him to beat it. so fast his head be spinning.

 

Let me get this straight. He's batshit crazy enough to go on a shooting spree driven by motivations no coherent person can even follow, but he just wouldn't of bothered if he couldn't legally obtain his first choice of weapon? So in your mind the whole thing plays out like this:

 

PD: Sorry, no FID because of your record.

 

Crazy Asshole: Darn...well...I guess I could just buy a gun off the street illegally from one of NJ's many urban cesspools, or just rent an SUV and drive through the entire crowd at a high speed, or make a bomb, or a bunch of molotov coctails if I can't figure out the bomb. Heck, I'm crazier than hell and motivated enough to figure out countless ways to blindside everyone with horrific violence no legislater can ever actually predict & prevent. I mean really, who looked at a plane and thought 'missle' before 9/11? But...I really had my heart set on that Glock 19. Nah, may as well forget the whole thing and seek psychological help in hopes that I can one day become a productive member of society.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. but i also stated.. that gov. must get VIOLENT CRIMMINALS OFF THE STREET. So if they get the gun illegally.. and shoot someone. there obviously violent.. and im assuming its not a first offense. most likely not first violent offense. u dont go from stealing a cracker to stealing a gun and shooting someone over night. y is that person on the street??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my point exactly. no one in nj buys firearms if they are not allowed.

 

 

but that does NOTHING to stop gun crime..

 

because people still kill each other..

 

take their gun and they will stab each other..

take their knife and they will club each other with a hammer..

and so on..

 

you never address the core issue which is the actual individual and their violent behavior.. instead we pass the blame onto a gun and blame it on that.. and we let the offender out 3 or 4 years later.. so that they may commit a crime again..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. but i also stated.. that gov. must get VIOLENT CRIMMINALS OFF THE STREET. So if they get the gun illegally.. and shoot someone. there obviously violent.. and im assuming its not a first offense. most likely not first violent offense. u dont go from stealing a cracker to stealing a gun and shooting someone over night. y is that person on the street??

 

 

if we dealt with violent criminals correctly... guns, knives, planes, cars, fertilizer, etc.. would no longer be of concern..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...its obvious and also a fact that the states where it is easier to purchase firearms are the states with higher gun crime.

 

 

And exactly where does this little factoid come from? It seems to me the reverse is true: Look at Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Massechusetts, California. Crime is rampant in the "tough on guns" states - much less so in those states that respect peoples rights.

 

Gun legislation is political feel-good fodder that does NOTHING to address the real problem.

 

I'm done - this poster is simply regurgitating the VPC and Brady press releases, there is no logic in any of his posts.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yea. people will still kill each other. knife. bat. fist. whatever right. but its aparent that those people willing to kill another person (other than self defense) have issues or criminal background. correct? i mean the average joe doesnt wake up in the morning and kill. criminals and mentally ill do. and that needs to be adressed because it is causing problems for us gun owners. correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said take guns away. not once.

 

right but you implied that stricter background checks would stop a criminal from getting a gun.. as pointed out earlier.. someone who goes down that path is not going to be concerned with the details of that path...

 

and stricter background checks? how will that help protect us from that guy that goes bat **** out of nowhere? clean living his whole life.. and then out of nowhere decides that his neighbor works for aliens and must be stopped.. background check squeaky clean.. in he goes loads up on guns and rifles.. the problem is that thinking that the law will protect you.. there is only one person to rely on for your safety and that is YOU..

 

there are laws on the books preventing murder.. does it stop murder?

make it impossible to legally buy a gun with the slightest infraction on your record.. do you really think it will stop a criminal from obtaining a gun?

 

NJ has one of the most strict systems in the US.. we have laws stopping criminals from getting guns.. we have laws preventing carrying guns.. we have laws stopping murder..

but yet in NJ gang bangers STILL carry guns and shoot one another all the time..

the law does NOT stop this.. do you understand where I am coming from?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. but i also stated.. that gov. must get VIOLENT CRIMMINALS OFF THE STREET. So if they get the gun illegally.. and shoot someone. there obviously violent.. and im assuming its not a first offense. most likely not first violent offense. u dont go from stealing a cracker to stealing a gun and shooting someone over night. y is that person on the street??

 

 

That's a tangent. I hate how often repeat offenders end up back on the street, but that was not the topic at hand. The thread is about Obama's recent theatrics about gun control, as in legistlative talks about laws regarding guns, not criminals. In the course of actually suggesting New Jersey's model is worthy of being copied, you submitted the notion that the AZ shooter's plan would have been stopped in its tracks by NJ's gun laws. I found your logic to be complete BS and said as much, to which you posted this response which doesn't address or refute anything I said and/or have much relation to the original topic of Obama's plans for new gun control measures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my point exactly. no one in nj buys firearms LEGALLY if they are not allowed.

 

Fixed.

 

Do you have any idea how easy it is to buy a gun illegally in Camden, Trenton, Plainfield, Newark.... etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a way. but i didnt mean smallest infraction and u r disqualified. im just saying i dont understand how a drug user bought a firearm legally. thats a problem. and i understand convicion and charged are different. but when it comes to drugs none of it is excusable. dont care what any of u say. drug users should not have permission to purchase. and i kno if jared couldnt get it legally he would of gotten it illegally. i get that. u are 100% correct. But once again that falls on criminals he would of purchased it from. or stole it from a law abiding citizen. But arizona basically opened the door for him. imagine if he would of had to steal that gun from someone. broke into their house.. stole it but got caught in the process.. those people would still be alive because he wouldnt of been able to use it. or he could of gotton away and still done it. we will never kno. but either way it would of made it harder in his case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody else realize that Loughner lied on his 4473?

Isn't that illegal? How could he do that?

 

Laws don't prevent crimes. Ever. Never did. Never will. They define them and outline the punishment for committing them. Anyone who truly believes that new and more restrictive laws of any type will do anything to prevent crimes of any type is sadly mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesnt matter what i think or anyone else. fact is the way things are now are not working. fact. I never said disarm or take away rights. But i kno i am correct on saying that what is happening now is not working. and its obvious neither side will budge. so we are all at a dead end at the end of the day. think what you want of me. your opinions about me do not bother me. call me a troll or whatever ud like. Im a gun owner and wont let anyone take that away. ANd i hope everyone on here feels the same no matter what the laws are. and if obama wants to put stricter gun conrtol laws in affect and they prove to drop crime rate (BUT ONLY IF THEY PROVE TO) then i am all for it. ANd i would hope that all of u would be for it. i mean what if it did work? not saying it will its just my opinion would u guys still be against? guess we will find out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for what it's worth.. I have spoken to this individual a few times through PM because we live in the same area.. and honestly I do not believe him to be a "troll"... he obviously just has different views than some of us..

 

Bradybot is probably more accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call me what you like. does not matter to me. i have my opinion just like u have yours. you just dont like mine. build a bridge and get over it. becuase ur opinion is obviously failing. further and further down the gutter as each day passes. something has to change so we can be left alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a way. but i didnt mean smallest infraction and u r disqualified. im just saying i dont understand how a drug user bought a firearm legally. thats a problem. and i understand convicion and charged are different. but when it comes to drugs none of it is excusable. dont care what any of u say. drug users should not have permission to purchase. and i kno if jared couldnt get it legally he would of gotten it illegally. i get that. u are 100% correct. But once again that falls on criminals he would of purchased it from. or stole it from a law abiding citizen. But arizona basically opened the door for him. imagine if he would of had to steal that gun from someone. broke into their house.. stole it but got caught in the process.. those people would still be alive because he wouldnt of been able to use it. or he could of gotton away and still done it. we will never kno. but either way it would of made it harder in his case

 

 

well to be honest with you.. drug use is a social problem and should not be viewed as a criminal problem..

 

I actually think we should not have ANY jail time for non violent possession offenses, as this would make more room to house the violent offenders we need off the streets..

make drug possession a noncriminal offense that carries a heavy fine but no jail time...

dramatically increase the penalties for violent offenses...

and maintain the current criminal structure for other offenses (things like theft)...

and I think you will still discourage drug use by way of fines, you will avoid having the "stigma" of making drugs completely legal, you could still have criminal charges at the distribution level if we collectively felt it was necessary.. and you could keep violent people off the streets more.. that is the kind of legislation that will actually DO something.. banning guns because of things like bayonet lugs... making you wait MONTHS for PERMISSION to buy a handgun when you are already licensed AND pass a background check is ludicrous at best... NJ is a model of gun reform.. it is a model of all that is WRONG with gun control..

 

as far as Arizona.. imagine if guns were completely banned.. and he could not get a gun at all.. maybe he would have made a car into a bomb propane tanks and drove into people while detonating the bomb... what if.. what if he stole a tank and destroyed the entire town.. what if is important.. but it can not be the judge all of creating legislation.. what if we ended the use of cars.. no one would ever die in a car accident again.. what if we outlawed bad fast food.. our health as a nation would be better.. but people have freedom.. and the government respects that.. and allows free choice.. and free practice.. EXCEPT for that which is firearms... and ironically bad choices like fast food, alcohol, cigarettes, etc.. are NOT protected in any way.. while we are specifically granted the right to keep and bear arms.. it is something that is micro managed to the point of absurdity... that to me just doesnt make sense..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. it is a social problem. but we cant go by what he wish or want. we have to go by what it is. its against the law. puts people in the wrong state of mind. its a problem and must be adressed. i dont want any firearms ban on any state. gun ownership is a right. yes but in a way it is also kind of like driving. people who follow rules and regulations on the road are allowed to have a license. if your smoking pot or drinking a beer while driving your putting yourself and others in danger. if your high on drugs or drunk and u have a shotgun you are a danger to other. the drugs and alcohol is a huge problem. thats y jared loughner was nuts. he ate one to many mushrooms smoked one to may blunts. and was charged with parphanalia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...