Obama throws tantrum!* Proud Day for Washington



Then why do they keep trotting those dead kids out? I mean no disrespect to the families of the victims of that horrific day. But how can you deny that this bill is not a direct response to that 1 single event?
It's no secret that temporal relevancy fuels the fire of many a political debate. I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing considering how shitty and apathetic the vast majority of Americans are. I'd rather people argue about gun control than motherfucking lady gaga or something equally meaningless.
we have had this conversation many times.
1. Why does the .gov need to know (and collect $$) if I decide to pass on my guns to my children?
How about this then: Why does the .gov need to know (and collect $$) if I decide to pass on my VEHICLE to my children?
2. Why do i become a felon for borrowing a friends firearm w/o getting a background check?
How about this then: Why do i become a criminal for borrowing a friends VEHICLE w/o being properly licensed myself?
3. Why didnt the current administration use background check's before selling guns to the cartel's to be used for murder?
I'm admittedly ill-informed about this topic so I'll refrain from answering.
4. The only people these additional impositions would be law abiding citizens. Criminals will get their gun's regardless of the law.
Why is it bad to add additional impositions to law abiding citizens? You aren't taking anything away from them, just making it a little more challenging to acquire something in the interest of increasing safety all around. It would be no different than making the driving test harder.
I could go on but I will leave you with this.


5. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[135] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."[
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is this not exactly what I've repeatedly said I think we need more of? More thorough safety and operational training and licensing processes for an objectively violent and dangerous piece of property?
 
There's a reason Americans don't want registration/universal background checks...

England and Australia BOTH Had confiscation of firearms years after they were registered. IN the case of Australia, they stole hundreds of millions of dollars (If not in the billions of dollars) of firearms from gun owners because they decided the firearms were illegal. No ability to get permits or licensing, just theft.
 
There's a reason Americans don't want registration/universal background checks...

England and Australia BOTH Had confiscation of firearms years after they were registered. IN the case of Australia, they stole hundreds of millions of dollars (If not in the billions of dollars) of firearms from gun owners because they decided the firearms were illegal. No ability to get permits or licensing, just theft.

Is there not equal risk of this happening with vehicles?
 
Is there not equal risk of this happening with vehicles?

It's not written in the Constitution that you have the right to own a vehicle. Driving is a privilege.

Gun ownership in America is a RIGHT.

acbG3aZ.jpg
 
It's not written in the Constitution that you have the right to own a vehicle. Driving is a privilege.
There is a common law right to travel.

Gun ownership in America is a RIGHT.
The notion of rights protected by Constitution is a delusion.

You have NO rights. The Constitution doesn't apply to anyone. It's not a binding contract. The government apes minimum compliance with it to keep the suckers believing it matters.
 
for an objectively violent and dangerous piece of property?
Guns are not objectively violent or dangerous. A gun with no one to use it poses no greater risk than almost anything else.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. If you believe gun control is necessary, then why not knife control? Baseball bat control? Hammer control? Screwdriver control?
 
It's no secret that temporal relevancy fuels the fire of many a political debate. I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing considering how shitty and apathetic the vast majority of Americans are. I'd rather people argue about gun control than motherfucking lady gaga or something equally meaningless.
How about this then: Why does the .gov need to know (and collect $$) if I decide to pass on my VEHICLE to my children?
Agreed its none of their business what I do with my vehicle.
How about this then: Why do i become a criminal for borrowing a friends VEHICLE w/o being properly licensed myself?
Again I agree you shouldn't be. Its no one's business who you borrow your property to. Unfortunately I wasn't alive to fight this battle. This same battle that provided the .gov a way to enslave its people and issue them their "papers". So they can easily identify you, so they can use anything they decide what you have done wrong against you.

You
I'm admittedly ill-informed about this topic so I'll refrain from answering.

Its well documented, but that was a nice diplomatic answer.

Why is it bad to add additional impositions to law abiding citizens? You aren't taking anything away from them, just making it a little more challenging to acquire something in the interest of increasing safety all around. It would be no different than making the driving test harder.
The .gov has already imposed on every part of our lives why not 1 more.

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is this not exactly what I've repeatedly said I think we need more of? More thorough safety and operational training and licensing processes for an objectively violent and dangerous piece of property?
[/quote]

These process's lend itself to "infringe" on people's rights. Our .gov has nothing better to do than to make laws. This is what we pay them to do. They have to do something so they always pass more laws. There is no arguing that "laws" dont limit someones right to do(or have) something. Over time the qualifications get tighter and tighter. And sooner or later you will wake up and find they have "regulated" all of your freedoms away. All in the name of "progress"

The 2nd amendment is the one "right" that protects the rest of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. When the .gov fears its people you have democracy. When the people fear the .gov you have Tyranny.
 

I'm sorry. I have been too distracted by Sandy Hook and the Boston tragedies to have noticed this. Must be coincidence.

edit:

President Barack Obama has threatened to veto the bill if it reaches his desk, according to a statement from the White House:

“The Administration, however, remains concerned that the bill does not require private entities to take reasonable steps to remove irrelevant personal information when sending cybersecurity data to the government or other private sector entities.”

Just like he threatened to veto NDAA right before he signed it. You should open a new thread. This is just as serious and dangerous to the people and deserves its own thread.
 
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. If you believe gun control is necessary, then why not knife control? Baseball bat control? Hammer control? Screwdriver control?

+1

They don't already know this? I thought you had to register your gun, etc.?

Not in Virginia. It's state by state.

It wouldn't have changed it because it doesn't apply to the Sandy Hook situation (nor is it supposed to).

Oh really? Why did I watch the Sandy Hook victim(s) give the prelude to Obama's tantrum today? Why were several of the victims standing beside Obama as he threw the tantrum?

It's disgusting how the victims of Sandy Hook are being used as pawns for political agenda. If it's not for his agenda, then why are they there? I guess it must apply to them then..

How would've this law stopped Sandy Hook from happening? Why should the victims care? The current background checks stopped the gunman from purchasing a firearm several times. (Yet you never heard about this) He had to STEAL guns from his mom (Who obtained them legally). This law wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook from happening. The victims are being used as political pawns.

How are the gun control laws working out in Chicago?
 
Will criminals have to undergo background checks for guns they buy off the street or steal from someone else? Oh, I forgot. Criminals disobey laws by definition.