Gun laws do they work

[Brianwarnock]

Why are you linking to the religious clip? I thought the topic was gun control and hence posted the video link of a guy taking the p.... out of America's gun control.

Whether you think it is funny or not, well, that's up to you.

I linked because they were posted, I don't only read your posts.

Brian

 

[Bladerunner]

I watched a minute of Froth's link and 30 seconds of this, do Americans actually watch this guy and find him funny?

Brian

I cannot speak for others but I do not watch him nor anyone like him.

Blade

 

[Frothingslosh]

Why are you linking to the religious clip? I thought the topic was gun control and hence posted the video link of a guy taking the p.... out of America's gun control.

Whether you think it is funny or not, well, that's up to you.

he has a funny approach almost satirical. On fact is , he has a potty mouth. WHile I was at it, I watched about 30 sec of his christianity bit. A typical Atheist is all I can say here.

You've got me on the potty mouth thing and I generally do prefer comedians that don't swear. I was going to mention the foul mouth thing but then again, we're all adults around here. He got his message across and taking the micky at the same time.

I'm not sure what religion or lack of religion has to do with this particular topic.

I put the link to simply to indicate how he got there.

I watched a minute of Froth's link and 30 seconds of this, do Americans actually watch this guy and find him funny?

I could take or leave his religion bit, but I found his commentary on gun control both hilarious and 100% dead-on.

 

[Bladerunner]

I put the link to simply to indicate how he got there.



I could take or leave his religion bit, but I found his commentary on gun control both hilarious and 100% dead-on.

Your take on the religion bit tells me a lot about your character! The gun control statement, well.......I already knew your position and so did everyone else on this thread.

Blade

 

[ColinEssex]

p.s. Colin: we have a very liberal President that believes in a nanny government among other liberal agendas including isolationism and we all know what Isolationism brings with it don't we.

Blade

Blade, thanks for the explanations. I appreciate it.

You see in the UK, we are used to having a Liberal political party as well as conservatives and Labour. Plus other lesser ones.
So when yanks refer to "liberals" we (or I) am used to thinking of a political party.

Maybe there should be one in the USA. It seems to me that Obama is useless as his party is the opposite of the senate so he can't do anything constructive now, except play golf.

Now I know FrothyWhatsHerName, she will say I am trolling again which she seems obsessed with. But to me it only highlights that she is unable to accept that many people outside the USA have only a basic grasp of US politics.

But she is entitled to her thoughts rightly or wrongly as they may be.

Col

 

[Bladerunner]

Blade, thanks for the explanations. I appreciate it.

You see in the UK, we are used to having a Liberal political party as well as conservatives and Labour. Plus other lesser ones.
So when yanks refer to "liberals" we (or I) am used to thinking of a political party.

Maybe there should be one in the USA. It seems to me that Obama is useless as his party is the opposite of the senate so he can't do anything constructive now, except play golf.

Now I know FrothyWhatsHerName, she will say I am trolling again which she seems obsessed with. But to me it only highlights that she is unable to accept that many people outside the USA have only a basic grasp of US politics.

But she is entitled to her thoughts rightly or wrongly as they may be.

Col

The political parties are becoming liberal and conservative much like yours. The next two or three years, I am afraid will show the democratic party will become so far left that they will become known as the liberal progressive party.

There are very few here that know a whole lot about your political system. I only know the little that I was taught in school all those so many years ago..

And you are welcome for the info.

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

Blade has pointed out several times now that in his world, liberals are all part of some vast conspiracy (masterminded by George Soros) with the goal of destroying all that is good and right in the world, disarming and enslaving the American populace, dismembering the United States as a nation, and turning the smoldering wreckage of the nation over to ISIS so as to impose Sharia law. (It used to be the Muslim Brotherhood, but ISIS is the scary brown person threat these days, so now they're the supposed beneficiaries.)

I am not worried about ISIS here. It is the world stage where the problem is.What affects Europe affects us. As I predicted, Bloodshed has come to Europe and I fear is only the beginning. Here in the US, we have yet to see the fallout from the liberal left actions during the last 6 years and we still have couple years to go.

Oh MY!!!!!!!!
As far a s George Sorros is concerned, his support of the left and far left liberals is well documented and the following url shows as much.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...nds-ferguson-protests-hopes-to-spur/?page=all

Have a good day Mr. Frothingslosh
Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

Mr. Frothingslosh:

I might add that the Ferguson and other violent riots tear at the very fabric of the our nation. Like Bill Ayers, if it keeps up people (mostly innocent) are going be hurt. Shame on you for not seeing that George Sorros does not care about you but wants more control of the US to match that which he has in Europe!

Our countries have raised ourselves up from the lawlessness of the earlier days to be governed by laws. To only have those laws torn apart by an insertion of terrorists or paid groups that try to effect change no matter what the cost. Peaceful Demonstrations and Civil Disobedience is the perfect way to get the attention of our leaders and for the most part is the way of our countries. However, violence by gun has increased ten fold and is not the answer. It appears at least to me that the far left and George Sorros does not care. It is either their way or the highway. What group did you say you were part of?

Oooooop!
Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

Where is the Gun Control when it comes to the AK-47 (Kalashnikov) at ?

Hypocrisy at its highest level.

Blade

 

[ConnorGiles]

I do believe that is a subject entirely of its own, due to the fact we are talking about trying to reduce the amount of accidental deaths that could have been avoided if the gun owner was more safe and in "Control" of their weapons.

the AK-47 is a gun renowned for being on the black market, there will always be a shady merchant who deals guns illegally, once one gets caught another takes their place. But yet again that would come under another topic.

(I can only suspect that that post was targeted at the now solved hostage situation, No doubt he obtained that rifle illegally.)

I cannot stress enough Blade, that this thread is about being safer with guns.

where is this proclaimed hypocrisy Blade? I'm sure there is strict laws in place against the Kalashnikov as well as any other firearm.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Oh, please, since when has Blade ever been interested in or supplied a single fact? The guy takes his talking points from white supremacist websites and far-right propagandists, and creates his own little fantasy any time an error is pointed out to him, such as his continued insistance that 1200 AD was 3300 years ago.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Blade and Dick quote the second amendment as their right to have any gun, they , like the NRA, ignore the first clause of that amendment. I would post the amendment and explain it, but wouldn't it be insulting to Americans to have an Englishman do that?

Brian

 

[Frothingslosh]

To the ones who need to hear it, almost certainly. To me? Not so much, but then again, I'm not really the type to bemoan not being allowed to cart around automatic weapons or being barred from emplacing a machine gun nest overlooking my home.

I don't know if you've heard yet, but the governor of Michigan actually got one right for a change. He just vetoed a bill expanding the availability of concealed carry permits because the bill would have expressly allowed people under a domestic-violence-related restraining order to get a permit unless a court had specifically denied them that ability. (The existing law prevents people under restraining orders for stalking/domestic violence from getting concealed carry permits for what should be obvious reasons.)

Needless to say, the NRA is PISSED.

 

[Bladerunner]

To the ones who need to hear it, almost certainly. To me? Not so much, but then again, I'm not really the type to bemoan not being allowed to cart around automatic weapons or being barred from emplacing a machine gun nest overlooking my home.

I don't know if you've heard yet, but the governor of Michigan actually got one right for a change. He just vetoed a bill expanding the availability of concealed carry permits because the bill would have expressly allowed people under a domestic-violence-related restraining order to get a permit unless a court had specifically denied them that ability. (The existing law prevents people under restraining orders for stalking/domestic violence from getting concealed carry permits for what should be obvious reasons.)

Needless to say, the NRA is PISSED.

Mr. Frothingslosh: My hat is off to the governor of Michigan if that what the bill says. I will take your word for it. Only law abiding citizens should be able to have carry permits if they want them.

As far as the NRA is concerned, do you have a url where the NRA stance objects to the bill being vetoed. I would like to read it and I suspect others wthanks

Thanks for the info.

Bladerunner

 

[Brianwarnock]

Will this article do, I could try harder I suppose.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/15/rick-snyder-veto_n_6479478.html

Brian

 

[Dick7Access]

Will this article do, I could try harder I suppose.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/15/rick-snyder-veto_n_6479478.html

Brian

Brian,
You lost me again. "will this article do" for what? what are you referring to? You have to remember us conservatives have very little pea brains?

 

[Brianwarnock]

This statement by Blade

As far as the NRA is concerned, do you have a url where the NRA stance objects to the bill being vetoed. I would like to read it and I suspect others wthanks

In his reply to Frothing etc

Brian

 

[Bladerunner]

I do believe that is a subject entirely of its own, due to the fact we are talking about trying to reduce the amount of accidental deaths that could have been avoided if the gun owner was more safe and in "Control" of their weapons.

the AK-47 is a gun renowned for being on the black market, there will always be a shady merchant who deals guns illegally, once one gets caught another takes their place. But yet again that would come under another topic.

(I can only suspect that that post was targeted at the now solved hostage situation, No doubt he obtained that rifle illegally.)

I cannot stress enough Blade, that this thread is about being safer with guns.

where is this proclaimed hypocrisy Blade? I'm sure there is strict laws in place against the Kalashnikov as well as any other firearm.

From gun control to gun handling. Hmmmmmmmm Must have changed somewhere in mid stream and I did not catch it. My Bad!

The hypocrisy.....simple....... we rave about automatic/and other weapons being allow in the US (only registered ones) legally yet say very little about the black market. Some want to take them away and some just want to make them so un-usable or useless that no law-abiding would have one.Only the Bad guy. Lets stop the black market get the guns out of the bad guys hands, then I will hand my gun over. But then again it is easier to control the law abiding citizen than the bad guy. Please, don't come back with: I don't want to take the guns away. It amounts to the same thing. This not a good argument.

As far as the safety, I agree in philosophy to this and am a proponent of gun safety which includes, safety of the guns at home. However, there is a fine line where between laws that are designed to promote safe use of guns and making them useless for anything but "scheduled" target practice. What about all the other safety concerns that could cause just as many deaths if not more.

i.e. there was a "Free Range" parent in one cities suburbs, who let her 6&8 year old kids walk one mile to the park. The problem is they were alone. NO Parent! Where is the bridge from guns to this, you ask? This is just as dangerous as having a loaded gun in the room unsupervised by the parent. The kids are just fine and made it to the park but it apparent that there were no kidnappers/killers on the route and at the exact time the kids were traveling. This too could have resulted in Death of one or both of them. The city suburb streets are not safe for an adult much less little kids. The bottom line is that the accidental shootings are about as rare as the above story.

So how many liberties are we going to destroy to make things safe? and the final question: How safe is Safe?

have a good day

Blade

 

[Dick7Access]

I do believe that is a subject entirely of its own, due to the fact we are talking about trying to reduce the amount of accidental deaths that could have been avoided if the gun owner was more safe and in "Control" of their weapons.

No my friend this thread was not started to promote gun safety, although you are welcome and free to make it about anything you want. This thread started asking for someone to provide credible evidence that guns laws has reduced crime or killings. Once again "I ASK"

Blade get that smirk of your face!

 

[Bladerunner]

Will this article do, I could try harder I suppose.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/15/rick-snyder-veto_n_6479478.html

Brian

Brian hope this finds you fine as split frog fur? lol

Have you read that article. "The bill would have revised current Michigan law to state that if an individual with a temporary personal protective order issued against him for domestic violence is not explicitly prohibited by a judge from having a gun, that person can legally obtain a concealed pistol license. Current law states that anyone with a PPO issued against him for domestic violence or stalking is prohibited from carrying a gun concealed." Rem this is a person not yet convicted of a crime.

"The NRA went on to argue that the bill does not grant concealed carry permits to an individual who "is a domestic-abuser and has been charged or convicted as such," which is true -- the bill would have applied only to certain accused domestic abusers with temporary restraining orders issued against them. "

It is all in the wording and sometime you have to read the bill. You see the Huffington Post is about as far left as you can get and they like Pres. Obama are subject to lying a large part of the time.

Have a good day.

Blade