News and Political Forum News and Politics spoken here!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-07-2012, 07:58   #1
Full Member
Points: 27,395, Level: 98 Points: 27,395, Level: 98 Points: 27,395, Level: 98
Activity: 99.0% Activity: 99.0% Activity: 99.0%
Last Achievements
 
Dirty Harry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,501
White house: Obama wants assault weapons ban

And listen to how giddy and excited this leftist female """journalist""" is over the prospect of her Dear Leader taking away more of our liberties.


White House: Obama Wants Assault Weapons Ban
__________________
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/
http://cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011
Anyone who says he can see through women is missing a lot.
Groucho Marx
Dirty Harry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2012, 09:40   #2
communism hater
Points: 10,877, Level: 69 Points: 10,877, Level: 69 Points: 10,877, Level: 69
Activity: 45.5% Activity: 45.5% Activity: 45.5%
Last Achievements
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,576
Dont get your hopes up Carney. Im betting nothing will ''emerge'' from congress anytime soon.
__________________
United We Stand.. Divided We Fall.. Into the pits of socialism
qwman68 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2012, 10:46   #3
Full Member
Points: 37,336, Level: 100 Points: 37,336, Level: 100 Points: 37,336, Level: 100
Activity: 2.4% Activity: 2.4% Activity: 2.4%
Last Achievements
 
BangBangPlay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: New England
Posts: 1,323
Bloomberg blasts ‘deafening silence’ on guns from Obama and Romney – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Romney, in an interview with CNN's Piers Morgan on July 26, said he did not "support new gun laws in our country," and added that "the effort to continue to look for some law to somehow make violence go away is missing the point."

I totally agree with Romney, and more politicians should adopt this philosophy, especially Bloomberg. Although he did enact a ban of combat weapons in MA when he was governor, he seems to have the right idea now. There are more important issues that face this nation and each candidate shouldn't be fixated on this "non issue". As a nation we should accept that violence is unfortunately part of our society. This doesn't mean ignore it but you can't protect everyone either, especially no by disarming the nation, that is just misguided and stupid.

In this country we have the arrogance and ignorance to think that we can fix everything. More often than not fixing these problems results in making someone unhappy, or infringing on those individuals rights. Too often we try to use hindsight to attempt to arrange our society in a way to avoid accidents and disasters from happening. Something bad happens and we rush to place the blame on someone and then we ponder ways to insure that it will never happen again. That is just unrealistic, misguided, and usually results in the forfeiture of our rights for a false feeling of security.

Besides crime didn't go down during the Brady Bill years, and banning combat weapons won't achieve anything. The general public don't understand the difference between civilian combat weapons and their military counterparts. This goes back to the ignorance of non gun owners and their desire to regulate something they don't understand. It could be argued that if we were to form a modern militia the assault rifle would be standard issue.
__________________
My theory on the general public is that they're like mushrooms, they thrive when you feed em $hit and keep em in the dark.


"What the hell is going on out there!?" -Vince Lombardi
BangBangPlay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2012, 14:14   #4
Full Member
Points: 2,066, Level: 27 Points: 2,066, Level: 27 Points: 2,066, Level: 27
Activity: 7.8% Activity: 7.8% Activity: 7.8%
Last Achievements
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Mineral Wells Texas
Posts: 38
There would be no need for more laws if the existing ones were strictly enforced. The States need to standardize the sentencing laws for gun-related crimes. Those standard sentences need to be imposed with no possibility of sentence reduction -no perks, no good time credits, no parole, no pardons. Five years means five years, to the minute - unless additional time is added for bad behavior. Repeat offenders can rot for life. If crowding is a problem, stack them up. Make jail a living hell.
cass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2012, 15:35   #5
Full Member
Points: 41,943, Level: 100 Points: 41,943, Level: 100 Points: 41,943, Level: 100
Activity: 10.0% Activity: 10.0% Activity: 10.0%
Last Achievements
 
Brian S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,247
Originally Posted by qwman68 View Post
Im betting nothing will ''emerge'' from congress anytime soon.
Nothing was coming from congress about the "Dream Act" so Obama went around them. I wouldn't put any gun control measures past him if he gets reelected.

Originally Posted by cass View Post
There would be no need for more laws if the existing ones were strictly enforced. The States need to standardize the sentencing laws for gun-related crimes.
There is an increased sentencing of 3-10 years, a gun enhancement charge, for those using a firearm while committing a crime. I don't know if it's been standardized in all states.
Brian S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2012, 17:18   #6
Full Member
Points: 18,331, Level: 85 Points: 18,331, Level: 85 Points: 18,331, Level: 85
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
Last Achievements
 
woodstock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,376
There is an increased sentencing of 3-10 years, a gun enhancement charge, for those using a firearm while committing a crime. I don't know if it's been standardized in all states.
That should be challenged and laid to rest by the supreme court. Mandatory sentencing should all be done away with regardless of the crime. All it does is take the authority away from the judge to make his sentence on a case by case basis as the Constitution intended. What difference does it make if I rob you by picking your pocket or stick a gun in your face and demand your money? I still have your money an the only thing I did was rob you. Why should the sentencing be any different. The same goes for mandatory sentencing on drug crimes and anything else. Let the judge decide the sentence and if you don't like the way the judge is doing his job, don't re-elect him.
woodstock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2012, 18:25   #7
Full Member
Points: 41,943, Level: 100 Points: 41,943, Level: 100 Points: 41,943, Level: 100
Activity: 10.0% Activity: 10.0% Activity: 10.0%
Last Achievements
 
Brian S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,247
Originally Posted by woodstock View Post
What difference does it make if I rob you by picking your pocket or stick a gun in your face and demand your money? I still have your money an the only thing I did was rob you.
Big difference IMHO. One is theft, the other is theft & threatening someone's life. The latter means you can protect yourself using lethal force. The gun enhancement charge is up to the Judge's discretion. I've seen a couple cases where it was not used at all.
Brian S is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 23:09.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1
All information is copyright by Perfectunion.com unless already under copyright.

This site is Gunny Approved