the way forward is to do the exact opposite of anything markham or rochard think is right.

rochard wants psychologists to dictate human rights based on psych tests and markham will sleep better in his little village in eastern europe after there's a fundamental change to the document that defines the rights of people in the USA.

fucking tards.

124 Anti-gun Democrats Introduce Semi-Auto Gun and Magazine Ban in House of Representatives

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015...epresentatives

(Stop getting mad - leave the emotions out dude)

Well first, he can close the loophole that lets people buy guns at gun shows without background checks. Isn't that a good start?


Maybe. Why not let him try? And if 1 criminal or 1 would-be criminal isn't able to buy the gun(s) he wants to commit a mass shooting, and maybe if one person is saved, isn't that a good thing?

Law abiding citizens have nothing to worry about.

You didn't ask Yes or No questions, and I'm not getting emotional. I think you are though. Relax man.

I think he wants to attend a few less services for murdered people. I think that if you were the patriarch of a large family, or the president of a large company, that were full of people killing each other, that you would feel some sadness for those people and perhaps some embarrassment. You might also feel frustrated because your attempts to curb the violence is blocked by others in your family or company who have other interests.

If Obama can reduce the killings, fantastic. If there's somehow money in this too, even better. Nothing wrong with that.

Peace and love, Robbie.

It's a free forum, and thankfully its a free country too. I personally like reading what Rochard has to to say on any topic. It's clear and to the point and doesn't pepper his language with hate and fear like you do. His comments are also on-topic.


Can I correct you and say "It shouldn't matter what any LAW ABIDING CITIZEN wants or needs to do?

No one is disarming you. If someone said you are being disarmed, they are lying to you.


It should be registered, just like your car is. If you are a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN, you should have no complaints about registering your firearms and obtaining a license.


Completely not true. You are free to say what you want, travel where you want, do what you want. You're allowed to drive cars and shoot guns. You're even allowed to shoot porn and sell it. What freedom have you personally had taken away from you?

Kind of irrelevant, but ok. If that's true I'll back you up by saying "cool", and there's too much religion screwing things up these days, but this is a different topic.

No one is treating you like a child. Someone is telling you this maybe, but its not true.

What's more important? Arresting a guy after he murders your children, or preventing him from doing so in the first place?

I'll agree with you there. Too many politicians, especially the current crop of republican candidates, try to politicize things for their own gain. Huckabee and Trump come to mind.

Peace and love be with you!!

**********, just saying stuff doesn't make you correct.

Disarming the citizens is the goal here.

If that is what the majority of people in the US believe should happen, then the constitution should be ammended.

I have no problem with that.
Bureaucrats who are always surroundex by armed guards trying to sneak laws through loopholes of the constitution they swore to uphold? Now that's a big problem.

As for freedom...every new law takes away a little more freedom. It's been done in babysteps. And now we are spyed on, searched at airports like common criminals, searched by cops at traffic stops, shot and killed by cops in many cases, have a media that tries to shape events and does selective reporting, forced to buy a product by the federal govt., and the list goes on.

Perhaps you wouldn't mind all of that IF you lived here. But you don't and I do. I'm not happy with the way things are going in our country. And the latest polls show the vast majority of citizens here feel the same way.

I hope that REAL change is coming and that for the first time in decades it will finally reflect the will of the people and not the will of the ruling class politicians.

http://lh4.ggpht.com/-mKRHjCZDOvw/UP...jpg?imgmax=800


I refuse to allow anyone deny me the right to protect myself and loved ones the way I see fit. I will never register nor give up my firearms.

Funniest thing I saw this morning was on CNN.

First they did an "anti-gun" "report" and showed a still picture of Pres. Obama looking like a benevolent father and talked about his "Guns" speech he is about to do. Then the talking heads came on and "discussed" how guns need to be under CONTROL of the govt. for the safety of the people.

THEN...after the commercial, they did an investigative report about the Airport Police at Chicago's airport.

And I swear to God this is what they said: The Airport Police at Chicago are unarmed. They have no guns. And they are TRAINED to "run and hide" in the event of a gunman entering the airport.
The reporter said that the Airport Police needed to be armed because otherwise they couldn't defend themselves if an armed gunman came after them!!!

WTF!?!?!?!

So a citizen of the U.S. doesn't need to be armed to protect himself.

But the Airport Police need to get armed right away because they are defenseless against an armed gunman.

Am I the only one that sees the double standard?

All govt. people must have either armed guards or guns. Normal citizens...not so much. :(

Here's the link to that story. And the ironic part was that it followed the Anti-Gun report saying that citizens don't need guns to protect themselves:

Guidance to aviation police: Run and hide - CNN.com

Robbie:

Simple Yes or No question for you: Do you think the loophole that lets people buy guns at trade shows without background checks should be closed?

No

It has nothing to do with crimes being committed. Criminals don't buy guns at gun shows. They actually have those gun shows at the Casino's here in Vegas (just like the trade shows).

Guarantee you 100% that the last place on Earth a gang member on the southside of Chicago is going to get a gun, is at a gun show surrounded by law enforcement (all the cops go there to check out guns) and tons of rich white people.

This is from the US Burea Of Justice statistics on where guns were purchased for crimes:
"less than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show"

Notice they included "flea market" in that statistic. A "flea market" is an open air market that happens on the weekends and people show up with stuff to sell.

It is as different from a gun show as McDonalds is to eating at a fine restaurant.

But even with adding flea markets in with gun shows...it's still only 2%

So **********...why do people going to gun shows suddenly have to spend extra money and time (money that will go to...you guessed it, bureaucrats for "registering") to do something that doesn't hurt anyone?

50 guns banned:winkwink:

Robbie:

The current gun law says that you can't buy a gun without a criminal background check. This sounds like a good law, right?

If this law is in place, why should people be able to get around it?

And why don't you think that this 1 tiny little step is a step in the right direction to maybe save at least 1 life?

Because it doesn't save at least one life.

It's a non-existent problem. I've already shown you the govt. stats. But you don't care. You're just gonna keep parroting what you've been told to think.

And what makes you think it's any kind of "step in the right direction"?

No, it's trying to circumvent the U.S. Constitution.
If we should all be disarmed to be "safe", then I have no problem with that.
I don't "need" a gun quite frankly.

So the Constitution should be amended. Just the way that Congress did when they found out that a Federal Income Tax was unconstitutional a little over a hundred years ago.
Instead of looking for loopholes to sneak in law that violates the Constitution, they simply added an amendment to it.

Same with Alchohol Prohibition.

That's all I'm saying: Instead of trying to chip away at our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms...the proper way is to amend the Constitution.

I showed you that gun show purchased weapons are used in a tiny fraction of criminal activity. There are no stats showing that they have been used in killing anyone.

It's a made up "problem" that Obama is trying to "fix" by taking a tiny bit more or our freedoms.

As I said...maybe YOU are okay with that. I'm not.

As the song by The Fix went: "One thing...leads to another"

It is immaterial what I am happy with or not happy with...the Supreme decides what is constitutional and what is not and you nor I nor "businessmen" have any say in the matter. The Supreme court has in every instance that the matter has come before it have ruled in favor of the 2nd amendment and is not going to allow very much wiggle room with fucking with it. End of story.

I personally approve of the 2nd amendment and own multiple guns and have been well trained in the use of them.

But that's not the question. The law is already in place. A loophole may let someone who might normally fail a background check to get a gun via this loophole. Shouldn't the loophole be fixed?

Executive Orders by the President do not carry the force of laws passed by Congress - They are just orders/directions to executive branches such as Homeland Security. They cannot contradict existing Federal laws, do not trump state laws and are essentially ignorable by the States themselves. Just look at how the states are passing marijuana laws right and left to understand how laughable Obama's "orders" will be. I think this move will not only challenge the constitutionality of gun laws but will also challenge executive orders themselves.

The "loophole" is the actual background check itself. It's a "loophole" in the Constitution.

Do I agree that background checks are good? Yeah.

But saying something "may" happen (someone "bad" getting a gun at a gunshow and then doing something criminal with it) is just a bullshit excuse for another law and more bureaucracy.

Ever see the movie "Minority Report"? All of this "pre-emptive" stuff is nonsense and causes more trouble than it solves.

From pre-emptively invading other countries, to making new "laws" for things that haven't even happened yet.
It's a slippery slope that we are already halfway down the icy mountain on.

Again...how about waiting until someone actually does something wrong and THEN arrest them.
You can't prevent crazy people from doing crazy shit.

That's why the TSA has never found one bomb on any plane. That's why the only "terrorist plots" that have been "stopped" were not real (just FBI stings with fake bombs after they talk someone into doing something stupid).

Mark...don't you ever get tired of being an adult and still having other people run your life?
Especially faceless, nameless bureaucrats who never, ever experience REAL life because they spend their entire lifetimes on the govt. teat and never have to worry about anything.

Robbie, you and I clearly see the world very, very differently. I don't think we will ever agree on anything. I do enjoy the conversations though...

Cheers.

m

Robbie for President

I can agree with you on that. So I guess we DO agree on something.

My point of view is that I am a full grown man. We are all forced to live our lives at the whim of the lowest common denominator people of the world. Morons that do stupid shit fuck it up for the rest of us. I think we can agree on that too.

People who are drug addicts or alcoholics have brought about laws that restrict the 99% of us in the world who are not addicted to alcohol or drugs for instance.

A tiny percentage of crazy people use guns to kill other people. So the govt. would like to restrict guns in a way that affects the 99% of people who would never do such a thing.

The list goes on and on.

I get tired of having to be pre-judged based on what the lowest common denominator people MIGHT do.

As for the actual guns themselves...I could care less. Congress needs to amend the constitution if the federal govt. wants to restrict or ban guns. It's really that simple. And "yes", I know it wouldn't be easy.

That's DELIBERATE on the part of the founding fathers. They never wanted the govt. to RULE over us.

Anyway, I think you're 100% dead wrong on most everything we've discussed.
And you think I'm 100% dead wrong too.

We are different people with different views. Nothing wrong with that.

I just can't help but see the hypocrisy of the President and anti-gun politicians telling citizens to disarm themselves...while at the same time they keep themselves surrounded with guns everywhere to protect THEIR asses.

Meanwhile cops here in the U.S. seem to shoot a citizen dead every time I turn the T.V. on.
Killed By Police - 2015 (1200)

Does your "freedom" also allow you to collect nuclear bombs, CP, masses of illegal drugs, drive when drunk, rob a bank. Because you "choose" to?

I see your reply the same as I get from a child when told not to do something.

This law isn't going to stop criminals getting guns. It will hinder idiots getting them. The kind of people who think that can do whatever they choose to because they want to do it. Like, walk into a school fully armed and kill as many as possible. Because hanging themselves in their room, isn't going to give them, their 15 minutes of fame.

As for a simple yes or no. Yes, it will hinder criminals from getting guns. Criminals like the kids who can get hold of Dad's guns and go into a school to kill people.

I agree with you about money in politics. So vote for people who aren't sponsored by big businesses.

Rubbish as usual, the law allows a firearm. So a muzzle loaded pistol, a firearm at the time the law was written, can be the limit to the law.

Countries that have "disarmed" have a far safer lifestyle. I use the word loosely because anyone can own a gun in these countries if they prove themselves capable. Your argument could be applied to anyone owning fighting dogs, big cats, alligators. Anyone can own one, whatever their ability.

As for what the majority of Americans want, when was there a referendum? Of course one that banned any influence from big businesses, to make sure it was what the people wanted.

Are you in favour of no checks at airports, no spying, no police on the streets because they might shoot someone, they're scared might have a gun?

Politicians don't rule America. They all need huge sums of money to get re-elected. That money can only come from big business. giving individuals like the Koch Brothers the power. This also was rubber stamped by the Supreme Court. So any change you think might be coming isn't.

That was proven with Obama's attempt to wrench healthcare out of the grip of the private sector. Leaving Americans poorer.

Let's apply the same logic to armies. Whoops, it doesn't work.

Airports, Presidents are targets, so protecting them from nutters who can buy guns across a counter. Is essential.

Where and how do criminals buy guns?

frontline: hot guns: "How Criminals Get Guns" | PBS

Shocking study: criminals generally don?t buy guns legally at gun shops « Hot Air

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015...-legal-sources

The only conclusion is that with a country awash with firearms, criminals have no need to expose themselves to the authorities. Much the same in the EU. Laws don't stop criminals supply drugs, nor from blowing up planes. That's why police are there to protect us from people with no respect of the laws.

Criminals aren't the target for this law, it's aimed at reducing these.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...States#2010 s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_postal

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...-four-year-old

http://www.shootingtracker.com/wiki/Main_Page

How many of these people were criminals before they grabbed a gun and decided it was going to solve anything? Would the time from the rage to getting a gun. Be a factor in the number of innocent lives lost?

Sadly some still think all it takes to be a Dirty Harry character is a gun.

Pigshit. The Supreme Court says differently and they decide what law can stand and what law cannot. You just remain clueless as you always have been and always will be.

Only a constitutional amendment will change the sale of guns in this country and that just is not going to happen because the majority of people like the 2nd amendment including me.

Not an expert on Constitutional Law, I was using the example that in Government can limit the type of arms people can buy legally, such as fully automatic machine guns. It can re-apply the limit to a more sensible level.

However as Robbie pointed out it's possible to amend the Constitution. As there has never been a referendum on the subject. You don't know what Americans want. Would most agree to tighter gun sale laws, a limit on magazine size, bullet power, whether people on a terrorist watch list should own guns, etc?

You don't know that.

Some people think the Government has too much power. Like these people. They want the freedom to do exactly as they please and ignore the law.

The second amendment has been changed from what was originally written.

If the right extends to idiots such as those in the link I posted. It infringes the security of a free State. And promotes anarchy. If you say it does extend to these idiots, then it extends to the insane and criminals.

If you want to apply the Constitution as it was intended.

Equal Rights for Some - American History - Quatr.us

There's lots more on this subject about who they were applying the Constitution to.

You couldn't be more incorrect on the Constitution, it is not, and never has been intended to limit the people, its purpose is to limit the GOVERNMENT

What is the percentage of deaths in US by guns used by people who are not supposed to have them. AKA CRIMINALS?

No. I don't know this because it isn't true.

Love how you have such strong opinions about subjects you are ignorant of.

You are 100% correct. The founding fathers knew the danger of an all-powerful govt.

holy shit, you have absolutely no idea what you are going on about.

Why is it such a big deal to ask hicks who want to sell and buy guns at shows do a background check? I don't want people to be prohibited from buying guns (I may want another one someday), but I sure as fuck want it to be as tough as possible.

Why should it be "tough as possible" in a free country to exercise a guaranteed right under the constitution?

As for "hicks"...who are you to judge people like you are some kind of God?

Typical elite fake-liberal.

Gun shows happen here in Vegas all the time. They are just like any convention. People are dressed nicely. It costs money to get on the show floor. Big percentage of people there are law enforcement officers checking out the new guns. Another big percentage of people are rich gun collectors checking out antique weapons.

You are a judgmental person with some delusion that you are "better" than other people.

What makes you think you have the ability to tell other people it should be "tough" to live freely under the Constitution Of The United States?

Wow.

The odds are that you will slip and fall and die in the tub is hundreds of thousands of times greater than being shot to death by a robber, yet everyone is going out and buying firearms and no one is buying tub stickers that prevent them from slipping and falling in the tub.

You are one of the few people I would trust with a firearm. You know when to pull and when not to pull, as opposed to some jackass who thinks they are a badass because they have a firearm. Putting your life on the line for $100 in cash is just not worth it.

My buddy who just got a handgun on the other hand has no idea. He told me the other day if he is ever present in an active shooter incident he is going to take action. He has had his handgun all of two weeks and obviously in his eyes he knows what needs to be done.

My other buddy has thirty handguns in his house. He wants his wife to be able to protect herself. She is all of 90 lbs soaking wet - I can't imagine her trying to fire a handgun at an intruder. They have two kids too, and one of these firearms are properly secured. This is a disaster waiting to happen.

Gun shows are mostly rich people. That's fucking funny. Maybe inside your bubble they work that way, but not all over the middle of the country where bubba lives.

A gun should be tough to buy because it can spray lethal hot lead.

You wouldn't have a clue because you are so much "better" than everyone.

I hope "Bubba" kicks your ass someday. Your views are hateful and disgraceful.

Half of my genes are from West Virginia coal country, and I've spent plenty of time there. I know enough to look down on them.

If you take a non political view of the gun control issue. You will find out that the places that have the most control over the guns are the most violent. Only allow me having guns in the hands of criminals. But the reason Obama and the left keep on this track. Is because over the last 20 to 30 years who they think our experts have been telling them to do this. And it's almost like muscle memory. They just remember someone that was a professor that they admired that told them the answer is to control the guns. Even though the facts do not bear this out. Mexico is by far one of the most violent places in the world. And they have the tightest of gun control laws. The places in the US they have very tight gun control laws like Chicago. Are basically a war zone against criminals and the police. But do not fear my friends. Like always unfortunately liberals and Democrats always plan to do something wonderful and always seem to fail. Great examples of what they've done in the Middle East which is in flames. What they have done with the economy in the last 10 years. Don't forget it was the Democrat Party that said that everyone had a right to a home and they were going to make the banks give out loans. Ronald Reagan once said that Democrats mean well but the problem is they really don't know what they're talking about.


http://i.imgur.com/3IfrvcU.jpg
From the U.N.
Democrats try to get around this graft by including suicides. Suicide by gun is the most preferred way of suicide. So that's where Democrats get their figures and try to convince everyone that there is a problem with guns and homicides. Which is a direct lie that they are comfortable telling