debate

User avatar
campgsp
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 11:05 am
Location: illinois

debate

Post by campgsp » Wed Oct 17, 2012 2:12 am

Is it just me or did it seem as though the whole assault weapons ban and second amendment was completely by passed in the presidential debate last night? Romney went into fast and furious then got cut off. Obama went towards education. Neither one could answer the question without changing the subject.

If they cant answer a question honestly that deals with our constitution.... it makes me wonder....

volraider
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 500
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 5:00 pm
Location: Tn

Re: debate

Post by volraider » Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:09 am

There is all ready laws on the books, they need to enforce them instead of making new laws.

User avatar
ezzy333
GDF Junkie
Posts: 16625
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Dixon IL

Re: debate

Post by ezzy333 » Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:10 am

Romney has already stated he agrees with the 2nd amendment. I think we know where everyone stands on that but there are many other subjects that need to be made clear and I believe that is what they were doing. At least that would be my approach.

Ezzy
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=144
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=207

It's not how many breaths you have taken but how many times it has been taken away!

Has anyone noticed common sense isn't very common anymore.

ckirsch
Rank: 2X Champion
Posts: 435
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 8:46 pm
Location: Rapid City, SD

Re: debate

Post by ckirsch » Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:43 am

I appreciated the fact that Romney, at the very least, understands the difference between "automatic" and "semiautomatic". Obama either isn't aware there is a difference, or was trying to mislead the public.

User avatar
nikegundog
GDF Junkie
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:21 am
Location: SW Minnesota

Re: debate

Post by nikegundog » Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:06 am

ckirsch wrote:I appreciated the fact that Romney, at the very least, understands the difference between "automatic" and "semiautomatic". Obama either isn't aware there is a difference, or was trying to mislead the public.
I'm not sure he does, he mentioned that the guns in the fast and furious investigation were "automatic weapons" and that was not the case. He sure didn't want to address the issue that he is pro-gun control just like Obama, that is why he ran from the question.

User avatar
3Britts
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 1054
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 10:22 am
Location: Northern Utah

Re: debate

Post by 3Britts » Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:14 am

Hey, I am for gun control. I hit where I shoot.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
markj
GDF Junkie
Posts: 2490
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 12:36 pm
Location: Crescent Iowa

Re: debate

Post by markj » Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:39 pm

Doubt if either of them would do anything in the way of gun control. The gun movement has already gotten us many states to allow concealed carry wernt there before. Altho romney was gov of mass which is a gun unfriendly type of state and lets not forget Ill is even more gun unfriendly specially chi town.

More important issues to worry about IMHO, like taxes which romney wont make a stand on and bringing jobs back to America. Obumma has a plan for that, offer tax incentives for companies do just that etc.

Choose carefully and vote, most important is eceryone that can gets out and does. For whomever they feel is best for the US which is everyones decision to make, not a web blog, media outlet, etc.
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=1103
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=5210
"If there are no dogs in Heaven,
then when I die I want to go
where they went."
Will Rogers, 1897-1935

Melvin4730
Rank: Junior Hunter
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:47 pm
Location: Cumming, GA

Re: debate

Post by Melvin4730 » Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:20 pm

My outlook on all the issues is this...Obama has been in office for four years. He had no experience working with any type of budget, because he never had a real job. Then he was put into control of the largest economy in the world. Due to this, we now are over 16 trillion dollars in debt (one trillion equals a million millions). He added more debt than all other presidents in history combined, including his scapegoat Georgia W. Bush.

Romney founded a company. He ran the company and was very successful which made him very rich. He did inherit a large amount of money from his father, which he donated to charity. He became Governor of Massachusetts in. He faced a Massachusetts state legislature with large Democratic majorities in both houses, and had picked his cabinet and advisors based more on managerial abilities than partisan affiliation. He declined a governor's salary of $135,000 during his term. Upon entering office in the middle of a fiscal year, he faced an immediate $650 million shortfall and a projected $3 billion deficit for the next year. Unexpected revenue of $1.0–1.3 billion from a previously enacted capital gains tax increase and $500 million in new federal grants decreased the deficit to $1.2–1.5 billion. Through a combination of spending cuts, increased fees, and removal of corporate tax loopholes, the state achieved surpluses of around $600–700 million during Romney's last two full fiscal years in office, although it began running deficits again after that.

Cutting corporate taxes it not Obama's fresh new idea. Romney and other Republicans have been proposing this for years.

The choice is very clear and Im not even a Republican. I'm a Libertarian. I just don't see how anyone can look past the President's record of the past four years.

User avatar
ezzy333
GDF Junkie
Posts: 16625
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Dixon IL

Re: debate

Post by ezzy333 » Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:18 pm

Many of the past elections were mostly about politics but this one scares me if we don't get back to the things that made our country great. Romney doesn't agree with everythibg I like but his strongest qualification is his business experience and that is exactly what we need right now.

Nike, I think if you go back and check some of your facts are not accurate. Romney could be stronger on the 2nd amendment but it doesn't bother me much as long as he isn't against it and that is where he stands.
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=144
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=207

It's not how many breaths you have taken but how many times it has been taken away!

Has anyone noticed common sense isn't very common anymore.

User avatar
nikegundog
GDF Junkie
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:21 am
Location: SW Minnesota

Re: debate

Post by nikegundog » Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:39 pm

ezzy333 wrote:Many of the past elections were mostly about politics but this one scares me if we don't get back to the things that made our country great. Romney doesn't agree with everythibg I like but his strongest qualification is his business experience and that is exactly what we need right now.

Nike, I think if you go back and check some of your facts are not accurate. Romney could be stronger on the 2nd amendment but it doesn't bother me much as long as he isn't against it and that is where he stands.
Ezzy, this is Romney's statement when he signed his gun ban bill into law, his bill banned the same hunting rifles that have been discussed on this forum this week.
“These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”
It is pretty scary that we have two ant-gun candidates running for office who very well may get to pick up to three Supreme Court Justices.

User avatar
campgsp
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 11:05 am
Location: illinois

Re: debate

Post by campgsp » Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:54 pm

”[/quote]
It is pretty scary that we have two ant-gun candidates running for office who very well may get to pick up to three Supreme Court Justices.[/quote]

That's what I'm worried about.
One justice and we can loose it all.
If its possible to take away one amendment what else will they take away.
IMO the second amendment issue is just as important as the rest. Especially right now.

Melvin4730
Rank: Junior Hunter
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:47 pm
Location: Cumming, GA

Re: debate

Post by Melvin4730 » Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:18 pm


User avatar
SpinoneIllinois
Rank: Master Hunter
Posts: 245
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 8:22 pm
Location: Southern Illinois

Re: debate

Post by SpinoneIllinois » Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:41 pm

I'll just note the following, involving Barack Obama's home state and city:
1. Illinois is the only state that does not allow some sort of concealed-carry.
2. Cook County is now wanting to impose an extra "violence tax" on gun and ammo purchases.
3. Chicago requires that all handguns be registered with the police department. The cost is $15 per gun.
4. Chicago prohibits the sale of firearms within the city.
5. Gun owners in Chicago are required to have a Chicago firearms permit, which costs $100 and must be renewed every three years.
6. To receive a gun permit, Chicago residents must complete a training course which requires at least four hours of classroom training and one hour of range time.
7. Gun possession in Chicago is permitted only inside a dwelling, not in a garage or on the outside grounds of the property. (I wonder, how are you supposed to get the gun into your dwelling in the first place?)
8. A Chicago resident may keep only one gun at a time in a usable state.

User avatar
birddogger
GDF Junkie
Posts: 3776
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:09 pm
Location: Bunker Hill, IL.

Re: debate

Post by birddogger » Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:01 pm

Am I missing something?? I thought Romney clearly stated that he was against any more gun laws, but instead, enforce the ones already on the books and reminded people that automatic weapons were already illegal. It was brief but, as was said, there were other important issues to be discussed and not much time to do it. IMO, that is the problem with these sort of debates. There just isn't, and for obvious reasons, can't be enough time for either side to fully articulate their position on every issue.

I also believe that Romney is not the most "gun friendly" candidate, but we know for sure that Obama is definitely "anti gun" big time!! Romney would not have been my first choice of candidates to run on the republican side but he is a successful business man and has shown he is successful in an administrative position. On the other hand, Obama had no experience in running anything until he became president and his policies have been complete failures and that is not an opinion, that is a fact. I don't know how people can ignore the record but unfortunately too many people don't inform themselves and just go on things such as how a candidate looks, presents himself, how he/she speaks, etc., instead of looking at their record and how they really stand on the issues. And, even more importantly, IMO, too many people are going to vote for one particular party their entire lives, regardless of who the candidate is because that is how they have been raised, taught, etc.

Charlie
If you think you can or if you think you can't, you are right either way

User avatar
birddogger
GDF Junkie
Posts: 3776
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:09 pm
Location: Bunker Hill, IL.

Re: debate

Post by birddogger » Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:02 pm

SpinoneIllinois wrote:I'll just note the following, involving Barack Obama's home state and city:
1. Illinois is the only state that does not allow some sort of concealed-carry.
2. Cook County is now wanting to impose an extra "violence tax" on gun and ammo purchases.
3. Chicago requires that all handguns be registered with the police department. The cost is $15 per gun.
4. Chicago prohibits the sale of firearms within the city.
5. Gun owners in Chicago are required to have a Chicago firearms permit, which costs $100 and must be renewed every three years.
6. To receive a gun permit, Chicago residents must complete a training course which requires at least four hours of classroom training and one hour of range time.
7. Gun possession in Chicago is permitted only inside a dwelling, not in a garage or on the outside grounds of the property. (I wonder, how are you supposed to get the gun into your dwelling in the first place?)
8. A Chicago resident may keep only one gun at a time in a usable state.
All good and accurate points!!

Charlie
If you think you can or if you think you can't, you are right either way

User avatar
brad27
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 1334
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:08 am
Location: menifee, CA

Re: debate

Post by brad27 » Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:26 pm

birddogger wrote:
SpinoneIllinois wrote:I'll just note the following, involving Barack Obama's home state and city:
1. Illinois is the only state that does not allow some sort of concealed-carry.
2. Cook County is now wanting to impose an extra "violence tax" on gun and ammo purchases.
3. Chicago requires that all handguns be registered with the police department. The cost is $15 per gun.
4. Chicago prohibits the sale of firearms within the city.
5. Gun owners in Chicago are required to have a Chicago firearms permit, which costs $100 and must be renewed every three years.
6. To receive a gun permit, Chicago residents must complete a training course which requires at least four hours of classroom training and one hour of range time.
7. Gun possession in Chicago is permitted only inside a dwelling, not in a garage or on the outside grounds of the property. (I wonder, how are you supposed to get the gun into your dwelling in the first place?)
8. A Chicago resident may keep only one gun at a time in a usable state.
All good and accurate points!!

Charlie
Except number1.

User avatar
campgsp
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 11:05 am
Location: illinois

Re: debate

Post by campgsp » Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:43 pm

Brad27 I think know what your talking about but its still risky. The paper you can carry and the gun in a case or fanny pack with clip not in gun. Depends on the cop. I use it though but in my truck only.

User avatar
nikegundog
GDF Junkie
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:21 am
Location: SW Minnesota

Re: debate

Post by nikegundog » Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:04 am

birddogger wrote:Am I missing something?? I thought Romney clearly stated that he was against any more gun laws, but instead, enforce the ones already on the books and reminded people that automatic weapons were already illegal. It was brief but, as was said, there were other important issues to be discussed and not much time to do it. IMO, that is the problem with these sort of debates. There just isn't, and for obvious reasons, can't be enough time for either side to fully articulate their position on every issue.

I also believe that Romney is not the most "gun friendly" candidate, but we know for sure that Obama is definitely "anti gun" big time!! Romney would not have been my first choice of candidates to run on the republican side but he is a successful business man and has shown he is successful in an administrative position. On the other hand, Obama had no experience in running anything until he became president and his policies have been complete failures and that is not an opinion, that is a fact. I don't know how people can ignore the record but unfortunately too many people don't inform themselves and just go on things such as how a candidate looks, presents himself, how he/she speaks, etc., instead of looking at their record and how they really stand on the issues. And, even more importantly, IMO, too many people are going to vote for one particular party their entire lives, regardless of who the candidate is because that is how they have been raised, taught, etc.

Charlie
Yes you are clearly missing something, Romney was given two minutes to explain about his track record of banning guns and he gave a two second answer that was directly in contradiction from his past statements and voting record (he ran from the question). I to am quite sure Obama is "anti gun" and based on Romney voting record and well as his public statements I am quite sure Romney is "anti gun" also, his track record reflects that.

User avatar
DogNewbie
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 1041
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 9:39 am
Location: Minnesota

Re: debate

Post by DogNewbie » Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:43 am

I'm anti-gun in the hands of crazies. Pretty much willing to do anything to help prevent that. Even if that means I've got to wait two months plus to buy a gun due to extensive background checks etc...I have nothing to hide and it's worth keeping the innocent safe IMO.

User avatar
ezzy333
GDF Junkie
Posts: 16625
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Dixon IL

Re: debate

Post by ezzy333 » Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:49 am

nikegundog wrote: Yes you are clearly missing something, Romney was given two minutes to explain about his track record of banning guns and he gave a two second answer that was directly in contradiction from his past statements and voting record (he ran from the question). I to am quite sure Obama is "anti gun" and based on Romney voting record and well as his public statements I am quite sure Romney is "anti gun" also, his track record reflects that.
Think this may show we didn't miss anything that would effect who we vote for. That is the purpose of debates and there was or is no need to soend time on it.
But there’s a clear choice this November. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will protect our Right to Keep and Bear Arms by appointing Supreme Court justices who will uphold the rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago – two landmark cases which held that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms for all law-abiding Americans. Romney and Ryan have also stated their opposition to efforts by the United Nations to implement a global gun-control bureaucracy.

“In this election, there is no debate. There is only one choice – only one hope – to save our firearms freedom and our way of life,” LaPierre continued. “Get to the polls on election day and make the difference in this campaign. Help take back our country and protect our freedom. On November 6, vote freedom first – Vote Romney-Ryan!”
Newbe, do you realy think a wait is working to keep you safe?
I'm anti-gun in the hands of crazies. Pretty much willing to do anything to help prevent that. Even if that means I've got to wait two months plus to buy a gun due to extensive background checks etc...I have nothing to hide and it's worth keeping the innocent safe IMO.
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=144
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=207

It's not how many breaths you have taken but how many times it has been taken away!

Has anyone noticed common sense isn't very common anymore.

User avatar
DogNewbie
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 1041
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 9:39 am
Location: Minnesota

Re: debate

Post by DogNewbie » Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:56 am

ezzy333 wrote:
nikegundog wrote: Yes you are clearly missing something, Romney was given two minutes to explain about his track record of banning guns and he gave a two second answer that was directly in contradiction from his past statements and voting record (he ran from the question). I to am quite sure Obama is "anti gun" and based on Romney voting record and well as his public statements I am quite sure Romney is "anti gun" also, his track record reflects that.
Think this may show we didn't miss anything that would effect who we vote for. That is the purpose of debates and there was or is no need to soend time on it.
But there’s a clear choice this November. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will protect our Right to Keep and Bear Arms by appointing Supreme Court justices who will uphold the rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago – two landmark cases which held that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms for all law-abiding Americans. Romney and Ryan have also stated their opposition to efforts by the United Nations to implement a global gun-control bureaucracy.

“In this election, there is no debate. There is only one choice – only one hope – to save our firearms freedom and our way of life,” LaPierre continued. “Get to the polls on election day and make the difference in this campaign. Help take back our country and protect our freedom. On November 6, vote freedom first – Vote Romney-Ryan!”
Newbe, do you realy think a wait is working to keep you safe?
I'm anti-gun in the hands of crazies. Pretty much willing to do anything to help prevent that. Even if that means I've got to wait two months plus to buy a gun due to extensive background checks etc...I have nothing to hide and it's worth keeping the innocent safe IMO.
Not the wait, just a more extensive background check. I'm just saying, if the background check takes a couple months so be it...I have nothing to hide and I'm willing to wait if it keeps people who shouldn't have guns from getting them.

User avatar
ezzy333
GDF Junkie
Posts: 16625
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Dixon IL

Re: debate

Post by ezzy333 » Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:59 am

DogNewbie wrote:
ezzy333 wrote:
nikegundog wrote: Yes you are clearly missing something, Romney was given two minutes to explain about his track record of banning guns and he gave a two second answer that was directly in contradiction from his past statements and voting record (he ran from the question). I to am quite sure Obama is "anti gun" and based on Romney voting record and well as his public statements I am quite sure Romney is "anti gun" also, his track record reflects that.
Think this may show we didn't miss anything that would effect who we vote for. That is the purpose of debates and there was or is no need to soend time on it.
But there’s a clear choice this November. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will protect our Right to Keep and Bear Arms by appointing Supreme Court justices who will uphold the rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago – two landmark cases which held that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms for all law-abiding Americans. Romney and Ryan have also stated their opposition to efforts by the United Nations to implement a global gun-control bureaucracy.

“In this election, there is no debate. There is only one choice – only one hope – to save our firearms freedom and our way of life,” LaPierre continued. “Get to the polls on election day and make the difference in this campaign. Help take back our country and protect our freedom. On November 6, vote freedom first – Vote Romney-Ryan!”
Newbe, do you realy think a wait is working to keep you safe?
I'm anti-gun in the hands of crazies. Pretty much willing to do anything to help prevent that. Even if that means I've got to wait two months plus to buy a gun due to extensive background checks etc...I have nothing to hide and it's worth keeping the innocent safe IMO.
Not the wait, just a more extensive background check. I'm just saying, if the background check takes a couple months so be it...I have nothing to hide and I'm willing to wait if it keeps people who shouldn't have guns from getting them.
I don't want to wait that long when my shotgun blows up during hunting season or when someone threatens me or my family.

Ezzy
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=144
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=207

It's not how many breaths you have taken but how many times it has been taken away!

Has anyone noticed common sense isn't very common anymore.

User avatar
Vonzeppelinkennels
GDF Junkie
Posts: 2107
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 9:14 pm
Location: Amelia,Ohio

Re: debate

Post by Vonzeppelinkennels » Thu Oct 18, 2012 10:15 am

That 2 mos COULD cost you your life!! Why should law obiding ctitisens have to wait for anything,you think a criminal is going to wait till you get your gun before he burgularises your houses or threatens you.
We always have to wait or be cautious while the crimials get away with breaking the law. :roll: NOT AT MY HOUSE!!

User avatar
DogNewbie
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 1041
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 9:39 am
Location: Minnesota

Re: debate

Post by DogNewbie » Thu Oct 18, 2012 10:36 am

If you want a gun to protect your family, go get one...you'll have it well before anything bad happens. Someone threatens your family, go to the police like normal people. Someone robs your house, kick yourself for not buying a gun. People who aren't willing to wait two months for a gun probably aren't the type of people that would have a gun around anyway IMO. They're the people who get robbed and go buy a gun afterward. As for the hunting season, yes I agree that would be a huge bummer, but it's a small price to pay for making sure crazies can't get guns. Plus it gives you an excuse to buy back up guns :D

User avatar
ezzy333
GDF Junkie
Posts: 16625
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Dixon IL

Re: debate

Post by ezzy333 » Thu Oct 18, 2012 10:55 am

DogNewbie wrote:If you want a gun to protect your family, go get one...you'll have it well before anything bad happens. Someone threatens your family, go to the police like normal people. Someone robs your house, kick yourself for not buying a gun. People who aren't willing to wait two months for a gun probably aren't the type of people that would have a gun around anyway IMO. They're the people who get robbed and go buy a gun afterward. As for the hunting season, yes I agree that would be a huge bummer, but it's a small price to pay for making sure crazies can't get guns. Plus it gives you an excuse to buy back up guns :D
In a fictitious world your thoughts sound good but the only people waiting 2 months are the honest people. The crazies you speak of can get a gun in just an hour or quicker no matter how many laws you pass. I just got a couple less than 7 days ago. No one checked to see just how crazy I am even though my wife has told people for years.

Ezzy
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=144
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=207

It's not how many breaths you have taken but how many times it has been taken away!

Has anyone noticed common sense isn't very common anymore.

User avatar
DogNewbie
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 1041
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 9:39 am
Location: Minnesota

Re: debate

Post by DogNewbie » Thu Oct 18, 2012 10:59 am

ezzy333 wrote:
DogNewbie wrote:If you want a gun to protect your family, go get one...you'll have it well before anything bad happens. Someone threatens your family, go to the police like normal people. Someone robs your house, kick yourself for not buying a gun. People who aren't willing to wait two months for a gun probably aren't the type of people that would have a gun around anyway IMO. They're the people who get robbed and go buy a gun afterward. As for the hunting season, yes I agree that would be a huge bummer, but it's a small price to pay for making sure crazies can't get guns. Plus it gives you an excuse to buy back up guns :D
In a fictitious world your thoughts sound good but the only people waiting 2 months are the honest people. The crazies you speak of can get a gun in just an hour or quicker no matter how many laws you pass. I just got a couple less than 7 days ago. No one checked to see just how crazy I am even though my wife has told people for years.

Ezzy
Maybe we should get your wife involved in the new background checks :D

User avatar
Vonzeppelinkennels
GDF Junkie
Posts: 2107
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 9:14 pm
Location: Amelia,Ohio

Re: debate

Post by Vonzeppelinkennels » Thu Oct 18, 2012 11:18 am

I'm 65 yrs old never been arrested,have had like maybe 4 speeding tickets in my life.I have a few guns around the house & my neighbors & quite a few others know it & know
I would use them & maybe that's why no one has bothered my family or property though most of surrounding homes have been broke into one time or another.
One of those places just down the Rd is a Harley Club lived in by the pres of the club,I guess maybe I don't own anything worth robbing but maybe it's because people know
if I catch them they won't leave in the same healthy condition they arrived in.A few yrs ago I would have just beat them untill they wished they had been shot instead but I'm TOO broke down
to do that now & would have to perferate them instead,I'm not wrestling with any one ever again.Maybe this makes me CRAZY & as you suggested I shouldn't own a gun but I will shoot & take my chances
in court. :lol:

User avatar
DogNewbie
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 1041
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 9:39 am
Location: Minnesota

Re: debate

Post by DogNewbie » Thu Oct 18, 2012 11:24 am

I never ment to suggest protecting ones family or property is crazy. I'm talking about the mentally unstable that are buying gun after gun legally and then get fired from work and go on a killing spree.

User avatar
campgsp
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 11:05 am
Location: illinois

Re: debate

Post by campgsp » Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:36 pm

DogNewbie wrote:I never ment to suggest protecting ones family or property is crazy. I'm talking about the mentally unstable that are buying gun after gun legally and then get fired from work and go on a killing spree.
Oh common like any background check is ever going to know that.. People Snap and some idiots who never had any training with a gun, or never used one do that crap. To base your opinion on that is just bs IMO. I buy a New gun every couple months you could say I have an armery, So i guess Im going to snap one day and use them to kill people right? NO! But just because some ahole bought a gun one day and shot someone we are all to blame right... just like aurora colorado. or columbine. People are crazy man live with it. more background checks is not going to solve anything what will is shooting the ahole when hes shooting at you. IM from chicago I hear about shootings everyday. we dont have ccw guess how many people are killed everyday. and its not by law abiding citizens. I dont know where your from but come spend a week in my city and you will change your mind about more background checks.

User avatar
DogNewbie
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 1041
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 9:39 am
Location: Minnesota

Re: debate

Post by DogNewbie » Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:45 pm

campgsp wrote:
DogNewbie wrote:I never ment to suggest protecting ones family or property is crazy. I'm talking about the mentally unstable that are buying gun after gun legally and then get fired from work and go on a killing spree.
Oh common like any background check is ever going to know that.. People Snap and some idiots who never had any training with a gun, or never used one do that crap. To base your opinion on that is just bs IMO. I buy a New gun every couple months you could say I have an armery, So i guess Im going to snap one day and use them to kill people right? NO! But just because some ahole bought a gun one day and shot someone we are all to blame right... just like aurora colorado. or columbine. People are crazy man live with it. more background checks is not going to solve anything what will is shooting the ahole when hes shooting at you. IM from chicago I hear about shootings everyday. we dont have ccw guess how many people are killed everyday. and its not by law abiding citizens. I dont know where your from but come spend a week in my city and you will change your mind about more background checks.
I don't know where you see me saying owning many guns makes you a crazy person who will snap one day??? I'm not saying any of the stuff you are. I live in the city as well. There are shootings weekly minutes from where I live. I'm by no means sheltered to violent crimes. People are crazy. You're right. Maybe we should deal with it instead of doing nothing. Are more extensive background checks really going to change your life all that much? My guess is no. Since you're a sane person you'll just have to wait a little longer to get another gun. Not a big deal IMO.

User avatar
campgsp
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 11:05 am
Location: illinois

Re: debate

Post by campgsp » Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:42 pm

DogNewbie wrote:I never ment to suggest protecting ones family or property is crazy. I'm talking about the mentally unstable that are buying gun after gun legally and then get fired from work and go on a killing spree.
when you said that I assumed thats what you ment. Im not trying to bash yu in any way.
Maybe Im not thinking outside the box.
I am not sure about every states Background checks, but here in illinois we have FOID cards we must have in order to own/buy a gun. its a 30 day waiting period after you send in the application. that consists of an extensive background check. we are so backed up. I just renewed mine and it took 70 days for mine to come back. good thing my wife still had a valid one because i dont know what could have happend.

But for a mentality background I think they would start having us all go to a shrink. and that could be bad. what if they dont like me because of my views or whatever. heck the shrink could be anti gun and I would be screwed. I just think that the Background checks to find out if people are mental that havent been diagnosed is never going to happen. just a thought.

User avatar
birddogger
GDF Junkie
Posts: 3776
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:09 pm
Location: Bunker Hill, IL.

Re: debate

Post by birddogger » Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:52 pm

brad27 wrote:
birddogger wrote:
SpinoneIllinois wrote:I'll just note the following, involving Barack Obama's home state and city:
1. Illinois is the only state that does not allow some sort of concealed-carry.
2. Cook County is now wanting to impose an extra "violence tax" on gun and ammo purchases.
3. Chicago requires that all handguns be registered with the police department. The cost is $15 per gun.
4. Chicago prohibits the sale of firearms within the city.
5. Gun owners in Chicago are required to have a Chicago firearms permit, which costs $100 and must be renewed every three years.
6. To receive a gun permit, Chicago residents must complete a training course which requires at least four hours of classroom training and one hour of range time.
7. Gun possession in Chicago is permitted only inside a dwelling, not in a garage or on the outside grounds of the property. (I wonder, how are you supposed to get the gun into your dwelling in the first place?)
8. A Chicago resident may keep only one gun at a time in a usable state.
All good and accurate points!!

Charlie
Except number1.
Which other state does not have it??
If you think you can or if you think you can't, you are right either way

User avatar
birddogger
GDF Junkie
Posts: 3776
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:09 pm
Location: Bunker Hill, IL.

Re: debate

Post by birddogger » Thu Oct 18, 2012 10:03 pm

I think we have the technology for instant back ground checks. I am against any waiting period...PERIOD!! They do nothing but harass law abiding citizens. I already have a stupid waiting period and have to fill out a stack of papers a foot high. And one particular question on that paper work ticks me off more than anything else. That question is "What is the reason for purchasing this firearm?" It is nobody's bleep business why I am buying this gun and it is a stupid question anyway. You think anybody is going to say "I am going to shoot my brother in law with it" or rob the convenience store up the street?? I either have the right to by that fire arm or I don't. No need for idiot questions.

Charlie
If you think you can or if you think you can't, you are right either way

User avatar
DogNewbie
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 1041
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 9:39 am
Location: Minnesota

Re: debate

Post by DogNewbie » Fri Oct 19, 2012 8:32 am

campgsp wrote:
DogNewbie wrote:I never ment to suggest protecting ones family or property is crazy. I'm talking about the mentally unstable that are buying gun after gun legally and then get fired from work and go on a killing spree.
when you said that I assumed thats what you ment. Im not trying to bash yu in any way.
Maybe Im not thinking outside the box.
I am not sure about every states Background checks, but here in illinois we have FOID cards we must have in order to own/buy a gun. its a 30 day waiting period after you send in the application. that consists of an extensive background check. we are so backed up. I just renewed mine and it took 70 days for mine to come back. good thing my wife still had a valid one because i dont know what could have happend.

But for a mentality background I think they would start having us all go to a shrink. and that could be bad. what if they dont like me because of my views or whatever. heck the shrink could be anti gun and I would be screwed. I just think that the Background checks to find out if people are mental that havent been diagnosed is never going to happen. just a thought.
No I meant people with real mental issues that could make them a danger to themselves and others being able to purchase guns legally. If you're sane you can own as many guns as you want in my book. A sane person doesn't kill in cold blood. I'm not positive what the background check in MN consists of currently, but I'm guessing it's simply a check to make sure you don't have any felonies. It takes about 5 mins. Maybe we should extend that to arrest history to see if an individual has a history of violence. I don't know the perfect solution, but I do know that I'm sick of hearing about crazy people murdering innocent people every 5 months in this country, usually with legally bought guns. Sure, it's not going to fix the drug and gang violence issue because they buy guns on the black market, but at least some lives could be saved by it. I'd just like to see us take steps towards finding a solution.

User avatar
DogNewbie
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 1041
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 9:39 am
Location: Minnesota

Re: debate

Post by DogNewbie » Fri Oct 19, 2012 8:45 am

birddogger wrote:I think we have the technology for instant back ground checks. I am against any waiting period...PERIOD!! They do nothing but harass law abiding citizens. I already have a stupid waiting period and have to fill out a stack of papers a foot high. And one particular question on that paper work ticks me off more than anything else. That question is "What is the reason for purchasing this firearm?" It is nobody's bleep business why I am buying this gun and it is a stupid question anyway. You think anybody is going to say "I am going to shoot my brother in law with it" or rob the convenience store up the street?? I either have the right to by that fire arm or I don't. No need for idiot questions.

Charlie
I hear what you're saying with the question. That is a dumb question. I just don't think a waiting period is infringing on my rights to bear arms. I had to wait a couple months in order to get a coast guard certification because they have the FBI do an extensive background check. And I wasn't in the coast guard or anything like that...that was simply to get my license that would allow me to take up to six paying clients on a boat in a river.....that's it. Why should that background check be so much more extensive than buying a gun? I seem odd to me I guess. I also agree it would be more of a pain to buy a gun, but again, if it can save the lives of a few innocent people, my time is worth it.

User avatar
DonF
GDF Junkie
Posts: 4020
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 6:09 pm
Location: Antelope, Ore

Re: debate

Post by DonF » Fri Oct 19, 2012 8:53 am

Sorry to be getting in on a political discussion, don't like them. I think everybody is looking at the Romey/Obama race in the wrong way. they will be little or nothing either can do without the consent of the congress and senate. Much more important than either of them are the representatives from the different states. The spotlight is thrown on those two and the culprit lurks in the background.
I pity the man that has never been loved by a dog!

User avatar
nikegundog
GDF Junkie
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:21 am
Location: SW Minnesota

Re: debate

Post by nikegundog » Fri Oct 19, 2012 8:55 am

DogNewbie wrote: I hear what you're saying with the question. That is a dumb question. I just don't think a waiting period is infringing on my rights to bear arms. I had to wait a couple months in order to get a coast guard certification because they have the FBI do an extensive background check. And I wasn't in the coast guard or anything like that...that was simply to get my license that would allow me to take up to six paying clients on a boat in a river.....that's it. Why should that background check be so much more extensive than buying a gun? I seem odd to me I guess. I also agree it would be more of a pain to buy a gun, but again, if it can save the lives of a few innocent people, my time is worth it.
I live in the sticks, about 150 miles from any major city, I also like to attend some gun shows on occasion, so for me a 5 day waiting period just became a one or two month waiting period, and in instance of gun shows I may 300 miles from the person I would be purchasing a gun from, that is not a minor inconvenience. If you are someone who only buys one gun every ten years from the gun store down the street its easy to say no big deal, for many others it is a major deal.

User avatar
DogNewbie
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 1041
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 9:39 am
Location: Minnesota

Re: debate

Post by DogNewbie » Fri Oct 19, 2012 9:09 am

nikegundog wrote:
DogNewbie wrote: I hear what you're saying with the question. That is a dumb question. I just don't think a waiting period is infringing on my rights to bear arms. I had to wait a couple months in order to get a coast guard certification because they have the FBI do an extensive background check. And I wasn't in the coast guard or anything like that...that was simply to get my license that would allow me to take up to six paying clients on a boat in a river.....that's it. Why should that background check be so much more extensive than buying a gun? I seem odd to me I guess. I also agree it would be more of a pain to buy a gun, but again, if it can save the lives of a few innocent people, my time is worth it.
I live in the sticks, about 150 miles from any major city, I also like to attend some gun shows on occasion, so for me a 5 day waiting period just became a one or two month waiting period, and in instance of gun shows I may 300 miles from the person I would be purchasing a gun from, that is not a minor inconvenience. If you are someone who only buys one gun every ten years from the gun store down the street its easy to say no big deal, for many others it is a major deal.
yeah, the fact that I'm not a gun collector or avid gun purchaser, whatever you want to call it, may make me biased towards more in depth background checks. Once every few years I'll buy a gun.

User avatar
nikegundog
GDF Junkie
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:21 am
Location: SW Minnesota

Re: debate

Post by nikegundog » Fri Oct 19, 2012 9:17 am

DonF wrote:Sorry to be getting in on a political discussion, don't like them. I think everybody is looking at the Romey/Obama race in the wrong way. they will be little or nothing either can do without the consent of the congress and senate. Much more important than either of them are the representatives from the different states. The spotlight is thrown on those two and the culprit lurks in the background.
The next President will almost certainly shape the Supreme Court, which IMO opinion is a far greater threat than what the Legislature and the President can do with bills when in comes to gun control.

User avatar
Brazosvalleyvizslas
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:20 am
Location: Soon2be, Texas

Re: debate

Post by Brazosvalleyvizslas » Fri Oct 19, 2012 9:38 am

The supreme just ruled in favor of the 2nd Amendment for the first time. It would be a slap in the face if a new Justice somehow changed that ruling. Indont believe the Supreme Court is our immediate threat. Neither candidate is Pro Gun so who knows though.

User avatar
ezzy333
GDF Junkie
Posts: 16625
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Dixon IL

Re: debate

Post by ezzy333 » Fri Oct 19, 2012 10:42 am

DogNewbie wrote: No I meant people with real mental issues that could make them a danger to themselves and others being able to purchase guns legally. If you're sane you can own as many guns as you want in my book. A sane person doesn't kill in cold blood. I'm not positive what the background check in MN consists of currently, but I'm guessing it's simply a check to make sure you don't have any felonies. It takes about 5 mins. Maybe we should extend that to arrest history to see if an individual has a history of violence. I don't know the perfect solution, but I do know that I'm sick of hearing about crazy people murdering innocent people every 5 months in this country, usually with legally bought guns. Sure, it's not going to fix the drug and gang violence issue because they buy guns on the black market, but at least some lives could be saved by it. I'd just like to see us take steps towards finding a solution.
I think you have made the case that checks don't work and never will. Practically everything you are are talking about is already in place and has absolutely no visible effect preventing anyone from going over the cliff and doing something stupid. We are human and not a lump of coal so what you discover today may not be valid tomorrow for many people. But I do think you have made the case that our extensive background check do not work as they are not current 5 minutes after they have been completed. A check for a criminal record could be argued to be a good deal but we are living with proof that anything more is ineffective.

If you are sincere in wanting to change people then work to get God back our lives including schools, get respect for our country and flag back in our lives, including school, put an accurate account of the history of our nation back in peoples lives, including our schools, and teach our kids there are consequences to our actions including have your bottom warmed up when you screw up as a kid and a quick form of punishment when you are older instead of a 5 year court case before someone slaps your hand and says don't do that again.
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=144
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=207

It's not how many breaths you have taken but how many times it has been taken away!

Has anyone noticed common sense isn't very common anymore.

User avatar
Vonzeppelinkennels
GDF Junkie
Posts: 2107
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 9:14 pm
Location: Amelia,Ohio

Re: debate

Post by Vonzeppelinkennels » Fri Oct 19, 2012 10:56 am

Ezzy you & I know all of your suggestions are old & out of date & the younger gereration have better solutions!! :roll:

User avatar
dreamerofdreams
Rank: Junior Hunter
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri May 20, 2011 4:33 pm
Location: Temporarily Absent from Alaska

Re: debate

Post by dreamerofdreams » Fri Oct 19, 2012 6:55 pm

Waiting periods are great for abused women whose abusers aren't going to respect a restraining order... :roll:

User avatar
birddogger
GDF Junkie
Posts: 3776
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:09 pm
Location: Bunker Hill, IL.

Re: debate

Post by birddogger » Fri Oct 19, 2012 7:12 pm

I hear what you're saying with the question. That is a dumb question. I just don't think a waiting period is infringing on my rights to bear arms. I had to wait a couple months in order to get a coast guard certification because they have the FBI do an extensive background check. And I wasn't in the coast guard or anything like that...that was simply to get my license that would allow me to take up to six paying clients on a boat in a river.....that's it. Why should that background check be so much more extensive than buying a gun? I seem odd to me I guess. I also agree it would be more of a pain to buy a gun, but again, if it can save the lives of a few innocent people, my time is worth it.
Dognewbie, you do have a right to your opinion but your analogy with the cg certification has nothing to do with buying a gun. You do not have a constitutional right to be accepted into the coast guard. They can make any kind of rules/ policies they want. Now, again, concerning waiting periods, I do understand what you are saying. I just believe your thinking on it is wrong.....I don't believe any waiting period will or has saved any lives. I just want to comment on another comment that you made about calling the police if you need protection. The cold fact is that the police can't protect you [no fault of their own] it is just the way it is. They will tell you they can't protect you and a lot, if not most of them will advise you to get a gun if you feel you need protection. I know this for a fact. At least with the cops I know and I know quite a few and have been one myself. I know their slogan is "protect and serve" but the fact is, in the vast majority of cases, the police are responding after the fact...murders, rapes, robberies etc. A waiting period is absolutely infringing on my rights!! And I don't believe that most of the "anti gun crowd" are concerned about cutting crime or saving lives, but simply hate guns and consider them evil. Make no mistake about it, the ultimate goal of the people pushing for more laws,whether it be waiting periods or anything else concerning guns, is to ban all firearms and do away with the second ammendment. I urge you to not be sucked in by there deceiving tactics.

Charlie
If you think you can or if you think you can't, you are right either way

User avatar
birddogger
GDF Junkie
Posts: 3776
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:09 pm
Location: Bunker Hill, IL.

Re: debate

Post by birddogger » Fri Oct 19, 2012 7:48 pm

My daughter told me she went to a new doctor the other day and the first question she was asked was did she own any guns, while my wife was asked if she wore a seat belt. Are you kidding me??? Sorry but I am steaming here! :lol:

Charlie
If you think you can or if you think you can't, you are right either way

User avatar
Vonzeppelinkennels
GDF Junkie
Posts: 2107
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 9:14 pm
Location: Amelia,Ohio

Re: debate

Post by Vonzeppelinkennels » Fri Oct 19, 2012 8:03 pm

People say call the cops,well the fact of the matter is probably 90% of the time or more cops are only there after the fact.Very rarely do they stop a crime in process so we are responsible
for protecting ourselves,our family,& our property.Like it or not waiting periods only help protect the criminals not the innocent.

User avatar
birddogger
GDF Junkie
Posts: 3776
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:09 pm
Location: Bunker Hill, IL.

Re: debate

Post by birddogger » Fri Oct 19, 2012 8:34 pm

Vonzeppelinkennels wrote:People say call the cops,well the fact of the matter is probably 90% of the time or more cops are only there after the fact.Very rarely do they stop a crime in process so we are responsible
for protecting ourselves,our family,& our property.Like it or not waiting periods only help protect the criminals not the innocent.
+1. Each and every one of us is responsible for ourselves and our families safety and protection.

Charlie
If you think you can or if you think you can't, you are right either way

User avatar
Ruffshooter
GDF Junkie
Posts: 2946
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 7:28 pm
Location: Maine

Re: debate

Post by Ruffshooter » Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:22 am

DogNewbie wrote:I'm anti-gun in the hands of crazies. Pretty much willing to do anything to help prevent that. Even if that means I've got to wait two months plus to buy a gun due to extensive background checks etc...I have nothing to hide and it's worth keeping the innocent safe IMO.
How long you going to be able to hold off those crazy's while you are being cleared for a weapon?
What about the lady that has a protection order against her violent ex. Who is going to keep her safe during that two months?
The best part of training is seeing the light come on in your little prot'eg'e.

Rick

User avatar
Ruffshooter
GDF Junkie
Posts: 2946
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 7:28 pm
Location: Maine

Re: debate

Post by Ruffshooter » Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:23 am

birddogger wrote:My daughter told me she went to a new doctor the other day and the first question she was asked was did she own any guns, while my wife was asked if she wore a seat belt. Are you kidding me??? Sorry but I am steaming here! :lol:

Charlie
I had a doctor ask me that and if I wore a seat belt. Found a new doctor that hunts and fishes.
The best part of training is seeing the light come on in your little prot'eg'e.

Rick

User avatar
SHORTFAT
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 12:25 pm
Location: northwest Pa.

Re: debate

Post by SHORTFAT » Sat Oct 20, 2012 2:45 pm

Ruffshooter wrote:
birddogger wrote:My daughter told me she went to a new doctor the other day and the first question she was asked was did she own any guns, while my wife was asked if she wore a seat belt. Are you kidding me??? Sorry but I am steaming here! :lol:

Charlie
I had a doctor ask me that and if I wore a seat belt. Found a new doctor that hunts and fishes.
I wrote "NONE OF YOUR BEEZWAX!" on the form at my Dr's office... He asked me about it and I told him if it was a problem I would find anbother Doctor... He has never brought it up again. Said it was the insurance company's that want all that info... :evil: as for the protection... I will not leave the protection of my family to ANYONE but me! The waiting period is nothing but a JOKE! That's coming from a Police Officer.
Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in.
- Mark Twain.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
-Abraham Lincoln

Post Reply