Gun Vote " Shameful Day," Obama Says

[mania]

It's interesting that UG mentioned hunting because this is where the second amendment began.

Wrong

But if your an American & you feel there needs to be change

use the proper channels & go forward. Good Luck

If your not an American then basically you have the same say

as you have here in Thailand regarding the current Thai problems.

[chuckd]

To protect yourself from nuts armed with cars and knives?

Which would involve killing no doubt.

And one question for you to answer.

If all seven of the killed were carrying guns along with every bystander, how many do you think he would have got?

So the answer to the US gun problem is more guns? Wow.

It's interesting that UG mentioned hunting because this is where the second amendment began. Hunting with guns was reserved for the elite and the 2nd guarantees the right for anyone to hunt with firearms. By the time it was written everyone was doing it anyway but people wanted the right to be written into law because they did not trust 'just' being able to. It was not written with the intent of letting people wonder into a fast food joint with a semi automatic rifle.

Hunting with guns was never reserved for the elite in the US. You're thinking of England that was doing that.

The 2nd Amendment was written in order for the US citizenry to protect themselves and the country from yet another takeover attempt by the British.

It had nothing to do with hunting, although the early settlers did like a good venison steak every now and then. Tesco Lotus hadn't been invented yet.

[beechguy]

If "Mr. Retard" could kill with a gun, he could also kill with a knife, baseball bat, car, m/c, etc.

The place for the criminally insane is somewhere safe and secure, where they can neither harm themselves not anyone else.

Not free to wander, and free to harm others.

I'm not sure putting a roof over the entire US is practical and those who do not wish to own guns would be penalised too. There has to be another way such as restricting the sale and manufacture of ammo... Not like it will make things worse is it?

Restricting the sale and manufacture of ammo sounds great, to someone who hasn't a clue. They've restricted the sale and manufacture of drugs. How's that working for us? And even if you could prevent the manufacture, ban the sale of brass, copper, lead etc.? How long do you think it would be before the shipments of ammo came through the border from the south? Actually, some already is coming through. But, that's quite alright, no need to let reality get in the way is there.

[ClutchClark]

Obama is right !

No, the guy doesn't even have a clue.

Ohhh ok. Obama does t have a clue. There is no problem here, quick look over there.

Just stating a fact. How many of his press conferences began by him stating he didn't know something was wrong, until he heard it from the media? Apparently his guy Rahm in Chicago isn't getting very good handle on the situation either.

Granted, some people that shouldn't have, slipped through, and legally purchased firearms. But, even if that supply is completely shut down, there are far too many stolen weapons in circulation. That's what many on this forum don't understand, or like the politicians, choose to ignore, and make politically correct statements that have little to do with reality.

Too many stolen weapons from the posession of legal gun owners...exactly.

So lets start arresting gun owners who are so irresponsible with their gun collection that they allow it to be stolen. Ofcourse, this would mean gun owners woould have to stop leaving their pistols in their vehicle glove box overnight or in the bedstand, etc..

If gun owners don't start taking some initiative to end the bloodshed then they afe going to be stuck with the anti-gun lobby making the rules for them.

[ClutchClark]

If "Mr. Retard" could kill with a gun, he could also kill with a knife, baseball bat, car, m/c, etc.

The place for the criminally insane is somewhere safe and secure, where they can neither harm themselves not anyone else.

Not free to wander, and free to harm others.

I'm not sure putting a roof over the entire US is practical and those who do not wish to own guns would be penalised too. There has to be another way such as restricting the sale and manufacture of ammo... Not like it will make things worse is it?

Restricting the sale and manufacture of ammo sounds great, to someone who hasn't a clue. They've restricted the sale and manufacture of drugs. How's that working for us? And even if you could prevent the manufacture, ban the sale of brass, copper, lead etc.? How long do you think it would be before the shipments of ammo came through the border from the south? Actually, some already is coming through. But, that's quite alright, no need to let reality get in the way is there.

Do you understand the differences in the manufacture of illegal drugs and ammunition? I am not saying you don't have a clue...but...you are arguing apples and oranges.

[tw25rw]

Ohhh ok. Obama does t have a clue. There is no problem here, quick look over there.

Just stating a fact. How many of his press conferences began by him stating he didn't know something was wrong, until he heard it from the media? Apparently his guy Rahm in Chicago isn't getting very good handle on the situation either.

Granted, some people that shouldn't have, slipped through, and legally purchased firearms. But, even if that supply is completely shut down, there are far too many stolen weapons in circulation. That's what many on this forum don't understand, or like the politicians, choose to ignore, and make politically correct statements that have little to do with reality.

Too many stolen weapons from the posession of legal gun owners...exactly.

So lets start arresting gun owners who are so irresponsible with their gun collection that they allow it to be stolen. Ofcourse, this would mean gun owners woould have to stop leaving their pistols in their vehicle glove box overnight or in the bedstand, etc..

If gun owners don't start taking some initiative to end the bloodshed then they afe going to be stuck with the anti-gun lobby making the rules for them.

If they have them for defensive purposes, where are they meant to keep them if not readily to hand?

[ClutchClark]

Knives in America are used more often to kill others than guns ... such a stark comparison -- don't you think? But denial is denial for liberals / leftists ... who only think in emotion and not fact and who work so hard to fuzzy up the facts...

Like I say, false equivalence. The root purpose of a knife is to cut though it can be used to kill a living creature. The root purpose of a vehicle is to move goods and people though it can be used to kill a living creature. What is the root purpose of a gun?

To protect yourself from nuts armed with cars and knives?

And one question for you to answer.

If all seven of the killed were carrying guns along with every bystander, how many do you think he would have got?

Great point !

I have long said that we need to provide weapons to our gradeschool children so that the kids have an even chance against the shooter. Maybe if all 30 of those little toddlers were armed then The Sandy Hook shooter would have thought twice.

Ofcourse, we wouldn't start them kids out with something real big. Maybe .22's or a .380---what they would lack in knockdown power would be compensated for by the sheer amount of lead flying around the room.

I am glad to finally see a good common sense argument by "American".

[Loptr]

The safest bet in either the US or Thailand is to assume that everyone is armed, legally or not. Makes life much simpler when you have the urge to blow the horn and flip off a driver that just sliced you up in traffic. same, same, no different.

[tw25rw]

Knives in America are used more often to kill others than guns ... such a stark comparison -- don't you think? But denial is denial for liberals / leftists ... who only think in emotion and not fact and who work so hard to fuzzy up the facts...

Like I say, false equivalence. The root purpose of a knife is to cut though it can be used to kill a living creature. The root purpose of a vehicle is to move goods and people though it can be used to kill a living creature. What is the root purpose of a gun?

To protect yourself from nuts armed with cars and knives?

And one question for you to answer.

If all seven of the killed were carrying guns along with every bystander, how many do you think he would have got?

Great point !

I have long said that we need to provide weapons to our gradeschool children so that the kids have an even chance against the shooter. Maybe if all 30 of those little toddlers were armed then The Sandy Hook shooter would have thought twice.

Ofcourse, we wouldn't start them kids out with something real big. Maybe .22's or a .380---what they would lack in knockdown power would be compensated for by the sheer amount of lead flying around the room.

I am glad to finally see a good common sense argument by "American".

Maybe just give them tazers for some good non-lethal fun. Need to retain some of the innocence of childhood.

[ClutchClark]

Ohhh ok. Obama does t have a clue. There is no problem here, quick look over there.

Just stating a fact. How many of his press conferences began by him stating he didn't know something was wrong, until he heard it from the media? Apparently his guy Rahm in Chicago isn't getting very good handle on the situation either.

Granted, some people that shouldn't have, slipped through, and legally purchased firearms. But, even if that supply is completely shut down, there are far too many stolen weapons in circulation. That's what many on this forum don't understand, or like the politicians, choose to ignore, and make politically correct statements that have little to do with reality.

Too many stolen weapons from the posession of legal gun owners...exactly.

So lets start arresting gun owners who are so irresponsible with their gun collection that they allow it to be stolen. Ofcourse, this would mean gun owners woould have to stop leaving their pistols in their vehicle glove box overnight or in the bedstand, etc..

If gun owners don't start taking some initiative to end the bloodshed then they afe going to be stuck with the anti-gun lobby making the rules for them.

If they have them for defensive purposes, where are they meant to keep them if not readily to hand?

Well if they are being stolen by criminals then they are not being kept "readily to hand". More than likely.

They are being left out and easily accessible in the gun owners absence.

My grand daughters husband is a mechanic and he said it is amazing to see the number of pistols left in glove boxes and under carseats in the vehicles left for service...often times remaining in the parking lot for a week while parts are ordered. Those gun owners are not responsible. They do not take their responsibility seriously and people die because of their indifference.

[ClutchClark]

Knives in America are used more often to kill others than guns ... such a stark comparison -- don't you think? But denial is denial for liberals / leftists ... who only think in emotion and not fact and who work so hard to fuzzy up the facts...

Like I say, false equivalence. The root purpose of a knife is to cut though it can be used to kill a living creature. The root purpose of a vehicle is to move goods and people though it can be used to kill a living creature. What is the root purpose of a gun?

To put holes in things.

[ClutchClark]

Would any American who believes anyone can have a gun feel the same why when some retard has just blown out his brains.

If "Mr. Retard" could kill with a gun, he could also kill with a knife, baseball bat, car, m/c, etc.

The place for the criminally insane is somewhere safe and secure, where they can neither harm themselves not anyone else.

Not free to wander, and free to harm others.

If you cannot comprehend the difference between the destructive force of a knife and that of a firearm than you are dumber than a post.

[beechguy]

If "Mr. Retard" could kill with a gun, he could also kill with a knife, baseball bat, car, m/c, etc.

The place for the criminally insane is somewhere safe and secure, where they can neither harm themselves not anyone else.

Not free to wander, and free to harm others.

I'm not sure putting a roof over the entire US is practical and those who do not wish to own guns would be penalised too. There has to be another way such as restricting the sale and manufacture of ammo... Not like it will make things worse is it?

Restricting the sale and manufacture of ammo sounds great, to someone who hasn't a clue. They've restricted the sale and manufacture of drugs. How's that working for us? And even if you could prevent the manufacture, ban the sale of brass, copper, lead etc.? How long do you think it would be before the shipments of ammo came through the border from the south? Actually, some already is coming through. But, that's quite alright, no need to let reality get in the way is there.

Do you understand the differences in the manufacture of illegal drugs and ammunition? I am not saying you don't have a clue...but...you are arguing apples and oranges.

The point is, they would both be illegal, and that hasn't stopped people from making or obtaining when there was a motivation, . As to understanding the differences, I think I do, not a rocket scientist, but I've managed to hold a career in aviation for 30 years, much of it military related, and worked around some drug interdiction programs as part of that process.

[NeverSure]

-snip-

If gun owners don't start taking some initiative to end the bloodshed then they afe going to be stuck with the anti-gun lobby making the rules for them.

That wouldn't be true.

The anti-gun lobby has every right to protest in any forum they choose. They can run ads, hold big protests, lobby congress...

Amendment I, Constitution of the United States:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

But all of their noise won't change the Second Amendment which guarantees the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms.

Nor will any posts on this forum or opinions of other countries change anything.

[NeverSure]

This is on topic" Nothing will change in US on gun law until the people that decide these issues .right up to the supreme court" interpret the 2nd amendment exactlly as it was written. And that does not allow the right to bear arms as an individual

You are mistaken, sorry.

The Supreme Court looks at two things. (1) The original intent of the founders, and the private writings of those founders to help understand what they intended. (2) Precedent rulings by the Supreme Court, even 200 years ago,

They want to know what the writers of the Constitution actually wanted when they wrote it. The Constitution is not to change due to changes in language use or changes in culture over time. It is the bedrock - the foundation which is to forever guide the country unless amended from its original intent.

The Supreme Court has declared again and again that the Second Amendment guarantees the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, in a chain going back to the 1770's. It is settled law.

Remember something else. The first ten amendments, called the Bill of Rights was put in place shortly after the Constitution was ratified by people who were afraid of government. Most of them had come to America to escape the tyranny of the King of England, and then had to run him off American soil by armed force of the people. The Bill of Rights guarantees individuals freedom from government. The score is people one, government zero.

The Bill of Rights, being a statement of the rights of the people against the government, and the Second Amendment being part of the Bill of Rights (of the people) should tell you that it strips the government of the power to take away the right to keep and bear arms.

It has always been so.

[ClutchClark]

-snip-

If gun owners don't start taking some initiative to end the bloodshed then they afe going to be stuck with the anti-gun lobby making the rules for them.

That wouldn't be true.

The anti-gun lobby has every right to protest in any forum they choose. They can run ads, hold big protests, lobby congress...

Amendment I, Constitution of the United States:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

But all of their noise won't change the Second Amendment which guarantees the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms.

Nor will any posts on this forum or opinions of other countries change anything.

With your avatar, its like having an argument with the Marlboro Man.

How ironic the guy died of lung cancer...pretty gruesome death and he did a complete 180 in his final years and spoke out against all he had once supported about tobacco.

But back to the specific topic, or atleast your spin on it, you speak of the US Constitution as if it is a religion.

Your religion. Why do you live in thailand, a country with politics so completely unique from the US? Of course, that is your own business. Perhaps you are a missionary of Democracy.

The anti-gun folks can raise taxes on ammunition just like they have on the death sticks that killed the Marlboro Man. They can make it quite prohibitively expensive. Obviously, you recognize that gun legislation is not static. The current SYG laws are the swinging of a pendulum and in tine that pendulum will swing back.

But the part of my earlier post I wish you might have addressed is how those criminals keep getting possession of all those firearms they cannot legally buy. It was suggested they steal them from gun owners that have purchased them legally. Do you not think these gun owners are being negligent? Have you ever had a firearm stolen? I doubt it. Neither have I. In fact, I cant think of any personal friends or family that have. Perhaps because we understand the consequences should that happen.

[ClutchClark]

This is on topic" Nothing will change in US on gun law until the people that decide these issues .right up to the supreme court" interpret the 2nd amendment exactlly as it was written. And that does not allow the right to bear arms as an individual

You are mistaken, sorry.

The Supreme Court looks at two things. (1) The original intent of the founders, and the private writings of those founders to help understand what they intended. (2) Precedent rulings by the Supreme Court, even 200 years ago,

They want to know what the writers of the Constitution actually wanted when they wrote it. The Constitution is not to change due to changes in language use or changes in culture over time. It is the bedrock - the foundation which is to forever guide the country unless amended from its original intent.

The Supreme Court has declared again and again that the Second Amendment guarantees the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, in a chain going back to the 1770's. It is settled law.

Remember something else. The first ten amendments, called the Bill of Rights was put in place shortly after the Constitution was ratified by people who were afraid of government. Most of them had come to America to escape the tyranny of the King of England, and then had to run him off American soil by armed force of the people. The Bill of Rights guarantees individuals freedom from government. The score is people one, government zero.

The Bill of Rights, being a statement of the rights of the people against the government, and the Second Amendment being part of the Bill of Rights (of the people) should tell you that it strips the government of the power to take away the right to keep and bear arms.

It has always been so.

And we also both know that Amendments can be and have been repealed.

Furthermore, you surely know your history well enough to know that those Founding Fathers were not of one mind and you are taking great liberty to suggest they were. In fact,, they argued extensively and there was a real concern the document would never be signed.

There are zealots to religion and there Re zealots to the US Constitution. They both seem to think there is a single interpretation to their respective doctrines yet each of those doctrines does evolve with time and changing sentiment.

[ClutchClark]

I'm not sure putting a roof over the entire US is practical and those who do not wish to own guns would be penalised too. There has to be another way such as restricting the sale and manufacture of ammo... Not like it will make things worse is it?

Restricting the sale and manufacture of ammo sounds great, to someone who hasn't a clue. They've restricted the sale and manufacture of drugs. How's that working for us? And even if you could prevent the manufacture, ban the sale of brass, copper, lead etc.? How long do you think it would be before the shipments of ammo came through the border from the south? Actually, some already is coming through. But, that's quite alright, no need to let reality get in the way is there.

Do you understand the differences in the manufacture of illegal drugs and ammunition? I am not saying you don't have a clue...but...you are arguing apples and oranges.

The point is, they would both be illegal, and that hasn't stopped people from making or obtaining when there was a motivation, . As to understanding the differences, I think I do, not a rocket scientist, but I've managed to hold a career in aviation for 30 years, much of it military related, and worked around some drug interdiction programs as part of that process.

Are you suggesting that we eliminate laws because people choose to break them?

[neverdie]

Obama is right !

No, the guy doesn't even have a clue.

Obama was elected because he promised not to kill foreigners in foreign countries.

Obama is a disgrace, he's authorized more kills than George W.

Obama isn't the solution, Obama is the problem.

@Notmyself.

I make my own ammo.

http://leeprecision.com/reloading-presses/progressive-presses/

aoa,

well restrict the sale of those ammo reloading supplies. I take it you don't manufacture your own primers, gun powders & led projectiles

[neverdie]

What is it with Americans and their guns?

Seems like every couple of weeks there is a new thread about 'where can I buy a gun' or 'what visa do I need to buy a gun' etc. etc. I don't recall any one of them having been started by a non American.

The American insane passion for firearms reminds me of a fixed price buffet. The idea is to eat as much as you would like and not eat as much as you can. Same with guns... I can have one so I must have one.

It seems others are also interested in guns:

(Foreigner Arrested with Guns in Phuket)

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/729779-foreigner-arrested-with-guns-in-phuket/?hl=%2Baustralian+%2Barrested

(Gun-toting Aussie Tourist nabbed..)

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/729779-foreigner-arrested-with-guns-in-phuket/?hl=%2Baustralian+%2Barrested

Proves even scumbags go on holiday !

[neverdie]

Something I have noticed over my many years of life...

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't own one.

If a progressive liberal doesn't like guns, he doesn't want anybody to own one.

what about the people that have been shot through the skull by some lunatic ? My bet is your silly political classifications don't matter to them

[NeverSure]

-snip-

If gun owners don't start taking some initiative to end the bloodshed then they afe going to be stuck with the anti-gun lobby making the rules for them.

That wouldn't be true.

The anti-gun lobby has every right to protest in any forum they choose. They can run ads, hold big protests, lobby congress...

Amendment I, Constitution of the United States:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

But all of their noise won't change the Second Amendment which guarantees the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms.

Nor will any posts on this forum or opinions of other countries change anything.

With your avatar, its like having an argument with the Marlboro Man.

How ironic the guy died of lung cancer...pretty gruesome death and he did a complete 180 in his final years and spoke out against all he had once supported about tobacco.

But back to the specific topic, or atleast your spin on it, you speak of the US Constitution as if it is a religion.

Your religion. Why do you live in thailand, a country with politics so completely unique from the US? Of course, that is your own business. Perhaps you are a missionary of Democracy.

The anti-gun folks can raise taxes on ammunition just like they have on the death sticks that killed the Marlboro Man. They can make it quite prohibitively expensive. Obviously, you recognize that gun legislation is not static. The current SYG laws are the swinging of a pendulum and in tine that pendulum will swing back.

But the part of my earlier post I wish you might have addressed is how those criminals keep getting possession of all those firearms they cannot legally buy. It was suggested they steal them from gun owners that have purchased them legally. Do you not think these gun owners are being negligent? Have you ever had a firearm stolen? I doubt it. Neither have I. In fact, I cant think of any personal friends or family that have. Perhaps because we understand the consequences should that happen.

You are confused. I don't live in Thailand and never will. I enjoy my annual visits. In Thailand I am a guest. In the US I am a citizen and have a lot of rights including the right to be here and to move about at will.

Missionary of Democracy? America isn't a democracy and is proud of it. It is a republic of states with each state, regardless of size having equal say in lawmaking. It is not majority rule so that the biggest states can't by virtue of numbers rule the smaller states.

You seem to want a law against everything, believing that enough laws will make life perfect. Laws don't affect the stupid or the criminals. There are laws against negligence and laws against stealing and there are both criminal and civil (monetary suit) remedies.

[NeverSure]

This is on topic" Nothing will change in US on gun law until the people that decide these issues .right up to the supreme court" interpret the 2nd amendment exactlly as it was written. And that does not allow the right to bear arms as an individual

You are mistaken, sorry.

The Supreme Court looks at two things. (1) The original intent of the founders, and the private writings of those founders to help understand what they intended. (2) Precedent rulings by the Supreme Court, even 200 years ago,

They want to know what the writers of the Constitution actually wanted when they wrote it. The Constitution is not to change due to changes in language use or changes in culture over time. It is the bedrock - the foundation which is to forever guide the country unless amended from its original intent.

The Supreme Court has declared again and again that the Second Amendment guarantees the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, in a chain going back to the 1770's. It is settled law.

Remember something else. The first ten amendments, called the Bill of Rights was put in place shortly after the Constitution was ratified by people who were afraid of government. Most of them had come to America to escape the tyranny of the King of England, and then had to run him off American soil by armed force of the people. The Bill of Rights guarantees individuals freedom from government. The score is people one, government zero.

The Bill of Rights, being a statement of the rights of the people against the government, and the Second Amendment being part of the Bill of Rights (of the people) should tell you that it strips the government of the power to take away the right to keep and bear arms.

It has always been so.

And we also both know that Amendments can be and have been repealed.

Furthermore, you surely know your history well enough to know that those Founding Fathers were not of one mind and you are taking great liberty to suggest they were. In fact,, they argued extensively and there was a real concern the document would never be signed.

There are zealots to religion and there Re zealots to the US Constitution. They both seem to think there is a single interpretation to their respective doctrines yet each of those doctrines does evolve with time and changing sentiment.

The constitution can be changed if 67 of the 100 senators vote to change it, AND if 2/3 of the House of Representatives also vote to change it. If they do, It must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. This is a very steep mountain to climb.

Notice again that it's 3/4 of the states, large and small. Not 3/4 of the people, 3/4 of the states. Not majority rule - not a democracy.

There is no way that will happen in my lifetime with the gun issue as it is. Obama couldn't even get his "assault weapons" ban through his Democrat majority Senate. Politicians want to get re-elected.

In the State of Colorado in a recent election, they elected two new state legislators. Colorado is known to be a very liberal state, even leading the charge on legalizing pot. But soon there was a vote to limit gun rights, which measure failed. Those two new legislators voted against gun rights and were promptly tossed out of office by a recall vote of the people. Colorado likes its pot and its guns and politicians need to pay attention.

[ClutchClark]

You are confused. I don't live in Thailand and never will. I enjoy my annual visits. In Thailand I am a guest. In the US I am a citizen and have a lot of rights including the right to be here and to move about at will.

Missionary of Democracy? America isn't a democracy and is proud of it. It is a republic of states with each state, regardless of size having equal say in lawmaking. It is not majority rule so that the biggest states can't by virtue of numbers rule the smaller states.

You seem to want a law against everything, believing that enough laws will make life perfect. Laws don't affect the stupid or the criminals. There are laws against negligence and laws against stealing and there are both criminal and civil (monetary suit) remedies.

I am glad to hear you live in America, the Republic. I still don't understand why you are so involved in thailand if you only come for a vacation annually but I guess TV is as good as anyplace to waste time.

You are mistaken and confused if you think I want laws against everything. There are several on here who argue since laws are frequently broken that we may as well not have laws. I happen to support a civil society and I enjoy and respect the rule of law just as our Founding Fathers did ;-)

I am well aware of the criminal laws applicable to the owners of stolen firearms. I am also well aware of the fact they are rarely enforced even when the firearm is used in the commission of a crime. Here is an article that describes how many LEO have been killed by firearms since 2000:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/20/AR2010112002865.html

and how many of those were from stolen firearms. You will notice the study is flawed since there was a congressional act:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/23/AR2010102302996.html

As a responsible gun owner, I have never had a gun stolen from me. The day I am so careless as to allow a firearm of mine to be stolen is the day I will sell all that I own. I place a greater value on human life than many I suppose and I have a stronger sense of personal responsibility than many I suppose.

[NeverSure]

Something I have noticed over my many years of life...

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't own one.

If a progressive liberal doesn't like guns, he doesn't want anybody to own one.

what about the people that have been shot through the skull by some lunatic ? My bet is your silly political classifications don't matter to them

The number of people killed by guns in the US is tiny per capita. It is less than the number of knife murders and less than a lot of other dangers. I'm satisfied to live with that perceived danger in exchange for my freedoms.

If you live in Thailand you live in a far more dangerous place concerning gun murders per capita. Why don't you shake in your boots about that all day long?

If you are posting from Thailand as you say you are, you are in place with literally 10x the gun murder rate per capita as the US.

You must be absolutely panicked, LOL.

[NeverSure]

You are confused. I don't live in Thailand and never will. I enjoy my annual visits. In Thailand I am a guest. In the US I am a citizen and have a lot of rights including the right to be here and to move about at will.

Missionary of Democracy? America isn't a democracy and is proud of it. It is a republic of states with each state, regardless of size having equal say in lawmaking. It is not majority rule so that the biggest states can't by virtue of numbers rule the smaller states.

You seem to want a law against everything, believing that enough laws will make life perfect. Laws don't affect the stupid or the criminals. There are laws against negligence and laws against stealing and there are both criminal and civil (monetary suit) remedies.

I am glad to hear you live in America, the Republic. I still don't understand why you are so involved in thailand if you only come for a vacation annually but I guess TV is as good as anyplace to waste time.

You are mistaken and confused if you think I want laws against everything. There are several on here who argue since laws are frequently broken that we may as well not have laws. I happen to support a civil society and I enjoy and respect the rule of law just as our Founding Fathers did ;-)

I am well aware of the criminal laws applicable to the owners of stolen firearms. I am also well aware of the fact they are rarely enforced even when the firearm is used in the commission of a crime. Here is an article that describes how many LEO have been killed by firearms since 2000:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/20/AR2010112002865.html

and how many of those were from stolen firearms. You will notice the study is flawed since there was a congressional act:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/23/AR2010102302996.html

As a responsible gun owner, I have never had a gun stolen from me. The day I am so careless as to allow a firearm of mine to be stolen is the day I will sell all that I own. I place a greater value on human life than many I suppose and I have a stronger sense of personal responsibility than many I suppose.

I'm sorry, I can't read that. To delete a post and get under the max limit, find the one in the very center. Select the text and hit delete. Then select the author line and delete that. The box and the quote will disappear. You now have another in the middle so repeat as much as you wish to remove posts but leave the quote formatting intact.

I've never had a gun stolen either.

[ClutchClark]

Wrong convo.

[slipperylobster]

The bill was bs...in America you have background checks regardless of where you buy a gun legally. Criminals don't follow the laws, don't do background checks. Eric Holder is guilty of running guns illegally to Mexico, and should be arrested. This bill was nothing more than an attempt to control the population by an elitest, statist government. That's not a statement against Democrats alone, the Republicans are just as guilty. America is in trouble, it's freedoms eroding daily, and the sheep lining up mindlessly. Obama lied in his press conference, 90% of Americans don't agree with this bill. To buy a gun online requires it to be shipped to a federally registred gun dealer, who then runs an FBI check on you before he allows you to take the gun home. Gun shows the same way. It's the mindless sheeple who fall for the lies that Obama, Bush and their kind spew.

In spite of this ignorant rant.....

Good Americans that want to protect themselves from the easily purchased illegal firearms...should just buy them illegally, as easy as the crime lords do.

duhhhhhhh

[slipperylobster]

Buying legal weapons...provides the Police and FBI and ATF a way to verify that you legally killed a threat to your home and property. Now you are going to need better lawyers.

[neverdie]

Something I have noticed over my many years of life...

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't own one.

If a progressive liberal doesn't like guns, he doesn't want anybody to own one.

what about the people that have been shot through the skull by some lunatic ? My bet is your silly political classifications don't matter to them

The number of people killed by guns in the US is tiny per capita. It is less than the number of knife murders and less than a lot of other dangers. I'm satisfied to live with that perceived danger in exchange for my freedoms.

If you live in Thailand you live in a far more dangerous place concerning gun murders per capita. Why don't you shake in your boots about that all day long?

If you are posting from Thailand as you say you are, you are in place with literally 10x the gun murder rate per capita as the US.

You must be absolutely panicked, LOL.

You are forgetting, I'm a trained killer. I can simple death stare people and they drop, almost as tough as the bar stool SAS guys

I have gone through life here, nor concerned regarding gun crime & have never been exposed to such. Whilst the gun related murders in Thailand are alarming to say the least, it's not common place for Thais to shoot up shopping malls, school houses and so forth.

It's my understanding, if you were to examine the shootings around Thailand (excluding the southern provincial ones) that most of the shootings would be of a domestic nature, business disputes, land disputes, money issues etc. It's a far different cry from people shooting up large groups of people as they gather at school or other social outings. Being gunned down as you take a jog around Kanchanburi township has never really been a problem.