ShaolinLueb

...

Joe

they took urrrr guuuns

ShaolinLueb

agreed

[SPOILER="spoiler for hot japanese girl (clothed but bikini)"]




[/SPOILER]

shirley

both sides killed millions
we dropped atomic bombs on civilian populations
we also sent regular bombing raids in to tokyo that decimated them
but its the victors who always right the treaties, post WWII the japanese military was ZERO threat, but victors always require the losers to dissolve military forces, its safest.

and they arent growing their forces, they are merely commiting troops to humanitarian and peacekeeping missions. they arent involved in direct troop actions nor do they have overseas bases of any sort

b00gers

(Keep it on-topic. This thread isnt in the Basement anymore. Thanks.)

LexusGS

Drugs are illegal too and there does not seem to be any shortage of illegal drugs all over America. You think just because guns are illegal or are much harder for law abiding citizens to obtain mean criminals/gang bangers will not be able to get them anymore or have more trouble getting them. Some legally purchased guns do find their way into criminals hands but if they are banned then more illegal guns with just be smuggled in like drugs and it just means more of these criminals will have illegally smuggled in guns, it is much harder to detect smuggled guns too because dogs can not sniff them out like drugs. A gun is a gun no matter if it is smuggled in or legally purchased and they are both dangerous when in the hands of criminals and gang bangers. All strict gun control is going to do is make it harder or eliminate law abiding citizens from being able to buy and own one and give criminals with illegal guns more power because most criminals cannot just buy legal guns. I do believe in some gun control measures that work and will keep guns out criminals, mentally unstable, childrens hands but most gun control measures only address law abiding people purchasing legal guns, these are not the people who are shooting everyone. Look at Washington DC where handguns were illegal and most forms of gun ownership by law abiding citizens is outlawed, there are shootings and murders all the time and it has an extremely high murder rate with guns, strict gun control did not work.

Obama may say he in his "speeches" that he supports the 2nd Amendment and the right for law abiding citizens to own guns and he does not want to take away your guns or right to buy one but his voting record and previous stances are completely different and shows he votes for every bill that attacks the 2nd Amendment and right to own firearms. Obama tells people alot of things now that are completely different from his previous very liberal voting record, he sides and his views are mainly with the extreme left yet during his speeches and rallies he tries to portray an image that he is more in the middle and votes with most of America which is not true, he is good at convincing people he is best for Americas interest when he really just caters and votes with the extreme left.

ShaolinLueb

america is also a much bigger country then those that have bans on guns. hong kong bans guns, but its a small island. banning guns in usa wouldnt solve the problem.

Epoch

I love hearing about this "extreme left". Anyways, Gun Control /= Attacking the 2nd Amendment. Think about it. The 1st Amendment gives the right to free speech and expression, but doesn't allow you to go around shouting fire in movie theaters, and surprisingly, you can be prosecuted under the law for doing so. The same rational level of evaluation should apply to firearm ownership: Certain weapons may not be suitable for private use. I also don't see a problem with requiring licenses to own/operate guns. We have licenses for not just driving cars, but for everything from selling cars to flying planes to fishing, and they are used to keep a moderate level of oversight on those activities.

I don't see anything in Obama's voting record that would be struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, so I think you need to rationally reevaluate "Obama wants to take your guns" argument.

LexusGS

I support gun control that keeps guns out of criminals/unstable peoples hands. You need a background check to buy a firearm, you need a license to carry a firearm, you need a license to hunt, and need a license to own certain firearms, their is a level of oversight and regulations in legally owning and using firearms, it is not like anyone can just go and buy a firearm like they do with clothes or candy, there are regulations and checks and laws that you have to be followed.

Obama's voting record is consistently against firearm ownership by law abiding citizens in America. He follows the basics of socialism which does not believe in an armed citizen to pose a threat to a too powerful government that they must rely on and that makes many decisions for them and tries to keep everything equal(income redistribution, gov healthcare, etc). Obama has voted for the right able to sue and bring lawsuits against gun manufactures if one of their weapons is used in a crime, this could only lead to putting gun manufactures out of business or making firearms prohibitively too expensive where nobody could afford them and it would most likely lead if a case was won to a ban on firearms and firearm ownership. Maybe we should also be able to sue car companies if someone uses a car to commit a crime or knife manufactures, lets sue everyone who makes things instead of the people that misuse what they make. Obama has also voted for banning gun ownership in cities and high crime areas and wanted guns banned in Chicago as well as other cities and supported the handgun and license to carry ban in DC which was just overturned, he did not comment much on it afterward because most Americans favored it and it was against his views just like the surge and drilling more for our own oil in America. Obama wants the older Clinton bans reinstated and has said they did not go far enough and wanted more bans and regulation mainly at law abiding buyers. His record is clearly against firearms and firearm ownership even though he may not say it in his more recent "speeches" because he may lose more votes and says anything in his "speeches" to try and convince people he has the answer to all our problems when in reality he has absolutely no record of being able to accomplish what he promises and has little record of accomplishing much during his time in the Senate aside from being a good speaker, always siding with the liberal left, and propping himself up for the Presidential nomination. If he is elected gun ownership is something he is going to go after heavily, he is the most liberal Senator and he caters mainly just to that base which is against gun ownership.

Epoch

I will give a more honest and complete dissection of this at a later time; I'm dealing with the onset of a cold. That being said, I highly recommend you check out a website like factcheck.org on most of your assertions. Also, I think you should look up the term socialist, because the Republican party made two huge socialist moves in the last couple days by taking public ownership in several large financial firms.

Anyways, one thing I'd like to point out is that if you look at actual voting records, that "most liberal" is an outfaced lie that's trotted out against at least the last two major presidential races. It's a FUD tactic that works because sometimes, when people hear a bald faced lie that fits conveniently into their world view (like the whole Obama as a muslim thing, etc), even if corrected later, they still cling hopefully onto this idea that they can present themselves in a clearcut ideological battle.

Anyways, I'm just going to ask you to use some nonpartisan factchecking websites with your statements. It's like Snopes: It's a good thing to make sure you're not believing some hocus-pocus you heard from a "trusted source".