Explosions at Boston Marathon

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Explosions at Boston Marathon

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    In response to LloydDobler's comment:

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    Recent mass murders have all been commited by mentally unbalanced folks not law abiding gun owners.

     



    Precisely why we need expanded background checks for starters. You're right, it wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook because the murderer took the guns from his mother, who as far as I know had bought them legally. But it might have prevented Virginia Tech and Columbine. At the very least, it would prevent at least a small percentage of the thousands of firearm-related murders committed in the U.S. every year.

     

    But more is needed. I'm not a gun owner, but if I were, I would have no problem with (a) background checks, (b) safety tests required before purchase, and (c) a national registry. None of that violates the intent or spirit of the Second Amendment.

     

     



    +1

     




    Lame duck President.

    Gloats in victory, acts like an adolescent in defeat.

    I watched his bitter take on the vote yesterday.

    Sure to garner more support in the next round.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Explosions at Boston Marathon

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

     

     I recognize they won't eliminated all gun-related violence -- no law is 100 percent effective. But even if it prevents one fatality, it's worth it.

    They will eliminate zero gun-related violence because any person who wants to inflict gun violence can easily get a gun, legally or illegally, via purchase legally or illegally, "borrowing" or theft.

    Guns aren't the problem, anymore than someone who drives a car into a crowd of people is the problem.

    If more people had guns, there would be less fatalities from gun use.

    When you sit in a public place and pretend that Obama has made you safer from guns by virtue of federal regulations, you will be the same guy praying on your hands and knees that someone else has a gun to stop some felon from shooting into a crowd of people.

    Pressue cookers, not guns, caused fatalities. Now, are you so stpuid that you think household products should require a background check. That's not a question.

    Take a look at today's society for a clue on why the media financially deights in another mass murder tragedy. Actually take a look at the culture, instead of childishly looking for background checks for the purchase of motor vehicles, farm and household products.

    I'll tell you who never received a background check, Bill Ayers.

     



    Yet again, you are argumentative in a thread that was meant to be sympathetic.

     

    And yet again, you are flat wrong. Over the past 20+ yrs, Australia, Japan, China, Russia, Canada, Greece, Spain, & Scotland passed strict gun control measures after mass tragedies due to guns. The result? NONE of these countries has had a repeat incident.

    Another glaring number: The developed countries in the world have AVERAGED approximately 30 gun fatalities each year. This country? About 30K.

    Your ideology has steered your brilliant disposition to one of gloom, darkness, excuses, & misguided opinions.

     




     

    Again. The law that was voted down in Congress yesterday would not have prevented Sandy Hook.

    Of course your numbers include suicide as well as homicide.

    How about murders commited with clubs, blunt instruments and knives?

    The most by guns were illegal handguns not rifles.

    Which is why so many folks want guns for protection.

    What we need more than anything is an absolute overhaul of mental health laws.

    Recent mass murders have all been commited by mentally unbalanced folks not law abiding gun owners.



    Also; while those watered down, yet common sense measures would not have mattered much, it would have been a start. To repeat; those countries mentioned above that passed stricter measures have had NO subsequent mass killing incidents due to firearms.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Explosions at Boston Marathon

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

     

     I recognize they won't eliminated all gun-related violence -- no law is 100 percent effective. But even if it prevents one fatality, it's worth it.

    They will eliminate zero gun-related violence because any person who wants to inflict gun violence can easily get a gun, legally or illegally, via purchase legally or illegally, "borrowing" or theft.

    Guns aren't the problem, anymore than someone who drives a car into a crowd of people is the problem.

    If more people had guns, there would be less fatalities from gun use.

    When you sit in a public place and pretend that Obama has made you safer from guns by virtue of federal regulations, you will be the same guy praying on your hands and knees that someone else has a gun to stop some felon from shooting into a crowd of people.

    Pressue cookers, not guns, caused fatalities. Now, are you so stpuid that you think household products should require a background check. That's not a question.

    Take a look at today's society for a clue on why the media financially deights in another mass murder tragedy. Actually take a look at the culture, instead of childishly looking for background checks for the purchase of motor vehicles, farm and household products.

    I'll tell you who never received a background check, Bill Ayers.

     



    Yet again, you are argumentative in a thread that was meant to be sympathetic.

     

    And yet again, you are flat wrong. Over the past 20+ yrs, Australia, Japan, China, Russia, Canada, Greece, Spain, & Scotland passed strict gun control measures after mass tragedies due to guns. The result? NONE of these countries has had a repeat incident.

    Another glaring number: The developed countries in the world have AVERAGED approximately 30 gun fatalities each year. This country? About 30K.

    Your ideology has steered your brilliant disposition to one of gloom, darkness, excuses, & misguided opinions.

     




     

    Again. The law that was voted down in Congress yesterday would not have prevented Sandy Hook.

    Of course your numbers include suicide as well as homicide.

    How about murders commited with clubs, blunt instruments and knives?

    The most by guns were illegal handguns not rifles.

    Which is why so many folks want guns for protection.

    What we need more than anything is an absolute overhaul of mental health laws.

    Recent mass murders have all been commited by mentally unbalanced folks not law abiding gun owners.

     



    Also; while those watered down, yet common sense measures would not have mattered much, it would have been a start. To repeat; those countries mentioned above that passed stricter measures have had NO subsequent mass killing incidents due to firearms.

     




    Yes liberals would solve all of our problems if left unchecked.

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Explosions at Boston Marathon

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to LloydDobler's comment:

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    Recent mass murders have all been commited by mentally unbalanced folks not law abiding gun owners.

     



    Precisely why we need expanded background checks for starters. You're right, it wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook because the murderer took the guns from his mother, who as far as I know had bought them legally. But it might have prevented Virginia Tech and Columbine. At the very least, it would prevent at least a small percentage of the thousands of firearm-related murders committed in the U.S. every year.

     

    But more is needed. I'm not a gun owner, but if I were, I would have no problem with (a) background checks, (b) safety tests required before purchase, and (c) a national registry. None of that violates the intent or spirit of the Second Amendment.

     

     



    +1

     

     




     

    Lame duck President.

    Gloats in victory, acts like an adolescent in defeat.

    I watched his bitter take on the vote yesterday.

    Sure to garner more support in the next round.



    He usually doesn't call persons liars; unlike Hannity, who calls him a liar everyday.

    Therefore, when he does it, it's more effective.

    It's like a boy called wolf.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Explosions at Boston Marathon

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

     

     I recognize they won't eliminated all gun-related violence -- no law is 100 percent effective. But even if it prevents one fatality, it's worth it.

    They will eliminate zero gun-related violence because any person who wants to inflict gun violence can easily get a gun, legally or illegally, via purchase legally or illegally, "borrowing" or theft.

    Guns aren't the problem, anymore than someone who drives a car into a crowd of people is the problem.

    If more people had guns, there would be less fatalities from gun use.

    When you sit in a public place and pretend that Obama has made you safer from guns by virtue of federal regulations, you will be the same guy praying on your hands and knees that someone else has a gun to stop some felon from shooting into a crowd of people.

    Pressue cookers, not guns, caused fatalities. Now, are you so stpuid that you think household products should require a background check. That's not a question.

    Take a look at today's society for a clue on why the media financially deights in another mass murder tragedy. Actually take a look at the culture, instead of childishly looking for background checks for the purchase of motor vehicles, farm and household products.

    I'll tell you who never received a background check, Bill Ayers.

     



    Yet again, you are argumentative in a thread that was meant to be sympathetic.

     

    And yet again, you are flat wrong. Over the past 20+ yrs, Australia, Japan, China, Russia, Canada, Greece, Spain, & Scotland passed strict gun control measures after mass tragedies due to guns. The result? NONE of these countries has had a repeat incident.

    Another glaring number: The developed countries in the world have AVERAGED approximately 30 gun fatalities each year. This country? About 30K.

    Your ideology has steered your brilliant disposition to one of gloom, darkness, excuses, & misguided opinions.

     




     

    Again. The law that was voted down in Congress yesterday would not have prevented Sandy Hook.

    Of course your numbers include suicide as well as homicide.

    How about murders commited with clubs, blunt instruments and knives?

    The most by guns were illegal handguns not rifles.

    Which is why so many folks want guns for protection.

    What we need more than anything is an absolute overhaul of mental health laws.

    Recent mass murders have all been commited by mentally unbalanced folks not law abiding gun owners.

     



    Sounds like you read the excuses by the bought members of Congress that voted No, defying 84% of the population. And the suicide component is even a more persuasive reason. Some one very upset can easily take their own life if they own firearms when perhaps they shouldn't. 

     

     




     

    84%?

    Where did that number come from?

    Seems to be the politicians are listening to their base as reflected in the gallup poll.

    That they are even focusing on this issue could be why Congress has such low poll numbers.

    Because it is important to you, Chris Mathews, Obama, Bloomberg and the left and the media doesn't mean that it is to the rest of  the country.

     



    I got it from the Washington Post. As far as the rest of the country is concerned, you're in denial; just like you were on Election Day.

     

     

     




    Washington Post another fair arbiter of the news.

    I'm not in denial I can see how our economy as well as our standing with and in the rest of the world has deteriorated.

    I only have one vote.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Explosions at Boston Marathon

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to LloydDobler's comment:

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    Recent mass murders have all been commited by mentally unbalanced folks not law abiding gun owners.

     



    Precisely why we need expanded background checks for starters. You're right, it wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook because the murderer took the guns from his mother, who as far as I know had bought them legally. But it might have prevented Virginia Tech and Columbine. At the very least, it would prevent at least a small percentage of the thousands of firearm-related murders committed in the U.S. every year.

     

    But more is needed. I'm not a gun owner, but if I were, I would have no problem with (a) background checks, (b) safety tests required before purchase, and (c) a national registry. None of that violates the intent or spirit of the Second Amendment.

     

     



    +1

     

     




     

    Lame duck President.

    Gloats in victory, acts like an adolescent in defeat.

    I watched his bitter take on the vote yesterday.

    Sure to garner more support in the next round.

     



    He usually doesn't call persons liars; unlike Hannity, who calls him a liar everyday.

     

    Therefore, when he does it, it's more effective.

    It's like a boy called wolf.




    Comparing the standards of the President of the US to a talk show host?

    But probably a good place to start.

     

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Explosions at Boston Marathon

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

     

     I recognize they won't eliminated all gun-related violence -- no law is 100 percent effective. But even if it prevents one fatality, it's worth it.

    They will eliminate zero gun-related violence because any person who wants to inflict gun violence can easily get a gun, legally or illegally, via purchase legally or illegally, "borrowing" or theft.

    Guns aren't the problem, anymore than someone who drives a car into a crowd of people is the problem.

    If more people had guns, there would be less fatalities from gun use.

    When you sit in a public place and pretend that Obama has made you safer from guns by virtue of federal regulations, you will be the same guy praying on your hands and knees that someone else has a gun to stop some felon from shooting into a crowd of people.

    Pressue cookers, not guns, caused fatalities. Now, are you so stpuid that you think household products should require a background check. That's not a question.

    Take a look at today's society for a clue on why the media financially deights in another mass murder tragedy. Actually take a look at the culture, instead of childishly looking for background checks for the purchase of motor vehicles, farm and household products.

    I'll tell you who never received a background check, Bill Ayers.

     



    Yet again, you are argumentative in a thread that was meant to be sympathetic.

     

    And yet again, you are flat wrong. Over the past 20+ yrs, Australia, Japan, China, Russia, Canada, Greece, Spain, & Scotland passed strict gun control measures after mass tragedies due to guns. The result? NONE of these countries has had a repeat incident.

    Another glaring number: The developed countries in the world have AVERAGED approximately 30 gun fatalities each year. This country? About 30K.

    Your ideology has steered your brilliant disposition to one of gloom, darkness, excuses, & misguided opinions.

     




     

    Again. The law that was voted down in Congress yesterday would not have prevented Sandy Hook.

    Of course your numbers include suicide as well as homicide.

    How about murders commited with clubs, blunt instruments and knives?

    The most by guns were illegal handguns not rifles.

    Which is why so many folks want guns for protection.

    What we need more than anything is an absolute overhaul of mental health laws.

    Recent mass murders have all been commited by mentally unbalanced folks not law abiding gun owners.

     



    Also; while those watered down, yet common sense measures would not have mattered much, it would have been a start. To repeat; those countries mentioned above that passed stricter measures have had NO subsequent mass killing incidents due to firearms.

     

     




     

    Yes liberals would solve all of our problems if left unchecked.

     

     



    Liberal policies have their own problems; such as fraud and waste. Otherwise, Defeatist Doubletalk; and this is not really a liberal issue, as many conservatives are disgusted. Also, the NRA supported these measures a while back, and now just don't want change for change sake.

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Explosions at Boston Marathon

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to LloydDobler's comment:

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    Recent mass murders have all been commited by mentally unbalanced folks not law abiding gun owners.

     



    Precisely why we need expanded background checks for starters. You're right, it wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook because the murderer took the guns from his mother, who as far as I know had bought them legally. But it might have prevented Virginia Tech and Columbine. At the very least, it would prevent at least a small percentage of the thousands of firearm-related murders committed in the U.S. every year.

     

    But more is needed. I'm not a gun owner, but if I were, I would have no problem with (a) background checks, (b) safety tests required before purchase, and (c) a national registry. None of that violates the intent or spirit of the Second Amendment.

     

     



    +1

     

     




     

    Lame duck President.

    Gloats in victory, acts like an adolescent in defeat.

    I watched his bitter take on the vote yesterday.

    Sure to garner more support in the next round.

     



    He usually doesn't call persons liars; unlike Hannity, who calls him a liar everyday.

     

    Therefore, when he does it, it's more effective.

    It's like a boy called wolf.

     




     

    Comparing the standards of the President of the US to a talk show host?

    But probably a good place to start.

     



    Not really, just a helpful metaphor. And it's a good thing he is President, or the Dow might have hit 7000 a while back.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Explosions at Boston Marathon

    In response to mryazz's comment:

    america loves their guns and their bibles.




    Liberals hate democracy and industry.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Explosions at Boston Marathon

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

     

     I recognize they won't eliminated all gun-related violence -- no law is 100 percent effective. But even if it prevents one fatality, it's worth it.

    They will eliminate zero gun-related violence because any person who wants to inflict gun violence can easily get a gun, legally or illegally, via purchase legally or illegally, "borrowing" or theft.

    Guns aren't the problem, anymore than someone who drives a car into a crowd of people is the problem.

    If more people had guns, there would be less fatalities from gun use.

    When you sit in a public place and pretend that Obama has made you safer from guns by virtue of federal regulations, you will be the same guy praying on your hands and knees that someone else has a gun to stop some felon from shooting into a crowd of people.

    Pressue cookers, not guns, caused fatalities. Now, are you so stpuid that you think household products should require a background check. That's not a question.

    Take a look at today's society for a clue on why the media financially deights in another mass murder tragedy. Actually take a look at the culture, instead of childishly looking for background checks for the purchase of motor vehicles, farm and household products.

    I'll tell you who never received a background check, Bill Ayers.

     



    Yet again, you are argumentative in a thread that was meant to be sympathetic.

     

    And yet again, you are flat wrong. Over the past 20+ yrs, Australia, Japan, China, Russia, Canada, Greece, Spain, & Scotland passed strict gun control measures after mass tragedies due to guns. The result? NONE of these countries has had a repeat incident.

    Another glaring number: The developed countries in the world have AVERAGED approximately 30 gun fatalities each year. This country? About 30K.

    Your ideology has steered your brilliant disposition to one of gloom, darkness, excuses, & misguided opinions.

     




     

    Again. The law that was voted down in Congress yesterday would not have prevented Sandy Hook.

    Of course your numbers include suicide as well as homicide.

    How about murders commited with clubs, blunt instruments and knives?

    The most by guns were illegal handguns not rifles.

    Which is why so many folks want guns for protection.

    What we need more than anything is an absolute overhaul of mental health laws.

    Recent mass murders have all been commited by mentally unbalanced folks not law abiding gun owners.

     



    Sounds like you read the excuses by the bought members of Congress that voted No, defying 84% of the population. And the suicide component is even a more persuasive reason. Some one very upset can easily take their own life if they own firearms when perhaps they shouldn't. 

     

     




     

    84%?

    Where did that number come from?

    Seems to be the politicians are listening to their base as reflected in the gallup poll.

    That they are even focusing on this issue could be why Congress has such low poll numbers.

    Because it is important to you, Chris Mathews, Obama, Bloomberg and the left and the media doesn't mean that it is to the rest of  the country.

     



    I got it from the Washington Post. As far as the rest of the country is concerned, you're in denial; just like you were on Election Day.

     

     

     

     




     

    Washington Post another fair arbiter of the news.

    I'm not in denial I can see how our economy as well as our standing with and in the rest of the world has deteriorated.

    I only have one vote.



    Gee, you think that had anything to do with W?

    And yes, you ARE in denial, since you claimed on Election Day that Romney would win, and laughed at the polls. So who do you think you're kidding?

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Explosions at Boston Marathon

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

     

     I recognize they won't eliminated all gun-related violence -- no law is 100 percent effective. But even if it prevents one fatality, it's worth it.

    They will eliminate zero gun-related violence because any person who wants to inflict gun violence can easily get a gun, legally or illegally, via purchase legally or illegally, "borrowing" or theft.

    Guns aren't the problem, anymore than someone who drives a car into a crowd of people is the problem.

    If more people had guns, there would be less fatalities from gun use.

    When you sit in a public place and pretend that Obama has made you safer from guns by virtue of federal regulations, you will be the same guy praying on your hands and knees that someone else has a gun to stop some felon from shooting into a crowd of people.

    Pressue cookers, not guns, caused fatalities. Now, are you so stpuid that you think household products should require a background check. That's not a question.

    Take a look at today's society for a clue on why the media financially deights in another mass murder tragedy. Actually take a look at the culture, instead of childishly looking for background checks for the purchase of motor vehicles, farm and household products.

    I'll tell you who never received a background check, Bill Ayers.

     



    Yet again, you are argumentative in a thread that was meant to be sympathetic.

     

    And yet again, you are flat wrong. Over the past 20+ yrs, Australia, Japan, China, Russia, Canada, Greece, Spain, & Scotland passed strict gun control measures after mass tragedies due to guns. The result? NONE of these countries has had a repeat incident.

    Another glaring number: The developed countries in the world have AVERAGED approximately 30 gun fatalities each year. This country? About 30K.

    Your ideology has steered your brilliant disposition to one of gloom, darkness, excuses, & misguided opinions.

     




     

    Again. The law that was voted down in Congress yesterday would not have prevented Sandy Hook.

    Of course your numbers include suicide as well as homicide.

    How about murders commited with clubs, blunt instruments and knives?

    The most by guns were illegal handguns not rifles.

    Which is why so many folks want guns for protection.

    What we need more than anything is an absolute overhaul of mental health laws.

    Recent mass murders have all been commited by mentally unbalanced folks not law abiding gun owners.

     



    Also; while those watered down, yet common sense measures would not have mattered much, it would have been a start. To repeat; those countries mentioned above that passed stricter measures have had NO subsequent mass killing incidents due to firearms.

     

     




     

    Yes liberals would solve all of our problems if left unchecked.

     

     



    Liberal policies have their own problems; such as fraud and waste. Otherwise, Defeatist Doubletalk; and this is not really a liberal issue, as many conservatives are disgusted. Also, the NRA supported these measures a while back, and are now just don't want change for change sake.

     




    Your list is too short.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Explosions at Boston Marathon

    In response to TV-Guy's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to TV-Guy's comment:

     

    In response to SFBostonFan's comment:

     

    Gallup: Only 4% of Americans Think Gun Control is an Important Problem

    April 16, 2013
    By Michael James
    (CNSNews.com) – Only 4 percent of Americans think guns and gun control are an important problem facing the country, according to Gallup, and far more Americans are concerned about the economy, unemployment and the federal debt.

    In its poll from Apr. 4-7, Gallup surveyed 1,005 adults by telephone and asked, “What do you think is the most important problem facing the country today?”

    Respondents answered in the following order:

    Economy in general 24%

    Unemployment/Jobs 18%

    Dissatisfaction with Government 16%

    Federal budget deficit/Federal debt 11%

    Healthcare 6%

    Ethical/Moral/Family decline 5%

    Immigration/Illegal aliens 4%

    Education 4%

    Guns/Gun control 4%

    Situation with North Korea 4%

    Lack of Money 3%

    Welfare 2%

    Lack of respect for each other 2%

    Poverty/Hunger/Homelessness 2%

    Foreign aid/Focus overseas 2%

    Taxes 2%

    Despite the Obama administration’s strong push for more gun control legislation, few Americans are concerned about the issue.

    As Gallup reports, “Few Americans mention guns or immigration as the most important problems facing the nation today, despite the current attention lawmakers in Washington are giving to these issues. The economy still dominates as the top concern, followed by jobs and dissatisfaction with the general way in which Congress and the government work.”

    These data “underscore the prominence of economic issues in Americans’ minds,” said Gallup.

     



    Another survey says that 80 percent of Republicans and 90 percent of Democrats wanted stiffer background checks on the purchase of guns.

     

    The Senators failed but 54 percent of them wanted better background checks. The House also had a high percentage of concerned legislators.

    Your survey gave respondents a long laundry list which rendered it to be virtually useless. I imagine one surveyed person thought that the biggest issue was not being able to find a good Havanna cigar for sale at the local convenience store.

     




     

    What survey would that be pike?

    Obama, Bloomberg and the left quite upset that they cannot shove their agenda down our throats like they would like.

    This is not a monarchy.

    Thank God.

     



     

    The most recent surveys included a CNN/ORC International poll released last week that indicated 86% of the public supported some form of background checks that are not currently required by law for gun sales, and an ABC News/Washington Post survey released Tuesday which indicated that 86% of Americans said they favored background checks for gun sales on the internet and at gun shows.

    The two new polls were also in-line with past surveys by indicating no partisan divide on the question, with the vast majority of Democrats, independents, and even Republicans supporting increased background checks. The ABC/Washington Post survey also indicated that 86% of gun owning households supported the proposal.

    The bill was backed by President Barack Obama, who's made gun control a signature issue since December's horrific shootings by a gunman at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, which left 20 young students and 6 adults dead. The president's been a vocal advocate for passing gun control legislation, and he's touted public opinion as he pushed Congress to act.

    "The American people are trying to figure out: How can something have 90% support and yet not happen?" said the president in comments made at the Rose Garden in the White House, an hour after the vote in the Senate.

    "All in all this was a pretty shameful day in Washington," added Obama, who was flanked by victims of gun violence.

    "This is clearly a disappointed, frustrated president who's asking a question about how Washington can ever get anything done if they can't do something that nine of out of ten Americans want," said CNN Chief Political Analyst Gloria Borger.




    Thanks for highlighting the headlines from all the leftleaning media sites you frequent pike.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Explosions at Boston Marathon

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

     

     I recognize they won't eliminated all gun-related violence -- no law is 100 percent effective. But even if it prevents one fatality, it's worth it.

    They will eliminate zero gun-related violence because any person who wants to inflict gun violence can easily get a gun, legally or illegally, via purchase legally or illegally, "borrowing" or theft.

    Guns aren't the problem, anymore than someone who drives a car into a crowd of people is the problem.

    If more people had guns, there would be less fatalities from gun use.

    When you sit in a public place and pretend that Obama has made you safer from guns by virtue of federal regulations, you will be the same guy praying on your hands and knees that someone else has a gun to stop some felon from shooting into a crowd of people.

    Pressue cookers, not guns, caused fatalities. Now, are you so stpuid that you think household products should require a background check. That's not a question.

    Take a look at today's society for a clue on why the media financially deights in another mass murder tragedy. Actually take a look at the culture, instead of childishly looking for background checks for the purchase of motor vehicles, farm and household products.

    I'll tell you who never received a background check, Bill Ayers.

     



    Yet again, you are argumentative in a thread that was meant to be sympathetic.

     

    And yet again, you are flat wrong. Over the past 20+ yrs, Australia, Japan, China, Russia, Canada, Greece, Spain, & Scotland passed strict gun control measures after mass tragedies due to guns. The result? NONE of these countries has had a repeat incident.

    Another glaring number: The developed countries in the world have AVERAGED approximately 30 gun fatalities each year. This country? About 30K.

    Your ideology has steered your brilliant disposition to one of gloom, darkness, excuses, & misguided opinions.

     




     

    Again. The law that was voted down in Congress yesterday would not have prevented Sandy Hook.

    Of course your numbers include suicide as well as homicide.

    How about murders commited with clubs, blunt instruments and knives?

    The most by guns were illegal handguns not rifles.

    Which is why so many folks want guns for protection.

    What we need more than anything is an absolute overhaul of mental health laws.

    Recent mass murders have all been commited by mentally unbalanced folks not law abiding gun owners.

     



    Also; while those watered down, yet common sense measures would not have mattered much, it would have been a start. To repeat; those countries mentioned above that passed stricter measures have had NO subsequent mass killing incidents due to firearms.

     

     




     

    Yes liberals would solve all of our problems if left unchecked.

     

     



    Liberal policies have their own problems; such as fraud and waste. Otherwise, Defeatist Doubletalk; and this is not really a liberal issue, as many conservatives are disgusted. Also, the NRA supported these measures a while back, and are now just don't want change for change sake.

     

     




     

    Your list is too short.



    This time, You're right.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Explosions at Boston Marathon

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

     

     I recognize they won't eliminated all gun-related violence -- no law is 100 percent effective. But even if it prevents one fatality, it's worth it.

    They will eliminate zero gun-related violence because any person who wants to inflict gun violence can easily get a gun, legally or illegally, via purchase legally or illegally, "borrowing" or theft.

    Guns aren't the problem, anymore than someone who drives a car into a crowd of people is the problem.

    If more people had guns, there would be less fatalities from gun use.

    When you sit in a public place and pretend that Obama has made you safer from guns by virtue of federal regulations, you will be the same guy praying on your hands and knees that someone else has a gun to stop some felon from shooting into a crowd of people.

    Pressue cookers, not guns, caused fatalities. Now, are you so stpuid that you think household products should require a background check. That's not a question.

    Take a look at today's society for a clue on why the media financially deights in another mass murder tragedy. Actually take a look at the culture, instead of childishly looking for background checks for the purchase of motor vehicles, farm and household products.

    I'll tell you who never received a background check, Bill Ayers.

     



    Yet again, you are argumentative in a thread that was meant to be sympathetic.

     

    And yet again, you are flat wrong. Over the past 20+ yrs, Australia, Japan, China, Russia, Canada, Greece, Spain, & Scotland passed strict gun control measures after mass tragedies due to guns. The result? NONE of these countries has had a repeat incident.

    Another glaring number: The developed countries in the world have AVERAGED approximately 30 gun fatalities each year. This country? About 30K.

    Your ideology has steered your brilliant disposition to one of gloom, darkness, excuses, & misguided opinions.

     




     

    Again. The law that was voted down in Congress yesterday would not have prevented Sandy Hook.

    Of course your numbers include suicide as well as homicide.

    How about murders commited with clubs, blunt instruments and knives?

    The most by guns were illegal handguns not rifles.

    Which is why so many folks want guns for protection.

    What we need more than anything is an absolute overhaul of mental health laws.

    Recent mass murders have all been commited by mentally unbalanced folks not law abiding gun owners.

     



    Sounds like you read the excuses by the bought members of Congress that voted No, defying 84% of the population. And the suicide component is even a more persuasive reason. Some one very upset can easily take their own life if they own firearms when perhaps they shouldn't. 

     

     




     

    84%?

    Where did that number come from?

    Seems to be the politicians are listening to their base as reflected in the gallup poll.

    That they are even focusing on this issue could be why Congress has such low poll numbers.

    Because it is important to you, Chris Mathews, Obama, Bloomberg and the left and the media doesn't mean that it is to the rest of  the country.

     



    I got it from the Washington Post. As far as the rest of the country is concerned, you're in denial; just like you were on Election Day.

     

     

     

     




     

    Washington Post another fair arbiter of the news.

    I'm not in denial I can see how our economy as well as our standing with and in the rest of the world has deteriorated.

    I only have one vote.

     



    Gee, you think that had anything to do with W?

     

    And yes, you ARE in denial, since you claimed on Election Day that Romney would win, and laughed at the polls. So who do you think you're kidding?




    The old go-to when all else fails even after 5 years in office never too late to blame his predecessesor.

    But of course Bush had nothing to do with the killing of Bin Laden or did waterboarding.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from LloydDobler. Show LloydDobler's posts

    Re: Explosions at Boston Marathon

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to LloydDobler's comment:

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    Recent mass murders have all been commited by mentally unbalanced folks not law abiding gun owners.

     



    Precisely why we need expanded background checks for starters. You're right, it wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook because the murderer took the guns from his mother, who as far as I know had bought them legally. But it might have prevented Virginia Tech and Columbine. At the very least, it would prevent at least a small percentage of the thousands of firearm-related murders committed in the U.S. every year.

     

    But more is needed. I'm not a gun owner, but if I were, I would have no problem with (a) background checks, (b) safety tests required before purchase, and (c) a national registry. None of that violates the intent or spirit of the Second Amendment.

     

     



    +1

     

     




     

    Lame duck President.

    Gloats in victory, acts like an adolescent in defeat.

    I watched his bitter take on the vote yesterday.

    Sure to garner more support in the next round.




    Not sure what this has to do with what we were discussing. As for Obama, he was a lot more reserved than I'd have been. I'd have called them all a bunch of gutless (rhymes with clockducking) cowards.

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Explosions at Boston Marathon

    In response to LloydDobler's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to LloydDobler's comment:

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    Recent mass murders have all been commited by mentally unbalanced folks not law abiding gun owners.

     



    Precisely why we need expanded background checks for starters. You're right, it wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook because the murderer took the guns from his mother, who as far as I know had bought them legally. But it might have prevented Virginia Tech and Columbine. At the very least, it would prevent at least a small percentage of the thousands of firearm-related murders committed in the U.S. every year.

     

    But more is needed. I'm not a gun owner, but if I were, I would have no problem with (a) background checks, (b) safety tests required before purchase, and (c) a national registry. None of that violates the intent or spirit of the Second Amendment.

     

     



    +1

     

     




     

    Lame duck President.

    Gloats in victory, acts like an adolescent in defeat.

    I watched his bitter take on the vote yesterday.

    Sure to garner more support in the next round.

     




    Not sure what this has to do with what we were discussing. As for Obama, he was a lot more reserved than I'd have been. I'd have called them all a bunch of gutless (rhymes with clockducking) cowards.

     

     




    At least he didn't blame Bush.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Explosions at Boston Marathon

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

     

     I recognize they won't eliminated all gun-related violence -- no law is 100 percent effective. But even if it prevents one fatality, it's worth it.

    They will eliminate zero gun-related violence because any person who wants to inflict gun violence can easily get a gun, legally or illegally, via purchase legally or illegally, "borrowing" or theft.

    Guns aren't the problem, anymore than someone who drives a car into a crowd of people is the problem.

    If more people had guns, there would be less fatalities from gun use.

    When you sit in a public place and pretend that Obama has made you safer from guns by virtue of federal regulations, you will be the same guy praying on your hands and knees that someone else has a gun to stop some felon from shooting into a crowd of people.

    Pressue cookers, not guns, caused fatalities. Now, are you so stpuid that you think household products should require a background check. That's not a question.

    Take a look at today's society for a clue on why the media financially deights in another mass murder tragedy. Actually take a look at the culture, instead of childishly looking for background checks for the purchase of motor vehicles, farm and household products.

    I'll tell you who never received a background check, Bill Ayers.

     



    Yet again, you are argumentative in a thread that was meant to be sympathetic.

     

    And yet again, you are flat wrong. Over the past 20+ yrs, Australia, Japan, China, Russia, Canada, Greece, Spain, & Scotland passed strict gun control measures after mass tragedies due to guns. The result? NONE of these countries has had a repeat incident.

    Another glaring number: The developed countries in the world have AVERAGED approximately 30 gun fatalities each year. This country? About 30K.

    Your ideology has steered your brilliant disposition to one of gloom, darkness, excuses, & misguided opinions.

     




     

    Again. The law that was voted down in Congress yesterday would not have prevented Sandy Hook.

    Of course your numbers include suicide as well as homicide.

    How about murders commited with clubs, blunt instruments and knives?

    The most by guns were illegal handguns not rifles.

    Which is why so many folks want guns for protection.

    What we need more than anything is an absolute overhaul of mental health laws.

    Recent mass murders have all been commited by mentally unbalanced folks not law abiding gun owners.

     



    Sounds like you read the excuses by the bought members of Congress that voted No, defying 84% of the population. And the suicide component is even a more persuasive reason. Some one very upset can easily take their own life if they own firearms when perhaps they shouldn't. 

     

     




     

    84%?

    Where did that number come from?

    Seems to be the politicians are listening to their base as reflected in the gallup poll.

    That they are even focusing on this issue could be why Congress has such low poll numbers.

    Because it is important to you, Chris Mathews, Obama, Bloomberg and the left and the media doesn't mean that it is to the rest of  the country.

     



    I got it from the Washington Post. As far as the rest of the country is concerned, you're in denial; just like you were on Election Day.

     

     

     

     




     

    Washington Post another fair arbiter of the news.

    I'm not in denial I can see how our economy as well as our standing with and in the rest of the world has deteriorated.

    I only have one vote.

     



    Gee, you think that had anything to do with W?

     

    And yes, you ARE in denial, since you claimed on Election Day that Romney would win, and laughed at the polls. So who do you think you're kidding?

     




     

    The old go-to when all else fails even after 5 years in office never too late to blame his predecessesor.

    But of course Bush had nothing to do with the killing of Bin Laden or did waterboarding.

    I'm referring to the lack of respect he was given during the"Euro 9" conference. I didn't think I had to explain it, but I underestimated you.. Otherwise, more doubletalk. And yes, ignore my Election Day remark.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Explosions at Boston Marathon

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    In response to LloydDobler's comment:

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to LloydDobler's comment:

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    Recent mass murders have all been commited by mentally unbalanced folks not law abiding gun owners.

     



    Precisely why we need expanded background checks for starters. You're right, it wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook because the murderer took the guns from his mother, who as far as I know had bought them legally. But it might have prevented Virginia Tech and Columbine. At the very least, it would prevent at least a small percentage of the thousands of firearm-related murders committed in the U.S. every year.

     

    But more is needed. I'm not a gun owner, but if I were, I would have no problem with (a) background checks, (b) safety tests required before purchase, and (c) a national registry. None of that violates the intent or spirit of the Second Amendment.

     

     



    +1

     

     




     

    Lame duck President.

    Gloats in victory, acts like an adolescent in defeat.

    I watched his bitter take on the vote yesterday.

    Sure to garner more support in the next round.

     




    Not sure what this has to do with what we were discussing. As for Obama, he was a lot more reserved than I'd have been. I'd have called them all a bunch of gutless (rhymes with clockducking) cowards.

     

     

     




     

    At least he didn't blame Bush.



    Actually, he could have blamed Clinton.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Explosions at Boston Marathon

    It's called denial.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Explosions at Boston Marathon

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

     

     I recognize they won't eliminated all gun-related violence -- no law is 100 percent effective. But even if it prevents one fatality, it's worth it.

    They will eliminate zero gun-related violence because any person who wants to inflict gun violence can easily get a gun, legally or illegally, via purchase legally or illegally, "borrowing" or theft.

    Guns aren't the problem, anymore than someone who drives a car into a crowd of people is the problem.

    If more people had guns, there would be less fatalities from gun use.

    When you sit in a public place and pretend that Obama has made you safer from guns by virtue of federal regulations, you will be the same guy praying on your hands and knees that someone else has a gun to stop some felon from shooting into a crowd of people.

    Pressue cookers, not guns, caused fatalities. Now, are you so stpuid that you think household products should require a background check. That's not a question.

    Take a look at today's society for a clue on why the media financially deights in another mass murder tragedy. Actually take a look at the culture, instead of childishly looking for background checks for the purchase of motor vehicles, farm and household products.

    I'll tell you who never received a background check, Bill Ayers.

     



    Yet again, you are argumentative in a thread that was meant to be sympathetic.

     

    And yet again, you are flat wrong. Over the past 20+ yrs, Australia, Japan, China, Russia, Canada, Greece, Spain, & Scotland passed strict gun control measures after mass tragedies due to guns. The result? NONE of these countries has had a repeat incident.

    Another glaring number: The developed countries in the world have AVERAGED approximately 30 gun fatalities each year. This country? About 30K.

    Your ideology has steered your brilliant disposition to one of gloom, darkness, excuses, & misguided opinions.

     




     

    Again. The law that was voted down in Congress yesterday would not have prevented Sandy Hook.

    Of course your numbers include suicide as well as homicide.

    How about murders commited with clubs, blunt instruments and knives?

    The most by guns were illegal handguns not rifles.

    Which is why so many folks want guns for protection.

    What we need more than anything is an absolute overhaul of mental health laws.

    Recent mass murders have all been commited by mentally unbalanced folks not law abiding gun owners.

     



    Sounds like you read the excuses by the bought members of Congress that voted No, defying 84% of the population. And the suicide component is even a more persuasive reason. Some one very upset can easily take their own life if they own firearms when perhaps they shouldn't. 

     

     




     

    84%?

    Where did that number come from?

    Seems to be the politicians are listening to their base as reflected in the gallup poll.

    That they are even focusing on this issue could be why Congress has such low poll numbers.

    Because it is important to you, Chris Mathews, Obama, Bloomberg and the left and the media doesn't mean that it is to the rest of  the country.

     



    I got it from the Washington Post. As far as the rest of the country is concerned, you're in denial; just like you were on Election Day.

     

     

     

     




     

    Washington Post another fair arbiter of the news.

    I'm not in denial I can see how our economy as well as our standing with and in the rest of the world has deteriorated.

    I only have one vote.

     



    Gee, you think that had anything to do with W?

     

    And yes, you ARE in denial, since you claimed on Election Day that Romney would win, and laughed at the polls. So who do you think you're kidding?

     




     

    The old go-to when all else fails even after 5 years in office never too late to blame his predecessesor.

    But of course Bush had nothing to do with the killing of Bin Laden or did waterboarding.

     

     

    I'm referring to the lack of respect he was given during the"Euro 9" conference. I didn't think I had to explain it, but I underestimated you.. Otherwise, more doubletalk. And yes, ignore my Election Day remark.




    Surprise. Insults.

    A liberal's last refuge when in a debate.

    You could always call me a racist.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Explosions at Boston Marathon

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

     

     I recognize they won't eliminated all gun-related violence -- no law is 100 percent effective. But even if it prevents one fatality, it's worth it.

    They will eliminate zero gun-related violence because any person who wants to inflict gun violence can easily get a gun, legally or illegally, via purchase legally or illegally, "borrowing" or theft.

    Guns aren't the problem, anymore than someone who drives a car into a crowd of people is the problem.

    If more people had guns, there would be less fatalities from gun use.

    When you sit in a public place and pretend that Obama has made you safer from guns by virtue of federal regulations, you will be the same guy praying on your hands and knees that someone else has a gun to stop some felon from shooting into a crowd of people.

    Pressue cookers, not guns, caused fatalities. Now, are you so stpuid that you think household products should require a background check. That's not a question.

    Take a look at today's society for a clue on why the media financially deights in another mass murder tragedy. Actually take a look at the culture, instead of childishly looking for background checks for the purchase of motor vehicles, farm and household products.

    I'll tell you who never received a background check, Bill Ayers.

     



    Yet again, you are argumentative in a thread that was meant to be sympathetic.

     

    And yet again, you are flat wrong. Over the past 20+ yrs, Australia, Japan, China, Russia, Canada, Greece, Spain, & Scotland passed strict gun control measures after mass tragedies due to guns. The result? NONE of these countries has had a repeat incident.

    Another glaring number: The developed countries in the world have AVERAGED approximately 30 gun fatalities each year. This country? About 30K.

    Your ideology has steered your brilliant disposition to one of gloom, darkness, excuses, & misguided opinions.

     




     

    Again. The law that was voted down in Congress yesterday would not have prevented Sandy Hook.

    Of course your numbers include suicide as well as homicide.

    How about murders commited with clubs, blunt instruments and knives?

    The most by guns were illegal handguns not rifles.

    Which is why so many folks want guns for protection.

    What we need more than anything is an absolute overhaul of mental health laws.

    Recent mass murders have all been commited by mentally unbalanced folks not law abiding gun owners.

     



    Sounds like you read the excuses by the bought members of Congress that voted No, defying 84% of the population. And the suicide component is even a more persuasive reason. Some one very upset can easily take their own life if they own firearms when perhaps they shouldn't. 

     

     




     

    84%?

    Where did that number come from?

    Seems to be the politicians are listening to their base as reflected in the gallup poll.

    That they are even focusing on this issue could be why Congress has such low poll numbers.

    Because it is important to you, Chris Mathews, Obama, Bloomberg and the left and the media doesn't mean that it is to the rest of  the country.

     



    I got it from the Washington Post. As far as the rest of the country is concerned, you're in denial; just like you were on Election Day.

     

     

     

     




     

    Washington Post another fair arbiter of the news.

    I'm not in denial I can see how our economy as well as our standing with and in the rest of the world has deteriorated.

    I only have one vote.

     



    Gee, you think that had anything to do with W?

     

    And yes, you ARE in denial, since you claimed on Election Day that Romney would win, and laughed at the polls. So who do you think you're kidding?

     




     

    The old go-to when all else fails even after 5 years in office never too late to blame his predecessesor.

    But of course Bush had nothing to do with the killing of Bin Laden or did waterboarding.

     

     

    I'm referring to the lack of respect he was given during the"Euro 9" conference. I didn't think I had to explain it, but I underestimated you.. Otherwise, more doubletalk. And yes, ignore my Election Day remark.

     




     

    Surprise. Insults.

    A liberal's last refuge when in a debate.

    You could always call me a racist.



    Insult? To say I underestimated you? Far from your doubletalk oriented last refuges. And to stereotype liberals as the only ones that insults confirms a few things; is THAT an insult? Just another exuse.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Explosions at Boston Marathon

    Here are some headlines for you pike.



    BITTER O...

    GUN GROUPS 'LIARS'...

    SENATE KILLS DEAL...

    Bloomberg RAGES...

    Feinstein Fumes...

    Biden Wipes Away Tears...

    Cuomo Complains...

    Reid Mocks: 'Imagined Tyranny'...

    Editorial Pages Seethe With Anger...

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Explosions at Boston Marathon

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

     

     I recognize they won't eliminated all gun-related violence -- no law is 100 percent effective. But even if it prevents one fatality, it's worth it.

    They will eliminate zero gun-related violence because any person who wants to inflict gun violence can easily get a gun, legally or illegally, via purchase legally or illegally, "borrowing" or theft.

    Guns aren't the problem, anymore than someone who drives a car into a crowd of people is the problem.

    If more people had guns, there would be less fatalities from gun use.

    When you sit in a public place and pretend that Obama has made you safer from guns by virtue of federal regulations, you will be the same guy praying on your hands and knees that someone else has a gun to stop some felon from shooting into a crowd of people.

    Pressue cookers, not guns, caused fatalities. Now, are you so stpuid that you think household products should require a background check. That's not a question.

    Take a look at today's society for a clue on why the media financially deights in another mass murder tragedy. Actually take a look at the culture, instead of childishly looking for background checks for the purchase of motor vehicles, farm and household products.

    I'll tell you who never received a background check, Bill Ayers.

     



    Yet again, you are argumentative in a thread that was meant to be sympathetic.

     

    And yet again, you are flat wrong. Over the past 20+ yrs, Australia, Japan, China, Russia, Canada, Greece, Spain, & Scotland passed strict gun control measures after mass tragedies due to guns. The result? NONE of these countries has had a repeat incident.

    Another glaring number: The developed countries in the world have AVERAGED approximately 30 gun fatalities each year. This country? About 30K.

    Your ideology has steered your brilliant disposition to one of gloom, darkness, excuses, & misguided opinions.

     




     

    Again. The law that was voted down in Congress yesterday would not have prevented Sandy Hook.

    Of course your numbers include suicide as well as homicide.

    How about murders commited with clubs, blunt instruments and knives?

    The most by guns were illegal handguns not rifles.

    Which is why so many folks want guns for protection.

    What we need more than anything is an absolute overhaul of mental health laws.

    Recent mass murders have all been commited by mentally unbalanced folks not law abiding gun owners.

     



    Sounds like you read the excuses by the bought members of Congress that voted No, defying 84% of the population. And the suicide component is even a more persuasive reason. Some one very upset can easily take their own life if they own firearms when perhaps they shouldn't. 

     

     




     

    84%?

    Where did that number come from?

    Seems to be the politicians are listening to their base as reflected in the gallup poll.

    That they are even focusing on this issue could be why Congress has such low poll numbers.

    Because it is important to you, Chris Mathews, Obama, Bloomberg and the left and the media doesn't mean that it is to the rest of  the country.

     



    I got it from the Washington Post. As far as the rest of the country is concerned, you're in denial; just like you were on Election Day.

     

     

     

     




     

    Washington Post another fair arbiter of the news.

    I'm not in denial I can see how our economy as well as our standing with and in the rest of the world has deteriorated.

    I only have one vote.

     



    Gee, you think that had anything to do with W?

     

    And yes, you ARE in denial, since you claimed on Election Day that Romney would win, and laughed at the polls. So who do you think you're kidding?

     




     

    The old go-to when all else fails even after 5 years in office never too late to blame his predecessesor.

    But of course Bush had nothing to do with the killing of Bin Laden or did waterboarding.

     

     

    I'm referring to the lack of respect he was given during the"Euro 9" conference. I didn't think I had to explain it, but I underestimated you.. Otherwise, more doubletalk. And yes, ignore my Election Day remark.

     




     

    Surprise. Insults.

    A liberal's last refuge when in a debate.

    You could always call me a racist.

     



    Insult? To say I underestimated you? Far from your doubletalk oriented last refuges. And to stereotype liberals as the only ones that insults confirms a few things; is THAT an insult? Just another exuse.

     




    Angry because you didn't get a victory on the gun vote.

    He got his Obamacare, the stumulis and re-elected.

    Unless he can recapture majorities in congress he is a lame duck 2nd term president.

    Or he could move to the middle.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share