Obama calls for agreement on gun reforms

[fisharmor]

People are worried about jobs and he'll be talking about guns, this guy has no clue.

He never did.
He only ever had two things going for him:
1) he's not Bush
2) he's black.

He's already successfully removed 50% of the reason people voted for him. Turning full-bore anti-gun just gives reasons to vote against him.

Switch to St Johns Wort.

But whatever you do, don't plant any, or you'll have a whole new reason to be depressed. Stuff's more invasive than mint.

 

[Pericles]

I can easily agree to repealing the unconstitutional National Firearms Act of 1934, and other unconstitutional provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968, such as have to be 21 to buy a pistol from a FFL, and prohibitions on felony convictions being a disqualification (perfectly OK before 1968), after all, it is just common sense. Muggers don't use machine guns they are too heavy.

I can't agree to giving up Constitutionally guaranteed rights in order to make somebody else feel good.

 

[sailingaway]

I agree with most people here that his 'gun reforms' are unConstitutional. I'm very agreeable. Don't agree with him, though.

Funny how now he wants us all to agree when before it was all about 'I won.'

 

[Krugerrand]

I'm perfectly willing to agree with Obama on gun control laws - provided he changes his position to abolish them.

 

[AFPVet]

Common sense gun laws are simple... have guns. Security is our responsibility.

 

[outspoken]

While I am an advocate gun ownership, do any of you guys believe that the gun manufacturers have any responsibility in producing firearms that are not as easy as operating a video game joy stick? I don't believe in enacting more laws but I think many of the 'proud' NRA tooting members I have encountered in my life are also alarming ignorant of the nature of human nature. The inner city thug and the backwoods racist hick are often cut from the same mold in terms of their propensity towards violence.... thus it is no wonder how their women and children most often end up as recipients of their violent tendencies. It is easier to fire a handgun than open a bottle of children's vitamins in this country. I think that is pathetic. I don't want more laws... rather, I'd like to see citizens and corporations more conscious. Responsible gun owners should not be an oxymoron to the liberals and yet it is understandable why that is the case. It would be nice to see gun owners advocate for production of weapons designed for safe and boycott those that make cheap killing machines. And is there a point at which a gun is more than just self-defense? I think it is pretty sick to 'love' guns... it is right up there with dictators who 'love' weapons of mass destruction. While guns are necessary, they are a necessarily evil and are designed to for the purpose of killing. That is a responsibility many in our culture cannot handle... particularly mentally unstable people and child. I suggest reading the book the Gift of Fear and how it relates to violence in our society. Just playing devil's advocate here... I don't support any president enacting more laws on anything including guns but many of the gun manufacturers in this country are not not any higher on the conscience scale than the banking corps or health ins corps. They all play into our unconcscious fears... is there a line where we regardless of govt involvement say we wish to create a more civilized and conscious society that understands human nature's propensity towards violence? With great freedom, comes great responsibility.

 

[bruce leeroy]

I agree with gun law reform
Reform the law to respect the second amendment which states "shall not be infringed"
meaning get rid of permit systems, prohibited persons, background checks, waiting periods, restrictions on FA firearms and get back to "shall not be infringed"

 

[Brett85]

"I think it is pretty sick to 'love' guns... it is right up there with dictators who 'love' weapons of mass destruction."

There are a lot of people who love guns, and that doesn't mean that they love to kill people. Many people simply enjoy guns and like to collect them. It's simply a hobby. Other people like to own different guns and use them for target practice. Many others, including myself, enjoy using guns to hunt deer, turkeys, pheasants, and other animals. I don't think there's anything wrong with "loving" guns. I don't have any problem with guns at all. I just have a problem with certain people who abuse them.

 

[Fox McCloud]

I wonder how many people have died, since the Tuscon shooting, thanks to government roads.

Of course, you'll never heard that talked about.

 

[anaconda]

This is Orwellian nonsense. Puppet POTUS job is to give brainwashing speeches (in this case editorial). And no, law abiding responsible gun owners WILL NOT agree to allow the state to take away guns from anyone a unless it is at the state or local level and unless they are convicted of a serious violent crime.

 

[anaconda]

I wonder how many people have died, since the Tuscon shooting, thanks to government roads.

Of course, you'll never heard that talked about.

Excellent economic method of analysis. The Paul's would be proud.

 

[IBleedNavyAndOrange]

"Every single day, America is robbed of more futures. It has awful consequences for our society. And as a society, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to put a stop to it," he wrote.

I want to hear this line when he speaks about the wonderful people in federal reserve

 

[Teaser Rate]

I wonder how many people have died, since the Tuscon shooting, thanks to government roads.

Of course, you'll never heard that talked about.

Roads don't kill people, bad drivers do.

 

[bruce leeroy]

I just called my rep, joe barton. The lady that answered told me he has never voted for any gun control.

 

[Fox McCloud]

Roads don't kill people, bad drivers do.

Bad drivers may be a proximate cause, sure, but they're not the ultimate cause.

 

[Teaser Rate]

Bad drivers may be a proximate cause, sure, but they're not the ultimate cause.

Is there some sort of revolutionary, cost-effective road safety breakthrough I’m not aware of?

Roads are just pieces of asphalt, and as long people will continue drive on them with relatively unsafe cars at high speeds, there will be crashes. The laws of physics don’t change because a surface is publicly or privately owned.

 

[Fox McCloud]

Is there some sort of revolutionary, cost-effective road safety breakthrough I’m not aware of?

Roads are just pieces of asphalt, and as long people will continue drive on them with relatively unsafe cars at high speeds, there will be crashes. The laws of physics don’t change because a surface is publicly or privately owned.

But it certainly may change the types of vehicles on the roads, the design of the roads, the speed limits, penalties, etc....right now, there isn't an economic incentive to improve the roads, at all---under a private system, there would be.

 

[Brett85]

I just called my rep, joe barton. The lady that answered told me he has never voted for any gun control.

Except for the Patriot Act.

 

[Teaser Rate]

But it certainly may change the types of vehicles on the roads, the design of the roads, the speed limits, penalties, etc....right now, there isn't an economic incentive to improve the roads, at all---under a private system, there would be.

First of all, the government does have an economic incentive to prevent accidents. It’s the reason for speed limits, checkpoints, radar, speeding cameras, etc. City planners and engineers make continuous efforts to make roads and intersections as safe as possible. The lack of a price system does not imply the lack of an incentive, for instance the government still has a strong incentive to keep our water clean and our food poison-free.

Is your claim about possible changes to reduce casualties based on any research or are you just speculating? If there is good research to indicate that roads could be made safer, why do you think they aren’t being implemented right now?

I have a hard time seeing how private roads would be safer without a dramatic increase in prices due to coordination costs.

 

[aGameOfThrones]

first of all, the government does have an economic incentive to prevent accidents. It’s the reason for speed limits, checkpoints, radar, speeding cameras, etc. City planners and engineers make continuous efforts to make roads and intersections as safe as possible. the lack of a price system does not imply the lack of an incentive, for instance the government still has a strong incentive to keep our water clean and our food poison-free.

Is your claim about possible changes to reduce casualties based on any research or are you just speculating? If there is good research to indicate that roads could be made safer, why do you think they aren’t being implemented right now?

I have a hard time seeing how private roads would be safer without a dramatic increase in prices due to coordination costs.

lol!