Mexico Offers Advice to US Concerning Gun Control

You ARE aware that Texas has a LOT of gun owners, aren't you?


(Interesting point heard on the radio this morning: People were SAFER on the streets of Tombstone in the later 1800s, in the Wild, Wild West, than they are today on the streets of Chicago.) Originally Posted by Sidewinder

Look at the post I just made above and you'll see the reasons for that, among which are that in Chicago many or most people carried guns, and in Tombstone no one except peace officers were allowed to. If the Earps caught you in their town carrying concealed they'd brain you and then take your gun away and throw you into their jail.

In fact the whole reason why there was a shoot-out at the OK Corral was because the Clantons were in town with guns and the Earps came to the Corral to disarm them.

They didn't want to be disarmed that morning.

You equivocate by setting the parameters of the discussion to 3-1/2 years out of his entire political career: that is bogus BS, and I refuse to be constrained by your BS. Stated before, Odumbo has an "F" rating from the NRA predicated on his actions as a legislator. Odumbo's established record is that he is for restricting 2nd Amendment rights. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Okay, what has Obama done during his entire political career to warrant an "F" rating from the NRA? I already won round 1 since you can't name anything he's done while President to inhibit your gun rights.

There would be a lot more home invasions and rapes were it not for the fear of the perpetrators that they'd be shot upon entry.

As for the idiots who use their own weapons to kill people they know and themselves, frankly I don't care about them.

I'm not going to let the idiotic acts of morons shape any life or death rights that we must have. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

I doubt it. Crooks are not idiots. They are probably more skilled in their craft than most of us are in our's. 99.999% of home break-ins occur while the homeowners are out of the home. Crooks are looking to steal, not confront homeowners.

Second, where do you think homeowners keep their guns or weapons of choice while at home? Probably not within arm's length, so in the unlikely event that their home was invaded while they were in it, it is doubtful they would have time to get to their weapon. My opinion obviously.

Third, I wasn't trying to make any statement about those who have committed murder/suicide. All I was saying is that there can be a HUGE downside to keeping a gun in your home. Wasn't trying to tell you or anyone else that you shouldn't have a gun for your protection if you think that you need it.

In response to Sidewinder:

You ARE aware that Texas has a LOT of gun owners, aren't you? Yes, and Texas has one of the higher crime rates in the U.S. according to statistics from www.census.gov.

You ARE aware that Texas has very "liberal" (from the 2nd Amendment advocate's point of view) about the use of deadly force to protect one's property, aren't you?
Not as liberal as some states such as Florida. One of the rights that I disagree with in Texas is the so-called "Castle law" which, IMHO, gives homeowners
too much right to use deadly force. Other than that law, Texas is probably no more liberal than most other states. But I hardly consider my self an expert on gun laws.

What makes you think the scumbags don't realize that, if they break into a Texas home, and the homeowner is there, they are VERY LIKELY to be staring down the business end of a firearm? Might that have some chilling effect on their propensity to commit B&E? First, as I have stated elsewhere, crooks are VERY unlikely to break into a home while homeowners are in it. Their purpose is to steal, not confront. If crooks did break into someone's home while they were there, what are the odds that the homeowner would have the gun within arm's reach?

Recall the case of Kennesaw GA many years ago. They passed a local ordinance that said all heads of households were REQUIRED to own at least one firearm. Their crime rate went to zero overnight. It seems that the scumbags in Kennesaw GA all realized that the probability of encountering an ARMED homeowner, given that they encountered a homeowner at all, was about 100%, and that was just too rich for their blood, so they went somewhere more accommodating. Like Chicago. Or Washington DC.
Although it was very easy to exempt yourself from the ordinance requiring the head of household to own a firearm (such a law, if challenged in court, would be
found as illegal as a low prohibiting gun ownership in the home), I can't argue with you on this. It might work.

You equivocate by setting the parameters of the discussion to 3-1/2 years out of his entire political career: that is bogus BS, and I refuse to be constrained by your BS. Stated before, Odumbo has an "F" rating from the NRA predicated on his actions as a legislator. Odumbo's established record is that he is for restricting 2nd Amendment rights. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Actually, after more thought on this issue, I've changed my mind. I really don't care what Obama did outside of his 3 1/2 years in office.

Barack Obama is running for President of the U.S. 4 years ago Obama's actions as a legislator in Illinois on gun control should certainly have been an issue. Now we have a track record for Obama in 3 1/2 years in office as President, which, to me, outweighs anything he had done previously. His views and actions on gun control are very minor to me in the big picture. However, since he has done nothing that anyone can point to as being negative regarding gun rights while in office as President, all people like you can do is speculate on what he might do.

Crooks are not idiots. They are probably more skilled in their craft than most of us are in our's. 99.999% of home break-ins occur while the homeowners are out of the home. Crooks are looking to steal, not confront homeowners.
. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I beg you to re-consider this.

People who burglarize homes do it for different reasons, and none of them have any brains at all. The ones after property are mostly drug addicts and aren't thinking about anything except getting more drugs. Often they break in thinking that no one's there when they are.

And then there are the simple fiends who deliberately break in while someone is there because they're seeking to rape or kill someone, or they're there on a contract killing, or out of revenge or because they're trying to gain money in an estate situation...yada yada.

There's plenty of motives for homicide and killing someone in their home in the dead of night is a favorite means of offing someone.

And obviously most rapes occur in the victim's home at night.

Homes must be defended.

And as for the idiots who use their own guns to kill their friends or themselve...they win the Darwin award as far as I'm concerned. Anyone that idiodic deserves what they get.

I beg you to re-consider this.

People who burglarize homes do it for different reasons, and none of them have any brains at all. The ones after property are mostly drug addicts and aren't thinking about anything except getting more drugs. Often they break in thinking that no one's there when they are.

And then there are the simple fiends who deliberately break in while someone is there because they're seeking to rape or kill someone, or they're there on a contract killing, or out of revenge or because they're trying to gain money in an estate situation...yada yada.

There's plenty of motives for homicide and killing someone in their home in the dead of night is a favorite means of offing someone.

And obviously most rapes occur in the victim's home at night.

Homes must be defended.

And as for the idiots who use their own guns to kill their friends or themselve...they win the Darwin award as far as I'm concerned. Anyone that idiodic deserves what they get. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

A couple of months ago a home 3 doors down was broken into. Burglars were very smart. Obviously knew the routine of the homeowners, broke in while they were not there, and took easily sellable items. To me, this is the modus operandi of most burglars. Smart and quick.

I disagree with several of your points but, to me only one point is important: How often any of your scenarios occur? Rape is a very hard one to break down. As I stated, I read the paper on a daily basis and watch the news pretty much every day. Home break-in murders make the news. They are probably the rarest of violent crimes. The last one I remember reading/hearing about was when 2 individuals in Austin were killed. Investigators later found out the guy was a drug dealer and the killers didn't want to pay him the money they owed him and killed the couple.

Contract killings??? Come on!! That's why I use the term "random home break ins" because what you are describing, for the most part, are not random.

I am not trying to convince you or anyone else to not own a gun to protect your home. If I lived in a high-crime area there is a much higher chance that I would have a gun in my home. As I look at it, the odds of you or me dying in a car accident are much, much, much, much, much (okay you get the idea) higher than ever being the victim of a home break-in while we are at home yet I'm sure we both drive our cars pretty much every day of the year.

Okay, what has Obama done during his entire political career to warrant an "F" rating from the NRA? I already won round 1 since you can't name anything he's done while President to inhibit your gun rights. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Name one thing Romney has done to restrict 2nd Amendment rights during Odumbo's presidency that makes him less deserving than Odumbo, jackass. Fuck your round 1 nonsense. And since you obviously have trouble reading, pay closer attention to the poster this time:

Name one thing Romney has done during Odumbo's presidency, regarding the 2nd Amendment, that makes him less deserving than Odumbo, jackass. Fuck your round 1 nonsense. And since you obviously have trouble reading, pay closer attention to the poster this time: Originally Posted by I B Hankering

does flip flopping like a fish on a sidewalk count?




2008: In a Republican primary debate, Romney says he would have signed the federal assault weapons ban if it came to his desk as president, but he opposes any new gun legislation.

2011: Making his second presidential bid, Romney's campaigns on a promise to protect and promote the Second Amendment.

2011: Making his second presidential bid, Romney's campaigns on a promise to protect and promote the Second Amendment. Originally Posted by CJ7

Hey CBJ7, this part of your post is correct in the sense Romney did do this during Odumbo's presidency, but you'll need to explain how it curtails a citizen's Second Amendment Rights.

Name one thing Romney has done to restrict 2nd Amendment rights during Odumbo's presidency that makes him less deserving than Odumbo, jackass. Fuck your round 1 nonsense. And since you obviously have trouble reading, pay closer attention to the poster this time: Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Not exactly sure why you have to stoop to name-calling when others disagree with you. Says quite a bit about you.

Anyway, I have no idea about Romney's position on 2nd Amendment rights. This was a discussion on Obama and whether or not he has done anything during his 3 1/2 years as President to limit your rights as a gun owner. Since you obviously can't come back with a better retort than calling people "jackass" I have to assume that you just like hearing yourself rant and rave and really has nothing substantive to say.

Not exactly sure why you have to stoop to name-calling when others disagree with you. Says quite a bit about you.

Anyway, I have no idea about Romney's position on 2nd Amendment rights. This was a discussion on Obama and whether or not he has done anything during his 3 1/2 years as President to limit your rights as a gun owner. Since you obviously can't come back with a better retort than calling people "jackass" I have to assume that you just like hearing yourself rant and rave and really has nothing substantive to say. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

you assume right

90% of the time IB gets ignored, the other 10% hes busy posting the same reply that was ignored 90% of the time ..

you assume right

90% of the time IB gets ignored, the other 10% hes busy posting the same reply that was ignored 90% of the time .. Originally Posted by CJ7

Thanks CJ7.

Not exactly sure why you have to stoop to name-calling when others disagree with you. Says quite a bit about you.

Anyway, I have no idea about Romney's position on 2nd Amendment rights. This was a discussion on Obama and whether or not he has done anything during his 3 1/2 years as President to limit your rights as a gun owner. Since you obviously can't come back with a better retort than calling people "jackass" I have to assume that you just like hearing yourself rant and rave and really has nothing substantive to say. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You are a jackass when you pretentiously state:

I already won round 1 Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Your “round 1” is based on BS artifice you created, and it’s nonsubstantive; hence, of no value. Further, you proffer another fallacious, BS argument when you claim this discussion is solely about Odumbo’s position on the Second Amendment. You need to return to the beginning and reread the entire thread, or, better yet, find some one who is more literate than you and have them read it to you; especially at the posts # 17 and #19 where CBJ7 introduced Romney and the Brady Campaign for at least the fifteenth and sixteenth time:

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...1&postcount=17

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...2&postcount=19

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...6&postcount=34