Mexico Offers Advice to US Concerning Gun Control

Speed racer those "idiots" that I cited are all community leaders and religious leaders. A priest, a reverend, and a rabbi. They will be leading the charge. You need to know what they are saying and what they think. I am preparing my own rebuttal to be sent to them.


That theater, Virginia Tech, Ft Hood were all gun free zones. So no one was packing. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Quintessential useful idiots.

IMHO everyone should own a gun and keep it secured in their home in a place where their kids cannot access it. A shotgun for home defense is ideal.

. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

I find that statement interesting because I believe, and facts will back it up if I take the time to research it, that random home break-ins while the homeowners are in the home, are very, very rare. I use the word random to rule out those break-ins in which the criminals know the homeowners and are out to get them.

I live in Cedar Park, Tx. and the only gun homicides occuring here in recent years are BECAUSE guns were in the home, not in spite of guns being in the home -- man kills wife then kills himself. Son kills dad then kills himself. I'm sure gun advocates will argue that another method of killing would have been used had a gun not been in the home. Personally, I doubt it. I'll assume the risk and have a gun-free home.

Obama promised Sarah Brady that he was working on gun control "under the radar." Which means, he doesn't want us to know what he is doing. I doubt that he secretly trying to relax gun control laws. But I could be wrong.

http://nation.foxnews.com/guns/2011/...ol-under-radar Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Could very well be the case. Doubt it will happen prior to the election.

Interesting statement considering the Brady Commission gave Obama an "F" for his views and actions on gun control. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You must be related to CBJ7: that's his argument. The fact remains, Odumbo is no friend to citizens who wish to "cling to their guns" as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. Furthermore, the Brady Campaign endorsed Shannon O'Brien in the governor's race against Romney. And there is the little matter of the NRA rating: Odumbo rated "F".

You must be related to CBJ7: that's his argument. The fact remains, Odumbo is no friend to citizens who wish to "cling to their guns" as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. Furthermore, the Brady Campaign endorsed Shannon O'Brien in the governor's race against Romney. And there is the little matter of the NRA rating: Odumbo rated "F".

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Okay, I gave you a definitive FACT that would lead one to believe that Obama is not against 2nd Amendment rights. Exactly what policies of Obama lead you to believe that he is anti-gun? I'm sure, you being smarter than I, will educate me on exactly what Obama has done during his term as President to lead you to believe he is going to take away your precious gun rights.

BTW, when I ask questions such as this, the silence is usually deafening.

Okay, I gave you a definitive FACT that would lead one to believe that Obama is not against 2nd Amendment rights. Exactly what policies of Obama lead you to believe that he is anti-gun? I'm sure, you being smarter than I, will educate me on exactly what Obama has done during his term as President to lead you to believe he is going to take away your precious gun rights.

BTW, when I ask questions such as this, the silence is usually deafening. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

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.

I think every American can have a gun, if they were some gun owners in that theater I am sure that john holmes dude would be on an autopsy table instead of in jail.

I find that statement interesting because I believe, and facts will back it up if I take the time to research it, that random home break-ins while the homeowners are in the home, are very, very rare. I use the word random to rule out those break-ins in which the criminals know the homeowners and are out to get them.

I live in Cedar Park, Tx. and the only gun homicides occuring here in recent years are BECAUSE guns were in the home, not in spite of guns being in the home -- man kills wife then kills himself. Son kills dad then kills himself. I'm sure gun advocates will argue that another method of killing would have been used had a gun not been in the home. Personally, I doubt it. I'll assume the risk and have a gun-free home. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

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.

People in Colorado have the same rights to carry concealed handguns as those in Texas. The Texas CHL law has been in affect since 1994 and less than 2% of the eligible population have CHLs. I'm sure an equal number probably carry concealed handguns illegally. The odds of someone in a theatre in Texas carrying a handgun and stopping such carnage would have been extremely low -- the audience in Colorado was mostly kids under 21.

The average person, even here in the state of Texas, does NOT want to carry a gun. Yes, tragedies such as happened at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, and now
Aurora happen. The response from gun advocates is simply to arm everyone. I have not heard anyone come out and say we need more gun laws to stop such events from happening again. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

While Colorado may have similar regulations regarding chl or open display,
I don't believe I made reference otherwise . I do contend that a weapon held lawfully by a competent gunman could have limited damage by casing a momentary distraction to the assailant. Could get lucky and get a leg shot or in the armpit. Either would drop the bad guy. Either way, it's possible lives could have been saved . All is 20/20 however. The only certain thing is that had I or any of my kin been in that theater... There would have been fire returned.


I was also referring to Mexican citizens having reasonable access to weapons.
They are sitting ducks for the cartels... Easy game . Shame.

Mexico is a SHINING example of bad gun control policy. iMHo.

This comming from a self professed commie pinko, leftist , socialist,
Mixed race, smarter than a tea nagger , armed to the teeth , Obama supporting ,gay marriage supporting , Bill mahr watching , dem that wants to fuck Michelle Bachman right in her stupid fucking mouth.

Obeyme will get to this gun control thing later. Fuck...

From the Chicago Tribune...


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House hinted on Tuesday that President Barack Obama may address the politically sensitive issue of gun control more broadly in the aftermath of the recent shootings in Colorado.

Gun control is a tricky issue in the United States, especially during presidential campaigns, and the Democratic president has been cautious in expressing any support for gun-law changes that could alienate voters in key battleground states he needs to win in the November 6 election.

• <LI style="FLOAT: none" class=relatedTitle>Related <LI class="newRelatedItem useBullet" sizset="114" sizcache="17">White House says Obama could address gun control issue <LI class=newRelatedItem sizset="115" sizcache="17"> The gun barrel of a rifle is seen at the Rocky Mountain Guns and Ammo store in Parker, Colorado
• A Glock 22 pistol is seen at the Rocky Mountain Guns and Ammo store in Parker, Colorado

Obama traveled to Colorado on Sunday to comfort family members and victims of the shooting at an Aurora movie theater in which 12 people died and dozens were injured. In remarks after his visit the president hinted at the prospect of a new discussion about gun control measures.

"I hope that over the next several days, next several weeks, and next several months, we all reflect on how we can do something about some of the senseless violence that ends up marring this country," he said.

On Tuesday White House spokesman Jay Carney also said Obama could talk about the issue more broadly but he declined to offer details or a time frame.

"It's certainly possible the president could address ... these issues in the future but I don't have any scheduling updates for you," Carney told reporters on Air Force One.

Congress has not approved any major new gun laws since 1994, and a ban on certain semiautomatic rifles expired in 2004. Carney reiterated Obama's support for an assault weapons ban.

In the U.S. Congress, there appeared to be little interest among Senate leaders for initiating a debate on gun control legislation.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, asked by a reporter on Tuesday whether Republicans would go along with any changes to gun laws, responded:

"I haven't heard any discussions about the issue of whether or not having different gun control laws would keep people who clearly are unbalanced from committing acts," McConnell said. "I think the widespread view is that somebody who is that unbalanced will find some way to do harm. And we have many areas of the country that have very strict gun control laws and it seems not to have had any impact on the incidences that are in question.

"So I don't sense any movement among either Democrats or Republicans in the direction of thinking that stricter gun control laws would likely have prevented this horrible occurrence in Colorado."

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, asked about the need for new gun laws, said he was about to attend a service commemorating the shooting deaths of two Capitol Police officers 14 years ago this month.

Noting that the Colorado shooting had just occurred, he said, "You have to be very, very patient. And by that I don't mean, forever patient. But I think we have to wait and see how this plays out ... I think we should just wait for a reasonable period of time before people are off making statements about what they should do and what they shouldn't do."

I think every American can have a gun, if they were some gun owners in that theater I am sure that john holmes dude would be on an autopsy table instead of in jail. Originally Posted by SkylarCruzWantsYou

He was covered with body armour and would have won any gunbattle from anyone who would have tried to shoot him, unless they smuggled in a large calibre rifle.

If I lost a family member in a massacre and Obama came to grandstand I would vomit, preferably all over him.

Who on earth would want "comfort" from ANY PRESIDENT in a time like that. He's not the Pope for crying out loud.

That's sick.

How many trips did he make to the gulf coast after the oil spill?

yeah a lot of good that did.

right after the election the rumor was Obama was going to enact strict gun laws.Idiots in droves rushed out to buy guns and ammo.Ammo was hard to get for a while.Now after the shooting in Colorado gun sales and checks from the FBI have soared. Bottom like is anyone in the theater with a concealed carry would have to have shot him in the face to put him down.Most CC guns are for short range.

Bottom like is anyone in the theater with a concealed carry would have to have shot him in the face to put him down.Most CC guns are for short range. Originally Posted by ekim008

I've been shooting since I was nine and I doubt I could hit a moving person in the face even at very close range.

Regarding concealed carry let's look at the reality of history in the US....

In most cities in the east like New York and Philadelphia it was common for people to carry concealed pistols. In the 19th century people used to carry revolvers in their trousers or jacket pockets. In the early 20th century John Browning came out with a series of very small semi-autos in .25, .32 and then .38 calibre, all of which were extremely popular.

The major place where people DIDN'T carry around guns in town WAS IN THE WEST.

In the west gun control laws in most every town prevented people from carrying, and if they did they'd carry fertively.

And peace officers in the west NEVER carried their weapons in holsters. They always carried concealed in their pants or jacket pocket. At the OK Corral Wyatt Earp produced his long-barrell colt .45 from his clothes pocket.

In Arizona today it's legal for anyone to carry openly and requires no license, but when you do so the police will harrass the hell out of you because they have no respect for the law.

If Wyatt Earp or any real law man saw the way police today BRANDISH their weapons openly TO INTIMIDATE PEOPLE AND SHOW OFF he would probably snatch their stupid little guns away from them and then bitch slap them.

In the past no self-respecting law man would be so OFFENSIVE to people as to walk around showing their guns.

It's un-gentlemenly.

I find that statement interesting because I believe, and facts will back it up if I take the time to research it, that random home break-ins while the homeowners are in the home, are very, very rare. I use the word random to rule out those break-ins in which the criminals know the homeowners and are out to get them.

I live in Cedar Park, Tx. and the only gun homicides occuring here in recent years are BECAUSE guns were in the home, not in spite of guns being in the home -- man kills wife then kills himself. Son kills dad then kills himself. I'm sure gun advocates will argue that another method of killing would have been used had a gun not been in the home. Personally, I doubt it. I'll assume the risk and have a gun-free home. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

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

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?

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?

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.

(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.)