Comments on: Hope & Change

By: poobie

poobie — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:30:46 +0000

No, Mike, none of them are acceptable. all this crap does is penalize the law abiding.

By: Hartley

Hartley — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:30:40 +0000

I’m probably not an expert, but I can’t think of ANY ban of an object or substance that has had more than a transitory effect on crime (or suicide rates). While the nature of the crime (assault, murder, etc.) has often changed (such as the shift from guns to knives in the UK), the basic rates generally do not. For sure, no ban on objects because of their APPEARANCE has ever made any difference, which is what the “assault weapons” ban is.
In fact, the one thing I know of that has had a measurable effect of certain types of crime (primarily assault-related) has been the granting of the right to carry a concealed weapon.
Can you please tell me why giving weapons trace info to politicians and lawyers will accomplish something that giving it to law enforcement does not?

“Politicians who don’t know…” but who are in a position to enact legislation are at least as dangerous (if not more so) than the armed criminals they are purporting to combat. I cannot expect that any ignorance of the law or reality on my part will be forgiven or excused, why should we give a pass to ignorant politicians?

By: bob r

bob r — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:16:11 +0000

“Are none of their suggestions acceptable?”

Yes, _none_ of their suggestions are acceptable. Some of their suggestions are likely to _cause_ more violence than any of us want to see.

By: Mikeb302000

Mikeb302000 — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 13:39:02 +0000

What if they’re not liars at all but just politicians who don’t know as much about guns as you guys and who are desperately trying to find ways to decrease gun crime? Are none of their suggestions acceptable?

By: Kristopher

Kristopher — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 06:25:11 +0000

Of course they are wooing sportsmen.

They are hoping the outright Fudds can save them.

They haven’t figured out what the gun industry already knows … that shooters vastly outnumber hunters.

By: Huck

Huck — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 06:24:21 +0000

Did anyone really believe the Obamaniation when he said he supported our second ammendment rights?

“Untruthful” aint the word. Call them what they are, LIARS!

By: DirtCrashr

DirtCrashr — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 01:28:13 +0000

What Hartley said, they’re a bunch of Lawyers who live in DC, they lie by definition, avocation and natural response.

By: Hartley

Hartley — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:12:07 +0000

I’ll go with “being untruthful”.. the truth simply doesn’t get it done for them here.