Gun Control II

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
269

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

I am a Democrat. I hated those wars.

[/quote]

You served in Iraq and Afghanistan?

'As the regime of Bashar Assad disintegrates, the security of his chemical arsenal is in jeopardy. The No. 2 general in Saddam Hussein’s air force says they were the WMDs we didn’t find in Iraq…

The irony here is that the chemical weapons stockpile of Syrian thug Assad may in large part be the legacy of weapons moved from Hussein’s Iraq into Syria before Operation Iraqi Freedom.

If so, this may be the reason not much was found in the way of WMD by victorious U.S. forces in 2003.

the Iraqi Revolutionary Guard moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria in advance of the U.S.-led action to eliminate Hussein’s WMD threat.

As Sada told the New York Sun, two Iraqi Airways Boeings were converted to cargo planes by removing the seats, and special Republican Guard units loaded the planes with chemical weapons materials.

here were 56 flights disguised as a relief effort after a 2002 Syrian dam collapse.

There were also truck convoys into Syria. Sada’s comments came more than a month after Israel’s top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam “transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria.”

Both Israeli and U.S. intelligence observed large truck convoys leaving Iraq and entering Syria in the weeks and months before Operation Iraqi Freedom…

According to Shaw, ex-Russian intelligence chief Yevgeni Primakov, a KGB general with long-standing ties to Saddam, went to Iraq in December 2002 and stayed until just before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.

Anticipating the invasion, his job was to supervise the removal of such weapons and erase as much evidence of Russian involvement as possible.

The Russian-assisted “cleanup” operation was entrusted to a combination of GRU and Spetsnaz troops and Russian military and civilian personnel in Iraq "under the command of two experienced ex-Soviet generals, Colonel-General Vladislav Achalov and Colonel-General Igor Maltsev

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/071912-618875-syria-chemical-weapons-came-from-iraq-.htm?p=full[/quote]

There’s a whole lot of “may be’s” in that article. That’s their way of saying, “This is speculation on our part.”

No proof.

And even if there was, I would not have supported that war. Many countries have weapons far more dangerous than Iraq had and we have not invaded them.

Anyway, I’m not debating this. I know many in this GOP Blowjob Barn would like us to attack every country where more than 5 percent of the population wears a turban, but the great majority of Americans understand now that the country was duped into that war by faulty intelligence and a president who was itching for a fight.

I am not going to argue that further on this board. Those days are gone, and that war is, thankfully, over. [/quote]
[photo]38271[/photo]

270

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
I missed that part - Jay said that?

I wouldn’t have bugged you with that except that you posted it twice… and as I said - a whack job like me just couldn’t pass up the perceived opportunity[/quote]

I don’t blame you for missing it because he never really said it. It sort of came out over a number of implications and pointed questions asked by him. He began averring that “he could pull it off with a handful of actors,” etc.

Anyway, my intention was to criticize what I could best determine to be his position.

271

So, this thread isn’t about “Gun Control” anymore?

272

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
So, this thread isn’t about “Gun Control” anymore?[/quote]

Nope, not for a while. It’s about real issues, like government cover ups and such…

273

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
So, this thread isn’t about “Gun Control” anymore?[/quote]

Nope, not for a while. It’s about real issues, like government cover ups and such… [/quote]

Good point, let’s get back on topic.

Though, in fairness, the first one stayed pretty much on topic for a long time.

274

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
So, this thread isn’t about “Gun Control” anymore?[/quote]

Nope, not for a while. It’s about real issues, like government cover ups and such… [/quote]

What I am worried about is the fact that Obama can and probably will appoint many more of anti-gun federal judges.

Once in - there for life, isn’t that right?

Did anyone read the NRA article about this and the international ATT?

275

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
So, this thread isn’t about “Gun Control” anymore?[/quote]

Nope, not for a while. It’s about real issues, like government cover ups and such… [/quote]

What I am worried about is the fact that Obama can and probably will appoint many more of anti-gun federal judges.

Once in - there for life, isn’t that right?

Did anyone read the NRA article about this and the international ATT?[/quote]

I think that is a concern, although recently gun bans have been shot down, ex. the D.C. gun ban. That said I think Obama will push for 2nd amendment changes via congress not the SCOTUS. That will take too long for him, imo.

I did not see the article though, was it on the NRAs site?

276

Pretty sure all this shit is already illegal in MA, so…

277

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
So, this thread isn’t about “Gun Control” anymore?[/quote]

Nope, not for a while. It’s about real issues, like government cover ups and such… [/quote]

What I am worried about is the fact that Obama can and probably will appoint many more of anti-gun federal judges.

Once in - there for life, isn’t that right?

Did anyone read the NRA article about this and the international ATT?[/quote]

I think that is a concern, although recently gun bans have been shot down, ex. the D.C. gun ban. That said I think Obama will push for 2nd amendment changes via congress not the SCOTUS. That will take too long for him, imo.

I did not see the article though, was it on the NRAs site? [/quote]

I don’t know if it is available on their site.

It is in their magazine American Rifleman February 2013 issue page 46 article called: SIEGE.

279

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
So, this thread isn’t about “Gun Control” anymore?[/quote]

Nope, not for a while. It’s about real issues, like government cover ups and such… [/quote]

What I am worried about is the fact that Obama can and probably will appoint many more of anti-gun federal judges.

Once in - there for life, isn’t that right?

Did anyone read the NRA article about this and the international ATT?[/quote]

I think that is a concern, although recently gun bans have been shot down, ex. the D.C. gun ban. That said I think Obama will push for 2nd amendment changes via congress not the SCOTUS. That will take too long for him, imo.

I did not see the article though, was it on the NRAs site? [/quote]

I don’t know if it is available on their site.

It is in their magazine American Rifleman February 2013 issue page 46 article called: SIEGE.
[/quote]

Gotcha, thanks.

280

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
even though I support extensive background checks before the purchase of guns and can understand the notion of banning extended mags, [/quote]

This is a very reasonable stance, and one that I wish lawmakers were taking.

I mean the drug ban sure has stopped people from getting high, so I’m sure gun bans will stop crazy people from killing.

281

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
even though I support extensive background checks before the purchase of guns and can understand the notion of banning extended mags, [/quote]

This is a very reasonable stance, and one that I wish lawmakers were taking.

I mean the drug ban sure has stopped people from getting high, so I’m sure gun bans will stop crazy people from killing. [/quote]

100% agree. Universal background checks are fine by me (as long as it isn’t a 2+ month wait). I understand the mag limit discussion, although I think it’s a scapegoat. Like I’ve said before I’d just tape 2-10 round mags together and practice reloads.

282

The mag limit discussion is fruitless for many reasons, and the first magazine ban didn’t do anything either except piss a whole bunch of law abiding people off. However, I do understand the discussion taking place. I tend to take the NRA’s standpoint–which, when voided of all political slandering and all media essentially becomes “you don’t even enforce the laws that are currently on the books. You should actually enforce these laws effectively and with purpose before you make more laws in a fit of hysteria”.

I view this stance as fairly uncontroversial, but you would never know that with all the screaming and frothing at the mouth about how the NRA doesn’t care about dead children, wants to see more violence, all that BS. It is akin to asking the federal government to actually enforce its current immigration laws before talk of changing policy either way goes on. Neither happens and we get a whole bunch of crazy.

283

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
even though I support extensive background checks before the purchase of guns and can understand the notion of banning extended mags, [/quote]

This is a very reasonable stance, and one that I wish lawmakers were taking.

I mean the drug ban sure has stopped people from getting high, so I’m sure gun bans will stop crazy people from killing. [/quote]

100% agree. Universal background checks are fine by me (as long as it isn’t a 2+ month wait). I understand the mag limit discussion, although I think it’s a scapegoat. Like I’ve said before I’d just tape 2-10 round mags together and practice reloads. [/quote]

I third this. Effective or not, these are reasonable propositions in my mind. Especially the background checks and “gun show loophole” closure.

284

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
BTW, I am an anti-gun control Democrat.
[/quote]

No such thing. You are either for civilian disarmament or you are against it. By voting for Democrats, you vote for a disarmed citizenry.

And yet you oppose photo ID for voting, no doubt.

[quote]
and can understand the notion of banning extended mags[/quote]

You had best ban left hands, given it takes me about 1.5 seconds to put another 7 round magazine in my 1911 .45.

285

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Universal background checks are fine by me[/quote]

Only if done for voters and welfare recepients, too.

288

I’ll 100% agree that NRA has no idea how to even play the public relations strategy, let alone come out looking decent at it. However, I dont think that the policy I outlined in my post is materially controversial, in substance. Factually I think it makes perfect sense, regardless of the morons at the top of the NRA.

289

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Universal background checks are fine by me[/quote]

Only if done for voters and welfare recepients, too.[/quote]

It needs to be universal and not that it’ll happen, but if you receive federal assistance you shouldn’t pass unless it is to specifically buy a weapon for hunting purposes. You should be able to feed your family after all.

I’m also for voter ID laws and a significant increase on welfare fraud detection checks.

290

I’ll add, failing a background check needs to be due to very clear and precise reasons. I.e. you committed armed robbery. There can be no ambiguity at all and no room for interpretation or I wouldn’t vote for it.

It is to much a slippery slope and could evolve into a loop hole to infringe on the 2nd amendment, easily.