dayman

Jboys I here they stab people for that kind of talk in NC I would be careful.

You two will never agree. But could you agree on some policy that would address part of both your concerns? Federal trafficking law preventing straw purchasers from buying insane guns and selling them to Mexican mafia nuts allowing our agencies to actually do something? Mandatory background checks every time a gun is sold? Nothing a cop won't carry? Keep the guns for safety and sport, cut down on the ability of people to be lethal on a massive level, and stop people buying and selling guns like they are a used television? Would that be something both of you would oppose right now, today, as progress?

Damn Joe type much? A little advice, you aren't going to change the mind of posters on an anonymous message board. We're all experts here and we all have the answers. We don't need to be told about opposing views to issues that experts debate and disagree over such as reforming healthcare, guns, the economy, war/foreign policy, climate change, regulation of wall street and the environment. We're all right here. And don't make the mistake of trying to convince anyone otherwise. And also, don't make the mistake of thinking you are discussing anything with anybody. We're all correct, there's nothing to discuss. We're just here to bash people who are wrong.

It's not really about a federal policy taking away gun though. That will never happen. It's about saying there's always a background check, there's always procedures, and no you cannot have military style assault weapons. Isn't that really the discussion? Every times guns come up it gets warped away from gun regulation. Every time gun regulation happens the lobby makes it about a slippery slope to taking the people's constitutional rights away. What we can ask for, not a knee-jerk reaction...as a policy a lot of people have felt all along that comes to the front of the conversation when these frequent mass murders happen...is that we get background checks on all sales and only guns that reasonably are used for hunting and protection are sold. And we can debate what is protection...to me I don't see why we need guns superior to what patrol cops use being sold in stores but I'm no expert...but the issue isn't guns. It's gun control. Nobody with a pistol in their belt was going to be equal to this guy anyway. Their argument should be to bring that guy down to their level if they really want to be able to protect themselves. We're not going to all carry AR-15 and thousands of rounds.

On certain weapons the solution just seems obvious. I wouldn't call it a knee jerk reaction though. I've felt this way ... basically for 10 years. The fact that a shooting happening brings it to the forefront doesn't make a reaction it just brings it up...again. And again. These aren't shocking. Nobody in their right mind can with a straight face say they are "shcoked" this happens. It happens every 2ish years. It isn't surprising that "something like happens" IMO. And usually when the body count and wounded count is real high...they're using a gun that is straight up retarded and should be banned. If it's enough for a cop, it's enough for the Constitution IMO. I don't really know guns but I know the ease of reloading is something that a lot of laws in different states use to classify. The rounds it can hold and how quickly you can reload. This guy wasn't using something that was a huge hassle to reload that would be my guess.

Assuming that is true, make him work for it then. Make him go to the black market. Make it tougher. If someone was armed in the theater they were certainly not going to be equal to this guy. This guy bought 4 guns fairly recently if reports can be trusted including an assault rifle. The argument is not that we can remove all mass murder w/ guns, or that there aren't a million ways to murder a lot of people w/ out guns...it's simply that one clear thing that we can do is make it more difficult to buy large quantities of extremely dangerous guns (potentially w/ out background checks...for what they're worth) that nobody "packing" is carrying around w/ a concealed license anyway. As I think about it I can't help but come back and say "If it's too heavy for police policy to have a street cop carry it, then why do we need them sold in a gun show w/ no background check or even in a store w/ a check?" I just don't understand why the Constitution is used to justify some of the weapons used in these mass murders. These things aren't for protection. They aren't for hunting. They are for shooting other people. Am I wrong?

I mean with no other protection/sport aspect. I don't really know much about guns I have never owned one and nobody in my family growing up even extended had any. So I get that I'm not a "gun person" (and I don't mean to suggest that gun people are bad or anything). But from my narrow views of this...some guns are greater than others. Some are for hunting. Some can be legitimized as sensible for protection. Others are plain and simple killing machines that allow people to shoot 70 other people very quickly. I don't know all the aspects of this guys guns. But I know he bought everything legally and his AR-15 probably was illegal when we had the weapons ban in the 90s Congress let expire.

The definition could be debated. But in general many semi-autos qualify IMO. The way I see there are a lot of guns that are basically killing machines. I probably wouldn't favor taking everybodys gun away. People are going to arm up, want protection, that'll never change. But as I see it...some of these weapons...regular cops don't carry this stuff. I may be naive on this, I admit, but if a cop isn't carrying it I don't think there's a very strong argument you need to be.

Positions aside it's a low blow IMO to say someone is "supposed to be a Libertarian" so they can't break from staunch ideology on particular issues they feel there is a different answer for. IMO that's just garbage.

Assault weapons ban, mandatory background checks on ALL gun sales. Are you against that 3rd? Not saying you can't have your hunting gun. Or even a handgun in the home...both after a background check. Or that you can't even acquire a concealed weapons permit. But assault weapons gone, and background checks on all guns sold. Are there problems with that as you see it? And this isn't saying this will prevent all tragedies or would have impacted this incident one way or the other. This is just gun policy in America talk.

Stop being so gender neutral you gay orgy participant.

Ya IDK we'll have to wait for more info. I have no idea about tear gas...but when I heard he gassed the place up like in a movie....I hope he didn't just go buy a couple canisters of tear gas from some ammo store. That seems ... over the top nonsensical I think the most gun supporters would agree.

I'm saying it would have the votes for sure. The majority in Citizens United talked about it as the remedy to the dissents problems. So we know Kennedy would vote for it. As there...Scalia would. The 4 liberals would. That's 6 right there. And Roberts probably would that's 7. Thomas? Thomas would as well IMO. Alito? Doesn't matter but IMO this is a unanimous decision and in any event there's 6 votes you can take to the bank.

I get it. I get all the points. All the endless examples. I'm just giving my opinion. I don't think it could never happen. I think it would happen less, be harder to do, and lesser scale gun violence could drop as well. But I'm not trying push the issue. Ya that kind of thing...I mean you can red flag someone pretty easily. Who the hell is selling this stuff? Tear gas and heavy armor? What do they think is going to come of that? I get that people collect and have a general fascination with the military and stuff but...bleh...just seems absolutely retarded tear gas is for sale.

I need to read up on the details. From what I heard on the radio he was basically ready for war. Shotgun, semi-auto, multiple hand guns, plus armor and tear gas? Why the hell is tear gas a consumer product? I don't know about regulation and what to do...I personally am not a gun guy and would regulate significantly more than most but I understand the other argument. These things happen fairly routinely...thank God it's not that often but you know they've happened and you know they'll happen again. There's just a lot of crazy people who snap or whatever .... there's a lot of media they can consume that fuel their crazyness .... one crazy person can kill a lot of people. To answer the question, IMO significantly tighter gun control on a wide scale level changes the result. Less able to massacre people in that way. But we will never have that. Could he still be a human bomb? Yes. But I would rather him have to be a bomb for some reason than get his jollies off locking people in, tear gassing them, and opening fire.

Romney is hell bent on not letting that happen though, and with good reason. He'll broken record his pitch on the economy to stonewall that and at some point other issues will come but all in all if the numbers don't improve he'll be able to prevent any pivoting from that discussion. Wouldn't you say?

Romney has been wisely vague (not to open up to any shots) on his plan and is no where to be seen with W, Boehner, even Palin at the convention (lol)....he's the "outsider" the sound business man who had nothing to do with these jokers and you should trust his success even if you don't like Congress (independents vote Romney!). If there's one thing he's not going to do it's give up his edge in this arena. Obama will have trouble blaming the GOP (even where they rightfully deserve it) but they're skilled to some extent they may be able to do it and certainly if there's an opening...so Romney is going to be defensive here...deny the opening and all chips in. That leaves nowhere to go for Obama but to contradict his last message and attack Romney as someone not trust simply based on his Bain success b/c the job is different and look at Bain they export jobs and this guy is hiding his taxes and you don't know who he is and he fires people that's not the POTUS job blah blah...ultimately Romney is wise here. Then there will be the basic campaign messages arguing where the strength of the country comes from. Ultimately if Romney can keep his cool and play the campaign conservative he has the best shot. If he gets into actual political war ... Obama is good even with his baggage. The key will be the debates. Those will open up new avenues for both and Romney has to find a way to not come off boiler-plate in responses, give just enough substance but leave no openings, and somehow not look like a stiff standing next to Obama. If he can basically just play conservative he has the best shot. He's playing the Bills of old. Runt the ball, don't turn it over, they can't score anyway if you don't give it to them, and you'll win by 3 or 7 points. Obama is Byrd back there hawking...waiting for an opening to take one back to the house for the upset. That's the way I see it.

Seriously though I would like to know here let us play Congress. I'll be NewBills (D) in this scenario and you all PPP ®. Let's pretend I have Presidency and Senate and you all have House and the ability to stop me from doing anything you want in the Senate. We're gridlocked. There's an election. I propose...let's extend the Bush Cuts 1 year for everyone. Lets pass the Disclosure bill. Lets pass the Jobs Home bill. Counter offer?

Energize the base! Team Obama! lol Let's do this Obama!

Hey whoever is representing him ... he's in way better hand than me there's no doubt and I'm sure he's tried to talk to him. And ultimately he works for him. But it's his job to manage his defense, and to some degree you can't do that if you can't manage George. Everything said comes in. If everything is going good then don't let anything else in. And don't assume your murder trial is air tight until the verdict comes back. Got to try (I'm sure is attorney did) to manage him throughout the process and keep in him focused not on some bounty but on his trial. Jury first. America second. The bounty is crazy George the bounty isn't coming off b/c of a Hannity interview George. Think George. Listen to your lawyer George. ETc... I haven't seen the charging document but there's always lesser included crimes. Dude is on trial for manslaughter.

As his attorney I wouldn't be insensitive to that. But I would attempt to convince him to fight one battle at a time. Right now there's a handful of people he needs to convince within a framework of rules designed to protect him. If he can win that, he wins his freedom. Then he can go on defending himself in the eyes of millions w/ no rules. One battle at a time I would try to convince him. Merging the mob w/ no rules with the jury w/ rules isn't going to help him in my eyes I would attempt to reason with him.

It denys deductions for outsourcing expenses. We could go back forth whether or not that is really punitive. But it's not the strongest argument IMO that this bill is somehow an overly populist power grab. And I still am livid over the disclosure deal and particularly McCain whom I like sometimes (never when he talks Syria). What they should do is say give us our disclosure bill which is great, give us our outsourcing jobs bill, and we will give you the extension over 250K. 3 political bills, 1 compromise. The nation wins on all 3 IMO. Congress approval goes up. Win, win, win, win. America, Congress, Romney and Obama.

He's behaving like a man who wants to clear his name. He needs to behave like a man who wants to avoid a murder conviction. Then he can clear his name. I don't know if he's guilty but he's cracking and he'll end up guilty if he doesn't go into the defendant shell he should be in the entire trial.

I'm not an offshore maniac I get it. But credits for insourcing to encourage people to bring them back, and elimination deductions for outsourcing is fine by my book. And the campaign disclosure is something I greatly believe in. Every bill is political these days. From both sides. 2 weeks repealing the ACA when everyone knows it isn't happening? POlitical. These two bills...political? Sure. But guess what...these are sensible bills. No way the Average American voter disproves of either of these bills. I like the Jobs bill sounds good enough I LOVE the Disclosure bill...hence I hate that the GOP blocks them. Does that make me shallow? No...I'm not just supporting Obama by complaining here is all I'm saying...I know you think I'm an Obamabot...but I like these Bills.

Megyn Kelly on O'Reilly saying it hurt. Said some inconsistencies there than what he said previously (human nature to have those the more you talk) and God's plan not good. Shame on attorney although if George was hell bent on speaking then what can you do...