Gun-violence victims will attend Obama's speech to Congress

Comments (14)
R_Holliday wrote:

what 90% of these “gun violence” victims have in common is that they were attacked by someone of color. It’s not the gun, its the criminal. no matter what obama tries to tell you.

Feb 11, 2013 2:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Tangaroa wrote:

So much for Obama’s bs on bipartisanship. Why isn’t he also bringing two dozen that have been saved by guns?

Feb 11, 2013 3:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Speaker2 wrote:

@r-Holliday

Sounds like a typical racist statement to me. Most gun deaths are either self-inflicted, accidents or people are killed by people they know, friends, family or associates, not criminals.

Simple fact, you are safer without a gun in your home, than having a gun in your home. If a gun is properly stored for safety and in the very rare event your house is broken into and your are home, the gun is accessible anyway.

Feb 11, 2013 3:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Speaker2 wrote:

@r-Holliday

Sounds like a typical racist statement to me. Most gun deaths are either self-inflicted, accidents or people are killed by people they know, friends, family or associates, not criminals.

Simple fact, you are safer without a gun in your home, than having a gun in your home. If a gun is properly stored for safety and in the very rare event your house is broken into and your are home, the gun is inaccessible anyway.

Feb 11, 2013 4:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
akrozbi wrote:

I think we all can agree that Obama, the First Lady, Speaker Pelosi and Representative Esty are pandering to emotions by parading crime violence victims around. There are ethical issues that don’t seem to make a dent in these people.

These city-bound elitists have decided what their vision of firearms ownership is. NONE

So we have gun registration deceptively promoted as background checks and magazine limits disingenuously described as a safety issue.

Nowhere do I see anything like one side listening to the other. These gun control extremists don’t approach any of the legal, social, historical or Constitutional issues involved. They will shamelessly use any backdoor contrivance.

This kind of deceptive gun control? No thanks.

Feb 11, 2013 4:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
akrozbi wrote:

What ever happened to the original rhetoric that mentally ill people should receive greater help from society?

I guess it was forgotten in the rush to take away firearms ownership. These guys are transparent.

Feb 11, 2013 4:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
fromthecenter wrote:

The republican rebuttal to the gun victims showing up is bringing in ted nugent. Nicely done boys..

Feb 11, 2013 5:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Speaker2 wrote:

akrozbi,

With over 300-million guns in the US, I still do not understand how you reached the conclusion people are trying to take away your guns. To take those 300-million weapons would be difficult.

However having universal background checks for any public or private person to person gun transaction, along with mandatory gun registration is not unreasonable. Nor is limiting the type of guns in use, the caliber or the magazine capacity.

Have gun owners to undergo safety training and to carry insurance is not unreasonable. More people are killed in accidents then when a crime is committed. Medical cost for gun shot wounds is in excess of 60-billion dollars and increases the cost of health care for everyone.

These actions again would not take away guns from people. What is unreasonable is for gun owners (who are a minority of US citizens)to demand there be no gun controls, that to most of the American general public is unreasonable and extreme.

Feb 11, 2013 5:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
akrozbi wrote:

Mandatory gun registration is a simple prelude to gun confiscation.

My 86 year old friend, Virginia, has a rifle standing in the corner of her kitchen. It has been there years and she likes it that way. You come along and say it should be registered,pay the government, be fingerprinted, photographed, she should take a gun safety course and pay liability insurance. She says “tough”. I think she is being generous to you.

With registration there is a way to take away those guns. The government will help us be safer. To claim that a federal gun database won’t be used to take away firearms is disingenuous.

You insist that gun owners are the minority. I thought liberal thinking was to champion the minority and to fight for the rights of the little guy. Lets hear it for someone else’s rights not just the ones you like.

BTW we don’t demand no gun control laws – we have plenty of firearms laws. Think for a short second about the wisdom of breaking the law with a firearm. No, no, no we have to pile them on hoping against the obvious that with just one more law we will all be safe.

Universal background checks = gun registration and federal gun database.

Limiting firearms by their cosmetic features is going to help criminal violence. We think not.

Gun control helpful ideas. Hey, an oxymoron!

Feb 11, 2013 6:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
akrozbi wrote:

fromthecenter
I think you might agree that Piers Morgan has an equally outspoken style. Ted Nugent doesn’t speak for me but the NRA certainly does.

The Mexican government has stopped parading captured narco-terrorists for the media. It didn’t help and it is ethically wrong.

Feb 11, 2013 6:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Speaker2 wrote:

Akrozbi,

Sounds to me you are irrationally paranoid. The old fantasy of a tyrannical government, and I got to have my gun. Registration does not equal loss of weapons, well unless of course you are mentality unstable.

Limiting weapons to 10 rounds or less is not unreasonable. You’d have better odds at winning the lottery then defending against multiple intruders breaking into your house.

I have not own a gun for over 40-years since Vietnam. Have seen no reason, I don’t hunt and I don’t worry about criminals. I’d rather have a safe home for my children.

Feb 11, 2013 7:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
akrozbi wrote:

If you don’t choose to own a gun then don’t. Firearms ownership is a responsibility as well as a right. I would argue with anyone that Speaker2 has the right to not own a gun.

However, your home = your rules.

My home and my neighbors home = Constitutional rights, not what Speaker2 feels is best for his home.

The Reuters article above announces that President Obama will be having crime victims as his guests at the State of the Union address. Will those people be tossed aside once their promotional value is used? Probably. Do our hearts hurt for them? Yes.

I still want to have the Constitution rules, not some individual’s say so.

Feb 11, 2013 7:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
akrozbi wrote:

Virginia’s house = Virgina’s rules (backed by the Constitution).
BTW she has a very safe house for her family.

Feb 11, 2013 7:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
fromthecenter wrote:

I own guns for home protection. I have no problem with registration, background checks with a tie in to a mental health database. This would include gun shows and resale of any kind.
I doubt that any assault rifle or magazine ban will pass or be effective at this point with so many on the streets already.

If the govt and military wanted to take your guns, they would take your guns. I just don’t buy into that argument, I find it is the NRA stoking fears to sell weaponry and is not based on common sense. At least that is my opinion.

Feb 11, 2013 9:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.