U.S. Poll:Obama Worst President In Modern Times

Yeah. This is the stuff that is pretty terrible.

The don't do anything to food that farmers haven't been doing for thousands of years. They just use science to do it more efficiently.

Middle age and old republicans. It is the problem with these polls. The people who would actually take these polls are a rather specific demographic that share the same view.

Ya he was a bad choice for president but do people actually think the other options would been any better?

/blows the air horn on nausi's crippled cancer stricken war orphan bus!

john Mccain is bat ***insane and mitt romney? c'mon nobody voted for him....

I didn't say that. Nice strawman attempt though.

Besides, are you going to argue for shutting down federal parks that cost nothing to run so a certain president can get his way?

Actually, that is what you just said.

Some people are outright bad people, there's no mistaking that. But I like to believe that, while some people are bad, there's no excuse -- literally ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE -- for someone to own a gun.

If people weren't ***, and didn't feel the need to be bad, they wouldn't need a gun, and then that wouldn't force people who feel unsafe to then buy a gun to counteract those who DO have guns, and then ... boom, you have the gun debate blown up to the state that it is now.

If you just eliminated gun ownership from everyone who DOES NOT NEED A GUN (read: anyone who is not in law enforcement or the military, and even the FORMER is a stretch to me), we wouldn't have so many problems.

I know that's naive thinking, and completely undoable at this point, but when I see all these countries with gun laws that have little to no gun violence, yet we're the only country in the world where gun violence is a problem AND WE STILL HAVEN'T FIXED IT, we just look like fools.


That's why you do those things called background checks. If I have to have a background check to get a job, there should be a very rigorous, thorough background check into anyone who wants to buy a gun. Mental health examinations, previous criminal records and histories, the whole nine yards.

It's really not that hard, and if you want a way to stimulate the economy, there you go, you just opened up more positions at the federal bureaus to process those background checks, and more positions for psychologists and psychiatrists to examine and pass on recommendations or deferrals of gun applicants.

Asura.Kingnobody said: »

Plus there is that pesky 2nd Amendment you have to deal with. Damn the US Constitution!

Yeah, they horribly misconstrued that, didn't anyone ever tell you that meant literal bear arms?

The Amendments are our way of keeping the federal government in check, otherwise we would have all turned into socialist/communist China by now.

So having 1 armed guard with training is worse than having none?

I have no training and two arms.

EDIT: True story.

It'd help tons if there is a guard capable of nipping a shooting in the bud than having 9+ innocent people shot up. Tell me Jet how is my logic flawed? Most shooters kill themselves after shooting the place up, don't you think they'll be discouraged seeing a cop with a gun and not think about shooting a school up?

I think they'd just shoot the 1 guard first.

You can believe what you want, but after your first belief they're I'm already discounting you as somebody who's delusional beyond belief and further discussing it is pointless.

I don't own a gun because I feel unsafe, I own one because it is my right to and I want to have one.

It is pure naivety, other countries don't have the history or rights we do, and they still have very high crime rates, I'm concerned with lowering all crime, not just "gun crime" because only targeting the one is outright *** stupid emotional ***.



You missed everything I just said and didn't even realize that my very point was that background checks are already in place, and do not help against those who I specifically mentioned.

What you're asserting is not just hard but literally impossible.

edit: Main point that I want to add to the top bit but am adding here for emphasis:

It's my right to own a gun, I need no other reason to have it. If anyone needs a gun then it is the average man, and definitely not the police.

This, I'm going purely on memory here so correct me if I'm wrong, but most school shootings have been caused by students, no?

They'd know who the guy was, to look out for him, and to take him out.

While I agree that an armed presence would help, having it known who the armed presence is, is a disadvantage from a safety perspective.

Background checks are in place, yeah. I'm for guns, but I could accept more disqualifying factors added to a background check and the reinstating of the Clinton-era ban on assault rifles.

One big issue is that gun shows don't require a background check when one visitor sells to another or a non-FFL holder sells to a visitor.

It would do absolutely nothing to curtail shootings, which is the point you are trying (and failing) to make.

Also, this should've never happened; loaded guns are prohibited in a gun show.

I haven't kept up with it, but last I checked the "assault rifle" ban was still in effect, and still equally as HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE as ever.

There's no logical reason for it, it's purely cosmetic.

Not to mention that it effectively outlaws certain types of guns, in direct violation of the 2nd amendment.

As to the background checks bit: I'll still reiterate my assertion: why are people that are that dangerous freely on the streets to purchase weapons?

Also: for now I'd be fine with more "disqualifiers" if they were subject to due process.

As for gun shows: sure, implement checks there, after you get rid of the age requirement for handgun purchases.

One thing that is leading to it happening so often is the media. They play up these things so much that people see all the attention the person gets. These people then get it in their head to do the same thing and go out in a blaze of glory with everyone seeing them. The news companys actually hired experts few years back that specifically told them NOT to make the shooting national news. Only keep them to local where it happen and with limited coverage so it doesn't spawn copycats. At this point though we are just in a chain of one copycat after another each seeing the fame the others got before them.

The Amendments are a way of keeping *everyone* in check, not just the government. Also, I suppose I should have used the sarcasm tags. I'm bad with not using those.

I hate to say it, but Snojoe, you are a REALLY bad proponent for gun control, and should stop talking out of your ***, since you do nothing more than hurt the cause you choose to champion.

There are legal reasons why people, law enforcement and military, among the citizenry as well, to own firearms - but I do think there needs to be a reasonable limit as to what is required for defense of the home the family, and the immediate neighbors from immediate threats - one could argue a tank is a huge deterrent, were it not for the people who would misuse it in a fit of rage.

The Limits I would like to see placed, are not necessarily on the fire arms, but on a more detailed, stringent screening process to determine at the time of legal purchase, is capable of reasonable thought process and evaluation, as well as regular safety, maintenance, storage, and understanding of said fire-arm. Most of which, debatably so, are not.

As far as illegal firearms go, the only thing one can do to control that, is choosing not to partake in the illegal purchase. As people who are determined to get a firearm are, they will find a way to get one, legal or otherwise.

Here's where I go 180, I guess: There are whole communities of midsize towns and cities, filled to the brim with guns in America, but there are zero or almost zero gun-related incidents. It isn't out of fear that no one shoots another, but because they have taken the time to get to know one another, and share in a common interest, and find other interests that blossom from the first. They enjoy wholesome activities as a community.
***, I can't recall a single day in my entire life when any community I lived in, children could go outside, without fear of abduction, molestation, "fear of getting dirty" (as in being infected or ill from touching dirt, and not being able to build up an immune system)

It sounded like his booth needed more people.

I saw a big wall of text and I thought it was Savael spewing out hot liquid ***from his keyboard, again.

Sir, I find that offensive!

300,000,000 people divided by 1,446 = .00000482 % of the population of America

with such a VAST percentage of americans there is clearly no way at all this could be biased or a misrepresentation of public thought.

the 0.000005% has spoken!

Indeed it has, and it said "DERP!" as loudly as possible

Awwww... I'm sorry, buddy...

well, as long as you're sorry... And use a kitty pic next time!

*** YOU!!!

I don't recall anytime the Bill of rights has been amended, I know a lot of times the SCOTUS has continued their powergrab and keeps trying to reinterpret what they mean like a ball of *** wax in their hands, but that's different.

Now the rest of the constitution: yeah it's been amended, and could use a few more.

You can use a small sample size to represent a large population in a survey. You just have to be really meticulous with how you conduct your survey, which is admittedly very rare.