Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[80zephyr]

Well yes, recreational narcotics are illegal and we have an ever growing problem with narcotics in this country and our laws are not preventing anybody from scoring coke or heroin. That's the point. You think making laws against something is the panacea to this problem.

The reason Democrats never proposed making all guns illegal is because it would be struck down by the supreme court. That's for now. But if America keeps electing Democrat Presidents, an overturn of gun ownership might not be that far down the road once they get enough liberal judges to make that law of the land.

What you have to understand is that each party wants to expand their voting base. One of the largest voting bases for the Democrat party are victims. Democrats love victims and victims love Democrats.

By being able to disarm the public (or as much as they can) that gives the criminals the advantage. So when crime increases once again because people can no longer use firearms for protection, they become victims. Then we have BIG CRIME to deal with. And how do Democrats deal with big crime? The same way they deal with all big things like big corporations, big pharma, big banks, big tobacco: you need big government.

The bigger the government, the happier the Democrat. And this is why we need to stop this before it takes off like a race car.

I am in no way in favor of Big Government, I think the smaller the better. I am in favor of a safer community and I think there are ways we can do that. The presidents proposals might make a small impact and if that is so then i'm all for supporting any kind of change that could save a life. I live in California and had no problem getting my gun license. I have no problem with anybody else going through the background check process like I did... In fact I would hope everybody does. If you could by a gun as easy as it is to buy a pack of gum, I think we'd be in a world of trouble. And although I'm fine with ones right to defend yourself against crime, I also think it is a bogus argument. The number of citizens who prevent a crime because they are armed pales in comparison to the accidents, or escalations that lead to death because there was a gun in the picture.

How? Do you really believe what Obama just did will cut the death toll by even a single life?

Mark

 

[Rustic]

Well yes, recreational narcotics are illegal and we have an ever growing problem with narcotics in this country and our laws are not preventing anybody from scoring coke or heroin. That's the point. You think making laws against something is the panacea to this problem.

The reason Democrats never proposed making all guns illegal is because it would be struck down by the supreme court. That's for now. But if America keeps electing Democrat Presidents, an overturn of gun ownership might not be that far down the road once they get enough liberal judges to make that law of the land.

What you have to understand is that each party wants to expand their voting base. One of the largest voting bases for the Democrat party are victims. Democrats love victims and victims love Democrats.

By being able to disarm the public (or as much as they can) that gives the criminals the advantage. So when crime increases once again because people can no longer use firearms for protection, they become victims. Then we have BIG CRIME to deal with. And how do Democrats deal with big crime? The same way they deal with all big things like big corporations, big pharma, big banks, big tobacco: you need big government.

The bigger the government, the happier the Democrat. And this is why we need to stop this before it takes off like a race car.

I am in no way in favor of Big Government, I think the smaller the better. I am in favor of a safer community and I think there are ways we can do that. The presidents proposals might make a small impact and if that is so then i'm all for supporting any kind of change that could save a life. I live in California and had no problem getting my gun license. I have no problem with anybody else going through the background check process like I did... In fact I would hope everybody does. If you could by a gun as easy as it is to buy a pack of gum, I think we'd be in a world of trouble. And although I'm fine with ones right to defend yourself against crime, I also think it is a bogus argument. The number of citizens who prevent a crime because they are armed pales in comparison to the accidents, or escalations that lead to death because there was a gun in the picture.

 

[Centinel]

Firearms are an right? Ok genius... So you do think a 5 year old has the right to take a gun to school? Do you think an ex-con fresh out of jail should be able to stroll into a gun store and buy a gun? How about the mentally disturbed? If you have any brain you'd say no to these loaded examples, but it validates the point that there are limits and restrictions that should be put in place. Now if you said yes to any of those examples i'd love to hear your rationale

None of congress' enumerated powers would allow it to pass a law criminalizing the act of taking a gun to school.

None of congress' enumerated powers would allow it to pass a law criminalizing the purchase of a gun by a felon.

None of congress' enumerated powers would allow it to pass a law criminalizing the purchase of a gun by one who is mentally disturbed.

The states, when they established their union, never gave congress such powers. They reserved these powers to themselves. A state can certainly enact such laws, but they are outside the bailiwick of congress.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well yes, recreational narcotics are illegal and we have an ever growing problem with narcotics in this country and our laws are not preventing anybody from scoring coke or heroin. That's the point. You think making laws against something is the panacea to this problem.

The reason Democrats never proposed making all guns illegal is because it would be struck down by the supreme court. That's for now. But if America keeps electing Democrat Presidents, an overturn of gun ownership might not be that far down the road once they get enough liberal judges to make that law of the land.

What you have to understand is that each party wants to expand their voting base. One of the largest voting bases for the Democrat party are victims. Democrats love victims and victims love Democrats.

By being able to disarm the public (or as much as they can) that gives the criminals the advantage. So when crime increases once again because people can no longer use firearms for protection, they become victims. Then we have BIG CRIME to deal with. And how do Democrats deal with big crime? The same way they deal with all big things like big corporations, big pharma, big banks, big tobacco: you need big government.

The bigger the government, the happier the Democrat. And this is why we need to stop this before it takes off like a race car.

I am in no way in favor of Big Government, I think the smaller the better. I am in favor of a safer community and I think there are ways we can do that. The presidents proposals might make a small impact and if that is so then i'm all for supporting any kind of change that could save a life. I live in California and had no problem getting my gun license. I have no problem with anybody else going through the background check process like I did... In fact I would hope everybody does. If you could by a gun as easy as it is to buy a pack of gum, I think we'd be in a world of trouble. And although I'm fine with ones right to defend yourself against crime, I also think it is a bogus argument. The number of citizens who prevent a crime because they are armed pales in comparison to the accidents, or escalations that lead to death because there was a gun in the picture.

You make a good point, what if it does "some" good. Well some good isn't good enough for a liberal. And when it turns out to be a failure, they will want more "some" good.

The thing about liberalism is that it never stops at any point. I'm probably older than you, and I can remember the time gays just wanted to be out of the closet. That's it, just let them proclaim their sexuality, and they will be happy. Well were they? Fast forward to today, and gays are in our military, have laws written for their advantage, forced states to accept their marriages whether they want to or not, adopting children.

Same goes for smoking. I remember it well. They just wanted to stop smoking in movie theaters. As time went on, there was no smoking in hospitals, no smoking in air planes, no smoking in grocery stores. It advanced from there to the point that in many states, you can't smoke in any public place, and in some including your very own car. Now they are talking about no smoking in public housing.

The environment? I won't even go there, but let me tell you that it started with removing lead from paint and gasoline.

So the point is that there is no stopping at X with liberals. Because once there is a law against X, it simply moves on to the next step. Democrats will keep pushing the envelope until they get what they ultimately want, and that is a total disarmament of the public. Step by step, they will get it too if we don't stop them in their tracks now.

 

[Pogo]

Two questions:
Are you college aged?
And do you understand that confiscation of weapons can and does sometimes leads to a tyrannical government?

Why would you take that chance when our government has taken a chunk of control in the form of gov run healthcare?
Next comes the cashless society where they can monitor your purchases.
You already cant go anywhere without being recorded or tracked on a toll road.
It's getting to be to close to 1984 for my taste...

I am 36 and the odds of us facing a tyrannical US government is about as likely as seeing a unicorn. To be honest I find that argument to be the least valid. Lets go with the unlikely scenario that the government does decide to take over, do you honestly think that the citizens would stand a chance against the military? Take the arsenal of your choosing and you still do not stand a chance, that time has come and gone. Hundreds of years ago, I understand the argument. Living in a place like Syria, I understand the argument... Living in the USA in 2016... Your freedom is better defended with your voice and your vote than it is with your gun. Many of you with this old school way of thinking need to get with the times... You would better support your cause with a stronger argument. In my opinion

Only a blithering idiot would think that all military personnel would back a socialist asshole as commander-in-chief and go against the people.
Now go hide

I hate it when some noob comes along and you have to explain the same shit thats been hashed over a million times.

I'm just pointing out the fact that nobody is really making sense or an intelligent argument. You all are fighting against an effort that is trying to make our world safer... Instead of helping the cause yall fight and bitch about it... It baffles me.

Four posts in a row that completely miss the point and try to deflect off to your personal problem ---- and now it's back to the endless parade of cheap Googly Image memes, now with new Fake Quotes® ...

Or as the rest of us call your perpetually vapid posting, "Wednesday".

 

[Slade3200]

You guys are still missing the whole point... Nobody is arguing that you can't have a gun!!!! You are defending that position but nobody is trying to take that away. Show me the legislation proposing that... There is none.

You say that making improvements to the purchase process won't prevent criminals from getting guns but you still don't explain why you think it is a bad idea???? Why are you fighting against actions that intend on securing that only responsible individuals are able to buy guns????

Other than circumvent congress, what did Obama's recent executive actions do that will prevent future shootings like the ones he cited as his call to action? What will they do to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals?

Oh yeah... NOTHING.

So while I have no problem with the effects these executive orders will have, I take issue with his use of the executive orders to circumvent congress on this issue.


If I were a cynic, I'd think this was just a foot in a door President Obama hopes to pry open with more executive orders, more circumventing congress...

I feel like you all are reading from the same talking points and are fighting this invisible ghost agenda. How can we make progress without a first step. You said you have no problems with the effects of the executive actions and I think many would agree if they took them at face value. So my question is why can't we just take them at face value and if that horrible follow up occurs where your rights are violated and your guns are trying to be taken away then state your objections. The way the Pro-Gunners act now just adds more fuel to the fire and creates more polarity. Its the same reason why things are at a standstill in Washington. People would rather fight, argue and banter than work together and create change.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

You guys are still missing the whole point... Nobody is arguing that you can't have a gun!!!! You are defending that position but nobody is trying to take that away. Show me the legislation proposing that... There is none.

You say that making improvements to the purchase process won't prevent criminals from getting guns but you still don't explain why you think it is a bad idea???? Why are you fighting against actions that intend on securing that only responsible individuals are able to buy guns????

Other than circumvent congress, what did Obama's recent executive actions do that will prevent future shootings like the ones he cited as his call to action? What will they do to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals?

Oh yeah... NOTHING.

So while I have no problem with the effects these executive orders will have, I take issue with his use of the executive orders to circumvent congress on this issue.


If I were a cynic, I'd think this was just a foot in a door President Obama hopes to pry open with more executive orders, more circumventing congress...

I feel like you all are reading from the same talking points and are fighting this invisible ghost agenda. How can we make progress without a first step. You said you have no problems with the effects of the executive actions and I think many would agree if they took them at face value. So my question is why can't we just take them at face value and if that horrible follow up occurs where your rights are violated and your guns are trying to be taken away then state your objections. The way the Pro-Gunners act now just adds more fuel to the fire and creates more polarity. Its the same reason why things are at a standstill in Washington. People would rather fight, argue and banter than work together and create change.

Damned if you dont sound like a utopian....
There will be no compromise with the likes of Barry or the Hildabeast.

 

[Centinel]

I feel like you all are reading from the same talking points and are fighting this invisible ghost agenda.

The playbook from which I'm reading is the constitution for the united states. It does not give congress the power to enact any law criminalizing firearms acquisition or possession by the people of the several states. And since the function of the executive is to execute the laws passed by congress, he too lacks any constitutional authority to criminalize the acquisition or possession of firearms by the people of the several states.

The states retained this power to themselves and didn't give it to the federal government.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You guys are still missing the whole point... Nobody is arguing that you can't have a gun!!!! You are defending that position but nobody is trying to take that away. Show me the legislation proposing that... There is none.

You say that making improvements to the purchase process won't prevent criminals from getting guns but you still don't explain why you think it is a bad idea???? Why are you fighting against actions that intend on securing that only responsible individuals are able to buy guns????

Other than circumvent congress, what did Obama's recent executive actions do that will prevent future shootings like the ones he cited as his call to action? What will they do to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals?

Oh yeah... NOTHING.

So while I have no problem with the effects these executive orders will have, I take issue with his use of the executive orders to circumvent congress on this issue.


If I were a cynic, I'd think this was just a foot in a door President Obama hopes to pry open with more executive orders, more circumventing congress...

I feel like you all are reading from the same talking points and are fighting this invisible ghost agenda. How can we make progress without a first step. You said you have no problems with the effects of the executive actions and I think many would agree if they took them at face value. So my question is why can't we just take them at face value and if that horrible follow up occurs where your rights are violated and your guns are trying to be taken away then state your objections. The way the Pro-Gunners act now just adds more fuel to the fire and creates more polarity. Its the same reason why things are at a standstill in Washington. People would rather fight, argue and banter than work together and create change.

We created change.

Gun violence and violence in general has been on the decline in this country since the mid 90's. It's proportional with more people having firearms and more laws on behalf of the victims instead of the criminals.

Only a liberal like Obama believes that if it's not broke, fix it anyway. Why not do what we are doing and let the crime decrease as we've seen over the past ten years or so? It is working. Perfect? No, but on the right path without a doubt.

 

[Slade3200]

Well yes, recreational narcotics are illegal and we have an ever growing problem with narcotics in this country and our laws are not preventing anybody from scoring coke or heroin. That's the point. You think making laws against something is the panacea to this problem.

The reason Democrats never proposed making all guns illegal is because it would be struck down by the supreme court. That's for now. But if America keeps electing Democrat Presidents, an overturn of gun ownership might not be that far down the road once they get enough liberal judges to make that law of the land.

What you have to understand is that each party wants to expand their voting base. One of the largest voting bases for the Democrat party are victims. Democrats love victims and victims love Democrats.

By being able to disarm the public (or as much as they can) that gives the criminals the advantage. So when crime increases once again because people can no longer use firearms for protection, they become victims. Then we have BIG CRIME to deal with. And how do Democrats deal with big crime? The same way they deal with all big things like big corporations, big pharma, big banks, big tobacco: you need big government.

The bigger the government, the happier the Democrat. And this is why we need to stop this before it takes off like a race car.

I am in no way in favor of Big Government, I think the smaller the better. I am in favor of a safer community and I think there are ways we can do that. The presidents proposals might make a small impact and if that is so then i'm all for supporting any kind of change that could save a life. I live in California and had no problem getting my gun license. I have no problem with anybody else going through the background check process like I did... In fact I would hope everybody does. If you could by a gun as easy as it is to buy a pack of gum, I think we'd be in a world of trouble. And although I'm fine with ones right to defend yourself against crime, I also think it is a bogus argument. The number of citizens who prevent a crime because they are armed pales in comparison to the accidents, or escalations that lead to death because there was a gun in the picture.

You make a good point, what if it does "some" good. Well some good isn't good enough for a liberal. And when it turns out to be a failure, they will want more "some" good.

The thing about liberalism is that it never stops at any point. I'm probably older than you, and I can remember the time gays just wanted to be out of the closet. That's it, just let them proclaim their sexuality, and they will be happy. Well were they? Fast forward to today, and gays are in our military, have laws written for their advantage, forced states to accept their marriages whether they want to or not, adopting children.

Same goes for smoking. I remember it well. They just wanted to stop smoking in movie theaters. As time went on, there was no smoking in hospitals, no smoking in air planes, no smoking in grocery stores. It advanced from there to the point that in many states, you can't smoke in any public place, and in some including your very own car. Now they are talking about no smoking in public housing.

The environment? I won't even go there, but let me tell you that it started with removing lead from paint and gasoline.

So the point is that there is no stopping at X with liberals. Because once there is a law against X, it simply moves on to the next step. Democrats will keep pushing the envelope until they get what they ultimately want, and that is a total disarmament of the public. Step by step, they will get it too if we don't stop them in their tracks now.

Hey man, you can go live in Iran... They will happily let you smoke where ever you want and will chop off the heads of all the "gays" and you be happy in your paradise. All those advances you listed are defined as progress. You think they take away YOUR liberties but if you can see beyond yourself they are actually creating a more free environment for others. Take the train of thought you just went down and keep backing up... Women would not be able to vote and blacks would be slaves. Its not a Liberal thing... Its just common sense progress

 

[Pogo]

I am 36 and the odds of us facing a tyrannical US government is about as likely as seeing a unicorn. To be honest I find that argument to be the least valid. Lets go with the unlikely scenario that the government does decide to take over, do you honestly think that the citizens would stand a chance against the military? Take the arsenal of your choosing and you still do not stand a chance, that time has come and gone. Hundreds of years ago, I understand the argument. Living in a place like Syria, I understand the argument... Living in the USA in 2016... Your freedom is better defended with your voice and your vote than it is with your gun. Many of you with this old school way of thinking need to get with the times... You would better support your cause with a stronger argument. In my opinion

Only a blithering idiot would think that all military personnel would back a socialist asshole as commander-in-chief and go against the people.
Now go hide

I hate it when some noob comes along and you have to explain the same shit thats been hashed over a million times.

I'm just pointing out the fact that nobody is really making sense or an intelligent argument. You all are fighting against an effort that is trying to make our world safer... Instead of helping the cause yall fight and bitch about it... It baffles me.

Four posts in a row that completely miss the point and try to deflect off to your personal problem ---- and now it's back to the endless parade of cheap Googly Image memes, now with new Fake Quotes® ...

Or as the rest of us call your perpetually vapid posting, "Wednesday".

You guys are just embarrassing yourselves now... bunch of entitled, ungrateful, whiners... It really bothers me when all people do is bitch and complain as they sit around being useless... It just makes you part of the problem. Do any of you do ANYTHING to help better your community or others? If so, do you receive the pleasure of being ridiculed for your efforts like you do for the President?

You have helped me understand why I was confused about the argument... Apparently it's just a bunch of old school, close minded, protagonists that sit in judgement without an articulate, rational or logical reason for their unrest.

....... and in comes yet another fake quote.

You don't vet a god damned thing, do ya?

Kind of ironic for a guy who next posted:

the government has no credibility on the subject.

 

[hjmick]

You guys are still missing the whole point... Nobody is arguing that you can't have a gun!!!! You are defending that position but nobody is trying to take that away. Show me the legislation proposing that... There is none.

You say that making improvements to the purchase process won't prevent criminals from getting guns but you still don't explain why you think it is a bad idea???? Why are you fighting against actions that intend on securing that only responsible individuals are able to buy guns????

Other than circumvent congress, what did Obama's recent executive actions do that will prevent future shootings like the ones he cited as his call to action? What will they do to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals?

Oh yeah... NOTHING.

So while I have no problem with the effects these executive orders will have, I take issue with his use of the executive orders to circumvent congress on this issue.


If I were a cynic, I'd think this was just a foot in a door President Obama hopes to pry open with more executive orders, more circumventing congress...

I feel like you all are reading from the same talking points and are fighting this invisible ghost agenda. How can we make progress without a first step. You said you have no problems with the effects of the executive actions and I think many would agree if they took them at face value. So my question is why can't we just take them at face value and if that horrible follow up occurs where your rights are violated and your guns are trying to be taken away then state your objections. The way the Pro-Gunners act now just adds more fuel to the fire and creates more polarity. Its the same reason why things are at a standstill in Washington. People would rather fight, argue and banter than work together and create change.

I don't do talking points, if my opinions run parallel to some moronic talking head's talking points, I can't help that.

You seem to have missed the point of my post so I'll type slow...

It's

Not

What

He

Did,

It's

The

Way

He

Did

It.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well yes, recreational narcotics are illegal and we have an ever growing problem with narcotics in this country and our laws are not preventing anybody from scoring coke or heroin. That's the point. You think making laws against something is the panacea to this problem.

The reason Democrats never proposed making all guns illegal is because it would be struck down by the supreme court. That's for now. But if America keeps electing Democrat Presidents, an overturn of gun ownership might not be that far down the road once they get enough liberal judges to make that law of the land.

What you have to understand is that each party wants to expand their voting base. One of the largest voting bases for the Democrat party are victims. Democrats love victims and victims love Democrats.

By being able to disarm the public (or as much as they can) that gives the criminals the advantage. So when crime increases once again because people can no longer use firearms for protection, they become victims. Then we have BIG CRIME to deal with. And how do Democrats deal with big crime? The same way they deal with all big things like big corporations, big pharma, big banks, big tobacco: you need big government.

The bigger the government, the happier the Democrat. And this is why we need to stop this before it takes off like a race car.

I am in no way in favor of Big Government, I think the smaller the better. I am in favor of a safer community and I think there are ways we can do that. The presidents proposals might make a small impact and if that is so then i'm all for supporting any kind of change that could save a life. I live in California and had no problem getting my gun license. I have no problem with anybody else going through the background check process like I did... In fact I would hope everybody does. If you could by a gun as easy as it is to buy a pack of gum, I think we'd be in a world of trouble. And although I'm fine with ones right to defend yourself against crime, I also think it is a bogus argument. The number of citizens who prevent a crime because they are armed pales in comparison to the accidents, or escalations that lead to death because there was a gun in the picture.

You make a good point, what if it does "some" good. Well some good isn't good enough for a liberal. And when it turns out to be a failure, they will want more "some" good.

The thing about liberalism is that it never stops at any point. I'm probably older than you, and I can remember the time gays just wanted to be out of the closet. That's it, just let them proclaim their sexuality, and they will be happy. Well were they? Fast forward to today, and gays are in our military, have laws written for their advantage, forced states to accept their marriages whether they want to or not, adopting children.

Same goes for smoking. I remember it well. They just wanted to stop smoking in movie theaters. As time went on, there was no smoking in hospitals, no smoking in air planes, no smoking in grocery stores. It advanced from there to the point that in many states, you can't smoke in any public place, and in some including your very own car. Now they are talking about no smoking in public housing.

The environment? I won't even go there, but let me tell you that it started with removing lead from paint and gasoline.

So the point is that there is no stopping at X with liberals. Because once there is a law against X, it simply moves on to the next step. Democrats will keep pushing the envelope until they get what they ultimately want, and that is a total disarmament of the public. Step by step, they will get it too if we don't stop them in their tracks now.

Hey man, you can go live in Iran... They will happily let you smoke where ever you want and will chop off the heads of all the "gays" and you be happy in your paradise. All those advances you listed are defined as progress. You think they take away YOUR liberties but if you can see beyond yourself they are actually creating a more free environment for others. Take the train of thought you just went down and keep backing up... Women would not be able to vote and blacks would be slaves. Its not a Liberal thing... Its just common sense progress

I see that point flew right over your head, so let's try something else:

Can you name me one major issue of Democrats that ever stopped at one place: one that never advanced as the years went on?

Your problem seems to be that you don't want to look at the big picture, you just want to look at what's in front of you. But with liberalism, it's always about the big picture.

Before Commie Care was passed, we told people it was all about more government. Opponents said it was all about the civil right that was never written about people getting medical care.

Listen to any White House spokesperson on the issue today. 14 million people now have health insurance. What does that mean? Democrats created 14 million more government dependents. The more government dependents we have in this country, the more likely Democrat voters in the future. But you think politicians actually care if you have health insurance or not? And they brag about this government dependency like it's something to be proud of. There is nothing to celebrate when we create more government dependents.

Again, look at the big picture, because the little pictures will lead you there.

 

[Slade3200]

You guys are still missing the whole point... Nobody is arguing that you can't have a gun!!!! You are defending that position but nobody is trying to take that away. Show me the legislation proposing that... There is none.


I don't do talking points, if my opinions run parallel to some moronic talking head's talking points, I can't help that.

You seem to have missed the point of my post so I'll type slow...

It's

Not

What

He

Did,

It's

The

Way

He

Did

It.

I appreciate the slow to talk, makes much more sense and I actually think you have a valid argument. I see valid objections to his process and part or me disagrees with it and the other part admires that after so much bottlenecking in Washington im glad he is actually trying to get something done. And what he is doing is nothing major, like I said it is a very small step. It might not have a big impact but at least it is something.

 

[Pogo]

Boy, 8, Accidentally Kills Self at Gun Show

Man Shot, Killed Outside Cedar Park Gun Show

Five Injured After Firearms Go Off In Ohio, NC, Indiana Gun Shows

Woman Shot at Gun Show in Bloomsburg

Pastor Shot Dead by Son-In-Law Outside Gun Show in Tragic Sunday Accident

---- What exactly does the word "ZERO" mean on your planet, Sparkles?

 

[Pogo]

You guys are still missing the whole point... Nobody is arguing that you can't have a gun!!!! You are defending that position but nobody is trying to take that away. Show me the legislation proposing that... There is none.

You say that making improvements to the purchase process won't prevent criminals from getting guns but you still don't explain why you think it is a bad idea???? Why are you fighting against actions that intend on securing that only responsible individuals are able to buy guns????

They're doing that because their attachment is on a purely emotional level. It's because what they're dealing with is, after all, a fetish. And not at all unlike the baby who cries when his pacifier's taken away, they bawl on the internet. The only difference is they're bawling before it happens, because they're old enough to have learned not only the fetishism, but the paranoia to go with it.

 

[Pogo]

..... and yet another from the bottomless well of made-up bullshit quotes on Googly Images.

What are you, like seven years old that you believe every image you look up that says what you wish had actually happened?

You DO know that anybody can generate any quote they want to, whether the quotee ever said it or not --- you know that, right?

SMFH

 

[2aguy]

"Law's won't keep guns out of the hands of criminals" I agree, if somebody really wants a gun then they will be able to get one. Just like if somebody wants to get into your house or car then can do it by just breaking a window, but we still lock our doors and get security systems."

I'm still not hearing an argument that I understand that counters the efforts being made to help solve a small part of a very big problem. Isn't something better than nothing? Why aren't we working together on this? Yes, efforts to improve law enforcement and focus on mental health will help, along with many other ideas, but those are a different conversation... Focusing on the simple propositions by the president... Why the opposition and how are they hurting our rights??

The primary problem is the fact that in order to have Universal Background checks you need to have universal registration of guns. Otherwise you will not be able to track the sales of background checks that need to be done during private sales. Registration is the first step to confiscation.........and it may be years down the road, but you can't confiscate guns if you don't know who has them. the Wiemar republic in Germany registered guns...long before the nazis came to power. After the nazis came to power, they used the gun registrations records, from 20 years before, to disarm the Jews and political enemies......

Australia...registered guns and then later confiscated them.

Britain, registered guns then years later confiscated them.

There is an actual history to registration and confiscation.......

And then there is the information about background checks they are not telling people....most people, including you, think it is just for when an individual sells a gun...seems fairly straight forward...and then you learn the details...they don't want background checks for "Sales" they want them for all "Transfers" of guns....what is the difference....

Read the following links....

How Everytown’s background check law impedes firearms safety training and self-defense

However, the Bloomberg laws create a very different definition. For example, the Washington state law says that “ ‘Transfer’ means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.” Rev. Code Wash. § 9.41.010(25).

In other words, it applies to sharing a gun while target shooting on one’s own property, or to lending a gun to a neighbor for a weekend hunting trip.

Under the Bloomberg system, transfers may take place only at a gun store. The transfer must be conducted exactly as if the retailer were selling a firearm out of her inventory. So the transferee (the neighbor borrowing the hunting gun) must fill out ATF Form 4473; the retailer must contact the FBI or its state counterpart for a background check on the transferee; and then, the retailer must take custody of the gun and record the acquisition in her Acquisition and Disposition book. Finally, the retailer hands the gun to the transferee and records the disposition in her Acquisition and Disposition book. A few days later, after the hunting trip is over, the process must be repeated for the neighbor to return the gun to the owner; this time, the owner will be the “transferee,” who will fill out Form 4473 and undergo the background check.

--------------

Safety training

Sensible firearms policy should encourage, not impede, safety instruction. The Bloomberg laws do just the opposite. They do so by making ordinary safety training impossible unless it takes place at a corporate target range. (The federal S. 374 allows transfers “at a shooting range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms.”)

A target range is usually necessary for the component of some safety courses that includes “live fire” — in which students fire guns at a range under the supervision of an instructor. However, even the courses that have live fire also have an extensive classroom component. Some introductory courses are classroom-only. In the classroom, dozens of firearms transfers will take place. Many students may not yet own a firearm; even if a student does own a firearm, many instructors choose to allow only their own personal firearms in the classroom, as the instructor may want to teach particular facts about particular types of firearms. The instructor also wants to use firearms that he or she is certain are in good working order. In any classroom setting, functional ammunition is absolutely forbidden.

****************

The next article in the series...private sharing on private property, with a link to long term storage article...


Sharing firearms for informal target shooting: Another legitimate activity outlawed by Everytown’s ‘universal background checks’

Here are two things that a person might do with a firearm: 1. Sell the firearm to a complete stranger in a parking lot. 2. Share the firearm with a friend, while target shooting on one’s own property. Michael Bloomberg’s “Everytown” lobby is promoting “universal background checks” as a means of addressing activity No. 1. But the Bloomberg laws also outlaw activity No. 2. In a previous post, I detailed how the unusual Bloomberg laws about “background checks” for “private sales” constrict safety training and self-defense; and also obstruct safe storage. This post addresses another non-sales activity, firearms sharing.

*************

How background checks affect long term storage when owner is away and wants to leave guns with friends...

[FONT=Roboto, sans-serif]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/11/03/safe-storage-of-firearms-the-harms-from-bloombergs-strange-background-check-system/[/FONT]
[FONT=Roboto, sans-serif][/FONT]
Although the Bloomberg system is promoted as addressing private sales of firearms, the Bloomberg laws as written apply to all firearms loans — whether for a few seconds or a few weeks. There are some limited exceptions (e.g., certain family members, or at a corporate target range). But these exceptions do not apply to safe storage situations.
Consider a person who will be away from home for an extended period, such as a member of the armed services being deployed overseas, a person going away to school, a family going on a long vacation, or someone evacuating her home due to a natural disaster. Such persons might wish to store firearms with a trusted friend or neighbor for months or years. Under the Bloomberg system, for the friend or neighbor to store the firearms, the following procedures must be followed:
The owner and the bailee must find a gun store that is willing to process the loan. The store must treat the loan as if it were selling a firearm out of its inventory. Under the threat of a five-year federal prison sentence for perjury, the bailee and gun store must answer the dozens of questions on ATF Form 4473. Next, the gun store contacts the FBI or a state counterpart for permission to proceed with the sale. Under ideal circumstances, permission to proceed is granted in less than 10 minutes. The retailer then logs the gun into his Acquisition and Disposition record book, as an acquisition. He next logs the gun out of the record book, as a disposition. He hands the firearm to the bailee. The process must be followed for every firearm. If there are two are more handguns, the store must send additional forms to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Depending on the state, a fee is charged for each background check requested. The gun store, of course, will process this transaction only if it can charge a fee to compensate it for handling the paperwork. Unlike with an inventory sale, the gun store is not making any profit on the gun itself.
Later, when the bailor returns and is ready to take custody of her firearms, the entire process must be repeated, with bailor and bailee both taking all the guns to the gun store, before they may be returned to the bailor.

 

[2aguy]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.


View attachment 59771

Three of the first four posts supply your answer all in the same way: the old Slippery Slope fallacy.

Post 11, as is his wont, prefers the Strawman.

The "slippery slope" argument is the one that I do not understand. Why oppose something that makes sense in fear of possible future proposals that may or may not take away your rights? Why not do what is right now in an effort to help a big problem (even if it just helps a little) and fight proposals that impede your rights if/when they are proposed?

because this is not the first time people have demanded registration of guns to keep people safe......it happened in Germany, Britain and Australia....the most prominent and known examples...then years later...they banned and confiscated all guns.

This is not made up, it has actually happened......

and in the worst case scenario...12 million people were sent to the gas chambers when Europe was disarmed.

 

[2aguy]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.

First, what purpose do you believe will be served by making it more difficult for criminals and crazies to buy guns? Do you really think being unable to buy a gun for a reasonable price at a legal gun store will stop someone, anyone, who wants a gun from getting one?

Have you ever heard of Prohibition? How about the current War On Drugs? This has been going on at near police-state intensity for more than three decades and the result has been drugs are more available today than they were when this counterproductive folly was started -- and they cost less.

We who oppose any further nibbling away at the Second Amendment are well aware that guns cannot be controlled anymore than drugs can. We know that nothing can come of this endless attempt to disarm us other than further inconvenience to legitimate gun owners. Because if the background check idea is enacted it's not going to end there. Little by little these anti-gun opportunists, most of whom know nothing about guns, are afraid of them, and are not inclined to defend themselves under any circumstances, won't stop until your Second Amendment rights are limited to keeping a single-shot .22 rifle chambered for short, and bearing it to a federally supervised range.

Guns are in this Nation's DNA. Nothing short of totalitarian, door-busting, full-bore police-state methods will put an end to the occasional shooting, mass-shooting, and armed stand-off. So let's put an end to this creeping prohibition before it reaches that level.

The only gun law I approve of is a comprehensive training requirement and competence test for anyone who wishes to own a gun or guns -- and intensified training for anyone who wishes to carry -- open or concealed.

(Pardon the excessive boldface. It is the result of a quirk I can't control.)

I appreciate your ideas and think you make a good case for your argument. I just don't agree that it is anybody's agenda to take your guns away, that is completely unrealistic. People are scared of guns because getting shot is damn scary and there are more accidents and opportunistic suicides because children, criminals, and mental unstable people have easy access to guns, so why not try and limit exposure? True if somebody really wants a gun they can get one, however, if we make it just a little harder and if only 1% of people trying to get a gun don't get one and it prevents death... well that is a win in my book.

I think your idea about training and certification is a great one. I have no problem with responsible people owning guns. I would hope that you as a gun owner would ONLY want responsible people to own guns because in the wrong hands a gun is a scary thing.

Actually, according to 40 years of research, at least 1.5 million Americans use guns to stop violent crimes and save lives....

Gun murders in 2014.... 8,124

Gun accidents in 2013... 505 ( there were over 320 million guns in private hands at the time)

There are over 357 million guns in private hands right now........so crime and accidents and suicides are not even close to matching the good that guns achieve.