Obama hopes to enact new gun-control measures in 2013

[TakeAStepBack]

^ You're a full blown retard. Seek help.

 

[beretta304]

So, now that we've learned all Sniperfire and the little gun guy have to offer, let's see what brought all their bullshit to the thread:

The scariest thing to me is the hate and fear mongering by stupid people like Stephanie and the other stupid people join with her in voting. Not only should some gun control be on the agenda of all elected officials in Congress but those who fail to do so and actually take money and direction from the NRA violate the very essence of their duty to provide for the "common Defense and the general Welfare" of our people (Section 8, Clause 1 or Article I).

Now Sherlock knows why people choose the threads they post to. Excuse me is it LT Sherlock?

 

[Stephanie]

Obama wants nothing more than to create chaos in this country..

unbelievable you people brought this down on us..

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'm torn on this issue.
The fact that so many anti-gun control people are so obviously stupid and vulgar makes me hate to be associated by agreement.

But when I read the Second Amendment, it's pretty clear and straightforward to me. The Constitution protects the right of private citizens to have guns. Now, does it protect their right to own automatic or even semi-automatic weapons with high capacity clips? Of course not.

Look at the murder rates in countries that aggressively regulate gun ownership. It's clear - those laws work to reduce violence and save lives. Any suggestion to the contrary is just as ignorant as the vulgarites and cutesy emoticons some posters fall back on when their intelligence fails them.

But the Constitution IS the Constitution and if you want to change it, there is a path. I cannot advocate an end run around the Constitution just because that path is a difficult one.

 

[Wry Catcher]

^ You're a full blown retard. Seek help.

Excellant example of the ad hominem. No substance to confuse a reader, except that the most important part of the sentence is missing. Any clue as to what that maybe?

 

[chikenwing]

If the NRA and the gun nuts had made some reasonable suggestions to keep the weapons of war out of the hands of the crazies, perhaps the rest of the citizens would be interested in their view points. However, the standard idiocy of more guns is all that we have heard from them. So now you people are going to see more gun control. Too bad. Many here predicted that, and the onus is on you.

No matter how many times in how many threads,you continue to use the nonsense that is weapons of war,it will never become a truth,will always stay a bull shit lame useless point.

 

[hjmick]

The President has said that he will support gun reform if it is what the American people want.

“We’re not going to get this done unless the American people decide it’s important and so this is not going to be a matter of me spending political capital. One of the things that you learn having now been in this office for four years. The old adage of Abraham Lincoln’s, ‘with public opinion there is nothing you can’t do and without public opinion there is very little you can get done in this town.’” ~ Barack Obama

Bullshit.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm torn on this issue.
The fact that so many anti-gun control people are so obviously stupid and vulgar makes me hate to be associated by agreement.

But when I read the Second Amendment, it's pretty clear and straightforward to me. The Constitution protects the right of private citizens to have guns. Now, does it protect their right to own automatic or even semi-automatic weapons with high capacity clips? Of course not.

Look at the murder rates in countries that aggressively regulate gun ownership. It's clear - those laws work to reduce violence and save lives. Any suggestion to the contrary is just as ignorant as the vulgarites and cutesy emoticons some posters fall back on when their intelligence fails them.

But the Constitution IS the Constitution and if you want to change it, there is a path. I cannot advocate an end run around the Constitution just because that path is a difficult one.

A very sensible response, I knew what might come along, and one worthy of debate.

I can only speak for myself, and framed by that, I don't want to change the Second Amendment. That said, the Second is not without ambiguity and some firearm controls are necessary, though I recognize not sufficient to prevent events such as Sandy Hook.

Gun owners need to be held accountable for the illicit use of the gun(s) they own. They need to carry insurance to provide compensation to victims of any harm caused by the gun(s) they own and let the insurance industry determine the rate for each firearm insured.

Guns need to be safely secured; only licensed dealers should be legally able to buy, sell or broker the sale of firearms and all who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control any firearm should be licensed by the State; such a state license could be suspended or revoked for cause; all licenses should be renewed every five years.

Anyone who sells, buys or brokers a transfer of a firearm to an unlicensed person shall have his license to do business revoked and his license to own, possess, etc suspended or revoked.

Any person convicted of driving while intoxicated, or detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others, on probation or convicted of a felony and on parole should have their license suspended; upon a hearing by a trier of fact, said suspension could be vacated, extended or revoked (for life); upon revocation all firearms would be taken and either sold to licensed dealers or destroyed.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The 2nd amendment in the constitution does not secure the inalienable right of the people to bear arms. What it does is tell encroaching bureaucrats and their crybaby, whining supporters, what they CAN NOT do with the rights of the people.

This has already been pointed out.

The second amendment does not secure inaienable rights. It does shackle the government in what it can infringe upon the people's natural, inalienable right. In the case of arms, the constitution is explicit. The right shall not be infringed. So the gun grabbers and control freaks have to try to argue this one through a backdoor. As usual. As usual, their argument fucking sucks. So they should also STFU about it and go back to chanting nonsense about the 99%.

 

[Samson]

The President has said that he will support gun reform if it is what the American people want.

“We’re not going to get this done unless the American people decide it’s important and so this is not going to be a matter of me spending political capital. One of the things that you learn having now been in this office for four years. The old adage of Abraham Lincoln’s, ‘with public opinion there is nothing you can’t do and without public opinion there is very little you can get done in this town.’” ~ Barack Obama

Yep, that's the kind of leadership position I expect from Obama.


He's BEHIND whatever.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The 2nd amendment in the constitution does not secure the inalienable right of the people to bear arms. What it does is tell encroaching bureaucrats and their crybaby, whining supporters, what they CAN NOT do with the rights of the people.

This has already been pointed out.

The second amendment does not secure inaienable rights. It does shackle the government in what it can infringe upon the people's natural, inalienable right. In the case of arms, the constitution is explicit. The right shall not be infringed. So the gun grabbers and control freaks have to try to argue this one through a backdoor. As usual. As usual, their argument fucking sucks. So they should also STFU about it and go back to chanting nonsense about the 99%.

Let's follow your argument to its logical conclusion. We have hundreds of persons in federal and state prisons for the illegal possession, sale, transportation of arms. Felons charged with possession under CA Penal Code Section 12021 for example would all be released under your 'learned' opinion.

"(a) (1) Any person who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of the United
States, the State of California, or any other state, government, or country or of an offense
enumerated in subdivision (a), (b), or (d) of Section 12001.6, or who is addicted to the
use of any narcotic drug, and who owns, purchases, receives, or has in his or her
possession or under his or her custody or control any firearm is guilty of a felony."

See: http://theacademy.ca.gov/docs/CA Penal Code 12021.pdf

Is that what you want?

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'm torn on this issue.
The fact that so many anti-gun control people are so obviously stupid and vulgar makes me hate to be associated by agreement.

But when I read the Second Amendment, it's pretty clear and straightforward to me. The Constitution protects the right of private citizens to have guns. Now, does it protect their right to own automatic or even semi-automatic weapons with high capacity clips? Of course not.

Look at the murder rates in countries that aggressively regulate gun ownership. It's clear - those laws work to reduce violence and save lives. Any suggestion to the contrary is just as ignorant as the vulgarites and cutesy emoticons some posters fall back on when their intelligence fails them.

But the Constitution IS the Constitution and if you want to change it, there is a path. I cannot advocate an end run around the Constitution just because that path is a difficult one.

A very sensible response, I knew what might come along, and one worthy of debate.

I can only speak for myself, and framed by that, I don't want to change the Second Amendment. That said, the Second is not without ambiguity and some firearm controls are necessary, though I recognize not sufficient to prevent events such as Sandy Hook.

Gun owners need to be held accountable for the illicit use of the gun(s) they own. They need to carry insurance to provide compensation to victims of any harm caused by the gun(s) they own and let the insurance industry determine the rate for each firearm insured.

Guns need to be safely secured; only licensed dealers should be legally able to buy, sell or broker the sale of firearms and all who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control any firearm should be licensed by the State; such a state license could be suspended or revoked for cause; all licenses should be renewed every five years.

Anyone who sells, buys or brokers a transfer of a firearm to an unlicensed person shall have his license to do business revoked and his license to own, possess, etc suspended or revoked.

Any person convicted of driving while intoxicated, or detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others, on probation or convicted of a felony and on parole should have their license suspended; upon a hearing by a trier of fact, said suspension could be vacated, extended or revoked (for life); upon revocation all firearms would be taken and either sold to licensed dealers or destroyed.

That's pretty reasonable and doesn't seem to run afoul of the Second Amendment imho. I just wonder if it is punative enough or enforceable to the point that it would produce the reduction of violence that countries with more strict regulations are seeing. Or enough to make the enforcement worthwhile?

 

[FA_Q2]

Look at the murder rates in countries that aggressively regulate gun ownership. It's clear - those laws work to reduce violence and save lives. Any suggestion to the contrary is just as ignorant as the vulgarites and cutesy emoticons some posters fall back on when their intelligence fails them.

That is false. Murder rates in those countries has always been lower and increasing gun control laws has NOT had a positive effect on homicide rates. Our homicide rates have nothing to do with guns, they have to do with culture. We, apparently, have a more violent nature and culture than many European nations.

 

[Murf76]

As I posted earlier to another party...there is a difference between control and reform. Something will happen but it won't change a thing.

We need to reform the laws to regain control of an out-of-control situation. Unless of course mass murder of innocent citizens going to the mall, going to a movie and going to their first grade class you accept as the new normal. Do you?

I find your attitude equally noxious as those depicted in this quote I read on a match book decades ago: "The idea that no solution exists never occurs to them and in this lies their strength"

Of course it has been shown time and time again that gun control laws like the ones that Obama is asking for simply do not work. The data has been given to you and others right here in this forum and it has been ignored.

You can continue to demand that we do something BUT every damn suggestion that is being put fourth accomplishes nothing yet limits freedom. After all that, you have the gall to call others morons...

I don't mind real solutions but gun control simply is not one of them. It has been tried a thousand times and proven to be an utter failure.

It's just like "healthcare"... not really about solving the problems, but rather to abolish rights. Commies don't care about ANYTHING so much as eliminating the Freedom of Individual citizens. Nothing threatens their agenda so much as Liberty.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

So... of course, they've got to disarm "the lamb". Otherwise, how could they set up the mob-rule they clearly want?

 

[FA_Q2]

*sigh*
I see I need to post the relevent information yet again so that you can all ignore it and slink away. Gun control does not work:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly I am going to have to remake this argument in a few places so I am going to rework another post I did in one of these other threads.

All over the place on this board I am seeing people demanding gun control and making a wide variety of claims about what we need or do not need but one thing is utterly lacking IN EVERY FUCKING THREAD: facts. I can count the number of facts used in the 10+ threads calling for gun reforms on one hand. Get educated, we have passed laws already and we have metrics to gauge their effectiveness.

First, common misinformation techniques must be addressed because many you can find all kinds of false claims about higher 'death' rates with lax gin laws that are outright false. The metric we need to be looking at is homicides. Lots of people like to use 'gun' deaths but that is a rather useless term because you are not really measuring anything. That term is not fully defined and it is not as easily tracked and compared with different years as a solid statistic. I also hope that we can agree that what instrument kills the victim is irrelevant. If gun deaths are cut by 25% but knife deaths increase the same number by 50% we have not made progress. Rather, we regressed and are worse off. The real relevant information here is how many people are killed overall and whether or not stricter gun laws results in fewer deaths or crimes. That is what the gun control advocates are claiming.


Another common misinformation tactic is to compare US deaths to those on other countries. comparing international numbers is also utterly meaningless. Why, you ask. Well, that's simple. Scientific data requires that we control for other variables. Comparing US to Brittan is meaningless because there are thousands of variables that make a huge difference. Not only the proliferation of guns that already exists and the current gun laws but also things as basic as culture, diversity, population density, police forces and a host of other things would need to be accounted for. That is utterly impossible. Mexico and Switzerland can be used on the other side of the argument of Brittan and in the end we have learned nothing by doing this. How do we overcome this? Also, simple. You compare the crime rates before and after gun legislation has passed. We can do that here and in Brittan.
Gun Control - Just Facts

Here we see a rather large spike directly after gun laws are strengthened and no real increase after they are removed. Washington apparently did not get the memo that homicides were supposed to decrease after they passed their law.

Here we have Chicago where there is no discernable difference before and after the ban. Again, we are not seeing any real positive effects here. As a matter of fact, the rate has worsened as compared to the overall rate in the country even though it has slightly decreased. Form the caption:

Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.

Then we can use this same tactic in measuring the effectiveness in Britton. Lets actually look at the real numbers over there as well:

Oops, even in Brittan, when we account for other factors by using their OWN crime rates, we find that gun laws have NOT reduced the homicides they have suffered. Seems we are developing a pattern here. At least Chicago seen some reduction though it was far less than the national average decrease.


Then, you could always argue, what happens when we relax gun laws. If the gun 'grabbers' were correct, crimes rate would skyrocket (or at least go up). Does that happen:

Guess not. The homicide rate in Florida fell rather rapidly and faster than the national average. In Texas we get a similar result:

Then there are other statistics that do matter very much like the following:

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

Clearly, claiming that gun control leads to better outcomes is blatantly false. Look at the data, it is conclusive that gun laws most certainly do not have any positive impact on homicides or any other meaningful metric. If you have information that states otherwise then please post it. I have yet to see some solid statistical evidence that points to gun control as being a competent way of reducing deaths. I hope I have not wasted my time getting this information. Try reading it, it will enlighten you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

*sigh*
I see I need to post the relevent information yet again so that you can all ignore it and slink away. Gun control does not work:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly I am going to have to remake this argument in a few places so I am going to rework another post I did in one of these other threads.

All over the place on this board I am seeing people demanding gun control and making a wide variety of claims about what we need or do not need but one thing is utterly lacking IN EVERY FUCKING THREAD: facts. I can count the number of facts used in the 10+ threads calling for gun reforms on one hand. Get educated, we have passed laws already and we have metrics to gauge their effectiveness.

First, common misinformation techniques must be addressed because many you can find all kinds of false claims about higher 'death' rates with lax gin laws that are outright false. The metric we need to be looking at is homicides. Lots of people like to use 'gun' deaths but that is a rather useless term because you are not really measuring anything. That term is not fully defined and it is not as easily tracked and compared with different years as a solid statistic. I also hope that we can agree that what instrument kills the victim is irrelevant. If gun deaths are cut by 25% but knife deaths increase the same number by 50% we have not made progress. Rather, we regressed and are worse off. The real relevant information here is how many people are killed overall and whether or not stricter gun laws results in fewer deaths or crimes. That is what the gun control advocates are claiming.


Another common misinformation tactic is to compare US deaths to those on other countries. comparing international numbers is also utterly meaningless. Why, you ask. Well, that's simple. Scientific data requires that we control for other variables. Comparing US to Brittan is meaningless because there are thousands of variables that make a huge difference. Not only the proliferation of guns that already exists and the current gun laws but also things as basic as culture, diversity, population density, police forces and a host of other things would need to be accounted for. That is utterly impossible. Mexico and Switzerland can be used on the other side of the argument of Brittan and in the end we have learned nothing by doing this. How do we overcome this? Also, simple. You compare the crime rates before and after gun legislation has passed. We can do that here and in Brittan.
Gun Control - Just Facts

Here we see a rather large spike directly after gun laws are strengthened and no real increase after they are removed. Washington apparently did not get the memo that homicides were supposed to decrease after they passed their law.

Here we have Chicago where there is no discernable difference before and after the ban. Again, we are not seeing any real positive effects here. As a matter of fact, the rate has worsened as compared to the overall rate in the country even though it has slightly decreased. Form the caption:

Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.

Then we can use this same tactic in measuring the effectiveness in Britton. Lets actually look at the real numbers over there as well:

Oops, even in Brittan, when we account for other factors by using their OWN crime rates, we find that gun laws have NOT reduced the homicides they have suffered. Seems we are developing a pattern here. At least Chicago seen some reduction though it was far less than the national average decrease.


Then, you could always argue, what happens when we relax gun laws. If the gun 'grabbers' were correct, crimes rate would skyrocket (or at least go up). Does that happen:

Guess not. The homicide rate in Florida fell rather rapidly and faster than the national average. In Texas we get a similar result:

Then there are other statistics that do matter very much like the following:

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

Clearly, claiming that gun control leads to better outcomes is blatantly false. Look at the data, it is conclusive that gun laws most certainly do not have any positive impact on homicides or any other meaningful metric. If you have information that states otherwise then please post it. I have yet to see some solid statistical evidence that points to gun control as being a competent way of reducing deaths. I hope I have not wasted my time getting this information. Try reading it, it will enlighten you.

I've read the data and all the evidence suggests that Mark Twain was correct ("There are liars, damn liars and statiistics) and that this quote remains an accurate depiction of the gun huggers: "The idea that no solution exists never occurs to them and in this lies their strength"

I pointed out some ideas (licensing, state controls) which simply are ignored by the gun huggers; I don't expect them to agree because like you your mind isn't open to any new ideas. The fact is the deaths of 20 very young children trumps your statistics; some form of gun control or reform is on the radar of even some Republicans and rigid support for the NRA position is on the wane.

 

[nodoginnafight]

*sigh*
I see I need to post the relevent information yet again so that you can all ignore it and slink away. Gun control does not work:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly I am going to have to remake this argument in a few places so I am going to rework another post I did in one of these other threads.

All over the place on this board I am seeing people demanding gun control and making a wide variety of claims about what we need or do not need but one thing is utterly lacking IN EVERY FUCKING THREAD: facts. I can count the number of facts used in the 10+ threads calling for gun reforms on one hand. Get educated, we have passed laws already and we have metrics to gauge their effectiveness.

First, common misinformation techniques must be addressed because many you can find all kinds of false claims about higher 'death' rates with lax gin laws that are outright false. The metric we need to be looking at is homicides. Lots of people like to use 'gun' deaths but that is a rather useless term because you are not really measuring anything. That term is not fully defined and it is not as easily tracked and compared with different years as a solid statistic. I also hope that we can agree that what instrument kills the victim is irrelevant. If gun deaths are cut by 25% but knife deaths increase the same number by 50% we have not made progress. Rather, we regressed and are worse off. The real relevant information here is how many people are killed overall and whether or not stricter gun laws results in fewer deaths or crimes. That is what the gun control advocates are claiming.


Another common misinformation tactic is to compare US deaths to those on other countries. comparing international numbers is also utterly meaningless. Why, you ask. Well, that's simple. Scientific data requires that we control for other variables. Comparing US to Brittan is meaningless because there are thousands of variables that make a huge difference. Not only the proliferation of guns that already exists and the current gun laws but also things as basic as culture, diversity, population density, police forces and a host of other things would need to be accounted for. That is utterly impossible. Mexico and Switzerland can be used on the other side of the argument of Brittan and in the end we have learned nothing by doing this. How do we overcome this? Also, simple. You compare the crime rates before and after gun legislation has passed. We can do that here and in Brittan.
Gun Control - Just Facts

Here we see a rather large spike directly after gun laws are strengthened and no real increase after they are removed. Washington apparently did not get the memo that homicides were supposed to decrease after they passed their law.

Here we have Chicago where there is no discernable difference before and after the ban. Again, we are not seeing any real positive effects here. As a matter of fact, the rate has worsened as compared to the overall rate in the country even though it has slightly decreased. Form the caption:

Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.

Then we can use this same tactic in measuring the effectiveness in Britton. Lets actually look at the real numbers over there as well:

Oops, even in Brittan, when we account for other factors by using their OWN crime rates, we find that gun laws have NOT reduced the homicides they have suffered. Seems we are developing a pattern here. At least Chicago seen some reduction though it was far less than the national average decrease.


Then, you could always argue, what happens when we relax gun laws. If the gun 'grabbers' were correct, crimes rate would skyrocket (or at least go up). Does that happen:

Guess not. The homicide rate in Florida fell rather rapidly and faster than the national average. In Texas we get a similar result:

Then there are other statistics that do matter very much like the following:

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

Clearly, claiming that gun control leads to better outcomes is blatantly false. Look at the data, it is conclusive that gun laws most certainly do not have any positive impact on homicides or any other meaningful metric. If you have information that states otherwise then please post it. I have yet to see some solid statistical evidence that points to gun control as being a competent way of reducing deaths. I hope I have not wasted my time getting this information. Try reading it, it will enlighten you.

ahhh, someone trots out some jiggered B.S. on behalf of the NRA ... again.
ZZZzzzzzz

 

[FA_Q2]

I've read the data and all the evidence suggests that Mark Twain was correct ("There are liars, damn liars and statiistics) and that this quote remains an accurate depiction of the gun huggers: "The idea that no solution exists never occurs to them and in this lies their strength"

I pointed out some ideas (licensing, state controls) which simply are ignored by the gun huggers; I don't expect them to agree because like you your mind isn't open to any new ideas. The fact is the deaths of 20 very young children trumps your statistics; some form of gun control or reform is on the radar of even some Republicans and rigid support for the NRA position is on the wane.

My mind is closed?

I come with facts and data (something you claim to care about) and you return with nothing and call my mind closed. That is rather laughable. The reality is that you are not pulling any real numbers to support your claims because there are not any. You have so support and yet STILL demand that our right be reduced. There will be no effect should you get more gun control passed other than you will feel better because we did SOMETHING. Never mind that something that was accomplished saved no one. Helped no one and its only effect is that our freedoms will be a little lighter.

Here is the ultimate problem, while you are going around pointing fingers and claiming that others are closed minded it is actually you that has closed their mind. You have already found your solution - gun control. Even though it will not work, that is the demand that has been placed. Interesting that you have claimed I said there was no solution. I have not stated such in this thread. Though that is a possibility (stopping crazy individuals that are smart is night impossible) there are some measures that make sense in other areas. Just not in gun control because no matter how logical it might sound, it has failed all over the planet is hundreds of different forms.

The deaths of 20 children does not 'trump' anything and the fact that you resort to such things shows the fatal flaw in this push for gun control: it is based off pure knee jerk emotional reaction. That is sad. We should not be passing 'feel good' legislation against freedoms because of an emotional and knee jerk reaction. That is not a sign of a rational and intelligent society. What we should be looking for are realistic solutions that, at the end of the day, actually save lives rather than ignore them.

ahhh, someone trots out some jiggered B.S. on behalf of the NRA ... again.
ZZZzzzzzz

So, my post was the trolling one? I think you do not understand what it means to be a troll. For a good reference, see your own post. I am sure that, because my post was such a troll and a plug for the NRA - an entity for which I care nothing about and do not support - you have ample data to back your assertion up...

Thought not.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

this man hates us and our rights..what a horrible President..you people better get prepared

You truly are an ignorant partisan idiot.

But of course this comes as a surprise to no one.

There is nothing in Second Amendment jurisprudence that renders a new AWB un-Constitutional, or in any way a violation of civil liberties.

The original AWB was never subject to a Second Amendment challenge. And every Second Amendment challenge to a state’s assault weapon ban has been rejected:

http://smartgunlaws.org/wp-content/...ssault_Weapons_A_Legal_Primer_8.05_entire.pdf

If a new AWB were to be enacted, it would be considered Constitutional until such time a court rules otherwise.

 

[PaulS1950]

How does limiting the weapons available to law abiding citizens affect criminals?
1. It tells them that they can have the weapon that no one else will have.
2. It causes robust sales prior to taking affect and raises prices.

What effect does any anti-gun law have on a criminal?
None! If they obeyed the law they wouldn't be criminals.

What possible reason could the government have for sponsoring the step-by-step elimination of guns for law abiding citizens?
Look at history!