The attempt to refrain the gun control debate

[Valerie]

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a leading national voice for new gun control laws, said President Barack Obama hasn’t made enough of an effort to ban ownership of assault weapons and restrict gun sales to criminals and mentally ill buyers.

...






“It’s time for the president to stand up and lead and tell this country what we should do -- not go to Congress and say, ‘What do you guys want to do?’”

The president should make good on his 2008 campaign promise to reinstate the 1994 ban on so-called assault weapons, Bloomberg said. That would include the .223-caliber long rifle police say Adam Lanza, 20, used at Newtown’s Sandy Hook Elementary School, he said.

Connecticut’s chief medical examiner, H. Wayne Carver II, said all of the 20 child victims appear to been killed by a “long rifle” Lanza was carrying, and a .223 Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle was one of the weapons police found in the school, the New York Times reported.

In 2012 alone, there were at least seven mass murders -- killings of at least four -- in the U.S. that claimed at least 65 lives total.



“The trouble is that the NRA is just never willing to have any restriction whatsoever, no matter reasonable it is. The Supreme Court, fortunately, was. They said having reasonable restrictions is consistent with the Constitution.”

“Nobody questions the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, but we don’t think the founding fathers had the idea that every man, woman and child could carry an assault weapon,” Bloomberg said. “The president, through his leadership, could get a bill like that through Congress. But at least he’s got to try. That’s his job.”

Obama's

 

[beretta304]

“Nobody questions the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, but we don’t think the founding fathers had the idea that every man, woman and child could carry an assault weapon,” Bloomberg said.

And? Not every one does...

 

[Valerie]

Sun December 16, 2012

The White House said President Barack Obama supports reinstatement of a federal ban on assault weapons -- a position he took in the 2008 campaign but failed to press during his first term.

"It does remain a commitment of his," presidential spokesman Jay Carney told reporters as the nation reeled from a mass shooting in Connecticut that mainly killed school children.

...


"We cannot simply accept this as a routine product of modern American life. If now is not the time to have a serious discussion about gun control and the epidemic of gun violence plaguing our society, I don't know when is," Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, said in a statement.



Congress approved a ban on assault weapons in 1994. The prohibition, which expired in 2004, did not eliminate them, but restricted their features, limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds and regulating pistol grips, bayonet attachments and flash suppressors.



...


Witness: At least 100 rounds fired


Dressed in black fatigues and a military vest, a heavily armed man walked into a Connecticut elementary school Friday and opened fire, shattering the quiet of this southern New England town and leaving the nation reeling at the number of young lives lost.


Within minutes, 26 people were dead at Sandy Hook Elementary School -- 20 of them children.


One parent who was in the school at the time of the shooting said she heard a "pop, pop, pop," sound around 9:30 a.m. In the room with her were Hochsprung, the vice principal and Sherlach. All three left the room and went into the hall to see what was happening. The parent ducked under the table and called 911.

"I cowered," she told CNN's Meredith Artley. The shooter "must have shot a hundred rounds."

Police: 20 children among 26 victims of Connecticut school shooting - CNN.com

 

[beretta304]

Sun December 16, 2012

The White House said President Barack Obama supports reinstatement of a federal ban on assault weapons -- a position he took in the 2008 campaign but failed to press during his first term.

"It does remain a commitment of his," presidential spokesman Jay Carney told reporters as the nation reeled from a mass shooting in Connecticut that mainly killed school children.

...


"We cannot simply accept this as a routine product of modern American life. If now is not the time to have a serious discussion about gun control and the epidemic of gun violence plaguing our society, I don't know when is," Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, said in a statement.



Congress approved a ban on assault weapons in 1994. The prohibition, which expired in 2004, did not eliminate them, but restricted their features, limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds and regulating pistol grips, bayonet attachments and flash suppressors.



...


Witness: At least 100 rounds fired


Dressed in black fatigues and a military vest, a heavily armed man walked into a Connecticut elementary school Friday and opened fire, shattering the quiet of this southern New England town and leaving the nation reeling at the number of young lives lost.


Within minutes, 26 people were dead at Sandy Hook Elementary School -- 20 of them children.


One parent who was in the school at the time of the shooting said she heard a "pop, pop, pop," sound around 9:30 a.m. In the room with her were Hochsprung, the vice principal and Sherlach. All three left the room and went into the hall to see what was happening. The parent ducked under the table and called 911.

"I cowered," she told CNN's Meredith Artley. The shooter "must have shot a hundred rounds."

Police: 20 children among 26 victims of Connecticut school shooting - CNN.com

And?

 

[Valerie]

Sun December 16, 2012

The White House said President Barack Obama supports reinstatement of a federal ban on assault weapons -- a position he took in the 2008 campaign but failed to press during his first term.

"It does remain a commitment of his," presidential spokesman Jay Carney told reporters as the nation reeled from a mass shooting in Connecticut that mainly killed school children.

...


"We cannot simply accept this as a routine product of modern American life. If now is not the time to have a serious discussion about gun control and the epidemic of gun violence plaguing our society, I don't know when is," Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, said in a statement.



Congress approved a ban on assault weapons in 1994. The prohibition, which expired in 2004, did not eliminate them, but restricted their features, limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds and regulating pistol grips, bayonet attachments and flash suppressors.



...


Witness: At least 100 rounds fired


Dressed in black fatigues and a military vest, a heavily armed man walked into a Connecticut elementary school Friday and opened fire, shattering the quiet of this southern New England town and leaving the nation reeling at the number of young lives lost.


Within minutes, 26 people were dead at Sandy Hook Elementary School -- 20 of them children.


One parent who was in the school at the time of the shooting said she heard a "pop, pop, pop," sound around 9:30 a.m. In the room with her were Hochsprung, the vice principal and Sherlach. All three left the room and went into the hall to see what was happening. The parent ducked under the table and called 911.

"I cowered," she told CNN's Meredith Artley. The shooter "must have shot a hundred rounds."

Police: 20 children among 26 victims of Connecticut school shooting - CNN.com

And?

I hope they reinstate the ban on assault weapons...

 

[daveman]

I hope they reinstate the ban on assault weapons...

Why? It didn't do any good.

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf

Myth: The 1994 (former) Federal Assault Weapons Ban was effective
Fact: “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”382
Fact: The ban covered only 1.39% of the models of firearms on the market, so the ban’s effectiveness was automatically limited.
Fact: “The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.”383
Fact: “The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.”384
Fact: “The ban triggered speculative price increases and ramped-up production of the banned firearms.”385
Fact: “The ban … ramped-up production of the banned firearms prior to the law’s implementation”386 and thus increased the total supply over the following decade.
Fact: The Brady Campaign claims that “After the 1994 ban, there were 18% fewer ‘assault weapons’ traced to crime in the first eight months of 1995 than were traced in the same period in 1994.” However they failed to note (and these are mentioned in the NIJ study) that:
1. “Assault weapons” traces were minimal before the ban (due to their infrequent use in crimes), so an 18% change enters the realm of statistical irrelevancy.
2. Fewer “assault weapons” were available to criminals because collectors bought-up the available supply before the ban.​

 

[beretta304]

Police: 20 children among 26 victims of Connecticut school shooting - CNN.com

And?

I hope they reinstate the ban on assault weapons...

And? It won't stop incidents like this.

 

[Valerie]

"Didn't do any good"??? What GOOD did lifting the ban do?

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.





In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purchase. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purchases as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.

Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521). The plaintiff inMcDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.



However, several questions still remain unanswered, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, and what level of scrutiny the courts should apply when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment.

Second Amendment | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[beretta304]

"Didn't do any good"??? What GOOD did lifting the ban do?

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.





In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purchase. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purchases as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.

Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521). The plaintiff inMcDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.



However, several questions still remain unanswered, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, and what level of scrutiny the courts should apply when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment.

Second Amendment | LII / Legal Information Institute

No good because banning anything seldom works. Sure some die hard lib will come out with some example of a ban that works but how does banning assault rifles/firearms stop this?


There will always be guns and ways to get them if one wants to.

 

[Valerie]

“Nobody questions the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, but we don’t think the founding fathers had the idea that every man, woman and child could carry an assault weapon,” Bloomberg said.




And? Not every one does...

So? It is not your "right" to own an assault weapon...

Meanwhile, the White House expressed its continued commitment to an assault weapons ban, reflecting a 2008 and 2012 campaign pledge by Obama.

When President Bill Clinton signed the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act into law in 1994 as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, the measure was popular and enjoyed broad public support and the blessing of law enforcement. The ban on semiautomatic pistols, rifles and shotguns expired in 2004 under the Bush administration due to a sunset provision in the law.



Since that time, the gun control debate has subsided, and numerous attempts to reinstate the ban in Congress have failed. Typically, the proposals have failed to get out of committee due to the lack of political will among Democrats and Republicans alike.

Further, in 2011, following the assassination attempt on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona, the Justice Department developed a list of measures to expand background checks to reduce the risk of criminals and the mentally ill obtaining guns. The proposals also called for enhanced sentences for people who act as straw purchasers for those who cannot pass a background check. But the department shelved the proposals as the 2012 election campaign season approached, and the Republican-controlled Congress began investigating the Operation Fast and Furious gun trafficking case.


This resistance to enacting even the most modest gun control reforms is the result of the power and influence of the pro-gun lobby in U.S. politics, and its ability to frame the terms of the debate. Gun control advocates have lost control of the narrative because their advocates in Congress fear retaliation from the National Rifle Association, or the NRA.

Backed by conservative lawmakers and judges, the NRA has succeeded in promoting an uncompromising interpretation of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. The amendment states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

And the gun lobby—which opposes all forms of gun control, assault weapons ban, firearms registration and background checks—spends overwhelmingly to support Republican candidates and defeat Democratic candidates. According to OpenSecrets.org, of the $17.6 million the NRA spent on the 2012 federal election cycle, $11.4 million was spent to vote Democratic candidates out of office, and $5.9 million to support Republican candidates. In 2010, the NRA spent at least $100,000 to support or oppose 11 different candidates, with over $1.43 million to help Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania) win a Senate seat against Democrat Joe Sestak.

During the 2012 election, the NRA ran ads in battleground states accusing Obama of chipping away at the right to bear arms. And four years earlier, gun sales surged after the president was elected, amid concerns that Democrats would restrict gin ownership.

In July of this year, one week after the Aurora, Colorado mass shooting, the NRA halted U.S. ratification of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty to prevent the illicit flow of arms to war-ravaged regions of the world.

The NRA has spent over $2 million on lobbying this year. Of the organization’s 28 lobbyists, 15 have previously held government positions.

Mother Jones reports that in the past four years, the NRA has passed 99 laws in 37 states making it easier to own guns and carry them in public, and more difficult for the government to track these guns.



How the assault weapons ban has been assaulted | theGrio

Thank you spineless dimwits of the GOP.

 

[beretta304]

“Nobody questions the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, but we don’t think the founding fathers had the idea that every man, woman and child could carry an assault weapon,” Bloomberg said.




And? Not every one does...

So? It is not your "right" to own an assault weapon...

Meanwhile, the White House expressed its continued commitment to an assault weapons ban, reflecting a 2008 and 2012 campaign pledge by Obama.

When President Bill Clinton signed the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act into law in 1994 as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, the measure was popular and enjoyed broad public support and the blessing of law enforcement. The ban on semiautomatic pistols, rifles and shotguns expired in 2004 under the Bush administration due to a sunset provision in the law.



Since that time, the gun control debate has subsided, and numerous attempts to reinstate the ban in Congress have failed. Typically, the proposals have failed to get out of committee due to the lack of political will among Democrats and Republicans alike.

Further, in 2011, following the assassination attempt on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona, the Justice Department developed a list of measures to expand background checks to reduce the risk of criminals and the mentally ill obtaining guns. The proposals also called for enhanced sentences for people who act as straw purchasers for those who cannot pass a background check. But the department shelved the proposals as the 2012 election campaign season approached, and the Republican-controlled Congress began investigating the Operation Fast and Furious gun trafficking case.


This resistance to enacting even the most modest gun control reforms is the result of the power and influence of the pro-gun lobby in U.S. politics, and its ability to frame the terms of the debate. Gun control advocates have lost control of the narrative because their advocates in Congress fear retaliation from the National Rifle Association, or the NRA.

Backed by conservative lawmakers and judges, the NRA has succeeded in promoting an uncompromising interpretation of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. The amendment states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

And the gun lobby—which opposes all forms of gun control, assault weapons ban, firearms registration and background checks—spends overwhelmingly to support Republican candidates and defeat Democratic candidates. According to OpenSecrets.org, of the $17.6 million the NRA spent on the 2012 federal election cycle, $11.4 million was spent to vote Democratic candidates out of office, and $5.9 million to support Republican candidates. In 2010, the NRA spent at least $100,000 to support or oppose 11 different candidates, with over $1.43 million to help Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania) win a Senate seat against Democrat Joe Sestak.

During the 2012 election, the NRA ran ads in battleground states accusing Obama of chipping away at the right to bear arms. And four years earlier, gun sales surged after the president was elected, amid concerns that Democrats would restrict gin ownership.

In July of this year, one week after the Aurora, Colorado mass shooting, the NRA halted U.S. ratification of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty to prevent the illicit flow of arms to war-ravaged regions of the world.

The NRA has spent over $2 million on lobbying this year. Of the organization’s 28 lobbyists, 15 have previously held government positions.

Mother Jones reports that in the past four years, the NRA has passed 99 laws in 37 states making it easier to own guns and carry them in public, and more difficult for the government to track these guns.



How the assault weapons ban has been assaulted | theGrio

Thank you spineless dimwits of the GOP.

The dimwit is you because it doesn't specify what type. You'll be just as dead from a handgun as you will be from an automatic assault weapon. Last I checked dead is dead. Blame the gun genius, not the sick pup that used it.


Name something banned that stayed banned, meaning no one was ever able to get one again buy any means. Keep in mind there are millions of guns already out there. And if you can which I suspect you will(because as a leftwingnut you have to be right so you'll search endlessly) ...how many instances are there were banning worked.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And?

I hope they reinstate the ban on assault weapons...

And? It won't stop incidents like this.

No, but it'll make the emotion-driven vaginas on legs feel like they've "done something", which is all that really matters. Solutions? Improvements? We don't need any of that shit. Just DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING! Make us feel less helpless!

 

[beretta304]

Ban, take, tax, redistribute, control, regulate...words of the left. See a pattern here?

 

[Valerie]

“Nobody questions the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, but we don’t think the founding fathers had the idea that every man, woman and child could carry an assault weapon,” Bloomberg said.




And? Not every one does...

So? It is not your "right" to own an assault weapon...

Meanwhile, the White House expressed its continued commitment to an assault weapons ban, reflecting a 2008 and 2012 campaign pledge by Obama.

When President Bill Clinton signed the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act into law in 1994 as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, the measure was popular and enjoyed broad public support and the blessing of law enforcement. The ban on semiautomatic pistols, rifles and shotguns expired in 2004 under the Bush administration due to a sunset provision in the law.



Since that time, the gun control debate has subsided, and numerous attempts to reinstate the ban in Congress have failed. Typically, the proposals have failed to get out of committee due to the lack of political will among Democrats and Republicans alike.

Further, in 2011, following the assassination attempt on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona, the Justice Department developed a list of measures to expand background checks to reduce the risk of criminals and the mentally ill obtaining guns. The proposals also called for enhanced sentences for people who act as straw purchasers for those who cannot pass a background check. But the department shelved the proposals as the 2012 election campaign season approached, and the Republican-controlled Congress began investigating the Operation Fast and Furious gun trafficking case.


This resistance to enacting even the most modest gun control reforms is the result of the power and influence of the pro-gun lobby in U.S. politics, and its ability to frame the terms of the debate. Gun control advocates have lost control of the narrative because their advocates in Congress fear retaliation from the National Rifle Association, or the NRA.

Backed by conservative lawmakers and judges, the NRA has succeeded in promoting an uncompromising interpretation of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. The amendment states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

And the gun lobby—which opposes all forms of gun control, assault weapons ban, firearms registration and background checks—spends overwhelmingly to support Republican candidates and defeat Democratic candidates. According to OpenSecrets.org, of the $17.6 million the NRA spent on the 2012 federal election cycle, $11.4 million was spent to vote Democratic candidates out of office, and $5.9 million to support Republican candidates. In 2010, the NRA spent at least $100,000 to support or oppose 11 different candidates, with over $1.43 million to help Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania) win a Senate seat against Democrat Joe Sestak.

During the 2012 election, the NRA ran ads in battleground states accusing Obama of chipping away at the right to bear arms. And four years earlier, gun sales surged after the president was elected, amid concerns that Democrats would restrict gin ownership.

In July of this year, one week after the Aurora, Colorado mass shooting, the NRA halted U.S. ratification of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty to prevent the illicit flow of arms to war-ravaged regions of the world.

The NRA has spent over $2 million on lobbying this year. Of the organization’s 28 lobbyists, 15 have previously held government positions.

Mother Jones reports that in the past four years, the NRA has passed 99 laws in 37 states making it easier to own guns and carry them in public, and more difficult for the government to track these guns.



How the assault weapons ban has been assaulted | theGrio

Thank you spineless dimwits of the GOP.

The dimwit is you because it doesn't specify what type. You'll be just as dead from a handgun as you will be from an automatic assault weapon. Last I checked dead is dead.

Gee that's deep. Never heard that one before.



Yeah the gun regulation proposals do have certain specifics in them which have ALWAYS respected the intent of the 2nd amendment, despite the extreme rhetoric swallowed wholesale by paranoid loons everywhere who think otherwise. I laugh at those who think they neeed to own massive rapid-fire weaponry arsenals which serves no law-abiding purpose...

 

[beretta304]

So? It is not your "right" to own an assault weapon...











Thank you spineless dimwits of the GOP.

The dimwit is you because it doesn't specify what type. You'll be just as dead from a handgun as you will be from an automatic assault weapon. Last I checked dead is dead.

Gee that's deep. Never heard that one before.



Yeah the gun regulation proposals do have certain specifics in them which have ALWAYS respected the intent of the 2nd amendment, despite the extreme rhetoric swallowed wholesale by paranoid loons everywhere who think otherwise. I laugh at those who think they neeed to own massive rapid-fire weaponry arsenals which serves no law-abiding purpose...

It may not be deep but it has enough depth to nullify your argument.



"I laugh at those who think they neeed to own massive rapid-fire weaponry arsenals which serves no law-abiding purpose.."



Who's arguing that?

 

[Valerie]

The dimwit is you because it doesn't specify what type. You'll be just as dead from a handgun as you will be from an automatic assault weapon. Last I checked dead is dead.

Gee that's deep. Never heard that one before.



Yeah the gun regulation proposals do have certain specifics in them which have ALWAYS respected the intent of the 2nd amendment, despite the extreme rhetoric swallowed wholesale by paranoid loons everywhere who think otherwise. I laugh at those who think they neeed to own massive rapid-fire weaponry arsenals which serves no law-abiding purpose...

It may not be deep but it has enough depth to nullify your argument.



"I laugh at those who think they neeed to own massive rapid-fire weaponry arsenals which serves no law-abiding purpose.."
Who's arguing that?

The NRA is. And no it does not nullify the argument. Try to focus, mr dogbreath who named himself after a firearm... The argument is not mine or yours, so stop focusing on the poster for once in your life, and stay on the topic. A gun which did not fire rapidly would not have killed with such rapidity. Simple. That you can imagine other ways he could have killed massive numbers in such a small amount of time is not really relevant at all.

 

[beretta304]

Gee that's deep. Never heard that one before.



Yeah the gun regulation proposals do have certain specifics in them which have ALWAYS respected the intent of the 2nd amendment, despite the extreme rhetoric swallowed wholesale by paranoid loons everywhere who think otherwise. I laugh at those who think they neeed to own massive rapid-fire weaponry arsenals which serves no law-abiding purpose...

It may not be deep but it has enough depth to nullify your argument.



"I laugh at those who think they neeed to own massive rapid-fire weaponry arsenals which serves no law-abiding purpose.."
Who's arguing that?

The NRA is. And no it does not nullify the argument. Try to focus, mr dogbreath who named himself after a firearm... The argument is not mine or yours, so stop focusing on the poster for once in your life, and stay on the topic. A gun which did not fire rapidly would not have killed with such rapidity. Simple. That you can imagine other ways he could have killed massive numbers in such a small amount of time is not really relevant at all.

First of all dimbulb you started with the name calling so that NULLIFIES that angle. (see post # 210) Your argument is not relative because now you want to shift gears and talk about how quickly the gun fires.

I'll bet you never fired a firearm in your life but naturally you'll deny that.


Your argument has little to no bearing on the issue of gun control.

Cars drive fast as well. So if one wants to kill by car just drive faster around the schoolyard...you'll kill more people. That's your argument's basis. He could have killed more had he not stopped and pumped from 3 to 11 bullets into each.

So Einstein, one bullet kills the same as 11. Failed response!

 

[Rinata]

I've been held at gunpoint 5 times by 7 different people with 7 different guns. It was illegal for them to do that to me every time. 4 out of those 5 times were in places where it was illegal for me or them to carry a gun, so I did not have one. Now that it is legal for me to have a gun, I have never had a gun pulled on me since. I know first hand for a fact that I am safer when everyone is allowed to be armed. Laws don't stop criminals, armed citizens do!

Oh, come one!!!! Where in the hell do you live??? Or maybe you're a member of organized crime. In any case, you are either leaving something out or your story is made up.

 

[Valerie]

It may not be deep but it has enough depth to nullify your argument.



"I laugh at those who think they neeed to own massive rapid-fire weaponry arsenals which serves no law-abiding purpose.."
Who's arguing that?

The NRA is. And no it does not nullify the argument. Try to focus, mr dogbreath who named himself after a firearm... The argument is not mine or yours, so stop focusing on the poster for once in your life, and stay on the topic. A gun which did not fire rapidly would not have killed with such rapidity. Simple. That you can imagine other ways he could have killed massive numbers in such a small amount of time is not really relevant at all.

First of all dimbulb you started with the name calling so that NULLIFIES that angle. Your argument is not relative because now you want to shift gears and talk about how quickly the gun fires.

I'll bet you never fired a firearm in your life but naturally you'll deny that.


Your argument has little to no bearing on the issue of gun control.

Cars drive fast as well. So if one wants to kill by car just drive faster around the schoolyard...you'll kill more people. That's your argument's basis.

Of course it matters how rapidly the gun fires. You obviously haven't read my posts in this thread. Feel free to respond to them as opposed to your delusions...

 

[Rinata]

I thought President Obama said exactly the right things last night. At this point he gave no solutions but said that we have to do something. What that is is yet to be determined. But he is right that we have to try. We cannot just go on accepting these horrific attacks. That would be ridiculous.