New gun control thread!

[Jim in Anchorage]

And right on cue...

 

 

 

 

 

 

The answer isn't as black and white as gun regulations = bad or gun regulations = good. There are a number of options that can be considered to address the matter of gun violence that don't infringe on anyone's right to bear arms. But to point to criminals/terrorists who use unregistered guns in their crimes as evidence that gun legislation doesn't work is a specious argument at best, down right lying at worst.

 

And make no mistake, the other side does it too. They just have a different spin on it.

As usual, full of detailed plan's.

[Joe Miner]

Damn there's a lot of stupidity in this thread.

 

How do you know our current laws are insufficient or broken when we aren't enforcing them at all?

 

Why do we need more background checks when we don't give a rat's ass about any !@#$ that lies on their background check?

 

Why do we need more background checks when we don't fund the background check system we currently have?

 

Why the hell are you people arguing about a !@#$ing poll? Should that be the basis for any legislation in this country? We have to pass this law, the poll told us to. !@#$ing retards.

[Jim in Anchorage]

That gun laws don't prevent illegal gun possession. Hence the reason it's called illegal gun possession.

 

Of course, you could also argue the point is that all guns should be banned and made illegal, which would make enforcement of gun laws easier (you have a gun, it's illegal. No dicking around with licenses and permits.) I don't think that was his point...but it's equally valid. I think he missed that.

Oh good. You encouraged WCIP. Nice work. Edited April 22, 2013 by Jim in Anchorage

[B-Man]

One lesson from Boston: A 7-Round Magazine Isn’t Enough. Neither is 15, which is why all those cops carried more. “If someone is shooting back, it’s a whole new ballgame.”

 

 

Americans still buying up guns at a record pace.

 

 

.

[We Come In Peace]

At the end of the day, until governments at all levels re-prioritize we don't need any more laws passed.

 

You can continue this charade for the next month but this law wouldn't have changed a damn thing and blaming the NRA (the GOA is actually a far more effective organization) for gun violence is blindingly stupid.

AD, my points in this thread have nothing to do with the bill that failed but rather the particular line of reasoning that the pro-gun crowd throws out EVERY time something like Boston happens. We've seen B-Man do it twice in a row in this thread.

 

It's a shallow argument without logical merit and makes the person who argues it look like a ginormous asshat. That's my only dog in this particular fight.

[Alaska Darin]

AD, my points in this thread have nothing to do with the bill that failed but rather the particular line of reasoning that the pro-gun crowd throws out EVERY time something like Boston happens. We've seen B-Man do it twice in a row in this thread.

 

It's a shallow argument without logical merit and makes the person who argues it look like a ginormous asshat. That's my only dog in this particular fight.

Forgive me, I didn't read more than a couple of posts in this thread.

[We Come In Peace]

As usual, full of detailed plan's.

Oh good. You encouraged WCIP. Nice work.

Punks jump up to get beat down. You should know.

 

Forgive me, I didn't read more than a couple of posts in this thread.

No worries, I figured which is why I wanted to point it out. For the record, I agree that background checks will not stop mass shootings or acts of terrorism and have never argued otherwise.

Edited April 23, 2013 by We Come In Peace

[B-Man]

 

USA Today poll shows gun-control support slipping still further

 

President Obama’s indignant display of outrageously moral outrage following last week’s failed Senate gun-control vote notwithstanding, Americans’ support for further federal gun-control laws is continuing on its downward trajectory, according to USA Today‘s latest measure — which doesn’t do much to bolster the notion that Americans’ support for the legislation’s passage was really quite as robustly universal as its advocates made it out to be.

Four months after the shooting rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School, a USA TODAY Poll finds support for a new gun-control law ebbing as prospects for passage on Capitol Hill seem to fade.

Americans are more narrowly divided on the issue than in recent months, and backing for a bill has slipped below 50%, the poll finds. By 49%-45%, those surveyed favor Congress passing a new gun-control law. In an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll in early April, 55% had backed a stricter gun law, which was down from 61% in February. …

Those who support a bill want advocates in Congress to hang tough and not compromise — an attitude that also could complicate passing legislation. Sixty-one percent say members of Congress “should only agree to a stronger version of the bill, even if it might not pass.” Just 30% say they should “accept a weaker law” they know can win approval.

 

And this was taken last Thursday through Sunday, with a four percent margin of error. Where is this miraculous and overwhelming surge of gun-control support about which we heard so much?

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/22/usa-today-poll-shows-gun-control-support-slipping-still-further/

[Jim in Anchorage]

 

 

Punks jump up to get beat down. You should know.

 

 

No worries, I figured which is why I wanted to point it out. For the record, I agree that background checks will not stop mass shootings or acts of terrorism and have never argued otherwise.

Right in character. Name calling, no real reasoning.

[3rdnlng]

WCIP, I've been lurking in this thread so I get where everyone is coming from except you. What is it that you want? You've posted an enormous amount of letters/words and I still don't know what you are getting at. Cut to the chase.

[Jim in Anchorage]

WCIP, I've been lurking in this thread so I get where everyone is coming from except you. What is it that you want? You've posted an enormous amount of letters/words and I still don't know what you are getting at. Cut to the chase.

We must do something, anything pretty much boils it down.

[meazza]

Guns don't kill people. Imogen Heap does.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded%C2%AD&v=vmd1qMN5Yo0

Edited April 23, 2013 by meazza

[BringBackFergy]

WCIP, I've been lurking in this thread so I get where everyone is coming from except you. What is it that you want? You've posted an enormous amount of letters/words and I still don't know what you are getting at. Cut to the chase.

When WCIP lectured me above (prior page) he told me there are several options out there to curb gun violence...it is apparently up to me to discover these answers and notify my elected Representative....or he's just fuc%ing with me. Judging by his failure to follow up or delineate what those measures are, I'd say he is full of Shiite.

[We Come In Peace]

Right in character. Name calling, no real reasoning.

You have demonstrated no ability to reason or understand rational points.

 

Don't you have some hate-filled language to go spew at people who are different from you? I'm sure there's a cripple or negro that needs a good tongue lashing from you if Alaska is all out of queers.

 

WCIP, I've been lurking in this thread so I get where everyone is coming from except you. What is it that you want? You've posted an enormous amount of letters/words and I still don't know what you are getting at. Cut to the chase.

B-Man proposed the idea that we can't have gun laws because criminals won't follow them. This isn't an original thought, it's a common talking point thrown out by the right and it's a ridiculous assertion to make in the debate on guns in America. And it's talking point that will continue to be thrown around in the blogs, articles, NRA proclamations and all the other nonsense that will be coming in as this debate continues throughout the coming months and years. It's a ridiculous assertion that we cannot legislate because criminals won't follow laws. It's shallow, unsophisticated, incorrect, and disingenuous.

 

I'm pin pointing it because I'd like to think that the serious minded folks on this board, even the ones I often disagree with, are honest enough to see through this bullshiit talking point. If B-Man doesn't want to take ownership for this position, I won't hold him to it. But at least have the balls to admit that it's a bullshiit talking point. Because that's all it is. A talking point propagated by the pro-gun crowd (you can see it in the video that Chef posted a while back in this thread) that is shallow, stupid, and fantastical. It shows a complete detachment from reality.

 

I'll be willing to let the subject drop if we can come to some sort of detente on this one talking point. If we can agree to keep this kind of nonsense out of the debate in future posts and threads and articles that will undoubtedly be linked by B-Man and others, it will help service both sides of this issue in the long run.

 

As I asked B-Man originally, when the pro-gun crowd has so many other valid points to make within this debate, why do they feel the need to continue to promote this particular talking point? It does nothing but make the people who repeat it look like asshats.

Edited April 23, 2013 by We Come In Peace

[3rdnlng]

WCIP--I think the point here is that no additional laws will do anything to make the bad guys any more willing to follow them. So, what purpose do any new laws have? Show me how a specific new law will benefit us and I'll consider it.

 

BTW, JiA is a disabled black dude from Kenya. His fear of AIDS and subsequent loathing of gays is understandable.

[We Come In Peace]

WCIP--I think the point here is that no additional laws will do anything to make the bad guys any more willing to follow them. So, what purpose do any new laws have? Show me how a specific new law will benefit us and I'll consider it.

 

BTW, JiA is a disabled black dude from Kenya. His fear of AIDS and subsequent loathing of gays is understandable.

Criminals, by definition, do not follow laws. Expecting to pass laws that criminals will follow is the height of stupidity that's only matched by the counter to that argument that the pro-gun crowd throws out and was highlighted by both of B-Man's ridiculous posts. But because criminals don't follow laws, does that mean we can't legislate at all? That brings us back to the original question which B-Man and others have consistently dodged and refused to answer: why is murder against the law if people are just going to murder regardless? Or any variation of that question that's been posed numerous times.

 

Claiming legislation to curb gun violence is a failure because of incidents like Sandy Hook or Boston as specious as the left saying gun laws alone are the only way to solve the epidemic of gun violence in this country.

 

We lose over 80 people a day to gun violence in this country. Half of those are by suicide. 30,000+ a year are killed by the epidemic of gun violence that is destroying, largely, one segment of the population. You can talk about culture, you can talk about mental illness and bring up many valid points with regards to possible solutions to the problem. But for some reason you can't talk about guns.

 

That's ridiculous. Why can't we put everything on the table?

 

What the NRA and pro-gun groups have done over the years is to systematically destroy ANY gun regulation or legislation's chance for success. They've kneecapped the ATF, resisted universal background checks (after supporting them), and made the debate about anything and everything BUT the weapons themselves. Why? It's not to protect the constitution. And it's not to protect our individual rights. It's to protect the gravy train of the gun manufactures who provide millions of dollars in funding to the NRA every year. If the NRA doesn't listen to their masters then Smith & Weston, Midway, The Beretta Group etc will take their funding to one of the other lobbyist groups out there like the CCRKBA or GOA, either one of which would be happy to pick up the fight and take the millions of dollars being thrown their way. The NRA isn't arguing out of a sense of duty to their members or their country. Instead, they're fighting a cause to fatten their own bottom line and that of their primary benefactors.

 

So what can we do in terms of legislation? Well for starters we could do what 90% of Americans want, and 84% of Republicans want -- namely, expanding background checks to sales over the internet and at gun shows. Will this prevent Sandy Hooks from happening? No. Will it stop other potentially dangerous individuals from legally acquiring firearms? Yes. We can also eliminate the senate's ability to block ATF Directors from being appointed. We can also start enforcing the hundreds of gun laws already on the books both at the federal level and state level. The pro-gun crowd LOVES to argue that the fact there are already hundreds of laws on the books proves that gun laws don't work. Yet they run and hide the moment it's pointed out that these gun laws, however well written or well intentioned they are, are UNENFORCEABLE because of the gun lobby's efforts to stymie the execution of those laws.

 

The Second Amendment is the only amendment with the word "regulated" written into it. The writers of the constitution were brilliant men who excelled in getting the most out of every word they committed to parchment. The Supreme Court has done a grave injustice in terms of how they've interpreted the Second Amendment and this is clearly an issue that should be examined in the future by the Supreme Court. And that in no way should be read as an endorsement for obliterating the Second Amendment, rather it's an endorsement for a new interpretation of it in the light of our present day technological advancements. The Founding Fathers could no more predict the invention of weapons that can fire 900 rounds per minute than they could predict the invention of the automobile.

 

And we regulate the shiiit out of auto manufacturers without a second thought. We still have the ability to buy and own a car despite all this legislation and regulation.

 

But legislation alone will not solve the issue. It's intertwined with a number of other overlapping issues such as education, poverty, the war on drugs, and probably countless others I'm forgetting. There is no reason we cannot preserve the intent of the Second Amendment AND regulate gun sales and manufacturers in such a way that will help stem the tide of gun violence plaguing this country.

 

Well, there is a reason, I guess. It's as old as time itself: GREED.

[Joe Miner]

Criminals, by definition, do not follow laws. Expecting to pass laws that criminals will follow is the height of stupidity that's only matched by the counter to that argument that the pro-gun crowd throws out and was highlighted by both of B-Man's ridiculous posts. But because criminals don't follow laws, does that mean we can't legislate at all? That brings us back to the original question which B-Man and others have consistently dodged and refused to answer: why is murder against the law if people are just going to murder regardless? Or any variation of that question that's been posed numerous times.

 

Claiming legislation to curb gun violence is a failure because of incidents like Sandy Hook or Boston as specious as the left saying gun laws alone are the only way to solve the epidemic of gun violence in this country.

 

We lose over 80 people a day to gun violence in this country. Half of those are by suicide. 30,000+ a year are killed by the epidemic of gun violence that is destroying, largely, one segment of the population. You can talk about culture, you can talk about mental illness and bring up many valid points with regards to possible solutions to the problem. But for some reason you can't talk about guns.

 

That's ridiculous. Why can't we put everything on the table?

 

What the NRA and pro-gun groups have done over the years is to systematically destroy ANY gun regulation or legislation's chance for success. They've kneecapped the ATF, resisted universal background checks (after supporting them), and made the debate about anything and everything BUT the weapons themselves. Why? It's not to protect the constitution. And it's not to protect our individual rights. It's to protect the gravy train of the gun manufactures who provide millions of dollars in funding to the NRA every year. If the NRA doesn't listen to their masters then Smith & Weston, Midway, The Beretta Group etc will take their funding to one of the other lobbyist groups out there like the CCRKBA or GOA, either one of which would be happy to pick up the fight and take the millions of dollars being thrown their way. The NRA isn't arguing out of a sense of duty to their members or their country. Instead, they're fighting a cause to fatten their own bottom line and that of their primary benefactors.

 

So what can we do in terms of legislation? Well for starters we could do what 90% of Americans want, and 84% of Republicans want -- namely, expanding background checks to sales over the internet and at gun shows. Will this prevent Sandy Hooks from happening? No. Will it stop other potentially dangerous individuals from legally acquiring firearms? Yes. We can also eliminate the senate's ability to block ATF Directors from being appointed. We can also start enforcing the hundreds of gun laws already on the books both at the federal level and state level. The pro-gun crowd LOVES to argue that the fact there are already hundreds of laws on the books proves that gun laws don't work. Yet they run and hide the moment it's pointed out that these gun laws, however well written or well intentioned they are, are UNENFORCEABLE because of the gun lobby's efforts to stymie the execution of those laws.

 

The Second Amendment is the only amendment with the word "regulated" written into it. The writers of the constitution were brilliant men who excelled in getting the most out of every word they committed to parchment. The Supreme Court has done a grave injustice in terms of how they've interpreted the Second Amendment and this is clearly an issue that should be examined in the future by the Supreme Court. And that in no way should be read as an endorsement for obliterating the Second Amendment, rather it's an endorsement for a new interpretation of it in the light of our present day technological advancements. The Founding Fathers could no more predict the invention of weapons that can fire 900 rounds per minute than they could predict the invention of the automobile.

 

And we regulate the shiiit out of auto manufacturers without a second thought. We still have the ability to buy and own a car despite all this legislation and regulation.

 

But legislation alone will not solve the issue. It's intertwined with a number of other overlapping issues such as education, poverty, the war on drugs, and probably countless others I'm forgetting. There is no reason we cannot preserve the intent of the Second Amendment AND regulate gun sales and manufacturers in such a way that will help stem the tide of gun violence plaguing this country.

 

Well, there is a reason, I guess. It's as old as time itself: GREED.

 

Wow, lot of made up crap in that post. Hope you feel better getting that out.

 

Quick tip: Save the bull **** for your next failed screenplay.

[DC Tom]

Criminals, by definition, do not follow laws. Expecting to pass laws that criminals will follow is the height of stupidity that's only matched by the counter to that argument that the pro-gun crowd throws out and was highlighted by both of B-Man's ridiculous posts. But because criminals don't follow laws, does that mean we can't legislate at all? That brings us back to the original question which B-Man and others have consistently dodged and refused to answer: why is murder against the law if people are just going to murder regardless? Or any variation of that question that's been posed numerous times.

 

Claiming legislation to curb gun violence is a failure because of incidents like Sandy Hook or Boston as specious as the left saying gun laws alone are the only way to solve the epidemic of gun violence in this country.

 

We lose over 80 people a day to gun violence in this country. Half of those are by suicide. 30,000+ a year are killed by the epidemic of gun violence that is destroying, largely, one segment of the population. You can talk about culture, you can talk about mental illness and bring up many valid points with regards to possible solutions to the problem. But for some reason you can't talk about guns.

 

That's ridiculous. Why can't we put everything on the table?

 

What the NRA and pro-gun groups have done over the years is to systematically destroy ANY gun regulation or legislation's chance for success. They've kneecapped the ATF, resisted universal background checks (after supporting them), and made the debate about anything and everything BUT the weapons themselves. Why? It's not to protect the constitution. And it's not to protect our individual rights. It's to protect the gravy train of the gun manufactures who provide millions of dollars in funding to the NRA every year. If the NRA doesn't listen to their masters then Smith & Weston, Midway, The Beretta Group etc will take their funding to one of the other lobbyist groups out there like the CCRKBA or GOA, either one of which would be happy to pick up the fight and take the millions of dollars being thrown their way. The NRA isn't arguing out of a sense of duty to their members or their country. Instead, they're fighting a cause to fatten their own bottom line and that of their primary benefactors.

 

So what can we do in terms of legislation? Well for starters we could do what 90% of Americans want, and 84% of Republicans want -- namely, expanding background checks to sales over the internet and at gun shows. Will this prevent Sandy Hooks from happening? No. Will it stop other potentially dangerous individuals from legally acquiring firearms? Yes. We can also eliminate the senate's ability to block ATF Directors from being appointed. We can also start enforcing the hundreds of gun laws already on the books both at the federal level and state level. The pro-gun crowd LOVES to argue that the fact there are already hundreds of laws on the books proves that gun laws don't work. Yet they run and hide the moment it's pointed out that these gun laws, however well written or well intentioned they are, are UNENFORCEABLE because of the gun lobby's efforts to stymie the execution of those laws.

 

The Second Amendment is the only amendment with the word "regulated" written into it. The writers of the constitution were brilliant men who excelled in getting the most out of every word they committed to parchment. The Supreme Court has done a grave injustice in terms of how they've interpreted the Second Amendment and this is clearly an issue that should be examined in the future by the Supreme Court. And that in no way should be read as an endorsement for obliterating the Second Amendment, rather it's an endorsement for a new interpretation of it in the light of our present day technological advancements. The Founding Fathers could no more predict the invention of weapons that can fire 900 rounds per minute than they could predict the invention of the automobile.

 

And we regulate the shiiit out of auto manufacturers without a second thought. We still have the ability to buy and own a car despite all this legislation and regulation.

 

But legislation alone will not solve the issue. It's intertwined with a number of other overlapping issues such as education, poverty, the war on drugs, and probably countless others I'm forgetting. There is no reason we cannot preserve the intent of the Second Amendment AND regulate gun sales and manufacturers in such a way that will help stem the tide of gun violence plaguing this country.

 

Well, there is a reason, I guess. It's as old as time itself: GREED.

 

If I had the time right now, I could take this apart, point by point, and demonstrate how each sentence is wrong. (For example, yes the 2nd is the only amendment with "regulated" in it...in reference to militias, not weapons. So what? Go ahead and regulate militias.)

 

And for the most part, my deconstruction would incorporate the same verbal contortions you just engaged, and be just as mendacious.

[B-Man]

Criminals, by definition, do not follow laws.

 

Expecting to pass laws that criminals will follow is the height of stupidity that's only matched by the counter to that argument that the pro-gun crowd throws out and was highlighted by both of B-Man's ridiculous posts.

 

But because criminals don't follow laws, does that mean we can't legislate at all? That brings us back to the original question which B-Man and others have consistently dodged and refused to answer: why is murder against the law if people are just going to murder regardless? Or any variation of that question that's been posed numerous times.

 

 

 

There is NO reason for anyone to read beyond this false choice.

 

He repeats the same error over and over and over,

 

and then petulantly calls out when no one will "play"

 

 

You have to admire that even Tom let it go...............there's just too much illogical thought there.

 

The only correct response is pity.

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

.

[Jim in Anchorage]

 

Criminals, by definition, do not follow laws. Expecting to pass laws that criminals will follow is the height of stupidity that's only matched by the counter to that argument that the pro-gun crowd throws out and was highlighted by both of B-Man's ridiculous posts. But because criminals don't follow laws, does that mean we can't legislate at all? That brings us back to the original question which B-Man and others have consistently dodged and refused to answer: why is murder against the law if people are just going to murder regardless? Or any variation of that question that's been posed numerous times.

 

Claiming legislation to curb gun violence is a failure because of incidents like Sandy Hook or Boston as specious as the left saying gun laws alone are the only way to solve the epidemic of gun violence in this country.

 

We lose over 80 people a day to gun violence in this country. Half of those are by suicide. 30,000+ a year are killed by the epidemic of gun violence that is destroying, largely, one segment of the population. You can talk about culture, you can talk about mental illness and bring up many valid points with regards to possible solutions to the problem. But for some reason you can't talk about guns.

 

That's ridiculous. Why can't we put everything on the table?

 

What the NRA and pro-gun groups have done over the years is to systematically destroy ANY gun regulation or legislation's chance for success. They've kneecapped the ATF, resisted universal background checks (after supporting them), and made the debate about anything and everything BUT the weapons themselves. Why? It's not to protect the constitution. And it's not to protect our individual rights. It's to protect the gravy train of the gun manufactures who provide millions of dollars in funding to the NRA every year. If the NRA doesn't listen to their masters then Smith & Weston, Midway, The Beretta Group etc will take their funding to one of the other lobbyist groups out there like the CCRKBA or GOA, either one of which would be happy to pick up the fight and take the millions of dollars being thrown their way. The NRA isn't arguing out of a sense of duty to their members or their country. Instead, they're fighting a cause to fatten their own bottom line and that of their primary benefactors.

 

So what can we do in terms of legislation? Well for starters we could do what 90% of Americans want, and 84% of Republicans want -- namely, expanding background checks to sales over the internet and at gun shows. Will this prevent Sandy Hooks from happening? No. Will it stop other potentially dangerous individuals from legally acquiring firearms? Yes. We can also eliminate the senate's ability to block ATF Directors from being appointed. We can also start enforcing the hundreds of gun laws already on the books both at the federal level and state level. The pro-gun crowd LOVES to argue that the fact there are already hundreds of laws on the books proves that gun laws don't work. Yet they run and hide the moment it's pointed out that these gun laws, however well written or well intentioned they are, are UNENFORCEABLE because of the gun lobby's efforts to stymie the execution of those laws.

 

The Second Amendment is the only amendment with the word "regulated" written into it. The writers of the constitution were brilliant men who excelled in getting the most out of every word they committed to parchment. The Supreme Court has done a grave injustice in terms of how they've interpreted the Second Amendment and this is clearly an issue that should be examined in the future by the Supreme Court. And that in no way should be read as an endorsement for obliterating the Second Amendment, rather it's an endorsement for a new interpretation of it in the light of our present day technological advancements. The Founding Fathers could no more predict the invention of weapons that can fire 900 rounds per minute than they could predict the invention of the automobile.

 

And we regulate the shiiit out of auto manufacturers without a second thought. We still have the ability to buy and own a car despite all this legislation and regulation.

 

But legislation alone will not solve the issue. It's intertwined with a number of other overlapping issues such as education, poverty, the war on drugs, and probably countless others I'm forgetting. There is no reason we cannot preserve the intent of the Second Amendment AND regulate gun sales and manufacturers in such a way that will help stem the tide of gun violence plaguing this country.

 

Well, there is a reason, I guess. It's as old as time itself: GREED.

Oh finally after 100 useless,pure emotion posts you say something. You think SCOUS did a grave injustice to the 2nd because the founding fathers never envisioned 900 RPM guns? I say go after the 1st. How could they have thought of, when it was written, of radio, TV, Internet? I say free speech should be confined to handbills nailed to a tree.

 

I loved watching your kind turning and twisting in the wind after Heller and McDonald.