Moms make case for gun control

There are 9283 comments on the usatoday.com story from Mar 16, 2013, titled Moms make case for gun control. In it, usatoday.com reports that:

Peg Paulson had never beaten a path through the halls of Congress before or met a U.S. senator's staffer or advocated for a controversial issue.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at usatoday.com.

xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#480 Apr 12, 2013
spocko wrote:
Violence in video games and movies, or lack of mental illness treatment, not guns, cause gun deaths. Another duh! These games and movies are just as popular in other countries, and there are mentally ill people all over the world, but other countries don't have the same rate of gun deaths because they don't allow every nutter to own a gun. And who's going to pay for mental illness treatment? Who decides who's mentally ill? Plus a little thing called freedom of speech might make it hard to censor games and movies.
No, because we do it now anyway. We rate our movies and disallow people of certain ages from seeing or buying them. Adam Lanza was intensely into violent gun video games. The Colorado shooter was dressed up like a Bat Man character.

Who will take care of the mentally ill and decide on who is mentally ill? We did it years ago. It was called being committed. If a police officer or family member suspected a person not of sound mind, they took him or her to court and they were committed to a care facility. As time went on, the courts decided that by committing people who committed no crime, it violated their Constitutional rights. Did they rule that in these other countries you speak of?

So we were forced to open the door and let them all go, and they still roam among us today. It was Geraldo who started the movement when he had his own hour television show every week back in the 70's.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#481 Apr 12, 2013
spocko wrote:
The Second Amendment. Gun nuts argue that the constitution protects unfettered access to guns. Rather ironic to see these same people who argue this are ready to dump the First Amendment right to free speech. News Flash: all constitutional rights have limits. We have a First Amendment right to gather peacefully to petition the government for redress of grievances, but just try having 50 people doing exactly that in Boehner's living room or even in the public hallway in front of his House office. They will be arrested. All of our other constitutional rights have limits so why are gun rights any different?
They shouldn't be and are not. You can't buy a firearm as a child. You can't have a firearm if you are a felon. You can't own a bazooka or live hand grenades. It takes at least a year IF the federal government will grant you a right to buy an automatic weapon. You have to have a background check to purchase a firearm from a dealer. Crimes have larger penalties if you use a firearm in the commission. Many states like mine here in Ohio won't allow you to have a CCW permit if you were convicted of a violent crime which includes domestic.

We have all kinds of laws for guns. But like the First Amendment, they have limitations.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Lake Charles, LA

#482 Apr 12, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
<quoted text>Indeed. Which is PRECISELY why We The People MUST not allow them even one more inch of encroachment.(As well as to beat back all of the prior encroachments). And I truly believe that it is THIS generation that MUST do it. Or else we aren't going to have ANY freedoms or liberties left to pass on to our posterity.
On the same page.
spocko

Oakland, CA

#486 Apr 12, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
They shouldn't be and are not. You can't buy a firearm as a child. You can't have a firearm if you are a felon. You can't own a bazooka or live hand grenades. It takes at least a year IF the federal government will grant you a right to buy an automatic weapon. You have to have a background check to purchase a firearm from a dealer. Crimes have larger penalties if you use a firearm in the commission. Many states like mine here in Ohio won't allow you to have a CCW permit if you were convicted of a violent crime which includes domestic.
We have all kinds of laws for guns. But like the First Amendment, they have limitations.
Are you f-ing kidding me you can buy a gun anytime anywhere no questions asked - it's like friggen candy ... at the local street corner, out of someones trunk, guns are every f-ing where!
spocko

Oakland, CA

#487 Apr 12, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
<quoted text>
PROVE it with actual verifiable FACTS.
You are basing your blather on ideology not verifiable facts. Since 1982, there have been at least 61 mass murders carried out with firearms across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii.” And in most cases, the killers had obtained their weapons legally. World wide, 15 of the 25 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years took place in the United States. The South is the most violent part of the US, the south has more than twice as many gun related assaults than the National average.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#488 Apr 12, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
<quoted text>
Please allow me to interject. There is NO "limitations" on free speech. Rather there are punishments for ABUSE or MISUSE of that right. Which of course is the same exact intent of the 2nd Amendment.
ALL government imposed 'regulations' are PRIOR RESTRAINTS on a Constitutionally secured right. Which of course is an INFRINGEMENT. All of the examples you gave are REPUGNANT to We The People's Constitution. The same punishment should apply if a gun, knife, club, spear, bow and arrow, tire iron, pipe, fists, feet, etc. are used in a crime. Using your examples, should prior restraints be applied to all of those other weapons?
While not being a prosecutor, I do think there are. Many bank robberies occur without a weapon being shown or written about on the note passed to the teller. Hit a guy in the head, and you can be prosecuted for assault. Hit the guy in the head with a blunt instrument, it's assault with a deadly weapon which as I stated, is accompanied with higher penalties.

I totally disagree with this notion that firearms have no restrictions be it Constitutional or not. We have plenty of firearm restrictions. From a Constitutional point of view, it would be a violation of the Constitution to prohibit a mass murderer from owning a weapon once out of prison. Is that what we want, or more importantly, is that what the founders intended?
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#489 Apr 12, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you f-ing kidding me you can buy a gun anytime anywhere no questions asked - it's like friggen candy ... at the local street corner, out of someones trunk, guns are every f-ing where!
Correct, they are. My point is that you need to pass a background check to buy a firearm legally from a gun store. It's also my point that gun purchases are not totally unregulated.

These guns that you speak of that are sold out of trunk or on the street corner, are they legal firearms? Of course not. Those sold on the street are products of home thefts. They are "hot" guns that are not traceable to the murderer. No laws will ever change that.

Rush Limbaugh brought up a great point today about the Sandy Hook school shooting. He asked about the legalities of his murder spree?

He didn't own firearms.

He killed his mother. Illegal.
He stole his mothers guns. Illegal.
He broke into a secured school. Illegal.
He killed those children with hot guns. Illegal.

None of the laws that he violated stopped his murder spree. In fact, if I have the story right, Lanza DID try to purchase firearms from a store but was denied because he didn't pass a background check. So he stole guns instead.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#493 Apr 13, 2013
Thanks, but I have a folder on the founders quotes myself. So because you provided me these quotes, I assume you think that all people (regardless of past crimes) should be allowed to have and use firearms at will. However, I think your opinion would change if your daughter was a victim in a Sandy Hook murder spree or perhaps if they became more frequent.

Remember that murderers back then were taken out back and hung immediately. They didn't go to a prison with cable television, a pool room, a workout room, three square meals a day plus snacks, and were allowed to have their wives visit from time to time for a little screwing around.

The intent here is to reduce crime, and you will only promote more violent criminal acts by allowing ALL people regardless of mental capabilities to have and use firearms. The majority of people would reject that notion.

I believe the founders overlooked kooks and evil people when they spoke. I think if they could come back today, they would have to consider the new world we live in, and write exceptions to the rule.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Lake Charles, LA

#494 Apr 13, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
<quoted text>How's it going over there in Louisiana?
It's going. The economy is spotty. We have people here that vote tradition, rather than issues. The result is Senator Landrieu, Democrat, which voted Thursday to stop the gun control filibuster. I sent her a disappointment letter and reminded her I will remember that vote, when she is up for reelection.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#499 Apr 13, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
<quoted text>
Please allow me to interject. There is NO "limitations" on free speech.
There are no limits on anything.

Just consequences.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#500 Apr 13, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here, we'll let THEM answer that question:.
Can you find a quoation from someone who hasn't been dead for 200 years?

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

Justice Scalia
Speaking for the SCOTUS majority
this century

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#501 Apr 13, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
I sent her a disappointment letter and reminded her I will remember that vote, when she is up for reelection.
I will send her $10. I wll remind her that only cowards would want to block discussion of the issues.

Which do you think she will appreciate more?

Funny how the gun gnutters continue to insist they understand the Second Amendment (and they only remember half of it) but when 90 percent of Americans demand the protection of universal background checks, the gun gnutters want to cut off debate before it starts.

Funny how that is: they forget the FIRST amendment and don't understand the second.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#503 Apr 13, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
Thanks, but I have a folder on the founders quotes myself.
You keep it next to the folder of excuses of you to get out of jury duty, mooch?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#504 Apr 13, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
-Thomas Jefferson
Owned 600 slaves.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#505 Apr 13, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
-Alexander Hamilton
Gay.

I guess that is fine you should want to make him a hero, maybe carry his poster in your... you know... next pride parade.

Here's the thing about Hamilton (other than being gay): he was a monarchist.

He wanted a king to rule over the US.

I understand: you like strong men ruling over you, eh, GayDavy?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#506 Apr 13, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
That is >you< LIE-berals fault.
Ah, why is it so many cuntservatives are such poor spellers, GayDavy?

Why is it that people who say they are advocates for the Second Amendment don't even know the words- as you have posted incorrectly several dozen times?

Eh?
spocko

Oakland, CA

#507 Apr 13, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here, we'll let THEM answer that question:
"That no man should scruple, or hesitate a moment to use arms in defense of so valuable a blessing [as liberty], on which all the good and evil of life depends; is clearly my opinion; yet Arms...should be the last resort."-- George Washington, 1789 letter to George Mason.[The True George Washington, 10th Ed. By Paul Leicester Ford.]
"We established, however, some although not all its important principles. The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people ... that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person,freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press."--Thomas Jefferson, To John Cartwright. vii, 356.(M., 1824.)(Jefferson Cyclopedia).
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government ... The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms..."--Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No. 28.
"...Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the PEOPLE AT LARGE, than to have them properly ARMED and EQUIPPED .... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, LITTLE, if at ALL, INFERIOR to them in discipline and the USE OF ARMS, who stand ready to DEFEND THEIR OWN RIGHTS, and those of their fellow citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army; and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."--Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 29, Independent Journal, Wednesday, January 9, 1788.
“Is it possible, he asked, that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves and their brethren? or, if raised, whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?”-- Theodore Sedgwick, Jan., 1788. The Debates in the Several State Conventions,(Massachusetts), on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 2]
And this is WHY we must NEVER allow ourselves to be disarmed:
"No, surely, No! they meant to drive us into what they termed rebellion, that they might be furnished with a pretext to disarm and then strip us of the rights and privileges of Englishmen and Citizens."--George Washington, March 1, 1778 letter to Bryan Fairfax, Valley forge.
I can provide quite a few more quotes if you like....
I really think you can stop now worrying about the King's soldiers they're gone - it's been 200 years, time to move on ...
spocko

Oakland, CA

#508 Apr 13, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct, they are. My point is that you need to pass a background check to buy a firearm legally from a gun store. It's also my point that gun purchases are not totally unregulated.
These guns that you speak of that are sold out of trunk or on the street corner, are they legal firearms? Of course not. Those sold on the street are products of home thefts. They are "hot" guns that are not traceable to the murderer. No laws will ever change that.
Rush Limbaugh brought up a great point today about the Sandy Hook school shooting. He asked about the legalities of his murder spree?
He didn't own firearms.
He killed his mother. Illegal.
He stole his mothers guns. Illegal.
He broke into a secured school. Illegal.
He killed those children with hot guns. Illegal.
None of the laws that he violated stopped his murder spree. In fact, if I have the story right, Lanza DID try to purchase firearms from a store but was denied because he didn't pass a background check. So he stole guns instead.
Are you making an argument or just babbling on incoherently?

“BILLARY 2016 ”

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

#509 Apr 13, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
He can say whatever he wants. That doesn't mean it's going to happen. Hahahahahahahahahah.
It already has upheld laws that limit freaks like you from purchasing weapons of death.
Tell me, where can you buy a grenade?
Oh, right. You can't. As a result,
guess how many Americans 'die by grenade'
every year? None. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

There are a lot of laws the Supreme Court upheld that you don't know about. Most FOXbots like you know very little, apparently.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#510 Apr 13, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
Rush Limbaugh brought up a great point today about the Sandy Hook school shooting
Rush, the draft dodging pill junkie who called for the death penalty of drug kingpins and got caught with $10,000 worth of illegal pills in his car?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News No wedding for Bristol Palin 16 hr Tazo 9
Stop white on white crime May 20 Truth and Facts 30
News Concealed Carry Reduced Crime But NOT on Chicag... May 18 Truth and Facts 3
News Local Jews upset by Holocaust references in cam... (Jun '12) May 17 Robbie Siegmyer 115
News The Free Beacon Thinks Purchasing Ammunition Sh... May 17 JEFF1234 1
Democrats: Get A $2,000 Tax Credit For Turning ... May 10 Prep-for-Dep 22
News 'Batman' shooting tragedy exploited on various ... (Jul '12) May 8 gragulum 11
More from around the web