The Senate's gun control fail: dead children and monied politicians | David Simon

Apr 18, 2013 Full story: The Guardian 605

The blocking of gun control legislation in the Senate exposes just how deeply corrupted America's bought democracy has become Mark Barden, whose son Daniel died at Sandy Hook elementary school, hugs Joe Biden after the Senate bill was killed.

Read more

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#372 May 3, 2013
Gabriella Cruse wrote:
<quoted text>
Posting the same thing four times in a row doesn't get yur point across.
Modern Pseudo Liberals it seems you have to post the same thing several times over for them especially when it deals with actual facts and when you present too many actual facts at once Modern Pseudo Liberals cant handle it.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#373 May 3, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't disagree with his understanding of the loaning of the weapon which is listed as a temporary transfer but I do disagree with his understanding of a permanent a sale which is also defined as a transfer.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
‘(A) bona fide gifts between spouses, between parents and their children, between siblings, or between grandparents and their grandchildren;
‘(B) a transfer made from a decedent’s estate, pursuant to a legal will or the operation of law;
‘(C) a temporary transfer of possession that occurs between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee, if--
‘(i) the temporary transfer of possession occurs in the home or curtilage of the unlicensed transferor;
‘(ii) the firearm is not removed from that home or curtilage during the temporary transfer; and
‘(iii) the transfer has a duration of less than 7 days; and
‘(D) a temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title made in connection with lawful hunting or sporting purposes if the transfer occurs--
‘(i) at a shooting range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting range;
‘(ii) at a target firearm shooting competition under the auspices of or approved by a State agency or nonprofit organization and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting competition;
Do you see where background checks for a permanent sale of a firearm between family members are not required? Me neither.
I'll believe the guy who wrote the bill over your possibly selective listing of the bill's provisions, thank you.

Irrelevant in any case, since even this simple, minor change in law was blocked by the NRA and its Congressional stooges.

And of course I've already stated MY position multiple times - background checks are CERTAINLY not enough for me, I want the 2nd Amendment repealed and strict gun regulations along the line of Australia's put in its place. We need to get the guns off our streets, out of our homes, and out of the hands of most Americans.

FWIW
Gabriella Cruse

Mobile, AL

#374 May 3, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Modern Pseudo Liberals it seems you have to post the same thing several times over for them especially when it deals with actual facts and when you present too many actual facts at once Modern Pseudo Liberals cant handle it.
This is EXACTLY what a right_wing nutjob would say.
Canon

Texarkana, TX

#375 May 3, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll believe the guy who wrote the bill over your possibly selective listing of the bill's provisions, thank you.
Irrelevant in any case, since even this simple, minor change in law was blocked by the NRA and its Congressional stooges.
And of course I've already stated MY position multiple times - background checks are CERTAINLY not enough for me, I want the 2nd Amendment repealed and strict gun regulations along the line of Australia's put in its place. We need to get the guns off our streets, out of our homes, and out of the hands of most Americans.
FWIW
It's a shame you don't have a brain.... brainless chatter....what do they pay you to do this? YOU are ANTI-AMERICAN. You don't deserve to be here.
Canon

Texarkana, TX

#376 May 3, 2013
Gabriella Cruse wrote:
<quoted text>
This is EXACTLY what a right_wing nutjob would say.
You did not even comprehend the statement did you? Read it again, it true. Brainless chatter that's what you do.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#377 May 3, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll believe the guy who wrote the bill over your possibly selective listing of the bill's provisions, thank you.
Irrelevant in any case, since even this simple, minor change in law was blocked by the NRA and its Congressional stooges.
And of course I've already stated MY position multiple times - background checks are CERTAINLY not enough for me, I want the 2nd Amendment repealed and strict gun regulations along the line of Australia's put in its place. We need to get the guns off our streets, out of our homes, and out of the hands of most Americans.
FWIW


Wouldn't it be just easier to move to Australia?

There have been 70,291,049 background checks for gun purchases since President Obama took office, according to data released by the FBI.

In 2009, the FBI conducted 14,033,824 background checks. If we subtract the month of January (Obama did not assume office until the end of the month) we get 12,819,939.

The FBI conducted 14,409,616 background checks in 2010, 16,454,951 in 2011, and 19,592,303 in 2012.

Add to that the first three months of 2013 (2,495,440, 2,309,393 and 2,209,407, respectively) and the total number of background checks under President Obama comes to 70,291,049.

Over the same time period, the number of background checks completed under President George W. Bush was 36,090,415, or about half the number conducted under Obama.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#378 May 3, 2013
Windy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not being able to just give someone a gun, but having to have the weapon pass through a licensed dealer gives the system a way to 1. keep track of the weapon through registry, and 2. make it possible to perform a background check. It's inconvenient, but it makes sense to do it...
As far as "not everyone who lies on the application being prosecuted" - how many people are pulled over for speeding, but not given a ticket? Or given a ticket for a lesser offense? It happens all the time, probably hundreds each day in our country.
Having posession of a gun will not prevent any woman from being stalked...


Last time I checked speeding wasn't a felony and the reason the woman wanted the weapon in the first place was because she was being stalked and did not expect the stalking to stop.

April 24, 2013
Woman defends herself from abuser, The Billings Gazette, Billings, Mont. 04/17/13
A woman was at home in Billings, Mont. when her estranged boyfriend came to her front door, and when he was refused entry, kicked in the back door of the house. As the abusive ex-boyfriend came inside, the woman retrieved a gun and forced him from the property. The woman then called police, who captured the criminal a short time later. Evidently, the firearm the woman keeps for self-defense proved more persuasive than the order of protection issued against the ex-boyfriend in December.
spocko

Oakland, CA

#379 May 3, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe that.
While I was tossing around the idea of getting my CCW, I was on the dart team for the bar I go to, and we were playing another team from the Cleveland Police bar. It gave me a great opportunity to discuss my plans with off-duty police officers.
I was surprised that most of them suggested I get my license and carry my weapon. They not only supported me getting my license, they encouraged it.
Anytime a police officer addresses a citizen, they are trained to always suspect the citizen is armed be they the good guy or bad. The officers I spoke with said they are relieved when they are presented a CCW and the holder is honest enough to tell them whether they have a weapon or not. It makes their job much easier.
Not only that, but they also like the idea that the CCW holder has been put through the ringer when it comes to background checks. It's also a secondary identification to a drivers license.
They did caution me however that not all officers share their opinion. There are some still stuck in the mud about CCW holders and they might look down on the fact you have a license, so don't expect a break from a speeding ticket with those guys.
But all and all, I was told most officers support armed citizens provided they have a license. They even admitted that they are only good after the crime is committed, and it would be refreshing to see people be able to protect themselves until they arrive.
No matter how many victims these police see in their career, there is always this little voice in their heads that say "I wish I was here when that SOB did this to this person."
You clearly are a legend in your own mind?
senior citizen

Granite City, IL

#380 May 3, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
ROTFLMAO!
FactCheck was wrong, huh? Will await confirmation of that with extensive links and facts to support it.
Get to work!:)
I already sent it to you - sorry if you can not comprehend what you read.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#381 May 3, 2013
Gabriella Cruse wrote:
<quoted text>
This is EXACTLY what a right_wing nutjob would say.
Except Indy is not a right-wing nutjob. We've been posting to the same forums for the last couple of years. I don't even think he's a Republican.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#382 May 3, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll believe the guy who wrote the bill over your possibly selective listing of the bill's provisions, thank you.
Irrelevant in any case, since even this simple, minor change in law was blocked by the NRA and its Congressional stooges.
And of course I've already stated MY position multiple times - background checks are CERTAINLY not enough for me, I want the 2nd Amendment repealed and strict gun regulations along the line of Australia's put in its place. We need to get the guns off our streets, out of our homes, and out of the hands of most Americans.
FWIW
Precisely. And that's the way a lot of Democrat politicians feel. That's why you don't put out the welcome mat for their agenda which is gun restrictions. Eventually, they too would want to attack the Constitution as harshly as they can. They've been doing it for years.

Like I said before, if you really want to see what it's like to live in a country with no guns, put a huge sign on your front porch that says "WE HAVE NO FIREARMS IN THIS HOME" and let us know how that works out for you. Because if you confiscate all the guns from law abiding citizens, that's exactly what you will be doing--alerting all criminals that you cannot defend yourself from their intrusion or attacks.
spocko

Oakland, CA

#383 May 3, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Precisely. And that's the way a lot of Democrat politicians feel. That's why you don't put out the welcome mat for their agenda which is gun restrictions. Eventually, they too would want to attack the Constitution as harshly as they can. They've been doing it for years.
Like I said before, if you really want to see what it's like to live in a country with no guns, put a huge sign on your front porch that says "WE HAVE NO FIREARMS IN THIS HOME" and let us know how that works out for you. Because if you confiscate all the guns from law abiding citizens, that's exactly what you will be doing--alerting all criminals that you cannot defend yourself from their intrusion or attacks.
Let’s just say the world is not here to please you and your fellow gunloons and neither is gun control!
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#384 May 3, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Let’s just say the world is not here to please you and your fellow gunloons and neither is gun control!
So it should be here to please you?

Representatives vote according to what they think their constituents feel about a certain issue. That's how they keep their job. Apparently, Democrats and Republicans are doing just that; representing their people.

The system works quite well except for Democrats. Democrats feel they should do whatever they want and to hell with what the people or courts think about it.

We don't live under a dictatorship as of yet, and I want to keep it that way.

The people have spoken.
spocko

Oakland, CA

#385 May 3, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
So it should be here to please you?
Sorry but you simply don't get ye moron - gun reg is here to protect the vulnerable like children ...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#386 May 3, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry but you simply don't get ye moron - gun reg is here to protect the vulnerable like children ...
Liberal SCOTUS ruled gun registration as Unconstitutional in 1968 too

Haynes v. United States

The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration of certain types of firearms. Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself and the Liberal SCOUTS agreed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United...

Warren Court

The Warren Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States between 1953 and 1969, when Earl Warren served as Chief Justice. Warren led a liberal majority that used judicial power in dramatic fashion, to the consternation of conservative opponents. The Warren Court expanded civil rights, civil liberties, judicial power, and the federal power in dramatic ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Court
senior citizen

Granite City, IL

#387 May 3, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry but you simply don't get ye moron - gun reg is here to protect the vulnerable like children ...
Who is going to protect the children against the THUGS and GANGS since they will be the only ones with guns if you get your way.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#388 May 3, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry but you simply don't get ye moron - gun reg is here to protect the vulnerable like children ...
Let me get this straight: if we disarm the non-criminal and leave the criminals armed because we can't stop them, that will protect the children? I fail to see that logic.

Now if you can show me how laws stop criminals, then at least I can understand where you're coming from. But since laws don't stop maniacs from carrying out a plot of murder and destruction, then I fail see your point.

Okay, so let's use our imagination and say everybody was disarmed. How does that help a female who is being targeted by a much larger and stronger male; a male with an ax, or baseball bat, or even his very bare hands?

When our legislatures were debating our proposed CCW law, I was blogging with an opponent of the legislation. I explained that my mother lives alone and because she doesn't drive, she frequently walks to the store or church. The neighborhood isn't what it used to be.

He replied asking that if the CCW law was passed, would my dear old elderly mother pack heat? To that, I responded "No she wouldn't, but the criminals don't know that."

One of the best deterrents to crime is creating uncertainty. When a criminal is uncertain that his devious act might fail or end his life, he gives pause to his plan. Give him certainty that his aggression will not be met with resistance, then it's a no-brainer.

The bottom line is this: unarmed people are more secure because of us armed people. Because most of us conceal our weapons, an attacker has to take that into consideration. It's a deterrent.

Prior to our CCW law, we used to read weekly events of ATM robberies. A few years after the law was passed giving motorists not only the ability to have a firearm, but use it in the event somebody tried to enter their vehicle, armed robberies at ATM machines just about stopped. Why is that? Because before the laws were passed, criminals were certain that the woman at the ATM machine was helpless. After the law was passed, they had to ask themselves if $300.00 (the maximum the machine will allow you to withdraw) was worth their life?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#389 May 3, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Except Indy is not a right-wing nutjob. We've been posting to the same forums for the last couple of years. I don't even think he's a Republican.
your correct.
spocko

Oakland, CA

#390 May 3, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me get this straight: if we disarm the non-criminal and leave the criminals armed because we can't stop them, that will protect the children? I fail to see that logic.
Now if you can show me how laws stop criminals, then at least I can understand where you're coming from. But since laws don't stop maniacs from carrying out a plot of murder and destruction, then I fail see your point.
Okay, so let's use our imagination and say everybody was disarmed. How does that help a female who is being targeted by a much larger and stronger male; a male with an ax, or baseball bat, or even his very bare hands?
When our legislatures were debating our proposed CCW law, I was blogging with an opponent of the legislation. I explained that my mother lives alone and because she doesn't drive, she frequently walks to the store or church. The neighborhood isn't what it used to be.
He replied asking that if the CCW law was passed, would my dear old elderly mother pack heat? To that, I responded "No she wouldn't, but the criminals don't know that."
One of the best deterrents to crime is creating uncertainty. When a criminal is uncertain that his devious act might fail or end his life, he gives pause to his plan. Give him certainty that his aggression will not be met with resistance, then it's a no-brainer.
The bottom line is this: unarmed people are more secure because of us armed people. Because most of us conceal our weapons, an attacker has to take that into consideration. It's a deterrent.
Prior to our CCW law, we used to read weekly events of ATM robberies. A few years after the law was passed giving motorists not only the ability to have a firearm, but use it in the event somebody tried to enter their vehicle, armed robberies at ATM machines just about stopped. Why is that? Because before the laws were passed, criminals were certain that the woman at the ATM machine was helpless. After the law was passed, they had to ask themselves if $300.00 (the maximum the machine will allow you to withdraw) was worth their life?
Yawn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzz

“your guns must be in your hands, on your hips or in your gunsafe – no exceptions”
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#391 May 4, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Yawn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzz
“your guns must be in your hands, on your hips or in your gunsafe – no exceptions”
Deflection time.

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.

Joe Biden Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Sen. Corker: 'Political Deal' With Iran Is Clos... Mar 23 Zeppelin 2
News Charles and Camilla are making their third join... Mar 19 Whatever 3
News The Irish Prime Minister Is Here. And He Won't ... Mar 18 cherokee 2
News Duck Hunt: NAACP Blasts Phil Robertson as 'Racist' (Dec '13) Mar 17 A man 405
News Even John Kerry says the Iran deal is not legal... Mar 16 woodtick57 26
News Netanyahu to use Congress' bully pulpit to assa... Mar 14 Le Duped 68
News How likely it is that these 31 Amtrak customer ... Mar 13 Eleanor 1
More from around the web