***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (1 Viewer)

[Apple Jack]

Well, thank goodness John Rocker's still relevant... My link

"Absolute certainties are a rare thing in this life, but one I think can be collectively agreed upon is the undeniable fact that the Holocaust would have never taken place had the Jewish citizenry of Hitler's Germany had the right to bear arms and defended themselves with those arms."

Can never go wrong bringing the Holocaust in when trying to make a point about something. Especially, if you've established yourself as an idiot bigoted hick.

haha.. wowas if a group of armed people has never lost a conflict

Not to mention that the Jewish population of Germany was extremely small. But the one absolute certainty that I think can be collectively agreed upon is the undeniable fact that John Rocker is an idiot.

Why is that the only video you comment on. Did you even watch the others?You call me paranoid, I call you irresponsible and foolish with you and your families lives.

Tim has multiple families? And that doesn't have it's own thread?

 

[Cookiemonster]

Well, thank goodness John Rocker's still relevant... My link

"Absolute certainties are a rare thing in this life, but one I think can be collectively agreed upon is the undeniable fact that the Holocaust would have never taken place had the Jewish citizenry of Hitler's Germany had the right to bear arms and defended themselves with those arms."

Can never go wrong bringing the Holocaust in when trying to make a point about something. Especially, if you've established yourself as an idiot bigoted hick.

haha.. wowas if a group of armed people has never lost a conflict

Not to mention that the Jewish population of Germany was extremely small. But the one absolute certainty that I think can be collectively agreed upon is the undeniable fact that John Rocker is an idiot.

Why is that the only video you comment on. Did you even watch the others?You call me paranoid, I call you irresponsible and foolish with you and your families lives.

To be fair to Tim, I think even Paris Hilton thinks John Rocker is an idiot.

 

[cobalt_27]

Well, thank goodness John Rocker's still relevant... My link

"Absolute certainties are a rare thing in this life, but one I think can be collectively agreed upon is the undeniable fact that the Holocaust would have never taken place had the Jewish citizenry of Hitler's Germany had the right to bear arms and defended themselves with those arms."

Can never go wrong bringing the Holocaust in when trying to make a point about something. Especially, if you've established yourself as an idiot bigoted hick.

haha.. wowas if a group of armed people has never lost a conflict

Not to mention that the Jewish population of Germany was extremely small. But the one absolute certainty that I think can be collectively agreed upon is the undeniable fact that John Rocker is an idiot.

Why is that the only video you comment on. Did you even watch the others?You call me paranoid, I call you irresponsible and foolish with you and your families lives.

You and Rocker cut from the same intellectual cloth. He's one of yours. Celebrate!

 

[boots11234]

Tim are you thick or something? As I predicted you would in my post, you mock me but refuse to answer my question. Is your goal to save children's lives? If so, banning pools would accomplish that. But you refuse to answer, because you know my logic is solid. No, your goal is not to save lives it's to ban guns. What is yor goal? Saving kids or banning guns? Answer the question.

I guess I must be thick. (I am in the waist anyhow, trying to work on that.) It's not I who mock you, it's you who mock yourself with your mockable posts. And by the way, the next time you accuse me of banning guns, please point to the post where I once called for the banning of any kind of firearm. tia. But if that is too much work for you, just make another post about the swimming pool analogy.

LOL. good non answer. Answer the question. Afraid? Oh, and with regards to banning guns, you ARE too thick to understand that your policies will lead to the banning of guns. Let me explain it to you, when this doesnt work the next step will be, lets ban handguns, handguns are killing our kids.

 

[Apple Jack]

Tim are you thick or something? As I predicted you would in my post, you mock me but refuse to answer my question. Is your goal to save children's lives? If so, banning pools would accomplish that. But you refuse to answer, because you know my logic is solid. No, your goal is not to save lives it's to ban guns. What is yor goal? Saving kids or banning guns? Answer the question.

I guess I must be thick. (I am in the waist anyhow, trying to work on that.) It's not I who mock you, it's you who mock yourself with your mockable posts. And by the way, the next time you accuse me of banning guns, please point to the post where I once called for the banning of any kind of firearm. tia. But if that is too much work for you, just make another post about the swimming pool analogy.

LOL. good non answer. Answer the question. Afraid? Oh, and with regards to banning guns, you ARE too thick to understand that your policies will lead to the banning of guns. Let me explain it to you, when this doesnt work the next step will be, lets ban handguns, handguns are killing our kids.

What are the results of the pick six at Santa Anita tomorrow?

 

[cobalt_27]

Tim are you thick or something? As I predicted you would in my post, you mock me but refuse to answer my question. Is your goal to save children's lives? If so, banning pools would accomplish that. But you refuse to answer, because you know my logic is solid. No, your goal is not to save lives it's to ban guns. What is yor goal? Saving kids or banning guns? Answer the question.

I guess I must be thick. (I am in the waist anyhow, trying to work on that.) It's not I who mock you, it's you who mock yourself with your mockable posts. And by the way, the next time you accuse me of banning guns, please point to the post where I once called for the banning of any kind of firearm. tia. But if that is too much work for you, just make another post about the swimming pool analogy.

LOL. good non answer. Answer the question. Afraid? Oh, and with regards to banning guns, you ARE too thick to understand that your policies will lead to the banning of guns. Let me explain it to you, when this doesnt work the next step will be, lets ban handguns, handguns are killing our kids.

Nobody is going to take away your handguns. We're going to take away a few more powerful rifles, for sure. But your handguns will be safe. Always. Take comfort in this, boots. Deep breaths.

 

[boots11234]

Tim are you thick or something? As I predicted you would in my post, you mock me but refuse to answer my question. Is your goal to save children's lives? If so, banning pools would accomplish that. But you refuse to answer, because you know my logic is solid. No, your goal is not to save lives it's to ban guns. What is yor goal? Saving kids or banning guns? Answer the question.

I guess I must be thick. (I am in the waist anyhow, trying to work on that.) It's not I who mock you, it's you who mock yourself with your mockable posts. And by the way, the next time you accuse me of banning guns, please point to the post where I once called for the banning of any kind of firearm. tia. But if that is too much work for you, just make another post about the swimming pool analogy.

LOL. good non answer. Answer the question. Afraid? Oh, and with regards to banning guns, you ARE too thick to understand that your policies will lead to the banning of guns. Let me explain it to you, when this doesnt work the next step will be, lets ban handguns, handguns are killing our kids.

What are the results of the pick six at Santa Anita tomorrow?

Non answer to question, yet again

 

[boots11234]

Tim are you thick or something? As I predicted you would in my post, you mock me but refuse to answer my question. Is your goal to save children's lives? If so, banning pools would accomplish that. But you refuse to answer, because you know my logic is solid. No, your goal is not to save lives it's to ban guns. What is yor goal? Saving kids or banning guns? Answer the question.

I guess I must be thick. (I am in the waist anyhow, trying to work on that.) It's not I who mock you, it's you who mock yourself with your mockable posts. And by the way, the next time you accuse me of banning guns, please point to the post where I once called for the banning of any kind of firearm. tia. But if that is too much work for you, just make another post about the swimming pool analogy.

LOL. good non answer. Answer the question. Afraid? Oh, and with regards to banning guns, you ARE too thick to understand that your policies will lead to the banning of guns. Let me explain it to you, when this doesnt work the next step will be, lets ban handguns, handguns are killing our kids.

Nobody is going to take away your handguns. We're going to take away a few more powerful rifles, for sure. But your handguns will be safe. Always. Take comfort in this, boots. Deep breaths.

Non answer to question, yet again.

 

[Apple Jack]

Tim are you thick or something? As I predicted you would in my post, you mock me but refuse to answer my question. Is your goal to save children's lives? If so, banning pools would accomplish that. But you refuse to answer, because you know my logic is solid. No, your goal is not to save lives it's to ban guns. What is yor goal? Saving kids or banning guns? Answer the question.

I guess I must be thick. (I am in the waist anyhow, trying to work on that.) It's not I who mock you, it's you who mock yourself with your mockable posts. And by the way, the next time you accuse me of banning guns, please point to the post where I once called for the banning of any kind of firearm. tia. But if that is too much work for you, just make another post about the swimming pool analogy.

LOL. good non answer. Answer the question. Afraid? Oh, and with regards to banning guns, you ARE too thick to understand that your policies will lead to the banning of guns. Let me explain it to you, when this doesnt work the next step will be, lets ban handguns, handguns are killing our kids.

What are the results of the pick six at Santa Anita tomorrow?

Non answer to question, yet again

That's your prerogative, but I'd appreciate if you'd answer before post time of the first race tomorrow.And I'm all for stopping people from mass drownings in schools and movie theaters.

 

[timschochet]

Can you restate the question please?

 

[mquinnjr]

I don't know what to think here. I can't argue the intent here, to limit weapons that are not for sport or simple defense, rather offense. But, I don't think limiting/banning assault weapons is a silver bullet so to speak either. I think it's like anything else that's illegal, be it drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc., just using things people seek out for pleasure as an example. If there is a market of buyers and sellers who can meet on a price that meets demand, access will be there if you desire something bad enough. I just hope this legislation doesn't instigate more people who are in a mental state and potentially capable of committing an act such as that at Sandy Hook to say to themselves 'to heck with you laws, I want this and will make it happen,' and we have another tragedy on our hands. I think it's more a bad sign of the times that there are people capable and willing to commit these acts in our society that just keep popping up, an answer to which I don't myself have. I don't decry at least trying though.

 

[timschochet]

I don't know what to think here. I can't argue the intent here, to limit weapons that are not for sport or simple defense, rather offense. But, I don't think limiting/banning assault weapons is a silver bullet so to speak either. I think it's like anything else that's illegal, be it drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc., just using things people seek out for pleasure as an example. If there is a market of buyers and sellers who can meet on a price that meets demand, access will be there if you desire something bad enough. I just hope this legislation doesn't instigate more people who are in a mental state and potentially capable of committing an act such as that at Sandy Hook to say to themselves 'to heck with you laws, I want this and will make it happen,' and we have another tragedy on our hands. I think it's more a bad sign of the times that there are people capable and willing to commit these acts in our society that just keep popping up, an answer to which I don't myself have. I don't decry at least trying though.

My general rule is this: it should be legal unless you can make a really good argument otherwise. With regard to guns, I can't make a really good argument that so-called "assault weapons" shouldn't be legal. The problem is that I am unable to find a way to distinguish these weapons from other semi-automatic weapons, other than their appearance. And it's illogical (and stupid) to make certain guns illegal simply because they look "scarier" than other guns. Now I suppose you could argue that therefore ALL semi-automatic weapons should be illegal, but that would be extremely impractical- and also, probably would violate individual rights under the 2nd Amendment. So my conclusion is that no semi-automatic weapons should be illegal. High capacity magazines are another story altogether. In that case, I can make a really good argument as to why they should be illegal, and I have. (Many people here disagree with me that it's a good argument.)

 

[timschochet]

What is yor goal? Saving kids or banning guns? Answer the question.

Is this what you referred to when you wrote that I refused to answer the question? Very well. 1. I don't believe in banning any guns currently available for private use. 2. I believe in limiting high capacity magazines, because I think that in mass shooting situations it will help to save lives of innocent people. 3. I believe in universal background checks, and a national database for all firearms, because I believe it will help keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons. Those are my reasons. I have no ulterior motives. I believe firmly in the 2nd Amendment, and I don't believe that either of my ideas will have any impact on the 2nd Amendment, nor will they make it easier to impose future infringements upon the 2nd Amendment. Have I answered you now?

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

The woman from the tea party news network on piers Morgan right now is insane.

 

[Blick]

The woman from the tea party news network on piers Morgan right now is insane.

Regardless of which side of this discussion you fall on, you've got to be getting sick of Piers and his blatant search for rating through this issue.

 

[timschochet]

The woman from the tea party news network on piers Morgan right now is insane.

Regardless of which side of this discussion you fall on, you've got to be getting sick of Piers and his blatant search for rating through this issue.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Obama/Biden help America cling to their guns, even more.

Boise gun show sales upBy Stephanie Smith Published: Jan 12, 2013 at 10:32 PM MST Last Updated: Jan 15, 2013 at 8:04 PM MSTBOISE, Idaho - A gun show was held at Expo Idaho Saturday and the organizer says sales are through the roof."These guns and ammo are going out the door in arm loads. Some people can hardly walk they've got so much stuff," said organizer Paul Snider.Snider attributes the gun show's success to the state of politics."I don't think they are panicking yet but they are very concerned about what might come down the line," Snider said.All of the people we talked with say they are concerned about the future of their rights as gun owners."Its going to be an invasion of our 2nd Amendment rights," said Ted Cash.

60,000 Expected To Attend Vegas Gun ShowJanuary 15, 2013 10:06 AMLAS VEGAS (AP) — A weapons industry group based in the Connecticut town where a gunman killed 20 children and six adults last month is opening a Las Vegas Strip trade show Tuesday that’s expected to draw tens of thousands of manufacturers and enthusiasts.The National Shooting Sports Foundation was focusing its 35th annual SHOT Show on products and services new to what it calls a $4.1 billion industry, with a nod to a raging national debate over assault weapons.The group said it has issued credentials to nearly 60,000 industry professionals, recreational gun owners and law enforcers to attend.

Gun sales skyrocketGun sales have skyrocketed in KOTA Territory and across the country. Michael Mooney, owner of Southern Hills Tactical in Custer, says the demand for firearms is unprecedented.He says he sold 85 assault weapons ranging from $650 dollars to $3,000 dollars in just three days."Never seen sales like this at all. In the month of December there was nearly 2.8 million sales transfers done though NICS, which is roughly a million more than the previous December," says Mooney. Mooney says most of his buyers are in their mid 40's or older.

Brisk gun sales leave store shelves barePosted: Jan 14, 2013 9:48 PM Updated: Jan 14, 2013 10:23 PM CRESTWOOD, KY (WAVE) - A new Washington Post poll found 52 percent of Americans favor new gun control measures. Despite that, guns are flying off store shelves in Kentuckiana.Owners at several gun shops tell WAVE 3 News, they've had days when their stores are packed, some even say they had lines out the door and all of those we talked to tell us, their supplies are running low."They've been though the roof," said Open Range Sales consultant Aaron Hatfield of gun sales and one thing is driving them, "fear," he said. "They're scared of what's going to happen and the unknown."As the Connecticut school shootings and the shooter's AR 15 rifle fuel talk of more gun control, Open Range's Hatfield says buyers have come out of the woodwork. At first, he said sales were amazing, now he says, many dealers have little on the shelves. A section normally full of ARs and Lever Action Rifles are all gone.Gun sellers can't replenish their stock.

Gun show crowd lines up for guns, ammoHENRICO COUNTY, Va. (WTVR) – With the national discussion on strengthening gun control laws as a backdrop, close to a thousand people came the Showplace on Mechanicsville Turnpike Saturday. It was the first day of the C&E Gun Show.Lines stretched for hundreds of yards throughout the parking lot comprised of gun enthusiasts wanting to browse the latest technology or stock up on ammunition.Show organizers say the size of the crowd was not completely unexpected. The show has been coming to Richmond for more than 20 years, and one show manager says Saturday’s crowd was pretty much typical.“This is just a perfect example and sign that when the government starts trying to legislate new gun laws it’s going to create panic,” says Mark Lilly, who owns a small market across the street from the Showplace.Police officers shut down the left turn lane heading into the grounds because traffic was so dense early in the day. People showed up prior to 7:00 a.m. for the show, despite the fact that it did not open for another two hours.Since the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut, politicians nationally and locally have taken up the charge to stiffen gun control laws.Vice President Joe Biden has been meeting with groups on many sides of the issue this past week. State politicians have begun debating gun control laws during the first few days of the 2013 session of the Virginia General Assembly.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Here's a flip side argument for those that want to ban high capacity magazines. You have seen the stats on accuracy for handguns and hopefully you realize 1 bullet does not equal 1 kill (or 1 stopped intruder) from a handgun and that the number is closer to 4 just to land 1 hit and closer to 8 to land 2 hits, this is taking into consideration all the variables previously discussed even if these numbers are optimistic and rely on ideal conditions for the home defender.Let's take NYS latest gun control measure of 7 bullets per weapon. Instead of going from larger magazines to smaller magazines, answer me this.If we can agree there are roughly 200,000 incidents where a gun is fired in self defense in the home and for the sake of argument the gun was only fired as a means to protect the home defender from bodily harm since in a lot of cases just the threat of a gun is enough to make a robber flee, actually discharging the weapon is a sign of a more significant danger.Now given these assumptions which I have been pretty conservative with, can we also agree that the difference between having 7 bullets and 8 bullets would prevent harm to home defenders? If so what would you put that probability or percentage at? 1%?1% of of 200,000 is 2,000 casesNow increase that from 7 to 10 and for this stage of the argument stop there, can we agree the percentage increases more when going from the "7 to 8 bullet limit" to the "7 to 10 bullet limit"? What percent now? We have 43% more bullets at 10 then we had at 7, safe to assume we see a 5% jump in effectiveness of the weapon used for self defense bringing that 2,000 increase to 10,000?Let's call this the benefit of changing the limit from 7 to 10. Now let's calculate the harm. The discussion has been focused on mass shootings, using the 38 mass shootings from 2012, how many people are affected when you slide the scale from 7 bullets to 10 bullets in the hands of the murders in the mass shootings? This isn't even factoring in that the bad guys may not even comply that should be part of the discussion as well since when laws are passed we assume the good guys will abide by the law and be adversely affected.Everyone is pointing at 30 as the evil number, try looking at it from going from 7 to 8, from 7 to 10 or even from 10 to 12 since now in NYS anything > 7 bullets 1 year from now will be considered illegal.

 

[tommyboy]

i just bought a 50 BMG just in case.i totally agree with all this banning scary stuff like high capacity magazine clips the president spoke of today.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Just more unwarranted paranoia?

Homeless man thwarts robbery in Hollywood Hasib Kuric, a homeless immigrant from Bosnia, has a deal with the owner of the Exxon station on South State Road 7: Kuric can sleep in a U-Haul truck out back if he keeps watch over the place.Just before midnight Monday, Kuric tried to do his part and alert the clerk about a pair of masked men he saw outside the store of the Hollywood gas station. But before he could tell the clerk to watch out, one of the would-be robbers began shooting at Kuric in the aisles of the store — and the clerk was firing back from behind the counter with his own gun.The gunman was killed, shot in the face by clerk Leonard Carr. Kuric, miraculously, was unhurt.“He saved my life,” Kuric said Tuesday as he sat under a tree near the store, still trying to absorb what happened the night before. “We are brothers now. We were reborn on the same day.”Carr, 45, of Miami, said he was “too shook up” to talk about the incident Tuesday.By late Tuesday, police had not released the name of the gunman who was killed. The other suspect, 19-year-old Joshua Stuart of Hollywood, was arrested a couple of blocks away from the station. He has been charged with armed burglary, attempted murder, and second-degree murder — for the death of his accomplice.“There were a lot of rounds shot,” said Sgt. Pablo Vanegas of the Hollywood Police Department. “The clerk was a real cool cat.”Kuric, 46, said he first noticed the two attackers when he was piling up branches by the side of the store. He asked what they were doing, and one man said he had to use the bathroom in the store. Suspicious, Kuric went into the store to try to warn Carr.“I said ‘Lock the door, call the police, I think you are about to get robbed,’” Kuric recalled Tuesday afternoon.But as Kuric entered the store, the two attackers followed right behind him. And then one of them started shooting at Kuric amid the soda and water bottles on the store shelves.“He said ‘You will never be able to do that again,’” Kuric said — a reference, he believes, to his attempt to warn the clerk. “He shot at me three times. He was going to kill me.”As he told his story Tuesday, Carmelo Miranda, a neighbor, came over to shake Kuric’s hand.“Good job, my man,” Miranda said. “I am glad that none of the good guys were hurt.”Store owner Bhagwandath Ramnarine said he has invested in security cameras and special automatically locking doors that must be opened by the clerk, but nothing is enough.“We try to make it difficult,” Ramnarine said, saying he’s lucky he had an extra set of eyes on the store. “He’s a good watch.”

 

[Mr Two Cents]

SAPD: Car thief killed, another wounded at Stone Oak homeSAN ANTONIO -- A man is dead and another is recovering in the hospital after police say they were shot while trying to steal an SUV from outside a home in an affluent neighborhood.San Antonio police said the shooter, who was visiting family at a home in the 600 block of Lightstone Drive in Stone Oak, heard the men breaking into his Toyota 4Runner around 1:30 a.m. Tuesday.Click here for photosThe 25-year-old man stepped outside with a gun, confronted the men who were rifling through his vehicle and opened fire, according to a police report.He later told police that he thought one of the men also had a gun.Neighbors reported hearing five to eight gunshots, although the number of gunshots was taken out of the police report.Officers said the shooter is not expected to face any charges since he was protecting his property.One of the suspects, who was standing by the getaway car, drove off after getting shot but crashed into a parked car about a block away. He then rolled out into the lawn.A homeowner near the crash said he went outside and tried to get the wounded man's name, but all the man could say was "I feel like I'm dying."Officers and emergency responders tried to revive the 32-year-old man but could not.The other man was taken to San Antonio Military Medical Center.Later Tuesday morning, a neighbor condoned the actions that were taken to stop the suspected thieves.“I fully agree with it. I spent 30 years in military; I'm familiar with firearms,” said David Oliver. “I think they have a right to intervene.”

 

[Mr Two Cents]

NRA: Membership Has Grown by 250,000 in One MonthA quarter of a million people have signed up for new NRA memberships ahead of the White House Task Force's findings.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

When are we going to address the REAL problem instead of trying to punish law abiding citizens exercising their constitutional rights.

Oakland Police Link 4 Recent Murders To Several Rival GroupsOAKLAND (CBS SF) — Police have linked a string of murders in Oakland Friday to several rival groups, a police spokeswoman said Saturday.Three young men and a teenage boy were murdered in the span of six hours across Oakland on Friday in shootings linked to specific groups, police spokesman Johnna Watson said.“These groups are involved in ongoing feuds with one another and continue to engage in retaliatory violence that will absolutely not be tolerated,” she said in a statement.Police are investigating the four homicides and are working Saturday to find and arrest suspects. No arrests have been made.Watson said a man shot and killed around 3 p.m. Friday on Canon Avenue near Wellington Street next to Dimond Park has been identified as 30-year-old former Oakland resident Larry Lovette of Stockton.Around 4:15 p.m., 21-year-old Oakland man Eddiebo Rodriguez was fatally shot in the 3400 block of West Street in West Oakland, she said.Police said Rodriguez was taken to a hospital where he succumbed to his injuries.In East Oakland, a 17-year-old boy identified as Ken Harbin of Oakland was fatally shot in the 9400 block of Hillside Street, according to Watson.According to police, a 22-year-old Oakland man shot and killed around 2:30 p.m. Friday in the 2300 block of East 17th Street in the Fruitvale District. His name is being withheld pending notification of relatives.

 

[jonessed]

Two of the Newtown parents were on TV last night with a picture of their deceased 5 year old son. They were arguing for a ban on high cap magazines and universal background checks. They were very moving. They acknowledged that these ideas might not have saved their own child, but might serve to save others.

I hope they go to Congress. I really hope the Republicans who end up voting Obama's bill down are forced to stare into the face of this couple and others like them. I am not the sort who likes to rely on emotion to win political arguments; I much prefer using reason and common sense. But reason and common sense are not working with the NRA and their supporters, so maybe a little raw emotion will.

 

[jonessed]

http://www.nytimes.c...odayspaper&_r=0

Well, based on the above New York times article, I now have a feeling that you guys that have been arguing against me are going to win the day, and nothing concrete is going to happen. Two reasons:

1. As I feared, Obama is pushing for ONE comprehensive bill that includes all of his major points, such as the background checks, limiting mags, and banning certain firearms. This makes it much more easy to defeat, IMO. I can't see any way such a bill would make it through the House of Representatives, given it's current composition. Individual bills might have had a chance, but not this one. It appears once again that the Obama administration is more interested in making the GOP look bad to the public than they are in actually accomplishing anything.

2. While Obama is willing to use executive orders, he won't use them for any of the key issues. Per the article:

Actions the president could take on his own are likely to include imposing new limits on guns imported from overseas, compelling federal agencies to improve sharing of mental health records and directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct research on gun violence, according to those briefed on the effort.

White House aides believe Mr. Obama can also ratchet up enforcement of existing laws, including tougher prosecution of people who lie on their background checks.

This stuff is window dressing. The major stuff we've been talking about has to go through Congress, and Congress is not going to agree to a comprehensive deal. That's my guess.

I thought you were smarter than this. Obama knows that there is absolutely no way a Federal "one size fits all" set of laws is ever going to stand up to scrutiny. Next to entitlements, there is no larger political land mine than guns and even if he had a 70% approval rating he couldn't get anything with teeth passed.What he CAN do is use the Biden-group-summit-thing to keep the conversation on the boiler. And then his staff can start picking off states one at a time a la New York. If you think Andrew Cuomo and Co. did their bit without the prodding of people in Washington than you are mistaken. The WH fingerprints are all over the New York stuff...you don't think the DNC and the President told Cuomo he'd be very popular with the national party if he moved first on guns?

Whatever. As I wrote earlier in the thread, I don't think these sorts or laws at the state level matter very much. My own state has had bans on high capacity mags for years, but anyone who wants to can drive to a Nevada gun show and buy one. Same with background checks. IMO these things only work on a federal level. You can certainly call me naive, but I was hoping that Newtown would have changed the environment enough to get some of these modest proposals through. The stuff I've been in favor of is far less imposing than the AWB which passed in 1994. But I was wrong.

Did you miss the part about anyone caught with 8 or more round mags can face charges after a year?

The people that want to inflict harm on others will simply get them in another state or buy one illegally modified. We're talking about magazines here. The mechanics are pretty basic.These guys are generally highly intelligent and diligent with their planning. The idea that they couldn't figure out how to get their hands on a high capacity magazine or spend 30 minutes at a range learning to quick-change a smaller ones is absurd.

None of this is going to make a lick of difference.

If you really want to cut back on gun-related homicides you have to look at redefining the War on Drugs.

 

[Apple Jack]

http://www.nytimes.c...odayspaper&_r=0

Well, based on the above New York times article, I now have a feeling that you guys that have been arguing against me are going to win the day, and nothing concrete is going to happen. Two reasons:

1. As I feared, Obama is pushing for ONE comprehensive bill that includes all of his major points, such as the background checks, limiting mags, and banning certain firearms. This makes it much more easy to defeat, IMO. I can't see any way such a bill would make it through the House of Representatives, given it's current composition. Individual bills might have had a chance, but not this one. It appears once again that the Obama administration is more interested in making the GOP look bad to the public than they are in actually accomplishing anything.

2. While Obama is willing to use executive orders, he won't use them for any of the key issues. Per the article:

Actions the president could take on his own are likely to include imposing new limits on guns imported from overseas, compelling federal agencies to improve sharing of mental health records and directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct research on gun violence, according to those briefed on the effort.

White House aides believe Mr. Obama can also ratchet up enforcement of existing laws, including tougher prosecution of people who lie on their background checks.

This stuff is window dressing. The major stuff we've been talking about has to go through Congress, and Congress is not going to agree to a comprehensive deal. That's my guess.

I thought you were smarter than this. Obama knows that there is absolutely no way a Federal "one size fits all" set of laws is ever going to stand up to scrutiny. Next to entitlements, there is no larger political land mine than guns and even if he had a 70% approval rating he couldn't get anything with teeth passed.What he CAN do is use the Biden-group-summit-thing to keep the conversation on the boiler. And then his staff can start picking off states one at a time a la New York. If you think Andrew Cuomo and Co. did their bit without the prodding of people in Washington than you are mistaken. The WH fingerprints are all over the New York stuff...you don't think the DNC and the President told Cuomo he'd be very popular with the national party if he moved first on guns?

Whatever. As I wrote earlier in the thread, I don't think these sorts or laws at the state level matter very much. My own state has had bans on high capacity mags for years, but anyone who wants to can drive to a Nevada gun show and buy one. Same with background checks. IMO these things only work on a federal level. You can certainly call me naive, but I was hoping that Newtown would have changed the environment enough to get some of these modest proposals through. The stuff I've been in favor of is far less imposing than the AWB which passed in 1994. But I was wrong.

Did you miss the part about anyone caught with 8 or more round mags can face charges after a year?

The law is irrelevant. The people that want to inflict harm on others will simply get them in another state or buy one illegally modified. We're talking about magazines here. The mechanics are pretty basic.

Well, some of them will try. But many of them will fail, because Roscoe and Jethro here will have already bought and stockpliled them all for the coming Civil War.

 

[StrikeS2k]

High capacity magazines are another story altogether. In that case, I can make a really good argument as to why they should be illegal, and I have. (Many people here disagree with me that it's a good argument.)

 

[nephilim]

in ny, buying a ruger 10/22 with a 10 round removable box mag (std config before and through the awb) is now illegal. people are so fraking stupid... a ranch mini-14 (10 round removable mag) is illegal. this may pass in ny/east coast/west coast but won't pass in the south, mid-west or west... guess every one will start building/buying garands... i do like closing the private sale loophole. reporting people talking to psychs has HIPAA implications and would keep many from seeking the help they need. the ny law is another knee-jerk 9/11 type reaction...ymmv...

 

[Apple Jack]

in ny, buying a ruger 10/22 with a 10 round removable box mag (std config before and through the awb) is now illegal. people are so fraking stupid... a ranch mini-14 (10 round removable mag) is illegal. this may pass in ny/east coast/west coast but won't pass in the south, mid-west or west... guess every one will start building/buying garands... i do like closing the private sale loophole. reporting people talking to psychs has HIPAA implications and would keep many from seeking the help they need. the ny law is another knee-jerk 9/11 type reaction...

ymmv...

Yes, this is just like 9/11.

 

[nephilim]

in ny, buying a ruger 10/22 with a 10 round removable box mag (std config before and through the awb) is now illegal. people are so fraking stupid... a ranch mini-14 (10 round removable mag) is illegal. this may pass in ny/east coast/west coast but won't pass in the south, mid-west or west... guess every one will start building/buying garands... i do like closing the private sale loophole. reporting people talking to psychs has HIPAA implications and would keep many from seeking the help they need. the ny law is another knee-jerk 9/11 type reaction...

ymmv...

Yes, this is just like 9/11.

people over-reacting proposing doing dumb ####.... yes...

 

[Apple Jack]

in ny, buying a ruger 10/22 with a 10 round removable box mag (std config before and through the awb) is now illegal. people are so fraking stupid... a ranch mini-14 (10 round removable mag) is illegal. this may pass in ny/east coast/west coast but won't pass in the south, mid-west or west... guess every one will start building/buying garands... i do like closing the private sale loophole. reporting people talking to psychs has HIPAA implications and would keep many from seeking the help they need. the ny law is another knee-jerk 9/11 type reaction...

ymmv...

Yes, this is just like 9/11.

people over-reacting proposing doing dumb ####.... yes...

This isn't a reaction. This is a "cause" many people have always felt strongly about, but with things like this in politics there are small windows of opportunity when a mostly unengaged population have their awareness heightened.

 

[timschochet]

. i do like closing the private sale loophole.

I'm glad you feel this away, even if we disagree on the other point.

 

[Novice2]

SAPD: Car thief killed, another wounded at Stone Oak home

SAN ANTONIO -- A man is dead and another is recovering in the hospital after police say they were shot while trying to steal an SUV from outside a home in an affluent neighborhood.

San Antonio police said the shooter, who was visiting family at a home in the 600 block of Lightstone Drive in Stone Oak, heard the men breaking into his Toyota 4Runner around 1:30 a.m. Tuesday.

Click here for photos

The 25-year-old man stepped outside with a gun, confronted the men who were rifling through his vehicle and opened fire, according to a police report.

He later told police that he thought one of the men also had a gun.

Neighbors reported hearing five to eight gunshots, although the number of gunshots was taken out of the police report.

Officers said the shooter is not expected to face any charges since he was protecting his property.

One of the suspects, who was standing by the getaway car, drove off after getting shot but crashed into a parked car about a block away. He then rolled out into the lawn.

A homeowner near the crash said he went outside and tried to get the wounded man's name, but all the man could say was "I feel like I'm dying."

Officers and emergency responders tried to revive the 32-year-old man but could not.

The other man was taken to San Antonio Military Medical Center.

Later Tuesday morning, a neighbor condoned the actions that were taken to stop the suspected thieves.

“I fully agree with it. I spent 30 years in military; I'm familiar with firearms,” said David Oliver. “I think they have a right to intervene.”

I hope he is happy ending a life over his precious SUV! In any sane state he would be charged with murder for chasing down and gunning down people!

 

[Novice2]

http://www.nytimes.c...odayspaper&_r=0

Well, based on the above New York times article, I now have a feeling that you guys that have been arguing against me are going to win the day, and nothing concrete is going to happen. Two reasons:

1. As I feared, Obama is pushing for ONE comprehensive bill that includes all of his major points, such as the background checks, limiting mags, and banning certain firearms. This makes it much more easy to defeat, IMO. I can't see any way such a bill would make it through the House of Representatives, given it's current composition. Individual bills might have had a chance, but not this one. It appears once again that the Obama administration is more interested in making the GOP look bad to the public than they are in actually accomplishing anything.

2. While Obama is willing to use executive orders, he won't use them for any of the key issues. Per the article:

Actions the president could take on his own are likely to include imposing new limits on guns imported from overseas, compelling federal agencies to improve sharing of mental health records and directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct research on gun violence, according to those briefed on the effort.

White House aides believe Mr. Obama can also ratchet up enforcement of existing laws, including tougher prosecution of people who lie on their background checks.

This stuff is window dressing. The major stuff we've been talking about has to go through Congress, and Congress is not going to agree to a comprehensive deal. That's my guess.

I thought you were smarter than this. Obama knows that there is absolutely no way a Federal "one size fits all" set of laws is ever going to stand up to scrutiny. Next to entitlements, there is no larger political land mine than guns and even if he had a 70% approval rating he couldn't get anything with teeth passed.What he CAN do is use the Biden-group-summit-thing to keep the conversation on the boiler. And then his staff can start picking off states one at a time a la New York. If you think Andrew Cuomo and Co. did their bit without the prodding of people in Washington than you are mistaken. The WH fingerprints are all over the New York stuff...you don't think the DNC and the President told Cuomo he'd be very popular with the national party if he moved first on guns?

Whatever. As I wrote earlier in the thread, I don't think these sorts or laws at the state level matter very much. My own state has had bans on high capacity mags for years, but anyone who wants to can drive to a Nevada gun show and buy one. Same with background checks. IMO these things only work on a federal level. You can certainly call me naive, but I was hoping that Newtown would have changed the environment enough to get some of these modest proposals through. The stuff I've been in favor of is far less imposing than the AWB which passed in 1994. But I was wrong.

Did you miss the part about anyone caught with 8 or more round mags can face charges after a year?

The law is irrelevant. The people that want to inflict harm on others will simply get them in another state or buy one illegally modified. We're talking about magazines here. The mechanics are pretty basic.

Well, some of them will try. But many of them will fail, because Roscoe and Jethro here will have already bought and stockpliled them all for the coming Civil War.

Lucky for the south the New York government is forcing its citizens to arm the enemy in this civil war or become criminals. And Roscoe and Jethro are supposed to be the stupid ones.

 

[Novice2]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said it is immigration, not gun control, that is at the top of his priority list after the fiscal fights.

 

[StrikeS2k]

SAPD: Car thief killed, another wounded at Stone Oak home

SAN ANTONIO -- A man is dead and another is recovering in the hospital after police say they were shot while trying to steal an SUV from outside a home in an affluent neighborhood.

San Antonio police said the shooter, who was visiting family at a home in the 600 block of Lightstone Drive in Stone Oak, heard the men breaking into his Toyota 4Runner around 1:30 a.m. Tuesday.

Click here for photos

The 25-year-old man stepped outside with a gun, confronted the men who were rifling through his vehicle and opened fire, according to a police report.

He later told police that he thought one of the men also had a gun.

Neighbors reported hearing five to eight gunshots, although the number of gunshots was taken out of the police report.

Officers said the shooter is not expected to face any charges since he was protecting his property.

One of the suspects, who was standing by the getaway car, drove off after getting shot but crashed into a parked car about a block away. He then rolled out into the lawn.

A homeowner near the crash said he went outside and tried to get the wounded man's name, but all the man could say was "I feel like I'm dying."

Officers and emergency responders tried to revive the 32-year-old man but could not.

The other man was taken to San Antonio Military Medical Center.

Later Tuesday morning, a neighbor condoned the actions that were taken to stop the suspected thieves.

“I fully agree with it. I spent 30 years in military; I'm familiar with firearms,” said David Oliver. “I think they have a right to intervene.”

I hope he is happy ending a life over his precious SUV! In any sane state he would be charged with murder for chasing down and gunning down people!

So you don't think individuals should be able to protect their property?

 

[Dvorak]

I would like to thank New York for illustrating how outright disingenuous gun grabbers are when they say there is no slippery slope to gun control.This is EXACTLY why pro-2nd folks are refusing to concede any further.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I hope he is happy ending a life over his precious SUV! In any sane state he would be charged with murder for chasing down and gunning down people!

So you don't think individuals should be able to protect their property?

I don't think it should be legal to kill somebody just because he's trying to take something of yours.

 

[JHuber77]

I hope he is happy ending a life over his precious SUV! In any sane state he would be charged with murder for chasing down and gunning down people!

So you don't think individuals should be able to protect their property?

I don't think it should be legal to kill somebody just because he's trying to take something of yours.

you must have missed the part where it stated that he told police that he thought one of them had a gun. At 1:30 in the morning that seems plausible. Also to a previous poster, it never said he chased them down then gunned them down.

 

[pantherclub]

I hope he is happy ending a life over his precious SUV! In any sane state he would be charged with murder for chasing down and gunning down people!

So you don't think individuals should be able to protect their property?

I don't think it should be legal to kill somebody just because he's trying to take something of yours.

you must have missed the part where it stated that he told police that he thought one of them had a gun. At 1:30 in the morning that seems plausible. Also to a previous poster, it never said he chased them down then gunned them down.

serious questioneven if he had a gun do you think its cool to run outside and shot up to 8 shots in a neighborhood?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I don't think it should be legal to kill somebody just because he's trying to take something of yours.

you must have missed the part where it stated that he told police that he thought one of them had a gun. At 1:30 in the morning that seems plausible. Also to a previous poster, it never said he chased them down then gunned them down.

No, I didn't miss this part. But it seems rather convenient for him to say that, and it doesn't really seem like he needed to confront the thieves in the first place, and honestly the story makes it sound like this guy was relishing the opportunity to kill people. If he's so worried about the SUV, why would he want to ruin it with a bunch of bullet holes and blood?

 

[Henry Ford]

I don't think it should be legal to kill somebody just because he's trying to take something of yours.

you must have missed the part where it stated that he told police that he thought one of them had a gun. At 1:30 in the morning that seems plausible. Also to a previous poster, it never said he chased them down then gunned them down.

No, I didn't miss this part. But it seems rather convenient for him to say that, and it doesn't really seem like he needed to confront the thieves in the first place, and honestly the story makes it sound like this guy was relishing the opportunity to kill people. If he's so worried about the SUV, why would he want to ruin it with a bunch of bullet holes and blood?

Given tht he acts like Rambo, I'm going to put my money on there being a gun in the vehicle. It's conceivable that he was trying to keep a weapon from being stolen.Or he's a ####.

 

[JHuber77]

I don't think it should be legal to kill somebody just because he's trying to take something of yours.

you must have missed the part where it stated that he told police that he thought one of them had a gun. At 1:30 in the morning that seems plausible. Also to a previous poster, it never said he chased them down then gunned them down.

No, I didn't miss this part. But it seems rather convenient for him to say that, and it doesn't really seem like he needed to confront the thieves in the first place, and honestly the story makes it sound like this guy was relishing the opportunity to kill people. If he's so worried about the SUV, why would he want to ruin it with a bunch of bullet holes and blood?

Spin it however you want it. Some people are just destined to be victims. Others call the police and complain about the way that they handle it. Its a no win situation. As long as the guy was within his right (legally speaking) to confront the thieves with a weapon and the theives had a gun, why is this such a problem? I doubt many people "relish" in the idea to kill someone they don't even know.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

No, I didn't miss this part. But it seems rather convenient for him to say that, and it doesn't really seem like he needed to confront the thieves in the first place, and honestly the story makes it sound like this guy was relishing the opportunity to kill people. If he's so worried about the SUV, why would he want to ruin it with a bunch of bullet holes and blood?

Spin it however you want it. Some people are just destined to be victims. Others call the police and complain about the way that they handle it. Its a no win situation. As long as the guy was within his right (legally speaking) to confront the thieves with a weapon and the theives had a gun, why is this such a problem? I doubt many people "relish" in the idea to kill someone they don't even know.

From my perspective, it seems like a lot of gun folks do exactly that. It seems like a lot of folks enjoy fantasizing about the prospect of shooting somebody that breaks into their house. There seems to be little to no consideration to the possibility of simply fleeing the house and calling the police.

 

[Jackstraw]

I don't think it should be legal to kill somebody just because he's trying to take something of yours.

you must have missed the part where it stated that he told police that he thought one of them had a gun. At 1:30 in the morning that seems plausible. Also to a previous poster, it never said he chased them down then gunned them down.

No, I didn't miss this part. But it seems rather convenient for him to say that, and it doesn't really seem like he needed to confront the thieves in the first place, and honestly the story makes it sound like this guy was relishing the opportunity to kill people. If he's so worried about the SUV, why would he want to ruin it with a bunch of bullet holes and blood?

Spin it however you want it. Some people are just destined to be victims. Others call the police and complain about the way that they handle it. Its a no win situation. As long as the guy was within his right (legally speaking) to confront the thieves with a weapon and the theives had a gun, why is this such a problem? I doubt many people "relish" in the idea to kill someone they don't even know.

So many gun guys I know constantly walk through their "shoot a guy scenarios". I'm not gonna call it a fantasy, but they sure seem to dwell on it quite a bit. I'd sure hate to be the repo man in todays society.

 

[Jackstraw]

New NRA ad:“Are the president’s kids more important than yours? Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?" the NRA ad's narration reads. "Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he’s just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security."Just disgusting. They need to be kicked in the ding ding.

 

[Novice2]

New NRA ad:

“Are the president’s kids more important than yours? Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?" the NRA ad's narration reads. "Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he’s just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security."

Just disgusting. They need to be kicked in the ding ding.

Yes

 

[Hoosier16]

New NRA ad:"Are the president's kids more important than yours? Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?" the NRA ad's narration reads. "Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he's just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security."Just disgusting. They need to be kicked in the ding ding.

Why is it disgusting? Is it because it mentions the president? If we insert "David Gregory's kids" for "the president's kids", is it still disgusting?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

 

[timschochet]

Found this tidbit in an article by law professor Robert Spitzer:

Myth: The Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of Americans to rise up against a tyrannical government.

This canard is repeated with disturbing frequency. The Constitution, in Article I, allows armed citizens in militias to “suppress Insurrections,” not cause them. The Constitution defines treason as “levying War” against the government in Article III, and the states can ask the federal government for assistance “against domestic Violence” under Article IV.

Our system provides peaceful means for citizens to air grievances and change policy, from the ballot box to the jury box to the right to peaceably assemble. If violence against an oppressive government were somehow countenanced in the Second Amendment, then Timothy McVeigh and Lee Harvey Oswald would have been vindicated for their heinous actions. But as constitutional scholar Roscoe Pound noted, a “legal right of the citizen to wage war on the government is something that cannot be admitted” because it would “defeat the whole Bill of Rights” — including the Second Amendment.