***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (3 Viewers)

[Rush Limbaugh Fan]

So I'm hearing gun legislation has essentially died from all the news sources. That seem to be the consensus?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Yep, insta-ignore.

It was rude of him to call you a moron. But that editorial was so incredibly poorly written, so lacking in logic, so devoid of responding to the real and cogent arguments that justify universal background checks, that it's amazing that you chose to post it.

Pick apart the pieces you don't agree with. I already made the argument that universal background checks flat out will not work and any intelligent politician knows this and is just grabbing the low hanging fruit until they can make a push for a national gun registry which I am dead set against and have already gone over a number of times what a laughable failure it is in Canada.It's getting really old listening to the gun grabbers sling insults, I'm just insta-ignoring any of them that follow suit thinking they are being cool.

Our current gun laws do not work / are not being enforced, adding new laws that inconvenience law abiding citizens just adds fuel to the fire. You can argue all you want about the ATF, I have already posted my opinion to that which fell on deaf ears. And yes universal background checks are an inconvenience when you have to add a $50+ tax on selling transfering a firearm to a relative, according to the letter of the law this gun cannot even be loaned to a relative for their safety without going through the proper channels. It is absurd, will not accomplish what it intends to do and is just a stepping stone to a national gun registry after it fails, which is a whole other animal.

Nope, sorry, not going to repeat myself anymore. I have made numerous arguments in this thread as to why I believe universal background checks would be effective; you're welcome to look them up if you'd like and respond to them. Up to this point, you have not done so. Instead, just like the NRA guy you quoted, you have chosen to spend your time arguing against straw positions which don't exist. I'm not going to discuss your slippery slope and paranoid dictatorship concerns. It's a complete waste of time. I'm also not going to discuss your concerns about inconvenience, because I don't care. When you're ready to have a serious discussion about background checks (which means no slippery slope, no dictatorship talk, no 2nd Amendment talk, no tyranny talk) let me know. Otherwise, enjoy your debate against phantom opponents.

It's a good thing legislators in Wyoming, Texas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Iowa, South Carolina, Indiana, and other states don't care what you won't have a serious discussion about.

Within hours of President Obama’s press conference announcing his new gun control push, state legislators in Wyoming, Texas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Iowa, South Carolina, Indiana, and other states were initiating efforts to “nullify” any attempts by federal authorities to enforce those restrictions in their states. They are not merely talking about state resolutions expressing disapproval of federal encroachment, but actually making it a criminal offense for agents of the federal government to attempt to enforce what the states determine to be illegal, unconstitutional usurpations of power. Wyoming’s H.B. 0104, the “Firearm Protection Act,” for example, threatens federal officials with up to five years in prison and $5,000 in fines if convicted of attempting to enforce unconstitutional statutes or decrees infringing on the gun rights of Wyoming citizens. Missouri and Texas have similar legislation pending.

or the 279 sheriffs and 8 state sheriff associations saying 'NO' to Obama gun control

 

[tom22406]

I kinda feel bad for Pelosi here.Pretty easy to get confused on the Constitution.

 

[cobalt_27]

Within hours of President Obama’s press conference announcing his new gun control push, state legislators in Wyoming, Texas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Iowa, South Carolina, Indiana, and other states were initiating efforts to “nullify” any attempts by federal authorities to enforce those restrictions in their states. They are not merely talking about state resolutions expressing disapproval of federal encroachment, but actually making it a criminal offense for agents of the federal government to attempt to enforce what the states determine to be illegal, unconstitutional usurpations of power. Wyoming’s H.B. 0104, the “Firearm Protection Act,” for example, threatens federal officials with up to five years in prison and $5,000 in fines if convicted of attempting to enforce unconstitutional statutes or decrees infringing on the gun rights of Wyoming citizens. Missouri and Texas have similar legislation pending.

or the 279 sheriffs and 8 state sheriff associations saying 'NO' to Obama gun control

Shocking that a constitutional scholar such as yourself is unfamiliar with the Supremacy Clause.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

America's non-gun robbery rate is 60x that of Japan

Good read on "interrogation techniques" and the criminal justice system in Japan and why their crime is so low (hint: it isn't due to banning guns)

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Within hours of President Obama’s press conference announcing his new gun control push, state legislators in Wyoming, Texas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Iowa, South Carolina, Indiana, and other states were initiating efforts to “nullify” any attempts by federal authorities to enforce those restrictions in their states. They are not merely talking about state resolutions expressing disapproval of federal encroachment, but actually making it a criminal offense for agents of the federal government to attempt to enforce what the states determine to be illegal, unconstitutional usurpations of power. Wyoming’s H.B. 0104, the “Firearm Protection Act,” for example, threatens federal officials with up to five years in prison and $5,000 in fines if convicted of attempting to enforce unconstitutional statutes or decrees infringing on the gun rights of Wyoming citizens. Missouri and Texas have similar legislation pending.

or the 279 sheriffs and 8 state sheriff associations saying 'NO' to Obama gun control

Shocking that a constitutional scholar such as yourself is unfamiliar with the Supremacy Clause.

I'm no lawyer and never in this thread have I claimed to be one, but you can't deny the number of states, sheriff's associations, and sheriffs opposing these measures under the grounds that they are considered unconstitutional.

 

[urbanhack]

 

[smotherhook]

I kinda feel bad for Pelosi here.Pretty easy to get confused on the Constitution.

this little fella should now be called "the pelosi"

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I'm no lawyer and never in this thread have I claimed to be one, but you can't deny the number of states, sheriff's associations, and sheriffs opposing these measures under the grounds that they are considered unconstitutional.

Then maybe you should confine your points to things you do know about?Constitutional law

Statistics

Sheriffs who talk a big game but would ultimately get #####-slapped by the feds

You're going to have to complete the list. I haven't been paying that close of attention.

I'm sorry I missed the part where you claimed to be a constitutional lawyer yourself or have shown any comprehension of simple statistics, the best you have been able to do is refer to studies published by an organization led by a clearly biased anti-gun individual. I really don't enjoy stooping to your level in these slap fights since they do not accomplish anything so you will remain on ignore until you learn to act as an adult.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

It really does not get any more simpler than this.

It's like looking at a photo negative.

 

[17seconds]

I kinda feel bad for Pelosi here.Pretty easy to get confused on the Constitution.

Clearly this shows that Nancy Pelosi doesn't know the First Amendment from the Second Amendment.

 

[timschochet]

Obama with an extremely powerful message tonight. And most importantly, he is calling for separate votes on the various gun issues. This gives me hope that something might get accomplished, particularly universal background checks.

 

[Rush Limbaugh Fan]

Obama grasping at straws.

 

[Novice2]

Obama with an extremely powerful message tonight. And most importantly, he is calling for separate votes on the various gun issues. This gives me hope that something might get accomplished, particularly universal background checks.

Obama grasping at straws.

Yep.

 

[FootballDummy]

Which of the crazies was the one that answers the door with a gun? I forget.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

Obama grasping at straws.

Shouldn't you be "Rush Limbaugh Fan"?

 

[Heatman]

It really does not get any more simpler than this.It's like looking at a photo negative.

Yep but who cares about facts when people want to get rid of guns? Facts mean nothing next to a political agenda.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Obama with an extremely powerful message tonight. And most importantly, he is calling for separate votes on the various gun issues. This gives me hope that something might get accomplished, particularly universal background checks.

Source: Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies

Gregory Ridgeway, Ph.D.

Deputy Director

National Institute of Justice

January 4, 2013

tl,dr;

1) AWB including high capacity magazines may not be effective for decades when magazines either deteriorate or are no longer compatible with current models unless there are no exemptions (no grandfathering) and accompanied by a mandatory buy back program (confiscation).

2) Universal Background Checks require a National Gun Registry to be effective.

3) The majority of perpetrators of crimes obtained their guns locally in L.A. (for example) as opposed to crossing state borders such as from Arizona and Nevada.

4) Prior to the '94 ban, assault weapons were used in 2-8% of crimes, therefore a complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides.

paranoid ?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

The infamous slippery slope argument that gun grabbers are so quick to claim doesn't exist.

Slippery slopes, camel noses, thin ends of wedges, floodgates, and acorns are metaphors, not analytical tools.

Political power slippery slopes can happen even without financial incentives for one or another political actor; all that matters is that a law changes the size of a political group. Consider a hypothetical example: say the public is currently 52.5%–47.5% against a total handgun ban (decision B), but this split breaks down into two groups — 50% of the voters are gun owners, who are 80%–20% against the ban, and 50% are nonowners, who are 75%–25% in favor of the ban.

The legislature then enacts a law (decision A) making it harder for new buyers to buy handguns, for instance by requiring time-consuming and costly safety training classes. We’re not banning handguns, the legislators say — we’re only imposing reasonable safety regulations. Many existing handgun owners may support the law because it seems reasonable, and because it doesn’t affect them. They might respond similarly if the legislature imposes a substantial but not prohibitive tax on new gun purchases.

Over time, though, the extra difficulty of getting a gun may lead fewer people to become gun owners, which may in fact be part of A’s purpose. (Many gun control advocates say that part of their reason for supporting even nonconfiscatory gun controls is to “reduce the number of guns” generally, and not just the number of illegally owned guns.) Some gun owners die or move away, and are replaced by new residents who are less likely to own guns because of the new law. The population now shifts from 50%–50% to 40% gun owners and 60% nonowners.

Thus, without any changes in attitudes among gun owners or nonowners, the overall public attitude towards a total handgun ban has shifted from 52.5%–47.5% opposed to 53%–47% in favor (40% × 80% + 60% × 25% = 47%). B would lose if proposed at the outset, but it can win if A is enacted first and then B is enacted after A has helped shift the balance of political power.

This is a stylized example, with a wide gulf between the views of the two groups — the non-gun-owners, whose number increases as a result of decision A, and the gun owners, whose number decreases — and with a considerable change in the groups’ populations. But these effects may be reinforced by others. Gun owners may, for instance, be likelier than nonowners to contribute to pro-gun-rights groups, and nonowners may be likelier than owners to contribute to pro-gun-control groups; and beyond that, the political power slippery slope may work together with some of the other types of slippery slopes that this article has identified.

So it’s sometimes rational for voters and legislators to support or oppose decision A based partly on the possibility that A will facilitate B by increasing the perceived strength of the movement that supports both A and B. For example, those who want to see expansion from a modest gun control to broader controls may take the view that, in the words of a 1993 New York Times editorial: “In these early days of the struggle for bulletfree streets, the details of the legislation are less important than the momentum. Voters and legislators need to see that the National Rifle Association and the gun companies are no longer in charge of this critical area of domestic policy.” And those who oppose the broader downstream controls might likewise try to prevent this momentum by blocking the modest first steps.

This is especially so because movements rarely just disband after a victory. Successful movements often have paid staff who are enthusiastic about pushing for further action, and unenthusiastic about losing their jobs. The staff have experience at swaying swing voters, an organizational structure, media contacts, volunteers, and contributors. It seems likely that they will choose some new proposal to back.

This possible slippage seems more likely still if the pro-A movement’s leadership is already on the record as supporting the broader proposal B. For instance, many leaders in the gun control movement have publicly supported total handgun bans, even though their groups are today focusing on more modest controls, and some gun control advocates have specifically said that their strategy is to win by incremental steps. Likewise, if a group’s proposal is so modest that it seems unlikely to accomplish the group’s own stated goals, then we might suspect that a victory on this step will necessarily be followed by broader proposals, which the momentum created by the first step might facilitate.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/slipperyshorter.pdf

 

[Power Monster]

LOL- the actor in the white house of lies props the innocent kids back up on screen to push his big gun grab. This is how he works on saving the economy. This is his big hope and change agenda. Not in his backyard. Ohhhh no not in his backyard. Well well well- his backyard is close to one of the biggest examples of failed statism. If I was armed to the teeth in broad daylight I would not even dare walk in that neighborhood. They will cut your throat for a dime. Crack heads and crack whores run around here like the lost zombies of the statist disaster. Housing projects filled with gang bangers and thugs and YES the innocent that just want to work hard and be decent. This is your gun control at work. Ineffective just like the war on drugs. Ineffective and a waste of billions of dollars. This president is a stooge that dances to the whims of the true mongors of power. Take away the guns and you crush America. Watch the porn stars, lust at Beyonce's crotch, enjoy your legal drugs, kill all you want at home with your video games and eat your filthy periodic table foods until you cannot think straight. Quit paying attention and throw away all your rights and eat the government cheese. Enjoy your taxes and state sponsored projects. They pave a way to Englewood and life in the projects. When the sun sets the violence starts. The beatings, the rapes, the murders. They use knives. They use guns. They use bats. They burn you alive. They strangle you. They poison you. They take blonde haried girls and they rape them and they toss them out a window from three floors up. Take away their guns and they will have three times as many guns in a week. The mayor and the police chief just watch it all happen and cry on and on about how it is the guns. What a great state! Land of Lincoln! Broke and billions in debt. The last two elected governors went to jail. They tax yer balls off and charge you 7 bucks an hour to park in the loop. They tax your car 5 different ways and they slap tolls on you to make certain that you know what statism is all about. Then you go to the city and they take some more. A nice city with hard working people. Too bad they voted for this mutt. The great gun grabber. Just another Bush. Despots that are on the verge of taking your rights away then putting you on welfare. What a great direction to go if you like moldy government cheese and if you are a real coward...

 

[FootballDummy]

LOL- the actor in the white house of lies props the innocent kids back up on screen to push his big gun grab. This is how he works on saving the economy. This is his big hope and change agenda. Not in his backyard. Ohhhh no not in his backyard. Well well well- his backyard is close to one of the biggest examples of failed statism. If I was armed to the teeth in broad daylight I would not even dare walk in that neighborhood. They will cut your throat for a dime. Crack heads and crack whores run around here like the lost zombies of the statist disaster. Housing projects filled with gang bangers and thugs and YES the innocent that just want to work hard and be decent. This is your gun control at work. Ineffective just like the war on drugs. Ineffective and a waste of billions of dollars. This president is a stooge that dances to the whims of the true mongors of power. Take away the guns and you crush America. Watch the porn stars, lust at Beyonce's crotch, enjoy your legal drugs, kill all you want at home with your video games and eat your filthy periodic table foods until you cannot think straight. Quit paying attention and throw away all your rights and eat the government cheese. Enjoy your taxes and state sponsored projects. They pave a way to Englewood and life in the projects. When the sun sets the violence starts. The beatings, the rapes, the murders. They use knives. They use guns. They use bats. They burn you alive. They strangle you. They poison you. They take blonde haried girls and they rape them and they toss them out a window from three floors up. Take away their guns and they will have three times as many guns in a week. The mayor and the police chief just watch it all happen and cry on and on about how it is the guns. What a great state! Land of Lincoln! Broke and billions in debt. The last two elected governors went to jail. They tax yer balls off and charge you 7 bucks an hour to park in the loop. They tax your car 5 different ways and they slap tolls on you to make certain that you know what statism is all about. Then you go to the city and they take some more. A nice city with hard working people. Too bad they voted for this mutt. The great gun grabber. Just another Bush. Despots that are on the verge of taking your rights away then putting you on welfare. What a great direction to go if you like moldy government cheese and if you are a real coward...

I forgot all about Power Monster.

 

[tom22406]

Link

New York Gun Ban: Gunmakers Refuse to Sell to State Employees

Mike Cooper

Boycotts are a time-honored means of protest in our capitalist system. Nothing speaks to private enterprise like the loss of revenue, so people frequently boycott businesses in the U.S. to make a point or encourage a policy change. But you have probably never heard of a company boycotting potential costomers — until today.

In the wake of new legislation passed by the State of New York which effectively outlaws the ownership or possession of semi-automatic rifles by citizens, a number of gun companies have announced that they will not sell guns to agencies, employees, or other representatives of the state of New York.

Their reasoning: If citizens cannot own these weapons, the police shouldn't have them, either.

Olympic Arms, LaRue Tactical, and EFI, all manufacturers of AR-15 platforms, have all released public statements to this effect.

EFI's website expresses the sentiment quite clearly in their government sales policy: "If a product that we manufacture is not legal for a private citizen to own in a jurisdiction, we will not sell that product to a law-enforcement agency in that jurisdiction." Company President Melinda Meador says government sales account for only about 10% of the company's business. Her company also declines to sell firearms to customers of any kind in Washington, D.C., Chicago, or California.

Olympic Arms takes it a step further. Their Facebook page makes it clear that "no New York State government entity or employee of such an entity will be served as customers." It seems a little harsh to "punish" individual employees of the state of New York, but since private ownership of these guns is illegal anyway, it's a mostly symbolic point. Still, it prevents, say, an accountant for the New York State Police from using their position to get around the New York ban.

Personally, I like the semi-snarky tone of LaRue's policy. LaRue Tactical frames their policy in liability terms on their Facebook page, asserting that it's simply not worth the risk of accidentally selling a firearm to anyone in New York. So they won't sell to anyone in New York — including police. "[L]ost sales are less danger to this firm than potential lawsuits from erroneous shipments generated by something as simple as human error." But, the essence of their policy is the same "LaRue Tactical will limit all sales to what law-abiding citizens residing in their districts can purchase or possess."

So far reaction from within New York appears to be limited. Given the number of manufacturers who make tactical rifles, it's unlikely that any police in the state will run out of guns any time soon. But sometimes from a tiny acorn does a mighty oak grow.

Just last month a major hunting and fishing exhibition in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania was cancelled when vendors pulled out following the promoter's decision to ban tactical rifles from the show. Reed Exhibitions, a British company, ironically based their decision on the possibility that the presence of tactical rifles at the event would attract "negative attention." The absence of tactical rifles, however, got the attention of as many as 350 of the event's originally slated 1000 vendors - who pulled out of the show.

Cabela's, an outdoor outfitter and one of the show's four main sponsors, was among the first to withdraw their support. Reed's website naturally tried to put a positive spin on the outcome of their decision and claimed that only a "small percentage" of vendors had decided to pull out and that the show was merely being "postponed." At the top of the Eastern Sports & Outdoor Show website, however, there's a link for people to follow for ticket refunds. In addition to nearly a third of the vendors, five scheduled hunting and fishing celebrity speakers (including an Olympic gold medalist) cancelled, and the National Wild Turkey Federation announced that they are looking for a new venue for their sanctioned turkey calling contest.

I can't help wondering if Piers Morgan is on the board at Reed Exhibitions ... At $1200 per booth and $14 per ticket, the company is sure to feel the backlash of their decision. It seems highly unlikely that 1000 vendors will find an empty spot on their calendar if Reed were to even attempt to reschedule the show.

Lest anyone rejoice over the cancellation of "another gun show," it's important to realize that the Eastern Sports Show is one of the oldest and largest events of its kind and attracts hundreds of thousands of people, including families, from all over the region. It's not a "gun show." It's a hunting and fishing show, and by many accounts one of the biggest events in Harrisburg. The city's hotels, restaurants, and other businesses lost an estimated $44 to $80 million in revenue.

Clearly, a move by one or two companies can escalate into something much larger. At least one pro-gun website is encouraging a boycott against gun and ammo companies who do any business with New York police departments. If the gun manufacturer boycott against the state of New York catches on like the boycott of the Eastern Show did, it will be interesting to see what legislators do between now and March when their new gun ban law takes effect.

 

[tom22406]

And a few more(some were already included in the article I posted) have joined in as well in not selling to certain places and customers.

•LaRue Tactical Effective today, in an effort to see that no legal mistakes are made by LaRue Tactical and/or its employees, we will apply all current State and Local Laws (as applied to civilians) to state and local law enforcement / government agencies. In other words, LaRue Tactical will limit all sales to what law-abiding citizens residing in their districts can purchase or possess. •Olympic Arms Due the passing of this legislation, Olympic Arms would like to announce that the State of New York, any Law Enforcement Departments, Law Enforcement Officers, First Responders within the State of New York, or any New York State government entity or employee of such an entity - will no longer be served as customers. In short, Olympic Arms will no longer be doing business with the State of New York or any governmental entity or employee of such governmental entity within the State of New York - henceforth and until such legislation is repealed, and an apology made to the good people of the State of New York and the American people. •Extreme Firepower Inc, LLC The Federal Government and several states have enacted gun control laws that restrict the public from owning and possessing certain types of firearms. Law-enforcement agencies are typically exempt from these restrictions. EFI, LLC does not recognize law-enforcement exemptions to local, state, and federal gun control laws. If a product that we manufacture is not legal for a private citizen to own in a jurisdiction, we will not sell that product to a law-enforcement agency in that jurisdiction. •Templar Custom We will not sell arms to agents of the state of New York that hold themselves to be "more equal" than their citizens. As long as the legislators of New York think they have the power to limit the rights of their citizens, in defiance of the Constitution, we at Templar will not sell them firearms to enforce their edicts. Templar Custom is announcing that the State of New York, any Law Enforcement Departments, Law Enforcement Officers, First Responders within the State of New York, or any New York State government entity or employee will no longer be served as customers. •York Arms Based on the recent legislation in New York, we are prohibited from selling rifles and receivers to residents of New York. We have chosen to extend that prohibition to all governmental agencies associated with or located within New York. As a result we have halted sales of rifles, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, machine guns, and silencers to New York governmental agencies. •Cheaper than Dirt Recently, companies such as LaRue Tactical and Olympic Arms have announced that they will no longer sell prohibited items to government agencies and personnel in states that deny the right to own those items to civilians. It has been and will continue to be Cheaper Than Dirt’s policy to not to sell prohibited items to government agencies and/or agents in states, counties, cities, and municipalities that have enacted restrictive gun control laws against their citizens. We support and encourage other companies that share in this policy.

 

[Jewell]

Seattle Times

One of the major gun-control efforts in Olympia this session calls for the sheriff to inspect the homes of assault-weapon owners. The bill’s backers say that was a mistake.

Forget police drones flying over your house. How about police coming inside, once a year, to have a look around?

As Orwellian as that sounds, it isn’t hypothetical. The notion of police home inspections was introduced in a bill last week in Olympia.

That it’s part of one of the major gun-control efforts pains me. It seemed in recent weeks lawmakers might be headed toward some common-sense regulation of gun sales. But then last week they went too far. By mistake, they claim. But still too far.

“They always say, we’ll never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder.”

That’s no gun-rights absolutist talking, but Lance Palmer, a Seattle trial lawyer and self-described liberal who brought the troubling Senate Bill 5737 to my attention. It’s the long-awaited assault-weapons ban, introduced last week by three Seattle Democrats.

Responding to the Newtown school massacre, the bill would ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons that use detachable ammunition magazines. Clips that contain more than 10 rounds would be illegal.

But then, with respect to the thousands of weapons like that already owned by Washington residents, the bill says this:

“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall ... safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”

In other words, come into homes without a warrant to poke around. Failure to comply could get you up to a year in jail.

“I’m a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life,” Palmer told me. “But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover.”

He added: “It’s exactly this sort of thing that drives people into the arms of the NRA.”

I have been blasting the NRA for its paranoia in the gun-control debate. But Palmer is right — you can’t fully blame them, when cops going door-to-door shows up in legislation.

I spoke to two of the sponsors. One, Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, a lawyer who typically is hyper-attuned to civil-liberties issues, said he did not know the bill authorized police searches because he had not read it closely before signing on.

“I made a mistake,” Kline said. “I frankly should have vetted this more closely.”

That lawmakers sponsor bills they haven’t read is common. Still, it’s disappointing on one of this political magnitude. Not counting a long table, it’s only an eight-page bill.

The prime sponsor, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, also condemned the search provision in his own bill, after I asked him about it. He said Palmer is right that it’s probably unconstitutional.

“I have to admit that shouldn’t be in there,” Murray said.

He said he came to realize that an assault-weapons ban has little chance of passing this year anyway. So he put in this bill more as “a general statement, as a guiding light of where we need to go.” Without sweating all the details.

Later, a Senate Democratic spokesman blamed unnamed staff and said a new bill will be introduced.

Murray had alluded at a gun-control rally in January that progress on guns could take years.

“We will only win if we reach out and continue to change the hearts and minds of Washingtonians,” Murray said. “We can attack them, or start a dialogue.”

Good plan, very bad start. What’s worse, the case for the perfectly reasonable gun-control bills in Olympia just got tougher.

If by "mistake" the bill's proponents mean that the home search language somehow accidentally ended up in the bill -- then, no, it wasn't a mistake. They intended the language to be in the bill and hopefully passed.If by "mistake" the bill's proponents mean that they've been called on the invasive home search policy, even by self-spoused Liberals, and they're now trying to save face and cover their intentions -- them, yes, it was a mistake.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Seattle Times

One of the major gun-control efforts in Olympia this session calls for the sheriff to inspect the homes of assault-weapon owners. The bill’s backers say that was a mistake.

Forget police drones flying over your house. How about police coming inside, once a year, to have a look around?

As Orwellian as that sounds, it isn’t hypothetical. The notion of police home inspections was introduced in a bill last week in Olympia.

That it’s part of one of the major gun-control efforts pains me. It seemed in recent weeks lawmakers might be headed toward some common-sense regulation of gun sales. But then last week they went too far. By mistake, they claim. But still too far.

“They always say, we’ll never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder.”

That’s no gun-rights absolutist talking, but Lance Palmer, a Seattle trial lawyer and self-described liberal who brought the troubling Senate Bill 5737 to my attention. It’s the long-awaited assault-weapons ban, introduced last week by three Seattle Democrats.

Responding to the Newtown school massacre, the bill would ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons that use detachable ammunition magazines. Clips that contain more than 10 rounds would be illegal.

But then, with respect to the thousands of weapons like that already owned by Washington residents, the bill says this:

“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall ... safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”

In other words, come into homes without a warrant to poke around. Failure to comply could get you up to a year in jail.

“I’m a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life,” Palmer told me. “But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover.”

He added: “It’s exactly this sort of thing that drives people into the arms of the NRA.”

I have been blasting the NRA for its paranoia in the gun-control debate. But Palmer is right — you can’t fully blame them, when cops going door-to-door shows up in legislation.

I spoke to two of the sponsors. One, Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, a lawyer who typically is hyper-attuned to civil-liberties issues, said he did not know the bill authorized police searches because he had not read it closely before signing on.

“I made a mistake,” Kline said. “I frankly should have vetted this more closely.”

That lawmakers sponsor bills they haven’t read is common. Still, it’s disappointing on one of this political magnitude. Not counting a long table, it’s only an eight-page bill.

The prime sponsor, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, also condemned the search provision in his own bill, after I asked him about it. He said Palmer is right that it’s probably unconstitutional.

“I have to admit that shouldn’t be in there,” Murray said.

He said he came to realize that an assault-weapons ban has little chance of passing this year anyway. So he put in this bill more as “a general statement, as a guiding light of where we need to go.” Without sweating all the details.

Later, a Senate Democratic spokesman blamed unnamed staff and said a new bill will be introduced.

Murray had alluded at a gun-control rally in January that progress on guns could take years.

“We will only win if we reach out and continue to change the hearts and minds of Washingtonians,” Murray said. “We can attack them, or start a dialogue.”

Good plan, very bad start. What’s worse, the case for the perfectly reasonable gun-control bills in Olympia just got tougher.

If by "mistake" the bill's proponents mean that the home search language somehow accidentally ended up in the bill -- then, no, it wasn't a mistake. They intended the language to be in the bill and hopefully passed.If by "mistake" the bill's proponents mean that they've been called on the invasive home search policy, even by self-spoused Liberals, and they're now trying to save face and cover their intentions -- them, yes, it was a mistake.

Can't wait to hear Tim's comments about this bill and how it's just extreme right wing paranoia.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Seattle Times

One of the major gun-control efforts in Olympia this session calls for the sheriff to inspect the homes of assault-weapon owners. The bill’s backers say that was a mistake.

Forget police drones flying over your house. How about police coming inside, once a year, to have a look around?

As Orwellian as that sounds, it isn’t hypothetical. The notion of police home inspections was introduced in a bill last week in Olympia.

That it’s part of one of the major gun-control efforts pains me. It seemed in recent weeks lawmakers might be headed toward some common-sense regulation of gun sales. But then last week they went too far. By mistake, they claim. But still too far.

“They always say, we’ll never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder.”

That’s no gun-rights absolutist talking, but Lance Palmer, a Seattle trial lawyer and self-described liberal who brought the troubling Senate Bill 5737 to my attention. It’s the long-awaited assault-weapons ban, introduced last week by three Seattle Democrats.

Responding to the Newtown school massacre, the bill would ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons that use detachable ammunition magazines. Clips that contain more than 10 rounds would be illegal.

But then, with respect to the thousands of weapons like that already owned by Washington residents, the bill says this:

“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall ... safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”

In other words, come into homes without a warrant to poke around. Failure to comply could get you up to a year in jail.

“I’m a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life,” Palmer told me. “But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover.”

He added: “It’s exactly this sort of thing that drives people into the arms of the NRA.”

I have been blasting the NRA for its paranoia in the gun-control debate. But Palmer is right — you can’t fully blame them, when cops going door-to-door shows up in legislation.

I spoke to two of the sponsors. One, Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, a lawyer who typically is hyper-attuned to civil-liberties issues, said he did not know the bill authorized police searches because he had not read it closely before signing on.

“I made a mistake,” Kline said. “I frankly should have vetted this more closely.”

That lawmakers sponsor bills they haven’t read is common. Still, it’s disappointing on one of this political magnitude. Not counting a long table, it’s only an eight-page bill.

The prime sponsor, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, also condemned the search provision in his own bill, after I asked him about it. He said Palmer is right that it’s probably unconstitutional.

“I have to admit that shouldn’t be in there,” Murray said.

He said he came to realize that an assault-weapons ban has little chance of passing this year anyway. So he put in this bill more as “a general statement, as a guiding light of where we need to go.” Without sweating all the details.

Later, a Senate Democratic spokesman blamed unnamed staff and said a new bill will be introduced.

Murray had alluded at a gun-control rally in January that progress on guns could take years.

“We will only win if we reach out and continue to change the hearts and minds of Washingtonians,” Murray said. “We can attack them, or start a dialogue.”

Good plan, very bad start. What’s worse, the case for the perfectly reasonable gun-control bills in Olympia just got tougher.

If by "mistake" the bill's proponents mean that the home search language somehow accidentally ended up in the bill -- then, no, it wasn't a mistake. They intended the language to be in the bill and hopefully passed.If by "mistake" the bill's proponents mean that they've been called on the invasive home search policy, even by self-spoused Liberals, and they're now trying to save face and cover their intentions -- them, yes, it was a mistake.

So it turns out the gun rights folks arent so crazy and paranoid after all.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

So it turns out the gun rights folks arent so crazy and paranoid after all.

No, they're still pretty nutty.

 

[MaxThreshold]

So it turns out the gun rights folks arent so crazy and paranoid after all.

No, they're still pretty nutty.

But apparently not as nutty as those who are so willing to trample other constitutional rights in their zeal to ban guns.

 

[jonessed]

Seattle Times

One of the major gun-control efforts in Olympia this session calls for the sheriff to inspect the homes of assault-weapon owners. The bill’s backers say that was a mistake.

Forget police drones flying over your house. How about police coming inside, once a year, to have a look around?

As Orwellian as that sounds, it isn’t hypothetical. The notion of police home inspections was introduced in a bill last week in Olympia.

That it’s part of one of the major gun-control efforts pains me. It seemed in recent weeks lawmakers might be headed toward some common-sense regulation of gun sales. But then last week they went too far. By mistake, they claim. But still too far.

“They always say, we’ll never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder.”

That’s no gun-rights absolutist talking, but Lance Palmer, a Seattle trial lawyer and self-described liberal who brought the troubling Senate Bill 5737 to my attention. It’s the long-awaited assault-weapons ban, introduced last week by three Seattle Democrats.

Responding to the Newtown school massacre, the bill would ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons that use detachable ammunition magazines. Clips that contain more than 10 rounds would be illegal.

But then, with respect to the thousands of weapons like that already owned by Washington residents, the bill says this:

“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall ... safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”

In other words, come into homes without a warrant to poke around. Failure to comply could get you up to a year in jail.

“I’m a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life,” Palmer told me. “But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover.”

He added: “It’s exactly this sort of thing that drives people into the arms of the NRA.”

I have been blasting the NRA for its paranoia in the gun-control debate. But Palmer is right — you can’t fully blame them, when cops going door-to-door shows up in legislation.

I spoke to two of the sponsors. One, Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, a lawyer who typically is hyper-attuned to civil-liberties issues, said he did not know the bill authorized police searches because he had not read it closely before signing on.

“I made a mistake,” Kline said. “I frankly should have vetted this more closely.”

That lawmakers sponsor bills they haven’t read is common. Still, it’s disappointing on one of this political magnitude. Not counting a long table, it’s only an eight-page bill.

The prime sponsor, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, also condemned the search provision in his own bill, after I asked him about it. He said Palmer is right that it’s probably unconstitutional.

“I have to admit that shouldn’t be in there,” Murray said.

He said he came to realize that an assault-weapons ban has little chance of passing this year anyway. So he put in this bill more as “a general statement, as a guiding light of where we need to go.” Without sweating all the details.

Later, a Senate Democratic spokesman blamed unnamed staff and said a new bill will be introduced.

Murray had alluded at a gun-control rally in January that progress on guns could take years.

“We will only win if we reach out and continue to change the hearts and minds of Washingtonians,” Murray said. “We can attack them, or start a dialogue.”

Good plan, very bad start. What’s worse, the case for the perfectly reasonable gun-control bills in Olympia just got tougher.

If by "mistake" the bill's proponents mean that the home search language somehow accidentally ended up in the bill -- then, no, it wasn't a mistake. They intended the language to be in the bill and hopefully passed.If by "mistake" the bill's proponents mean that they've been called on the invasive home search policy, even by self-spoused Liberals, and they're now trying to save face and cover their intentions -- them, yes, it was a mistake.

Can't wait to hear Tim's comments about this bill and how it's just extreme right wing paranoia.

You can be sure he will find a way to rationalize it.The reality is most of the politicians putting forth the new laws want an outright ban on guns. Treating anything they put forth as a step towards that goal may be considered unreasonable, but it certainly isn't paranoid.

 

[boots11234]

Haven't seen this link showing examples of guns saving lives: My link .

 

[tom22406]

Seattle Times

One of the major gun-control efforts in Olympia this session calls for the sheriff to inspect the homes of assault-weapon owners. The bill’s backers say that was a mistake.

Forget police drones flying over your house. How about police coming inside, once a year, to have a look around?

As Orwellian as that sounds, it isn’t hypothetical. The notion of police home inspections was introduced in a bill last week in Olympia.

That it’s part of one of the major gun-control efforts pains me. It seemed in recent weeks lawmakers might be headed toward some common-sense regulation of gun sales. But then last week they went too far. By mistake, they claim. But still too far.

“They always say, we’ll never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder.”

That’s no gun-rights absolutist talking, but Lance Palmer, a Seattle trial lawyer and self-described liberal who brought the troubling Senate Bill 5737 to my attention. It’s the long-awaited assault-weapons ban, introduced last week by three Seattle Democrats.

Responding to the Newtown school massacre, the bill would ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons that use detachable ammunition magazines. Clips that contain more than 10 rounds would be illegal.

But then, with respect to the thousands of weapons like that already owned by Washington residents, the bill says this:

“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall ... safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”

In other words, come into homes without a warrant to poke around. Failure to comply could get you up to a year in jail.

“I’m a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life,” Palmer told me. “But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover.”

He added: “It’s exactly this sort of thing that drives people into the arms of the NRA.”

I have been blasting the NRA for its paranoia in the gun-control debate. But Palmer is right — you can’t fully blame them, when cops going door-to-door shows up in legislation.

I spoke to two of the sponsors. One, Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, a lawyer who typically is hyper-attuned to civil-liberties issues, said he did not know the bill authorized police searches because he had not read it closely before signing on.

“I made a mistake,” Kline said. “I frankly should have vetted this more closely.”

That lawmakers sponsor bills they haven’t read is common. Still, it’s disappointing on one of this political magnitude. Not counting a long table, it’s only an eight-page bill.

The prime sponsor, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, also condemned the search provision in his own bill, after I asked him about it. He said Palmer is right that it’s probably unconstitutional.

“I have to admit that shouldn’t be in there,” Murray said.

He said he came to realize that an assault-weapons ban has little chance of passing this year anyway. So he put in this bill more as “a general statement, as a guiding light of where we need to go.” Without sweating all the details.

Later, a Senate Democratic spokesman blamed unnamed staff and said a new bill will be introduced.

Murray had alluded at a gun-control rally in January that progress on guns could take years.

“We will only win if we reach out and continue to change the hearts and minds of Washingtonians,” Murray said. “We can attack them, or start a dialogue.”

Good plan, very bad start. What’s worse, the case for the perfectly reasonable gun-control bills in Olympia just got tougher.

If by "mistake" the bill's proponents mean that the home search language somehow accidentally ended up in the bill -- then, no, it wasn't a mistake. They intended the language to be in the bill and hopefully passed.If by "mistake" the bill's proponents mean that they've been called on the invasive home search policy, even by self-spoused Liberals, and they're now trying to save face and cover their intentions -- them, yes, it was a mistake.

Can't wait to hear Tim's comments about this bill and how it's just extreme right wing paranoia.

The best part of this was a sponsor for the bill saying this

I spoke to two of the sponsors. One, Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, a lawyer who typically is hyper-attuned to civil-liberties issues, said he did not know the bill authorized police searches because he had not read it closely before signing on.

“I made a mistake,” Kline said. “I frankly should have vetted this more closely.”

And yet another bill that is proposed that was never even read closely This is what we're dealing with but somehow gets twisted into gun owners being paranoid

 

[timschochet]

But you are paranoid. That's a foolish law, not representative at all of the millions of Americans in favor of reasonable gun control- its a few extremists. Even when laws like that pass, they'll never be enforced. If you believe that laws like this one are what the gun control movement is really about then you're paranoid. And wrong.

 

[tom22406]

I expected nothing less

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

By the by, even if you're not a lawyer, the idea that local sherrifs are going to arrest federal agents for enforcing federal law didn't strike you as a bit.... strange?

Federal Agents: We're here about your non-payment of taxes for the past 10 years.

5DigitKnowNothing: My state has passed a law that they're not enforcing federal income taxes because they're unconstitutional.

FA: Oh, well, if your state has decided that you don't have to pay taxes, I guess there's nothing more to be said. We'll be on our way. Sorry to bother you.

5DKN: Not so fast. I've called my local sheriff. He's on his way to arrest you for trying to enforce this travesty.

FA: We'll come quietly and won't contest the charges.

[5DKN wakes up in a puddle of his own man-juice]

 

[Jewell]

Missouri Democrats introduced an anti-gun bill which would turn law-abiding firearm owners into criminals. They will have 90 days to turn in their guns if the legislation is passed.

Here’s part of the Democratic proposal in Missouri:

4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/missouri-democrats-intruduce-legislation-to-confiscate-firearms-gives-gunowners-90-days-to-turn-in-guns/

Democrats in Minnesota are pushing a gun confiscation proposal that looks eerily similar to one recently proposed by Democrats in Missouri, Jim Hoft reported at the Gateway Pundit on Thursday.

The measure uses language that is almost identical to the Missouri proposal, including a requirement that law-abiding gun owners relinquish their so-called "assault" weapons before Sept.1, 2013.

According to the bill, anyone who, on February 1, 2013, legally owns or is in possession of an assault weapon has until September 1, 2013, to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution under Minnesota Statutes, section 624.7133:

1.remove the weapon from the state;

2.surrender the weapon to a law enforcement agency for destruction;

3.render the weapon permanently inoperable; or

4.if eligible, register the weapon as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 624.7133, subdivision 5.

The rule would also apply to anyone who receives the weapon as an inheritance.

Anyone who owns a gun classified as an "assault weapon" prior to the Feb. 1, 2013 cutoff may keep the weapon provided that the owner registers it, submits to a background check, keeps the weapon locked up and submits to an inspection by authorities. Owners of such weapons would be required to renew the registration annually.

http://www.examiner.com/article/minnesota-democrats-pushing-gun-confiscation-bill-similar-to-missouri-s

 

[FootballDummy]

Missouri Democrats introduced an anti-gun bill which would turn law-abiding firearm owners into criminals. They will have 90 days to turn in their guns if the legislation is passed.

Here’s part of the Democratic proposal in Missouri:

4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/missouri-democrats-intruduce-legislation-to-confiscate-firearms-gives-gunowners-90-days-to-turn-in-guns/

Democrats in Minnesota are pushing a gun confiscation proposal that looks eerily similar to one recently proposed by Democrats in Missouri, Jim Hoft reported at the Gateway Pundit on Thursday.

The measure uses language that is almost identical to the Missouri proposal, including a requirement that law-abiding gun owners relinquish their so-called "assault" weapons before Sept.1, 2013.

According to the bill, anyone who, on February 1, 2013, legally owns or is in possession of an assault weapon has until September 1, 2013, to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution under Minnesota Statutes, section 624.7133:

1.remove the weapon from the state;

2.surrender the weapon to a law enforcement agency for destruction;

3.render the weapon permanently inoperable; or

4.if eligible, register the weapon as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 624.7133, subdivision 5.

The rule would also apply to anyone who receives the weapon as an inheritance.

Anyone who owns a gun classified as an "assault weapon" prior to the Feb. 1, 2013 cutoff may keep the weapon provided that the owner registers it, submits to a background check, keeps the weapon locked up and submits to an inspection by authorities. Owners of such weapons would be required to renew the registration annually.

http://www.examiner.com/article/minnesota-democrats-pushing-gun-confiscation-bill-similar-to-missouri-s

Good. You paranoid nuts don't need assault weapons.

 

[StrikeS2k]

But you are paranoid. That's a foolish law, not representative at all of the millions of Americans in favor of reasonable gun control- its a few extremists. Even when laws like that pass, they'll never be enforced. If you believe that laws like this one are what the gun control movement is really about then you're paranoid. And wrong.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

By the by, even if you're not a lawyer, the idea that local sherrifs are going to arrest federal agents for enforcing federal law didn't strike you as a bit.... strange?

Not if the law being enforced is considered unconstitutional.

Federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution.

Which is probably why the name of the organization you are referring to is called the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association.

 

[tom22406]

Good ole Joe Biden at it again

On Tuesday, Vice President Joe Biden appeared on a Facebook townhall, where he was asked a question about gun ownership by a female viewer from Parent Magazine. Biden’s suggestion: nobody needs an AR-15, especially women. Instead, he stated, “If you want to protect yourself, get a double-barrel shotgun.” In fact, Biden went further, describing his strategy for home defense:

I said, 'Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here ... walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house.’ … You don't need an AR-15 — it's harder to aim, it's harder to use, and in fact you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun! Buy a shotgun!

There are a few problems with this.

First, it is illegal to discharge a firearm in public in Delaware, as it is in virtually every state. Shooting a gun into the air would arguably not constitute self-defense and poses a threat to the public, especially since a slug would come down at some point.

Second, if you have a typical double-barreled shotgun, the gun only holds two shells. If you fire twice into the air, you have just disarmed yourself.

Third, shotguns are used in more murders every year in the United States than the rifles the left wants to ban.

Fourth, for Biden to suggest that women are incapable of handling AR-15s, even as the Obama administration pushes women into frontline military combat, is ridiculous to say the least.

Ben Shapiro wrote the article in case you were wondering and was spot on with his points.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Good ole Joe Biden at it again

On Tuesday, Vice President Joe Biden appeared on a Facebook townhall, where he was asked a question about gun ownership by a female viewer from Parent Magazine. Biden’s suggestion: nobody needs an AR-15, especially women. Instead, he stated, “If you want to protect yourself, get a double-barrel shotgun.” In fact, Biden went further, describing his strategy for home defense:

I said, 'Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here ... walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house.’ … You don't need an AR-15 — it's harder to aim, it's harder to use, and in fact you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun! Buy a shotgun!

There are a few problems with this.

First, it is illegal to discharge a firearm in public in Delaware, as it is in virtually every state. Shooting a gun into the air would arguably not constitute self-defense and poses a threat to the public, especially since a slug would come down at some point.

Second, if you have a typical double-barreled shotgun, the gun only holds two shells. If you fire twice into the air, you have just disarmed yourself.

Third, shotguns are used in more murders every year in the United States than the rifles the left wants to ban.

Fourth, for Biden to suggest that women are incapable of handling AR-15s, even as the Obama administration pushes women into frontline military combat, is ridiculous to say the least.

Ben Shapiro wrote the article in case you were wondering and was spot on with his points.

Really? Seems like the points are off.1) Biden didn't say to shoot up into the air -- she could shoot into the ground.

2) Couldn't she just reload after taking her two warning shots? I've been led to believe that anybody can reload anything in less than a second.

3) Might be relevant to the larger debate about gun control, but seems irrelevant to what Biden said.

4) Biden didn't say women are incapable of handling AR-15s, at least in the part you quoted.

 

[tom22406]

Good ole Joe Biden at it again

On Tuesday, Vice President Joe Biden appeared on a Facebook townhall, where he was asked a question about gun ownership by a female viewer from Parent Magazine. Biden’s suggestion: nobody needs an AR-15, especially women. Instead, he stated, “If you want to protect yourself, get a double-barrel shotgun.” In fact, Biden went further, describing his strategy for home defense:

I said, 'Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here ... walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house.’ … You don't need an AR-15 — it's harder to aim, it's harder to use, and in fact you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun! Buy a shotgun!

There are a few problems with this.

First, it is illegal to discharge a firearm in public in Delaware, as it is in virtually every state. Shooting a gun into the air would arguably not constitute self-defense and poses a threat to the public, especially since a slug would come down at some point.

Second, if you have a typical double-barreled shotgun, the gun only holds two shells. If you fire twice into the air, you have just disarmed yourself.

Third, shotguns are used in more murders every year in the United States than the rifles the left wants to ban.

Fourth, for Biden to suggest that women are incapable of handling AR-15s, even as the Obama administration pushes women into frontline military combat, is ridiculous to say the least.

Ben Shapiro wrote the article in case you were wondering and was spot on with his points.

Really? Seems like the points are off.1) Biden didn't say to shoot up into the air -- she could shoot into the ground.

2) Couldn't she just reload after taking her two warning shots? I've been led to believe that anybody can reload anything in less than a second.

3) Might be relevant to the larger debate about gun control, but seems irrelevant to what Biden said.

4) Biden didn't say women are incapable of handling AR-15s, at least in the part you quoted.

1-Still illegal to fire the weapon in public2-No idea how well the old bag can re-load or not but with only 2 shots you even have to admit it seems like a waste.

3-He was pointing out the irony in buying a weapon that is responsible for a higher total of murders

4-He did say that the AR-15 was "Harder to aim and harder to use" so I agree that was a bit of a stretch.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Good ole Joe Biden at it again

On Tuesday, Vice President Joe Biden appeared on a Facebook townhall, where he was asked a question about gun ownership by a female viewer from Parent Magazine. Biden’s suggestion: nobody needs an AR-15, especially women. Instead, he stated, “If you want to protect yourself, get a double-barrel shotgun.” In fact, Biden went further, describing his strategy for home defense:

I said, 'Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here ... walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house.’ … You don't need an AR-15 — it's harder to aim, it's harder to use, and in fact you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun! Buy a shotgun!

There are a few problems with this.

First, it is illegal to discharge a firearm in public in Delaware, as it is in virtually every state. Shooting a gun into the air would arguably not constitute self-defense and poses a threat to the public, especially since a slug would come down at some point.

Second, if you have a typical double-barreled shotgun, the gun only holds two shells. If you fire twice into the air, you have just disarmed yourself.

Third, shotguns are used in more murders every year in the United States than the rifles the left wants to ban.

Fourth, for Biden to suggest that women are incapable of handling AR-15s, even as the Obama administration pushes women into frontline military combat, is ridiculous to say the least.

Ben Shapiro wrote the article in case you were wondering and was spot on with his points.

Really? Seems like the points are off.1) Biden didn't say to shoot up into the air -- she could shoot into the ground.

2) Couldn't she just reload after taking her two warning shots? I've been led to believe that anybody can reload anything in less than a second.

3) Might be relevant to the larger debate about gun control, but seems irrelevant to what Biden said.

4) Biden didn't say women are incapable of handling AR-15s, at least in the part you quoted.

1-Still illegal to fire the weapon in public2-No idea how well the old bag can re-load or not but with only 2 shots you even have to admit it seems like a waste.

3-He was pointing out the irony in buying a weapon that is responsible for a higher total of murders

4-He did say that the AR-15 was "Harder to aim and harder to use" so I agree that was a bit of a stretch.

1. I'm not an expert in Delaware law but I'm guessing it isn't illegal to fire a gun in self-defense. Shapiro says that in this situation it would "arguably not constitute self-defense." That strikes me as an absurd position -- of course firing a warning shot would be self-defense.2. It's not a waste if it works. I don't have a good idea of exactly how often warning shots deter intruders. But it doesn't seem like Shapiro does either.

3. I know why Shapiro wrote it. But the blurb was supposed to be pointing out "a few problems" with what Biden said. This doesn't point out a problem.

4. A bit of a stretch is a nice way to put it.

 

[tom22406]

Good ole Joe Biden at it again

On Tuesday, Vice President Joe Biden appeared on a Facebook townhall, where he was asked a question about gun ownership by a female viewer from Parent Magazine. Biden’s suggestion: nobody needs an AR-15, especially women. Instead, he stated, “If you want to protect yourself, get a double-barrel shotgun.” In fact, Biden went further, describing his strategy for home defense:

I said, 'Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here ... walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house.’ … You don't need an AR-15 — it's harder to aim, it's harder to use, and in fact you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun! Buy a shotgun!

There are a few problems with this.

First, it is illegal to discharge a firearm in public in Delaware, as it is in virtually every state. Shooting a gun into the air would arguably not constitute self-defense and poses a threat to the public, especially since a slug would come down at some point.

Second, if you have a typical double-barreled shotgun, the gun only holds two shells. If you fire twice into the air, you have just disarmed yourself.

Third, shotguns are used in more murders every year in the United States than the rifles the left wants to ban.

Fourth, for Biden to suggest that women are incapable of handling AR-15s, even as the Obama administration pushes women into frontline military combat, is ridiculous to say the least.

Ben Shapiro wrote the article in case you were wondering and was spot on with his points.

Really? Seems like the points are off.1) Biden didn't say to shoot up into the air -- she could shoot into the ground.

2) Couldn't she just reload after taking her two warning shots? I've been led to believe that anybody can reload anything in less than a second.

3) Might be relevant to the larger debate about gun control, but seems irrelevant to what Biden said.

4) Biden didn't say women are incapable of handling AR-15s, at least in the part you quoted.

1-Still illegal to fire the weapon in public2-No idea how well the old bag can re-load or not but with only 2 shots you even have to admit it seems like a waste.

3-He was pointing out the irony in buying a weapon that is responsible for a higher total of murders

4-He did say that the AR-15 was "Harder to aim and harder to use" so I agree that was a bit of a stretch.

1. I'm not an expert in Delaware law but I'm guessing it isn't illegal to fire a gun in self-defense. Shapiro says that in this situation it would "arguably not constitute self-defense." That strikes me as an absurd position -- of course firing a warning shot would be self-defense.2. It's not a waste if it works. I don't have a good idea of exactly how often warning shots deter intruders. But it doesn't seem like Shapiro does either.

3. I know why Shapiro wrote it. But the blurb was supposed to be pointing out "a few problems" with what Biden said. This doesn't point out a problem.

4. A bit of a stretch is a nice way to put it.

We will agree to disagree on a few points.I would argue it's easier to fire an AR-15 for a woman because of how light it is and with a 30 round mag it gives them some room for missed shots to not have to re-load.

 

[collective]

Good ole Joe Biden at it again

On Tuesday, Vice President Joe Biden appeared on a Facebook townhall, where he was asked a question about gun ownership by a female viewer from Parent Magazine. Biden’s suggestion: nobody needs an AR-15, especially women. Instead, he stated, “If you want to protect yourself, get a double-barrel shotgun.” In fact, Biden went further, describing his strategy for home defense:

I said, 'Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here ... walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house.’ … You don't need an AR-15 — it's harder to aim, it's harder to use, and in fact you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun! Buy a shotgun!

Can I use this shotgun?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Has anyone asked yet why the DHS needs 1.63 BILLION rounds of ammo?

i know what the people on the right think.

That's not really an answer now, is it? What do YOU think it's for?For perspective: That would be enough to supply an all out war the size of the Afghan/Iraq War for 30 straight years.

Or, at 15 million rounds per year, 100+ years of training.There aren't many (or any) explanations that make sense, other than the obvious one that gets you labeled a nut - civil unrest. They have successfully driven up prices and dried up supplies, if that was their intention. But, that doesn't make much sense because they can't do that forever. Well, maybe they can with another few rounds of printing money.

I'd love to hear some legitimate reasons.

You won't hear a single legitimate reason from the gun grabbers.On another note, in case people here didn't understand what's the true aim of gun control:

Darrell Steinberg rolled out Kalifornia's latest proposal at the state Capitol on Thursday outlawing all semiautomatic weapons along with a slew of other restrictions making law abiding citizens today, criminals 'tomorrow'.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

AWB defeated in Westford, Mass met by applause and standing ovations.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

"People shouldn't be able to own guns" -Obama

In February [2004], he had filled out a survey saying he wanted a federal law denying anyone other than former law enforcement officials the right to carry concealed weapons.

source

 

[Daywalker]

Was privy to an NRA meeting on Friday in SoCal. Sounded like a Rush Limbaugh crowd. Very little on guns. More about how this is a cultural war. Talked of Mexican gangs and one guy felt free to make a gay joke to the group that got some laughs. Seemed to be more about chest-beating then about protecting the rights of gun ownership.Managed to make gun ownership a very exclusive group. Well thought out.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

10 pages of gun myths and facts...one of many interesting stats listed:

In 2000, 20% of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just six percent of the population -- New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Washington, D.C. -- most of which have/had a virtual prohibition on private handguns.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

spam bots