***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (8 Viewers)

[Carolina Hustler]

How is it that you'll assume when 15 people are stabbed, none of them die?

Well, today a man stabbed 15 people, 5 of which were hardly injured, 2 of which were seriously injured and so far no one has died.Its not a reaching assumption at all that if he had a gun, the outcome would have been severely worse and likely would not have been tackled to the ground, or detained at all for that matter.

In your anecdotal situation... In several anecdotal situations that I know of, people died from being stabbed..

So are knives more lethal than guns?

If guns were banned, do you think deaths from alternate weapons would not increase?

That didn't really answer my question now did it? If there were no guns, do you honestly think there would be more deaths?

And I'm not even arguing for banning guns. But I guess the gun rights advocates want to turn this into absolutes or into the boogeymen coming for their guns.

boogie-men ans unicorns... yea... like the need to ban "assault type" rifles... when it's proven that assault rifles kill less people than knives..

The hand guns will still be in circulation, and they're the main culprit when it comes to gun deaths..

Sure, I don't necessarily disagree with you on that point. But at the same time, anyone who argues that they have been or will be injured by an assault weapons ban is wrong. I agree that the AWB isn't really addressing the problem as it stands now but it also doesn't really hurt progress. If gun rights advocates came to the table and offered up other meaningful change in return for assault weapons, then we might be somewhere.

So it's up to the guns rights advocates to broker a different deal or risk a senseless ban on assault riffles?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

You really have to wonder about these polls, if ~half the people are gun owners and only a small percentage support increased background checks from Gun Owners of America and the NRA then why are the results being reported so lopsided? I remember reading one of these polls where they had a classification of "gun in household" which is not the same as gun owner.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/10/gun-rights-activist-dismisses-polls/?hpt=hp_t2

The whole reason there is resistance in pushing this legislation through is because Dem's are afraid of losing their seats. If there is so much overwhelming support, what the heck are they afraid of?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

If ever there was a moment in recent U.S. history to own a firearm for protection.

Confiscation of firearms by force post-Katrina:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina#Confiscation_of_civilian_firearms

After refusing to admit that it had any seized firearms, the city revealed in mid-March that it did have a cache of some 1000 firearms seized after the hurricane; this disclosure came after the NRA filed a motion in court to hold the city in contempt for failure to comply with the U.S. District Court's earlier order to return all seized firearms. On April 14, 2006, it was announced that the city will begin to return seized firearms, however as of early 2008, many firearms were still in police possession, and the matter was still in court. The matter was finally settled in favor of the NRA in October 2008. Per the agreement, the city was required to relax the strict proof of ownership requirements previously used, and was to release firearms to their owners with an affidavit claiming ownership and a background check to verify that the owner is legally able to possess a firearm.

 

[timschochet]

Three cheers for Pat Toomey!

"I don't regard criminal background checks as gun control."

Brave thing for him to say in the current climate of the GOP.

 

[ATC1]

If ever there was a moment in recent U.S. history to own a firearm for protection.

Confiscation of firearms by force post-Katrina:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina#Confiscation_of_civilian_firearms

My entire family was relocated from the storm. I was already in Baton Rouge. My father-in-law brought all of his guns with him when he evacuated for the storm. However, with the sheer numbers of gun owners who never anticipated a storm of this magnitude. There was a lot of looting in houses because there were no security to break into a house that was evacuated. Safes were taken from houses. So, a lot of people were carrying to get rid of looters or the looters were carrying stolen firearms themselves. It was a nasty situation.

Most of the guns bought at a local gun store lost the papers on who owned the guns. It's tough to prove particular gun ownership.

 

[timschochet]

Maybe I shouldn't have been so pessimistic, because it looks like we're finally getting somewhere. Thanks to Pat Toomey and a few other brave Republicans, there will be enough votes to break the threatened filibuster by that idiot Cruz:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57578990/first-vote-set-on-senate-gun-bill-amid-gop-resistance/

Summary of the compromise bill:

That compromise, according to Manchin and Toomey, would close the so-called "gun show loophole" that allows people to buy firearms at gun shows without passing a background check. It would also mandate a background check for online gun sales, but it provides exceptions to the background check requirement when a gun is transferred as a gift between family members or close friends.

Crucially, the compromise would assign responsibility for maintaining sales records to the gun dealers themselves, not the federal government - a step taken to calm fears among gun owners about the development of a national gun registry.

Hopefully these changes will satisfy reasonable gun-owners. Nothing is going to satisfy the paranoid freaks, of course, but I still think they're a small minority, no matter how loud they get.

 

[tom22406]

Maybe I shouldn't have been so pessimistic, because it looks like we're finally getting somewhere. Thanks to Pat Toomey and a few other brave Republicans, there will be enough votes to break the threatened filibuster by that idiot Cruz:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57578990/first-vote-set-on-senate-gun-bill-amid-gop-resistance/

Summary of the compromise bill:

That compromise, according to Manchin and Toomey, would close the so-called "gun show loophole" that allows people to buy firearms at gun shows without passing a background check. It would also mandate a background check for online gun sales, but it provides exceptions to the background check requirement when a gun is transferred as a gift between family members or close friends.

Crucially, the compromise would assign responsibility for maintaining sales records to the gun dealers themselves, not the federal government - a step taken to calm fears among gun owners about the development of a national gun registry.

Hopefully these changes will satisfy reasonable gun-owners. Nothing is going to satisfy the paranoid freaks, of course, but I still think they're a small minority, no matter how loud they get.

So it still leaves open the private sale for no background check?Seems like a huge hole to me.

Gonna be a ton of "close friends" making deals.

 

[tom22406]

Statement from Cruz,Lee and Paul

Why is the Senate voting on a gun bill no one has even read? Joint statement with United States Senator Mike Lee and Senator Rand Paul:

This morning the Senate will vote on the motion to proceed to the firearms bill (S.649). It is expected that the Toomey-Manchin provision announced yesterday will replace the current language regarding background checks. Yet, as of this morning, not a single senator has been provided the legislative language of this provision. Because the background-check measure is the centerpiece of this legislation it is critical that we know what is in the bill before we vote on it. The American people expect more and deserve better. Unfortunately, the effort to push through legislation that no one had read highlights one of the primary reasons we announced our intention to force a 60 vote threshold. We believe the abuse of the process is how the rights of Americans are systematically eroded and we will continue to do everything in our power to prevent it.

Can't blame them for wanting to read the bill before ever voting on it.

 

[ichris]

Maybe I shouldn't have been so pessimistic, because it looks like we're finally getting somewhere. Thanks to Pat Toomey and a few other brave Republicans, there will be enough votes to break the threatened filibuster by that idiot Cruz:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57578990/first-vote-set-on-senate-gun-bill-amid-gop-resistance/

Summary of the compromise bill:

That compromise, according to Manchin and Toomey, would close the so-called "gun show loophole" that allows people to buy firearms at gun shows without passing a background check. It would also mandate a background check for online gun sales, but it provides exceptions to the background check requirement when a gun is transferred as a gift between family members or close friends.

Crucially, the compromise would assign responsibility for maintaining sales records to the gun dealers themselves, not the federal government - a step taken to calm fears among gun owners about the development of a national gun registry.

Hopefully these changes will satisfy reasonable gun-owners. Nothing is going to satisfy the paranoid freaks, of course, but I still think they're a small minority, no matter how loud they get.

Uh, you already have to get a background check if you buy a gun online.

 

[timschochet]

Statement from Cruz,Lee and Paul

Why is the Senate voting on a gun bill no one has even read? Joint statement with United States Senator Mike Lee and Senator Rand Paul:This morning the Senate will vote on the motion to proceed to the firearms bill (S.649). It is expected that the Toomey-Manchin provision announced yesterday will replace the current language regarding background checks. Yet, as of this morning, not a single senator has been provided the legislative language of this provision. Because the background-check measure is the centerpiece of this legislation it is critical that we know what is in the bill before we vote on it. The American people expect more and deserve better.

Unfortunately, the effort to push through legislation that no one had read highlights one of the primary reasons we announced our intention to force a 60 vote threshold. We believe the abuse of the process is how the rights of Americans are systematically eroded and we will continue to do everything in our power to prevent it.

Can't blame them for wanting to read the bill before ever voting on it.

They're not voting on the bill. They're voting to open discussion on the bill. These guys won't even allow it to be debated.

 

[timschochet]

Maybe I shouldn't have been so pessimistic, because it looks like we're finally getting somewhere. Thanks to Pat Toomey and a few other brave Republicans, there will be enough votes to break the threatened filibuster by that idiot Cruz:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57578990/first-vote-set-on-senate-gun-bill-amid-gop-resistance/

Summary of the compromise bill:

That compromise, according to Manchin and Toomey, would close the so-called "gun show loophole" that allows people to buy firearms at gun shows without passing a background check. It would also mandate a background check for online gun sales, but it provides exceptions to the background check requirement when a gun is transferred as a gift between family members or close friends.

Crucially, the compromise would assign responsibility for maintaining sales records to the gun dealers themselves, not the federal government - a step taken to calm fears among gun owners about the development of a national gun registry.

Hopefully these changes will satisfy reasonable gun-owners. Nothing is going to satisfy the paranoid freaks, of course, but I still think they're a small minority, no matter how loud they get.

Uh, you already have to get a background check if you buy a gun online.

Perhaps this is not a federal law?

 

[timschochet]

Maybe I shouldn't have been so pessimistic, because it looks like we're finally getting somewhere. Thanks to Pat Toomey and a few other brave Republicans, there will be enough votes to break the threatened filibuster by that idiot Cruz:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57578990/first-vote-set-on-senate-gun-bill-amid-gop-resistance/

Summary of the compromise bill:

That compromise, according to Manchin and Toomey, would close the so-called "gun show loophole" that allows people to buy firearms at gun shows without passing a background check. It would also mandate a background check for online gun sales, but it provides exceptions to the background check requirement when a gun is transferred as a gift between family members or close friends.

Crucially, the compromise would assign responsibility for maintaining sales records to the gun dealers themselves, not the federal government - a step taken to calm fears among gun owners about the development of a national gun registry.

Hopefully these changes will satisfy reasonable gun-owners. Nothing is going to satisfy the paranoid freaks, of course, but I still think they're a small minority, no matter how loud they get.

So it still leaves open the private sale for no background check?Seems like a huge hole to me.

Gonna be a ton of "close friends" making deals.

I would have liked to close that loophole as well, but this is better than nothing.

 

[d<3]

Three cheers for Pat Toomey!"I don't regard criminal background checks as gun control."Brave thing for him to say in the current climate of the GOP.

GOP is amazing imo.Pushing laws forcing folks to actively prove their citizenship in order to vote but not okay with folks having to prove they are not a dangerous criminal before buying a gun through normal means.

 

[d<3]

timschochet, on 11 Apr 2013 - 10:35, said:

ichris, on 11 Apr 2013 - 09:37, said:

timschochet, on 11 Apr 2013 - 09:18, said:

Maybe I shouldn't have been so pessimistic, because it looks like we're finally getting somewhere. Thanks to Pat Toomey and a few other brave Republicans, there will be enough votes to break the threatened filibuster by that idiot Cruz:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57578990/first-vote-set-on-senate-gun-bill-amid-gop-resistance/

Summary of the compromise bill:

That compromise, according to Manchin and Toomey, would close the so-called "gun show loophole" that allows people to buy firearms at gun shows without passing a background check. It would also mandate a background check for online gun sales, but it provides exceptions to the background check requirement when a gun is transferred as a gift between family members or close friends.

Crucially, the compromise would assign responsibility for maintaining sales records to the gun dealers themselves, not the federal government - a step taken to calm fears among gun owners about the development of a national gun registry.

Hopefully these changes will satisfy reasonable gun-owners. Nothing is going to satisfy the paranoid freaks, of course, but I still think they're a small minority, no matter how loud they get.

Uh, you already have to get a background check if you buy a gun online.

Perhaps this is not a federal law?

I bet if one were to research this issue they would find that the check is needed if the gun is purchased from an FFL online - but there are prolly massive loopholes to legally get around it.

 

[tom22406]

Statement from Cruz,Lee and Paul

Why is the Senate voting on a gun bill no one has even read? Joint statement with United States Senator Mike Lee and Senator Rand Paul:This morning the Senate will vote on the motion to proceed to the firearms bill (S.649). It is expected that the Toomey-Manchin provision announced yesterday will replace the current language regarding background checks. Yet, as of this morning, not a single senator has been provided the legislative language of this provision. Because the background-check measure is the centerpiece of this legislation it is critical that we know what is in the bill before we vote on it. The American people expect more and deserve better.

Unfortunately, the effort to push through legislation that no one had read highlights one of the primary reasons we announced our intention to force a 60 vote threshold. We believe the abuse of the process is how the rights of Americans are systematically eroded and we will continue to do everything in our power to prevent it.

Can't blame them for wanting to read the bill before ever voting on it.

They're not voting on the bill. They're voting to open discussion on the bill. These guys won't even allow it to be debated.

68 votes were cast to move it forward so it doesn't matter now.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Can somebody explain to me the portion of this compromise concerning conflicting state gun laws? If NY bans assault rifles, can somebody who resides in PA buy one in PA and have it in NY without consequence? Can a NY resident merely cross state lines to purchase a weapon banned in NY, but legal in NY, and return to NY without issue?

 

[Novice2]

Maybe I shouldn't have been so pessimistic, because it looks like we're finally getting somewhere. Thanks to Pat Toomey and a few other brave Republicans, there will be enough votes to break the threatened filibuster by that idiot Cruz:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57578990/first-vote-set-on-senate-gun-bill-amid-gop-resistance/

Summary of the compromise bill:

That compromise, according to Manchin and Toomey, would close the so-called "gun show loophole" that allows people to buy firearms at gun shows without passing a background check. It would also mandate a background check for online gun sales, but it provides exceptions to the background check requirement when a gun is transferred as a gift between family members or close friends.

Crucially, the compromise would assign responsibility for maintaining sales records to the gun dealers themselves, not the federal government - a step taken to calm fears among gun owners about the development of a national gun registry.

Hopefully these changes will satisfy reasonable gun-owners. Nothing is going to satisfy the paranoid freaks, of course, but I still think they're a small minority, no matter how loud they get.

So it still leaves open the private sale for no background check?Seems like a huge hole to me.Gonna be a ton of "close friends" making deals.

I would have liked to close that loophole as well, but this is better than nothing.

close friends thing is wacky. Glad to see grandpa doesn't have to background check his grandson though.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

More paranoid gun confiscations going on in Long Island, NY, this time a father's guns and concealed carry permit are confiscated due to a threat his son made to a bully with a water pistol.

Confiscation holds until the son turns 18 and moves out of the house.

http://personalliberty.com/2013/04/10/boys-water-pistol-threat-leads-to-confiscation-of-fathers-guns-license/

 

[ATC1]

More paranoid gun confiscations going on in Long Island, NY, this time a father's guns and concealed carry permit are confiscated due to a threat his son made to a bully with a water pistol.

Confiscation holds until the son turns 18 and moves out of the house.

http://personalliberty.com/2013/04/10/boys-water-pistol-threat-leads-to-confiscation-of-fathers-guns-license/

That is absurd. This can get out of hand quickly.

 

[timschochet]

More paranoid gun confiscations going on in Long Island, NY, this time a father's guns and concealed carry permit are confiscated due to a threat his son made to a bully with a water pistol.

Confiscation holds until the son turns 18 and moves out of the house.

http://personalliberty.com/2013/04/10/boys-water-pistol-threat-leads-to-confiscation-of-fathers-guns-license/

That is absurd. This can get out of hand quickly.

It is absurd. But as to the bolded, no it can't.

No matter how many anecdotes 5 Digit and others cite, making the jump from these to a situation in which the government is going around seizing everyone's private firearms is irrational and paranoid.

 

[timschochet]

Also, I am slightly skeptical of the source that 5 Digit leaked, and suspect there is more to this story...

 

[ATC1]

More paranoid gun confiscations going on in Long Island, NY, this time a father's guns and concealed carry permit are confiscated due to a threat his son made to a bully with a water pistol.

Confiscation holds until the son turns 18 and moves out of the house.

http://personalliberty.com/2013/04/10/boys-water-pistol-threat-leads-to-confiscation-of-fathers-guns-license/

That is absurd. This can get out of hand quickly.

It is absurd. But as to the bolded, no it can't.

No matter how many anecdotes 5 Digit and others cite, making the jump from these to a situation in which the government is going around seizing everyone's private firearms is irrational and paranoid.

Well it certainly can be considered a threat to some and that is the problem. I mean some of these gun owners really think this is the first step and will freak. I could see the protest group of people carrying guns. They will stumble upon a location where it will be illegal to carry and what then? Maybe I'm reaching a bit, but it is because I hear tough talk from guys that say, "I would like to see the government try to take my guns away."

 

[ATC1]

More paranoid gun confiscations going on in Long Island, NY, this time a father's guns and concealed carry permit are confiscated due to a threat his son made to a bully with a water pistol.

Confiscation holds until the son turns 18 and moves out of the house.

http://personalliberty.com/2013/04/10/boys-water-pistol-threat-leads-to-confiscation-of-fathers-guns-license/

That is absurd. This can get out of hand quickly.

It is absurd. But as to the bolded, no it can't.

No matter how many anecdotes 5 Digit and others cite, making the jump from these to a situation in which the government is going around seizing everyone's private firearms is irrational and paranoid.

It is a response from a 10 year-old on the use of a plastic water gun on a known bully. I wonder what the bully and his dad got?

 

[tom22406]

Also, I am slightly skeptical of the source that 5 Digit leaked, and suspect there is more to this story...

Seems legit

http://commack.patch.com/articles/superintendent-says-school-acted-appropriately-in-toy-gun-threat

 

[ATC1]

Also, I am slightly skeptical of the source that 5 Digit leaked, and suspect there is more to this story...

Seems legit

http://commack.patch.com/articles/superintendent-says-school-acted-appropriately-in-toy-gun-threat

This sounds like the same story Otis posted on his thread everyone took as fake.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Link to the 27 page LI Firearms forum post:

http://www.longislandfirearms.com/forum/topic/67755-just-the-mention-of-a-gun-in-school/

article on the blaze

 

[5 digit know nothing]

More paranoid gun confiscations going on in Long Island, NY, this time a father's guns and concealed carry permit are confiscated due to a threat his son made to a bully with a water pistol.

Confiscation holds until the son turns 18 and moves out of the house.

http://personalliberty.com/2013/04/10/boys-water-pistol-threat-leads-to-confiscation-of-fathers-guns-license/

That is absurd. This can get out of hand quickly.

It is absurd. But as to the bolded, no it can't.

No matter how many anecdotes 5 Digit and others cite, making the jump from these to a situation in which the government is going around seizing everyone's private firearms is irrational and paranoid.

So we're only paranoid if we think ALL THE GUNS are going to get confiscated?

You didn't see any problem with them confiscating 1000 firearms in New Orleans after Katrina? A point at which people are going to need guns to protect themselves? Then the government stated they did not have any firearms? Then after the NRA strong armed them they said, well maybe we do have some after which 2 years there were still firearms that had not been returned to their owners...I guess you ignored all of the armed home invasions in Long Island after Sandy and are so blind as to see what the threat is and why people need firearms for protection at times of crisis?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Also, I am slightly skeptical of the source that 5 Digit leaked, and suspect there is more to this story...

Of course you're skeptical because it so crazy that something like this could happen, right?

Here, give them a call...

I contacted them to verify. (TTAG)

Member ecr who most of you know has possession of all his handguns.

For those of you who do not know member ecr, he is Eric Rohrbaugh from Rohrbaugh Firearms.

This is not an old story, it was released today. Anyone making claims otherwise is lying. Anyone thinking/posting anywhere that this isn't true or a joke etc, your need to stop. This is true, this is happening right now and right here affecting our local community member.

If any media outlet needs to verify this, please call our offices 631-274-1340

 

[5 digit know nothing]

From that thread..

Anyone who thinks that this story is not commonplace is sadly mistaken. These kinds on incidents involving pistol license suspensions happen all the time. It just so happened now to someone who is telling the story openly. This is the sad reality of being a licensed pistol holder on Long Island. I've been telling everyone I know, that we do not control our destiny when it comes to the possession of our handguns on L.I. That outside people have more control over our handguns than we do. Do you know that if anyone, a neighbor, friend, relative, etc, files a false claim against you about committing a violent or threatening act, they suspend your license immediately? Then, just as now, you have to file for reinstatement. And the investigation can take several months. Even if the charges are false, and proven in a court of law, it'll still be months before you get your guns back. Anyone who knows you own guns, and has it in for you, can make your life miserable and have your guns taken away in a moments notice with one phone call. And forget about if you have a child with any type of mental illness, even if it's a learning disability. Ever since Ct., the whole world is focused on mental illness. And people and government are too ignorant to distinguish between real mental illness and learning disabilities. So combine the fact you own a gun, and may have a child with a learning disability. And then some over zealous school teacher gets wind of the two and reports it for safety concern, you are doomed. This is the norm here on Long Island. it's been that way for years. There are others on this site who I know have had similar situations, but have not spoke about it openly here. I was recently told that Nassau pistol license is working on about 40 reinstatement requests at the moment. Where and how do you think all those suspensions happened? Many from incidents just like the OP's where the licensee is completely innocent and not even directly involved, but is paying the price for being a pistol licensed holder here on L.I.

 

[timschochet]

More paranoid gun confiscations going on in Long Island, NY, this time a father's guns and concealed carry permit are confiscated due to a threat his son made to a bully with a water pistol.

Confiscation holds until the son turns 18 and moves out of the house.

http://personalliberty.com/2013/04/10/boys-water-pistol-threat-leads-to-confiscation-of-fathers-guns-license/

That is absurd. This can get out of hand quickly.

It is absurd. But as to the bolded, no it can't.No matter how many anecdotes 5 Digit and others cite, making the jump from these to a situation in which the government is going around seizing everyone's private firearms is irrational and paranoid.

So we're only paranoid if we think ALL THE GUNS are going to get confiscated?

You didn't see any problem with them confiscating 1000 firearms in New Orleans after Katrina? A point at which people are going to need guns to protect themselves? Then the government stated they did not have any firearms? Then after the NRA strong armed them they said, well maybe we do have some after which 2 years there were still firearms that had not been returned to their owners...I guess you ignored all of the armed home invasions in Long Island after Sandy and are so blind as to see what the threat is and why people need firearms for protection at times of crisis?

All of these examples are troubling, but what's even more troubling is your eagerness to connect the dots and then use that as a reason to oppose all legislation, no matter how reasonable.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

timschochet, on 12 Apr 2013 - 11:50, said:

5 digit know nothing, on 12 Apr 2013 - 11:09, said:

timschochet, on 12 Apr 2013 - 09:52, said:

ATC1, on 12 Apr 2013 - 09:45, said:

5 digit know nothing, on 12 Apr 2013 - 07:18, said:

More paranoid gun confiscations going on in Long Island, NY, this time a father's guns and concealed carry permit are confiscated due to a threat his son made to a bully with a water pistol.

Confiscation holds until the son turns 18 and moves out of the house.

http://personalliberty.com/2013/04/10/boys-water-pistol-threat-leads-to-confiscation-of-fathers-guns-license/

That is absurd. This can get out of hand quickly.

It is absurd. But as to the bolded, no it can't.No matter how many anecdotes 5 Digit and others cite, making the jump from these to a situation in which the government is going around seizing everyone's private firearms is irrational and paranoid.

So we're only paranoid if we think ALL THE GUNS are going to get confiscated?You didn't see any problem with them confiscating 1000 firearms in New Orleans after Katrina? A point at which people are going to need guns to protect themselves? Then the government stated they did not have any firearms? Then after the NRA strong armed them they said, well maybe we do have some after which 2 years there were still firearms that had not been returned to their owners...I guess you ignored all of the armed home invasions in Long Island after Sandy and are so blind as to see what the threat is and why people need firearms for protection at times of crisis?

All of these examples are troubling, but what's even more troubling is your eagerness to connect the dots and then use that as a reason to oppose all legislation, no matter how reasonable.

The legislation is reactionary, just like what we are seeing across the country, kids getting suspended from school for making gun signs with their fingers. Parents will need to start training their children to stop being children. They will need to stop having their kids play "violent" video games or watch any TV or any movies that even show a gun in them for fear that their children will emulate what they see with their hands and get them suspended, going on their permanent records and hurting their chances of going to a good college (in their eyes).

This legislation is not going to reduce violent crime, so why is it unreasonable to oppose it? It's a slippery slope as much as you deny it, if they are not fully covering private transactions it is no longer a Universal Background Check, but that is not going to stop them, they are still going to fight for it for years to come, then they will realize it is fruitless without a full gun registry, then they will realize they will get abysmal compliance...but once they pass that legislation and they are seeing the poor compliance they'll have neighbors turning on neighbors and previously innocent civilians will be punished due to this slippery slope of legislation and all for what? For accomplishing nothing. You are blind if you cannot see this as likely happening for no positive returns for society.

Why don't they take action towards solving the problem?

- In March, police rushed to Malden High School in Massachusetts after reports of a gun only to discover a neon-colored water pistol.

- Last month a third grader in Michigan was reprimanded by school officials when he brought a cupcake to school adorned with a plastic toy soldier holding a gun.

- A ten year old Virginia boy who was arrested for taking a plastic toy gun to school is now facing apotentially permanent criminal record over the incident.

- A student in Florence, Arizona was recently suspended because he had a picture of a gun on his computer.

- A six-year-old kindergartner in South Carolina was suspended for taking a small transparent plastic toy gun to school for a show and tell.

- A day before that incident we reported on the five-year-old in Massachusetts who faced suspension for building a small toy gun out of lego bricks and play-shooting his classmates.

- We also reported on an incident that erupted when a discussion between two children about a toy nerf gun caused a lock down and a massive armed police response at two elementary schools in the Bronx.

- In another incident, a Long Island high school was also placed on lock down for 6 hours in response to a student carrying a toy nerf gun.

- In yet another recent incident, a five-year-old girl was suspended after a three hour grilling, and described as a "terroristic threat" when she brought a pink bubble gun to school.

- A South Philadelphia elementary student was searched in front of classmates and threatened with arrest after she mistakenly brought a "paper gun" to school.

- A 6-year-old boy was suspended from his elementary school, also in Maryland, for making a gun gesture with his hand and saying "pow".

- Days after that incident, another two 6-year-olds in Maryland were suspended for pointing their fingers into gun shapes while playing "cops and robbers" with each other.

- In Oklahoma, a five-year-old boy was also recently suspended for making a gun gesture with his hand.

- And finally, a 13-year-old Middle School seventh grade student in Pennsylvania was also suspended for the same hand gesture.

 

[timschochet]

This legislation is not going to reduce violent crime, so why is it unreasonable to oppose it?

Again, this is not my point. It's one thing to look at each piece of legislation that comes up, evaluate both its usefulness and how it might affect one's rights, and then oppose it if you believe it is overly negative. That's reasonable.

What is UNREASONABLE is to say, "This legislation is bad, because when you combine it with this state law over here and that state law over there, it's all part of a collective effort to take our guns away. It's all a slippery slope!" That is paranoid.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

This legislation is not going to reduce violent crime, so why is it unreasonable to oppose it?

Again, this is not my point. It's one thing to look at each piece of legislation that comes up, evaluate both its usefulness and how it might affect one's rights, and then oppose it if you believe it is overly negative. That's reasonable.

What is UNREASONABLE is to say, "This legislation is bad, because when you combine it with this state law over here and that state law over there, it's all part of a collective effort to take our guns away. It's all a slippery slope!" That is paranoid.

You don't need to get to full confiscation for this to be bad.

 

[Rayderr]

timschochet, on 12 Apr 2013 - 11:50, said:

5 digit know nothing, on 12 Apr 2013 - 11:09, said:

timschochet, on 12 Apr 2013 - 09:52, said:

ATC1, on 12 Apr 2013 - 09:45, said:

5 digit know nothing, on 12 Apr 2013 - 07:18, said:

More paranoid gun confiscations going on in Long Island, NY, this time a father's guns and concealed carry permit are confiscated due to a threat his son made to a bully with a water pistol.

Confiscation holds until the son turns 18 and moves out of the house.

http://personalliberty.com/2013/04/10/boys-water-pistol-threat-leads-to-confiscation-of-fathers-guns-license/

That is absurd. This can get out of hand quickly.

It is absurd. But as to the bolded, no it can't.No matter how many anecdotes 5 Digit and others cite, making the jump from these to a situation in which the government is going around seizing everyone's private firearms is irrational and paranoid.

So we're only paranoid if we think ALL THE GUNS are going to get confiscated?You didn't see any problem with them confiscating 1000 firearms in New Orleans after Katrina? A point at which people are going to need guns to protect themselves? Then the government stated they did not have any firearms? Then after the NRA strong armed them they said, well maybe we do have some after which 2 years there were still firearms that had not been returned to their owners...I guess you ignored all of the armed home invasions in Long Island after Sandy and are so blind as to see what the threat is and why people need firearms for protection at times of crisis?

All of these examples are troubling, but what's even more troubling is your eagerness to connect the dots and then use that as a reason to oppose all legislation, no matter how reasonable.

The legislation is reactionary, just like what we are seeing across the country, kids getting suspended from school for making gun signs with their fingers. Parents will need to start training their children to stop being children. They will need to stop having their kids play "violent" video games or watch any TV or any movies that even show a gun in them for fear that their children will emulate what they see with their hands and get them suspended, going on their permanent records and hurting their chances of going to a good college (in their eyes).

This legislation is not going to reduce violent crime, so why is it unreasonable to oppose it? It's a slippery slope as much as you deny it, if they are not fully covering private transactions it is no longer a Universal Background Check, but that is not going to stop them, they are still going to fight for it for years to come, then they will realize it is fruitless without a full gun registry, then they will realize they will get abysmal compliance...but once they pass that legislation and they are seeing the poor compliance they'll have neighbors turning on neighbors and previously innocent civilians will be punished due to this slippery slope of legislation and all for what? For accomplishing nothing. You are blind if you cannot see this as likely happening for no positive returns for society.

Why don't they take action towards solving the problem?

- In March, police rushed to Malden High School in Massachusetts after reports of a gun only to discover a neon-colored water pistol.

- Last month a third grader in Michigan was reprimanded by school officials when he brought a cupcake to school adorned with a plastic toy soldier holding a gun.

- A ten year old Virginia boy who was arrested for taking a plastic toy gun to school is now facing apotentially permanent criminal record over the incident.

- A student in Florence, Arizona was recently suspended because he had a picture of a gun on his computer.

- A six-year-old kindergartner in South Carolina was suspended for taking a small transparent plastic toy gun to school for a show and tell.

- A day before that incident we reported on the five-year-old in Massachusetts who faced suspension for building a small toy gun out of lego bricks and play-shooting his classmates.

- We also reported on an incident that erupted when a discussion between two children about a toy nerf gun caused a lock down and a massive armed police response at two elementary schools in the Bronx.

- In another incident, a Long Island high school was also placed on lock down for 6 hours in response to a student carrying a toy nerf gun.

- In yet another recent incident, a five-year-old girl was suspended after a three hour grilling, and described as a "terroristic threat" when she brought a pink bubble gun to school.

- A South Philadelphia elementary student was searched in front of classmates and threatened with arrest after she mistakenly brought a "paper gun" to school.

- A 6-year-old boy was suspended from his elementary school, also in Maryland, for making a gun gesture with his hand and saying "pow".

- Days after that incident, another two 6-year-olds in Maryland were suspended for pointing their fingers into gun shapes while playing "cops and robbers" with each other.

- In Oklahoma, a five-year-old boy was also recently suspended for making a gun gesture with his hand.

- And finally, a 13-year-old Middle School seventh grade student in Pennsylvania was also suspended for the same hand gesture.

You forgot the kid who ate his pop tart in a way that it somewhat resembled a gun who got suspended for 2 days.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

too soon?

So he is mad they didn't notify them about the episode, and dodges the question about if he is against violence on TV and Movies.

 

[Courtjester]

I don't really have a dog in this fight because I don't own a gun and should I decide I need one, I am going to buy a shotgun and will have zero problems passing any kind of background check to get it.

But if I see one more liberal media source use the argument that why won't congress act when 80% of Americans support backgrounds checks? It is usually followed up with some comment about how they were elected by us and they need to do what we want.

Where was all this fake outrage when Obamacare was being debated? 75% of America was against that, but you never heard MSNBC making the above argument that it shouldn't have been enacted.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Home invasion suspects killed in gunfight with NC homeowner

Two men suspected of attempting to invade a home in North Carolina Friday died after a gunfight with the homeowner.

Fayetteville Police tell WTVD both robbery suspects fled the home after the exchange of gunfire. One of the suspects, 25-year-old Dominik Council, was found dead on the side of the road nearly two hours after the incident.

The other suspect, 20-year-old Xavier White, was found wounded and transported to an area hospital, where he later died, according to the station.

Yeah lets take this right away from all homeowners.

 

[mad sweeney]

Home invasion suspects killed in gunfight with NC homeowner

Two men suspected of attempting to invade a home in North Carolina Friday died after a gunfight with the homeowner.

Fayetteville Police tell WTVD both robbery suspects fled the home after the exchange of gunfire. One of the suspects, 25-year-old Dominik Council, was found dead on the side of the road nearly two hours after the incident.

The other suspect, 20-year-old Xavier White, was found wounded and transported to an area hospital, where he later died, according to the station.

Yeah lets take this right away from all homeowners.

What kind of gun did the homeowner use? That would help in your doomsday scenario strawman. Though I'm betting that it was a gun that only the most extreme anti-gun types are lobbying (futilely) against that you left out. Just like the idiot pro-gun woman that testified about all the details of a home invasion thwarted by a woman with a shotgun, except that she "forgot" what type of gun it was because saying it was a shotgun undermined her whole approach. Yeah, I'm going with something like that.

 

[hammerva]

Home invasion suspects killed in gunfight with NC homeowner

Two men suspected of attempting to invade a home in North Carolina Friday died after a gunfight with the homeowner.

Fayetteville Police tell WTVD both robbery suspects fled the home after the exchange of gunfire. One of the suspects, 25-year-old Dominik Council, was found dead on the side of the road nearly two hours after the incident.

The other suspect, 20-year-old Xavier White, was found wounded and transported to an area hospital, where he later died, according to the station.

Yeah lets take this right away from all homeowners.

No sane person wants to take away the right to own to protect yourself from home invasion. My issue is that you only needed ONE weapon to protect your home invasion. Maybe two if it is a bigger place or a number of people in the house. The idea you need thousand of rounds of ammo to protect yourself tells me you are either really paranoid or you aren't the "law abiding responsible" person you claim you are

Speaking of being "always responsible"

http://deadspin.com/man-shoots-himself-in-the-head-at-nra-500-472893824

 

[greenroom]

You cannot make this up. A guy at the NRA 500 (nascar) kills himself with a gun.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nascar/2013/04/14/fan-death-investigation-texas-motor-speedway/2081395/

 

[5 digit know nothing]

2464 other people committed suicide yesterday too

Substance abuse is the second most common risk factor for suicide after major depression and bipolar disorder.

 

[StrikeS2k]

You cannot make this up. A guy at the NRA 500 (nascar) kills himself with a gun.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nascar/2013/04/14/fan-death-investigation-texas-motor-speedway/2081395/

Police spokeswoman Cpl. Tracey Knight has said alcohol may have been a factor

Well I guess we should ban alcohol too.

 

[mad sweeney]

2464 other people committed suicide yesterday too

Substance abuse is the second most common risk factor for suicide after major depression and bipolar disorder.

Did they do it ironically?

 

[Rayderr]

2464 other people committed suicide yesterday too

Substance abuse is the second most common risk factor for suicide after major depression and bipolar disorder.

Did they do it ironically?

Like rain on your wedding day.

 

[Novice2]

Home invasion suspects killed in gunfight with NC homeowner Two men suspected of attempting to invade a home in North Carolina Friday died after a gunfight with the homeowner.Fayetteville Police tell WTVD both robbery suspects fled the home after the exchange of gunfire. One of the suspects, 25-year-old Dominik Council, was found dead on the side of the road nearly two hours after the incident.The other suspect, 20-year-old Xavier White, was found wounded and transported to an area hospital, where he later died, according to the station.

Yeah lets take this right away from all homeowners.

... or you aren't the "law abiding responsible" person you claim you are ]

so if you have lots of guns and lots of ammo you are a criminal. Liberal mentality at its finest.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Uh oh gun bill not looking good.

 

[tom22406]

Senate rejects expanded gun background check.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/senate-rejects-expanded-gun-background-checks

 

[greenroom]

You cannot make this up. A guy at the NRA 500 (nascar) kills himself with a gun.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nascar/2013/04/14/fan-death-investigation-texas-motor-speedway/2081395/

&gt;Police spokeswoman Cpl. Tracey Knight has said alcohol may have been a factor

Well I guess we should ban alcohol too.

Link to where I said anything about banning guns.. its called irony.. that the NRA is sponsering a NASCAR race to promote how safe guns are and then to have this happen. I am not for gun control, although I am for closing the loop of background checks if you purchase from a gun show or online. Or just get rid of it all, why have some "law abiding" gun owners go through a back ground check and allow other "law abiding" gun owners not to go through a back ground check?

 

[badmojo1006]

Senate rejects expanded gun background check.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/senate-rejects-expanded-gun-background-checks

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Senate rejects expanded gun background check.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/senate-rejects-expanded-gun-background-checks

how did the pro-gun ccw bill do? (I'm at a bar)