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

[tom22406]

8th grade student in West Va. suspended,arrested for wearing a t-shirt supporting NRA and 2nd Amendment

When 8th grade Jared Marcum got dressed for school this morning he says he had no idea that his pro-Second Amendment shirt would initiate what he calls a fight over his First Amendment rights.

"I never thought it would go this far because honestly I don't see a problem with this, there shouldn't be a problem with this," Jared said.

It was the image of a gun printed on Jared's t-shirt that sparked a dispute between a Logan Middle School teacher and Jared, that ended with Jared suspended, arrested and facing two charges, obstruction and disturbing the education process, on his otherwise spotless record.

Jared's father Allen Lardieri says he's angry he had to rush from work to pick his son up from jail over something he says was blown way out of proportion.

"I don't' see how anybody would have an issue with a hunting rifle and NRA put on a t-shirt, especially when policy doesn't forbid it," Lardieri said.

The Logan County School District's dress code policy prohibits clothing that displays profanity, violence, discriminatory messages and more but nowhere in the document does it say anything about gun images.

"He did not violate any school policy," Lardieri reiterates. "He did not become aggressive."

Now, Lardieri says he's ready to fight until the situation is made right.

"I will go to the ends of the earth, I will call people, I will write letters, I will do everything in the legal realm to make sure this does not happen again," Lardieri said.

Logan City Police did confirm that Jared had been arrested and charged today.

13 news tried contacting the Logan County School District but has not heard anything back.

http://www.wowktv.com/story/22020264/8th-grade-student-arrested-over-gun-t-shirt

Sounds like the school needs to add guns to the dress code.

So you're ok with arresting the kid?

Probably, though I'd like to hear more details. Pretty sure he wasn't arrested for wearing the shirt, but for his actions afterward.

Pretty clear we don't know the whole story since the school didn't want to comment on it but I'm sure the kid said something that pissed his teacher off.

Being arrested though seems a tad harsh but that's just me.If he unleashed verbal threats to harm the teacher or class I could see that being reason enough.

Exactly. So why did you ask me if I was ok with arresting the kid?

Because you didn't mention it in your reply.All you took away from that was they needed to add guns to the dress code according to your reply.

Why would I mention it when it's clear that we don't have enough details to come to an informed conclusion as to whether his arrest was justified?

I was simply asking your opinion and thought it was odd you didn't mention the arrest.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Missouri House passes pro-gun bill package with better open carry, school carry, anti federal involvement, and more.

Summary

• Open carry already in the state, now adds permitted OC in banned areas.
• Bans MO law enforcement from enforcing federal laws.
• Allows schools to have teachers conceal carry and be basically cops on school grounds.
• Lowers CCW age from 21 to 19.
• Allows state employees to carry on state property, in their vehicle.
• If you commit a felony while in possession of a gun, you get extra time.
• Makes it illegal for anyone to keep a database or records on CCW holders.

 

[FootballDummy]

Missouri House passes pro-gun bill package with better open carry, school carry, anti federal involvement, and more.

Summary

• Open carry already in the state, now adds permitted OC in banned areas.
• Bans MO law enforcement from enforcing federal laws.
• Allows schools to have teachers conceal carry and be basically cops on school grounds.
• Lowers CCW age from 21 to 19.
• Allows state employees to carry on state property, in their vehicle.
• If you commit a felony while in possession of a gun, you get extra time.
• Makes it illegal for anyone to keep a database or records on CCW holders.

Good luck with that one, gun nuts.

 

[Cookiemonster]

http://youtu.be/2diNojgJF9c

Representing the wonderful state occupied by TommyGunz, Timscochet and Mad Sweeny!

Brought to you by the politicians who ban ammo in S.F. that has been obsolete and off the shelves for 20 years.

http://www.guns.com/2013/04/16/san-franciscos-black-talon-ban-comes-a-little-too-late/

My God, I can't wait to take my family and tax dollars out of this idiotic state.

 

[tommyGunZ]

http://youtu.be/2diNojgJF9c

Representing the wonderful state occupied by TommyGunz, Timscochet and Mad Sweeny!

Brought to you by the politicians who ban ammo in S.F. that has been obsolete and off the shelves for 20 years.

http://www.guns.com/2013/04/16/san-franciscos-black-talon-ban-comes-a-little-too-late/

My God, I can't wait to take my family and tax dollars out of this idiotic state.

Don't let the door hit you in the ### on the way out.

And Mike Dice is a crazy right wing conspiracy guy - he and his idiocy represent your team.

 

[Christo]

Missouri House passes pro-gun bill package with better open carry, school carry, anti federal involvement, and more.

Summary

• Open carry already in the state, now adds permitted OC in banned areas.
• Bans MO law enforcement from enforcing federal laws.
• Allows schools to have teachers conceal carry and be basically cops on school grounds.
• Lowers CCW age from 21 to 19.
• Allows state employees to carry on state property, in their vehicle.
• If you commit a felony while in possession of a gun, you get extra time.
• Makes it illegal for anyone to keep a database or records on CCW holders.

Good luck with that one, gun nuts.

Local law enforcement doesn't enforce federal law.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Missouri House passes pro-gun bill package with better open carry, school carry, anti federal involvement, and more.

Summary

• Open carry already in the state, now adds permitted OC in banned areas.
• Bans MO law enforcement from enforcing federal laws.
• Allows schools to have teachers conceal carry and be basically cops on school grounds.
• Lowers CCW age from 21 to 19.
• Allows state employees to carry on state property, in their vehicle.
• If you commit a felony while in possession of a gun, you get extra time.
• Makes it illegal for anyone to keep a database or records on CCW holders.

Good luck with that one, gun nuts.

Local law enforcement doesn't enforce federal law.

True. California marijuana laws are an example. But this wording from the bill is probably problemetic.

The substitute specifies that it will be the duty of the courts and

law enforcement agencies of the state to protect the rights of
law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms within the borders of
the state, and no public officer or employee of the state has any
authority to enforce or attempt to enforce any of the infringements
on the right. Any official, agent, or employee of the federal
government who enforces or attempts to enforce any of the
infringements on the right to keep or bear arms is guilty of a
class A misdemeanor.
Any state citizen who has been subject to an effort to enforce any
of the infringements on the right to keep and bear arms specified
will have a private cause of action for declaratory judgment and
for damages against any person or entity attempting the
enforcement.

 

[timschochet]

####### Missouri. Why don't they just secede already?

Please tell me you gun supporters are embarrassed by this. Just a little.

 

[Cookiemonster]

####ing Missouri. Why don't they just secede already?Please tell me you gun supporters are embarrassed by this. Just a little.

I am much more embarrassed by the Distrikt of Kolumbia and even more so by our El Presidente and his cronies. I'm embarrassed by them (and you) constantly quoting statistics of slanted polls, taken in very favorable markets by a minimal sample size as an accurate representation of our entire population. I am embarrassed to be a Californian. I am not embarrassed by states that tell the feds that they've gone too far and to back off.

 

[tommyboy]

Personally i think its more embarassing to be afraid of guns and want to pass ineffective laws from that fear. Or worse, its even more embarassing to pretend you just want "common sense" ineffectual laws when you really know the long war is all about getting a national database of guns and owners so that maybe someday they can confiscate all of em. Because you just cant fathom why anyone besides law enforcement should have a gun

 

[tommyGunZ]

Personally i think its more embarassing to be afraid of guns and want to pass ineffective laws from that fear. Or worse, its even more embarassing to pretend you just want "common sense" ineffectual laws when you really know the long war is all about getting a national database of guns and owners so that maybe someday they can confiscate all of em. Because you just cant fathom why anyone besides law enforcement should have a gun

Real fear is being so scared of your neighbors that you feel you need high powered assault rifles to defend yourself, and being paranoid that the EVIL GOV'T is going to become so authoritative that the pubic needs to stay armed so the militia can raise up.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Personally i think its more embarassing to be afraid of guns and want to pass ineffective laws from that fear. Or worse, its even more embarassing to pretend you just want "common sense" ineffectual laws when you really know the long war is all about getting a national database of guns and owners so that maybe someday they can confiscate all of em. Because you just cant fathom why anyone besides law enforcement should have a gun

Real fear is being so scared of your neighbors that you feel you need high powered assault rifles to defend yourself, and being paranoid that the EVIL GOV'T is going to become so authoritative that the pubic needs to stay armed so the militia can raise up.

Don't worry. Obama will take care of all of your needs.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Why you guys so anti dictators?

 

[Cookiemonster]

Personally i think its more embarassing to be afraid of guns and want to pass ineffective laws from that fear. Or worse, its even more embarassing to pretend you just want "common sense" ineffectual laws when you really know the long war is all about getting a national database of guns and owners so that maybe someday they can confiscate all of em. Because you just cant fathom why anyone besides law enforcement should have a gun

Real fear is being so scared of your neighbors that you feel you need high powered assault rifles to defend yourself, and being paranoid that the EVIL GOV'T is going to become so authoritative that the pubic needs to stay armed so the militia can raise up.

I don't feel the need for a .50 cal machine gun. Let alone an underpowered AR-15. I believe a 12 gauge shotgun does best for home defense, and a .45 and 9mm to back it up and for public carry is quite adequate. I don't live in a highly populated area though, and if I did, an AR might be higher on the list. I'm already familiar with the M-16 so it would make sense, but I'm also in Kalifornia, so I would need a couple extra magazines to make up the difference with a 10 round limit. They are bringing a drone base to my town, so maybe I should look into the licensing to get my hands on the .50 cal.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

Personally i think its more embarassing to be afraid of guns and want to pass ineffective laws from that fear. Or worse, its even more embarassing to pretend you just want "common sense" ineffectual laws when you really know the long war is all about getting a national database of guns and owners so that maybe someday they can confiscate all of em. Because you just cant fathom why anyone besides law enforcement should have a gun

Real fear is being so scared of your neighbors that you feel you need high powered assault rifles to defend yourself, and being paranoid that the EVIL GOV'T is going to become so authoritative that the pubic needs to stay armed so the militia can raise up.

Statements like this are exactly why us "gun nuts" get frustrated when ignorant people like yourself debate gun control.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Personally i think its more embarassing to be afraid of guns and want to pass ineffective laws from that fear. Or worse, its even more embarassing to pretend you just want "common sense" ineffectual laws when you really know the long war is all about getting a national database of guns and owners so that maybe someday they can confiscate all of em. Because you just cant fathom why anyone besides law enforcement should have a gun

Real fear is being so scared of your neighbors that you feel you need high powered assault rifles to defend yourself, and being paranoid that the EVIL GOV'T is going to become so authoritative that the pubic needs to stay armed so the militia can raise up.

Can you give me an example of this please?

 

[FootballDummy]

And it's still the same. Gun nuts high fiveing themselves for a decision that may have saved lives, but was diverted by the whores in congress. Grats, you "win"

 

[top dog]

So let me see if I have this figured out by combining a couple of things from this thread and the Boston Bomber thread...

Anti-gunguys: You crazy right wing gun guys really think the government is going to create a national database to take your guns??

Pro-gunguys: You crazy left wing liberal guys really think the government is going to dish out the enemy combatant status on suspects at will?

Am I close?

 

[timschochet]

So let me see if I have this figured out by combining a couple of things from this thread and the Boston Bomber thread...

Anti-gunguys: You crazy right wing gun guys really think the government is going to create a national database to take your guns??

Pro-gunguys: You crazy left wing liberal guys really think the government is going to dish out the enemy combatant status on suspects at will?

Am I close?

Exactly. Great posting.

 

[top dog]

So let me see if I have this figured out by combining a couple of things from this thread and the Boston Bomber thread...

Anti-gunguys: You crazy right wing gun guys really think the government is going to create a national database to take your guns??

Pro-gunguys: You crazy left wing liberal guys really think the government is going to dish out the enemy combatant status on suspects at will?

Am I close?

Exactly. Great posting.

Thanks. I suspect you are using a bit of sarcasm here?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Personally i think its more embarassing to be afraid of guns and want to pass ineffective laws from that fear. Or worse, its even more embarassing to pretend you just want "common sense" ineffectual laws when you really know the long war is all about getting a national database of guns and owners so that maybe someday they can confiscate all of em. Because you just cant fathom why anyone besides law enforcement should have a gun

Real fear is being so scared of your neighbors that you feel you need high powered assault rifles to defend yourself, and being paranoid that the EVIL GOV'T is going to become so authoritative that the pubic needs to stay armed so the militia can raise up.

I don't feel the need for a .50 cal machine gun. Let alone an underpowered AR-15. I believe a 12 gauge shotgun does best for home defense, and a .45 and 9mm to back it up and for public carry is quite adequate. I don't live in a highly populated area though, and if I did, an AR might be higher on the list. I'm already familiar with the M-16 so it would make sense, but I'm also in Kalifornia, so I would need a couple extra magazines to make up the difference with a 10 round limit. They are bringing a drone base to my town, so maybe I should look into the licensing to get my hands on the .50 cal.

This is the fear I was talking about. How do people live like this?

 

[tommyboy]

Personally i think its more embarassing to be afraid of guns and want to pass ineffective laws from that fear. Or worse, its even more embarassing to pretend you just want "common sense" ineffectual laws when you really know the long war is all about getting a national database of guns and owners so that maybe someday they can confiscate all of em. Because you just cant fathom why anyone besides law enforcement should have a gun

Real fear is being so scared of your neighbors that you feel you need high powered assault rifles to defend yourself, and being paranoid that the EVIL GOV'T is going to become so authoritative that the pubic needs to stay armed so the militia can raise up.

Thanks for proving my point.Thank god theres over 200 yrs of history and this little thing called the 2nd amendment on my side

 

[tommyGunZ]

Personally i think its more embarassing to be afraid of guns and want to pass ineffective laws from that fear. Or worse, its even more embarassing to pretend you just want "common sense" ineffectual laws when you really know the long war is all about getting a national database of guns and owners so that maybe someday they can confiscate all of em. Because you just cant fathom why anyone besides law enforcement should have a gun

Real fear is being so scared of your neighbors that you feel you need high powered assault rifles to defend yourself, and being paranoid that the EVIL GOV'T is going to become so authoritative that the pubic needs to stay armed so the militia can raise up.

Statements like this are exactly why us "gun nuts" get frustrated when ignorant people like yourself debate gun control.

Why? How would you describe an AK-47?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Personally i think its more embarassing to be afraid of guns and want to pass ineffective laws from that fear. Or worse, its even more embarassing to pretend you just want "common sense" ineffectual laws when you really know the long war is all about getting a national database of guns and owners so that maybe someday they can confiscate all of em. Because you just cant fathom why anyone besides law enforcement should have a gun

Real fear is being so scared of your neighbors that you feel you need high powered assault rifles to defend yourself, and being paranoid that the EVIL GOV'T is going to become so authoritative that the pubic needs to stay armed so the militia can raise up.

Statements like this are exactly why us "gun nuts" get frustrated when ignorant people like yourself debate gun control.

Why? How would you describe an AK-47?

Last I checked, they were banning more than just AK's..

And I'm pretty sure it's not specificly an AK that everyone is intent on owning.. It's the ability to own one if desired.. Most "Gun Nuts" see that banning guns based upon their cosmetic appearance is ridiculous.

What do you specifically dislike about the AK? It's scary looking?

 

[Daywalker]

Is a hunting rifle (holding a couple of rounds), shotgun and revolver not enough? Is the reason that is not enough because you might need to defend yourself against the U.S. government? Do weapons citizens have access to have to evolve with what the government has?

50 years ago a hunting rifle, shotgun and revolver were enough for the citizenry. Why not now?

 

[Novice2]

Is a hunting rifle (holding a couple of rounds), shotgun and revolver not enough? Is the reason that is not enough because you might need to defend yourself against the U.S. government? Do weapons citizens have access to have to evolve with what the government has? 50 years ago a hunting rifle, shotgun and revolver were enough for the citizenry. Why not now?

Go back to 1985 and get yourself a brand new fully automatic machine gun biaatch!

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Kalifornia Gun Confiscation Bill Passes

“We are fortunate in California to have the first and only system in the nation that tracks and identifies individuals who at one time made legal purchases of firearms but are now barred from possessing them,” Leno said in a statement. “However, due to a lack of resources, only a few of these illegally possessed weapons have been confiscated, and the mountain of firearms continues to grow each day."

 

[Uruk-Hai]

No way in hell I'm reading this whole thread (my sanity is at stake). Coupla questions for those more in tune than I:

1. Was the reason "background checks" were shot down because of other #### tied to the bill (guess which side of "line-item-veto" I fall on?)?

2. Is there a legit reason to oppose background checks?

3. Can someone sum up where we are now on this?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Is a hunting rifle (holding a couple of rounds), shotgun and revolver not enough? Is the reason that is not enough because you might need to defend yourself against the U.S. government? Do weapons citizens have access to have to evolve with what the government has?

50 years ago a hunting rifle, shotgun and revolver were enough for the citizenry. Why not now?

So to you, it's only about how many rounds the weapon holds?

So heat shields, pistol grips, folding stocks, and flash suppressors are ok?

 

[Soonerman]

Is a hunting rifle (holding a couple of rounds), shotgun and revolver not enough? Is the reason that is not enough because you might need to defend yourself against the U.S. government? Do weapons citizens have access to have to evolve with what the government has?

50 years ago a hunting rifle, shotgun and revolver were enough for the citizenry. Why not now?

Because we are a self-governing people, not subjects to a throne.

 

[jonessed]

It is absolutely correct that this bill would not likely have prevented any mass shooting tragedies. In fact, if you go back to my very first post in this long long thread, I wrote that none of the gun control measures being considered would have prevented Newtown. Newtown served to focus attention on an issue that was well worth discussing, but nothing being proposed would have stopped it.

That being said, I strongly believe that universal background checks would decrease gun violence in general in this country, and perhaps significantly. I have made this argument several times in this thread, but for those who have missed it, here it is again:

First off, we have no idea how many private purchases and transfers of guns, which currently do not require a background check, are illegal sales (meaning the purchaser is either a convicted felon or mentally ill). Law enforcement suspects that a large percentage of bad guys acquire guns in this fashion, but we don't know (and never will) what that percentage is. Right now, for an illegal sale to happen, only one party needs to break the law: the buyer. The buyer simply does not inform the seller that he, the buyer, is a convicted felon. The seller, under no obligation to make a background check, doesn't know any better. He simply sells his gun for cash and that is the end of the transaction. And this happens all the time at gun shows.

But if we require universal background checks, in order for an illegal sale to happen, TWO parties will need to break the law: both the buyer AND the seller. Even if the buyer lies about who he is; the seller will have to either neglect to run the background check, or be willing to sell his weapon to a felon anyhow. I believe that most gun sellers are honest and do not deliberately want to sell their weapons to felons or crazy people. So they won't. Which means it will be that much more difficult for the bad guys to acquire guns. Impossible? No. But more difficult, yes. And that is the key to effective laws.

So if those opposed to this bill tell you that it failed because it would have been ineffective, they are wrong. It would have been quite effective. This bill failed because the NRA successfully convinced it's supporters, who successfully convinced their Senators, that this bill was the first step in a concerted government effort to seize all private firearms.

In 1991, California passed Penal Code 12078 which required all sales to use a California-licensed FFL dealer.

Graph of Oakland, California homicides compared to 3 other cities of similar size from 1985 through 2011

I don't see any noticeable drop in homicides when compared against Cleveland which never passed such legislation, if anything the homicide rate tracked higher (this is not to say as a result of this legislation).

It's easy enough for a felon in Oakland to subvert this law by driving to Nevada to purchase his guns. In order for such a law to work, it has to be federal, applied to all 50 states. Therefore, your info doesn't apply.

 

[timschochet]

So let me see if I have this figured out by combining a couple of things from this thread and the Boston Bomber thread... Anti-gunguys: You crazy right wing gun guys really think the government is going to create a national database to take your guns?? Pro-gunguys: You crazy left wing liberal guys really think the government is going to dish out the enemy combatant status on suspects at will? Am I close?

Exactly. Great posting.

Thanks. I suspect you are using a bit of sarcasm here?

Not a bit. I agree with you 100% and I posted nearly the same thing in the Boston thread.

 

[Chaos Commish]

No way in hell I'm reading this whole thread (my sanity is at stake). Coupla questions for those more in tune than I:

1. Was the reason "background checks" were shot down because of other #### tied to the bill (guess which side of "line-item-veto" I fall on?)?

2. Is there a legit reason to oppose background checks?

3. Can someone sum up where we are now on this?

1. The bill was watered down to gain Republican support. The only interesting thing tied to it allowed for interstate firearms sales between private parties. It's hard for me to see how any of the senators who voted against were doing anything but their job, representing their constituents. Even the four dems.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) -- @SenAlexander

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) -- @KellyAyotte

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) -- @SenJohnBarrasso

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) -- @MaxBaucus

Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) -- @SenatorBegich

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) -- @RoyBlunt

Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.) -- @JohnBoozeman

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) -- @SenatorBurr

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) -- @SaxbyChambliss

Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) -- @SenDanCoats

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) -- @TomCoburn

Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) -- @SenThadCochran

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) -- @SenBobCorker

Sen. Jon Cornyn (R-Texas) -- @JohnCornyn

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) -- @MikeCrapo

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) -- @SenTedCruz

Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) -- @SenatorEnzi

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) -- @SenatorFischer

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) -- @JeffFlake

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) -- @GrahamBlog

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) -- @ChuckGrassley

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) -- @SenOrrinHatch

Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) -- @SenatorHeitkamp

Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) -- @SenDeanHeller

Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) -- @SenJohnHoeven

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) -- @jiminhofe

Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) -- @SenatorIsakson

Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) -- @Mike_Johanns

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) -- @SenRonJohnson

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) -- @SenMikeLee

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) -- @McConnellPress

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) -- @JerryMoran

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) -- @lisamurkowski

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) -- @SenRandPaul

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) -- @robportman

Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) -- @SenMarkPryor

Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) -- @SenatorRisch

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) -- @SenPatRoberts

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) -- @marcorubio

Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) -- @SenatorTimScott

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) -- @SenatorSessions

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) -- @SenShelbyPress

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) -- @SenJohnThune

Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) -- @DavidVitter

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) -- @SenatorWicker

2. One man's legit is another man's paranoia. To me this bill was laughable and pathetic. I wish it passed. Background checks look good on paper, but this bill was a silly waste of time if the purpose is keeping guns from bad guys.

3. Probably looking at post 2014 midterms for another run at it. Gun Owners of America's lead attorney/lobbyist says this bill actually failed by a single vote. He tells a compelling story of how the NRA hurt their own cause. The 68 votes for a motion to proceed was a shot over the bow at the NRA to back off attacks against some good people. They did. 68 voted to proceed and only 54 voted yes after a bunch of teeth gnashing. 6 short of something the 68 had convinced Obama it was in the bag. No wonder he reacted so petulantly. Reid changed his vote to no so he could introduce the bill again. So that leaves 5. 4 more simply needed to see it was passing to vote for it (I know that sounds stupid, but I don't know how to explain what I understand without writing a lot more and double checking it, wasting time). That left one vote.

 

[Cookiemonster]

No way in hell I'm reading this whole thread (my sanity is at stake). Coupla questions for those more in tune than I:

1. Was the reason "background checks" were shot down because of other #### tied to the bill (guess which side of "line-item-veto" I fall on?)?2. Is there a legit reason to oppose background checks?

More or less because us gun nuts wrote, called and emailed congressmen and senators and bought up NRA memberships like we did bullets. They knew better than to believe Zero and his cronies parroting the "90% of Americans are in favor," crap.

2. Is there a legit reason to oppose background checks?

Because the only real way to enforce universal background checks is to employ a national registry, and there's no way in hell the pro-gun side will stand for that, or comply. Background checks are already in place, but the scope of checks they want apply to personal sales and family gifts is in order to track who sells the gun to the bad guy and you can't know that without tracking every gun and transaction.

3. Can someone sum up where we are now on this?

Same place we started, except Zero was finally told "NO!" We were treated to his little temper tantrum, and the dems are pissed because they can't blame it all on the republicans, so they point the finger at the NRA.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Personally i think its more embarassing to be afraid of guns and want to pass ineffective laws from that fear. Or worse, its even more embarassing to pretend you just want "common sense" ineffectual laws when you really know the long war is all about getting a national database of guns and owners so that maybe someday they can confiscate all of em. Because you just cant fathom why anyone besides law enforcement should have a gun

Real fear is being so scared of your neighbors that you feel you need high powered assault rifles to defend yourself, and being paranoid that the EVIL GOV'T is going to become so authoritative that the pubic needs to stay armed so the militia can raise up.

Statements like this are exactly why us "gun nuts" get frustrated when ignorant people like yourself debate gun control.

Why? How would you describe an AK-47?

Last I checked, they were banning more than just AK's.. And I'm pretty sure it's not specificly an AK that everyone is intent on owning.. It's the ability to own one if desired.. Most "Gun Nuts" see that banning guns based upon their cosmetic appearance is ridiculous. What do you specifically dislike about the AK? It's scary looking?

You asked for an example of a high powered assault rifle, and I gave you one.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Personally i think its more embarassing to be afraid of guns and want to pass ineffective laws from that fear. Or worse, its even more embarassing to pretend you just want "common sense" ineffectual laws when you really know the long war is all about getting a national database of guns and owners so that maybe someday they can confiscate all of em. Because you just cant fathom why anyone besides law enforcement should have a gun

Real fear is being so scared of your neighbors that you feel you need high powered assault rifles to defend yourself, and being paranoid that the EVIL GOV'T is going to become so authoritative that the pubic needs to stay armed so the militia can raise up.

I don't feel the need for a .50 cal machine gun. Let alone an underpowered AR-15. I believe a 12 gauge shotgun does best for home defense, and a .45 and 9mm to back it up and for public carry is quite adequate. I don't live in a highly populated area though, and if I did, an AR might be higher on the list. I'm already familiar with the M-16 so it would make sense, but I'm also in Kalifornia, so I would need a couple extra magazines to make up the difference with a 10 round limit. They are bringing a drone base to my town, so maybe I should look into the licensing to get my hands on the .50 cal.

This is the fear I was talking about. How do people live like this?

You are the irrational fear we are laughing at. I guess my response went right over your head. Only thing I have ever killed with a gun was some frogs at a pond with a .22 when I was 15, but you are scared to death that I may want a "high powered assault rifle."

FWIW, can you identify the "high powered assault rifle" ammunition in this pic?

http://www.mycsg.com/images/Complete-Rifle-Ammunition-Guide-Comparisom.jpg

Which calibers are commonly used for hunting in North America?

Just reply which number you think belongs to the AK47 or AR15.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Because the only real way to enforce universal background checks is to employ a national registry, and there's no way in hell the pro-gun side will stand for that, or comply. Background checks are already in place, but the scope of checks they want apply to personal sales and family gifts is in order to track who sells the gun to the bad guy and you can't know that without tracking every gun and transaction.

This might be your reason for shooting down this bill, but Uruk asked for a legit reason Congress shot it down. Your answer works for the paranoid but not for this bill.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Because the only real way to enforce universal background checks is to employ a national registry, and there's no way in hell the pro-gun side will stand for that, or comply. Background checks are already in place, but the scope of checks they want apply to personal sales and family gifts is in order to track who sells the gun to the bad guy and you can't know that without tracking every gun and transaction.

This might be your reason for shooting down this bill, but Uruk asked for a legit reason Congress shot it down. Your answer works for the paranoid but not for this bill.

Some call it paranoid for not wanting to let the feds get the door any further open.

http://youtu.be/3Tvhlbrjxkk

 

[Chaos Commish]

Kalifornia Gun Confiscation Bill Passes

“We are fortunate in California to have the first and only system in the nation that tracks and identifies individuals who at one time made legal purchases of firearms but are now barred from possessing them,” Leno said in a statement. “However, due to a lack of resources, only a few of these illegally possessed weapons have been confiscated, and the mountain of firearms continues to grow each day."

Just a page or so ago the pro gun crowd was whining that we don't enforce the background check laws we have. So here's a bill diverting funds from the background check surplus to pursue people known to have guns illegally and this is a problem?

Fwiw, Cali "moved along" about ten gun control bills in the past two weeks. I was in Sac all day on the 16th at the public safety meeting where most of these were discussed. It was an eye opening experience to say the least, and I oppose every piece of legislation but the one above.

"We" can't have it both ways -- complaining we can't enforce something then complaining when we do.

SB240 will confiscate guns from some folks in error and they can file grievances, but it will also do something all gun owners should want far more thoroughly than background checks; specifically disarm felons known to have firearms illegally. Isn't this what Repubs like Lindsay Graham have been whining for?

 

[jonessed]

Kalifornia Gun Confiscation Bill Passes

“We are fortunate in California to have the first and only system in the nation that tracks and identifies individuals who at one time made legal purchases of firearms but are now barred from possessing them,” Leno said in a statement. “However, due to a lack of resources, only a few of these illegally possessed weapons have been confiscated, and the mountain of firearms continues to grow each day."

Just a page or so ago the pro gun crowd was whining that we don't enforce the background check laws we have. So here's a bill diverting funds from the background check surplus to pursue people known to have guns illegally and this is a problem?

Fwiw, Cali "moved along" about ten gun control bills in the past two weeks. I was in Sac all day on the 16th at the public safety meeting where most of these were discussed. It was an eye opening experience to say the least, and I oppose every piece of legislation but the one above.

"We" can't have it both ways -- complaining we can't enforce something then complaining when we do.

SB240 will confiscate guns from some folks in error and they can file grievances, but it will also do something all gun owners should want far more thoroughly than background checks; specifically disarm felons known to have firearms illegally. Isn't this what Repubs like Lindsay Graham have been whining for?

It's a valid complaint. The funds shouldn't be diverted from background checks.

How often are felons really going to just let law enforcement walk into their homes without a warrant anyway?

If they are serious about this they will find a long-term means of funding and a more effective way of actually getting the felons to turn over their guns.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Personally i think its more embarassing to be afraid of guns and want to pass ineffective laws from that fear. Or worse, its even more embarassing to pretend you just want "common sense" ineffectual laws when you really know the long war is all about getting a national database of guns and owners so that maybe someday they can confiscate all of em. Because you just cant fathom why anyone besides law enforcement should have a gun

Real fear is being so scared of your neighbors that you feel you need high powered assault rifles to defend yourself, and being paranoid that the EVIL GOV'T is going to become so authoritative that the pubic needs to stay armed so the militia can raise up.

Statements like this are exactly why us "gun nuts" get frustrated when ignorant people like yourself debate gun control.

Why? How would you describe an AK-47?

Last I checked, they were banning more than just AK's.. And I'm pretty sure it's not specificly an AK that everyone is intent on owning.. It's the ability to own one if desired.. Most "Gun Nuts" see that banning guns based upon their cosmetic appearance is ridiculous. What do you specifically dislike about the AK? It's scary looking?

You asked for an example of a high powered assault rifle, and I gave you one.

So is that the end of the discussion? I asked a question, do you not want to answer? Why not? You don't like what your answer would be?

What is your criteria for what someone should be allowed to own?

 

[Chaos Commish]

Kalifornia Gun Confiscation Bill Passes

“We are fortunate in California to have the first and only system in the nation that tracks and identifies individuals who at one time made legal purchases of firearms but are now barred from possessing them,” Leno said in a statement. “However, due to a lack of resources, only a few of these illegally possessed weapons have been confiscated, and the mountain of firearms continues to grow each day."

Just a page or so ago the pro gun crowd was whining that we don't enforce the background check laws we have. So here's a bill diverting funds from the background check surplus to pursue people known to have guns illegally and this is a problem?

Fwiw, Cali "moved along" about ten gun control bills in the past two weeks. I was in Sac all day on the 16th at the public safety meeting where most of these were discussed. It was an eye opening experience to say the least, and I oppose every piece of legislation but the one above.

"We" can't have it both ways -- complaining we can't enforce something then complaining when we do.

SB240 will confiscate guns from some folks in error and they can file grievances, but it will also do something all gun owners should want far more thoroughly than background checks; specifically disarm felons known to have firearms illegally. Isn't this what Repubs like Lindsay Graham have been whining for?

1. It's a valid complaint. The funds shouldn't be diverted from background checks.

2. How often are felons really going to just let law enforcement walk into their homes without a warrant anyway?

3. If they are serious about this they will find a long-term means of funding and a more effective way of actually getting the felons to turn over their guns.

3. They are serious about it. Saying they need to find another source of funds to be serious makes no sense to me. The state has a budget problem. It also has surplus money collected from a system designed to prevent felons from buying firearms. Let's use the fund for a related very important law enforcement project. In the last 24 months my name is on the transfer or sale of over 30 firearms with fees being paid on a couple dozen Cali DROS/Background checks. I would be thrilled to know that money is going after felons with firearms. It's a perfectly relevant source of funding. I'd approve an increase in fees if necessary to make this program work.

2. The DOJ is going to use these funds specifically for obtaining warrants and going after the Prohibited Armed Persons File by hiring new agents specifically tasked for that job. What would you prefer this great state do with the funds? Refunding me for over-charging fees has been suggested. The cost of such a program and the tiny refunds are a joke. Let's get guns away from felons that we know have/had them.

1. What do you mean the funds shouldn't be diverted from background checks? It's a surplus from already paid for background checks. I've read the original BGC legislation prohibits this yet I've not heard an attorney weigh in on that accept the senator who drafted it disagreeing and quoting both bills. If so, amend the legislation and let's get guns from felons.

I like this because it leaves law abiding citizens alone but for asking gun owners to modestly fund related law enforcement. Big winner in my book. Worth a try, and we have much better battles to wage.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Kalifornia Gun Confiscation Bill Passes

“We are fortunate in California to have the first and only system in the nation that tracks and identifies individuals who at one time made legal purchases of firearms but are now barred from possessing them,” Leno said in a statement. “However, due to a lack of resources, only a few of these illegally possessed weapons have been confiscated, and the mountain of firearms continues to grow each day."

Just a page or so ago the pro gun crowd was whining that we don't enforce the background check laws we have. So here's a bill diverting funds from the background check surplus to pursue people known to have guns illegally and this is a problem?

Fwiw, Cali "moved along" about ten gun control bills in the past two weeks. I was in Sac all day on the 16th at the public safety meeting where most of these were discussed. It was an eye opening experience to say the least, and I oppose every piece of legislation but the one above.

"We" can't have it both ways -- complaining we can't enforce something then complaining when we do.

SB240 will confiscate guns from some folks in error and they can file grievances, but it will also do something all gun owners should want far more thoroughly than background checks; specifically disarm felons known to have firearms illegally. Isn't this what Repubs like Lindsay Graham have been whining for?

1. It's a valid complaint. The funds shouldn't be diverted from background checks.

2. How often are felons really going to just let law enforcement walk into their homes without a warrant anyway?

3. If they are serious about this they will find a long-term means of funding and a more effective way of actually getting the felons to turn over their guns.

3. They are serious about it. Saying they need to find another source of funds to be serious makes no sense to me. The state has a budget problem. It also has surplus money collected from a system designed to prevent felons from buying firearms. Let's use the fund for a related very important law enforcement project. In the last 24 months my name is on the transfer or sale of over 30 firearms with fees being paid on a couple dozen Cali DROS/Background checks. I would be thrilled to know that money is going after felons with firearms. It's a perfectly relevant source of funding. I'd approve an increase in fees if necessary to make this program work.

2. The DOJ is going to use these funds specifically for obtaining warrants and going after the Prohibited Armed Persons File by hiring new agents specifically tasked for that job. What would you prefer this great state do with the funds? Refunding me for over-charging fees has been suggested. The cost of such a program and the tiny refunds are a joke. Let's get guns away from felons that we know have/had them.

1. What do you mean the funds shouldn't be diverted from background checks? It's a surplus from already paid for background checks. I've read the original BGC legislation prohibits this yet I've not heard an attorney weigh in on that accept the senator who drafted it disagreeing and quoting both bills. If so, amend the legislation and let's get guns from felons.

I like this because it leaves law abiding citizens alone but for asking gun owners to modestly fund related law enforcement. Big winner in my book. Worth a try, and we have much better battles to wage.

So you are ok with a crazed ex-GF filing a TRO against you and allowing them to confiscate your guns?

It really should be written only to restrict those that have committed violent crimes.

You do know there are a lot of non violent felonies right? There is a father and a son who are "convicted felons" because they dug up arrowheads on federal land. Should they be denied the right to own a gun?

I would argue that if you think a violent felon shouldn't have guns, then he should still be in prison. If they want a gun, then after a stint in jail they'll have the resources to get one, regardless of restrictions.

As far as your complaint about people "whining about enforcing laws" they could also prosecute those lying on the background check form, but they are choosing not.

 

[Chaos Commish]

3. They are serious about it. Saying they need to find another source of funds to be serious makes no sense to me. The state has a budget problem. It also has surplus money collected from a system designed to prevent felons from buying firearms. Let's use the fund for a related very important law enforcement project. In the last 24 months my name is on the transfer or sale of over 30 firearms with fees being paid on a couple dozen Cali DROS/Background checks. I would be thrilled to know that money is going after felons with firearms. It's a perfectly relevant source of funding. I'd approve an increase in fees if necessary to make this program work.

2. The DOJ is going to use these funds specifically for obtaining warrants and going after the Prohibited Armed Persons File by hiring new agents specifically tasked for that job. What would you prefer this great state do with the funds? Refunding me for over-charging fees has been suggested. The cost of such a program and the tiny refunds are a joke. Let's get guns away from felons that we know have/had them.

1. What do you mean the funds shouldn't be diverted from background checks? It's a surplus from already paid for background checks. I've read the original BGC legislation prohibits this yet I've not heard an attorney weigh in on that accept the senator who drafted it disagreeing and quoting both bills. If so, amend the legislation and let's get guns from felons.

I like this because it leaves law abiding citizens alone but for asking gun owners to modestly fund related law enforcement. Big winner in my book. Worth a try, and we have much better battles to wage.

1. So you are ok with a crazed ex-GF filing a TRO against you and allowing them to confiscate your guns?

2. It really should be written only to restrict those that have committed violent crimes.

3. You do know there are a lot of non violent felonies right? There is a father and a son who are "convicted felons" because they dug up arrowheads on federal land. Should they be denied the right to own a gun?

4. I would argue that if you think a violent felon shouldn't have guns, then he should still be in prison. If they want a gun, then after a stint in jail they'll have the resources to get one, regardless of restrictions.

5. As far as your complaint about people "whining about enforcing laws" they could also prosecute those lying on the background check form, but they are choosing not.

5. I've seen this a few times in this thread. No, they can't. They do not have the resources. There's well over a million denials to pursue. Graham was a whiny lying tool in the clip I linked. And he knew it. That's why he was so rude to the cop he wouldn't let answer questions HE asked. In Cali we're trying to access 24 million from a surplus in background check fees specifically to enforce existing gun laws. If you would rather prosecute those who failed background checks and were denied the right to purchase a gun as opposed to those currently on the Prohibited ARMED Persons List, then we'll disagree. Be nice to go after all of them, but limited funds create priorities.

4. Life sentences for violent felons. OK.

3. Yes, plenty of different felonies on the books. But No. There's no father son felons convicted for digging up arrowheads on federal land. The Andersons were sentenced to misdemeanors and are free to keep and bear arms.

2. If passed the DOJ will screen first for violent felons and prioritize by location and perceived public safety (ie. get the worst of the worst first). Once they've rounded up those guns... which will never happen... so no worries here. This will be heavily amended on target priority issues before passing, btw. If passed, left and right have the same desire on who this bill should impact.

1. That's already law so irrelevant to this bill, sorry. Fwiw, my issue with people under protective orders surrendering firearms is minor. Overall it's a good idea, but a hearing of circumstances like traffic court would be helpful. A less complicated way to retrieve property would be nice too, but I personally have no fear of ever being in such a lame situation. Life's too short and crowded for fitting in crazies. Normally that thinking keeps me out of this thread. That is not directed at you. I generally like your work here, over the top as much of it is. This bill is worth a try. Cali is going to pass a bunch of garbage. The courts will block some of it. Let's choose the right battles. We are for law enforcement and disarming criminals.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Kalifornia Gun Confiscation Bill Passes

“We are fortunate in California to have the first and only system in the nation that tracks and identifies individuals who at one time made legal purchases of firearms but are now barred from possessing them,” Leno said in a statement. “However, due to a lack of resources, only a few of these illegally possessed weapons have been confiscated, and the mountain of firearms continues to grow each day."

Just a page or so ago the pro gun crowd was whining that we don't enforce the background check laws we have. So here's a bill diverting funds from the background check surplus to pursue people known to have guns illegally and this is a problem?

Fwiw, Cali "moved along" about ten gun control bills in the past two weeks. I was in Sac all day on the 16th at the public safety meeting where most of these were discussed. It was an eye opening experience to say the least, and I oppose every piece of legislation but the one above.

"We" can't have it both ways -- complaining we can't enforce something then complaining when we do.

SB240 will confiscate guns from some folks in error and they can file grievances, but it will also do something all gun owners should want far more thoroughly than background checks; specifically disarm felons known to have firearms illegally. Isn't this what Repubs like Lindsay Graham have been whining for?

It's a valid complaint. The funds shouldn't be diverted from background checks.

How often are felons really going to just let law enforcement walk into their homes without a warrant anyway?

If they are serious about this they will find a long-term means of funding and a more effective way of actually getting the felons to turn over their guns.

At least for those on probation or parole, the warrant is not needed.Honestly, I'm not against felons having a gun for self defense. If they are deemed untrustworthy to own a gun, I don't see how they are trustworthy to be in public presence. Either lock them up until they are deemed trustworthy, leave them locked up or get rid of them all together. Would probably help if our prisons and jails weren't full of mentaly ill / disabled and addicts.

I'm not opposed at all to trying to recover illegally possessed firearms. I just think we'd be biting off more than we can chew. Another never-ending "war" against something that burns through millions or even billions of dollars and has little effect. More power to them for giving it a shot though. I'd prefer to just see more average citizens arm themselves and be prepared to resist crime.

 

[timschochet]

Honestly, I'm not against felons having a gun for self defense.

Unbelievable.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

8th grade student in West Va. suspended,arrested for wearing a t-shirt supporting NRA and 2nd Amendment

When 8th grade Jared Marcum got dressed for school this morning he says he had no idea that his pro-Second Amendment shirt would initiate what he calls a fight over his First Amendment rights.

"I never thought it would go this far because honestly I don't see a problem with this, there shouldn't be a problem with this," Jared said.

It was the image of a gun printed on Jared's t-shirt that sparked a dispute between a Logan Middle School teacher and Jared, that ended with Jared suspended, arrested and facing two charges, obstruction and disturbing the education process, on his otherwise spotless record.

Jared's father Allen Lardieri says he's angry he had to rush from work to pick his son up from jail over something he says was blown way out of proportion.

"I don't' see how anybody would have an issue with a hunting rifle and NRA put on a t-shirt, especially when policy doesn't forbid it," Lardieri said.

The Logan County School District's dress code policy prohibits clothing that displays profanity, violence, discriminatory messages and more but nowhere in the document does it say anything about gun images.

"He did not violate any school policy," Lardieri reiterates. "He did not become aggressive."

Now, Lardieri says he's ready to fight until the situation is made right.

"I will go to the ends of the earth, I will call people, I will write letters, I will do everything in the legal realm to make sure this does not happen again," Lardieri said.

Logan City Police did confirm that Jared had been arrested and charged today.

13 news tried contacting the Logan County School District but has not heard anything back.

http://www.wowktv.com/story/22020264/8th-grade-student-arrested-over-gun-t-shirt

Sounds like the school needs to add guns to the dress code.

So you're ok with arresting the kid?

Probably, though I'd like to hear more details. Pretty sure he wasn't arrested for wearing the shirt, but for his actions afterward.

Pretty clear we don't know the whole story since the school didn't want to comment on it but I'm sure the kid said something that pissed his teacher off.

Being arrested though seems a tad harsh but that's just me.If he unleashed verbal threats to harm the teacher or class I could see that being reason enough.

Exactly. So why did you ask me if I was ok with arresting the kid?

Because you didn't mention it in your reply.All you took away from that was they needed to add guns to the dress code according to your reply.

Why would I mention it when it's clear that we don't have enough details to come to an informed conclusion as to whether his arrest was justified?

He was charged with "obstruction and disturbing the education process."

The teacher told him to remove his shirt to which he said no.

Video interview:

http://www.wowktv.com/story/22020264/8th-grade-student-arrested-over-gun-t-shirt-jared-marcum-wv-logan

More details:

• He lives in Logan, not Huntington. Huntington is just the location of wowk, the tv station that posted the article.
  
• This kid's dad has a pretty popular youtube gun channel where he is outspoken about the second amendment and firearms enthusiasm.
  
• Despite WV being a very progun state (especially in rural areas like Logan county), their public education system is controlled by a powerful labor union that is lock step with the Obama administration.
  

 

[Cookiemonster]

Honestly, I'm not against felons having a gun for self defense.

Unbelievable.

"Felon" is undefined. Violent felon? Absolutely should be denied. Repeat violent felon? Probably should be imprisoned for life or executed if we can't trust them in society. If we trust them to walk the streets, drive a car or vote, I don't see how they can't be trusted to own a personal defense weapon.

Many felonies are crap though. Some friends and I were charged with felonies as 7th graders for making some "home made fireworks" for 4th of July. Possession of an explosive device. And that was 20 years ago. Imagine what would have happened to us today, post 9-11, when kids are getting suspended for eating cookies into the wrong shape, or arrested for wearing the wrong T-shirts?

I have not had so much as a traffic ticket for 15 years, but since I committed a felony as a 12 year old, should I be barred from owning a gun? (Don't answer. I already know you don't think I should have a gun... )

 

[Novice2]

Kalifornia Gun Confiscation Bill Passes

“We are fortunate in California to have the first and only system in the nation that tracks and identifies individuals who at one time made legal purchases of firearms but are now barred from possessing them,” Leno said in a statement. “However, due to a lack of resources, only a few of these illegally possessed weapons have been confiscated, and the mountain of firearms continues to grow each day."

no one is coming to get your guns!For now.

 

[[icon]]

Looking forward to going to pick up my Colt M4 Light Carbine AR-15 sometime this week. Got some Troy Industries Flip Down Battle Sights for it and will be taking it out to a buddy's land where they've got a nice 100yd shooting range set up alongside their runway and 9 hole golf course. Not sure on which optics I'll be getting just yet... will be trying a few out.