This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Make sure you go to that anti Sharia rally too. Both sides are going to trumpet causes that they won't actually vote for. I don't give a crap about concerned citizens, it's the paranoid idiots that are concerning. Especially those that are trying to cloak themselves in the simple mantle of "concerned citizen".
The gun control issue is the Democrats' number 1 plan for fundraising and GOTF. It is worth mucho bucks to Obama and the DNC. I really do not know what they would be raising money on if not for this and it really is all because of Newtown. Immigration will finally get passed most likely and other than that I have no idea what their agenda would be besides scaring people about spending cuts.
Well, the left doesn't make a distinction between paranoid idiots and concerned citizens when it comes to guns. If you're not with them your against them and hence, a paranoid idiot.
Sure it does. Just like the Right makes a distinction between gun grabbers and concerned citizens. Just look at this thread and see how even a gun owning, 2A backing moderate gets lumped in with Final Solution fascist takeover Gov't Gun Grabbing Stooges. Nice way to deflect as well. You go to the jonmx school of debate? Get stumped...proceed immediately to "But, but, but... You guys do it worse!"
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. They'll pander to the base, like the recent bill. And then they won't pass it, like the recent bill. And all the while we'll have doomsday idiots resisting any and every piece of legislation or attempts to improve the situation.
Deflect?
Yeah...if that's what you have to tell yourself to make yourself feel better. You're really not making any sense. You led your post off with "you guys do it too" then turn around and accuse me of saying it? Your as pathetic as your are a Sad Weeney.
Quick, deflection isn't working!!! Move on to mother jokes and run away!!! Leave behind 6th grade level grammar and emoticons!!! Dive! Dive! Dive!Deflect?
Yes it is.
The original AWB got through. While the pro-gun crowd has seen victories in Heller and the Chicago verdicts. The push in the anti-gun community to curtail gun ownership. That is clear. If they can't get the changes at the federal level they will push through changes state by state. They've done it in New York, Connecticut and Colorado so far this year. They will chip away at it state by state and bill by bill until they get what they want, a largely disarmed American populace. I dont see it as the stepping stone to totalitarianism. But I do see it as putting law abiding citizens at a huge disadvantage to the non-law abiding when crimes occur or natural disasters hit. In those scenarios I want to have every resource available to protect my family, especially when its possible that law enforcement will be unable to respond in time or at all.
Guns have been seized in this country.. I had one seized because it was called concealed because the officer who pulled me over for speeding, smelled cologne on me, thought I was hiding maryj, decided to search my car and find it on the floor in my back seat under a shirt.. Guns were seized during Katrina, guns were seized by the ATF at a Gun show.. Just to name a few...
Your concealed gun was seized as concealed? OMG IT'S THE FINAL SOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!
I'm surprised you're still alive. Didn't you get carjacked or home invaded before you could get another gun?
They didn't have time to get me. I immediately went out and bought a katana and a few shuriken to hold them off until my firearm was returned.
For a weapon to be considered concealed, it must be on ones person, or within reach. And evidently the authorities agree with me since the charges were dropped and my firearm was returned.
The comments in regards to the remarks of Azzam the American are ridiculous at best. First that video is at least 2 years old and we are only hearing the MSM, the Administration and Members of Congress bringing it up now? Azzam's remarks are not even accurate. You cant buy automatic weapons at a gun show. You cant even buy Automatic Weapons from all FFL's.Moreover, the senator said he challenged the organization to put his bill on-line and let the rank-and-file vote on it.“I bet it would pass overwhelmingly, if you put exactly the facts of the bill,” Manchin said he advised the group.Adding that the NRA “won’t do that.”Manchin said he expects the proposal to be offered anew soon and hopes it gets a showdown before the August recess.“It will pass,” he predicted, adding that as many as 90 percent of Americans favor it, based on polls by the national media.
The guy won't give up. You go, Senator!
1. I'm not sure what you're talking about regarding Azzim (I'm sorry, I don't know who that is.) The article I posted doesn't mention any such person.The comments in regards to the remarks of Azzam the American are ridiculous at best. First that video is at least 2 years old and we are only hearing the MSM, the Administration and Members of Congress bringing it up now? Azzam's remarks are not even accurate. You cant buy automatic weapons at a gun show. You cant even buy Automatic Weapons from all FFL's.Moreover, the senator said he challenged the organization to put his bill on-line and let the rank-and-file vote on it.“I bet it would pass overwhelmingly, if you put exactly the facts of the bill,” Manchin said he advised the group.Adding that the NRA “won’t do that.”Manchin said he expects the proposal to be offered anew soon and hopes it gets a showdown before the August recess.“It will pass,” he predicted, adding that as many as 90 percent of Americans favor it, based on polls by the national media.
The guy won't give up. You go, Senator!
Also, unless the purchaser of a weapon is a known terrorist or a criminal, Sen. Manchin's bill wont catch them. The fatal flaw in expanded background checks is there is not really anything in the Manchin-Toomey bill that addresses the flaws in the NICS system. The flaw is that many states fail to provide the FBI with relevant criminal and mental health data to make the system truly effective.
I am sorry if this sounds crass but it will be difficult to say this in a way that doesnt come off as such. This bill will not save one life and even if it did would you abide by limitations on your 1st, 4th or 5th amendment rights in order to save one theoretical life?
Manchin's bill is useless if they dont fix the problems in NICS. If they offered a bill that fixed NICS that would solve more problems than the bill they are currently offering.
There's that lie again... He just lost credibility there.. But hey, he's a politician, what credibility did he have?timschochet said:Moreover, the senator said he challenged the organization to put his bill on-line and let the rank-and-file vote on it.“I bet it would pass overwhelmingly, if you put exactly the facts of the bill,” Manchin said he advised the group.Adding that the NRA “won’t do that.”Manchin said he expects the proposal to be offered anew soon and hopes it gets a showdown before the August recess.“It will pass,” he predicted, adding that as many as 90 percent of Americans favor it, based on polls by the national media.
The guy won't give up. You go, Senator!
Azzam the American is the Al-Qaeda terrorist your first post on Manchin referenced.Expanding the number of background checks in a system that is flawed will solve nothing. If you extend background checks to all private sales but you dont fix the NICS system, by requiring the states to send in the pertinent data, then the system will just be a farce. There are states which currently submit almost no data to the NICS system.timschochet said:1. I'm not sure what you're talking about regarding Azzim (I'm sorry, I don't know who that is.) The article I posted doesn't mention any such person.2. If there are flaws in the NICS, then they should be addressed. Not sure what that has to do with extending background checks. For reasons which I've posted over and over again in this thread, I think extending background checks is a great idea that will save lives.Spanky267 said:The comments in regards to the remarks of Azzam the American are ridiculous at best. First that video is at least 2 years old and we are only hearing the MSM, the Administration and Members of Congress bringing it up now? Azzam's remarks are not even accurate. You cant buy automatic weapons at a gun show. You cant even buy Automatic Weapons from all FFL's. Also, unless the purchaser of a weapon is a known terrorist or a criminal, Sen. Manchin's bill wont catch them. The fatal flaw in expanded background checks is there is not really anything in the Manchin-Toomey bill that addresses the flaws in the NICS system. The flaw is that many states fail to provide the FBI with relevant criminal and mental health data to make the system truly effective.timschochet said:Moreover, the senator said he challenged the organization to put his bill on-line and let the rank-and-file vote on it.
“I bet it would pass overwhelmingly, if you put exactly the facts of the bill,” Manchin said he advised the group.
Adding that the NRA “won’t do that.”
Manchin said he expects the proposal to be offered anew soon and hopes it gets a showdown before the August recess.
“It will pass,” he predicted, adding that as many as 90 percent of Americans favor it, based on polls by the national media.
The guy won't give up. You go, Senator!
I am sorry if this sounds crass but it will be difficult to say this in a way that doesnt come off as such. This bill will not save one life and even if it did would you abide by limitations on your 1st, 4th or 5th amendment rights in order to save one theoretical life?
Manchin's bill is useless if they dont fix the problems in NICS. If they offered a bill that fixed NICS that would solve more problems than the bill they are currently offering.
3. I don't think you're being crass at all, but I disagree rather strongly with your conclusion. I can't fathom how you could reach such a conclusion, frankly. This law will make it more difficult for bad guys to purchase guns through legal means, meaning they will have to purchase their guns through illegal means, meaning their ability to obtain said guns will be curtailed, meaning lives will be saved. The very best one could reasonably argue from the other side is that it won't curtail their ability to obtain said guns enough, and therefore not many lives will be saved, and that therefore it's not worth the time and added expense and restriction. But for you to argue that it won't save ANY lives at all is sheer absurdity on your part.
4. You'll have to explain how this law limits the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment. That seems a rather extreme argument as well, and I don't think you can provide a coherent rationale for it. But I'm willing to listen.
The left in this country is pro-gun too. They just believe in more regulation. How many members of Congress want to repeal the 2nd amendment?
Pro-Gun my ### (I say that in a nice way).
Good for them.tom22406 said:
Seriously - :thumbsup: - isn't enforcement of existing laws what the NRA types always want? And why do we want these people with guns?
Good point.. But I'm not sure the anti-gun folks realize that's what it's gonna take... By the time the warrant is issued for the folks who were visited, and "no longer have it", the guns they may or may not have had would be gone..
For the people subject to a restraining order I wonder if this is a complete forfeiture or do they get their weapons back when the restraining order is lifted? Also should have come out of the states general fund instead of this pool of surplus background check money. When that surplus runs out, what happens to the 36 officers they hired to do this? I doubt they get laid off.
You're obviously getting your "academic studies and law enforcement studies" from different places from me, because every source I have read tell me that plenty of bad guys DO purchase their weapons through legal means. So I simply don't believe you.Azzam the American is the Al-Qaeda terrorist your first post on Manchin referenced.Expanding the number of background checks in a system that is flawed will solve nothing. If you extend background checks to all private sales but you dont fix the NICS system, by requiring the states to send in the pertinent data, then the system will just be a farce. There are states which currently submit almost no data to the NICS system.timschochet said:1. I'm not sure what you're talking about regarding Azzim (I'm sorry, I don't know who that is.) The article I posted doesn't mention any such person.2. If there are flaws in the NICS, then they should be addressed. Not sure what that has to do with extending background checks. For reasons which I've posted over and over again in this thread, I think extending background checks is a great idea that will save lives.Spanky267 said:The comments in regards to the remarks of Azzam the American are ridiculous at best. First that video is at least 2 years old and we are only hearing the MSM, the Administration and Members of Congress bringing it up now? Azzam's remarks are not even accurate. You cant buy automatic weapons at a gun show. You cant even buy Automatic Weapons from all FFL's. Also, unless the purchaser of a weapon is a known terrorist or a criminal, Sen. Manchin's bill wont catch them. The fatal flaw in expanded background checks is there is not really anything in the Manchin-Toomey bill that addresses the flaws in the NICS system. The flaw is that many states fail to provide the FBI with relevant criminal and mental health data to make the system truly effective.timschochet said:Moreover, the senator said he challenged the organization to put his bill on-line and let the rank-and-file vote on it.
“I bet it would pass overwhelmingly, if you put exactly the facts of the bill,” Manchin said he advised the group.
Adding that the NRA “won’t do that.”
Manchin said he expects the proposal to be offered anew soon and hopes it gets a showdown before the August recess.
“It will pass,” he predicted, adding that as many as 90 percent of Americans favor it, based on polls by the national media.
The guy won't give up. You go, Senator!
I am sorry if this sounds crass but it will be difficult to say this in a way that doesnt come off as such. This bill will not save one life and even if it did would you abide by limitations on your 1st, 4th or 5th amendment rights in order to save one theoretical life?
Manchin's bill is useless if they dont fix the problems in NICS. If they offered a bill that fixed NICS that would solve more problems than the bill they are currently offering.
3. I don't think you're being crass at all, but I disagree rather strongly with your conclusion. I can't fathom how you could reach such a conclusion, frankly. This law will make it more difficult for bad guys to purchase guns through legal means, meaning they will have to purchase their guns through illegal means, meaning their ability to obtain said guns will be curtailed, meaning lives will be saved. The very best one could reasonably argue from the other side is that it won't curtail their ability to obtain said guns enough, and therefore not many lives will be saved, and that therefore it's not worth the time and added expense and restriction. But for you to argue that it won't save ANY lives at all is sheer absurdity on your part.
4. You'll have to explain how this law limits the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment. That seems a rather extreme argument as well, and I don't think you can provide a coherent rationale for it. But I'm willing to listen.
http://smartgunlaws.org/mental-health-reporting-policy-summary/
This article has some interesting facts. If we focused on mental health records and tightening up NICS then we might actually stop killings and mass murders. The article specifically refers to the Va. Tech case.
Tim, bad guys dont purchase guns through legal means. Academic Studies and even Law Enforcement studies bear that out. Only tiny percentages of criminals try to buy guns through legal dealers or from legal dealers or private sellers at gun shows. Studies show that they either steal the weapons, borrow them from friends or use straw buyers. In the case of straw buyers, how do we stop that. Obviously these straw buyers are passing background checks. The only way to truly discourage straw purchases is to prosecute the straw purchaser of a gun after it is used in a crime. I dont see any other way to stop straw purchases while not infringing on the rights of people truly buying firearms for themselves.
I didnt say that Manchin's bill limits the 1st, 4th or 5th Amendments. Perhaps I worded it poorly. What I meant is why is it acceptable to curtail second amendment rights in this way, but there would be a hew and cry if the 1st, 4th or 5th Amendments were curtailed in similar manners.
No it's YOUR credibility that is lost. You guys live in your own bubble, trying to tell yourselves how unpopular background checks are. But it's not true.. I've seen your so-called "evidence" that the 90% figure is inaccurate, and it's totally bogus. Of course it's accurate.There's that lie again... He just lost credibility there.. But hey, he's a politician, what credibility did he have?timschochet said:Moreover, the senator said he challenged the organization to put his bill on-line and let the rank-and-file vote on it.“I bet it would pass overwhelmingly, if you put exactly the facts of the bill,” Manchin said he advised the group.Adding that the NRA “won’t do that.”Manchin said he expects the proposal to be offered anew soon and hopes it gets a showdown before the August recess.“It will pass,” he predicted, adding that as many as 90 percent of Americans favor it, based on polls by the national media.
The guy won't give up. You go, Senator!
And yet, only 4% of the people feel that gun control is an important issue facing the country.No it's YOUR credibility that is lost. You guys live in your own bubble, trying to tell yourselves how unpopular background checks are. But it's not true.. I've seen your so-called "evidence" that the 90% figure is inaccurate, and it's totally bogus. Of course it's accurate.There's that lie again... He just lost credibility there.. But hey, he's a politician, what credibility did he have?timschochet said:Moreover, the senator said he challenged the organization to put his bill on-line and let the rank-and-file vote on it.
“I bet it would pass overwhelmingly, if you put exactly the facts of the bill,” Manchin said he advised the group.
Adding that the NRA “won’t do that.”
Manchin said he expects the proposal to be offered anew soon and hopes it gets a showdown before the August recess.
“It will pass,” he predicted, adding that as many as 90 percent of Americans favor it, based on polls by the national media.
The guy won't give up. You go, Senator!
And yet, only 4% of the people feel that gun control is an important issue facing the country.No it's YOUR credibility that is lost. You guys live in your own bubble, trying to tell yourselves how unpopular background checks are. But it's not true.. I've seen your so-called "evidence" that the 90% figure is inaccurate, and it's totally bogus. Of course it's accurate.There's that lie again... He just lost credibility there.. But hey, he's a politician, what credibility did he have?timschochet said:Moreover, the senator said he challenged the organization to put his bill on-line and let the rank-and-file vote on it.
“I bet it would pass overwhelmingly, if you put exactly the facts of the bill,” Manchin said he advised the group.
Adding that the NRA “won’t do that.”
Manchin said he expects the proposal to be offered anew soon and hopes it gets a showdown before the August recess.
“It will pass,” he predicted, adding that as many as 90 percent of Americans favor it, based on polls by the national media.
The guy won't give up. You go, Senator!
And maybe the 90% number was always soft to begin with and based on emotion?
Only 65%. Yeah that's a real small number. I challenge you to come up with ANY bill which 65% of Americans are in favor of. IPretty sure that at least part of the reason the number went from 90% supporting the idea to 65% supporting the actual bill is that a portion was disappointed it didn't go far enough. But 65% is still overwhelming. Whoever wrote "only 65%" is truly grasping at straws, just like you guys.And yet, only 4% of the people feel that gun control is an important issue facing the country.And maybe the 90% number was always soft to begin with and based on emotion?No it's YOUR credibility that is lost. You guys live in your own bubble, trying to tell yourselves how unpopular background checks are. But it's not true.. I've seen your so-called "evidence" that the 90% figure is inaccurate, and it's totally bogus. Of course it's accurate.There's that lie again... He just lost credibility there.. But hey, he's a politician, what credibility did he have?timschochet said:Moreover, the senator said he challenged the organization to put his bill on-line and let the rank-and-file vote on it.
I bet it would pass overwhelmingly, if you put exactly the facts of the bill, Manchin said he advised the group.
Adding that the NRA wont do that.
Manchin said he expects the proposal to be offered anew soon and hopes it gets a showdown before the August recess.
It will pass, he predicted, adding that as many as 90 percent of Americans favor it, based on polls by the national media.
The guy won't give up. You go, Senator!
It's not even two thirds.Only 65%. Yeah that's a real small number. I challenge you to come up with ANY bill which 65% of Americans are in favor of.IPretty sure that at least part of the reason the number went from 90% supporting the idea to 65% supporting the actual bill is that a portion was disappointed it didn't go far enough. But 65% is still overwhelming. Whoever wrote "only 65%" is truly grasping at straws, just like you guys.And yet, only 4% of the people feel that gun control is an important issue facing the country.And maybe the 90% number was always soft to begin with and based on emotion?No it's YOUR credibility that is lost. You guys live in your own bubble, trying to tell yourselves how unpopular background checks are. But it's not true.. I've seen your so-called "evidence" that the 90% figure is inaccurate, and it's totally bogus. Of course it's accurate.There's that lie again... He just lost credibility there.. But hey, he's a politician, what credibility did he have?timschochet said:Moreover, the senator said he challenged the organization to put his bill on-line and let the rank-and-file vote on it.
I bet it would pass overwhelmingly, if you put exactly the facts of the bill, Manchin said he advised the group.
Adding that the NRA wont do that.
Manchin said he expects the proposal to be offered anew soon and hopes it gets a showdown before the August recess.
It will pass, he predicted, adding that as many as 90 percent of Americans favor it, based on polls by the national media.
The guy won't give up. You go, Senator!
And yet, only 4% of the people feel that gun control is an important issue facing the country.No it's YOUR credibility that is lost. You guys live in your own bubble, trying to tell yourselves how unpopular background checks are. But it's not true.. I've seen your so-called "evidence" that the 90% figure is inaccurate, and it's totally bogus. Of course it's accurate.There's that lie again... He just lost credibility there.. But hey, he's a politician, what credibility did he have?timschochet said:Moreover, the senator said he challenged the organization to put his bill on-line and let the rank-and-file vote on it.
“I bet it would pass overwhelmingly, if you put exactly the facts of the bill,” Manchin said he advised the group.
Adding that the NRA “won’t do that.”
Manchin said he expects the proposal to be offered anew soon and hopes it gets a showdown before the August recess.
“It will pass,” he predicted, adding that as many as 90 percent of Americans favor it, based on polls by the national media.
The guy won't give up. You go, Senator!
And maybe the 90% number was always soft to begin with and based on emotion?
>Nationwide, a Gallup poll taken a week after the Senate vote indicated that only 65 percent of Americans thought the Senate should have passed a bill to "expand background checks for gun purchases," with 29 percent saying the Senate should not have passed it.<
/span>
He's really embarrassing himself, isn't he? Just sad.And yet, only 4% of the people feel that gun control is an important issue facing the country.No it's YOUR credibility that is lost. You guys live in your own bubble, trying to tell yourselves how unpopular background checks are. But it's not true.. I've seen your so-called "evidence" that the 90% figure is inaccurate, and it's totally bogus. Of course it's accurate.There's that lie again... He just lost credibility there.. But hey, he's a politician, what credibility did he have?timschochet said:Moreover, the senator said he challenged the organization to put his bill on-line and let the rank-and-file vote on it.
“I bet it would pass overwhelmingly, if you put exactly the facts of the bill,” Manchin said he advised the group.
Adding that the NRA “won’t do that.”
Manchin said he expects the proposal to be offered anew soon and hopes it gets a showdown before the August recess.
“It will pass,” he predicted, adding that as many as 90 percent of Americans favor it, based on polls by the national media.
The guy won't give up. You go, Senator!
And maybe the 90% number was always soft to begin with and based on emotion?
>Nationwide, a Gallup poll taken a week after the Senate vote indicated that only 65 percent of Americans thought the Senate should have passed a bill to "expand background checks for gun purchases," with 29 percent saying the Senate should not have passed it.<
/span>
That guy's way too much of a caricature to be real, right? An overweight, aging white guy (looks just Christo's old avatar) talking about the "War of Northern Aggression" and how Obama is a "Fake President"? Are you kidding me??
I'm not an NRA supporter, but children can't buy these guns. In reality, they are being marketed to gun-buying parents with children, as a first gun. If you are a parent that would buy a pink .22 for your girl to teach her how to shoot, this is the product for you. Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not that's a good idea, but there are a large number of shooting clubs with youth programs across the country. So as long at that's legal, there will be products to support that market.
What items CAN small children buy? What you wrote applies to all items that are marketed to them: dolls, breakfast cereal, toys, etc. It's always the parents that have to buy them, but it's the kids that they are marketed to. This is no different. This Cricket company is marketing guns to small children, and it's absolutely shameful. Do they bear some responsibility for this death? You bet your ### they do.
Tim a child can walk into any store and buy all of the other items you mentioned. They can't buy a gun. And AFAIK nobody runs gun ads during Saturday morning cartoons or in any other marketing medium aimed at children. But sure go ahead and think it's no different than McDonald's selling a happy meal. As for the appropriate age to learn how to shoot, that's up to the parent and they bear the responsibility.
