American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=AllIWantIsLove;432705]"We the People of the United States, in Order to
form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice,
insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I'm not taking any position, I just thought that some actual words from the Consititution might be helpful.

Bob.[/QUOTE]Hi Bob, welcome to the conversation, I'm always happy to see people actually read the constitution, I wish more people had respect for it.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make (if any) posting the preamble to the constitution, but I will point out that it does not and [B]can not[/B] guarantee public safety, just like we can't guarantee highway safety or any other type of safety.

When you get right down to it the only person really responsible for your safety is you.

The Preamble to the Constitution is just a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and it speaks in general terms.

The Constitution does however guarantee liberty and the Second Amendment of the Constitution does guarantee that our right to keep and bear arms will not be in fringed.

[I]"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, [B][u]the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[/u][/B]"[/I]

[QUOTE=Punter127;432750]Hi Bob, welcome to the conversation, I'm always happy to see people actually read the constitution, I wish more people had respect for it.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make (if any) posting the preamble to the constitution, but I will point out that it does not and [B]can not[/B] guarantee public safety, just like we can't guarantee highway safety or any other type of safety.

When you get right down to it the only person really responsible for your safety is you.

The Preamble to the Constitution is just a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and it speaks in general terms.

The Constitution does however guarantee liberty and the Second Amendment of the Constitution does guarantee that our right to keep and bear arms will not be in fringed.

[I]"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, [B][u]the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[/u][/B]"[/I][/QUOTE]"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Wow, above quote about bearing arms was in plain English and very clear, to the point and easy to understand. The President and Congress are sworn by oath to uphold this (and every) tenet of the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

I recently found an interesting quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote".

[QUOTE=AllIWantIsLove;432705]"We the People of the United States, in Order to
form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice,
insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I'm not taking any position, I just thought that some actual words from the Consititution might be helpful.

Bob.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=SilverStar;432753]"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Wow, above quote about bearing arms was in plain English and very clear, to the point and easy to understand. The President and Congress are sworn by oath to uphold this (and every) tenet of the Bill of Rights and Constitution.[/QUOTE]So if we deny a criminal a gun, is that unconstitutional?

[QUOTE=Esten;432775]So if we deny a criminal a gun, is that unconstitutional?[/QUOTE]How can a criminal have a gun when he is in jail?

Esten, it is no more unconstitutional to deny a criminal a firearm than to deny him the right to vote. For certain conduct you lose rights granted under the constitution, two of those rights are the right to own firearms and the right to vote. I would think a person as educated as you would not raise such an absurd question which has been settled by the Supreme Court years ago.

[QUOTE=SilverStar;432777]How can a criminal have a gun when he is in jail?[/QUOTE]He had one before he went to jail!

First, he didn't have a gun. (He was ok). Then, he purchase one. (No problem, but is he ok?) Then, he misused it. (Went to jail).

[QUOTE=Esten;432748]Sounds like Constitutional support for responsible gun control.[/QUOTE]Yes and we already have "responsible gun control". We do however need to prosecute people who violate the law.

[QUOTE=Esten;432775]So if we deny a criminal a gun, is that unconstitutional?[/QUOTE]"The FBI said it conducted 16.5 million background checks for gun purchases in 2011. Of those, 78,211 ended in denials of eligibility because of a past conviction, a warrant for an arrest, drug abuse or other reason. Forty-four attempted buyers faced prosecution in 2010." Forty-four out of 78,211, unbelievable!

[QUOTE=Esten;432747]Maybe look at the homicides by gun:

Gun Murders per 100,000 (2010)
Texas 3.2%
Illinois 2.8%

[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state[/URL][/QUOTE]Is the goal public safety or a political agenda? Why just homicide by gun, why not all murders?

Could it be because the murder rate is historically low and is already trending downward? In fact, the murder rate in 2011 was the lowest since 1961:4.7 murders per 100,000 people. In only 5 years since 1910 has it been lower: 1955-59, when it was only slightly lower at 4.5 or 4.6.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28736[/ATTACH]

Data source: The Federal Bureau of Investigation. For years 1900-1991 [URL]http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/[/URL] hmrttab. Cfm. For years 1992-2011: [URL]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1[/URL].

"Today's murder rate is essentially at a low point of the past century. The murder rate in 2011 was lower than it was in 1911. Whatever we've been doing over the last 20-30 years seems to be working, more or less. The murder rate has been cut by more than half since 1980: from 10.7 to 4.7. ".

Surely Esten wouldn't be trying to mislead us by only wanting us to look at gun murders, or would he, remember when he didn't want us to look at the U6 unemployment numbers? I think I see a trend here.

Here are some possible reason why the murder rate is down, I'm sure Esten and the gun grabbers don't want you to consider.

"From 1980 to 2000 our prison population more than quadrupled."

"From the 1980's to 2000, the number of prisoner executions more than quadrupled."

And here's the one I'm sure they really don't want to talk about.

"From 1986 to 2006, the number of states adopting "shall issue" Concealed Carry permits nearly quadrupled."

I think it's time we started enforcing the laws we have and stop demonizing law abiding gun owners.

Much of the above data came from the American Thinker which I much prefer over so called "critical thinkers".

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;432778]Esten, it is no more unconstitutional to deny a criminal a firearm than to deny him the right to vote. For certain conduct you lose rights granted under the constitution, two of those rights are the right to own firearms and the right to vote. I would think a person as educated as you would not raise such an absurd question which has been settled by the Supreme Court years ago.[/QUOTE]It doesn't matter what kind of reasoned argument you have, the Constitution states very clearly:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms [B][u]shall not be infringed[/u][/B].

Esten it's not an argument, its the law. So if you have a problem with that you need to go argue with the Supreme Court, who upheld the right to own firearms recently while letting stand past rulings which affirmed certain conduct can result in the loss of constitutional rights.

What I love about liberals is one minute the Constitution and Bill of Rights are "living documents" and the next they are the 10 Commandments carve in stone.

Regarding the new "universal background check" proposed by the Democrats, Canada tried the same thing a few years ago. After spending millions of dollars trying to implement it and finding it impossible they quietly terminated the program last year. As an additional note we don't need more laws we just need to enforce the laws we have. According the ATF, there were over 80,000 violations of the laws on the books regarding purchasing a firearm but less than 100 prosecutions. So what is ATF's problem? I guess they are too busy smuggling arms to Mexico to enforce our laws.

Doppel, what part of [B][u]shall not be infringed[/u][/B] don't you understand? Are you saying there is more to the gun debate than simply quoting the second amendment? This is what the gun lovers repeat over and over, like it's supposed to end all discussion.

For the sarcasm-impaired:
Crackpot anti-gun control argument #1: Quoting the second amendment.

Quite frankly Esten, I am a bit disappointed that an educated person such as yourself falling back on name calling again.

Of course the 2nd Amendment is quoted first and foremost in the argument against the knee jerk reaction the liberals have to gun violence, but it is not the only argument.

What is being proposed now has already been attempted in Canada and was a dismal failure, being abandoned last year by the Canadian government.

Look at Mexico, which has stringent gun laws that have for years failed to curb violence there.

The latest atrocities which occurred were committed by known severely disturbed people but guess what it is the liberals who have written the laws which prohibit that information being posted for background checks.

I guess the liberals want to insure the insane have the same opportunity as the rest of the sane, law abiding citizens, after all liberals thrive on being "fair" and "equal".

Like a gun-owning Republican has the answers on gun control. LMAO!! If it were up to them, we wouldn't even be talking about the issue, let alone trying to do something about it. And the daily carnage from guns would continue unabated.

What Canada abandoned was a costly effort on a national gun registry. That's not the same thing as universal background checks. Check the firearm-related death rates:
United States: 10.2 per 100,000
Canada: 2.13 per 100,000

That's a huge difference. The reason? Canada's tougher gun laws.

You can see it at the state level as well. Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation:
[URL]http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/[/URL]

The common theme: [B][i]More gun control = Less gun violence[/i][/B]

[QUOTE=Esten;432852]Like a gun-owning Republican has the answers on gun control. LMAO!! If it were up to them, we wouldn't even be talking about the issue, let alone trying to do something about it. And the daily carnage from guns would continue unabated.

What Canada abandoned was a costly effort on a national gun registry. That's not the same thing as universal background checks. Check the firearm-related death rates:
United States: 10.2 per 100,000
Canada: 2.13 per 100,000

That's a huge difference. The reason? Canada's tougher gun laws.

You can see it at the state level as well. Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation:
[URL]http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/[/URL]

The common theme: [B][i]More gun control = Less gun violence[/i][/B][/QUOTE]I think that's tougher to prove than you think. Take a look at [URL]http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf[/URL] Also, [URL]http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=1[/URL].

Finally take a look at this map, which shows homicide rates, not just from firearms: [URL]http://www.city-data.com/forum/general-u-s/1394707-updated-state-state-national-murder-rate.html[/URL]#be. Compare to the map in the Atlantic article showing "number of deaths due to injury by firearms", where states with at least 1 firearm law designed to protect children are crosshatched. Please note that the states with decent-sized populations AND with firearm laws are the following: California, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Illinois and Michigan. And please note that all of these states except Virginia and New York have murder rates higher than the national average of 4.8 per 100,000. If there is a basis to your belief that gun control laws reduce gun violence (and I'm not sure there is), then it appears the murderers are just using knives, etc. instead.

What's kind of interesting, some of the states where you're most likely to see "they'll take my gun from me when they pull my cold dead finger off the trigger" bumper stickers, like Wyoming, Idaho and North Dakota, have very low murder rates, comparable to Canada and western Europe.

Btw, if you were just looking at suicides in the USA, you might have an easier time backing up your argument. Out of the 10.2 per 100,000 deaths from firearms, 6.3 are from suicides.

Esten, as always you don't seem to understand the term "gun control". What it means is keeping a solid sight picture and bringing your weapon back on target rapidly for the second shot. Liberals just don't understand what they are talking about.

I remember when Texas was considering "concealed carry" for its citizens. The liberals were all over the place with dire threats of the wild west returning, gun fights in the street at high noon, road rage resulting in shootouts like the OK Corral, and the crime rate would sky rocket. Guess what, none of that occurred and the crime rate went down! Every state that enacted concealed carry laws got the same Liberal treatment and the ACTUAL outcome was the same as Texas.

Canada started out with "registration" but they realized it would not work unless it was national registration which failed totally. Do your home work. What the liberals are pitching is "registration" but what they will attempt to pass is the same as Canada and it will not work here either. Liberal's ideas regarding gun control ignores the firearms already in the hands of citizens. Similar to Liberals social programs always ignoring human nature.

I noticed you did not address Mexico's gun laws, could that be because they have very stringent gun laws but a totally out of control urban war going on with the cartels? Esten, do you really think the cartels are going into their local sporting goods dealers and purchasing M2's, M4's, M16's and ammo?

I noticed you did not address the mental illness aspect of my earlier post, why not? The incidents which caused all this uproar were committed by mentally ill folks. As tragic as all these incidents are, did you ever think they may not have happened if liberals had not insured a person's mental illness history is not permitted into the background check?

I don't notice liberals getting all worked up about traffic fatalities. Why is that? The carnage is certainly great enough. Every day just around Houston there are one or more traffic deaths and many times it is multiple fatalities. So Esten why do we need cars that can exceed the speed limit, better yet why not reduce the speed limit to say 30 MPH in the name of safety?

Liberals and "gun control" are as hypocritical as tree huggers who drive their Escalade to the protest for Mother Earth then drive home to their air-conditioned homes or the electric car driver who plugs in his vehicle to recharge from an outlet powered by fossil fuel electric generation stations.

Yes you are correct, I am a Republican, NRA life member, Safari International member and own a fair number of firearms ranging from 22 to 50 caliber and probably have well over 10,000 rounds of ammunition, which in Texas means I am only a small to medium gun owner. Guess what Esten, I have not killed anyone with them!

Republican gun control.

Cute cartoon.

At least it's more entertaining than Esten's rants.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;432856]Esten, as always you don't seem to understand the term "gun control". What it means is keeping a solid sight picture and bringing your weapon back on target rapidly for the second shot. Liberals just don't understand what they are talking about.

I remember when Texas was considering "concealed carry" for its citizens. The liberals were all over the place with dire threats of the wild west returning, gun fights in the street at high noon, road rage resulting in shootouts like the OK Corral, and the crime rate would sky rocket. Guess what, none of that occurred and the crime rate went down! Every state that enacted concealed carry laws got the same Liberal treatment and the ACTUAL outcome was the same as Texas.

Canada started out with "registration" but they realized it would not work unless it was national registration which failed totally. Do your home work. What the liberals are pitching is "registration" but what they will attempt to pass is the same as Canada and it will not work here either. Liberal's ideas regarding gun control ignores the firearms already in the hands of citizens. Similar to Liberals social programs always ignoring human nature.

I noticed you did not address Mexico's gun laws, could that be because they have very stringent gun laws but a totally out of control urban war going on with the cartels? Esten, do you really think the cartels are going into their local sporting goods dealers and purchasing M2's, M4's, M16's and ammo?

I noticed you did not address the mental illness aspect of my earlier post, why not? The incidents which caused all this uproar were committed by mentally ill folks. As tragic as all these incidents are, did you ever think they may not have happened if liberals had not insured a person's mental illness history is not permitted into the background check?

I don't notice liberals getting all worked up about traffic fatalities. Why is that? The carnage is certainly great enough. Every day just around Houston there are one or more traffic deaths and many times it is multiple fatalities. So Esten why do we need cars that can exceed the speed limit, better yet why not reduce the speed limit to say 30 MPH in the name of safety?

Liberals and "gun control" are as hypocritical as tree huggers who drive their Escalade to the protest for Mother Earth then drive home to their air-conditioned homes or the electric car driver who plugs in his vehicle to recharge from an outlet powered by fossil fuel electric generation stations.

Yes you are correct, I am a Republican, NRA life member, Safari International member and own a fair number of firearms ranging from 22 to 50 caliber and probably have well over 10,000 rounds of ammunition, which in Texas means I am only a small to medium gun owner. Guess what Esten, I have not killed anyone with them![/QUOTE]Republicans aren't much better than Democrats on Guns. Gov Pataki and Romney both made the laws more restrictive in their states unfortunately. Better than NRA is Gun Owners of America, and better than Republicans on gun control is Libertarians.

I'm not trying to make a point here one way or the other, just wondering about something. After reading Esten's thought provoking article (really) from the Atlantic, I took a look at a map of the USA that showed % of whites by state and compared it to a map showing homicide rates. The comparison was striking. States with high percentages of whites had lower homicide rates. Some states with the highest % of nonhispanic whites had murder rates similar to places like Canada, Australia and western Europe. Overall, the homicide rate among nonhispanic whites in the USA, at 3.7 per 100,000, is higher than those places, but not that different from Europe as a whole, at 3.5 per 100,000. If you're black in America though, it's far worse. The homicide rate among blacks, 34.4 per 100,000 offending rate and 27.8 per 100,000 victimization rate, puts Black America in the same league as places like Colombia, Brazil, South Africa and Central America.

As far as suicide is concerned though, especially for men, the statistic goes the other way. The suicide rate among nonhispanic white males is 27 per 100,000.

Something that's maybe contradictory, Esten's article shows that the strongest correlation by far is between firearm deaths and the % of people in a state that voted for McCain versus Obama. States that voted for McCain had more deaths from firearms. States that voted for Obama had fewer. Yet black Americans voted for Obama by about a 9 to 1 margin, while white Americans voted for McCain by 6 to 4.

Esten's article also shows a much stronger correlation between poverty level or education level and firearm deaths than it does between firearm controls and firearm deaths.

Anyway, it looks like there are other factors much more important than gun control at work. Maybe the best way to cut down on homicides is to put all the businessmen who voted for McCain and all blacks in jail. Oh, but wait, we're already doing that and it's not working.

Now I'm waiting for WT69 to call me a racist, again.

Are the majority of folks on the thread really becoming prepared for a future revolution? It is of great impostance that there will never be a "master list" of gun owners because some pinko polotician will collect all the guns? You need those 30 round clips for fire fights to preserve your liberty? You qwould rather have 50 crazed obvious unstable wackos have access to arms than take a chance the a true brother of liberty may not be able to own multiple assault weapons with large clips suitable for true combat.

Are you guys planning a right wing revolution?

I understand the nra and wayne lapierre have been coopted by large sum of money from gun manufacturers. That is business as normal in the USA.

This group on AP baffles me.

I have nothing against "responsible gun ownership" with backround checks. It is a right in the USA. Combat gear-I am not sure where to draw the line and have an open mind. Combat weapons are sort of like porno--you know it when you see it. No one would generally need automatic weapons, 30+ round clips and 50 cal snipper rifles--maybe there might be some exceptions--I am open to those possibilities? there are people who live in the wilds of Alaska and might have a grizzly in the backyard and really need some access to firepower==anything might be possible and a legitimate excption.[i remeber watching sarah palin's reality tv show episode about protecting yourself from bears]

Some gun owners are clearly just focused on themselves. Meanwhile, others are trying to take concrete steps to address the problem of gun violence. No single step will solve it, but some can have an impact. How about closing the loopholes that let people buy a gun without a background check?

Yes most gun owners have never killed anyone. As long as they keep their guns stored responsibly, and don't sell them without a background check, they should have nothing to worry about. 90% of gun owners support universal background checks, because they know that the only people who will be negatively impacted are criminals and those who sell them firearms. And then we have gun owners like Doppel. Not only is he out of step with his fellow gun owners, but he also obfuscates the discussion by confusing a registry effort with background checks. Like the NRA, they'll say anything to avoid any new laws. It's a waste of time discussing gun control with these people.

Liberals don't have any idea what they are talking about when they bandy about words such as "automatic" weapons and "combat" weapons. Permit me to enlighten you.

Automatic Weapon – commonly referred to as a machine gun:

One pull of the trigger sends MULTIPLE ROUNDS down range until the trigger is released. For my liberal friends please be advised these weapons are tightly controlled by the ATF requiring reams of paperwork, a signed document from local law enforcement, the purchase must be made through a Class III licensed dealer, and a tax stamp to mention a few. Check the FBI stats for the last time an automatic weapon was used in a crime, probably back in the 1920's or 1930's in Chicago no less.

Semi-Automatic Weapon:

One pull of the trigger sends ONE ROUND down range. Liberals love to call these AUTOMATICS to bolster their argument.

Combat Weapons:

Well I guess we need to outlaw or control rocks, sticks, knives, forks, fire, arrows, bows, and all firearms since humans have been using these items for "combat" since they could get hold of one. Now if you're talking mortars, field pieces, M2's, M4's, M'16's, Vulcan's you could call those "combat" weapons. If you really want to see "combat" weapons go to Mexico, the cartels are up to their chin straps in them.

Esten, how many times do I have to say it, liberals are the ones who insisted mental health history not be included in the background data base. Also you can not provide a correlation between gun laws and reductions in violence unless you are talking about Germany under the Nazis or Russia under the Stalin and Putin, which is iffy at best.

Criminals don't follow the laws and don't buy weapons from dealers. The proposed requirement for individuals to conduct background checks through licensed dealers before selling a firearm is totally unenforceable on its face with the number of weapons already in circulation. Just ENFORCE the laws we have now.

Doppel, like I said, it's a waste of time discussing gun control with folks like you. The only reason I'll still bother is to expose your crap-o-rama.

First you were trying to educate us on the definition of gun control. Now you're covering the definitions of Automatic, Semi-Automatic and Combat weapons. Where did that come from? Are you trying to impress us or something? I've got sad news for you, your knowledge of guns is completely irrelevant in this debate. What is relevant is an understanding of what steps will help reduce gun violence.

You repeated that liberals insisted that mental health history not be included in the background database. What's that about, and what's your point? Let's see a link. The problem is with state reporting. Only 27 states authorize or require reporting mental health data to NICS. There's not a clear pattern of red vs blue states here. Check the story below, the killer was able to buy a gun because Oklahoma doesn't transfer mental health records to NICS. Oklahoma is a Republican state. So much for blaming it all on the liberals, huh Doppel? So much for saying we don't need new laws to mandate reporting of mental health records.

How the violent mentally ill can buy guns
[URL]http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/30/health/mental-illness-guns[/URL]

Last but not least, your argument that more background checks won't help, because we have too many guns in circulation. Heck, why don't we just stop doing background checks altogether? Great logic there. I'll support a call for better enforcement, but the fact is we also need new laws.

[QUOTE=Esten;432880] I'll support a call for better enforcement, but the fact is we also need new laws.[snip][/QUOTE]
Oh now I understand, we have laws that we don't enforce, so to solve our problems we need more laws, that we probably won't enforce. I got it now.

Esten you really have a queer way of looking at things.

Lets enforce current law first, then we can see if new laws are need.

The latest poll from Quinnipiac shows strong support for universal background checks:
[URL]http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1877[/URL]

Do you support or oppose - requiring background checks for all gun buyers?
Support 91%
Oppose 8%
DK / NA 1%

According to some estimates, 22 to 35 percent of people selling guns at shows are private sellers who can choose whether to run checks - and often don't. This is the "gun show loophole". The vast majority of people recognize we need new laws to close this loophole, including 88% of households that own a gun. But apparently, a small minority of people still don't get it.

[QUOTE=Esten;432934]The latest poll from Quinnipiac shows strong support for universal background checks:
[URL]http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1877[/URL]

Do you support or oppose - requiring background checks for all gun buyers?
Support 91%
Oppose 8%
DK / NA 1%

According to some estimates, 22 to 35 percent of people selling guns at shows are private sellers who can choose whether to run checks - and often don't. This is the "gun show loophole". The vast majority of people recognize we need new laws to close this loophole, including 88% of households that own a gun. But apparently, a small minority of people still don't get it.[/QUOTE]Let's say that Mr. Right passed the background check, purchased a gun, keeps it why a safe place etc.

Few months after that, his wife divorces him, o he loses his job and goes bankrupt, or gets a bad news from his doctor who tells him he has some type of terminal disease.

Perhaps he reads too many bad news about politics, and starts getting angry about certain groups, minorities, government, etc.

Question: would a person in that state of mind have more propensity to commit and atrocity like the ones that happened at the schools, movie theatre and other places?

Do you think that those who committed these crimes could pass the background check before they acquire their weapons? Probably! Unless background check "also" includes some type of P.S.ychological test, but that is quite expensive and never 100% accurate.

So what type of "test" have to be created before a person purchases a semi-automatic? How often does he have to go through that test to make sure that he is ok every day?

Thank you!

[CENTER][b][size=+1]

The Real Truth about
Guns and Background
Checks[/b]

[u][url]http://backgroundchecks.org/#/[/url][/size][/u]



[NOPARSE]ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ![/NOPARSE][/CENTER]

Esten it's a waste of time discussing gun control with folks like you. The only reason I'll still bother is to expose your crap-o-rama.

First you totally missed the tongue –and-cheek humor of the "gun control" comment I made earlier, but then liberals just don't have a sense of humor.

Second I am trying to debunk popular references made by liberals to mislead the general non-shooting public about firearms. The liberal's and their allies in the press would have the general public believe folks are running around with machine guns the way they use "automatic" which is not the case. The liberal press pundits are not much better with political cartoons depicting quad-50's, Nike-Ajax missile launchers in the back of pickup trucks to hunt deer.

I know you are going have a fit and demand proof. Well here you go, Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette (D) and ardent gun control advocate has no idea what she is talking about.

[URL]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/04/denver-dem-has-akin-moment-on-guns/[/URL]

These are the folks who govern us? With Liberals it's all about feeling and not about facts.

If you had taken the time to check Mother Jones, a liberal rag if there ever was one, the split between the states that do report mental illness VS those that don't include a lot of blue states, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maryland, Rhode Island to name a few who don't report. So you don't have much of a "redneck" argument there, just typical Liberal hyperbole.

I really loved your link to CNN / Anderson Cooper. Now if someone does not seem "right" or when they speak the liberal listener believes that person is "not right" then by all means they should be denied access to firearms. Who needs a trained Psychologist or testing to determine mental capacity or trouble the courts for a judgment or bother with that trivial matter of DUE PROCESS? All we need is someone, anyone to determine they are "not right" for denial.

I wish the liberals would apply the same zeal and fervor to voting violations and illegal immigration as they do to "gun control".

Regarding you closing comment on background checks, again you miss the point completely, but me thinks on purpose. My point was the idea of forcing individual to individual sales to use a licensed dealer to background checks is unworkable due to the number of firearms in circulation. I said nothing about scraping background checks, just that this will not work no matter how much liberals dream about it.

Last but not least I direct your attention to Mexico whose gun laws make ours pale to near invisibility in comparison. They are having a literal war in the streets with the cartels. The cartels are now using true military grade "combat" hardware. A lot of good "gun control" has done there.

Criminals will always secure weapons; no law will prevent it as they do not follow the laws. Your mental illness argument is a red herring.

[QUOTE=Punter127;432938][CENTER][b]

The Real Truth about
Guns and Background
Checks[/b]

[u][url]http://backgroundchecks.org/#/[/url][/u]



[NOPARSE]ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ![/NOPARSE][/CENTER][/QUOTE]I didn't mean such a "sophisticate" background check.

Funny that we do need a background check to drive a car (driver license sort of background check right? But is ok not to have it for other things.

In the society we live in we are constantly checked. Driver license, Credit report, Insurances, Passport, etc. Why?, because no one trusts what we say so they need to have something to corroborate that we are a "nice people"able to meet the responsibilities whatever they may be.

[QUOTE=Caricoso;432935]Let's say that Mr. Right passed the background check, purchased a gun, keeps it why a safe place etc.

Few months after that, his wife divorces him, o he loses his job and goes bankrupt, or gets a bad news from his doctor who tells him he has some type of terminal disease.

Perhaps he reads too many bad news about politics, and starts getting angry about certain groups, minorities, government, etc.

Question: would a person in that state of mind have more propensity to commit and atrocity like the ones that happened at the schools, movie theatre and other places?

Do you think that those who committed these crimes could pass the background check before they acquire their weapons? Probably! Unless background check "also" includes some type of P.S.ychological test, but that is quite expensive and never 100% accurate.

So what type of "test" have to be created before a person purchases a semi-automatic? How often does he have to go through that test to make sure that he is ok every day?

Thank you![/QUOTE]Good points.

Nobody is saying a background check system will stop all gun violence. It is simply a common sense measure to make it more difficult for some groups of people (who shouldn't have guns) to get guns.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;432940]Esten it's a waste of time discussing gun control with folks like you. The only reason I'll still bother is to expose your crap-o-rama.[/QUOTE]Doppel joins the growing list of AP conservatives who repeat my words back at me, maybe switching just a word or two. Why do they do this? One can only surmise they get frustrated when their arguments are exposed as crap, and it's easier to copy someone else's words. I bet there is a correlation between watching Fox News and being unable to express original thoughts.

Sorry Doppel, I've already submitted 'crap-o-rama' to Webster, and your posts are part of the definition. An example I gave is when you insisted over and over that liberals were to blame for incomplete mental health record reporting. I did not argue the opposite, I pointed out there is no clear pattern of red vs blue states who do not require such reporting. Even the states with no federal or state reporting requirement are a mixed bag: Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Lousiana, Mississipi, South Carolina, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island. It looks like your original assertion that this was just a 'liberal' problem, has gone down in flames. That's what happens to crap.

Now if we do a better job of reporting mental health records, into a database that can be used in a background check, why would we still allow loopholes that let someone buy a gun without a background check?

Esten, not only are you unable to discern humor, you also fail to realize we are mocking you by the use of your own words. I have to say your inability to perceive these simple nuances never fails to elicit a smile.

It's a shame I had to direct you to Mother Jones for which states report to debunk your assumption this was a "red state" thing. I hope you noted Texas is a state which reports.

I did note you have failed to provide any linkage of more restrictive gun laws to reductions in crime involving firearms in the US. Look at Chicago, laws out the wazoo but more shootings / homicides than you can shake a stick at.

You also seem to wish to ignore our neighbor to the south which has had very restrictive laws on the books for years. Nor did you address the Liberal Democrat who has no idea what she is talking about but feels free to call for a ban on whatever it is.

Again, since I seem to be speaking to a post, I did not say to stop background checks. I said what is proposed is unworkable, just as Canada found out, due to the number of weapons already in circulation. That is unless you are ready to have the storm troopers invade everyone's home and place of business to determine if firearms are present, record the make model caliber and serial number of each weapon? Oh and don't forget to count the magazines.

Some schools already have arm guards.

Columbine and Virginia Tech school shootings, there were armed guards, but they weren't able to prevent those tragedies.

How about armed ushers in the theaters?

Armed bus drivers?

Armed guards at work?

Arm all places.

Strap your six guns on again; like the old days.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;432986]Some schools already have arm guards.

Columbine and Virginia Tech school shootings, there were armed guards, but they weren't able to prevent those tragedies.

How about armed ushers in the theaters?

Armed bus drivers?

Armed guards at work?

Arm all places.

Strap your six guns on again; like the old days.[/QUOTE]

And the cost of security will explode, and everything will be more costly, and the Cheneys of the world will make a fortune. It is a capitalism at it's best, the law of the free market is after all, the law of the jungle. The survival of the fittest

[i]Peggy Noonan, quoting Lee Kuan Yew, former prime minister of Singapore. When he took office as prime minister, in 1959, per capita income was about $400 per year. Last year it was more than $50,000.[/i]

And America goes the way of modern Europe at its peril: "If you follow the ideological direction of Europe, you are done for." There are always people who require help, but "addressing their needs must be done in a way that does not kill incentive."

"Americans and European governments believed that they could always afford to support the poor and the needy: widows, orphans, the old and homeless, disadvantaged minorities, unwed mothers. Their sociologists expounded the theory that hardship and failure were due...to flaws in the economic system. So charity became 'entitlement' and the stigma of living on charity disappeared." Welfare costs grew faster than the government's willingness to raise taxes. They "took the easy way out by borrowing to give higher benefits to the current generation of voters." The result: deficits and dangerously high public debt.

I'm putting Doppel on ignore for awhile.

Regarding the discussion on what states report mental health records, he originally claimed this was a 'liberal' problem. I twice stated it's not really a red or blue issue, but still in his last post he claims I assume it's a "red state" issue. Either he is dumb as a rock, or up to tomfoolery.

He also continues to obfuscate the discussion about background checks and Canada's gun registry effort. They are different things, and I explained this before. By continuing to repeat this, I can only conclude he is willingly trying to deceive.

The most important lesson from Chicago is that we need stricter, nation-wide gun laws. Surrounding areas within Illinois, and nearby states, have looser gun laws, so it's easy to get guns to criminals in Chicago. Yes it's actually that simple, which makes it remarkable that the gun lovers think Chicago is a good argument against more gun control.

Where Chicago's Guns Come From
[URL]http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/08/where-chicagos-guns-come/3090/[/URL]

Is this what we want?

[URL]http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/GCA_68.htm[/URL]

Is this what we need?

TL.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;432990][i]Peggy Noonan, quoting Lee Kuan Yew, former prime minister of Singapore. When he took office as prime minister, in 1959, per capita income was about $400 per year. Last year it was more than $50,000.[/i]

And America goes the way of modern Europe at its peril: "If you follow the ideological direction of Europe, you are done for." There are always people who require help, but "addressing their needs must be done in a way that does not kill incentive."

"Americans and European governments believed that they could always afford to support the poor and the needy: widows, orphans, the old and homeless, disadvantaged minorities, unwed mothers. Their sociologists expounded the theory that hardship and failure were due...to flaws in the economic system. So charity became 'entitlement' and the stigma of living on charity disappeared." Welfare costs grew faster than the government's willingness to raise taxes. They "took the easy way out by borrowing to give higher benefits to the current generation of voters." The result: deficits and dangerously high public debt.[/QUOTE]"For what is a man profited, if he gain the whole world, and loses his own soul".

Growing up in Singapore, penniless, searching for bottles for redemption so as to be able to watch soccer in the standing terraces. Then a leisurely stroll through the red light district, getting chided by the girls for window-shopping. And now, the only free pleasure left in Singapore is to fart.

Don't cry when you visit Singapore, you have been warned.

[QUOTE=Esten;432991]I'm putting Doppel on ignore for a while][/QUOTE]Does anyone wonder why AP is now the 2-4 posts a day board it has now become. Members brag about who they have now put on ignore. Although many who boast about who they ignore, they suddenly appear commenting on those that they claim to be ignoring! Is this what we have become? Why do we behave in this manner? If you don't like the dialoug then stop posting. Why announce you are now putting whoever on ignore. What does this accomplish? If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Does anyone wonder why the board is at an all time low when it comes to posting? Years ago, no one used the "I am putting you on ignore" statement. We have become an ugly people I am afraid. Unlike the local board, the anti-price police have now discouraged anyone from posting the basics (price, service, quality). Now on the political thread, that used to be at least a free exchange of diametrically opposed positions, we are now ignoring those that we can no longer legitimately debate! WTF! I am not singling you out Esten, but when where your sensibilities so easily offended. We have become an ugly people and sadly it is ever so obvious for all to see. Toymann Out.

Esten like Obama believe it's their way or the highway. They know they are "right" but are unable to provide any evidence their programs work. Placing someone on the "ignore" list is tantamount to the childish conduct of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "I can't hear you" or "Na Na Na Na".

The solution the Liberals want is more "background checks" expanded to include gun shows and internet purchases which are problematic at best when it comes to enforcement. You might want to know the licensed dealers at the gun shows are already required to and do run background checks, what we are dealing with here are the individuals selling and trading weapons. The requirement for citizen to citizen sales to also fall under this law is simply unenforceable due to the number of weapons already in the hands of private citizens. What is the point in attempting to pass a law that is unenforceable? Can anyone say Prohibition?

As I pointed out in my earlier post the only possible way this scheme could work is for every weapon in every home, business or other location be registered by make, model, caliber and serial number which is simply not possible. I alluded to Canada's attempt to do that very thing with a much smaller population and it was a total failure.

I did enjoy reading Esten's link to why Chicago has so many gun laws but they have failed to reduce the murder rate. The duel excuses are it's not their fault because the criminals are getting their guns outside of Chicago and based on excuse number one you need to make the law national to make it work. The one thing I did notice about the article was it only cited the origin of the weapon and not if the weapon was stolen or the crime committed by the original owner. I think those would be important things to know.

If gun control laws worked, why is there a war in Mexico between the government and cartels?