Printable View
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;435232][b]We Don't Need Gun Control![/b]
[URL]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/dunkin-donuts-worker-pistol-whipped-botched-coffee-order-article-1.1433962[/URL]
[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MvQlN1MhmE[/URL]
The wife was yelling Shoot Him.[/QUOTE]Which of the gun control laws would have prevented this crime?
Gun control is best learned at the range.
[QUOTE][QUOTE=Esten;435217]According to Wikipedia there is no record that Lenin ever used that term. But I'm pretty sure the term has been used by at least a few wealthy gun company executives, who profit from the delusions of those who peg their individual freedom to the ability to buy a gun without a background check.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;435219]Esten, what drivel! From your post you leave the impression there are no background checks in place which you know is not the case.
Dealers have been doing background checks for years now. Just another liberal attempt to obscure / ignore the facts to further your own agenda.
As far as gun makers go, please continue to persecute them on the east and left coast. We would love to have them move to Texas, a non union at will state.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]Doppelganger is absolutely correct, Esten is using a tactic that's designed to attract low information voters to his side of the argument.
Now he follows with this little jewel:
[QUOTE=Esten;435228]Gun industry profits from scaring people
The gun control issue has always been about freedom, for gun owners. They equate a significant sense of their freedom with their ability to own a gun.
The Senate vote earlier this year did not impede this freedom, it merely closed loopholes that allowed people to purchase a gun without a background check. Nevertheless, there was a big outcry from the gun lobby and many gun owners over this. The rallying cry was their freedoms were at stake.
In other words, with the help of the gun lobby, many gun owners saw the Senate vote to expand background checks as an attack on their freedom.[/QUOTE]The gun industry may profit from peoples fear, but Obama has been the source of that fear. Esten is always writing about background checks but what he fails to mention is expanded background checks was just one amendment to the Democrats' gun control bill. There were several other amendments two of which had [B]already passed before Harry Reid Pulled the bill:[/B] "One that would deter states from publishing lists of gun owners and a bipartisan plan to bolster federal funding for mental health efforts, including suicide prevention programs." Why didn't Harry Reid let the bill continue on?
Think about it the Democrats stopped an [B]already passed bipartisan plan[/B] to bolster federal funding for mental health efforts, including suicide prevention programs. Does anybody think the people involved in mass shootings might have mental health problems? Apparently it's not very important to Democrats.
A Sanity test might help.
[QUOTE=Punter127;435234]Which of the gun control laws would have prevented this crime?
Gun control is best learned at the range.[/QUOTE]
Read my question again.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;435239]A Sanity test might help.[/QUOTE]Funny, I don't remember seeing any proposed gun legislation calling for "Sanity" testing, maybe you could tell us who introduced that bill or a bill number?
I do remember a passed bipartisan plan to bolster federal funding for mental health efforts, including suicide prevention programs. But Harry Reid stepped on that.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;435239]A Sanity test might help.[/QUOTE]WT I'm going to cut you some slack here because you actually hit on something that we have some agreement on, although I'm sure it was by accident on your part. In January Obama issued a list of executive actions (not the same thing as executive orders) directed at the problem of mass shootings by madmen. Much of the list had little if anything to do with mass shootings. But several of the listed actions call for the legitimate goal of trying to prevent dangerously mentally ill people from obtaining firearms. In response the USA Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has called for public comments as part of their plan to revise federal law to improve reporting of people with the so-called "mental health prohibitor" of gun ownership.
Now here's the important part, the HHS Proposed Rule document notes, [u]federal law already prohibits[/u] those persons from possessing or receiving a firearm who:
1) have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.
2) have been found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity.
3) otherwise have been determined, through a formal adjudication process, to have a severe mental condition that results in the individuals presenting a danger to themselves or others or being incapable of managing their own affairs.
I do not support banning some guns from everybody, but I do support banning all guns from criminals and the insane. The idea that keeping a madman from getting an AR15 but allowing him to have a shotgun is itself insane.
Now I'm off to the Gun Show, I'll report back.
[QUOTE=Punter127;435235]Esten is using a tactic that's designed to attract low information voters to his side of the argument.[/QUOTE]
Leave it to an NRA apologist to call facts "tactics". It is a fact that the gun lobby used fear (of losing freedom) to mislead and manipulate the discussion on gun control legislation earlier this year.
[QUOTE]The gun industry may profit from peoples fear, but Obama has been the source of that fear. [/QUOTE]
So when the gun lobby lied about the legislation creating a national gun registry, that was Obama's fault I suppose.
[QUOTE]Esten is always writing about background checks but what he fails to mention is expanded background checks was just one amendment to the Democrats' gun control bill. There were several other amendments two of which had [B]already passed before Harry Reid Pulled the bill:[/B] "One that would deter states from publishing lists of gun owners and a bipartisan plan to bolster federal funding for mental health efforts, including suicide prevention programs." Why didn't Harry Reid let the bill continue on?[/QUOTE]
Punter knows very well, Reid strategically voted against the legislation and pulled it when the background check amendment didn't get 60 votes, so he could bring it to the floor again in the future and get the background check legislation passed. More funding for mental health efforts is good, and would be supported along with expanding background checks. On it's own, it's pretty much a deflection to spare gun owners from having to do anything. Why spend taxpayer money on mental health funding, in the hopes of preventing crazy people from killing, but in the meantime still leave open loopholes that allow them to buy a gun without a background check? It doesn't make any sense.
[QUOTE=Punter127;435245]I do not support banning some guns from everybody, but I do support banning all guns from criminals and the insane. The idea that keeping a madman from getting an AR15 but allowing him to have a shotgun is itself insane.[/QUOTE]
So why the continued resistance to expanding background checks, that 90% of Americans supported ?
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;435239]A Sanity test might help.[/QUOTE]Very dangerous, it's possible that more than 50 per cent might fail the test.
[QUOTE=Esten;435247]Leave it to an NRA apologist to call facts "tactics". It is a fact that the gun lobby used fear (of losing freedom) to mislead and manipulate the discussion on gun control legislation earlier this year.
[/QUOTE]As if the left didn't use fear and emotion to try and get said legislation passed.
What's sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.
[QUOTE=Esten;435247]So when the gun lobby lied about the legislation creating a national gun registry, that was Obama's fault I suppose. [/QUOTE]I don't speak for the gun lobby, but I will provide some thoughts that may enable the readers to surmise why someone would say something like that. But before I do I want to point out that you yourself are not exactly standing on any moral high ground of truthfulness, nor does Obama!
[QUOTE=Esten;435247]Punter knows very well, Reid strategically voted against the legislation and pulled it when the background check amendment didn't get 60 votes, so he could bring it to the floor again in the future and get the background check legislation passed.[/QUOTE]Please don't speak for me, I don't know any such thing. To my knowledge there is no double jeopardy rule here, they can reintroduce carbon copy legislation at anytime, and Reid can get it to the floor for a vote.
[QUOTE=Esten;435247]More funding for mental health efforts is good, and would be supported along with expanding background checks. On it's own, it's pretty much a deflection to spare gun owners from having to do anything. Why spend taxpayer money on mental health funding, in the hopes of preventing crazy people from killing, but in the meantime still leave open loopholes that allow them to buy a gun without a background check? It doesn't make any sense.
[/QUOTE]Approximately eighty percent of all gun sale are covered by the current background check system. (the exact number is unknown) So lets see if I understand you, it makes sense to spend taxpayer money to cover twenty percent or less of gun sale with background checks, which most experts say will have very little effect on crime. But it doesn't make sense to spend taxpayer money for mental health funding for eighty percent of gun sales.
That's just tripe!
[QUOTE=Esten;435247]So why the continued resistance to expanding background checks, that 90% of Americans supported ?[/QUOTE]I'm glad you put that in past tense. The way the current background check system works the buyer fills out form 4473 and the dealers enters that form into the NICS, and then the sale's approved or denied, the government is required to destroy their copy of the form the next day, but the dealer must keep up to 20 years of records on gun purchases. The ATF can--and often does--check those records whenever they want with regular and surprise visits. They can come in, look at those records, and figure out who has and hasn't purchased a gun during the last 20 years, that is a de facto registry.
How would expanded checks be enforced, how would the government know that I'm not selling a gun to my neighbor nor is my neighbor selling a gun to me without a gun registry? They have to know where the guns are to make it work.
Other problems with expanded background checks is only dealers have access to NICS and I didn't see any provision to require dealers run checks for individual sales nor do I see any incentive for the dealer. I also didn't see any provision to allow access to the system by individuals. This would kill secondary gun sales and eventually allow the government to know where every gun is sitting and where every gun owner lives. And that appears to be the end game.
It is currently illegal to knowingly sell a gun to someone who can't legally own a gun. I would support opening NICS to individuals on a voluntary bases so sellers can verify that buyers are legally able to buy a gun, as it stands now individuals can't run a check even if they want to.
Reid can't bring a new bill to the floor, without overcoming a virtually-gauranteed Republican filibuster. You remember the big flap over this last time. Most Republican senators voted against even allowing a debate and vote. So, any pretense that Republicans were ever serious about reducing gun violence is largely false. No doubt, Reid knows the calculus, and believes that for some Republican senators, a vote on background checks is going to be less politically risky than a vote to bring gun control legislation to the floor a second time.
Don't forget the expanded background checks were to prevent both criminals and the mentally unstable from being able to purchase guns. Yet somehow, a small minority of people (and their lobby) have endless excuses to justify keeping loopholes that facilitate this. For example, "But it's only 20% of gun sales". How about, it's 100% of the sales where criminals and the mentally unstable purchase guns directly?! Certainly, expanded background checks won't put a complete stop to guns getting into the wrong hands. But the data shows it is an effective measure to reduce the occurence. And BTW, opening NICS to individual sellers on a voluntary basis has questionable merit, because the data also shows that most private sellers will agree to sell guns to people who say they can't pass a background check. The background check has to be mandatory, and enforced.
The NRA counter proposals only exist as a facade to fool people into thinking they care. And here's what they all have in common: [U][b]They all maintain or expand gun sales.[/b][/U]
[QUOTE=Esten;435266] And BTW, opening NICS to individual sellers on a voluntary basis has questionable merit, because the data also shows that most private sellers will agree to sell guns to people who say they can't pass a background check.[/QUOTE]What planet did you get this fantasy from?
Tres3.
It is so hard to Laugh about this Congress.
Looking on Ranker web site I was very surprised that President Obama only ranks 19th in the list of all time great American presidents.
[URL]http://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-u-s-presidents-from-best-to-worst[/URL]
President Obama has unveiled a plan to address gun violence in the nation. The initiative consists of 23 executive actions and three presidential memoranda, most of which will require congressional approval.
Obama has also tackled many other difficult issues.
[URL]http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php?page=all[/URL]
These have been exceptionally difficult times during his presidency but he has shown tremendous leadership skills.
I feel in time Mr Obama will go down as one of Americas greatest presidents surely making the top 3 list.
I hope that was sarcasm.
[QUOTE=FlexibleHorn;435281] I feel in time Mr Obama will go down as one of Americas greatest presidents surely making the top 3 list.[/QUOTE]Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! HaHa!
[QUOTE=Tiny12;435285]Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! HaHa![/QUOTE]In other words, "before criticizing someone, walk a mile in his shoes".
But go ahead, laugh all you can. Life is short.
This is the one that made me laugh.
[QUOTE=FlexibleHorn;435281]...but he has shown tremendous leadership skills.[/QUOTE]
For sure the greatest in increasing national debt! Blows Reagan / Bush right out of the water!
[QUOTE=FlexibleHorn;435281]Looking on Ranker web site I was very surprised that President Obama only ranks 19th in the list of all time great American presidents.
[URL]http://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-u-s-presidents-from-best-to-worst[/URL]
President Obama has unveiled a plan to address gun violence in the nation. The initiative consists of 23 executive actions and three presidential memoranda, most of which will require congressional approval.
Obama has also tackled many other difficult issues.
[URL]http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php?page=all[/URL]
These have been exceptionally difficult times during his presidency but he has shown tremendous leadership skills.
I feel in time Mr Obama will go down as one of Americas greatest presidents surely making the top 3 list.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;435288]In other words, "before criticizing someone, walk a mile in his shoes".
But go ahead, laugh all you can. Life is short.[/QUOTE]I would love to but I don't think I could play that much golf, take that many vacations (even if it is on the tax payer's dime), or play small ball to the point the USA became the laughing stock of the civilized world.
[QUOTE=Tres3;435269]Did You Make That Up?[/QUOTE]
New York City Undercover Investigation: Most Private Sellers Agreed To Sell Firearm To Someone Who Said They Couldn't Pass A Background Check. In an investigation of 10 websites in 14 states that allow unlicensed sellers to list firearms for sale, undercover investigators working for the City of New York found that 77 out of 125 sellers agreed to go forward with a firearm sale after the purchaser said that he could not pass a background check. [CityofNewYork,December2011]
http://www.mediamatters.org/mobile/research/2013/04/11/seven-media-myths-about-the-gun-background-chec/193588
See Tres, unlike you (in the Zimmerman thread), I can back up what I post when asked.
[QUOTE=FlexibleHorn;435281]Looking on Ranker web site I was very surprised that President Obama only ranks 19th in the list of all time great American presidents.
[URL]http://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-u-s-presidents-from-best-to-worst[/URL]
President Obama has unveiled a plan to address gun violence in the nation. The initiative consists of 23 executive actions and three presidential memoranda, most of which will require congressional approval.
Obama has also tackled many other difficult issues.
[URL]http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php?page=all[/URL]
These have been exceptionally difficult times during his presidency but he has shown tremendous leadership skills.
I feel in time Mr Obama will go down as one of Americas greatest presidents surely making the top 3 list.[/QUOTE]Come visit your many Brit brothers in Bangkok and I'll buy you a beer or ten. Cheers!
[QUOTE=Esten;435295]New York City Undercover Investigation: Most Private Sellers Agreed To Sell Firearm To Someone Who Said They Couldn't Pass A Background Check. In an investigation of 10 websites in 14 states that allow unlicensed sellers to list firearms for sale, undercover investigators working for the City of New York found that 77 out of 125 sellers agreed to go forward with a firearm sale after the purchaser said that he could not pass a background check. [CityofNewYork,December2011]
http://www.mediamatters.org/mobile/research/2013/04/11/seven-media-myths-about-the-gun-background-chec/193588
See Tres, unlike you (in the Zimmerman thread), I can back up what I post when asked.[/QUOTE]
There are over twelve MILLION people living in the New York metropolitan area and you are trying to prove a point by citing a single undercover sting operation involving 125 individuals that was reported by a questionable media source. Give us all a break and just go away. BTW if you read the Zimmerman thread carefully, you will find that I never purported to give factual information. All I said, many times over, was that Zimmerman was stupid, and I will stand by that opinion.
It is past your bedtime little boy. You should stop trying to play with grown ups.
Tres3
[QUOTE=FlexibleHorn;435281]
I feel in time Mr Obama will go down as one of Americas greatest presidents surely making the top 3 list.[/QUOTE]This from a Brit who claims England gave America independence out of the kindness of their heart, and England bailed the United States out in WW II.
Now Esten thanked him, you got to love that. [U]Birds[/U] of a feather and all that I guess. ROFLMAO.
I would say Obama has leadership abilities similar to those of the Pied Piper, he has led millions of Americans down the garden path.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;435292]I would love to but I don't think I could play that much golf, take that many vacations (even if it is on the tax payer's dime), or play small ball to the point the USA became the laughing stock of the civilized world.[/QUOTE]Another witty comment from a conservative living in the Fox News bubble, repeating what he hears in the right wing media, where the laughing stock line is now making the rounds. Like Tres, don't expect Doppel to post any real data to back up his claim. Donald Trump was using that line recently too. BTW, Trump is now being sued by the NY AG for fraud.
[QUOTE=Tres3;435298]There are over twelve MILLION people living in the New York metropolitan area and you are trying to prove a point by citing a single undercover sting operation involving 125 individuals that was reported by a questionable media source. Give us all a break and just go away. BTW if you read the Zimmerman thread carefully, you will find that I never purported to give factual information. All I said, many times over, was that Zimmerman was stupid, and I will stand by that opinion.
It is past your bedtime little boy. You should stop trying to play with grown ups.[/QUOTE]I'm good. But it might be past your bedtime, old man. You're confused. In the Zimmerman thread a few days ago you claimed NY was not enforcing gun laws. I asked you to share some data on this. You did not.
[QUOTE=Esten;435266]Reid can't bring a new bill to the floor, without overcoming a virtually-gauranteed Republican filibuster. You remember the big flap over this last time. Most Republican senators voted against even allowing a debate and vote. So, any pretense that Republicans were ever serious about reducing gun violence is largely false. No doubt, Reid knows the calculus, and believes that for some Republican senators, a vote on background checks is going to be less politically risky than a vote to bring gun control legislation to the floor a second time. [/quote] Sounds more like a kid who says “I'll just take my ball and go home”, and wait for the next crisis.
[QUOTE=Esten;435266]Certainly, expanded background checks won't put a complete stop to guns getting into the wrong hands. But the data shows it is an effective measure to reduce the occurence. And BTW, opening NICS to individual sellers on a voluntary basis has questionable merit, because the data also shows that most private sellers will agree to sell guns to people who say they can't pass a background check. The background check has to be mandatory, and enforced. [snip][/quote]I listed legitimate concerns and ask legitimate questions, you responded with gibberish and failed to answer how the checks would be enforced without a registry. The data from media matters is hardly scientific research and is therefore irrelevant. But if those people really did agree to sell a gun to someone who couldn't pass a background check they would be in violation of current law if they made said sale.
BTW Gun Prosecutions Down 40% During Obama Presidency
[url]http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/18/Obama-s-Hypocrisy-Gun-Prosecutions-Down-40-During-His-Presidency[/url]
[B]We should stand down in Syria.[/B]
"Remember, we went into Iraq based on the information we were getting about weapons of mass destruction. We better be sure who's using these weapons in Syria. Is it Assad or is it the rebels who, in fact, would love to have America come in? Remember, the rebels were being beaten back by Bashar Assad. So what reason would he have to use chemical weapons?
The United States should also be skeptical of Russian President Vladimir Putin and his involvement in the Syrian conflict.
"Putin is the puppet master in all of this and, so far, he's outdone the president of the United States at every turn.
I condemn all use of chemical weapons and the situation in Syria is very upsetting, but I just don't see how it's an American interest. We should not get involved militarily. We are not the world police and what will be gained by an attack by the US, it may well make things worse. I'm one of the first to make the call to arms if threatened but I don't see the threat to the USA, and this is just not our fight. We should stand down. IMHO.
[QUOTE=Punter127;435299]This from a Brit[/QUOTE]Sir If I may just correct you...I'm English.
[QUOTE=FlexibleHorn;435308]Sir If I may just correct you...I'm English.[/QUOTE]I stand corrected. LOL.
[QUOTE=Esten;435302]I'm good. But it might be past your bedtime, old man. You're confused. In the Zimmerman thread a few days ago you claimed NY was not enforcing gun laws. I asked you to share some data on this. You did not.[/QUOTE]Most sensible people with a modicum of common sense know that our prisons and jails would be filled to overflowing if the anti gun laws already on the books were enforced.
Tres3.
Well I see our ball-less leader is still dithering over Syria.
If Obamanation was going to do anything he should have launched the air strikes three years ago when this was first cranking up and before all the radical's moved into the theater. Back when it was just the Syrians involved in the civil war.
No couldn't do that, instead the Obamanation amid all the hand wringing and platitudes about civilians had to shoot off his month about "red lines" and chemical weapons and now he feels like he has to do something a year after it was confirmed Sarin was used by the regime.
At this point our enemies are killing each other, Hezbollah vs Al Qaeda, so how is this a bad thing?
Tossing a few cruise missiles is not going to change the equation and I think everyone has had enough boots on the ground in the Middle East for a while unless there was a direct threat to the US and we intended to keep what we kill for a change.
If the Obamanation feels he needs to do something then I have two words for him – tactical nuke. While he is at it, since Iran want's nukes so bad why not drop off a few we are about to decommission and save the money we would spend to dismantle them? That would sure make Iran a quiet corner of the Middle East for about 5,000 years.
[QUOTE=Tres3;435319]Most sensible people with a modicum of common sense know that our prisons and jails would be filled to overflowing if the anti gun laws already on the books were enforced.
Tres3.[/QUOTE]There's an easy solution for that problem: Just release everyone who is doing time for possession of recreational substances.
[B]In Stunning Move UK Parliament Rejects Syria Military Strike, Obama "Willing To Go It Alone"[/B]
"Moments ago the UK House of Commons, in a razor thin vote, rejected the Cameron proposal for military action in Syria with a vote 285 to 272. Cameron promptly said he would respect the will of the House of Commons and UK Defense Secretary Phillip Hammond confirmed there would be no UK military intervention in Syria."
[URL]http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-29/uk-rejects-syria-military-strike-obama-willing-go-it-alone[/URL]
Looks like the Brits figured it out.
[QUOTE=Jackson;435321]There's an easy solution for that problem: Just release everyone who is doing time for possession of recreational substances.[/QUOTE][URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/eric-holder-marijuana-washington-colorado-doj_n_3837034.html[/URL]
Syria?
If it wasn't for the crickets the silence of the leftwing members of this forum would be deafening.
Where are you Blackshirt and WT69?
[QUOTE=DaddyRulz;435326][URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/eric-holder-marijuana-washington-colorado-doj_n_3837034.html[/URL][/QUOTE]That's the 2nd thing in 6 years that Obama has done right.
[QUOTE=Jackson;435333]That's the 2nd thing in 6 years that Obama has done right.[/QUOTE]Also good was at the beginning of the administration there was a rescue of Americans being held by pirates, snipers took the pirates out by sniper fire...Great job!
[QUOTE=Punter127;435332]Syria?
If it wasn't for the crickets the silence of the leftwing members of this forum would be deafening.
Where are you Blackshirt and WT69?[/QUOTE]Been on the island of Gili Asahan, no tv, no wifi, no bullshit. Just white powder sand, clear waters, some goats and cows. Crowing is not befitting you. Nobody is always right, and nobody is always wrong.
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;435340] Crowing is not befitting you. Nobody is always right, and nobody is always wrong.[/QUOTE]No "crowing" here. And you're right as Jackson and Silver Star have pointed out even Obama has been right a few times. I just find it very strange that nobody on the left has voiced an opinion on the very serious Syria situation, why do you suppose that is?
Have a safe flight.
[QUOTE=SilverStar;435338]Also good was at the beginning of the administration there was a rescue of Americans being held by pirates, snipers took the pirates out by sniper fire...Great job![/QUOTE]The Navy Seals did that, not Obama.
I am not struggling with my position on this.
We must confirm Assad used chemical weapons, with convincing evidence. Assuming this is the case, we [U]must[/U] do something. What that is, I'll leave to the experts, and it obviously needs to be thought through carefully.
I see several reasons. Chemical weapons are sickening and to stand by while a dictator uses them on his own people, is unacceptable for someone who can do something about it (like the US or UK). The UK decision is going to cause a lot of division in that country, and don't be surprised if it gets revisited (the vote was close, 272 to 285). If you are able to act and do not, you have basically said "I'm OK with mass murder by chemical weapons". The UK's shame will be multiplied if France joins the US. A secondary reason is Obama's statement about the red line. US credibility will be diminished if we do not act, and the Assad and other regimes may take this as license to expand use of chemical weapons.
Of course it all hinges on the credibility of the evidence.