E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
The National Rifle Association's Wayne LaPierre railed Friday against "elites," whom he accused of harboring a secret agenda of creating a registry of gun owners across the country.
LaPierre, a top official for the gun-rights lobby, forcefully attacked the Obama administration, Democratic lawmakers and the media during an address before the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). He ridiculed proponents of stricter gun controls, and won repeated cheers from the conservative activists in the audience for his defense of Second Amendment rights.
National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre addresses the Conservative Political Action Conference, telling audience members, "They can call me crazy...but NRA's nearly 5 million members ... will not back down, not ever. I promise you that."
And LaPierre used his speech to slam a proposal before Congress to require background checks for all firearms transactions, a law that has won some new support in the wake of the deadly December shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.
"You know what's really absurd? Not protecting our children in school," he said, repeating his call for funding armed guards in every school in America. "Here's what the political elites offer instead: a placebo called universal background checks."
LaPierre said the background checks would set the stage for universal gun registration.
"It's the real goal they've been pushing for decades," he said.
LaPierre sought to set up the battle over gun control as a battle between "elites" — a word he used repeatedly — who view gun owners as "crazy," another term the NRA executive used repeatedly in reference to himself, and how media had characterized him.
And he stoked fears that universal background checks would lead to newspapers publishing the names and addresses of gun owners, so that "gangs and criminals" or the Mexican and Chinese governments could access them.
LaPierre also mocked the Obama administration and Vice President Joe Biden for his suggestion that a warning shot could ward off an intruder.
"The vice president of the United States actually told women, facing an attack, to actually empty their shotguns in the air. Honestly, have they lost their minds over at the White House?" LaPierre said to wild applause.
Leave a Comment:
Naaaaah.......
Why would the lefty liberal Dems want a list of people that own guns??
Motor vehicles licenses are registered on a national register, with very good reasons.
It is even more critical that GUNS be registered.
91% of the people in this country support background checks but the GOP only listen to LaPierre. They take their orders from the likes of him and Grover. When do they ever get back to representing their constituents? And do they even CARE?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/03/12/National-Politics/Polling/release_217.xml
Why are the rwnjs so afraid of having their name on a list? I thought they were proud supporters of 2nd Amendment rights?
If owning a gun truly deters crime, why not have it on a published list so criminals choose another house?
I think Republicans are afraid to admit that homes with guns in them are actually targeted for burglaries BECAUSE they have guns in them.
And why is Joe so paranoid?
Nice to know that CPAC included 'Wacky Wayne' on their speaker list; with the mixed and non-messages coming out of their other speakers, they needed somebody to speak to their 'base'....
Will people getting background checks have to show a govt approved photo ID??
If the have to show a govt approved photo ID to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment, why shouldn't they have to show a govt approved photo ID to exercise a right that isn't even included in the Constitution, like the "right" to vote??
Why don't you use your real name and address on the Internet when you post?
Are you not a proud supporter of the first amendment?
Why are conservatives so afraid of having their names on a list? Because that is the first step in the confiscation of firearms.
Most dictatorships first sensor the flow of information to the public, then they disarm their citizenry then it's "game over." And, TNSEVOL, since you want to characterize those who do not share your opinion in the matter as "rwnjs" I guess I'll just call you a "Libritard."
LaPierre's solution: "You know what's really absurd? Not protecting our children in school," he said, repeating his call for funding armed guards in every school in America."
This nutcase wants our tax dollars to put armed guards in all of our schools to protect our children from the guns he advocates for. How many armed guards per school do we need anyway? Three, four, maybe five armed guards for the bigger highs schools?
This nutcase wants to turn our country into a police state rather than solve the problem with gun violence.
At some point, our right to live in a free (and safe) country needs to outweigh the rights of these nutcases advocating for unrestricted gun ownership.
Duh, people are just figuring this out? This was Obama's goal all along because gun registration is a necessary precursor to confiscation, which is Obama's final solution.
So having to register a gun is a bad thing? At the very least, these weapons of mass destruction such as those used in the school shootings should be registered and if a ban on extended magazines don't go through those should be registered so that these so called "law abiding citizens" can be held accountable for any crime they commit.
Joe in Albany
Probably to come and take them.
Just like they came and took my car last week. Darned government.
They can put my name on the list. Whatever. I don't care. We've already found out that if they publish it, that's going to have a similar reaction to when the Journal News in NY did it.
Go ahead, post my name online and what I'm carrying, do it to everyone. But be prepared for the same thing to happen to those who did it previously. Makes me wonder if the Journal News still has that additional security at their building, or if the Editor's personal information and information about their children is still online.
Actions have consequences.
@backhouse; Automobiles are not covered in the bill of rights, the right to bear arms is!
All I know is that armed guards did nothing to stop Columbine or Virginia Tech.
Ho hum, another day, another dozen whackjobs spouting b.s. at CPAC.
Here is a novel idea. Do a background check on Obama! How about voter I.D.'s? All the Liberals want to do is control the masses for their own agenda. I say kiss my a$$. They are nothing but walking billboards of hypocrisy. Once this happens, kiss all your rights goodbye. My Guns, My Rights, My Freedom!
The gun rights advocates are really a strange breed!
Regulate a woman and her reproductive rights but regulate guns.....Oh, no!...Constitution, constitution, constitution rights for guns......ignore the womans constitutional rights.......
Okay, so now a semi-automatic rifle is considered a weapon of mass destruction? Then in that case, why is everyone so mad at George Bush? We DID find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
The constitution protects the right to bear arms, and legal definition of arms is anything carried by a light infantryman. So basically, an M-16. No bazookas or SAWs or other machine guns. Not even the 100 round clips. But everyone instead panics and takes it to the extreme. I personally subscribe to Benjamin Franklin's saying that if you give up liberty for security, soon you'll have neither. A national database of those legally allowed to carry, I'm fine with. But tracking who actually owns is a line crossing over towards a police state.
Those guns aren't stemming the steady erosion of our rights as perpetrated by both parties. When are the guns going to stop the erosion of our rights?
I have to register to vote, register my car, I have to register to enter the hospital ( non-emergency), one has to register for almost all you do, by the way to even get grocery store discount cards you have to register. What the heck is the problem with registering a gun?
Wayne LaPierre received a draft deferment during the Vietnam War because he is mentally unstable. That fact goes a long way to explain the insane policies of the NRA and to explain the sort of people who are attracted to the group, doesn't it?
Joe in Albany
Naaaaah.......
"Why would the lefty liberal Dems want a list of people that own guns??"
I dunno... Why would butt-munch reich-wing scaredy-voters want to force everyone they fear to present photo ID's in order to exercise their right to vote?... Simp.
From your link...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/03/12/National-Politics/Polling/release_217.xml
jmalmstrom
"And why is Joe so paranoid?"
Because he's a nut-job, like LaPierre (Pepe le pew). He actually doesn't know what side of what he's on anyway... He's pretty much delusional. I wish the staff would limit his time at the keyboard so we could hear from some of the other patients now and then.
How do you conspiracy theorists sleep at night? Maybe you don't and, therefore, that explains the "kristallnacht" theory about a gun registry and the "repeal of the 2nd amendment" BS being pushed by the Right wing noise machines (Faux, Rush, Glenn, Bill, Ann, Shawn, drudge, etc.).
Mr. Pierre, who exactly are these "elites" you speak of? Are the gun manufacturers whom you and the NRA are beholden to (not gun owners) not elites? What say you Mr. "I'm too insane to serve my country in Vietnam but sane enough to represent a gun manufacturers lobby group"?
Wayne LaPierre is a proud gun owner who wants to keep his gun ownership a secret. I'm sure that somehow makes sense to a guy who does not make sense.
All voters must be registered (it's a law)...and yet the republicons are also pushing for Voter ID cards.
But guns to be registered??? No freakin' way!!!
See any hypocrisy there at all? Anyone???
Wayne LaPierre must be afraid that someone might find out that some of his "law abiding citizen" NRA members are straw purchasing firearms for drug traffickers, gang members, mass murderers and other criminals or selling firearms to others without a background check.
Through lobbying in Congress to weaken the ATF's enforcement capabilities and blocking the confirmation of the head of ATF, Wayne LaPierre and the NRA have contributed to the firearm murder rate in this country. This is the next logical step to weaken gun law enforcement in the interest of the gun manufacturers' profits.
I have a issue for both sides of the gun registration issue. When a background check is submitted, NICS is given the make, model, and serial number of the firearm. Since NICS is supposed to destroy any information given to it during the background check after 24 hours, why do they need the make, model, and serial number of the firearm if it is a new firearm being purchased from a gun dealer? If the information is being destroyed after 24 hours it makes no sense. However, if it is secretly being compiled by NICS, or some other unknown agency and placed in a registry for later use, then it amounts to an illegal act that potentially makes gun owners subject to confiscation at a later date if declared.
I am against gun registration given the socialistic direction that the current government is displaying. Feinstein has already set into motion legislation that has spured laws and proposed laws that require citizens to remove guns from their homes or requires that they be destroyed upon the death of the owner. That raises many, as yet, unaddressed legal issues pertaining to wills and estates. In fact, allowing the Feinstein legislation to become laws sets up precedent for the government to require citizens to divest themselves of many items in the future.
Oh and by the way, the White House has stated that the Feinstein legislation would not remove guns from lawful citizens. Remember when the White House stated that Obamacare was not a tax, or that citizens would be able to keep their present insurance coverage? This administration can not be trusted to present factual statements and be trusted. It has become quite transparent what the real agenda is and it isn't good for the country.
Ha, ha, ha, LMAO! LaPierre struggling to stay relevant and keep that million dollar NRA salary moving. One day the NRA will realize he is the best asset the anti-gun side has and he is a liability and not helping the NRA argument.
And as many tpeople keep telling us, and as al-Qaeda has already proven, automobiles can be used as weapons. Which means that yes, they are covered under the 2nd Amendment.
BelowAverageJoe
What kind of bonehead believes that the first action of a "Socialist" President is to help bail out the financial institutions and rescue the auto companies from bankruptcy ...... they ensure that those companies remain public corporations .... not government entities.
How does four years with a "Socialist" President lead to record profits for corporations and a record stock market.
The Supreme Court, which is the body that ruled that "ObamaCare" fees are a tax also has decided that the previous assault gun ban was Constitutional and Justice Scolia ..... the most conservative justice ..... says that limits on 2nd Amendment rights are appropriate.
Wait a minute! You NRA supporters always want to compare guns to autos. Then register them, license owners, and require them to purchase liability insurance for their guns!
Kind of hypocritical if you don't agree, eh!
Not sure what Mr LaPierre is trying to say here. The 2nd Amendment reads:
The dictionary defines "regulate" as:
How can you regulate a militia at all, never mind the "well" part, without knowing who has the guns? It is quite reasonable to suggest that the 2nd Amendment requires a gun registry, and at the very least, strongly suggests one.
Of course some people will try to argue that "well-regulated" means "not well-regulated." But that is quite common when people find out that the Constitution doesn't say what they want it to say.
Yes, that is pretty common. Many Republicans in Congress still don't realize that Obama won.
AvgJoeTX-7795150
Feinstein's bill in it's current form will not pass. The White House stated Obamacare was not a tax, but the Department of Justice ruled differently. There's a difference between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branch.
I have no problem with registering my firearms. I would definitely be pleased if one of my weapons is ever stolen and they have my contact information handy to return it to me.
If they decided to disarm the populace, just remember one thing. We know that logistically sending out all of our illegal immigrants isn't likely possible given the sheer number. We have what, 13 million illegal immigrants? There are estimates of over 200 million guns in the US. That's a real conservative estimate. How do you propose they're going to take all of those?
Pragmatic,
One armed guard at Columbine didn't do much good and we shouldn't expect much. It is a 250,000 square foot building. Miles of hallways to get from one side to the other.
Virginia Tech, where I work, doesn't have armed guards. We have a police force. But that still doesn't do any good unless a police officer, armed with his gun, magically appears in a classroom the second a bad person starts shooting.
The fact is that society is completely unprepared for these types of situations. We can prepare ourselves or try to ban some guns. But banning guns won't work, so the clueless among us keep pushing for bans instead of practical defensive training for the responsible adults in these institutions.
Byron
Here's another set of definitions:
How long did it take you to find a definition that suited your obviously biased point of view? What do you think of the first definition listed above ...... seems like it applies quite nicely to the Second Amendment, right? By the way, I just used Google and copied the first definition listed. No definition shopping for me.
Such paranoia. No one will take away your guns.
This is a marketing strategy implemented by the Gun manufacturers, through their spokesmen at the NRA, and it has been very effective. You have been manipulated to increase your arsenal so profits will rise again.
ED
I totally agree. The gun lovers make an entire argument about the Constitution protecting their right to own guns and do not trust the Constitution to protect them from confiscation of their guns. Any gun laws that pass are subject to review by the Supreme Court ...... the Supreme Court would also prohibit confiscation of legally owned firearms.
How do you register to vote with no ID?
I think I can sum up the majority of this country's opinion on what Mr. LaPierre has to say on this matter with the following statement:
Who gives a flying @!$%# what you think you crazy wacked amoral nutjob!
@Backhouse
You do realize of course that motor vehicles, and drivers licenses are in fact PRIVILEGES do you not?
Privileges can be granted, denied or revoked at the whim of the state.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/slippery-slope/
@DrowningGrover
Wow. Such an adult statement. Did your mommy teach you to talk like that?
OK... recess is over now, go back to class.
Tnsevol 1.3
You said:
If you truly believed this nonsense you should have no problem posting signs on your front lawn declaring that your house is a gun free zone.
you just discredited your opinion since you're obviously not dealing in factual statements.
XDm9mm,
The right to possess a firearm can also be revoked, if you are a convicted felon, or insane,for instance.
By your logic, all the things you think of as rights, are in fact PRIVILEGES, because, under the right circunstances, they can be taken away.
Registration of firearms would be constitutional, as it says "well regulated" in the second ammendment.
@XDm9mm
I try to use language at the intellectual level of the person I'm speaking to, so my statement issued on behalf of the American people to Mr. LaPierre is right in line with the type of language he would understand. Basically, I tried not to use any words with more than 6 letters...
@ED-2874315 // @don97524
Would you care to tell us that "confiscation" has never happened?
It in fact HAS happened you know. Yes it happened illegally, yet legalities didn't STOP it from happening now did it?
Post Katrina, Nagel had "authorities" go door to door confiscating any and ALL firearms.
Even today, people are engaged in legal fights to get their personal property back which had been ILLEGALLY confiscated. Yet, I find it interesting that not one individual involved has been found guilty in a court of law of violating the CITIZENS Constitutional rights.
DrowningGrover
Too difficult to spell anything beyond 6 letters?
But, you still neglected to tell the world exactly who taught you to speak in such an intelligent manner. I'm certain it was likely a family member.
ED-2874315
Yes that is true. But that is for punishment AFTER the fact. Not before.
There is a presumption of innocense in this country.
Any professional license has to be registered, Appraiser, real estate agent, contractor, like they said above you drivers license, your car, your house by deed, your land by deed the legal description, all registered and yes if it is interstate land sales the Federal Government has you registered before you can sell it use to be HUD. Why not an instrument invented to kill that can be owned by every person of any age? Bad argument Wayne it is the Federal Government that give the right to bear arms it is the Federal Government that should give the right on how your can, it is the Federal Government who should know who has the ability to do it.
"I don't believe that people should be able to own guns."
Barak Obama, as quoted to John R. Lott, Jr., PhD, while both were working at the University of Chicago Law School in 1996. From the book "Debacle", by Grover G. Norquist and John R Lott, Jr.,
"I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."
Barak Obama to Sarah Brady regarding gun control. Jason Horowitz, Washington Post, April 11th, 2011
"I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers' lobby."
From "The Audacity of Hope" by Barack Obama, p.215 Oct 1, 2006
bubba-1946427
Please indicate to me exactly where any of those above noted professions or property rights are mentioned as a RIGHT.
The right to bare arms is in fact mentioned, and not only mentioned, is one of the FIRST ten amendments which when taken together are known collectively as The Bill of Rights.
Much like YOU have a ability to say what you want, where you want, when you want.
The greatest example of how stupid the anti-gun safety stance is summed up beautifully by this post, as well as the NRA chief's insane rant. The reason they are against all the reasonable requests that pro-safety advocates are asking for is because they pretend the pro-safety advocates want something ELSE. A national registry. Something that is NOT being asked for, NOT being requested, and even during the 90s when we HAD an assault ban in place for a full ten years... never came up, and was never an issue.
But my GOD do terror tactics work amazing on the idiots that refuse all gun protection.
"You know what those evil liberals REAAAALLY WANT (snicker snicker). THEY WANT A GUN REGISTRY!!!"
RIght, because clearly, simply asking to ensure that criminals don't buy guns is nothing but a ploy to disarm America.
Dumb. As. Dirt.
unless of course you're saying "Fire" in a crowded theater...
you mean "RIGHTS" can have restrictions. /Gasp, you don't say...
XDm9mm
Nagin had them do that, yes, and then many were returned. The NRA was involved in that suit, which later led to numerous states passing laws that they couldn't do that. The city said in their defense they only took illegal firearms or firearms in abandoned homes, and then further went on to detail how citizens could re-obtain their firearms. They put up a posting on how people could re-obtain their weapons. Keep in mind, ILLEGAL firearms or firearms in abandoned homes. There was also the issue of police who were searching people leaving the city and confiscated their weapons, which were also returned later in about 2-4 weeks. This wasn't a confiscation and permanent keep, this was a screwup on local and federal level.
This agreement was good enough for the NRA back in 2008. Wayne LaPierre held the exact same post with the NRA then as he does now and agreed with the settlement. Sounds to me like he was okay with settling the issue and the remedies taken to return legal weapons to the owners. The reason no one was found guilty is because the NRA who brought the suit along with the Second Amendment Foundation accepted the settlement to avoid trial. Most individuals have been provided their weapons and in most cases that's part of the sworn affidavits in the case. If someone is still missing a legal weapon, they easily have a right and should individually sue.
It's filed under Civil Action No. 05-4234 if you're interested in reading more about it. The end result of this is that now we have many laws in place to prevent that from happening across many states.
molon labe!
So what....a lot of people don't believe people should own guns. Personally I think those whining about their right to carry guns are pussies too afraid to leave their house because of other pussies with guns. Grow up and quit being a pussy.
DrowningGrover
Excuse me.... please show me exactly where your RIGHT to yell fire in a crowded theatre is "restricted" or limited.
Here's a hint. You can't because it doesn't exist. Of course there can be RAMIFICATIONS for doing so AFTER THE FACT if in fact there is no fire.
That's the beauty of our system.
By the way, you never did tell the world who taught you to "speak" so eloquently.
2nd Amendment:
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.
5th Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval
forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor
shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.
--------------------
It's obvious from the fifth amendment that the writers of the Constitution defined a Militia as more than a single individual. Therefor, single individuals do not have a right to firearms unless they are a part of a well-regulated militia.
Gun ownership must be a secret; it keeps those that want to hurt others in check. Those with malicious intent will never know who might get them cap; it teaches respect. As for all the guns laws on the books, those laws only apply to the law abiding citizens. Not one gun law has ever prevented any of the shooting that have occurred. Furthermore, no laws in the book will stop the following individuals/groups from causing harm; gang members, criminals, organize crime, drug carter, any branch of government, terrorist and lunatics. The only one obeying the laws are the law abiding citizens. To disarm law abiding citizens is down right crazy. NRA's LaPierre should run for president.
XD
What an absolutely obtuse argument you make! We have made it clear that certain types of speech such as yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not protected speech. We have made it clear that the right to own a machine gun is not a protected right (except under extraordinary circumstances). In both cases if you break the law you are subject to prosecution.
If you don't understand that you do not have a right to yell "fire" in a theatre you are incapable of discussing constitutional rights rationally.
Schenck vs. United States, 1919
Oliver Wendall Holmes:
I'd say allowing criminals to obtain firearms presents a "clear and present danger" that will bring about "substantive evils" and therefore "Congress has a right to prevent" it by expanding background checks, the subject of this newsvine thread.
cause I don't care to play your silly little game.
XDm9mm it's known as the right to quite enjoyment, moron.
Who cares what you think?
I have my guns, and you are just going to have to start liking it.
For those patriots posting here on their absolute right to own and carry any guy they please....from a supreme court ruling in 2009....
....and that would be the Robert's court.
I was not aware Mr NRA dodged the Vietnam draft, or maybe was dq'd because of mental status. I can now understand how he seems to feel everyone including bad guys/girls should have access to guns. Oh, you know he keeps saying the bad guys/gals shouldn't have access to them but yet he is opposed to registration where if a gun is reported stolen it could eventually make it back to lawful owner. I don't know if he is married, has children and grandchildren or not but just wondering in the event he does and one of them was killed by someone like Adam Lantz of Newtown fame how he would feel.
You've managed to be wrong twice in one statement.
First, the militia is comprised of individuals:
See: 10USC311
Second, you have the phrase "well regulated" misconstrued.
.
Glad to have been able to help!
Maybe you should do society a favor and wash your mouth out with it :-)
Here's a hint for you.....every group is comprised of individuals.....
I can tell that you're one that does a whole lot of bloviating and very little thinking.
pragmatic; please tell me more about the "armed guards" at these two shootings?
drano:
When you get right down to cases, I agree. What, exactly, is everyone so afraid of? More guns, more 'responsible' gun owners. More guns, more total 'wacko' gun owners. This is progress, safety, maturity or intelligence?
Drano - he's right no matter how you try to spin it. A militia is an non-professional fighting force. Most (if not all) are comprised of citizens that can be called upon to fight. It is purely volunteer (in the case of any US militia), usually headed by someone with strong leadership and/or tactical skills. So in the case of a militia being called up, how would they arm themselves?
George Washington and the Second Congress recognized this and REQUIRED ALL able bodied men to own at least one rifle and so many rounds.
That alone sets precedence that for a militia, self armament is expected.
Wayne LaPierre's salary is about a $million a year, his net worth $17 million, and he's railing about 'elitists'? His salary is 2.5 times that of the President of the United States, and he can sell this 'elitist' thing in a speech?
Lapierre also states "... background checks would set the stage for universal gun registration." He got this view into the future from....Nostradamus? A crystal ball? Anytime I hear anyone try to tell me "what's going to happen", I turn them off. Believing one can predict the future is, by definition, delusional.
It's my understanding that over 90% of the general public are in favor of UGR, as are over 70% of NRA members. In light of those numbers, LaPierre appears to have his ego in stuck in overdrive.
Ignoring the vast majority of the general population, and an overwhelming majority of the NRA membership seems to me self-explanatory. He's managed to develop the 'Grover Norquist Syndrome' - that of imagining himself to be something far greater than the rest of us in the land where "All men are created equal". I suggest he's an excellent candidate for some serious 'ego management' review.
I can't help but believe that a very significant number of NRA members are growing very uneasy with the image their representation affords them.
Shumer and Feinstein both have bills in play that have blatant gun ban/confiscation overtones built into them. Take for the fact that Shumer's bill has laws built into it that will land you in federal custody, which, by current laws, makes you unable to own a firearm. Simply temporarily swapping guns with a friend (such as in target shooting) automatically turns you into a criminal. Say if you wanted to keep it for a few days before purchasing it or a similar gun and try it out a little longer, that would be considered a felony.
The main question ANY gun owner, and La Pierre want answered is: How will any of these gun laws STOP or PREVENT situations like Columbine, Aurora or Sandy Hook, OR get ILLEGAL guns out of the hands of criminals? Left, right, middle... no side can or has answered this question.
Background checks? Already have to have one to buy a gun, least every gun I've ever bought I did. Gun registration? Refer to the previous paragraph if you want to know how legal gun confiscation begins. It can't and won't be a door to door or an overnight deal. Not to mention, gun registration databases are just shopping lists for criminals or tools to assess risk vs reward.
vieo:
Using your 'spin' to criticize someone else's 'spin'?
A militia is a non-professional fighting force that can be called upon by......whom?
Are all able-bodied men still required to own a rifle and so many rounds? Has this requirement been rescinded?
haggis - bad quote, bad bad, and obviously whoever said it knows jack about guns.
Truth is, Adam lanza probably would have done more with less in that situation. Larger the mag, the less reliable and more unstable the gun is. 5x 30 round mags are actually more difficult to store/carry than 15 10 round mags (think dexterity, maneuverability and weight distribution). Why do you think the military uses small-medium capacity mags WITH extensive training vs large or drum mags?
It has never been rescinded or fully enforced.
It's called upon by the government? The Whiskey Rebellion and a few others are some strong cases. The military didn't actually lead the rebellion. Government basically said "stop them" so the militias did.
Sorry thought that was a given. No clue how you took mine as spin. Was basically the definition of a militia, and an congressional act showing precedence that the government expects self armament for a militia. There has been nothing, to my knowledge, to overturn this precedence, except on state/local levels, even in over 200 years.
Why sure. At Columbine there was an armed, active-duty police officer assigned to the school. He shot at Eric Harris in the school, but was unable to take him down at 60 yards. When Harris shot back, he had to pull back and call for backup. A second officer was near-by and responded when he heard the call. He took shots at Eric Harris but the same thing happened. He had to take cover and fall back.
And as has been pointed out: Virginia Tech has a campus police force that is armed. The incident took place in two waves, two hours apart. The college's mismanagement of the shooting cost them $11 million in settlements.
So in both situations, having armed guards didn't stop the evil do-ers. And in the case of Columbine, two different police officers were able to directly engage one of the perps and were not able to stop them.
@vieo5ua
Your argument is BS. We have a standing army and have no "militia" that can be "called up". That is the entire problem, you are basing an argument on events and a situation 200+ years old. 200 years ago we didn't have guns that spewed out 900 rounds a minute with magazine drums holding 100 rounds. To put that in perspective, anyone with capabilities like that during the revolutionary war would have won hands down. We were also establishing a govt that was elected by the people, not appointed or assumed through birth. We've been electing our government since then and the only real threat has been from those that didn't like the result of the election and ironically they seem to be the same ones harping about their rights to own guns. Here's a news flash, the Internet has more power than any gun. The ability to organize and communicate in real time thanks to technology is a bigger threat to a standing gov than a citizen with a gun. Think!
vie,
What was then the militia, is now the National Guard.
The Federal Government of Washington, required that poeple buy a product.....interesting. Try to do something like that today and .......oh wait.
The SCOTUS has officially interpreted the second amendment as protecting the right for INDIVIDUALS to keep and bear arms regardless of military affiliation. The mention of a "well-regulated militia" was a prefatory clause explaining the purpose of the amendment.
For all you non-English understanding, non-punctuating "gun control" advocates, here's what the second amendment says, in a way that even YOU can understand: "In order to have a well-regulated militia, which is necessary for the security a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."
It sounds to me like the amendment is saying that an armed populace is necessary to secure and preserve a nation that holds dear the freedoms the founding fathers tried to enact. The only thing being "well regulated" is the militia that can be pulled from the armed population. Further, the amendment states that the right SHALL NOT be infringed, so any law written that restricts that right is against the letter of the amendment.
Do we ALLOW ourselves to be restricted by laws in order to have a peaceful and stable society? Of course. But you control freaks shouldn't try to push the willingness of the people too far. You may not like the results.
The difference between the second amendment and yelling fire in a movie theater is this: "gun control" freaks are trying to regulate someone's ability to commit a crime BEFORE the action has been committed. You surely wouldn't suggest we should remove the ability of people to say the word "fire" in a movie theater in order to prevent some idiot from causing panic, would you? Would you agree to the government keeping a database of everyone who has used that word in the past, to make them an instant suspect if someone does yell fire? The examples may be absurd, but it's the same principle, guys. Surely you can understand that!
Considering all the hoopla about "gun control" today, I DO NOT want to be on anyone's list. I can't trust the control freaks to control themselves.
Laws are written to punish actions, not prevent them.
The sound you keep hearing is your knee hitting your desk.
People on here speak of "gun registration" but please answers 3 questions:
1) Tell me HOW this could be enforced? I am quite sure most gun owners will view this as an afront to thier liberties and will simply ignore it even if it became law, or would deny having any weapons at all.
2)How would registering guns STOP or PREVENT any criminal activity such as the Sandy Hook masacre?
3) How do you get felons (those who, by law, should not have weapons to begin with) to comply?
I'll have to agree with Pragmatic: a single armed guard a situation like Columbine wouldn't work, unless the guard was in the right place at the right time. columbine has what, 1500 students in 4 grades? Without looking at the layout of the school, I'd have to say at least 5 armed guards, minimum. High school right next to where I live has roughly 1200 and uses 4 armed guards, with an additional 2-4 during the busy periods (before/after and during lunch). Similar sized high schools in higher crime areas around here use roughly the same setup.
However, they have caught and stopped violent crimes (anything from knives and baseball bats to guns), so I can't agree with armed guards being worthless. It's a matter of calculating the best number to reduce risk. And no situation will stop shootings like these.
Car ownership is registered with the government. Gun ownership should be too. It is just common sense to know who owns guns, so when they are stolen or lost, they can be tracked and returned to the owner when finally retrieved. Many municipalities require dogs to be registered, as well.
We live in a democracy and paranoids such as La Pierre only foster distrust of our government when we get to change it every two years at election time. Democracy limits the power of government with frequent elections.
Ed, try again. That's the ORGANIZED militia. Before I was talking militia in general, not only for the US. The US has 3 levels and 2 major categories of militia: Organized (national guard - air and army, and reserves), and Unorganized (citizen-organized militia).
In nearly all states, even a sheriff can call up a militia. Most of the citizen organized militias have been given a bad rap, mostly due to the publicized groups who claim to be "fighting a corrupt government" or the like. However, there are plenty who train and learn to fight alongside each other, a lot of times are affiliated with the reserves, usually by members being part of the reserves.
Unorganized militia are completely citizen led and formed, even those called up by a police official such as a sheriff, as they're considered a citizen and not military.
Oh, and Ed, the federal government IS forcing its citizens to purchase something, many against their will: healthcare, or pay a penalty.
Nice try.
drano - I encourage you to take your own advice: think for yourself. We do have organized militias, but there have been several cases of unorganized militias being called forward. A state has the right to organize it's own militia, usually a sheriff being the one to do so to help even the odds.
Not sure how your elected government comment comes into play.
And guns that can fire 900 rounds a minute are already highly restricted, illegal in most cases as those would have to be a full auto. Why do gun control fanatics always jump to extremes without knowing what's already in the law books? And someone using a 100 round drum is just an idiot. Just hold 100 rounds of either .223 or or 7.62 ammo and you'll see what I mean, aside from the unreliable nature of large mags.
I have owned guns, do not right at the moment, but will own some again
I have zero problems with "complete and throughout" background checks for all sell/buy situations -- even have no problem if there is a reasonable fee for this. It is a logical and prudent process -- should have been there a long time ago. I think throwing the information from this away is no a good idea, but it should not be public information -- should be available to law enforcement
I also have zero problem with a reasonably designed "gun registration process and it too could have a reasonable fee and renewal period.... The information should not be public and only avialabel to law enforcement
I little fear of confiscation even given the above processes, but the laws for doing these could have provisions to further protect from even this unlikely scenario -- it to me seems more a scare tactic than a real issue
"Those guns aren't stemming the steady erosion of our rights as perpetrated by both parties. When are the guns going to stop the erosion of our rights?"
When the brown stuff REALLY hits the fan. In the meantime. great for hunting, target shooting, home defense. And those lighter weight semi-automatic rifles sure do beat lugging a heavier solid wood stock rifle. Easier to use in home defense, too. Oh, by the way, if madame dimwit gets her way, what the heck are the Alaskans going to use when the grizzlies take a smack at them? Hope they kept their old rifles.
Pro-gun people have their rights. Those of us who are anti-gun also have our rights. Pro-gun people have their concept and defintion of the second ammendment and the words that it contains. Anti-gun people have theirs.
Those of us who are anti-gun are not required to default to the beliefs and definitions of the pro-gun people. The reverse is also true.
Gun people can own guns. They can own as many as they like. They must also register both the ownership and the sale.
vieo:
I gather that you own the definition of 'militia', its form, its function, its chain of command. You no doubt realize that thousands of others make the same claim? These differing opinions all contain an inordinate amount of 'spin'?
Aren't state and local governments, and sheriffs, elected?
I salute your efforts. I simply cannot resolve rationally how increasing the ownership of potentially - and purposely designed - lethal weapons is going to reduce violence created by lethal weapons.
@chuckzul
Just a little addition to your questions, as far as a felon having a gun goes, it actually violates the Fifth Amendment to request them to register their guns. This was decided by the Supreme Court in 1968 in the case of Haynes v U.S. Yup, that's right. Mandatory registration is self-indictment of a crime and that is prohibited.
Does anyone really understand how HUGE a database for registering guns would have to be and what sort of upkeep it would require? The police department would be hiring clerks instead of cops. I think that gun registration lacks a crime prevention component. After all, if your neighbor is shot, is that really probable cause to search a 10-block area for matching calibers? Guns are personal property and suddenly possession of personal property would subject you to arrest if that personal property is not on the government's master list.
Some people seem to think that in order to keep control, the government must register everything. But when the government has that much control, you lose your liberties.
Possession of an unregistered gun would make an otherwise law-abiding citizen a felon, with no other crime but a failure of paperwork. The innocent person would have to register their firearms to remain legal and the felon with a firearm could not register without incriminating themselves.
A fellow in Chicago (I do not recall his screen name, but it was in another of these kind of articles) stated that he paid several hundred dollars to register his guns with the police department; if he moves, he has to pay the police department an additional $40 to update their records. Reasonable? Not.
Check out these two websites: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty_rate - the first shows murder rates, highest to lowest, the second is poverty rates lowest to highest. Note that the states with the highest poverty also appear to be the states with the highest murder rate. If we want to lower the homicide rate, we need to address poverty. Unfortunately, the same politicians that don't want even minimal gun control are the same one's that don't want to help the poor - conservative Republicans.
I have made no claim to own the definition of militia. I do, however, do my own research and form my own opinions based on the facts presented to me, as well as form and function of organizations created by any level of government. The levels of militia I stated are as defined by federal and state law, not my own interpretation of such.
State and local governments are elected, but sheriffs, police chiefs and the like are not always elected officials.
I don't propose increasing ownership of firearms. I merely point out the flaws in the extreme gun control advocates arguments. One such argument has been lethality of AR-15s, and the claim of 900 rounds per minute, with the overlooking of deadlier weapons that are commonly accepted, such as the Remington 7400, which shoots a load with higher lethality. Or the fact that gun laws being proposed are either 1) unconstitutional or 2) already exist. As well as historical examples and laws passed in the past (regardless of age) bear precedence.
I'm all for background checks, however, I refuse to be treated as a criminal without having commited more than a misdemeanor (speeding ticket).
I'm against the banning of weapons merely because they are crafted in a military style (re: AR-15, and semi-auto AKs, HK MP5s, etc), when the lethality of the loads are vastly lower than more commonly accepted weapons.
I'm against knee jerk reactions to rare situations which are portrayed to invoke emotional reactions from the public, while other situations go unnoticed (re: Sandy Hook vs inner-city violence).
I'm against people who try to debate guns and gun control when its obvious said party has no knowledge of the topic. This ties in back to my arguments against not knowing what laws are already on the books, what it takes to own a particular type of gun (legally), or the capabilities of a gun, it's ammunition, and its lethality. Had a shotgun been used at Sandy Hook or Aurora, countless more damage could have been done, even experts agree.
I'm for people coming up with laws that will prevent and/or take the guns out of criminals hands without infringing on my rights. Something that has yet to be done. I've made many suggestions on other forums, but I'm not listing them all again here at this time.
I'm against anyone labeling me as democrat or republican as I agree and disagree with points on either side of the fence.
I'm against anyone who tries to debate a topic, without providing any substantive proof to try to persuade me to change my stance. It has happened in the past, opinions can be changed.
I am against anyone who refuses to look back on history, no matter how distant or recent, and see how history DOES repeat itself, sometimes even within a lifetime.
what a paranoid sob that la pierre.
gimmie a big glass of water cuz i'll swallow all the "placebos" our lawmakers can generate.
For all of you trying to come up with your own interpretations of the 2nd Amendment. You are free to speculate all you want. Your arguments have countless time been submitted to the Supreme Court including in the most recent decisions. Translation: Your personal opinions mean nothing. It is the Supreme Court rulings that count.
Likewise, pulling out only a small part of the ruling does not address the issue adequately. You might be better served by reading the entire summary of the decision.
Decision
The Supreme Court held:[43]
The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomasand Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Furthermore, if you really want to understand the Courts position you really should read the entire case and the full basis of the Court ruling. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2739870581644084946&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Likewise important to understanding more about the whole 2nd Amendment issue is McDonald v. Chicago. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5141154246897960488&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Please note that the Supreme Court has never ruled on the former "assault weapons" ban as some have wrongly suggested. They have likewise not directly addressed it in the most recent rulings either. Some have suggested that Heller supports such a ban. That is very debatable and in fact there is ample evidence in the case to suggest that in fact they very well could rule that Unconstitutional. Even in the summary decision it clearly states that a prohibition of an entire class of weapons in common use would be Unconstitutional.
That said, the discussion would likely revolve around "assault weapons" as a class of weapons. Note also that it also talks about the "carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." Note also that if your read US v. Miller, the Court ruled that a sawed off shotgun was not a protected weapon because only weapons commonly in use by the military, were protected weapons. This case is in some ways contradictory to itself and could be viewed a precedent in a couple ways. Arguably, the case is somewhat flawed because Miller had been shot dead before the case was actually heard and the case was essentially not argued in his behalf. Some view that the Court rubber stamped a lower court's ruling on a dead criminal. Nonetheless, it is one of only a few related directly to the 2nd Amendment.
If you understand that so called "assault weapons" do not fit the dangerous, unique weapons characteristics. It would be difficult to support a ban under that category. Contrary to popular perception, so called "assault weapons" are no more dangerous or unusual than any other semi-automatic gun in common use and in fact specifically identified and exempted under the currently proposed ban.
The fact is that one can not determine exactly how the Court would rule on such a ban if they were to hear the case, however, there are ample clues in the Heller ruling that suggests that they would find against such a ban. I know non-gun people read it differently, but you need to understand that the Court would delve more deeply into the technicalities than the "perception" in the minds of those behind such a ban. They would not look to politicians as being the technical experts, but instead they'd be looking to gun and military experts. That said, I am reasonably certain the true nature would trump the perceived nature.
Although the previous ban was never challenged in the SC, part of that stems from considerable doubt about how it would be decided. In light of the recent rulings taken in total, the outcome look far better from the standpoint of challenging it. One needs to understand that what the Court has previously ruled on related issues, will have strong bearing on future cases.
If you really do want to understand this, you need to take the rulings in complete context and not just look at a couple sentences and think you know. I would advise everyone with opinions about the 2nd Amendment, to read the entire Heller case. You will get a much better understanding of the history behind this Amendment and why it is there. That is something you will not get from pundits either left or right.
I would like to hear La Pierre talk about how Wyatt Earp was a left wing nut job trying to subvert the constitution when he confiscated all guns entering his town. Don't you folks now that the declaration of martial law is a right of all govenments local, state and federal. When martial law is declared not even legal gun owners are allowed to carry out in the streets concealed permit or not. And yes there is a right to vote and it too is regulated by the individual state legislatures. I would like the revolution now right wingers to talk about how they felt about the Weather Underground and other radical overthrow the government revolution now groups of the 60's and 70's. How is a left wing militia different from a right wing one? Does the NRA really believe that all liberals are pacifists. Really? There are no liberals in the military? No liberal marines? Are you kidding? Liberal does not always equal pacifist nor does it equal antigun. So watch what you wish for. Militias aren't just a right wing thing.The righties were all for regulating access back then.
Mr. LaPierre, background checks for firearms purchases is already treated as registered information on the federal level.
It's been done since 1998 and it's called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or "NICS," as maintained and administered by the FBI.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics
Mr. LaPierre?
One more thing: It's in the fiduciary interest of the the American Insurance Industry to control the sale of guns and have them registered to their owners, since after all, this is an issue about public health safety, in an attempt to reduce gun fatalities in the U.S.
Logically then, these regulatory initiatives are in no way an attempt to take away the guns of law-abiding citizens, it is an attempt to expand upon the use of background checks to evaluate the mental fitness of the purchaser or user of the firearms, as agreed in polls answered by the members of your own NRA. The polls indicated a majority of your NRA membership want background checks not just to deny gun sales to felons, but also to see if the purchasers are mentally stable or not.
------------------------
Does the NRA agree with Wayne LaPierre?
Nearly three quarters (74 percent) of NRA members supported requiring a background check system for all gun sales, according to a poll released Monday by Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/31/nra-leadership-members-divide-on-universal-background-checks/
Josephine-1266256
Please.... exactly WHEN was Martial Law enacted?
Oh and a little history. The Earp brothers were gunslingers. THEY confiscated guns at the town limits, NOT for civil desires. It was done simply to stay alive.
Oh, and they did win many gunfights, as while they "faced" their opponent, Ole Doc Holliday was behind the "opponent" ready to tear them apart with his trusty old double barrel shotgun.
Uhmmmm... Maybe THAT'S where Crazy Joe Biden got the idea!!
Vie0,
You should to learn to read carefully. You miss so much with blinders on.
Anybody check LaPierre's background I think he is speaking from is, sure smells that way. Maybe he had his hand on the trigger and his gun misfired again another short shot. Little man that needs a BIG Weapon to feel like a real MAN, he's premature in EVERYTHING in his ejaculation from his oops!
If gun registration EVER becomes law, (God forbid) our 2nd amendment rights will soon disappear.
It has become common knowledge or appears to be, that liberals had rather have their rights abolished as opposed to taking a stand against the Obama agenda.
A sad day indeed if this happens.
This has to be the stupidest thing I ever read. Please show me where your right to commit murder is restricted! Of course there might be ramifications for doing do so after the fact. If something is illegal you do not have a right to do it, which is why there are ramifications for doing so after the fact, duh!
The SCOTUS has in fact ruled in favor of public safety over personal rights in a number of cases.
I wonder if Wayne the Pee-er is afraid that if they do a background check on people he will be found out as a mentally deficient moron.
An armed "campus police" is hardly what is meant by an armed guard folks! An armed guard would function as a gate-keeper. I suppose that is to difficult for some to understand. The police and campus police can only react, they cannot prevent. They investigate after the crime is committed. If they are really fast and super alert, they may reduce casualties. A controlled single entrance, similar to those used at many secure, sensitive locations can in fact prevent an incursion. NRA suggested this. But if it fits your agenda, spin your favorite tales.
No one is misunderstanding what the NRA is proposing. They are in fact proposing that Americans should volunteer to live in a police state so that gun manufacturers can enjoy complete unrestricted sales of their product.
Sure let's add multiple armed guards in full tactical gear at the entrance to every school. That should keep us all safe, under the vigalent gaze of big brother.
It's been months since Wayne LaPierre precipitated the Sandy Hook School murders at Newtown, CT.
Why has he not been arrested yet?
Senate panel approves assault weapons bill, Washington - After a couple of false starts, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill yesterday to ban assault weapons and restricts the size of ammunition clips, also requires universal background checks on all gun sales !!!
@ chilled
Last time I checked, a woman was still free to decide (choose) whom she has sex with and when. She also has access to numerous contraceptives or fertility drugs via certain doctors or in some cases over the counter. How many "Choices" does a woman need?
And just exactly where in the Constitution does it spell out a limitation or authorization for the Federal Government to Regulate (to permit or to deny) abortion? NO, the SCOTUS made it up. What they should have done is kicked it back to the people to make an amendment either for or against abortion.
Since when are matters of civil rights of individuals left up to popular votes in this country? Have you ever read the SCOTUS decision, apparently not. The SCOTUS desicion was that the regulation of abortions in the first trimester placed an undue brurden on the woman's fundamental right to privacy and self determination.
Wayne LaPierre
What
A
F@#king
Idiot.
The king of paranoia.
Without guns, physical prowess and mental agility defines who has power over who. Violence may or may not occur, especially when mental agility prevails.
With SOME guns, it changes power equations... whoever has the gun wins. Doesn't mean the "good" or "right" person has the power, it just means that physical prowess is out the window. Hopefully mental agility still plays a part, but, in any case, violence is more likely.
With ALL guns, both physical prowess and mental agility are out the window. Both are replaced with the absolute power of guns. Both parties are emboldened and winning or losing depends on who shoots first. The likelihood of the use of violence to solve disagreements becomes high and deadly.
Are we going to let insanity or reason prevail here?
Being Reasonable 1) Tone down the rancor and conspiracy theories that drive false fears and more gun sales.
Being Reasonable 2) Demand background checks for all gun sales.
Being Reasonable 3) Draw the line somewhere between a BB gun and a tank... put assault weapons and super large clips on the tank side.
Being Reasonable 4) No one is taking away our guns... get that through your thick skull.
I have to register my dog, why shouldn't you register your gun?
dgeding
Really? Matters of Civil Rights? Are you really that ignorant, or are you just plain stupid? What do you call the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Or the 19th Amendment? the 14th Amendment? the 13th Amendment? etc.
I really don't care what the SCOTUS said, numb nuts. The SCOTUS has bent and twisted the Constitution to allow the 1934 FCA, intra-State control of Commerce, OASDI, the 1964 CRA, and just lately the PPACA.
I am really tired of talking to you dumb ass SOB's who have no understanding of the US Constitution or the Limits it places on the Federal Government. The SCOTUS is not to "interpret" the Constitution, their job is to Interpret the Legislation from Congress. If it matches the Constitution then fine, other wise they are to kick it back to the Congress for a rewrite, or to the People to get Authorization i.e. an Amendment to allow it. They are not supposed to make stuff up, like the Right to Privacy. Yes, Citizens have the Right to Privacy, but unless it is enumerated in the US Constitution (you know that little piece of paper that gives the Federal Government its LIMITED authority) the Federal Government (including the SCOTUS) has NO JURISDICTION. PERIOD. Read the 10th Amendment.
The SCOTUS that decided Roe v Wade should have never taking the case, instead it should have said it needed an amendment to give it authority to supersede State Sovereignty on the issue. But since the 1930's and FDR's Fascist manifestos, the Federal Government, to include the SCOTUS have been exceeding the authorities given them by the Constitution. One day all you Liberal are going to wake up and say "This isn't what we wanted", and I will say, "Yes, but it is exactly what you asked for", but by then it will be too late, and all our liberties will be gone. Not the you will understand a single thing I just said.
I've yet to hear one liberal explain how they can support denying people their human rights. Their human right to self defense against unjustified assault.
No you are not, you get your jollies from spewing your venom anonomously online or you wouldn't do it. I love how when a person tries to have an adult coversation with people like you and all they get for thier troubles are a string of insults and rehashed conservative talking points. What a joke you are, your handle is appropriate.
We already live in an Orwellian society dgeding, Employ one professional, maybe retired but paid "armed guard" at a single entrance point at any school can strongly reduce incursions by crazies intent on setting a new killing record! When I was a child, there was a .22 rifle in the corner. A 12GA shotgun over the mantle. As a child, I wouldn't think of touching one of those guns! Why? My grandmother would have given me a switching. Today, we can't punish a child. Why you ask? The academic community ran a study and decided spanking traumatizes a child. I wish my granny was still alive to debate the the point. As usual, academia outputs a "one-size-fits-all" solution. Ever read the rise and fall of the roman empire? Change the words, the Rise and Falll of the US. We are a nanny state. We pay kids to produce kids. We then support those kids. We then support lawyers who defend those kids in juvenile courts.
rradiko,
Not registration. In fact by law the the FBI can not keep the records of who was checked provided they pass a check. Whether they are doing it illegally completely against the intent of the law, we don't know. We can only assume they would obey the laws.
NCIS doesn't keep records on the guns that are sold either. That is the FFL dealer. The ATF can by law check these records out if they are investigating a crime committed with a weapon. The whole idea behind the FFL dealers was to keep the records in private hands instead of the government's. By law the government is prohibited from gun registration. However, the ATF can get the information from the manufacturers on which dealer the sold a particular gun too. (The manufacturer must maintain these records) The FFL dealer can then get the sale information from that dealer in the investigation of crimes. They are also allowed to check an audit FFL dealers for compliance. Not to collect records. When a dealer goes out of business, the ATF gets all the records from that dealer. In fact they have, in their words, "several hundredof million gun records" obtained this way. The ATF maintains a database of all these records. In theory, it was only supposed to be accessible to them in the pursuit of criminal investigation, however since 9-11 the have made it accessible to other "appropriate" law enforcement.
Rumor has it that in recent years the ATF have visited dealers and copied records. In theory, this would be a violation of the law. However it has been suggested that some of the secret portions of the Patriot Act might make this legal. The rumors further continue that these dealers are issued National Security Letters. These prohibit the receiver from even being able to talk about it. Even if they take it to a lawyer, they are technically in violation of the NSL rules and are subject to revealing information regarding National Security. I have no idea if there is any truth to these rumors but they are plausible. Let me point you to the current case regarding National Security Letters. Look it up.
So the ATF maintains "registration like" records. If they are indeed collecting records from valid, current, FFL dealers for some other purpose than investigating a crime, they are violating the laws. My guess is that they are operating around the law or utilizing a law that the public doesn't now exists.
If you know about why the ATF was created and what it has morphed into, it may help explain why some are very concerned about registration. After the National Firearms Act of 1934, the law require any machineguns, special destructive devices, explosive devices and such to be taxed. The government was not going to create a registration of firearms, but in order to police the taxing of these weapons, they needed to maintain records on them. The ATF was a division of the IRS because it was about collecting taxes. Much like the IRS information is only supposed to be used by the IRS for the purposes of collecting taxes, so too was the ATF justified. Over time, the ATF has taken on a much bigger role and is now a division of the Justice Department. No longer connected with the IRS. The GCA of 1968 expanded the role again and expanded the regulations pertaining to guns. Still, everything designed to stay clear of registration.
In 1986 the Firearms Owners Protection Act was created in response to abuses by the ATF. In that law was a stronger worded class prohibiting registration.
But this hasn't stopped the ATF from keeping records. Likewise in that law was an interesting piece snuck in through deception that banned any more machine guns from ever being privately possessed. However. law enforcemnt was exempted. Only those in existence prior to that law, properly recorded and taxed would be allowed. (There are close to 175,000 recorded and about half are owned by law enforcement agencies.) At the time the bill was being voted on, this Amendment was substituted for another with the same number. The bill was passed with this deception in it and Reagan signed it into law.
When you look at the history of how gun laws have grown and how repeatedly, government agencies have overstepped the intent of those laws, is it any wonder that some have doubts about the sincerity now? The only piece they are missing is private sales. Even a lot of "gun people" don't understand all this and many who support "universal" background checks have second thoughts when they become aware that it comes with registration. Hard to make it work without it. One option is that owners would be required to keep the same type records as FFL dealers. Their are a number of problems with that among which is essentially giving the ATF access to any gun owner any time the wanted to "verify" records.
There are over 300,000,000 privately owner firearms in this country. Probably more because many guns imported and purchased prior to 1968 very likely exist with no real records. And these are not all antiques. Keep in mind that the first widely distributed semi-auto pistol was the .45 caliber Colt 1911. One of these, 100 years later that was well kept is every bit as effective as the latest Glock. The great vast majority of all these guns are owned by law abiding citizens and have not been involved in any criminal act.
Guns involved in crimes are very effectively tracked today after a crime is committed. They do hit dead ends when guns have been stolen or otherwise lost. Sometimes the do get lost after private sales. And sometimes a serial number has been obliterated such that it can't be traced.
Having complete registration is really not going to help much for the handful of guns they can't currently trace. So this master list of registration has limit use in the investigation of crimes. Now if you decide to use the list for some other purpose, it makes much more sense. Confiscation is one such purpose. Another might be some misguided idea of preventing some law abiding citizen from committing some future crime that isn't even contemplated. See the problems with this?
There are plenty of good reasons to be doubtful about a master gun registration not being abused. We can be pretty certain that it already has been abused with what exists today. Let me give you an example, say a crime was committed with a 9mm Glock according to balistic tests, but they don't have the gun. So lets say we just look at everybody in the area that owns one and put them on the suspect list. Why should a law abiding citizen become a criminal suspect because he's agun owner, when the guy next door to the crime who doesn't own one, isn't a suspect? Too much room forabuse.
DrowningGrover 1.66
You said:
Absolutely, because this approach worked so well with illegal drugs, right? No matter how you spin it, the stark reality is that such laws only impact the law abiding and in no way impedes the criminal, not even one bit.
However, cheer up because the intent of such restrictive laws is to disarm the people at large, and has nothing at all to do with criminals or gun violence except to serve as a cover to mask this intent.
The Gun Confiscation has started here in california with ARMED State Police going to homes and demanding the weapons from the owners; In ALL FAIRNESS, it was a confiscation from gun owners who were deemed as Mentally Compromised, (Nuts), so that is not such a bad action. BUT IS this the feinstein foot in the door to open a floodgate of "agents" getting the names and taking weapons away from Mentally COMPETENT owners??
With $4.50 per gallon HERE While Venezuelans are paying 10CENTS a gallon for the same stuff AND the incredible "Sequestor" which is really a nice way of saying Working Americans Must Pay Back the $40Trillion stolen out of America by the EVIL rich and their corporations while sending jobs/careers overseas, NO American National HealthCare System which leaves working people OUT of the Care System, after the collapse of the obama med care fiasco giveaway to "healthcare" insurance companies and Big Pharma, UNLESS they pay Very Expensive policy premiums. Whereas Our Sane Ally's salary taxes enables THEIR National HealthCare Systems with Complete Psychiatric OutReach Teams with a national health ID card issued to ALL citiizens And Good in All their Clinics and Hospitals while We Americans Pay the Same Taxes and watch those funds go into the pockets of the Evil rich and their corporations. Well, American Citizens Will be "Up In Arms" BUT!! what if the Evil rich have taken away all our Weapons so that there ARE NO ARMS to fight back with???....Shut the Hell up and Pay Sucker!! No "health insurance" and your sick??? Well, Die Quick, Unless you are a $1 Dollar and hour Illegal; then you get the royal treatment paid for by the taxpayers to keep inexpensive labor going Full Force for the EVIL rich and their corporations. Does it ALL Fall into place and make sense now??????
@ dave
My dogs aren't registered & neither are my guns. It's good to live in TX, which still allows a little bit of freedom from government micromanagement of our lives.
@ haggisbingo
A magazine change in an AR-15 can be done in 2 seconds or so if you know what you're doing & you have the extra magazine in front of you (i.e. easily accessible).
I timed myself & was able to pretend fire 11 rounds (10-round mag + 1 in chamber for the original mag in the gun) & then change out the magazine 14 times while pretending to fire through all of those rounds in 1 minute flat.
Given that Lanza probably would have had the extra magazines stored in the pockets of a tactical vest in a way that they were easily accessible (had be been limited to 10-round magazines) he could have completed 14 magazine changes & fired through the rounds in probably about 1 minute 30 seconds, give or take a second or two (taking into account pulling the mags out of the vest pockets).
So instead of the whole incident taking 5 minutes he would have completed it in a bit under 7 minutes. Being limited to 10-round magazines wouldn't have made any difference. The bottom line was that there wasn't anyone inside that school to oppose him. Plus he still had the 2 handguns found in his possession for additional firepower.
So what exactly is the point of the quote you posted?
Dave 1.118
You said:
Well, I don't have to register my toaster so why should I have to register my gun?
You might than say; that's just silly, what does your toaster have to do with a gun?
I would respond; about as much as your dog does.
@ dgeding
To be honest, to some extent you are correct, I do enjoy exploiting your ignorance and stupidity. {Someone once said, "It is best to remain silent and be thought stupid, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt"}
However the main reason I am here is to broaden my frame of reference, and to get new view points or perspectives from those who can back up their opinions with fact and logic. (I have had to reevaluate my position on certain things a few times because some one presented a reasonable and logical argument contrary to mine) And some of the lessons I have retained the best are those lessons learned the hard way, or through humiliation. The question is, did you learn your lesson here?
The other reason I am here is to hopefully enlighten others, and give them a different perspective with which to view events. And to some extent I am truly tired of of trying to enlighten the ignorant who have absolutely no interest in HEARING the other side of the issues or are open to learning. The low life, dope smokin' hippy, Commie Liberal, Democrat, who is always claiming to be more "open minded", "compassionate" "intellectual", etc, is actually (in my experience) NONE of these things. I would rather be accused of spewing venom, than be accused of spewing IGNORANCE, like you.
You claim to want to have an adult conversation here, yet you offer nothing to refute my comments, you ignore the facts presented and you move to marginalize me instead. True Liberal tactics. If you wish to have an adult conversation, and can not refute what I said, then at least acknowledge you were incorrect or wrong. I probably would have apologized for the rant if you had said, "Oops, I didn't think about that."
And which "rehashed conservative talking points." are you talking about?
So from this, can I conclude you are a Troll? Maybe?
I no longer live on a farm, hence the "Dumb" part. The worst thing I ever did was get a Degree in Mechanical Engineering, move to the City and have to live in and amongst bigoted, myopic, inane morons like you.
@ LMarcT
I don't know what you are smoking, or what fantasy land you are living, but "violence...may not occur, especially when mental agility prevails. Yeah, tell that to the rapists of the world.
"And an armed society, is a polite society", not sure who said that, but it is a heck of a lot more accurate than anything you said.
1) Ok, let's tone down the conspiracy theories. First theory, "Gun Control" will lower crime, let's just throw that one out the window right now.
2) Just exactly how do you enforce that law. Please, do tell!
3) How about we teach you liberal the true meaning of the Constitution, maybe we should re-education camps for you guys, instead of the usual other way round.
4) And how is banning certain firearms, "not taking them away" from following generations?
"My question to all you Liberals is this, "If you don't like our society, the way it is, why don't you move to somewhere more suited to your likes, such as, Canada, England, or else where in Europe, where they ALREADY have guns laws "that work", "Free" Universal Healthcare, Pensions and Welfare?
Why must I (we) change to fit YOUR Ideal and Ideology?" No one is making you stay here.
One thing about a free country, is, you are FREE to LEAVE when ever you want."
I do not say it is easy to pack up and leave. My question is, since there are already places on this planet that have most of what you want, why not go there instead of changing (ruining) my Ideal? Why not clamor to the Government, "We don't like it here, help us leave."? There is nowhere else on the planet for me, or those like me, to go. My kind (Conservative, Capitalist and Self Reliant) came here, over the last couple hundreds of years, to get away from those things they didn't like, it was not easy. All I am saying is perhaps it is time you (liberals) use the same strategy.
I have to register to do my patriotic duty and vote. Republicans want to make me jump through even more hoops just to do my patriotic duty and vote.
Republicans don't think it's important for someone to register assault weapons.
According to Republicans, it should be easy for a terrorist to stockpile hundreds of assault weapons, but Republicans want to make it more difficult for someone who never committed a crime in their life and loves this country should be treated like an untrustworthy criminal.
Don't register guns, register people !
The NRA doesn't want guns registered but they insist that people with mental problems be registered.
Define 'terrorist'.... Would that be a non-white person who has a beef with US policies only, or does that include those 'patriots' who talk about 'second amendment solutions' when they fail at the ballot box?...
Pepe' Le Pewe strikes again. The ignorance of the wing-nut gun owners and fear mongering nuts like LaPierre is astounding. Wish someone had the gumption to ask anyone making such a comment why WE should not know who owns guns and how many. Law enforcement responds to domestic disputes and neighbor disputes daily, it just makes sense that they know if anyone involved has guns to the extent that is possible.
The government knows what kind of vehicle we have and how many. It knows if we are a registered democrat, republican or independent and whether or not we voted. It knows if we have a boat; it knows if we own a home, etc. Why in the world should government at every level not know IF we own a gun and how many?
Owning and using a gun should be like owning and driving a car. Regulate training, register and license. Had these steps been in place 25 to 50 years ago, we most likely wouldn’t be having this debate.
Remember, tougher law 25 to 50 years ago would have stopped the people who should not have guns from getting them.
Guess what, the second amendment would have still been in place, and the Nations People would be seeing a lot less gun deaths.
However, the NRA makes a lot of money from the gun manufactures, and that blood money is more important to them than the lives of our citizens.
The majority of the people (the ones with common sense) agree with me on gun regulations. However, there are people that live in the shadows or the fringe that fear their own shadows!!!
Simple!
NRA head Merchant of Death Wayne LaPierre is a home land terrorist.
There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away
Oh, I dunno, I kinda like living on the edge. You know, like being in a bank and a guy in camos comes strolling in with an AR-15 and I ask myself, is this guy protecting me from the government or is he here to steal my money? I like being in a restaurant eating breakfast and I see someone walking around with a couple of sidearms strapped on and wondering whether he's protecting me from a dangerous government, or he's pissed off because his eggs weren't done right.
I like asking myself why I should have to be wondering why that gun-toting idiot has the right to make me wonder WTF is the matter with him. Is he crazy? Is he showing me how tough he is? Is he going to just start shooting?
If those kinds of people don't scare you, you're as crazy as they are.
Job1; Your tirade against NRA is tiresome. I am a member of several organizations. All of them lobby on my behalf. The ARRL probably gets money from radio manufactures. The AARP, AAA and others lobby on my behalf. Few of them lobby with as much money as several multi billionaires who wish to become king of the hill! How about big Pharma? Big Oil? The USA has the best government money can buy so you rail against the NRA. That will solve the fact that we are overrun with feral children who live off the government teat? Many self-raising free-range single parent children are apt to grow up violent! Regarding gun registration; if there is a record, someone will find it, hack it and publicise it just for fun.
David, They are psychologically emasculated and trying to feel "big" carrying a gun to feel better about their "gun".
How about all idiots should be banned from owning guns? I think an IQ test and a psychological exam should be given to anyone wanting to own and/or carry a firearms. I mean they make you take a test to see if you are competent to drive, yet any idiot can buy a gun and as in the case of Wyoming, carry it around loaded, without a permit.
Here are some sample questions that should be given to those wishing to own a gun.
1. Have you ever verbally or in writing (such as on Newsvine) threatened to shoot someone of another race, religion or political persausion? If so NO GUN FOR YOU!
2. Have you ever threatened to shoot someone for belittling or humiliating you in front of others? if so, NO GUN FOR YOU!
3. Have you ever threatened to shoot someone if you caught them sleeping with your wife or girlfriend? if so, NO GUN FOR YOU!
4. Do you enjoy torturing and killing animals for fun? If so, NO GUN FOR YOU!
5. Have you ever played with a loaded gun around your infant? if so, NO GUN FOR YOU!
6. Are you so paranoid that you feel the need to carry a loaded firearm with you where ever you go? if so, NO GUN FOR YOU!
7. Do you think "a well regulated militia" means you have the right to take up arms against your own government simply because the opposing party won the election? if so, then NO GUN FOR YOU!
8. Do you watch Fox News? Do you believe President Obama is a secret muslim sleeper agent from Kenya bent on destroying America? Do you think the South should have won the civil war? Do you have any Swaztikas tatooed on your body? if so THEN NO GUN FOR YOU!
That is crazy funny. Most I would agree, but, I sure hope you don't own any. Talk about whack jobs
Wow, everyone is up in arms about the word regulate, and apply any definition to the word that applies their beliefs.
This has been a battle for many years in our society, it is for people to determine for themselves the true meaning of the founding fathers instead of putting words in their mouths.
Are you related to Reinhard Heydrich?
.
You two appear to have a lot in common.
the reason against such "lists" are obvious when you consider the freedom of information act which journalist use to request and publish names/addresses of register conceal carry permit owners in my state.
get your heads out your 2sses people and recognize the witch hunt going on regarding LEGAL LAWABIDING gunowners in this country.
antis generally dont have a clue of what laws ARE already on the books and just how ridiculous, contradictory and useless half of them are.
do some research on what already exists before you start hollaring for more ridiculous legislation that only makes it harder on folks WHO ARE NOT THE ONES OUT KILLING AND BREAKING THE LAW!!
you might be singing a different tune if it was YOU who was being targeted for owning property. how about everytime a news org request the names of permit owners they also request and print lists of all who own luxury cars, jewelry or other valuable personal items.
"I need a gun because someone else might have one."
Is this the most intelligent, rational, reasonable argument that can be made on this subject?
So, those who don't agree with you have no common sense. Pretty intense level of narcissim we have going there isn't it?
Your right to won a gun does NOT supercede my right not to own one.
It does NOT suprcede my right tomove about in public without having to wonder who is armed and who is not.
It does NOT supercede my right to not have to wonder which of my fellow citizens may choose to shoot me for whatever reason. Whether they are crazy, or whether they think I am crazy, or whether they think I am doing something they don't like.
deprogrammer -- What a shame so many people seem to be lacking in life experiences that might enable them to understand why many other people feel the need for firearm(s) for home defense. Have you never had your head and ribs smashed in? Never woke up to someone holding a knife just above your eyeballs? Never had someone try to snatch your child from just inside your front door? Never had a 6'3" 275 lb'er smashing thru your door? Never been jacked up against your dining room wall with a knife against your throat. Never had to sit on the bathroom floor / back against the tub / feet against the door to hopefully keep it shut? And so on and so forth. Well, good for you and the many naive fools who simply don't get it.
Why do I want a firearm?
#1 Because I want one. (I don't ask you why you perhaps bought a car or a 70" TV.) I'm a citizen and a good person and I can buy anything legal that I want to if I can affort it.
#2 Our Constitution gives me that right. (Along with quite a few others that many people unfortunately don't comprehend and don't seem to mind that the gov't lately seems to trample right thru them.)
#3 Home defense. (See first paragraph above. By the way, the police are NOT obligated to endanger themselves in saving citizens. Can't blame them. Probably quite a few I would rather not save, too. Besides, the cops are at least 15 minutes away as I know all too well.) Not aware that citizens are their own first line of defense?
#4 Hunting. At 9% inflation, pretty soon I won't be able to afford the grocery store.
It really isn't for individuals to decide, it is in fact something we as a society need to decide. We will never be able to settle the debate in terms of what the founding fathers really intended, so we need to focus on what makes the most sense for our modern society.
Good god, wtf do you live Maris, South Central L.A. ? If I were you I'd probably think about moving somewhere else... ;)
I want a rocket propelled grenade launcher and a stinger surface to air missile.
Well regulated, sure.
Use a can of mace and/or a fire extinguisher.
Nothing wrong with that.
He is absolutely correct. This is the reason that even though I would like to join the NRA, I have been cautious. The NRA uses the USPS to send mail to members, the government owns the USPS, so, I have no doubt that agencies like the CIA, FBI, and BATF have compiled a data base of all NRA members, from these mailings. It's pretty obvious that the US government is not squeaky clean, and we are progressively heading toward a police state, where our rights are subject to the whim of politicians. I am some dumb, not plumb dumb, having served in the US Army, getting 21 years formal education, and studying a lot of history. It's sort of like watching a thief, if they can touch something, and nobody says anything, then they can pick up the object, if nobody says anything, they can steal it, and probably nobody will say anything, if nobody catches them, they got what their intention was to begin with, which was to steal someones property. The same goes with our rights, the word 'inalienable' comes to mind, but this has become subject to interpretation, that 'inalienable' doesn't mean 'absolute'. This is a slippery slope to degrade what we have for decades thought were absolute rights, going back to the establishment of the FBI, during the notorious gang wars of Chicago, and prohibition, and has steadily progressed. I strongly believe that a chain is no stronger than it's weakest link, and our rights are no different, if we allow someones rights that we don't agree with, to be degraded, then, we are opening the door, for rights that we cherish to be taken away as well. For this reason, myself being a Christian, I opposed the churches in my small town, when they rose up in arms to protest an Adult bookstore which established itself in our area. If I was to allow their right to free speech to be violated, then I have as well, allowed for the government to subject me to the state establishing a religion. Under the Constitution, we are granted the right to own property, there is no specification as to what that property may be, and there is no provision to the regulation of our property, yet, this has been absolutely corrupted. We have laws that use the word, 'possession' as an offense, it is beyond me to understand how one can own a property, yet not possess it.
I can understand some needs, but then again, believe the government has not done their job. If person who is deemed to be insane or a felon is not permitted to possess a number of things, firearms included. This is where the government has failed. If a person is insane, why are they not committed to a facility as long as the problem exists with this person? What sane reason would allow an insane person to be released into society? As far as the criminal justice system, if a person is deemed to be a threat to society, by what logical reason should they be released back into society. There is none, if a person committed, or incarcerated, can not be corrected, then they are incorrigible, as such should not be allowed in a civilized society. This is political correctness at it's worst!
When a person is deemed to no longer be a threat to society, then and only then, should they be released into society, and at such time, all their rights should be restored. If this is not possible, then, they shouldn't be released into society. This is not difficult to understand.
If this was the case, there would be no purpose for background checks, or registration of any type of property. By submitting to background checks, the next step is registration, then confiscation of property. Which gets back to the weakest link philosophy, once you allow a right that is important to another of your fellow citizen to be corrupted, you should expect a right that is important to you to be taken away as well.
One other thing that at least one of the Supreme Court justices mentioned during Haynes v U.S. is that registration of guns is the very first step to confiscation.
Fielden... our modern society IS the problem! People send their kids to school, unmannerly, rude, not knowing how to use a table utensil and they expect to get a polite, mannerly child returned? Today's teachers are union people first, teachers second. Besides, why is it a teacher's responsibility to civilize your child?
Parents have abdicated theiur responsibility because of needing to climb the corporate ladder!! Very sad!
Deprogrammer 2.10
After reading your post, one thing is absolutely certain. NO GUN FOR YOU.
The background check I want conducted is on the head of the insane asylum that let this nut LaPierre out.
For it and now against it, sound familiar? So what's wrong with registering instruments of death? Oh, I know, that's a no no, because "They" will know you have a ......, and "they" will.....?
Before you folks start thumping on me, we have several weapons in our home, plus a concealed carry, all of our weapons are registered, have no problem with background checks and registration--after all have to register one's vehicle and obtain liability insurance, so what's the big deal? Also, in favor of liability insurance for the weapons--after all accidents do happen, whether intentional or not. What are you people afraid of? Nobody is coming to take your weapons, have at it. Oh, private sale--pink slip the thing, just like we do with automobiles--too lazy to inconvenient, pfft!
Meanwhile would like to remind you folks and Cruz conveniently forgot this when he was lecturing Senator Fienstien, SCOTUS has already limited the 2nd A, Scalia-Heller, 2008, so don't pretend that that didn't happen, it did.
Agreed! And as a gun collector myself, it is in our best interest to require mandatory background checks and to register our weapons with our local Constable. This can be done on a local level with people in our community that we TRUST.
We have the right to own as many guns as we want. That will not change. But as a gun owner in the community, we must curtail weapons falling into the wrong hands.
I recall a time when the NRA was all about gun safety, training, and proper handling of a firearm. It taught us the proper respect for our weapons. How to care for our guns and keep them in good working order.
At some point in time, the NRA has turned it's back on the founding principles, and started seeding mass conspiracy theories. I have to question La Pierre's mental condition, as he seems to see all manner of "plans" which do not or never did exist. There are medications for that kind of paranoia, and he should be on two or three of them.
Elanor Roosevelt once said; "With great freedom comes great responsibility."
As gun owers....WE have a responsibility to our community.
Excellent post sky parrot! I am a former FFL License holder and gave it up in 2003 when I sold my gun business. Got sick of the whack jobs coming into my store and talking about "how the gubment was going to take their guns." Made lotsa money on the assault weapons and Hi— Cap Mags. Resented the fact that non-storfront owners and licensees could set up at gun shows and NOT have to do background checks. That said I've broken down my position to this:
1. Forget banning semi-auto assault style weapons. The shape of a firearm does not affect its' function.
2. Limit magazines to 15 rounds. Plug the damn things like you plug your shotgun when duck hunting.
3. Close the "gun show" loophole.
Oh and one more thing for you pusses who want to look like Rambo. Forget your fantasies. Real men use bolt action rifles and open sights AND have some perspective on the history of weapons on the commercial and military level.
A ? for the jacka$$ in Albany: Ever been shot at?
skyparrot, JT terrific posts!
I don't own a gun, never have and never will. That said, I have no problem with people owning guns, I have family members who do because they enjoy hunting. I just don't think owning guns capable of mass destruction and intended for the battle field is a right; nor is owning huge magazine clips and drums for convenience necessary.
The point I don't get about being so resistant to background checks is that conducting a background check as a seller of your potential buyer is taking personal responsibility. Keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals is part of your duty as a citizen.
I join the growing list of responsible gun owners that don't have a problem of registering my guns. If the government wants to take the guns I am sure I am not going to fight against that with guns, but with the ballot and the courts. I hunt and fish and enjoy the outdoors, what I don't enjoy is the news flash that 20 little kids have been gunned down by a maniac with guns.
JT-456250
Look to those in Britian and see what happened to their resgistered guns in collections. Passing a backround check without regitration of the weapon is not doable by the Feds because of other reasons of thiers which is the same thing as in Canada. When ever a weapon is put on the ban list they come and get them and if you think you lost yours inorder to keep it your wrong. Don't buy into them having the same commen sense and agenda as you do. According to Fienstien's bill you may very well lose the ability to pass those collectables down to your family or sell them later, especially the autos.
Torpedo, well said. From what I've read and heard explained is that the Feinstein amendment is different from the previous assault weapons ban because it takes into consideration exactly what you mention in #1. It is the lessons learned from the first one that makes this one better. It's a tough sell and I doubt it passes because of the filibuster in the Senate, some foot-dragging democrats and the House GOP will never allow it to the floor for debate. I wish it would pass because it is the right thing to do.
trlrunr, the Feinstein bill does not require confiscation of existing weapons that would be banned. You may not think you've bought what the gun manufacturers are selling but you have.
NRA head Merchant of Death Wayne LaPierre is a home land terrorist. So, he should be dealt with as a Nation would deal with any other terrorist that is responsible for killing our citizens.
Great post and completly agree, with Sky parret, and Torpedo You. I see shifting the semi-auto's re-classified to the NFA of 34 for 30 cal and above and the problem is solved. I own only bolt action and single shots. and I have a big dog for home protection
Actually having a dog is a bigger deterrent then owning a gun, but don't tell the got to have a gun gang that. They don't even realize they are 22 times more likely to shoot themselves or somebody they know then to be the actual victim of a violent crime. Gun nuts are the saddest of the sad. It falls into the same thing as a middle class person voting against their own self interest and voting republican.
trlrunr - The UK does not have a Second Amendment. Their citizens do not have a "Right" to own a gun and they do not have the legal process or recourses for gun issues that we do. Respectfully, your comparison is not contextual.
JodiIowa, You've overlooked one thing about Fienstein's legislation. Several states have already implemented or are considering implementing legislation that requires citizens remove firearms from their home states or requires them to be destroyed or turned over the the cops, based on her proposals. That is essentially a ban on citizens of those states from owning the disputed firearms.
As for others that say use bolt action and open sight firearms...I say keep your opinions to yourself. I live in a rural environment and often have to protect my livestock from predators. I use a scope to make sure that I'm going to hit what I aim at.
As for registration...I am a military trained small arms expert. You want me to register my firearms? Make a Constitutional amendment that guarantees my firarms will never be confiscated or be required to remove them from my home as long as I am a law abiding citizen with no felony convictions.
All I've seen from the anti-gun types is take, take, take when it comes to rights. I gave 6 years of my life to defending the Constitution and I'd almost be willing to bet that a large number of the anti-gun movement have never given a single day to defending the Constitution in any way or were in the streets protesting their "right" not to be drafted.
@ Jody IA
A 22 caliber pistol can cause mass destruction as well. To make most of these weapons that are in Frankensteins bill illegal is looney as I've seen.
By the time politicians get done with eliminating guns they don't like, they move on banning a 22 pistol. Better get stocked up on rocks and BB's for your BB gun to hunt.
Also to the other posters. My dachsund is not going to deter someone who is hell bent on destruction. I'm handicapped and can't handle a big dog, so, why would you prefer I'm unprotectd?
excellent post JT. A gun owner who is smart, sensible, and someone I can trust. You're a dying breed, but one we need more of...
awesome, another great gun owner. Good post Johntho, and it's nice to see others who realize that the most potent weapon the founding fathers gave us to combat tyranny comes from the BALLOT BOX and not the 2nd amendment. Kudos!
And registering guns will accomplish this.........how exactly?
LaPierre exposes himself for what he is - a paid hack for the gun manufacturers.
I hear the Ed Show had is weekly slot moved to the weekends... No sh!t, their network is a joke, full of lies & hatred.
"Der Derka Der!!!"
Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:
"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "Y...ou just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election.
The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971 - before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc.
Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took one (1) year or less to become the law of the land - all because of public pressure.
Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to SHARE this on Facebook or forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.
In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.
Congressional Reform Act of 2012
1. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office.
2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social
Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.
3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.
Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
5. Congress loses their current health care system and
participates in the same health care system as the American people.
6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void effective 12/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women.
Congress made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in
Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers
envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their
term(s), then go home and back to work.
If each person SHARES this on Facebook or contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S. ) to receive the message. Don't you think it's time?
THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!
The NRA, under LaPierre, is struggling to become part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.Turning our schools into armed camps is not a solution.
I wouldn't say they are "struggling to become part of the problem."
They're EASILY becoming part of the problem...
The schools have been a big part of the problem for 30 years. Add in a huge % of parents who don't care either. Left-wing teachers with screwed up agendas who tell the kids they can do anything that makes them feel good. Parents who don't have a clue what their kids are doing. Add some drugs, unlimited violent video games, no decent social activity, perhaps a few mental problems. Stir well. Add metal detectors to schools for all the knives, etc.
Apprpoximately 90+% of the citizens polled in this country support background checks.
Approximately 70+% of NRA members support background checks.
Those figure alone speak volumes as to how far LaPierre and the GOP leadership is out of touch. Is it any wonder why they're suffering at the polls?
"This just in from the Bureau of Made Up Statistics and Sketchy Polling Practices"
I support a background check, but I don't support a gun registry. Having a way to check if the person you are selling a gun to is not on the prohibited ownership list is fine as long as the government doesn't require the serial number of the weapon being sold.
Anyone who thinks that the liberals won't maintain a database of serial numbers attached to the background check information is crazy. That list would be the first thing needed for confiscation of weapons in the future, and Feinstein has publicly stated that she would have done exactly that if she had the support in Congress.
If the polls don't say what a republican believes they just pretend the poll is no good.
Just how did that work out for you in the last election where you ignored those polls too?
I know this may come as a surprise but there is a real world out here that runs on facts instead of your made up beliefs.
And Mike no one is coming to confiscate your weapons. Interesting how freedom to kill is so important to the men who are working hard to make women into second class citizens with no say so about her own body because she might kill someone.
No abortions but the republicans are fighting for your right to own a gun of massive destruction and kill as many children as you want. Some joke the right to life party.
I have no problem with background checks by licensed dealers, I believe most states already have background checks. I am against a requirement for a background check when a family member gives a weapon to another family member. I am also against a weapons registry maintained by the Federal Government. The Feds can't even maintain the "no fly list" so how are they going to control a national gun registry and who would be responsible for it? The left just wants more Federal Government control over all aspects of our lives. How about letting the States decide their own gun control laws? What makes us think the Federal Government can do a better job than the States? We already have Federal laws for the sale, purchase, and control of automatic, assault weapons and they can't do a good job of enforcing those.
Where I live you only have to drive an hour and a half to get around the state's gun control laws. In the bigger states this is more like 4 or 5 hours, but very doable.
Jaker for God's sake read something. You look ignorant.
So what you are saying is that you have no problem that if in the event the mother of the Sandy Hook killer had died naturally, that of course all her guns should go to her mentally ill son with no background check. So the mentally ill should not be able to buy guns, just inherit them.
Criminals just use the states with the lax guns laws to buy their guns and then go back and commit crimes in states where they can't get those guns. It is like republicans only seem to grasp half the story and want you to also put on your blinders to avoid realizing the whole story too.
Gun safety has to be a national response to be effective.
Americans,
The mother of the Sandy Hook killer knew her son was mentally unstable and yet still kept guns in the house...what does that say about her as a parent?? Perhaps if she exercised sound judgement and not owned guns in the first place, no one would have been killed.
Americans First- You're quite wrong. Like most anti-gun movement people, you have conveniently overlooked legislation currently in place or being considered by several states that require the questionable firearms be shipped out of state, turned over to the cops, or be rendered useless. That amounts to taking away the firearms, even if the government isn't actually taking them away. At least try to make factual statements when defending your position.
As for the inheritence issue of firearms...you have a valid issue. However, no legislation been put into place to require such actions. In fact, that action alone complicates the probate of a Last Will and Testament greatly and increases the cost of settling an estate due to the cost of lawyer fees. How much of an estate's worth are you willing to lose as an inheritence should there be a firearm bequeath involved? At $300 an hour for legal fees and background checks it can get quite expensive. And that's not even including the mental health background checks. I point this out because I spent $30,000 verifying the heirs of a $83,000 estate because the widow was found to be bigamist. Imagine a slightly less expensive, maybe, estate expenditure determining if one or all of the heirs is to receive a firearm bequeath. That doesn't even incude the alternative legal actions needed to dispose of a firearm should a heir not pass a background check. That could prolong a settlement of the state while a legal determination is made or spur legal challenges to the estate that increase expenses. Any legislation will have long term effects on future legal actions and remedies are not being put into place to address them.
Most of the gun control legislation being put into place is very short-sighted.
Americans - And if she had died of natural causes, who would have done the back ground check since the law proposed is that it is up to the current owner? So I guess your proposal is no one should own a weapon because of they die a mentally unstable person might inherit it.
The left wing nuts are only interested in one thing and that is complete Federal Government control over a person from cradle to grave. The mentality of the left is gee the Feds know what is best for us therefore they should make ALL LAWS uniformed across the United States.
yeah, and in every poll that's been published on this matter for the last 3 months...
/palmface
What a joke, you support the party that is making laws to control a woman's private body daily. How is that not control over a person from cradle to grave? That you support, but control over a gun and clips that can kill 26 people in 5 minutes is too much control?
Republicans are just fine with control just as long as the government controls what they want.
And why shouldn't laws be uniform, don't all Americans deserve the same rights everywhere?
Americans,
People do deserve the same rights, they are in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. As for laws, no, every city/county/state is unique. So a urban area of the country may need different laws then people that live in the city. Many areas do have common laws, say speeding, every were in the US I know of has a law against it, but the punishment is different as punishments are set up by location vs a one-size fits all.
BACKhouse
Are u outta ur fkn mind?
Nope--and why not register, again what is to be fearful about, really. Oh private sale, no pink slip and weapon happens to shred a few people, don't want the weapon traced back or forward--jeez!
Guns kill which is why people buy them. Look at all the comments on line through the years on how gun owners are so willing to shot and kill. Let's talk about less killing.
If the NRA says the good guys are out there getting the bad guys, then with all the guns in the Southern state, there should be no bad guys to find. In my state, the good guys with guns have done a lousy job fighting crime. It's all fairytales.
Why is it that I have a harder time taking out a book from the library than buying a gun?
hmmm - Perhaps there's a correlation there...
You fill out 4 pages and show you driver's license,then they call the state to see if you can take out a book?
Tough library,dude.
Point taken, but that's not in all states, and certainly not at the gun shows.
and my library is tough, especially the late fees!
More mindless liberal propaganda BS...Felons can get a library card,but they can't legally buy a gun..ever heard of NICS ??...and the bogus national universal background checks,is a front for national registry..the 40% of guns that are suppose to be bought through the so call gun show loopholes is a bogus statistic..I have been to dozens of gun shows and have always had to do a federal background check, when buying a gun,and it's the same with everybody I know who attend these shows and buys a gun...there are well over a hundred million gun owners in this country,and 99% of them are responsible and law abiding.
It's more difficult to get a Visa card in this country than it is to get a gun. Or to vote. Yet the NRA thinks closing any loopholes is a threat to democracy. Private sellers of automobiles have to register their sales. Hasn't stopped people from selling cars. La Pierre and his cohorts at the NRA make their living selling fear. It's obvious that their agenda is not based on responsibility and the necessity for reasonable gun control. They will continue to hype their interpretation of Second Amendment even though said amendment says nothing about the government's ability to regulate access to weapons nor which weapons may be sold to the public. In their view, any and all types of firearms should be available to anyone and everyone.
Handguns and assault rifles do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it. La Pierre and his supporters will never understand how quickly the supposed "law abiding citizen" quickly becomes a criminal through one squeeze of the trigger whether intentional or not.
Where do you people come from, be happy we have a 2nd A, it's the bottom line of our freedom, perhaps someday soon the whole world will change, and the unarmed will be overrun, just like those areas in africa where the people cannot defend themselves. It can happen here too, perhaps not in our lifetime, but our kids or grandkids, is that want you people want? And the found fathers gave their all for you lousy people who don't understand the reason for the people to stay armed to fight and resist, it's not for personal home safety. You all make those of us who have sons in the military sick, supposedly safety instead of liberty, wrong choice. Don't you know world history, fools.
sam:
"..the unarmed will be overrun,.." By whom? If we're stupid enough to elect a leader with the ego of Mitt Romney, or Wayne LaPierre, we just might be. I don't think we're that stupid. Personally, I see myself managing our nation from the ballot box, rather from my bunker - as some would.
And incidentally, I see "the bottom line of our freedom" at the ballot box, not the gun show.
Pitting a very small percentage of our citizenship against armed forces pledged to follow the orders of the Commander in Chief is ridiculous and suicidal. Save the Afghanistan example - it evaporates instantly under any serious scrutiny.
I will support no laws prohibiting the building of personal bunkers - preferably out of rifle range of the general public - if you're going to snap, do so in private.
Sam:
Perhaps a little more time in school studying English, punctuation, and critical thought might help.
"If guns don't kill people, why do we give guns to people when they go to war? Why not just send the people?"
Anonymous
sam -- you & I (and many others) get it. Those who are naive will simply be unprepared and will fall by the wayside. Oh well.
thinking point here and off topic, hearing DiFi, diane feinstein's comment about finding the dead body ya have to think about this, how ghoulish is a person that is willing to stick a finger in a bullet hole of a dead person and we have had this creature in the senate for decades yet no one wonders about how really creepy this is?
The creepy part is the republicans are fighting to protect the gun manufactures and killers right to own guns instead of the victims.
Of course the creepy guy to the republicans is the one who finds the bodies and is trying to determine if there is any life left in them.
Of course it's creepy to you lilbear. You belong to the group that would turn your back and walk away. Can't be bothered to make even the slightest effort to help someone. Speaks volumes about you. But wait, I thought you "we need guns for protection" guys/gals were fearless? So, Diane Feinstein has more guts than you, by your own admission. Thanks for admitting you're a paranoid coward.
If ever a mummy needed to be rewrapped and stuffed back into the sarcophagus, it would be Frankenfeinstein. Lapiere should send her a big box of chocolates for all that she has done to drive membership. The NRA is growing at an explosive rate thanks to all the rantings of the gun hating boobs on the left. More Americans are rejecting the lies and tortured stats that hate groups like Brady and Bloomberg propagate. Gun control is just another progressive pipedream that does little to address the heart of the problem. And how ironic is it that the most rabid anti gun legislators are the same ones that preside over the most violent states/cities? Feinstein, Shumer and Bloomberg can't even stop the violence in their own backyards yet they are the ones we should defer to for legislation on how to prevent it on a national scale? Of course, when you fail at your job, you can always just blame someone or something else. Democrates have this down to an artform.
shellie-657180
i was a medic in vietnam dont lecture me about helping others, i did 18 months there and put my own blood on the ground for those i saved. while you may have the right to free speak you dont have the privilege to lecture me about that which you know nothing about.
do a combat tour as a medic then come back and try to explain your views
Lappierre unfortunately is speaking on things that he really doesn't completely understand. I suppose we ought to give him some latitude that he doesn't really grasp the legal theories behind the points of his discussions.
We cannot have "armed guards" at public elementary schools that also threaten the safety of America's schoolchildren. Teachers or principals and administrators that are educated and fully trained to keep firearms on the campuses should be permitted to do so, in the event of an incident. In fact, I think it wise to start regarding the education of persons a little bit more on these matters than we are and I'm not talking only about psychiatrists. The courts already weigh too heavily in their favor as a credible authority.
I have witnessed extreme corruption by law enforcement officers that have seriously abused the process of gun registration.
I have witnessed threats made against decent, lawful gun owners by police officers, and others that have not registered their firearms that are known by the police left alone when they commit crimes.
So, there is bribery going on that is not being sufficiently exposed to the public on all sides.
But, this very serious issue affects our laws, affects our national security, minimizes an emphasis on the United States Armed Forces, and gives far too much latitude to police agencies.
This is the direction in which our nation is headed and I do not care for it.
Extremism results when too many people that claim they know all things control most of society.
America - you're an extremist nation right now.
I suggest you lighten up for your children's sake because you're scaring the hell out of everyone and that is grossly unfair to your children that deserve to see adults acting in a mature manner, especially in developing reasonable solutions to these matters that their future security relies on.
Most reasonable gun owners do not feel a need to thrust a barrel in everyone's faces. That claim is unfounded and not reality.
The fear-mongers are dividing this nation and asking law abiding gun-owners to relinquish their rights - which is actually asking them to break the law.
Your police officers are corrupted.
Violent criminals with known histories are not being prosecuted because they are running this nation through solicitation and bribes.
Grow up America - you were caught with your pants down and you don't like it.
I'm disgusted with all of you that are unable to have decent discourse and find reasonable solutions like adults. You are a terrible embarrassment to me and my family that chartered the seacoast communities in the northeast to resolve problems like this and establish new government systems.
Have I ever been consulted for any of these issues at any time by my fellow community members?
Not once.
Have at it, then. Don't ask me for any help in the future. None of you deserves it.
I share certain sympathies with both sides of this debate. Unfortunately, both sides are pretty emotional, and it is very difficult for them to talk to each other and each sensible solutions and compromises.
On the one hand, I think its probably a good idea for responsible people to have guns on campus, or in other public places. However, it isn't that easy to define who is responsible and who not.
For instance, in my neighborhood alone, nearly everyone would pass a criminal background check, and yet there are a number of people who are unstable enough that I would not feel comfortable with them having a weapon.
Unfortunately, the pro-gun side of the argument, offers me little security in how they would regulate who gets a gun and who doesnt. When I listen to Wayne, it often sounds like his idea is to give a gun to everyone, and the good guys will shoot the bad guys, then there is no problem, seriously ???
Anyone who isn't a crackpot paranoia sufferer, realizes you cant stop criminals feeding the blackmarket and gangs with trunk-loads of illegal guns, unless you start tracking weapon sales. You cant find the straw purchasers, unless you put a name to the gun. Only criminals have something to fear.
If the government really wants your gun, they don't need a registry to get it. Try thinking it through for crying out loud.
The biggest threat to your guns rights, is criminals with guns, and mass shootings. The more that happens, the more people will support gun bans and restrictions. The number of people tired of the carnage, grows with each tragedy. Gun rights are up for debate right now, because of tragedies. You should be embracing ever possible way to prevent these tragedies, as a means to protecting your rights. Assault rifles wouldn't be getting banned right now, if you had embraced reasonable rules in the first place. You are here now, because of your stubborn stupidity and thinking the 2nd and the NRA would protect you forever. Not happening. If enough people die over something, EVERY right is up for debate.
The entire reason guns are being regulated, and some banned, is because you refused to be sensible and do whats reasonable when you had the chance to meet people half way. Now you will suffer the consequences for that apathy and arrogance, and have rules shoved down your throat. Losing more than you would have, had you done what everyone knows is the right thing to do.
You gun nuts only have yourselves to blame for this. Criminals don't have any gun rights, and you should have been helping to make sure guns weren't ending up in the wrong hands. Instead you fought every attempt at sensible protections that would prevent badguys getting guns. Too selfish to see past your nose. Well now you can eat the fruits of your selfishness, and trust me, no one is crying over it but you.
Well said, start holding gun owners civilly and criminally responsible for acts committed with guns they purchase, you will see guns available for criminals dry up real fast!!!! Thee guns criminals have do not just grow out of the earth spontaneously. They come from lawful purchasers who then go out and sell their guns illegally, or a few that get stolen ( because they were not locked up carefully). If you want guns and you are responsible, you lock the guns up in a safe place so kids and other family members do not have access to them, you do not sell them to criminals and you are diligent to make sure these guns are used only for their intended purpose. You also support laws that make sure your fellow gun owners are likewise responsible.
BBB - total BS. In Sept 2005 a twice convicted felon with a 20 years long criminal history was arrested with a firearm. He was set free on bond. He went on to commit 7 more felonies. One of which killed a man. He was finally sent to prison for life +60 years. To date not one person has been charged with providing him with the gun. Was it stolen? The cops aren't saying. Why wasn't held withou bond? The law said he was entitled to it despite his criminal history.
As for your statement that a few guns are stolen because they are not locked up...wake up to reality. Locks and safes can be overcome. and how about the recent gun thefts from cars belonging to the cops. Real responsible ownership there <sarcasm>.
These people just continue to bend facts and lie to pump out fear to the general population. If someone uses facts and evidence to contradict them, they are now "elitists who think they're better than you." I'm guessing that the PR firm who handles foxnews is the same one used by the NRA.
The truth is if firearms were too deadly to allow citizens to own, then why are murders trending downward as firearm purchases are increasing? Why is the most popular firearm today, the AR-15, selling at record numbers and being used in less than 2% of murders, but is #1 on the list of firearms gun-control advocates want to ban? Why are males under the age of 25, living in impoverished urban areas, the victims and perpetrators of the vast majority of the murders in the US? We can't try to treat the symptom and let the disease spread. Gun-control proponents are just looking for a reason to justify their wishes. They're using a tragic situation to push a political agenda, not societal improvements.
Correlation doesn't imply causation. You have an enormous task to prove that gun sales translates to fewer murders. The overall crime rate is trending downward. Could it be that funding to police departments is trending upward? Could it be that we're sentencing thugs to longer prison terms? Could it be related to better overall economic conditions for the low income earners? Could it be related to the number of McDonald's burgers served?
That's an easy one: because of gangs. Gangs don't work like they used to. Cops put away leaders very efficiently. Now gangs are decentralized with no head. Gang membership is automatic depending on your neighborhood, whether you choose to participate or not, you are a fair target. So in cities like Chicago more guns isn't translating to fewer murders. Chicago is home to more than 6 times the number of legal guns than New York, yet despite a fourth of the population, has a raw number of murders around the same as New York.
Perhaps we would get better results if gun advocates stopped impeding government from conducting research on firearms violence, let the agencies responsible have the authority, funding, and ability to prosecute people who break existing laws. Did you know that 1% of gun dealers account for over 50% of guns used in crime? So says the ATF in 2003, until that report was no longer permitted to be released to the public. Did you know that problem gun dealers can only be inspected up to 1 time per year? Don't you think gun dealers breaking the law ought to be under more pressure than a once a year inspection, if that?
You'll take a lot of heat for this. The most rabid of these guys will willingly sacrifice their kids to have access to that newest piece of quasi-military hardware. I simply say that you can carry whatever weapon you'd willingly give to the creepiest, most rotten, perverted scurvy criminal blackguard who has a grudge against you, that you ever met in your life.
Wow, how many negative headline stories about CPAC can First Read spin out in one day?
David Axelrod is giving a gold star in the forehead to the most inventive First Read reporter at CPAC...
You may get an invitation to the White House with Chuck Todd, to have the "White House Soup of the Day ":
"Media Poodle Soup"
Don't blame First Read for ruining your big "Comeback" plan... Blame CPAC.
Espousing stupidity and vowing its continuance are a lot different than reporting on people that espouse stupidity and vow its continuance...
In the old days, before your genetic line degraded to where it is today, it was often referred to as "Don't kill the messenger" ... The inference of course being that you have a problem and it's NOT the person that pointed it out to you...
Gun should absolutely be registered. Tracking ownership of guns used in crimes would do a lot to make this country safer. Of course, the NRA and the gun nutz don't want anything positive to be done. They believe their violent hobby trumps our right to life. liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Their way doesn't work, and it continues to be proven every single day. Who wants a locked down country, where there is a policeman on every corner and one in every classroom and office? Only the insane. If you don't have a heart, at least consider the sheer magnitude of the costs.
You do realize that stolen and lsot gun reports are often destoryed after a legally set number of years, don't you?
I say this with experience. I have a shotgun that was found inside a wall of a building. The law enforcement in two counties ran checks on it and found nothing wrong with its history. However, They both reported that their records are routinely destroyed every 10 years as a cost savings measure due to the cost of maintaining a growing database. I keep record of their responses should the shotgun ever turn up on a stolen gun list in the future.
You mean like a list of the drivers in America. Because a vehicle can cause massive damage I am required to take a test proving I know the rules, if I am new they make me take an actual driving test and make me prove I can drive and park the thing.
Then to protect my safety, congress passed laws forcing me to wear a seat-belt or get a ticket when I am in my car. Then they have passed all kind of speed limit laws to protect others when I am in a vehicle that can kill others.
Then to protect others financial safety, congress passed laws forcing me to have insurance to pay for hurting other people if I am in an accident or I get a ticket.
But somehow asking the same of gun owners to be responsible is too much for the NRA who cares nothing for our children or our safety and everything for the rich manufactures. As normal for the republican party they always back those with the money against the will of the people.
Nothing on NBC about Michael Moore wanting the crime scene photos of the Sandy Hook victims put up for display?
Huh.
Well isn't that strange.
No Jason, posting an irrelevant comment on a blog is strange!
FlaNative - Why is that an irrelevant comment, since the purpose of wanting the photos is to help push the gun control bill in the Senate?
So What? We NEED GUN CONTROL LAWS and we "SANE" people don't give a damn what that N.R.A [ Nonensical Republican A$$hole] idiot says. LaPierre is like the old man version of "Honey Boo Boo"
LaPierre is a total jackass. There should be a registry of gun owners. What the hell is he smoking?
The fact that he was even there speaking shows that's he's irrelevant.
It's amazing how much of an idiot LaPierre and many right wingers are.
1) LaPierre wholeheartedly supported universal background checks in the past - when it was unlikely that a bill would be passed to implement them.
2) LaPierre is now wholeheartedly against universal background checks now that it's likely they will pass.
3) the overhwhelming majority of Americans WANT universal background checks
4) The comparison of a future America to the tinpot dictatorships and totalitarian states is a phony one. Our Constitution has a set of checks and balances that PREVENT our country from falling into a dictatorship or a totalitarian state - and even if we managed somehow to fall far enough to get there, the dictator or totalitarian leader would IGNORE the constitution anyway - your precious 2nd amendment rights, 1st amendment rights and every other right would fall into the trash basket ANYWAY if that ever happened. Whenever the American people get tired of the direction of one party, they elect the other party into power, thereby preventing one party, or one person from EVER getting the power to take us to dictatorship or totalitarian leadership. The only way to even begin to take us to totalitarian state is to prevent certain groups from voting - oh wait, did I just describe what the REPUBLICANS have been trying to do?????
5) Properly thought out gun control laws DO NOT violate your second amendment right. You have the right to vote - but you don't get to do it without going through a minimal background check (photo ID, home address check, etc.).
The hysteria behind the 'no way on ANY gun control' crowd - in my humble opinion - borders on a paranoia so deep that it is nearly a mental illness. Again - that's my opinion, your mileage may vary.
And yes - I'm a gun owner and would be affected by ANY chance in gun laws.
But remember, many of those same people believe that in 2016 Obama is going to declare himself dictator and order the US armed forces to round up all patriotic gun owners and put them into concentration camps.
I'm still waiting for all these constitution waving 2nd amendment "patriots" to line up and start protesting the infringements on the 1st amendment. After all, those rights should not be infringed either. When can we expect you partiots to start demanding porn be readily available to every American man woman and child? Take those brown wrapers off and let the porn industry thrive! Of course you'll also need to protest the infringement on the 4th as well. What say you patriots?
"Universal Background Checks" sounds good in theory and there is little wonder that it has broad support on the surface, but the devil is in the details that people and politicians don't consider in their blind rush to "do something" after Newtown. How would this work in practice? How would it be enforced? Consider this scenario: (1) Two friends out in the country, an hour from the nearest town of any significance, want to trade pistols. Do they have to do background checks on each other? Where/how would they gain access to the database that would allow them to do a background check? Are we really going to allow civilians access to a database that has sensitive private information (e.g. Social Security #) and potentially derogatory information about other citizens? If they don't do a background check, what then? If the weapon is never used to commit a crime, the Govt will never know about the transfer. If a weapon is used to commit a crime, how will they prove it was acquired as a result of an illegal transfer, unless all weapons are required to be registered before they are transferred? Then the Govt would have enforce registration...
@ Former Semper Fi
In those background checks there could be major issues with HIPAA laws. Potentially huge civil rights issues.
I am for backgound checks as well, and have stated that many times. Im real curious how they get around that
Strange, I've been watching our current fed admin weaving & dodging & sneaking around just about every checks & balances water hazard it can evade.
Wayne is correct! If you take away part of the 2nd amendment the rest will go soon after. Work on the real problem which is the mental heath system. Speaking of mental heath the pig Michael Moore was just verbally corrected by the parents of the Sandy Hook victims because he would like to display the pictures of these children killed by a mentally ill Adam Lanza. They told him to pack it up his fat A$$ because of his disrespect.
Here's a question for you believers in the unlimited 2d Amendment. Does the 2d Amendment give me the right to accumulate quantities of poison gas or radioactive waste to use in a smut bomb in my garage, should I plan to use these things as a weapon sometime?
You could exercise the full breadth of your second amendment rights as intended by its authors by simply taking out your musket (long or short) and loading it from the barrel end today...
Wayne is a sphincter with mental health issues.
DJ, if we did mandatory mental health checks, you and Wayne would be among the first in the institution. Be careful what you wish for.
SP, Chick and Jagoff: You people haven't a clue about what you are speaking about which is why this board is so entertaining.
There is definitely a reason for people like all of you not to own guns!
I have worked for the government and have had clearance from Interpol because of my business. Not worried about my mental heath but the 3 of you definitely should worry.
It's already happened, you know. The SCOTUS has already limited our unrestricted ability to own specific types of weapons.
And you didn't address the implied question from @SP4strange. Do you believe that individual citizens should be able to possess any weapons that the US military does?
DJ - The people who make the decisons as the whether someone is mentally sound are often the same people who problems of their own.
Would you want a doctor who has a drug problem or other addiction making a determination as to your mental health? Who is going to run the background check on them to verify they are mentally healthy? Who is going to remove them from medical practice should they be found mentally unhealthy or addicted?
The anti-gun rhetoric is putting the cart before the horse. Any legislation that does not address potential future consequences is ill-advised and dangerous to the rights of everyone.
Head in the can: No I do not believe that people should own automatic weapons but the ones we have currently should be left alone.
The gun control crowd, with Sen Feinstein in the lead, has admitted that they believe and are counting on the "slippery slope" theory to further their nullification of the Second Amendment. The fact that private citizens already aren't allowed to own certain weapons is used as precedent to go after those of us who own legal semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and pistols with magazines over a certain size in the wake of Newtown. If this latest effort is successful, they will bide their time until they sense an another opportunity to go after another type of weapon, and so it goes. The first step is to invalidate my rights and interests by telling me that I don't "need" a semi-automatic rifle, even though it's legal and I handle it responsibly. Since I don't "need" it in their eyes, they then feel justified in outlawing it. The State has NO business telling me what I "need" or don't "need"- they have to first prove that what I am doing is criminal. For those of you hunters out there who think it doesn't affect you- wait until suburbia creeps your way and people start questioning why you "need" to hunt- just go to the grocery store.
Please do link where they "admitted" this.
Oh and Brett, they had a ban on these weapons for ten years and your second amendment rights did not go away, so find another excuse. This one doesn't work.