Gun News Talk

Users who are viewing this thread

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
that is the same kind of bullshit which the anti gun crowd always uses.

I never have said I favored unregulated gun ownership. Never have I said that.

As long as you anti gun folks keep up with that rhetoric you will never see a solution. You can dream all you like about eliminating all guns but that is impossible.

How about some real solutions instead of emotional knee jerk solutions

And nope I will not give you those solutions. You need to think outside of the box and come up with something yourself instead of something that comes from the likes of the anti guns jealots.

See how that works for ya. :D

Again, I ask what kind of gun regulation would you approve of?

What is going on is not 'knee jerk', it is examining the problem and addressing it. The term is frequently used to diminish the notion and justify doing nothing. Of all the reasons for having background checks, in my view, legally purchasing a gun (not hunting rifle) is a good one.
 
  • 346
    Replies
  • 5K
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
I wonder if the lefts feel that background checks would have prevented the boston terror attack.
People hit by ball bearings and various items.
The lefts want to ignore the desire to kill is the governing factor...not the method of killing.

You are not informed or suffering from 'conservative syndrome' if that is what you wonder. :smiley24:
 

The Man

Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor
Messages
11,798
Reaction score
623
Tokenz
176.84z
Last edited by a moderator:

The Man

Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor
Messages
11,798
Reaction score
623
Tokenz
176.84z
Are you insane... How can you seriously try to associate a terrorist attack to gun control ?

You intentionally missed the meaning of the post.
"The lefts want to ignore the desire to kill is the governing factor...not the method of killing."

The other point in case you missed it is....no guns were involved...but the result is the same,that being multiple homicides.
Read above again "the desire to kill is governing factor ...not the method of killing."
 

The Man

Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor
Messages
11,798
Reaction score
623
Tokenz
176.84z
You are not informed or suffering from 'conservative syndrome' if that is what you wonder. :smiley24:
Do you feel background checks would have avoided the Incident {Boston}?
Are you choosing to brush this under the rug as Obama is doing?...so you can concentrate on firearms?
Let me ask you this....are the people that died from the blasts just as dead as those that died from firearms?
As a reminder lack of background checks played no role in the recent incidents to Boston.
 

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
Again, I ask what kind of gun regulation would you approve of?

What is going on is not 'knee jerk', it is examining the problem and addressing it. The term is frequently used to diminish the notion and justify doing nothing. Of all the reasons for having background checks, in my view, legally purchasing a gun (not hunting rifle) is a good one.
But it's not addressing it. Nothing short of a constitutional amendment addressing anything legally. Anything short of that is a cowardly end-run.
 

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
But it's not addressing it. Nothing short of a constitutional amendment addressing anything legally. Anything short of that is a cowardly end-run.

You know that with the raising of guns to deity status in this country, a constitutional amendment will never fly. Hence an argument to do nothing.

Do you feel background checks would have avoided the Incident {Boston}?
Are you choosing to brush this under the rug as Obama is doing?...so you can concentrate on firearms?
Let me ask you this....are the people that died from the blasts just as dead as those that died from firearms?
As a reminder lack of background checks played no role in the recent incidents to Boston.

I believe that background checks would have a lessening effect on the close to 30k people killed each year with a firearm. Why are you against them?
 

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
You know that with the raising of guns to deity status in this country, a constitutional amendment will never fly. Hence an argument to do nothing.
I'm not interested in your rationalization for doing a cowardly end-run around the supreme law of the land. I thought most Americans were supposedly for infringing out the right to keep and bear arms. If that's true then your cowardly end-run isn't really necessary. You should be advocating for constitutional amendment. The funny thing is that you're afraid to support such a move even in an anonymous poll!


I believe that background checks would have a lessening effect on the close to 30k people killed each year with a firearm. Why are you against them?
Are there any studies on this? I ask because it seems that nobody is willing to go beyond emotional appeal on this issue.
I believe that teaching firearm awareness and safety starting in elementary school would have a far greater impact on reducing firearm deaths. It would remove much of the novelty/romance and teach the kids to respect the tool rather than fear it.
 

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
The Senate shot down universal background checks today.

Are these facts?
*90% of U.S. Citizens support background checks.
*60% of all gun sales are all ready covered by background checks. This bill would have included guns sold at gun shows and over the internet.
*The bill specifically prevented a national registry based on gun sales.
*The NRA *used* to support background checks but for the sake of politics now does not.

Yes, the NRA lied their asses off and said the bill would provide for a registry, implying that someday the government could come take your guns. NRA leadership are incredibly myopic and their influence is bad for this country.

As President Obama said today, the NRA touted this as a victory, a victory for what? Leaving a giant loophole so people who don't want background checks can purchase their firearms and in effect reduce the effectiveness of current on the books gun regulations? If 60% of gun sales are covered by background checks WHY NOT get rid of this giant loophole?? None of you have an adequate answer.

Why? Because Accountable, to you and others of like thought there are no "common sense" regulations when it comes to gun regulations. None of you in any of these gun discussion have proposed anything other than the status quo. I am disgusted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Alien Allen

Froggy the Prick
Messages
16,633
Reaction score
22
Tokenz
1,206.36z
I bet you must have had a thrill down your leg today Minor with the shamless display by Obama when he did not get his way

Somebody needs to tell him campaign is over and that he needs to show leadership rather than acting like a petulant bully every time he does not get his way
 

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
I believe that background checks would have a lessening effect on the close to 30k people killed each year with a firearm.
Are there any studies on this?
The Senate shot down universal background checks today.

Are these facts?
*90% of U.S. Citizens support background checks.
*60% of all gun sales are all ready covered by background checks. This bill would have included guns sold at gun shows and over the internet.
*The bill specifically prevented a national registry based on gun sales.
*The NRA *used* to support background checks but for the sake of politics now does not.
I don't know if they are facts or not. Assuming that they are, not one of them addresses any affect on people killed each year with a firearm, either plus or minus. They are all irrelevant regarding what you believe to be the benefit of increased background checks.


If 60% of gun sales are covered by background checks WHY NOT get rid of this giant loophole?? None of you have an adequate answer.
How many crimes have been traced to this "giant loophole"?
What are the logistics to forcing private citizens to perform background checks? What are the penalties for not doing so?
What do studies (assuming that any exist) estimate the effect will be on crime?

The lack of answers to these questions is reason enough "WHY NOT get rid of this giant loophole." I don't really give a flying fuck whether you deem this reason adequate, or whether it eases your disgust.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
I don't know if they are facts or not. Assuming that they are, not one of them addresses any affect on people killed each year with a firearm, either plus or minus. They are all irrelevant regarding what you believe to be the benefit of increased background checks.

Mr Brick Wall, I got it. I got you. Let's just get rid of all background checks, who needs them...
 

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
Mr Brick Wall, I got it. I got you. Let's just get rid of all background checks, who needs them...
You state a belief. I ask if there are studies. You respond with irrelevant stats and claims. There's no need for you to get snippy. It's not my fault if you are frustrated. You believe what you believe. Fine. Can't you find any other source that actually supports you?

Isn't there a study somewhere that indicates that broadening background checks will prevent more crime, or one that shows stats for crimes committed using guns obtained through this "loophole"?
 

Alien Allen

Froggy the Prick
Messages
16,633
Reaction score
22
Tokenz
1,206.36z
You do understand that most firearms crimes involve illegal firearms correct?

I saw something in an article that there is virtually never a prosecution involving a background check that fails. If that is the case then what good are the existing background checks? I find it not credible that out of the thousands and thousands of denials that there is not a decent percentage that should have sent a flag up and resulted in prosecuting for certain denials.

Not that I am against background checks. I just don't want them kept. You pass the test then grant a purchase approval but throw out the test. Same as getting a drivers license. If you past the test I seriously doubt they keep those tests. But you know as well as I that the govt will keep records of who passes background checks and when it is to their liking will use that as they see fit.

I also am curious as to whether most states are like Michigan. When I purchased my two hand guns I had to get a purchase permit from the local police dept. There was fingerprinting and as I recall they sent the prints to the FBI. Exactly what is different from that and what would be in the proposed background checks???? Oh and one gun was purchased at a gun show. He may have had a dealers license but a month later I picked it up at his party store. Seems like the laws in MI already were doing what the current anti gun mob wants now?
 

Alien Allen

Froggy the Prick
Messages
16,633
Reaction score
22
Tokenz
1,206.36z
Minor I asked before and don't recall a response. If there were background checks as proposed would you agree to allow the applications to be destroyed after the process is completed if one gets approval? If not then you must be for gun registration. Do you want annual registrations then after the initial purchase?

Also I think you mentioned not applying background checks to hunting rifles/shot guns? If so why? One can kill just as easily if not more easily with a 5 load shot gun as a revolver. And what is to prevent somebody from sawing off the barrel to make it more easy to handle?
 

The Man

Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor
Messages
11,798
Reaction score
623
Tokenz
176.84z
I saw something in an article that there is virtually never a prosecution involving a background check that fails. If that is the case then what good are the existing background checks? I find it not credible that out of the thousands and thousands of denials that there is not a decent percentage that should have sent a flag up and resulted in prosecuting for certain denials.

Not that I am against background checks. I just don't want them kept. You pass the test then grant a purchase approval but throw out the test. Same as getting a drivers license. If you past the test I seriously doubt they keep those tests. But you know as well as I that the govt will keep records of who passes background checks and when it is to their liking will use that as they see fit.

I also am curious as to whether most states are like Michigan. When I purchased my two hand guns I had to get a purchase permit from the local police dept. There was fingerprinting and as I recall they sent the prints to the FBI. Exactly what is different from that and what would be in the proposed background checks???? Oh and one gun was purchased at a gun show. He may have had a dealers license but a month later I picked it up at his party store. Seems like the laws in MI already were doing what the current anti gun mob wants now?

Yes most places already have background checks...as well as restrictions in place for felons.
What are these people wanting that we do not already have?
They dont know...IMO they just want to voice a concern without actually knowing current laws and legislation.
IMO some places are to restrictive as it is....further restrictions could only be aimed for disarmament.
Not very liberal of the liberal crowd
 

Alien Allen

Froggy the Prick
Messages
16,633
Reaction score
22
Tokenz
1,206.36z
why do we need federal legislation ?

the 2nd amendment does not prevent background checks in individual states

seems like another issue that the feds want to have their iron grip on when it is not needed
 
Messages
63
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
In my opinion this article is far more accurate as to why the gun control bill never went any further then it did. You will never see this from any Liberal news source, because the "real truth" hurts. Of coarse you willhave to read it to know whats in it. :rolleyes:

The Media Lobbyists Lose on Guns

President Obama suffered a large, embarrassing loss in the Senate on a slew of gun-control bills. If this were a Republican president, they'd be sounding the lame-duck alarms on the nightly newscasts. But most media outlets can't do this. They were fully vested in this campaign alongside Obama, and to underscore his weakness is to acknowledge their own.

Since mid-December, the broadcast networks and cable news hosts like Piers Morgan and Joe Scarborough have relentlessly lobbied for gun control. On how many occasions did they completely shred the notion of objectivity — of journalism itself — and boldly engage in lobbying for gun control, using their networks as megaphones? Let's consider a few recent moments.

1. On April 11, "Morning Joe" hosted Vice President Biden for about an hour-long interview — yes, most people get 5-6-7 minutes, but if you're the Veep and want to promote gun control, you get an hour. It was an embarrassing hour of kissy-face that ended like this: Biden says, "Joe, thank you." Scarborough laughs. Biden: " No, no, no, no, no. You have changed the debate in America. You."

Scarborough replies, "Thank you so much." Biden insists, "The two guys that deserve — if anything gets done — an award here are you and Michael Bloomberg." Awwww, shucks

"We are the 90%," Joe Scarborough tweeted after the defeat. "And 90% will not be ignored." (I just love macho chest-thumping declarations of war in tweets. )

It's unsurprising that 90 percent have no objections to background checks in a vague polling question. But a new AP poll shows how "passionate" the public is on this issue. They asked: "What do you think the President and Congress should do about gun control? Do you think they should keep working to pass the changes to the nation's gun laws that are currently being negotiated, scrap the current negotiations and start over from scratch, or leave the nation's gun laws as they are now?"

It was very split: Thirty-nine percent said leave the laws as they are, 38 percent said keep working to pass changes and 20 percent said start over from scratch. Scarborough can't brag. "We are the 38 percent," he said.

2. On that same morning, in an interview on CNN, Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a co-author of the background-checks crackdown, said to anchor John Berman: "We appreciate your support, too.
This is very, very important." Berman didn't take exception when his objectivity was presumed to be lacking. He just replied, "Thank you, sir."

3. CNN put out a corporate press release headlined, "If 90 Percent of Americans Support New Background Checks, How Can Congress Do Nothing?"

They announced two days of special journalism devoted to underlining one side of the debate and undermining the other: "CNN takes an in-depth look at the national conversation and the debate over new background checks with Guns Under Fire: A CNN Special Report on Background Checks."

4. On several nights of "Hardball," MSNBC's Chris Matthews offered up the number of the Capitol switchboard. "You can get a hold of your Senator by calling, as I said last night, 202-224-3121. If you don't know your senator or member of Congress, fine, you just go to www.house.gov and enter your zip code to find out who your Congressman is. And www.Senate.Gov to find your Senator."

Can't this be simply acknowledged as corporate lobbying by Comcast, the owners of MSNBC? It certainly can't be described as something a "news" channel does.

5. Over at taxpayer-funded television, PBS omnipresence Bill Moyers posted a "Take Action" item on his "Moyers and Company" website. The Moyers staff told viewers how they can "Take A Stand Against Gun Violence," and be complete Bloomberg robots:

"Call your senator: After you've read up on the legislation, give your senator a call. If you don't have the number, (Bloomberg's group) Mayors Against Illegal Guns will look it up for you (follow the link and hit "Call Congress"). The group also offers to call you first and walk you through critical talking points."

They also pushed viewers to "Tell your friends" to "demand a plan" for gun control on Facebook and Twitter and "recruit your mayor" to join Bloomberg's group.

Whether it's guns, gays or global warming, the "objective" media all too often decide that there's one side that deserves to win and one side that needs to be crushed or ignored. The first journalistic principle seems to be arrogance.

The news reports after Obama's loss were overwhelmingly composed of Obama yelling at Congress and Newtown relatives near tears. Actual sound bites or arguments from the gun-rights advocates were either submerged or forbidden.

As usual, liberal TV networks thrive on emotional manipulation, and when that fails, they hyperventilate in disbelief that anyone would dare to make Obama declare it had been a "really shameful day in Washington."
http://cnsnews.com/blog/l-brent-bozell-iii/media-lobbyists-lose-guns
 

Jackass master

Old and worn out
Messages
2,242
Reaction score
64
Tokenz
0.04z
The MSM actually does control the information flow to most voters. Most folks are not ambitious enough to research issues on their own. This result in a control of information similar to regimes we work to overthrow elsewhere in the world.
 
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top