List of executive actions Obama plans to take as part of anti-gun violence plan... [Archive] - Debate Policy

Marcus Aurelius

01-16-2013, 04:59 PM

and my opinions on each (in RED)...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/16/list-executive-actions-obama-plans-to-take-as-part-anti-gun-violence-plan/

The following is a list, provided by the White House, of executive actions President Obama plans to take to address gun violence.

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
So, they don't do that now? What is the point of a background checking system, if it doesn't have all the relevant information?

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
Not sure I understand this one. Anyone??

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
See my point #1

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
Sounds reasonable.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
If I have a weapon seized, and law enforcement determines it is legally mine, why is there a need for a full background check prior to returning my weapon to me? Seems rather intrusive.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
Pointless, as private sellers will most likely not bother going to them for instruction of this type, or even do a background check when privately selling a weapon.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
Like the NRA has since 1871?

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
No problem here.

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
I would think this was already done as part of any good investigation. If not, seems like the investigators are not being very thorough.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
No problem here.

11. Nominate an ATF director.
Every department of this level should have a director. Nothing special about this part of the plan.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
Sounds reasonable.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
Sounds reasonable.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
Not sure if this is worth the effort.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
Sounds reasonable.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
Whether or not it prohibits the physician asking is not the point. It's really none of my physicians business if I have a weapon at home... unless I fall into a category in item #4 above.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
If a health care provider feels a patient makes a credible threat of violence, I agree they should be able to report it. I believe this is already the case.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
Define 'incentives'.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
Sounds reasonable.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
Again, you'd think this was already being done.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
Need more details on this one. Seems vague.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
See my point # 21

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

Seems vague.

I am not commenting on anything regarding costs associated with any of these ideas... just the ideas themselves.

I see nothing in here that will reduce my rights to keep and bear arms. However, I see nothing in here that will substantially reduce violent gun crime.

Discuss.

MtnBiker

01-16-2013, 05:03 PM

So, how would any of these "executive actions" prevent what happened at Sandy Hook?

Marcus Aurelius

01-16-2013, 05:06 PM

So, how would any of these "executive actions" prevent what happened at Sandy Hook?

#12 might, and I mean 'might', have made it less severe. I tend to doubt that though. Other than that, none of it would have made a difference as far as I can see.

jimnyc

01-16-2013, 05:16 PM

Street thugs and other criminals around the nation are laughing right now.

MtnBiker

01-16-2013, 05:27 PM

Street thugs and other criminals around the nation are laughing right now.

And white wine sipping liberal winnies are wetting themselves and noticing a tingle up their leg.

aboutime

01-16-2013, 09:07 PM

And white wine sipping liberal winnies are wetting themselves and noticing a tingle up their leg.

And we all know the idiot who started all of that TINGLE...4323 4324

bingster

01-16-2013, 09:34 PM

Obama, today, came out with his executive orders and his call for legislation. Is it what you expected? Is it what you feared? Did he stomp all over your rights?
NRA, in an ad today, called Obama an elitist and a hypocrite for being “skeptical” regarding having armed guards at schools to protect children when his children are protected by the secret service. Do you even conceive how ignorant that argument is? What would happen if a child of the 1st family was kidnapped? Some of the more brazen of you would say “Goodie!”. But, really. That cannot happen and has nothing to do with the argument. As usual, the NRA leadership does not represent their members in this incendiary rhetoric. They want to scare people to buy guns. That’s all they care for.
Rush Limbaugh, on his show this morning, made fun of children begging for their lives. Where are the “Christian morals” in your party? Conservatives rail about their religious rights in all subjects except their own Christian responsibility to care for someone other than themselves. Rush went on to make blubbering noises like a child crying for his/her life. Is that funny in conservative world? Can you imagine what these 20 6-7 year old children looked like after taking 3 to 11 5.56 rounds to their four foot tall bodies? They weren’t just shot; their small precious bodies were turned to chum.
Obama called for legislation covering all subjects that are reasonable and responsible. He wants an assault weapons ban, background check, and large magazine ban. His executive orders were not over-reach; they involved setting up committees and prompting organizations to study. Your side was way wrong in their assessment of what he was going to do. They went on today to still say that he was over-reaching. There isn’t one single thing he’s proposing to do that doesn’t have the majority of the country’s support. In his executive orders, he even supported the NRA ideas. Is Obama really just trying to fix the symptoms or trying to fix the causes? He’s covered every facet and your party, in their silence (in most cases) and outrage (in too many cases) is setting itself up to be a minority party for decades. Keep it up extremists. To quote your hero George W., “Bring it on!”.

Marcus Aurelius

01-16-2013, 09:51 PM

... There isn’t one single thing he’s proposing to do that doesn’t have the majority of the country’s support....


link please?

Missileman

01-16-2013, 10:00 PM

Obama called for legislation covering all subjects that are reasonable and responsible. He wants an assault weapons ban, background check, and large magazine ban. His executive orders were not over-reach; they involved setting up committees and prompting organizations to study. Your side was way wrong in their assessment of what he was going to do. They went on today to still say that he was over-reaching. There isn’t one single thing he’s proposing to do that doesn’t have the majority of the country’s support. In his executive orders, he even supported the NRA ideas. Is Obama really just trying to fix the symptoms or trying to fix the causes? He’s covered every facet and your party, in their silence (in most cases) and outrage (in too many cases) is setting itself up to be a minority party for decades. Keep it up extremists. To quote your hero George W., “Bring it on!”.

As has already been pointed out to you, a ban on military style rifles and large capacity magazines would be unconstitutional. Congress is not likely to pass either.

aboutime

01-16-2013, 10:00 PM

Obama, today, came out with his executive orders and his call for legislation. Is it what you expected? Is it what you feared? Did he stomp all over your rights?
NRA, in an ad today, called Obama an elitist and a hypocrite for being “skeptical” regarding having armed guards at schools to protect children when his children are protected by the secret service. Do you even conceive how ignorant that argument is? What would happen if a child of the 1st family was kidnapped? Some of the more brazen of you would say “Goodie!”. But, really. That cannot happen and has nothing to do with the argument. As usual, the NRA leadership does not represent their members in this incendiary rhetoric. They want to scare people to buy guns. That’s all they care for.
Rush Limbaugh, on his show this morning, made fun of children begging for their lives. Where are the “Christian morals” in your party? Conservatives rail about their religious rights in all subjects except their own Christian responsibility to care for someone other than themselves. Rush went on to make blubbering noises like a child crying for his/her life. Is that funny in conservative world? Can you imagine what these 20 6-7 year old children looked like after taking 3 to 11 5.56 rounds to their four foot tall bodies? They weren’t just shot; their small precious bodies were turned to chum.
Obama called for legislation covering all subjects that are reasonable and responsible. He wants an assault weapons ban, background check, and large magazine ban. His executive orders were not over-reach; they involved setting up committees and prompting organizations to study. Your side was way wrong in their assessment of what he was going to do. They went on today to still say that he was over-reaching. There isn’t one single thing he’s proposing to do that doesn’t have the majority of the country’s support. In his executive orders, he even supported the NRA ideas. Is Obama really just trying to fix the symptoms or trying to fix the causes? He’s covered every facet and your party, in their silence (in most cases) and outrage (in too many cases) is setting itself up to be a minority party for decades. Keep it up extremists. To quote your hero George W., “Bring it on!”.


So now, we all know who, and what you are. Doing this kind of thing in many different threads can, and should get you a FREE ticket out of here. BUT THEN...Since you are the idiot we know you to be....you are useless...4327

Marcus Aurelius

01-17-2013, 08:21 AM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by bingster http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=607295#post607295)

... There isn’t one single thing he’s proposing to do that doesn’t have the majority of the country’s support....

link please?

looks like Bingy is another Mundane... making shit up and running away when called on it.

CSM

01-17-2013, 08:35 AM

So, apparently the OP thinks this is about "winning" and equivalent to some sort of high school sports event. The arrogance and shallow thought drip off the screen as I read the post. "Your side" ... really??? ... anyone in opposition is "extremst" ... really??? With posts like this, I have to wonder if our education system works at all.

How about we FORCE our elected officials to do their jobs and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, enforce the laws already on the books and develop REAL solutions that benefit the citizens of this country and not just some clique who are more interested in "winning" than what is actually good for the country?

Marcus Aurelius

01-17-2013, 09:18 AM

So, apparently the OP thinks this is about "winning" and equivalent to some sort of high school sports event. The arrogance and shallow thought drip off the screen as I read the post. "Your side" ... really??? ... anyone in opposition is "extremst" ... really??? With posts like this, I have to wonder if our education system works at all.

How about we FORCE our elected officials to do their jobs and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, enforce the laws already on the books and develop REAL solutions that benefit the citizens of this country and not just some clique who are more interested in "winning" than what is actually good for the country?

Um, I think you confused Bingy's post # 7 for my OP.

CSM

01-17-2013, 09:38 AM

Um, I think you confused Bingy's post # 7 for my OP.

My apologies! You are correct. I guess I got wrapped up in the moment. Again, my apologies.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-17-2013, 09:38 AM

and my opinions on each (in RED)...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/16/list-executive-actions-obama-plans-to-take-as-part-anti-gun-violence-plan/

I am not commenting on anything regarding costs associated with any of these ideas... just the ideas themselves.

I see nothing in here that will reduce my rights to keep and bear arms. However, I see nothing in here that will substantially reduce violent gun crime.

Discuss.

Obama has not the authority to mandate these things. That is unless one has decided his E.O'S are now Law of the Land that are to be allowed on anything that he cares to address(that's dictatorial) and if that be the case send Congress home for good!
No doctor has the right to interrogate children or adults about guns in the home. That is spying(gestapo tactic)
and illegal.
Folks, keep giving this traitor that managed to get himself elected by hook and crook, keep giving him your appeasement. And you will wake up one day just as the Jews in Germany did, only it'll be too damn late!!
Yes, when he is powerful enough he will force a revolution, just look for it.
by the way since Executive Orders are now allowed for anything and everything , look for the Executive Order (likely his fourth year second term) that abolishes term limits on the Presidency.
And why not , the people, the Congress have agreed that obama and Executive Orders are now Supreme, trumping Congressional authority, trumping the Constitution and trumping any Amendment .
This is tyranny established by degrees and by decrees!!-Tyr
Just wait until they decide to do the money collapse plan(pull the trigger on it), you'll see .

Marcus Aurelius

01-17-2013, 09:48 AM

My apologies! You are correct. I guess I got wrapped up in the moment. Again, my apologies.

(puts Vulcan mini gun away)

Well... ok. If you're 'really' sorry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3JovO416NU

:cool:

Marcus Aurelius

01-17-2013, 09:51 AM

Obama has not the authority to mandate these things. That is unless one has decided his E.O'S are now Law of the Land that are to be allowed on anything that he cares to address(that's dictatorial) and if that be the case send Congress home for good!
No doctor has the right to interrogate children or adults about guns in the home. That is spying(gestapo tactic)
and illegal.
Folks, keep giving this traitor that managed to get himself elected by hook and crook, keep giving him your appeasement. And you will wake up one day just as the Jews in Germany did, only it'll be too damn late!!
Yes, when he is powerful enough he will force a revolution, just look for it.
by the way since Executive Orders are now allowed for anything and everything , look for the Executive Order (likely his fourth year second term) that abolishes term limits on the Presidency.
And why not , the people, the Congress have agreed that obama and Executive Orders are now Supreme, trumping Congressional authority, trumping the Constitution and trumping any Amendment .
This is tyranny established by degrees and by decrees!!-Tyr
Just wait until they decide to do the money collapse plan(pull the trigger on it), you'll see .

Tyr...

If you know me at all, you know I am not an Obama fan. However, my original comments stand. Nothing much to see here, essentially.

For the sake of argument, why don't you pick 5 of the points I made, and explain why there is tyranny involved.

I really don't see it myself. All I see is smoke and mirrors.. bread and circuses to appease the masses. nothing that will really do anything one way or the other.

Gaffer

01-17-2013, 10:02 AM

WOW, what a lot of useless rhetoric. He's going to order things done that are most likely already being done or should have been done long ago. No director for ATF? Wonder why? Oh yeah, a little scandal called fast and furious. Where's that binder of bundler's, lets see who brought in the most money.

And it's a great opportunity for TV time and photo-ops. And let's not forget the think tanks who will get tons of grants to sit around and talk about guns and shootings and things.

They are taking their small steps to make assault looking weapons illegal. Next will come pistols. They are bringing in health care with the mental health stuff and can start to declare certain people mentally unstable, whether they are or not. More baby steps with different angles.

Thanks Marcus that was very interesting indeed.

CSM

01-17-2013, 10:03 AM

(puts Vulcan mini gun away)

Well... ok. If you're 'really' sorry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3JovO416NU

:cool:

Good thing that particular weapon does not look anything like one of them thar "assault weapons" everyone seems to be so asceered of! Heck, you couldn't put a bayonet on that even ifn ya wanted to, so it's useless!

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-17-2013, 10:05 AM

Tyr...

If you know me at all, you know I am not an Obama fan. However, my original comments stand. Nothing much to see here, essentially.

For the sake of argument, why don't you pick 5 of the points I made, and explain why there is tyranny involved.

I really don't see it myself. All I see is smoke and mirrors.. bread and circuses to appease the masses. nothing that will really do anything one way or the other.

No reason to pick five when the coming tyranny is in his solidifying his right to issue royal decrees (E.O.) my friend. Solidifying his right to preempt Congress and do end runs around it. Executive Orders were not established to give a President the ability to to usurp Congress, the Constitution and force his will on the nation in regards to anything that he thinks fit to address.
There is tyranny in just about everything this man does , sorry you can not see it. His failure to uphold the Constitution, his attacks on it , his deliberate alienation of our allies, his cozy relationship with our enemies.
All are either mistakes or deliberate actions taken with a goal in mind. A goal in mind to fundamentally change this nation and its government, that's treason. His handler George Soros should be ARRESTED..
You are a smart guy but you are missing many pieces to the puzzle my friend.-Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-17-2013, 10:08 AM

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/2012/daisy/royal-decrees.htm

<tbody>
The Royal Decrees...umm...Executive Orders...of Barack Obama

By Daisy Luther at Inalienably Yours (http://daisyluther.blogspot.com/2012/03/new-executive-order-we-can-take.html)http://www.crossroad.to/images/formatting/1-line.jpg
See The Hidden Control of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) (http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/globalism/cfr.htm)New Executive Order - "We Can Take Anything from Anyone at Any Time" (http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/2012/daisy/executive-order.htm)

Home (http://www.crossroad.to/index.html)News (http://www.crossroad.to/News/1-today.htm)Articles (http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles.html) Light in the
darkness (http://www.crossroad.to/Victory/contents.htm)

"We can't wait for Congress to do its job. So where they won't act, I will. We're going to look every single day to figure out what we can do without Congress." (Obama (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-10-26/obama-executive-orders/50942170/1))
"In America, the hour is late.... 'The neo-Marxists didn’t look to the economic theories of Marx, but to his earlier, more destructive impulses...'Years before [Marx] had inflicted the unscientific maunderings of Das Kapital and the dogmas of dialectical (http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/brainwashing/dialectic.htm) materialism on a long-suffering world, Marx called for what had to be accomplished—the ‘ruthless destruction....’ That destruction would wipe out religion [mainly Christianity], the family, morality, the free interplay of men and economic forces, human relationships, and everything that made Western civilization…
"'..in 1922, the conspiracy was hatched at the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow.... The seemingly modest instrument was the Institute of Social Research (http://www.crossroad.to/Excerpts/books/revolution/dialectical_imagination.htm), planted in the prestigious Frankfurt University, and dedicated to neo-Marxism. [Its leaders eventually moved to America].'" (Marxism & the Planned Corruption of America (http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/brainwashing/2009/frankfurt-dewey.htm))

</tbody>

What exactly is an Executive Order? The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it for us:
"A rule or order issued by the president to an executive branch of the government and having the force of law."Obama has made no secret of his contempt for Congress, rule of law, and the Constitution. By using Executive Orders to create laws, he is writing his own rule book. Executive Orders do not have to clear either the legislative branch or the judicial branch. Executive Orders have the "force of law" with the mere swipe of Obama's ball point.

Several of his royal decrees Executive Orders have been deliberate attacks on the Constitution, most recently the NDRP order, which means our stuff is no longer our stuff- it's his stuff anytime he wants it. Here are a few other notable EOs signed by Obama that hint at preparations for the establishment of martial law.

REVIEW OF DETENTION POLICY OPTIONS (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/review-detention-policy-options): "There shall be established a Special Task Force on Detainee Disposition (Special Task Force) to identify lawful options for the disposition of individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations."

CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information): "...the national defense has required that certain information be maintained in confidence in order to protect our citizens, our democratic institutions, our homeland security, and our interactions with foreign nations."

ORIGINAL CLASSIFICATION AUTHORIZATION (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-original-classification-authority): "I hereby designate the following officials to classify information originally as 'Top Secret' or 'Secret'..."

ESTABLISHING COUNCIL OF GOVERNORS (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-signs-executive-order-establishing-council-governors): "When appointed, the Council will be reviewing such matters as involving the National Guard of the various States; homeland defense; civil support; synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities."

NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness): "...shall be prepared, in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements;"
But the real Executive Order itinerary has nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with Obama's good friends at the United Nations. He has signed with a flourish numerous Executive Orders to promote the warm, fuzzy blueprint laid out by the UN's Council on Sustainable Development.
Barack Obama is the star quarterback for Team Agenda 21 (http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/la21_198.html). With the feel-good names we've learned to expect from Agenda 21 proponents, he has enthusiastically signed a wide range of orders that imply empowerment and brainwashing education of target demographic groups and promote community based group hugs.

Establishment of the White House Office of Urban Affairs (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-establishment-white-house-office-urban-affairs)

Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy and Economic Performance (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-signs-executive-order-focused-federal-leadership-environmental-ener)

Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-stewardship-ocean-our-coasts-and-great-lakes)

White House Council for Community Solutions (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/14/executive-order-13560-white-house-council-community-solutions)

Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-chesapeake-bay-protection-and-restoration)

Increasing Participation of Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders in Federal Programs (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-asian-american-and-pacific-islander-community)

Promoting Excellence, Innovation and Sustainability at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/promoting-excellence-innovation-and-sustainability-historically-black-colleges-and-)

Establishment of the White House Rural Council (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/09/executive-order-13575-establishment-white-house-rural-council)

Interagency Working Group on Coordination of Domestic Energy Development and Permitting in Alaska (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/12/executive-order-13580-interagency-working-group-coordination-domestic-en)

Improving American Indian and Alaska Native Educational Opportunities and Strengthening Tribal Colleges and Universities (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/02/executive-order-13592-improving-american-indian-and-alaska-native-educat)

Instituting a National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/19/executive-order-instituting-national-action-plan-women-peace-and-securit)

Establishing the President's Global Development Council (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/09/executive-order-establishing-presidents-global-development-council)

Establishing a White House Council on Strong Cities, Strong Communities (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/15/executive-order-establishing-white-house-council-strong-cities-strong-co)

It appears that legislating the old-fashioned, Constitutional way - you know - having the proposed laws go through the House and the Senate first - has become passé. Obama, in his arrogance, has decided to by-pass the Congress and just make the rules himself.
"We can't wait for Congress to do its job. So where they won't act, I will. We're going to look every single day to figure out what we can do without Congress." (video (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-10-26/obama-executive-orders/50942170/1))
It certainly appears that King Obama has figured out the he can do an awful lot without that pesky Congress

Abbey Marie

01-17-2013, 12:26 PM

So, how would any of these "executive actions" prevent what happened at Sandy Hook?

Damn, you beat me to it, D! :cool:

Abbey Marie

01-17-2013, 12:30 PM

WOW, what a lot of useless rhetoric. He's going to order things done that are most likely already being done or should have been done long ago. No director for ATF? Wonder why? Oh yeah, a little scandal called fast and furious. Where's that binder of bundler's, lets see who brought in the most money.

And it's a great opportunity for TV time and photo-ops. And let's not forget the think tanks who will get tons of grants to sit around and talk about guns and shootings and things.

They are taking their small steps to make assault looking weapons illegal. Next will come pistols. They are bringing in health care with the mental health stuff and can start to declare certain people mentally unstable, whether they are or not. More baby steps with different angles.

Thanks Marcus that was very interesting indeed.

Geez, Gaffer, the ramifications of that point are big. Since the content of psychiatric visits are generally supposed to be kept confidential, will the mere record of a visit to one, eventually be reportable as a barrier to owning a gun? That could result in the very people who need help the most, not going for fear of losing their right to gun ownership.

jimnyc

01-17-2013, 01:50 PM

Geez, Gaffer, the ramifications of that point are big. Since the content of psychiatrist visits are generally supposed to be kept confidential, will the mere record of a visit to one, eventaully be reportable as a barrier to owning a gun? That could result in the very people who need help the most, not going for fear of losing their right to gun ownership.

While I don't mind too awfully much that they restrict gun to certain mental patients, I agree with you, some people who may need help will skip treatment. It should be as it mostly always was, no reporting unless the doctor thinks the patient is a danger to himself or others.

mundame

01-17-2013, 01:54 PM

Obama, today, came out with his executive orders and his call for legislation. Is it what you expected? Is it what you feared? Did he stomp all over your rights?
NRA, in an ad today, called Obama an elitist and a hypocrite for being “skeptical” regarding having armed guards at schools to protect children when his children are protected by the secret service. Do you even conceive how ignorant that argument is? What would happen if a child of the 1st family was kidnapped? Some of the more brazen of you would say “Goodie!”. But, really. That cannot happen and has nothing to do with the argument.

Actually, I thought it was quite a good argument. The fact is that children in schools targeted by psychotic gunners ARE in as much or more danger as Obama's children. That's a problem. Clever ad.

Rush Limbaugh, on his show this morning, made fun of children begging for their lives. Where are the “Christian morals” in your party? Conservatives rail about their religious rights in all subjects except their own Christian responsibility to care for someone other than themselves. Rush went on to make blubbering noises like a child crying for his/her life. Is that funny in conservative world? Can you imagine what these 20 6-7 year old children looked like after taking 3 to 11 5.56 rounds to their four foot tall bodies? They weren’t just shot; their small precious bodies were turned to chum.

Lanza mostly shot into their heads; identification had to be made from the clothes.

Limbaugh was the guy who carried on obscenely for DAYS doing vicious sex riffs on that pretty young woman who testified to Congress that she wanted insurance to pay for birth control pills. He is completely out of control, it sounds like. A bad man.

Obama called for legislation covering all subjects that are reasonable and responsible. He wants an assault weapons ban, background check, and large magazine ban. His executive orders were not over-reach; they involved setting up committees and prompting organizations to study. Your side was way wrong in their assessment of what he was going to do. They went on today to still say that he was over-reaching. There isn’t one single thing he’s proposing to do that doesn’t have the majority of the country’s support. In his executive orders, he even supported the NRA ideas. Is Obama really just trying to fix the symptoms or trying to fix the causes? He’s covered every facet and your party, in their silence (in most cases) and outrage (in too many cases) is setting itself up to be a minority party for decades. Keep it up extremists. To quote your hero George W., “Bring it on!”.

Well, it all sounds like a lot of nothing to me. He puts out useless executive orders that won't help the situation, and he leaves the real meat of the matter -- assault weapon and high-capacity magazine bans -- to Congress, which obviously won't pass any of it. And if anything was done to build more mental hospitals to keep these people in, I didn't notice that. Or any push back against the video game industry's ever more violent games that train kids up.

Though now of course there will be more and more of these shootings at shorter intervals, presumably --- the trend line is obvious. So who knows, maybe at some point if some enterprising psychotic takes out 60 or more children in a school, maybe Congress will do something. But I doubt it.

aboutime

01-17-2013, 03:47 PM

While I don't mind too awfully much that they restrict gun to certain mental patients, I agree with you, some people who may need help will skip treatment. It should be as it mostly always was, no reporting unless the doctor thinks the patient is a danger to himself or others.

Everyone should take note as to why Obama, and Biden never once, managed to mention Mentally handicapped, or Deranged people with weapons.

The obvious reason is. Had they mentioned MENTALLY DISABLED. Obama, Biden, and every member of Congress, with Obama's Administration would have become INSTANT CANDIDATES for the Mental Restrictions.

Does anyone feel any different about that?

red states rule

01-17-2013, 04:10 PM

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/cb011713dAPR20130117044517.jpg

red states rule

01-17-2013, 04:23 PM

While I don't mind too awfully much that they restrict gun to certain mental patients, I agree with you, some people who may need help will skip treatment. It should be as it mostly always was, no reporting unless the doctor thinks the patient is a danger to himself or others.

The ACLU will have a field day when the government tries to confine anyone with a mental health issue. It will cost taxpayers tens of millions in lawyer fees and court costs, the case will drag out, and liberal Judges will put them back on the street. Social workers will be scared and be calling even when there is no threat in an act of CYA

red states rule

01-17-2013, 04:23 PM

WOW, what a lot of useless rhetoric. He's going to order things done that are most likely already being done or should have been done long ago. No director for ATF? Wonder why? Oh yeah, a little scandal called fast and furious. Where's that binder of bundler's, lets see who brought in the most money.

And it's a great opportunity for TV time and photo-ops. And let's not forget the think tanks who will get tons of grants to sit around and talk about guns and shootings and things.

They are taking their small steps to make assault looking weapons illegal. Next will come pistols. They are bringing in health care with the mental health stuff and can start to declare certain people mentally unstable, whether they are or not. More baby steps with different angles.

Thanks Marcus that was very interesting indeed.

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sk011713dAPR20130117094513.jpg

Marcus Aurelius

01-17-2013, 05:56 PM

regarding doctor patient confidentiality and credible patient threats to themselves or others...

http://www.jfponline.com/pages.asp?aid=772

Mr. K, age 52, has Asperger’s disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Recently he sent an e-mail to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, television news commentator Wolf Blitzer, and numerous government agencies. Mr. K’s psychiatrist also received a copy.

In his message, Mr. K expressed intense personal offense at his belief that U.S. Sen. John Kerry had called his “beloved president” a liar, and challenged the presidential candidate to a duel. If Kerry refused, Mr. K wrote, he would “take other effective measures” to avenge this “insult to me, my family, and all loyal Americans.”

Immediately after seeing the note, the psychiatrist called the Secret Service. Ninety minutes later, agents interviewed Mr. K, searched his apartment, and found weapons and travel documents that strongly suggested Mr. K planned to follow Kerry. The patient was taken into custody and admitted to a secure psychiatric facility.

Patients with Asperger’s disorder often become fixated on a person or incident. Such patients’ social judgment is severely impaired, and they tend to view the world in absolute terms with no gray areas. In a presidential election year, that fixation can manifest as a verbal or written threat against the president, vice president, or a presidential candidate.

As doctors, we have both a civic duty and sworn obligation under state standard-of-practice codes to immediately inform the Secret Service of such a threat. Call the Secret Service even if you are unsure whether the patient will carry it out.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/07/25/packaged-warning-psychiatrist-protocol-when-receiving-threats-from-patients/

According to Dr. Keith Ablow, psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team, if a psychiatrist’s patient discusses a plan to do harm to someone during a therapy session, then the medical professional has a legal obligation to take action.

Psychiatrists who knowingly do not notify authorities when receiving this kind of information are subject to civil suits as well as disciplinary action from licensing authorities, Ablow said.

If a person is named in a patient’s threat, psychiatrists are required to go one step further. In a Supreme Court of California case known as the Tarasoff case, a patient had confided with a psychiatrist that he had intentions of killing a girl he had been stalking. While the psychiatrist contacted the police about detaining his patient, he did not notify the woman herself, and she was later stabbed and killed by the patient.

The Tarasoff case ruling set a precedent that mental health professionals would be required to notify people who had been specifically named by their patients as targets for harm.

red states rule

01-17-2013, 06:28 PM

http://622494930271648021.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/6/6/12662369/649937484.jpg

Missileman

01-17-2013, 06:51 PM

Actually, I thought it was quite a good argument. The fact is that children in schools targeted by psychotic gunners ARE in as much or more danger as Obama's children. That's a problem. Clever ad.

Lanza mostly shot into their heads; identification had to be made from the clothes.

Limbaugh was the guy who carried on obscenely for DAYS doing vicious sex riffs on that pretty young woman who testified to Congress that she wanted insurance to pay for birth control pills. He is completely out of control, it sounds like. A bad man.

Well, it all sounds like a lot of nothing to me. He puts out useless executive orders that won't help the situation, and he leaves the real meat of the matter -- assault weapon and high-capacity magazine bans -- to Congress, which obviously won't pass any of it. And if anything was done to build more mental hospitals to keep these people in, I didn't notice that. Or any push back against the video game industry's ever more violent games that train kids up.

Though now of course there will be more and more of these shootings at shorter intervals, presumably --- the trend line is obvious. So who knows, maybe at some point if some enterprising psychotic takes out 60 or more children in a school, maybe Congress will do something. But I doubt it.

What, pray tell, do we ban when some enterprising psychotic takes out 60 or more children with a have dozen glass bottles filled with gasoline? What kind of legislation will you demand of Congress in those circumstances?

aboutime

01-17-2013, 07:14 PM

The ACLU will have a field day when the government tries to confine anyone with a mental health issue. It will cost taxpayers tens of millions in lawyer fees and court costs, the case will drag out, and liberal Judges will put them back on the street. Social workers will be scared and be calling even when there is no threat in an act of CYA

We need to be reminded occasionally....how the 4341 acts more supportive of being an
4342that allows Lawyers to make Millions, or Billions....of OUR TAX DOLLARS.

Abbey Marie

01-17-2013, 08:18 PM

regarding doctor patient confidentiality and credible patient threats to themselves or others...

http://www.jfponline.com/pages.asp?aid=772

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/07/25/packaged-warning-psychiatrist-protocol-when-receiving-threats-from-patients/

[/COLOR][/LEFT]

Thanks for the info. What is the doctor's duty if the patient seems obsessed with violence, but never uses specific threatening words?

jimnyc

01-17-2013, 08:34 PM

Thanks for the info. What is the doctor's duty if the patient seems obsessed with violence, but never uses specific threatening words?

It all gets very complex indeed, don't it? A lot will come down to a judgment call, which will determine if someone has their rights revoked. I don't immediately take issue with them removing weapons or preventing weapons to mentally unstable people who are a danger. I do have serious reservations about what process will be used and will it be vulnerable to strong handed tactics? There are SO many variables that will come into play here. It's bad enough when people get institutionalized or held for a 72 hour stay at a hospital, which can be typical if someone is perhaps a danger. I just think that if ANY medical professional will call the SS, or even place someone in a database lets say, because you believe their condition should prohibit them from owning a gun, there should be benchmarks that would HAVE to be reached in order for them to do so.

Abbey Marie

01-17-2013, 08:40 PM

It all gets very complex indeed, don't it? A lot will come down to a judgment call, which will determine if someone has their rights revoked. I don't immediately take issue with them removing weapons or preventing weapons to mentally unstable people who are a danger. I do have serious reservations about what process will be used and will it be vulnerable to strong handed tactics? There are SO many variables that will come into play here. It's bad enough when people get institutionalized or held for a 72 hour stay at a hospital, which can be typical if someone is perhaps a danger. I just think that if ANY medical professional will call the SS, or even place someone in a database lets say, because you believe their condition should prohibit them from owning a gun, there should be benchmarks that would HAVE to be reached in order for them to do so.

I really think that this will keep the people who need it most away from the doctor's office. I don't know what the answer is, but we still need to remember that the mentally unstable person in the Connecticut shootings was not even the gun owner. Unstable people will find a way...

jimnyc

01-17-2013, 08:44 PM

I really think that this will keep the people who need it most away from the doctor's office. I don't know what the answer is, but we still need to remember that the mentally unstable person in the Connecticut shootings was not even the gun owner. Unstable people will find a way...

That's a fact. And further, I would guess that the majority of people thinking of harming others or a mass shooting, probably ain't likely to be talking to a doctor about it beforehand. But if a dumbass DID tell a doctor, specifically, that he is going to kill someone, or the Prez, or a bunch of people - then the doctor should notify authorities.

Robert A Whit

01-17-2013, 09:20 PM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Abbey http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=607583#post607583)
I really think that this will keep the people who need it most away from the doctor's office. I don't know what the answer is, but we still need to remember that the mentally unstable person in the Connecticut shootings was not even the gun owner. Unstable people will find a way...

That's a fact. And further, I would guess that the majority of people thinking of harming others or a mass shooting, probably ain't likely to be talking to a doctor about it beforehand. But if a dumbass DID tell a doctor, specifically, that he is going to kill someone, or the Prez, or a bunch of people - then the doctor should notify authorities.

This is not guns but is reporting as you two are discussing.

Watched Judge Judy yesterday where a mother sued the child care provider for damages.

The child had some out of sight condition that leaves a child all bruised up.

She failed to tell the provider of the condition and the provider called child protective services.

Judge Judy informed the mother that the provider did right. That informing CPS was precisely right.

So, some are told to inform even when they might not want to inform. The provider tried to phone the mother to find out first but not contacting her, called CSP who of course learned the truth once they got involved. This was some sort of mongoloid condition.

Marcus Aurelius

01-17-2013, 09:21 PM

Thanks for the info. What is the doctor's duty if the patient seems obsessed with violence, but never uses specific threatening words?

I would think that unless there is s specific,credible threat, patient confidentiality rules.

aboutime

01-17-2013, 10:19 PM

I would think that unless there is s specific,credible threat, patient confidentiality rules.

Marcus. In part. I agree with you about patient privacy, and confidentiality between patients, and their doctors. However. I also believe. All DOCTORS must follow the ethical route to expose anyone who makes threats, or discloses plans to cause harm, or death to any other human beings....per the OATH all Doctors swear to follow.

It would almost seem Criminal, in many respects...let's say...If a doctor learned that a patient had intentions to harm either the doctor, or family members. But, why stop there if someone's life is in danger????

Marcus Aurelius

01-17-2013, 10:34 PM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=607589#post607589)

I would think that unless there is a specific,credible threat, patient confidentiality rules.

Marcus. In part. I agree with you about patient privacy, and confidentiality between patients, and their doctors. However. I also believe. All DOCTORS must follow the ethical route to expose anyone who makes threats, or discloses plans to cause harm, or death to any other human beings....per the OATH all Doctors swear to follow.

It would almost seem Criminal, in many respects...let's say...If a doctor learned that a patient had intentions to harm either the doctor, or family members. But, why stop there if someone's life is in danger????

you might want to check out post #30 in this thread. I would not have made that post if I did not agree. But absent a specific, credible threat, patient confidentiality rules.

jafar00

01-17-2013, 10:37 PM

http://622494930271648021.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/6/6/12662369/649937484.jpg

The fallacy in that statement is that drunk drivers generally don't use a car to deliberately kill people unlike drunk gunmen.

aboutime

01-17-2013, 10:50 PM

The fallacy in that statement is that drunk drivers generally don't use a car to deliberately kill people unlike drunk gunmen.

jafar. That's probably true if they are like your statements here. They are stupid, and dumb enough to drink, then deliberately get behind the wheel to kill. Much like terrorists who intentionally want to harm others because they are stupid, and dumb like you as well.

red states rule

01-18-2013, 02:30 AM

The fallacy in that statement is that drunk drivers generally don't use a car to deliberately kill people unlike drunk gunmen.

I am not surprised you do not get it jafar. I have come to the conclusion your brain has enough mold on it to make a gallon of penicillin. No matter how many laws are passed people will still kill others. Much like the terrorist bastards you constantly make excuses for

logroller

01-18-2013, 02:36 AM

Obama, today, came out with his executive orders and his call for legislation. Is it what you expected? Is it what you feared? Did he stomp all over your rights?
NRA, in an ad today, called Obama an elitist and a hypocrite for being “skeptical” regarding having armed guards at schools to protect children when his children are protected by the secret service. Do you even conceive how ignorant that argument is?

Perhaps you misunderstood their point. They didn't say Obama's kids shouldn't have armed guards; they said why should they, exclusively, have armed guards. It's a devastating argument that gun control advocates hate for its blatantly effective logic.

What would happen if a child of the 1st family was kidnapped?
what would happen if any school was attacked by an armed assailant?

Some of the more brazen of you would say “Goodie!”. But, really. That cannot happen and has nothing to do with the argument.
Indeed; you presented a straw man.

As usual, the NRA leadership does not represent their members in this incendiary rhetoric. They want to scare people to buy guns. That’s all they care for.
They represent a whole lot of logical people who see the hypocrisy on guns being good for the government to protect itself, but not for the protection ordinary people.
BTW, just the threat of gun control legislation drives up demand more than the NRA ever has.

Rush Limbaugh, on his show this morning, made fun of children begging for their lives.
Not a fan myself, but at least he wasn't calling them sluts.

Where are the “Christian morals” in your party?
Republican =/= Christian. However, if I was telling people that I know how they can protect themselves, that my way is the best way...do unto others....

Conservatives rail about their religious rights in all subjects except their own Christian responsibility to care for someone other than themselves.

Rush went on to make blubbering noises like a child crying for his/her life. Is that funny in conservative world? Can you imagine what these 20 6-7 year old children looked like after taking 3 to 11 5.56 rounds to their four foot tall bodies? They weren’t just shot; their small precious bodies were turned to chum.
Not funny at all; people who find such things entertaining are deranged. Likewise, grotesque descriptions stink of someone who doesn't have the guts to stop such things themselves, leaving others to do so; yet tie the hands of the very people who have that rightful ability.

Obama called for legislation covering all subjects that are reasonable and responsible. He wants an assault weapons ban, background check, and large magazine ban.
reasonable, responsible ....AND VASTLY INEFFECTIVE.

LCM= large capacity magazine
AW= automatic weapons

Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small atbest and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used ingun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial shareof gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend onthe ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacitylimit) without reloading.
Nonetheless, reducing criminal use of AWs and especially LCMs could have non-trivial effects on gunshot victimizations. The few available studies suggest thatattacks with semiautomatics – including AWs and other semiautomatics equippedwith LCMs – result in more shots fired, more persons hit, and more woundsinflicted per victim than do attacks with other firearms. Further, a study ofhandgun attacks in one city found that 3% of the gunfire incidents resulted inmore than 10 shots fired, and those attacks produced almost 5% of the gunshotvictims.

---snip----
Similarly, the most common AWs prohibited by the 1994 federal ban accountedfor between 1% and 6% of guns used in crime according to most of several national andlocal data sources examined for this and our prior study (see Chapter 6 and Roth andKoper, 1997, Chapters 5, 6):

Baltimore (all guns recovered by police, 1992-1993): 2%
Miami (all guns recovered by police, 1990-1993): 3%
Milwaukee (guns recovered in murder investigations, 1991-1993): 6%
Boston (all guns recovered by police, 1991-1993): 2%
St. Louis (all guns recovered by police, 1991-1993): 1%
Anchorage, Alaska (guns used in serious crimes, 1987-1993): 4%
National (guns recovered by police and reported to ATF, 1992-1993): 5%11
National (gun thefts reported to police, 1992-Aug. 1994): 2%
National (guns used in murders of police, 1992-1994): 7-9%12
National (guns used in mass murders of 4 or more persons, 1992-1994): 4-13%13

Although each of the sources cited above has limitations, the estimatesconsistently show that AWs are used in a small fraction of gun crimes. Even the highest estimates, which correspond to particularly rare events such mass murders and policemurders, are no higher than 13%. Note also that the majority of AWs used in crime areassault pistols (APs) rather than assault rifles (ARs). Among AWs reported by police toATF during 1992 and 1993, for example, APs outnumbered ARs by a ratio of 3 to 1 (seeChapter 6).
The relative rarity of AW use in crime can be attributed to a number of factors.Many AWs are long guns, which are used in crime much less often than handguns.Moreover, a number of the banned AWs are foreign weapons that were banned fromimportation into the U.S. in 1989. Also, AWs are more expensive (see Table 2-1) andmore difficult to conceal than the types of handguns that are used most frequently incrime.
---snip---
In sum, AWs and LCMs were used in up to a quarter of gun crimes prior to the1994 AW-LCM ban. By most estimates, AWs were used in less than 6% of gun crimeseven before the ban. Some may have perceived their use to be more widespread,however, due to the use of AWs in particularly rare and highly publicized crimes such asmass shootings (and, to a lesser extent, murders of police), survey reports suggesting highlevels of AW ownership among some groups of offenders, and evidence that some AWsare more attractive to criminal than lawful gun buyers.
In contrast, guns equipped with LCMs – of which AWs are a subset – are used inroughly 14% to 26% of gun crimes. Accordingly, the LCM ban has greater potential foraffecting gun crime. However, it is not clear how often the ability to fire more than 10shots without reloading (the current magazine capacity limit) affects the outcomes of gunattacks (see Chapter 9). All of this suggests that the ban’s impact on gun violence islikely to be small.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

His executive orders were not over-reach; they involved setting up committees and prompting organizations to study.

To study what, exactly--reduce crime or ban guns?
You can't say "he's just doing some studies" and "we need to xyz" in the same argument and expect people not to notice the discrepancy.

Your side was way wrong in their assessment of what he was going to do. They went on today to still say that he was over-reaching. There isn’t one single thing he’s proposing to do that doesn’t have the majority of the country’s support. There is only one legitimate means of a majority of the people voting my rights away; and that's a constitutional amendment-- any guess how that'd turn out? America would be a chum bucket.

In his executive orders, he even supported the NRA ideas. Is Obama really just trying to fix the symptoms or trying to fix the causes?
He has a solution looking for a problem. The solution: government intervention; cause: government intervention. It's circular.

He’s covered every facet and your party, in their silence (in most cases) and outrage (in too many cases) is setting itself up to be a minority party for decades. Keep it up extremists. To quote your hero George W., “Bring it on!”.

No doubt, Obama is a skillful politician. How he's managed to pull the wool over America's eyes is beyond my comprehension. Just for example, what ever happened with Fast and Furious-- where under Obama's administration, the ATF and DOJ injected illegal weapons into American markets and claimed executive privilege during the Congressional investigation---came up briefly during the debates, but was quickly squashed by moderators. Do you recall what I said earlier about a solution looking for a cause-- you're blissfully ignorant if you don't see the calculated methods of government that seek to remove liberty; demanding the attack upon the ability of the people to resist.

Sad that personal responsibility has become a minority interest. The truth of the matter is people die; sometimes violently, but usually not, and sometimes prematurely, but too often its personal choices that bear the brunt of the blame. Those choices include the laws we allow. How many school shootings have occurred since the inception of "Gun Free Zone" at schools versus before? Then tell me why a gun-free america will be safer.

1960's 15
1970's 15
1980's 19
Gun Free Schools act enacted 1990
1990's 29
2000's 19
2010's 25

Gun control is a solution looking for a problem.

red states rule

01-18-2013, 02:38 AM

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-large-select.gif

tailfins

01-18-2013, 07:52 AM

The fallacy in that statement is that drunk drivers generally don't use a car to deliberately kill people unlike drunk gunmen.

So as long as someone has good intentions it's OK to kill, right?

Marcus Aurelius

01-18-2013, 07:57 AM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by red states rule http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=607541#post607541)

http://622494930271648021.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/6/6/12662369/649937484.jpg

The fallacy in that statement is that drunk drivers generally don't use a car to deliberately kill people unlike drunk gunmen.

Someone gets drunk and kills someone with a car, it's an accident... someone gets drunk and kills someone with a gun, it was deliberate, premeditated, 1st degree murder?

You're a moron.

Marcus Aurelius

01-18-2013, 07:59 AM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jafar00 http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=607604#post607604)

The fallacy in that statement is that drunk drivers generally don't use a car to deliberately kill people unlike drunk gunmen.

So as long as someone has good intentions it's OK to kill, right?

Actually, what Jahil is saying is that guns are bad.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-18-2013, 08:26 AM

Perhaps you misunderstood their point. They didn't say Obama's kids shouldn't have armed guards; they said why should they, exclusively, have armed guards. It's a devastating argument that gun control advocates hate for its blatantly effective logic.

what would happen if any school was attacked by an armed assailant?

Indeed; you presented a straw man.

They represent a whole lot of logical people who see the hypocrisy on guns being good for the government to protect itself, but not for the protection ordinary people.
BTW, just the threat of gun control legislation drives up demand more than the NRA ever has.

Not a fan myself, but at least he wasn't calling them sluts.

Republican =/= Christian. However, if I was telling people that I know how they can protect themselves, that my way is the best way...do unto others....

Not funny at all; people who find such things entertaining are deranged. Likewise, grotesque descriptions stink of someone who doesn't have the guts to stop such things themselves, leaving others to do so; yet tie the hands of the very people who have that rightful ability.

reasonable, responsible ....AND VASTLY INEFFECTIVE.

LCM= large capacity magazine
AW= automatic weapons
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

To study what, exactly--reduce crime or ban guns?
You can't say "he's just doing some studies" and "we need to xyz" in the same argument and expect people not to notice the discrepancy.
There is only one legitimate means of a majority of the people voting my rights away; and that's a constitutional amendment-- any guess how that'd turn out? America would be a chum bucket.

He has a solution looking for a problem. The solution: government intervention; cause: government intervention. It's circular.

No doubt, Obama is a skillful politician. How he's managed to pull the wool over America's eyes is beyond my comprehension. Just for example, what ever happened with Fast and Furious-- where under Obama's administration, the ATF and DOJ injected illegal weapons into American markets and claimed executive privilege during the Congressional investigation---came up briefly during the debates, but was quickly squashed by moderators. Do you recall what I said earlier about a solution looking for a cause-- you're blissfully ignorant if you don't see the calculated methods of government that seek to remove liberty; demanding the attack upon the ability of the people to resist.

Sad that personal responsibility has become a minority interest. The truth of the matter is people die; sometimes violently, but usually not, and sometimes prematurely, but too often its personal choices that bear the brunt of the blame. Those choices include the laws we allow. How many school shootings have occurred since the inception of "Gun Free Zone" at schools versus before? Then tell me why a gun-free america will be safer.

1960's 15
1970's 15
1980's 19
Gun Free Schools act enacted 1990
1990's 29
2000's 19
2010's 25

Gun control is a solution looking for a problem.

Second brilliant post that I've read in the last two days.. Freaking -A- Bravo...:beer:
I started out highlighting exceptional parts but soon saw I had most of it highlighted ! --Tyr

jimnyc

01-18-2013, 12:49 PM

http://i.imgur.com/bsISx.jpg

DragonStryk72

01-18-2013, 01:19 PM

The fallacy in that statement is that drunk drivers generally don't use a car to deliberately kill people unlike drunk gunmen.

And gunmen, unlike drunk drivers, know and understand that the actions they are about to take are entirely illegal and immoral.

The point of the analogy is what you missed. Making guns more difficult to legally own does not stop those who no longer care about gun control laws. In sandy hook, the shooter shot another gun owner to obtain his weapons precisely because the stores wouldn't sell to him. Then he gunned about a couple dozen children before taking his own life. What laws, pray tell, did he care about at that point?

bingster

01-18-2013, 01:27 PM

Actually, I thought it was quite a good argument. The fact is that children in schools targeted by psychotic gunners ARE in as much or more danger as Obama's children. That's a problem. Clever ad.

Lanza mostly shot into their heads; identification had to be made from the clothes.

Limbaugh was the guy who carried on obscenely for DAYS doing vicious sex riffs on that pretty young woman who testified to Congress that she wanted insurance to pay for birth control pills. He is completely out of control, it sounds like. A bad man.

Well, it all sounds like a lot of nothing to me. He puts out useless executive orders that won't help the situation, and he leaves the real meat of the matter -- assault weapon and high-capacity magazine bans -- to Congress, which obviously won't pass any of it. And if anything was done to build more mental hospitals to keep these people in, I didn't notice that. Or any push back against the video game industry's ever more violent games that train kids up.

Though now of course there will be more and more of these shootings at shorter intervals, presumably --- the trend line is obvious. So who knows, maybe at some point if some enterprising psychotic takes out 60 or more children in a school, maybe Congress will do something. But I doubt it.

I agree that his executive orders seem weak. He's expecting a bunch of agencies to do studies and he's making a lot of recommendations. Obama has not been a president to issue executive orders. George W. issued far more. The polls are out there, daily, saying the population is behind his attempt. The latest poll regarding background checks say 95% of people. Also, conservative arguments have consistently demanded that we enforce more of the laws currently on the books. Some of these executive orders regard that very issue. This isn't about a president issuing orders like some kind of king. That's a ridiculous argument.

 Here’s one more item for the “assault” weapon debate.*
The Bushmaster fires a 5.56X.45mm bullet at a muzzle velocity of 925 meters/second.
The Glock 17 fires a 9X19mm Parabellum bullet at an average muzzle velocity of 350 meters/second (depending on brand).
The speed and weight of the two bullets result in the Bushmaster ammo striking its target at three times the energy of the Glock ammo. Although stunning as that is, it doesn’t account for the following:
The 9mm ammo shot from a pistol goes through the target like an arrow through cardboard. It makes a virtually consistent hole straight through the target pounding, with most of its energy, into something behind that target.
The Bushmaster ammo is designed specifically to tumble when it hits its target. Instead of going through the body, it flips and tears, usually staying in the body, practically exploding an area of damage the size of a fist, pounding the bone or organs with all of its energy.
So, therefore, the pistol and ar-15 difference is not just cosmetic.
*The argument regarding semantics was fun, but irrelevant. If the Bushmaster becomes the “assault” weapon of choice (I’ll take all bets that it will be) then the bill to be passed (which I’ll admit, won’t be passed) will define the Bushmaster as an “assault weapon”.

jimnyc

01-18-2013, 01:37 PM

I agree that his executive orders seem weak. He's expecting a bunch of agencies to do studies and he's making a lot of recommendations. Obama has not been a president to issue executive orders. George W. issued far more. The polls are out there, daily, saying the population is behind his attempt. The latest poll regarding background checks say 95% of people. Also, conservative arguments have consistently demanded that we enforce more of the laws currently on the books. Some of these executive orders regard that very issue. This isn't about a president issuing orders like some kind of king. That's a ridiculous argument.

 Here’s one more item for the “assault” weapon debate.*
The Bushmaster fires a 5.56X.45mm bullet at a muzzle velocity of 925 meters/second.
The Glock 17 fires a 9X19mm Parabellum bullet at an average muzzle velocity of 350 meters/second (depending on brand).
The speed and weight of the two bullets result in the Bushmaster ammo striking its target at three times the energy of the Glock ammo. Although stunning as that is, it doesn’t account for the following:
The 9mm ammo shot from a pistol goes through the target like an arrow through cardboard. It makes a virtually consistent hole straight through the target pounding, with most of its energy, into something behind that target.
The Bushmaster ammo is designed specifically to tumble when it hits its target. Instead of going through the body, it flips and tears, usually staying in the body, practically exploding an area of damage the size of a fist, pounding the bone or organs with all of its energy.
So, therefore, the pistol and ar-15 difference is not just cosmetic.
*The argument regarding semantics was fun, but irrelevant. If the Bushmaster becomes the “assault” weapon of choice (I’ll take all bets that it will be) then the bill to be passed (which I’ll admit, won’t be passed) will define the Bushmaster as an “assault weapon”.


I believe the 5.56 is for the military grade version and the .223 is for civilian, and the 5.56 would cause issues on the civilian version. Also, the civilian version CANNOT fire burstable or fully auto. So yes, the differences are cosmetic AND physical. 2 totally different weapons. Anyone with a good knowledge of guns will tell you that a semi-auto .223 aka AR15 is not very powerful and the firing rate is no better than other rifles. It's a hunting rifle made to look scary. Should hunting rifles that can fire at the same rate, and have the same power, also be banned?

bingster

01-18-2013, 01:39 PM

Perhaps you misunderstood their point. They didn't say Obama's kids shouldn't have armed guards; they said why should they, exclusively, have armed guards. It's a devastating argument that gun control advocates hate for its blatantly effective logic.

what would happen if any school was attacked by an armed assailant?

Indeed; you presented a straw man.

They represent a whole lot of logical people who see the hypocrisy on guns being good for the government to protect itself, but not for the protection ordinary people.
BTW, just the threat of gun control legislation drives up demand more than the NRA ever has.

Not a fan myself, but at least he wasn't calling them sluts.

Republican =/= Christian. However, if I was telling people that I know how they can protect themselves, that my way is the best way...do unto others....

Not funny at all; people who find such things entertaining are deranged. Likewise, grotesque descriptions stink of someone who doesn't have the guts to stop such things themselves, leaving others to do so; yet tie the hands of the very people who have that rightful ability.

reasonable, responsible ....AND VASTLY INEFFECTIVE.

LCM= large capacity magazine
AW= automatic weapons
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

To study what, exactly--reduce crime or ban guns?
You can't say "he's just doing some studies" and "we need to xyz" in the same argument and expect people not to notice the discrepancy.
There is only one legitimate means of a majority of the people voting my rights away; and that's a constitutional amendment-- any guess how that'd turn out? America would be a chum bucket.

He has a solution looking for a problem. The solution: government intervention; cause: government intervention. It's circular.

No doubt, Obama is a skillful politician. How he's managed to pull the wool over America's eyes is beyond my comprehension. Just for example, what ever happened with Fast and Furious-- where under Obama's administration, the ATF and DOJ injected illegal weapons into American markets and claimed executive privilege during the Congressional investigation---came up briefly during the debates, but was quickly squashed by moderators. Do you recall what I said earlier about a solution looking for a cause-- you're blissfully ignorant if you don't see the calculated methods of government that seek to remove liberty; demanding the attack upon the ability of the people to resist.

Sad that personal responsibility has become a minority interest. The truth of the matter is people die; sometimes violently, but usually not, and sometimes prematurely, but too often its personal choices that bear the brunt of the blame. Those choices include the laws we allow. How many school shootings have occurred since the inception of "Gun Free Zone" at schools versus before? Then tell me why a gun-free america will be safer.

1960's 15
1970's 15
1980's 19
Gun Free Schools act enacted 1990
1990's 29
2000's 19
2010's 25

Gun control is a solution looking for a problem.

I respect your cool headed response to my points.
Nobody is saying you can't have guns to protect yourself that's just what the NRA is saying.
There are guns in some of our schools and I've never heard of that stopping an attack. By the way, who's going to pay for the cop in every school idea?
As I mentioned in a prior post, Justice Scalia has said that the concept of gun control is constitutional. Not to mention, most prior bans and policies have already passed constitutional muster.

We can't just do nothing. I know what Obama did in many ways is toothless, but maybe answers will come. If more guns would really make us safer, we would already be the safest country on earth. Obama is investigating all issues of this subject matter and he's doing it in a responsible measured way. I think the "king", "tyranny", "nullification", claims are way over the top.

jimnyc

01-18-2013, 01:43 PM

Here's a good article. I can't find the original, from American Rifleman, but the text is the same:

By BRYCE M. TOWSLEY field editor
American Rifleman – September 2007

Most gun guys know the history of the .223 Remington and that it - like so many of our popular cartridges - started life in the military. Because the military switched to metric designations sometime in the 1950s, this little .22-cal. cartridge was later called the 5.56x45 mm NATO (commonly referred to as "5.56x45 mm").

The 5.56x45 mm surfaced in 1957 as an experimental cartridge in the AR-15 rifle. The concept was to develop a smaller, lighter military cartridge that would still be traveling faster than the speed of sound at 500 yds., and this was accomplished by using a 55-gr. boattail bullet. The AR-15 evolved into the select-fire M16 rifle that was adopted by the military in 1964.

Even though it would ultimately kill off its own .222 Rem. and .222 Rem. Mag. cartridges, Remington was quick to act, and very shortly after the military adopted the 5.56x45 mm cartridge the firm brought out the civilian version, called the .223 Remington. Confusion followed.

The common misconception is that the two are the same; that 5.56x45 nun and .223 Rem. are the same dance partner, but with a different dress. This can lead to a dangerous situation. The outside case dimensions are the same, but there are enough other differences that the two are not completely interchangeable.

One big difference is pressure. It becomes a bit confusing, as the pressure for the two is not measured in the same way. The .223 Rem. is measured with either Copper Units of Pressure (c.u.p.) or-more recently-with a mid*case transducer in pounds-per*square-inch (p.s.i.). The military 5.56x45 mm cartridge is measured with a case mouth transducer. The different measuring methods prevent a direct comparison, as a case mouth transducer gives lower numbers on identical ammuni*tion when compared to those from a midcase transducer. That's because the pressure is measured later in the event, after the pres*sure has already peaked. Accord*ing to Jeff Hoffman, the owner of Black Hills Ammunition, military ammunition can be expected to hit 60,000 p.s.i., if measured on a Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) mid-case system. Black Hills loads maximum average pressure is 55,000 p.s.i., while a 5.56x45 mm measured with a case mouth trans*ducer has a maximum average pressure of 58,700 p.s.i.

While the 5.56x45 mm chamber is slightly larger than the .223 Rem. chamber in just about every dimension, the primary difference is throat length, which can have a dramatic effect on pressure. The 5.56x45 mm has a longer throat in the chamber than the .223 Rem. The throat is also commonly called the leade, which is defined as a portion of the barrel directly in front of the chamber where the rifling has been conically removed to allow room for the seated bullet. Leade in a .223 Rem. chamber is usually 0.085", while in a 5.56x45 mm chamber the leade is typically 0.162", or almost twice as much as in the .223 Rem. chamber. Also, the throat angle is different between the two chambers, and that can affect pressure rise and peak pressure.

SAAMI regulates cartridge overall length, but not bullet ogive design. The shape of the ogive can significantly affect how far the bullet jumps before contacting the rifling. Some 5.56 mm bullets have an ogive suitable for 5.56 chambers with the longer throat, but if they were cham*bered in a .223 Rem., it could result in very little, if any, "jump" to the rifling. This can increase pressures. Remember, the 5.56x45 mm already starts out at a higher pressure. If the higher-pressure 5.56x45 mm cartridge is then loaded into a .223 Rem. firearm with a short throat, the combination of the two factors can raise chamber pressures.

If you are a handloader, you must also consider that the 5.56x45 mm cartridge case may have a thicker sidewall and a thicker head, which were designed to withstand the stresses generated by the higher chamber pressures. This reduces the powder capacity of the case. If the 5.56x45 nun case is reloaded with powder charges that have proven safe in .223 Rem. cases, this reduced internal capacity can result in much higher chamber pressures.

Bottom line? It is safe to fire .223 Rem. cartridges in any safe gun chambered for 5.56x45mm. But, it is not recommended and it is not safe to fire 5.56x45 nun cartridges in a firearm chambered for .223 Rem.

In fact, the 5.56x45 mm military cartridge fired in a .223 Rem. chamber is considered by SAAMI to be an unsafe ammunition combi*nation and is listed in the "Unsafe
Arms and Ammunition Combinations" section of the SAAMI Technical Correspondent's Handbook. It states: "In firearms chambered for .223 Rem. - do not use 5.56x45 mm Military cartridges."

There is no guarantee, however, that .223 Rem. ammunition will work in 5.56x45 mm rifles. Semi*automatic rifles chambered for 5.56x45 mm may not function with .223 Rem. ammunition because they are designed to cycle reliably with the higher pressure and heavier bullets of the 5.56x45 mm particularly with short barrels. While problems are rare, they do not indicate that the ammunition or rifle are defective. Like some marriages, they are simply incompatible.

When shooting .223 Rem. cartridges in a firearm chambered for 5.56x45 mm, it's likely that there will be a degradation in accuracy and muzzle velocity due to the more generous chamber dimensions. That's not to say that a firearm chambered in 5.56x45 mm won't be accurate with .223 Rem. loads, only that, on average, the .223 Rem. chambered firearms will be more accurate with .223 Rem. ammunition than rifles chambered for 5.56x45 mm firing .223 Rem.

Another issue is the twist rate of the rifling. The SAAMI specification for .223 Rem. is a 1:12" twist, and most non-AR-15-type rifles will use that rate. But, this is a cartridge that crosses a wide spectrum of uses, and as a result there is often a wide deviation from the 1:12" twist rate, particularly in the very popular AR-15-style "black guns." There are bullets available for the .223 Rem. that range in weight at least from 35 grs. to 90 grs. With that wide of a spectrum, one twist rate is not going to be enough.

Firearms chambered for 5.56x45 mm often have a rifling twist rate of 1:7" to stabilize the long, sleek, heavy bullets used in long-range shooting. Any rifle with a 1:7" twist rate will work best with bullets heavier than 60 grs.

On the other hand, a 1: 12 twist rate (most bolt-action .223 rifles) will stabilize most bullets up to 60 grs., however some longer 60-gr. bullets will not shoot well with that twist rate. Many firearms use a 1:9" twist, which is a very good compromise that works well with most bullets up to 70 or 75 grs. The great thing is that if you have a good barrel and quality bullets, the 1:9 works well with even the lightest bullets.
What does all this mean? If you have anAR-15 type firearm with a 5.56x45 mm chamber you can shoot either .223 Rem. or 5.56x45 mm safely. If your twist rate is 1:7" you should use bullets weighing 60 grs. or heavier. If you have any rifle with a 1:12 twist you should shoot bullets of 60 grs. or less for best accuracy. If you have a .223 Rem. rifle of any type, it is not recommended that you use 5.56x45 mm ammunition.

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-297830.html

jimnyc

01-18-2013, 01:45 PM

Bingster, I have another question, if you are in fact truly worried about velocity and power. Would you also get behind banning shotguns? Ask anyone with knowledge, what would you rather be shot with, an AR15, or a 30.06. The latter would likely blow your head right off your shoulders, or if in the midsection, leave a hole in your about the size of a monster grapefruit!!

bingster

01-18-2013, 01:46 PM

I believe the 5.56 is for the military grade version and the .223 is for civilian, and the 5.56 would cause issues on the civilian version. Also, the civilian version CANNOT fire burstable or fully auto. So yes, the differences are cosmetic AND physical. 2 totally different weapons. Anyone with a good knowledge of guns will tell you that a semi-auto .223 aka AR15 is not very powerful and the firing rate is no better than other rifles. It's a hunting rifle made to look scary. Should hunting rifles that can fire at the same rate, and have the same power, also be banned?

The .223 Remington is a cartridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartridge_%28firearms%29) with almost the same external dimensions as the 5.56×45mm NATO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO) military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military) cartridge. The name is commonly pronounced either two-two-three or two-twenty-three. It is loaded with a 0.224-inch (5.7 mm) diameter jacketed bullet, with weights ranging from 40 to 90 grains (2.6 to 5.8 g)[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)], though the most common loading by far is 55 grains (3.6 g)[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]. When loaded with a bullet that expands, tumbles, or fragments in tissue, this cartridge is capable of delivering devastating terminal performance[cit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)

You're right, I thought they were the same. The spec are pretty close, though,and so are the effects. I haven't researched the similarities with hunting rifles. Do hunting rifle bullets tumble? Do they take 30 magazines?

bingster

01-18-2013, 01:50 PM

Bingster, I have another question, if you are in fact truly worried about velocity and power. Would you also get behind banning shotguns? Ask anyone with knowledge, what would you rather be shot with, an AR15, or a 30.06. The latter would likely blow your head right off your shoulders, or if in the midsection, leave a hole in your about the size of a monster grapefruit!!

I was already convinced to some degree, my you, that assault weapons aren't that big of a deal. I just forgot in past points to mention the tumbling mechanism that deserves to be part of the debate. Again, these are the only weapons that have a prayer of being banned. Only a prayer, though, I really don't thing the ban will happen.

jimnyc

01-18-2013, 01:54 PM

You're right, I thought they were the same. The spec are pretty close, though,and so are the effects. I haven't researched the similarities with hunting rifles. Do hunting rifle bullets tumble? Do they take 30 magazines?

Check this one out, specifically designated for varmint no less:

http://www.ruger.com/products/sr556VT/models.html

http://i.imgur.com/FzL9d.jpg

jimnyc

01-18-2013, 01:58 PM

I was already convinced to some degree, my you, that assault weapons aren't that big of a deal. I just forgot in past points to mention the tumbling mechanism that deserves to be part of the debate. Again, these are the only weapons that have a prayer of being banned. Only a prayer, though, I really don't thing the ban will happen.

While we can debate certain guns from now until forever - the point should be whether or not it would work. The OVERWHELMING majority of murders are by criminals. Will banning these weapons, will they take them away from criminals, or from law abiding citizens?

Do you realize that there are SO many handguns much more powerful than an AR15? Many shotguns? A 9mm with a clip w/ 7 rounds, that's why NY has no passed. Suppose a criminal has a large pocket, with 20 clips, each having 7 rounds. Approximately 1-2 seconds to swap a clip. (choose any weapon, not just the 9). How much damage could a criminal do with a gun like this, and 140 rounds?

ConHog

01-18-2013, 02:04 PM

While we can debate certain guns from now until forever - the point should be whether or not it would work. The OVERWHELMING majority of murders are by criminals. Will banning these weapons, will they take them away from criminals, or from law abiding citizens?

Do you realize that there are SO many handguns much more powerful than an AR15? Many shotguns? A 9mm with a clip w/ 7 rounds, that's why NY has no passed. Suppose a criminal has a large pocket, with 20 clips, each having 7 rounds. Approximately 1-2 seconds to swap a clip. (choose any weapon, not just the 9). How much damage could a criminal do with a gun like this, and 140 rounds?

Irrelevant even if it was proven to work.

I would hazard a guess that if we started taking rapists and cutting their dicks off , that would prevent some rapes. However , cruel and unusual punishment is not allowed per the COTUS and so that is a tool that simply isn't available to us.

If gun grabbers want to ban certain guns , they have a venue to propose their plan, change the Constitution. Simple as that.

jimnyc

01-18-2013, 02:07 PM

Irrelevant even if it was proven to work.

I would hazard a guess that if we started taking rapists and cutting their dicks off , that would prevent some rapes. However , cruel and unusual punishment is not allowed per the COTUS and so that is a tool that simply isn't available to us.

If gun grabbers want to ban certain guns , they have a venue to propose their plan, change the Constitution. Simple as that.

Con, I know you're knowledgeable about guns, no?

Can you explain to us the difference between the 5.56 and the .223 version of bullets? And what about an AR15 civilian gun compared to your average hunting rifle, with clip or without? Personally, my experience tells me that the AR15 is a varmint killer, no worse than the average guns out there, but "scary looking". Others put it in line with the M16 and AK47, which I think is a crock.

jimnyc

01-18-2013, 02:10 PM

Here's another, a Ruger .22, has a capacity of 10, comparable to other rifles, but admittedly not as much as a huge clip. Nonetheless, how much different than an AR15? And would the damage be similar? Yep!

http://www.ruger.com/products/1022Tactical/specSheets/1230.html

http://i.imgur.com/B5PE0.jpg

Marcus Aurelius

01-18-2013, 02:20 PM

Here's another, a Ruger .22, has a capacity of 10, comparable to other rifles, but admittedly not as much as a huge clip. Nonetheless, how much different than an AR15? And would the damage be similar? Yep!

http://www.ruger.com/products/1022Tactical/specSheets/1230.html

http://i.imgur.com/B5PE0.jpg

http://stancarey.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/big-red-button-ban-it.jpg

jimnyc

01-18-2013, 02:38 PM

http://stancarey.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/big-red-button-ban-it.jpg

I agree, I think that's a fairly scary looking .22, probably about the same strength as an AR15, and if hunting, why in the world would someone need 10 rounds?? :poke:

Marcus Aurelius

01-18-2013, 02:44 PM

I agree, I think that's a fairly scary looking .22, probably about the same strength as an AR15, and if hunting, why in the world would someone need 10 rounds?? :poke:

They can't aim for shit?

jimnyc

01-18-2013, 02:47 PM

They can't aim for shit?

Another reason the above gun should be banned, it has a tripod of sorts to help someone stabilize their shot/aim.

jimnyc

01-18-2013, 03:01 PM

Another one, a regular old Remington shotgun that we grew up with. Add nothing more than a pistol grip - now an assault weapon - even though it's the same gun.

http://i.imgur.com/8ovOt.jpg

ConHog

01-18-2013, 03:23 PM

Con, I know you're knowledgeable about guns, no?

Can you explain to us the difference between the 5.56 and the .223 version of bullets? And what about an AR15 civilian gun compared to your average hunting rifle, with clip or without? Personally, my experience tells me that the AR15 is a varmint killer, no worse than the average guns out there, but "scary looking". Others put it in line with the M16 and AK47, which I think is a crock.

I'm assuming you are asking what's the difference between a 5.56 NATO round and say a .223 Remington? The main difference is the 5.56 round normally has thicker walls than the .223 round meaning they can handle higher pressure. Also , they are usually slightly longer than a .223 round.

This means the 5.56 NATO round has a lower powder capacity. By about 10 grams.

These slight differences actually make the .223 the more accurate ammunition, and that is why you see most competition rifles chambered for that round.

Another difference is in the rifle itself. A Rifle chambered for 5.56 NATO has a slight longer "leade" which is the area This is the area where a chambered round sits and right before the rifling of the barrel begins. In a rilfe chambered for .223 the leade is .085" in a 5.56 it is .162". Almost double. The longer leade of the 5.56 allows for a spitzer shape which the .223 does not have this shape leads to yaw or bullet spiral when hitting soft tissue. Theoretically this design allows the smaller , lighter 5.56 round to be just as deadly as a larger , heavier round.

Theoretically of course the .223 round is not meant to kill people, and obviously the 5.56 is the better suited ammunition for such a thing.

The main thing to remember is that it is perfectly safe to fire .223 in a weapon chambered for 5.56, but you absolutely are risking chamber failure if you fire a 5.56 round through a weapon chambered for .223

There are just a few differences between an AR15 and an M16.

Chief among them is that AR15s do not have a selective firing rate. They are one pull, one shot fired. As fast as you can pull the trigger for sure, but one round per pull at most.

In the case of the M16, the older models were capable of full on automatic fire. The newer ones have a 3 round burst capability. Mine is an A1 version and has a 3 position selector switch. Semi automatic, 3 round burst, and fully automatic.

Another difference is that according to Remington most AR15s are actually chambered for the .223 round, even when they have 5.56 stamped on them.

Other than that, honestly they are pretty much the same platform, and any other differences are the same as say the difference between a Chevy Silverado and a GMC Sierra. Cosmetic only.

The plain and simple truth is that an AR15 is nothing more than a fancied up .22. It just looks scary

ConHog

01-18-2013, 03:27 PM

Another one, a regular old Remington shotgun that we grew up with. Add nothing more than a pistol grip - now an assault weapon - even though it's the same gun.

http://i.imgur.com/8ovOt.jpg

does that have a fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds or a detachable magazine?

Marcus Aurelius

01-18-2013, 03:30 PM

I'm assuming you are asking what's the difference between a 5.56 NATO round and say a .223 Remington? The main difference is the 5.56 round normally has thicker walls than the .223 round meaning they can handle higher pressure. Also , they are usually slightly longer than a .223 round.

This means the 5.56 NATO round has a lower powder capacity. By about 10 grams.

These slight differences actually make the .223 the more accurate ammunition, and that is why you see most competition rifles chambered for that round.

Another difference is in the rifle itself. A Rifle chambered for 5.56 NATO has a slight longer "leade" which is the area This is the area where a chambered round sits and right before the rifling of the barrel begins. In a rilfe chambered for .223 the leade is .085" in a 5.56 it is .162". Almost double. The longer leade of the 5.56 allows for a spitzer shape which the .223 does not have this shape leads to yaw or bullet spiral when hitting soft tissue. Theoretically this design allows the smaller , lighter 5.56 round to be just as deadly as a larger , heavier round.

Theoretically of course the .223 round is not meant to kill people, and obviously the 5.56 is the better suited ammunition for such a thing.

The main thing to remember is that it is perfectly safe to fire .223 in a weapon chambered for 5.56, but you absolutely are risking chamber failure if you fire a 5.56 round through a weapon chambered for .223

There are just a few differences between an AR15 and an M16.

Chief among them is that AR15s do not have a selective firing rate. They are one pull, one shot fired. As fast as you can pull the trigger for sure, but one round per pull at most.

In the case of the M16, the older models were capable of full on automatic fire. The newer ones have a 3 round burst capability. Mine is an A1 version and has a 3 position selector switch. Semi automatic, 3 round burst, and fully automatic.

Another difference is that according to Remington most AR15s are actually chambered for the .223 round, even when they have 5.56 stamped on them.

Other than that, honestly they are pretty much the same platform, and any other differences are the same as say the difference between a Chevy Silverado and a GMC Sierra. Cosmetic only.

The plain and simple truth is that an AR15 is nothing more than a fancied up .22. It just looks scary

Doesn't that mean it would 'be bad' to fire a 5.56 through an AR15 stamped 5.56, since it is quite possible really chambered for the .223???

ConHog

01-18-2013, 03:33 PM

Doesn't that mean it would 'be bad' to fire a 5.56 through an AR15 stamped 5.56, since it is quite possible really chambered for the .223???

Absolutely that's what it means.

It's a marketing ploy by the gun manufactures. After all, doesn't "my gun will fire the same ammo as an M16" sound impressive even if you're not buying 5.56 and only buying the cheaper more commonly available .223?

That's what gun manufacturers are counting on, that AR15 owners won't even risk using 5.56 ammo, not because it's the wrong ammo for the weapon, but because .223 is cheaper .

For example, I have an actual M16, designed for military spec 5.56. I have a couple oh hundred, maybe a thousand, rounds of 5.56 , but when we shoot, we use the cheaper .223.

jimnyc

01-18-2013, 03:42 PM

does that have a fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds or a detachable magazine?

Not sure, I just simply did a search for a Remington hunting rifle with a pistol grip. I know another Remington .22 I looked at (might have posted above) came with a detachable magazine, I think 10 rounds.

ConHog

01-18-2013, 03:44 PM

Not sure, I just simply did a search for a Remington hunting rifle with a pistol grip. I know another Remington .22 I looked at (might have posted above) came with a detachable magazine, I think 10 rounds.

Not being an asshole, but do you know the requirements to be labeled an assault weapon under the federal assault weapons ban?

A pistol grip alone on a shotgun won't get you there.

<dl><dd>Semi-automatic rifles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_rifle) able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:</dd></dl> <dl><dd>

Folding or telescoping stock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescoping_stock)
Pistol grip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistol_grip)
Bayonet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayonet) mount
Flash suppressor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_suppressor), or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenade_launcher) (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle_grenade), though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

</dd></dl> <dl><dd>Semi-automatic pistols (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_pistol) with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:</dd></dl> <dl><dd>

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor)
Barrel shroud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_shroud) that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_firearm).

</dd></dl> <dl><dd>Semi-automatic shotguns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_shotgun) with two or more of the following:</dd></dl> <dl><dd>

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.

I actually believe the limits are reasonable, I just think it's an unconstitutional bill.

I think we need a new amendment.

</dd></dl>

Robert A Whit

01-18-2013, 03:50 PM

The fallacy in that statement is that drunk drivers generally don't use a car to deliberately kill people unlike drunk gunmen.

I accept your refutal. Now accept mine. The typical gun owner also does not own guns to use to kill humans.

The falacy in the anti gun crowd is they presume just the opposite happens.

Robert A Whit

01-18-2013, 03:56 PM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by bingster http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=607722#post607722)
I was already convinced to some degree, my you, that assault weapons aren't that big of a deal. I just forgot in past points to mention the tumbling mechanism that deserves to be part of the debate. Again, these are the only weapons that have a prayer of being banned. Only a prayer, though, I really don't thing the ban will happen.

Jim replies: While we can debate certain guns from now until forever - the point should be whether or not it would work. The OVERWHELMING majority of murders are by criminals. Will banning these weapons, will they take them away from criminals, or from law abiding citizens?

Do you realize that there are SO many handguns much more powerful than an AR15? Many shotguns? A 9mm with a clip w/ 7 rounds, that's why NY has no passed. Suppose a criminal has a large pocket, with 20 clips, each having 7 rounds. Approximately 1-2 seconds to swap a clip. (choose any weapon, not just the 9). How much damage could a criminal do with a gun like this, and 140 rounds?

Congratulations to Bingster for realizing the common sense factual argument by Jim are having an effect. Congratulations to Jim for making those arguments.

Robert A Whit

01-18-2013, 04:01 PM

Con, I know you're knowledgeable about guns, no?

Can you explain to us the difference between the 5.56 and the .223 version of bullets? And what about an AR15 civilian gun compared to your average hunting rifle, with clip or without? Personally, my experience tells me that the AR15 is a varmint killer, no worse than the average guns out there, but "scary looking". Others put it in line with the M16 and AK47, which I think is a crock.

I thought I had taken care of this in the past.

You know that metric converts to inches, correct?

It also converts to caliber. .223 is the same thing as 5.56 mm is. You can see that .223 is about 1/4 inch. 5.56 mm also is about 1/4 inch.

red states rule

01-18-2013, 04:02 PM

http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/1/9/4/4/9/8/1/batmanshooting-83009203049.jpeg

Robert A Whit

01-18-2013, 04:08 PM

Another reason the above gun should be banned, it has a tripod of sorts to help someone stabilize their shot/aim.

Bipod you mean. Two legs is a bipod.

They don't put tripods on the front.

ConHog

01-18-2013, 04:09 PM

I thought I had taken care of this in the past.

You know that metric converts to inches, correct?

It also converts to caliber. .223 is the same thing as 5.56 mm is. You can see that .223 is about 1/4 inch. 5.56 mm also is about 1/4 inch.

you could not be more wrong sir. They are NOT the same ammunition. Read my above post for education.

jimnyc

01-18-2013, 04:10 PM

Not being an asshole, but do you know the requirements to be labeled an assault weapon under the federal assault weapons ban?

A pistol grip alone on a shotgun won't get you there.

<dl><dd>Semi-automatic rifles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_rifle) able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:</dd></dl> <dl><dd>

Folding or telescoping stock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescoping_stock)
Pistol grip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistol_grip)
Bayonet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayonet) mount
Flash suppressor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_suppressor), or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenade_launcher) (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle_grenade), though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

</dd></dl> <dl><dd>Semi-automatic pistols (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_pistol) with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:</dd></dl> <dl><dd>

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor)
Barrel shroud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_shroud) that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_firearm).

</dd></dl> <dl><dd>Semi-automatic shotguns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_shotgun) with two or more of the following:</dd></dl> <dl><dd>

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.

I actually believe the limits are reasonable, I just think it's an unconstitutional bill.

I think we need a new amendment.

</dd></dl>

Ok, 2 of the features. But I believe both the guns I posted had either a detachable magazine or the ability to fire more than 5 rounds anyway.

And I don't think it would be reasonable, I think it would be the beginning of further control. Why would a semi-auto rifle, with a pistol grip and suppressor, be so much more worse than equivalent rifle without either feature? I know the grips help, and the suppressor will help with the kick and such - but to the degree that it would make it an assault weapon? That's where I disagree. The gun will still have the same firing rate, velocity, ammo and other firing features. At best, those 2 features make a weapon more accurate, but I don't think more potent.

ConHog

01-18-2013, 04:15 PM

Bipod you mean. Two legs is a bipod.

They don't put tripods on the front.

Oh for God's sakes. Jimmy you desperately needed me back here man LOL

Location has NOTHING to do with whether the stand is a bipod or a tripod. BIPOD meaning TWO LEGS, TRIPOD meaning THREE legs.

and the reason they don't locate tripods at the front of the gun is because when a person requires a front mounted stand is when they are in the PRONE position and as they teach you the in the prone position your body itself is the third leg which combines with a bipod to give you the same level of steadiness as a shooter who is using a gun on a tripod which is mounted under the gun and provides ALL of the stability for the shooter.

Marcus Aurelius

01-18-2013, 04:19 PM

Bipod you mean. Two legs is a bipod.

They don't put tripods on the front.

http://www.gundigest.com/wp-content/uploads/Rifle-Tripod.jpg

http://www.weaponscache.com/forum/gallery/files/2/5/shrike_tripod.jpg

http://www.enemyforces.net/firearms/psg1.jpg

jimnyc

01-18-2013, 04:21 PM

http://www.weaponscache.com/forum/gallery/files/2/5/shrike_tripod.jpg

That looks sweet! Do you know what gun that is? I know it looks scary, so I'm sure it's an assault weapon!

ConHog

01-18-2013, 04:22 PM

That looks sweet! Do you know what gun that is? I know it looks scary, so I'm sure it's an assault weapon!

it's not painted black, so I think you're okay.

:rolleyes:

Robert A Whit

01-18-2013, 04:23 PM

I'm assuming you are asking what's the difference between a 5.56 NATO round and say a .223 Remington? The main difference is the 5.56 round normally has thicker walls than the .223 round meaning they can handle higher pressure. Also , they are usually slightly longer than a .223 round.

This means the 5.56 NATO round has a lower powder capacity. By about 10 grams.

These slight differences actually make the .223 the more accurate ammunition, and that is why you see most competition rifles chambered for that round.

Another difference is in the rifle itself. A Rifle chambered for 5.56 NATO has a slight longer "leade" which is the area This is the area where a chambered round sits and right before the rifling of the barrel begins. In a rilfe chambered for .223 the leade is .085" in a 5.56 it is .162". Almost double. The longer leade of the 5.56 allows for a spitzer shape which the .223 does not have this shape leads to yaw or bullet spiral when hitting soft tissue. Theoretically this design allows the smaller , lighter 5.56 round to be just as deadly as a larger , heavier round.

Theoretically of course the .223 round is not meant to kill people, and obviously the 5.56 is the better suited ammunition for such a thing.

The main thing to remember is that it is perfectly safe to fire .223 in a weapon chambered for 5.56, but you absolutely are risking chamber failure if you fire a 5.56 round through a weapon chambered for .223

There are just a few differences between an AR15 and an M16.

Chief among them is that AR15s do not have a selective firing rate. They are one pull, one shot fired. As fast as you can pull the trigger for sure, but one round per pull at most.

In the case of the M16, the older models were capable of full on automatic fire. The newer ones have a 3 round burst capability. Mine is an A1 version and has a 3 position selector switch. Semi automatic, 3 round burst, and fully automatic.

Another difference is that according to Remington most AR15s are actually chambered for the .223 round, even when they have 5.56 stamped on them.

Other than that, honestly they are pretty much the same platform, and any other differences are the same as say the difference between a Chevy Silverado and a GMC Sierra. Cosmetic only.

The plain and simple truth is that an AR15 is nothing more than a fancied up .22. It just looks scary

Jim only asked about bullets so that is why I explained bullets to him.

The bullet is put into the case. Some think that the ammo is called a bullet.

By the way, I suspect that there is no problem with said chamber pressures given the very small size of the case and the lesser amount of powder.

Marcus Aurelius

01-18-2013, 04:26 PM

That looks sweet! Do you know what gun that is? I know it looks scary, so I'm sure it's an assault weapon!

http://www.weaponscache.com/forum/nfa-class-3-title-ii/4753-ares-defense-systems-shrike-lmg-conversion.html

Robert A Whit

01-18-2013, 04:27 PM

you could not be more wrong sir. They are NOT the same ammunition. Read my above post for education.

He did not say ammo. He said bullet. Even you admit both use the same sized barrel.

ConHog

01-18-2013, 04:29 PM

He did not say ammo. He said bullet. Even you admit both use the same sized barrel.

okay let's assume you're right about that. You're still wrong and I addressed that in my post that you apparently did not read to. The bullet in a .223 round is actually slightly BIGGER than the bullet in a 5.56 round by roughly 10 grams in fact.

So either way you are wrong sir.

jimnyc

01-18-2013, 04:32 PM

http://www.weaponscache.com/forum/nfa-class-3-title-ii/4753-ares-defense-systems-shrike-lmg-conversion.html

Awesome. Looks like some quality weapons there! - http://www.aresdefense.com/

Marcus Aurelius

01-18-2013, 04:33 PM

Awesome. Looks like some quality weapons there! - http://www.aresdefense.com/

My future son-in-law will want one.. so I am NOT showing it to him... lol

Besides, he's pretty much ready for Armageddon anyway.

Robert A Whit

01-18-2013, 04:34 PM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by ConHog http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=607796#post607796)
I didn't start or revive anything. You asked me a question I anwered, he took umbrage to my answer apparently.

By the way Jim, what I posted was in fact not an opinion, but rather it was a fact, and facts unlike opinions can and are either right or wrong.

The other poster who I don't know yet, posted that .223 and 5.56 are the same ammo. That is in fact WRONG and what I posted above is in fact RIGHT. That has nothing to do with opinion. An opinion would be if you were to ask me which I prefer to shoot. That's objective and subjective and can be opinionated. But the physical differences between two ammunition? that's not opinion, that's fact.

That all very well may be true. And regardless of right/wrong, fact/opinion & revived or new - I'm just hoping EVERYONE will think before they post. We were already in the midst of trying to reel in some of the fighting and animosity here, and I'm hoping we can all continue that when possible.

Except that Jim used the word bullet and I spoke of the bullet diameter.

Even Conthog admits that one can use the same ammo in both guns. I tend to doubt as small as the bullet case is and given he said the 5.56 mm ammo has less powder that chamber pressure is a problem.

If you have less pressure, as he said, how can it translate to more pressure?

But I repeat. I read Jims question and he spoke not of ammo, but the bullets.

And I stuck to the conversion of mm to caliber. Hell, I even believe I used the word approximate or something like that.

jimnyc

01-18-2013, 04:42 PM

My future son-in-law will want one.. so I am NOT showing it to him... lol

Besides, he's pretty much ready for Armageddon anyway.

I'm REALLY caught up in watching "The Walking Dead". If that ever happens, a man needs to be prepared!!

ConHog

01-18-2013, 04:44 PM

I'm REALLY caught up in watching "The Walking Dead". If that ever happens, a man needs to be prepared!!

If it happens, just make sure you don't use 5.56 ammo in your AR15 :wink:

tailfins

01-18-2013, 04:51 PM

Is it possible that Obama is just making a bunch of noise and serving up a BS sandwich to his supporters? If he essentially does nothing to restrict guns, shouldn't we just let his supporters enjoy their meal?

jimnyc

01-18-2013, 04:54 PM

Is it possible that Obama is just making a bunch of noise and serving up a BS sandwich to his supporters? If he essentially does nothing to restrict guns, shouldn't we just let his supporters enjoy their meal?

I think a TON of it is nothing more than lip service, and pandering & garnering of votes. But a part of me also thinks that if you give them an inch, they will be back in a few years looking for a mile.

Robert A Whit

01-18-2013, 05:15 PM

Let me reduce Jim's question in this fashion.

Essentially his question deals with bullets.

And he asked about size difference.

Conhog admits that in both rifles, the two bullets fit both barrels. I speak only of bullets.

I tried to persuade Jim that it is a conversion understanding. that the 5.56 mm size is .223 size.

I did not speak of powder nor grains. Neither had Jim.

So, the question is only over size. Is it true or false that .223 = 5.56 mm.

That should be easy to show with facts.

OK, I just checked and found out that I did make an error.

5.56 is not .223. It is about .219.

It is very very close. .004 difference.

On this one, I am not sure enough to keep going on about this.

bingster

01-18-2013, 06:15 PM

I'm encouraged by Obama's executive order to get both the CDC and ATF back in the business of studying gun crime. The NRA has blocked the gathering of these studies for too long.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/17/gun-research-is-allowed-again-so-what-will-we-find-out/

fj1200

01-18-2013, 06:20 PM

I'm encouraged by Obama's executive order to get both the CDC and ATF back in the business of studying gun crime. The NRA has blocked the gathering of these studies for too long.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/17/gun-research-is-allowed-again-so-what-will-we-find-out/

The NRA has governmental power? Who knew?

aboutime

01-18-2013, 06:31 PM

I'm encouraged by Obama's executive order to get both the CDC and ATF back in the business of studying gun crime. The NRA has blocked the gathering of these studies for too long.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/17/gun-research-is-allowed-again-so-what-will-we-find-out/

Bingster. Personally. I am encouraged that you are such a fine representative of the ill-informed kind of people who selfishly, and thoughtlessly managed to put someone who has managed to fool all of you...back in office, a second time.

If you claim to be encouraged by Obama's executive orders. Just wait till you get to see how his Avoidance of the U.S. Constitution works on you, and your family in the not too distant future.
I look forward to seeing how encouraged all of you will be, come APRIL 15th, or 2014, when all of your messiah-like wishes become reality, and you HAVE NOTHING to show for all of your HOPE, and CHANGE.

Marcus Aurelius

01-18-2013, 06:32 PM

I'm encouraged by Obama's executive order to get both the CDC and ATF back in the business of studying gun crime. The NRA has blocked the gathering of these studies for too long.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/17/gun-research-is-allowed-again-so-what-will-we-find-out/

How, exactly, did the NRA block the CDC or ATF from doing anything?

aboutime

01-18-2013, 06:42 PM

How, exactly, did the NRA block the CDC or ATF from doing anything?

Marcus. Like you. I will wait to hear the answer to that. But neither of us should expect to get the truth, if we hold our breath.

bingster

01-18-2013, 06:43 PM

I found proof of where the NRA gets much of it's money.
National Rifle Association Receives Millions of Dollars From Gun Industry "Corporate Partners" New VPC Report Reveals

http://www.vpc.org/press/1104blood.htm

I always suspected they had a financial interest in scaring this country into buying more guns.

jimnyc

01-18-2013, 06:46 PM

I found proof of where the NRA gets much of it's money.
National Rifle Association Receives Millions of Dollars From Gun Industry "Corporate Partners" New VPC Report Reveals

http://www.vpc.org/press/1104blood.htm

I always suspected they had a financial interest in scaring this country into buying more guns.

It's a rifle association, a gun association, and someone would be surprised that they are aligned with gun makers?

bingster

01-18-2013, 06:46 PM

How, exactly, did the NRA block the CDC or ATF from doing anything?

According to the article, the NRA helped write the bill. In fact, I've read that in other articles from companies competing with the NRA that they helped write this bill.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-18-2013, 06:50 PM

http://beaconbrass.com/2012/03/223-vs-556-the-evil-black-rifle/

The 5.56 mm chamber specification has changed since its adoption. The current military loading (NATO SS-109 or US M855) uses longer, heavier bullets than its predecessor. This has resulted in a lengthening of the throat in the 5.56mm chamber. Thus, while .223 Remington ammunition can be safely fired in a 5.56 mm chambered gun, firing 5.56mm ammunition in a .223 Remington chamber may produce pressures in excess of even the 5.56mm specifications due to the shorter throat. In other words, you’re probably better off not not firing 5.56mm in a .223 Remington chamber! (hint, hint)
This is right on target (pun intended) as an excellent exposé on why, if you have a .223 barreled EBR you should shoot only commercial ammo and stay away from the mil-surplus stuff. If you have a .223/5.56mm barreled EBR or one that is only marked “5.56mm” then you are able to shoot either the commercial .223 or the mil-surplus 5.56.
I hope this helps explain the difference.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Know your weapon folks and be sure to fire the right ammo.
Those pissy ass rounds are to small anyways. Go larger ,with more lethal ammo is my motto. A thumbsize hole on entry with a fistsize or larger on exiting. Make sure the bastard is dead before he hits the ground.;)-Tyr

ConHog

01-18-2013, 06:53 PM

It's a rifle association, a gun association, and someone would be surprised that they are aligned with gun makers?

The next thing we know the Fraternal Order of Police will in fact pushing for legislation which favors police.

:slap:

Missileman

01-18-2013, 06:54 PM

It's a rifle association, a gun association, and someone would be surprised that they are aligned with gun makers?

Oh c'mon...next you'll be telling us that McDonalds is in cahoots with beef growers. :cow:

jimnyc

01-18-2013, 07:00 PM

I see the NRA, as it pertains to Washington, no different than any other lobbyist groups looking to make/change law. At least the NRA is generally in alignment with what is in our Constitution.

aboutime

01-18-2013, 07:11 PM

According to the article, the NRA helped write the bill. In fact, I've read that in other articles from companies competing with the NRA that they helped write this bill.

Bingster. So what? Would you go to your Dentist to find out how to fix your automatic transmission???

You're statement is moot. Means nothing, but is another cheap shot designed to somehow get someone to be Impressed by you. And, you failed.

bingster

01-18-2013, 07:23 PM

It's a rifle association, a gun association, and someone would be surprised that they are aligned with gun makers?

It's not just an alignment. They profit directly, despite numerous denials, for the sell of guns.

ConHog

01-18-2013, 07:26 PM

It's not just an alignment. They profit directly, despite numerous denials, for the sell of guns.

Are you serious? Of course they do. EVERY industry has lobbyists. Personally , I would make them all illegal. But I would not single out the NRA.

bingster

01-18-2013, 07:27 PM

Bingster. So what? Would you go to your Dentist to find out how to fix your automatic transmission???

You're statement is moot. Means nothing, but is another cheap shot designed to somehow get someone to be Impressed by you. And, you failed.

The point is not moot. The NRA is not about your 2nd amendment rights. They are a lobbying agency who's whole mission is to increase the sale of guns and block anything that might inform the public to prevent otherwise. They are not about truth or justice.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-18-2013, 07:52 PM

The point is not moot. The NRA is not about your 2nd amendment rights. They are a lobbying agency who's whole mission is to increase the sale of guns and block anything that might inform the public to prevent otherwise. They are not about truth or justice.

They are a helluva lot more about truth and justice than are the asshats attempting to nullify the 2nd Amendment!
You act as if the 2nd Amendment is up for grabs by the highest bidder! If so , why aren't the other rights in the Bill of Rights up for grabs by the highest bidder? Why aren't they to be weakened to advance a liberal agenda!??
That's right they are but taking the guns away needs to be accomplished first because when the other rights are attacked and targeted the government wants the public in a very weak position to offer any resistance!
Destroy the 2nd Amendment and then the rest will be so much easier to do away with!-Tyr

ConHog

01-18-2013, 07:57 PM

They are a helluva lot more about truth and justice than are the asshats attempting to nullify the 2nd Amendment!
You act as if the 2nd Amendment is up for grabs by the highest bidder! If so , why aren't the other rights in the Bill of Rights up for grabs by the highest bidder? Why aren't they to be weakened to advance a liberal agenda!??
That's right they are but taking the guns away needs to be accomplished first because when the other rights are attacked and targeted the government wants the public in a very weak position to offer any resistance!
Destroy the 2nd Amendment and then the rest will be so much easier to do away with!-Tyr

Nice rant, and irrelevant to his point about the NRA.

jimnyc

01-18-2013, 08:07 PM

The point is not moot. The NRA is not about your 2nd amendment rights. They are a lobbying agency who's whole mission is to increase the sale of guns and block anything that might inform the public to prevent otherwise. They are not about truth or justice.

I disagree. I think their whole mission is about the 2nd amendment, freedom and gun knowledge, and I state this as a member, and my wife is a lifetime member. Do they lobby Washington in favor of gun rights? Of course. But that hardly makes their mission to sell guns. Not much different than planned parenthood type places lobbying for laws and funding.

Do you have legit news you can show us that shows them directly involved with the sale of guns? That they are actively involved in blocking anything from the public?

Are you a member of the NRA? It's difficult to gather as much information about their involvement, and what they're up to, without being a member, which is why I ask. I find it hard - for you - to say what they preach, or their mission, or what they even tell the members - without actually being a member. And no, not trying to get you to join. just see the truth. It's natural for those anti-gun to not like the NRA as well, kind of goes hand in hand. I just want to make sure the facts going out, are in fact facts, and not misinformed opinions.

Robert A Whit

01-18-2013, 08:10 PM

I'm encouraged by Obama's executive order to get both the CDC and ATF back in the business of studying gun crime. The NRA has blocked the gathering of these studies for too long.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/17/gun-research-is-allowed-again-so-what-will-we-find-out/

I can't say those agencies duties call for this or does not call for it, but there are already studies on this topic that can be used.

Would you agree to put a gun free zone sign on the front of your property?

The NRA is for the people. I don't pay them a nickel but I support the NRAs goals. I believe in their gun safety training.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-18-2013, 08:13 PM

Nice rant, and irrelevant to his point about the NRA.
Irrelevant opinion of my post. Nice try but no cigar..
Didn't take you long did it??-Tyr

Missileman

01-18-2013, 08:14 PM

and not misinformed opinions.

Pfft...what would liberals use to form policy if denied misinformed opinions?

ConHog

01-18-2013, 08:15 PM

I disagree. I think their whole mission is about the 2nd amendment, freedom and gun knowledge, and I state this as a member, and my wife is a lifetime member. Do they lobby Washington in favor of gun rights? Of course. But that hardly makes their mission to sell guns. Not much different than planned parenthood type places lobbying for laws and funding.

Do you have legit news you can show us that shows them directly involved with the sale of guns? That they are actively involved in blocking anything from the public?

Are you a member of the NRA? It's difficult to gather as much information about their involvement, and what they're up to, without being a member, which is why I ask. I find it hard - for you - to say what they preach, or their mission, or what they even tell the members - without actually being a member. And no, not trying to get you to join. just see the truth. It's natural for those anti-gun to not like the NRA as well, kind of goes hand in hand. I just want to make sure the facts going out, are in fact facts, and not misinformed opinions.

Eh, I disagree with you on their purpose. I think they are in bed with gun manufactures and use their influence to make sure laws aren't passed that might cut into the the profit margins of those companies.

My retort to that is who cares? As long as other industries are doing the same, the NRA should be free to do so as well.

There is no reason to deny the obvious fact that gun manufactures would obviously make use of a gun owner's association.

Don't let people sucker you into that argument.

ConHog

01-18-2013, 08:17 PM

Pfft...what would liberals use to form policy if denied misinformed opinions?

Damn good thing a conservative would never do that. Fucking liberals with their dishonest arguments and nonsensical rants.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-18-2013, 08:19 PM

Pfft...what would liberals use to form policy if denied misinformed opinions?

..feel good, slobbering , tear jerked whimperings???-:laugh:--Tyr

Robert A Whit

01-18-2013, 08:20 PM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by bingster http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=607897#post607897)
The point is not moot. The NRA is not about your 2nd amendment rights. They are a lobbying agency who's whole mission is to increase the sale of guns and block anything that might inform the public to prevent otherwise. They are not about truth or justice.

I disagree. I think their whole mission is about the 2nd amendment, freedom and gun knowledge, and I state this as a member, and my wife is a lifetime member. Do they lobby Washington in favor of gun rights? Of course. But that hardly makes their mission to sell guns. Not much different than planned parenthood type places lobbying for laws and funding.

Do you have legit news you can show us that shows them directly involved with the sale of guns? That they are actively involved in blocking anything from the public?

Are you a member of the NRA? It's difficult to gather as much information about their involvement, and what they're up to, without being a member, which is why I ask. I find it hard - for you - to say what they preach, or their mission, or what they even tell the members - without actually being a member. And no, not trying to get you to join. just see the truth. It's natural for those anti-gun to not like the NRA as well, kind of goes hand in hand. I just want to make sure the facts going out, are in fact facts, and not misinformed opinions.

I bow to your knowledge of the workings of the NRA but I have also read a lot about them and their mission and operations. I am trying to remember but I may once have been a member but it would only last maybe 1 year. I got a ton of literature from them as they mailed me and mailed me offers to join them.

(Note. I at times pay to join some group but stop after one year. A History network is such a group and so is a group in San Francisco that puts on speakers)

It is apparent that some dislike the NRA but I have not been able to tell why once the propaganda they bring dies down. When somebody asks them to prove that the NRA are bastards, they back down.

I have at no time seen that they are employed by gun companies. I suggest gun companies pay them dues for various reasons.

Missileman

01-18-2013, 08:22 PM

..feel good, slobbering , tear jerked whimperings???-:laugh:--Tyr

Or maybe some lame-assed attempt at reverse logic?

jimnyc

01-18-2013, 08:23 PM

Eh, I disagree with you on their purpose. I think they are in bed with gun manufactures and use their influence to make sure laws aren't passed that might cut into the the profit margins of those companies.

My retort to that is who cares? As long as other industries are doing the same, the NRA should be free to do so as well.

There is no reason to deny the obvious fact that gun manufactures would obviously make use of a gun owner's association.

Don't let people sucker you into that argument.

I think they lobby, no doubt. But when you see them lobbying to prevent laws that would cut into margins - I see it as lobbying to prevent laws that go against the 2nd amendment. But I certainly don't see them having information blocked from public consumption, nor direct involvement in gun sales.

I receive a "Freedom Magazine" from the NRA monthly. I get plenty of stickers, pins and hats. The best was when my wife got a Bill of Rights / 2nd Amendment statue which weighs around 10 pounds. But they never send us anything trying to get people to buy things from any specific manufacturers. The closest they come, to me as a member, are lame ads that are sold in their magazines from gun sellers. But I don't think that makes them directly involved.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-18-2013, 08:26 PM

Or maybe some lame-assed attempt at reverse logic?

Or both!!! A combo made in libville.. --:laugh:--Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-18-2013, 08:28 PM

I think they lobby, no doubt. But when you see them lobbying to prevent laws that would cut into margins - I see it as lobbying to prevent laws that go against the 2nd amendment. But I certainly don't see them having information blocked from public consumption, nor direct involvement in gun sales.

I receive a "Freedom Magazine" from the NRA monthly. I get plenty of stickers, pins and hats. The best was when my wife got a Bill of Rights / 2nd Amendment statue which weighs around 10 pounds. But they never send us anything trying to get people to buy things from any specific manufacturers. The closest they come, to me as a member, are lame ads that are sold in their magazines from gun sellers. But I don't think that makes them directly involved.

You are right on Jim. They absolutely and fully support the 2nd Amendment. A fine organization !!-Tyr

jimnyc

01-18-2013, 08:29 PM

I bow to your knowledge of the workings of the NRA but I have also read a lot about them and their mission and operations. I am trying to remember but I may once have been a member but it would only last maybe 1 year. I got a ton of literature from them as they mailed me and mailed me offers to join them.

(Note. I at times pay to join some group but stop after one year. A History network is such a group and so is a group in San Francisco that puts on speakers)

It is apparent that some dislike the NRA but I have not been able to tell why once the propaganda they bring dies down. When somebody asks them to prove that the NRA are bastards, they back down.

I have at no time seen that they are employed by gun companies. I suggest gun companies pay them dues for various reasons.

I'm a peon member going on a yearly $35 membership right now. My wife is the one who should have stock there for the amount she's paid, in excess of $2500 to be some special lifetime member. And trust me, TRUST ME, if anyone was going to rant about being duped, it would be my wife. She's solely a member, and has donated so much, so that they DO continue the 2nd amendment fight. She also believes (she just told me) that there are surely execs on both sides profiting from the fight, but it doesn't make what they're doing wrong.

Sure, gun companies want the 2nd to stay for profit, and I'm sure on principle. Is it REALLY so bad, or so hard to believe, that some in the business would donate money to a group who will fight for what is right AND helps keep them in business?

Robert A Whit

01-18-2013, 08:31 PM

The point is not moot. The NRA is not about your 2nd amendment rights. They are a lobbying agency who's whole mission is to increase the sale of guns and block anything that might inform the public to prevent otherwise. They are not about truth or justice.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with lobbying agencies.

Actually they are outstanding at informing the public.

Guns are personal property. I don't get the fuss over guns.

I do get a fuss about the safety of children in public areas. I get the safety issue when attenting some motion picture theater. Oh, I do get it.

I also get it when people refuse to post a GUN FREE ZONE sign in their yard too.

ConHog

01-18-2013, 08:32 PM

I think they lobby, no doubt. But when you see them lobbying to prevent laws that would cut into margins - I see it as lobbying to prevent laws that go against the 2nd amendment. But I certainly don't see them having information blocked from public consumption, nor direct involvement in gun sales.

I receive a "Freedom Magazine" from the NRA monthly. I get plenty of stickers, pins and hats. The best was when my wife got a Bill of Rights / 2nd Amendment statue which weighs around 10 pounds. But they never send us anything trying to get people to buy things from any specific manufacturers. The closest they come, to me as a member, are lame ads that are sold in their magazines from gun sellers. But I don't think that makes them directly involved.

well Jim, that's not what I'm talking about. You're already a gun customer and they know that just on the basis of you being a member. I'm talking about they use their influence in Congress to make sure the guns keep flowing.

Of course they do, and who cares?

Robert A Whit

01-18-2013, 08:34 PM

[/INDENT]
I'm a peon member going on a yearly $35 membership right now. My wife is the one who should have stock there for the amount she's paid, in excess of $2500 to be some special lifetime member. And trust me, TRUST ME, if anyone was going to rant about being duped, it would be my wife. She's solely a member, and has donated so much, so that they DO continue the 2nd amendment fight. She also believes (she just told me) that there are surely execs on both sides profiting from the fight, but it doesn't make what they're doing wrong.

Sure, gun companies want the 2nd to stay for profit, and I'm sure on principle. Is it REALLY so bad, or so hard to believe, that some in the business would donate money to a group who will fight for what is right AND helps keep them in business?

I go along with that entirely.

Robert A Whit

01-18-2013, 08:44 PM

I think they lobby, no doubt. But when you see them lobbying to prevent laws that would cut into margins - I see it as lobbying to prevent laws that go against the 2nd amendment. But I certainly don't see them having information blocked from public consumption, nor direct involvement in gun sales.

I receive a "Freedom Magazine" from the NRA monthly. I get plenty of stickers, pins and hats. The best was when my wife got a Bill of Rights / 2nd Amendment statue which weighs around 10 pounds. But they never send us anything trying to get people to buy things from any specific manufacturers. The closest they come, to me as a member, are lame ads that are sold in their magazines from gun sellers. But I don't think that makes them directly involved.

Members like you and your wife know much more than the popcorn sniffers that never belonged.

jimnyc

01-18-2013, 08:50 PM

well Jim, that's not what I'm talking about. You're already a gun customer and they know that just on the basis of you being a member. I'm talking about they use their influence in Congress to make sure the guns keep flowing.

Of course they do, and who cares?

And I agree, they have considerable influence in Washington. They've been around for something like 150 years, I'm sure they have a few friends. But regardless of whether or not that companies ultimately profit, it's also protecting our 2nd amendment rights. The group has always been about freedoms and rights, and of course it made sense for companies years and years ago to start getting friendly with them and donate to their cause. But the underlying principles of the group are still there, only now the gun companies of course use them to help continue selling their weapons, and I'm sure the NRA stays friendly with them for $$. And while this friendship may annoy some, it's not as if the NRA exists as some clandestine organization that is there to pull the wool over eyes, hide things and sell as many weapons as possible. They are a legit group that has been around since the 1800's and have a LONG history of doing everything they can to help gun owners and the 2nd amendment.

ConHog

01-18-2013, 08:54 PM

And I agree, they have considerable influence in Washington. They've been around for something like 150 years, I'm sure they have a few friends. But regardless of whether or not that companies ultimately profit, it's also protecting our 2nd amendment rights. The group has always been about freedoms and rights, and of course it made sense for companies years and years ago to start getting friendly with them and donate to their cause. But the underlying principles of the group are still there, only now the gun companies of course use them to help continue selling their weapons, and I'm sure the NRA stays friendly with them for $$. And while this friendship may annoy some, it's not as if the NRA exists as some clandestine organization that is there to pull the wool over eyes, hide things and sell as many weapons as possible. They are a legit group that has been around since the 1800's and have a LONG history of doing everything they can to help gun owners and the 2nd amendment.

Sure, I just think it's a little naive to believe their motives are pure. They are after all made up of humans.

logroller

01-18-2013, 10:51 PM

Sure, I just think it's a little naive to believe their motives are pure. They are after all made up of humans.
Human error has little to do with it IMHO, its just bias. To manifest a law which inhibits gun violence appreciably, a broad and draconian gun ban will be necessary. The gun control folks aren't forthcoming with their true intent, and the gun lobbyists know that. The politicking involved is just rhetoric; hyperbolic images of kids and mass murders don't tell the whole picture; and the facts aren't substantiate of gun restrictions inhibiting violence.

ConHog

01-18-2013, 10:59 PM

Human error has little to do with it IMHO, its just bias. To manifest a law which inhibits gun violence appreciably, a broad and draconian gun ban will be necessary. The gun control folks aren't forthcoming with their true intent, and the gun lobbyists know that. The politicking involved is just rhetoric; hyperbolic images of kids and mass murders don't tell the whole picture; and the facts aren't substantiate of gun restrictions inhibiting violence.

you and I agree about gun laws not lowering violence.

Marcus Aurelius

01-18-2013, 11:20 PM

I found proof of where the NRA gets much of it's money.
National Rifle Association Receives Millions of Dollars From Gun Industry "Corporate Partners" New VPC Report Reveals

http://www.vpc.org/press/1104blood.htm

I always suspected they had a financial interest in scaring this country into buying more guns.

you really are an idiot, aren't you.

Of freaking course the NRA will get money from the gun industry, you dolt. It is perfectly natural for gun manufacturers to financially support an organization that seeks to support 2nd amendment rights and responsible gun ownership.

You must be one of those dumb asses that thinks the only people that should have guns are the government, and that the 2nd amendment should be repealed.

Marcus Aurelius

01-18-2013, 11:32 PM

According to the article, the NRA helped write the bill. In fact, I've read that in other articles from companies competing with the NRA that they helped write this bill.

from the article you cited...

Back in 1996, Congress worked with the National Rifle Association to enact a law (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) banning CDC funding for any research to “advocate or promote gun control.” Technically speaking, that wasn’t a ban on all gun research, but the law was vague enough that the centers shied away from the topic altogether.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Chris Cox, the N.R.A. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_rifle_association/index.html?inline=nyt-org)’s chief lobbyist, said his group had not tried to squelch genuine scientific inquiries, just politically slanted ones.

“Our concern is not with legitimate medical science,” Mr. Cox said. “Our concern is they were promoting the idea that gun ownership was a disease that needed to be eradicated.”

The injury center was guilty of “putting out papers that were really political opinion masquerading as medical science,” said Mr. Cox, who also worked on this issue for the N.R.A. more than a decade ago.

In 1996, Representative Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, succeeded in pushing through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the disease control centers’ budget, the very amount it had spent on firearms-related research the year before.

“It’s really simple with me,” Mr. Dickey, 71 and now retired, said in a telephone interview. “We have the right to bear arms because of the threat of government taking over the freedoms that we have.”

The Senate later restored the money but designated it for research on traumatic brain injury. Language was also inserted into the centers’ appropriations bill that remains in place today: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

So, the Republican House stripped the money... the Democratic Senate put it back in, but earmarked it, and then they inserted language stating funds meant for injury prevention and control could not be used to promote gun control.

Big f-ing deal. They (CDC) had no business being involved in gun control anyway. Cry me a river, Bingster.

Also, nowhere in your article does it say the NRA helped write the bill. It DOES say...

Back in 1996, Congress worked with the National Rifle Association to enact a law (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) banning CDC funding for any research to “advocate or promote gun control.”...and even the link in THAT quote takes you to an article that does not claim the NRA helped write the bill. Kinda makes you a liar, as well as a dumb ass.

red states rule

01-19-2013, 03:10 AM

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz011813dAPR20130118014534.jpg

bingster

01-19-2013, 02:16 PM

from the article you cited...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

So, the Republican House stripped the money... the Democratic Senate put it back in, but earmarked it, and then they inserted language stating funds meant for injury prevention and control could not be used to promote gun control.

Big f-ing deal. They (CDC) had no business being involved in gun control anyway. Cry me a river, Bingster.

Also, nowhere in your article does it say the NRA helped write the bill. It DOES say...
...and even the link in THAT quote takes you to an article that does not claim the NRA helped write the bill. Kinda makes you a liar, as well as a dumb ass.

You're just demonstrating that the NRA's attempt to control the intelligence has left you lacking. It's not just that the NRA gets money from the gun manufacturers, it's that they lie about it, claiming their pure motives to protect your rights. The fact that most of this thread doesn't think gun control measure have any effect on gun deaths show a huge need for more studies. Here's a couple.
http://www.vpc.org/press/1204death.htm
http://www.vpc.org/fadeathchart12.htm

And this is what the front page of the NRA website says: "Throughout its history, the National Rifle Association has led efforts to promote safety and responsible gun ownership. Keeping our children and society safe remains our top priority." How does this jive with being against background checks and stifling governments ability to study the gun violence issue?

Speaking of violence, you can disagree without being disagreable. If my link didn't prove that the NRA helped write the bill, just check out the NRA website. Check their history in their archives. I'm sorry that you don't happen to know that the NRA often helps write legislation.

red states rule

01-19-2013, 02:18 PM

The point is not moot. The NRA is not about your 2nd amendment rights. They are a lobbying agency who's whole mission is to increase the sale of guns and block anything that might inform the public to prevent otherwise. They are not about truth or justice.

Earth to Bingster - the NRA is a group of law abiding citizens who own and support the right of people to own them. People like you for some reason think gun owners are evil and blood thirsty people who need to be disarmed at all cost.

jimnyc

01-19-2013, 02:41 PM

You're just demonstrating that the NRA's attempt to control the intelligence has left you lacking. It's not just that the NRA gets money from the gun manufacturers, it's that they lie about it, claiming their pure motives to protect your rights. The fact that most of this thread doesn't think gun control measure have any effect on gun deaths show a huge need for more studies. Here's a couple.
http://www.vpc.org/press/1204death.htm
http://www.vpc.org/fadeathchart12.htm

Where does this show them lying about anything? They say their motives are to protect freedoms and protect the 2nd, you disagree. But where are the lies they are telling people?

And this is what the front page of the NRA website says: "Throughout its history, the National Rifle Association has led efforts to promote safety and responsible gun ownership. Keeping our children and society safe remains our top priority." How does this jive with being against background checks and stifling governments ability to study the gun violence issue?

Please post specific articles and such, so I can read the reality, and then I'll reply to this part further. For now, I would say, they try and protect against the government intruding TOO much into territory that would be seen invasive. I'll wait to read about these studies before addressing that part.

Speaking of violence, you can disagree without being disagreable. If my link didn't prove that the NRA helped write the bill, just check out the NRA website. Check their history in their archives. I'm sorry that you don't happen to know that the NRA often helps write legislation.

If the NRA, who has been around for 150 years, helps WRITE something related to gun rights and such, why is that such a shock? Congress and the president seek out advisers all the time. Them helping write a bill doesn't mean they force people to vote on it.

jimnyc

01-19-2013, 02:54 PM

bingster - while it won't change your mind about perceived lies, or the money they spend - read their Wiki to see more things they are involved in... And remember, "The oldest civil rights organization in the USA".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association

aboutime

01-19-2013, 07:06 PM

Where does this show them lying about anything? They say their motives are to protect freedoms and protect the 2nd, you disagree. But where are the lies they are telling people?

Please post specific articles and such, so I can read the reality, and then I'll reply to this part further. For now, I would say, they try and protect against the government intruding TOO much into territory that would be seen invasive. I'll wait to read about these studies before addressing that part.

If the NRA, who has been around for 150 years, helps WRITE something related to gun rights and such, why is that such a shock? Congress and the president seek out advisers all the time. Them helping write a bill doesn't mean they force people to vote on it.

It appears. The only one Lacking here is Bingster, followed by Conhog, both of whom love their mother Gabby very much.

ConHog

01-19-2013, 07:10 PM

It appears. The only one Lacking here is Bingster, followed by Conhog, both of whom love their mother Gabby very much.

I'm going to ask you nicely ONE time to knock it off with your bullshit. If I'm so stupid, stop being non responsive and debate me with facts not name calling. Calling me stupid in threads where I haven't even addressed you then refusing to debate is cowardly.

aboutime

01-19-2013, 07:17 PM

I'm going to ask you nicely ONE time to knock it off with your bullshit. If I'm so stupid, stop being non responsive and debate me with facts not name calling. Calling me stupid in threads where I haven't even addressed you then refusing to debate is cowardly.

Funny you should be the one to mention cowardly. But then. Never mind. As for calling you stupid. Since when does the truth become an insult?

jimnyc

01-19-2013, 07:23 PM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?38767-Staff-actions-going-forward

Marcus Aurelius

01-19-2013, 10:08 PM

You're just demonstrating that the NRA's attempt to control the intelligence has left you lacking. It's not just that the NRA gets money from the gun manufacturers, it's that they lie about it, claiming their pure motives to protect your rights. The fact that most of this thread doesn't think gun control measure have any effect on gun deaths show a huge need for more studies. Here's a couple.
http://www.vpc.org/press/1204death.htm
http://www.vpc.org/fadeathchart12.htm

And this is what the front page of the NRA website says: "Throughout its history, the National Rifle Association has led efforts to promote safety and responsible gun ownership. Keeping our children and society safe remains our top priority." How does this jive with being against background checks and stifling governments ability to study the gun violence issue?

Speaking of violence, you can disagree without being disagreable. If my link didn't prove that the NRA helped write the bill, just check out the NRA website. Check their history in their archives. I'm sorry that you don't happen to know that the NRA often helps write legislation.

point 1: The two aims are not mutually exclusive. They can both protect my 2nd amendment rights AND make a profit while doing so. It's the American way. Don't like it? Move.

point 2: Incorrect. Most of this thread thinks gun control has no affect on gun crime, and that all it does is make it harder for law abiding citizens like me to own or use guns responsibly.

point 3: If you state something as fact, you need to back it up, not make others search the Internet for it. As yet, you've not proven your comment that the NRA helped write anything.

ConHog

01-19-2013, 10:11 PM

point 1: The two aims are not mutually exclusive. They can both protect my 2nd amendment rights AND make a profit while doing so. It's the American way. Don't like it? Move.

point 2: Incorrect. Most of this thread thinks gun control has no affect on gun crime, and that all it does is make it harder for law abiding citizens like me to own or use guns responsibly.

point 3: If you state something as fact, you need to back it up, not make others search the Internet for it. As yet, you've not proven your comment that the NRA helped write anything.

As to point 3. Actually he did prove that the NRA has had a hand in crafting several such bills. some in the thread have acknowledged that. The mere fact that YOU won't doesn't mean he didn't prove it.

That's not the right argument anyway. Hundreds of lobbyists have a hand in crafting legislation every day. Why should the NRA be treated any differently?

logroller

01-19-2013, 11:00 PM

I believe the 5.56 is for the military grade version and the .223 is for civilian, and the 5.56 would cause issues on the civilian version. Also, the civilian version CANNOT fire burstable or fully auto. So yes, the differences are cosmetic AND physical. 2 totally different weapons. Anyone with a good knowledge of guns will tell you that a semi-auto .223 aka AR15 is not very powerful and the firing rate is no better than other rifles. It's a hunting rifle made to look scary. Should hunting rifles that can fire at the same rate, and have the same power, also be banned?
Not 100% sure on the 5.56x45 NATO, but usually the reason a seemingly identical round gets two different names is bore pressure/ powder burn rate etc. Has to do with ballistics specified for a given weapon; eg carbine vs full barrel. Like jet A is a kerosene formulated especially for use in certain types of aircraft, but would probably work in a diesel tractor as well. Similarly, the 7.62x 51 is classed as the 'NATO' round, which is really a .308 designed for use in a NATO weapon, like the FAL-- i assume the 5.56x45 is similar. If you have a hunting rifle you may want to use a different load than the NATO specs because a longer barrel might allow for higher speeds, longer distance, more stopping power etc. There was a big issue with the first m16s; where the powder specified was substituted for different type which led to fouling and mechanical failure-- in the field of battle no less, and without the requisite cleaning tools. I'm sure some top brass lost more than their jobs over that mistake.

Marcus Aurelius

01-20-2013, 01:28 AM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=608300#post608300)

point 1: The two aims are not mutually exclusive. They can both protect my 2nd amendment rights AND make a profit while doing so. It's the American way. Don't like it? Move.

point 2: Incorrect. Most of this thread thinks gun control has no affect on gun crime, and that all it does is make it harder for law abiding citizens like me to own or use guns responsibly.

point 3: If you state something as fact, you need to back it up, not make others search the Internet for it. As yet, you've not proven your comment that the NRA helped write anything.

As to point 3. Actually he did prove that the NRA has had a hand in crafting several such bills. some in the thread have acknowledged that. The mere fact that YOU won't doesn't mean he didn't prove it.

That's not the right argument anyway. Hundreds of lobbyists have a hand in crafting legislation every day. Why should the NRA be treated any differently?

His link said the NRA worked with Congress (which at the time was Dem. controlled in the Senate and GOP controlled in the House). 'Worked with' does not equal 'wrote the bills'.

Abbey Marie

01-20-2013, 01:32 AM

The fallacy in that statement is that drunk drivers generally don't use a car to deliberately kill people unlike drunk gunmen.

And yet both are equally, and irreversibly, dead.

fj1200

01-20-2013, 07:08 AM

I'm going to ask you nicely ONE time to knock it off with your bullshit. If I'm so stupid, stop being non responsive and debate me with facts not name calling. Calling me stupid in threads where I haven't even addressed you then refusing to debate is cowardly.

Don't poke the special kid. Not worth it.

red states rule

01-21-2013, 04:47 AM

and left out of Obama's Executive Orders and new demands to curb violence http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/payn_c10653420130120120100.jpg

bingster

01-21-2013, 09:52 PM

and left out of Obama's Executive Orders and new demands to curb violence http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/payn_c10653420130120120100.jpg

The entire industrial world has the same movies and games without the gun death. Although he's spoken of looking into it, it's a moot point. Not to mention, the game companies have already won in federal court on this issue after exhaustive studies have exonerated the industry.

ConHog

01-21-2013, 09:54 PM

The entire industrial world has the same movies and games without the gun death. Although he's spoken of looking into it, it's a moot point. Not to mention, the game companies have already won in federal court on this issue after exhaustive studies have exonerated the industry.

Cartoons trump facts any day kid. Any good conservative knows that.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-21-2013, 11:17 PM

and left out of Obama's Executive Orders and new demands to curb violence http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/payn_c10653420130120120100.jpg

Critics of using these pics etc forget that a picture often can relay a few million words.
Give greater insight into a topic being discussed. I have always found those so critical of additional information to be a bit shallow and narrow minded themselves.
One most often see this criticism from totalitarian leftist types. nuff said , right there. -Tyr

Carry on RSR, you make the opposition cry foul even before the game starts!!--:beer:

ConHog

01-21-2013, 11:20 PM

Critics of using these pics etc forget that a picture often can relay a few million words.
Give greater insight into a topic being discussed. I have always found those so critical of additional information to be a bit shallow and narrow minded themselves.
One most often see this criticism from totalitarian leftist types. nuff said , right there. -Tyr

Carry on RSR, you make the opposition cry foul even before the game starts!!--:beer:

I like cartoons. They remind me of my childhood, I watch them every Saturday morning with my child.

But I certainly don't tune into them to get the news.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-21-2013, 11:27 PM

I like cartoons. They remind me of my childhood, I watch them every Saturday morning with my child.

But I certainly don't tune into them to get the news.

A shame that you missed such as this!!!-Tyr

<form action="http://www.google.ca/search" id="tsf" method="GET" role="search" name="f" style="width: 833px; background-image: none;">Googlehttp://www.google.ca/images/nav_logo117.png (http://www.google.ca/webhp?hl=en)

<tbody>

<tbody>

<tbody>
<input class="gsfi" id="lst-ib" name="q" maxlength="2048" value="prize winning political cartoons" title="Search" size="41" type="text" autocomplete="off" dir="ltr" spellcheck="false" style="font-size: 17px; border-style: none; padding-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; margin: 0px; height: auto; width: 552px; background-image: url(%3D%3D); background-color: transparent; position: absolute; z-index: 6; left: 0px; outline: none;"><input class="gsfi" disabled="" autocomplete="off" id="gs_htif0" dir="ltr" style="font-size: 17px; border-style: none; padding-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; margin: 0px; height: auto; width: 552px; position: absolute; z-index: 1; background-color: transparent; -webkit-text-fill-color: silver; color: silver; left: 0px; visibility: hidden;">

</tbody>

<button class="lsb" value="Search" type="submit" name="btnG" style="overflow: hidden; font-weight: normal; font-size: 0px; border: 0px; height: 30px; margin: 0px; vertical-align: top; position: relative; width: 70px;"></button>

</tbody>

</tbody>

</form>

Web
Images (http://www.google.ca/search?q=prize+winning+political+cartoons&hl=en&lr=&tbo=d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=MxT-UOf7CKai2QWHm4GoBQ&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAA)
Maps (http://maps.google.ca/maps?as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights=&q=prize+winning+political+cartoons&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&ei=MxT-UOf7CKai2QWHm4GoBQ&ved=0CAsQ_AUoAA)
MoreSearch tools

About 25,900,000 results<nobr> (0.30 seconds) </nobr>

Search Results

Pulitzer Prize-Winning Cartoons - Political Humor - About.com (http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/politicalcartoons/tp/pulitzer-prize-cartoons.htm)

<cite style="color: rgb(0, 153, 51); font-style: normal;">politicalhumor.about.com › ... › Political Humor (http://politicalhumor.about.com/) › Political Cartoons (http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/politicalcartoons)</cite>
10+ items – View the cartoon portfolios of recent winners of the Pulitzer ...

<tbody>
2012 Pulitzer Prize-Winning Cartoons
View the Pulitzer Prize-winning ...

2011 Pulitzer Prize-Winning Cartoons
View the Pulitzer Prize-winning ...

</tbody>
Pulitzer Prize Winners For Editorial Cartoons - Political Humor ... (http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/pulitzercartoons/Pulitzer_Prize_Winners_For_Editorial_Cartoons.htm)

<cite style="color: rgb(0, 153, 51); font-style: normal;">politicalhumor.about.com/.../pulitzercartoons/Pulitzer_Prize_Winners...</cite>
Current Political Cartoons · Historical Cartoons · 2012 Pulitzer Prize-WinningCartoons. View the Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoon portfolio of Matt Wuerker of ...
Images for prize winning political cartoons (http://www.google.ca/search?q=prize+winning+political+cartoons&hl=en&lr=&tbo=u&as_qdr=all&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=MxT-UOf7CKai2QWHm4GoBQ&ved=0CD8QsAQ)

- Report images (http://www.google.ca/search?as_q=prize+winning+political+cartoons+&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=#)

http://www.debatepolicy.com/image/jpeg;base64,/9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQAAAQABAAD/2wCEAAkGBwgHBgkIBwgKCgkLDRYPDQwMDRsUFRAWIB0iIiAdHx 8kKDQsJCYxJx8fLT0tMTU3Ojo6Iys/RD84QzQ5OjcBCgoKDQwNGg8PGjclHyU3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nz c3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3N//AABEIAFUAdQMBIgACEQEDEQH/xAAcAAEAAgIDAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAUBAwIGBwj/xAA3EAABAwIEAwYEBQMFAAAAAAABAAIDBBEFEiExBhNBIjJRYX GBFJHB8CMkobHxB1LRFkJicuH/xAAYAQEAAwEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQIDBP/EACMRAAICAQQCAgMAAAAAAAAAAAABAhEDEiEyUTFBBBMFFJH/2gAMAwEAAhEDEQA/APcUREARYul0BlEul0AREQBERAEREAREQBERAVpqZnOIa4C3kn xEjnOF7lvUaBasuV7wFHYSJspBu7b791toRz65E2KolkkLA/fqf4XIl8T++43PU6XWmnju9riQOzuFtrJYuUHuniZY37TwFSlZ onLS7N4As1xLzfQjMVuBabtB20Ouqiun57MkBDif9wOgWRC+OO N0ffZfQncHoqsumcjK+ABryHAbE9R/lco53vLgGt0/5EfRQazEYGx/jNeHC4ytBcb/AH53WmKtjdPZjsoAs51wT8lKVohumWxmLX5XNG3Q3Wmpq+SSAB oBfMbb7W+Sr67FIqdjZmNfIe7Ygj1ubKuqcSbiMbWU8LmywyNO tjpta48yCqZIzWNzivBMZx1qLZrHHeHuxeqoRURfkgDUuJysbf ezuuXUnw/btgnjIaQ64cLggXBHqvIMD4NxTh7jGvxSm5D8OeJmwxCobd7HG 7WOB6e/Qea6rUcacUcN4+aaojbBBSgRjDGkcpsdgWhrhe+liHa/LQUxyT2uzaUOj6La9rgC0gg7ELlddWwhtRidFDWNmaWztbLHJc tdlIBGnTf7KnSUVVEy3xGh6h2p+a30rsw1Pou0USiextMxsjiX AW7XVFUsiBPHUT1MobVsgjzHK4DW3y+oVVUUOLQVD3MxPsDuOA B08763XYJ6KfOHUswjsLDMLqirHYzBUOIrIQ02Djy9zbcLfE5P ZUc81FbuzhT1FXSQhj5ZQddQwXPl5feqiy1MEkwmlxSQS2y9sM vr0F+ixT1nMkLqqrqp7aaQkj520/VMbrsHwWgNZiV6enc7KC2El7yb6WHv5abrRpQ5GacpuomykjoY GRhmOVbPCFrhcn0C5VtVSU1BNXz4jUMoKcF75c7rDpa3Uk7AXJ XmWNf1SrnuczBcOp6amv2Jatpkkda3S+Uemtl0jGMaxPG5my4t iE1U5vca49lv/VosG+wWMsvR1w+PJ8j2eo4l4XpDTuNU01NQ9oyzT53Rg/32uIxqOp36WUT/AFRPT4/iDcUxDDKfD6AtcIKVhJmY4XbqddQW6DUk+A18UZG5+dkcZflaX OABNh1J8l2LDuHeKeKmy4pRUU9Y2R9pKgvYwPI03cRe22nosZy lLkzoWGEfB63wJxG/ianr6uWO0cdRyoqW5ORhDcvW1yb/AGF2WeCmip55mRyM5TCXFgu12U6hut79B59FS/0n4SqeGMGqJMY5bKuom5vLDweU0NsASNL97x39VbYtUx89rMLy TvZeR8LZRY6721G+vrZZY4T10pbP0Z5XHzXggyZTTfEu+MMTQS CY32P6eS6PxtwfiGL8ZxYhBRzzUdQ2L4l8ps1mUBpFiQ7YbAbn zXdhj+KMnHMwyljaLAOzZiPdXFNJNUFs7nx08huAcp1Hj/KjF+OXxm2m6ZH7f2VS3ONPQ1dPQubFJAyKJojjiLi9oAG5ebe4 t/lQKR2Kyvaz4prIzYNLGdPDxVjNRnlF8lYZbHXMSSpFAwNkY1lv EErug0o9nLkTcuiTSYaY4/zU8lTITfNIdvSyKxG2qLBu2bpUYIuN1X4k0csXDHOv1Vkq3EqZ wiMkQzvG9z/KmHkrk4ldBGHvAeWtJ2DdSfZdZ/qBhkWMwsoJIq4MgmEpMUQs/sgWufM7geW6vIav8ciaCpAAFhluPMiwv12t0UuDEqPO4Tumbpf ttIDfmr58c5qjPDOMNzy3iLhCknwnDqWiDKCOB5kmdUNfnu8NB Fjuey3qO6rnCOBODaBkM9WZK2dljklm/DffqQN/T916LFiUcr2spn87MbdsWA0PUD9Fwnoon1Jl+GhbMQBmbIRYA+ OX1XEsGWOyn/Udn3pqyBQu5ULYcEw0Q0+lhBCIWAeptf2WZaeviicJKumpQGFz Io7OkcBvbNoPYFWctZHSRgz1VNE1upBBP1H7Ktk4lwyc8uKZ1Y 4mzY4Yx2vGwOpSPxFdybZDzdbG+kw7DXRMdVl9VM9oJ+IcZLaa gDuj2C24dQw0Er3RRaOBc0tFvG+6pJazF5A5tHhkjAyTsCZ9zl +/H/1T/gsVqYGtlke3XujsAD21XbHCoR2pWcjyuT8XRYVk9G1gFbLC4yD RgaCT6eKoarBYaupZIyie+zyWy2yFngRf6Kfh+CyUUnOIMk5N3 PJuT77qVLV1cQf+SleBsWgO6+uqvx4uyG9XJUQzhETGctxe5o6 XIVhQUxjAbCzIwaXNytMM1XUuPLop4m/3VJAv7An6K3p4uVGG3uep8VWU3W5aONWbALABFlFibmUsiIQYs PBaX0kDzd0Yv5Ehb0UptENJlcMEw4SGQUwDnG5Ic4X/AFXOTCaGRpa6CwO+Vzm3+RU5E1N+wopeilHCuBh+c4fG9w25hc/L6XOnsrNlJAxoayJrWgZQBsB4LeiWxSMAACwGiyiKCQiIgFksi IBZERAEREAREQBERAEREAREQBERAEREAREQH//Z (http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.lurieunaward.com/Images%25202008/1rst%2520prize%2520-%2520big.jpg&imgrefurl=http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/12/13/2008-lurieun-award-winning-political-cartoons/&h=556&w=766&sz=159&tbnid=oObWIL4YLxfmyM:&tbnh=85&tbnw=117&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dprize%2Bwinning%2Bpolitical%2Bcartoon s%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=prize+winning+political+cartoons&usg=__9ikF33W_t2HCNUO2AevYggXN3No=&docid=UxRCy-xzmOVkSM&sa=X&ei=MxT-UOf7CKai2QWHm4GoBQ&ved=0CEEQ9QEwAg)
http://www.debatepolicy.com/image/jpeg;base64,/9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQAAAQABAAD/2wCEAAkGBwgHBgkIBwgKCgkLDRYPDQwMDRsUFRAWIB0iIiAdHx 8kKDQsJCYxJx8fLT0tMTU3Ojo6Iys/RD84QzQ5OjcBCgoKDQwNGg8PGjclHyU3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nz c3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3N//AABEIAGUARQMBIgACEQEDEQH/xAAbAAABBQEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAwQFBgcBAv/EAEYQAAIBAwEDBggKBgsAAAAAAAECAwAEEQUSITEGExRBUWEVM kRxgpGxwSIkNEJzgZKh0eEzNVSywtIHFkNSU2Nkk6Kj8P/EABoBAAIDAQEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAQIFAwb/xAArEQACAgEBBgUEAwAAAAAAAAAAAQIDERIEBRMxQVEhImFxwY Gx4fAjJJH/2gAMAwEAAhEDEQA/ANks7S2NnATbxfo1+YOyluiW37PF9gV5tnWLT4pHOFWEEnsGKi G5acn1Clr5gG4fF5f5anDIbS5juWCdJJRFYW0imQc2SFGE2V49 +1tfdSfR7xo/kNoj7v7p69/V2b6a/wBeeTfXqQHnhk/lpVOWOgPjYvw2eGzFIf4aMMNS7ikwu4wW8E2zAEYCYJI83qouI L5hFzFjZrn9JlQcfC6vOM/XXRyo0ZhnpZ/2ZP5a9DlJpJUstw5UdYgkx+7U6ZdivEh3QpZQyuw6Zp9rEuD4u CQcjHv9XfTzolt+zxfYFRcXKvRZnZIrtnZeIWCQ/wANPbLVrO+lMVtIzOF2sNE67s46wO0VGl88E64t4yR/KC1t16PiCIeN8wd1FK8ofJ/S91FQWHhjM2jc0DgvbbOezK4rL+c0++iluHCqqptlY22gR28K1 W0+Qw5/wl9lY7b27w2UqC2hjkbA5oKCBv37l79nNXha636HG6jirw5/kd2Vjpt2X5lGUjrypB82KR8ATmQwiTZhzkOOO6lNHVLGYPcxww vICNqFCqsMjZG87yMkfVndwqeE9vtFefj2hxG2KcqlCcfNzM6+ FlU8R5f6QEugy27CSynZnPEtjd5qTvdI5xCJtVZZX3yJtjB+om rKXiAyZF9dVnXLCPW1ktukLl42UOCyiPhjhxO/hUXTrrjlEURsslh/YYDSZ7C8tr3Sw8xRwZYzKu1gjPsNaJyOuGudRd2gaLELrsswJ8 Zew1WrFrmylkKbJd0ELsUGMYwWBx18cnPqqw8i7iF9SxHLE+1C 7KY2yG+EuSD5wa5ylpi4t8xmFbc4zxnHUneUPk/pe6ijlD5P6XuopUfH0bFNLRxxWAEfZrGOkENzLPPsq+1ttM213 7z1d3mrZ4htaWingYAP+NZXzcAhEkkaZ2Rk7OTWZvG+VWnDfjn 4G9lp4mfTAhyeuA19bwSpzm5sSyttvwJznqO6rXJFHIpV0UjvU GofT4Y3u4CIQhHwgxAy3/hmp/Zpzdt7sqbl3FNt2dxs8GN2gTmysQWM4wGVRuqnahOI7t7eVVZo 3K7YAXIB3E+s9vWKvBUgEgZPZVdnRZLiaSRUY7Y+bu4Vy3rdGM I9y+76ZubaeCD8KzZ2lAyq4yWz1/lVp/o3uGm1YqVQIkEgXZXhvTrphzKhBLza4Ocbvqqa5GDGvgYz8VYl u8lcCsrZLs3RSWB+6icYNyln6Fm5Q+T+l7qKOUPk/pe6ivQmaPot2lqf8gfu1lscTGFUL5Ur2b/XWqW/6tj+hH7tZlE0SwqXbJ2R8Bd7GsXe+fJj1+DR3fjzfQVspVTVYU YEt4qjHAY3n76sWKh9FgMKG5uym2RhR2bhw9VK3mqJAwzzhJ4I i0xsEZQq9w2jTKZIB0ZmUMMrx38KruoSiS9mRGCDZLFQAcYIAP nOfZSSaxLJPIsUSrH1MRnaHfv76hDPerq3OEnFwwjKSKcHJGOv d1b667VW7amilLUJpk6GkgtwHCsjLtlcbxnfU9yQi5rWwCcv0d gT3ZXA+rNQJBciDBJVMFx1gYGcdtTfI9nbWo9viIWBPbwrF2R/2I+47tC/ikWPlD5P6Xuoo5Q+T+l7qK9OYhIW/wCro/oR7KyyZ2hs2kjK84sZYbQzvArU7b9XxfQj2Vls8CXVgIeMhAO7 jjH51l7whrsqj7/A/sctMZv96jKHU5miiie4y2STjtJJqe06UTqUkwGDbzwz99NLbRo lVNlDvHHHvp8IRakhUA2vr3U74dCEn1H3R7RFVmRDjcGPE0xvb W0mjC7yQT8IcequmXcBvwOH3U1MsgmAbCKBniDkde7z1VvBLEb hXEo2jssCSrL92amuSDDw4qnxuZc7h3iom9nTKuzrsgYLY41Kc i2HhcYByUY+YED8DWRGh1bZHtzGbJ6qJFl5Q+T+l7qKOUPk/pe6ivQGOSNp8hh+iX2Vn1tZXcMao+m3Wc4Z1gfcO7dWhWXyKD6 NfZXvnIm+DtKc7sVSVak030OkLHDOChRw3iIY0trvGdxNu+fZS FxDfswIsb1yRx6M+B91XzwZZbOz0dAOwZFeWtdP2sMItrJ3FvX 11HDRfjvsZsYtZSZidOvWXO74q+MfZpJtP1dn5xtOvvhcB0d/w3VppstN3MY4PXxro07TpFYLbwMDxwBU6ERxpGXz2GquqKdKvM DqFvJv+6rFyKtryPVF6VYXUASJ8ySwsgYkjHEdlXCG1sLaQtDF bxyKN5UAEbqdKyNnZZTg4ODVZUxk030Djyw13IjlD5P6Xuoo5R eT+l7qK6nERtdc2bWEdH4Rr/ad3mro1aIOHFkm0ODbQz7K7RQB78O/6b/s/KvB1eInJskJ7Sw/CiigA8LxYx0JMYx4w/CuprSp4loF8z491FFAHG1iNm2mslJ7Sw/CurrSL4toB5n/ACoooAjNd1nbEHxfGNr5/m7q7RRQB//Z (http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.luriestudios.com/photo_gallery/FAffairs04.jpg&imgrefurl=http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/12/13/2008-lurieun-award-winning-political-cartoons/&h=879&w=600&sz=114&tbnid=79nNxE4slAX5NM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=61&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dprize%2Bwinning%2Bpolitical%2Bcartoon s%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=prize+winning+political+cartoons&usg=__QPb9ywtLdLbfpDh18EgOCE63DNA=&docid=UxRCy-xzmOVkSM&sa=X&ei=MxT-UOf7CKai2QWHm4GoBQ&ved=0CEQQ9QEwAw)
http://www.debatepolicy.com/image/jpeg;base64,/9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQAAAQABAAD/2wCEAAkGBwgHBgkIBwgKCgkLDRYPDQwMDRsUFRAWIB0iIiAdHx 8kKDQsJCYxJx8fLT0tMTU3Ojo6Iys/RD84QzQ5OjcBCgoKDQwNGg8PGjclHyU3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nz c3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3N//AABEIAFwAZAMBIgACEQEDEQH/xAAbAAEAAgMBAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAABQYDBAcBAv/EADYQAAIBAwMCBQEFBwUBAAAAAAECAwAEEQUSIQYxEyJBUWFxF BWBkaEHIzJCwdHwJDNyksIW/8QAFAEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP/EABQRAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD/2gAMAwEAAhEDEQA/AO4AYFe0pQKUpQK0dV1A2EURjtpLmaaTw44oyBk4JOSeAAFJ59 q3qrfWZt7e1hv7iVFWDejxEAmZHXaVVT/E3IIXBz29cEJSwv2uJfBmjVJCniK0b70YZwcN7g8EfIrfxVP6a WxbVbd0lVMWxktYXj8JpPE5Z9vG44Uc4yAfrVxoGKUpQKUpQKU pQKUpQKUrXvr23sLZri7lWONR3J7+uB7n4oF/e2+n2c13dyCOCFSzsfb49z8VXYwmrajY30uWSXa0aHtGNrkdvX sc57gY9KrfXWuXayXdvex7bQxBrVUUsrMV8jlsct4mBgduD6Zq a0q6s7NtDtjcwBY7aIMTIvcRuDnn6UELrN7epoiTLcZubed/DIUABlMeG5zg7Wb8zV20HXINWE6IcvDIUz6SL6OPggiufa84k6 Rnlt9jFp3Xhs4JjHf/AKj9amNKiuoryO2jvYpFgDSzSwoVMeB7tu57L8jPpQdBpUTpmt 212WhaWMzRjLFchSB/Nz2BHIz3HbODiSimimBMUiPjvtYHFBkpSlApSlApSlBr37FLSV wzLtUtlRk8c/5/SqFfWF91BZHTHjvLO42GaISEnZs5UMzZ5JKqcZUjdjtXQZ4/FhePON6lc4z3rHDKfLFMu2XHHOQ30NByu6I1bp42SKhurdiq7w ciLGZUx3HABA9DgcVzXqa2sTcJJdWdvp8oiEsMS5k+8GaU5Dbc GM9wcsP4eBXVupNOm0nq2SS0z4N+wdUB2jMhCygfOQG+r1zTU3 gt5tQEafYRe2jNOtyhf7w/fHAt2wdpPbPpgmguvT1kJOj+oba606PTHXV3MtnC2VhHgRkBSC fb9TW/0sb/AE/RJdLFut3eXd7OjSjCpKU7BuTy3LEfJHbONHoeJ10XqG1ksZ7Aj Uow1tPN4jRBoQNpbucfP966F0SqfdsylU3rcs59cF1Df+vyoMN j01d2WnM8d0j6pO4luJHz4ZOV4XHbaBhT+J5NbmkWl9Y3oikeE wMjF0U7jnja2cDH8wx65z6GpZrgElYVMjA4OP4Qfk/4a9hiZXeSRgzvgcDAAHp+poM1KUoFKUoFKVgku4I5DHJIFYDJz 7UGesF6D9lkZRlkG9fqORWEarYltqXAc4z+7Bbjv6V5962pmWE C4LMM5FrKVH1bbgfnQR/V1uLnSEuIVMkkE8MqMh5C+Iu4g+23n8K4TrMciXF4sDPY289nd rJNfHKXUa3A8sHBMZJPtyT85ru8j2DXBdbgpbMpSSIK6pnnJx2 59z7eueOZ9XdBWUNtLd2Mp1Ca4uViEUpVWxI4wVJwBgk9uMc/QM3R1nLp9p1Fbz6bJp6h4LxIJZhI3mjkXJYc/wASHuBj2q79EOEs9QuHTw0kn8Xcf5htABHxhQM/BqndH9PwRS3Mt7qYgt7qzUTp4hRjLjd6kY27yMd8+2KvfT8Wl2 um2kCXcLGJQcCbPyARk9vT2oJXTbhHgjUlhIwLMHUr5s+Yc+xz WW9u47OJZJQxVnVAF5JLHA/UitN57MXLM9/bhFbxWQuAQQuM5z2xzWDXnttT0oRwXlrtd45A7udjKrg9198UE lbXkdxK8aq6sqhvMMZB9q2ar3TaC1TdPqdtcBv3MZGQzEO3clj uJ/CrDQKUpQKUpQfEqeJGyB2TcMblOCPpXNut+qdZ6KuT9kk+3wTM BHFdqzGHyk8MFG4cHu7H6YNdMrV1Owg1OyltLsOYZV2tscow+j DBBoKv0n+0XReokggWRob4wGW4jdCqRFQN3mPGMng/St261yHVJBZafH4oEgZ5DKqoVVhwCDnnHBxg+4riv7RuhH6ZVr qztr64slcK91dsrHccecbMYBLBfNySDj3q1fs023enaRc3IuJJ ZBJG7IxLuQ8m3JPwBzmg6LZTz24a6vgIWlYbWYeRl8NOWYZCkl T3+nJxW9YXtpq8ZltZJEkXyyIfJInww9PX+lY1sv3Q/wBLFDGBx48hcgfIBx+tadhMlhcXRtIUniyiyNbJtWM4Y9hnjn0 zyfrQTn2WDAHhJx8d6G1tySTBESe5KDmo7UeotO02xjvL2Xw4Z CqxkYcyFuwUKTuJ9hmo/wD+90BdRGnyzzxXbOsaxPayBmdsYXGM55GQe3rQWZVVVCqoCjs AOK9pSgUpSgVEay2spNF91CJo8ZcOgJ7jjlh35/KpelBV1l6qDEvDb7sk+WMbcZ4H+6eceuKkLa51pRtuLW2mfjlC YlHHPJ3ZP5fjUxTFBp332O4t5bO/MLJLGRLFIw5U8H8PmqhpvS8PS99ajTJJZNIEgYQq7NLEWWQE5H LISwPuCT3Ha5XNpbXRAuYIpQOBvUHA/GscumWUgXfbIQgwo9hg/wBz+ZoNSZoZctDp8M8ynyieVM5B558xGPWs2kpcl7ia8FskkjL iO3lMiqoXjkqOe/pX0ukachYrZxAt3O3k1sWtpBalzBGFLnLHJJP4n/OT70EZrHSmiawGN3p8QmLbhcRDw5Vb0YOuDnnvX1o3TOlaS/jQWyyXeMNdzeeZh/yPYfAwKmaUClKUClKUH//Z (http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2010/09/500x_conrad.jpg&imgrefurl=http://gawker.com/5630284/pulitzer%2Bwinning-political-cartoonist-paul-conrad-dead-at-86&h=458&w=500&sz=76&tbnid=nP8fY4N0jVyMtM:&tbnh=70&tbnw=76&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dprize%2Bwinning%2Bpolitical%2Bcartoon s%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=prize+winning+political+cartoons&usg=__CfHPYCfvPbjBr8DZSCfVztZhb-o=&docid=ewCGfhuPujtdyM&sa=X&ei=MxT-UOf7CKai2QWHm4GoBQ&ved=0CEcQ9QEwBA)
http://www.debatepolicy.com/image/jpeg;base64,/9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQAAAQABAAD/2wCEAAkGBwgHBgkIBwgKCgkLDRYPDQwMDRsUFRAWIB0iIiAdHx 8kKDQsJCYxJx8fLT0tMTU3Ojo6Iys/RD84QzQ5OjcBCgoKDQwNGg8PGjclHyU3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nz c3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3N//AABEIAFoAcgMBIgACEQEDEQH/xAAcAAABBAMBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFAAQGBwIDCAH/xAA/EAACAQMDAQQHBQUGBwAAAAABAgMEBREAEiExBhMiQRQVUWFxod EHQoGRsTJScqLwJDNUYsHCI4KDkqOy4f/EABgBAAMBAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIDBAEA/8QAJBEAAgICAQQBBQAAAAAAAAAAAAECEQMhEgQTMVHhIjJhkbH/2gAMAwEAAhEDEQA/ALOaqrJa+tT1nHSQQOFXfGp658ydNK+51lG5AuE86AAmWCCEoM kg58WeMc8eY0zvMVLUVdxp6pkVjOskbSUrTKCAw6AEeehHqaiZ wxqKAeIHK2eTcuOmD7cn3Y8hpU5TUnV/r4BjxrbJdVSV0VJNNDfIpGjjZ1UQodxAJ9vu0L9d3Pp6Sf8AsX 6aYUdJRUnpNQ8kUtQ1I8SGG3yRsWIx+1j2k8cDn286F9oqyelg WSiDNJFMgdQMhsgkqfw9nPIPODp3Ty03P+C8ibaUGSL15c/8T/Iv00vXty/xP8i/TQ6jmiraSGqpyTFKgZcjB+B9+tjJq3jH0Tcpex769uX+J/kX6a30l1uM0BmapmIUqu2GKMsSd3738I0I286dUtNBUW56eqiD CRY2jZ6cygMC+TgDqAfnqfqlxhcUPwSbe2Oai+1sUNPKnraRZc 5X0eIMgBIyRjHQZ69CPfjyC+XCoWTa1whK07zq1RDDtYLjA8PP PP5e8ZZp2do925lp3brk2uTk+bHLHLe/3n2nTyltsNFT1iwJuaWB44+7pHQ4IAAJOc/sjk+7pjUPKX5K7jQ8NzuOeKj+RfprKouVxpadJ6iSco+doipw5 4GeeMD4nW70TnQu59nDW1byxmjjjdQCstOsni53HDA+3I565yD qyS9ISmb6m/1dLNDHM8kYlCNunMUW0MM5IJzxz0B6H2aye91BaT0WvSdEcozK g4YdQeOusfV0dTLM5qayODeViSFkRceeBtyBnIHPlkaZ3GKltV NUVlVVypTjBklq5i23r5n3nprEmbaJyvKg+7S0oiDGhHQgY0tA ERS50EslfPIoyC+mwoJ/3NbbrW10NxqRBFGyq/hJfB/TTeK73TndTwj2Zk/+aqUpJErjGz14GjOGGDoTfEzZIXUqSa5lwOT98e3rjRtZaioO6 o7sH/INBe01RItkoI4YTJvqdzMzbQAQ5xz8f6znS+of0oZhVSbG/ZcYtCxhQoSaUAAcAbyR8iNFtumHY2WAUNY1TwEqSeOeCinUkX1 bPHvilXHx0yGRcULnjfJggpqtrH2suds7ZXNaOmE1I0ssMyzMy xIyscOzAHHAxjHOR7tW1FDE0oMbq655wdc+doY5artVcop53MC XCdUWRvCg7xugzjQZpaVB4Yb2Wav2q+iGUXBbXIRKuw0krNlMH cMcnPQZ46k44wX/AGR7b2gRSQyVVLCZZ2lWOoqWRsOzNkb+AMEeEHg5AzqrKbs+MZ Eikg9Qen4aO0lkpMymoVJFiijm2SNjoWGOh6gny8tT9xlHbLjX tDRd00hjbKpuCCWI7vDuwDvx5EfH3c6iPbztnQwejJTywO8DSS B45t7QShWEbsIzyuT09x9mCAuPZWx0kZmSgp9sUxP7AIIQTcdO eQmR7tRnsxZIZqi6RxsoCCErwOch/pru5Znbos+wfaLarlUxQSz0kUbbxlW5GAm3w9cHx/DA1GftfoLvcIXr6W4W+eyhcRIs2HQ7fEfYeQec58QGojdOyjd6 Sirt4/a8vl00Jqmq7fRvBMxqKLpJTysSOOm09R14x+R1vNtUZwp2dZ03 FPEP8g/TS0qcf2eLB42DH5aWuNI1caeQ187Bcgvpt3RB5XW263OtguM8c NMjxqeGZsZ92NKlq56vialMePPI+uqYydUTOKPF8PXjQLtMWNg tYEZEhlTwMR0EbZOjle3dU0z/ALsbH8hoL2sbu7fShmK/2lR4j/kcfhpPUPwMwryD+yDB5LjFjBVo2PtyQw/26LyWqmwzRwLu643FQdBuyAdbzcEfPjgRhx+6xH+4alhQjTcO4 IXl+9g2nqpaFUWO2E44OGz89VqkMNVX3CR1KtLW1HGBkDe3P5a tru89dU5LXQUtyuKySAYrZ+p8u8b66XnVLQ3BK3slCUQjhIVnH sUY9nTQTtDKlvuaJIpxVULKrk8kgsMcfEfLW2DtBSu0YSZSATv OeB89CftImYxWicDxgyruB8jt4+PGfz1OkUNhW63b0q1VAhbJa NnPOM7lk6/17Naux4DVV6lQbkaVIunHh3Hp/wA3z1D6W67KZ0H7TAEjp98/XUq+z6cp2eq525LVjAn/AKafXXVSOuxxdoblA0jUvdd0+cdAfh7M6h9wWrnZxIjIRnCsvx 1YcdelQpDugK9AT/WdCLrPH3RUbST4SduDrEzWtHQ9P/cR/wAA/TS0oeIY/wCEaWmigBc1Czzv3e47jwPPQyG7yQZWS3SjJ46HRqaqpXrZoGY d4r4IzptUJTqeJFyfLOqE7VEztOwfV36jKSUVRTvFJOhjXI5Jb jj89Du29vpp6SlPdBXkqQ2WXLN4HOCT+milVTRF4JJQhCTxMCw zg94vTQz7QIlaKidllYCsCttByP8AhucjHswOdT51TQ7C7QJ7H s9u7SJFIzyJJSSgb2zg7ozwOvkfM6mpu9rlO1mVGzjny1BrPIq X61AsRvZ0VXyCQYmPQ854Gpz6LBOSjqhOOhA6aPDuIOSVSowE9 LKwFPMr5GRj2apOWClrLpcEdC4SunJypPPeN9dXrSWiGEHuEjj B4O0Y1SD1CUd8uETAunptQ2MefeNn9Trsr0Fh8scepLdMvECRs BluMEdcceWhXbqlFJ2YpAjlxHWABj5Ao3HyGjNTXU1VFH3dS0f IztPn7/LTXtFSpcezxp4nZlNTEAyoW25fbnb1PDdBpER78FZRyqM5HJGM/iDqzewVIy9kUkY+GepkkAHs8K/7dBj9nagsFuzbxwFNBKCT7Py0ds1zgsvZe10k7FXERkOeB4mJ/Hro5eAI+TCWyDf3gZ4288twf6+GhVxt70s/epUBgw5U8/PRtL/DKhC7W+7l/vfXRrshBR1dzleaJZESlZwrxh1U7lGQDx5nQBsuiD+4j/hH6aWswMDAGAOmlpgsjFwtVLJXzzGIF3fLHJ5OsFpYUkXKxhz+ zkDJ/wBdRG69upbN28uNorY/SKeVl9FO9I+7fA8JLEeE/Ijoc6Zes7zc76DV2enqqaCZZqdjKGWmbaM7CVXvOnU45J03uxS RM8cm36Jv6wonq7fBFVRyPUsXiCNkSKoJJB6HnGo92x7R0NZS2 9qKZpGNUzcowChUIOcjjl0+OeNaIbVcoY6ZaKmtsHdBJFecDKy AoT03Zzhju6528abdorNcKult8MVRb4nojIBudmDKwQD7nUbSf y1PlmpO7H40oqgbbbnFPfLVJuC5rFCBxg8naRg+fiPHs92rHmo 4alhOviJXhlPBGqxqI5aGan7yKlfuNjRmAkOGBUknIGf2cjOva TtBb6GnUwvJbZVhhiKor7RtmLEAgkHrnJXoWGOdHhmkqAyrk7R YNRR3EIRSVhTngMM/PVXQ0KvV1aThXkE8oLbcZYSNn58/DTmt+1usp91NS06yKsJ3VkybWL542r0IwRjIGepHkQdmvrkd/WeJ5S0m4jqzHJ+fs0WSSa0FijJPYYmscMmcRlBjBKn6/rrC70sFH2UuMdJU7Z0QOGEmGRkZX49/GiK3el2gS1EfeH3jP662My1tvqolO8SxPF145BGPnpCZQ0Up6Z UmXvTUTGTO7f3hzn251a3dW6WwWqO4Be8FHEuCM48A1Um07guD k8Y1dlws8NTTRU8ibXhRV7xDtbCjA/rnRydARQGjstGm141IDcjB1L+xlIqV1QVVu89FIztP7y9efdqL IYbCoSoeSQMfDJIw/LONS2jqYpLTQ1iM/cFxI6I21GUO2/eeAB4F5J4x8cjG2wpUkW0OmlryNxIiunKsAQfaNeaYLOe/tWtNxq+1VdLR2iumfvOJYqORwwwMYYDGn3Y+23r1PB6dBdaebn O6CQtgE4zuyOmPLV8DSGglG1RlFUPbboudpuLnHG4cD/xaGzUV4LkFLqM8DFKGH/qurp0vPQ9s6jn67UN0A2tSX6Vj96O2Kcfjv0Bq7LcKhlDWvtJh egFuAz/MddP6Q0aikdRyrJZbim4p2cv8xHGJIXUH8FQ/ro7H2euEtJTCWz10f/CXCinkymQMjpro3y0vLW0EnRzwnYqR04ttbE5++sMmR8NP6Dsx dqORXRa8oPuPEx/0A+Wr40jrOJvI5vk+zm4P2qhrUop/V0knfuvdEFWHOzHsJ+WfdmZVFlrpZt7U9cMdAkbAfpq3vPXuua s5OilprRWd4XFpqHIwQxgYkH3ce/Rahs089PaqaK0uG3sJQd9OIkDFg27bxhj93xZI8skWlrw+etSo 5ysWDrzWelrQT//Z (http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://netrightdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/warren1.png&imgrefurl=http://netrightdaily.com/2010/12/netright-daily-and-alg%25E2%2580%2599s-award-winning-cartoonist-talks-skills-passion-and-talent/&h=270&w=343&sz=194&tbnid=t4dfIiVuir5GdM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=114&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dprize%2Bwinning%2Bpolitical%2Bcartoon s%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=prize+winning+political+cartoons&usg=__AFhBOOVA-QMml9-dZp8ja2sKWoY=&docid=ojGEU3MuVRsBVM&sa=X&ei=MxT-UOf7CKai2QWHm4GoBQ&ved=0CEoQ9QEwBQ)
http://www.debatepolicy.com/image/jpeg;base64,/9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQAAAQABAAD/2wCEAAkGBwgHBgkIBwgKCgkLDRYPDQwMDRsUFRAWIB0iIiAdHx 8kKDQsJCYxJx8fLT0tMTU3Ojo6Iys/RD84QzQ5OjcBCgoKDQwNGg8PGjclHyU3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nz c3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3N//AABEIAFQAdQMBIgACEQEDEQH/xAAbAAABBQEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAMFBgcCAf/EAEoQAAEDAgMCBwkMCQQDAAAAAAECAwQAEQUSITFBBhMiUWFx0 hQVIzIzNHKUsQdTc3SBgpGSk6GysyQ1QlJUY8HC0UNkouEWRGL/xAAYAQEBAQEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAwECBP/EAB4RAAMBAAIDAQEAAAAAAAAAAAABAhEDIRIxQXFR/9oADAMBAAIRAxEAPwDX2Yjcl2Qt1yRcPFICZLiQAANwVanu9rH vkv1t3tV7h/jSvjCvYKLoAPvax+/L9bd7VLvax+/L9bd7VGUqAisTgts4bLdadlpWhlaknut3QhJt+1T6MOYKAeMl7 P4t3tV1jH6pm/F3PwmimvJo9EUAL3tY98l+tu9ql3tY98l+tu9qjKVAB97WPfJf rbvaoSXCbRKhIS7LCXHVJUO63dRkUf3ucCpegZ/nmHfDq/LXQHXe1j3yX6272qXe1j3yV6272qMpUAH3tY98letu9ql3uY98 letu9qjKVAAwEcVJltBbikJUkpDjil2unnJNe11G8+mdaPw0qA 8w/wAaX8YV7BRlB4f48z4wfwpohb7SPGWkdZoBylUYnHIi8xbDy0g XCkNEgiwPybd9ui9exMYYkPtsLbcZecSVJbcKc1h0A6Vz5zuaB/F/1TN+LufhNEM+SR6IofFdcLmfAL/CaIZ8ij0RXQO6VA4lisXDmc77gzHxG0m6lnmA+UdW+qPjHDNxO Za5aI6U3ysx+Uv5yr2NugVO+RR7KRxVfo0XMNOmgp/nmHfDq/KXWcYXNxfhA61JwnD3lNrVbu6Q9ZKLGxI1vprsrQ3EOIVhKXne NcS5ZblrZzxS7m269bFuvmGXCn7pJVH4ti0fDGgp3MtxXiNItm V9O7po+sf90TF5CccxNiJITx8QtqKEm6i1kSTbqJUbdNORtLoc cqq7JDE+E2KTcTejyJAgxkoCmuKWUi/SsWJ1vpp7Ks3AvGX5S38PxGWiRJQOMZWAAVtaC+nMT94rPOCeF xOEXCmO7PkqksuIeK4wUpBaUg2AuDqCmytOforXMIwLCsGz97I DEZSwAtaE8pdr2zK2nadtcRNbrZTkqM8Uh+P59L+Z7KVex/P5fUj2GvKsQAil5fdfElYAkqKsu8ZU6aa/RUFiGGS32SnO82VJsSjQ9ev9an4sTjpE9XdEhH6QdEOWHiJok4 eN8qX9rXSeHNTpREw8dYabaYkltLZJulCeXpvvt5+uvMC4PyoT 7slLrqpb5AccXlWVDmq24k5h2FpQqfib7Oc8kF0knqAF+b6adw/uLEWeOg4m+83sJQ/ex5iNx66nMxL2UPGn7ZwY77eGSs5sCwrQquTyT0U5LbmrYb4jU WGl7C3Rv2V1PgAQJJ7qlnwStrvQacZw8cS3+ly/FH+rXRudGe4rwZxebIU7LxNxJIKfBtZbDm1OygofAhyLMEhmfk mKPGAls5Ua7td1x9FabKitx47jzsyWG20lSvC7hULguIIxWZxK W8RZbUla2n1PpKXAlQBtbUHUbfvripl/p3NWvwWC4G7AaLbMl0N5ytITYJF9w6Lkm2ypx5KkuYclaioh8i 52nwS67GHD+Ll/a0LMgWkQf0qX5c/6v8tdJjxDrQLFG+Ezjim40qFHZJ0cQypTmX5Ta9qqmPcFpKsKT EgQkPL48yHZDz3hnVnxrqt+0LjmGmlaF3v/AN5L+1qMxyTHwdltciVOWp1WVCEu6k3AH3kVlT902afpIzzg3g PCLC5EeTBw1mO626VOredGZzMkBQABIy6ab9T11qkR+U4nwzIT 1G9CYSE4lDEhLuIsHMpKm3l2Ukg2o3vef4yX9r/1RQ/6Krfh1H8/lei37DSpuA1xM2WjjHHNEG7irnYaVUODrDvLTvjJ/Ami3FpbbU4sgJSCSTuFCYf5af8AGf7EVXvdMxB6BweBYSo8a6E rtuTYm/VcCsbxGpayn8PsSOK4mw5GddEFbQQmwSc5GZSsqgTY2tobGpb3 OpOGR8dlw4qo4cdZBTxTa0FQSTtzeMbEG/QaqIjDEWcXaZc4t1DzTrKAbZV21cHyFIPy1avciwaNJif+QSeM XiKVuMcoBIT02G+xA1qMPyotfU4aJiHmEn4JXsNOMeQb9EeyuJ/mMj4JXsruP5Bv0R7KuQB8XjiVhslgqCc7ZAUTaxtob7taqnBpK W0YIqChKkrbyrU46c6bi5uADfYeaxFTPCOYWHUJNyhthyQpIuc xTYJ037VfdUY7HiYMpzFY6VpK3kLcuslKQVcqyTom9zfnry3zq eTxZSepZcaEmecwfhz+Wui6BxNwNrhrJAAeJJJtbwa69RMNUoJ 2m1VnhhFZmuYWt1w8U3JAUEqtqdU/8kimpOMxnissyAtQQFAFWU2udddANDrUHiD65jSmVpacRITyLu puCknVBCr6EA35+qlS2ujJvKLRwZdW13Yy8hSAHcwWpSTn0tcW 3WSNoGpNTwUk7CDWZ4dLmxilCVoLfJvZ9JUu99SSokk2G/dpU7CxptaAVPozGxOVYIA6xfbrqa1Q0jHess0f9Yy/Rb/rSofCX0SJEhxtwOJKW+UDfnpVh0PYf5ef8Z/sRUPw4bQvDkB5pLrKyppYVsRcXz/JlqWhqyO4gbX/AEn+xFRHC6Q89gctliIXnVoKUAbUE6ZhvuL3FqnyNZjOp9maw4 MZMKSqetSl3CVLaXZIbypCTYjepJ0rQPcuhqh8HHboyNvS3FtJ vsToPaDWbuYPIXhSMOBecWp1SisrUSlGUBKCE7hytLE6/JWr4DihVFQynDlxUNgISnJlTs3dHWBUeNeNNtlb7WImp3mUj4N XsruP5Bv0B7KZkOcZCfukjwavZXqXeLjtkJJ5A9lenVmkCr+6M tcKCnEUmzSW1xnuTm0cyhOnXpfW16qEDGcax8HADDixrniXHFu k/sk2Gm+22rR7pMl1/gs+0hha7vMqKW0kmyXEqOzqqjcH8XRF4UoldzOuIK8yghOZaDZ Y1SLkeMNteeoi68sKpYuzbWEqQy2lw5lhICjzm1C4inM7CH88/lrpmDivdbSVpbUAQDZSSkjrBp+UrM/BNreHP5a6vNJ+ibTQK9EBUSoAnrP+aBcw9m9+KR9UdP8Ak/SasDjaV7qHXGvuP01RVhKp0hU4ewNjDdr30SOe/tp9mEhJBQygfNA/pUgIg5j9JrlLkNp5TS32kOptmQpYBF6OjFAsNSUTJQVtyt7789 KvcOeZkTZS47iHG8qBmQbi4zA/eKVclR3uJQddcalvtcarOpKQgi9gN6SdwrwwXFbZ0g/Ma7FKlQHPe5X8a/8AUa7FdJhODZOkDqQ12KVKmIaJcJ1aFIViErKoEHkt9ikiE6lA SMQk2AsOS12KVKgEqC4ds6QfmNdiue9xH/uP/Ua7FKlWYgdiE6Nk+SPmNdimpGGGSEpfnSVpSSQClu2wj9zmJr2 lWgY7wR9PDvaCw5LfZr04CwRYyH7ei30f/PQKVKgPDgDBteQ/oLeK3s+pXiuD0VZBW4pZAsCtllVh8qK9pUAXAgNwuMyOLXnsOU EiwF9gSBzmlSpUB//Z (http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.cartoonists.gr/UserFiles/Citation8_big(2)(1).jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.cartoonists.gr/full_note-books.php?newsid%3D348&h=503&w=700&sz=247&tbnid=Vas3vHgkWE9DfM:&tbnh=84&tbnw=117&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dprize%2Bwinning%2Bpolitical%2Bcartoon s%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=prize+winning+political+cartoons&usg=__9q1zZxxwoStuXv8burZCtB-ef3w=&docid=yrmu0pT9j9N-RM&sa=X&ei=MxT-UOf7CKai2QWHm4GoBQ&ved=0CE0Q9QEwBg)

Matt Wuerker's Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoons - Politico (http://www.politico.com/wuerker/2012/04/matt-wuerkers-pulitzer-prize-winning-cartoons/000072-000758.html)

<cite style="color: rgb(0, 153, 51); font-style: normal;">www.politico.com/ (http://www.politico.com/)...prize-winning-cartoons/000072-000758.html</cite>
Matt Wuerker's Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoons. By MATT WUERKER | 04/16/<wbr>2012. POLITICO's Matt Wuerker has won the Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Cartooning.
Prizewinning Political Cartoons series by Dean Turnbloom (http://www.goodreads.com/series/81819-prizewinning-political-cartoons)

<cite style="color: rgb(0, 153, 51); font-style: normal;">www.goodreads.com/series/81819- (http://www.goodreads.com/series/81819-)prizewinning-political-cartoons</cite>
Prizewinning Political Cartoons: 2008 Edition, Prizewinning Political Cartoons: 2010 Edition, Prizewinning Political Cartoons: 2011 Edition, and Prizewi...
Cartoons | The Times (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/article2481811.ece)

<cite style="color: rgb(0, 153, 51); font-style: normal;">www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/article2481811.ece</cite>
29 mins ago – Peter Brookes and Morten Morland are The Times's multi-award-winning political cartoonists. Peter Brookes has been political cartoonist for ...
Prizewinning Political Cartoons: 2012 Edition ... - Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/Prizewinning-Political-Cartoons-2012/dp/1455616117)

<cite style="color: rgb(0, 153, 51); font-style: normal;">www.amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com) › Books (http://www.amazon.com/books-used-books-textbooks/b?ie=UTF8&node=283155) › Comics & Graphic Novels (http://www.amazon.com/Comics-Graphic-Novels-Books/b?ie=UTF8&node=4366) › Comic Strips (http://www.amazon.com/Comic-Strips-Books/b?ie=UTF8&node=4375)</cite>
The cartoons featured in this collection of political commentary have been honored by the most prestigious competitions in the country. Descriptions of each ...
Jim Borgman - Political Cartoonist (http://borgman.enquirer.com/)

<cite style="color: rgb(0, 153, 51); font-style: normal;">borgman.enquirer.com/</cite>
Jim Borgman Pulitzer prize-winning political cartoonist, has won every major award in his field and his cartoons are syndicated to 200 newspapers.
Political Illustrations - Cartoon America | Exhibitions - Library of ... (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/cartoonamerica/cartoon-political.html)

<cite style="color: rgb(0, 153, 51); font-style: normal;">www.loc.gov (http://www.loc.gov) › Exhibitions (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/) › Cartoon America (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/cartoonamerica/)</cite>
Art Wood, an award-winning political cartoonist himself, collected more than 16,000 political cartoons by hundreds of the leading creators of the '<wbr>ungentlemanly ...
Independent cartoonist wins Political Cartoon of the Year 2012 ... (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/independent-cartoonist-wins-political-cartoon-of-the-year-2012-8386302.html)

<cite style="color: rgb(0, 153, 51); font-style: normal;">www.independent.co.uk (http://www.independent.co.uk) › News (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/) › Media (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/) › Press (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/)</cite>
Dec 5, 2012 – 'Independent' cartoonist wins prestigious award ... The award, presented annually by the Political Cartoon Society, was voted for by the ...
Review: Prizewinning Political Cartoons: 2011 Edition - Cartoon ... (http://blog.cartoonmovement.com/2011/05/review-prizewinning-political-cartoons.html)

<cite style="color: rgb(0, 153, 51); font-style: normal;">blog.cartoonmovement.com/.../review-prizewinning-political-cartoon...</cite>
May 17, 2011 – By Matt Bors In the sometimes too-quick-to-react world of editorial cartooning, there is barely time for reflection as the next deadline looms.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Seems its not the child stuff you think it to be!! Or is Pulitzer prize winning MATERIAL child's play and frivolous ?
It has quite the historic reputation too!! --Tyr

red states rule

01-22-2013, 08:50 AM

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz012013dAPR20130119124517.jpg

bingster

01-22-2013, 05:23 PM

I have a comment to make that cuts both ways on the gun argument. It takes a shot at gun rights folks who claim that most gun crimes are committed by criminals and points out fallability in the background check position.

I researched 25 mass shootings in the last 30 years and found only 8 of the shooters had prior convictions. Three of those eight only had marijuana possession charges. 12 of those 25 did have traceable mental issues.

Criminals are always "Law-abiding citizens" until they get caught. I'd like to see a real study that proves that most gun crimes are committed by "criminals" and not "law-abiding citizens".

Missileman

01-22-2013, 05:43 PM

I have a comment to make that cuts both ways on the gun argument. It takes a shot at gun rights folks who claim that most gun crimes are committed by criminals and points out fallability in the background check position.

I researched 25 mass shootings in the last 30 years and found only 8 of the shooters had prior convictions. Three of those eight only had marijuana possession charges. 12 of those 25 did have traceable mental issues.

Criminals are always "Law-abiding citizens" until they get caught. I'd like to see a real study that proves that most gun crimes are committed by "criminals" and not "law-abiding citizens".

So are you now of the opinion that background checks are a waste of time and resources? As for the bolded part, I think it's safe to say that ALL gun crimes are committed by criminals...unless they've altered the definition of criminal since I last picked up a dictionary. To put it another way, someone who is committing or has committed a gun crime is a criminal. Lack of a record doesn't necessarily equal law-abiding.

ConHog

01-22-2013, 05:45 PM

So are you now of the opinion that background checks are a waste of time and resources? As for the bolded part, I think it's safe to say that ALL gun crimes are committed by criminals...unless they've altered the definition of criminal since I last picked up a dictionary. To put it another way, someone who is committing or has committed a gun crime is a criminal. Lack of a record doesn't necessarily equal law-abiding.

back ground checks are a useful tool, but that is all they are.

Marcus Aurelius

01-22-2013, 06:08 PM

I have a comment to make that cuts both ways on the gun argument. It takes a shot at gun rights folks who claim that most gun crimes are committed by criminals and points out fallability in the background check position.

I researched 25 mass shootings in the last 30 years and found only 8 of the shooters had prior convictions. Three of those eight only had marijuana possession charges. 12 of those 25 did have traceable mental issues.

Criminals are always "Law-abiding citizens" until they get caught. I'd like to see a real study that proves that most gun crimes are committed by "criminals" and not "law-abiding citizens".

link?

aboutime

01-22-2013, 06:12 PM

I have a comment to make that cuts both ways on the gun argument. It takes a shot at gun rights folks who claim that most gun crimes are committed by criminals and points out fallability in the background check position.

I researched 25 mass shootings in the last 30 years and found only 8 of the shooters had prior convictions. Three of those eight only had marijuana possession charges. 12 of those 25 did have traceable mental issues.

Criminals are always "Law-abiding citizens" until they get caught. I'd like to see a real study that proves that most gun crimes are committed by "criminals" and not "law-abiding citizens".

bingster. Idiots also start out as Law abiding citizens until they demonstrate how much the DO NOT KNOW, and never realize how stupid they really are until someone else has to point it out to them.
Evidence of that appears almost every day...right here on this forum. I do hope your Friend Conhog takes notice as I use him as a prime example.

bingster

01-22-2013, 06:22 PM

This is all true, but you are really missing the point:
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

Sen. Obama in 2006 when he voted AGAINST raising the debt ceiling-Nobody is perfect

The only "leadership" the Republicans recognize and will follow is leadership that agrees with them. They can't even muster a bill that they all agree to, let alone passing a budget that everyone can stomach. Obama does not agree that all cuts should come from Social Security and Medicare. 75% of Americans agree and they re-elected Obama to do their bidding. Make some cuts to the military, work on lowering the COST of health care, get more revenue by cutting deductions and subsidies, etc... But Republicans want what the vast majority of the country does not want: Cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Obama isn't going to do what he knows is wrong, just to make the radical minority happy.

jimnyc

01-22-2013, 06:40 PM

bingster. Idiots also start out as Law abiding citizens until they demonstrate how much the DO NOT KNOW, and never realize how stupid they really are until someone else has to point it out to them.
Evidence of that appears almost every day...right here on this forum. I do hope your Friend Conhog takes notice as I use him as a prime example.

You complained about being removed from a few threads. I'll be nice and not do so in this one, yet. But starting trouble with Conhog in this thread, where it didn't exist, is exactly what I have been saying to stop. Please stick to the topics and not the fighting.

ConHog

01-22-2013, 07:13 PM

You complained about being removed from a few threads. I'll be nice and not do so in this one, yet. But starting trouble with Conhog in this thread, where it didn't exist, is exactly what I have been saying to stop. Please stick to the topics and not the fighting.

man, we're so far off topic here I've forgotten when did Obama announce he was gonna get all the guns again?

bingster

01-22-2013, 08:10 PM

bingster. Idiots also start out as Law abiding citizens until they demonstrate how much the DO NOT KNOW, and never realize how stupid they really are until someone else has to point it out to them.
Evidence of that appears almost every day...right here on this forum. I do hope your Friend Conhog takes notice as I use him as a prime example.

You're missing the point. Conservatives argue that the only thing gun control does is make it harder for "law abiding citizens" to get a gun. I'm arguing that I don't mind that "law abiding citizens" have a harder time to get a gun because they commit a bunch of the gun crimes also.

bingster

01-22-2013, 08:17 PM

So are you now of the opinion that background checks are a waste of time and resources? As for the bolded part, I think it's safe to say that ALL gun crimes are committed by criminals...unless they've altered the definition of criminal since I last picked up a dictionary. To put it another way, someone who is committing or has committed a gun crime is a criminal. Lack of a record doesn't necessarily equal law-abiding.
I knew someone would have the obvious come back of pointing out that people who commit crimes are criminals. My argument is more pro-active saying that even some "law abiding citizens" should not have guns. The background checks will hopefully have an element that checks for mental health issues. It's a difficult climb with current HIPAA laws, but I think it's possible to flag an applicant without stating the cause and giving the applicant a phone number to call to find out why.

Missileman

01-22-2013, 08:18 PM

You're missing the point. Conservatives argue that the only thing gun control does is make it harder for "law abiding citizens" to get a gun. I'm arguing that I don't mind that "law abiding citizens" have a harder time to get a gun because they commit a bunch of the gun crimes also.

Law-abiding citizens don't commit crimes. If you can't see the contradiction in your argument, there is something seriously wrong with your brain.

Kathianne

01-22-2013, 08:18 PM

You're missing the point. Conservatives argue that the only thing gun control does is make it harder for "law abiding citizens" to get a gun. I'm arguing that I don't mind that "law abiding citizens" have a harder time to get a gun because they commit a bunch of the gun crimes also.

Mass shooting are not 'a bunch' they are rare. You're misrepresenting what you are talking about and 'researching' here.

bingster

01-22-2013, 08:22 PM

link?

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/VPCshootinglist.pdf

The above link has a list of 30 or so mass shootings. I just googled each shooter name to find mention of a crime record. Yes, I realize, it's not exactly scientific. I would like to see a real study.

Kathianne

01-22-2013, 08:23 PM

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/VPCshootinglist.pdf

The above link has a list of 30 or so mass shootings. I just googled each shooter name to find mention of a crime record. Yes, I realize, it's not exactly scientific. I would like to see a real study.

Not even close. No mention of your criteria. No definition of 'mass shooting.' IOW, fail.

Missileman

01-22-2013, 08:24 PM

I knew someone would have the obvious come back of pointing out that people who commit crimes are criminals. My argument is more pro-active saying that even some "law abiding citizens" should not have guns. The background checks will hopefully have an element that checks for mental health issues. It's a difficult climb with current HIPAA laws, but I think it's possible to flag an applicant without stating the cause and giving the applicant a phone number to call to find out why.

If I'm not mistaken CT had such a law in place at the time Sandy Hook occurred. To be clear though, you want current gun owners to be examined to make sure they're fit to maintain a weapon or are you speaking of future sales?

bingster

01-22-2013, 08:24 PM

Mass shooting are not 'a bunch' they are rare. You're misrepresenting what you are talking about and 'researching' here.

I just took a snap shot of the information I found. Like I said, there should be a real study. I'm just questioning the current old saw of gun rights advocates that only criminals commit gun crimes.

bingster

01-22-2013, 08:25 PM

If I'm not mistaken CT had such a law in place at the time Sandy Hook occurred. To be clear though, you want current gun owners to be examined to make sure they're fit to maintain a weapon or are you speaking of future sales?

No, I didn't say that. I just provided a point of view that hasn't been discussed.

bingster

01-22-2013, 08:29 PM

Law-abiding citizens don't commit crimes. If you can't see the contradiction in your argument, there is something seriously wrong with your brain.

The system doesn't know if you're a criminal until you are caught. Maybe, your next murder will be your first, as was in the case of the vast majority of the cases from my link.

bingster

01-22-2013, 08:34 PM

I don't think my point is so complicated. I live in a relatively good neighborhood, but so was Sandy Hook. I'm not only afraid of people with criminal records getting guns. I'm afraid of people without criminal records who have mental issues, also.

bingster

01-22-2013, 08:36 PM

Not even close. No mention of your criteria. No definition of 'mass shooting.' IOW, fail.

I gave you a study from the Violence Policy Center. I wasn't defining "mass shooting", they were.

Kathianne

01-22-2013, 08:40 PM

I gave you a study from the Violence Policy Center. I wasn't defining "mass shooting", they were.

Yep, without comment on methodology and conclusions drawn. I understand where you're trying to go, you'd do better, IMO, arguing your points on your own opinions. Trying to bring in biased methodologies isn't the way to go.

ConHog

01-22-2013, 08:42 PM

Yep, without comment on methodology and conclusions drawn. I understand where you're trying to go, you'd do better, IMO, arguing your points on your own opinions. Trying to bring in biased methodologies isn't the way to go.

what exactly is their bias? I ask b/c it is a common internet tactic to just poopoo a source that comes to a conclusion you don't agree with.

I want to know what their bias is?

Kathianne

01-22-2013, 08:56 PM

what exactly is their bias? I ask b/c it is a common internet tactic to just poopoo a source that comes to a conclusion you don't agree with.

I want to know what their bias is?

Define violence as they do.

ConHog

01-22-2013, 09:16 PM

Define violence as they do.

which is how, and why do you feel it is biased?

Kathianne

01-22-2013, 09:24 PM

which is how, and why do you feel it is biased?

Your site and I looked. You should, too.

ConHog

01-22-2013, 09:30 PM

Your site and I looked. You should, too.

My site? I neither own that site, participate in that site, nor claimed that site as a source. I fail to see how you could possibly define it as MY site.

Kathianne

01-22-2013, 09:38 PM

My site? I neither own that site, participate in that site, nor claimed that site as a source. I fail to see how you could possibly define it as MY site.

Hmmm, it came up how? Oh yeah, by your post.

ConHog

01-22-2013, 09:44 PM

Hmmm, it came up how? Oh yeah, by your post.

No, incorrect

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?38714-List-of-executive-actions-Obama-plans-to-take-as-part-of-anti-gun-violence-plan&p=609750#post609750

I merely asked why you thought it was biased.

Kathianne

01-22-2013, 09:46 PM

No, incorrect

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?38714-List-of-executive-actions-Obama-plans-to-take-as-part-of-anti-gun-violence-plan&p=609750#post609750

I merely asked why you thought it was biased.

that site was yours. I never saw it before. Thus, you brought it up. If you wish to claim now that it's biased, fine with me.

ConHog

01-22-2013, 09:50 PM

that site was yours. I never saw it before. Thus, you brought it up. If you wish to claim now that it's biased, fine with me.

Seriously, what? I am NOT the one who brought that site up, look at the link I posted . Another poster brought it up, not me.

bingster

01-22-2013, 10:58 PM

Hmmm, it came up how? Oh yeah, by your post.

I think you're confusing Conhog with me.
The Violence Policy Center (VPC) is a national 501(c)(3) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501%28c%29%283%29) corporation and government lobbyist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying) working to tighten the regulation of firearms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms) and archery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archery) equipment in the United States, especially in relation to gun politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States). Founded in 1988, the VPC approaches violence, and firearms violence in particular, as a public health (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health) issue affecting the whole population, rather than solely a criminal matter.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Policy_Center#cite_note-about-1)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Policy_Center#cite_note-Sugarmann-2)

Yes, I realize the mission of Violence Policy Center is biased, but I just used the list they collected for the last 30 years of mass shootings (it looks like they define it as a shooting of 6 or more) and then I researched each case individually.

Did you find any information on that link suspect? From my research the details were correct. If the details are correct, how can you call the information biased? I just think you refuse to accept the original point I was trying to make that innocent people commit crimes and then become criminals. Everyone should be checked before they are allowed to carry deadly weapons (some could be bonkers!). 95% of the country agrees with this, I was just bringing a unique point of view to the arguement.

bingster

01-22-2013, 11:00 PM

I think you're confusing Conhog with me.
The Violence Policy Center (VPC) is a national 501(c)(3) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501%28c%29%283%29) corporation and government lobbyist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying) working to tighten the regulation of firearms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms) and archery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archery) equipment in the United States, especially in relation to gun politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States). Founded in 1988, the VPC approaches violence, and firearms violence in particular, as a public health (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health) issue affecting the whole population, rather than solely a criminal matter.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Policy_Center#cite_note-about-1)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Policy_Center#cite_note-Sugarmann-2)

Yes, I realize the mission of Violence Policy Center is biased, but I just used the list they collected for the last 30 years of mass shootings (it looks like they define it as a shooting of 6 or more) and then I researched each case individually.

Did you find any information on that link suspect? From my research the details were correct. If the details are correct, how can you call the information biased? I just think you refuse to accept the original point I was trying to make that innocent people commit crimes and then become criminals. Everyone should be checked before they are allowed to carry deadly weapons (some could be bonkers!). 95% of the country agrees with this, I was just bringing a unique point of view to the arguement.

It didn't even have to be a list of "mass shootings". I was just looking for a list of murders to research if the shooters had criminal records. I chose VPC out of convenience.

ConHog

01-22-2013, 11:02 PM

Seriously, what? I am NOT the one who brought that site up, look at the link I posted . Another poster brought it up, not me.

:coffee:

any acknowledgement of an error on your part here Kath?

Kathianne

01-22-2013, 11:04 PM

:coffee:

any acknowledgement of an error on your part here Kath?

I thought I already had. Excuse me, I have to keep running to the bathroom.

bingster

01-22-2013, 11:08 PM

that site was yours. I never saw it before. Thus, you brought it up. If you wish to claim now that it's biased, fine with me.

I'm making an argument about apples and you're responding about oranges.

ConHog

01-22-2013, 11:09 PM

I thought I already had. Excuse me, I have to keep running to the bathroom.

No biggie. Unlike some I understand we all make the occasional error, I was just confused that you kept calling it my site, because honestly I didn't know anything about it, or its credibility.

red states rule

01-23-2013, 05:18 AM

Critics of using these pics etc forget that a picture often can relay a few million words.
Give greater insight into a topic being discussed. I have always found those so critical of additional information to be a bit shallow and narrow minded themselves.
One most often see this criticism from totalitarian leftist types. nuff said , right there. -Tyr

Carry on RSR, you make the opposition cry foul even before the game starts!!--:beer:

Thanks Try and it is fun to watch the libs squirm like worm on a hook

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/12_12589620130122060833.jpg

Marcus Aurelius

01-23-2013, 07:54 AM

I think you're confusing Conhog with me.
The Violence Policy Center (VPC) is a national 501(c)(3) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501%28c%29%283%29) corporation and government lobbyist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying) working to tighten the regulation of firearms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms) and archery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archery) equipment in the United States, especially in relation to gun politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States). Founded in 1988, the VPC approaches violence, and firearms violence in particular, as a public health (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health) issue affecting the whole population, rather than solely a criminal matter.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Policy_Center#cite_note-about-1)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Policy_Center#cite_note-Sugarmann-2)

Yes, I realize the mission of Violence Policy Center is biased, but I just used the list they collected for the last 30 years of mass shootings (it looks like they define it as a shooting of 6 or more) and then I researched each case individually.

Did you find any information on that link suspect? From my research the details were correct. If the details are correct, how can you call the information biased? I just think you refuse to accept the original point I was trying to make that innocent people commit crimes and then become criminals. Everyone should be checked before they are allowed to carry deadly weapons (some could be bonkers!). 95% of the country agrees with this, I was just bringing a unique point of view to the arguement.

funny how liberals whine about posters sourcing from 'lobbyist' groups like the NRA... then use 'lobbyist' groups like the VPC themselves.

red states rule

01-23-2013, 07:56 AM

http://worldnewscurator.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/funny-gun-control-cartoon-2.gif

Marcus Aurelius

01-23-2013, 09:53 AM

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/VPCshootinglist.pdf

The above link has a list of 30 or so mass shootings. I just googled each shooter name to find mention of a crime record. Yes, I realize, it's not exactly scientific. I would like to see a real study.

Your research skills suck.

Patrick Purdy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_School_massacre
The gunman, Patrick Purdy, who had a long criminal history, shot and killed five schoolchildren, and wounded 29 other schoolchildren and one teacher, before committing suicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide). criminal record.

Joseph Wesbecker:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Gravure_shooting
Wesbecker had a long history of psychiatric illness and was treated for it in hospitals at least three times between 1978 and 1987. He was diagnosed to suffer from alternating episodes of deep depression and manic depression, was beset, among others, by confusion, anger and anxiety and made several attempts to commit suicide.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Gravure_shooting#cite_note-Kelleher-2)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Gravure_shooting#cite_note-mental-6) Hospital records also suggested that Wesbecker posed a threat to himself and others.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Gravure_shooting#cite_note-mental-6)

According to CBS's 60 Minutes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/60_Minutes), "In 1984, five years before he took Prozac, Wesbecker's medical records show that he had this conversation with a doctor. Have you ever felt like harming someone else? 'Yes,' Wesbecker said. Who? 'My foreman.' When? 'At work.' The same medical records show Wesbecker had already attempted suicide 12 to 15 times."long history of mental ilness and doctor never reported credible threats.

James Pough:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Edward_Pough
According to former schoolmates Pough had affiliations with gangs during his time at school. He was arrested twice in 1965 for vagrancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagrancy_%28people%29), and twice again in 1966, once for attempted robbery and a second time for assault for murder, after attacking a construction worker who owed him a quarter. In 1968 Pough was arrested for dangerously displaying a knife and was fined $75, and in July 1969 he was fined $10 after being charged for gambling. In 1970 he was arrested, but not prosecuted, for motor vehicle theft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_theft) and vagrancy-prowling by auto.long criminal history

George Hennard:
http://criminalminds.wikia.com/wiki/George_Hennard
arrest for marijuana possessioncriminal history

Mir Aimal Kasi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimal_Kasi
He entered the United States in 1991, taking a substantial sum of cash he had inherited on the death of his father in 1989. He travelled on forged papers he had purchased in Karachi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karachi), Pakistan, altering his name to "Kansi", and later bought a fake green card (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Permanent_Resident_Card) in Miami (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami), Florida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimal_Kasi#cite_note-salon-2)

his funeral was attended by the entire civil hierarchy of Balochistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balochistan,_Pakistan), the local Pakistan Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Army) Corps Commander and the Pakistani Ambassador to the United States, Ashraf Jahangir Qazi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashraf_Qazi).[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimal_Kasi#cite_note-Kapila.2C_Subhash-12) Mourning his death, the Pakistani National Assembly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Assembly_%28Pakistan%29) hailed him as "hero of Islam" and Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, an MNA from Quetta declared, "God, destroy those who handed him over to America. God, his murderers, whether in America or in Pakistan, may they meet their fate soon"Came to the US on forged papers, specifically to kill Americans.

Colin Ferguson:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Ferguson_%28mass_murderer%29
In February 1992, Ferguson was arrested and charged with harassing a woman on a subway.

Ferguson made threatening calls to members of the firm, claiming they were discriminating against him. In one of the calls, he made reference to a massacre that occurred in California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California).

Ferguson started taking five showers a day and could be heard by neighbors repeatedly chanting at night, "all the black people killing all the white people"
criminal record and mental instability.

Bennie Lee Lawson:
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/24/us/suspect-in-washington-shootings-had-past-weapons-convictions.html

The man who police say killed a District of Columbia police officer and two F.B.I. agents in a gun battle on Tuesday inside police headquarters here had a criminal record that included convictions on 13 weapons and ammunition charges, law-enforcement officials said today, and the 16-month probation he received after 18 months in jail had ended four days before the shootings.criminal record

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Harris_and_Dylan_Klebold
The two boys got into trouble with the law for breaking into a locked van and stealing computers. In January 1998, they were charged with mischief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischief), breaking and entering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burglary), trespassing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass), and theft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft). criminal record

Byran Uyesugi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_murders
...reportedly made threats against other co-workers' lives. In 1993, he was ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluation and anger management courses after he kicked in and damaged an elevator door. Uyesugi was arrested for third degree criminal property damage.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_murders#cite_note-CrimeLab-4) Co-workers told Dr. Michael Welner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Welner), Chairman of The Forensic Panel (http://www.forensicpanel.com/index.html/) and renowned forensic psychiatrist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_psychiatry) who interviewed Uyesugi prior to trial, stated that as early as 1995, Uyesugi was openly speaking of carrying out a mass shooting at the workplace were he ever to be firedcriminal record and mental issues

Robert Hawkins:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westroads_Mall_shooting
The day after he turned 14, he was sent to a mental health treatment center for threatening to kill his stepmother Candace Sims with an axe.

He was also convicted as a juvenile of a felony drug conviction[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westroads_Mall_shooting#cite_note-felony-34)[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westroads_Mall_shooting#cite_note-HHS-35) while in foster care in Omaha.lifelong mental health issues and criminal record.

Jiverly Wong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binghamton_shootings
In 1992, Wong was arrested there and convicted of a misdemeanor charge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misdemeanor) of fraud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud) for forgery.minor, but still a criminal record.

Marcus Donte Reed:
http://www.truecrimereport.com/2010/08/marcus_donte_reed_charged_with.php
In 2007, he was convicted in a shootout with another carcriminal record

Jared Loughner:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner
According to court records, Loughner had had two previous offenses:[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner#cite_note-Swaine2011-01-08-14) in October 2007, he was cited in Pima County for possession of drug paraphernalia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_paraphernalia) and on October 13, 2008, he was charged after defacing a street sign in Marana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marana,_Arizona), near Tucson (which was dismissed following the completion of a diversion program in March 2009)minor, but a criminal record.

bingster

01-23-2013, 10:49 AM

funny how liberals whine about posters sourcing from 'lobbyist' groups like the NRA... then use 'lobbyist' groups like the VPC themselves.

Have you even looked at the link in question? It's a list of shootings. I didn't post a lobbyist opinion or study. It was a list!

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/VPCshootinglist.pdf

If you dispute my arguments, fine! But obsession with a list's source is ridiculous.

Marcus Aurelius

01-23-2013, 10:54 AM

Have you even looked at the link in question? It's a list of shootings. I didn't post a lobbyist opinion or study. It was a list!

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/VPCshootinglist.pdf

If you dispute my arguments, fine! But obsession with a list's source is ridiculous.

scroll up to post 201, dumb ass.

The source of your list was a lobbyist group. My comment was perfectly valid, as libtards tend to incessantly whine when lobbyist groups they don't agree with are used by conservatives.

BTW...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by bingster http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=609864#post609864)

Yes, I realize the mission of Violence Policy Center is biased, but I just used the list they collected for the last 30 years of mass shootings (it looks like they define it as a shooting of 6 or more) and then I researched each case individually.And, as I explained previously... you did a shitty job of that research.

bingster

01-23-2013, 10:54 AM

Your research skills suck.

criminal record.

long history of mental ilness and doctor never reported credible threats.

long criminal history

criminal history

Came to the US on forged papers, specifically to kill Americans.

criminal record and mental instability.

criminal record

criminal record

criminal record and mental issues

lifelong mental health issues and criminal record.

minor, but still a criminal record.

criminal record

minor, but a criminal record.

Very good, finally someone actually makes a cohesive argument! Only problem is, I researched only 25 to find 8 with a criminal history. You must have checked all 34 and found 13. You found 34% with a criminal history, I found 32%. Not much of a difference. It still supports my argument when 66% did not have a criminal background.

bingster

01-23-2013, 10:59 AM

scroll up to post 201, dumb ass.

The source of your list was a lobbyist group. My comment was perfectly valid, as libtards tend to incessantly whine when lobbyist groups they don't agree with are used by conservatives.

Another point should be made that lobbyist groups are the only ones who can get away with doing this research. NRA has repeatedly and successfully lobbied time and again to prevent government agencies from researching gun deaths. If research is attempted to find a source for gun deaths, the NRA calls it "wasting tax payer money on anti-second amendment propaganda", "dumb ass"

Marcus Aurelius

01-23-2013, 11:08 AM

Very good, finally someone actually makes a cohesive argument! Only problem is, I researched only 25 to find 8 with a criminal history. You must have checked all 34 and found 13. You found 34% with a criminal history, I found 32%. Not much of a difference. It still supports my argument when 66% did not have a criminal background.

thus proving you did not do very good research, or you would have looked into all of the listed shootings, since YOU provided the list.

So, since you only found 8 out of 34, your actual percentage is 23.5%, not 32%. Just because YOU didn't bother to completely research the list doesn't mean they don't count.

Additionally, your math skills need work. Out of 34 shootings, I found criminal records for 13. That's 38%, not 34%.

Difference between 23.5% and 38% is not what any reasonable person would call 'not much of a difference'.

Marcus Aurelius

01-23-2013, 11:09 AM

Another point should be made that lobbyist groups are the only ones who can get away with doing this research. NRA has repeatedly and successfully lobbied time and again to prevent government agencies from researching gun deaths. If research is attempted to find a source for gun deaths, the NRA calls it "wasting tax payer money on anti-second amendment propaganda", "dumb ass"

So, you're saying that I have better lobbyists than you do. I'm good with that.

bingster

01-23-2013, 11:11 AM

Another point should be made that lobbyist groups are the only ones who can get away with doing this research. NRA has repeatedly and successfully lobbied time and again to prevent government agencies from researching gun deaths. If research is attempted to find a source for gun deaths, the NRA calls it "wasting tax payer money on anti-second amendment propaganda", "dumb ass"

Here's a Washington Times article that was posted on the NRA website demonstrating this "propaganda" attitude that I find counterproductive.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/18/tax-dollars-for-gun-control/

bingster

01-23-2013, 11:13 AM

So, you're saying that I have better lobbyists than you do. I'm good with that.

No, but other than the unions, yours do have all of the money. It takes a lot of money to brainwash the public.

mundame

01-23-2013, 11:15 AM

Another point should be made that lobbyist groups are the only ones who can get away with doing this research. NRA has repeatedly and successfully lobbied time and again to prevent government agencies from researching gun deaths. If research is attempted to find a source for gun deaths, the NRA calls it "wasting tax payer money on anti-second amendment propaganda", "dumb ass"

I think gun death/injury research should be allowed and funded. Why not?

This is all too like the strong pressure from cigarette companies to avoid tobacco illness research.

Marcus Aurelius

01-23-2013, 11:17 AM

No, but other than the unions, yours do have all of the money. It takes a lot of money to brainwash the public.

and as long as it's libtards doing the brainwashing, you're fine and dandy with it. I know.

bingster

01-23-2013, 11:18 AM

No, but other than the unions, yours do have all of the money. It takes a lot of money to brainwash the public.

Brainwashed!

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_06/the_most_consistently_misinfor030360.php

bingster

01-23-2013, 11:23 AM

and as long as it's libtards doing the brainwashing, you're fine and dandy with it. I know.

As long as it's accurate information and is verifiable, it's not liberal or brainwashing. It called "facts".

Marcus Aurelius

01-23-2013, 11:30 AM

Brainwashed!

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_06/the_most_consistently_misinfor030360.php

I thought we were talking about the NRA, not Fox News?

Anyway...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/20/jon-stewart/jon-stewart-says-those-who-watch-fox-news-are-most/

So we have three Pew studies that superficially rank Fox viewers low on the well-informed list, but in several of the surveys, Fox isn’t the lowest, and other general-interest media outlets -- such as network news shows, network morning shows and even the other cable news networks -- often score similarly low. Meanwhile, particular Fox shows -- such as The O’Reilly Factor and Sean Hannity’s show -- actually score consistently well, occasionally even outpacing Stewart’s own audience.

Meanwhile, the other set of knowledge surveys, from worldpublicopinion.org (http://worldpublicopinion.org/), offer mixed support for Stewart. The 2003 survey strikes us as pretty solid, but the 2010 survey has been critiqued for its methodology.

The way Stewart phrased the comment, it’s not enough to show a sliver of evidence that Fox News’ audience is ill-informed. The evidence needs to support the view that the data shows they are "consistently" misinformed -- a term he used not once but three times. It’s simply not true that "every poll" shows that result. So we rate his claim False.

Nice try, but another FAIL for you.

So much for your...
As long as it's accurate information and is verifiable, it's not liberal or brainwashing. It called "facts".

bingster

01-23-2013, 12:31 PM

thus proving you did not do very good research, or you would have looked into all of the listed shootings, since YOU provided the list.

So, since you only found 8 out of 34, your actual percentage is 23.5%, not 32%. Just because YOU didn't bother to completely research the list doesn't mean they don't count.

Additionally, your math skills need work. Out of 34 shootings, I found criminal records for 13. That's 38%, not 34%.

Difference between 23.5% and 38% is not what any reasonable person would call 'not much of a difference'.

Yea, I blew it with the math, but AGAIN, it supports my point when at least 66% of the shooters didn't have a criminal background.

bingster

01-23-2013, 12:45 PM

I thought we were talking about the NRA, not Fox News?

Anyway...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/20/jon-stewart/jon-stewart-says-those-who-watch-fox-news-are-most/

Nice try, but another FAIL for you.

So much for your...

I don't consider that a fail. I remember the politifact post when it came out. Polls come out all of the time demonstrating the outragious conspiratorial thinking of the right that is blasted from the Fox News venue. Remember the goofiness of the election coverage? When Fox's own poll showed Obama leading, Fox's pundits consistently denied the authenticity of the numbers. A poll taken after the election showed a huge number of Republicans believing that Acorn stole the election. Acorn has been out of business for a few years.

In my last post I was saying that the dollars are on your side to mislead the public. NRA is just one of the power houses, Fox is another. The list goes on.

We did get off the original subject though.

Marcus Aurelius

01-23-2013, 12:47 PM

Yea, I blew it with the math, but AGAIN, it supports my point when at least 66% of the shooters didn't have a criminal background.

they had mental issues, as you'd know if you properly researched.

The end result is that the vast majority of law abiding citizens without mental issues who exercise their 2nd amendment rights properly and peacefully, should NOT be penalized because of the smaller minority of citizens who have committed crimes with guns.

It's like telling all the chefs in the country they should do without knives because a few went nuts and killed some restaurant patrons.

Marcus Aurelius

01-23-2013, 12:50 PM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=610038#post610038)

I thought we were talking about the NRA, not Fox News?

Anyway...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...news-are-most/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/20/jon-stewart/jon-stewart-says-those-who-watch-fox-news-are-most/)

Nice try, but another FAIL for you.

So much for your...

I don't consider that a fail. I remember the politifact post when it came out. Polls come out all of the time demonstrating the outragious conspiratorial thinking of the right that is blasted from the Fox News venue. Remember the goofiness of the election coverage? When Fox's own poll showed Obama leading, Fox's pundits consistently denied the authenticity of the numbers. A poll taken after the election showed a huge number of Republicans believing that Acorn stole the election. Acorn has been out of business for a few years.

In my last post I was saying that the dollars are on your side to mislead the public. NRA is just one of the power houses, Fox is another. The list goes on.

We did get off the original subject though.

So, you use a Jon Stewart claim... I disprove it with a normally left leaning source (Politifact), and you don't consider it a FAIL on your part...

this is why no one here takes you seriously.

fj1200

01-23-2013, 01:31 PM

Here's a Washington Times article that was posted on the NRA website demonstrating this "propaganda" attitude that I find counterproductive.

You have thin skin then.

No, but other than the unions, yours do have all of the money. It takes a lot of money to brainwash the public.

You're joking right? Especially when posted right after you complain that it's propoganda to point out that government, the biggest pot of all, can funnel money to anti-gun studies.

fj1200

01-23-2013, 01:33 PM

Brainwashed!

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_06/the_most_consistently_misinfor030360.php

:laugh: You do know that "misinformed" equated to those who didn't buy the administrations lines don't you?

bingster

01-23-2013, 08:26 PM

they had mental issues, as you'd know if you properly researched.

The end result is that the vast majority of law abiding citizens without mental issues who exercise their 2nd amendment rights properly and peacefully, should NOT be penalized because of the smaller minority of citizens who have committed crimes with guns.

It's like telling all the chefs in the country they should do without knives because a few went nuts and killed some restaurant patrons.

Again, background checks would be useful. I really don't care if someone has to be slightly inconvenienced when it comes to being sold a deadly weapon.

bingster

01-23-2013, 08:30 PM

You have thin skin then.

You're joking right? Especially when posted right after you complain that it's propoganda to point out that government, the biggest pot of all, can funnel money to anti-gun studies.

Today my government is liberal. Tomorrow, who knows? As for "anti-gun", I'm more anti-irresponsible gun ownership. A study regarding gun deaths could provide important information. I like the other's post that talked about the tobacco lobby's taking on cancer study. Protecting the lives of Americans is a government function. I'd like some of that protection in the form of not letting nut cases own a gun.

Missileman

01-23-2013, 08:38 PM

Again, background checks would be useful. I really don't care if someone has to be slightly inconvenienced when it comes to being sold a deadly weapon.

"Sold a deadly weapon" ????

Where's the demand for background checks for knives, hatchets, hammers, baseball bats, cars(yes cars...guess what you're charged with if you try to run over a cop), Samurai swords(a weapon whose only purpose is obviously to kill another human being), ad infinitum...

bingster

01-23-2013, 08:38 PM

So, you use a Jon Stewart claim... I disprove it with a normally left leaning source (Politifact), and you don't consider it a FAIL on your part...

this is why no one here takes you seriously.

You did a good job to disprove. I'll admit that, but I don't agree with their finding. If you think Polifact is liberal, I have to assume that you don't agree with it all of the time either.

A large percentage of Republicans think Obama is Muslim, not born here, and Acorn stole the election. Polls are done all the time that show the nut-wing is on your side of the aisle.

bingster

01-23-2013, 08:40 PM

"Sold a deadly weapon" ????

Where's the demand for background checks for knives, hatchets, hammers, baseball bats, cars(yes cars...guess what you're charged with if you try to run over a cop), Samurai swords(a weapon whose only purpose is obviously to kill another human being), ad infinitum...

I'll go with the largest "tool" of murder, for now.

Missileman

01-23-2013, 08:44 PM

I'll go with the largest "tool" of murder, for now.

I think I read that more people are killed with clubbing weapons (hammers, baseball bats, etc) than assault weapons.

bingster

01-23-2013, 08:48 PM

:laugh: You do know that "misinformed" equated to those who didn't buy the administrations lines don't you?

No, misinformed referred to folks who didn't believe there were tax cuts in the stimulus bill, that the CBO proved that Obama care would shrink and not increase the deficit, and quite a few more facts that Fox News spends all of their efforts disproving.

Missileman

01-23-2013, 08:55 PM

No, misinformed referred to folks who didn't believe there were tax cuts in the stimulus bill, that the CBO proved that Obama care would shrink and not increase the deficit, and quite a few more facts that Fox News spends all of their efforts disproving.

If you believe anything put forth by the CBO, then you are the one misinformed. The CBO reports findings based on the fallacious conclusions given it by politicians who are lying through their teeth. As for Obamacare reducing the deficit, that whopper flew out the window when the cost for the first 10 years TRIPLED.

aboutime

01-23-2013, 09:18 PM

If you believe anything put forth by the CBO, then you are the one misinformed. The CBO reports findings based on the fallacious conclusions given it by politicians who are lying through their teeth. As for Obamacare reducing the deficit, that whopper flew out the window when the cost for the first 10 years TRIPLED.

Missileman. What members like bingster always intentionally fail to report, or mention is. How the CBO doctors the numbers, counts twice, or three times in most cases, in order to get the results the Obama admin, and the Democrats want, and need.

Let's let bingster keep on believing that crap as long as he likes.
The day will come when all of them who Love, Support, and Worship Obama so much...will discover, rather suddenly. How all of those promises they claim Obama made, and will keep. WILL COME BACK TO BITE THEM ALL IN THE ASS.

But. It will be too late for any of them by then.

Missileman

01-23-2013, 09:49 PM

Missileman. What members like bingster always intentionally fail to report, or mention is. How the CBO doctors the numbers, counts twice, or three times in most cases, in order to get the results the Obama admin, and the Democrats want, and need.

Let's let bingster keep on believing that crap as long as he likes.
The day will come when all of them who Love, Support, and Worship Obama so much...will discover, rather suddenly. How all of those promises they claim Obama made, and will keep. WILL COME BACK TO BITE THEM ALL IN THE ASS.

But. It will be too late for any of them by then.

The CBO fudges the numbers for both sides of the aisle.

ConHog

01-23-2013, 09:53 PM

The CBO fudges the numbers for both sides of the aisle.

yes isn't it sad that if a private company got caught cooking the books the way the CBO does they would at minimum be facing stiff fines?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-23-2013, 10:19 PM

No, misinformed referred to folks who didn't believe there were tax cuts in the stimulus bill, that the CBO proved that Obama care would shrink and not increase the deficit, and quite a few more facts that Fox News spends all of their efforts disproving.

:laugh: :laugh2: :laugh:, you obviously devour too much shat in your wheaties and not enough milk..-Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-23-2013, 10:22 PM

So, you use a Jon Stewart claim... I disprove it with a normally left leaning source (Politifact), and you don't consider it a FAIL on your part...

this is why no one here takes you seriously.

Kinda like another poster here. A guy that often denies his own words when they are used against him..-;)-Tyr

bingster

01-23-2013, 10:40 PM

If you believe anything put forth by the CBO, then you are the one misinformed. The CBO reports findings based on the fallacious conclusions given it by politicians who are lying through their teeth. As for Obamacare reducing the deficit, that whopper flew out the window when the cost for the first 10 years TRIPLED.

Republicans like to bash the CBO because it was created for the one and only purpose of keeping politicians honest. If you can't use CBO as a measure of truth, then there is no such thing as truth.

Marcus Aurelius

01-23-2013, 10:46 PM

Republicans like to bash the CBO because it was created for the one and only purpose of keeping politicians honest. If you can't use CBO as a measure of truth, then there is no such thing as truth.

The CBO is only as good as the information it is provided with by the politicians.

If the Democrats give the CBO garbage, garbage comes out.
If the GOP gives the CBO garbage, garbage comes out.

That's pretty much it.

ConHog

01-23-2013, 10:49 PM

Republicans like to bash the CBO because it was created for the one and only purpose of keeping politicians honest. If you can't use CBO as a measure of truth, then there is no such thing as truth.

oh please, the CBO gets bashed by whichever side is pissed about them fudging the numbers THIS time.

i get so tired of the "the left does this................ the right does this............"

both sides are the same and both sides have duped you their followers into believing they actually give a shit about them. They don't.

aboutime

01-23-2013, 10:53 PM

The CBO fudges the numbers for both sides of the aisle.

Agreed. Which is why I place NO TRUST in any politician, from either party.

The information used by the CBO to determine budgets, and expenditures are always Twisted to the liking of the party in power.

Government employee's follow the instructions given to them, or they lose their status, and get demoted since they usually can't be fired. So. They tow the administrations line, or pay the price. Almost by being labeled by the administration as racist, or intolerable for service.

Marcus Aurelius

01-23-2013, 11:00 PM

You did a good job to disprove. I'll admit that, but I don't agree with their finding. If you think Polifact is liberal, I have to assume that you don't agree with it all of the time either.

A large percentage of Republicans think Obama is Muslim, not born here, and Acorn stole the election. Polls are done all the time that show the nut-wing is on your side of the aisle.

point 1: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion... but NOT their own facts. Politifact used facts. Your not agreeing with them doesn't make them 'not facts'.

point 2: incorrect. Your math skills really need work.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57480905-503544/conservatives-more-likely-to-think-obama-is-muslim-now-than-in-2008/

Nearly half, 49 percent, of registered voters surveyed correctly identified Mr. Obama as Christian, while 17 percent thought he was Muslim.
A majority of the conservatives who make up that 17%... think Obama is Muslim. That means the vast majority of conservatives... more than 83% when you include the remainder of the 17% figure... DON'T think Obama is Muslim.

Quit while you're behind, dumb ass.

Missileman

01-23-2013, 11:06 PM

Republicans like to bash the CBO because it was created for the one and only purpose of keeping politicians honest. If you can't use CBO as a measure of truth, then there is no such thing as truth.

Ever hear the expression, "bullshit in, bullshit out"? Here's how the CBO works. A congressman writes a bill that says, he wants to spend a billion dollars on some project and to pay for it, he's going to pick a billion dollars off his money tree in his backyard. The CBO writes their assessment off the facts provided by the congressman and declares the bill revenue neutral.

red states rule

01-24-2013, 05:01 AM

No, misinformed referred to folks who didn't believe there were tax cuts in the stimulus bill, that the CBO proved that Obama care would shrink and not increase the deficit, and quite a few more facts that Fox News spends all of their efforts disproving.

Bing, the CBO went with the numbers the all Dem Congress gave them and those numbers were BS. For one thing the numbers were based on a 4% GDP I believe

Now the cost of Obamacare has DOUBLED and keep the books open

There were no tax CUTS in the so called "Stimulus". There were tax credits that have since expired

and we have seen how well the "stimulus" has worked and how many peopole are still not working

As far as Obamacare, the costs are soaring, people are seeing their work hours reduced or losing their job, and comapnies are not hiring as not to add that 50th worker

fj1200

01-24-2013, 05:29 AM

No, misinformed referred to folks who didn't believe there were tax cuts in the stimulus bill, that the CBO proved that Obama care would shrink and not increase the deficit, and quite a few more facts that Fox News spends all of their efforts disproving.

No. I read the "study" when it came out. It's basis for "truth" was defined as the government's line.

Republicans like to bash the CBO because it was created for the one and only purpose of keeping politicians honest. If you can't use CBO as a measure of truth, then there is no such thing as truth.

Still with the broad cloth claims again. :rolleyes: I like to "bash" the CBO because they have an abysmal track record (http://www.freedomworks.org/files/capitol_comment_CBO_scores_PDF_2.pdf) particularly when it comes to health care legislation. Any organization that is mandated to score legislation, tax bills statically for example, in a particular manner has to have its methods questioned.

red states rule

01-24-2013, 05:34 AM

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/gmc10664320130123062200.jpg