At least 5 people killed in shootings during bloody Chicago day

[red states rule]

So what the hell are libs doing about the ongoing slaughter in Chicago? A city run by liberals, a city with harsh gun laws on the books - yet the bodies continue to pile up. Once again we see libs running another city into the ground and wanting to do the same for the entire country
At least five people were gunned down Saturday in Chicago, including a 34-year-old man whose mother had already lost her three other children to shootings.
Ronnie Chambers, who was his mother Shirley's youngest child, was shot in the head while sitting in a parked car on the city's West Side. A 21-year-old man who was also in the car was wounded, police said.
Shirley Chambers, whose two other sons and daughter were shot in separate attacks more than a decade ago, was left grieving again on Saturday, WLS-TV (http://bit.ly/VCSh8i)http://global.fncstatic.com/static/v/all/img/external-link.png reported.
"Right now, I'm totally lost because Ronnie was my only surviving son," Chambers said.
Shirley Chambers' first child, Carlos, was shot and killed by a high school classmate in 1995 after an argument. He was 18. Her daughter Latoya, then 15, and her other son Jerome were shot and killed within months of one another in 2000.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/27/at-least-5-die-in-shootings-on-bloody-chicago-day/#ixzz2JEipWxRz

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So what the hell are libs doing about the ongoing slaughter in Chicago? A city run by liberals, a city with harsh gun laws on the books - yet the bodies continue to pile up. Once again we see libs running another city into the ground and wanting to do the same for the entire country

That's Rahm deadfish obama's top man running that city..Guy like his boss destroys everything he touches..-Tyr

[Kathianne]

Perhaps the only 'good news' about the Chicago murder rate is that over 80% of those killed have had criminal records. That '4th child killed' of mother, well he was 33 years old, known gang banger. Felon and over 28 arrests. At this rate, expect the numbers to fall, as the herd is culled.

[Trigg]

The same can be said of the murder rate in every big city. The vast majority of those killing and being killed are gangbangers.

[jafar00]

So what the hell are libs doing about the ongoing slaughter in Chicago? A city run by liberals, a city with harsh gun laws on the books - yet the bodies continue to pile up. Once again we see libs running another city into the ground and wanting to do the same for the entire country

I could argue that less guns on the street including making it harder for criminals such as this one to get a gun in the first place means that less people would get shot. That logic escapes 2nd amendmenters.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I could argue that less guns on the street including making it harder for criminals such as this one to get a gun in the first place means that less people would get shot. That logic escapes 2nd amendmenters.

The fact that unarmed people are sheep for the slaughter escapes anti-gun nuts.
By the way , when are you going to start preaching this "disarm placebo" to your Hamas pals!??-Tyr
That's a legit question too.

[Drummond]

The fact that unarmed people are sheep for the slaughter escapes anti-gun nuts.
By the way , when are you going to start preaching this "disarm placebo" to your Hamas pals!??-Tyr
That's a legit question too.:clap::clap:

Yes, I can't wait for Jafar to start pleading for the disarming of Hamas ... heyy, maybe Jafar would approve of the Israelis invading Gaza and confiscating it all ?

[ConHog]

I could argue that less guns on the street including making it harder for criminals such as this one to get a gun in the first place means that less people would get shot. That logic escapes 2nd amendmenters.

jafar, there are so many guns in the US that there is literally no way to actually confiscate them all even if we wanted to.

Of course the irony is these same "conservatives" who argue this point don't realize that the same is also true about illegal aliens LOL

[Marcus Aurelius]

I could argue that less guns on the street including making it harder for criminals such as this one to get a gun in the first place means that less people would get shot. That logic escapes 2nd amendmenters.

You're a moron. Criminals who get guns illegally now will STILL get guns illegally, regardless of additional illegalities in getting guns. New restrictions will only affect law abiding citizens, as they are the only ones who will be forced to follow them.

[jimnyc]

I could argue that less guns on the street including making it harder for criminals such as this one to get a gun in the first place means that less people would get shot. That logic escapes 2nd amendmenters.

Guns on the street, nor making it easy for criminals, is anywhere near what a 2nd amendmenter wants. We defend the 2nd for law abiding citizens. That's why the 2nd is there to begin with. You can't blame law abiding citizens for the guns on the street or any criminal activity.

[aboutime]

jafar. This is for you, primarily, but. If all of us got together, paid for, and sent you a one-way plane ticket to Chicago. Would you do us the favor, and accept?

You would then find yourself in what obviously appears to be a Wonderful Place on Earth where People like you would be welcomed with Open arms if you obey the Mayor of Chicago, and remember to NEVER WASTE A GOOD CRISIS by including yourself in a personal, walking tour of the Southside of Chicago where you could SPIT IN THE WIND, and NEVER MESS AROUND WITH JIM.

[Voted4Reagan]

I could argue that less guns on the street including making it harder for criminals such as this one to get a gun in the first place means that less people would get shot. That logic escapes 2nd amendmenters.

Answer this.....

Why does it happen in Cities where gun control is the strongest? Why ?

Answer...... Only the Criminals have guns....

The rest of the people are disarmed helpless sheep....

[Marcus Aurelius]

Answer this.....

Why does it happen in Cities where gun control is the strongest? Why ?

Answer...... Only the Criminals have guns....

The rest of the people are disarmed helpless sheep....

Logic is lost on Jahil.

[ConHog]

Logic is lost on Jahil.

It's lost on V4R as well.

you and I both know that plenty of cities in states with very lax gun laws experience a lot of gun crime. Rendering any conclusions meaningless.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Logic is lost on Jahil.

V4R has it exactly right.. Jahil and -ALL- those that support him are blind and foolish!-Tyr

[jafar00]

:clap::clap:

Yes, I can't wait for Jafar to start pleading for the disarming of Hamas ... heyy, maybe Jafar would approve of the Israelis invading Gaza and confiscating it all ?

I would argue for more arms for the Palestinians. They at least have a pressing need for them to defend themselves from Israeli "settlers" attacking them on a regular basis.

Case in point

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90__-IUNfIM

[Voted4Reagan]

I would argue for more arms for the Palestinians. They at least have a pressing need for them to defend themselves from Israeli "settlers" attacking them on a regular basis.



Hmmmm .... I saw self defense.... Guy had rocks thrown at him... he fired

Rock is a deadly weapon..... and one of the first assault weapons ever used by man....

Still deadly....

Self defense.... thats all it was for the Israeli who opened fire...

Jafar Fail Again

[red states rule]

The same can be said of the murder rate in every big city. The vast majority of those killing and being killed are gangbangers.

and that should tell liberals that no matter what new gun laws they pass they will do nothing to stop criminals from using guns in the commission of their crimes. This despite the fact Chicago has some of the most strictest gun laws in the country

[jafar00]

Hmmmm .... I saw self defense.... Guy had rocks thrown at him... he fired

Rock is a deadly weapon..... and one of the first assault weapons ever used by man....

Still deadly....

Self defense.... thats all it was for the Israeli who opened fire...

Jafar Fail Again

The Israelis came bounding down the hill with guns. Would you just stand there and let them eject you from your land, and perhaps rape your female relatives? The Palestinians were defending themselves with rocks against assailants armed with guns. You got it the wrong way around.

[Voted4Reagan]

The Israelis came bounding down the hill with guns. Would you just stand there and let them eject you from your land, and perhaps rape your female relatives? The Palestinians were defending themselves with rocks against assailants armed with guns. You got it the wrong way around.

Not what I saw.... I saw hundreds of rock throwing Palestinians and a couple handfuls of israelis...

if youre stupid enough to throw rocks at people you know are armed.... you deserve to be shot...

kind of like culling the herd.....

[jafar00]

Not what I saw.... I saw hundreds of rock throwing Palestinians and a couple handfuls of israelis...

if youre stupid enough to throw rocks at people you know are armed.... you deserve to be shot...

kind of like culling the herd.....

Israelis with occupation soldiers helping. The "settlers" are terrorists. I don't know how you can look at it any other way.

This kind of thing happens every day. There is usually no camera to record it like it is here. Israeli settlers, heavily armed constantly terrorise Arabs shooting them, damaging houses and farm equipment, and destroying crops and orchards.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Israelis with occupation soldiers helping. The "settlers" are terrorists. I don't know how you can look at it any other way.

This kind of thing happens every day. There is usually no camera to record it like it is here. Israeli settlers, heavily armed constantly terrorise Arabs shooting them, damaging houses and farm equipment, and destroying crops and orchards.

Isn't there something in the Quar'an about lying through your teeth? Shame you continue to do so.


The Israelis came bounding down the hill with guns. Would you just stand there and let them eject you from your land, and perhaps rape your female relatives? The Palestinians were defending themselves with rocks against assailants armed with guns. You got it the wrong way around.

So, it's ok to kill an 'intruder' who is raping your wife, as long as they are Israeli. Got it.

Dumb ass.

[red states rule]

So, it's ok to kill an 'intruder' who is raping your wife, as long as they are Israeli. Got it.

Dumb ass.

Like the Nazi's who ran the concentration camps, some people just cannot start their day unless they kill a Jew.

[bingster]

So what the hell are libs doing about the ongoing slaughter in Chicago? A city run by liberals, a city with harsh gun laws on the books - yet the bodies continue to pile up. Once again we see libs running another city into the ground and wanting to do the same for the entire country

You know, Chicago is quite the exception to the rule. Many of the guns in Chicago comes from out of state and Libs are going after gun trafficking in this recent debate.

[jimnyc]

You know, Chicago is quite the exception to the rule. Many of the guns in Chicago comes from out of state and Libs are going after gun trafficking in this recent debate.

Not really, in the overwhelming majority of examples, there is much more violence in areas with the strictest gun laws, and less where there are more guns. Of course there are examples to the opposite, hence me saying majority.

But on a side note, can you post stats of where these guns are coming from involved in the murders? I haven't read it yet, myself.

[tailfins]

I could argue that less guns on the street including making it harder for criminals such as this one to get a gun in the first place means that less people would get shot. That logic escapes 2nd amendmenters.

It escapes 4th amendmentiers as well. If you want to get guns out of the hands of criminals, the Fourth Amendment is where the action is. A free society is far overrated, right?

[bingster]

The fact that unarmed people are sheep for the slaughter escapes anti-gun nuts.
By the way , when are you going to start preaching this "disarm placebo" to your Hamas pals!??-Tyr
That's a legit question too.

Another false argument by the Tire. Nobody's trying to take your guns away, but unlike the NRA, we think nut cases and criminals shouldn't own guns and that background checks would provide a partial solution.

[jimnyc]

Another false argument by the Tire. Nobody's trying to take your guns away, but unlike the NRA, we think nut cases and criminals shouldn't own guns and that background checks would provide a partial solution.

My brother owns an AR15 and also a pistol on Dianne Feinstein's bill which is going forward. Are you saying they really don't want to ban them or get rid of them? He has nothing to fear with his 2 guns?

[bingster]

Not really, in the overwhelming majority of examples, there is much more violence in areas with the strictest gun laws, and less where there are more guns. Of course there are examples to the opposite, hence me saying majority.

But on a side note, can you post stats of where these guns are coming from involved in the murders? I haven't read it yet, myself.

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130130/news/701309837
This was just the 1st of many links I got when I typed chicago gun crime and gun trafficking. One of the Senators on today's hearings when into this with more detail.

I read this in many articles before relating to all of the major cities in this country.

[Trigg]

Another false argument by the Tire. Nobody's trying to take your guns away, but unlike the NRA, we think nut cases and criminals shouldn't own guns and that background checks would provide a partial solution.


Oh please feel free to prove that the NRA wants crazies and criminals to have guns :laugh:

[Robert A Whit]

So what the hell are libs doing about the ongoing slaughter in Chicago? A city run by liberals, a city with harsh gun laws on the books - yet the bodies continue to pile up. Once again we see libs running another city into the ground and wanting to do the same for the entire country

I feel bad having to keep pointing this out, but where you have a lot of murder, you will find that those doing the killing are normally negros. Chicago has a terrible time with Negros.

And check out all poor performing schools and you will notice that there are pockets in some areas of whites doing terrible, but no matter what part of the USA you are in, it is normal for the negro to do poorly in school. Even paying teachers a lot more money has changed nothing.

I don't see how whites can fix their problems since they won't listen to advice.

[jimnyc]

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130130/news/701309837
This was just the 1st of many links I got when I typed chicago gun crime and gun trafficking. One of the Senators on today's hearings when into this with more detail.

I read this in many articles before relating to all of the major cities in this country.

Thanks! Reading through it now. But FWIW - you just proved that even in places with the harshest of gun crimes, criminals will still find a way. :)

[bingster]

My brother owns an AR15 and also a pistol on Dianne Feinstein's bill which is going forward. Are you saying they really don't want to ban them or get rid of them? He has nothing to fear with his 2 guns?

She isn't going to take them away.

[jimnyc]

I don't see much meat on the bone in that link, only a reference from a politician. But I'll concede for the hell of it.

Let's face it, trafficking of guns is illegal now. Put another law on the books? Do you really think the criminals will say "Oh shit, another law, we better stop now, I think they're serious"?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Another false argument by the Tire. Nobody's trying to take your guns away, but unlike the NRA, we think nut cases and criminals shouldn't own guns and that background checks would provide a partial solution.

Here's the problem, dumb ass.....

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/nra-chief-feds-should-enforce-existing-gun-laws-out-76000-denied-permits-only-44
NRA Chief: Feds Should Enforce Existing Gun Laws; Out of 76,000 Denied Permits Only 44 Prosecuted
“Out of more than 76,000 firearms purchases denied by the federal instant check system, only 62 were referred for prosecution, and only 44 were actually prosecuted,” LaPierre said in prepared remarks, citing a 2010 report. (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf)
Link to a fore mentioned report...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf


The NRA wants existing laws regarding background checks ENFORCED. Adding new laws without any enforcement of existing laws is smoke and mirrors. Even a complete asshat like you should be able to see that.

[bingster]

I would argue for more arms for the Palestinians. They at least have a pressing need for them to defend themselves from Israeli "settlers" attacking them on a regular basis.

Case in point

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90__-IUNfIM
I know the problem in Israel does not have a simple solution. There are atrocities being committed on both sides. The Likud govt of Israel is not interested in peace and demonstrates that by increasing the settlements in the West Bank, BUT, the Palestinians have signed a contract with the Devil with Hamas.

[jimnyc]

She isn't going to take them away.

Yeah, was thinking of another city, not the national proposed bill. This one is in fact grandfathered in. But forced registration, clip sizes and what is and isn't mounted, sounds more and more like a map of where to confiscate down the road. A firearm is a firearm, and I think any weapon should be legal to own. I don't have a problem with current registration in states that allow fully automatic weapons. I also don't have a problem with eliminating huge clips, so long as they are grandfathered as well, but this won't affect a damn thing anyway.

[bingster]

Here's the problem, dumb ass.....

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/nra-chief-feds-should-enforce-existing-gun-laws-out-76000-denied-permits-only-44
NRA Chief: Feds Should Enforce Existing Gun Laws; Out of 76,000 Denied Permits Only 44 Prosecuted


Link to a fore mentioned report...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf


The NRA wants existing laws regarding background checks ENFORCED. Adding new laws without any enforcement of existing laws is smoke and mirrors. Even a complete asshat like you should be able to see that.


What's stupid about this is that gun control advocates want these checks enforced also! This is an asinine reason to not background check the other 40% of gun purchase.

I looked at the numbers on that report and noticed that 40% of the checks were not prosecuted because they didn't "meet prosecutive merit". I don't know if that means that in that area, there wasn't a law against what they did or what that means. Federal and state guideline not met 26.1% does that mean the gun shop failed? the ATF failed? Who knows?

Most common reasons for declination
No prosecutive merit 1,661 39.7%
Federal or state guidelines not met 1,092 26.1%
Not a prohibited person 480 11.5%


We want to prosecute and we want more background checks made. It's a reasonable position.

[bingster]

Yeah, was thinking of another city, not the national proposed bill. This one is in fact grandfathered in. But forced registration, clip sizes and what is and isn't mounted, sounds more and more like a map of where to confiscate down the road. A firearm is a firearm, and I think any weapon should be legal to own. I don't have a problem with current registration in states that allow fully automatic weapons. I also don't have a problem with eliminating huge clips, so long as they are grandfathered as well, but this won't affect a damn thing anyway.

I still in my heart want the "assault weapons" and high capacity clips banned, but I know I can't sell it. I read and heard a lot of great arguments on your side of this. I thought Lindsey Graham was awesome today arguing against banning high capacity clips.

There isn't, however, any reasonable argument against background checks!

[bingster]

Yeah, was thinking of another city, not the national proposed bill. This one is in fact grandfathered in. But forced registration, clip sizes and what is and isn't mounted, sounds more and more like a map of where to confiscate down the road. A firearm is a firearm, and I think any weapon should be legal to own. I don't have a problem with current registration in states that allow fully automatic weapons. I also don't have a problem with eliminating huge clips, so long as they are grandfathered as well, but this won't affect a damn thing anyway.

I don't know if you saw the hearings, today, but Diane Fienstein's best statement wasn't a statement. She called that a particular piece of a study be highlighted on the record. This study, that many have quoted, that found effectiveness of assault weapons bans "inconclusive" does say that assaults with those weapons were reduced by 72%. I thought that was huge!

[aboutime]

I don't see much meat on the bone in that link, only a reference from a politician. But I'll concede for the hell of it.

Let's face it, trafficking of guns is illegal now. Put another law on the books? Do you really think the criminals will say "Oh shit, another law, we better stop now, I think they're serious"?


jimnyc. A.G. Holder loves this massive distraction about Assault Weapons. It managed to silence many about his involvement, and Obama's with the GUN RUNNING into Mexico the two JERKS secretly authorized. Much like the way it's taking all the AIR out of the CLINTON-BENGHAZI story just long enough to get her into a safe place, where she hopes to be forgotten until....2016.

[jimnyc]

I don't know if you saw the hearings, today, but Diane Fienstein's best statement wasn't a statement. She called that a particular piece of a study be highlighted on the record. This study, that many have quoted, that found effectiveness of assault weapons bans "inconclusive" does say that assaults with those weapons were reduced by 72%. I thought that was huge!

There have been less than 400 deaths attributed to "assault weapons" since the ban was lifted in 2004. Now, how many have been from pistols? How many from fists/feet? How many from knives? Point being, according to the facts, assault weapons, or scary looking guns, are one of the least used tools in these deaths.

[Marcus Aurelius]

What's stupid about this is that gun control advocates want these checks enforced also! This is an asinine reason to not background check the other 40% of gun purchase.

I looked at the numbers on that report and noticed that 40% of the checks were not prosecuted because they didn't "meet prosecutive merit". I don't know if that means that in that area, there wasn't a law against what they did or what that means. Federal and state guideline not met 26.1% does that mean the gun shop failed? the ATF failed? Who knows?

Most common reasons for declination
No prosecutive merit 1,661 39.7%
Federal or state guidelines not met 1,092 26.1%
Not a prohibited person 480 11.5%


We want to prosecute and we want more background checks made. It's a reasonable position.

You appear to have... missed... a few points in the report...


Comparisons With Prior Years, 2006-2010
Data on enforcement of the Brady Act is available for the five-year period from 2006 to 2010. Selected statistics from each year’s cases are summarized in Appendix table I.

FBI referrals of NICS denials to the DENI Branch decreased about 1%, from 77,233 in 2006 to 76,142 in 2010.

The DENI Branch’s referrals to ATF field divisions decreased nearly 50%, from 9,432 for 2006 to 4,732 for 2010.

Unlawful possession investigations decreased by 26% from 2006 to 2010 and investigations that resulted in a firearm retrieval decreased by over 21%.

The number of charges referred by field offices for prosecution fell by over 77%, from 273 for the 2006 cases to 62 for the 2010 cases.

The number of charges that resulted in guilty pleas and verdicts fell by about 82%, from 73 for the 2006 cases to 13 for the 2010 cases. (Appendix table I). Citations to the prior years’ reports are listed in the appendix table.

There are a few states, like PA and Virginia, where permit denials and prosecutions INCREASED, as opposed to decreased.


additionally, there is really no correlation between the strength of a states gun laws, and it's gun crime...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/24/states-crime-rates-show-scant-linkage-to-gun-laws/?page=all


States that ranked high in terms of making records available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System also tended to have tighter gun laws — but their gun-crime rates ranged widely. The same was true for states that ranked poorly on disclosure and were deemed to have much less stringent gun-possession laws.



For example, New York, even before it approved the strictest gun-control measures in the country last week, was ranked fourth among the states in strength of gun laws by the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence, but was also in the top 10 in firearm homicide rates in 2011, according to the FBI (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/federal-bureau-of-investigation/).



Meanwhile, North Dakota was near the bottom in its firearm homicide, firearm robbery and firearm assault rates, but also had some of the loosest gun laws and worst compliance with turning over mental health records to the background check system.

[bingster]

I know this is a biased link but I don't see anything on it that is disputable. It's regarding the Tiahrt Amendment that the NRA was highly instrumental in passing regarding what can and can not be done with gun purchase information. I think it was Mundame that pointed out that the NRA blocking studies on gun crime resembles the same efforts by the tobacco companies attempt to block studies on harms of tobacco use.

This amendment is designed to protect gun dealers and manufacturers from lawsuits and hampers law enforcement efforts to chase bad guys who are sometimes gun dealers.

-NICS Background checks records must be destroyed within 24 hours.
-ATF does not have the power to require gun dealers to perform inventory checks to detect lost or stolen guns-without an inventory, it's difficult to prove illegal sales!
-State and local authorities are still restricted from using trace data to fully investigate corrupt gun dealers and traffickers

I don't trust the honesty of NRA points of view on this issue.

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/federal/tiahrt.shtml

Here's the amendment itself.
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/fy10_tiahrt_amendment.pdf

[jimnyc]

the NRA blocking studies on gun crime resembles the same efforts by the tobacco companies attempt to block studies on harms of tobacco use.

I'm not interested in tobacco right now, but how can the NRA prevent people from doing studies? Every time there is a shooting it becomes public information. Can you link to me where they do this? Because I find it odd, I read about gun crime stats non-stop, year after year, from the FBI. Then the FBI distributes this information. I don't see where the NRA can stop this, or how they have tried.

[Robert A Whit]

Another false argument by the Tire. Nobody's trying to take your guns away, but unlike the NRA, we think nut cases and criminals shouldn't own guns and that background checks would provide a partial solution.

That is the false argument. Suppose a gun crime took place in your city so each citizen had to endure a background check and you had to show up at the law offices to be checked out?

A grand net tossed over all of the innocent gun owners is what we are talking about. They are infringing on our second amendment rights. I say again, that is the only amendment that states clearly that it must not be infringed on. I am sure you value highly other amendments yet they dont' claim they must not be infringed on.

[tailfins]

I'm not interested in tobacco right now, but how can the NRA prevent people from doing studies? Every time there is a shooting it becomes public information. Can you link to me where they do this? Because I find it odd, I read about gun crime stats non-stop, year after year, from the FBI. Then the FBI distributes this information. I don't see where the NRA can stop this, or how they have tried.

Study = taxpayer funded lobbying

Dos that clear it up?

[Robert A Whit]

I still in my heart want the "assault weapons" and high capacity clips banned, but I know I can't sell it. I read and heard a lot of great arguments on your side of this. I thought Lindsey Graham was awesome today arguing against banning high capacity clips.

There isn't, however, any reasonable argument against background checks!

I have never heard that any bullet that killed somebody gave a shit if it came from a single shot weapon or a machine gun.

As to background checks, autos kill many more than do guns.

Suppose just to buy a car, everybody had to pass a background check and said check lasted two weeks?

Are you getting it yet?

What you want is just like an item was stolen from your home so every home within say 5 miles distance got searched to find your property.

What you can't understand is that almost all you want to be deprived of constitution rights are simply not guilty.

See one man who ran a stop light in a Honda so you simply issue tickets to all Honda owners in the city. Makes sense you say?

It is one thing to do a thing to some guilty person, quite another to sweep in the vast innocent to please your lust for control.

[Voted4Reagan]

Israelis with occupation soldiers helping. The "settlers" are terrorists. I don't know how you can look at it any other way.

This kind of thing happens every day. There is usually no camera to record it like it is here. Israeli settlers, heavily armed constantly terrorise Arabs shooting them, damaging houses and farm equipment, and destroying crops and orchards.

hey....Jafar.... deal with Hamas and the PLO launching UNPROVOKED ROCKET ATTACKS into Israel....

Clean your own house first

[jafar00]

hey....Jafar.... deal with Hamas and the PLO launching UNPROVOKED ROCKET ATTACKS into Israel....

Clean your own house first

Firstly, I am unaware that the PLO are launching any rockets. Second, Hamas are not unprovoked. Third, why is it my house and why should I clean it? I'm not Palestinian.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Firstly, I am unaware that the PLO are launching any rockets. Second, Hamas are not unprovoked. Third, why is it my house and why should I clean it? I'm not Palestinian.]

You defend Hamas do you not??-Tyr

[red states rule]

Firstly, I am unaware that the PLO are launching any rockets. Second, Hamas are not unprovoked. Third, why is it my house and why should I clean it? I'm not Palestinian.

For anyone who has the audacity to dent the Nazi concentration camps were real - who the F cares what you are or are not aware of. You do not believe anything that is not first approved by your "religions" leaders and spewed on Al Jazeera

[red states rule]

You know, Chicago is quite the exception to the rule. Many of the guns in Chicago comes from out of state and Libs are going after gun trafficking in this recent debate.

I am sure they will do just as fine a job on stopping "illegal" guns from entering Chicago as did allowing illegal guns to flow into Mexico.

[bingster]

I am sure they will do just as fine a job on stopping "illegal" guns from entering Chicago as did allowing illegal guns to flow into Mexico.

ATF gunwalking scandal From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.21wmf8/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Weapons_Seized_Naco_Sonora_20_Nov_2009.jpeg)




The United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms _and_Explosives) (ATF) ran a series of "gunwalking" sting operations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sting_operation)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal#cite_note-csm1-2)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal#cite_note-wapoa-3) between 2006[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal#cite_note-npr1-4) and 2011.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal#cite_note-csm1-2)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal#cite_note-nyt1-5)

Fast and Furious began under the George W. administration. It wasn't all about the current administration.

The president's approach to gun safety is a comprehensive one covering all aspects of the problem. His executive actions will hopefully bolster the trafficking, fact finding, and enforcement sides of the issue and legislation will, hopefully, get the background check piece done.

[bingster]

I have never heard that any bullet that killed somebody gave a shit if it came from a single shot weapon or a machine gun.

As to background checks, autos kill many more than do guns.
Let's, see, autos are registered, safety checked, drivers are trained, licensed, fined, suspended, arrested, etc... you have a point?

Suppose just to buy a car, everybody had to pass a background check and said check lasted two weeks?
I covered that, I don't know what you're getting at with the "two weeks" comment
Are you getting it yet?

What you want is just like an item was stolen from your home so every home within say 5 miles distance got searched to find your property.
Background checks are for people buying guns. I don't know what you think I want or what is being attempted, but it looks like you're flailing against a straw man again!

What you can't understand is that almost all you want to be deprived of constitution rights are simply not guilty.

See one man who ran a stop light in a Honda so you simply issue tickets to all Honda owners in the city. Makes sense you say?

It is one thing to do a thing to some guilty person, quite another to sweep in the vast innocent to please your lust for control.

The rest of that is ridiculous. Background checks for everyone buying a gun is not only favored by 95% of the country, it's favored by 70% of NRA members, and was favored by Wayne LaPierre in 1999. The expectation that only folks with a clean record both criminally and mentally can buy guns is logical. The only way to prove it is through background checks at the time of purchase.

[jimnyc]

ATF gunwalking scandal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.21wmf8/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Weapons_Seized_Naco_Sonora_20_Nov_2009.jpeg)




The United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms _and_Explosives) (ATF) ran a series of "gunwalking" sting operations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sting_operation)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal#cite_note-csm1-2)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal#cite_note-wapoa-3) between 2006[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal#cite_note-npr1-4) and 2011.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal#cite_note-csm1-2)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal#cite_note-nyt1-5)

Fast and Furious began under the George W. administration. It wasn't all about the current administration.

The president's approach to gun safety is a comprehensive one covering all aspects of the problem. His executive actions will hopefully bolster the trafficking, fact finding, and enforcement sides of the issue and legislation will, hopefully, get the background check piece done.

But the agents - Americans - were KILLED under Obama's watch, with Holder. And what accountability came from it? Why should Holder, who was involved and OK'd things, have been mostly in charge of the investigation?

[jimnyc]

The rest of that is ridiculous. Background checks for everyone buying a gun is not only favored by 95% of the country, it's favored by 70% of NRA members, and was favored by Wayne LaPierre in 1999. The expectation that only folks with a clean record both criminally and mentally can buy guns is logical. The only way to prove it is through background checks at the time of purchase.

Besides individual to individual - how often are guns sold without a background check?

[bingster]

That is the false argument. Suppose a gun crime took place in your city so each citizen had to endure a background check and you had to show up at the law offices to be checked out?

A grand net tossed over all of the innocent gun owners is what we are talking about. They are infringing on our second amendment rights. I say again, that is the only amendment that states clearly that it must not be infringed on. I am sure you value highly other amendments yet they dont' claim they must not be infringed on.

I don't know where you get any of this. Background checks are for purchases. This "grand net" concept of yours is another black helicopter idea that exists only in your head.

[bingster]

Besides individual to individual - how often are guns sold without a background check?

Who knows? 40% is a number that is bandied around, but one poster made a good argument yesterday to question that. Everyone knows that private dealers at gun shows, any private sellers, and many websites sell guns without background checks. Arguing whether it's 40%, 10%, or 2%, is just useless. The fact is that some sales happen without background checks. Regardless of the size of the hole, it should be closed.

[jimnyc]

Who knows? 40% is a number that is bandied around, but one poster made a good argument yesterday to question that. Everyone knows that private dealers at gun shows, any private sellers, and many websites sell guns without background checks. Arguing whether it's 40%, 10%, or 2%, is just useless. The fact is that some sales happen without background checks. Regardless of the size of the hole, it should be closed.

I wouldn't have an issue with it being closed. A generic criminal history should be sufficient. But it's NOT useless. If it's 5% instead of 40%, that shows that it's not a HUGE of a problem that some would make it out to be. Outside of personal owners, it's already required of dealers. So while I don't take issue with having some sort of criminal check be done by private sales, without cold hard facts, I can't agree that it's a major issue.

[bingster]

But the agents - Americans - were KILLED under Obama's watch, with Holder. And what accountability came from it? Why should Holder, who was involved and OK'd things, have been mostly in charge of the investigation?

I'll admit, I didn't follow that story closely. I'm not going to argue something I don't know about. I threw up that excerpt because some have claimed that it was an exclusive Obama/Holder operation when it wasn't.

[jimnyc]

I'll admit, I didn't follow that story closely. I'm not going to argue something I don't know about. I threw up that excerpt because some have claimed that it was an exclusive Obama/Holder operation when it wasn't.

But it WAS an Obama/Holder operation since he's been in office. And guns THEY sent to Mexico ultimately ended up killing Americans. Our guns, sold to cartels, end up killing Americans. Don't you think there should be SOME accountability for that?

[bingster]

I don't see much meat on the bone in that link, only a reference from a politician. But I'll concede for the hell of it.

Let's face it, trafficking of guns is illegal now. Put another law on the books? Do you really think the criminals will say "Oh shit, another law, we better stop now, I think they're serious"?

I don't think anyone's talking about another law. I think they're talking about studying more. Lame, but one can hope.

[bingster]

There have been less than 400 deaths attributed to "assault weapons" since the ban was lifted in 2004. Now, how many have been from pistols? How many from fists/feet? How many from knives? Point being, according to the facts, assault weapons, or scary looking guns, are one of the least used tools in these deaths.

You keep making this point but it's moot. Ban on "assault weapons" is possible, the rest is not. All of the other angles of this problem is receiving attention also. This isn't a one issue problem and noone is saying it is.

[bingster]

But it WAS an Obama/Holder operation since he's been in office. And guns THEY sent to Mexico ultimately ended up killing Americans. Our guns, sold to cartels, end up killing Americans. Don't you think there should be SOME accountability for that?

Sure, yes. I don't know anything about it, but I refuse to form an opinion without all of the data.

[jimnyc]

You keep making this point but it's moot. Ban on "assault weapons" is possible, the rest is not. All of the other angles of this problem is receiving attention also. This isn't a one issue problem and noone is saying it is.

Why is it moot? How is it even remotely possible that one weapon can be banned, and not another? If gun A kills 8,000 per year, and gun B kills 96 per year - which gun is it you would want to ban? I think if the issue is to save lives, stop murder and such - wouldn't those "in charge" be going after what kills the most, not what kills the least?

[Robert A Whit]

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=613448#post613448)
Who knows? 40% is a number that is bandied around, but one poster made a good argument yesterday to question that. Everyone knows that private dealers at gun shows, any private sellers, and many websites sell guns without background checks. Arguing whether it's 40%, 10%, or 2%, is just useless. The fact is that some sales happen without background checks. Regardless of the size of the hole, it should be closed.






Jim sez:I wouldn't have an issue with it being closed. A generic criminal history should be sufficient. But it's NOT useless. If it's 5% instead of 40%, that shows that it's not a HUGE of a problem that some would make it out to be. Outside of personal owners, it's already required of dealers. So while I don't take issue with having some sort of criminal check be done by private sales, without cold hard facts, I can't agree that it's a major issue.

Do we all know that the Government keeps track of all guns bought and sold where paperwork is submitted?

Sure we know that.

But is the data base on some computer?

No.

It is a mess. It is paperwork that is filed. They had to dry out documents from various floods and storms trying to save them.

The promise to do a hand search of documents but must have at least 1 full day and unless it is an emergency they take up to a week to do a human hand search of said documents of purchase and background checks.

If a crime was committed using a tracked gun, and it takes up to a week to get the information to law enforcement, by law .... yes by law they must only do it by human eyes looking for records, how on earth can democrats want it to be such a priorty when by the time the cops learn the name of the registered owner, a lot more crime can happen?

I picked this up watching PBS. You can check out PBS as easily as I can hunt down some link.

[jimnyc]

Sure, yes. I don't know anything about it, but I refuse to form an opinion without all of the data.

Interesting.

How about starting here, where Obama said people will be held accountable. Do a little research, and then tell me WHO was held accountable. Then ask yourself, had it been a Republican president in charge, or an AG working for a Republican, would you be willing to turn a blind eye to the deaths of American federal agents?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/obama-on-fast-and-furious-people-who-have-screwed-up-will-be-held-accountable/

And that's a LAME article just to get started. I can post MANY more that aren't so nice, but will only be accused of biased reporting.

[bingster]

You appear to have... missed... a few points in the report...



There are a few states, like PA and Virginia, where permit denials and prosecutions INCREASED, as opposed to decreased.


additionally, there is really no correlation between the strength of a states gun laws, and it's gun crime...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/24/states-crime-rates-show-scant-linkage-to-gun-laws/?page=all










I've questioned this same line of thinking before. They take the information off of the two pro-gun-control websites to measure state gun laws and match them up with the FBI rankings. I visited the FBI website and failed to see one study that actually showed "rates". The FBI numbers are never rates they are just sheer numbers and don't take population into account to form rates. Apples and Apples comparisons even on WIKIpedia show completely different corelations.

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

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jimnyc http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=613451#post613451)
But it WAS an Obama/Holder operation since he's been in office. And guns THEY sent to Mexico ultimately ended up killing Americans. Our guns, sold to cartels, end up killing Americans. Don't you think there should be SOME accountability for that?






Bingster says: Sure, yes. I don't know anything about it, but I refuse to form an opinion without all of the data.

Best of luck trying to get the Obama team to be transparent. When asked, Holder gets angry and sits on his hands to keep from shouting. Obama backs him. Even to the extent he backs fully the no transparency part of goverment.

I have yet to learn of any Bush operation that got our agents killed. Perhaps since you claim to already have an opinion about that, can you name any agents killed due to such an act by our agents during Bush?

[jimnyc]

Interesting.

How about starting here, where Obama said people will be held accountable. Do a little research, and then tell me WHO was held accountable. Then ask yourself, had it been a Republican president in charge, or an AG working for a Republican, would you be willing to turn a blind eye to the deaths of American federal agents?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/obama-on-fast-and-furious-people-who-have-screwed-up-will-be-held-accountable/

And that's a LAME article just to get started. I can post MANY more that aren't so nice, but will only be accused of biased reporting.

And before I forget, let's not forget his asserting of executive privilege so that no one really had to testify and answer to these murders. When an American is killed, like in this instance, and in Benghazi, I don't think ANYONE should be allowed to bail out of testifying.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I've questioned this same line of thinking before. They take the information off of the two pro-gun-control websites to measure state gun laws and match them up with the FBI rankings. I visited the FBI website and failed to see one study that actually showed "rates". The FBI numbers are never rates they are just sheer numbers and don't take population into account to form rates. Apples and Apples comparisons even on WIKIpedia show completely different corelations.

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

You do realize I linked to the studies that the Federal government paid for, and that's where I got the numbers that prove your 40% figure is bullshit... right? You know, the same study you GOT the bogus 40% number from anyway?

You' such a disingenuous ass.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Best of luck trying to get the Obama team to be transparent...



Now you know very well this is the most open, honest and transparent administration in US history, right? After all, Obama told me so.

[Abbey Marie]

You keep making this point but it's moot. Ban on "assault weapons" is possible, the rest is not. All of the other angles of this problem is receiving attention also. This isn't a one issue problem and noone is saying it is.

I am getting a little tired of making the same point, but you never really acknowledge it. If your theory above is true, then why do liberals worry so much about the slightest tightening of abortion laws?

Partial birth abortion ban- oh, no it will lead to other restrictions!
Longer waiting period? Oh, god forbid! It will lead to other restrictions!
Notify parents of minors? Are you crazy? We may end up with one less abortion! (And it will lead to other restrictions).

For each one of those statements, if you are being consistent with your gun argument above, you would say, "A ban on "fill in the blank" is possible, the rest is not".

[bingster]

I'm not interested in tobacco right now, but how can the NRA prevent people from doing studies? Every time there is a shooting it becomes public information. Can you link to me where they do this? Because I find it odd, I read about gun crime stats non-stop, year after year, from the FBI. Then the FBI distributes this information. I don't see where the NRA can stop this, or how they have tried.


NRA supported Tiarht Amendment hinders law enforcement study of gun sale trends-only a bona-fide criminal investigation allows release of gun purchase data. Here's a WIKI excerpt.
Tiahrt Amendment Tiahrt is the author of the Tiahrt Amendment which prohibits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms_and_Explosive s) (ATF) from releasing information from its firearms trace database to anyone other than a law enforcement agency or prosecutor in connection with a criminal investigation. Additionally, any data so released is inadmissible in a civil lawsuit. Some groups, including the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayors_Against_Illegal_Guns_Coalition), believe that having further access to the ATF database would help municipal police departments track down sellers of illegal guns and curb crime. These groups are trying to undo the Tiahrt Amendment.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Tiahrt#cite_note-5) Numerous police organizations oppose the Tiahrt Amendment, such as the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP).[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Tiahrt#cite_note-6) Conversely, the Tiahrt Amendment is supported by the National Rifle Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association) [7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Tiahrt#cite_note-7), and the Fraternal Order of Police (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_Order_of_Police) (although it allows municipal police departments only limited access to ATF trace data in any criminal investigation).


NRA lobbied congress to block CDC from doing gun death research

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_violence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun _control_studies_at_cdc.html

NRA slickly calls gun death research "tax payer funded anti-gun rights research". It's slick, but I get it. NRA doesn't want us to learn anything that can cut into their revenue. I get it, but it's disgusting that their motives are not regarding safety or responsibility only gun sales. The Tiarht Amendment is especially bad in that it forbids trace information from being admissable in a civil case against gun dealers or manufacturers.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=613135#post613135)
That is the false argument. Suppose a gun crime took place in your city so each citizen had to endure a background check and you had to show up at the law offices to be checked out?

A grand net tossed over all of the innocent gun owners is what we are talking about. They are infringing on our second amendment rights. I say again, that is the only amendment that states clearly that it must not be infringed on. I am sure you value highly other amendments yet they dont' claim they must not be infringed on.





Bingster replies: I don't know where you get any of this. Background checks are for purchases. This "grand net" concept of yours is another black helicopter idea that exists only in your head.

You left off the first argument and only posted my reply. I have to examine just my words to see what I was trying to point out.

I believe my point is that there are millions of guns out in the public.
And we are taking an action not against the guilty, but against a free people. Rather they are alleged to be free yet the evidence will support my claim that they are not free so long as men such as you are back the near revocation of the 2nd amendment.

To wit: Clearly in the language of that amendment is that rights may not be infringed.

When one must get a permit, that is an infringement. When one is to be judged fit or not fit, though no court has declared one to be unfit is making any person the butt of government and another infringement.

If you peel any right away, you judge not one man, but the entire country.

[bingster]

I am getting a little tired of making the same point, but you never really acknowledge it. If your theory above is true, then why do liberals worry so much about the slightest tightening of abortion laws?

Partial birth abortion ban- oh, no it will lead to other restrictions!
Longer waiting period? Oh, god forbid! It will lead to other restrictions!
Notify parents of minors? Are you crazy? We may end up with one less abortion! (And it will lead to other restrictions).

For each one of those statements, if you are being consistent with your gun argument above, you would say, "A ban on "fill in the blank" is possible, the rest is not".

Wow, way to change the subject! We're losing the abortion fight. There are 4 states now, that only have one abortion clinic in the whole state, and one of them will probably go out of business soon. States have used illogical trap laws that have nothing to do with health or safety to rid their states of abortion clinics.

The limits have nothing to do with anything. Roe vs Wade is clear. You either allow the operation as per the decision or you don't. States are underhandedly running these clinics out of town.

Justice Scalia has said that the 2nd amendment can be limited. "Assault weapons" bans have never been over-turned.

But, again, I've really given up on arguing for the ban. Your arguments are better than mind. I have conceded this fight. The background check argument, however, is still on for me.

[jimnyc]

NRA supported Tiarht Amendment hinders law enforcement study of gun sale trends-only a bona-fide criminal investigation allows release of gun purchase data. Here's a WIKI excerpt.
Tiahrt Amendment

Tiahrt is the author of the Tiahrt Amendment which prohibits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms_and_Explosive s) (ATF) from releasing information from its firearms trace database to anyone other than a law enforcement agency or prosecutor in connection with a criminal investigation. Additionally, any data so released is inadmissible in a civil lawsuit. Some groups, including the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayors_Against_Illegal_Guns_Coalition), believe that having further access to the ATF database would help municipal police departments track down sellers of illegal guns and curb crime. These groups are trying to undo the Tiahrt Amendment.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Tiahrt#cite_note-5) Numerous police organizations oppose the Tiahrt Amendment, such as the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP).[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Tiahrt#cite_note-6) Conversely, the Tiahrt Amendment is supported by the National Rifle Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association) [7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Tiahrt#cite_note-7), and the Fraternal Order of Police (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_Order_of_Police) (although it allows municipal police departments only limited access to ATF trace data in any criminal investigation).


NRA lobbied congress to block CDC from doing gun death research

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_violence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun _control_studies_at_cdc.html

NRA slickly calls gun death research "tax payer funded anti-gun rights research". It's slick, but I get it. NRA doesn't want us to learn anything that can cut into their revenue. I get it, but it's disgusting that their motives are not regarding safety or responsibility only gun sales. The Tiarht Amendment is especially bad in that it forbids trace information from being admissable in a civil case against gun dealers or manufacturers.

Sounds fine to me. They are looking to restrict information about owners and such, and it should be restricted to law enforcement only. Considering the FOP even supports it, I don't think even the police are complaining. Again, these actions are aimed at limiting access of information about gun owners, too much information. Law abiding citizens have a right to own these weapons and shouldn't be further tracked as if they were criminals.

[bingster]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=613135#post613135)
That is the false argument. Suppose a gun crime took place in your city so each citizen had to endure a background check and you had to show up at the law offices to be checked out?

A grand net tossed over all of the innocent gun owners is what we are talking about. They are infringing on our second amendment rights. I say again, that is the only amendment that states clearly that it must not be infringed on. I am sure you value highly other amendments yet they dont' claim they must not be infringed on.






You left off the first argument and only posted my reply. I have to examine just my words to see what I was trying to point out.

I believe my point is that there are millions of guns out in the public.
And we are taking an action not against the guilty, but against a free people. Rather they are alleged to be free yet the evidence will support my claim that they are not free so long as men such as you are back the near revocation of the 2nd amendment.

To wit: Clearly in the language of that amendment is that rights may not be infringed.

When one must get a permit, that is an infringement. When one is to be judged fit or not fit, though no court has declared one to be unfit is making any person the butt of government and another infringement.

If you peel any right away, you judge not one man, but the entire country.


I do appreciate and respect your thoughtful observations on this issue, but still don't think it applies unless you're doing the "slippery slope" thing. Nobody is arguing for a permit, training, indoctrination, or anything of that nature. Needing to pass a background check to insure the guilty or insane doesn't purchase a gun is not a "near revocation of the 2nd amendment".

[Abbey Marie]

Wow, way to change the subject! We're losing the abortion fight. There are 4 states now, that only have one abortion clinic in the whole state, and one of them will probably go out of business soon. States have used illogical trap laws that have nothing to do with health or safety to rid their states of abortion clinics.

The limits have nothing to do with anything. Roe vs Wade is clear. You either allow the operation as per the decision or you don't. States are underhandedly running these clinics out of town.

Justice Scalia has said that the 2nd amendment can be limited. "Assault weapons" bans have never been over-turned.

But, again, I've really given up on arguing for the ban. Your arguments are better than mind. I have conceded this fight. The background check argument, however, is still on for me.

I read recently that the number of abortions had reached a new high.

Anyway, there is a lot more to the abortion argument than just allowing the "operation", as you put it, or not. But I don't want to turn this thread into that discussion. I merely brought it up as a point of comparison. I felt that by comapring it to restricting abortion rights, you would understand how gun rights people feel about your statement.

[Robert A Whit]

Those of us supporting rights get bogged down in defending the 2nd amendment.

I in particular keep making the case that of all the amendments, the second is the one and only right that says in the amendment it may not be infringed upon.

Some point out one may not yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire.

We could list the 10 amendments and see if each is challenged as is the second.

Suppose you are at home. The cops show up and tell you they will barge in?

Do you believe they must have a warrant or is it some right that may be infringed on and they must get a warrant or not?

If you believe they must get a warrant, explain why we who enjoy the second amendment protections must seek a permit and background check, not required in your right to free speech?

Suppose you were told that for you to deliver free speech, you must first get a background check, and a permit to speak?

Would you agree with that as well?

BTW, I have not read the court case on yelling fire for some years. I tend to think that yelling Fire is not so much speech, as an alarm. It is a false alarm that in the past cost lives.

But by forcing me to obey a few of you just to own a gun makes no sense to me. They can't do any of this unless you permit them to keep up this charade.

We need the ACLU to stand up and fight. But alas, they won't. We know one group that has. The NRA. God bless the NRAl And they don't say they are the NPA, P for pistols, they say Rifle.

[bingster]

Sounds fine to me. They are looking to restrict information about owners and such, and it should be restricted to law enforcement only. Considering the FOP even supports it, I don't think even the police are complaining. Again, these actions are aimed at limiting access of information about gun owners, too much information. Law abiding citizens have a right to own these weapons and shouldn't be further tracked as if they were criminals.

It doesn't just restrict information about owners and such to law enforcement only. The point of contention is that restricting access to this trace data to only specific criminal investigations, prohibits access to aggregate data that law enforcement need to examine gun trafficking patterns and make key connections between separate cases.

It's a blatant attempt to protect gun manufacturers and gun dealers and also prohibits using this evidence in civil lawsuits. At the same time, it hinders useful investigations and research.

Police Organizations That Have Called For Repealing the Tiahrt Amendments

http://protectpolice.org/facts/
As of January 1, 2009
National Law Enforcement Associations:



International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) (http://www.theiacp.org/)
Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA) (http://www.neiassociates.org/about.htm#anchor361767)
Police Executive Research Foundation (PERF) (http://www.policeforum.org/)
International Brotherhood of Police Officers (IBPO) (http://www.ibpo.org/)
Police Foundation (http://www.policefoundation.org/)
Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association (HAPCOA) (http://www.hapcoa.org/)
National Latino Peace Officers Association (NLPOA) (http://www.nlpoa.org/)
National Black Police Association (NBPA) (http://www.blackpolice.org/)
National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE) (http://www.noblenational.org/)
National Sheriff’s Association (http://www.sheriffs.org/)
School Safety Advocacy Council (http://www.schoolsafety911.com/)

State Law Enforcement Associations:



California Association of Chiefs of Police
Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police
Connecticut Association of Chiefs of Police
Delaware Police Chiefs Council
Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police
Illinois Grand Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police
Kentucky Association of Chiefs of Police
Maine Association of Chiefs of Police
Maryland Municipal Law Enforcement Executives Association
Massachusetts Association of Chiefs of Police
Massachusetts Fraternal Order of Police State Lodge
Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police
Minnesota Association of Chiefs of Police
Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association
New England Association of Chiefs of Police
New Jersey County Prosecutors Association
New Mexico Association of Chiefs of Police
New York Association of Chiefs of Police
Oregon Association of Chiefs of Police
Rhode Island Police Chiefs Association
Texas Association of Chiefs of Police
Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police
Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (Washington State)

Local Law Enforcement:



More than 200 Individual Police Chiefs and Sheriffs on behalf of their jurisdictions.

[bingster]

I read recently that the number of abortions had reached a new high.

Anyway, there is a lot more to the abortion argument than just allowing the "operation", as you put it, or not. But I don't want to turn this thread into that discussion. I merely brought it up as a point of comparison. I felt that by comapring it to restricting abortion rights, you would understand how gun rights people feel about your statement.

It was a good comparison. I have often thought of it many times before. 90 states laws were enacted in 2011 regarding abortion and I kept asking myself how they could limit this right. Then I thought of the 2nd Amendment and understood.

[Abbey Marie]

It was a good comparison. I have often thought of it many times before. 90 states laws were enacted in 2011 regarding abortion and I kept asking myself how they could limit this right. Then I thought of the 2nd Amendment and understood.

You are a gracious debater.

[Marcus Aurelius]

It doesn't just restrict information about owners and such to law enforcement only. The point of contention is that restricting access to this trace data to only specific criminal investigations, prohibits access to aggregate data that law enforcement need to examine gun trafficking patterns and make key connections between separate cases.

It's a blatant attempt to protect gun manufacturers and gun dealers and also prohibits using this evidence in civil lawsuits. At the same time, it hinders useful investigations and research.

Police Organizations That Have Called For Repealing the Tiahrt Amendments

http://protectpolice.org/facts/
As of January 1, 2009
National Law Enforcement Associations:



International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) (http://www.theiacp.org/)
Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA) (http://www.neiassociates.org/about.htm#anchor361767)
Police Executive Research Foundation (PERF) (http://www.policeforum.org/)
International Brotherhood of Police Officers (IBPO) (http://www.ibpo.org/)
Police Foundation (http://www.policefoundation.org/)
Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association (HAPCOA) (http://www.hapcoa.org/)
National Latino Peace Officers Association (NLPOA) (http://www.nlpoa.org/)
National Black Police Association (NBPA) (http://www.blackpolice.org/)
National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE) (http://www.noblenational.org/)
National Sheriff’s Association (http://www.sheriffs.org/)
School Safety Advocacy Council (http://www.schoolsafety911.com/)

State Law Enforcement Associations:



California Association of Chiefs of Police
Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police
Connecticut Association of Chiefs of Police
Delaware Police Chiefs Council
Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police
Illinois Grand Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police
Kentucky Association of Chiefs of Police
Maine Association of Chiefs of Police
Maryland Municipal Law Enforcement Executives Association
Massachusetts Association of Chiefs of Police
Massachusetts Fraternal Order of Police State Lodge
Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police
Minnesota Association of Chiefs of Police
Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association
New England Association of Chiefs of Police
New Jersey County Prosecutors Association
New Mexico Association of Chiefs of Police
New York Association of Chiefs of Police
Oregon Association of Chiefs of Police
Rhode Island Police Chiefs Association
Texas Association of Chiefs of Police
Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police
Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (Washington State)

Local Law Enforcement:



More than 200 Individual Police Chiefs and Sheriffs on behalf of their jurisdictions.


Out of over 17,985 law enforcement agencies in the US.
http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/forum/28/2-3summerfall2011/f_lawenf_census.html

That's not eve 2%.

impressive.

[jimnyc]

It was a good comparison. I have often thought of it many times before. 90 states laws were enacted in 2011 regarding abortion and I kept asking myself how they could limit this right. Then I thought of the 2nd Amendment and understood.

Sure, they limit the ability to have abortions! LOL That's kind of in contrast with the millions of tiny bodies that continue to pile up year after year.

[Robert A Whit]

I do appreciate and respect your thoughtful observations on this issue, but still don't think it applies unless you're doing the "slippery slope" thing. Nobody is arguing for a permit, training, indoctrination, or anything of that nature. Needing to pass a background check to insure the guilty or insane doesn't purchase a gun is not a "near revocation of the 2nd amendment".

The background is a permit. If you don't pass, permission denied. Approved, permission granted.

I am not changing the topic since I deal with issues and principles.

Suppose you lived in an area troubled by a lot of crime. Cops search homes.

Suppose you had to get a background check/permission and if you did not, they can search your home at will with no warrant?

That is also, like guns, covered by an amendment.

But unlike the second amendment which has the shall not infringe on statement, the amendment calling for a legal warrant does not claim it must not be infringed on.

Do you accept cops busting in in spite of the amendment I speak of?

It seems you approve the Feds forcing you to be infringed upon by seeking permission.

[bingster]

Those of us supporting rights get bogged down in defending the 2nd amendment.

I in particular keep making the case that of all the amendments, the second is the one and only right that says in the amendment it may not be infringed upon.

Some point out one may not yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire.

We could list the 10 amendments and see if each is challenged as is the second.

Suppose you are at home. The cops show up and tell you they will barge in?

Do you believe they must have a warrant or is it some right that may be infringed on and they must get a warrant or not?

If you believe they must get a warrant, explain why we who enjoy the second amendment protections must seek a permit and background check, not required in your right to free speech?

Suppose you were told that for you to deliver free speech, you must first get a background check, and a permit to speak?

Would you agree with that as well?

BTW, I have not read the court case on yelling fire for some years. I tend to think that yelling Fire is not so much speech, as an alarm. It is a false alarm that in the past cost lives.

But by forcing me to obey a few of you just to own a gun makes no sense to me. They can't do any of this unless you permit them to keep up this charade.

We need the ACLU to stand up and fight. But alas, they won't. We know one group that has. The NRA. God bless the NRAl And they don't say they are the NPA, P for pistols, they say Rifle.

I think it makes some sense how you do point out that the 2nd is the only one that contains the words "infringed", but it has other words too that aren't taken as seriously in the latest Supreme Court decisions like "militia". If you connect the two, the amendment doesn't mean the same thing that today's Supreme Court supports:

"(1)The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" is part of the decision of washington vs heller. But the 2nd part says:
"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."

I would argue, though, that the 1st amendment has taken more grief over the years than the 2nd. I would imagine people's idea of what they think is and is not obscene has been a far more argued subject. But, I don't know, I haven't googled numbers of how many laws have been passed for each amendment, it's just a guess.

[bingster]

The background is a permit. If you don't pass, permission denied. Approved, permission granted.

I am not changing the topic since I deal with issues and principles.

Suppose you lived in an area troubled by a lot of crime. Cops search homes.

Suppose you had to get a background check/permission and if you did not, they can search your home at will with no warrant?

That is also, like guns, covered by an amendment.

But unlike the second amendment which has the shall not infringe on statement, the amendment calling for a legal warrant does not claim it must not be infringed on.

Do you accept cops busting in in spite of the amendment I speak of?

It seems you approve the Feds forcing you to be infringed upon by seeking permission.

Of course a background check is a form of permit, wow, that's embarrassing. Good point. But it's not the type of permit many countries have that require training, testing, qualifying, etc... like a drivers license. It's a 90 second electronic check. As long as you have no criminal or mentally disabled record, you pass. I don't think many people will support your argument if you think the guilty or insane should get guns.

I also don't think anyone is saying that if you fail a background check, they are going to search your house, unless maybe, you broke a law attempting to buy a gun.

Obviously, I don't support anyone busting in on me, but if they have a search warrant, we live in the world we live in.

[Robert A Whit]

While in my state, generally it is a cop that worked his way up the ladder to the top that is a police chief.

My son in law was a cop for many years. And is in retirement due to an on the job injury.

He does not accept the infringement on the second amendment. I have no recall of talking to cop clients that they approve either.

I suspect that some states a person with a degree in Administration of Justice, which my daughter has, may not have to have been a cop working his way up to be police chief.

My daughter is a strong supporter of the second amendment and believes like her old fart dad that it must not be infringed on.

Any act to channel owners, to put them into groups who though never convicted of a crime can't get a permit to own a gun means rights are infringed on.

Take the case of a pissed off exwife. She does not ever call the cops but goes to court to get a restraining order based on her claim (FALSE entirely) that her life was threatened on the phone by a former spouse, despite said spouse and her being divorced over a decade and said spouse at no time put her in danger, nor said he would harm her with a gun, due to the crap women pull to hurt a former spouse, said Judge still issues a restraining order. Said Judge orders the wronged spouse to turn in his guns. (of course he merely put them in the safekeeping of a friend) (also, he spoke to the police department and they informed him they had no way to store said weapons)

False claims can and do harm innocent citizens.

Said spouse spent over $5,000 defending his good name. Usually judges in such cases issue restraining orders for 3 years. In this case the judge shortened it drastically and only for 1 year.

She claimed she got threatened over the phone. Said spouse had not even talked to her. No phone records were shown that tied said former spouse to her claims.

Even more strange is she never so much as told any cop her life was ever threatened. She had no police reports to show the judge.

You merely had a judge no5 5o 2qn5 5o stick her neck out so she issued the restraining order.

BTW, said woman spouse that did an injustice did so when said male spouse informed her he had no intention of ever remarrying her again. She paused a few weeks and out of spite used the court to get him.

[Robert A Whit]

Of course a background check is a form of permit, wow, that's embarrassing. Good point. But it's not the type of permit many countries have that require training, testing, qualifying, etc... like a drivers license. It's a 90 second electronic check. As long as you have no criminal or mentally disabled record, you pass. I don't think many people will support your argument if you think the guilty or insane should get guns.

I also don't think anyone is saying that if you fail a background check, they are going to search your house, unless maybe, you broke a law attempting to buy a gun.

Obviously, I don't support anyone busting in on me, but if they have a search warrant, we live in the world we live in.

This is almost too hard. When any poster has predecided that there are times when the Government must defy an amendment, to blanket infringe to nab a few, it is next to impossible to reason with them. When I last purchased an M-1 Garand, it took not 90 seconds, as if time mattered to my point on principle, but two weeks. I was at the mercy of bureaucrats who at any moment with no explanation could stop that sale.

The fact that I trained using the M-1 Garand in the Army till I was issued an M-14 was of no importance to them.

There has to be some other way so the Government does not infringe on the second amendment.

It would be entirely different were there no second amendment. But there it stands tall and i must defend that amendment.

Why can't they search with no warrant since they can and do violate the explicit language of the second amendment?

I recall some got very hostile just about the Patriot Act. Would they side with me or with you?

When you tell me that the actual words of the second amendment don't mean what they mean, you are saying to me that it is not a right at all despite it being an original named right.

I can't comprehend that sort of logic.

I don't know why this has not been ruled on by the Supreme Court.

Heller gave it a try but it seems that law-makers must not use it at all.

[bingster]

Out of over 17,985 law enforcement agencies in the US.
http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/forum/28/2-3summerfall2011/f_lawenf_census.html

That's not eve 2%.

impressive.

touche', but they only have one agency in support of them

[bingster]

This is almost too hard. When any poster has predecided that there are times when the Government must defy an amendment, to blanket infringe to nab a few, it is next to impossible to reason with them. When I last purchased an M-1 Garand, it took not 90 seconds, as if time mattered to my point on principle, but two weeks. I was at the mercy of bureaucrats who at any moment with no explanation could stop that sale.

The fact that I trained using the M-1 Garand in the Army till I was issued an M-14 was of no importance to them.

There has to be some other way so the Government does not infringe on the second amendment.

It would be entirely different were there no second amendment. But there it stands tall and i must defend that amendment.

Why can't they search with no warrant since they can and do violate the explicit language of the second amendment?

I recall some got very hostile just about the Patriot Act. Would they side with me or with you?

When you tell me that the actual words of the second amendment don't mean what they mean, you are saying to me that it is not a right at all despite it being an original named right.

I can't comprehend that sort of logic.

I don't know why this has not been ruled on by the Supreme Court.

Heller gave it a try but it seems that law-makers must not use it at all.

Some have said, "It's ironic that conservatives are so concerned about the 2nd amendment, when the patriot act took away all of the others". It's just food for thought. I'm not prepared to argue this so please don't bomb me people!

[Robert A Whit]

I think it makes some sense how you do point out that the 2nd is the only one that contains the words "infringed", but it has other words too that aren't taken as seriously in the latest Supreme Court decisions like "militia". If you connect the two, the amendment doesn't mean the same thing that today's Supreme Court supports:

"(1)The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" is part of the decision of washington vs heller. But the 2nd part says:
"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."

I would argue, though, that the 1st amendment has taken more grief over the years than the 2nd. I would imagine people's idea of what they think is and is not obscene has been a far more argued subject. But, I don't know, I haven't googled numbers of how many laws have been passed for each amendment, it's just a guess.

Some key in on the term well regulated militia as if it applied to the full context of the amendment and decided it only means militia. So Heller cleared that up. Of course a number of left wing Justices did not agree.

I bifarcate the amendment. It speaks of a well regulated militia that I believe has arms handed to it during the training but it also speaks of the rest of us not in a militia. We the people must not have that right infringed.

I wish this part was the subtext of Heller.

I mean to say the Supreme Court should have issued a proclamation that the Feds or states must not in any fashion violate our rights in any way, including back ground checks.

This may sound to you as if I want criminals and crazy types that are known to be dangerous to own guns.

Those types took an action against the best interests of the public.

I don't want any of them to own guns.

But the criminal system has already identivied the criminals who pose a danger. I think a man that robbed using a gun clearly should be banned. A guy in jail for taking money from the company till did not use a gun, he used a pen to cash a check or some non violent way to take private property.

My gun is my private property. And there are rulings as well on private property rights.

[Robert A Whit]

Some have said, "It's ironic that conservatives are so concerned about the 2nd amendment, when the patriot act took away all of the others". It's just food for thought. I'm not prepared to argue this so please don't bomb me people!

The patriot act was more than searching.
The patriot act was modeled on a long accepted law. (RICO laws in fact)
The target of the patriot was not innocent citizens as the back ground check is about, but of proven terrorists.
It did not allow the Feds to check my phone calls. I got no calls nor sent calls to terrorists.

If some person in the USA trafficked with terrorists, sure, with a FISA warrant, those were allowed.

At least with that law, they went after proven criminals.

When I try to buy a gun, they are not dealing with a criminal I have never had a criminal record.

Yet to catch a few, they with no warrant, violate my rights, so stated in the constitution just to get at a few. And most of them are American citizens where most of the people covered by the Patriot were terrorists.

If you want to know how the Congress snapped out so fast and approved it so fast, just study RICO laws that in fact deprive you of property based only on suspicion.

Few Americans seem to realize this so they make no big deal of RICO.

Say you own a home. And you move out and rent it. You find out only after the cops arrest the renters they used it to traffic in drugs. RICO allows them to take your home from you and I think you will play hell trying to recover the value from them.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Some have said, "It's ironic that conservatives are so concerned about the 2nd amendment, when the patriot act took away all of the others". It's just food for thought. I'm not prepared to argue this so please don't bomb me people!

If you're not prepared to argue a point, why the fuck bring it up, dumb ass?

[Abbey Marie]

If you're not prepared to argue a point, why the fuck bring it up, dumb ass?

Sheesh. She clearly said it was just food for thought.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=613139#post613139)
I have never heard that any bullet that killed somebody gave a shit if it came from a single shot weapon or a machine gun.

As to background checks, autos kill many more than do guns.

Let's, see, autos are registered, safety checked, drivers are trained, licensed, fined, suspended, arrested, etc... you have a point?



They are indeed. Do they FIRST submit to a background check by the FEDs just to own and operate an automobile? I am surprised a bright man such as you missed that point.

When was the last time that you, to buy a car, had to be background checked by the Feds? Yet autos kill far more humans than guns in America kill. Oh, Guns are highly regulated as well as to their manufacture. In fact, Gun making firms have even been sued though they had no control over the gun since it was sold as personal property to some guy that did a crime.

Suppose just to buy a car, everybody had to pass a background check and said check lasted two weeks?

I covered that, I don't know what you're getting at with the "two weeks" comment


It has taken 2 weeks to buy my last gun purchase. Also, what do you think you know about what all they check on and how they disqualify you?

Are you getting it yet?

What you want is just like an item was stolen from your home so every home within say 5 miles distance got searched to find your property.

Background checks are for people buying guns. I don't know what you think I want or what is being attempted, but it looks like you're flailing against a straw man again!

No, you simply don't seem able to deal with principles. I don't blame you since I don't see any signs you were schooled in legal principles. Not to brag, but I was.

What happens is that not only the guilty, who you and I agree ought not to own guns, but the vast majority of innocent citizens are totally messed with by back ground checks.

My point is if you approve all who perhaps could be guilty, why not search all homes in a radius of 5 miles using your own logic?

What you can't understand is that almost all you want to be deprived of constitution rights are simply not guilty.

See one man who ran a stop light in a Honda so you simply issue tickets to all Honda owners in the city. Makes sense you say?

It is one thing to do a thing to some guilty person, quite another to sweep in the vast innocent to please your lust for control.


The rest of that is ridiculous. Background checks for everyone buying a gun is not only favored by 95% of the country, it's favored by 70% of NRA members, and was favored by Wayne LaPierre in 1999. The expectation that only folks with a clean record both criminally and mentally can buy guns is logical. The only way to prove it is through background checks at the time of purchase.

While My comments can be in error, can be due to mistakes in not knowing law, they are never ridiculous. You make wrong statements yet I have never told you you are ridiculous. My statements ARE ME, so to label my statements as ridiculous means I would be ridiculous.

I don't you claiming 95 percent don't mind losing their rights. I happen to mind. I think most of us arguing on this forum also mind. Based on stupid people (my biased opinion) voting for Obama, I know over half teh voters are not too bright. Sorry if you voted for the man. I mean most of them are not bright.

It is my view that the NRA is not your enemy. They may, if you are correct, be more of an enemy to me than one might suspect. If the NRA takes action to remove my rights, I shall never support them. I have to research their views first though.

When a nation experiences so many deaths on the highways, does not require background checks to buy automobiles, then tells me it is for my own good to check me to buy a gun, bull crap. They are not trying to stop killing, they hate guns. They don't do this to auto buyers.

Your chances of dying at the hands of a driver are great. Very slight chance that Billy the Kid types will get you is so small it is almost not worth discussing.

[Robert A Whit]

Sheesh. She clearly said it was just food for thought.

You misspoke. Bingster is a man.

[bingster]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=613139#post613139)
I have never heard that any bullet that killed somebody gave a shit if it came from a single shot weapon or a machine gun.

As to background checks, autos kill many more than do guns.


They are indeed. Do they FIRST submit to a background check by the FEDs just to own and operate an automobile? I am surprised a bright man such as you missed that point.

When was the last time that you, to buy a car, had to be background checked by the Feds? Yet autos kill far more humans than guns in America kill. Oh, Guns are highly regulated as well as to their manufacture. In fact, Gun making firms have even been sued though they had no control over the gun since it was sold as personal property to some guy that did a crime.

Suppose just to buy a car, everybody had to pass a background check and said check lasted two weeks?


It has taken 2 weeks to buy my last gun purchase. Also, what do you think you know about what all they check on and how they disqualify you?

Are you getting it yet?

What you want is just like an item was stolen from your home so every home within say 5 miles distance got searched to find your property.

No, you simply don't seem able to deal with principles. I don't blame you since I don't see any signs you were schooled in legal principles. Not to brag, but I was.

What happens is that not only the guilty, who you and I agree ought not to own guns, but the vast majority of innocent citizens are totally messed with by back ground checks.

My point is if you approve all who perhaps could be guilty, why not search all homes in a radius of 5 miles using your own logic?

What you can't understand is that almost all you want to be deprived of constitution rights are simply not guilty.

See one man who ran a stop light in a Honda so you simply issue tickets to all Honda owners in the city. Makes sense you say?

It is one thing to do a thing to some guilty person, quite another to sweep in the vast innocent to please your lust for control.



While My comments can be in error, can be due to mistakes in not knowing law, they are never ridiculous. You make wrong statements yet I have never told you you are ridiculous. My statements ARE ME, so to label my statements as ridiculous means I would be ridiculous.

I don't you claiming 95 percent don't mind losing their rights. I happen to mind. I think most of us arguing on this forum also mind. Based on stupid people (my biased opinion) voting for Obama, I know over half teh voters are not too bright. Sorry if you voted for the man. I mean most of them are not bright.

It is my view that the NRA is not your enemy. They may, if you are correct, be more of an enemy to me than one might suspect. If the NRA takes action to remove my rights, I shall never support them. I have to research their views first though.

When a nation experiences so many deaths on the highways, does not require background checks to buy automobiles, then tells me it is for my own good to check me to buy a gun, bull crap. They are not trying to stop killing, they hate guns. They don't do this to auto buyers.

Your chances of dying at the hands of a driver are great. Very slight chance that Billy the Kid types will get you is so small it is almost not worth discussing.


I want to start by saying I apologize if I ever offend you, I don't intend to; you are obviously very smart and thoughtful.

We can go on and on with this, but you don't offer an alternative. Do we remain in the status quo that anyone who watches the news knows is a easy hole in our system that allows anyone to acquire guns? Do we just leave the gun show, personal sales, and internet gaping chasms for criminals to EASILY access guns? Sure, it will always be possible to acquire guns somehow, but this is too easy. Isn't it?

[bingster]

The patriot act was more than searching.
The patriot act was modeled on a long accepted law. (RICO laws in fact)
The target of the patriot was not innocent citizens as the back ground check is about, but of proven terrorists.
It did not allow the Feds to check my phone calls. I got no calls nor sent calls to terrorists.

If some person in the USA trafficked with terrorists, sure, with a FISA warrant, those were allowed.

At least with that law, they went after proven criminals.

When I try to buy a gun, they are not dealing with a criminal I have never had a criminal record.

Yet to catch a few, they with no warrant, violate my rights, so stated in the constitution just to get at a few. And most of them are American citizens where most of the people covered by the Patriot were terrorists.

If you want to know how the Congress snapped out so fast and approved it so fast, just study RICO laws that in fact deprive you of property based only on suspicion.

Few Americans seem to realize this so they make no big deal of RICO.

Say you own a home. And you move out and rent it. You find out only after the cops arrest the renters they used it to traffic in drugs. RICO allows them to take your home from you and I think you will play hell trying to recover the value from them.


You made the point, though. They don't need a warrant. I'm not a conspiracy theory believer, but that is scarey.

[red states rule]

ATF gunwalking scandal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.21wmf8/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Weapons_Seized_Naco_Sonora_20_Nov_2009.jpeg)




The United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms _and_Explosives) (ATF) ran a series of "gunwalking" sting operations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sting_operation)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal#cite_note-csm1-2)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal#cite_note-wapoa-3) between 2006[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal#cite_note-npr1-4) and 2011.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal#cite_note-csm1-2)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal#cite_note-nyt1-5)

Fast and Furious began under the George W. administration. It wasn't all about the current administration.

The president's approach to gun safety is a comprehensive one covering all aspects of the problem. His executive actions will hopefully bolster the trafficking, fact finding, and enforcement sides of the issue and legislation will, hopefully, get the background check piece done.

So another "blame Bush" excuse eh?

Actually, F&F was staged si libs could push for more gun laws here in the US




Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.
PICTURES: ATF "Gunwalking" scandal timeline (http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-31727_162-10009697.html) In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the "big fish." But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called "gunwalking," and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.
ATF officials didn't intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.
On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF's Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:
"Bill - can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks."


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/

[bingster]

So another "blame Bush" excuse eh?

Actually, F&F was staged si libs could push for more gun laws here in the US

That's an awesome article. I never heard of it. Thank you.

[red states rule]

That's an awesome article. I never heard of it. Thank you.

CBS was the only network that actually did their job when it came to F&F. So you have no further comment on Obama using MURDER to try and ram through more gun laws?

and by the BIng - you are always calling for background checks


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?39028-Obama-Administration-To-Busy-To-Enforce-Background-Check-Liars

[bingster]

So another "blame Bush" excuse eh?

Actually, F&F was staged si libs could push for more gun laws here in the US

Reading the article though, does not support what you're saying. The operation was not run for that purpose, it was found during the operation that it could push for "Demand Letter 3"-big difference. As I said before, the Obama administration did not start this operation.

I'm not on a "Blame Bush" bandwagon, I'm just tired of the "Blame Obama for Bush Actions" bandwagon. It sounds like the same thing, but really.

In fact, Bush had nothing to blame Clinton for, but he took shots at Clinton constantly. Until the very last thing he said to the American people before he left office he said for the umtieth time "I brought dignity to the White House"

[bingster]

CBS was the only network that actually did their job when it came to F&F. So you have no further comment on Obama using MURDER to try and ram through more gun laws?

and by the BIng - you are always calling for background checks


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?39028-Obama-Administration-To-Busy-To-Enforce-Background-Check-Liars

As I've said in prior posts. It's true that it's inexcusable that enforcement is spotty at best of gun laws. However, this isn't an excuse to prevent widening background checks to cover the loopholes. LaPierre brought this up to distract from the point. The bad guys don't get the guns with background checks-that's the point.

[red states rule]

As I've said in prior posts. It's true that it's inexcusable that enforcement is spotty at best of gun laws. However, this isn't an excuse to prevent widening background checks to cover the loopholes. LaPierre brought this up to distract from the point. The bad guys don't get the guns with background checks-that's the point.

Why pass MORE laws when the Feds do not enforce EXISTING laws?

If only you were so upset over Obama's gun running operation an d the murder of Brian Terry

[Marcus Aurelius]

As I've said in prior posts. It's true that it's inexcusable that enforcement is spotty at best of gun laws. However, this isn't an excuse to prevent widening background checks to cover the loopholes. LaPierre brought this up to distract from the point. The bad guys don't get the guns with background checks-that's the point.

You continue to make the assertion that background checks will stop 'bad guys' from getting guns. That is pure nonsense, as the 'bad guys'
DO NOT BUY GUNS LEGALLY!!!

[Robert A Whit]

I want to start by saying I apologize if I ever offend you, I don't intend to; you are obviously very smart and thoughtful.

We can go on and on with this, but you don't offer an alternative. Do we remain in the status quo that anyone who watches the news knows is a easy hole in our system that allows anyone to acquire guns? Do we just leave the gun show, personal sales, and internet gaping chasms for criminals to EASILY access guns? Sure, it will always be possible to acquire guns somehow, but this is too easy. Isn't it?

Thanks and I assure you that I shall let this drop and presume there was no malice intended. And no malice was intended by me either. Hope you don't think there was. If you think so, I too apologize.

So, the targets have to be the criminals that have proven to do crimes.

I suggest the following realizing it may not be the entire solution.

Since we want to target criminals, if they get a drivers license, a SS card or any form of ID needed to work, drive, fly and other things, they must show it to gun dealers or private parties and the government will put a code on it that it makes public and said buyer with the code will be denied.

The amendment must first be modified to state that such people will not own firearms.

If one can't produce an ID form with a "clean code" they won't buy a gun. This means all guns rather than the several Feinstein wants banned.

That at least starts to put the focus on the ones to be denied. One more idea, said ID can be designed by the Feds or state to the effect it will take some special lighting device that when turned on either displays the code or does not. (YOU and I for instance won't have the code) Said Criminals must be handed by the state that jails them a special card that can be used to ID them with protections the government understands just as they do for currency.

I am open for any ideas that go after those to be targeted.

This will mean that most of us will not be bothered.

[red states rule]

You continue to make the assertion that background checks will stop 'bad guys' from getting guns. That is pure nonsense, as the 'bad guys'
DO NOT BUY GUNS LEGALLY!!!

But felons have been stopped and they have lied on those background checks.

and the Obama Justice Dept is to busy to prosecute.

Only in liberalville is it logical to pass more laws when you are not enforcing the current laws. and when the problem gets worse -guess what - pass more laws!

[bingster]

You continue to make the assertion that background checks will stop 'bad guys' from getting guns. That is pure nonsense, as the 'bad guys'
DO NOT BUY GUNS LEGALLY!!!

and you keep making a child's argument! How do you think criminals buy guns? Do you think they all use some secret black market access that only mafia types know about? No, they use what's easily available. When they know that background checks are not performed at gun shows, they go to gun shows. When they see they can get their guns on the internet, they go to the internet. If we can shut those two avenues down for them, it will be more difficult for them. That is a good thing, and law abiding citizens shouldn't have a problem with it.

[bingster]

But felons have been stopped and they have lied on those background checks.

and the Obama Justice Dept is to busy to prosecute.

Only in liberalville is it logical to pass more laws when you are not enforcing the current laws. and when the problem gets worse -guess what - pass more laws!

And you refuse to acknowledge this president's efforts to correct the enforcement issue.

[Robert A Whit]

and you keep making a child's argument! How do you think criminals buy guns? Do you think they all use some secret black market access that only mafia types know about? No, they use what's easily available. When they know that background checks are not performed at gun shows, they go to gun shows. When they see they can get their guns on the internet, they go to the internet. If we can shut those two avenues down for them, it will be more difficult for them. That is a good thing, and law abiding citizens shouldn't have a problem with it.

Gun shows are where dealers show up to .... gasp, sell guns. Who taught you that the place is rife with illegal gun sellers?

Just to get a gun show permitted, they leap through hoops.

There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. Dealers are restricted in how and who they sell to.

Citizens are alleged by some, including the Rogue president Lincoln to be as much full of rights as the governments of this land are. But you sure can't see much evidence as run by Democrats.

Back when I was a toddler, my parents had many more rights than you or I have today.

Moment by moment Democrats plan to pluck out our rughts as if we were dead turkeys and they plucked out those feathers.

[bingster]

Gun shows are where dealers show up to .... gasp, sell guns. Who taught you that the place is rife with illegal gun sellers?

Just to get a gun show permitted, they leap through hoops.

There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. Dealers are restricted in how and who they sell to.

Citizens are alleged by some, including the Rogue president Lincoln to be as much full of rights as the governments of this land are. But you sure can't see much evidence as run by Democrats.

Back when I was a toddler, my parents had many more rights than you or I have today.

Moment by moment Democrats plan to pluck out our rughts as if we were dead turkeys and they plucked out those feathers.
Licensed dealers are not the only ones selling guns at gun shows. I have no problem with licensed dealers who have to use background checks. When you were a toddler, blacks couldn't vote, top tax bracket was 90%, you couldn't breath in LA during the summer months, etc....

[bingster]

Regardless of "enforcement", despite the fact that Obama has recommitted us to fix that, background checks DO STOP CRIMINALS from getting guns. Tens of thousands of buyers are stopped via background checks for having a criminal record. Would you rather those sales went through? Let me ask again....WOULD YOU RATHER THOSE SALES TO CRIMINALS WENT THROUGH?
SO, WHY NOT EXPAND THOSE CHECKS TO ALL PURCHASES? "CRIMINALS DON'T GO THROUGH BACKGROUND CHECKS" IS A LIE!

[Robert A Whit]

Licensed dealers are not the only ones selling guns at gun shows. I have no problem with licensed dealers who have to use background checks. When you were a toddler, blacks couldn't vote, top tax bracket was 90%, you couldn't breath in LA during the summer months, etc....

It seems to me that you want to force every seller into the business of selling guns. It is bad enough that Democrats have no clue of any sort what the second amendment means, they spend their life infringing on that amendment. Despite the clear words of the second, to wit: those rights may not be infringed. (some liberty with the wording taken)

How would you sell a gun, in the state of CA. Can you put an ad in the newspaper? Can you put an ad on Craigslist?

Before Democrats decided to try to kill the second amendment, we could pick up any paper fnd find ads there for guns.

No more.

I tried a CA gun site to sell some guns. I got no replies.
I went to Guns America and got action.

Guns America understands and practices the second amendment.

A right to be a right must never suffer democrats ham handed idea of regulation.

[bingster]

It seems to me that you want to force every seller into the business of selling guns. It is bad enough that Democrats have no clue of any sort what the second amendment means, they spend their life infringing on that amendment. Despite the clear words of the second, to wit: those rights may not be infringed. (some liberty with the wording taken)

How would you sell a gun, in the state of CA. Can you put an ad in the newspaper? Can you put an ad on Craigslist?

Before Democrats decided to try to kill the second amendment, we could pick up any paper fnd find ads there for guns.

No more.

I tried a CA gun site to sell some guns. I got no replies.
I went to Guns America and got action.

Guns America understands and practices the second amendment.

A right to be a right must never suffer democrats ham handed idea of regulation.

Background checks have nothing to do with what you are talking about.

[bingster]

You continue to make the assertion that background checks will stop 'bad guys' from getting guns. That is pure nonsense, as the 'bad guys'
DO NOT BUY GUNS LEGALLY!!!

This is a juvenile argument. Yes, it's ILLEGAL for bad guys to buy guns. I'm so happy you know that. But another line is much more important. Criminals use legal methods to buy guns. According to NCIS over 70,000 sales are denied to criminals per year. It makes sense that after they are denied, they'll go somewhere in which background checks are not used-and that's my point!
Background Checks stop Criminals!!!

[jimnyc]

This is a juvenile argument. Yes, it's ILLEGAL for bad guys to buy guns. I'm so happy you know that. But another line is much more important. Criminals use legal methods to buy guns. According to NCIS over 70,000 sales are denied to criminals per year. It makes sense that after they are denied, they'll go somewhere in which background checks are not used-and that's my point!
Background Checks stop Criminals!!!

I suppose it's a good thing that only person to person sales are the only way to bypass a criminal background check then. You point out how many sales are denied per year to those with criminal history. That's good, it sounds like it is working. Now, what numbers can you present us, showing that criminals get their guns from person-to-person sales? All the murders they commit would of course come back to the prior owner, so at least a large portion of this data should be available.

[Marcus Aurelius]

This is a juvenile argument. Yes, it's ILLEGAL for bad guys to buy guns. I'm so happy you know that. But another line is much more important. Criminals use legal methods to buy guns. According to NCIS over 70,000 sales are denied to criminals per year. It makes sense that after they are denied, they'll go somewhere in which background checks are not used-and that's my point!
Background Checks stop SOME, but no where near ALL Criminals!!!

I corrected your statement in RED above.

[Robert A Whit]

Background checks have nothing to do with what you are talking about.

I suggested cures to your problem.

1. If a person is arrested, that calls for them to have an ID card with an invisible code on it.
2. If sentenced to prison, the system changes the code.
3. All humans in the USA have an ID card with codes on it only visible to those with unique equipment.

That is it.

That way those with criminal backgrounds are the ones that took action to get rid of second amendment rights once the constitution gets a new amendment laying this out.

[bingster]

I suggested cures to your problem.

1. If a person is arrested, that calls for them to have an ID card with an invisible code on it.
2. If sentenced to prison, the system changes the code.
3. All humans in the USA have an ID card with codes on it only visible to those with unique equipment.

That is it.

That way those with criminal backgrounds are the ones that took action to get rid of second amendment rights once the constitution gets a new amendment laying this out.

Seems you are referring to the national ID which is a whole new can of worms that I'm not prepared to argue. The background checks are already being done and can simply be expanded. I think I'll take the latter.

[Robert A Whit]

Seems you are referring to the national ID which is a whole new can of worms that I'm not prepared to argue. The background checks are already being done and can simply be expanded. I think I'll take the latter.

When this country already runs on a national ID system, a minor tweak to the criminals ID and problem solved.

Mess with the guiltly and stop going after the innocents.

[taft2012]

I suggested cures to your problem.

1. If a person is arrested, that calls for them to have an ID card with an invisible code on it.
2. If sentenced to prison, the system changes the code.
3. All humans in the USA have an ID card with codes on it only visible to those with unique equipment.

That is it.

That way those with criminal backgrounds are the ones that took action to get rid of second amendment rights once the constitution gets a new amendment laying this out.

I got a better idea.

Microchip convicted felons like they do with pets.

One scan: Poof! Sorry, you can't buy a gun.
One scan: Poof! Sorry, you can't vote.

[jimnyc]

I suppose it's a good thing that only person to person sales are the only way to bypass a criminal background check then. You point out how many sales are denied per year to those with criminal history. That's good, it sounds like it is working. Now, what numbers can you present us, showing that criminals get their guns from person-to-person sales? All the murders they commit would of course come back to the prior owner, so at least a large portion of this data should be available.

Do you have data that shows the amount of "damage" done by person to person gun sales and the amount of murders?

[bingster]

When this country already runs on a national ID system, a minor tweak to the criminals ID and problem solved.

Mess with the guiltly and stop going after the innocents.

This country doesn't run on a national ID system. SSN card doesn't count.

[bingster]

I got a better idea.

Microchip convicted felons like they do with pets.

One scan: Poof! Sorry, you can't buy a gun.
One scan: Poof! Sorry, you can't vote.

I don't know, man. It didn't work on my cat. I had to go back three times to get it right.


:laugh:

[Robert A Whit]

I got a better idea.

Microchip convicted felons like they do with pets.

One scan: Poof! Sorry, you can't buy a gun.
One scan: Poof! Sorry, you can't vote.


What stops them from removing the chip?

Sounds like a good idea. Maybe it is planted inside their head. If they operate on themselves or others do, chances are they die.

[bingster]

I suppose it's a good thing that only person to person sales are the only way to bypass a criminal background check then. You point out how many sales are denied per year to those with criminal history. That's good, it sounds like it is working. Now, what numbers can you present us, showing that criminals get their guns from person-to-person sales? All the murders they commit would of course come back to the prior owner, so at least a large portion of this data should be available.

You know very well there's no way to get those numbers to you. It's been reported on numerous links that the 40% number is probably way too high, but common sense dictates that 15% is way too low. Let's just make it simple and say all have to be checked. If your gun shows up where it doesn't belong, there better be a background check on the buyer, or you better have reported it stolen.

[bingster]

What stops them from removing the chip?

Sounds like a good idea. Maybe it is planted inside their head. If they operate on themselves or others do, chances are they die.

I was wondering that myself.

[Robert A Whit]

This country doesn't run on a national ID system. SSN card doesn't count.

It is much easier and cheaper to convert it to a truly great ID system than your concepts offer.

And one won't find many innocents caught up as your system does.

[Robert A Whit]

You know very well there's no way to get those numbers to you. It's been reported on numerous links that the 40% number is probably way too high, but common sense dictates that 15% is way too low. Let's just make it simple and say all have to be checked. If your gun shows up where it doesn't belong, there better be a background check on the buyer, or you better have reported it stolen.

I forgot to mention to you that around 1983, my home was invaded by somebody and that jerk stole an almost brand new Ruger .357 revolver. I purchased it brand new and kept it in what I figured was a safe place, close enough to defend myself in the evening.

Would you believe that I kept the weapon inside the original box and despite me including a background check form, that jerk has never returned it to the authorities.

I expected he would be honest enougy to obey the law.

[Robert A Whit]

Bingster, you claim we don't have a national ID System.

Tell you "wot"

If you go to the SS office for benefits, leave that SS card home. We don't use it for national ID.

I believe you said that to me.

[jimnyc]

You know very well there's no way to get those numbers to you. It's been reported on numerous links that the 40% number is probably way too high, but common sense dictates that 15% is way too low. Let's just make it simple and say all have to be checked. If your gun shows up where it doesn't belong, there better be a background check on the buyer, or you better have reported it stolen.

So you have NO numbers and facts - yet you seem fairly certain about how many guns have been sold without background checks. And in reality you have NO IDEA how many guns may or may not have been used to kill, that were bought without a check, if at all.

It's difficult to state more background checks are needed when it can't truly be articulated how many are being bought without a check now. It's difficult to state that criminals are buying guns from a person to person sale, and then murdering, when there is little to nothing to support that. In other words, you want changes based on little to no facts.

[Robert A Whit]

So you have NO numbers and facts - yet you seem fairly certain about how many guns have been sold without background checks. And in reality you have NO IDEA how many guns may or may not have been used to kill, that were bought without a check, if at all.

It's difficult to state more background checks are needed when it can't truly be articulated how many are being bought without a check now. It's difficult to state that criminals are buying guns from a person to person sale, and then murdering, when there is little to nothing to support that. In other words, you want changes based on little to no facts.

Guns sold with no background check?

I respect the rights of the people of this country too much to attempt as a private party to submit them to back ground checks. I had them mail to me their Fire Arms dealer collectors or dealers liscense. I sold an Army rifle to a man that served as an officer in the Army. I spoke to him first and can tell if a man really served as he claims he did. I then shipped that weapon to a licensed dealer in a town near his home.

I am content no gun went to a criminal.

Say you or I sold a gun to Bingster. Is he a candidate to have his background checked?

[jimnyc]

Guns sold with no background check?

I respect the rights of the people of this country too much to attempt as a private party to submit them to back ground checks. I had them mail to me their Fire Arms dealer collectors or dealers liscense. I sold an Army rifle to a man that served as an officer in the Army. I spoke to him first and can tell if a man really served as he claims he did. I then shipped that weapon to a licensed dealer in a town near his home.

I am content no gun went to a criminal.

Say you or I sold a gun to Bingster. Is he a candidate to have his background checked?

My brother in Georgia also had another personal owner perform a check before selling him a pistol. He was checked when he bought his .40 at a show too. He has a shitload of guns and every single one purchased included a check. But yeah, I concede that person-person sales happen without the same checks. I'm just not convinced this is the "loophole that causes all our murders", or that it's really the root of any murders for that fact, at least without some data to back it up. Like I said, "personally", I'm not against a standard criminal background check, even person-person, but I do think it should be for the right reasons. Right now it's based on fear.

[Robert A Whit]

My brother in Georgia also had another personal owner perform a check before selling him a pistol. He was checked when he bought his .40 at a show too. He has a shitload of guns and every single one purchased included a check. But yeah, I concede that person-person sales happen without the same checks. I'm just not convinced this is the "loophole that causes all our murders", or that it's really the root of any murders for that fact, at least without some data to back it up. Like I said, "personally", I'm not against a standard criminal background check, even person-person, but I do think it should be for the right reasons. Right now it's based on fear.

Was that "Asshole" or do you have another brother? :laugh:

I did not contact the Government at all to sell my guns.

I dunno how they get guns to kill with. Some use guns kept at the home, some steal guns. Who knows what those crazy suckers do to get guns.

To make my view clear, we are speaking of an amendment here. And it must not be infringed on.

Let's swap terms of the second amendment with one of the others to get the point.

Would you think it is fine to search a persons home for drugs unless they first had a background check?

Cops could just search your home until you first passed a background check.

The left wingers would scream their asses off and go wild to stop that. They would demand a warrant.

If they want to get a judge to sign a warrant to stop me from buying a gun, let them have a go at that.

They wrote up those amendments the way they did for reasons.

Suppose to be covered by all amendments, we had to pass a background check?

What they tell us in effect is that we only get our right to a gun, provided they tamper with our rights.

I don't accept that one bit.

[jimnyc]

Was that "Asshole" or do you have another brother? :laugh:

Asshole is in NJ. The gun nut is the "Redneck" down in Georgia. Then I have an "Idiot" for a sister, also in NJ. I suppose it would be rude not to mention I have a brother in SC too, from a different Mom, but same Dad. I don't call him many names though, so "Dan" will have to suffice.

Then all of us kids have kids of our own, and I have names for all those little bastards too! :laugh2:

[red states rule]

This may explain the violence since libs dismiss the argument that a liberal run city with strict gun laws is having a record number of murders on the streets


http://tpc.pc2.netdna-cdn.com/images/Talibam_Chicago_Peace_Time_Cover.jpg