http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/...heck-amendment/

any thoughts?

One part that struck me was at 13:30 in where he says "even without congress, we are going to do more". What exactly does that entail, executive order or another covert Fast & Furious? It's going to be a fight every day until at least the mid-terms.
Newtown was a horrible crime, no one's denying that, but these laws wouldn't have stopped it either, but they just can't accept that.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 stopped direct sales across state lines, mandating all had to go through a licensed dealer and subject to a 4473 form. And with the NICS system in place they already have the background checks. Lying prick!

Flawed bill. Would not have acomplished anything that would have any substantial impact on crime. Fuck Obama, and shotgun Joe Biden.

Libturds are such emotional creatures.

Butt, they sure like to To Tell Us Unwashed Massses What Is Good For Us (Doesn't apply to them though)

Yeah, because it would be great if nothing had changed since the 1700's. Women not voting, minorities on the back of the bus, children working in factories - all fantastic things some liberal goon apparently thought should be changed.

The nerve..............

You ain't shitting.

They're so gung ho on altering the second amendment yet they can't even follow it in the first place evidenced by the fact that they can't keep a balanced budget. If you ask me I think gun control is already pretty fierce. I know there has been tragedy's like Newtown but we should all feel lucky that the Newtown tradgedy is not as random of an act as it could be. Instead of messing with the Constituition they should think about finding these types of people.

I would be a happy camper if women didn't vote...with exception of My Mom,Sister, and Aunty.

That was clever.....hehehe

ZZZ ZIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNG

stam is pretty good at making funnies.

Stam hits a home run.

bombs go off and kill and injure a bunch of people, they blame the bomber...

guy walks into a school with a stolen gun, kills and injures a bunch of people, and they blame the gun, and how many rounds it holds...


perfectly logical thinking...

Stam, that was BRILLIANT.

Natron, are you seriously going to try to be the point-man on the logic front? The bombs are *already* illegal, in fact just attempting to make them is illegal, and so we can arrest people before they deploy them, which happens all the time. Laws strengthening these statues, including the post 9-11 AEDPA, all receive broad support from both parties.

In both cases you list -- the weapon of choice (or of mass destruction if you want to be shrill) AND the perpetrator are both significant. It's just in one case the weapon rights are vigorously protected by corporate interests.

And here's a thought problem to disprove your ridiculous post -- imagine it was NOT illegal to make IED's, and the Boston bombing had gone down. Do you really believe we wouldn't be having the same discussions about having laws controlling the making and possessing bombs?

Having a gun on school grounds is already illegal and is arrestable thereby preventing a school shooting. The reality is there were a he.ll of a lot more cops in Boston than there was in Sandy Hook and even though those Boston Cops, State Cops and Feds tried, even "swept" for bombs, they couldn't stop a despicable person from going crazy.

What it comes down to is we'll never stop sh.ithouse crazy people from killing people, no matter how many laws there are.

dont start throwing around the IED terminology, its like using "assault" infront of "rifle"...

it is illegal to posses them yes, to an extent... plenty of people legally posses such materials and "bombs" as you may, but they dont go out and blow people up with them... just as sane legal gun owners dont go shoot up schools and stuff... it has nothing to do with the weapon involved...

if you are going to blame the bomber, then you must blame the GUNMAN, not the weapons he used...

plus another tidbit, you can go buy stuff just as powerful as what went off, and in some cases, more powerful, from tribal fireworks stands... why hasnt the government gone after them immeadiately? why didnt the government go after them after McVeigh? hopefully i dont need to answer that for you...

watch them use this as a ploy to strip reloading powders from the market because they can be used to build explosives like the one that killed and injured so many in Boston...

its the gun powders fault right?

This is such a head-shaker.

A Bad idea promoted in the extreme by self serving politicians, doesn't make it any better an idea.

So STFU Obama!

We need to ban pressure cookers, atleast a back ground check before purchasing one.

Red, not sure I follow you and I'm interested enough to want clarification on what you're asking me to imagine?

Natron
1. Why not use IED terminology? Isn't that pretty much an EXACT description of what we believe was used?

2. Of course I blame the gunman in the shootings. But unlike you I don't believe that all problems have exactly one solution. Yes, the gunman was a whackjob. An in all liklihood if he had access to knives only, he'd have killed people with them. But, and this is critical, since he had access to a less lethal weapon, he'd have a much lower chance of killing the same number of people.

3. At least one point of anti-bomb laws is to be able to arrest people with bad intentions BEFORE they commit the crime, vs. after. You get a tip about someone buying a truckload of fertilizer, you can act before they blow up a government building.

To the rest -- I think guns are a super complex issue. Please don't let my fencing here with Natron make you think I belive otherwise. I do think a legitimate conversation should be had about how to balance the benefits of gun ownership for personal safety and sporting activities against the idea that anyone can buy any imaginable weapon (machine guns, gatling guns, howitzers, whatever), and do so free of any required training, at any age, and without any concern about their mental health.

These are complex issues, and I support neither the draconian position of outlawing all guns of any kind, nor the equally draconian position that all weapons are fine anywhere/anytime.