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.

because i dont agree with every terminology that the US Government gives weapons... any weapon is an assault weapon if you want to get down to silver nails... firearms were initially created to defend people, also, kill those that try to disrupt their lives... they didnt have Olympic trap shooting competitions with Blunderbusses, so what were they created for? killing people, or anything that tried to disrupt their lives...

my whole point is IR, other people should not be punnished for what another person does.. guns should not be labeled worse than another gun, because a few dickweeds used that style weapon in killings, because the fact still remains, that other weapons could have done MORE damage than the weapons used... but they blame the guns, and not the person behind that gun... they blame the manufacturers for making said guns, and other manufacturers, for making said magazines to hold ammunition, like they are the ones that made the gun "more dangerous"... limiting ammuntion capacity, and or style of weapons, will not do anything to curb mental rejects from shooting people, and causing havoc... never will happen..

i actually have no problem with people having to pass a background check at a gun show, or for internet sales... but the thing is, with internet sales, especially from reputable sites like gunbroker, the guns have to be transfered to a FFL licensee, and then you pay the fee and guess what? have to fill out the paperwork, and be cleared by NICS to obtain it... atleast thats what ive been told, and have had to do myself...

the problem is, is that that would just be the start of me, you, and American citizens slowly being stripped of their rights, because the Government wouldnt just stop right there, they would continue to do more... and once you lose it, you wont get it back... if certian states want to increase stuff, then let them, but a broad "you have to do this" from the US Government, isnt a Democracy, its a Dictatorship, and look throughout history how well Dictatorships worked...

then we have Gabby Giffords now, blabbing... yeah, shes an inspiration to the entire nation, and what happened to her was extremely unfortunate... BUT, those that spoke yesterday, the families of the Newton shooting, want "assault weapons" banned, because they are the reason that their children are dead, and all the while, Mrs. Giffords is an owner of "assault rifles" and "loves shooting them" as she has said publicly... thats hypocritical at its finest... the US Government is trying to use the shooting as a platform to basically taking control of citizens rights, and thats not what this country was founded on, and completely goes against everything they fought for, and even continue to fight for...

our soldiers, past, present and future, fight for your right to FREEDOM... stripping away rights, isnt giving freedom... its dictating what you can and cannot do, basically what the US Government does to all other countries of the world... we can have it, but you cant... yeah well, im not so happy about that, or them even thinking about that...

The United States isn't a democracy.

Why do people keep claiming it is?

simple description of what we have and don't have

Good point, Dan.

as of 2011 the Democratic Index, compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit, categorized us as a "Full Democracy"...


im not a political guy, matter of fact i hate it.. but if i had to answer the question, i would say we are a Democratic-Republic, just like some of the first presidents were Democratic-Republicans... now its just way more screwed up, and the term has been altered and molested to fit anothers point of view...

but like i said, im not a politico...

We are a Representative Republic, NOT a democracy - regardless of what the EIU says they categorize us as.

Times two billions.

Not understanding that is right up there with the large amounts of folks who still don't know what the electoral college is, or how it works.

Don't they teach civics in high school any more?

Fish on...

Todd

They teach it but RedHook didn't graduate.

The bill might be flawed but, an increasing majority of the nation is calling for more background checks. With each additional public shooting event, more people jump on board. In the end, something will get passed. Like it or not, like gay marriage and marijuana legalization, this has momentum.

I think that's the part that the anti's were wrong about, Hank...I'm pretty sure that the new law would have left the background check paperwork with the dealer who sold it, and even went further and forbade anything at all like a registry.

Fish on...

Todd

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/04/senate-vote-background-checks-manchin-toomey.php

"Centrist senators who were courted eventually revealed their opposition to the proposal this week, making it all but clear by Wednesday that it lacked the votes to pass. Opponents voiced gripes ranging from an alleged infringement on Second Amendment rights to the more far-reaching — and inaccurate — claim that the legislation would set up a national gun registry."

The NRA suckups in the Senate, of course, new this...and so did the NRA...but the NRA kept telling its membership the lie anyway, and that scared the Senators who are up for re-election in red states from doing what most of their constituents want.

Anyone who thinks that the NRA is good for our country must not like democracy, or any other form of representative government.

They lied, and intentionally...and many believed them.

The good thing is that with the way our country is moving is that the NRA will be relegated to the dustbin before too many years go by.

We'll have to see if anything changes for their handpicked suckups in the 2014 and 2016 elections.

Fish on...

Todd

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/04/ted-cruz-national-gun-registry.php

Ted Cruz Admits Background Check Bill Doesn’t Seek To Create Gun Registry

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who has been raising fears that expanding background checks would bring about a national gun registry, conceded Wednesday that the legislation doesn’t actually do that. But he warned that the bill would encourage future efforts to allow a registry.

Federal law prohibits the creation of a national gun registry. And the Manchin-Toomey background check legislation makes it a felony, punishable by a fine and 15 years in prison. TPM asked Cruz on Wednesday morning how the bill would lead to a registry.

“I don’t disagree that on its face, the currently pending legislation does not purport to create a national gun registry,” Cruz said. But he argued that the bill wouldn’t achieve the desired results without a registry and motivate gun control supporters to push for the creation of one.

*************

Fish on...

Todd

the United States Government needs to learn how to take care of its people, not take things away from them...

Vets that go and fight for us, get treated like crap when they come home, meanwhile, we are taking care of the people that we attack, wtf for real?

people are acting like guns are super easy to obtain illegally or legally, well, in some areas yes, but generally, they arent that easy to obtain, IF the shop is legal in their practices, illegally, different story... you cannot stop the criminal aspect of firearms trafficing, i highly doubt they will fold and start doing NICS checks on potential customers on the black market before selling a firearm to them... shops that sell or are caught selling even 1 round of ammunition to a non qualified legal adult should have their business licenses stripped forever, and a mandatory 1 year in prison, that might make them think about selling 9mm ammo to a 17 year old because they are friends of the store owner...

the government already controls us enough, they need to learn to take care of their people, and maybe, just maybe, people wouldnt be so pissed off at the world to do crazy sh!t... but something so easy, is far too outlandish to even consider, this country runs on complicating things, and making things worse than they really need to be...

If anyone thinks for a moment that background checks aren't part of a registry...... give me a break. You give government any info it is held for future use.....bank it.

and stop selling BBs and bearings too! uh what the hell! nails also.

Is this surprising or what???



Libtards

Now that's a chuckler!

Not surprising.

Large urban areas = higher crime rate.

Large urban areas = more liberals.

However it's a false logic that presumes either factor is causative of the other. This would be the conclusion of a critical thinker, who statistically is more likely to be liberal than conservative. Just the way it is. Conservatives are dissuasive of critical thinking because critical thinking undermines several basic conservative concepts.

(A)Large urban areas = (B)higher crime rate.

(A)Large urban areas = (C)more liberals.


If A=B and A=C, then C must =B.

Salmo - don't try to be logical, when emotions clearly govern how we make decisions today.

There was a surprising NRA defection today... Nice to see someone doing something *other* than just parroting talking points from his (red/blue) team playbook
http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2013/04/19/anheuser-busch-heir-quits-the-nra-in-protest/

You mean the way "critical thinking" liberals see guns as the cause of crime?

No, I think he means un-critical thinking where conservatives say stupid schit like that RvW and actually believe it.

Fish on...

Todd

LOL.

Even though I know that you have a deep and burning desire to believe that statement, I can't imagine that you really do.

There are a lot of things you can't imagine.

It's a sign of your lack of IQ points.

Hit up Illy - he has at least 30 points he isn't currently using that he might loan to you.

Stand up Dan.

+1

No can do - I'm working on getting a plane grounded at JBLM back into the air, so I have to camp at my desk for another little while.

Your saying that you know what my deep and burning desire I have, in the absence of my having told you, is illustrative of a lack of critical thinking. That you're conservative isn't indicative of causation, but of correlation. Same as your B must = C, correlation is not causation, a concept often not grasped by those lacking critical thinking skills. Thank you for making an example of yourself.

Sg

By definition critical thinkers don't see guns as the cause of crime. But a non-critical thinking conservative might leap to the false assumption that liberals, critical thinking or not, see guns as the cause of crime.

Sg

jfc Sg........

You trying to sell that liberals DON'T views guns as the "problem". Not ALL, OK?.....MOST?

Because you're full of it, if that's your point.

Actually I said that I knew of this "deep and burning desire'' of yours because I am, a critical thinker, and I have been reading your posts for... perhaps... too long.

If you look back at the chronology and content of the posts following the map. You will see that you are the first to mention any "causation". I just stated a basic precept of algebra.

Your online persona usually appears to be that of a thoughtfull and rational person, however sometimes it seems that you simply cannot contain your liberal zeal, but alas, I have come to expect such behavior from you, after all you are the, "Definition of hyperbole".

I can only ass u me that you possess the critical thinking skills to comprehend my response. And you are surely most welcome.

No doubt.

There is a little paperback text book named "Logic and Sets." Some of the
not so critical thinkers should give it a read. De Morgan would approve.
Todd and other libtards would not understand so disregard.

Salmo I like you but I like you even more when you make outrageous, absurd and hillarious assumptions like you just posted.

Solid work buddy....keep it up and you'll have your own sitcom by fall.

My guess is, since it's a fed check you probably should answer the question on form #4473 with a NO, or you won't be taking home a firearm. Until the fed comes aboard, it probably won't change.

yes it would Hank, even medical card holders... by law, shops or FFL dealers are not allowed to sell you a firearm if they suspect or you admit that you are an unlawful user of Controlled Substances...

you arent even allowed to purchase ammunition....

State law does not trump federal law...

of course not, i get all my guns from gun shows and internet sites, no paperwork to fill out






















fyi, that was a joke ...

Just don't go buy a gun looking zooted like this guy, and you should be fine.