Guns

[Crispy]

Don't we have more important things to deal with rather than gun control? Why don't we put the money and effort that we're expending on these pointless security blankets, and start actually researching, getting jobs, and losing debt? Wait, then our politicians would lose their jobs.

I would really like it for someone to tell me how you would stop something like Newtown or Aurora? Both kids were weird, both definitely had visible problems when they were younger. Both were also Law Abiding people until they committed the crime. Background checks wouldn't have stopped them. Leading up to the incident there were signs they would do something, but you wouldn't be able to have known for sure until they did it. Those signs are common throughout millions of children, to say that millions of children will grow up to become mass murderers is crazy. These signs have been in children for as long as we have been Homo Sapiens, and I've only heard about 20 or so actually doing something like this in the past decades.

You can't predict these problems, not unless you are Tom Cruise in Minority Report. Trying to predict these problems will be a headache. Taking away guns from the Law Abiding Citizen will leave said Law Abiding Citizen defenseless if they ever do need a gun. Do you need thirty rounds to protect yourself? Maybe, maybe not. The government doesn't need to choose what I need and don't need. What if they one day say I don't need a computer? Or a car? Or a job that pays more than Minimum Wage? Or a house with two bath/bedrooms? I should be the one deciding what I need when it concerns me, not someone who has no idea what it is like to live like me.

 

[d3uc3_dropp3r]

Anyone know Texas gun laws? Some guy was running around campuses stabbing people with a knife, nobody died as of yet I think. I'm waiting to see if Obama will cry and make a speech about it tonight. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/09/lone-star-college-stabbing/2067449/

 

[a6m5]

Don't we have more important things to deal with rather than gun control? Why don't we put the money and effort that we're expending on these pointless security blankets, and start actually researching, getting jobs, and losing debt? Wait, then our politicians would lose their jobs.

👍👍 It is so damn frustrating. If these dummies ran a company, they would run it into a ground in record time. It's government, it's not like business, I understand that, but they sure seem like they are too busy to address critical issues at hand, wasting so much time & effort on something that accomplishes nothing, except trying to handicap people who actually obey laws in first place.

I also agree with your second point. While school shootings are unforgivable crimes, gun violence on streets are unacceptable, 🤬 happens. Innocent people will still die. NRA's suggestion of armed guards at schools sounded crazy to me, initially. But more I think about it, how else would you minimize it. Obama & Biden's suggestion of retarding civilian owned firearms is very smart. They want to disarm us. People who follow them are completely missing the point though. Like it's been brought up before, how would any of their new gun control measure stopped Sandy Hook shooting? Sandy Hook was extremely tragic situation where everything went just right wrong, allowing a mentally disturbed young man to commit a horrendous crime. None of us wanted it, but you can't prevent everything. Especially hard to prevent it when everything just clicks at every turn for the killer. Armed security made up of retired military & police sounds nuts, but it would actually help prevent school shootings.

 

[Nicksfix]

Support for this stuff is waning and they know it. That is why he's out on the road trying to make the push. I think the worst we'll see is this "universal background check" stuff and even that probably isn't going to pass. People don't want it. If these "polls" showing support are correct, explain why so many people have joined the NRA and why guns and ammo are basically all sold out...

People don't want this stuff... Pure and simple.

+1:tup:

Here are some interesting things about universal background checks. Lets hope it does not happen.

Here is a good read. Within this article, you will have seen this ...

That suspicion is buttressed by a recent "white paper" prepared for the president by his Department of Justice, which theorized that the effectiveness of a universal background check requirement would depend in part upon requiring gun registration.

What is this "white paper" ? Have a look. The take a look at page 5 ...

Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing,requiring gun registration and an easy gun transfer process

Gun registration ... see that. So, what can we take from this. It's easy.

1.) Universal background checks will amount to registration.
2.) Gun registration will amount to gun confiscation.
3.) Gun confiscation will amount to extinction for private owners.

It happened in Australia, why can't it happen here ? It's the same road Australia went down. In all, universal background checks are a bad thing.

And Chuck Schumer is a liar when it comes to background checks.

 

[Zenith]

On universal registration...



Interesting bit at 2:20.

 

[Slash]

Our doctors offices are now requiring that we fill out a survey about if we owns guns and us signing off on it we do something stupid on our medication they aren't liable. Failure to sign of will result in no service. That's bullsh**. All they are doing is taking a survey to send to the state registry. I'm not telling them what I own and what I don't. Then the state shows up and seizes them? Don't think so there....

 

[Northstar]

Our doctors offices are now requiring that we fill out a survey about if we owns guns and us signing off on it we do something stupid on our medication they aren't liable. Failure to sign of will result in no service. That's bullsh**. All they are doing is taking a survey to send to the state registry. I'm not telling them what I own and what I don't. Then the state shows up and seizes them? Don't think so there....

I think you are a wee bit paranoid.

It's called covering their 🤬, can't say I blame them when bars are getting sued for what drunken idiots wind up doing.

 

[FoolKiller]

I think you are a wee bit paranoid.

It's called covering their 🤬, can't say I blame them when bars are getting sued for what drunken idiots wind up doing.

He's not being paranoid. It's part of New York's new gun laws.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ork-state-heres-the-justification-being-used/

It should only be asked when the doctor believes there is a threat. Even then no action should be taken without the patient being seen by a mental health worker. Primary care doctors are not trained for this. HIPAA laws should protect the patient from any sharing of his information without his consent unless his or other lives are in danger. If they are using medical histories and medical surveys to confiscate guns it is an extreme violation and puts doctors in an unethical position.

 

[MustangRyan]

My favorite fact about the idea of registration of firearms:


Mandated registration of firearms can only be used to punish law-abiding citizens. If you are a convicted felon, you cannot be forced to register an illegally possessed firearm, as it violates your fifth ammendment right against self-incrimination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

Think about that. The only people you don't want to have firearms are the only people that can't be punished for having them and failing to register them.

 

[Northstar]

He's not being paranoid. It's part of New York's new gun laws.

Until he shows me a case of it actually happening, he is being paranoid. People have been going on for decades that the government is going to take their guns and it hasn't happened, at least at the level people here seem to think it will happen.

 

[FoolKiller]

Until he shows me a case of it actually happening, he is being paranoid.

I gave you a link of a case pending trial right now where a man was instructed to turn in his guns or have them forcibly removed due to these doctor questions, as required by the New York SAFE ACT.

What do you want as a case if that doesn't count?

 

[Northstar]

I gave you a link of a case pending trial right now where a man was instructed to turn in his guns or have them forcibly removed due to these doctor questions, as required by the New York SAFE ACT.

What do you want as a case if that doesn't count?

I couldn't read it because the first two times I loaded it it prompted me with a "sign up for the news letter" page that I couldn't get rid of. I apologize for that part.

I would also suggest finding less biased websites, some research uncovered the person in question was prescribed anti-anxiety medication(more than likely) which can cause depression and impaired thinking. Neither of these things were mentioned in the article you posted(it did mention psychotropic drugs but didn't bother to say anything about them and didn't mention what the "client" was prescribed).

 

[Joel]

On universal registration...

Interesting bit at 2:20.

We got rid of our long gun registry a couple years back for precisely that reason, it's just an expensive bureaucratic nightmare that does nothing to address the guns (illegal handguns) that are being used in crimes. We were spending a (reported, but god knows how much it really was) 66.4 million on it every year. 66.4 million dollars. To keep track of Canada's guns. We had just under 8 million guns registered in 2010 and an estimated 10-12 million guns outside the system.

The costs of doing it in the US with 10 times the people and 250+ million guns would be simply astronomical, and you'd still only be collecting data from law abiding citizens who are willing to give up the information, not gangsters on the streets of Chicago. Just like the Canadian registry, it's a cute idea but you may as well be throwing hundreds of millions of tax dollars in a hole every year for how effective it is. If after 19 years of a gun registry, Canada couldn't get more than half of the guns registered, how can any rational person believe for a second that it can be done in the US?

 

[Keef]

...and you'd still only be collecting data from law abiding citizens who are willing to give up the information, not gangsters on the streets of Chicago.

Not even gangsters in Chicago, but otherwise-law-abiding citizens like many of us here in the Midwest, much less the South, Southwest, plains and mountains. Basically anywhere that leans Republican in elections, maybe half the "law-abiding" citizens actually register any guns besides the one(s) they use for their concealed carry license. So while a hick from backwoods Kentucky might have his pocket .380 registered, he's probably got at least 5 other pistols, rifles and shotguns that never have been registered and never will be. And of course this guy is a law-abiding citizen.

Just like the Canadian registry, it's a cute idea but you may as well be throwing hundreds of millions of tax dollars in a hole every year for how effective it is. If after 19 years of a gun registry, Canada couldn't get more than half of the guns registered, how can any rational person believe for a second that it can be done in the US?

Rational people don't. That's my only explanation. It's simply doesn't make sense, and for anybody not to see that tells me that they need some help advancing their logical problem solving skills. I'm no genius and I'm not the best philosopher but this stuff seems fairly elementary.

 

[Nicksfix]

From the mouth of 15 year old Sarah Merkle. You go girl 👍.

 

[arora]

I ranted my ass off about this some time back, I knew it would happen. Great, now the people who need mental health care the most will never seek it, way to go Obama/Bloomberg 👍

I would also suggest finding less biased websites, some research uncovered the person in question was prescribed anti-anxiety medication(more than likely) which can cause depression and impaired thinking. Neither of these things were mentioned in the article you posted(it did mention psychotropic drugs but didn't bother to say anything about them and didn't mention what the "client" was prescribed).

Have you ever taken a look at the laundry list of drugs we pump into our troops?

this is a total mess, I'll just sit back and watch the violent gun crime rates fall like rain.

EDIT: btw Obama's wife and her silly speech in Chicago or what ever it was was a complete joke. Didn't they already disarm the public there? Working great guys, keep it up.

 

[MiuraSV777]

From the mouth of 15 year old Sarah Merkle. You go girl 👍.

Proves how dumb our government is.... A person more than half most government workers' age is smarter and has more common sense than most government workers

 

[FoolKiller]

I would also suggest finding less biased websites,

I tend to avoid Alex Jones' InfoWars (and Breitbart) articles because those are anything but balanced.

some research uncovered the person in question was prescribed anti-anxiety medication(more than likely) which can cause depression and impaired thinking. Neither of these things were mentioned in the article you posted(it did mention psychotropic drugs but didn't bother to say anything about them and didn't mention what the "client" was prescribed).

I figured that the article stating that his guns were confiscated under a provision of the law that allows guns to be confiscated from people on these drugs made it pretty clear that is why it happened. That is why I went on to explain the flaw with the law, the HIPAA violations it presents, and the unethical action it forces on doctors.

Explaining why the law exists doesn't change that the doctor survey is now used to confiscate guns. It is worse than just that though, as it does not require a mental health professional's diagnosis. It actually creates a second class citizen out of law-abiding citizens for being responsible about dealing with their mental health. This is a guaranteed way to keep potential dangers from seeking treatment. Basing it on anti-anxiety drug use because of possible, but rare, side effects of medicine is ridiculous.

And if anti-anxiety drugs are one of the classes being watched then I should not be allowed a gun either, because one of the classes of drugs I'm on are being researched as anti-anxiety drugs after years of it being used for performance enhancement in stressful situations.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_blocker#Anxiety_and_performance_enhancement

UPDATE: Now we have a legitimate news source.
http://www.wivb.com/dpp/news/erie/gun-permit-suspended-over-medication

But never fear. If this happens to you all you have to do is get a lawyer and go public, then the police will claim they have the wrong man. Well, I hope they have a better excuse for the right man.

http://www.wivb.com/dpp/news/erie/police-wrongly-pulled-mans-gun-permit

AMHERST, N.Y. (WIVB) - State Police forced an Amherst man to turn in his guns after suspending his pistol permit over anti-anxiety medication. But now they say it was all a misunderstanding.

Erie County Clerk Chris Jacobs said, "Today, we all look like fools."

"David," a 34-year-old college librarian, recently had his pistol permit taken away. Erie County's Licensing Officer, Supreme Court Justice William Boller, was following a recommendation from State Police that David's permit be revoked because he used anti-anxiety medication in the past.

But then, just before the close of business Wednesday, County Clerk Chris Jacobs received a voicemail from State Police in Albany, saying it was all a mistake and that they had the wrong man.

"Now we find out that State Police and the Division of Criminal Justice in Albany got it wrong. They did not do their due diligence; they did not appropriately and fully investigate this to make sure it was the right person. And now, we have to quickly act to reinstate that right," Jacobs said.

The NY SAFE Act requires mental health providers to inform the state, when a permit-holder or someone trying to get a pistol permit is receiving mental health treatment or taking medication and is "likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others."

Jacobs believes David's case shows there is a serious flaw with that part of the law.

"If you try to read the legislation on the mental health provision and how this is supposed to work, it doesn't look like it's going to work on paper, and now we know it really doesn't work," Jacobs said. "And as a result, in this case, we had somebody who was, I think, probably embarrassed. Name was dragged out in public; they were deprived of their property and their rights here."

Attorney Jim Tresmond, who represents David, said, "Due process should come before the suspension. That's where due process comes in. Before your rights are taken, due process must occur. That's our constitutional right, not the reverse."

Jacobs is meeting with Judge Boller on Thursday. Most likely, he says, Boller will remove the suspension, and David will be able to retrieve his pistols from Amherst Police.

 

[a6m5]

From the mouth of 15 year old Sarah Merkle. You go girl 👍

Well said(not you, her lol). 👍

 

[Nicksfix]

Today (April 11), by a vote of 68-31, the U.S. Senate voted to move forward with debate and votes on a variety of gun control proposals.

The underlying bill that will be considered by the Senate is S. 649, the so-called “Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013”. This bill would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by law-abiding citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution. It is expected that a number of amendments will be offered to S. 649, including a ban on commonly and lawfully-owned firearms and magazines and language to criminalize the private transfer of firearms through an expansion of background checks. This includes the misguided “compromise” proposal drafted by Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV), Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

NRA’s position on these proposals is unmistakably clear—we are unequivocally opposed to S. 649, the amendments mentioned above, and any other anti-gun amendments. As we have noted previously, expanding background checks at gun shows or elsewhere will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools. Given the importance of these issues, votes on all anti-gun amendments or proposals will be considered in NRA’s future candidate evaluations.

If the Senate is truly concerned about enhancing safety, rather than political grandstanding, it will replace the current provisions of S. 649 with language that is properly focused on addressing mental health inadequacies; prosecuting violent criminals; and keeping our kids safe in their schools.

The next round of votes on these measures are likely to occur on Tuesday, April 16.

The most important thing NRA members and Second Amendment supporters can do right now is to call, email, write and fax their U.S. Senators, urging them to oppose S. 649 and all anti-gun amendments to that bill, and to encourage your family, friends and fellow firearm owners to do the same. To identify and contact your legislators in Washington, D.C., you can use the "Write Your Reps" feature at www.NRAILA.org, or you can reach your member of Congress by phone at 202-224-3121.

To read NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox’s letter that was sent to Senators prior to today’s procedural vote

Chris Cox's letter :

April 10, 2013

Dear Senator,

I am writing regarding the National Rifle Association’s position on several firearms-related proposals under consideration in the Senate.

S. 649, the “Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013”, introduced on March 21, contains a number of provisions that would unfairly infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners. This legislation would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by honest citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution. The NRA is unequivocally opposed to S. 649.

In addition, the NRA will oppose any amendments offered to S. 649 that restrict fundamental Second Amendment freedoms; including, but not limited to, proposals that would ban commonly and lawfully owned firearms and magazines or criminalize the private transfer of firearms through an expansion of background checks. This includes the misguided “compromise” proposal drafted by Senators Joe Manchin, Pat Toomey and Chuck Schumer. As we have noted previously, expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools. Given the importance of these issues, votes on all anti-gun amendments or proposals will be considered in NRA’s future candidate evaluations.

Rather than focus its efforts on restricting the rights of America’s 100 million law-abiding gun owners, there are things Congress can do to fix our broken mental health system; increase prosecutions of violent criminals; and make our schools safer. During consideration of S. 649, should one or more amendments be offered that adequately address these important issues while protecting the fundamental rights of law-abiding gun owners, the NRA will offer our enthusiastic support and consider those votes in our future candidate evaluations as well.

We hope the Senate will replace the current provisions of S. 649 with language that is properly focused on addressing mental health inadequacies; prosecuting violent criminals; and keeping our kids safe in their schools. Should it fail to do so, the NRA will make an exception to our standard policy of not “scoring” procedural votes and strongly oppose a cloture motion to move to final passage of S. 649.

Sincerely,
Chris W. Cox

 

[arora]

The Senate rejected a bipartisan proposal to expand background checks Wednesday, defeating the most ambitious component of Democrats' effort to tighten gun laws four months after the mass shootings in Newtown, Conn.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323809304578428552342222358.html

They are failing on the federal level, keep your eyes on your state I guess.

 

[Zenith]

Failing? It's good when worthless feel-good legislation dies.

 

[a6m5]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323809304578428552342222358.html

They are failing on the federal level, keep your eyes on your state I guess.

I can't even take Obama seriously anymore. Lately, I've been just astounded by how foolish North Koreans are with their claims, like threatening to destroy other nations, then state how they will be a responsible nuclear power. I guess in their latest release, they are warning us of surprise attacks. They must be drunk and stoned when they make these releases, right?

I might start calling the President "Kim Jong-Obama". So he is tying Sandy Hook to this new gun control bid. Why is it "shameful" when the Senate rejects background check that would have done nothing to prevent Sandy Hook? "Shameful" indeed. The U.S. President is either an idiot, or he is full of it.

P.S. What do they mean by background checks on online & gun show sales? By my observation, background checks are already required for both, unless they are referring to private sales, which doesn't especially have to do with either online or gun shows.

 

[Nicksfix]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323809304578428552342222358.html

They are failing on the federal level, keep your eyes on your state I guess.

A big hell yeah and

It needed 60 votes to pass, but failed 54-46.

Granted, we may have won a BIG battle here today, but the war is far from over. I'm certain we will hear more on this. Yes, this does include the local / state level.

Yet with the passing of this, Obama still holds to his lie :

Afterward, Mr. Obama criticized the outcome and accused the nation's gun lobby of "spreading untruths" that the measure would lead to "some sort of Big Brother gun registry."

Ummm, Canada, Australia mean anything Mr. Obama ? I thought so ....

A good interview here. (pre-vote)

The president also addressed accusations from Republican Sen. Rand Paul and others that he's using Newtown family members as “props” in the gun control debate.
“Are they serious?” he asked, and challenged critics to question the rights of family members of victims to voice their opinions in the gun debate.

Uh yeah .... props, like what you have been doing all along ..... loser !!!!

 

[a6m5]

"Props", exactly. Very cheap & distasteful. 👎

 

[arora]

Failing? It's good when worthless feel-good legislation dies.

Why would you pic a straw man with me?

 

[Keef]

Why would you pic a straw man with me?

Straw man?

...I guess.

That seems to imply you're upset the legislation is failing. Zenith suggested it's a good thing and described why it's a good thing - because the legislation is frivolous.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Why is it "shameful" when the Senate rejects background check that would have done nothing to prevent Sandy Hook?

Why do you assume that it would have done nothing to prevent the Sandy Hook massacre? And why do you assume it will do nothing to prevent a future tragedy?

Or do you just think that everyone has the right to bear arms, including violent criminals and the dangerously unstable?

 

[arora]

Straw man?


That seems to imply you're upset the legislation is failing. Zenith suggested it's a good thing and described why it's a good thing - because the legislation is frivolous.

Are you serious?

 

[cnd01]

I'm glad to see that this unnecessary and worthless legislation didn't pass. Of course, Obama will probably issue more executive orders a few at the time until he bans guns all together.