New gun control thread!

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

 

I own a .50 cal black powder rifle and I live in New Jersey.

Come break into my home and I'll blow your !@#$ing head off. It'll just take a minute to get it loaded.

Yeah, lots of criminals use .50 cal equipment to commit heinous acts all across the state everyday.

 

Ya, but don't let the facts get in the way of ignorant irrational fear. Forward!!

[B-Man]

Nearly a week after three Oklahoma teenagers allegedly murdered Australian baseball player Chris Lane, President Barack Obama appears to have broken his silence. He, or more properly those who write his Twitter feed on his behalf, tweeted the following.

 

 

Barack Obama ✔ @BarackObama

 

Retweet if you agree: It's time for Congress to make gun violence prevention a priority. #WhatWillItTake

12:29 PM - 21 Aug 2013

 

2,968 Retweets 460 favorites

 

 

Predictably, the president is blaming the weapon for the choices made by those who chose to wield it.

 

The facts of the case do not support any gun control measure short of full confiscation of all firearms in the United States. All three of the accused are underage, so firearm ownership is illegal for them in most circumstances. They cannot legally purchase a firearm without assistance from someone over the age of 18. The shotgun that was recovered from the car that the boys used had its serial numbers filed off, which is a felony. Current gun laws against possession of guns by minors, and against filing off serial numbers, did not stop the boys from doing either one, just as laws against gang activity did not stop the boys from self-identifying with the Crips gang. Laws against murder did not stop them from murdering.

 

The president had the chance to deplore rap and gang culture which appear to have heavily influenced the boys. That would have been a unifying gesture that might have saved untold numbers of lives. Instead, he chose to blame guns, which will accomplish nothing.

 

 

http://pjmedia.com/t...-of-chris-lane/

[Chef Jim]

Nearly a week after three Oklahoma teenagers allegedly murdered Australian baseball player Chris Lane, President Barack Obama appears to have broken his silence. He, or more properly those who write his Twitter feed on his behalf, tweeted the following.

 

Because it's all up to congress. Worst.......leader/manager..........ever!!!!!!!!

[Who is Yuri?]

What's up to Congress? Which one of you guys is buying up all the .22 ammo? I haven't been able to find a round in months!

[/dev/null]

What's up to Congress? Which one of you guys is buying up all the .22 ammo? I haven't been able to find a round in months!

 

I managed to find a 5000 round brick awhile back for $400. Ridiculous prices

[blzrul]

This only hit the NATIONAL news yesterday. And no-one wants to confiscate all guns. We just all wish gun owners would be responsible and agree that there is a problem, and join to help address it. I grew up with guns, might own one myself again one day. I will be responsible with it because I realize that when some IDIOT pulls this stuff, or some MORON leaves a gun lying around that kills a 3-year old it makes all gun owners look like irresponsible nuts. Yesterday alone on CNN's landing page you had these 3 asshats, a toddler who found a gun and killed himself, and the crazy guy in Georgia. You don't hear about the responsible gun owners, because the head of the NRA is a foaming-at-the-mouth fool who offers "more guns!" as the answer, and has crazies like Ted Nugent as poster boy. Ridiculous.

 

MOST gun owners are responsible. I don't know why they LET the crazies label them. The NRA represents the gun industry, not the gun owner. They'll defend to the death a crazy person's right to murder schoolchildren rather than admit that crazy people having access to guns is a problem, and the answer is anything but more guns.

[DC Tom]

Because it's all up to congress. Worst.......leader/manager..........ever!!!!!!!!

 

In this case, if Obama wants tighter gun regulation, it is all up to Congress. Twitter-bullying them, however, is a seriously ridiculous display of lack of leadership.

 

 

(And why he chooses THIS particular issue to defer to Congress, and feels free to rule by executive fiat any other time, is a complete mystery.)

[Chef Jim]

In this case, if Obama wants tighter gun regulation, it is all up to Congress. Twitter-bullying them, however, is a seriously ridiculous display of lack of leadership.

 

 

(And why he chooses THIS particular issue to defer to Congress, and feels free to rule by executive fiat any other time, is a complete mystery.)

 

Yes the voting on the changes is up to Congress but the process leading up to that vote is not all theirs.

[DC Tom]

Yes the voting on the changes is up to Congress but the process leading up to that vote is not all theirs.

 

Can't we just let him say that it is, and avoid his annoying, idiotic salaciousness?

 

Either way, lack of leadership. At least this way, it's one less pandering blowhard we have to listen to.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Nearly a week after three Oklahoma teenagers allegedly murdered Australian baseball player Chris Lane, President Barack Obama appears to have broken his silence. He, or more properly those who write his Twitter feed on his behalf, tweeted the following.

 

 

 

 

 

Predictably, the president is blaming the weapon for the choices made by those who chose to wield it.

 

The facts of the case do not support any gun control measure short of full confiscation of all firearms in the United States. All three of the accused are underage, so firearm ownership is illegal for them in most circumstances. They cannot legally purchase a firearm without assistance from someone over the age of 18. The shotgun that was recovered from the car that the boys used had its serial numbers filed off, which is a felony. Current gun laws against possession of guns by minors, and against filing off serial numbers, did not stop the boys from doing either one, just as laws against gang activity did not stop the boys from self-identifying with the Crips gang. Laws against murder did not stop them from murdering.

 

The president had the chance to deplore rap and gang culture which appear to have heavily influenced the boys. That would have been a unifying gesture that might have saved untold numbers of lives. Instead, he chose to blame guns, which will accomplish nothing.

 

 

http://pjmedia.com/t...-of-chris-lane/

This culture doesn't exist, and I'm an irredeemable racist for suggesting it might.

[Who is Yuri?]

This culture doesn't exist, and I'm an irredeemable racist for suggesting it might.

 

There is nothing irredeemable about being a racist. A racist is simply competing against other races. A non-racist, or Olympian, for this purpose, believes that he is part of something larger than his own race.

[3rdnlng]

This only hit the NATIONAL news yesterday. And no-one wants to confiscate all guns. We just all wish gun owners would be responsible and agree that there is a problem, and join to help address it. I grew up with guns, might own one myself again one day. I will be responsible with it because I realize that when some IDIOT pulls this stuff, or some MORON leaves a gun lying around that kills a 3-year old it makes all gun owners look like irresponsible nuts. Yesterday alone on CNN's landing page you had these 3 asshats, a toddler who found a gun and killed himself, and the crazy guy in Georgia. You don't hear about the responsible gun owners, because the head of the NRA is a foaming-at-the-mouth fool who offers "more guns!" as the answer, and has crazies like Ted Nugent as poster boy. Ridiculous.

 

MOST gun owners are responsible. I don't know why they LET the crazies label them. The NRA represents the gun industry, not the gun owner. They'll defend to the death a crazy person's right to murder schoolchildren rather than admit that crazy people having access to guns is a problem, and the answer is anything but more guns.

 

So, you say that the NRA will defend to the death a crazy person's right to murder school children? Until your last paragraph you almost made sense, which would be a first.

[Alaska Darin]

This only hit the NATIONAL news yesterday. And no-one wants to confiscate all guns.

WRONG.

We just all wish gun owners would be responsible and agree that there is a problem, and join to help address it.

The problem in America has almost nothing to do with guns. Guns are a convenient target for people who have a hard time facing reality.

I grew up with guns, might own one myself again one day. I will be responsible with it because I realize that when some IDIOT pulls this stuff, or some MORON leaves a gun lying around that kills a 3-year old it makes all gun owners look like irresponsible nuts.

Only idiots would indict millions of American gun owners because of a single irresponsible act. You know, kind of like the people who indict all Muslims because a tiny fraction are total wackos.

Yesterday alone on CNN's landing page you had these 3 asshats, a toddler who found a gun and killed himself, and the crazy guy in Georgia. You don't hear about the responsible gun owners, because the head of the NRA is a foaming-at-the-mouth fool who offers "more guns!" as the answer, and has crazies like Ted Nugent as poster boy. Ridiculous.

Ah yes, because they disagree with you they must be labeled as "foaming at the mouth." Hypocrite much?

They'll defend to the death a crazy person's right to murder schoolchildren rather than admit that crazy people having access to guns is a problem, and the answer is anything but more guns.

Uh, no. Stop regurgitating the **** you read at Salon, Huffington, and Rolling Stone. It's incredibly tiresome.

 

The NRA is for SENSIBLE gun regulation. Most of what is proposed by the failures that have been elected to lead do not fit that category. As the onion continues to be peeled back on the NSA scandal, it shows more and more why the NRA and gun owners across the country are justified in their opinions on keeping the government in check regarding access to sensitive private information.

[/dev/null]

The Pussification of America continues

http://www.myfoxny.com/story/23229511/nerf-gunfight-brings-police-to-ohio-school

 

Forward!

[DC Tom]

The Pussification of America continues

http://www.myfoxny.c...-to-ohio-school

 

Forward!

 

And they didn't arrest anyone? Amazing.

[Luka]

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

 

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2013/01/gun-violence-us-cities-compared-deadliest-nations-world/4412/

[B-Man]

 

Harvard gun study concludes gun bans don’t reduce the murder rate

 

In fact, it appears, bans may actually see them increase. Here’s a summary of the study’s findings:

The Harvard study attempts to answer the question of whether or not banning firearms would reduce murders and suicides. Researchers looked at crime data from several European countries and found that countries with

HIGHER

gun ownership often had

LOWER

murder rates.

 

Russia, for example, enforces very strict gun control on its people, but its murder rate remains quite high. In fact, the murder rate in Russia is

four times higher

than in the “gun-ridden” United States, cites the study. ”Homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings.” In other words, the elimination of guns does not eliminate murder, and in the case of gun-controlled Russia, murder rates are quite high.

The study revealed several European countries with significant gun ownership, like Norway, Finland, Germany and France – had remarkably low murder rates. Contrast that with Luxembourg, “where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate

nine times higher

than Germany in 2002.

The study found no evidence to suggest that the availability of guns contributes to higher murder rates anywhere in the world. ”Of course, it may be speculated that murder rates around the world would be higher if guns were more available. But there is simply no evidence to support this.”

 

And, as the study points out, where guns are banned, murderers still find weapons with which to do their dirty work. The difference is that the victims potential means of self-defense. With guns available, one would assume their deterrent effect if not outright effectiveness in the self-defense realm would predictably knock the murder rate down. Criminals and murderers are less likely to attack if the possibility the potential victim is armed exists. Common sense 101.

The study found no evidence to suggest that the availability of guns contributes to higher murder rates anywhere in the world. ”Of course, it may be speculated that murder rates around the world would be higher if guns were more available. But there is simply no evidence to support this.”

 

And finally:

Further, the report cited, “the determinants of murder and suicide are basic social, economic, and cultural factors, not the prevalence of some form of deadly mechanism.” Meaning, it’s not guns that kill people.

People kill people.

 

Well how about that? The study is published in Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. You can read it here. Pass it around to your anti-gun friends. Point out this isn’t some right-wing think tank that pumped out the study. Then appeal to their common sense. Of course that may be difficult to do with someone who actually believes that the simple act of banning a weapon will magically lower the murder rate because without that weapon, people just wouldn’t murder each other … or something.

[B-Man]

Its difficult to understand this type of "reasoning"

 

“Colorado Democrat Says Self Defense Is ‘Absurd’ and ‘Frivolous’”

 

How ridiculous is this notion that one carry a fire arm for “self-defense.” The truth is — and we all know this — you can’t protect yourself from hardened, predatory criminals, many of whom are, well, you know — dangerous and aggressive minorities. Best to just sh#t yourself and hope the stench drives them off. Or, if you’re being raped, tried to pee on your assailant. On the off chance you can’t reach your rape whistle, naturally.

 

But defending yourself? Who would ever dream of such a thing! I’ll tell you who: Hillbilly wannabe soldiers, white TEA Party militia-types and their swole, nasty biker women, that’s who! Ugh. How gauche.

 

Want protection? Let them eat state-funded bodyguards!

Colorado’s House Majority Leader

Dickey Lee Hullinghorst slammed self defense

in a recent interview, calling it “absurd” and “frivolous” [...]

 

Hullinghorst made no mention of Colorado’s famous case

Castle Rock vs Gonzales

which went all the way to the Supreme Court and established that law enforcement (in this case, police in Castle Rock, Colorado) have no legal obligation to protect your life.

 

Well, why would she even have to? It’s clear that once you take the guns out of the hands of citizens, gun crime goes away — and then there’s no real need for all this hypermacho self-defense non-sense.

 

 

http://ttp://proteinwisdom.com/?p=50849

 

 

It will be interesting to see how the Colorado Recall elections go.................

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

Its difficult to understand this type of "reasoning"

 

“Colorado Democrat Says Self Defense Is ‘Absurd’ and ‘Frivolous’”

 

How ridiculous is this notion that one carry a fire arm for “self-defense.” The truth is — and we all know this — you can’t protect yourself from hardened, predatory criminals, many of whom are, well, you know — dangerous and aggressive minorities. Best to just sh#t yourself and hope the stench drives them off. Or, if you’re being raped, tried to pee on your assailant. On the off chance you can’t reach your rape whistle, naturally.

 

But defending yourself? Who would ever dream of such a thing! I’ll tell you who: Hillbilly wannabe soldiers, white TEA Party militia-types and their swole, nasty biker women, that’s who! Ugh. How gauche.

 

Want protection? Let them eat state-funded bodyguards!

Colorado’s House Majority Leader

Dickey Lee Hullinghorst slammed self defense

in a recent interview, calling it “absurd” and “frivolous” [...]

 

Hullinghorst made no mention of Colorado’s famous case

Castle Rock vs Gonzales

which went all the way to the Supreme Court and established that law enforcement (in this case, police in Castle Rock, Colorado) have no legal obligation to protect your life.

 

Well, why would she even have to? It’s clear that once you take the guns out of the hands of citizens, gun crime goes away — and then there’s no real need for all this hypermacho self-defense non-sense.

 

 

http://ttp://proteinwisdom.com/?p=50849

 

 

It will be interesting to see how the Colorado Recall elections go.................

 

The predominantly rural, conservative, resource rich North east counties of the Colorado want to break away and form a new state. Can't say I blame them.

 

I wish upstate and downstate NY would just get a divorce already.

[Koko78]

The predominantly rural, conservative, resource rich North east counties of the Colorado want to break away and form a new state. Can't say I blame them.

 

I wish upstate and downstate NY would just get a divorce already.

 

Oh c'mon, you mean you don't like that every law and regulation passed by Albany heavily favors NYC at the expense of upstate, or that what little resources we are allowed to generate are raped to benefit downstate?