New gun control thread!

[Chef Jim]

I'm only Oliver Stone like in my conspiracies when they involve aliens, UFOs, Madona and Big Foot.

 

Also, I'm pretty sure that's Hermosa Beach or possible Redondo -- so I'd believe it would only take him 5 minutes to get 12 signatures.

 

San Diego. More conservative actually with the military presence there.

[B-Man]

The Dangers of Politically Inspired Moral Outrage—From Sandy Hook to What Next?

By Victor Davis Hanson

 

 

It is a bad idea to demonize your opponents with epithets such “shameful” and “lying,” given that the case was not made that proposed gun-control legislation would have prevented a Sandy Hook.

 

To prevent these school-shooting horrors might require either armed guards in schools, or Draconian new laws about gratuitous screen and video-game violence, or more frequently incarcerating the mentally unstable, or, on the theory of reducing rapid rates of fire, confiscating millions of previously sold semi-automatic handguns and rifles.

 

All those measures would have offended millions across the political spectrum in ways that demonizing the NRA apparently does not.

 

In the end, it was not the “lying” “gun lobby” that persuaded enough senators to defeat the bill, but the president’s inability to make the argument that his proposals would help stop another Sandy Hook or Columbine.

 

 

Moreover, the current sophistry of using catastrophic current events to rush legislative agendas or build political capital is as natural as it is also dangerous — and can rebound in unexpected ways.

 

If those who are skeptical about the legality and utility of infringing on the Second Amendment through legislative action are reduced to being slandered as shameful liars, and (if we believe what is now being written) they are in part culpable for the sort of carnage at Sandy Hook, then almost any event in the news becomes political fodder.

[We Come In Peace]

San Diego. More conservative actually with the military presence there.

Damn, I was way off.

[meazza]

Damn, I was way off.

 

You must be used to it by now.

[B-Man]

Shall we blame the NRA here too ? ?

 

 

IL Dems Revolt Against Gun Control Law

 

Democrats enjoy a supermajority in the Illinois House of Representatives, holding 71 seats to the GOP's 47. On Wednesday, the same day the US Senate voted down gun control legislation, powerful Democrat Speaker Michael Madigan tried to push a restrictive gun control measure through his chamber. The result was an open revolt by downstate Democrats, with almost half the Democrat caucus joining the GOP to kill the measure. The bill went down 31-76, a rare defeat for the legendary Madigan.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/18/IL-Dems-Revolt-Against-Gun-Control-Law

[SWVABillsFan]

I am wondering when an abortion control thread, a bomb control thread, a drunk driver thread, a hidden knife thread, and such will be started?

[We Come In Peace]

You must be used to it by now.

It's a source of constant amazement for me. Sometimes I forget what an !@#$ I am.

 

Then I remember. It usually makes me smile.

[3rdnlng]

I am wondering when an abortion control thread, a bomb control thread, a drunk driver thread, a hidden knife thread, and such will be started?

 

Just go back a page or two or three.

[SWVABillsFan]

It's a source of constant amazement for me. Sometimes I forget what an !@#$ I am.

 

Then I remember. It usually makes me smile.

I love an attitude like that, always makes me smile.

[TakeYouToTasker]

can you idiots not even understand that this is in reference to azalin's stupid post. he made the assertion that the nra was bipartisan and that this was somehow important to the debate. of course they contribute to both parties. how else would they remain so powerful? but if it's that important to you, carry on. i find it much more important that people can be fooled into believing that they could mount a successful armed revolt against the us govt and thus are compelled to stockpile weapons. the only winners in that case are the arms manufacturers and dealers... a frequently shady lot throughout recorded history. does anybody not believe that's important to this debate?

But the NRA is a multi-partisan entity, supporting members of both major parties, and aligning itself with neither.

 

The rest of your argument is absolute bunk, and demonstrates an absolute lack of understanding of the subject matter to the point of being laughable.

Edited April 19, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[B-Man]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/gun-debate-triggered-media-bias-90306.html?hp=t1_3

 

Gun debate triggered media bias

 

If you thought President Obama was outraged after the Senate killed the plan to expand background checks on guns, you should have seen some members of the press.

 

Even by the standards of today’s partisan media environment, the response has been noteworthy. Television hosts, editorial boards, and even some reporters have aggressively criticized and shamed the 46 Senators who opposed the plan, while some have even taken to actively soliciting the public to contact them directly.

 

The decision by some members of the media to come down so firmly on one side of a policy debate has only served to reinforce conservatives’ longstanding suspicions that the mainstream media has a deep-seated liberal bias.

 

“I guess the liberal media get annoyed when Senators listen to their constituents and think for themselves, rather than doing the media’s bidding,” Bill Kristol, the editor-in-chief of the Weekly Standard, told POLITICO.

 

”It’s clearly biased and unmistakably ideological,” said John Podhoretz, the conservative New York Post columnist. “These outlets can do what they do want, but nobody should kid themselves about what they’re doing.”

[Jim in Anchorage]

can you idiots not even understand that this is in reference to azalin's stupid post. he made the assertion that the nra was bipartisan and that this was somehow important to the debate. of course they contribute to both parties. how else would they remain so powerful? but if it's that important to you, carry on. i find it much more important that people can be fooled into believing that they could mount a successful armed revolt against the us govt and thus are compelled to stockpile weapons. the only winners in that case are the arms manufacturers and dealers... a frequently shady lot throughout recorded history. does anybody not believe that's important to this debate?

Examples?

[birdog1960]

Examples?

http://www.rollingst...iction-20130228 (i bet that picture just warms her parents hearts) just one of the first that popped up when i searched "gun manufacturer profits". if you want to see the really big bucks search the arms industries. they're salient because scalia recently commented on citizens ability to use shoulder mounted rocket launchers and they've just lost big chunks of revenue with the wars winding down.

 

But the NRA is a multi-partisan entity, supporting members of both major parties, and aligning itself with neither.

 

The rest of your argument is absolute bunk, and demonstrates an absolute lack of understanding of the subject matter to the point of being laughable.

"there are no metrics or reports show the makeup of their membership". do you even read your own posts? or are the two of you?...bad tasker and very bad tasker? btw, i have no idea if your contention there is true. i'd bet the nra has some pretty in depth demopraphic data on their members in light of this (and many of your other posts), an all encompassing dismissal of my arguments by you is laughable. Edited April 19, 2013 by birdog1960

[Jim in Anchorage]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gun-industrys-deadly-addiction-20130228. that's just one of the first that popped up when i searched "gun manufacturer profits". if you want to see the really big bucks search the arms industries. they're salient because scalia recently commented on citizens ability to use shoulder mounted rocket launchers and they've just lost big chunks of revenue with the wars winding down.

citizens with RPG's? What country do you live in? And this has what to do with background checks?

[birdog1960]

citizens with RPG's? What country do you live in? And this has what to do with background checks?

same one as you http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2012/07/29/video-justice-scalia-suggests-hand-held-rocket-launchers-protected-under-second-amendment/

[Jim in Anchorage]

same one as you http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2012/07/29/video-justice-scalia-suggests-hand-held-rocket-launchers-protected-under-second-amendment/

Oh Jesus Christ the old if we let them have guns does that mean tanks should be legal argument. I know you're smart enough to see through that logic yet you still use it.

[3rdnlng]

same one as you http://thepoliticalc...cond-amendment/

 

It took me very few sentences in that article to see how the author was twisting Scalia's words. For you to use it as an example is as disingenuous as most of your quotes, links, theories and other made up schit.

[Adam]

But the NRA is a multi-partisan entity, supporting members of both major parties, and aligning itself with neither.

 

The rest of your argument is absolute bunk, and demonstrates an absolute lack of understanding of the subject matter to the point of being laughable.

The NRA is non-partisan, but unfortunately it isn't for people's right, as it used to be. It is a lobbying interest that looks to make money and increase it's own power- sometimes at the expense of good gun owners

[Jim in Anchorage]

 

The NRA is non-partisan, but unfortunately it isn't for people's right, as it used to be. It is a lobbying interest that looks to make money and increase it's own power- sometimes at the expense of good gun owners

Provide examples.

[BringBackFergy]

Hey fellas - I haven't contributed to this thread yet so figured I'd pose a question (since this same question will probably be kicked from the OTW thread re. the bombings):

 

Has anyone heard or seen a news story or search that either of these two bombing suspects were licensed to carry handguns or firearms in Boston?? The MIT officer was shot and killed while sitting in his car. Just wondering if these guys were licensed to carry guns...if not, how on earth did they get ahold of guns??