And I thought you were unable understand simple thought processes .. [/sarcasm] !
#stopgunviolence
- Thread starter silk123
- Start date
LOL, "guns for all", nobody is saying that. Much is the same way that 80% of a cherry picked, statistically insignificant sample size of non-gun owners doesn't prove anything, and lumping in law abiding citizens in with criminals is hypocritically similar to lumping all Muslims in with terrorists, or all blacks with criminals, or all Johns with pedophiles and human traffickers.
A vast majority of homicide shootings are black/black and Hispanic/Hispanic male shootings. The old white guys with NRA coffee mugs are not the issue - is everyone including the POTUS stupid?
That said, I have no problem with background checks, they will not make any difference in the POTUS home town of Chiraq where there were 2,500 shootings and 499 murders in 2015.
That said, I have no problem with background checks, they will not make any difference in the POTUS home town of Chiraq where there were 2,500 shootings and 499 murders in 2015.
I'd like someone to explain how being either a socialist or a right-wing something or another has anything to do with the issues of private gun ownership.
Rational facts and arguments only. No red-neck stuff or left-wing pinko stereotypes please.
You wish.
Fact is Jessica Chastain is a far better communicator than Michael Moore could ever be. She's already proven that she can disarm whatever criticism may come her way. And the Constitution became outdated a long time ago. The law abiding citizen angle reels of the most putrid mendacity when innocent children are slaughtered.
The NRA are going to have a tough time with JC, she has plenty of honey to persuade. Disarm mon ami.
Maybe I'm missing something, but how is this media personality going to contribute to the gun control debate? The video clip above does not show her addressing the subject.
Or is being a media personality somehow endows this person with some kind of intellect the rest of us may not be able to match?
BTW, I agree with the measures, but using Sandy Hook as a backdrop is nonsense. The new measures would never have prevented it from happening.
The weapons that were used were duly registered, secured and owned by a licensed person under Connecticut law. Adam Lansa was mentally ill, and his violent behaviour was not predictable.
The bottom line, and the underlying issue is the question of gun confiscation. The gun control lobby consistently calls for banning guns. This is the contention of the gun rights people, and unless there is a deal that new gun control measures are not going to be used in the future to start banning certain classes of firearms, they will be stalemated.
There is a social engineering movement that figures that it's the gun that makes society violent and that the solution is banning guns. However, guns are just some of the tools that violent people use. Those social engineers would be better at trying to fix US society wrt social inequity and concentration of wealth, rather than blame inanimate objects for failures in American governance, especially since the Clinton presidency.
Deep social thinkers, like Chris Hedges and Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson are now whispering 'revolution' as the ultimate outcome to the corporatisation and concentration of wealth in America, as this trend will never be reversed under the present political system.
The weapons that were used were duly registered, secured and owned by a licensed person under Connecticut law. Adam Lansa was mentally ill, and his violent behaviour was not predictable.
The bottom line, and the underlying issue is the question of gun confiscation. The gun control lobby consistently calls for banning guns. This is the contention of the gun rights people, and unless there is a deal that new gun control measures are not going to be used in the future to start banning certain classes of firearms, they will be stalemated.
There is a social engineering movement that figures that it's the gun that makes society violent and that the solution is banning guns. However, guns are just some of the tools that violent people use. Those social engineers would be better at trying to fix US society wrt social inequity and concentration of wealth, rather than blame inanimate objects for failures in American governance, especially since the Clinton presidency.
Deep social thinkers, like Chris Hedges and Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson are now whispering 'revolution' as the ultimate outcome to the corporatisation and concentration of wealth in America, as this trend will never be reversed under the present political system.
I would like to change my previous opinion. Any POV that says the Constitution became outdated guarantees a flop. I grant you, it will be a hit among the socks free, pimpled kids who are unable to run with scissors.
Except for when they don't.
Obama's intent is to crack down on the 'gun show loophole'. In the US you can go online and buy a gun within minutes from 'private sellers' with absolutely no checks. And unfortunately many of these private sellers are regularly selling guns in the same way some people sell on ebay. Same thing happens at many gun shows where 'private sellers' regularly have tables with dozens of guns for sale.
And at least some of the guns used in San Bernadino were gotten through a so called private sale.
The Canadian system sure makes a hell of a lot more sense.
1) The laws allow private sales (often made by people running a business).
2) The gun lobby makes sure that laws are passed or funding pulled to prevent the laws from adequately being enforced.
You're so full of shit, we already covered this last time, no they can't just buy and sell firearms online; online transfers have to be done through an FFL. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it any more true.
Gun "control" in the US is an exercise in futility.
If the government offered $1000 or $10,000 for every gun turned in, there would be no way to find all of them even if everyone wanted to, there are just too many in circulation. Nor would criminals turn their guns in. Laws won't reduce the number of guns already in circulation nor will they prevent those who intend to use guns for improper purposes from getting their hands on guns.
I'm just happy that we have not gone so far in Canada where gun ownership is so widespread as it is in the US. (And I am a long time licensed gun owner)
If the government offered $1000 or $10,000 for every gun turned in, there would be no way to find all of them even if everyone wanted to, there are just too many in circulation. Nor would criminals turn their guns in. Laws won't reduce the number of guns already in circulation nor will they prevent those who intend to use guns for improper purposes from getting their hands on guns.
I'm just happy that we have not gone so far in Canada where gun ownership is so widespread as it is in the US. (And I am a long time licensed gun owner)
BS. Marquez did not sell the rifles to Farook, first of all. And Farook purchased the hand guns legally. That's what we know, so far.
As for buying guns online. Go ahead and try it. Several states, including California, mandates ALL firearm sales to perform a background checks. Shipping a gun across the state line is illegal. It's illegal to purchase a gun by a felon or sell, knowingly, to one. The problem is enforcement. BTW, only 3% of transactions are done online and internet is used mostly for finding a firearm while the transaction itself is mostly done person to person. Why? Due to restrictions on hand gun shipping. This is so insignificant of an issue, even the NRA does not really care.
Is it not a paradox that the mass shooting in California and the Sandy Hooks one in Connecticut took place in states that have the most stringent gun control laws in the US, that already exceed what Obame has decreed?
The misconception of a lot of people is that they think laws can actually eliminate crime. Who ever heard of speed limits eliminating speeding, or laws against murder eliminating murder. For some reason, they expect anti-gun laws to eliminate crimes with guns, and if that doesn't work, then they demand elimination of all firearms. That's like saying that if we can't eliminate speeding, then we should ban cars altogether.
Wow. You are so wrong and I posted the links to prove it. Some firearms dealers do sell online and ship only to FFL holders. Many of the sellers aren't officially gun dealers so have no requirements for FFLs or background checks. Some of the websites are like kijiji where you meet up in a parking lot etc. and do the deal.
All internet gun sales have to go through a FFL and the recipient has to get a background check if the transaction takes place across state lines. It is also up to a state to regulate internet gun sales. California mandates that all internet gun sales have to go through a FLL, hence a background check.
It is also a felony to knowingly sell a firearms to a known felon.
Unfortunately not always true. Many of the websites such as armslist are not an online gun dealer but a forum where individuals can buy and sell guns Try logging on and you will see thousands upon thousands of private sales around the US that are excluded from oversight by the Brady loophole the same as non-official gun dealers that set up booths at gun shows. Laws about shipping across state lines are pretty irrelevant when all they have to do is meet up with the seller.
How exactly is including less formal gun dealers in existing laws 'draconian'?
Huh, an unregulated, online forum where some people advertise "grey market" goods or services and private deals are made between consenting adults; you mean like TERB?!?!
