DA: West Philadelphia abortion doctor killed 7 babies with scissors | 6abc.com (http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=7906881)
This doctor in Philly is probably more the norm than we imagine . Who audits PP ? Clearly the PP lobbyist had no answers to what should be a slam dunk question....if there is a baby alive after a botched abortion ;you choose LIFE ! duh !!!

Thanks for answering the question.

Maybe the rest of you can stop the filibustering and diversion and answer it. The question before you is, is there a point in a botched abortion when the doctor should cease being the killer and start being the healer?

Apparently the PP lady isn't the only one who refuses to answer the question.

Your question yesterday is good one, and led me through the laws of many states including ours, and all can find are many lawsuit for a botched abortion and even one where the child lived and the doctor got sued for child support.

I can only give my opinion since it seems to be in the hands of the physician, but one would hope the premature child, no matter the age would be given the care of a newborn and given the chance to survive. Hoping that no complications are present to prevent a good quality of life.

The chances may be small or the expenses large and I know many hardships may lay ahead, but if there is life, then you give it a chance. Outside the woman's body it's a child that's been born.

That's just me, and sorry no links or facts, just my own feelings.

here is where medical ethics is taking this debate .
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? -- Giubilini and Minerva -- Journal of Medical Ethics (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full)

"Doctor " Alberto Giubilini asks 'why should a new born baby live ?'.“The newborn and the fetus are morally equivalent”. The real issue, he says, is not whether they are technically alive but whether society wants them to live.

If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.
If euthanasia of babies is permissible because of a cost factor determination (as is often the case in abortions ) ;then why restrict it to babies . Forget death panels deciding to refuse treatment to the infirmed .Why not makes the call to wack them too ? After all,we are paying for their care .

Your question yesterday is good one, and led me thru the laws of many states including ours, and all can find are many lawsuit for a botched abortion and even one where the child lived and the doctor got sued for child support.

I can only give my opinion since it seems to be in the hands of the physician, but one would hope the premature child, no matter the age would be given the care of a newborn and given the chance to survive. Hoping that no complications are present to prevent a good quality of life.

The chances may be small or the expenses large and I know many hardships may lay ahead, but if there is life, then you give it a chance. Outside the womans body its a child thats been born.

Thats just me, and sorry no links or facts, just my own feelings.

Thanks, Tal.

here is where medical ethics is taking this debate .
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? -- Giubilini and Minerva -- Journal of Medical Ethics (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full)

"Doctor " Alberto Giubilini asks 'why should a new born baby live ?'.“The newborn and the fetus are morally equivalent”. The real issue, he says, is not whether they are technically alive but whether society wants them to live.

If euthanasia of babies is permissible because of a cost factor determination (as is often the case in abortions ) ;then why restrict it to babies . Forget death panels deciding to refuse treatment to the infirmed .Why not makes the call to wack them too ? After all,we are paying for their care .

Sickens me that whether a child should live is up for debate.

The sooner you get medical support it seems, the better the outcomes. The options are better, so is the care. You want to do away with PP, then make them unnecessary, especially through resources, and education. A woman with means doesn't wait for 20 weeks to handle her business, its mostly over and done before 12.

The sooner you get medical support it seems, the better the outcomes. The options are better, so is the care. You want to do away with PP, then make them unnecessary, especially thru resources, and education. A woman with means doesn't wait for 20 weeks to handle her business, its mostly over and done before 12.

I think wondergirl's answer is a license to parent.

Yes well you need a licence to marry so why not a licence to conceive, that way having a child out of wedlock would be a felony, short of puts the right emphasis on things and maybe abortion would become a felony to, as it should be

Hello again,

If you outlawed abortion, you won't get RID of it. You'll only drive it underground. Lot's of people will DIE as a result.

You people REALLY did think you could outlaw pot, and it would just magically go away, didn't you?? Was that DUMB?? It was.. Is outlawing abortion dumb? It IS.

excon

Can you blame them Ex? Its easier to repeal the gains of the last century, than accept them. That's their only HOPE, to stifle CHANGE.

Lot's of people will DIE as a result.


That horse left the barn when it became legal nationally . 50million plus people have died .

Hello again,

If you outlawed abortion, you won't get RID of it. You'll only drive it underground. Lot's of people will DIE as a result.

You people REALLY did think you could outlaw pot, and it would just magically go away, didn't you??? Was that DUMB??? It was.. Is outlawing abortion dumb? It IS.

excon

Kind of like what happens when the government taxes the hell out of people, they don't just magically start handing over their cash. Or gun control, taxing smokes, banning sodas...

that horse left the barn when it became legal nationally . 50million plus people have died .

Of what and when?

50 million + babies aborted .A holocaust that rival's Stalin's reign of terror .

50 million + babies aborted .A holocaust that rival's Stalin's reign of terror .
Wikipedia -- "According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), since 1973, roughly 50 million legal induced abortions have been performed in the United States." Many of those babies, had they been allowed to live, would be on public aid now, and with contraception not paid for by insurance, the number would have been even higher.

So you agree with "Doctor " Alberto Giubilini .If they are a burden they should be snuffed.

so you agree with "Doctor " Alberto Giubilini .If they are a burden they should be snuffed.
Not at all. I believe in parents teaching their teens to abstain until they are in a secure relationship and financially stable with a good job and decent living quarters and money in the bank.

You and Speech are in favor of making women have these children, but what do you propose doing to help and support raising them once they are born? Be specific and show me where the alternatives to legal abortions is better.

Or is it you think they should be punished for not practicing abstinence or having children out of wedlock? Again, what of the children that are born. From what I see we barely take care of the kids that are here let alone the ones to come.

You and Speech are in favor of making women have these children, but what do you propose doing to help and support raising them once they are born? Be specific and show me where the alternatives to legal abortions is better.

Or is it you think they should be punished for not practicing abstinence or having children out of wedlock? Again, what of the children that are born. From what I see we barely take care of the kids that are here let alone the ones to come.

What I'm in favor of is to stop pretending these aren't children.

What I'm in favor of is to stop pretending these aren't children.
Okay. They are children born to young teen mothers who are still in middle school or early high school, the fathers are also in school or are dropouts, no one has money or a job or a clue how to care for these babies. Now what?

What ever happened to adoption

Yeah whatever happen to adoption? Kids are lucky to get in foster care.

http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/guns13.jpg [/quote]

Look to the lower right of that picture and in Asia, that is what I prefer a large percentage of the population live without guns and without a high level of homicides. This is the message you fail to listen to. It is possible; you just have to try it

Look to the lower right of that picture and in Asia, that is what I prefer a large percentage of the population live without guns and without a high level of homicides. this is the message you fail to listen to. It is possible; you just have to try it

No thanks... we don't enjoy the sort of Tyranny you call everyday life.

Yeah whatever happen to adoption? Kids are lucky to get in foster care.

Are you familiar with the cost and the hurdles to adopt? Surely you are.

Yeah, yeah, tell me about costs. And while your at it, tell me about the cost of raising babies that are wanted. Or the costs of putting kids in bad homes, or the cost of going to Russia and getting a kid you know nothing about.

Every thing costs. Yeah, I know all about the cost of living, and dying in America.

Hey, you asked what happened to adoption, it isn't that easy unless you have lots of money and lawyers.

Its darn near impossible without money, lawyers... and accountants.

Its darn near impossible without money, lawyers.................and accountants.

And you answered your own question. That's what happened to adoption.

No thanks....we don't enjoy the sort of Tyranny you call everyday life.

The tyranny I call everyday life is not to fear that some idiot will shot me or that I need to be armed to protect myself from my neighbours, I would not wish to enjoy the tyranny you call everyday life. I live in a place where the incidence of violent death is very low and one reason for this is that no one feels it necessary to resort to the gun, we have lost that frontier mentality

the tyranny I call everyday life is not to fear that some idiot will shot me or that I need to be armed to protect myself from my neighbours, I would not wish to enjoy the tyranny you call everyday life. I live in a place where the incidence of violent death is very low and one reason for this is that noone feels it necessary to resort to the gun, we have lost that frontier mentality

Dream on... drugs come in... so do weapons... you think the criminals can't get guns? You would be sadly mistaken.

If some armed thug breaks into your house at night... you have to throw a boomarang at them or try to beat them with a stick... I can shoot them.

I'd rather be able to shoot them... the difference is I'm allowed to have guns... the criminals never were... but that never stops them.

YOU can feel safe being the unarmed side when crime happens... I'd rather have the right to self defense... they way it is now, I feel a lot safer being the one with a gun, rather than being the unarmed victim.

And anyone with the balls to break into my house at night... gets shot, and if he keeps breathing he gets shot again until he stops... doesn't matter if they have a gun or not. That's MY constitutional right... something you don't have.

Dream on... drugs come in... so do weapons... you think the criminals can't get guns? You would be sadly mistaken.

Of course criminals get guns they are exported by your gun manufacturers and illegally imported here


If some armed thug breaks into your house at night... you have to throw a boomarang at them or try to beat them with a stick... I can shoot them.

My boomerang won't come back but I have my fighting club and most attackers here aren't armed with guns


I'd rather be able to shoot them... the difference is I'm allowed to have guns... the criminals never were... but that never stops them.

The difference is I can have guns just not military style weapons and the criminals know they don't need guns so few carry them


YOU can feel safe being the unarmed side when crime happens... I'd rather have the right to self defense... they way it is now, I feel a lot safer being the one with a gun, rather than being the unarmed victim.

I haven't seen many unarmed victims in the home, most crime happens away from the home like the idiot attacker who ran through a plate glass window yesterday


And anyone with the balls to break into my house at night... gets shot, and if he keeps breathing he gets shot again until he stops... doesn't matter if they have a gun or not. That's MY constitutional right... something you don't have.

I have a right of self defense, but not a right to kill someone out of hand. Thing is no one is going to break into my home because they are unlikely to think there is anything here worth the effort. You live where drugs are endemic, I don't, you live where gun crime is endemic, I don't, you live in a violent society, I don't. You think your society is better than mine, I don't and the proof is right here

of course criminals get guns they are exported by your gun manufacturers and illegally imported here



my boomerang won't come back but I have my fighting club and most attackers here arn't armed with guns



the difference is I can have guns just not military style weapons and the criminals know they don't need guns so few carry them



I haven't seen many unarmed victims in the home, most crime happens away from the home like the idiot attacker who ran through a plate glass window yesterday



I have a right of self defense, but not a right to kill someone out of hand. Thing is noone is going to break into my home because they are unlikely to think there is anything here worth the effort. You live where drugs are endemic, I don't, you live where gun crime is endemic, I don't, you live in a violent society, I don't. You think your society is better than mine, I don't and the proof is right here
You need to get out and travel more... because you couldn't pay me to live someplace where the only people with guns are the criminals.

And incidentally... since you anti-gun nuts can't comprehend some very simple basic facts...

A mini-14 is exactly just as deadly as an AR-15 is... because they use the same freaking ammunition.

What kind of idiots think military weapons are any more deadly or dangerous than common hunting weapons... which most times are far MORE deadly...

A Remington 7mm Magnum bolt action hunting rifle is a far more lethal weapon than MOST Military arms used in the world

Oh right... those that really don't have a clue and are misinformed.. and brainwashed by their tyranical government .

Sheeple believe their handlers when they are told... bend over... its good for you..

And incidentally... I'm not a poor person living in a poor neighborhood that looks like everyone is on welfare.

If you live where I do... you have enough money to have stuff... single family homes start at almost $500,000 and go way, way up from there into the millions. The Median income is $113,817 a year.

I can also leave my car unlocked and the radio and the car will be there in the morning.

A Remington 7mm Magnum bolt action hunting rifle is a far more lethal weapon than MOST Military arms used in the world


I wouldn't say that this is true at all. The specs are nearly identical to the NATO .308 round. Not sure where you think it is such a big difference.

I wouldn't say that this is true at all. The specs are nearly identical to the NATO .308 round. Not sure where you think it is such a big difference.

7mm magnum can take a deer down a mile away... I've seen it done, and know people that did it almost every year (I'm not THAT good a shot and my rifle can't do it)... try that with a .308. Easy with a .50cal... but you don't use those for deer.

30-06 is a more powerful round... but by our Aussy friends definition... thats a military round... because the Old Springfields WW1 rifles used it as well as the M-1 Garand, never mind it being the most popular hunting round.

And there is no more effective criminal killer than a 12 gauge Shotgun of any type with a shell of bird-shot. That turns you into hamburger where it hits you.

My deer rifle is a military rifle...

A 1924 Yugoslavian M98 Mauser... 8mm straight bolt. Piss poor trajectory for long distance... but I hunt more in heavy brush where the heavier 196 grain bullet won't be deflected by twigs and branches.

7mm magnum can take a deer down a mile away.....I've seen it done, and know people that did it almost every year (I'm not THAT good a shot and my rifle can't do it)....try that with a .308. easy with a .50cal....but you don't use those for deer.

30-06 is a more powerful round......but by our Aussy friends definition....thats a military round....because the Old Springfields WW1 rifles used it as well as the M-1 Garand, never mind it being the most popular hunting round.

And there is no more effective criminal killer than a 12 gauge Shotgun of any type with a shell of bird-shot. That turns you into hamburger where it hits you.

My deer rifle is a military rifle...

A 1924 Yugoslavian M98 Mauser....8mm straight bolt. Piss poor trajectory for long distance...but I hunt more in heavy brush where the heavier 196 grain bullet won't be deflected by twigs and branches.

I really find it hard to believe that a 7mm magnum round can take a deer clean at almost 2000 yards. There is just not enough energy left for good penetration after 1000 yards.

7mm Rem Mag for Sniping (http://www.snipercentral.com/7mm.htm)

You need to get out and travel more.....because you couldn't pay me to live someplace where the only people with guns are the criminals.

And incidentally...since you anti-gun nuts can;t comprehend some very simple basic facts...

A mini-14 is exactly just as deadly as an AR-15 is.....because they use the same freaking ammunition.

What kind of idiots think military weapons are any more deadly or dangerous than common hunting weapons....which most times are far MORE deadly...

A Remington 7mm Magnum bolt action hunting rifle is a far more lethal weapon than MOST Military arms used in the world

Oh right....those that really don't have a clue and are misinformed..and brainwashed by their tyranical government .

Sheeple believe their handlers when they are told...bend over...its good for you..

And incidently.....I'm not a poor person living in a poor neighborhood that looks like everyone is on welfare.

If you live where I do....you have enough money to have stuff.....single family homes start at almost $500,000 and go way, way up from there into the millions. The Median income is $113,817 a year.

I can also leave my car unlocked and the radio and the car will be there in the morning.

I have travelled the world and never felt threatened.

I frequently leave my car unlocked and it is still there in the morning and even my garage, you don't impress me with your house prices even though my house isn't as pricy as that, it is as well appointed as any and even won an award for presentation recently. You also don't impress me with your income statistics although we don't have much white collar where I live. I don't live in a poor neighbourhood and my neighbours aren't on welfare but we are not victims of crime. I don't say that doesn't happen in some parts of the town but not here, the unruly element is too far away and too lazy to walk. You don't get the point, there are societies who live ordinary lives without a gun culture, who are not threatened by their government or other citizens. I once owned a gun, when I was young and foolish there is nothing to hunt around here so I don't need one the last time I fired a weapon I wished I hadn't

I really find it hard to believe that a 7mm magnum round can take a deer clean at almost 2000 yards. There is just not enough energy left for good penetration after 1000 yards.

7mm Rem Mag for Sniping (http://www.snipercentral.com/7mm.htm)

I mispoke on that a bit... it was a 1,000 yards, not a mile... confirmed on distance. Ridgetop to ridgetop in north central PA. Been there.. saw it during deer season in the mid 1980's.

I have travelled the world and never felt threatened.

I frequently leave my car unlocked and it is still there in the morning and even my garage, you don't impress me with your house prices even though my house isn't as pricy as that, it is as well appointed as any and even won an award for presentation recently. You also don't impress me with your income statistics although we don't have much white collar where I live. I don't live in a poor neighbourhood and my neighbours arn't on welfare but we are not victims of crime. I don't say that doesn't happen in some parts of the town but not here, the unruly element is too far away and too lazy to walk. you don't get the point, there are societies who live ordinary lives without a gun culture, who are not threatened by their government or other citizens. I once owned a gun, when I was young and foolish there is nothing to hunt around here so i don't need one the last time I fired a weapon I wished i hadn't

I don't live in an area where people think nobody has anything of value... in fact I avoid those areas because of the element that lives there... and prowls there.

I think the element might be a little different here, because of the way our social welfare etc is structured there is probably less pressure, even those on welfare aren't "poor" in the real sense

The welfare element here isn't really "poor" either in a global sense...

They have stuff today only the rich had 30 years ago... and would be rich by most third world standards.

They just lack a worth ethic... and common sense.

Well that's universal

I mispoke on that a bit....it was a 1,000 yards, not a mile.....confirmed on distance. Ridgetop to ridgetop in north central PA. Been there..saw it during deer season in the mid 1980's.

Ok, I can believe the 1,000 yard. That makes more sense.

Democrats push bill in Congress to require gun insurance under penalty of fine

Read more: Democrats push bill in Congress to require gun insurance under penalty of fine | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/02/democrats-push-bill-in-congress-to-require-gun-insurance/?cmpid=cmty_twitter_fn#ixzz2PLHyqDDP)

Well that fits in perfectly with the hypocrites in Hollywood demanding gun control while going nowhere without armed guards, self-defense is only for the elite who can afford it.

Democrats push bill in Congress to require gun insurance under penalty of fine

Now that would be sensible, everyone who drives a car has insurance, but how do you get a criminal to insure themselves

Now that would be sensible, everyone who drives a car has insurance, but how do you get a criminal to insure themselves

Really... I think every teenage boy and girl of breeding age should carry baby insurance ((so the public can't be held responsible to supporting them) because far more of them knock each other up before they are 18... than gun owners ever shoot someone.

I think Liberals should have insurance policies for slander and libel... and that those laws be enforced every time they make false.. and misleading statements...

I think Newspapers and liberal news media be licensed and held criminally liable for what they report.. and if they fabricate a story... they lose their license to practice news.

Apparently a Georgia town has decided to make gun ownership manadatory on the pretense the police force is inadequate. What sort of hick operation are you guys running over there? It sounds like make your own arrangements

apparently a Georgia town has decided to make gun ownership manadatory on the pretense the police force is inadequate. what sort of hick operation are you guys running over there? it sounds like make your own arrangements

It isn't the first. Switzerland was the first. It isn't even the first in Georgia.

Crime Rate Plummets in Kennesaw, GA (http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/crime_rate_plummets.htm)

Yeah I heard but would you want to live in Switzerland you can't do anything without your neighbour watching and reporting, that is where you are headed

Now that would be sensible, everyone who drives a car has insurance, but how do you get a criminal to insure themselves

Yeah let's have all them criminals with illegal guns buy liability insurance before they pump someone full of lead.

It isn't the first. Switzerland was the first. It isn't even the first in Georgia.

Crime Rate Plummets in Kennesaw, GA (http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/crime_rate_plummets.htm)

Just trying to work this bit out. It says the law went into effect in 1982, yet they are celebrating the 16th anniversary of the ordinance. Wouldn't that put the year at about 96/97?

Hello:

I don't know.. Are you NOT able to distinguish between those guns which have NOT been made or sold yet, and those that have??

I'm also sure you have NO idea what I'm talking about... THAT'S why we have a problem...

Look. I remember when congress mandated that cars have lights on the SIDES. According to right wing logic, we'd NEVER had lights on the side before so it's CLEAR that we didn't need them.

??

excon

I'm OK with car lights.

In spite of the Senate voting to block this treaty the Obama admin voted for it.

UN approval of arms trade treaty sets up Obama, Senate showdown - The Hill's Global Affairs (http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/un-treaties/291401-un-adopts-obama-backed-arms-trade-treaty-opposed-by-the-nra)

As far as I can tell ,there is no amendment guaranteeing my right to own a car .

In spite of the Senate voting to block this treaty the Obama admin voted for it.

UN approval of arms trade treaty sets up Obama, Senate showdown - The Hill's Global Affairs (http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/un-treaties/291401-un-adopts-obama-backed-arms-trade-treaty-opposed-by-the-nra)

Let them try ant take them... I hope every gun owner shoots anyone and everyone that tries to take our guns...

I am an American citizen... not a UN citizen... MY contoling document is the US constitution... not some piece of scrap paper some UN idiot scrawled on with crayons.

Panic and for no reason the UN arms treaty is to regulate international arms dealing not to take away US guns. The traffic in arms has to be stopped almost every nation in the world has agreed only the rogues voted against it. Watch who you are aligning yourself with

Hello smoothy:


I hope every gun owner shoots anyone and everyone that tries to take our guns... Couple things... Of course, right wingers haven't thought this thing through... Thinking ISN'T a right wing strong point. You can't really, when you hair is on fire...

First off, IF anybody comes for your guns, he's going to be your neighbor, your local cop, or your local National Guard.. He's NOT going to be a member of Obama's army...

Secondly, they're going to show up with big black helicopters that have BIGGER guns than you. I don't know WHY you wingers think your little, teeny, tiny assault rifles would stand up to the US Army... I can't figure that one out...

Thirdly, Tim McVey thought he was a patriot too. He thought he was defending America... But, he wound up being just another scumbag terrorist.

Excon

panic and for no reason the UN arms treaty is to regulate international arms dealing not to take away US guns. The traffic in arms has to be stopped almost every nation in the world has agreed only the rogues voted against it. Watch who you are aligning yourself with

The traffic of socialism is what needs to be stopped...

The UN is an organization of thugs and criminals...

What NEEDS to be stopped... Islam... Islam needs to be stopped... THAT is the true threat to the world... not guns.

....

What NEEDS to be stopped................Islam...Islam needs to be stopped....THAT is the true threat to the world...not guns.

You and I are in agreement that islam needs to be stopped, but the traffic in weapons is feuling the conflicts and allowing islamists to wage war. Guns must not be freely available but controlled

You and I are in agreement that islam needs to be stopped, but the traffic in weapons is feuling the conflicts and allowing islamists to wage war. Guns must not be freely available but controlled

That's what the people who want to impose Tyranny upon you want you to think...

Because they are the ones with the capacity to make the guns... they will have complete control... you and I will become slaves and subject to their every whim being we would become the unarmed masses..

If you listen to the news... most of what they are saying on this topic is nothing but bold faced lies... and they are not held criminally liable for doing it.

And a lot of clues nimrods parrot them saying see... thats the problem.. when "that problem" doesn't even exist.

Naming just one, The fictitious "gun show loophole"... the reality is nobody at any gun show is exempt form any background check or paperwork... period.. it is that simple. ANY and every journalist that repeats that line is an absolute idiot... and a liar.

I have lived a long time in a society where gun population is about 14%, we have not become slaves, we are not subject to their every whim because there is rule of law. Your rhetoric is exactly that; rhetoric put forward by those who want to control, want anarchy, so they can profit from it. Wake up, you are a stooge of the gun lobby, a stooge of the NRA

I have lived a long time in a society where gun population is about 14%, we have not become slaves, we are not subject to their every whim because there is rule of law. your rhetoric is exactly that; rhetoric put forward by those who want to control, want anarchy, so they can profit from it. Wake up, you are a stooge of the gun lobby, a stooge of the NRA

YOU might believe that from within your bubble... but its pretty obvious to the rest of us... you are the stooge to the gun grabbing socialists. We call those people Sheeple. They quietly and meekly accept what they are told by their handlers what is good for them to think.

But then you don't understand the basic concept of a real constitution that doesn't change more often than some restaurant menus. And a BIll of Rights that isn't subject to some loons passing whimsy.

Hello smoothy:


The fictitious "gun show loophole"... the reality is nobody at any gun show is exempt form any background check or paperwork... period.. it is that simple. ANY and every journalist that repeats that line is an absolute idiot... and a liar.I've posted before about my ability to buy a gun, and as MANY guns as I want at our local gun shows. I suppose you think I'm a liar too.

How is it, that a fellow who posits himself as a gun expert, knows SO little about how guns are bought and sold?? You accuse US of buying the media garbage, but that's what YOU'RE doing.

Let me repeat. When I go to the gun shows, the guys who have BOOTHS are firearm dealers... You can't buy a gun from them WITHOUT a background check... Then there's the private seller... He's walking around with gun belts over his shoulder, or he's outside the show standing at the door or hanging out in the parking lot... You'd have be BLIND not to notice them, and not to KNOW what they're doing there... You can buy a gun from them, and NOT go through a background check... Then you can buy ANOTHER one from the next guy standing there...

And, you don't know that this is happening?? Dude!

Now, I don't know WHY you'd want to maintain a law that allows felons like me to GET guns... It makes NO sense - NO sense at all...

Excon

You know how easy it is to pay someone with a clean record to buy a gun for you? "bangers do it all the time, and excons. But you guys are opposed to making straw purchases a federal crime with a steep sentence.

Naming just one, The fictitious "gun show loophole".....the reality is nobody at any gun show is exempt form any background check or paperwork.....period..it is that simple. ANY and every journalist that repeats that line is an absolute idiot...and a liar.
My NRA husband says there are lots of private sales going on at gun shows between guys who walk around with all sorts of guns strapped to and hanging from their bodies and people who don't want the background check done.

Hello smoothy:

I've posted before about my ability to buy a gun, and as MANY guns as I want at our local gun shows. I suppose you think I'm a liar too.

How is it, that a fellow who posits himself as a gun expert, knows SO little about how guns are bought and sold??? You accuse US of buying the media garbage, but that's what YOU'RE doing.

Lemme repeat. When I go to the gun shows, the guys who have BOOTHS are firearm dealers... You can't buy a gun from them WITHOUT a background check... Then there's the private seller... He's walking around with gun belts over his shoulder, or he's outside the show standing at the door or hanging out in the parking lot... You'd have be BLIND not to notice them, and not to KNOW what they're doing there... You can buy a gun from them, and NOT go through a background check... Then you can buy ANOTHER one from the next guy standing there....

And, you don't know that this is happening??? Dude!

Now, I dunno WHY you'd want to maintain a law that allows felons like me to GET guns... It makes NO sense - NO sense at all...

excon

So do the thugs on the inner city streets that will sell you one at night in certain parts of town...


So what does that have to do with the price of rice in China? Or can't Liberals actually read what is written.

You know how easy it is to pay someone with a clean record to buy a gun for you? "bangers do it all the time, and excons. But you guys are opposed to making straw purchases a federal crime with a steep sentence.

And again... exactly WHAT does that have to do with the purchaser in EVERY gun transaction required to be filling out forms and getting checks? As the existing law requires ALREADY?

And exactly WHY should the criminal who commits the crime get at most five years and at least a slap on the wrist.. when someone who DIDN'T commit that crime is supposed to get worse?

Unless you call for criminlas using guns they shouldn't have to be executed... then every argument you have about someone who sells them a gun becomes total BS...

They guy that points the gun at someone to commit a crime... DESERVES a far greater penalty than anyone else who didn't.

Hello again, smoothy:


So do the thugs on the inner city streets that will sell you one at night in certain parts of town... Nahh.. This is just MORE of right wing crap you bought into...

I'm going to ask you to think for a minute... I'm white. You're white. I don't know ANYBODY in the hood who has guns for sale.. You don't either... I'm an excon, but I don't carry a membership card. You're not.. You look EXACTLY like me.

Now, in SPITE of what the NRA says, I'm NOT going to waltz around the hood with a pocket full of cash trying to buy a gun... Neither are you. If you did, do you REALLY think you'd get a gun? Or do you think you'd wind up in a ditch somewhere?

You're a guy who professes to know about real life.. Am I making this up?

Excon

Why do you object to keeping guns from criminals? And how come the good guy with a gun got shot 20 times in his home by the bad guy in Kaufman Co.Tx. Your logic has some dangerous holes in it.

Hello smoothy:

I've posted before about my ability to buy a gun, and as MANY guns as I want at our local gun shows. I suppose you think I'm a liar too.

How is it, that a fellow who posits himself as a gun expert, knows SO little about how guns are bought and sold??? You accuse US of buying the media garbage, but that's what YOU'RE doing.

Lemme repeat. When I go to the gun shows, the guys who have BOOTHS are firearm dealers... You can't buy a gun from them WITHOUT a background check... Then there's the private seller... He's walking around with gun belts over his shoulder, or he's outside the show standing at the door or hanging out in the parking lot... You'd have be BLIND not to notice them, and not to KNOW what they're doing there... You can buy a gun from them, and NOT go through a background check... Then you can buy ANOTHER one from the next guy standing there....

And, you don't know that this is happening??? Dude!

Now, I dunno WHY you'd want to maintain a law that allows felons like me to GET guns... It makes NO sense - NO sense at all...

excon

[ Greenie ]


Ex is correct. There are provisions in the law that allow for the sale of guns from your private / personal collection. In most places there is no madate for a background check when a private sale takes place. If you can fund a booth and are willing to sell off your private collection at a show you are perfectly legal to do so.

You know how easy it is to pay someone with a clean record to buy a gun for you? "bangers do it all the time, and excons. But you guys are opposed to making straw purchases a federal crime with a steep sentence.

It is already as I have pointed out a federal crime. If they actually gathered the proof needed then they can put them away under current law.

It is already as I have pointed out a federal crime. If they actually gathered the proof needed then they can put them away under current law.
So my friend Bob goes to a gun show, buys an untraceable handgun there in a private sale, and then goes home to shoot and kill his wife The private seller gets off scot-free.

So my friend Bob goes to a gun show, buys an untraceable handgun there in a private sale, and then goes home to shoot and kill his wife The private seller gets off scot-free.

For one thing it may or may not be untraceable. For another if there was enough reason to believe that this person can own a gun then the seller has no part of the crime being committed with that gun.


P.S. You need new friends.

For one thing it may or may not be untraceable. For another if there was enough reason to believe that this person can own a gun then the seller has no part of the crime being commited with that gun.

P.S. You need new friends.
The seller has no idea who he is selling to (an excon? Bob who may have a criminal papertrail of some sort and who plans to shoot his wife?). Wouldn't a private seller want that protection?

P.S. I made up "Bob."

The seller has no idea who he is selling to (an excon? Bob who may have a criminal papertrail of some sort and who plans to shoot his wife?). Wouldn't a private seller want that protection?

P.S. I made up "Bob."

I can not guess anothers thinking nor will I try in this debate.


Bob

I can not guess anothers thinking nor will I try in this debate.


Bob
But wouldn't the private seller want protection and know not to sell a gun to a felon or someone with a rap sheet?

P.S. Not Bob -- I meant to call him ummmm Fred.

For one thing it may or may not be untraceable. For another if there was enough reason to believe that this person can own a gun then the seller has no part of the crime being commited with that gun.


P.S. You need new friends.

Okay problem solved and we don't have to do anything but wait for the next nut or criminal to make headlines. GOT IT.

Lots of if's and maybe's in your quote.

Okay problem solved and we don't have to do anything but wait for the next nut or criminal to make headlines. GOT IT.

Lots of if's and maybe's in your quote.

That is because I do abide by the law. If they that are responsible for prosecuting the law as it is written then it would be a lot less of it happening. Instead they are not following through. I can't do anything about that except watch my local elections and vote the SOB's out that fail to do their job.

So my friend Bob goes to a gun show, buys an untraceable handgun there in a private sale, and then goes home to shoot and kill his wife The private seller gets off scot-free.

Maybe you need better friends than Bob.

Maybe you need better friends than Bob.
Or I should make friends with the private sellers who don't check up on who they sell guns to?

That is because I do abide by the law. If they that are responsible for prosecuting the law as it is written then it would be a lot less of it happening. Instead they are not following through. I can't do anything about that except watch my local elections and vote the SOB's out that fail to do thier job.

Can anyone guess which three cities rank the worst in prosecuting federal gun crimes (http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/03/28/chicago-los-angeles-new-york-prosecuted-fewest-federal-gun-crimes)last year?

Or I should make friends with the private sellers who don't check up on who they sell guns to?

Bob's the murderer.

Can anyone guess which three cities rank the worst in prosecuting federal gun crimes (http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/03/28/chicago-los-angeles-new-york-prosecuted-fewest-federal-gun-crimes)last year?
All the more reason to have a universal background check, even done by private sellers at gun shows.

You're my friend Speech. >Big Grin<


That is because I do abide by the law. If they that are responsible for prosecuting the law as it is written then it would be a lot less of it happening. Instead they are not following through. I can't do anything about that except watch my local elections and vote the SOB's out that fail to do thier job.

I know the feeling, the cost of successful prosecutions and rounding up all those criminals along with plea bargains is an obstacle to effective application of the law since there are many not so law abiding citizens that take a penitentiary chance to make a few bucks.

It's a never ending process filled with holes to be plugged. A daunting task.

All the more reason to have a universal background check, even done by private sellers at gun shows.

All the more reason to start with prosecuting the laws we have, and those three cities have more laws than most.

Hello again, Steve:


Can anyone guess which three cities rank the worst in prosecuting federal gun crimes last year?Can anyone guess WHICH gun laws the right wing is talking about??

It's PAPER violations.. (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/police-chief-battles-with-gop-senator-over-gun-background-checks-youre-wrong/) It's the heinous crime of applying for a gun and getting turned down. It's TRYING to buy a gun when you're not eligible and getting turned down. It's fraudulent applying...

Does ANYBODY think hunting down THESE criminals is the best use of our police forces?
“I want to stop 76,000 people from getting guns illegally. That's what a background check does. If you think we're going to do paperwork prosecutions, you're wrong,”

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

Can anyone guess WHICH gun laws the right wing is talking about???

It's PAPER violations.. (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/police-chief-battles-with-gop-senator-over-gun-background-checks-youre-wrong/) It's the crime of applying for a gun and getting turned down. It's TRYING to buy a gun when you're not eligible and NOT getting one. It's fraudulent applying...

Does ANYBODY think that's the best use of our police forces??

excon

Ah, so some gun crimes are OK.

Hello again, Steve:


Ah, so some gun crimes are OK.First off, whoever made it a CRIME to get turned down for a gun is NUTS.. As a seasoned criminal, I can't even imagine WHY it's a crime. Seriously, I can't. Do you think trying to buy cigarettes when you're a kid, and getting TURNED DOWN should be a crime?? If you're not eligible for a liquor license you applied for, and you get turned down, is THAT a crime?

Finally, I think YOU'RE one of the people here who think cops aren't, and/or shouldn't be enforcing marijuana laws. Can we have a little consistency?

Excon

Dude, I was just pointing out the stats since the subject was raised. But I do so get a giggle out of your rants. So just one question then, why do you guys want more laws because we don't have the time and resources to enforce the laws we already have? Now that makes no sense.

The more people in any one place, the more overwhelmed ALL the institutions are. I have maintained that rural and urban issues are vastly different. Poverty is what keeps people at each others throats, as urban environments are stretched to the limits during times of national economic hardships and stagnant progress to address them.

The more people in any one place, the more overwhelmed ALL the institutions are. I have maintained that rural and urban issues are vastly different. Poverty is what keeps people at each others throats, as urban enviroments are stretched to the limits during times of national economic hardships and stagnant progress to address them.

Stop paying people welfare to sit at home... and they won't have time to sit around and cause trouble... they will be busy working earning a paycheck so they can eat.

Just trying to work this bit out. It says the law went into effect in 1982, yet they are celebrating the 16th anniversary of the ordinance. Wouldn't that put the year at about 96/97?

Yes, the article is from 98, which illustrates my point even more clearly.

Stop paying people welfare to sit at home...and they won't have time to sit around and cause trouble...they will be busy working earning a paycheck so they can eat.

If there are no jobs, what are they going to do? Starve in the streets? If you had an economy crying out for workers you could make such statements but you don't

If there are no jobs, what are they going to do? starve in the streets? if you had an economy crying out for workers you could make such statements but you don't

There are over 20 Million illegals here working... throw them out and you have over 20 million jobs open up tomorrow.


I actually have more respect for the illegals than the welfare bums... because they at least have a healthy work ethic.

there are over 20 Million illegals here working.....throw them out and you have over 20 million jobs open up tomorrow.


I actually have more respect for the illegals than the welfare bums....because they at least have a healthy work ethic.

A somewhat counter productive strategy, with all you efforts you only deport a small number of these people and besides your own rhethoric says these welfare bums don't want to work which means they won't take the jobs anyway and it will just become a revolving door. You have to match jobs to areas where there is disadvantage; throw out the farm labourers and are you going to get the people from the cities to pick beans? I don't think so. You need a strategy which will help the bums migrate to the places where there is work and you have to lift the minimum wage to make it attractive. Fact is you exported the jobs and the only way you will change things is to become protective of local industry. As soon as you do that the rest of the world will follow. Give incentives for the illegals to go home by creating vivrant economies in their own countries?

LOL, smoothy in a straw hat picking strawberries as a second job, LOL!!

LOL, smoothy in a straw hat picking strawberries as a second job, LOL!!!

NOTHING tastes better than fresh hand-picked strawberries. Home grown tomatoes are second.

Had a peach tree in the back yard... HOT fresh peach pie!!

Nnah you can't get smoothy to pick fruit, he's a city boy

Had a peach tree in the back yard........................................HOT fresh peach pie!!!!!!!!!!

With hand cranked ice cream. Your arms are so sore you have to take your time and savor it.

I had siblings, we took turns... well most of us any way :) .


nnah you can't get smoothy to pick fruit, he's a city boy

He sat at the same desk for 8 years in his little house on the prairie. He will never forget his roots, they are in his back pocket still.

nnah you can't get smoothy to pick fruit, he's a city boy

Goes to show just how little you know about me. Both of you.

Well Tal if he's not a country boy and he's not a city boy he must be from the burbs or one of those himigrants

A Colorado dem that's been pushing gun control for years has no clue how guns work. She seems to think mags can't be reloaded and they'll magically start to disappear if you ban them.

This idiot also thought it amusing to tell a citizen concerned about defending against an intruder, "you'd probably be dead, anyway."

Dem Rep to Constituent: 'You'd Probably Be Dead' if Confronted by Armed Intruder - By Eliana Johnson - The Corner - National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/344615/dem-rep-constituent-youd-probably-be-dead-anyway-if-confronted-armed-intruder-eliana-j)

Good thing we have the police and stupid, arrogant Democrats to protect us when they take away our guns.

That's what this is about? Taking your guns or not being able to shoot thousands of rounds for your pleasure? Too bad they got the drop on the good guy with the gun, and his wife,and that's how criminals do, and have done for centuries. They wait for the perfect time when they have an advantage and your gun is no good to you.

What you thought cops were the only ones to stake out a target? Of course they case the place first.

So you think gun magazines can't be reloaded and like this moron, that defending yourself is not only unrealistic but amusing because "you'd probably be dead, anyway."

Here are some recent examples of women who would be vicitims if not for packing... there are more...

Woman shoots, cuffs armed intruder (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/22/guns-intruder-shot/1938719/)

63-year-old Spokane, Wash., grandmother shoots at intruder in home - UPI.com (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/04/04/63-year-old-woman-shoots-at-intruder/UPI-64291365080789/)

LISTEN: 911 Call Released After Georgia Mother Shoots Home Intruder | Fox News Insider (http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/01/10/listen-911-call-released-after-georgia-mother-shoots-home-intruder/)

Georgia woman shoots intruder 5 times | Amarillo Globe-News (http://amarillo.com/news/latest-news/2013-01-09/georgia-woman-shoots-intruder-5-times)

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/highland-woman-says-she-shot-intruder-to-save-her-sister/article_17d319d2-6596-5890-a509-57441d06c092.html

well Tal if he's not a country boy and he's not a city boy he must be from the burbs or one of those himigrants

Still bouncing all over the place... proof neither of you know as much as you think... and have been quessing way wrong.. which is no surprise since you guess way wrong on a lot of things.

So far I have only seen the bad guys reload, and kill more people, and have yet to see any example of a good guy doing the same to save himself, or anyone else. If you know of such an example of the good guys reloading to save the day, please share it.

I am not against gun, or the rights of citizens to have them for any reason. Quite the opposite and have said so.

And the only time you will likely ever hear about reloading in the media is to fuel the hysterics over guns. It really doesn't matter if we have any examples or not, I don't like the idea of morons who have no clue how guns work and are OK with me being dead anyway limiting my ability to protect myself and my family to 7 bullets, or none if they have their way.

limiting my ability to protect myself and my family to 7 bullets
Have you ever had to protect your family with more than two bullets?

Have you ever had to protect your family with more than two bullets?

Why should any American ever be restricted to how many they can have in the first place, or what type?

What part of "Shall not be abridged" do they not understand... perhaps its time we start abridging the freedom of the press and free speech to the same standards...

By that argument... the Police should not own ANY automatic weapons... they don't NEED them.

Hello smoothy:

What part of "well REGULATED" do YOU not get?

excon

Have you ever had to protect your family with more than two bullets?

Well now that's about as silly a question as I've ever seen.

Why carry a spare condom? The one that's been in your wallet for 8 months isn't going to break and hey, you only have to stop that one sperm that's going to get though anyhow, right?

Well now that's about as silly a question as I've ever seen.

Why carry a spare condom? The one that's been in your wallet for 8 months isn't going to break and hey, you only have to stop that one sperm that's gonna get though anyhow, right?
The old condom not longer works and that stray sperm is very very very fast.

So you've never had to protect your family by using a gun?

The old condom not longer works and that stray sperm is very very very fast.

So you've never had to protect your family by using a gun?

Hopefully I never will. Is there a point to this? If there is, spit it out.

Hopefully I never will. Is there a point to this? If there is, spit it out.
In 50+ years, my husband has never needed a gun to defend his family, but twice he has almost shot a neighbor and once almost shot me. I wonder how many times legal guns end up wounding and killing family members, neighbors, friends, relatives, but never are used on an intruder. I wonder what the ratio is.

In 50+ years, my husband has never needed a gun to defend his family, but twice he has almost shot a neighbor and once almost shot me. I wonder how many times legal guns end up wounding and killing family members, neighbors, friends, relatives, but never are used on an intruder. I wonder what the ratio is.

Maybe your husband shouldn't have a gun, sounds like he's shooting at the wrong people. Don't stop me from from having the capacity to defend my family because your hubby is incompetent with a gun. I cut off part of a finger with a jointer and I'm not trying to keep others from using one.

Maybe your husband shouldn't have a gun, sounds like he's shooting at the wrong people. Don't stop me from from having the capacity to defend my family because your hubby is incompetent with a gun. I cut off part of a finger with a jointer and I'm not trying to keep others from using one.
Like I said, I'd love to see the ratio. The very fact he hasn't killed anyone gives me hope. And hope for the rest of the NRA crowd.

I'm curious how you almost shoot a neighbor... or a spouse? Unless you were playing with it like a toy or carelessly brandishing it around.

I'm 51... I've never almost shot a neighbor or my wife... even once, not by accident... and not on purpose either..

I did almost shoot someone during hunting season once... but that's only because the dimwit ran in front of me just as I was ready to kill a deer (that was only 20 yards away. Yes... one eye closed... eye on the scope... and starting to squeese the trigger when suddenly my view of the deer went black instantly.

I'm curious how you almost shoot a neighbor...or a spouse? Unless you were playing with it like a toy or carelessly brandishing it around.

I'm 51.....I've never almost shot a neighbor or my wife...even once, not by accident....and not on purpose either..

I did almost shoot someone during hunting season once...but thats only because the dimwit ran in front of me just as I was ready to kill a deer (that was only 20 yards away. Yes...one eye closed...eye on the scope...and starting to squeese the trigger when suddenly my view of the deer went black instantly.

The only people I've ever aimed at are waiting for me at the brass gates, if you believe that sort of thing. Obviously WG's hubby needed some safety instruction, or some more. To find "accidental" shootings, one should probably research negligent homicide statistics.

The only people I've ever aimed at are waiting for me at the brass gates, if you believe that sort of thing. Obviously WG's hubby needed some safety instruction, or some more. To find "accidental" shootings, one should probably research negligent homicide statistics.

And every one of those were preventible if someone hadn't done something stupid... like trying to clean a gun before they VERIFY its actually unloaded.

Any gun you pick up you ASSUME is loaded... until you prove it otherwise.

Most of the time... accidental.. equates with someone not following the most basic rules of gun safety.

You mean like not pointing a loaded gun with your finger on the trigger toward the yard your children are playing in?

l3V01JvW5wU

I'm curious how you almost shoot a neighbor...or a spouse? Unless you were playing with it like a toy or carelessly brandishing it around.
Nope. He was defending his family. Safety is his middle name.

Most of the time...accidental..equates with someone not following the most basic rules of gun safety.
Except for the family suicides and kids playing with unsecured and loaded guns. And Adam Lanza types.

Except for the family suicides and kids playing with unsecured and loaded guns. And Adam Lanza types.

THose kids need a very healthy spanking the FIRST time they get caught touching them...

If nothing was done then it's the parents fault for not instilling the fear of god in them for playing with stuff not theirs.

I gew up around guns... we never had a single event where we played with them... not the real ones.

THose kids need a very healthy spanking the FIRST time they get caught touching them.....

if nothing was done then its the parents fault for not instilling the fear of god in them for playing with stuff not theirs.

I gew up around guns....we never had a single event where we played with them...not the real ones.

My kids had had the full NRA safety course before they could read. At 6 they could deep-clean both rifles and shotguns. We added pistols by age 12. The reason these tools are called 'dangerous' is the people doing the calling are ignorant. A crane in my hands is VERY dangerous, because I have no clue how to operate it. Hand tools, not so much

Have you ever had to protect your family with more than two bullets?

Yes it is called tripple tap. 2 to the chest and 1 to the head. In the case of a home invasion that is a per person count.

Yes it is called tripple tap. 2 to the chest and 1 to the head. In the case of a home invasion that is a per person count.
And you've done that?

Doesn't matter, if he has to do it 3 times 7 bullets won't get the job done.

And you've done that?

Im not allowed to say what has been done or not. But I can say that that is the standard method for dropping the opposing force.

Im not allowed to say what has been done or not. But I can say that that is the standard method for dropping the opposing force.
The "opposing force"?

Yes it is called tripple tap. 2 to the chest and 1 to the head. In the case of a home invasion that is a per person count.

Also known as the sniper triangle

Also known as the sniper triangle
It's to a.m. and pitch dark, you are awakened from a sound sleep by noises in another part of the house, you sleep nude, and you have no idea where family members are. Now what?

The only people I've ever aimed at are waiting for me at the brass gates,So how many people have you killed?

It's 2 a.m. and pitch dark, you are awakened from a sound sleep by noises in another part of the house, you sleep nude, and you have no idea where family members are. Now what?

Always remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. To answer your question, I turn on the lights to see what the dogs have caught.

So how many people have you killed?

I think Gunney Flores got #s 4, 5, and 6.

Always remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. To answer your question, I turn on the lights to see what the dogs have caught.
Nope, no dogs, only cats. And no phone nearby.

Nope, no dogs, only cats. And no phone nearby.

No cats, only dogs.

No cats, only dogs.
No dogs allowed in my scenario.

My dogs my first line of defense, God bless her.

My dogs my first line of defense, God bless her.
Is she licensed?

No dogs allowed in my scenario.

You asked me. Bogus question. What if, what if, what if... What if you were a hooker and someone else's pimp wanted your pimp's money? Totally bogus.

You asked me. Bogus question. What if, what if, what if... What if you were a hooker and someone else's pimp wanted your pimp's money? Totally bogus.
No, it was real.

Is she licensed?

We don't have dog licenses.

I think Gunney Flores got #s 4, 5, and 6Is that some kind of code because I don't know what that means.

Remember that Aurora shooter that Colorado's new gun control measures are going to prevent? Yeah? Well if police would have listened to his psychiatrist it could have been prevented.

She warned them a month before the shooting of “his danger to the public due to homicidal statements he had made.” She also told police he had “threatened and harassed her via email/text messages” 8 days before the shooting, yet records that were previously sealed show police made no contact with the shooter.

Of course none of this fits the narrative that guns were the problem, not an unstable wacko that police were warned about. They dropped the ball, they didn't even follow up after receiving warning from a medical professional that he was homicidal.

Holmes' doctor warned police before Colo. theater attack (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/04/colorado-theater-james-holmes-records/2054753/)

Hello again, Steve:


Remember that Aurora shooter... Well if police would have listened to his psychiatrist it could have been prevented. It's true.. That's why we need comprehensive background checks. You don't want to leave it up to individual psychiatrists and cops do you??

You DO? Dude!

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

It's true.. That's why we need comprehensive background checks. You don't wanna leave it up to individual psychiatrists and cops do you???

You DO?? Dude!

excon

If the cops won't follow up on a clear threat then how exactly do you suppose they're going to do with background checks?

Hello again, Steve:


If the cops won't follow up on a clear threat then how exactly do you suppose they're going to do with background checks?It's got NOTHING to do with the cops. It has to do with gun shops. IF someone is in the database, when they apply to buy a gun, they'll get turned DOWN.

It's true that the database will have to be accurate, and that presents problems in and of itself. But, if we DID have that system, the Aurora shooter would NOT have been able to buy a gun..

Maybe one of the reasons you're not FOR background check is because you don't UNDERSTAND them. Otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned the COPS doing background checks.. That, or you're just throwing around some BS.

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

It's got NOTHING to do with the cops. It has to do with gun shops. IF someone is in the database, when they apply to buy a gun, they'll get turned DOWN.

It's true that the database will have to be accurate, and that presents problems in and of itself. But, if we DID have that system, the Aurora shooter would NOT have been able to buy a gun..

Maybe one of the reasons you're not FOR background check is because you don't UNDERSTAND them. Otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned the COPS doing background checks.. That, or you're just throwing around some BS.

excon

excon WANTS a database of who's got guns so big brother can start to take them off us... thats basically what he admits to in this post. And that's the ONLY reason they would even NEED a database...

Hello smoothy:

Let me help you with your reading comprehension.. I said if you're IN the database, you can't buy a gun... Therefore, only the people who we DON'T want to buy guns, need to be IN the database.

Over to you, winger.

excon

Dude, I know how background checks work and they apparently did nothing to stop Holmes from buying weapons. Why would anyone who appears "normal" and has no record be stopped by a background check?

On the other hand police HAD the info they needed to stop him and they didn't bother to act on it, just as they are supposed to do when someone prohibited attempts to buy a gun.

Even Colorado's Democrat governor said if he hadn't had guns he would have found a way to create "horror."


Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper suggested this morning on “This Week” that even if Aurora shooting suspect James Holmes did not have access to guns, he would have found a way to create “horror.”

“This wasn’t a Colorado problem. This is a human problem (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/gov-john-hickenlooper-james-holmes-would-have-created-horror-without-guns/),” Hickenlooper said. “Even if he didn’t have access to guns, this guy was diabolical…he would have found explosives. He would have found something…he would have done something to create this horror.”

Hickenlooper recognized the problem and in typical liberal fashion tried to solve it by addressing something else. It IS a "human problem" in great part due to liberal policies and ideology as I have argued before, not a gun problem. You can't tolerate stay at home moms, don't think kids need a mom and a dad, undermine parents in school, despise discipline, parade a bunch of Hollywood hypocrites who glorify violence and fill kid's minds with filth and sex and refuse to acknowledge the humanity of unborn (and sometimes born) babies - then you get pi$$ed about guns.

Dude!

Your fear of big brother has seriously compromised your common sense. This has never been about taking anything from YOU guys, or anyone else. Just clear process for public safety, not just for kids in school, but all of us.

Hello smoothy:

Lemme help you with your reading comprehension.. I said if you're IN the database, you can't buy a gun... Therefore, only the people who we DON'T want to buy guns, need to be IN the database.

Over to you, winger.

excon

Database is a database... you don't apply to by a gun if you don't plant to buy a gun... so everyone in that database OWNS a gun...

Anyone that trusts the government would NOT do something both wrong and unconstitutional with that secret info... is either a fool or oblivious to past events. The only other option is they know and expect them to do just that.

Hello again, Steve:

If you want to throw up straw men, you don't have to.. There's PLENTY of murders that WON'T be stopped by a background check... But, that isn't the right argument... I'm talking about the FUTURE murders that WON'T be committed because we didn't let some bad guy buy guns.

Over to you, Dude.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

Let me help you with computer knowledge.. IF we want a database to INCLUDE only the people we WANT in it, then that's the ONLY people IN it. If YOU'RE not in it, you can buy a gun. If you are, you can't.

Now, that's not to say that the government wouldn't CHEAT. But, we don't make laws with that assumption.

Over to you, winger.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

Let me help you with computer knowledge.. IF we want a database to INCLUDE only the people we WANT in it, then that's the ONLY people IN it. If YOU'RE not in it, you can buy a gun. If you are, you can't.

Now, that's not to say that the government wouldn't CHEAT. But, we don't make laws with that assumption.

Over to you, winger.

excon

And you actually believe that's how the government operates? Give them an inch and they take a mile.

There is a wide gap between theoretical and actual.

Hello again, smoothy:

Do I believe my government obeys the law? For the most part, yes. I don't think it's every man for himself.

excon

I don't oppose background checks, I think I've made that clear. I OPPOSE the overly intrusive bill that Schmucky is trying to get through. Even the ACLU has issues with it. Meanwhile I get no response from your side about addressing the human problem. This is the culture you wanted and created, what did you expect would happen when you made moms, dads, God and innocent life irrelevant, utopia?

If he (or she) ISN'T in a national database, no gun will be sold to that person.

Devil's advocate Neil Steinberg had a thought-provoking column in today's Chicago Sun-Times --

"Thus school shootings, particularly Newtown, set off this agonized national debate on doing something about guns — increasing background checks, banning assault rifles, whatever they might be — none of which address the core problem: loons getting guns and killing people. ... We’d do a lot better, rather than fixate on clip capacity, to address the holes in our national soul that make people seek out so many guns in the first place — the powerlessness, the fear, the anxiety."

Mass shootings not a big problem - Chicago Sun-Times (http://www.suntimes.com/news/steinberg/19270756-452/mass-shootings-not-a-big-problem.html)

Hello again, Steve:

If we live in a center right country, how did it get so liberal? The judiciary is STOCKED with George W. Bush appointees, yet we're getting more liberal...

The days of God, Guns and Gays are over. Bummer for you.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

If we live in a center right country, how did it get so liberal? The judiciary is STOCKED with George W. Bush appointees, yet we're getting more liberal...

The days of God, Guns and Gays are over. Bummer for you.

excon

Nice deflection. It solves nothing but nice deflection.

Hello again, smoothy:

Do I believe my government obeys the law? For the most part, yes. I don't think it's every man for himself.

excon

I believe they follow the law only when its serves their interests... the problem is following the law hasn't been in this administrations best interests so they ignore it.

Just for fun --

There was a bit of confusion at the sporting goods store this morning.

When I was ready to pay for my purchases of gun powder and bullets the cashier said, "Strip down, facing me."

Making a mental note to complain to my congressman about the gun registry people running amok, I did just as she had instructed.

When the hysterical shrieking and alarms finally subsided, I found out that she was referring to my credit card.

I have been asked to shop elsewhere in the future.

Just for fun --

There was a bit of confusion at the sporting goods store this morning.

When I was ready to pay for my purchases of gun powder and bullets the cashier said, "Strip down, facing me."

Making a mental note to complain to my congressman about the gun registry people running amok, I did just as she had instructed.

When the hysterical shrieking and alarms finally subsided, I found out that she was referring to my credit card.

I have been asked to shop elsewhere in the future.

Good one !

Lmao!! :)

That was funny.

The CDC says 1 in 5 teen boys have been diagnosed with ADHD ,and that doctors medicate 2/3 of the diagnosed with Ritalin or similar drugs .Where once teen boys had their energy channeled into physical activities like playing football ,now they do less physically demanding activities like shoot them up video games ;and when they show their fueled up aggression ;take a pill.

Yep, the DSM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-5) is the tool of doctors and big pharma. Another shining example of corporatism taking over your society.

The CDC says 1 in 5 teen boys have been diagnosed with ADHD ,and that doctors medicate 2/3 of the diagnosed with Ritalin or similar drugs .Where once teen boys had their energy channeled into physical activities like playing football ,now they do less physically demanding activities like shoot em up video games ;and when they show their fueled up aggression ;take a pill.

Better have a talk with those parents.

Hello again,

If you believe the polls (and most Republicans DON'T), 90% of the people believe we should have a comprehensive background check.

Politically speaking, HOW can Republicans say no?

excon

That's because we are smart enough to know those polls are written for... paid for and designed for... the answer the people having them desire... which is pushing their communist anti-american agenda.

We already have background checks.

Hello again, smoothy:

I'll mark you down as a disbeliever in polls.

excon

Hello again, righty's

At least smoothy understood my question..

I'm NOT asking about the BILL. I'm asking about how the Republicans think they'll survive with 90% of the people against them?

excon

I understood the question and it isn't as cut and dried as you make it, 48 percent also believe background checks could lead to government confiscation of legally-owned guns. I'm also betting that if they knew what else Schmucky's bill would they would oppose it. Regardless, our second amendment rights are not determined by polls.

Hello again, smoothy:

I'll mark you down as a disbeliever in polls.

excon

I don't disbelieve polls... I an skeptical of those from unknown and unrespected sources.

Reliability with polls is purely based on proper design... they have to be designed from the start to be impartial.. many aren't.

What are the poll #s on a national gun registry ? Don't think you can have one without the other .

Hello again, righty's

At least smoothy understood my question..

I'm NOT asking about the BILL. I'm asking about how the Republicans think they'll survive with 90% of the people against them?

excon

90% of the poplation isn't against us... thats what a biased poll designed to be pro-communist said... that poll was faulty in its very design.

Meaning I flushed a wad of toilet paper this morning that was more useful than that poll was.

Hello again, Steve:

So, you think this is a WINNER for Republicans.. I'll mark that down.

excon

Hello again, tom and smoothy:

I'll mark you guys down as thinking this is a winner for the GOP, too.

Actually, because NONE of you addressed my question, I'll bet you all KNOW it's you guys shooting yourselves in the foot once again...

Gerrymandered districts or NOT, you guys will be handed your walking papers in 2014.

excon

Sorry buddy, your psychological warfare doesn't work on me. I'm not one iota concerned about fallout from not ramming through Schmucky's bill. It's a bad bill and it needs to go down.

Hello again, tom and smoothy:

I'll mark you guys down as thinking this is a winner for the GOP, too.

Actually, because NONE of you addressed my question, I'll bet you all KNOW it's you guys shooting yourselves in the foot once again...

Gerrymandered districts or NOT, you guys will be handed your walking papers in 2014.

excon

Dream on... most Democrats I know are disgusted by what the democrat party is doing... and will be voting Republican next election. Of course there are some that are dumb as rocks and aren't smart enough to see how bad Owebama and his band of useful idtiots have screwed everything up that think Owebama is making things better... despite a total lack of evidence to back that up.

Take a vote and end the drama. What's so hard about that?

What was so hard about the Senate putting out a budget every year?

Take a vote and end the drama. What's so hard about that?

Lets have a vote outlawing leftist "media" pushing propaganda instead of facts. And leftist speech.

Those are no more protected rights than our right to own guns are after all.

Okay, we can vote on that too if you want. Right after the senate takes up the votes on its agenda.

Okay, we can vote on that too if you want. Right after the senate takes up the votes on its agenda.

The Senate needs to have a vote on the budgets it has been presented the last 4 years its still sitting on. FIRST.

Okay let's vote on that too.

Hello again, wingers:

Would you get on an airplane if you KNEW that 40% of the people DIDN'T have to go through security?

excon

Hello again, tom and smoothy:

I'll mark you guys down as thinking this is a winner for the GOP, too.

Actually, because NONE of you addressed my question, I'll bet you all KNOW it's you guys shooting yourselves in the foot once again...

Gerrymandered districts or NOT, you guys will be handed your walking papers in 2014.

excon

I didn't comment on the politics . I asked a follow up question which was : What are the poll #s on a national gun registry ?

Do you think you can have universal backround checks without a universal registration ?
To answer your question... no I don't think there is political consequences for Repubics who vote against it . I think there will be plenty of political consequences for Dems from Red or swing states that do vote in favor of it . Harry Reid knows this . That is why he has been luke warm and moving at a snail's pace ;while Emperor 0 has been in full campaign mode. If he thought he had the votes ;he wouldn't fly the Sandy Hook families in Air Force One on campaign stops .

I don't believe airport security is covered in the bill of rights.

Hello again, tom:


Do you think you can have universal backround checks without a universal registration ? Sure. Put the bad guys in the data base, and if your name doesn't come up, no records are kept. Now, I COULD presume that the government would CHEAT, but that wasn't your question..

By the way, if that were the law, and it was ENFORCED, the government COULDN'T keep records.

Excon

Hello again, Steve:


I don't believe airport security is covered in the bill of rights.So, you DO believe that bad guys WILL get guns. That, plus you think your right to bear arms is DENIED because you have to go through a background check?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... That is the MOST CRIMINAL FRIENDLY position I have EVER seen from you wingers... You are SOOOOO unwilling to spend 5 minutes of your precious right wing time, and so what if real bad guys get some guns?? At least I won't be inconvenienced.

You guys are positively bleeding hearts...

Excon

The Schumer bill is a back door registry . The only difference is that technically the government isn't keeping the records... the gun dealers and law-enforcement agencies that conduct the checks keep the records . Without the records ,the law is useless. So no , a universal backround check is a defacto registry .

Sorry dude, you can rant all you want I cannot support a bad bill, no a TERRIBLE bill just because you and Obama are OUTRAGED.

Hello again, tom:

So no , a universal backround check is a defacto registry .
You didn't ask me about Schumers bill. You asked me if such and such is possible, and I said yes.

Now, you can call paper records kept at 10's of 1,000's of individual gun shops, a registry if you want to. You could call a bus a filet mignon too, but it isn't.

Excon

So that's your choice... an ineffective bill that doesn't do anything useful ;or a gun registry .But if it's a feel good bromide “something must be done” you are looking for that doesn't do any good ,and tramples on more rights... well that's what you are getting .

That's all that matters to libs, tom, that they feel better about themselves.

Hello again, tom:

What's feel good about DENYING criminals from getting guns? Look. This is simple... Put the bad guys IN the data base. When you buy a gun, if you're NOT in there, you get a gun.

Oh, I'm sure you'll throw up some other BS. You don't want to debate actual FACTS because you won't WIN.

excon

Last year the no-fly list doubled in a year . The government will not tell people whether they're on the list or why they're on it, making it impossible for people to defend themselves if they believe they are wrongly on the list People who complain that they're unfairly on the no-fly list can submit a letter to DHS , but the only way they'll know if they're still on the list is to try to fly again. We hear about the famous people who were denied a seat due to being on the list ;like Teddy Kennedy . But we don't hear about how many people were wrongly put on the no-fly list .
No-fly list strands man in on island in Hawaii | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/19/no-fly-list-strands-man-in-on-island-in-hawaii/)
Actually we do hear of some ;like the 13 people that the ACLU is going to bat for... including a four military veterans who were denied a plane ride for falsely being on that list .

That's 20,000 people.. How many would make it to your national database?. and more importantly ;how many people will end up on that list by a mistake ,clerical error etc. For a due process kind of person ,your position suprises me.

You know good and well that we don't want guns in the hands of criminals, but like health care again you guys won't settle for trying fix what's broken you want to get intrusive and overbearing. You know what I say to that? Bite me, I won't support a terrible bill, period.

Hello again, tom:

Because government hasn't worked well in the past is NO reason why we couldn't make it work now. Look.. Laws against murder haven't worked well in the past, but I don't hear you saying we should repeal them.

excon

Keep cheer leading for government like that and you'll have everyone convinced in no time. Go ahead, let the Senate vote and make all those red state Dems put it in the record before the House kills any chance of it passing.

14 People Stabbed at Lone Star Community College in Texas (http://abcnews.go.com/US/14-people-stabbed-lone-star-community-college-texas/story?id=18915596#.UWRcOzcn6jg)

I hope and pray everyone is OK. Now who is going to start the push for knife control?

Lets see Excon, Tal and crew push for knife registrations.. background checks before being allowed to be near sharp objects.

Hello again, tom:

What's feel good about DENYING criminals from getting guns?? Look. This is simple... Put the bad guys IN the data base. When you buy a gun, if you're NOT in there, you get a gun.

Oh, I'm sure you'll throw up some other BS. You don't want to debate actual FACTS because you won't WIN.

excon

The list they have now already has the bad guys on it. Just a fact for your debate.

He knows this, he also knows the stricter laws would have done nothing to prevent the Sandy Hook tragedy.

But what if it helps to prevent the next Sandy Hook, which may be in YOUR neighbor hood. Facts also say that its happened before, and probably will again, and if you are saying you know all the bad guys, because the system is perfect while 40% of the bad guys are not only unknown but will get away with murder.

Seems to me it's a time for ideas and actions not obstructing the debate with conspiracy theories and blasting people who are trying to improve the situation. A small noisy few who think doing NOTHING is acceptable in the face of the fact its happening.

Just wondering how YOU would feel when it happens to you?

By the way, while Obama is out shaming Americans about dead children over gun control, I ask what Mark Steyn asks (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/345111/what-dead-kids-mark-steyn), "So how many dead American babies does it take to make the news?"

Where is the NY Times on this? ABC? CBS? NBC? MSNBC? CNN? Anyone, anyone?

I'll spare you the gory, ghastly details, but why the blackout by most of the major media, do these children matter?

Hello again, Steve:

I LOVE your right wing logic.. Abortion is allowed so we might as well NOT stop bad guys from getting guns.. It makes SOOO much sense..

excon

Hello again, Steve:

I LOVE your right wing logic.. Abortion is allowed so we might as well NOT stop bad guys from getting guns.. It makes SOOO much sense..

excon

And I love yours as well, brother. Stop animal abuse but not the murder of babies.

Okay so here's the rub outlaw abortion, guns, auto's, suicide, tobacco, alcohol and you have covered off most of the reasons for premature death, but, the general public are too stupid to go for this, after all, look how they reacted to prohibition. As soon as you ban something they want to do it. I think what we do is mandate contraception for any female outside of marriage, don't allow any person under 25 to drive a vehicle or possess a gun, drink or smoke and make it a felony offence to breach the rules

By the way, while Obama is out shaming Americans about dead children over gun control, I ask what Mark Steyn asks (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/345111/what-dead-kids-mark-steyn), "So how many dead American babies does it take to make the news?"

Where is the NY Times on this? ABC? CBS? NBC? MSNBC? CNN? Anyone, anyone?

I'll spare you the gory, ghastly details, but why the blackout by most of the major media, do these children matter?

The local news is full of these stories, and MSNBC has been saturating the whole day with the politics of gun violence and the congresses refusal to take a vote.

Yep it's those gun totin, red necked Republicans who are holding up progress here

The local news is full of these stories, and MSNBC has been saturating the whole day with the politics of gun violence and the congresses refusal to take a vote.

How many dead babies does it take to make national news? Hmm?

See where the police took down and arrested this homeless man in Connecticut who was preparing to shoot at cans with a pellet gun ? The problem ? The yard he was in was within 100 yards of Emperor 0's motorcade route . 0 was still at the University of Hartford when the arrest took place and the motorcade had already passed . The guy did not know that the motorcade was scheduled to return .
The guy is still in jail because the police claim he initially wasn't compliant . He did not drop his pellet gun fast enough.
He is being charged with breach of peace in the second degree, threatening in the second degree and interfering with a police officer. All that because he wanted to shoot pellets at cans.

Hello tom:

Yeah, cops DO suck, don't they?

excon

I would not make a blanket statement based on a single instance . This was a judgement of a single cop. Another cop ;even in the same precinct may have handled the situation differently .

Hello again, tom:

You don't have to. I'll make enough blanket statements for both of us. Here comes one now. Cops STILL suck.

excon

Hello again, tom:

Looks like the background check they're settling on satisfies ALL of us.. Your friends can sell their guns amongst themselves, and NOTHING.. Your grandpa can give his gun to his daughter, and NOTHING.

But, if you buy a gun at a gun show or off the internet, you'll have to go through a background check. No gun registry will be maintained...

Good enough for you?? (Somehow, I'll bet not)

excon

Hello again, tom:

Looks like the background check they're settling on satisfies ALL of us.. Your friends can sell their guns amongst themselves, and NOTHING.. Your grandpa can give his gun to his daughter, and NOTHING.

But, if you buy a gun at a gun show or off the internet, you'll have to go through a background check. No gun registry will be maintained...

Good enough for you??? (Somehow, I'll bet not)

excon



How about we just keep what we have regarding FFL regulations. And just put the wording in that all gun sales and transfers must be handled by a FFL. No added language and don't even mention registration. Let the FFL's handle it as that is what they have taken on.

Hello dad:

You're talking mechanics, and I couldn't care less.. What I want to do is STOP MONSTERS (who I know BETTER than you) from easily getting guns.

excon

Hello dad:

You're talking mechanics, and I could care less.. What I want to do is STOP MONSTERS (who I know BETTER than you) from easily getting guns.

excon

Part of the problem is that we don't know who the next monster will be. I watched a friend go through a drug induced episode that was no fault of his own. It was bad enough to have my friend looked after for 72 hour observation. When he was taking was recommended by a doctor for a bad upper resprtory infection. The interaction was rare but if people around him didn't care and didn't step in to help him it could have gone out of control very easily.

Also we may need to modify our thinking on some of these drugs that are being taken and its relationship with HIPPA. I think it would be reasonable for persons taking certain classes of drugs to be restricted from gun purchases for a short period until they get over the hump. Maybe a years time. That does not in any way endorse the removal of guns already in their possession it just keeps them from getting new ones for a brief period.

I got an idea . Why don't they submit a bill for public perusal ;and allow sufficient time for public comment BEFORE they vote on it ?
Right now ,all I know is what Schmucky proposed . In fairness ,I trust Manchin and Toomey on this issue much more than Schumer . But the devil is still in the details .

Hello again, dad:


Part of the problem is that we don't know who the next monster will be.We don't have to.. All we need to know is that we're doing the best WE can to protect our children..

The FACTS of the matter are, these proposals may NOT prevent ANY future atrocities from happening. Or they might prevent LOTS. We're not going to know. Do we know how many murders we prevented by making murder against the law? No, we don't. Do we THINK there are some? I'll bet we do.

Excon

Hello again, dad:

You bring up another issue that I haven't addressed, and that's people OTHER than felons, who should be in the database. It IS an issue, and I don't have an answer. Should your friend be put IN the database? You KNOW that once you're in there, you're NEVER coming out. Should people who got some therapy along the way be put IN the database? What about men who beat their wives? Should POT smokers, who've NEVER been convicted, be IN the database? Should drug addicts? Should alcoholics? What about autistic people? What about STRANGE people (like us)?

These are PRIVATE matters between people and their caretaker, or family, or doctor... Should we REQUIRE that these people SNITCH?

I don't have the answer. Until there is, I propose ONLY convicted FELONS be IN the database.

excon

That ship sailed in California. You go to the hospital for a little depression and they'll come confiscate your guns.

Hello again, Steve:

You go to the hospital for a little depression I'm skeptical that you get hospitalized for a "little" depression. So, I'm not as quick as you to say that they should KEEP their guns. Frankly, I know NOTHING about depression.

But, if a ''little'' depression isn't enough for them to take your guns, what physiological malady IS? Or is there ANY?

Excon

It happened to Lynette Phillips (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/california-seizes-guns-as-owners-lose-right-to-bear-arms.html) who spent a whopping two days in a mental hospital, reportedly due to the effects of a medication.



In an interview as agents inventoried the guns, Lynette Phillips said that while she’d been held involuntarily in a mental hospital in December, the nurse who admitted her had exaggerated the magnitude of her condition.

Todd Smith, chief executive officer of Aurora Charter Oak Hospital in Covina, where documents provided by Phillips show she was treated, didn’t respond to telephone and e-mail requests for comment on the circumstances of the treatment.

Phillips said her husband used the guns for recreation. She didn’t blame the attorney general’s agents for taking the guns based on the information they had, she said.

“I do feel I have every right to purchase a gun,” Phillips said. “I’m not a threat. We’re law-abiding citizens.”

No one was arrested. Most seized weapons are destroyed, Gregory said.

“It’s not unusual to not arrest a mental-health person because every county in the state handles those particular cases differently,” Gregory said by e-mail. “Unless there’s an extenuating need to arrest them on the spot, we refer the case” to the local district attorney’s office, she said.

Two days and marked for life, guns seized?

Hello again, Steve:

Well, if you're looking for me to defend a$$hole cops, you got the wrong guy.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Well, if you're looking for me to defend a$$hole cops, you got the wrong guy.

excon

Hey... you know the routine all too well... give the government an inch and they want the next two miles as well.

You could say that about any American including you and your conservative friends, and the center, and the left.

You could say that about any American including you and your conservative friends, and the center, and the left.

I don't want even want a mile, I'd prefer the government give us back all the miles they've taken from us.

I don't want even want a mile, I'd prefer the government give us back all the miles they've taken from us.
Starting with what happens at the airport when I take a flight back home to see my mom.

I don't want even want a mile, I'd prefer the government give us back all the miles they've taken from us.

How far back do we go for that?

How far back do we go for that?

At least pre-Obama. Shocking, I know.

That's what I thought, even though this predates Obama by decades.

Hello again, dad:

You bring up another issue that I haven't addressed, and that's people OTHER than felons, who should be in the database. What about men who beat their wives?


I don't have the answer. Until there is, I propose ONLY convicted FELONS be IN the database.

excon

Im going to try to address the domestic violence one. If there is a restraining order against the person for domestic violence and a judge so orders then as of current law - They are on the list until the restraining order expires. If they have been convicted of domestic violence then as of current law they are on the list.

The difference being that those with just a restraining order will be asked to forfeit their guns (the police will hold them for a fee) or sell them off etc. They will be on the no buy list until such time as the restraining order expires.

A conviction is in a completely different area. That would include a trail etc and possible jail time as well.

Hello again right wingers:

Al Qaeda Video: American Muslims Should Buy Guns, Start Shooting People. (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-video-buy-automatic-weapons-start-shooting/story?id=13704264#.UWaNpMpjbZg) Let me see. You're in bed with CRIMINALS and AL QAEDA. Doesn't sound like the right wing I know. The NRA has got you all tied up in knots...

excon

Hello again right wingers:

Al Qaeda Video: American Muslims Should Buy Guns, Start Shooting People. (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-video-buy-automatic-weapons-start-shooting/story?id=13704264#.UWaNpMpjbZg) Lemme see. You're in bed with CRIMINALS and AL QAEDA. Doesn't sound like the right wing I know. The NRA has got you all tied up in knots...

excon


I love how he asks them to buy fully automatic weapons. Can't wait to see how that goes over. Lol

Obama is an Honoroary member of Al Qaeda. He got that along with his Nobel prize for doing nothing.

Hello again, smoothy:

Back to bumper stickers again, huh?

I NOTICE you DIDN'T disagree with the terrorist. You apparently SUPPORT his right to buy guns. You're apparently FINE with criminals buying guns...

Dude!

excon

Obama is an Honoroary member of Al Qaeda. He got that along with his Nobel prize for doing nothing.

Sour grapes or is that sour gripes

Hello again, smoothy:

Back to bumper stickers again, huh?

I NOTICE you DIDN'T disagree with the terrorist. You apparently SUPPORT his right to buy guns. You're apparently FINE with criminals buying guns...

Dude!

excon

I think Obama should give up his secret service protection since he seems to think the rest of us aren't entitled to our own protection from the criminal element. Or is he just another blowhard libtartd that thinks they are better then the rest of us.

I see a hell fire from a drone in Adam Gadahn's future.