I won't go into hysterics that Obama is going to take away our guns.

Just one question. If the US backs a UN Treaty to restrict small arms ,what is the law of the land ? The treaty ,or the Constitution of the land... specifically the 2nd Amendment ?

After Obama win, U.S. backs new U.N. arms treaty talks | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-arms-treaty-un-idUSBRE8A627J20121107)

"We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms," he said.

One can only hope. What do you bet Obama will continue to be the top gun salesman (http://www.infowars.com/gun-sales-surge-in-fear-of-obama-re-election/) in the country? All those bitter clingers are probably more bitter today.

Just one question. If the US backs a UN Treaty to restrict small arms ,what is the law of the land ? The treaty ,or the Constitution of the land ...specifically the 2nd Amendment ?

This is not a serious question, is it? The law of the land is whatever our elected representatives and executive branch say it is, as interpreted by the courts.

And besides, the treaty is about exports of guns, not your right to pack one.

Yeah that's the spin they want you to believe . But the last version of the treaty left open “without prejudice to the right of delegations to put forward additional proposals.”
Now why would they add that ? Because the Non-alligned movement nations and other NGOs want to add language to restrict domestic gun sales too.

This is not a serious question, is it? The law of the land is whatever our elected representatives and executive branch say it is, as interpreted by the courts.
.

If we are signatories to a treaty ,that becomes the law of the land .

Show me where any treaty trumps US federal law.

Worry only if you are involved in "illicit arms trafficking and proliferation."

Article VI, paragraph 2 of the US constitution:


This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

What does that have to do with private and legal ownership of weapons?

Tal said "show me" and I did. Read tom's answer here (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/gun-control-didnt-take-long-715117.html#post3318756) and follow the conversation.

No one is going to take away your guns.

I made it a point at the start of this conversation that I did not think it was a threat. But it will be impetus for the Obots to make Federal law that restricts the type of guns that can be purchased .

But it will be impetus for the Obots to make Federal law that restricts the type of guns that can be purchased .
Bet they won't get that impetus.

You asked a specific question about law, there are various intrepretations regarding treaty obligations and the constitution of any nation and it sort of works this way, when there is a conflict the treaty obligations prevail and it behoven to the country concerned to amend their laws to fall in line with their treaty obligations after all the treaty has been established under constitutional powers. What this means is no constitutional provision can stand alone for its own sake so the second amandment or any amendment cannot be exorcised from treaty obligations.

The US therefore has various courses of action:

Repudiate the treaty and ultimately its membership of the UN

Amend the Constitution to define classes of weapons under the second amendment


The second amendment says nothing about the traffic in arms, it refers to a personal right to have arms. There has been a liberal interpretation that it means you can have any arms you want and as many as you want. I doubt that was original intent. It exists because in the early days they didn't intend to have a large standing army. The Constitution confers the power to regulate commerce, therefore movement of arms and sale of arms can be legally restricted without contravening the second amendment rights.

The issue really isn't hand guns or long arms but the number of weapons in the hands of criminals. In the interests of the public good this cannot be permitted

The real issue is that dictators don't want an armed populace.

Exactly right, tom. And that's what amazes me about Obots, they're blind to his imperial presidency... willfully or not.

President Obama doesn't want your guns either, He wants you to keep them close by your side.

Hello again, Steve:


what amazes me about Obots, they're blind to his imperial presidencyIt IS true, that when I walk out of my house every morning, I see an entirely different country than you do.

Excon

President Obama doesn't want your guns either, He wants you to keep them close by your side.

I'm sorry. I have to laugh out loud at this. He doesn't want us to have them at all.

I'm sorry. I have to laugh out loud at this. He doesn't want us to have them at all.
That's not true at all. Do you have a quote to that effect?

Thing is Obama recognises that there is a problem and he has dared to say so. He might be part of the solution but that's a long way off

Yup.


As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right."


Obama agrees to an individual's right to bear arms, in principle, but does not take it as an absolute right and considers it as a negotiable subject.


We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions.”

Obama on Gun Control (http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/Obama/Gun-Control.php)

Thanks to his first election I lost a million dollar gun business just a year into his first term.

None of that says he is against gun ownership. That's paranoia. The state and local references have to do with licensing just like for operating a motor vehicle or getting married or fishing.

Why do Americans own assault rifles, for instance? Those are made to kill other humans, not made for hunting. That could be one type of weapon that needs further examination as to who owns it and why. Too often it has ended up being used illegally for mass murder.

President Obama had not made any moves against gun ownership when he was first in office, so why did you lose that business?

How about a compromise, people without a criminal record get to own one hand gun and one long rifle and there be mandatory instruction on the use.

I'm for reasonable backround checks. I'm opposed to limiting the right to certain classes of guns. The AR-15 (assault rifle ) is a very efficient hunting rifle and is used by hunters frequently.

Don't know why you need such a heavy weapon, what are you hunting, bear?

Obama on Gun Control

Thanks to his first election I lost a million dollar gun business just a year into his first term.That link doesn't give much detail. What legislation did he pass when he first came into office that affected the retail firearms business?

don't know why you need such a heavy weapon, what are you hunting, bear?

It's for hunters comfort... more precise ,less recoil etc. Maybe they are more precise and accurate... less chance of a wound shot . Maybe they are hunting bear .Why is it anyone's business ? They have the right to own them ,and there are no restrictions on using them for recreation hunting.

Why is it anyone's business ?Because with an assault rifle you can kill many, many more people is a much shorter period.

Yup and you can kill even more with a truck full of fertilizer. But I don't see anyone calling to ban that.

Hello again,


Because with an assault rifle you can kill many, many more people is a much shorter period.Couple things.. Ok, THREE things...

Mechanically speaking, the assault rifle you can buy, is the same as a 30.6 hunting rifle. The ONLY difference is the way it LOOKS.

Obama is NOT going to pass ANY gun control. There's no HINT that he will, and he's never SAID that he will. There's only right wing paranoia.

Speaking of right wing paranoia, his election caused a run on guns. Frankly, THAT was the business to be in. Losing a gun business when there's a RUN on guns was probably due to management and NOT Obama's election.

Excon

PS> J_9, you're my friend. I don't mean to criticize you personally. I've lost at least 10 business's in my lifetime.

Mechanically speaking, an assault rifle is the same as a 30.6 hunting rifle. The ONLY difference is the way it LOOKS.I was assuming that using the term "assault rifle" meant a fully automatic weapon.

Hello again, NK:

That's why I made the distinction.. Fully automatic weapons are NOT available to the general public. MOST people, however, believe as you do, that assault rifles ARE fully automatic and MUST be banned. Of course, if they WERE, they SHOULD be banned - but they're not.

If you want to ban SOMETHING, ban clips or magazines that hold many multiple rounds. THOSE aren't necessary for hunting.

excon

If you want to ban SOMETHING, ban clips or magazines that hold many multiple rounds. THOSE aren't necessary for hunting.yep, I was wrong there, it's a magazine-fed semi-auto.

It's isn't banned in Canada per se "the AR-15 was granted a sporting exception."

I come from a long line of gun collectors. We are all law abiding citizens. It is my right as a citizen of the US to be able to own any firearm I choose to own.

We have pistols, revolvers, shotguns, and rifles (single shot, semi auto, and full auto) . Yes I am a FFL holder.

We have firearms that date back to the civil war, WWI and WWII up to the most current. They are all working firearms as my husband is a master gunsmith. What am I going to shoot with them? Most of them nothing. Others targets.

We aren't terrorists, just collectors. Yes, I have had to protect myself and my loved ones from grizzly bears in the wilds of Alaska. It takes a very powerful gun to drop a grizzly and a semi-auto is easier than having to load after every shot when you've got a griz charging at you.

As for paranoia... there was a huge fear during the last election and our business boomed. A gun store not only sells firearms, but most of the income comes from selling ammo. Within a year of his election, most ammo was severely limited or completely unavailable. With the lack of income to the store due to lack of ammunition and certain firearms, overhead became a problem. My in-laws who were once multi-millionaires are now living off social security and Medicaid. Now with the advent of Nobamacare they will not even to be able to afford taking care of their health during their golden years. But that's a different thread.

Steve, there was a tremendous run on guns and life was great. The problem came with the limited ammo available after the election.

Nope, not poor management. My FIL is a great business man. That's how he became a multi-millionaire in the first place.

So many issues here.


Within a year of his election, most ammo was severely limited or completely unavailable.Which legislation did that?

My in-laws who were once multi-millionaires are now living off social security and Medicaid.What? Multimillionaires not doing 401Ks (I think that's what you call your self-directed retirement plans there) or savings? Selling off large assets didn't give them enough funds? How does one go from multimillionaire to being on social security in 3 years?? Something is wrong with that story. Was there an overwhelming amount of debt?

Hello again, NK:

The lack of ammo was a market phenomenon. Apparently, J's store got whipsawed by the market.. If you can't get what your customers want, you're toast.

Look.. I've gone from millionaire to pauper several times in my life. When you're a "job creator" it happens.

excon

Then she should put the blame squarely on people like tom and Steve who willingly whip up the hysteria without any actual facts.

I have no responsibility in 'whipping up hysteria' .

This is true, no one ever does take responsibility.

Hello again, tom:


I have no responsibility in 'whipping up hysteria' Really?? Didn't I hear you agree with Congressman Issa, when he said that Fast & Furious was a PLOY, so that Obama could round up all the guns during his second term??

Nahhh... That must have been the other Tom.

Excon

No I never said the President's goal was to round up guns. However ,the President does want stricter FEDERAL laws regarding guns and certain types of guns... and yes I agree with Issa that F&F was part of the strategery of making his and Evita's case that the gun violence in Mexico is being supported by US gun exports.
The fact that he supports UN treaties that would also limit American's rights to guns is more than enough proof that is his goal .

It's called bankruptcy NK. They sunk 401K's into the business, CDs, and liquidated assets.

It was 2.5 mil to purchase the existing 1000 square foot gun shop from the previous owner. Another 2 mil to update it from a 1970s era sup to a modern era shop. Then we expanded to the tune of a
22000 square foot shop complete with a state of the art 6 lane gun range. Building and stocking that was not cheap. Our store, Brighton Arms, was in existence for 12 years before we were forced to close. Oh and life is expensive as well. My in-laws have an adult son who is physically and mentally handicapped and had been turned down hy government agencies for medical assistance.

Do you want a full financial statement NK?

It IS true, that when I walk out of my house every morning, I see an entirely different country than you do.

No argument there, but you saw an imperial presidency under Bush but Obama has been far worse in bypassing congress and the people. Open your eyes.

Oh, and Steve, you're my friend too and I take no offense to you. If I did I'd call you and give you a piece of my mind. I respect educated discussions until they are dumbed down hy name calling and degridation of others beliefs. We have a member here that's very good at that.

FactCheck.org : NRA Targets Obama (http://factcheck.org/2008/09/nra-targets-obama/)

Obama Will 'Evaluate' Bill Limiting Online Ammunition Sales, White House Says (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/30/obama-gun-laws-online-ammunition_n_1720122.html)

Ammunition Shortage Feared by Gun Owners in Obama Presidency - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com (http://voices.yahoo.com/ammunition-shortage-feared-gun-owners-obama-2517352.html)


He also said in the debate, "I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets."

Shoot Bambi, not Gabby.

Government Stockpiles Ammo and Riot Gear: Is Obama Preparing U.S. For Martial Law? | The Dubuque Town Crier (http://www.towncrierdubuque.com/the_town_crier/government-stockpiles-ammo-and-riot-gear-is-obama-preparing-u-s-for-martial-law)

Is this facts, or CRAZY talk?

Is this facts, or CRAZY talk?
That's your evidence ?A blogger when can't even spell conservative right ?

LOL, you are sharp today. That's why I threw that one in at the end. Don't get snarky, just asked a question. I have a reason to be snarky since LUCK for the COLTS underperformed last night and Drew Breeze is my opposition QB!!

LOL, you are sharp today. Thats why I threw that one in at the end. Don't get snarky, just asked a question. I have a reason to be snarky since LUCK for the COLTS underperformed last night and Drew Breeze is my opposition QB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is a fact for sure. Homeland security has already placed an order for over 1.2 billion bullets. Yes that's billion with a B.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/160088


What could they be up to ?

None of that says he is against gun ownership. That's paranoia. The state and local references have to do with licensing just like for operating a motor vehicle or getting married or fishing.

Why do Americans own assault rifles, for instance? Those are made to kill other humans, not made for hunting. That could be one type of weapon that needs further examination as to who owns it and why. Too often it has ended up being used illegally for mass murder.

President Obama had not made any moves against gun ownership when he was first in office, so why did you lose that business?

What is your definition of an assault rifle ? And why is it your business if someone owns one or not?

Let's get more to the point, there is no need for the general population to own automatic weapons. Such weapons are designed for warfare

What is your definition of an assault rifle ? And why is it your business if someone owns one or not?
AR-15, AK-47. An adult male friend of mine has an IQ of 85-90 (professional testing was done), has no sales resistance, has nearly maxed out several credit cards, has a hair-trigger temper, has creepy friends, and has always wanted to own an AK-47. He went to a gun shop after legally obtaining a FOID card, and bought his long-dreamt-of AK-47 plus ammunition for it. I hope I don't read about him in the newspapers some day.

Why is it my business? Because I value my safety and the safety of friends and loved ones. And of society in general.

This is a fact for sure. Homeland security has already placed an order for over 1.2 billion bullets. Yes that's billion with a B.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/160088


What could they be up to ?

http://www.guns.com/us-army-department-homeland-security-buys-contract-atk-ammunition-alliance-techsystems-7468.html


This may mean ammunition shortages along with the associated price hikes for some of the most common types of ammunition in service. The M855 as well as the HST .40 bullet has proven themselves in the field as effective ammunition. Both of these larger purchases, however, may lead to domestic runs on ammunition.

http://www.guns.com/us-army-department-homeland-security-buys-contract-atk-ammunition-alliance-techsystems-7468.html

A bullet led recovery, quite a strategy

Seems they have had this arrangement since 2000.


"Since 2000, we have delivered more than 11 billion rounds of ammunition in support of our nation's warfighters while modernizing the facility, increasing capacity, improving productivity and efficiency, and doing so in a safe and responsible manner."

Seems they have had this arrangement since 2000.

That was the military. Im glad when they get ammo shipments. What I was referring to was Homeland Security. It is their contract that bothers me.

WHy do they need 1.2 billion rounds? I understand wartime for our troops. But Homeland Security is domestic.

DHS should be dismantled... there is no reason for a super bureaucracy when it's sub agencies have not been dismantled .

That was the military. Im glad when they get ammo shipments. What I was reffering to was Homeland Security. It is their contract that bothers me.

WHy do they need 1.2 billion rounds? I understand wartime for our troops. But Homeland Security is domestic.

Could it be they anticipate manning the borders with something more than a steel fence that the "enemy" cuts holes in

Ever see what drug dealers are armed with?

Ever see what drug dealers are armed with?

Many times. And you still don't need 1.2 billion rounds for it.

Hello again,

Look.. Everybody knows the bullets are for FEMA so they can round us up and put us in concentration camps.

excon

Hello again,

Look.. Everybody knows the bullets are for FEMA so they can round us up and put us in concentration camps.

excon

Your ex-military. And happy early veterans day. What do you imagine that 1.2 billion rounds of ammo could do?

Hello dad:


What do you imagine that 1.2 billion rounds of ammo could do?Well, they're doing a lot of warring.. They got the DEA. They're involved in hot wars in Mexico, Honduras - well ALL OVER Latin America..

They got the CIA who's waring all over the Middle East and who knows where else? Then there's the FBI, the Secret Service, the Border cops, Customs, and probably lots more cop types than we know about...

It DOES sound like a lotta bullets - but they got a lotta cops! What do YOU think they're for?

Excon

Hello dad:

Well, they're doing a lot of warring.. They got the DEA. They're involved in hot wars in Mexico, Honduras - well ALL OVER Latin America..

They got the CIA who's waring all over the Middle East and who knows where else? Then there's the FBI, the Secret Service, the Border cops, Customs, and probably lots more cop types than we know about...

It DOES sound like a lot of bullets... What do YOU think they're for?

excon

Truthfully the only thing they can be for is population control. The agencies you mentioned have a separate budget. Homeland security appears to be beefing up for some reason. I know they are getting a lot of toys but that still doesn't account for it. It's a hard one to call. The only other reason is that they want to dry up the supply of ammo so they can bring in the new traceable ammo they have been wanting for so long. Right now its all a shell game. ;)

So homeland security is about fighting the drug war?

so homeland security is about fighting the drug war?

No that's is the DEA. Different agency.

No that wasn't the inference

I am thinking that this "Arms Treaty" has to do with the proliferation of Military arms and weaponry that isa traded ;like so many bags of wheat are. I am also thinking that the U.N. would have a controlling say in what types of weapons and how many, let's say, the U.S. could sell to Egypt and Iran.

Article VI, paragraph 2 of the US constitution:

I don't think you have any thing to worry about.

Paragraph 2 is full of independent clauses. Consider this:

This Constitution and the laws of the United States shall be made in pursuance thereof;... "

The use of two independent clauses joined by a semicolon suggest that each clause has its own subject and predicate. Two ideas can be closely connected but are not the same idea.

It seems clear that the pursuit must be in favour of the Constitution.

Surely you can give the Founding fathers more credit than that.

Tut

Yes, they were terribly smart people. Where are they now when we need them??

When you are signed on to the UN then it is expected that you ratify the treaties the UN signs, if this needs an amendment to your Constitution then that is the path

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate.

Article Six of the United States Constitution establishes the Constitution and the laws and treaties of the United States made in accordance with it as the supreme law of the land,

So it is often forgotten that these clauses can override another clause

It is not a presumption that if you are a UN member that you sign on to their ridiculous treaties. Heck ;if they don't like it then do us a favor and kick us out.

Yes great idea but you keep your membership so you have the power of veto otherwise those other powers might do something you don't like, like start a war, Oh, I remember it is you, not the UN, that has the doctrine of preemptive strikes. Can we expect one on NK any time soon?

Can we expect one on NK any time soon?
Possibly... if they have a multi-stage rocket fueling up then why should we wait ? They have shown themselves very belligerent since the un-Kim took power.

The South Koreans should've laid waist to the NORK navy after the NORKS sunk the Cheonan and shelled Yeonpyeong

when you are signed on to the UN then it is expected that you ratify the treaties the UN signs, if this needs an amendment to your Constitution then that is the path

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate.

Article Six of the United States Constitution establishes the Constitution and the laws and treaties of the United States made in accordance with it as the supreme law of the land,

so it is often forgotten that these clauses can override another clause

Thanks for my first laugh of the day. Just amend our constitution to fit the UN agenda. Bwa ha ha!

Actually a treaty cannot over ride a federal law and needs the approval of the congress to be ratified.

Thanks for my first laugh of the day. Just amend our constitution to fit the UN agenda. Bwa ha ha!


But, weren't you the one that posted Article V1 paragraph 2 to demonstrate Tom's point that a treaty could override a constitutional right?


Tut

Not quite.. it's true that a treaty can override a law.. it cannot override a right. That was what I was trying to get at in the OP.
Took 8 pages but finally the discussion is at the heart of the matter ;a treaty that violates the Constitutional protections is null and void and would be struck down by a SCOTUS that understands the Constitution.

No Tut that was me

Article VI, paragraph 2 of the US constitution:


I think you both did.

Tut

But, weren't you the one that posted Article V1 paragraph 2 to demonstrate Tom's point that a treaty could override a constitutional right?


Tut

No sir, I posted it to demonstrate that the second amendment is the law of the land.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

I think you are in error,


Reid v. Covert (1957) ruled that no branch of the United States Government can have powers conferred upon it by treaty that have not been conferred by the United States Constitution.

Since you cannot change the constitution except by a lenghty process, any treaty argreement that doesn't meet the laws of the constitution are null, and void.

Congress must ratify any treaty agreement, and it still open to challenge.

From what I have read of the arms agreement in the UN, it has nothing to do with countries as individuals, but global arms trading between counties, and I fail to see where the fear is unless you are an international arms dealer.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3318708-post3.html

I

From what I have read of the arms agreement in the UN, it has nothing to do with countries as individuals, but global arms trading between counties, and I fail to see where the fear is unless you are an international arms dealer.



Tal, you have identified the important point, the whole of this debate operates out of fear and maintaining the business of arms manufacturers and arms dealers. Whether you can own a gun isn't the issue but what type of weapon you might own and how you might use it, is the issue, it is a big leap from regulating the type of weapon, or how it might be stored, to removing the right to own a weapon. There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically speaks to the sale of weapons or the trafficking of weapons, so the right of ownership can be maintained while the sale can be restricted

As the world body meets this week to hammer out an agreement to restrict international arms trade, our Secretary of State commits us to pushing a treaty that may also restrict our Second Amendment rights.

Last Friday, the day of the week when unpopular or controversial announcements are traditionally made, Secretary of State John Kerry announced U.S. support for the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), a final version of which is being hammered out in New York beginning this week.

Certainly the ATT is controversial. Touted as a means of getting a handle on an international arms trade valued at $60 billion a year, its stated purpose is to keep illicit weapons out of the hands of terrorists, insurgent fighters and organized crime at an international level.

Its vague and suspicious wording led some 150 members of Congress last June to send a letter to President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warning that the treaty is "likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights."

We have noted that a paper by the U.N.'s Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA) says that arms have been "misused by lawful owners" and that the "arms trade therefore be regulated in ways that would . .. minimize the misuse of legally owned weapons."

Would defending your home against intruders, or U.S. laws permitting concealed carry, be considered a "misuse?"

"We will not support any treaty that would be inconsistent with U.S. law and the rights of American citizens under our Constitution, including the Second Amendment," Secretary of State Kerry tried to reassure us — even as he represents an administration that seeks to ban weapons on their scary appearance rather than their genuine lethality, thinks the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment with deer-hunting rather than British tyranny in mind, and would be happy if the entire U.S. were a "gun-free zone."

As the Heritage Foundation notes, imported firearms, considered part of the "arms trade" to be regulated, constitute about 35% of the new firearms market in the U.S.

"Under the guise of adopting what it deems to be 'appropriate measures,' an Administration could restrict imports by redefining what qualifies as a 'sporting' firearm — the definition of which is left completely to the discretion of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives," Heritage reports.

The ATT, Heritage warns, "could create a national registry (initially) limited to imported firearms. It could impose new requirements on importers of firearms, or parts and components of firearms, for example, by requiring them to provide the identity of the final end user.. ."

Restrictions on imports might be extended to ammunition as well.

Last Thursday, Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa. introduced a bipartisan resolution opposing the treaty. The resolution states the U.N. proposal "places free democracies and totalitarian regimes on a basis of equality" and represents a threat to U.S. national security.

Our Constitution is unambiguous in its protection of gun rights. The ATT is not.

Interestingly, just as the world's worst human rights violators have sat on and often chaired the U.N. Human Rights Council, Iran, arms supplier extraordinaire to America's enemies, was elected to a top position at the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty held in New York last July.

The U.S. is one of few countries that has anything like a Second Amendment, our Founding Fathers enshrining the right to bear arms in our founding principles in recognition of it being the ultimate bulwark against tyrannical government.

The fact that an organization full of tyrants, dictators, thugs and gross human rights violators wants to control small arms worldwide is hardly a surprise.

Somehow, administration assurances that the treaty won't infringe on our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms doesn't reassure us.

John Kerry Announces U.S. Support For U.N. Arms Trade Treaty - Investors.com (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/032013-648751-kerry-announces-support-of-arms-trade-treaty.htm#ixzz2O8GNAs2w)

Of course it will limit your rights, it's a treaty

Yeah, another Friday news dump along with Obama having achieved "flexibility (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/26/us-nuclear-summit-obama-medvedev-idUSBRE82P0JI20120326)" by abandoning plans for long-range missile interceptors in Poland.

Gov Cuomo finally figured out his rushed gun control bill is unworkable so he plans on easing the 7 round magazine limit (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/nyregion/cuomo-seeks-to-ease-a-newly-passed-gun-restriction.html?_r=1&)- because no one makes them.


after weeks of criticism from gun owners, Mr. Cuomo said on Wednesday that he would seek to ease the restriction, which he said had proved unworkable even before it was scheduled to take effect on April 15.

The gun-control law, approved in January, banned the sale of magazines that hold more than seven rounds of ammunition. But, Mr. Cuomo said Wednesday, seven-round magazines are not widely manufactured. And, although the new gun law provided an exemption for the use of 10-round magazines at firing ranges and competitions, it did not provide a legal way for gun owners to purchase such magazines.

The solution? Again, you just can't make this stuff up...


As a result, he said, he and legislative leaders were negotiating language that would continue to allow the sale of magazines holding up to 10 rounds, but still forbid New Yorkers from loading more than 7 rounds into those magazines.

Absolute genius. Now why didn't Colorado think of that, keep the magazines and the jobs they're about to lose and just forbid you from loading more than 7 bullets.

Yeah, another Friday news dump along with Obama having achieved "flexibility (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/26/us-nuclear-summit-obama-medvedev-idUSBRE82P0JI20120326)" by abandoning plans for long-range missile interceptors in Poland.

That was last years news so try to keep up.

That was last years news so try to keep up.hahahahahahhahahahaha!!

That was last years news so try to keep up.

No, it was last Friday's news, hence the mention of the Friday news dump that Obama has perfected.

Obama, Hagel Kill Missile Defense in Europe (http://freebeacon.com/obama-hagel-kill-missile-defense-in-europe/)

Hence Obama has achieved his promised "flexibility." Try and keep up.

hahahahahahhahahahaha!!!!

Another of your brilliant (read ignorant) contributions.

The Poles can't afford a missile defense system. And why do they need one since we are broke? So are they.

Another of your brilliant (read ignorant) contributions.You're an angry man. Meds or therapy would help.

Meanwhile ,the 1st thing Zero did when he got off the plane in Tel Aviv is to walk across the tarmac and inspect an Iron Dome system. D@mn that star wars Reagan introduced!!

You're an angry man. Meds or therapy would help.

I'm not the one with premature jocularity.

I'm not the one with premature jocularity.No, you were a year late LOL!

No, you were a year late LOL!

Are you that dense or just enjoy me drawing attention to your foolishness?


Yeah, another Friday news dump along with Obama having achieved "flexibility" by abandoning plans for long-range missile interceptors in Poland.

The subject of the post was last Friday's news dumps by the Obama administration with the object of my reference being "abandoning plans for long-range missile interceptors in Poland."

That sir, was Friday's news. I can't help it if you don't understand the concept of historical references relevant to current events.

In light of current fiscal woes, spending money so Poland can defend itself from a mystery enemy is a dumb idea.

In light of current fiscal woes, spending money so Poland can defend itself from a mystery enemy is a dumb idea.

I believe part of the point of these long-range missile interceptors was to give the US two shots at an Iranian ICBM. Iran is not a "mystery enemy."

You mean third shot since we have a fleet around Iran and the Israeli's have an Iron Dome.

You mean third shot since we have a fleet around Iran and the Israeli's have an Iron Dome.

Not sure how Israel's iron dome is supposed to protect Europe and the US from an Iranian ICBM.

Should we charge them by the hour or by the missile for their safety, and security needs. I know you aren't talking about free stuff, are you?

Should we charge them by he hour or by the missle for their safety, and security needs. I know you aren't talking about free stuff, are you?

Logistics. I could be wrong but the shortest distance to most of Europe and the US from Iran is not via Israel.

So we charge them by the mile then?

I guess pictures aren't simple enough.


Iron Dome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome) (Hebrew: כִּפַּת בַּרְזֶל, kipat barzel) also known as "Iron Cap"[7] is a mobile all-weather air defense system[6] developed by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems.[5] It is a missile system designed to intercept and destroy short-range rockets and artillery shells fired from distances of 4 to 70 kilometers away and whose trajectory would take them to a populated area.[8][9] Israel hopes to increase the range of Iron Dome's interceptions, from the current maximum of 70 km (45 miles) to 250 km and make it more versatile so that it could intercept rockets coming from two directions simultaneously.[10]

OK, so how is iron dome supposed to protect us and Europe from an Iranian ICBM?

OK, so how is iron dome supposed to protect us and Europe from an Iranian ICBM?

I don't expect it is this is why you wanted the bases in Poland, but the US has nothing to fear from Iranian ICBM

I don't expect it is this is why you wanted the bases in Poland, but the US has nothing to fear from Iranian ICBM

Yet.

The issue is much more about Israel undoubtedly you have antagonised the Iranians by objecting to their nuclear program but they are a middle run power far from anywhere

Back to the OP, Biden insists Dems will continue pushing the assault weapons ban even even though they Reid shelved it after they couldn't muster but 40 votes in the Senate. Ol' Joe played the Gabby Giffords card again today...


Think about what happened out in — where Gabby Gifford, my good friend, was shot and mortally wounded.

Someone get Joe a dictionary.

Yet.Fear... you must live in constant fear. It's the only way to get an agenda across.

Paranoia has many forms

Fear... you must live in constant fear. It's the only way to get an agenda across.

Relaying the reported facts and the news that Obama dumped when no one is paying attention is not fear mongering. There's a reason he has perfected the art of the Friday news dump and that's to feign transparency while burying it over the weekend.

WaPo's editorial board (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-administration-yanks-a-missile-that-upset-russia/2013/03/19/aec6da52-90ca-11e2-bdea-e32ad90da239_story.html) is my source and they're no friend to conservatives:


The SM3 IIb missile was significant for two reasons: It was the only interceptor planned for the Europe-based system that could have defended the United States against an attack from Iran; and it was the component of the system most decried by Russia, which claimed that it could be used against its intercontinental missiles.

They called the decision "imprudent."


Still, the fact remains that the United States has removed from its plans the missile that Russian officials previously cited as their foremost concern, just a few months after President Obama promised the Kremlin “greater flexibility” on missile defense after his reelection. In doing so, the administraton has eliminated the possibility of a defensive system that would give the United States two shots at an Iranian ICBM — what in Pentagon jargon is called a shoot-look-shoot capacity. It also has decoupled the European missile system from the defense of the continental United States. These compromises could have made sense as part of a broader agreement with Russia on missile defenses. To undertake them unilaterally, for what are portrayed as purely budgetary reasons, is imprudent.

Everything I've said on this subject has been rational, factual and for your benefit again, current. Now do you have anything besides snark and foolishness to add to the discussion?

Now do you have anything besides snark and foolishness to add to the discussion?You don't know that keeping a population in fear is a well-worn tactic? That isn't snark and foolishness it's fact: Culture of fear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_fear)

I see it day in day out on the Current Events board - spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt to get an agenda across. You use it constantly in conjunction with the tactic of presenting a false dichotomy. None of that is rational discussion.

You don't know that keeping a population in fear is a well-worn tactic? That isn't snark and foolishness it's fact: Culture of fear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_fear)

I see it day in day out on the Current Events board - spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt to get an agenda across. You use it constantly in conjunction with the tactic of presenting a false dichotomy. None of that is rational discussion.

Except for the fact that I offered no fear mongering and no false dichotomies you might have a point. Are you just a glutton for punishment?

We'll see. ;-)

I guess pictures aren't simple enough.



OK, so how is iron dome supposed to protect us and Europe from an Iranian ICBM?

If Europe pays for it then they can get it. Don't you agree? That's all I have made a point of PAY FOR IT!! Why do you keep ducking the money part?

How mercenary !

If Europe pays for it then they can get it. Don't you agree? Thats all I have made a point of PAY FOR IT!!!!!!!!!!!! Why do you keep ducking the money part?

I say give them the technology and let them built it under licence, isn't that the way business is done and developments and innovations cost more

You want a missile you pay full price. There is no fear discount.

Right, of course if you are afraid, you can discount the missiles, but inevietably you will have to face the threat yourselves

You want a missle you pay full price. There is no fear discount.

You are making the wrong argument . What you should be asking is why 10's of thousands of American troops are still based in western Europe.

The horse is already out of the barn.. We patrol the world with our fleet keeping the sea lanes open... we don't do it for a fee.

Then why do you do it?

Hello again,

I need some right wing clarity, IF that's possible... We are NOW doing some background checks.. They appear to WORK, in that, there HAVE been some exconvicts who were CAUGHT trying to buy guns, and were sent packing.. But, because they WEREN'T prosecuted, the right wing doesn't want to expand the process..

Let me say that again. The background checks WORKED, but because the cops won't go after the guys who COULDN'T buy guns, we shouldn't prevent MORE bad guys from buying guns...

Have I got that about right??

excon

There's no other nation that will do it. Your nation is increasing relying on oil imports ;and yet you fail to see the importance of having free access though choke points like the Strait of Malacca . Maybe the Chinese fleet will keep the vital sea lanes in your backyard open for you.

Hello again,

I need some right wing clarity, IF that's possible... We are NOW doing some background checks.. They appear to WORK, in that, there HAVE been some exconvicts who were CAUGHT trying to buy guns, and were sent packing.. But, because they WEREN'T prosecuted, the right wing doesn't want to expand the process..

Lemme say that again. The background checks WORKED, but because the cops won't go after the guys who COULDN'T buy guns, we shouldn't prevent MORE bad guys from buying guns...

Have I got that about right???

excon

I've addressed the background check bill already, it could make felons out of anyone going on vacation for more than 7 days or loaning a gun to a buddy. Sorry, but I'm not in favor of more stupid liberal legislation.

Hello again, tom:

Those are red herrings, or straw men. I NEVER know the difference...

But, if we can assume for a moment, that the FINAL version of the bill WON'T include the provisions you object to, but will SIMPLY be a background check on ALL gun SALES, to prevent bad guys from getting guns, would you be in favor?

excon

I'm still not tom but if the Obamacare bill is any indication no, I don't trust Democrats to put out a clean bill of any sort.

Hello again, Steve/tom:

Can you not answer my question? Are you afraid you'll look like a gun NUT if you do?? It's a BACKGROUND check.. I'd FAIL it. It'll STOP people like me from getting guns... Isn't that GOOD??

I KNOW you think we're ALL members of the excon club, so we have EASY access to all the guns we want. So, OF COURSE, we'll NEVER buy our guns at a gun show...

Really?

excon

It is a federal felony to be engaged in the business of buying and selling firearms and ammunition without having federal firearm dealers license.

It is a crime for a federally licensed dealer to sell a gun without doing a background check. This applies to all dealers, including at retail stores (like Walmart), gun shows, flea markets, or anywhere else.

It is a federal felony to sell, trade, give, lend, rent, or transfer a gun to a person you know or should have known is not legally allowed to own, purchase, or possess a firearm. The penalty for selling a gun to a person who is a criminal, mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or an alcohol or drug abuser is a 10-year federal felony.

It is even a federal felony to submit false information on a background check form for the purpose of purchasing a firearm. According to a 2012 report to the Department of Justice (DOJ), more than 72,000 people were turned down on a gun purchase in 2010 because they didn't pass the background check. Only 44 of those cases were prosecuted.


Gun Control Policy: Universal Background Checks Aren't the Cure-all People Think They Are (http://www.policymic.com/articles/24070/gun-control-policy-universal-background-checks-aren-t-the-cure-all-people-think-they-are)

Seems there are already suitable laws in place. This rush to make legislation is a feel good bromide . Try enforcing the laws already on the books.

Hello again, tom/Steve:


Seems there are already suitable laws in place. Try enforcing the laws already on the books.Couple things.

If I can go buy a gun at a gun show THIS WEEKEND, and I can, it would seem to ME that that there AREN'T suitable laws in place.. To ME, trying to STOP real BAD guys from BUYING guns IS pretty suitable... But, that's just me.

Secondarily, because the cops WON'T prosecute excons who LIED on a piece of paper, but were nonetheless PREVENTED from buying a gun, we shouldn't do background checks at gun shows??

That makes absolutely NO sense to me.

Excon

From the link... It is a crime for a federally licensed dealer to sell a gun without doing a background check. This applies to all dealers, including at retail stores (like Walmart), gun shows, flea markets, or anywhere else.

Edit... yes there should be presecutions. I already said the existing laws should be enforced

Hello again, tom:

Is that more red herrings, or more straw men? And, why can't you answer my question? You're NOT dumb. You KNOW that I can buy ANY gun I want from PRIVATE sellers who GO to gun shows to SELL their guns. They do that ALL across this great country of ours, even in NY..

You either KNOW that, or you're afraid if you tell the truth, even you, yourself, will think you're a gun nut.

excon

Hello again, Steve/tom:

Can you not answer my question? Are you afraid you'll look like a gun NUT if you do??? It's a BACKGROUND check.. I'd FAIL it. It'll STOP people like me from getting guns... Isn't that GOOD???

I KNOW you think we're ALL members of the excon club, so we have EASY access to all the guns we want. So, OF COURSE, we'll NEVER buy our guns at a gun show...

Really?

excon

What Steve said.

Hello again,

Just this morning, we've had page after page of obfuscation from my right wing friends. Either they have NO idea what I'm talking about or they're AVOIDING the question. Since I have NEVER known Steve/tom to be LACKING in facts, I must conclude they're AVOIDING the question.

We ALL know why. In the real world, they KNOW they're wrong.

excon

There's no obfuscation. We already have laws in place and the one proposed is BAD, I oppose it. That's pretty damn clear.

Restricting private sales at gun shows is not the same thing as universal backround checks. Also you are in denial if you think that will prevent any criminal from obtaining a gun illegally . Face it ;all the laws proposed are to restrict law abiding people from guns .
The laws are already in the books... if enforced... Here is the key part of the post
According to a 2012 report to the Department of Justice (DOJ), more than 72,000 people were turned down on a gun purchase in 2010 because they didn't pass the background check. Only 44 of those cases were prosecuted.

According to a 2012 report to the Department of Justice (DOJ), more than 72,000 people were turned down on a gun purchase in 2010 because they didn't pass the background check. Only 44 of those cases were prosecuted.
Why did 72,000 not pass? Maybe the world is safer because of that, despite no prosecutions came about.

Why would you prosecute someone that failed a background check unless other factors were involved? I know of no law that says a failure to pass is illegal in of itself.

So you would agree that we have backround checks in place already. Like I said... all the stuff going on is just bromides. It will have no impact.

so you would agree that we have backround checks in place already. Like I said ... all the stuff going on is just bromides. It will have no impact.
I can understand how universal background checks would be useless, but I think the private gun-show and person-to-person sales should be regulated somehow. I suspect the Lanza shooting happened because the mom either did not secure her legally obtained guns or the son figured out how to get into her gun safe (if she had one). What can be done about that?

I can understand how universal background checks would be useless, but I think the private gun-show and person-to-person sales should be regulated somehow. I suspect the Lanza shooting happened because the mom either did not secure her legally obtained guns or the son figured out how to get into her gun safe (if she had one). What can be done about that?

Education? The left uses that line whenever abortion and sex is the topic, why not guns? Actually I think they may have it backwards, why don't they want to educate about gun safety and not require background checks, licenses and "trigger locks" for teenagers? Far more people are harmed and killed every year due to irresponsible sex than gunshots.

The underlying problem in the Lanza case is his mental health. New information reveals he spent hours plotting his attack . He treated it like a real life version of one of the video games he was addicted to . He kept score of previous mass shootings and had a goal of beating the totals.

Exactly, but even the mental health provisions need to be watched, check yourself in voluntarily to a hospital for a little depression for a couple days and the authorities just might come confiscate your weapons in California.

so you would agree that we have backround checks in place already. Like I said ... all the stuff going on is just bromides. It will have no impact.

We can close some loopholes to what we have in place that people are using to get around the law. It's the same thing with taxes, abortions, guns and government.

What worked in the 70's may not work NOW, and requires some adjustments. If you aren't as smart as excon, you are in trouble, and don't be swayed because he is cute.

the underlying problem in the Lanza case is his mental health. New information reveals he spent hours plotting his attack . He treated it like a real life version of one of the video games he was addicted to . He kept score of previous mass shootings and had a goal of beating the totals.
Didn't his mom ever go into the basement and see what he was up to? Did you read the news article about the college guy who had noticed something was up with his roommate and reported it, so the roommate ended up killing only himself, even though he had planned a mass shooting? We need to be less PC and stop dancing around each other when we see odd or abnormal behavior.

We need to be less PC and stop dancing around each other when we see odd or abnormal behavior.

I think we need to stop being PC period. For instance I'll say "Washington Redskins" if I want to.

Hello again,

I need some right wing clarity, IF that's possible... We are NOW doing some background checks.. They appear to WORK, in that, there HAVE been some exconvicts who were CAUGHT trying to buy guns, and were sent packing.. But, because they WEREN'T prosecuted, the right wing doesn't want to expand the process..

Lemme say that again. The background checks WORKED, but because the cops won't go after the guys who COULDN'T buy guns, we shouldn't prevent MORE bad guys from buying guns...

Have I got that about right???

excon


Here is what your missing in the process. Most background checks that are done today have a stipulation in them in that the back ground check is destroyed after it is completed. What the legislation is asking for is a gun registration program. That is a very different process. So most of the argument being made right now is not about the background check itself so much as it is the recording of who owns what and where.

Hello again, tom:

Is that more red herrings, or more straw men? And, why can't you answer my question?? You're NOT dumb. You KNOW that I can buy ANY gun I want from PRIVATE sellers who GO to gun shows to SELL their guns. They do that ALL across this great country of ours, even in NY..

You either KNOW that, or you're afraid if you tell the truth, even you, yourself, will think you're a gun nut.

excon

This is a half truth. Where the line is and as far as the law in concerned is in the facts. So as a private sale that is going to take place the seller has to be reasonably sure the buyer can own the gun that is for sale.

SO if you are the buyer and someone sells you a gun based on your good looks and doesn't bother to ask any questions then they could be guilty of a crime. If they ask the questions and you lie then you're the one guilty of a crime.

If you knowingly sell a gun through private sale to a person that you know can not purchase that weapon on their own then you are not only guilty of a crime but may be liable for any crimes committed with that weapon as an accessory.

I hope that clears it up.

Why did 72,000 not pass? Maybe the world is safer because of that, despite no prosecutions came about.

It can be for any number of reasons. Also many states have a setup where you can pay a small fee and see without breaking the law if you can purchase one legally. So without seeing why a person was denied you can't actually tell if it was because of illicit behavior or not. It can be due to misunderstanding of the law and how it is applied.

Why would you prosecute someone that failed a background check unless other factors were involved? I know of no law that says a failure to pass is illegal in of itself.

Yes it is. The reason being is that in order to create the background check you have to be purchasing a weapon first. It is listed in the background check as part of the process. So if you knowingly attempt to buy a weapon that you are not entitled to own you are breaking a ATF statuate. Hence your committing a federal crime.

Thank you for that clarity and if I may pick your brain what if one was a gun owner already and the circumstances had changed when he was buying another gun? Is this also a violation and would the fact he owned a gun before mean a surrender of his lawfully purchaced gun?

Thank you for that clarity and if I may pick your brain what if one was a gun owner already and the circumstances had changed when he was buying another gun? Is this also a violation and would the fact he owned a gun before mean a surrender of his lawfully purchaced gun?

Yes it does like in the case of Domestic violence and restraining orders. Its not uncommon for a Judge to order all weapons away from the perp. There are several ways of dealing with it including a nominal fee being charged by your local LEO to keep the weapons for you to you outright selling them so they are not in your home or possession.

The Senate voted against ratification 53-46 .

Hello again,


So if you knowingly attempt to buy a weapon that you are not entitled to own you are breaking a ATF statuate. Hence your committing a federal crime.This is nuts, if you think about it.

The law you're discussing has TWO benefits - one MAJOR and one minor. The MAJOR benefit is that it STOPPED felons from getting guns. That's what the law was DESIGNED to do, and it WORKED. The minor secondary benefit, is that a convict committed a crime by filling out the paper and YOU know WHO he is, so you can arrest him...

Regrettably, I've committed federal crimes before. None, however, as despicable as filling out an application for something I'm not entitled to... I would NEVER do that. My parents told me to NEVER do unauthorized applying... Fortunately, I've never succumbed to it..

Now, our wonderful right wing sees the MAJOR benefit in this law as the ability to arrest the wrongful applier - NOT the fact that he couldn't buy a gun. And, if the feds AREN'T going to arrest people for wrongful applying, then why try to stop them from getting a gun AT ALL??

At least that's the crack thinking of our right wing brethren. In the real world, it's BONKERS..

Excon

Ex you know its right, pen pushers have to get an opportunity to enforce the law too, that's what equal opportinity is about right and felons have to be given equal opportunity to break the law, if they are that stupid let them fry

The Senate voted against ratification 53-46 .

UN Arms Trade Treaty Sparks White House Protests And Senate Amendments (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/23/arms-trade-treaty-nra_n_2935593.html?utm_hp_ref=politics)


In the predawn hours on Saturday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) proposed an amendment to the Senate's budget bill that would prohibit the U.S. from signing the ATT. The Senate approved the measure by a vote of 53-46.

During the same marathon legislative session, Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy (Vt.) proposed a separate amendment affirming that international treaties do not trump the U.S. Constitution, a direct jab at a worry expressed by groups like the NRA. Leahy's measure passed by a voice vote.

Both amendments will be worked on in a committee process and then proceed to the House. The Senate departed for Easter recess immediately after passing the budget bill.

The treaty wasn't killed, just delayed for further review.

Yes it's a rider to the Budget bill (what nonsense !) . But the budget bill was passed .

Hello again,

This is nuts, if you think about it.

The law you're discussing has TWO benefits - one MAJOR and one minor. The MAJOR benefit is that it STOPPED felons from getting guns. That's what the law was DESIGNED to do, and it WORKED. The minor secondary benefit, is that a convict committed a crime by filling out the paper and YOU know WHO he is, so you can arrest him...

Regrettably, I've committed federal crimes before. None, however, as despicable as filling out an application for something I'm not entitled to... I would NEVER do that. My parents told me to NEVER do unauthorized applying... Fortunately, I've never succumbed to it..

Now, our wonderful right wing sees the MAJOR benefit in this law as the ability to arrest the wrongful applier - NOT the fact that he couldn't buy a gun. And, if the feds AREN'T gonna arrest people for wrongful applying, then why try to stop them from getting a gun AT ALL???

At least that's the crack thinking of our right wing brethren. In the real world, it's BONKERS..

excon



What you have to understand is that many states have an avenue for getting cheked out without the purchase of a gun. Aif you apply there and fail the initial test then you simply fail. No crime is being committed. I think the reasoning is that should you be a felon or on a DM list your not suppose to be around guns in the first place. If you apply ( I think available online) and pay the fee you skate by. But should you knowingly walk into a gun store where many guns are present and then fill out a form for one you have picked out to buy. Then maybe that person needs to rethink what path they are on in life and not spring forth children. The gene pool is already contaminated enough.

Hello dad.


I think the reasoning is that should you be a felon or on a DM list your not suppose to be around guns in the first place. If so, then the reasoning is faulty.. The law is CLEAR. A felon cannot be in POSSESSION of a firearm. Being within 3 feet of a gun, say in a gun store display case, is NOT a crime..

Now, if you're under state supervision, THEN you can't be "around" guns. But, MOST felons aren't on parole or probation.

I appreciate your effort at explaining the unexplainable. The OTHER guys change the subject. Would you try again, armed, so to speak, with the CORRECT law??

Excon

Hello dad.

If so, then the reasoning is faulty.. The law is CLEAR. A felon cannot be in POSSESSION of a firearm. Being within 3 feet of a gun, say in a gun store display case, is NOT a crime..

Now, if you're under state supervision, THEN you can't be "around" guns. But, MOST felons aren't on parole or probation.

I appreciate your effort at explaining the unexplainable. The OTHER guys change the subject. Would you try again, armed, so to speak, with the CORRECT law???

excon

Each state has a different way of dealing with it. But I can provide a link to the base of which the laws come from. That would be the Brady Bill and the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Ref

(Background checks)

Background Check (http://gun.laws.com/background-check)

(gun control act of 1968)

FIREARMS AND FEDERAL LAW: THE GUN CONTROL ACT OF 1968 (http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Zimring68.htm)

Each state has a different way of dealing with it. But I can provide a link to the base of which the laws come from. That would be the Brady Bill and the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Ref

(Background checks)

Background Check (http://gun.laws.com/background-check)

(gun control act of 1968)

FIREARMS AND FEDERAL LAW: THE GUN CONTROL ACT OF 1968 (http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Zimring68.htm)



Here are 2 more links to help uderstand the issue we are talking about.

Ref:

Felony Gun Laws - FelonyGuide (http://felonyguide.com/Felony-Gun-Laws.php)

Federal Gun Laws for Convicted Felons | eHow.com (http://www.ehow.com/list_6156364_federal-gun-laws-convicted-felons.html)

Hello again, dad:


Federal gun laws prohibit felons from having any contact with firearms and ammunition.The above from your link on eHow. That ISN'T the law. It's somebody's VIEWPOINT of the law. I'll say it again. Federal law precludes POSSESSION of a firearm. I don't know what YOUR link is saying. From a legal perspective, what does "having contact" mean? It means ANYTHING somebody wants it to mean, and that's how your link came up with HIS conclusion..

Secondarily, the law the government is considering won't effect state laws, so how state laws are worded is not relevant. It's the FEDERAL proscription that's relevant.

Nonetheless, all this is subterfuge. I suspect it's meant to show how IMPORTANT it is to go after felons who ATTEMPTED to buy a gun, but were DENIED - rather than preventing MORE felons from being able to buy guns in the first place. I just can't grasp the logic behind that...

Excon

Hello again, dad:

The above from your link on eHow. That ISN'T the law. It's somebody's VIEWPOINT of the law. I'll say it again. Federal law precludes POSSESSION of a firearm. I dunno what YOUR link is saying. From a legal perspective, what does "having contact" mean? It means ANYTHING somebody wants it to mean, and that's how your link came up with HIS conclusion..

Secondarily, the law the government is considering won't effect state laws, so how state laws are worded is not relevant. It's the FEDERAL proscription that's relevant.

Nonetheless, all this is subterfuge. I suspect it's meant to show how IMPORTANT it is to go after felons who ATTEMPTED to buy a gun, but were DENIED - rather than preventing MORE felons from being able to buy guns in the first place. I just can't grasp the logic behind that...

excon

The ehow link was provided to understand the process of buying a gun. It provides understanding as to what is currently going on in many states in a nutshell. The correct process varies by state. In some there is a waiting period and others you can have one in minutes. Again it's the states law that is predominent to the process.

I think what the portion of the argument curently being thown out there is that laws are already on the books. I don't think the analysis is always valid as a denial doesn't mean a felon attempted to buy a gun because there are any number of reasons that a denial can occur.

Im not against local background checks where the check documentation is destroyed after confirmation. But I am against universal registration. The difference being one has a permanent record with it (universal registration) and the other does not. (background check)

Im mostly trying to dispel the rumors and get to the facts so we can keep the debate honest. Having the information at hand allows us to make informed decisions which is where we all need to be on the subject.

Hello again, dad:

Im not against local background checks where the check documentation is destroyed after confirmation.

Im mostly trying to dispel the rumors and get to the facts so we can keep the debate honest.So do I. That's why you won't mind a minor correction that has BROAD implications..

Today, under present law, the application that gun buyers fill out is NOT destroyed. The gun shop keeps it, and that's NOT registration. Under a universal background check, the gun shop would keep THAT piece of paper too, and that won't be registration either.

I'm NOT for banning private sales, or loans of guns to friends, or leaving town (that's for tom)... I don't know HOW any of that can be enforced anyway. I'm for closing the GUN SHOW loophole. From what I've seen, as many guns change hands through PRIVATE sellers at gun shows, as those that do from the dealers..

Since licensed gun dealers are ALREADY equipped to do background checks, we can require that a private sale go THROUGH a dealer. That would PREVENT people like ME from going to gun shows and buying ANY gun we want.

Personally, I'd LIKE that. I don't know why you don't. There are some pretty mean felons out there and I'd rather they not have guns..

Now, there's the view expressed by the NRA that criminals won't go through the background check... Well, if he'd FAIL, he's RIGHT. And, that's the POINT.

What La Pierre is suggesting is that somehow every one of us is a member of the exconvict club, so we AUTOMATICALLY know where to buy guns illegally. So, the background check is only for SUCKERS...

Well, I'm here to tell you, that's as stupid as I made it out to be...

Excon

Hello again, dad:
So do I. That's why you won't mind a minor correction that has BROAD implications..

Today, under present law, the application that gun buyers fill out is NOT destroyed. The gun shop keeps it, and that's NOT registration. Under a universal background check, the gun shop would keep THAT piece of paper too, and that won't be registration either.

I'm NOT for banning private sales, or loans of guns to friends, or leaving town (that's for tom)... I dunno HOW any of that can be enforced anyway. I'm for closing the GUN SHOW loophole. From what I've seen, as many guns change hands through PRIVATE sellers at gun shows, as those that do from the dealers..

Since licensed gun dealers are ALREADY equipped to do background checks, we can require that a private sale go THROUGH a dealer. That would PREVENT people like ME from going to gun shows and buying ANY gun we want.

Personally, I'd LIKE that. I dunno why you don't. There are some pretty mean felons out there and I'd rather they not have guns..

Now, there's the view expressed by the NRA that criminals won't go through the background check... Well, if he'd FAIL, he's RIGHT. And, that's the POINT.

What La Pierre is suggesting is that somehow every one of us is a member of the exconvict club, so we AUTOMATICALLY know where to buy guns illegally. So, the background check is only for SUCKERS...

Well, I'm here to tell you, that's as stupid as I made it out to be...

excon

Here is the problem in what your stating. For one thing there is no provision that I have seen for the destruction of the background check under the universal theme. So to me that is federal level gun registation. Yes I am aware that FFL holders keep the paperwork not the government. Im not against instant checks even for private sales. It protects all sides including the buyer. In many cases guns traded or sold at guns shows can be stolen so without any type of check it is buyer beware.

To me it is not the governments business what I have in my home beyond those already regulated by a class 3 compliance. Other then that the government doesn't have a need to know nor a reason to keep a list.

By keeping it at the FFL level they don't "share" the information. The FFL holder does NOT have the ability to do an approved back ground check. They only handle the paperwork and the actual check is done by a third party (big brother).

It won't stop straw purchses but you could prosecute for the crime if someone is doing so. The straw purchase is knowingly selling to someone. Not just a private sale. Also I have been to many gun shows and can assure you from the ones I went to that most of the sales are taking place inside and through FFL holders.

Yes, Schumer's plan is a defacto gun registration, and as I've said before makes most gun transfers a felony if not done through an FFL holder. Leave your house and guns with your roomie for 8 days without a transfer? Felony.

All the more reason why there should be an armory

MSNBC, a real news organization, has gotten to the bottom of the push back against Bloomberg's $12 million attempt to mold America in his nannyish image - antisemitism.


According to MSNBC contributors Mike Barnicle and Al Sharpton (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/343823/imorning-joei-opposition-bloombergs-anti-gun-campaign-motivated-anti-semitism-andrew-j), opposition to New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s gun-control push is partly the result of anti-Semitism. “Let’s get down to it, Mike Bloomberg, mayor of New York City, there’s a level of anti-Semitism in this thing directed towards Bloomberg,” Barnicle argued on Morning Joe, “It’s out there.” “No doubt about that,” Sharpton responded.

“If he was not a big-city Jewish man and was from another ethnic group, in some parts, I think it would be different,” Sharpton continued.

To be honest I didn't even know he was Jewish. Is it really that hard to believe we just think the guy that believes he "should infringe on your freedom" once in a while should butt out?

I didn't even know he was Jewish
"Bloomberg"? Really? :)

"Bloomberg"? Really? :)

Dude, there aren't just a lot of "bergs" where I live. We don't think about it here, everyone is Smith, Jones or Rodriquez.

This came from Al Sharpton who had all kinds of nice things to say about NY Jews .

"If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house." (Al Sharpton)

Confusing isn't it?

Back in the Crown Heights days ,Sharpton referred to rich Jews as 'diamond merchants' .
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=diamond%20merchant

Dude, there aren't just a lot of "bergs" where I live. We don't think about it here, everyone is Smith, Jones or Rodriquez.

Or Patel...

Or Leblanc or Tremblay?

or Leblanc or Tremblay?

No, but Nguyen or Phongvonsa sure.

I don't usually like Jim Carrey but we should thank him for his contribution to the debate

The video is embedded in this article

Jim Carrey airs his anti-gun views in comedy song 'Cold Dead Hand' | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/jim-carrey-airs-his-anti-gun-views-in-comedy-song-cold-dead-hand/story-e6frfmqi-1226605913637)

I don't usually like Jim Carrey but we should thank him for his contribution to the debate

the video is embedded in this article

Jim Carrey airs his anti-gun views in comedy song 'Cold Dead Hand' | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/jim-carrey-airs-his-anti-gun-views-in-comedy-song-cold-dead-hand/story-e6frfmqi-1226605913637)

I think I prefer this video instead ;)

I Like Guns - Steve Lee - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TC2xTCb_GU)

I think it makes a point

Wow, someone liked that stupid Carrey video? Posted on a site called "Funny or DIE" no less. Anyway...

Juan Williams brings up a good point (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323869604578366882484600710.html?m od=rss_opinion_main):


"The Justice Department reports that between 1980 and 2008, "blacks were six times more likely than whites to be homicide victims and seven times more likely than whites to commit homicide."
...

Almost 50 years ago, when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, the national out-of-wedlock birthrate was 7%. Today it is over 40%. According to the CDC, the out-of-wedlock birthrate for white children was just 2% in the 1960s. Today it is 30%. Among black children, the out-of-wedlock birthrate has skyrocketed from 20% in the 1960s to a heartbreaking 72% today. The Hispanic out-of-wedlock rate, which has been measured for a much shorter period, was below 40% in 1990 and stands at more than 50% as of the 2010 census.

Well, you know family values are so yesterday and who needs a dad anyway?

Come on guys, gun control is not the answer.

Wow, someone liked that stupid Carrey video? Posted on a site called "Funny or DIE" no less. Anyway...

Well, you know family values are so yesterday and who needs a dad anyway?

Come on guys, gun control is not the answer.

That depends upon what question you are asking? Obviously existing measures aren't adequate to stop massacres

That depends upon what question you are asking? obviously existing measures arn't adequate to stop massacres

Kids need a mom and a dad.

Kids need a mom and a dad.
Kids need two loving adults in their lives. Heterosexuals have done a nasty number on marriage (cheating, divorce, broken families, living together and producing children, etc.), so maybe there is another way to stabilize families.

Kids need a mom and a dad.

Well for once we are in agreement, the attempts of the homosexuals, let's call them what they are and avoid being PC, to subvert everything to their warped view of life have thus far failed.

The society we have is in a mess because we have listened to the namby, pamby views of a minority, in fact more than one minority and tried to accommodate them because they feel "hurt". Well tough, "life", as a famous right wing politician in my part of the world said; "isn't meant to be easy"

If someone discriminates against you it is tough, but what doesn't kill you makes you stronger

They seek inclusion as first class citizens, and the youth are not as weirded out by the centuries of dogma, tradition, and discriminations which has made gay people stronger as they seek equal protection under the law, and reject the separate but equal closet they have been forced to live in.

Bigotry, and the laws that promote that bigotry have no place in the American society.

their warped view of life
Apparently none in your family have dared come out of the closet.

Apparently none in your family have dared come out of the closet.

Homosexuals are a very small percentage of the population and seem to gravitate to their havens in large cities, those that don't maintain a low profile, which means they live in peace but without us having to argue their issues too frequently. Even our athiestic Prime Minister doesn't agree with homosexual "marriage". We hope you will "legalise" Homosexual "marriage" then they will migrate as most of them did from New Zealand when they became unpopular there

As to my family they live in hetrosexual relationships and I haven't seen any signs of them playing for the other side

as to my family they live in hetrosexual relationships and I haven't seen any signs of them playing for the other side
Since it's biology and a done deal at birth, at least we know they didn't choose to be this way. Many families I am friends with have a son or daughter or niece or nephew or uncle or aunt or cousin who is gay. My sil last year married her partner of 30+ years, and my mid-20s niece recently told us she is a lesbian. You can run, but you can't hide!

They seek inclusion as first class citizens, and the youth are not as weirded out by the centuries of dogma, tradition, and discriminations which has made gay people stronger as they seek equal protection under the law, and reject the separate but equal closet they have been forced to live in.


Ideological programming by our school system does not show a real change in attitude. Why do you think that the word "gay" has such a bad meaning amongst the youth ? If it were so accepted and embraced it wouldn't be a pejorative.

Since it's biology and a done deal at birth, at least we know they didn't choose to be this way. Many families I am friends with have a son or daughter or niece or nephew or uncle or aunt or cousin who is gay. My sil last year married her partner of 30+ years, and my mid-20s niece recently told us she is a lesbian. You can run, but you can't hide!

From statistics available it is apparent that a far greater percentage of the US population identify as homosexual than do the population of my nation. Short of speculation, I don't know any homosexuals and am unaware of any in my family. It is possible that the child of a one time siI might be living in such a relationship but that is hearsay. I have come across very few individuals who might have been homosexual in my lifetime and I don't frequent places where they might be found. You may find this strange

I have come across very few individuals who might have been homosexual in my lifetime and I don't frequent places where they might be found. You may find this strange
Must be something in our water...

I'm guessing they are all around you.

Get past the ideology ,which has been taught a lot longer than the public school and we have people.


From statistics available it is apparent that a far greater percentage of the US population identify as homosexual than do the population of my nation. Short of speculation, I don't know any homosexuals and am unaware of any in my family. It is possible that the child of a one time siI might be living in such a relationship but that is hearsay. I have come across very few individuals who might have been homosexual in my lifetime and I don't frequent places where they might be found. You may find this strange

Just because they haven't made themselves public as yet doesn't mean they don't exist.

Must be something in our water....

I'm guessing they are all around you.

I think it is the air

Well then, I had better get a gun, do they come out at night? I wondered what has been scampering across my roof. I would say the representation of guns in our society exceeds the representation of homosexuals and as an interesting corrolation, you have both more guns and more homosexuals, must be something about that macho attitude

must be something about that macho attitude
Speaking of macho attitudes, there weren't any homosexuals in India either until recently when the world environment got more accepting.

This isn't a question of acceptance, it is a question of reality. I can't say why you have more than we do, I haven't heard of a homo bashing in years here and as I say they tend to gravitate to the city. Can't deny there are places where they represent a high proportion of the population but not where I live

You know they haven't made it compulsory here yet

Kids need two loving adults in their lives. Heterosexuals have done a nasty number on marriage (cheating, divorce, broken families, living together and producing children, etc.), so maybe there is another way to stabilize families.

No, the research is clear, kids fare better with a mom and dad.

Hello again, Steve:


No, the research is clear, kids fare better with a mom and dad.How CLEAR can it be when I can find research that contradicts it? You show me YOUR links, and I'll show you mine.

But, BEYOND this... If DOMA goes down, and it's Going to, do you think the gay agenda has won, and there'll be JILLIONS of brand new homosexuals coming down the pike?

You DO, don't you, because you believe homosexuality is a CHOICE, even though YOU didn't choose ANYTHING... Uhhh, doesn't common sense EVER trump religious dogma??

Over to you, wingers?

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

How CLEAR can it be when I can find research that contradicts it? You show me YOUR links, and I'll show you mine.

But, BEYOND this.... If DOMA goes down, and it's GONNA, do you think the gay agenda has won, and there'll be JILLIONS of brand new homosexuals coming down the pike??

You DO, don't you, because you believe homosexuality is a CHOICE, even though YOU didn't choose ANYTHING... Uhhh, doesn't common sense EVER trump religious dogma???

Over to you, wingers?

excon

Anyone can find research that contradicts research, but when you get me 30 years of studying children with two moms that isn't geared toward influencing LBGT public policy I'm ready.

children with two moms that isn't geared toward influencing LBGT public policy I'm ready.
Anecdotal evidence from me that includes a lesbian sil's adoption of a male baby is that gays as parents has no influence on the children's sexual orientation. You are born gay or straight and don't veer from either course.

Anecdotal evidence from me that includes a lesbian sil's adoption of a male baby is that gays as parents has no influence on the children's sexual orientation. You are born gay or straight and don't veer from either course.

I really don't know how that's relevant to anything I've said.

I think I prefer this video instead ;)

I Like Guns - Steve Lee - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TC2xTCb_GU)

Reason TV offered a response... not the best it makes the point.

“It Takes a Talking A$$" (http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/03/28/remy-jim-carreys-cold-dead-hands-a-rebut)

This is absolutely Nuts!

The details of the armory that the Newtown shooter possessed is beyond astounding.
What possible reason could he have for possessing the number of high load magazines and and the quantity of ammunition?

Newtown shooting details revealed in newly released documents - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/28/us/connecticut-shooting-documents/index.html?hpt=hp_t4)

Why didn't the alarm bells go off somewhere? Possessing a weapon is one thing and being able to hold a small war is another. This is beyond the right to bear arms

My question is why the mom could get all those guns when she knew she had a troubled person in the house. Shouldn't a background check have revealed that when she bought her first gun?

Hello again, clete:


This is absolutely Nuts!They're not happy unless EVERYONE is capable of maximum mayhem (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-adam-lanza-had-maximum-mayhem-on-his-mind/2013/03/28/bc5ff472-97e2-11e2-b68f-dc5c4b47e519_story.html).

It IS nuts.

Excon

Shows the limits of backround checks .there would be no reason to deny her a purchase.

Shouldn't that be changed?

How ? Deny her a right because she has a sick child ?

Hello again,

Seems like it's time for more of excon's wisdom...

According to you, all of us exconvicts belong to a club where we AUTOMATICALLY know where to buy illegal guns on the street... If that sounds stupid, it's because it IS.

Look, I'm SURE you won't believe me (because I'm a member of the club), but there are SOME people out there who still think... This weekend, I can attend a gun show, and buy ANY gun I wish from the private sellers wandering around there. That would be ANY gun and as many of 'em as I want. Now, I'm a fairly benign exconvict.. I ain't going to hurt you. But, there's SOME out there who you really DON'T want to be able to buy guns.. Really. You DON'T want them to have guns..

If there was a universal background check I couldn't buy a gun. Contrary to your assertion, I have NO IDEA where I could buy one off the street. I DO know enough to KNOW that I'd get my white a$$ KILLED if I wandered around the hood trying to buy a gun. They're not going to believe that I'm a member...

Beyond that, your refusal to pass a law that would PREVENT people like me from getting guns, is one of the MOST criminal FRIENDLY positions I've seen the right wing take. It's positively bleeding heart stuff.

excon

Again ;how would a universal national backround check prevent Lanza's mom from buying the arsenal she owned ?

Hello again, tom:

I appreciate your thinking that I could SOLVE the problem.. Sorry. I can't. But, preventing people like me from getting guns would go a long way towards SOLVING it.

Look. I'm just learning about this straw man thing people use, and I think you just did that. Do you believe, that since we CAN'T stop all murders, we shouldn't try?? It sure LOOKS that way. How come that sounds LIBERAL??

excon

This is absolutely Nuts!

The details of the armory that the Newtown shooter possessed is beyond astounding.
What possible reason could he have for possessing the number of high load magazines and and the quantity of ammunition?

Newtown shooting details revealed in newly released documents - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/28/us/connecticut-shooting-documents/index.html?hpt=hp_t4)

Why didn't the alarm bells go off somewhere? Possessing a weapon is one thing and being able to hold a small war is another. This is beyond the right to bear arms

4 guns and 1600 rounds is an armory? Dude, my dad easily has that tripled in weapons and probably 10 times that in ammo plus loading equipment... he's never shot anyone.

again ;how would a universal national backround check prevent Lanza's mom from buying the arsenal she owned ?

If she disclosed because she was asked if she lived with a mentally challenged person then she would be denied. You know like doctors use to ask if there is a gun in the house? Oh that's right, that's a violation of privacy.

How about a more comprehensive background check? And if you righties weren't so scared of your own government, or losing YOUR own rights, we could do better than arm the crazies, and criminals.

You just keep listening to Wayne, and do nothing, and help him make his loot.


4 guns and 1600 rounds is an armory? Dude, my dad easily has that tripled in weapons and probably 10 times that in ammo plus loading equipment...he's never shot anyone.

Is you dad a loony? Does he live with any? Just because your dad is a responsible citizen, that's doesn't mean everyone is. This isn't about the good guys, its about the bad guys. They are who we should watch and limit.

If she disclosed because she was asked if she lived with a mentally challenged person then she would be denied. You know like doctors use to ask if there is a gun in the house? Oh thats right, thats a violation of privacy.

How about a more comprehensive background check? And if you righties weren't so scared of your own government, or losing YOUR own rights, we could do better than arm the crazies, and criminals.

You just keep listening to Wayne, and do nothing, and help him make his loot.



Is you dad a loony? Does he live with any? Just because your dad is a responsible citizen, thats doesn't mean everyone is. This isn't about the good guys, its about the bad guys. They are who we should watch and limit.

I was responding to Clete's apparent shock at the 'armory' which in itself was designed to shock others. Sorry, but 4 guns and 1600 spare rounds isn't even close to an 'armory'.

I can't explain the mom, but that's at the heart of what I've been saying is the problem - the culture your side has left us with. No amount of background checks is going to fix the family or restore respect for human life. This is what you guys wanted and these are the consequences, stop hollering at us for the havoc you've wreaked on society.

Lets tweak the system and maybe that will give the family a chance to fix itself. That's better than more kids being massacred.

Or would you rather throw rocks?

Lets tweak the system and maybe that will give the family a chance to fix itself. Thats better than more kids being massacred.

Or would you rather throw rocks?

When it comes to the breakdown of the family and millions of abortions I'd rather throw rocks, maybe it would knock some sense into libs.

I was responding to Clete's apparent shock at the 'armory' which in itself was designed to shock others. Sorry, but 4 guns and 1600 spare rounds isn't even close to an 'armory'.
That plus the other weapons he amassed in his basement constitute an armory for a mentally ill person. Would you want him and all his weapons in YOUR basement? Would you call it an armory then?

I wouldn't call it an armory period and feel no need to rehash the mental issue.

feel no need to rehash the mental issue.
I wasn't trying to. I was talking about Adam Lanza living in your basement or guest bedroom (if you are on a slab) with all his weaponry.

Hello again,

It's a straw man (which I'm LOVING) to say that none of these proposed regulations would have prevented Sandy Hook.. You say that, because you CAN'T say that it won't prevent the NEXT Sandyhook, and THAT'S the discussion to have.

excon

Hello again,

It's a straw man (which I'm LOVING) to say that none of these proposed regulations would have prevented Sandy Hook.. You say that, because you CAN'T say that it won't prevent the NEXT Sandyhook, and THAT'S the discussion to have.

excon

Should we start a thread on this issue? Im sure all of us are ripe with opinions on how to change the world :)

I wasn't trying to. I was talking about Adam Lanza living in your basement or guest bedroom (if you are on a slab) with all his weaponry.

MY weaponry would not be readily available to an Adam Lanza.

MY weaponry would not be readily available to an Adam Lanza.
Easy to say in retrospect. If he were your son and you were trying to connect with him and knew guns were a valid connector, then what?

Easy to say in retrospect. If he were your son and you were trying to connect with him and knew guns were a valid connector, then what?

Yes, it was easy to say.

Easy to say in retrospect. If he were your son and you were trying to connect with him and knew guns were a valid connector, then what?

They have paintball guns that in some cases look very much like the real thing. They can be fun also.

They have paintball guns that in some cases look very much like the real thing. They can be fun also.
I don't think "fun" was a word in Adam's vocabulary.

I don't think "fun" was a word in Adam's vocabulary.

Sorry, I didn't know that you knew him personally.

Sorry, I didnt know that you knew him personally.
It is an autism/Aspie thing. That world I am very familiar with.

To my point that this culture, the one the left has imposed on us, is the problem...

qEv1afKaLhA

You nurture a culture of death and devaluing human life and what do you expect?

You nurture a culture of death and devaluing human life and what do you expect?
Do you have actual stats of viable babies born alive during abortions and then allowed to die?

They have paintball guns that in some cases look very much like the real thing. They can be fun also.

Then swap all your guns for paint ball guns, they get the message across

You nurture a culture of death and devaluing human life and what do you expect?

That was the old way, but that has been rejected by the citizens and a new culture of inclusion has started to emerge to work to correct the mistakes of the past, and build on he future. All citizens will have equal value and an equal voice whether they can afford to buy influence or not. Its happening now and will continue until the job is done and we all have a fair share for our labors.

Do you have actual stats of viable babies born alive during abortions and then allowed to die?

They don't like stats for those types of things. But some have come forward to reveal what has been going on.

LifeSiteNews Mobile | Abortionist admits: babies sometimes born alive and left 'wiggling around in the toilet' (http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/abortionist-admits-babies-sometimes-born-alive-and-left-wiggling-around-in)

"Baby Hope" Born Alive During Abortion (http://www.pregnantpause.org/abort/babyhope.htm)

FactCheck.org : Obama and 'Infanticide' (http://factcheck.org/2008/08/obama-and-infanticide/)

Then swap all your guns for paint ball guns, they get the message across

What message would that be? I have connected with my children on many levels. I don't need to trade anything.

What message would that be? I have connected with my children on many levels. I dont need to trade anything.

Bang! You're dead

bang! you're dead

Nah, people rarely die from paintball. It does happen in some cases when people don't follow the safety rules but for the most part its safe.

Nah, people rarely die from paintball. It does happen in some cases when people dont follow the safety rules but for the most part its safe.

That's the idea, it conveys the message with less deaths

Do you have actual stats of viable babies born alive during abortions and then allowed to die?

No, one is enough.

No, one is enough.
There were 20 allowed to die in Sandy Hook.

That was the old way, but that has been rejected by the citizens and a new culture of inclusion has started to emerge to work to correct the mistakes of the past, and build on he future. All citizens will have equal value and an equal voice whether they can afford to buy influence or not. Its happening now and will continue until the job is done and we all have a fair share for our labors.

Tal, in a botched abortion is there a point when the doctor should cease being the killer and start being the healer?

Tal, in a botched abortion is there a point when the doctor should cease being the killer and start being the healer?
And the fetus is not salvageable but is kept alive and will cost taxpayers thousands during its lifetime. You're good with that? Of course, that fetus probably should never have existed in the first place.

What conveys the real message is we kill our own in greater numbers than the terrorists do.

Gun-death tally: Every American gun death since Newtown Sandy Hook shooting (INTERACTIVE). - Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_new town_sandy_hook_shooting.html)

I would post more links but they all paint a gloomy picture, but its great for gun sales at a record level. To bad all those guns have saved no one. The NRA said that was the solution.

There were 20 allowed to die in Sandy Hook.

Not at all, no one "allowed" them to die, someone made a choice to take their lives and why not when Planned Parenthood and our president can't bring themselves to save a child at their most helpless stage?

And the fetus is not salvageable but is kept alive and will cost taxpayers thousands during its lifetime. You're good with that? Of course, that fetus probably should never have existed in the first place.

Thanks for perfectly bringing my point to 'life.'

Thanks for perfectly bringing my point to 'life.'
So how are you going to keep that fetus from existing? Tell one of those leaders?

What conveys the real message is we kill our own in greater numbers than the terrorists do.

Gun-death tally: Every American gun death since Newtown Sandy Hook shooting (INTERACTIVE). - Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_new town_sandy_hook_shooting.html)

I would post more links but they all paint a gloomy picture, but its great for gun sales at a record level. To bad all those guns have saved no one. The NRA said that was the solution.

Maybe its because those with the heaviest tolls are the places where gun control is the strictest.

So how are you going to keep that fetus from existing? Tell one of those leaders?

I watched the PP avoid the question for 5 minutes, not interested in changing the subject.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?

The situation is easily remedied if poor females do what educated females do, see their gynecologist sooner. Poor people make different choice when they are young and dumb. PROPER education, guidance and resources.

Sooner or later you will see poverty is the root cause of most of the problems we face.

I watched the PP avoid the question for 5 minutes, not interested in changing the subject.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?
I watched the questioners obfuscating their questions in all sorts of gobbledy gook.

There should not be a fetus to abort in the first place. That is where we must go with this.

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!!