So your position at this time is for a national gun registry ?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
|
So your position at this time is for a national gun registry ?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Why would that be a bad thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
Yes, so the law can trace weapons used in crimes. And trace guns sold in Texas at a gun show to gang bangers, and prosecute them before they use them.
I think its important to look twice at a person buying a car load of gloks and paying for them on a Walmart salary, don't you?
Here is I think the second causality of the Journal News publishing gun owners' addresses...
of course, there is "no indication of at this time" that it was connected to that list from Journal News. From my local television news :
Thieves steal guns, permits and cash from New City home (January 17, 2013 2:19 PM)
NEW CITY - A New City homeowner was allegedly robbed of guns, cash, pistol permits and a gun safe last night.
Clarkstown police say they responded to a call on Britta Lane around 10:00 p.m. yesterday and found the house ransacked. They say two safes located on the upper level of the home were found to be pried open. A third safe located in the basement was missing.
In total, two handguns, a .45 caliber Colt and .22 caliber Iver Johnson, were stolen along with an undetermined amount of cash, U.S. Savings Bonds, jewelry and a Rockland and Orange County pistol permits.
Police say there is no indication at this time that the crime was connected at all to the gun map that was published by The Journal News.
This makes no sense and a registry isn't going to do anything about it. Checking the status of a person buying guns doesn't require a registry for guns. If the gang banger in question is of legal status to buy a gun then by law it is OK to sell it to them. The law can already trace the footprints of a gun that is confiscated as part of a crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
How is a registry going to help that? There are things in place already to find out where guns went and where they ended up. Using your logic I guess you would expect someone who buys a gun illegally will rush out to register it with the registry ?
could it be the local police are a trifle unforthcoming?.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
40% of all gun sales have no background checks. That's a big hole for a criminal to drive through. If all sales had background checks and had to be registered, maybe a criminal couldn't illegally get a gun, or a "citizen"couldn't sell it to a criminal.Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
So I guess you believe bangers have clean records, and good intentions?
Well of course he believes that, he believes in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny too, and we must not leave out the Tooth Fairy, he even believed Ronmey could be elected, or that McCain could be elected with Palin at his side.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
You know that everyone is innocent until proven guilty so why should an innocent gang banger be deprived of his right to own a firearm and commit mayhem. The law is an @ss and great big @ss and it needs to change to put the onus of proof on to the gun buyer that he/she is a fit and proper person to own a gun. You could begin by preventing any person under 25 years of age from possessing a gun, in addition to excluding mental cases, felons and any person under charge for a criminal offense, or who hasn't resided at their present address for six months
That's my whole point clete as honest folk obey the law but a criminal, or anarchist can circumvent the law in so many ways that the law just can't keep up. Especially if law enforcement doesn't have better tools than the criminals.
Im not the one passing judgement. All I said was if they pass muster with the current laws that we have in place. Im not against state background checks. I am against a national registry.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Hi Tal law enforcement has to rely on better fire power but you can't even be sure of that, the whole concept of innocence has been carried too far, it should be illegal to carry a conceiled weapon, since there is no reasonable purpose for any person other than law enforcement or security to carry a weapon. It should be illegal to have a loaded semi-automatic rifle or hand gun in a public place. There is an argument whether schools should be protected by armed guards, what needs to be done is to remove the need for armed guards by removing the right to carry in public. Sporting shooters should be registered and should notify local law enforcement when huntingQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Sure sure, lets just eliminate any law that may hide a criminal in some way. How about rights to privacy - gone. Rights to due process-gone. Rights to property-gone.
I bet that would make the crime rates drop. How about it? How far do you want to dip in your paranoia ?
The needs of the woodsman in rural areas is vastly different than those in the big city, or the average city. But to do nothing about illegal activity is a disaster.
You see dad the whole debate has swung into the seriel but your suggestion is a good oneQuote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
As I said you start with the presumption of innocence, let the accused be given the onus of proof it works in a number of countries. There is no such thing as being an innocent bystander to certain crimes. You also eliminate this nonsense of reading an apprehended person their rights, it is the responsibility of every citizen to know the law and if in doubt, don't do it.. So, you give them their rights at the prelinimary hearing and they can get counsel and so on. What I am saying is you eliminate all this PC bull that protects criminalsQuote:
lets just eliminate any law that may hide a criminal in some way.
So if we background check every purchase is that enough?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
It certainly would go a long way as well as a withholding period to stop gunshow and private sales getting around the law
Whoa we don't have to give up our rights to stop a criminal. Just make sure law enforcement has better tools to deal with the crooks. And who needs bullets that can penetrate a bullet proof vest?Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Oh boy. Ok one thing that your not understanding is. There is no gun show loophole. It doesn't exist. It is the private sale that exists surrounding gun shows that created the name. If you go to a gun show and buy a firearm then you get a background check before you can take possession of the weapon. Gun dealers hold what is called an FFL - Federal Firearms License. It is issued on the federal (governmental) level.
My NRA husband says guys, knowing they are in a friendly and accepted place, walk around gun shows with guns slung over their shoulders and bulging out of their pockets, looking for a private sale. That's what is meant by the "gun-sale loophole."
Source/ Gun shows in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaQuote:
Presently, 17 states regulate private firearm sales at gun shows. Seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows (California, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, Illinois and Colorado). Four states (Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) require background checks on all handgun, but not long gun, purchasers at gun shows. Six states require individuals to obtain a permit to purchase handguns that involves a background check (Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska). Certain counties in Florida require background checks on all private sales of handguns at gun shows. The remaining 33 states do not restrict private, intrastate sales of firearms at gun shows in any manner.[16][17]
Ever look at who is on the board of trustees for the NRA? You should.Quote:
The remaining 99.2% of inmates reported obtaining firearms from other sources, including "From a friend/family member" (36.8%), "Off the street/from a drug dealer" (20.9%), "From a fence/black market source" (9.6%), "From a pawnshop," "From a flea market," "From the victim," or "In a burglary." 9% of inmates replied "Don't Know/Other" to the question of where they acquired a firearm and 4.4% refused to answer.[21
So without the numbers we can confidently say that there is a black market in weapons and this needs to be addressed. Now I thought, mistakenly obviously, that you had the AFTE for this. To do this you need to restrict the sale of firearms at gunshows, whether you want to call that private sales, or not, is irrelevant, you also need to restrict any reseller by requiring registration and transaction tracking, and you can put a transaction tax on it to pay for the paperwork
You see when things are out of control you need to go in hard and clean up the mess, forget it's just business and a little fun, and realise it is the source of a problem.
The job of ATF director has required Senate confirmation only since 2006, but that has never happened, leaving the agency in the hands of acting directors.[41]
The National Rifle Association of America strongly opposes President Obama's nomination of Andrew Traver as director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). Traver has been deeply aligned with gun control advocates and anti-gun activities. This makes him the wrong choice to lead an enforcement agency that has almost exclusive oversight and control over the firearms industry, its retailers and consumers. Further, an important nomination such as BATFE director should not be made as a 'recess appointment,' in order to circumvent consent by the American people through their duly-elected U.S. Senators. Traver served as an advisor to the International Association for Chiefs of Police's (IACP) 'Gun Violence Reduction Project,' a 'partnership' with the Joyce Foundation. Both IACP and the Joyce Foundation are names synonymous with promoting a variety of gun control schemes at the federal and state levels. Most of the individuals involved in this project were prominent gun control activists and lobbyists.[42]
“The bottom line is the gun lobby will oppose any nominee who promises to be a strong and effective director of the ATF,” said Dennis Henigan, vice president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Indeed, it was persistent lobbying by the NRA. That helped to get the confirmation requirement instated. In 2007, Bush nominated Mike Sullivan for the position, a U.S. Attorney from Boston with a good reputation, but Republican Sens. Larry Craig and Michael D. Crapo, both from Idaho, blocked his confirmation after complaints from an Idaho gun dealer. In 2010, Obama nominated Andrew Traver, head of the ATF's Denver division, to fill the top spot, but the Senate is yet to hold his confirmation hearings as of December 26, 2012.[43][44]
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He made a new choice yesterday.
It is time to get over this fear of tehe gun lobby and appoint an effective director and obviously he should not be pro gun since his job is regulation of the industry you guys are such a lot of pussie's
Antidepressants and School Shootings, Suicide, Addiction. - YouTube
Yeah yeah I know... more propaganda .
It's basically an ad for Truehope: The Leaders in Brain Health
I wouldn't give them my CC number.
Misinformation and propaganda everywhere, must be the fourth reich
That' s because you discount the relationship between mental health and nutrition ? Or maybe you are a shill for the pharmaceutical companies who push these psychotropics even though the adverse affects have been well documented at this time ?
If the mentally ill don't take the appropriate medications, what recourse do they have? Liver and broccoli?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
What is the appropriate medication ? These drugs are killers.
The drugs didn't kill my friends and relative, and in fact, made/make life bearable for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
If it was even about nutrition which it isn't. From the website (if you had bother to do your own research):Quote:
that' s because you discount the relationship between mental health and nutrition
"My son who is now nine is no longer on psych meds.He will most likely have to continue taking EMPowerplus™ for life"
That's all well and good . But I've seen real life examples of what the video portrays. The only thing that prevented worse was walking out of the doctor's office and finding a doctor who understands the benefits of changing to a nutritional supplement regimin.
Because you sell them?Quote:
the benefits of changing to a nutritional supplement regimin
And that rebutts my argument how ? What do you think EMPowerplus is ?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Because it worksQuote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/751533
The Journal News has made the correct decision to drop the interactive map of gun owners from their web site.
http://www.lohud.com/article/2013011...r-Janet-Hasson
The publisher has a weasly disclaimer that says they are only doing it because it's been up long enough for everyone to see. They also claim that the reaction to the posting was mixed. It was Not.. The reason is that the reaction was intensely negative ,and what they are probably not saying is how it hurt subscriptions. Here in the Hudson Valley ;the Journal News is the only game in town . It's editorial position is flaming lib. On most issues. And yet ,the publication of the map was greeted with such a strong negative reaction ,that the Journal News is retreating from it's position. It dropped the map ;and it will no longer pursue it's attempt to publish the public information of gun owners in Putnam County .
Why would they do it anyway? Not only is it an invasion of privacy, it is an invitation to criminals to target gunowners, just irresponsible sensationalist journalism
Yes it was dumb, but so is not securing your home properly.
Hello again,
I thought right wingers LOVED the First Amendment. No, huh? As usual, they shoot the messenger. Look. If you have a problem with PUBLIC information, get mad at the legislators who MADE the list PUBLIC.
But, as long as it IS public, the press can report it. It IS a free press, no? I don't understand how wingers can LOVE parts of the First Amendment, and go ON, and ON, and ON, about how their religious rights have been violated, and then HATE the rest.. It makes NO sense.
excon
The public officials of Westchester and Rockland made it public only after The Journal News got the list from FOIA requests . No I blame them and have ended my subscription even though it was the only major local news publisher .
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:08 PM. |