[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

Well, since you ducked THAT issue, I'll bet you'll DUCK this one too...

If the right wing WANTED fewer guns on the street, why are legally required background checks laws ignored in some states? Why aren't those who fail to do so prosecuted?

Could it have to do with the ATF being LEADERLESS??? The Republicans in congress managed to CHANGE the law to REQUIRE that the head of the ATF BE approved by the Senate. Then they proceeded to DENY every single person Obama sent for approval... Some in the agency say the gun INDUSTRY is running the show.

Given the above, it LOOKS like the right wing wants MORE guns in the hands of CRIMINALS and CRAZY people. I have NO idea why they would want that.. But, I have NO idea about ANYTHING they want.

I DO understand why the NRA wants that. They represent arms DEALERS.

excon

[speechlesstx]

That would be the same ATF that ran Fast and Furious. According to the article Obama has only sent one anti-gun guy so I guess "every one" of his would be one. Why would Republicans allow an anti-guy guy to run the gun police? That certainly seems like a no-brainer to me because we do have the right to keep and bear arms.

As for your other contention, that is only in regards to mental illness background checks and is limited to those contained in court records. Otherwise, people still have a right to privacy you know. Or used to... one newspaper doesn't give a damn.

Newspaper sparks outrage for publishing names, addresses of gun permit holders

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

still have a right to privacy you know. Or used to... one newspaper doesn't give a damn.

Yeah, I heard FOX and Friends sniveling about how those poor defenseless gun owners are going to cope, now that criminals know where they live...

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

By the way, it would seem to me that if a record is PUBLIC, that nobody's privacy is violated when the record is made PUBLIC. I don't know. Crazy liberal logic, huh?

Excon

PS> (edited) Still watching FOX... They just complained that the paper didn't publish a list of the ILLEGAL gun owners...

??

Like you say, you CAN'T make this stuff up.

[speechlesstx]

There's a difference between PUBLIC and PUBLISH.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

There's a difference between PUBLIC and PUBLISH.

True: One is what a record IS, and the other is what a newspaper does.

Should they have published the list? As a citizen, I'd LIKE to know if my neighbor has a gun. The newspaper DID me a service. That's what they do. I don't blame them at all..

IF there's a bad, it MIGHT be the agency who RELEASED the list. It MIGHT be legislature who made a LAW saying gun ownership records are PUBLIC. It MIGHT be the gun owner who signed a document indicating that he KNEW that his permit would be made public.

I don't know WHO did bad, if anybody, but the newspaper didn't.

Excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

True: One is what a record IS, and the other is what a newspaper does.

Should they have published the list? As a citizen, I'd LIKE to know if my neighbor has a gun. The newspaper DID me a service. That's what they do. I don't blame them at all..

IF there's a bad, it MIGHT be the agency who RELEASED the list. It MIGHT be legislature who made a LAW saying gun ownership records are PUBLIC. It MIGHT be the gun owner who signed a document indicating that he KNEW that his permit would be made public.

I dunno WHO did bad, if anybody, but the newspaper didn't.

excon

It MIGHT also hint at who is NOT protecting their homes with a gun or give some wacko anti-gun zealots a map of who to harass. But I'm not surprised you don't find it troubling that a newspaper would push their agenda without regard to the people it might affect.

[excon]

not surprised you don't find it troubling that a newspaper would push their agenda without regard to the people it might affect.

Would you be as pissed at them if they published a list of sex offenders? That would effect people too. What if they published a list of convicted drunk drivers? Would THAT be something you'd like to know?? What about a list of convicted POT smokers? Would THAT piss you off? It WOULD effect some people.

With all your carping about the First Amendment, you sure don't like PARTS of it.

Excon

[speechlesstx]

Would you be as pissed at them if they published a list of sex offenders? That would effect people too. What if they published a list of convicted drunk drivers? Would THAT be something you'd like to know??? What about a list of convicted POT smokers? Would THAT piss you off?? It WOULD effect some people.

With all your carping about the First Amendment, you sure don't like PARTS of it.

excon

I never said it wasn't legal, it is irresponsible. Those people did nothing to deserve that like a convicted sex offender.

[talaniman]

But you have no problem with the NRA pushing their agenda and weakening laws in states, and taking advantage of those weak laws, and giving the bad guys, crazies, criminals, and irresponsible people a right to bear arms and make both mass carnage, and local terror.

That has a bad effect on people too.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

Those people did nothing to deserve that like a convicted sex offender.

In this great country of ours, you break the law, you do your time, and you get on with your life.

Doing his time is ALL an offender "deserves". That's the American way... Oh, it's NOT what we're doing... A sex offender does his time in jail, and suffers for the rest of his LIFE on the outside.

Now, if it was ME, and some sex offender was SOOO vicious that he needed to be punished for LIFE, then we shouldn't let him out. But, IF we do, I don't know WHAT we accomplish by letting him out, and then prevent him from EVER living a normal life... It's shooting ourselves in the foot.

Let me ask you this. In the real world, do you feel safer because there's a sex offender registry? Have you EVER consulted one? IF you did, did you BELIEVE it?

So, I dispute your use of the word "deserve".

Excon

[speechlesstx]

But you have no problem with the NRA pushing their agenda and weakening laws in states, and taking advantage of those weak laws, and giving the bad guys, crazies, criminals, and irresponsible people a right to bear arms and make both mass carnage, and local terror.

That has a bad effect on people too.

The NRA doesn't publish addresses of innocent people minding their own business.

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

In this great country of ours, you break the law, you do your time, and you get on with your life.

Doing his time is ALL an offender "deserves". That's the American way... Oh, it's NOT what we're doing... A sex offender does his time in jail, and suffers for LIFE on the outside.

Now, if it was ME, and some sex offender was SOOO visiouse that he needed to be punished for LIFE, I believe he shouldn't be let out. I dunno WHAT we accomplish by letting him out, but preventing him from EVER living a normal life...

Lemme ask you this. In the real world, do you feel safer because there's a sex offender registry? Have you EVER consulted one? IF you did, did you BELIEVE it?

So, I dispute your use of the word "deserve".

excon

I never said I was in favor of sex offender registries, in fact I objected to a proposed law in my own city this year which would have virtually prohibited a sex offender from living within the city limits. But nice dodge, I guess those evil gun owners had it coming, eh?

[tomder55]

So a citizen exercising their 2nd amendment rights are on the same plain of suspicion as a convicted sex offender ?

[speechlesstx]

So a citizen exercising their 2nd amendment rights are on the same plain of suspicion as a convicted sex offender ?

Pretty much.

[tomder55]

Amazing how the public is lining up behind that call for gun control. One would think that if there was a threat of a ban ,that the sale of guns would decline. After all ;who wants to own a new gun if they are to be banned and confiscated... right ? Something is telling me that the public is being a bit resistant to the idea.

[speechlesstx]

Perhaps the people are distrustful of their government?

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

So a citizen exercising their 2nd amendment rights are on the same plain of suspicion as a convicted sex offender ?

In this great country of ours, YES. But, of course, your party has been comfortable with second class citizens since it's inception.

Excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, tom:

In this great country of ours, YES. But, of course, your party has been comfortable with second class citizens since it's inception.

excon

The insult aside, what exactly are those gun owners suspected of?

[speechlesstx]

While waiting for ex to tell us what law abiding gun owners should be suspected of, here are a few nuggets on the solution.

One college professor in Rhode Island thinks anyone who wants to arm teachers should be "beaten to death." He also wants Wayne LaPierre's "head on a stick."

Author Joyce Carol Oates wonders, "If sizable numbers of NRA members become gun-victims themselves, maybe hope for legislation of firearms?" CSI actress Actress Marg Helgenberger says, "One can only hope."

Yeah, let's shoot and/or beat gun owners to death, that'll stop gun violence.

[excon]

Hello wingers:

I don't know that ANYBODY said they were suspected of anything. They're gun owners. They had to APPLY for a permit.. The permit is PUBLIC information.

That's it. Ain't nothing more complicated than that.

excon