Ideas of Gun Ban Politicians

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I don't think their intentions are good at all.

I think they truly believe they are trying to prevent mass shootings (the good) and they way to do that is to take as many guns off the street as possible. I believe they do not really grasp the fact that their proposals will do little to further their cause (the bad).

Can you you argue against trying to prevent mass shootings?
I think not. But you can argue against their proposed methods.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[kallend 2,150]

popsjumper

Quote

I don't think their intentions are good at all.

I think they truly believe they are trying to prevent mass shootings (the good) and they way to do that is to take as many guns off the street as possible. I believe they do not really grasp the fact that their goal will do little to further their cause (the bad).

Can you you argue against trying to prevent mass shootings?
I think not. But you can argue against their proposed methods.

Unfortunately the "no compromises, take no prisoners" attitude that prevails in DC prevents the good ideas (and there are some) from moving forward.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[popsjumper 2]

kallend

***

Quote

I don't think their intentions are good at all.

I think they truly believe they are trying to prevent mass shootings (the good) and they way to do that is to take as many guns off the street as possible. I believe they do not really grasp the fact that their goal will do little to further their cause (the bad).

Can you you argue against trying to prevent mass shootings?
I think not. But you can argue against their proposed methods.

Unfortunately the "no compromises, take no prisoners" attitude that prevails in DC prevents the good ideas (and there are some) from moving forward.

You nailed it. I fail to see how anyone can argue against that.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[skypuppy 1]

popsjumper

Quote

I don't think their intentions are good at all.

I think they truly believe they are trying to prevent mass shootings (the good) and they way to do that is to take as many guns off the street as possible. I believe they do not really grasp the fact that their goal will do little to further their cause (the bad).

Can you you argue against trying to prevent mass shootings?
I think not. But you can argue against their proposed methods.

I guess I can't prove it, but I believe they would have tried to disarm civilians in the past, even when there weren't as many mass killings (or they weren't as well-known due to the media). I guess it's a mute point, so I'll concede.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[Kennedy 0]

kallend

Just like to point out that not everyone who wants stricter controls on access to guns by those who are disqualified from owning them are calling for gun bans, AW bans, magazine capacity bans, etc.

Many of us just want to see loopholes closed, more effective background checks, and tougher penalties for straw purchasers.

And I think many gun enthusiasts agree with all of those.

I made it a point to include "politicians" in the title. As for "loopholes", some think anyone being able to buy guns is a loophole.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[airdvr 210]

kallend

Just like to point out that not everyone who wants stricter controls on access to guns by those who are disqualified from owning them are calling for gun bans, AW bans, magazine capacity bans, etc.

Many of us just want to see loopholes closed, more effective background checks, and tougher penalties for straw purchasers.

And I think many gun enthusiasts agree with all of those.

If only the people in charge of making the laws could articulate themselves as well as you can perfesser.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Kennedy 0]

The problem is the politicians don't agree with the professor. They ARE pushing idiotic bans that have no effect on gun violence, mass casualty incidents, or any other reasonable goal. If they focussed on just the laws kallend is suggesting, they might actually accomplish something. Instead they just keep giving the NRA more ammunition.

ETA:
And I think they've done a splendid job making themselves perfectly clear.

Quote

"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."

-Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988[9][10]

and of course:

Quote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY
Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."[26]

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[toolbox 0]

>Federal gun control is on the back burner. For them it's never really dead. However at the state and local level it is most assuredly not dead.


Bingo! The gun ban proponents are vigilant in pursuit of their goals at all levels of government.
They have been pressing hard against the second amendment of the US constitution for over sixty years.

[Kennedy 0]

It's not just politicians or people in DC. Apparently some fold missed the memo about civil discourse.

Quote

journalism professor: NRA members deserve firing squad, drone strikes

Watching the celebration at the NRA convention over the defeat of background checks was the most nauseating experience of the day.

I am not a New York gun control liberal, either. I support a shotgun for home defense, a handgun for limited conceal/carry, and an assortment of hunting rifles to balance West Virginia's exploding deer population (as evidenced by hourly collisions with cars). So, I am hardly out of the mainstream.

But, the gun safety debate is B.S. This foaming at the mouth, Obamar is coming for the guns, Nanny Bloomberg is a bad billionaire, and most despicable of all, those survivors and victims are pawns in the liberal agenda is knuckle-dragging Cretan talk.

And no matter how many times Sen. Joe Manchin tries to explain his compromise (a decent attempt thwarted by extremists), the hard right lies and foams. The repeated lies now seem like the truth, what with the likes of Sen. Kelly Ayotte telling them.

Probably the most serious miscalculation opponents make is the guest list for the NRA speaker's podium. To let the half-wit half-term quitter Sarah Palin have a microphone is to alienate the very people Republicans need to work with on future legislation. To say nothing of the other speakers.

And how does choosing a white, rich old man with an offensive degrading speech about the war of "Northern Aggression" as NRA president forward a sense of reasonableness? History lesson: It was an awful Civil War won decisively some 150 years ago. Over slavery. The Confederacy wanted to keep African-Americans in chains and President Lincoln didn't.

Sure, there were states' rights issues, but nullification, secession, and treason were settled at Appomattox Courthouse. Sure, Reconstruction left a bad taste. But, resurrecting these same things, the way South Carolina is as we speak, is to invite a return to the whole concept of a Union.

Here it is. The NRA advocates armed rebellion against the duly elected government of the United States of America. That's treason, and it's worthy of the firing squad. The B.S. needs a serious gut check. We are not a tin pot banana republic where machine gun toting rebel groups storm the palace and depose the dictator.

We put the president in the White House. To support the new NRA president's agenda of arming the populace for confrontation with the government is bloody treason. And many invite it gladly as if the African-American president we voted for is somehow infringing on their Constitutional rights.

Normally, I am a peaceable man, but in this case, I am willing to answer the call to defend the country. From them.

To turn the song lyric they so love to quote back on them, "We'll put a boot in your ---, it's the American way."

Except it won't be a boot. It'll be an M1A Abrams tank, supported by an F22 Raptor squadron with Hellfire missiles. Try treason on for size. See how that suits. And their assault arsenal and RPGs won't do them any good.

So, to return to reality, all of us. Let's make common sense gun safety a deciding issue for 2014 and beyond. The NRA certainly has. Let's push back. We the People. The 85 percent who support more robust background checks. And when the next domestic terrorist with an assault rifle comes along, we can blame the leaders and fringe of the NRA for arming them.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*