sfc

The opposition is to legislation that takes guns out of the hands of citizens, while doing nothing about criminal possession. We might have more faith if existing laws (Brady checks in particular) were actually enforced. When prosecutions for that are a fraction of one percent, it indicates to us that keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is actually a secondary concern. The more cynical see the failure as deliberate, in order to support even more onerous legislation. How about getting rid of Tiahrt? which prevents access to federal gun data, should not affect law abiding citizen gun ownership?

You don't think any more can be done to reduce the number of guns in criminal hands?

Answer: Criminals. If you remove one object from the hands of a criminal, he'll just use some other object. The problem is not the objects, but the criminals. Some objects are better design to kill or threaten, depending on the object regulations are required to prevent them falling into the wrong hands and prevent accidents, you can't rob a bank with a swimming pool. Hand over the money or I'll drown you in this pool. Guns are not gasoline, they require different precautions. It is stupid to compare them. It almost as stupid as comparing guns with swimming pools. As you said, criminals are the problem, how do you propose preventing guns falling into criminal hands, they are the weapon of choice of criminals, you NRA types go out of your way to oppose legislation that might do this and come up with absurd examples (like this thread) for reasons why they should not be regulated.

Oh, c'mon - do you really think that the gunrunners are taking advantage of private sales or 'one gun a month' laws at gunshops? Show me where the Brady Bunch is doing something targeted DIRECTLY at gunrunners and not the law-abiding gun owners. I say again (as illustration of the 'effectiveness' of prohibiting something) - how's that illegal trade in cocaine and heroin doing, lately? To wit - what the HELL makes you think that the criminals are going to suddenly stop getting illegal guns? Prove it. Try to prove that the trade is poorly regulated, I beg you. I've got several REAMS worth of laws and hoops that gun dealers have to go through to prove you wrong. Yup you've proved it, you still have your head in the dirt reading what you want, I have not mentioned gun shops but you still harp on about them. Why don't you come back when you have something constructive to add about reducing gun running instead of your usual knee jerk response.

I'm ignoring the 'data' because it gives a highly misleading result. The risk is not remote close to 100x. This is caused by undercounting the pools as the denominator, resulting in a much larger ratio. If the kid's neighbor has a pool, that's really the same as if he had one. A child is somewhat more likely to die drowning. (I've been unable to see the breakdown between pools and other water: oceans, rivers, lakes, bathtubs, and buckets). The conclusion is not that pools are wildly more dangerous than guns, therefore guns aren't a concern. The conclusion is teach your kids to swim. When they're 2 or 3. I was playing in the surf in San Diego by the age of 7. And when was the last time a crook stole a swimming pool and used it to drown a police officer.

How's that drug prohibition working out for ya - do you really think that the criminals can't get guns the same way? If we could keep criminals from getting guns in the same way, I think that would qualify as "preventing guns getting into the wrong hands." I'm on your side on most gun issues, but can still emphatically agree that keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is an admirable goal. Please show the numbers of criminals that bought their guns at a gun shop, thanks. I don't disagree with your point - or the *basis* of his point. The operative problem is that more laws that hinder the legal purchase of firearms while doing NOTHING to stop illegal gun traffic (the actual problem) does nothing. When we can stop the cocaine/heroin/marijuana traffic into the country, let me know and I'll write my congresscritters to apply the same techniques to illegal gun trade. It is embarrassing to see this http://www.toddbensman.com/Bensman/Gunrunning_to_Mexico_series.html (google "mexico us gunrunning" if you want more examples) You really think there is nothing that can be done to reduce this trade or are you saying because you can't stop all of it (like the drugs) there is no point doing anything. You do realize that if mexico collapses the incursions that we are seeing on our southern border will get way worse Are you also saying that you are not prepared to be inconvenienced in any way in order to help prevent criminals getting guns. Registration and banning undocumented gun transfer will reduce the flow of illegal weapons as it will increase traceability back to the source. Legal gun ownership is not the problem, the poorly regulated trade and supply of firearms is, the latter can be tackled without preventing the former.

So in other words, you have no rebuttal to the facts I provided, just rhetoric - gotcha. Facts? didn't see any, discussing this with you is a waste of time. The only thing I believe is that we can do something stem the supply of illegal weapons to criminals and south America, I would like to discuss what we could do, but your mind is closed so that wont happen.

How's that drug prohibition working out for ya - do you really think that the criminals can't get guns the same way? Please show the numbers of criminals that bought their guns at a gun shop, thanks. Shame that the Brady bunch can't get their heads out of the ground and advocate stiffer sentencing for use of a a gun during a crime (like the NRA does) and quit trying to pass laws that do nothing to prevent criminal possession. Then you're living in a fantasy world - I refer you back to the AWB 94, which the Dems want to bring back, as well as Roberti-Roos in California and the NYC and Chicago bans. As I said, it is a shame the NRA types can't get their heads out of the ground. Thanks for illustrating my point.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS34803+29-Dec-2008+PRN20081229 Remember all the strident cries from the gun-control folks about how allowing citizens to carry concealed firearms would endanger the lives of police officers on the streets? Gee, I guess that's not happening after all. Great news, cops have a tough job to do. One of the reasons quoted was the record number of people in prison, i guess if you are locked up you cant go round shooting cops. If we could come up with ways of preventing guns getting into the wrong hands it would help even more. I don't think concealed carry makes any difference, but the relative ease which you can obtain a weapon does. Shame the NRA types can't get their heads out of the ground and work to find a way to monitor and control the firearm ownership with the aim of reducing criminal ownership, it would cut the deaths even more. I don't buy the BS about government wanting to take guns away from law abiding folks, the right to own arms is way more secure than ever with Heller.

re-read my posts and you'll have your answer. so why all the rhetoric if you agree with me? It seems to me you do not understand nuances of the law or other legal and ethical situations. You seem to be forcing a false dichotomy. I disagree with just about everything you have written. I have not engaged in any "rhetoric" but have simply tried to explain things in a way that could be understood. It's obviously not going anywhere and you have reinforced (for the gajillionth time) why I stay away from this crazy place most of the time. It was a stupid, silly question to begin with, asking if Obama would be guilty of murder for signing FOCA and should have been dismissed out of hand. I guess the jokes on me for even responding to you in the first place. The murder question was a hyperbole. You claimed Obama would be culpable for any extra abortions if he signed FOCA. Trying to put the responsibility for extra abortions on Obama when all he is doing is removing government from the process of a women's right to choose is what I disagree with in your claims. If you like I do agree that if he signed FOCA he would be the instrument that caused abortions to increase, but he would bear no responsibility. It would be like saying that SCOTUS justices were responsible for any accidental deaths in DC from legally held handguns since Heller.

re-read my posts and you'll have your answer. so why all the rhetoric if you agree with me?

Yes you clearly HAVE missed something and it it precisely this: the rules of logic and argumentation. Yours are less than inspiring. One needn't actually perform an abortion to have any culpability, any responsibility for helping incur one. Our legal system is replete with examples of assigning responsibility to people who have committed this or that act even if they weren't the one doing the actual deed in question. By signing FOCA once in office, Obama will be responsible for an increase in abortions in this country. You may not believe this to be true but just sit on this until it happens, then come back and re-read this. I can wait. As tempting as it will be, I'll even forgoe the "I told you so's." So much for the democratic mantra that abortion should be legal yet rare. Bush has done some good. You may not agree that his SCOTUS appointees were good, but b/c of current make up of SCOTUS, we have the Heller Decision, which was an incredible win for the people with regard to the 2nd amendment. So you are saying that if Obama signs FOCA and removes federal restrictions on abortion that he is then culpable for murder? I don't think it is my logic that is uninspiring. Roe vs. Wade established a woman's right to choice not Obama, he was very young at the time and not someone I recall being involved in the case. Women have the right to choose just like you have the right to bear arms, the fact that you don't agree with it doesn't mean that others who do are murders, any more than anti-2nd supporters can claim that a single extra gun death makes 2nd supporters murderers. As to bush being any way responsible for Heller, I think that is a tenuous claim at best, he did voice his support, as did Obama, but I do not think the 2nd played into his selection of SCOTUS replacements. I do agree with you though about Heller, it was the right decision. Honestly, I'm at a loss here when things seem so obvious. If Obama signs something that removes any restrictions to abortions (i.e. partial birth, etc.) and such abortions begin to occur or increase in frequency, he has become, in some real way, responsible for that increase. He helped to allow the increase to happen. He helped pave the road. Did he make the women have the abortions? No. Would he be guilty of murder, as you say? No. As I said in a previous post, there are, in our legal system, other charges that speak to this type of example. If you wish to stay w/ murder as an analogy, there's the murder himself/herself, then in some cases there may be an accessory to murder, someone who helped the act to occur in the first place. Were it not for the accessory, perhaps the murder wouldn't have occurred. As for Bush and Heller: similar situation. Bush was responsible for nominating supreme court justices who would interpret constitutional law in a certain way. It's just beyond me that you can't see that. Had he not appointed them or had they not made it, the Heller decision may have gone another way. As an aside, it's fucking SCARY that it was 5-4 as it was! 5 to 4 people!!!!! Jeez. The second amendment. Poof. Like that. The comment I originally responded to was The point I was trying to make, poorly it seems, is that I would not consider Obama to be a murderer for signing FOCA. Do you?

In a very large percentage of the country... that option has been effectively been removed as a choice for women. It is unavailable http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/idaho.html as an example.. • In 2005, 87% of U.S. counties had no abortion provider. 1/3 of American women lived in these counties, which meant they would have to travel outside their county to obtain an abortion. Of women obtaining abortions in 2005, nonhospital providers estimate that 25% traveled at least 50 miles, and 8% traveled more than 100 miles. Sad, but if a doctor does not want to perform abortions they should not have to, the trouble is some doctors that would do it are vilified if they do and hence deny access. The pressure they get is immoral and probably illegal in some cases. If roe vs wade was revoked the number of women that have easy access would drop even more. A third of women have had an abortion (in the link you gave) I don't think anyone should be able to take the right to choose to do so away from them.

Thats exactly what roe vs wade does, it keeps government out of the peoples lives, it says that government cannot tell women what they can and can't do with their pregnancy (within limits). If it were overturned there would be several states removing the choice from pregnant women.

If it were the law then so be it. However I think it unlikely, the majority agrees with Roe vs Wade, and as far as abortion goes there would have to be a massive opinion swing to get a 2/3 constitutional change required to make it illegal country wide. I think it is more likely that gay marriage will become legal than abortion become illegal. I am a supporter of gay marriage as well, makes me a really evil person, no pearly gates, its hell for me.

Stealing has been a crime long before anyone in this country has been alive...yet it is still wrong. It is also wrong if you are in any way complicit in the act. That is a ridiculous analogy. To take your absurdity to its conclusion I would say that if Obama passed a law making theft legal then stealing would no longer be a crime so how could be be complicit? That is what will happen when FOCA is signed w.r.t. partial birth abortion, it wont be a crime because it wont be illegal, if there is no crime then you can't be complicit in it. Just because you think it is wrong does not make it a crime, it is just you opinion not the law. I hate to think what would happen if we did not have SCOTUS to put the brakes on religious law, the Terry Schiavo law was a great example of where SCOTUS prevented raw religion interfering in the lives of law abiding Americans.

I would think that with your literacy skills you could do better, but maybe I'm wrong. Fortunately the beliefs of the individual (e.g. your religious ones) do not trump the rights of the people. Doesn't seem to matter how often it gets challenged, SCOTUS usually seems to do the right thing (eventually), e.g. the 2nd, slavery, mixed race marriage to name a few.

Yes you clearly HAVE missed something and it it precisely this: the rules of logic and argumentation. Yours are less than inspiring. One needn't actually perform an abortion to have any culpability, any responsibility for helping incur one. Our legal system is replete with examples of assigning responsibility to people who have committed this or that act even if they weren't the one doing the actual deed in question. By signing FOCA once in office, Obama will be responsible for an increase in abortions in this country. You may not believe this to be true but just sit on this until it happens, then come back and re-read this. I can wait. As tempting as it will be, I'll even forgoe the "I told you so's." So much for the democratic mantra that abortion should be legal yet rare. Bush has done some good. You may not agree that his SCOTUS appointees were good, but b/c of current make up of SCOTUS, we have the Heller Decision, which was an incredible win for the people with regard to the 2nd amendment. So you are saying that if Obama signs FOCA and removes federal restrictions on abortion that he is then culpable for murder? I don't think it is my logic that is uninspiring. Roe vs. Wade established a woman's right to choice not Obama, he was very young at the time and not someone I recall being involved in the case. Women have the right to choose just like you have the right to bear arms, the fact that you don't agree with it doesn't mean that others who do are murders, any more than anti-2nd supporters can claim that a single extra gun death makes 2nd supporters murderers. As to bush being any way responsible for Heller, I think that is a tenuous claim at best, he did voice his support, as did Obama, but I do not think the 2nd played into his selection of SCOTUS replacements. I do agree with you though about Heller, it was the right decision.

When it comes to murder, I do not differentiate between political parties. I honestly do not know where you are going with your statement. I didn't realize that Obama performed abortions. Did I miss something, I though he was a law professor before he was a politician. Or did I forget that single issue abortion voters call everyone who doesn't support them murderers. Can wait until bush goes, the fact we will have a president with a fully functioning brain in 38 days is fantastic. I wont have to cringe when the president speaks in 38 days, I wont feel embarrassed that we have a buffoon in the office of President in 38 days. Obama has shown more promise and said more sensible stuff about the future of this country and how to run it that bush has said in 8 years. Obama will mess up sometimes, no-one is perfect, but he wont mess up all the time like the current idiot does and then look like a chimp in headlights when he tries to spin it as a good thing. What has bush got to show for the last 8 years, absolutely nothing other than the biggest recession for decades, unemployment rising faster than any time since his dad left office, national debt record, govt spending out of control and thousands of dead Honorable Servicemen and Women fighting a war that he started on false presences, but you are more worried that Obama supports a woman right to decide about abortion. You do know he's not actually going to perform the them himself don't you? Oh bush did managed to get a ban on partial birth abortion, I bet that gave all the anti-abortion people a big woody and made him their hero. In years to come we will have a new phrase in our language, the "bush" touch, kind of like the midas touch but instead of gold it will be shit, really bad shit, the kind you get when you've eaten too much hot curry and drunk loads of beer.

He seems considers himself mixed race and doesn't have a problem with it. "Mutts like me". http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081108/ap_on_el_pr/mutts_like_me;_ylt=AvKuby.kB7GQ41tT4jaNIEUDW7oF

Tell him he might as well drag it through mud and then set it on fire while he's at it. Meanwhile the rest of us will celebrate a good day in the story of our nation. Blues, Dave Or he could go to Iran and join others who abuse the flag, they do it because they hate our democracy and freedoms just like appears to do.

I guess you have not kept up to date HERE . It is now $120,000 and that effects a LOT of people. Did you read the whole thing? The 120,000 was not said by Obama, it was a mistake by Richardson. You're getting kind of desperate using a mistake made by someone other than Obama/Biden as proof of future policy. There is this lady down the road from where I live that gives out information for money, she knows a lot of stuff, apparently the spirits talk through here and she has a crystal ball, I bet she would be able to give you some great facts to support your position and even credit them to reputable (albeit dead) sources.

How can he help her? Have you ever tried to navigate the US immigration system? If you can't do it via the normal channels, it take congress to make someone a citizen, a single senator cannot do it. Yes I have, and it's in who you know. Sen. Obama could have made a few calls to DHS CIR and at least greased the skids. I'm not talking about making her a citizen, I'm talking about getting a visa. A visa takes very little effort in comparison. It's not criminal to influence the works of the bureaucracy if no laws are being broken. Using your logic, one could flip the argument around and ask why he didn't raise a red-flag about her status and ensure timely due process to press charges. Bottom line, it's his aunt...she's living in the projects. It's not like we're talking about a third-cousin here, it's a relative by blood and this one's not in Africa living on a dollar a month... Do you know what kind of relationship he has with her, when did he first meet her. Why should he dole out cash to a half-aunt he has only met a few times in his life? Do you know how much money she has, do you know if he has ever given her cash, do you know anything about her financial situation? You have no idea if he even knew her alien status, the only info is from Obama and he said he had no idea about her status, do you have any data that suggests he did or are you just disagreeing with him and calling him a liar with no evidence because it gives you a way to attack him. That's the GOP way, you've been watching palin too much and its rubbing off.

That are related to him, I am guessing zero. Do you have any information to prove otherwise? She has been illegal for four years, certainly as a lawyer he could have helped her. But he didn't help his brother either. Just the same denial crap. I guess some people will believe anything he says. What reason do you have for not believing him? Your history here demonstrates that you jump on unproven rumors and take extreme negative positions on anything he is even remotely associated with. When he referred to "being called a communist because he shared his toy in kindergarten" he was referring to people like you. Do you have any proof that he ever talked to her about her immigration status or have any idea about how well he knew her. You do know his father had multiple wives on different continents don't you.

How can he help her? Have you ever tried to navigate the US immigration system? If you can't do it via the normal channels, it take congress to make someone a citizen, a single senator cannot do it. I think it speaks volumes for the man that he did not try to pressure anyone into bending the rules, there are many many examples of other politicians over the last 8 years using their elected position for personal and other criminal purposes, several of them are in jail or on the way.