DaVinci

No different than the laws you support. The Toomey bill would have done nothing to stop the majority of illegal gun buys... LESS than 2%. yet you supported it. I'll tell you what, you propose a gun bill that will ONLY impact criminals and not hamper law abiding citizens and ill support it. However so far all you have done is show support for bills that will hinder law abiding gun owners and that would do nothing to hamper criminals. I'll even give you an example: Discharge a firearm in the commission of a crime by a felon equals life in prison. I'd support that. 1. They are a felon, not allowed to own a firearm. 2. They were caught committing a crime with a firearm. But ALL of your plans just make it difficult for a lawful citizen to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.... 2% of guns were bought at gunshows, yet you want everyone to have to submit to a check. Meanwhile, 80% are through illegal means (40% straw purchase, 40% from what the study called "illegal).... Yet you propose NOTHING to try and stop that.

Still higher than pretty much every other city in the US... Even those with 'looser' gun laws. And didn't Chicago just get handed down a SC ruling that they had to allow gun ownership? And didn't the 7th circuit court just tell IL that they had to allow concealed carry? So that pretty much shows: 1. Gun crime is going down, even with an increase in guns. 2. Gun crime is higher in Chicago, even with strict gun laws. We would welcome true research.... Like the two studies I posted showing crime rates are going DOWN. Care to explain why the crime rates are going DOWN even with a loosening of gun laws, an increase in number of guns available, and the AWB having expired? Care to explain why Chicago has such a high crime rate even with gun laws you like?

NOT legal. It is called a straw purchase and it has been illegal since at least 1968. It is the first question on the 4473: "Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you."

Killers are the problem, not the object.

This was not an official parade. Your other points are valid, this one is not. TK, why are the most liberal parts of a city normally the ones with the higher crime rates?

All crap. The NRA supported gun restrictions until about 1978. They supported licensing, they supported banning full auto, they supported the "Sporting" clause in 1968. The President of the NRA in 1934 said no citizen had a reason to own a pistol. The NRA, until recently, didn't support the right to own firearms for personal defense. For 100 years they cared more about duck hunting than self defense.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/ Gun deaths are DOWN 39% since 1993. Gun violence is down 69%. That is in-spite of the 1994 AWB sunsetting. In-spite of more States allowing citizens to carry. And in spite of more guns being made and sold every day (19.6 MILLION in 2011 alone). Yes, this shooting in New Orleans is tragic. And so is every other shooting. But you blaming guns is silly. A gun does not pull a trigger and even the DATA shows that even with more gun rights and more guns than ever before that shootings are DOWN. When you decide to stop blaming the objects, you might be worth listening to..... And the "gun show loophole"???? TWO percent of criminals got their firearms from gunshows. 40% got it from an illegal source. Another study: "The March Pew study, drawn from numbers obtained from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, also found a dramatic drop in gun crime over the past two decades. Their accounting shows a 49 percent decline in the homicide rate, and a 75 percent decline of non-fatal violent crime victimization" Chicago has gun laws like you want the whole world to have: "With the toughest gun laws in the nation, Chicago saw homicides jump to 513 in 2012, a 15% hike in a single year. The city’s murder rate is 15.65 per 100,000 people, compared with 4.5 for the Midwest, and 5.6 for Illinois" The data, and common sense, proves your position to be incorrect. When you decide to become relevant and start to focus on the facts and reasons.... Let me know. Here are some seeds to get you started on real solutions: 1. Why are men more likely than women to engage in violence? 2. Why are black men 8 times more likely to be killed by firearms than white men? 3. Why do blacks make up 55% of the victims when blacks only account for 12.8% of the population? 4. Why has gun crime gone DOWN when there are more guns in circulation and the AWB was allowed to sunset in 2004? 5. Why does Chicago have higher gun crime than the rest of the US even with strong gun control laws? 6. Why does DC have the same problem? Answer these and you might start down a path that provides real solutions.... continue to blindly blame the object and you are wasting your breath. I'll be honest, I don't have answers for 2 or 3.... The best I can come up with is that 72% of black children are born out of wedlock today.... This means that there is a strong chance that they live in poverty and without strong male role models. But hey, you are a smart guy.... Lets hear your answers.

And there you return to your old standard of playing the player when you have nothing else to fall back on... It really is boring as well as dishonest. You claimed guns were made legally... I showed you they were not. You claimed drugs were grown illegally... I again showed you to be wrong. Now you play nit pick games since your argument has been proven to be false... This the best you have?

Shooting someone who is not attacking you is illegal, yet you want to ban firearms. For your position to be consistent, you would also want to ban alcohol since it is misused. Why ban guns? As long as you are not committing crimes, shouldn't you be allowed to own them? I am showing your inconsistent stance that guns should be removed to prevent misuse, but that you do not hold that same position on beer. Here is a radical thought.... Ban DRIVING while drunk AND SHOOTING at innocents. That is a consistent position where you focus on the ACTIONS not the object in one case and the action in the other case.

You replied to ME and used "YOU" in the sentence. Basic English shows you were replying to me and about me. "Isn't that what you just did?"

You left?

And yet here YOU are! When someone replies to me.. It is rude to not answer him. YOU are free to quit posting at anytime, I did for a few months... Maybe you should give it a try?

Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced" -Barack Obama, October 16, 2012 While not 'taking them away' it is preventing ownership. Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line: 35. Do you support state legislation to: a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes. b. ban assault weapons? Yes. You can claim that this also is not 'taking away'. But it is another ban and how exactly do you think they would ban the 'possession' of a handgun? if not take it away? Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president? A: I don’t think that we can get that done. 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas , Jan 15, 2008 Notice he said "I don't think we can get that done" not that he disagrees with it. Registration sounds harmless... Except it has been used several times to confiscate. It happened in Australia, it happened in NY, and it happened in CA. “I didn’t find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. " From Promise to Power, by David Mendell, p.250-251 , Aug 14, 2007 I and many others have a CWP/CHL. Removing that right would be taking it away, yes not guns but a right none the less. OBAMA: Let’s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban. : Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes , Oct 21, 2004 Principles that Obama supports on gun issues: Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons. Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms. Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms. Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test , Jul 2, 1998 In addition: * Early in the 2008 election, Senator Obama stated that he supported the DC gun ban * After the election and before assuming office, President-Elect Obama met with Mexican President Calderon. The campaign released a statement that stated that the administration would do what it could to curtail weapons flowing to Mexico which sounded like they were supporting an assault weapons ban. This belief was confirmed a few months later when Attorney General Eric Holder was discussing border security and confirmed that the administration supported an assault weapons ban. That release: "Well, as President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons. I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum" * In July of 2009, President Obama responded to the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado by stating that AK-47s and similar weapons belonged in the hands of soldiers and not in the hands of criminals and on an battlefield rather than the street * In July of 2011, the Justice Department issued new rules outside of law to require gun store to report sales of more than one rifle to one person, provided the caliber for those rifles is more than .22. The new rules applied only to border states along the border with Mexico * In September 2007, the US Senate voted on an amendment submitted by Senator Vitter of Louisiana. The amendment sought to prohibit the use of funds by international organizations, agencies, and entities that require the registration of, or taxes guns owned by citizens of the United States. The amendment got the support of almost all Republicans and about 2/3 of the Democrats to pass in a 81-10 vote. Barack Obama cast a "No Vote" * Proposes Banning Gun Stores Within 5 mi. of Schools & Parks - December 13, 1999 * Supports 500% Tax Increase on Guns & Ammo - December 13, 1999 * Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Prohibits the knowing manufacture, delivery, and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons, large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and assault weapon attachments. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1195&GAID=3&DocTypeID=SB&LegId=4124&SessionID=3&GA=93 * Obama is proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person. http://nraila.org/media/9913983/chicagodefender.pdf I could go on....Obama has a pretty constant track record saying he wants to ban weapons and not allow CHL/CWP. Now he has not acted on it, but I think that can be best explained by his answer in the 2008 debate: "I don’t think that we can get that done". But it is pretty clear what he would like to do for anyone that has paid attention to his comments. It is just common sense to think he would do what he has said he wants to do if he thinks he can get it done.

Funny story... Have you had a twinkie recently? A bunch of us were going to have a cookout that night after the DZ. Naturally we started talking about food that day and the subject of twinkies came up... As part of a munchies segment. We all had to bring something to these parties. At the time I was single, so my food duties for these parties was always something I could buy at the store (I once stopped and got pizzas for an Italian themed party). So being cute I decided to buy a big bulk pack of twinkies for the party. When I unveiled them... The whole group was excited about them and we spent most of the night talking about how great we remember them being. At the end of the dinner we broke out the twinkies with great anticipation.... Uh, they sucked. Every single person thought they tasted terrible. I guess: 1. We found out the real reason Hostess went under. 2. Memories often taste better than reality.

False. People intentionally run people over, and people accidentally shoot someone. In fact, the 30K number is only true if you only care about making guns out as evil. ~15K of those deaths are suicides. And suicidal people use other ways to kill themselves (Carbon Monoxide, hanging, sleeping pills, stepping in front of a train). ~ 7-8K are true accidents and these are a real shame... Still, more people die in pools by accident and there are fewer pools in the US than firearms. ~ 7-8k are murders. Yet we also have murders with bats, knives, cars, and fire. So, you work on better mental health services for people who are suicidal. You work on better gun education to prevent accidents (I was taught to shoot by my Dad, many people do not have that option... I also took a class in the 6th grade that taught firearms safety - something I would support for everyone). And you work on reducing crime. Blaming the guns is a myopic, feel good, shortcut for people that don't care to really understand the problem. Banning an item has NEVER made it stop being a problem (Prohibition didn't work, banning drugs has not worked, banning murder has not worked).

Yes, while driving a car it is illegal to drink. Just like when carrying a gun it is illegal to shoot it in a dangerous fashion or at an innocent person. Still not a reason to ban containers or guns. Just like using a gun to commit a crime is "banned". The fact remains, BEER is not banned. You have a verb problem and think the solution is to ban a noun. You want to stop gun crime.... Work on stopping crime.

Massive assumption on your part.... You do know that CO and MS are States in the US right? We are talking about the US and you keep trying to say that drugs are only grown illegally. The NRA is also against Felons having a gun... Something you seem to ignore.

I would not ban containers of alcohol to try and prevent it. I would not ban beer to try and prevent it.

Isn't playing the player bad etiquette?

So you know or don't you? Also you should know that many weapons were made during occupations... I would not call those 'legally made' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C5%82yskawica_submachine_gun So your claim that "all guns were made legally" is false. There are also plenty of places where growing pot is not illegal. Iran, Peru, Switzerland in some Cantons, and even in some US States (CO with permit, and University of Mississippi has been growing marijuana for the federal government's little-known medical marijuana program) So your claim that "all drugs were grown illegally" is also false.

The kind that blames an object for the act of a person. Next you will want to ban spoons to prevent obesity.

You said OWN. A 16 year old hunting is hunting under supervision in most States. Well, then you are either just trolling or do not understand basic logic. Alcohol is proven to CAUSE problems no matter what activity. A gun is an object that is misused for evil actions. Blaming the gun for the ACT of a person is like blaming a spoon because someone is fat. You want to stop the ACT of murder, you have to focus on the ACT - Not the tool. That would be like trying to ban spoons to prevent obesity in the US... It is just not going to work.

Nope I mentioned no one. I asked a manners question.

You will save more lives by banning pools. You will save MANY more lives by banning abortion. You clearly do not want to save lives, you have an issue with guns. AGAIN... please show ONE example of a 50 cal being actually *used* in a crime. You are calling that the sky is falling without one shred of data.

So you are telling me that an AK being used in Afghanistan was legally made? Ah, nice that you can't have a discussion without a childish personal attack.