Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jack Bauer on January 7, 2013 at 8:55pm

Gridlock has its moments.

JB

Permalink Reply by True on January 8, 2013 at 11:58am

I recall people saying the same thing about O-care.

DiFi's bill may not pass in it's current form but it and at least 10 other House bills are due to drop this or next week. That combined with the rumblings from Drunken Joe Biden's cabal about use of EO or Exec branch regulation to "do something to prevent this from happening again" (asinine) leads me to believe that something substantial will make it through. I've no faith in the right side of the aisle to completely hold serve on this issue. There will be deals made, some will cave and something will get through.

Add to that the cornucopia of legislation being proposed at the state level here in CA and elsewhere....we have a serious problem here.

This has nothing to do with "kids safety". This has been the career long goal of DiFi and many others. This issue, in the wake of the Moscone/Milk killings is what propelled her to Mayor of SF and eventually to the Senate. Make no mistake, it is her intent to disarm American citizens. To and I'm quoting, not paraphrasing, "Ban guns". Not some, not certain types, guns. I've heard her say it. She also said, "We just have to wait for the right time."

Permalink Reply by LShieldes on January 8, 2013 at 12:06pm

Look at how much of a watered down fecal mess O-care is vs an honest universal health care system. Water that down even more, way, way, way, way, way down more, and that is the best gun control that has a snowball's remote chance to pass at the federal level.

Permalink Reply by True on January 8, 2013 at 12:36pm

Is O-care efficient in providing, as it was named, "affordable care"? No, but that wasn't the intent. Is O-care efficient in providing massive tax increases and increases in the size and scope of government? Spectacularly so. Because that was the intent so as to lay the groundwork for single-payer when it doesn't work.

Congress is horrifically bad at actually solving problems. They are really good though at increasing the size and scope of government and eroding our rights, particularly when granted the mandate to "do something" in response to tragedy. The Patriot Act for instance.

Permalink Reply by Jack Bauer on January 8, 2013 at 12:07pm

State-level is only a problem if you live in the wrong State.  I'd have no faith whatsoever in California.  I'm past giving a damn on that front. No chance of anything here in Texas, though.  We may actually liberalize some laws.

 

Obamacare barely passed -- by procedural stunt, actually -- with a Democrat majority in both houses, and a supermajority Senate.  They've only got one House at the moment, and a supermajority in neither.  Feinstein's bill probably won't even pass the Senate.  It likely won't even get put-up for a vote in the House.

 

The chick Democrat senator from North Dakota ... Heidi something-or-other ... already said the Administration's sweeping propsals are DOA.

 

JB

Permalink Reply by LShieldes on January 8, 2013 at 2:26pm

Just read that one of the considerations that could be released by next week is what I would like. End private sales, make all sales go through FFL. Probably the only one with even the most remote chance to pass. I don't see restrictions on anything else passing.

Permalink Reply by True on January 8, 2013 at 4:34pm

It's an unpopular opinion but I don't oppose that.

As it stands now when something bad happens the restriction discussion is framed around "THE GUNS" to include those that are legal and not. Now because you and I are not reactionary, ignorant, mouth-breathing morons we know that the oft illegally obtained or grey marketed guns involved in crime are a teeny-tiny subset of "THE GUNS" the majority being yours and mine which have never and will never kill someone at the corner of Meth Ave and Crack Blvd and have not and will not spray down a busload of nuns. But the opposition doesn't see it that way because they only see "THE GUNS" they see them as bad and since they don't have/want them they see no reason to demarcate between you and your guns and the illegally obtained guns of a criminal.

The point I'm trying to make is that if we can more clearly delineate the legal from the illegal by eliminating or mitigating as best we can, the grey area be it real or imagined. It gives us the upper hand in the argument. No longer can the anti hold up the grey area or the loophole (which BTW they have no f-ing idea how it works they just "know" it exists and therefore must be at fault) as justification to restrict "THE GUNS" since clearly the discussion necessarily must be framed not around "THE GUNS" but instead they are forced to talk about the criminal, the crazy, the individual who chose to ignore the law by the possession and or use of a firearm. The discussion then is about addressing the act, not the tool.

Permalink Reply by LShieldes on January 8, 2013 at 6:46pm

I have no idea what you just said

Permalink Reply by Paul_of_TX on January 8, 2013 at 6:58pm

"But the opposition doesn't see it that way because they only see "THE GUNS" they see them as bad and since they don't have/want them they see no reason to demarcate between you and your guns and the illegally obtained guns of a criminal."

I think you are wrong here. They don't see the criminal as bad. They seek out ways to justify the criminals actions and willingly let the criminal off with the least punishment as possible. I believe in their eyes we are more evil that the criminal. They can justify raping, killing and stealing in numerous ways but they can't conceive of a way in which they could ever justify someone needing to own a gun. I wish we could come to an agreement where no gun laws are able to be passed until all guns are out of the hands of criminals.

Permalink Reply by Liam S. on January 8, 2013 at 11:48pm

I think you are mischaracterizing them pretty badly here, Paul. 

At the very least, way too broad a brush. 

I wish we could come to an agreement where no gun laws are able to be passed until all guns are out of the hands of criminals.

Since many guns get into the hands of criminals after being stolen from legal owners, it does become rather a chicken and egg problem. From that standpoint, limiting the number of new guns entering the system does make some amount of sense. Fewer guns in = fewer guns that make it onto the streets.

Not enough sense to pursue as a useful tactic, but at least *some* sense. 

Permalink Reply by Paul_of_TX on January 9, 2013 at 9:54am

How about no new gun laws until people convicted of crimes involving guns are no longer having their sentences cut short and released back into the public?

We both know that those people exist and they are on the side of the law makers who want to ban guns. I don't know why libs get their panties in a bunch when you say something that applies to their side but doesn't apply to 100% of the population. No one ever said it applies to 100% of the population or even 100% of gun hating liberals but that does not remove the fact that they exist.

Permalink Reply by Liam S. on January 9, 2013 at 10:47am

Maybe a fault of language and internet discussions - the way you phrased your response - "the opposition" can be broadly taken to be anyone liberal, or anyone for some measure of gun control, and is automatically in that category. 

Sure you didn't say that 100% of a given group believes that, but it is frequently what is implied (or at least most - rather than "some unknown but usually small number of people") Libs to it too - obviously - it's rarely helpful to expand an extreme position out as somehow representative of a larger group. 

How about no new gun laws until people convicted of crimes involving guns are no longer having their sentences cut short and released back into the public?

This is something that needs to be done regardless of gun laws. 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 41
• 42
• 43
• 44
• 45
• …
• 56
• Next ›
• Page