Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Giantone;1013266][URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/opinion/make-gun-companies-pay-blood-money.html?_r=2[/URL]&

Make Gun Companies Pay Blood Money
GUN manufacturers have gone to great lengths to avoid any moral responsibility or legal accountability for the social costs of gun violence — the deaths and injuries of innocent victims, families torn apart, public resources spent on gun-related crime and medical expenses incurred.

But there is a simple and direct way to make them accountable for the harm their products cause. For every gun sold, those who manufacture or import it should pay a tax. The money should then be used to create a compensation fund for innocent victims of gun violence.
This proposal is based on a fundamentally conservative principle — that those who cause injury should be made to “internalize” the cost of their activity by paying for it. Now, gun manufacturers and sellers are mostly protected from lawsuits by federal law.
As it happens, a model for this approach already exists. Under the [URL="http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html"][COLOR=#0066cc]Vaccine Injury Compensation Program[/COLOR][/URL], those injured by vaccines are eligible for compensation from a fund financed by an excise tax on the sale of every dose of vaccine. In creating this no-fault system in the 1980s, Congress sought to provide care for those injured by vaccines while protecting manufacturers from undue litigation[/quote]

This is old and stupid. I guess we should attach this too alcohol sales, cars, knifes, and anything where there are victims of a product killing another person.

[QUOTE=firstdown;1020925]This is old and stupid. I guess we should attach this too alcohol sales, cars, knifes, and anything where there are victims of a product killing another person.[/QUOTE]

Yes, let's remove any personal responsibility from poor decision making.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

Another post by an anti-gun nut with so many logical failures:

[quote=Giantone;1013266][URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/opinion/make-gun-companies-pay-blood-money.html?_r=2[/URL]&

Make Gun Companies Pay Blood Money
GUN manufacturers have gone to great lengths to avoid any moral responsibility or legal accountability for the social costs of gun violence — the deaths and injuries of innocent victims, families torn apart, public resources spent on gun-related crime and medical expenses incurred. [/quote]We have an entire industry of car insurance set up to cover "the social costs" of the automobile industry. Imagine if instead of the great sums of money we all pay insurance, taxes were raised on cars to cover the same amount. What do you think would happen to car sales? Yeah, same thing this proposal's backers want for gun sales. Except for those playing or actually dumb of course.

[quote=Giantone;1013266]But there is a simple and direct way to make them accountable for the harm their products cause. For every gun sold, those who manufacture or import it should pay a tax. The money should then be used to create a compensation fund for innocent victims of gun violence.[/quote]Guns are bought for legitimate purposes, like marksmanship, hunting, and self defense. Why not financially go after the people who actually use guns to commit crimes? Why not keep them "accountable"?

[quote=Giantone;1013266]This proposal is based on a fundamentally conservative principle — that those who cause injury should be made to “internalize” the cost of their activity by paying for it.[/quote]Epic logical fail here. This proposal doesn't go after those who cause injury. By taxing all gun sales, it shifts the costs to the vast majority of gun owners, who use guns and DON'T cause injury.

[quote=Giantone;1013266] Now, gun manufacturers and sellers are mostly protected from lawsuits by federal law. [/quote]Lol. The same law that protects every other industry, where unless the company is negligent in the product it makes (defects, deceptive advertising, etc.) whackos can't try penalizing the industry out of business.

[quote=Giantone;1013266]As it happens, a model for this approach already exists. Under the [URL="http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html"][COLOR=#0066cc]Vaccine Injury Compensation Program[/COLOR][/URL], those injured by vaccines are eligible for compensation from a fund financed by an excise tax on the sale of every dose of vaccine.[/quote]Another epic fail in logic. In the case of bad vaccines, the company that made the defective drug is at fault. In the case where someone misuses a working gun, that individual is at fault. The same way that if someone tampered with or deliberately misused (forcefed, misprescribed, etc) a medicine, THEY would be at fault, NOT the drug company.

[quote=Giantone;1013266] In creating this no-fault system in the 1980s, Congress sought to provide care for those injured by vaccines while protecting manufacturers from undue litigation[/quote]Because medicine is a trickier thing, with people's different reactions to drugs, unforeseen combinations of circumstances, disease evolution, etc. And there's always the uncertain balance in public interest between getting a needed cure out quickly vs. safely. None of which apply to guns, therefore the above mention of the vaccine policy does not follow.

The above proposal is just another poorly thought out rationalization, to try taxing the sale of guns by law abiding people out of existence. Typical.

Overthemountain had a better proposal. Go after the people who actually cause harm. Going back to the vaccine analogy, which is flawed but just to contrast, vaccine companies pay for harm they actually inflict themselves. Contrasting cars is kinda flawed too, there's nothing constitutional about owning one, but look at how with insurance you cause harm your rates go up. Giantone's proposal would shift that cost away from those who actually cause harm to EVERYBODY.

It's hard to take anti-gun groups seriously about stopping gun violence, when their target is all gun owners rather than the people who actually cause harm.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

Bill Clinton ......8/28/2013


"“A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than to buy an assault weapon,”

Read more: [url=http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/bill-clinton-march-on-washington-speech-96001.html#ixzz2dLNjASuR]Bill Clinton calls for action in March on Washington speech - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com[/url]

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[url=http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/central-virginia/richmond-rally-supports-more-checks-for-gun-purchases/article_67d3f71b-270c-5b2f-ae66-3da17c9a8900.html]Richmond rally supports more checks for gun purchases - Richmond Times-Dispatch: Central Virginia[/url]



Posted: Friday, August 23, 2013 12:00 am | [I]Updated: 12:54 am, Sun Aug 25, 2013. [/I]
[URL="http://www.timesdispatch.com/content/tncms/live/TimesDispatch.com/news/local/central-virginia/richmond-rally-supports-more-checks-for-gun-purchases/article_67d3f71b-270c-5b2f-ae66-3da17c9a8900.html"][COLOR=#0066cc]Richmond rally supports more checks for gun purchases[/COLOR][/URL] BY MARK BOWES Richmond Times-Dispatch Richmond Times-Dispatch
The father of a young boy fatally shot in the Newtown massacre last year stopped in Richmond on Thursday as part of a [URL="http://nomorenames.org/"][COLOR=#0066cc]“No More Names”[/COLOR][/URL] national bus tour to drum up support for universal background checks for gun purchases.
“It’s something that shouldn’t have happened,” said Neil Heslin, whose 6-year-old son, Jesse Lewis, was [URL="http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/names-of-newtown-conn-shooting-victims-released/article_57d4068c-ca7d-5860-86ab-130cffb25491.html"][COLOR=#0066cc]one of 20 students and six adults fatally shot at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.[/COLOR][/URL] “It’s something that can’t happen again. It’s something that’s got to be changed, and we can help prevent that.”
Speaking to a sparse crowd — perhaps 15 local supporters — Heslin said one of the simplest things that could be done “to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands” is for Congress to pass legislation that would expand background checks for all firearm transactions, including private sales.
“Background checks are not something that’s treading on anybody’s Second Amendment rights,” he added. “It has nothing to do with taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.
Echoing a repeated complaint from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whose [URL="http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/home/1000mayors.html"][COLOR=#0066cc]Mayors Against Illegal Guns[/COLOR][/URL] organization is sponsoring the 25-state national bus tour, Heslin said many guns that show up on the streets of New York and are used in crimes come from Virginia and North Carolina. “Background checks would help cut down on that,” he said.
In a [URL="http://www.demandaction.org/detail/2013-08-statements-of-members-of-mayors-against-illegal-guns"][COLOR=#0066cc]news release[/COLOR][/URL] distributed at a rally in Byrd Park, Mayors Against Illegal Guns — citing ATF data — said the number of guns sold by Virginia firearms dealers in 2009 that were trafficked to other states and recovered at crime scenes was 130 percent more than the national average and 422 percent more than in states that require background checks for private handgun sales. The number of firearms was not provided.
Eleven people, nine from the Richmond area, stood behind Heslin as a show of support and held signs that read, “Guns kill our children,” “Demand Action to End gun violence,” and “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Giantone;1021082][URL="http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/central-virginia/richmond-rally-supports-more-checks-for-gun-purchases/article_67d3f71b-270c-5b2f-ae66-3da17c9a8900.html"]Richmond rally supports more checks for gun purchases - Richmond Times-Dispatch: Central Virginia[/URL]



Posted: Friday, August 23, 2013 12:00 am | [I]Updated: 12:54 am, Sun Aug 25, 2013. [/I]
[URL="http://www.timesdispatch.com/content/tncms/live/TimesDispatch.com/news/local/central-virginia/richmond-rally-supports-more-checks-for-gun-purchases/article_67d3f71b-270c-5b2f-ae66-3da17c9a8900.html"][COLOR=#0066cc]Richmond rally supports more checks for gun purchases[/COLOR][/URL] BY MARK BOWES Richmond Times-Dispatch Richmond Times-Dispatch
The father of a young boy fatally shot in the Newtown massacre last year stopped in Richmond on Thursday as part of a [URL="http://nomorenames.org/"][COLOR=#0066cc]“No More Names”[/COLOR][/URL] national bus tour to drum up support for universal background checks for gun purchases.
“It’s something that shouldn’t have happened,” said Neil Heslin, whose 6-year-old son, Jesse Lewis, was [URL="http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/names-of-newtown-conn-shooting-victims-released/article_57d4068c-ca7d-5860-86ab-130cffb25491.html"][COLOR=#0066cc]one of 20 students and six adults fatally shot at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.[/COLOR][/URL] “It’s something that can’t happen again. It’s something that’s got to be changed, and we can help prevent that.”
Speaking to a sparse crowd — perhaps 15 local supporters — Heslin said one of the simplest things that could be done “to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands” is for Congress to pass legislation that would expand background checks for all firearm transactions, including private sales.
“Background checks are not something that’s treading on anybody’s Second Amendment rights,” he added. “It has nothing to do with taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.
Echoing a repeated complaint from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whose [URL="http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/home/1000mayors.html"][COLOR=#0066cc]Mayors Against Illegal Guns[/COLOR][/URL] organization is sponsoring the 25-state national bus tour, Heslin said many guns that show up on the streets of New York and are used in crimes come from Virginia and North Carolina. “Background checks would help cut down on that,” he said.
In a [URL="http://www.demandaction.org/detail/2013-08-statements-of-members-of-mayors-against-illegal-guns"][COLOR=#0066cc]news release[/COLOR][/URL] distributed at a rally in Byrd Park, Mayors Against Illegal Guns — citing ATF data — [B]said the number of guns sold by Virginia firearms dealers in 2009 that were trafficked to other states and recovered at crime scenes was 130 percent more than the national[/B] average and 422 percent more than in states that require background checks for private handgun sales. The number of firearms was not provided.
Eleven people, nine from the Richmond area, stood behind Heslin as a show of support and held signs that read, “Guns kill our children,” “Demand Action to End gun violence,” and “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”[/quote]

He said the guns from dealers which in that case a back ground check has to be done so I don't get his point. They say they want back ground checks then he uses data to prove his point but cited facts that actually show the back ground check don't stop gun crimes.

I'm sure none of the 12 people attending figured that out.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Giantone;1021081]Bill Clinton ......8/28/2013


"“A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than to buy an assault weapon,”[/quote]Wow, it's not often Bill Clinton says something really stupid.

Last I checked, you need more to get an "assault rifle", than step up and state your name and address.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

I don't understand the hate for the background checks at gun shows? Why not want to ensure criminals are not getting guns there and be consistent with law around the state at retails stores? Is it just contrite at this point? U think with all the mass shootings in the state and across the country we'd look to close the loophole.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Chico23231;1021243]I don't understand the hate for the background checks at gun shows? Why not want to ensure criminals are not getting guns there and be consistent with law around the state at retails stores? Is it just contrite at this point? U think with all the mass shootings in the state and across the country we'd look to close the loophole.[/quote]


The "gun show loophole" is a misnomer. The vast majority of sales at gun shows are by gun dealers (FFLs) and therefore require a background check. Only guns sold or transferred between private individuals do not [I]require[/I] background checks, regardless if at a gun show or at a police station.

A big problem with requiring private individuals to complete background checks when selling a gun is that it costs a lot. A background check for a private sale averages around $40. You can only hire a professional to do it. You have to go to the professional's place of business to do it, and some people don't live in areas with easy access to a FFL or have cars.

And like most restrictions, background checks primarily hurt poor people. A lot of shotguns are only worth $100 and your entry level handgun costs $150-$200. So your talking about a fee that is between 20-40% of a guns value. Even with a nice $500 dollar glock you are still looking an 8% fee.

What if you had to preform a "registration check" before selling a car to a private party that cost around 20-40% of car's value? What if you also had to travel 100 miles to complete the transaction with a car dealer? What if it was your granddad selling you your first car for a one dollar bill? Or what if you are a poor person who isn't married and you want to put the car in your baby mamma's name before your government deploys you to the Middle East? And what if 99.9% of all car accidents were from dealer sales, or illegally bought or stolen cars, yet private party sales were hit the hardest with fees and restrictions?

Spot on! Don't believe the anti-gun hype!

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Chico23231;1021243]I don't understand the hate for the background checks at gun shows? Why not want to ensure criminals are not getting guns there and be consistent with law around the state at retails stores? Is it just contrite at this point? U think with all the mass shootings in the state and across the country we'd look to close the loophole.[/quote]

[url=http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-05/politics/41068573_1_background-checks-private-sales-gun-sales]Study finds vast online marketplace for guns without background checks - Washington Post[/url]
[B]Study finds vast online marketplace for guns without background checks[/B]


By Philip Rucker,August 05, 2013
The marketplace for firearms on the Internet, where buyers are not required to undergo background checks, is so vast that advocates for stricter regulations now consider online sales a greater threat than the gun-show loophole.
<A href="http://www.thirdway.org/publications/719" data-xslt="_http">[URL="http://www.thirdway.org/publications/719"][COLOR=#0066cc]A new study by Third Way[/COLOR][/URL] , a center-left think tank with close ties to the Obama administration, found that thousands of guns, including so-called assault weapons, are for sale online and that many prospective buyers were shopping online specifically to avoid background checks.
The study focused on [URL="http://www.armslist.com/"][COLOR=#0066cc]Armslist.com[/COLOR][/URL] — a popular [URL="http://www.armslist.com/info/about"][COLOR=#0066cc]classified site[/COLOR][/URL] similar to Craigslist.org that facilitates private sales of firearms and ammunition based on location — and analyzed listings in 10 states where senators voted against a background-check compromise this spring.

Shocking. Gun ban lobby finds problem with <fill_in_the_blank> of guns.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Giantone;1021507][url=http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-05/politics/41068573_1_background-checks-private-sales-gun-sales]Study finds vast online marketplace for guns without background checks - Washington Post[/url]
[B]Study finds vast online marketplace for guns without background checks[/B]


By Philip Rucker,August 05, 2013
The marketplace for firearms on the Internet, where buyers are not required to undergo background checks, is so vast that advocates for stricter regulations now consider online sales a greater threat than the gun-show loophole.
<A href="http://www.thirdway.org/publications/719" data-xslt="_http">[URL="http://www.thirdway.org/publications/719"][COLOR=#0066cc]A new study by Third Way[/COLOR][/URL] , a center-left think tank with close ties to the Obama administration, found that thousands of guns, including so-called assault weapons, are for sale online and that many prospective buyers were shopping online specifically to avoid background checks.
The study focused on [URL="http://www.armslist.com/"][COLOR=#0066cc]Armslist.com[/COLOR][/URL] — a popular [URL="http://www.armslist.com/info/about"][COLOR=#0066cc]classified site[/COLOR][/URL] similar to Craigslist.org that facilitates private sales of firearms and ammunition based on location — and analyzed listings in 10 states where senators voted against a background-check compromise this spring.[/quote]

I actually bought 2 firearms this week, both from internet initiated transactions. I would consider myself a firearms enthusiast and both guns were part of my firearms ''bucket list'', if you will. Finding specific guns online is 1000x easier than finding them at a store or getting lucky at a gun show. I guess we should thank al gore?

In va vaguntrader has more posters, but armslist has gotten a lot bbetter. What's crazy is I've seen a lot more firearms for sale on craigslist lately. things used to get flagged real quick, now you'll have guns sitting on there for several hours or even a couple days before they get flagged. Not sure what's changed? Greater social acceptance?

Also a neat tip for you craigslisters having trouble selling your prohibited items. Ill put a crap item for sale and then change it to the real item i want to sell after a couple of days.

So ill put an authentic wnba bball up for sale, then change it to a bushmaster ar15 a day later. When someone searches ar15 the next day, guess who's ad pops up? Ive had items last for weeks after I sell them doing this (I'm that dude who leaves sold items up and won't even reply to your inquiry to tell you its sold).

Re: Pro-gun article
 

In a speech before law enforcement officers at the Denver Police Academy, President Barack Obama called Colorado a model for the rest of the country for proving “what’s possible” in advancing gun control. (April 2013)

[url=http://kdvr.com/2013/04/03/obama-says-colorado-is-model-for-nation-on-gun-control/]Obama: Colorado is model for nation on gun control | KDVR.com[/url]


Two Democratic lawmakers in Colorado, including the president of the state Senate, were recalled Tuesday in elections brought about by their support for tougher gun control laws. (September 2013)

[url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/11/colorado-dems-face-historic-recall-over-gun-votes/]Colorado state senators recalled over gun control support | Fox News[/url]

Yikes!

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Chico23231;1021243]I don't understand the hate for the background checks at gun shows? Why not want to ensure criminals are not getting guns there and be consistent with law around the state at retails stores? Is it just contrite at this point? U think with all the mass shootings in the state and across the country we'd look to close the loophole.[/quote]

The hate for back ground checks come from people who feel the goverment will use the data to track who owns guns. Not that the goverment would do that Hint NSA but that's their concerns. Hell, there have been news papers that have posted links to people who have a carry permit [url=http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/03/too-much-newspaper-prints-names-addresses-of-16k-gun-owners/]Too much? Newspaper prints names, addresses of 16,000 gun owners — MSNBC[/url]. What if some politicians decide they want to throw on a gun tax or confiscate ones guns all their info will be right there for the goverment to use. Not that the goverment would abuse their powers. NSA.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

Don't get to excited , yet .

[url=http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/11/what-the-colorado-recall-doesnt-prove/195834]What The Colorado Recall Doesn't Prove | Blog | Media Matters for America[/url]


[B]The Gun Laws Supported By Giron And Morse Popular Are Popular Statewide.[/B] On March 20, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper [URL="http://kdvr.com/2013/03/20/hickenlooper-sings-colo-gun-control-bills/"][COLOR=#0066cc]signed[/COLOR][/URL] three [URL="http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0198.htm"][COLOR=#0066cc]gun violence prevention measures[/COLOR][/URL] into law: requiring a background check on all gun sales except those between family members, imposing a $10 fee to process background checks, and limiting firearm magazine capacity to 15 rounds. Giron and Morse's support for these measures was the catalyst for the recall efforts. An August 22 poll by Quinnipiac University [URL="http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/colorado/release-detail?ReleaseID=1941"][COLOR=#0066cc]found[/COLOR][/URL] that the majority of voters in Colorado approve of the specific pieces of the gun law package -- they expressed support for expanded background checks by an 82 to 16 percent margin and support for the limit on magazine capacity by a 49 to 48 percent margin. While Giron and Morse were defeated, the legislation they support is popular with state voters at large.
[B]The Recall Turnout Was Extremely Low[/B]. A very small number of voters determined the recall election. In fact, voter turnout in Morse and Giron's districts were both substantially lower in the recall election compared to the 2010 state senate elections. Only [URL="http://www.elpasoelections.com/2013Recall/results.html"][COLOR=#0066cc]21 percent[/COLOR][/URL] of 84,029 registered voters in Morse's district voted in the recall election. A mere 9,094 people voted in favor of recall; he lost his seat by a margin of 343 votes. Turnout was about 11,000 voters higher in Morse's [URL="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/John_Morse"][COLOR=#0066cc]2010 senate election[/COLOR][/URL]. Turnout in Giron's district was [URL="http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/CO/Pueblo/48038/118356/en/summary.html"][COLOR=#0066cc]only 36 percent[/COLOR][/URL]; 10,000 more people voted in her 2010 Senate election. Deriving national trends from low-turnout recall elections seems unwise.
[B]Efforts To Recall Other Members Who Supported Stronger Gun Laws Failed. [/B]Opponents of stronger gun laws didn't intend to recall just Giron and Morse; they originally targeted two other lawmakers as well. But an effort to recall Sen. Evie Hudak was [URL="http://www.denverpost.com/ci_23301881/campaign-recall-colorado-sen-evie-hudak-suspended"][COLOR=#0066cc]suspended by organizers[/COLOR][/URL] three weeks before the deadline. And an effort to recall Rep. Mike McLachlan [URL="http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2013/05/21/effort-to-recall-rep-mike-mclachlan-fails/96663/"][COLOR=#0066cc]also failed[/COLOR][/URL] when the Colorado Secretary of State reported that no signatures were turned in before a deadline.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Giantone;1024759](snip awesome news of two politicians being recalled over gun control laws)[/quote]Thanks, giantone. This matter about two politicians being recalled for pushing gun control laws, is good news.

The spin on your link is hilarious. Your link said overwhelming majorities were for the gun laws, yet the poll cited says "All voters oppose 54 - 40 percent the stricter new gun control laws which led to the recall effort". And the poll cited said a vast majority was against the recall itself, yet the recall happened and the two anti-gun politicians that pushed the supposedly popular legislation through were recalled.

[url=http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/colorado/release-detail?ReleaseID=1941]Colorado (CO) Poll - August 22, 2013 - Colorado Voters Oppose Recall | Quinnipiac University Connecticut[/url]

The poll your link cites is baffling itself, again it says "All voters oppose 54 - 40 percent the stricter new gun control laws which led to the recall effort". Yet it cites overwhelming support for one provision (universal background checks), slight margin of support for magazine limits. The poll doesn't say about the $10 fee for background checks. Is the poll hinting that the $10 was the breaking point, to Colorado voters? :saywhat: It does say that most Colorado voters didn't think the new laws would make things safer, which makes the above poll info more puzzling.

This link here:

[url=http://www.volokh.com/2013/09/11/colorado-recalls-explained/]The Colorado Recalls Explained | The Volokh ConspiracyThe Volokh Conspiracy[/url]

which mentions some things your mediamatters link doesn't: like how Bloomberg and anti-gun rights groups outspent their counterparts $3mil to $.5mil. And how one recall was close but the other wasn't.

"It’s one thing for a deliberately polarizing legislator like Morse to lose a close race in a swing district. It’s quite another for Giron to lose by 12 points in a district that is 47% Democratic and 23% Republican. One reason is that in blue collar districts like Pueblo, there are plenty of Democrats who cling to their Second Amendment rights. As the Denver Post noted, 20% of the voters who signed the Giron recall petitions were Democrats.

The Colorado Senate is now 18-17 Democratic, and 19-16 pro-Second Amendment. On gun issues, and on many others, the balance of power is now held by moderate Democrats, rather than by the hard left faction formerly led by Morse."

The volokh link actually proposes that what really doomed the two recalled state senators, isn't the gun control laws. It was that they rammed the law through rather than going through normal procedure of public hearings. Which make the "popular legislation" claim your link makes even more dubious.

Still good news about the recall, so thanks giantone. lol. But I guess the question now is, will any of the new gun control laws be repealed after the next general election, or not?

Re: Pro-gun article
 

Not directly related to the Colorado gun control / pot related poll above, but still funny to me because the aforementioned poll was about marijuana legalization too:

[IMG]http://worldnewscurator.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/funny-gun-control-meme-3.jpg[/IMG]

For anyone interested in a positive story on gun ownership, Google Nairobi and former Royal Marine. Witnesses said he saved an estimated 100 people or more after returning to the siege more than 10 times.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Re: Pro-gun article
 

Just added a Lasermax to my Glock, now I want a few of these:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD3m8jX-HdI"]G2 Research 9mm RIP Ballistic Gel test - YouTube[/ame]

Re: Pro-gun article
 

Thank the NRA his rights were protected ,I would have said thank god but you don't believe in God do you .


[url=http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/25/us/maryland-mall-shooting/]3 reported killed in shooting at Maryland mall - CNN.com[/url]

Re: Pro-gun article
 

I think that is a rather unfair assertion since MD has some very stringent gun laws that the NRA opposed.

That's the amusing thing about the States with the most stringent gun control, they see the most gun violence. So 'yay' gun control......

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=BaltimoreSkins;1057486]I think that is a rather unfair assertion since MD has some very stringent gun laws that the NRA opposed.[/quote]

No they don't .

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Giantone;1057530]No they don't .[/quote]

[url=http://www.npr.org/2013/10/01/228194173/new-maryland-firearms-law-rides-in-on-a-wave-of-gun-sales]New Maryland Firearms Law Rides In On A Wave Of Gun Sales : NPR[/url]


[quote][B][SIZE="4"]One of the strictest gun laws in the nation went into effect in Maryland on Tuesday.[/SIZE][/B] The new law bans assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, and it makes Maryland one of only six states that require handgun purchasers to get fingerprinted and take gun safety courses.[/quote]




[IMG]http://www.portlandmercury.com/binary/f075/1297207367-the_more_you_know2.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Pro-gun article
 

Not sure who is lying to you, GiantOne, but you may want to check your sources before you post on gun issues. You seem to have a very weak grasp of the facts, or no grasp at all.

It's as if you're being used as a useful idiot to further the gun control lobby's agenda.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1057488]That's the amusing thing about the States with the most stringent gun control, they see the most gun violence. So 'yay' gun control......

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk[/quote]

It's a simple fact that liberals cannot understand, yet it's obvious to the criminals. The more you restrict law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves, the easier it is to commit gun violence against them.

Ironically, Chicago is the best example.



"Lets shoot up the mall, no one is allowed to carry a gun in there!"

"Hey, the University is a gun-free zone, not even the security guards are allowed to carry!"

"The teachers won't be able to stop us."

*OR*

"If I anything in that place, there will definitely be someone carrying and I won't make very far...better find an easier place to pull it off."


It's simple, really.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

Agreed, MonkeyDad. Then you add in the supposed 'Wild West' factor of CCW or better yet counties that encourage open carry.

Streets running with blood? Not so much. Lower violent crime rates. Yes.

For anyone who doubts me, rather than read a link I could place here, find your own information. It may help you make a more informed decision.

There was that one utter psycho recently who shot the dude in a theater for texting, but he was a 71 year-old ex-cop. He probably should have been psych-evaled every 5 years, that would have bought to light his alleged rage issues.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1057488]That's the amusing thing about the States with the most stringent gun control, they see the most gun violence. So 'yay' gun control......

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk[/quote]

Rat he happens to be a good friend on mine ,oh yeah and he is a gun dealer. Seems that the idiots are the NRA and the right wing gun nuts he don't agree on gun safety

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=BaltimoreSkins;1057486]I think that is a rather unfair assertion since MD has some very stringent gun laws that the NRA opposed.[/quote]




[url=http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/maryland.aspx]NRA-ILA | Maryland[/url]

[B]A synopsis of Maryland state laws on purchase, possession and carrying of firearms.[/B]

PURCHASE Maryland does not regulate the sale of rifles or shotguns and no permit is required to purchase a rifle or shotgun. Maryland does regulate the sale, transfer, rent and possession of regulated firearms, which consist of handguns and assault weapons. A person who is not a regulated firearms dealer may not sell, rent, transfer, or purchase any regulated firearm without going through a regulated firearms dealer. Alternatively, the prospective seller/transferor and prospective buyer/transferee may complete the transaction through a designated law enforcement agency

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1057488]That's the amusing thing about the States with the most stringent gun control, they see the most gun violence. So 'yay' gun control......

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk[/quote]

I assume you are being short sighted with this in jest based on your scientific background, but there are more variables at play. For example Dallas found in TX with very relaxed laws has a firearms homicide rate of 9.7 per 100,000 people will D.C. which is very stringent is 5.5 per 100,000. I do agree with your opinion on gun control not having a major impact on gun violence though.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

Ask your friend how he feels about MD's SB281 & HB294?

I can tell you what the MD NRA thought of it, or you can look it up yourself.

Either way, yes, the NRA have an issue with more restrictive gun laws in MD.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=BaltimoreSkins;1057579]I assume you are being short sighted with this in jest based on your scientific background, but there are more variables at play. For example Dallas found in TX with very relaxed laws has a firearms homicide rate of 9.7 per 100,000 people will D.C. which is very stringent is 5.5 per 100,000. I do agree with your opinion on gun control not having a major impact on gun violence though.[/quote]

There certainly are:

[IMG]http://origin.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2012/12/FirearmFacts.png[/IMG]

I'd recommend reading [URL="http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/"]factcheck.org's[/URL] article, it's very good.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

So is the answer to just sit on our hands while these mass shootings keep happening over and over? I dont see these ending anytime soon, but its too the point where we probably need to do something. Its irresponsible as a country to sit back and do nothing.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

I'll make the same suggestion I did before, Chico23231, be more involved with friends and family. Take note when someone you knows starts to behave oddly.

How many times after the fact do we hear that a person had begun doing 'X' or 'Y' and it was a 'tell-tail' sign.

There's no magic solution, it'll take effort.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1057638]I
There's no magic solution, it'll take effort.[/quote]


One solution is taking guns away from people that should not have them or letting them buy them in the first place .

[QUOTE=Giantone;1057655]One solution is taking guns away from people that should not have them or letting them buy them in the first place .[/QUOTE]

But that wouldn't have mattered in the mall shooting right. So how is that a solution?

[QUOTE=Giantone;1057655]One solution is taking guns away from people that should not have them or letting them buy them in the first place .[/QUOTE]

You know what you are right, all of the facts you keep presenting are very true. We should take all the guns away from people that shouldn't have them. And while we do that we can go door to door and arrest all the bad people that are out there, all the while skipping and singing "a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down".

[QUOTE=Giantone;1057655]One solution is taking guns away from people that should not have them or letting them buy them in the first place .[/QUOTE]

Who gets to decide that? Who would you trust? I don't want anyone who believes in the supernatural having that kind of power, so there goes 80% of the country.

Computers? Tempting.......

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Giantone;1057655]One solution is taking guns away from people that should not have them or letting them buy them in the first place .[/quote]


Those who do not know history are destined to repeat it.

[quote][B]"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms.[/B] History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. [U]German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order [/U]throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --[B]Adolf Hitler[/B], dinner talk on April 11, 1942,
[/quote]



[quote]"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." - Barrack Obama, 2008 campaign speech[/quote]


[quote][B]"I don't believe people should be allowed to own guns." - Barrack Obama[/B]
[url=http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/author-quotes-then-professor-obama-saying-i-dont-believe-people-should]Author Quotes Then-Professor Obama Saying, 'I Don't Believe People Should Be Able To Own Guns' | CNS News[/url]
[/quote]


I'm not comparing the two men, yet, but if we don't pay attention to what our leaders say, we may not wake up until it's too late.