|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: finally, an honest democrat on gun control|
finally, an honest democrat on gun control
Posted - 2/14/2013 9:34:44 AM | show profile | flag this post
vp biden will sometimes speak the truth.
studies show assault weapons bans and universal checks will have no impact on gun violence.
even obama's doj says these democrat ideas won't work.
so why is the left pushing for laws they know won't have any impact on gun violence?
Posted - 2/14/2013 10:01:53 AM | show profile | flag this post
They're just posturing
Democrats want to be seen by their constituents and "doing SOMEthing" even though they know...and history clearly shows...gun control does not work and will not pass either the house or the senate.
It's all eyewash...political theater...just like the self righteous wailing of the left wing that will follow this post.
Posted - 2/14/2013 10:24:59 AM | show profile | flag this post
I have never seen
Really definitive proof one way or the other. And I certainly have never seen where "even obama's doj says these democrat ideas won't work."
The studies are mixed to say the least. They provide ammo for both sides (pun intended).
FactCheck put it this way: "■Wayne LaPierre, chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association, told a Senate committee that the “ban had no impact on lowering crime.” But the studies cited by LaPierre concluded that effects of the ban were “still unfolding” when it expired in 2004 and that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun violence.”
■Conversely, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who has introduced a bill to institute a new ban on assault weapons, claimed the 1994 ban “was effective at reducing crime.” That’s not correct either. The study concluded that “we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”
Both sides in the gun debate are selectively citing from a series of studies that concluded with a 2004 study led by Christopher S. Koper, “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003.”
The final report concluded the ban’s success in reducing crimes committed with banned guns was “mixed.” Gun crimes involving assault weapons declined. However, that decline was “offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines].”
So when they banned assault weapons, the shooters just turned to other guns with high capacity mags. So what if you banned both?? Obviously there would be an even deeper drop in shootings--and still NOT violate the 2nd Amend.
Unfortunately, I think this is one of those issues that BOTH sides can cite one study or another to back up their claims. So what we need (in my opinion) are at least legislative baby-steps to keep the weapons and mags, out of the wrong hands, without violating the rights of law abiding citizens.
If even that modest common sense approach is way too friggin Commie or Hitler-like for the NRA, tough shit.
Posted - 2/14/2013 10:49:58 AM | show profile | flag this post
"Obviously there would be an even deeper drop in shootings"
That's just not supported by the facts. Look at Chicago, Washington, DC, New York City, Los Angeles, Oakland...all places with highly restrictive firearms laws...and all are at or near the top of the list of the murder capitals of the country.
Conversely, areas where concealed carry is lawful very often have homicide rates well below the national average.
The take-away is that criminals do not obey laws and that armed citizens stop or prevent up to two million crimes each year.
Posted - 2/14/2013 11:21:05 AM | show profile | flag this post
"history clearly shows..."
"gun control does not work" Well, that's not 'exactly' true now is it??
The mish-mash hodgepodge mixed bag conflicting
legal here-but not legal here patchwork of gun control laws doesn't work. In that, I agree.
PER CAPITA the U.S. has far more gun-related killings than any other developed country in the world. There has to be reasons for that.
Repeating that 'Chicago has strict gun laws' and look what happens there!--or 'Connecticut has strict gun laws and look at Sandy Hook'!--That's an argument FOR, not against universal laws. When you can walk or drive across an imaginary border, buy what you want, sometimes without even a lousy background check, and then return with your weapons and mags du jour, that's a failure of the laws, it's a failure based on jurisdiction.
If even possessing certain weapons or high capacity mags was 'nationwide' then every time we seize one, it's one less off the streets. Add to that better nationwide treatment for the mentally ill, plus better nationwide background checks--closing gun show loopholes etc etc--THEN we are on the road to less gun death and injury. And you can do all that without violating anyone's 2nd Amend rights.
I don't understand why that is unreasonable. The total paranoia on the part of the NRA and objection to anything sensible is astounding.
Posted - 2/14/2013 11:28:44 AM | show profile | flag this post
It's unreasonable because
criminals don't obey laws. When your idiotic bans only impact the law-abiding you're only playing at addressing the problem. Eyewash.
Liberals and left wingers need to start addressing the PEOPLE problem.
Posted - 2/14/2013 11:31:57 AM | show profile | flag this post
The NRA has led a expensive and expansive lobbying campaign to shut down all government and privates studies on the impact of guns .. health, law enforcement, ATF .. all have their hands tied behind their back.
Read all about it: including how the NRA stifles law enforcement investigations that may actually reduce crime..
"NRA helps block firearms-data law used to solve crimes"
The facts are clear in every other place on earth. gun control works. That is proven fact.
NRA and the gun-nut cons like to claim there is no US evidence .. because they're engaged in campaign to supress and destroy the evidence.
Immoral. and Sickening.
Posted - 2/14/2013 11:31:59 AM | show profile | flag this post
And a couple of
insane, ridiculous, ludicrous talking points doesn't help.
"criminals do not obey laws" Wow. Thanks Mr. LaPierre. Therefore--all laws are just a waste of our time. We shouldn't bother with gun laws, or homicide, or burglary, or assault, or treason, or drunk driving laws, or rape, (the list is huge), because "criminals do not obey laws". That makes sense.
"armed citizens stop or prevent up to two million crimes each year." Another made up stat the Gun lobby loves. No way to come up with a number like that, since we only count 'reported crimes'.
Ranks right up there with the old standard "20,000 gun laws already on the books". Yea, small government by small government. Just like saying there are over 1 million speeding limit laws on the books now--so why should we have another one??
Please. A little common sense.
Posted - 2/14/2013 11:42:16 AM | show profile | flag this post
as for the argument ...
"only criminals will have guns"
Well thats the stupidest point ever.
That is why we have police.
But, of course, cons are more interesting in slashing law enforcement budgets and their "big government" than they are in any serious law and and order policy or crime reduction.
no surprise that some of the most powerful critics of the NRA, and supporters of gun control .. are law enforcement agencies and associations.
Posted - 2/14/2013 12:23:34 PM | show profile | flag this post
"The NRA has led a expensive and expansive lobbying campaign to shut down all government and privates studies on the impact of guns .."
biden's words, studies, obama's doj all come to the same conclusion. universal back ground checks and weapons bans will have no impact on mass shootings or gun violence.
truth is the left wants to use the blood of the dead to cover the road to a outright ban on americans right to keep and bare arms.
why else would the left be pushing for laws that won't reduce gun violence?
Posted - 2/14/2013 12:33:31 PM | show profile | flag this post
We Hate bare arms. Especially hairy tattooed ones.
Posted - 2/14/2013 12:48:13 PM | show profile | flag this post
so it begins
4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:
(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;
(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or
(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.
5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.
no.no. democrats are not coming for your guns or restricting the rights of law abiding americans.
Posted - 2/14/2013 12:57:55 PM | show profile | flag this post
con, Would you please
stop repeating lie after lie.
"biden's words, studies, obama's doj all come to the same conclusion. universal back ground checks and weapons bans will have no impact on mass shootings or gun violence."
An accurate report on "biden's words": Vice President Joe Biden acknowledged that new gun laws would not "fundamentally alter" the likelihood of another mass shooting, though he insisted there has been a "sea change" in American views on guns in the wake of Newtown.
"Nothing we're going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to 1,000 a year from what it is now," Biden told reporters Thursday afternoon after he spent over an hour lunching with Democratic senators at the Capitol.
"But there are things that we can do, demonstrably can do, that have virtually zero impact on your Second Amendment right to own a weapon for both self defense and recreation that can save some lives," he said.
Now. If you have a problem with that, I don't see it. And I'll ask you again; where does "obama's doj" say "universal back ground checks and weapons bans will have no impact on mass shootings or gun violence"
You're just making stuff up.
Posted - 2/14/2013 1:16:39 PM | show profile | flag this post
And as for your paranoia
rant about "no.no. democrats are not coming for your guns or restricting the rights of law abiding americans"
It's a STATE proposal. Thought you guys were all for States Rights instead of Federal laws. Guess I misunderstood.
This is a Missouri bill. It should be introduced nationwide, but it won't be. And what's wrong with it anyway?? As we've already covered, the majority of people WANT bans on assault weapons and large capacity magazines--not to mention the "Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer" of such.
"Gun Homicides Increased 25 Percent After Missouri Repealed Background Check Law"
So, it makes sense, it doesn't infringe on anyones 2nd Amend rights, and it's a State measure not a federal one. And you STILL see a Democrat conspiracy here?? Go figure.
Posted - 2/14/2013 1:31:37 PM | show profile | flag this post
yes, lets look at NYC's murder rate in 2012. it was the
lowest in years and the lowest per 100,000 residents
among the 25 most populated cities.
Posted - 2/14/2013 1:34:34 PM | show profile | flag this post
Gun laws will not stop shootings...
We are a violent society and people will always have easy access to guns which won't stop shootings. What they will do is decrease mass murders like in Arizona and Connecticut. No one needs a large clip or guns that can fire 100 bullets in a matter of seconds. Mass murders are stopped usually only when the shooter has to reload. If the Sandy Hook shooter had a gun with five or six rounds there would have been a handful of fatalities. Isn't that worth it right there? If anyone can justify why the public should have access to an AR 15 or AK 47 I am listening...
Posted - 2/14/2013 3:02:57 PM | show profile | flag this post
The NRA lobbied -- and got -- laws BANNING most studies of gun violence.
What we do know is this -- since the assault weapons ban was lifted, the number of people killed in mass shootings has grown.
Is there a relationship?
We'd need an honest study.
Fortunately, Obama's executive orders now allow the most important research blocked by NRA lobbying to go forward.
Posted - 2/14/2013 5:06:31 PM | show profile | flag this post
"If anyone can justify
why the public should have access to an AR 15 or AK 47 I am listening"
No, in fact you're NOT listening. You and I have been down this path.
The semi-automatic AR-15 (which is the ONLY AR-15 legally available) operates EXACTLY like a popular .223 semi-automatic varmint rifle that looks like a hunting rifle...having a "conventional" stock, no pistol grip and no carry handle. It uses the same .223 ammunition, which is NEITHER BIGGER NOR MORE POWERFUL than the ammo for a 22-250 or a 220 Swift, both US-made varmint rifles.
The semi-automatic AK-47 (which is the ONLY AK-4s legally available) operates EXACTLY like the 30 caliber version of the semi-automatic hunting rifle described above. It uses the same 30 caliber ammunition, which is NEITHER BIGGER NOR MORE POWERFUL that the ammunition used by countless brands of deer rifles.
So if it's permissible for anyone to own one of the "conventional" rifles I described...and it most certainly is -- they've been legally sold in the US for decades and have never been banned...then owning a semi-automatic AR-15 or AK-47 is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENT.
But you're not listening. I knew that when I started this.
Posted - 2/14/2013 5:22:36 PM | show profile | flag this post
An honest republican on gun control
" I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home."
- Ronald Reagan , 1989.
"To Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. Although assualt weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime.
Every major law enforcement organization in America and dozens of leading labor, medical, religious, civil rights and civic groups support such a ban. Most importantly, poll after poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly support a ban on assault weapons. A 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 77% of Americans support a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47.
The 1989 import ban resulted in an impressive 40% drop in imported assault weapons traced to crime between 1989 and 1991, but the killing continues. Last year, a killer armed with two TEC9s killed eight people at a San Francisco law firm and wounded several others. During the past five years, more than 40 law enforcement officers have been killed or wounded in the line of duty by an assault weapon."
- Ronald Reagan, cosignatory (w/ Ford and Carter) to open letter, 1994 .
Yep. Ronnie was against assault rifles. Cited the evidence.
But, cruiser know better than the president, that assault rifles are for hunting.
Posted - 2/14/2013 6:35:47 PM | show profile | flag this post
(Quoting Reagan) "an AK-47, a machine gun"
When Reagan said those words there may not have been a semi-auto version of the AK-47 in the US.
In any event, Reagan was talking about a FULLY AUTOMATIC AK-47...NOT the semi-auto examples that are the ONLY ones legally sold in the US today.
But this is exactly how dishonest rabid gun-grabbing left wingers are. They'll say anything...do anything...ethical or not...honest or not...in an attempt to sway public opinion.
Listen to my words...they are the ONLY rational ones in this discussion.
Posted - 2/14/2013 6:48:44 PM | show profile | flag this post
Cruiser can't read.
The letter to congress, that Reagan co-signed, specifically mentions semi-automatics.
Reagan stated assault weapons, period, should be outlawed. And he said he didn't think they served any purpose for hunting of self defence.
Not your bizarre attempt to try to and twist and interpret plain and clear english to fit your demented gun fantasies, and pretzel logic.
Posted - 2/14/2013 6:55:38 PM | show profile | flag this post
the same words you did. If you have a problem with that look in the mirror...and don't try to lie with dishonest quotes.
It's de rigueur for left wingers to try to move the goal posts when one of their disingenuous pronouncements is thoroughly discredited.
Posted - 2/14/2013 7:06:17 PM | show profile | flag this post
"Americans support a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47."
Regan specifically referenced semi auto, to be banned.
Plain and clear.
Posted - 2/14/2013 8:01:58 PM | show profile | flag this post
Excellent Call by Hero cruiser
When you posted: "When Reagan said those words there may not have been a semi-auto version of the AK-47 in the US.", regarding his quote that no one needs them for hunting or home defense.
That slays the libs!
Although, he DID say it on February 6, 1989, AFTER Patrick Purdy murdered 5 children in a Stockton, Ca school yard WITH a semiautomatic AK-47.
No matter. Being dead wrong, or even stupid, has never stopped your brave and heroic posts.
Posted - 2/14/2013 10:52:00 PM | show profile | flag this post
give it up cruise
You're having a bad day.
blah blah blah .223 .250 .220 blah blah blah semi this caliber that blah blah blah those kids weren't killed with a real bad gun...donchaknow, it was just a varmint rifle befitting their size...
Defending weapons like that ("varmints"??) is just plain disgusting. And repeating the lie over and over and over that you can't buy a machine gun/fully auto anywhere is foolish. I can buy one on line for chrissakes.
But then you top it off by screwing up what Reagan said (of all people). Anyone in the news biz back then remembers the Stockton shooting. "When Reagan said those words there may not have been a semi-auto version of the AK-47 in the US." YES, there was. Why didn't you look it up first?? OH. That's right. Actual SOURCES are only for us weak intellectually challenged journalists.
"In any event, Reagan was talking about a FULLY AUTOMATIC AK-47..." (NO he wasn't) "NOT the semi-auto examples that are the ONLY ones legally sold in the US today." Wrong again.
I looked for one. Here's what I found: "The majority of the AK type rifles in the U.S. that are registered as machine guns were originally semi-auto rifles that were converted and registered prior to May 1986. These generally sell for $15,000 to $25,000 depending on the variant, condition, and who converted it. There are a few original AK rifles the were registered in the 1968 amnesty (mine is one of these). The few I have seen for sale have been at auctions and go for about $30,000 and up.
Most states allow private ownership of full auto firearms (machine guns). Under federal law, anyone who qualifies to own a regular rifle, shotgun, or handgun can own a machine gun. THERE IS NO LICENSE REQUIRED UNLESS YOU ARE A DEALER. You do have to fill out an ATF Form 4 which is the Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of a Firearm. http://www.atf.gov/forms/pdfs/f53204.pdf
You submit this form in duplicate to ATF along with 2 fingerprint cards and a Certificate of Compliance http://www.atf.gov/forms/pdfs/f533020.pd… and a check or money order for $200.
(WOW. So cruise is right and the Federal Government BATF is wrong?? I'm shocked)