Active Member
It's funny because Gayle Trotter's whole testimony was based on Mckinley's story who DID NOT use an AR15 and would still be able to defend herself if the AR15 was banned.
She is also pretty much saying that us men .. can't understand the meaning of defending ourselves. Therefore, men are not allowed to talk gun control?
She's paid off by the NRA and did a shitty job and the media is calling her out.
So, the NRA is against universal background check?
Active Member
http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/20...ing-in-atlanta
Another school shooting.
Bite me
BILL WILL HELP ELIMINATE FLOW OF ILLEGAL GUNS TO DANGEROUS DRUG GANGS LIKE: VICE LORDS, GANGSTER DISCIPLES, LATIN KINGS
Dear Friends,
Illegal gun trafficking is allowing gangs and violence to flourish around Illinois - in Chicago, Waukegan, Metro East, Quad Cities, Champaign, Peoria, Oak Park, Cicero, Rockford and hundreds of communities in between. With approximately 115,000 gang members in Chicago and its surrounding suburbs, Chicago has the highest concentration of gang members in the nation terrorizing our families. According to Reuters, gangs like the Vice Lords, Gangster Disciples and the Latin Kings are responsible for nearly 80% of the city’s homicides. Last summer alone, gang violence killed 500 men, women and children in Chicago.
We must put a stop to this cycle of violence. According to the Chicago Crime Commission, Chicago Police recover an average of 13,000 illegal weapons each year. Yesterday, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and I introduced a bipartisan anti-gun trafficking bill to ensure that law enforcement has the tools it needs to crack down on illegal weapons trafficking.
Our bill, the Gillibrand-Kirk Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2013, will for the first time make gun trafficking a federal crime. Currently, no federal law exists that defines gun trafficking as a crime. The bill will protect the constitutional rights of responsible, law-abiding gun owners while giving law enforcement the tools they need to keep our families safe.
I encourage you to watch the video above to learn more about weapons trafficking and our new bill. Please visit my website to read details about the legislation.
Sincerely,
Mark Kirk
U.S. Senator
Throbbing Member
Showboating.
Active Member
fucking vigilante fire fighters.
(yes, its a strawman but it's funny)
Active Member
adminstration's response was pretty funny. 'The cost to build a Death Star would be $850,000,000,000,000,000. Also we don't support blowing up planets. 'Originally Posted by marodi
So apparently the ban on assault weapons in my state can be circumvented by the ownership of the weapon being put into a trust.
Active Member
All of the data in that post comes from http://www.policymic.com/articles/21...-for-democrats and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cory-b...b_2346911.html
My question is WHY are the democrats choosing the extremely polarizing and very ineffective instead of things that have massive support and are very effective? The only options I can come up with are:
- They are incredibly uninformed on the topic
- They actually don't want functional gun control. They just want to placate their supporters.
- They are utilizing the death of children to advance their personal legislation, not mitigate the issues.
- Their goal is to piss off their opponents even more instead of fix the issues.
What am I missing?
Active Member
Republicans on Senate Judiciary committee received $700,000 from the NRA, NRA's PAC or organization employees
The NRA received in 2010, $71M in contribution money OUTSIDE of their membership. From 2005-2011, NRA received $38.9M from gun manufacturers (22).
LaPierre testified in 1999, before receiving any money from manufacturer, that ALL loopholes had to be closed. Today's a whole different story.
I would take the Democrats uninformed decisions over the Republicans' agenda to actually have the manufacturers sell MORE guns so they can make MORE money.
Active Member
Trust me, I fucking HATE the GOP. I almost always hate them more than Dems. The GOP being fucktards does not justify whatever the Dems do and it certainly doesn't justify you ignoring their reasoning due to some "least evil" decision.
Nothing that the GOP is doing explains the Dem's justification for policy decisions. Will you not stop and think about why they are making these decisions? At least the logic behind the current GOP action is very transparent (money and retention of gun ownership). There is something very wrong on the Dem side.
Active Member
If you're trying to make me say that the Dems are trying to take away the guns in some sort of crackpot theory that they want to control the population or whatnot. Dream on.
Active Member
I'm not trying to make you say anything. I'm trying to discuss the logic behind the decisions. I don't know if it's negligence, evil, or other. Are you so bound to the Dem group that you cannot wield an objective view on that topic? That'd be pretty sad...
Active Member
If I was American I would certainly vote for them but I'm not.
"92 percent in Virginia and 95 percent in New Jersey -- favor requiring background checks on people buying firearms at gun shows"
"A CBS/New York Times poll found that 92 percent of Americans favor universal background checks. Other surveys showed support for the proposal hovering somewhere between 80 and 90 percent."
"[National poll] 69 percent of respondents support a ban on the sale of military-style assault rifles, and 68.4 percent support a ban on the sale of large-capacity[...]
"Texans favor a proposed ban on assault weapons, according to a poll by Public Policy Polling, with 49 percent in support compared to 41 percent opposed." (2 days ago)
Isn't it striking that what the Dems are proposing is exactly what the people want? Obviously it's not all rainbows and unicorns and yes there's probably other agendas but it doesn't take away the FACT that the population want universal background check and they want an assault riffle ban.
Last edited by Deepvoid; 02-01-2013 at 02:37 PM.
Active Member
^ You, literally, just confirmed what I said.. but I think you are conflating a few things.
Yes, a shitload of people support universal background checks but what is being proposed is background checks at only gun shows. Universal background checks includes the "gun show loophole" and WAY more. So, why only focus on only the gun shows?!?!
And yes, the support for assault weapon bans and high-cap mag bans is much lower, in comparison.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/21...-for-democrats
Active Member
And to clarify, I am asking this because I really feel like I am missing the reason. I feel like there must be some portion of the "political game" that they are working around/with by making these policy decisions.
Active Member
Active Member
I took me 8 months of research before I bought a handgun. I chose a Glock for some of the reasons listed in the article: very accurate (for the price), reliable and takes a beating like no other, very easy to use (especially in an emergency), etc. It's pretty much an ideal defense weapon.
Active Member
A father of a child at Sandy Hook provides his views at a public hearing.
Sure seems like a lot of the other Newtown residents agree with him based on the end!
Last edited by DigitalChaos; 02-02-2013 at 02:04 PM.
Active Member
In the end, there are no winners in this debate. Just more dead people.
You probably heard about the prosecutor that was shot dead a few days ago? He was carrying becaused he feared for his life. How's that working for you Mr. Assistant DA.
So what now? NRA will say that you have to carry 2 guns?
Or did you hear about the newly hired security guard in a Michigan school who forgot his gun in the bathroom?
More guns!! Higher gun per capita! More gun related deaths! USA #1!!! Yeeeaaahhhh!!
Last edited by Deepvoid; 02-02-2013 at 03:38 PM.
Quiet Member
Everyone gets it. You hate guns. You think they should all be voluntarily thrown into a giant volcano. Unfortunately that isn't going to happen. If you have any realistic ideas on how to prevent gun violence....I'm listening.
Active Member
Actually, I don't. I'm just venting.
With 300M guns in circulation, I don't think there are solutions. Sorry.
Hairy Member
Originally, I wasn't going to reply as I have no solution, or perspective that hasn't already been conveyed in this thread by others.
However, the media, and politicians in general seem to think the equation is really simple, and the code-breaker is either more a.) gun control, or b.) more armed teachers, citizens, et al. There doesn't seem to be any other perspectives that deviate from this dynamic. In my opinion, when the solution to a sociological crisis is simple -- it isn't a solution at all. But merely an emotional reaction. Especially when there are ONLY two contradictory options on the table. It's extremely anti-intellectual IMO.
Society in general is extremely complex, and pundits stating "well, country X does this, why doesn't the USA copy that method" is extremely naïve. I think what we really need to do is thoroughly understand why our country have this whacky paranoia conflated with these estranged sociopaths publicly convening nervous breakdowns with live ammo.
We should thoroughly consider the affects the media, the NRA, and Big Pharma have on us as a nation. JMO.
Active Member
Most deadliest US sniper was killed at a gun range
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/03/justic...html?hpt=hp_t2
Unfortunately, no good guy with a gun was there to stop the killing...
Or wait .. guns don't kill people.
I can't follow up with all the theories ..
One more ..
Grade too low, dad points AK-47 at daughter.
"A St. Paul man who recently purchased an assault rifle out of fear of an impending gun ban threatened his teenage daughter with it because she was getting two B's in school rather than straight A's, according to a criminal complaint filed Friday."
http://www.startribune.com/local/eas...1.html?refer=y
Last edited by Deepvoid; 02-04-2013 at 08:53 AM.
Quiet Member
Everyone in this thread should really click the link below and contemplate why this isn't in national headlines. Killers have been found NOT GUILTY because they were on meds at the time.
http://ssristories.com/index.php
Active Member
This reminds me of this story here in Quebec, where a father, who happens to be a doctor, stabbed his 2 children 46 times and then drank windscreen washer in an attempt to commit suicide.
However, he didn't drank enough and survived. Obviously, he was fully aware of the quantity his body could absorb, being a doctor.
In any case, the jury found him criminally not responsible due to his psychological state and now a free man like you and me.
You're opening a can of worm though with depression. About 9% of the US population claim to be depressed. Only 3% are medicated. How many more are depressed but have not been diagnosed or simply won't admit.
Depression is form of mental illness.
Would you therefore, ban anyone who has suffered or suffers depression, from buying a gun? That's a lot of people.
Last edited by Deepvoid; 02-04-2013 at 09:19 AM.
Quiet Member
Eh...I don't know. I think we should take a closer look at how mental health is dealt with.
Also feel free to ban everything you want. Prohibition of firearms would likely be as effective as the war on drugs.
Active Member
Ban knives and windscreen washer, clearly!
Active Member
Also, you know it's complete bullshit to show how a guy with a gun (even the best in the world) was killed by a gun and somehow imply that guns are useless for self defense.
With that kind of logic you should show one example of a stupid person misusing every single item to ever exist in this world and then justify banning the act of living.
Active Member
I don't know how you came up with that conclusion but you're hilarious.
I was simply demonstrating that people with mental illness can get away with murder.
Back to the AK47 guy. The fact that the guy ran to the gun shop to buy an AK-47 because "oh my god, Obama will take away our guns" is exhibit #1 of mental illness.
Exhibit #2 is pointing his machine gun towards his daughter because she had a couple B instead of A.
Exhibit #3 the guy has a previous conviction for disorderly conduct and received a year of probation for that offense.
How this guy was able to purchase a gun is the real problem. Don't look further.
How many people like this dude you think there is? Millions of them.
How can you not worried that this guy could be your neighbor?
You're gonna tell me that why you have guns? You know what, I don't blame you.
But where my logic differs, is that I'd be thinking "Damn, what if we could reduce the number of guns in my neighborhood, maybe I would not need a gun after all".
Whereas yours is "better get myself more guns to protect my family" and your neighbor is watching you and is thinking "if Joe goes ape shit with all the guns he's buying, I better fucking arm myself to the teeth as well". You see where this is going? First thing you know, the whole county is ready for WW3. Don't tell me I'm exaggerating. I've seen videos of people who have some pretty impressive arsenal. How many of them have suffered depression in the last 5 years? Loss their job? You never know when one will wake up and decides it's time to go with a bang. Literally.
And the sniper guy proudly write a book about killing a bunch people. Karma is a bitch.
Active Member
You know one of the big reasons that the field of psychiatry is so behind? Prohibitionary views. The war on drugs brought the process to a crawl. So much red tape and general stigma about testing with psychotropic substances. The current science of psychiatry is borderline pseudo-science and most of the rest is pretty barbaric. It's way out of sync with the rest of medicine.
As for your mention of it being a dangerous path to examine mental health for the gun issue with 3% of the public being medicated, etc... Well, take a look at how large of a percentage of the mass murders take place by someone on medication for mental problems. You don't have to jump right toward stripping their access to guns. There are probably a lot of other options to discuss. but we already have laws that prevent people with mental issues from accessing guns. Those laws are just executed poorly.
Active Member
I'm not familiar with the exact language of those laws and if they are mostly federal or state laws but are they really simply poorly executed or a little bit loose?
Likes: 
Faceplams: 
Reply With Quote
