Gun Control

[QMany]

I guess all this bitching and moaning is a bit silly. Should they have back ground checks for gun shows and online gun sales, yes.

 

But you are going after the people that aren't committing crimes. I know municipalities are offering "gun buy backs", but are those committing gun crimes, walking up and selling their guns?

 

I've got a brilliant idea for those up on Capital Hill, that are either butthurt or feeling like they've won something. How about coming up with a plan to get the guns away from those with criminal records? This bill isn't going to accomplish anything whether it would have passed or not.

Thank you....Can we please concentrate on something that is actually going to make a difference?

Would making it harder for criminals to buy guns online make a difference? I'd like to think so.

[walksalone]

I guess all this bitching and moaning is a bit silly. Should they have back ground checks for gun shows and online gun sales, yes.

 

But you are going after the people that aren't committing crimes. I know municipalities are offering "gun buy backs", but are those committing gun crimes, walking up and selling their guns?

 

I've got a brilliant idea for those up on Capital Hill, that are either butthurt or feeling like they've won something. How about coming up with a plan to get the guns away from those with criminal records? This bill isn't going to accomplish anything whether it would have passed or not.

Thank you....Can we please concentrate on something that is actually going to make a difference?

Would making it harder for criminals to buy guns online make a difference? I'd like to think so.

 

I'm sure there are ways for them to get weapons and thats not so much the point. There are crimes being committed now. As previously stated, I support the background checks, but is that really going to stop those that already have the guns from using them?

[BigRedBuster]

I support back ground checks on internet sales and gun show sales.

 

But, that would have little if any affect on criminals and their guns.

 

So, I'm sure I would have voted for the bill if I were in Congress. But, all this emotional crap when it didn't pass is nothing but the Dem's version of politics for 2014 and 2016.

[beanman]

do your friends in MN approve of selling guns of felons are gun shows?

I don't think they go to gun shows. They have some dealer in the cities that they all drive to. They buy a lot of them. Even seen them give guns as birthday presents to their wives. Seems strange to me, but most of these people up here seem a little off in my opinion.

 

I don't own a gun, and I am definitely one of the few.

When they do those numbers for polls there is a science behind it. Probably a +/-3% or similar. And NM is hardly representative of the majority of people living in the US. Particularly if they do not live in a city of any kind.

 

Morons like Grassley making comments that "criminals don't submit to background checks" is at the same time both correct, and epicly stupid. Currently they don't have to, order online or roll into a gun show, they can buy one no question asked. And that is epicly stupid.

 

I don't care what kind of "science" is behind it. You can't take a sample size of 1700(or whatever the hell it was) no matter how they selected the samples and expect that to be within 3% accurate for our entire country. The poll referenced just above said over 80%. That's quite a bit different than what Junior's poll listed. I could believe 80%. 90+ %? I have my doubts. I personally am fine with background checks. It certainly doesn't bother me since I don't own a gun and haven't hunted for 16 years.

[Junior]

I support back ground checks on internet sales and gun show sales.

 

But, that would have little if any affect on criminals and their guns.

 

So, I'm sure I would have voted for the bill if I were in Congress. But, all this emotional crap when it didn't pass is nothing but the Dem's version of politics for 2014 and 2016.

 

As opposed to the republican version of politics from 2008 to present? "If Obama likes it, we must destroy it!" Hell, its practically "If the majority of Americans like it, we must destroy it."

[sd'sker]

I'm not sure about the ins and outs of this particular bill, but if it is similar to what was passed in Florida, it would probably be largely ineffective anyway. No one was really bothered to follow or enforce those ordinances. I could see that being the case on a national scale.

 

If it was more similar to what carlfense was suggesting early in the thread, I could see something like that being more impactful.

this is true. there are already federal laws that those adjudicated mentally ill cannot possess guns. however, i get the impression most states do not report these people and they would be able to easily obtain a gun even with a background check.

[Junior]

I guess all this bitching and moaning is a bit silly. Should they have back ground checks for gun shows and online gun sales, yes.

 

But you are going after the people that aren't committing crimes. I know municipalities are offering "gun buy backs", but are those committing gun crimes, walking up and selling their guns?

 

I've got a brilliant idea for those up on Capital Hill, that are either butthurt or feeling like they've won something. How about coming up with a plan to get the guns away from those with criminal records? This bill isn't going to accomplish anything whether it would have passed or not.

 

 

Thank you....Can we please concentrate on something that is actually going to make a difference?

 

You don't think stopping random people from ordering guns almost anonymously on the internet would make a difference? I'm curious, what would make a difference?

 

Would allowing the ATF to require gun dealers submit inventories make a difference? The NRA (and therefore republicans) opposes that.

Would allowing federal money to go to research on gun crimes make a difference? The NRA (and therefore republicans) opposes that.

Assault weapons bans? Nope.

Expanding background checks? Nope.

Regulating magazine sizes? Nope.

Regulating ammunition sales? Nope.

 

So tell me, what? What would make the difference? What action, however minute, will the NRA allow us to take in order to stop the epidemic of gun violence?

 

I'm so tired of this just ridiculous idea that if the criminals will still get guns, we might as well not try. There will always be criminals. There will always be robberies, murders, rapes etc. That doesn't mean we don't try to make it harder. This idea that we have to find the one magic bullet (no pun intended) piece of policy that will solve all of the gun problems before we can do anything at all, is just maddening.

[QMany]

It is the first step, the first piece of legislation, before "Obama takes everyone's guns." Seriously, this is how some people view it.

[BigRedBuster]

I support back ground checks on internet sales and gun show sales.

 

But, that would have little if any affect on criminals and their guns.

 

So, I'm sure I would have voted for the bill if I were in Congress. But, all this emotional crap when it didn't pass is nothing but the Dem's version of politics for 2014 and 2016.

 

As opposed to the republican version of politics from 2008 to present? "If Obama likes it, we must destroy it!" Hell, its practically "If the majority of Americans like it, we must destroy it."

 

 

Where did I say Republicans don't play politics?

[Junior]

[BigRedBuster]

Only in America can you be anti death penalty, anti war, anti nuclear weapons, anti guns, anti torture, anti land mines and still be OK with killing innocent babies.

[Count 'Bility]

Only in America can you be anti death penalty, anti war, anti nuclear weapons, anti guns, anti torture, anti land mines and still be OK with killing innocent babies.

just like EVERYTHING else, it goes both ways. We know.

[carlfense]

I guess all this bitching and moaning is a bit silly. Should they have back ground checks for gun shows and online gun sales, yes.

 

But you are going after the people that aren't committing crimes. I know municipalities are offering "gun buy backs", but are those committing gun crimes, walking up and selling their guns?

 

I've got a brilliant idea for those up on Capital Hill, that are either butthurt or feeling like they've won something. How about coming up with a plan to get the guns away from those with criminal records? This bill isn't going to accomplish anything whether it would have passed or not.

 

 

Thank you....Can we please concentrate on something that is actually going to make a difference?

 

You don't think stopping random people from ordering guns almost anonymously on the internet would make a difference? I'm curious, what would make a difference?

 

Would allowing the ATF to require gun dealers submit inventories make a difference? The NRA (and therefore republicans) opposes that.

Would allowing federal money to go to research on gun crimes make a difference? The NRA (and therefore republicans) opposes that.

Assault weapons bans? Nope.

Expanding background checks? Nope.

Regulating magazine sizes? Nope.

Regulating ammunition sales? Nope.

 

So tell me, what? What would make the difference? What action, however minute, will the NRA allow us to take in order to stop the epidemic of gun violence?

 

I'm so tired of this just ridiculous idea that if the criminals will still get guns, we might as well not try. There will always be criminals. There will always be robberies, murders, rapes etc. That doesn't mean we don't try to make it harder. This idea that we have to find the one magic bullet (no pun intended) piece of policy that will solve all of the gun problems before we can do anything at all, is just maddening.

"Enforce the laws that we already have!" (Either ignoring or simply ignorant of the fact that the NRA/GOP actively works to make it harder to enforce gun laws.)

[Junior]

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-01/world/36682602_1_atf-operation-andrew-traver-fast-and-furious

 

An influential Republican senator has threatened to put on hold President Obama’s nominee to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, raising once again the possibility that the gun-regulating agency will not have a director.

The president two weeks ago nominated acting ATF Director B. Todd Jones to become the agency’s full-time director. The ATF has been without a director for six years.

 

 

The ATF has been without a director since the position was first required to be confirmed by the Senate in 2006. President George W. Bush’s first nominee, Michael J. Sullivan, was blocked by three Republican senators who accused Sullivan of not doing enough to end the ATF’s “overly burdensome regulatory policies” on gun owners.

 

The National Rifle Association vowed to fight Obama’s first nominee, Andrew Traver, who headed the ATF’s Chicago field office, accusing him of being “deeply aligned with gun-control advocates and anti-gun activities.”

 

Six years and two different presidents... and we have been unable to get a director of the ATF confirmed. Why? Republicans beholden to the NRA lobby.

[rawhide]

So this huge ATF department can't do anything without a director??? So we are paying for thousands of Federal employees to sit around and do nothing. I think not. The Director is just a mouthpiece. Just like the AG. These large government agencies grind on whether their boss is around or not. Directors are just policy lobbyists.