Gun Control

[Someone]

"I don't regret the content as much as I regret the timing," Bell, R-Mena, told The Associated Press.

 

H"ouse Speaker Davy Carter apologized to Boston on Friday for Bell's remark, which he called "inappropriate and insensitive."

"I can assure the people of Boston and the people of Massachusetts that Arkansans have them in their thoughts and prayers during this tragic time," Carter, R"

 

"House GOP leaders also distanced themselves from Bell's remark.

"Rep. Bell's remarks do not reflect our caucus' position," House Majority Leader Bruce Westerman, R-Hot Springs"

[QMany]

"Rep. Bell's remarks do not reflect our caucus' position," House Majority Leader Bruce Westerman, R-Hot Springs"

Yes it does, it was just an insensitive time to say it.

[Someone]

On Fox News website, searching for Nate Bell yields 0 hits.

 

Nate Bell's website was hacked and is now down.

 

No sign of Fox's plans to to put his face on TV tonight.

[Ziggy]

"It's not going to stop the criminals."

 

For many here, unless a law can be 100% effective, it shouldn't pass the Senate. That's madness, of course.

 

We have laws about illegal drugs without stopping all drug sales/use.

We have laws about drunk driving without stopping everyone who drives drunk.

 

In fact, ~99.999% of all laws fail to stop 100% of the crime they target. Does that mean we should have any laws?

 

The facts show that drunk driving deaths are down 50% since tougher drunk driving laws went into effect. Increase use of seatbelts and air bags might have some impact on that but even with more cars driving more miles, deaths are down 50%.

 

We know about people go online and buy guns that they otherwise wouldn't be allowed to buy for a dealer who does the required background checks. People have been killed. The killers got there guns online. Nobody cared enough to stop them.

 

http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0

 

 

Please inform everyone which amendment to the Bill of Rights protects drugs usage, drinking alcohol, or even driving a car? I think most people approve of some common sense measures that would actually help reduce gun violence rather than just reduce the rights granted in the second amendment to people who want to buy weapons to use legally. I personally agree that online sales should have some background checks in order to complete sales, but its also true that people illegally acquire weapons without the internet too. And the reason we are having gun control talks is not because of those cases that your article brings about, its because of Sandy Hook and the Colorado shooting, which both instances are legally bought weapons, that passed background checks.

[Ziggy]

I know I sleep better knowing I have a AK-15 when a man who is believed to leave bombs around is in the neighborhood.

 

My AK-15 can be used to shoot shrapnel out of the air as it flies towards me and my family.

 

If that is his real twitter account, he's done.

 

That is so helpful to this thread.....a rifle may not stop a bomb blast, but it sure ups the odds that you can defend your house/family if this guy tries to hide in your house. I don't know why having a rifle or other defense weapon would be a negative in a situation like this. Oh that's right gun laws are going to protect people from the bomber breaking into your house and taking your family hostage....good luck with that.

[carlfense]

I think most people approve of some common sense measures that would actually help reduce gun violence rather than just reduce the rights granted in the second amendment to people who want to buy weapons to use legally.

Does the background check legislation that was filibustered by the GOP meet your definition of common sense measures?

 

What exactly do you mean by "rather than just reduce granted in the second amendment"?

 

I personally agree that online sales should have some background checks in order to complete sales, but its also true that people illegally acquire weapons without the internet too.

Of course people illegally acquire weapons without the internet. Just because some people break laws doesn't mean that we shouldn't have laws.

[Ziggy]

I think most people approve of some common sense measures that would actually help reduce gun violence rather than just reduce the rights granted in the second amendment to people who want to buy weapons to use legally.

Does the background check legislation that was filibustered by the GOP meet your definition of common sense measures?

 

What exactly do you mean by "rather than just reduce granted in the second amendment"?

 

I personally agree that online sales should have some background checks in order to complete sales, but its also true that people illegally acquire weapons without the internet too.

Of course people illegally acquire weapons without the internet. Just because some people break laws doesn't mean that we shouldn't have laws.

 

I think some of that bill was pretty good, still some holes that needed to be fixed, but from what little I read about it I would have voted in favor. Some Dems voted against it too, granted they are in red states up for re-election soon so they didn't have much choice. Not sure what your question is for the second part, you misquoted me, but I think we should be very careful when changing rights that are granted in our Bill of Rights.

 

Second, you either didn't read my post, or you are trying to gain points for whatever reason. I specifically said I support background checks on online sales. But I laugh at people who think a law is going to stop people from committing a crime. The article that "someone" posted shows multiple ex-cons who are breaking the law by acquiring guns, so somehow another law is going to stop them from doing it, no they will find a new way to get guns. I agree we need to make it as difficult as possible to keep guns out of criminals hands, but it needs to also respect the rights of citizens to the right to ear arms.

[Junior]

http://www.huffingto...ref=mostpopular

 

Adolphus Busch IV, heir to the Busch family brewing fortune, resigned his lifetime membership in the National Rifle Association on Thursday, writing in a letter to NRA President David Keene, "I fail to see how the NRA can disregard the overwhelming will of its members who see background checks as reasonable."

 

"The NRA I see today has undermined the values upon which it was established," wrote Busch. "Your current strategic focus clearly places priority on the needs of gun and ammunition manufacturers while disregarding the opinions of your 4 million individual members."

[Someone]

 

I laugh at people who think a law is going to stop people from committing a crime. The article that "someone" posted shows multiple ex-cons who are breaking the law by acquiring guns, so somehow another law is going to stop them from doing it, no they will find a new way to get guns. I agree we need to make it as difficult as possible to keep guns out of criminals hands, but it needs to also respect the rights of citizens to the right to ear arms.

 

Did the ex cons go to a federally licensed gun dealer? No? Why not?

 

Would it not "make it as difficult as possible to keep guns out of criminals hands" by restricting ways these criminals can buy a gun?

 

The right to bear arms is not an absolute right without restrictions. You can't take a weapon into a courthouse or in your carry on on a plane. You can't own certain weapons.

 

Some restrictions already exist. Dealers already do background checks. To act like its an absolute right that can't be regulated in any way is naive.

 

If you don't "think a law is going to stop [sOME] people from committing a crime" then you must think we should have no laws at all.

[Saunders]

I havent read the last version of the BC bill, but I know the one from a few weeks ago was complete garbage (for instance, handing a gun to a friend outside your home or a designated range is a felony), but supposedly they cleaned it up. What really grinds my gears is politicians waving bloody shirts to push an agenda, even when they admit those changes wouldn't have helped the bloddy shirt victim in the first place.

 

I did find this survey of 15,000 cops interesting though.

 

 

1.) Virtually all respondents (95 percent) say that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.

 

 

Full survey link here.

[sd'sker]

it might not reduce the crime rate, but it could reduce mass shootings.

[Saunders]

it might not reduce the crime rate, but it could reduce mass shootings.

There are already millions of normal capacity mags (not high cap, 100+) in circulation. We also have people making mags and lower receivers with 3D printers (a guy even made an AK47 almost completely out of a shovel). It's not hard to reload extremely fast with minimal practice, and in many cases of these mass shootings, it's not even required, because the shooter is walking around uncontested (gun free zones only stop honest people) for a substantial period of time. IIRC, Adam Lanza averaged 6 shots per minute. That's not exactly fast, and he didn't even empty any of his mags.

 

So yes, it could have an effect, but it's not likely.

[sd'sker]

i guess the need to have an extended magazine outweighs the want to reduce mass shootings.

[NebraskaHarry]

i guess the need to have an extended magazine outweighs the want to reduce mass shootings.

5 ten round mags vs 10 five round mags... I'm all for background checks. Tough one's in fact. But this idea that reducing the number of rounds in a magazine is going to make a difference is dumb. What those people really want are 0 round mags. We get the hint.

[Saunders]

i guess the need to have an extended magazine outweighs the want to reduce mass shootings.

Those aren't mutually exclusive, and your statement is an exercise in bad logic. There's no data that says that mag bans will reduce mass shootings. In fact, for the most part, the only people who say that it will, have little to no experience with guns. Cops don't think it will help, same as the "assault weapons" ban.

 

 

Interesting what they do think will help though.