Gun control discussion

[sasvermont]

And I'm curious, blue, so maybe you can answer this for me. This is a pet forum - right??? Well then why is it that you never (except on an extremely rare occasion), post anything about pets - be it yours or anyone else's??? You come here only to be rude and crude - abrupt and abrasive - as you choose to call it. Why don't you take your nastiness to a forum that would appreciate your m.o. - I've heard that there are plenty of them out there and I'm certain that you would be more than welcome to join many of them.

I totally agree with Pomtzu. Just for the record.

[RICHARD]

Regarding the media and them feeding the outrage about the Sandy Hook shootings?

IF there was few minutes at the end of any new broadcast devoted to clearing up mistakes made during the show?

There probably would be NO news on the tube.

----------------------

During my bouts of insomnia I tune into the rebroadcasts of the days news, any talking head will make me stop and listen.

For the BS, the hairdos and to watch people foam at the mouth.

I also watch for stupidity. Then I watch some more and in the a.m. I do a little searching on the interwebz.

If it's there, I am a French model, right?

------------------------

Last night I managed to catch the last 5 minutes of my favorite stooge, Rachel Maddow.

She is still reporting that an 'assault rifle' was used in the Sandy Hook shootings, contrary to popular belief.

I flipped the channel to FOX news and there was a discussion about the father of a child shot during the massacre.

Bill O'Really (My spelling) was going on about a report from Martin Bashir, an MSNBC puppet head.

MB played a tape from a hearing where the dad was supposedly heckled by 'gun nuts' at the hearing.

----------------------

The tape played, without the cute editing, was nowhere near a crowd heckling that father.

During his testimony, the gentleman challenged the people in attendance as to why they needed assault weapons and the extended magazines.

He stoppped and said there was no one "brave enough" to answer his challenge, after silence from the crowd, he repeated his challenge and a few people spoke up.

A gentleman (one of the politicos) then asked the crowd to quiet down, or the gallery would be cleared.

---------------------

The snappy editing and sloppy reporting made is sound like the GUN NUTS in the seats were acting like morons and disrespecting the man/hearings.

There is enough of a problem with idiots shooting up public areas - now we have to worry about the media making up stories, fanning the flames and never being help responsible for lying to the people who 'rely' on them for a story.

I guess it's true that 'truth be damned'?

[blue]

Me a stalker??? - that's really funny. All you need to do is look in the mirror to see who is the stalker here - a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Don't flatter yourself by thinking that I am following you.

I only respond to you when you are direct with me, I respect you.

I don't necessarily agree or disagree with Liz or ES, but I most definitely disagree with you and your rude and crude tactics. I suppose that your comment about "snow" wasn't rude and crude ??? - but there you go again - the pot calling the kettle black. Obviously that shoe fit you very well and you are very familiar with snow in all of it's forms.

And I still see no anger in anything I've posted. Try disgust on for size.

I find jokes about liberals and hard drugs funny. Cocaine=snow add in a liberal complaining, funny and I fail to find it crude. Now the urine freezing before it hits the ground, crude? Yes, still funny.

And I'm curious, blue, so maybe you can answer this for me. This is a pet forum - right??? Well then why is it that you never (except on an extremely rare occasion), post anything about pets - be it yours or anyone else's??? You come here only to be rude and crude - abrupt and abrasive - as you choose to call it. Why don't you take your nastiness to a forum that would appreciate your m.o. - I've heard that there are plenty of them out there and I'm certain that you would be more than welcome to join many of them.

I lurk mostly. I dont need my ego fed by the cute things my dogs or cat do so I dont post those. I do enjoy the posts of others, I just dont feel the need to comment. I also dont have the experience to comment in the posts needing expert help.

Nope - still no anger on my part.

Lot of text for no anger issues with me.

Have a super happy day!!!

Appreciate the happy thoughts while I am under the weather.

To add. Im not much liked here, by you and others. Im sure if I where to start commenting in the general areas my anti fan club would start hijacking innocent threads to attack me, the Echo Chamber.

[blue]

I can expound my response if the previous wasnt sufficient, Pom or sasvermont. Just let me know where I was insufficient.

[pomtzu]

I can expound my response if the previous wasnt sufficient, Pom or sasvermont. Just let me know where I was insufficient.

There you go again - you just can't drop it. However, I'm dropping it, as it really isn't worth my time.

[blue]

Thank you Pom for letting me know my response was sufficient.

[Lady's Human]

To get back on topic....

Finally a statement of fact about the issue from Vice President Biden:

"Nothing we are going to do is fundamentally going to alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down," Biden said, echoing remarks President Barack Obama made in January when he said "there is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely."

That being the case, let's try just for a moment enforcing the laws currently on the books, eliminating the barriers against including psychological information in NICS checks, and move on without restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

[lizbud]

"Nothing we are going to do is fundamentally going to alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down," Biden said, echoing remarks President Barack Obama made in January when he said "there is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely."

The same could be said about traffic offenses, shoplifting, cheating on your income taxes, harrassing your next door neighbor or deciding to hold a party right in the middle
of downtown traffic.

We will never completely stop people from doing any dumb thing they think up to do, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make it unlawful. Think about it. We can't NOT ACT
just because some people will break the law anyway.

Just because the constitution allows citizens to buy a weapon doesn't mean they can purchase ANY type of weapon their little hearts desire. Would you like your neighbor to have
a cannon in his front yard? Having limits can be a good thing.

[Lady's Human]

The same could be said about traffic offenses, shoplifting, cheating on your income taxes, harrassing your next door neighbor or deciding to hold a party right in the middle
of downtown traffic.

We will never completely stop people from doing any dumb thing they think up to do, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make it unlawful. Think about it. We can't NOT ACT
just because some people will break the law anyway.

Just because the constitution allows citizens to buy a weapon doesn't mean they can purchase ANY type of weapon their little hearts desire. Would you like your neighbor to have
a cannon in his front yard? Having limits can be a good thing.

A cannon? No problem. As long as the requisite legalities are taken care of, no issues whatsoever.

The examples you list are examples of people breaking existing laws. There's no constitutional right to do any of the things listed. However, there is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, upheld by the SCOTUS as an individual right. There are already limits on that right that have been enacted in law and adjudicated as appropriate limits. There is no need for further limits, despite the fearmongering by the media. Had psychiatric conditions been a limiting reason to restrict access to firearms, most of the recent events wouldn't have occurred, however, the right to patient privacy is evidently more important than a truly effective NICS system.

[RICHARD]

A cannon? No problem. As long as the requisite legalities are taken care of, no issues whatsoever.

The examples you list are examples of people breaking existing laws. There's no constitutional right to do any of the things listed. However, there is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, upheld by the SCOTUS as an individual right. There are already limits on that right that have been enacted in law and adjudicated as appropriate limits. There is no need for further limits, despite the fearmongering by the media. Had psychiatric conditions been a limiting reason to restrict access to firearms, most of the recent events wouldn't have occurred, however, the right to patient privacy is evidently more important than a truly effective NICS system.

http://carbide-cannons.carbidecannon.org/

----------------

Just had a discussion about Sandy Hook versus Aurora (versus Columbine/VA Tech and every other mass) shooting.

I guess some high school kids being shot wasn't as bad as a theater full of people, but a school full of kids gets people to 'act'?

I find it kinda strange that we refuse to put the same price on every life.

------------------

The Diane Feinstein gun act is exactly that, an act.

It's a stupid, minimalist approach (Can you say pretend) to a the existing gun laws.

I had a great laugh about DF going after a gun with a folding stock.

What?

WIH does a folding butt stock have to do with the lethality of a gun?
If you decide carry 12 ten round magazines how is that different than carrying 4 thirty round mags?
Does a foregrip on a gun make it deadlier?

You'd have to ask her, I really don't have an answer.

[cassiesmom]

To get back on topic....

Finally a statement of fact about the issue from Vice President Biden:

"Nothing we are going to do is fundamentally going to alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down," Biden said, echoing remarks President Barack Obama made in January when he said "there is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely."

That being the case, let's try just for a moment enforcing the laws currently on the books, eliminating the barriers against including psychological information in NICS checks, and move on without restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Dear VP Biden: Have you paid any attention to what's happened in Chicago this week? A girl with a very promising future was killed when she happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you, as the head of the task force, think that nothing you might do will help -- what does that say to America? Do your best to at least try to come up with something. Meanwhile, if you could help those charged with enforcing the current laws to do their jobs better, that would be a good start. Especially here in Chicago where the people are doing the shooting are at risk of ending up dead or imprisoned. Please listen to all the pastors and mothers and other people who are saying that something must change.

[Karen]

Dear VP Biden: Have you paid any attention to what's happened in Chicago this week? A girl with a very promising future was killed when she happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you, as the head of the task force, think that nothing you might do will help -- what does that say to America? Do your best to at least try to come up with something. Meanwhile, if you could help those charged with enforcing the current laws to do their jobs better, that would be a good start. Especially here in Chicago where the people are doing the shooting are at risk of ending up dead or imprisoned. Please listen to all the pastors and mothers and other people who are saying that something must change.

I feel sorry for the mothers and families of Chicago (and everywhere) whose lives are marred by this violence. But I doubt the guns involved were purchased legally, or the perpetrators have any fear of repercussions from using them illegally. More needs to change in the culture of these neighborhoods - wherever they are - than any law will fix, no matter how far-reaching and specific. Serious, long-term work needs to be done addressing the causes of the violence, which is more to the heart of the matter than the guns by which it gets expressed.

I do think we also need to address the mental health aspect of this, in most "school shootings" cases that make the news, there were red flags raised about the mental health of the eventual shooter, but because of patient privacy laws, nothing was done. But targeting the weapons themselves is far simpler and politically more newsworthy than addressing that difficult, complex, legally and ethically difficult issue of mental health.

[Lady's Human]

CM, if the inanimate objects were the heart of the problem, then there would be far more violent deaths in, for instance, rural areas of upstate New York than there are in Chicago, as firearms are far more prevalent in rural areas than they are in cities.

Most people have them, no one, frankly, cares. As stated earlier in the thread they are simply a part of the landscape.

It's not the firearms, it's the people. You could address the tools all day long, but unless you do something about the root cause of the violence then nothing will change.

[RICHARD]

CM, if the inanimate objects were the heart of the problem, then there would be far more violent deaths in, for instance, rural areas of upstate New York than there are in Chicago, as firearms are far more prevalent in rural areas than they are in cities.

Most people have them, no one, frankly, cares. As stated earlier in the thread they are simply a part of the landscape.

It's not the firearms, it's the people. You could address the tools all day long, but unless you do something about the root cause of the violence then nothing will change.

Assign Eric Holder to monitor the guns. They'll disappear....

[cassiesmom]

CM, if the inanimate objects were the heart of the problem, then there would be far more violent deaths in, for instance, rural areas of upstate New York than there are in Chicago, as firearms are far more prevalent in rural areas than they are in cities.

Most people have them, no one, frankly, cares. As stated earlier in the thread they are simply a part of the landscape.

It's not the firearms, it's the people. You could address the tools all day long, but unless you do something about the root cause of the violence then nothing will change.

There seems to be a lot of finger-pointing. Mayor Emanuel should do something. Or the Chicago schools should do more. Or it's up to Gov. Quinn and the legislature to make better laws. Or the police aren't doing enough. Or the problem is lack of jobs. Or the problem is drugs. Or someone needs to do something about family instability. Round and round we go. There seem to be a lot of causes but no way to hit any one of them hard enough to have a big effect on the violence.