the most recent gun-control debate

[EmptyTimCup]

Everything you need to know about the most recent gun-control debate (but didn’t have anyone to ask), Part 1

After some relatively quiet years, the national gun debate locked and loaded for another round last week after President Obama hinted his desire to reform the current background check system. Plenty has happened in the past few years with both sides entrenched in deep partisan arguments. To prepare readers for the onslaught of over-exaggerated political rhetoric, ambitious policies and former victims crying before the camera, The Daily Caller is launching a multi-part guide for readers not entirely up to snuff.​

So much for a new non-partisan discussion

On Sunday March 13, President Obama took his first tiny steps into reigniting the debate over America’s oldest pastime: firearms.

He pleaded that we “find a sensible way to make the United States of America a safer, stronger place.” Avoiding the word “debate” in all but one instance (“… we can get beyond … stale political debates”), President Obama called for a “common sense” discussion.

That lasted less than 72 hours.

 

[Inkd]

Any time some political fu**wad brings up "common sense gun control" the hairs on the back of my neck start standing up and I want to start buying more ammo.

 

[EmptyTimCup]

Any time some political fu**wad brings up "common sense gun control" the hairs on the back of my neck start standing up and I want to start buying more ammo.

 

[Inkd]

I guess i'll be seeing if my contributions to the NRA have been worthwhile. I knew it was only a matter of time before this administration started in on this. It's almost like they were waiting for something like this to happen so they could release the hounds.

I bet everyone who is supporting these bills had one big massive orgasm when that azzwipe Loughner did what he did.

 

[EmptyTimCup]

Everything you need to know about the most recent gun-control debate (but didn’t have anyone to ask), Part II

Gun-controllers offer the most common sense talking points — not to mention confidence — when it comes to the issue of high-capacity clips.

Illinois Democratic Rep. Mike Quigley, one of the Democrats who appeared at the Tuesday Bloomberg press conference, reminded the public that the recent Supreme Court rulings (Heller v. the District of Columbia and McDonald v. Chicago) don’t mean that there can’t be “reasonable” restrictions on gun access. While both the McDonald and Heller cases found that those “reasonable” restrictions were actually an impediment to basic 2nd Amendment rights, Quigley made clear what high capacity clips are designed for.

“[They] aren’t for protecting your home or hunting deer, they’re for hunting people,” Quigley told TheDC. “The Supreme Court made it crystal clear the 2nd Amendment is not an unlimited right — not everyone has a right to own whatever gun they want, wherever they want — and that includes limiting access to these weapons that serve no purpose other than to cause catastrophic harm.”

Gun-rights advocates say that law-abiding citizens should not be prohibited from using high-capacity clips at gun ranges and competitions, although the NRA dismissed legislation offering such exemptions as “rationing freedoms.”

No Weapons are not for Hunting they are for protecting one from and Abusive Government who would trample OUR RIGHTS ........

 

[Larry Gude]

The moment was lost at Virginia Tech and now again in Tucson.

In both cases, individuals with known problems were swept under the rug when the questions should have been put to health care providers AND THE TUCSON police;

"What did you need in terms of authority to intervene and/or sound the alarm on these folks when you found out how troubled they were? What interfered with you doing your job to help these people and/or protect everyone else from them?"

Instead, one side wants repeal of the 2nd amendment and the other wants zero restrictions on it.

So, we straddle the fence and take another blow to the groin.

It's how we do. :shrug:

 

[dustin]

meanwhile thousands of people have died from machete attacks in Africa...

people will still murder people... and more regulations, laws, and encroachments on liberty are not going to change that.

 

[Inkd]

The moment was lost at Virginia Tech and now again in Tucson.

In both cases, individuals with known problems were swept under the rug when the questions should have been put to health care providers AND THE TUCSON police;

"What did you need in terms of authority to intervene and/or sound the alarm on these folks when you found out how troubled they were? What interfered with you doing your job to help these people and/or protect everyone else from them?"

Instead, one side wants repeal of the 2nd amendment and the other wants zero restrictions on it.

So, we straddle the fence and take another blow to the groin.

It's how we do. :shrug:

Exactly, everyone is ignoring the underlying causes. People knew about these individuals having mental issues, controls were in place that did not work that should have worked but yet again people, as it is with so many issues, ignore the root cause of the problem and go off to push their own agenda.

I used to have issues with the NRA because I thought if they would just give a little and be willing to meet inthe middle, progress would actually be made. But i've come to realize that there is no middle ground, like you said.

I feel if we, as responsible gun owners, concede to one point that gun control advocates want, it will be one small crack in the dam. Now I' am rabidly opposed to any new form of legislation brought forth buy a gun control advocate when there are more than enough regulations on the books that are not being enforced properly.

 

[Larry Gude]

Exactly, everyone is ignoring the underlying causes. People knew about these individuals having mental issues, controls were in place that did not work that should have worked but yet again people, as it is with so many issues, ignore the root cause of the problem and go off to push their own agenda.

I used to have issues with the NRA because I thought if they would just give a little and be willing to meet inthe middle, progress would actually be made. But i've come to realize that there is no middle ground, like you said.

I feel if we, as responsible gun owners, concede to one point that gun control advocates want, it will be one small crack in the dam. Now I' am rabidly opposed to any new form of legislation brought forth buy a gun control advocate when there are more than enough regulations on the books that are not being enforced properly.

I was watching Sheriff Tucson prattle on to sympathetic 'reporters' about his woes and waited in vain for a 'reporter', any reporter, to ask the obvious; "What did you need in order to have locked this guy up given your repeated contacts with him and allegations of dangerous, threatening behavior?"

Agenda. Agenda. Agenda.

Sad.