Gun Control Bill Dies in the Senate

[RecycleMichael]

heironymouspasparagus...are you really trying to compare soccer smack from an owner thirty years ago as a cause of gun violence today?

That is got to be the stupidest thing you have ever written.

[heironymouspasparagus]

heironymouspasparagus...are you really trying to compare soccer smack from an owner thirty years ago as a cause of gun violence today?

That is got to be the stupidest thing you have ever written.

Common...you know better than that!  The mild implication was that Lemon was an advocate of hate and violence in soccer.  And no, I don't even believe that - I remember hearing him quite a bit and he was - at least on screen - a decent seeming guy.  It IS a direct comment on the ignorance and radical statements made that people who have and use a certain type of gun are somehow 'criminals' waiting for an opportunity to "go postal" and start doing mass killing.  It is a much BIGGER crock of crap than my little comments related to Noel Lemon!

Was listening to the Fox this evening while Mark Kelly was talking to Chris Wallace.  He is a big advocate of the latest round of ignoring the root causes.  He specifically said that fewer people would die due to gun violence if the legislation were put in place.  Then, Chris Wallace said that LaPierre would say that we had done that for 10 years and it made no difference - both items true.  Kelly replied, and I quote from the interview;

"I don't know if it worked or not," Kelly said. "I haven't looked at all the statistics. Common sense tells me that if it is much more difficult for criminals and the mentally ill to get assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and guns in general, we will save lives."

And WHY, if you are going to be pushing an agenda, would you NOT know those things?  Kelly has less than zero credibility.  He has shown himself too lazy to bother with the most elementary effort of trying to make a case.  He is a tool.  He is depending solely on empathy, holding up his wife as an icon of the symptom with no understanding - or at least no demonstrated, on a national stage, understanding of the problems and their causes.  Or rational, workable, viable, meaningful, or effective solutions!

So, here we have a guy whose wife has endured a massive tragedy and survived.  He has jumped on a bandwagon while admitting no knowledge of the history (unless he is lying - he is a clear case of that whole "no sense or knowledge of history" thing).  And he is putting himself up as representative for a cause advocating a course of action with a proven failure of results from that course of action.  And yet, we have huge amounts of time, energy being wasted that could be spent actually looking for and putting solutions in place that might actually help.

Another point he talked about was the "gun show loophole" fallacy.  He said in effect, yeah, the NRA went along with background checks for some (when the NRA actually supported and pushed for those checks) and then mentioned the gun show and individual transfers not doing background checks.  Either he is intentionally lying...again... or is so woefully ignorant of the reality of gun show checks - they are done in place - ya gotta wonder why he is fronting for this type organization?  (SO much like the birther's and Donald Trump with their lies.)

You can see the video here;
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/mark-kelly-on-fox-presses-for-background-checks-this-isnt-about-the-second-amendment-anymore/

3:43 - "kill many people, many quickly"...  yeah, right.

And stepping on over to 4:20 seconds, he is making the point that several of us here have made, LaPierre makes, and would actually address the root cause.  (Watch - he will back peddle on that one soon, since it not only doesn't reinforce his groups point, it reinforces the NRA point.)  According to him, there have been 1.7 million fail the background checks since 1999.  Why didn't Bush I enforce the law?  Or Billy Bob?  Or Baby Bush?  Or now, Blobama??  When a convicted felon or someone who has been found to have mental issues - like Loughner - signs the forms and applies for a check to buy a gun, they are committing a felony!!  WHY IS THAT NOT ENFORCED??

And why do we continue to ignore the mental problems issue?  Why was Loughner outside of a formal treatment - be it voluntary or mandatory - when he had been kicked out of school for those issues??  Or Lanza?  All of these guys doing this stuff have a history and if they had been addressed before, there are a bunch of people still alive today!  And yet, today, even after all this - we continue to ignore the reality!!

And about 9:50 - he keeps up his pattern of lies.  Again, saying gun shows let criminals and mental problems just go willy-nilly grabbing guns and going around killing with impunity.

A discussion of causes and possible workable methods to address the issues would be such a refreshing change...

[Teatownclown]

I have more respect for "Brady bunchers" than I will ever have for the gunscum who insist their rights to buy a bright shiny new military-style phallus trump the rights of parents who want to enroll their kids in elementary schools that are free from armed guards and/or metal detectors.

I remember James Brady.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57562892/jim-bradys-wife-sarah-this-is-a-huge-moment-for-gun-control/

I remember Ruby Ridge and Waco.  Do YOU remember 42-year old deputy marshall William F. Dagan?  Me neither.  But I bet his family does.
If Mr. Weaver had done what any REAL AMERICAN CITIZEN does when arrested and understands he would have had his day in court, this would never have happened.
Do you remember that Randy Weaver was a racist white supremicist?  And yet he is martyred as some sort of saint because he refused to follow AMERICAN LAWS and appear in court...
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/08/26/us/fugitive-in-idaho-cabin-plays-role-of-folk-hero.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

The Branch Dividians were also TRAITORS to this country... traitors worse than Jane Fonda could ever dream of being...

http://www.culteducation.com/waco.html

Propaganda and profit.
Those are the values of the gun-nut anti-gubmint counterculture and their cronies in the NRA.

It is an insult to the people who worked at the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City that you should continue to ask whether we remember Ruby Ridge and Waco.... and then fail to mention the despicable traitorous acts of Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols, etc....

Do YOU remember the Oklahoma City bombing?

I do.
I was there.
I sang the service at the catholic church across the street the week after -- window blown out -- windows at the Regency condos/apts across the street also blown out.
I had a friend who worked for the Rotary Club and normally would have been buying breakfast bagels, etc. for staff at the Journal Record building across the street from the Murrah building at around 9:02 am.  But she had to be out of town that day.  She was pretty hysterical that day, if memory serves.

I had a family member completing her masters in social work at OU working at the VA in Norman... many vets were having relapses and the staff had to do a lockdown.
All the televisions in the hospital were showing footage of downtown OKC that looked like a war zone.
They couldn't turn them off fast enough.

Members of the gun counterculture and their ilk are the ones with blood on their hands.
Not the ATF.  Not the federal workers (SSA, ATF, DEA, Army recruiters, etc).
And certainly not those workers' children.

IMHO, anyone who mentions Ruby Ridge and Waco as rallying cries against gun control are domestic terrorist sympathizers and are part of the problem.

I don't blame the weapons; just the gun nuts who stockpile them.

Pity.

 

EXACTLY! When anybody comes out with the "taking our guns" battle cry, I know they are echoing hate for our US government. You can detect these types by their jingoistic tendencies, by their overt hugging of our vets and our flag.

Nice post Ruff.

It's all Janet Reno's fault.

[heironymouspasparagus]

And now for something entirely different...  (no, not Monty Python...)

If you caught the GoDaddy commercial, and were looking for the eye bleach, you can rest easy in the knowledge that you didn't see the one the network didn't allow.  And for those people, here you go....

Enjoy!

http://www.businessinsider.com/go-daddys-banned-2013-super-bowl-ad-with-bar-refaeli-2013-2

[Conan71]

Wasn't referring to you personally.
Was referring generally to those on this site who live in suburbs or low crime areas who insist on the moral superiority of packing heat.
Carrying a gun shouldn't be looked upon as some sort of badge of honor.
I have friends in Turley who have quite a few firearms in their home.

Wanting to protect ones-self hardly makes them a "gun-nutter".  Someone who sport shoots is hardly a "gun-nutter".

I live in a low crime area.  That doesn't mean random crimes don't occur in those areas from time-to-time.  It's safe to assume that if someone kicks in the door of a house, when there is a car or cars present in the driveway, they know there are people home and they are (or at least believe they are) capable of, over-powering the occupants either by physical force or they are armed.

In 1994 my neighbor's house across the street was broken into in the middle of the day.  His stepchildren were home alone on summer break.  They ran to a bedroom and locked the door when they heard the intruder kicking in the front door.  When the knob started rattling on the bedroom door, the oldest of the boys fired through the door with a .357 and center punched the burglar in the middle of the chest.  The intruder staggered out to the front yard where he collapsed deader than fried chicken.

I didn't live there then, it's a story my neighbor told me and I've verified it by looking up old newspaper accounts.  Gary is a sportsman and loves to hunt and fish.  His ex-wife's father was a retired LEO.  Between the two of them, they instilled respect for firearms and also properly trained the rest of the family in the use of firearms to protect themselves.  Had the kids not had the opportunity to protect themselves, we might have heard a different story about the mass slaying of four children in mid-town Tulsa.

I hope I never have to raise a firearm toward another human to protect myself.  I don't know of anyone who does carry for self defense who is merely waiting for a chance to cap someone.  Your decision not to carry is your business and I can respect that.  At least show the same respect for those who don't view it the same way you do rather than mocking people as thinking they are morally superior when that's far from the truth.

[TulsaRufnex]

What?  They didn't use an AK-47?  Oh, the shame....

http://hhshootingsports.com/WireShots/archives/3393

Because, once again, I've never argued against owning a .357.
Not once.
I've also never once argued against hunting deer or shooting skeet.

[heironymouspasparagus]

What?  They didn't use an AK-47?  Oh, the shame....

http://hhshootingsports.com/WireShots/archives/3393

Because, once again, I've never argued against owning a .357.
Not once.
I've also never once argued against hunting deer or shooting skeet.

Unless one wants to use an AK-47 or SKS or something that looks "bad" for deer hunting....

7.62 x 39 is an excellent deer cartridge.  Very good for a wide variety of medium sized game.  Not quite up to grizzly, but great for black bear.

[heironymouspasparagus]

EXACTLY! When anybody comes out with the "taking our guns" battle cry, I know they are echoing hate for our US government. You can detect these types by their jingoistic tendencies, by their overt hugging of our vets and our flag.

Pot, meet kettle...kettle, meet pot...

[TulsaRufnex]

The Ignorant Rantings of Unreasonable, Irresponsible Gun Nuts
By: Sarah Jones    Dec. 19th, 2012
http://www.politicususa.com/ignorant-rantings-gun-nuts.html

Like many of you, I've been the recipient of angry gun nuts' talking points. Yesterday a real gun nut told me to "shut the hell up" because he fought in Vietnam and held real weapons whereas according to him, I know nothing just because I support reasonable gun control. That was after one of them asked why he should care that children died. Clearly these are not well socialized people, and just as clearly, they don't speak for most gun owners.

Little does Gun Nut know that I have covered our military training on some pretty hefty weapons that I could barely hold up to my shoulder, and own a gun myself (though not a semi-automatic rifle, even a sporting one is not something I need for self-defense). I covered safety and skill training with our troops, as well as sitting in on a rules of engagement class.

I've also interviewed plenty of police in my time and had discussions about levels of engagement and weapons. These things only solidified my belief that TRAINING is important and no citizen should have a semi-automatic assault weapon modeled on the weapons built for military and law enforcement without some serious training.

Only fools think they don't need to learn anything before handling something so powerful.

So to all of the gun nuts who claim that a semi-automatic assault weapon is the "same thing" as a hunting semi-automatic, I say you are the problem and you should not have access to an assault weapon precisely because you don't respect the differences, the capability, and the power of such weapons.

If the military and police have to train to use these weapons, why don't you? Why should the police have to face untrained civilians carrying these weapons?

Respect for the incredible destruction these weapons are capable of is the first sign that maybe you can handle one. Pretending they are the "same" as a hunting rifle is the first clue that your ignorance renders you too dangerous to come near one.

Training is not a cure-all, either. As we can see, these weapons do not belong in the public sphere. They don't belong in our homes. One adult who is trained properly does not fix the problem of access for those who aren't, or the mental illness or pure crazy rage of those who aren't. There is no legitimate reason for having an assault weapon. You're not going to be able to fight the "government" with an assault weapon and you don't need it for self-protection. You don't need it to hunt (I'm not referring to semi-automatic sporting rifles here — read more carefully — though I note that use of one removes the "sporting" aspect from the equation) unless you are a complete idiot, which brings us back to those of you who should not own a gun in the first place.

For all of the gun nuts screaming about how their weapons are the same as any other weapon, get a clue. The 1994 assault weapon ban specifically protected over 670 types of hunting rifles and shotguns.

Here's how the Brady organization defines the difference between semi-automatic hunting rifles and semi-automatic, military-style assault weapons:

   Q. What is the difference between semi-automatic hunting rifles and semi-automatic, military-style assault weapons?

   A. Sporting rifles and assault weapons are two distinct classes of firearms. While semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile to kill an animal, semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to kill as many people quickly, as would be needed in combat.

   Opponents of banning assault weapons argue that these military-style weapons only "look" scary. Assault weapons look scary and are scary because they are equipped with combat hardware. Combat features like high-capacity ammunition magazines, pistol grips, folding stocks, and bayonets, which are not found on sporting guns, are designed specifically to facilitate the killing of human beings in battle.

   These combat features include:

   A large-capacity ammunition magazine which enables the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Many assault weapons come equipped with large ammunition magazines allowing more than 50 bullets to be fired without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines;
   A folding stock which facilitates maximum concealability and mobility in close combat (which comes at the expense of the accuracy desired in a hunting weapon);
   A pistol grip which facilitates spray-fire from the hip without losing control. A pistol grip also facilitates one-handed shooting;
   A barrel shroud which enables the shooter to shoot many rounds because it cools the barrel, preventing overheating. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire;
   A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor which allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire;
   A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer which allows an assassin to shoot without making noise;
   A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet which allows someone to stab a person at close quarters in battle.

So, gun nuts, cry us a river about your imaginary loss of rights as you continue to refuse any responsibility for learning about the actual law you're complaining about. Once again, we are back where we started. If you are too ignorant to learn about the law as you scream about it, then you are simply giving more fodder to the idea that you, specifically due to your angry ignorance, should not be able to own an assault weapon. If you are too lazy and stupid to be a responsible citizen, then you are too dangerous to own an assault weapon.

I don't believe I've ever called anyone a "stupid idiot" before in all of the years I've written here. So, Gun Nuts, consider yourselves special.

Thanks for making the case for those of us who support reasonable, common sense gun control. The second amendment does not come before other rights, and it seems we must protect the rights of our citizens to life and liberty over your right to be a dangerous idiot. I dare say you should thank us for protecting you from yourself, but I get the idea that you can't see what we see.

[nathanm]

As Biden said, buy a shotgun.

[Townsend]

Oklahoma Panel to Consider Church Gun Liability Immunity

http://kwgs.com/post/oklahoma-panel-consider-church-gun-liability-immunity

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — An Oklahoma Senate panel is to consider a proposal to make businesses and places of worship immune from liability if they don't ban firearms from their premises.

The bill Republican Senator AJ Griffin of Guthrie is scheduled to go before the Senate Public Safety Committee Thursday.

It also shields employers from legal liability if they don't ban employees from bringing guns onto the business's property.

Griffin's proposal is among dozens of gun-related bills moving through Oklahoma's legislature. Most of them intend to strengthen or protect current gun rights amid increased recent interest in gun legislation.

[TeeDub]

Personally I love this story.    Lets put more guns into high crime areas.

Kyle Coplen, who founded the Armed Citizens Project, is giving away 20-gauge single-shot shotguns to residents in mid- and high-crime neighborhoods to test whether or not the weapon will help reduce crime in the area, according to the group's website. Coplen says the weapons are not of much value to criminals, but are especially useful for citizens looking to protect themselves from criminals.


http://houston.cbslocal.com/2013/02/20/houston-group-giving-away-shotguns-high-crime-neighborhoods-to-test-if-crime-is-reduced/

[heironymouspasparagus]

Personally I love this story.    Lets put more guns into high crime areas.

Kyle Coplen, who founded the Armed Citizens Project, is giving away 20-gauge single-shot shotguns to residents in mid- and high-crime neighborhoods to test whether or not the weapon will help reduce crime in the area, according to the group's website. Coplen says the weapons are not of much value to criminals, but are especially useful for citizens looking to protect themselves from criminals.


http://houston.cbslocal.com/2013/02/20/houston-group-giving-away-shotguns-high-crime-neighborhoods-to-test-if-crime-is-reduced/

Stupid premise.  Single shot is a of little value outside of a limited range of uses.  I use a single shot a lot - the vast majority of my shooting is either with a one shot or with only one round loaded at a time.  Allows concentration and focus on the one instance at a time that occurs right then.  Requires thinking and practicing to make sure you hit the target with no recourse but to reload.  But then when I go hunting, I use the 3 shots allowed (migratory fowl - ducks.)  Or as many as I can get in the magazine for everything else.  That new 30 round may just come in handy after all...

A 5 shot pump would be much better choice, but then would also be more attractive to thieves.  This is one of those things that is "designed to fail".  Highly inappropriate.

[Gaspar]

The new assault rifles are out.



As previously discussed, the SAFE act and other local assault weapons measures like those passed in California, were focused on the appearance of the weapons.  Pistol grips, and flash suppressors are scary, and they make the typical AR-15, which is far less powerful than the typical hunting rifles, a bad weapon.

So they passed a noble law(s) to change the look of the weapons.  No longer can you have a pistol grip AND a detachable magazine on the same gun.  No longer can a flash suppressor be mounted to the end of the barrel on any weapon with a pistol grip.  Flash suppressors are out anyway, they are now called discharge gas diverters.

You can buy one of the new models or spend less than $100 for a kit to make your existing AR or AK California (and a few other states) legal.

[Conan71]

California Special: