Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Obama Closes Background-Check Gun-Law Loophole Options · View
Guest
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2013 2:53:32 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 531,839
Obama moves to close two key loopholes on gun sales. The Justice Department will write a regulation requiring background checks for people who register machine guns or short-barreled shotguns through a trust or corporation, closing one loophole on background checks. The administration also will stop allowing imports of surplus military firearms that the government has provided or sold overseas.

Question is - Is that enough or is there something/anything that could move congress to really act on gun reform?
Ruthie
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2013 7:05:26 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,304
Location: United States
Kristind wrote:
Obama moves to close two key loopholes on gun sales. The Justice Department will write a regulation requiring background checks for people who register machine guns or short-barreled shotguns through a trust or corporation, closing one loophole on background checks. The administration also will stop allowing imports of surplus military firearms that the government has provided or sold overseas.

Question is - Is that enough or is there something/anything that could move congress to really act on gun reform?


Trusts or corporations which register machine guns or short barreled shotguns are already restricted in what they can do with them. A convicted felon who has a gun in a trust or corporation still can't carry it around in public. I suspect that corporations, in particular, have someone that can pass a background check. The Obama administration doesn't plan to do anything of substance about gun control, just symbolic gestures like this one. There are plenty of available guns without the imports. That may slow a few people down, but it really won't stop anyone from arming themselves. A Republican congress will never do anything about guns, and a Democratic one won't either. They'll always make sure that there are just enough votes to keep any thing meaningful from happening.

Guest
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2013 7:48:24 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 531,839
Ruthie wrote:


Trusts or corporations which register machine guns or short barreled shotguns are already restricted in what they can do with them. A convicted felon who has a gun in a trust or corporation still can't carry it around in public. I suspect that corporations, in particular, have someone that can pass a background check. The Obama administration doesn't plan to do anything of substance about gun control, just symbolic gestures like this one. There are plenty of available guns without the imports. That may slow a few people down, but it really won't stop anyone from arming themselves. A Republican congress will never do anything about guns, and a Democratic one won't either. They'll always make sure that there are just enough votes to keep any thing meaningful from happening.


Well, with those two loopholes open, I think Obama, or someone, needed to close them. So, to that purpose. I'm glad to see it got done. It is the only thing I ever wanted to see accomplished for the immediate situation. It is what my main argument was with MrNudiePants last spring.
I agree, even though something should be done to reform gun laws, I don't think this congress will do anything meaningful. But I'm wondering, what should they at least try to do? What kind of reform would be meaningful? Did the 'forefathers' even think this could become the problem it is today? If the majority opinion is 'no' then, how does it get reformed.

Or, are we just to live with it until another uncivil war of gun militias against the govt perpetuates itself?
MadMartigan
Posted: Saturday, August 31, 2013 8:14:11 AM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 6/17/2013
Posts: 2,080
Location: United States
Kristind wrote:


Well, with those two loopholes open, I think Obama, or someone, needed to close them. So, to that purpose. I'm glad to see it got done. It is the only thing I ever wanted to see accomplished for the immediate situation. It is what my main argument was with MrNudiePants last spring.
I agree, even though something should be done to reform gun laws, I don't think this congress will do anything meaningful. But I'm wondering, what should they at least try to do? What kind of reform would be meaningful? Did the 'forefathers' even think this could become the problem it is today? If the majority opinion is 'no' then, how does it get reformed.

Or, are we just to live with it until another uncivil war of gun militias against the govt perpetuates itself?


Symbolic gesture or not, it is better than nothing in my estimation. Hopefully it is just a gradual easing into tough gun legislation down the line. However, as long as the Republicans control either the House or the Senate, meaningful gun laws will never see the light of day. Even if Dems control both, you're going to need a meaningful #s advantage. Personally, they should try anyway. The Repubs have already alienated the female vote (other than the crazy parts of the populations). Just let them dig their own graves over gun control.

Personally, I will feel Obama lacking in this area until assault weapons are banned completely in the US.
Guest
Posted: Saturday, August 31, 2013 2:08:59 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 531,839
Yes there's more, but one step at a time is good footing considering the US gun lobby.

US earth dwellers are hard pressed for actual decisive and proactive movement.
Magical_felix
Posted: Saturday, August 31, 2013 4:41:53 PM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,871
Location: California
Watch out Amuricah, that foreigner is gonna take our freedom fries next! This here is hows it starts!



Guest
Posted: Saturday, August 31, 2013 5:49:47 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 531,839
Magical_felix wrote:
Watch out Amuricah, that foreigner is gonna take our freedom fries next! This here is hows it starts!


LMAO
shaun69
Posted: Saturday, August 31, 2013 11:06:22 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 2/27/2011
Posts: 13
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
I do not understand the need to bare arms, I am ignorant to this but t gives of the vision of a very violent society, yet I speak to many people on here that are the most charming people. If I am showing my ignorance I do not mean to offend, but would quite like to understand
Guest
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 12:16:31 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 531,839
shaun69 wrote:
I do not understand the need to bare arms, I am ignorant to this but t gives of the vision of a very violent society, yet I speak to many people on here that are the most charming people. If I am showing my ignorance I do not mean to offend, but would quite like to understand


Thanks for your input. Personally, I don't think our nations second amendment in todays society is what they had in mind. In fact, I venture to say the 'fore fathers' are turning in their grave when one thinks of the violent and unruly of a society we have become. These people clinging to their weapons with their cold dead hands, unwillingly to accept that change must occur if we are to survive as a society, are so incredibly selfish in humble opinion. Cuz if they think their weapons can win against an army or national guard, if it were to come to that...well, they're just being foolish. Thanks for your input Shaun69.
1ball
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 12:32:31 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
shaun69 wrote:
I do not understand the need to bare arms, I am ignorant to this but t gives of the vision of a very violent society, yet I speak to many people on here that are the most charming people. If I am showing my ignorance I do not mean to offend, but would quite like to understand


Sometimes governments fail and lawlessness happens for a while. It can be a case of, "When seconds matter, help is minutes, hours, days, weeks or months away." Look at the Los Angeles/Rodney King riots in the early 1990's. Storekeepers who had guns (and used them) kept looters away. The police only cordoned off their headquarters because they knew they didn't stand a chance trying to stop the riots.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Jack_42
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 1:01:54 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/21/2009
Posts: 986
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
Bearing guns like any kind of violence is childish. I realise that there could be a situation where my possession of a gun would be desirable however I am willing to take the chance just like I take my life in my hand crossing the road considering the number of lunatics with driving licences. If anyone can quote me a time when starting violence is acceptable. I may rethink this one but so far no-one I know can think of any such example.
bassguitarbubba
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 2:37:00 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 404
Location: So. California, United States
California already does background checks, and have for many years. Those convicted of a felony, certain misdemeanors and those who have been found to have mental issues cannot lawfully purchase a gun. The keyword here is lawfully. Does this keep the aforementioned groups from obtaining a gun? You can answer that one for yourselves.

Making guns illegal is not the answer, either. Look how well that tact is working on drugs.

I will not rely on the govenment to protect me or my family. Don't get me wrong...I support the police. They, however, are understaffed and over worked. There is truth in the addage "when seconds count, we're just minutes away."

Let's keep the politics out of it for just one moment. I truly enjoy going to the pistol range to shoot at targets. I get to work on my hand-eye coordination, I get away from life's stressors and it's a very relaxing sport. I highly recommend anyone who hasn't shot a pistol to go to your local pistol range, take a course in gun safety (the courses are generally only a few hours long) and try it. You may enjoy it.

A pistol/hunting rifle/shotgun are inanimate tools. They do nothing until they are picked up and used. Like any other tool, sometimes it is misused. I fully understand what the issues are and in no way am I trying to minimize the tragedies that have occurred. Proper training, education and parental involvement in a child's life would reduce the occurances of this type of tool misuse. It won't stop all misuse because people, after all, are still people and the sad truth is that the government can do nothing to stop gun violence. No amount of regulation, law or punishment will keep someone who wants a gun from obtaining a gun.

I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion on his very volatile topic. This is my opinion and I hope it is taken in the spirit in which it is was given.
1ball
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 12:28:14 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Jack_42 wrote:
If anyone can quote me a time when starting violence is acceptable. I may rethink this one but so far no-one I know can think of any such example.


Why would that be relevant? Guns don't start violence and the people who bear them don't necessarily start violence. Guns generally make one more prepared for violence and to respond to violence than being unarmed.

But you've brought up the issue of starting violence. When does violence start? Is it when the person comes at you with a baseball bat or when you respond to that by shooting him? Do you have to wait for him to hit you before you can justify self-defense?

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Monocle
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 12:43:50 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 300
1ball wrote:

Guns generally make one more prepared for violence and to respond to violence than being unarmed.

When does violence start? Is it when the person comes at you with a baseball bat or when you respond to that by shooting him? Do you have to wait for him to hit you before you can justify self-defense?


Unfounded assertion and false dichotomy. I'm shocked.
Jack_42
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 2:21:44 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/21/2009
Posts: 986
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
1ball wrote:


Why would that be relevant? Guns don't start violence and the people who bear them don't necessarily start violence. Guns generally make one more prepared for violence and to respond to violence than being unarmed.

But you've brought up the issue of starting violence. When does violence start? Is it when the person comes at you with a baseball bat or when you respond to that by shooting him? Do you have to wait for him to hit you before you can justify self-defense?


Their function is violence and nothing else - don't give me that crap about target practice. Your example of the baseball bat is obviously the start of violence but I refer you to my example of the motor car. I am still willing to take the chance and if everybody thought like me the world would be a better place. And to that end I have to have the strength of my convictions and not react like some kid in the playground who hits out to get their own way but take a chance on the baseball bat, the motor car, the tyre iron, the knife, the cricket bat, or whatever nasty implement the immature person is willing to attack me with. Let's face it there are situations where no matter how many guns I have I will be defeated so the fail safe idea is also up for grabs. Actually if someone in the UK attacked me with a baseball bat I would have to justify the grounds of whatever means I used to stop him the law says I can use just enough violence to adequately defend myself and shooting him with a gun would not be taken as justifiable. Grow up - westerns make fun viewing but that's it. Woa Trigger.
Guest
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 3:59:23 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 531,839
bassguitarbubba wrote:
A pistol/hunting rifle/shotgun are inanimate tools. They do nothing until they are picked up and used. Like any other tool, sometimes it is misused. I fully understand what the issues are and in no way am I trying to minimize the tragedies that have occurred. Proper training, education and parental involvement in a child's life would reduce the occurances of this type of tool misuse. It won't stop all misuse because people, after all, are still people and the sad truth is that the government can do nothing to stop gun violence. No amount of regulation, law or punishment will keep someone who wants a gun from obtaining a gun.

I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion on his very volatile topic. This is my opinion and I hope it is taken in the spirit in which it is was given.


I think it is real lofty to use the adage 'guns don't kill people, people kill people.' I admit, baseball bats, knives, crowbars, you get the idea, kill people as well. However, guns are the weapon of choice. A gun was not made to remove a tire from a wheel. A gun was not made to hit a baseball. Yet, a baseball bat or a a crowbar can be used to inflict pain or death. A gun, however, has a trigger that, when squeezed, will impose itself on an intended target. And yet at the same time I am not saying "take the guns". That's not what I'm about. That's not what I intended with this thread. Moreover, if anyone chooses to overlook the real problem that the second amendment right imposes on today's society, then they are simply avoiding addressing the question. Parental involvement in a child's life may reduce occurrences of the "tools" misuse. Agreed. But no amount of "parental involvement" is going to change the mindset of criminals using guns to advance their crime. No other country has the problem the U.S. with this "misuse" of a tool and for society as a whole to shrug their shoulders and say "oh well. C'est la vie", IMHO is part of the problem.

Hence the question, and lets try to use our heads and less shrugging our shoulders, what can Congress do to advance meaningful gun law reform?

I think a good start would be even harsher mandatory laws than we already have and replacing those incarcerated for marijuana with these real criminals will free up lots of space.

I think America is better than this.

Guest
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 4:01:17 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 531,839
1ball wrote:


Why would that be relevant? Guns don't start violence and the people who bear them don't necessarily start violence. Guns generally make one more prepared for violence and to respond to violence than being unarmed.

But you've brought up the issue of starting violence. When does violence start? Is it when the person comes at you with a baseball bat or when you respond to that by shooting him? Do you have to wait for him to hit you before you can justify self-defense?


Christ, 1 Ball...what an ignorant statement. You simply like arguing and jacking threads. Put up a real discussion or quit. Let me acquaint you with the question, since you failed to absorb the purpose of this thread...

...Obama moves to close two key loopholes on gun sales. The Justice Department will write a regulation requiring background checks for people who register machine guns or short-barreled shotguns through a trust or corporation, closing one loophole on background checks. The administration also will stop allowing imports of surplus military firearms that the government has provided or sold overseas.

Question is - Is that enough or is there something/anything that could move congress to really act on gun reform?

Simple enough?
Jack_42
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 4:30:18 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/21/2009
Posts: 986
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
If this debate didn't involve death it would be a joke. To most of the western world owning a machine gun as a private individual is so outrageous it borders on the comic. Like Monty Python's gangs of delinquent old ladies it's so over the top it's funny like a scene from Some Like It Hot. And all these crazy reasons for owning one - the usual emotive ''defending my family from crazed maniacs'' etc are ludicrous. People are probably more likely to have their kids drown in the neighbours' swimming pool than get shot by a gun wielding delinquent. What's the next step your own private tank or armoured personnel carrier?
Guest
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 5:12:27 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 531,839
Jack_42 wrote:
If this debate didn't involve death it would be a joke. To most of the western world owning a machine gun as a private individual is so outrageous it borders on the comic. Like Monty Python's gangs of delinquent old ladies it's so over the top it's funny like a scene from Some Like It Hot. And all these crazy reasons for owning one - the usual emotive ''defending my family from crazed maniacs'' etc are ludicrous. People are probably more likely to have their kids drown in the neighbours' swimming pool than get shot by a gun wielding delinquent. What's the next step your own private tank or armoured personnel carrier?


Ya know...i have read in this think tank on Lush...some second amendment radicals truly believe it is their right to have tanks and even fighter planes if they had a place to put it and fly it. True story. I shit you not. I have read it. Stupid? Yep! Over the top? Yep? America? I hope not!
bassguitarbubba
Posted: Monday, September 02, 2013 3:46:12 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 404
Location: So. California, United States
Kristind wrote:


Parental involvement in a child's life may reduce occurrences of the "tools" misuse. Agreed. But no amount of "parental involvement" is going to change the mindset of criminals using guns to advance their crime.

I think a good start would be even harsher mandatory laws than we already have and replacing those incarcerated for marijuana with these real criminals will free up lots of space.

I think America is better than this.



Although you agreed with me about "parental involvement" it seems you missed the point. If parents got involved with their kids in a meaningful and loving way, there would be less criminals. They wouldn't disappear by any means, but I think there would be less.

I'm not sure where you live but I doubt there are people in prison for marijuana related offenses. Since you brought up releasing prisoners, the US Supreme court recently upheld an order for California to release 10,000 prisoners due to prison over crowding. Three justices dissented but it wasn't enough to overturn the ruling. Here is what one media outlet wrote: "Justice Antonin Scalia penned a vicious dissent, warning of murders and rapes to come as a result of the court-ordered prisoner release. Scalia, along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, dissented from Friday's ruling as well."

There you have it. 10,000 violent criminals who were convicted of violating existing "mandatory laws" are being released from prison, and there still won't be room for the "real criminals" as you put it. Aren't murderers and rapists real enough criminals for you? What good is writing "harsher mandatory laws" when those convicted of existing laws are being released because of over crowding?
bassguitarbubba
Posted: Monday, September 02, 2013 3:53:44 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 404
Location: So. California, United States
Jack_42 wrote:


I am still willing to take the chance and if everybody thought like me the world would be a better place.


I beg to differ. If everyone thought like ME the world would be a better place! After all, I'm me and who wouldn't want to be like me?
Guest
Posted: Monday, September 02, 2013 5:12:42 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 531,839
bassguitarbubba wrote:


Although you agreed with me about "parental involvement" it seems you missed the point. If parents got involved with their kids in a meaningful and loving way, there would be less criminals. They wouldn't disappear by any means, but I think there would be less.

I'm not sure where you live but I doubt there are people in prison for marijuana related offenses. Since you brought up releasing prisoners, the US Supreme court recently upheld an order for California to release 10,000 prisoners due to prison over crowding. Three justices dissented but it wasn't enough to overturn the ruling. Here is what one media outlet wrote: "Justice Antonin Scalia penned a vicious dissent, warning of murders and rapes to come as a result of the court-ordered prisoner release. Scalia, along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, dissented from Friday's ruling as well."

There you have it. 10,000 violent criminals who were convicted of violating existing "mandatory laws" are being released from prison, and there still won't be room for the "real criminals" as you put it. Aren't murderers and rapists real enough criminals for you? What good is writing "harsher mandatory laws" when those convicted of existing laws are being released because of over crowding?


It's much better than it was, and especially in my state where we've legalized recreational use of marijuana. However to say there is no one incarcerated right now for pot is stupid. And maybe that wasn't the best example...so stake me to the cross. But, I didn't say releasing "real criminals" was a good thing. Where did I say that? Don't twist my words with snide remarks. You say it was in California where they released these prisoners. I fear for them. And saying, "Aren't murderers and rapists real enough criminals for you?" I didn't know about this release...but what I'd really like to say to you about that is...what a pompous ass you are. I'm trying to get people to offer up suggestions for making it better and, from your response, I take it you are one of those who just want to shrug your shoulders, do nothing and then get nasty. I guess we know where you stand on my question. Thanks for your inconsequential input. Nothing gained, nothing solved. NEXT?
Guest
Posted: Monday, September 02, 2013 5:15:01 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 531,839
bassguitarbubba wrote:
I beg to differ. If everyone thought like ME the world would be a better place! After all, I'm me and who wouldn't want to be like me?


I couldn't say I know too many people at all who would want to be like you.
MadMartigan
Posted: Monday, September 02, 2013 8:43:39 AM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 6/17/2013
Posts: 2,080
Location: United States
We'd be better off with gun laws like Britain.

It is no wonder that the US is still one of the most crime-ridden countries in the world with the largest number of gun related fatalities.

mmm. It is surely more than a gun issue, yet, guns make it so much simpler.

Especially with the still crap ass background check shit even with closing these two-loopholes.

I mean, haven't many of the bigger mass killings in the US happened when crazies were able to buy many of their gun-related items online?
Guest
Posted: Monday, September 02, 2013 4:50:21 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 531,839
MadMartigan wrote:
We'd be better off with gun laws like Britain.

It is no wonder that the US is still one of the most crime-ridden countries in the world with the largest number of gun related fatalities.

mmm. It is surely more than a gun issue, yet, guns make it so much simpler.

Especially with the still crap ass background check shit even with closing these two-loopholes.

I mean, haven't many of the bigger mass killings in the US happened when crazies were able to buy many of their gun-related items online?


Thanx MM. Here is a link to some evidence that our current gun laws are inadequate. http://bit.ly/FelonWithGuns. How a felon can amass such an arsenal is mind-boggling...apparently to the authorities as well.
variety_luvr
Posted: Monday, September 02, 2013 7:22:25 PM

Rank: Rookie Scribe

Joined: 5/7/2012
Posts: 1
The 2nd amendment was not created with today’s weapons lethality in mind. Nor was it constructed with today’s society problems in mind. In my opinion anybody trying to take guns out of people’s hands should start with changing the 2nd amendment then realize that “getting guns off the streets” will not have any significant impact for years. Removing millions of guns will not impact our lives and likely not our children’s lives. But it will impact our grandchildren’s lives.

Just like when the US was first founded. Self-rule then was a joke across all of the world. Now it is no joke. It took time. So will removing guns from our streets.


Jack_42
Posted: Monday, September 02, 2013 11:08:01 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/21/2009
Posts: 986
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
bassguitarbubba wrote:


I beg to differ. If everyone thought like ME the world would be a better place! After all, I'm me and who wouldn't want to be like me?


Are all your points taken out of context?
coffeekid63
Posted: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 5:43:05 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 3/24/2013
Posts: 31
Location: south eastern, United States
Well you have all raised some interesting points, BUT 2 points that I didn't see were 1. Criminals do not obey laws (that's why they are criminals) I believe that 85-90 percent of the shootings in the US are drug and gang related. 2. The justice dept is under standing order NOT to prosecute firearms violations because of time and cost constraints. That being said I would really like to see them start enforcing the 1000's of laws dealing with firearms already on the books before they add to them. Just my 2 cents.
LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 9:59:21 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
Kristind wrote:


I agree, even though something should be done to reform gun laws, I don't think this congress will do anything meaningful. But I'm wondering, what should they at least try to do? What kind of reform would be meaningful? Did the 'forefathers' even think this could become the problem it is today? If the majority opinion is 'no' then, how does it get reformed.


The members of Congress who don't already support gun reform initiatives have zero incentive to change course. Those who personally favor more restriction aren't voting that way because their constituency would go berserk, thus risking their re-election chances (and as we all know, Congressmen and women want nothing more than to remain Congressmen and women for as long as they can get away with it). I see another has made this point as well, but the most meaningful thing I believe they could do is actually enforce the laws that are on the books. Some of the components of that failed law from earlier this year are already on the books but mostly remain unenforced. So I propose the novel idea that we enforce what we have, close the loopholes that existed (yay Obama, in this instance), and then see where we stand.

Those who want UK-style laws are wasting their breath, as much as I agree with many of their points as well as the evidence of how effective they may be. On the other hand, NRA whack-jobs are wasting their breath with more tone-deaf libertarian/anarchy fantasies and (anti-government paranoia joke removed- these assholes, who dared talk about 'transparency' with a straight face, have actually given us plenty to be paranoid about).

I don't think anyone could have forecasted anything that would happen 230 years later, just as we can't accurately peer into our own future. How do we change? Well that's a nice segue into your last question-
Kristind wrote:

Or, are we just to live with it until another uncivil war of gun militias against the govt perpetuates itself?


Probably. But in all fairness, it remains to be seen whether or not such a war against the government is actually warranted. I no longer dismiss out of hand the possibility that this government may at some point go too far with this population, which has thus far remained sedated via beer, sports, reality tv, and porn.
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 4:43:52 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 531,839
I agree Lady X. There are members of Congress who have zero initiative to change their course. But with the vast majority of Americans supporting gun reform laws maybe a grass roots organized initiative is in order to persuade our representatives to take necessary action. Enforce the laws already on the books? It pains me to see how often those responsible for enforcing laws turn a blind eye. Not only with gun laws but, for instance, illegal immigrants hirings. On that front, aren't there laws to punish corporate owners six digit fines for each illegal they hire? That has never been enforced...but that's a different argument.

For those who missed it, here is a link to an article about a felon who amassed an arsenal of weapons. http://bit.ly/FelonWithGuns. The immediate problem is criminals and gangs. Coming up with only excuses why nothing gets done doesn't cut it. I believe we are collectively better than that. Another problem is felons and whacko's who aren't felons who are secretly amassing arsenals in preparation for...something. I don't think they are doing it for sport.

Oh, another thing. Thanks to those who give their ideas and engage in discussion. Those who like to shoot down ideas like snipers or throw words like weapons...take note. This is how it's done. Applause Applause Applause

Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.