Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: today is not the day to talk about gun control

Posted 5 years ago on Dec. 14, 2012, 4:48 p.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

the day was yesterday
the day was last week
the day was last month
the day was last year

keep in mind -

this is NOT a second amendment issue
this is NOT a gun nut issue
this is NOT a mental health issue
this is NOT an alec problem
this is NOT a gun rights issue
this is NOT an nra issue

this -
like so many of "our" other issues is about PROFIT
gun manufacturer profit
I hope I dont need to tell you that the nra spent a fortune supporting the Rs who support gun manufacturer profit

not a single tear shed today will solve this
not a single speech on this will solve this
vote for people who will pass gun control laws

Obama DID say today - it is time for action

here is my concrete suggestion:
on a national level
licence & background check every gun owner -
like they do in NYC for a concealed carry permit
register every gun
just like with cars and drivers
background check $200-500
annual licence $100
first gun registered free
second gun $100
third gun $200
fourth gun $300

If you want to argue against gun control -
please tell that to Nancy or a family member of Jordan or Gabby or Trevor or one of the Connecticut children

and this is trivial cmpared to the blood and death and grief -
but isn't this the perfect example of the price we pay for
allowing capitalism to own our democracy.



Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 5 years ago

as you can see.. the gun doesnt have to belong to the shooter. it can come from anywhere.. laws have no impact on someone dead set on destruction.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

Funny how they didn't cover this. Kind a puts a lie to the concept of a truth telling media.

"Media Blackout: Oregon mall shooter was stopped by an armed citizen" ( http://www.blacklistednews.com/Media_Blackout%3A_Oregon_mall_shooter_was_stopped_by_an_armed_citizen/23133/0/0/0/Y/M.html ).

"While reports of Tuesday's shooting at the Clackamas Town Center Mall in Oregon, dominated the national media, until Friday's horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, one very important detail has been repeatedly (and intentionally) left out of the MSM's coverage.

The shooter, Jacob Tyler Roberts, was confronted with an armed citizen, at which time he ran away and shot himself. By the time police arrived on the scene, Roberts was already dead."

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

If the fees were high enough, the first person killed might have only bought one pistol in stead of four - including the assault rifle

[-] -1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

do you think the gun owner properly locked up this gun? [ yes - I know who owned the gun ] she was VERY well armed - and was killed with her own gun in her own home

[-] -1 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

It is harder to steal a nuclear weapon than a gun. Why is that?

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

Some people are saying, "How can you expect me to live in a world full of people like me with guns, without a gun?" Only they know how afraid other people should be of people like them.

Some people kill other people with cars, Most people need cars for legitimate purposes. Having a car doesn't mean you are dangerous.

Why do most people need guns? They don't need them to get to work or at work. They don't need them for entertainment. You can test hand-eye coordination with things that don't actually kill people.

They need them to feel SAFER from people like them. They are the ones who shouldn't have them. They are not psychologically suitable to own one. Wanting a gun disqualifies you from having one. It is a simple test and doesn't require a background check. The only people that are safe having guns are those who don't want them.

[-] 3 points by outlawtumor (-162) 5 years ago

Guns aren't the problem,the mental health of the person committing the crime is the problem. The gun is only a tool,much like that knife in China today.

To talk only about removing Constitutional rights from law abiding citizens in a veiled attempt at disarming the American public is to completely ignore the REAL problem.

This senseless tragic act as usual is being politicized by you Democrats and Leftist's to fulfill your gun grabbing agenda.

You don't care what caused this person to commit this act but only care about furthering your Constitutional demolition.

If you want to argue with this truth then please tell it to the countless people who where not victims because they possessed a lawful gun to defend their own lives as well as the lives of their loved ones.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Why don't you tell us all what your solution is Mr. smartie pants, instead of cribbing the same stuff the NRA and FLAKESnews pulls out every time this shit happens, and it happens a lot.

You even defend the situations the GOP has created, making you feel like you need that gun in the first place.

OWS has tried to tell you all along that it's the economic disparity.

You just argue for the corporations, the Koch's, ALEC........ all the things that created this mess, you want more of.

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 5 years ago

But your more right with this comment.

There has been a major issue with mental stablity than anything if you notice these are all males who were doing the crimes.

[-] 1 points by outlawtumor (-162) 5 years ago

Thanks,yeah you're right there is something going on. There is a huge mental health problem that is seething under the radar and it seems that this gun grabbing agenda is always taking the spotlight, for obvious reasons.

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 5 years ago

yes it may be with the amount of pressue we put on these types of people and what we expect them to do and how to act. I know as a male of only 21 i have been told what to do and how to act since i was 4. I also know that nurmious amount of my male friends have had a hard time dealing with the stress and turn to outlets such as drinking and smoking to get rid of these feelings.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

the worst mental health problem is .

[-] -1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

WHAT gun grabbing!!

Every time one of these terror attacks happen, NRA shills and sycophants spew paranoid propaganda, gun and ammo SALES soar, yet no restriction follows. For obvious reasons?

[-] 0 points by outlawtumor (-162) 5 years ago

The problem you're having is that you just don't get it. You seem to be really misinformed or possibly,willfully ignorant. Either way further gun restrictions will be tried soon. Every year Democrats keep trying to chip away at the 2nd Amendment. "Common sense" is one of your favorite code words for the creeping incrementalism of denying Americans their Constitutional rights.

The "Assault Weapon" ban is coming yet again,yes that's "gun grabbing". The Democrats made it part of their platform.

So,you know good and well Constitutional restrictions are coming. Just be honest for once.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

"So,you know good and well Constitutional restrictions are coming. Just be honest for once."
I assume that you know that Constitutional restrictions require an amendment that requires 2/3 of the house & 2/3 of the senate & 3/4 of the states

and you do know where this idea has gone - same place as your brain

[-] -1 points by outlawtumor (-162) 5 years ago

You forget Obama is a Dictator and the Democrats are sheeple and the MSM are a propaganda operation much like Germany circa 1939.


[-] 0 points by outlawtumor (-162) 5 years ago

Substantial reply (by progressive standards),but can you expound on whatever point you think you were trying to make?

[-] -1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

██████░████.░░.█████░.░█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ ████░░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█.░.█████ ░░█████░ █████

[-] -1 points by outlawtumor (-162) 5 years ago

Great demonstration of your IQ. What's next? "liar,liar,pants on fire"??

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Somehow it's still leagues smarter than anything you've said so far.

Care to say something intelligent now?

[-] -1 points by outlawtumor (-162) 5 years ago

Exactly how?

Speaking in vague generalities hoping someone will consider you intelligent is a piss poor strategy shooz.

Injecting yourself,trying to pick a fight is also childish,but then you can't help yourself either I suppose, that would require maturity and IQ.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Excising tumors is the thing to do.

Especially really dumb ones.

Where would you say you are at on the following scale?


Don't you get tired of passing the same BS every time something like this happens?

Next up will be your advise for more sugar as a cure for diabetes!!

[-] -1 points by outlawtumor (-162) 5 years ago

I expected no less from you.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

I always tell the truth.

You just pretend.

So where are you at on the scale?

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

A militia with muskets! That's all you get!

The trivial hobby of a few do not get to endanger the safety of the many!!!!

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

none of the children knifed in China are dead
minor difference

[-] 0 points by outlawtumor (-162) 5 years ago

What point were you trying to make?

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Like deja vu, just last night while I was sleeping the barking dog down the street told me all about this, down to every christian detail. Truly the word of God.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Not to be outdone, Huckabee has jumped on that band wagon.


Still no mention of GOP's gutting of State mental health services all those years ago.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

If all the Vics were Billionaires, guns would be history faster than Ted Nugent could say "My cold dead hands"!!!

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago


I'm not in on this joke........................:(

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago


not a joke or a tumor

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Perhaps we should call for arming the stock exchange?

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

With a kill quota...

What a shakeup that would be

[-] 0 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 5 years ago

You two are joking about killing stock brokers after all this? Go "F" yourselves.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Betcha if we killed 5 Billionaires for every innocent kid, the problem would be solved before 2014. They have all OUR money, anyway.

[-] 1 points by outlawtumor (-162) 5 years ago

When you can actually refute my post with something of worth let me know.

[-] -3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

You mean that guys not a nut?

He's just as nutty as the rest of the gun nutters that condone this shit.

Maybe this gun nutter then?


[-] 3 points by outlawtumor (-162) 5 years ago

Nobody has condoned this tragedy although not addressing the root problem and using this as a political football to exploite these murders for a gun grabbing agenda can be construed as being callous and unfeeling, would that be what you're doing?

[+] -4 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Gun nuttery IS the root problem.

Gun nutters just like pretend it isn't.

The link above is just one more example.

Then there's the guy who shot his girl friend in the back because she didn't believe in zombies.

Or the guy in Pennsylvania who shot and killed his son in the gun store parking lot. OOOoooops.

No, it's all the gun nutters who show up here after something like this happens to claim how innocent they are.

It happens every time

[-] 2 points by outlawtumor (-162) 5 years ago

You seem to be completely detached from the reality. I'm not sure if this is intentional or you are just somewhat eccentric. Either way you're not interested in the facts of this case evidently and seem more interested in fantasizing about some kind of "gun nutter" boogieman.

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

I'm not the one sticking up for this shit...you are.

So please. It's you who's detached from reality.

Why should the words of the second amendment trump all others?

And if you're one of those that says it's just crazy people and yuo are a conservative, please also be aware that one of the first orders of "business" for them has been severely limit access to State mental health facilities, if they didn't already shut them all down. When they closed them in my State, most ended up in prison.

Mental health is also given severely short shift by ALL corporate "health care"(sic) providers.

Nope. It's the so called gun community that needs to get a handle on this.

But they show NO signs of doing so. All that do is make excuses and vote for GOP fucks that screw EVERYTHING.

[-] 2 points by outlawtumor (-162) 5 years ago

Why should the words of the first amendment trump all others?

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

This is what makes YOU a gun nutter.

You can't even wrap you mind around how it's a problem.

A problem foisted on us mostly by the GOP and ALEC, at least in modern times.

[-] 2 points by outlawtumor (-162) 5 years ago

You seem to be an "ALEC" nutter and a conspiracy nutter.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Thanks for admitting that ALEC is a conspiracy.........:)

A big FAT pile of GOP/conse(R)vative/(R)epelican't/libe(R)tarian/Koch b(R)others and whatever else they are calling themselves these days collusion.

Read it and weep. It's a conspiracy all "right", but it's no theory.


Just more failed GOP bullshit.


[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

And lets not forget about those killed in automobile accidents by drunken drivers, or those killed by drivers texting, the list can go on and on - I guess you could argue that those people didn't do it intentionally - or did they and just didn't realize it.

There are 200 million guns owned by private owners in this country - if gun ownership was the problem we would have thousands of deaths each and every day. I don't see that

Now that is not to say that areas that do have gun control laws baning any kind gun that the crime rate is down with regard to acts of volence using guns

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

300 million. Since Obama has been President the racists have decided they needed more guns, at least one per capita. If you aren't concerned about murder, how about the fact that half of the gun deaths are suicides? Why would you want to make suicide so convenient? And yes, many of those suicides immediately follow a murder, usually of a spouse and/or children. Why don't gun nuts teach each other to only shoot themselves?

Cars and phones may be used for a beneficial purpose. Cigarettes and guns, used as intended, kill people.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Blah, de blah, blah, blah.

More crap cribbed from the NRA web site.

If they are so great and knowledgeable on the subject, how come their ONLY cure is to sell ever more guns?

It's like saying that if you have diabetes, the ONLY cure is to eat more and more sugar.

NRA=Insanity itself

[-] 3 points by highlander (-163) 5 years ago

Also happening today, according to CNN, a knife attack at the Chenpeng Village Primary School in Henan Province, China wounded 22 children.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago


[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Good Work!!

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (368) 5 years ago

ATTENTION Gun Debaters…Please Read This Entire Article…‘The Riddle of the Gun’ By Sam Harris

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

Larry Pratt - from gun owners of America says CT happened because teachers were not allowed to carry guns in school

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

If it was as tough to get a gun as it is to get a Passport, we would have a much smaller problem.

When was the last time someone was murdered with a passport? Really? How about a long form birth certificate? Are there pictures?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

If all of the (privately owned) guns in the US (300 million) were in one big pile how big would it be?

Now, if we dropped that pile of guns in Syria, who would be safer? Them? Us? Both?

I guess the only way to find out is to do it. Shall we put the pile in Texas, Arizona or Utah? OK, now start shipping, I gotta start arranging for some C-17's to go to Syria.

While I am doing that, you can decide whether you are going to let anybody buy replacements and if so, what kind. Or you can design the psychological tests they must pass before they get them. Here is my suggestion, If they want them, they fail the test. If they don't want them, they pass. At least then we won't have to worry about a bunch of nut cases having guns. Next, you will have to figure out how to keep the nut cases from stealing from the cops and the military. Now, get busy. I smell JP-4 flight fuel.

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

I think you're a despicable individual. Anyone who takes advantage of another's suffering to offer a polemic is despicable.

And what, you think more taxes, more government theft, is the answer to our moral dystopia?

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Teabagge(R)'s raised my taxes. Buncha fuckin' thieves

Huckabee's not afraid to take advantage.


You gonna yell at him?

And just where is that Terrible Teddy, calling for arming 5 year olds.?

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

Obama raised mine; he raised the cap on medical deductions to ten percent and reduced the non taxable limit on medical savings accounts. In other words, if you are one of the many who have reoccurring illnesses with high yearly medical bills, Obama just made it that much more difficult for you. And we haven't even addressed increases to medicaid costs, i.e., state and county taxes, or any of the half dozen other issues, like for example, the rising cost of medical insurance.

[-] -1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Is that Glenn Beckism?

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 5 years ago

This is mental health issue all the way. Sometimes it's a physical issue as in the case of Charles Whitman;


This is one more reason why everyone needs health care.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 5 years ago

Right on!

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

And you have to have gun owner's insurance to compensate victims and their survivors.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago


I just found that again.


Over time, I believe it would make a HUGE difference.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

Just as long as the boys get to keep their toys.....

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Gun nutters ignore it, that's why I think it would work.............:)

Every "mistake" would cost all gun owners, and allow the "invisible hand" of the market to find a solution.

And who can argue with a mythological, disembodied hand.........:)

A private business solution at that.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

That's the THING....I have to hand it to you....

Almost every killer is afraid. Fear mutates into hate or cowardice and that enables them to kill. They have to. Early signs of irrational fear are the need for weapons or shelter (a fortress or bunker), Presence of irrational fear can be determined by a person who says they aren't afraid and don't need guns. If they are attacked and disparaged in emotional terms, the attacking person need therapy. I am sure we have all seen this happen. Extremely fearful people kill people. Over half of gun deaths are suicides. Many of those are murder-suicides. Why do we let people kill themselves? People who want guns are fearful and are at risk of of using them.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Somebody has to stop this kind of thing.


,and that's just in the last 2 years.

Once again there's hooting hollering about how it's a social problem, but nobody want's to notice that the GOP and corporations have continued to cut funding. In my State it was severely cut all the way back in the 90's.

Arrange the markets in a way to foster a solution.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

There a lot who are happy to propagate fear for their purposes. Often it is to steal ALL of the resources.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Witness if you would, the increasing ALEC attacks on States around the Great Lakes.

Fresh water, the ultimate resource.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

Koch fingerprints all over everything and their thumbs on the scales.


[-] 0 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

ban semi automatic weapons. period. no if's and's or but's. you can own a hunting rifle, shotgun, or revolver and protect yourself, your family, and hunt just fine. the ownership of semi automatic weapons is simply not justified.

[-] 0 points by ARod1993 (2420) 5 years ago

I would definitely like us to make NICS accessible to all US citizens, and make "negligent sale" a prosecutable offense; namely if a firearm is sold to someone privately or through a gun show and is then lost, stolen, or mishandled in a manner that causes property damage, injury, or loss of life, and the seller did not run the buyer's name through NICS (or the buyer was ineligible and the seller looked the other way) then the seller can be held civilly and criminally liable as well as the buyer.

I would also argue that nations with strong social safety nets, permissive social policies (i.e. moving away from prohibition of victimless crimes and stigmatization of nontraditional sexualities) would need fewer firearm regulations than countries with the degree of systemic inequality and severe poverty that the US has. It is my belief that most common crimes (including crimes committed with firearms) are committed in part because of poverty, despair, or mental illness, and that a substantive attempt at rebuilding our nation's economy through stimulus combined with a massive push to get people out of poverty and turn ghettoes into actual strong communities will do at least as much good as restricting firearm ownership.

As far as legal ownership of firearms is concerned, see my proposal below: What I'd like to see us do is set up a basic 3.5-month training program over the summer following the senior year of high school providing the basic skills required to make someone an asset rather than a liability in the event of an invasion (however unlikely) or natural disaster (far more likely on a local or regional level). I'm thinking of having everyone learn basic CPR and EMT training, basic physical fitness training, exposure to disaster-like scenarios in order to teach people to keep their heads when things go to pieces, and of course firearms sense. How to shoot a gun, how to shoot a target with reasonable accuracy, how to defend yourself with a firearm (or hand-to-hand) without accidentally ventilating your walls or your neighbor or the bystanders down the street (something that was touched on earlier in a firearms thread on another forum), and so on. Successful completion of the program would lead to the issuance of a conceal-and-carry permit valid for one or two handguns as well as a possession license for long guns (shotguns, hunting rifles, etc.) After the program is completed people would remain "on reserve" for a period of years ("on reserve" meaning a couple days a month of training and the possibility of standing in for or assisting the National Guard if something happens).

As far as implementation is concerned, I'd write the mandate and minimum training standards into federal law, then redirect funding from the current DOD budget to the National Guard on the state level and earmark it for the creation of civilian summer training programs. The programs themselves would be the responsibility of the state National Guard units, which would be given the funding and authority to open local and regional training facilities such that physical proximity to training locations would not present undue hardship for anyone wishing to go. Ideally, the program would begin in the middle of May and wrap up by late August, allowing completion of training immediately following secondary education (although people of all ages and experience levels would be welcome, from high school students wishing to participate in JROTC to middle-aged men and women).

Participation would be almost universally open (although standard rules for conscientious objectors would apply, and people with felony convictions would be banned), and the exact standards to be met for a person to be considered to have successfully completed the program would be left up to the states (although there would be federally set minimum standards and a federally enforceable obligation on the states not to arbitrarily set standards ridiculously high to de facto restrict gun ownership). Furthermore, failing the firearms part of the course would mean not receiving firearms licenses (although it would be acceptable to repeat the course as many times as necessary to obtain licenses). Basically, once people successfully complete their initial training with the National Guard they would then become part of an informal home guard. They wouldn't have police or military authority, but they would be responsible for handling accidents or disasters until the relevant authorities (police, fire, EMT, National Guard proper, etc.) showed up, and in case of severe disasters they could be asked to stand alongside the National Guard units. They would be responsible for going to a couple of training days a month up until the age of 45, but they would not be available for domestic or foreign deployment, not subject to the UCMJ, and so on. They would in fact be a true citizen response force, and neither I nor anyone else I can think of would have a problem with them being quite well-armed.

As for the training facilities, during the eight or nine months out of the year they're not employed in training they would be kept on an absolute skeleton staff except for the days in which they'd be used for training exercises (mostly home guard people, but there's no reason not to have joint exercises with the National Guard).

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Agreed. No private sales w/o background check, registration, none to violent convicted criminals, or mentally ill.

no more assault weapons.

And real jail time for illegal sales!

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 5 years ago

thats already is the law in place to get a hand gun permit in my state you need a FBI background check and i have one of the loosest states when it comes to gun laws

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

40% of gun sales are made w/o backgroundchecks because they are private and/or in gun shows.

So you are gravely mistaken.


[-] 1 points by conservatroll (187) 5 years ago

Shooz, Srtill waiting on your source for 40%.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

I am not Shooz. Why do you need a source for the 40%? You don't believe it?

What percent of gun sales do you think are private transfers? 20%? 10% Do you have a source? Is 10% untracked/registered ok w/ you.?

Thats probably 40k guns per year. I suppose I ain't married to the 40% but certainly we should deal with tracking/registering every gun.


[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

I have no idea what he's talking about anyway.

Perhaps, like his "friends" at FLAKESnews, he's just makin' stuff up 'cause it makes me sound bad.

trevor had a go at exactly that the other day.

It's the latest in troll technology?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Well I didn't up the percent & it don't matter to me what percent is agreed to.

I think not one gun should be sold without background check, registration, tracking even.

I don't mind being compared to you, but they should know there are 2 of us willing & able to challenge their ignorance.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

That's something anyway.

I don't hear the gun nutters coming up with anything at all.

Status quo is all they have and not a single one of them will point out that the GOP gutted State mental health facilities all over country years ago, in order to stuff profiteered prison systems, under the auspices of "saving tax dollars".

In effect criminalizing mental illness.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Excellent point, often overlooked.


[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 5 years ago

Do have a real link to that because i doubt that can be proven.

im not mistaken about the permit my friends who got their guns had to wait for a background check which is done by the FBI then

Who Can Buy a Gun Legally?

If you’re not otherwise prohibited by federal, state, or local laws, then the basic rules for buying a gun include the following:

You have to be 18 or older to purchase a rifle or shotgun;

You have to be 21 or older to purchase a handgun;

You must buy your gun from a federally-licensed dealer in your state;

You must submit to a background check that the dealer will arrange, using an FBI database

Can Convicted Felons Buy Guns?

Under the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, certain categories of persons are not eligible to possess a firearm or ammunition. These include

◦ Fugitives from justice

◦ Illegal aliens

◦ Unlawful users of certain drugs

◦ Those committed to a mental institution

◦ Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for more than one year (which generally covers felonies)

◦ Those convicted of crimes of domestic violence

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

I am not an expert, but there is the gun show loophole - if you buy a gun at a gun "show" there are no background checks required
literally - tons of guns are bought in "low" control states and trucked to places like NYC & DC
WE NEED TO ELECT SUPPORTERS OF FEDERAL LAWS- if you want OWN a gun, you have to have a license & background check
all guns ( manufactured or owned ) must be registered
this makes law enforcement simple - if you are unlicensed or possess an unregistered gun, you go t o jail

if we legallized drugs and took those prisoners out of jail we would have plenty of room for the illegal gun people

[-] 3 points by outlawtumor (-162) 5 years ago

Adam Lanza didn't buy his guns at a gun show did he???

Since you're not an "expert" I'll take that into consideration.

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 5 years ago

i think my comment explained it pretty well

[-] 3 points by outlawtumor (-162) 5 years ago

You're right.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

no single solution will stop all of the murders
1 register all guns
2 license all owners
3 YOUR gun is YOUR responsability
we cant put every gun owner thru 5 years of therapy
but imagine what would happen to a gun owner with 27 guns who had to pay $100 per gun per year and knew that if one of HIS guns was used in a crime, he could be held liable financially or go to jail if it was not properl y secured. Would he keep his 27 guns?

I assume that you know that states with tighter gun control laws havefewer gun deaths imagine you have a dog that bites your neighbor - you are financially liable lets say YOU KNOW your dog has rabies and you do nothing about it - you probably would be criminally negligent

[-] 1 points by outlawtumor (-162) 5 years ago

Your logic is flawed and you should know that so that you can reassess and reconsider your points more carefully.

"states with tighter gun control laws havefewer gun deaths"

Does that include Illinois(Chicago),New York,Connecticut,California?

Making lawful American citizens have to pay a penalty for exercising their Constitutional rights is wrong and I'm sure you'd agree.

Should you be charged a penalty every year for how many times you have been expressing yourself? After all words can have very detrimental consequences.

A gun is a tool,you are completely missing the whole point.

What made this person commit this act is what matters. Mental health problems?

He could have just made a suicide bomber vest instead. Would you then seek to ban and regulate vests??

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 5 years ago

I believe your logic is flawed because it is based on bad data. Maybe this will help you reassess your position.


[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 5 years ago

No that’s a myth, but they’re could be some backroom stuff happening or a show that isn’t meant to have guns like a car swap and someone sells a gun, also may to a peer to peer sales do not require a background check. Like when a friend of mine bought a rifle off another one of his friends he didn’t get a background check done but he did get it registered. Don’t worry he has done the background check for the other firearms he owns.

Every law that applies outside gun shows applies inside the doors. Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) at a gun show must fill out their ATF Form 4473s and do their FBI background (NICS) checks just as if they were at their shops

Also a lot of the things you are demanding are already done like the registration when you buy a gun you sign a piece of paper that registers the gun to you. Now some people own guns that are really old and do not need to be registered I think the year is 1902 or before is when they don’t need to be registered.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Which drugs?

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 5 years ago

No idea I assume hard types of drugs

so your quoting Costas on that 40% thing i looked into its a blind statistic with not value or study to back it up

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

I am not quoting costas. I am quoting the studies of private gun sales which require no background check!

You don't agree?. Or you know it and must resort to some distraction like discrediting the number and dishonestly attaching it to the brave Bob Costas.


[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 5 years ago

Well Costas was the last one I heard say it. I seriously looked for it and could not find a real number near 40% I did find one that was near 13.88%

“14.4 million checks represented an all-time high.” “ATF estimates an additional 2 million used guns trade hands each year.” 2/14.4 = 13.88 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/27/gun-grabbers-grasp-at-straws/

I’m not trying to discredit the number I just don’t see how they could trace that number since they are private sales and are not reported. If they reported they would need background checks or they would be illegal.

[-] 1 points by conservatroll (187) 5 years ago

I;m sure 40% came from the same folks that claim over 90% of illegal guns come from USA.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

So you're saying we don't know how many. Could be more than your 14%, more than my 40%.

Maybe the percent is not relevant! Maybe the fact that we allow any is the point.

Whatta ya think?

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 5 years ago

So do I see it as something that should be outlawed? No, since the law would be unenforceable by modern standards. Black markets would increase and perhaps more people would die by trying to get a gun. I support the idea of stricter gun registration laws since those who are lawful should deserve guns if they so chose.

When my grandfather passes he is giving me his hunting gear which includes rifles and shotguns. I still have to reregister them to my name at $45 a pop. even though i regster them to my name this would be part of the private sales of peer to peer which would be deemed illegal if a law to ban peer to peer sales was done.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Money? You're against keeping track of gun sales because it might cost you $45?


Anyway: Well we could put some kinda tracking chip in every gun that includes a history of ownership. Any illegal transfer & bam! 10 yrs in jail.

[-] 3 points by DanielBarton (1345) 5 years ago

No not at all, I’m fine with the $45 which I know I’ll have to pay anyways if it was a $100 I would still pay it. That’s not the issue I was getting at the issue I was getting at was transferring of guns from family member to family member. I have a rich family history and we pass things down from generation to generation. The law should not impede on this just because some people feel unsafe.

The idea of placing a tracking chip is not unheard is just not realistic trades like these will go on. Even now people can build their own guns with 3D printers people can print working guns all without the knowledge of the watchful eye. So I’m not imposing such a law I just view it as something that is unrealistic to enforce.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Just to be clear no gun control is suggested "just because some people feel unsafe" It is an effort to prevent the slaughter of innocents like the 20 children today. Ok?

Reasonable people need to understand that guns must be kept track of I won't even dignify the nonsensicle issue of inherited gun registration fees. Sorry. Fight to change the fee if you must, but agree we must keep track.

The chip is required We do it with cars (in more than one place). We can and must do it on guns.

Human life is that important.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 5 years ago

I’m not fighting to change the fee. I’m fine with it the fee is emplaced for a reason.

I’m just saying are people will get around the walls of any regulation you put up. Put a chip inside the guns people will start making their own guns.

To the chips in cars no we don’t have chips that track us and give that information to the government. We do have GPS guidance systems but if they tap into that it’s a different issue and I’m sure if they wanted they could follow us. As someone who has been working on his car long enough to know every component I know that there is not tracking chip insides.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Right no chip but we have serial numbers in cars. in more than one place.

we can do at least that and I say we can put a chip.

[-] -1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

What if these shooters only shot rich people?