Gun control in Illinois...fails...hurrah!!!

[jezr74]

The gun grabbers have money too, and they can also vote...if their side had so much support they would have the money to buy those same politicians and make them fear for their offices if they didn't vote for gun grabbing policies...since they don't, it seems that those who support the rigth to keep and bear arms have the support that matters, the support that effects votes...

Think you summed up who is morally right, like Dons post on right and wrong. Those tactics used by pro-gunners will be their undoing if it is as you say.

Maybe the gun grabbers will just have to wait for the implosion, if they are corrupt, they will just turn on themselves overtime.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

 

[billc]

It's not about corruption. It is about giving money to people who support your position to get elected so they can actually vote your position. The fact that every time the gun grabbers bring up legislation they have hidden elements to it...that is why they have lost these votes...normal law abiding citizens would be willing to do something that would actually work, but then they see the fine print from the gun grabbers and they realize that it won't do anything to stop criminals from getting guns, and in fact will keep them from getting guns themselves, all while the gun grabbers say they only want to disarm the bad guys...yet only disarm the good guys...so who has the morally stronger argument...?

 

[jezr74]

Sorry, you said buy. Miss understood.

Yeah, both sides are full of it. Is just a game to them. Well that's what it seems like when you hear them debate. Is like listening to my kids argue.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

 

[billc]

This article covers how the democrats defeated gun control...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324493704578430672176449846.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

A word, first, about that Senate "minority." Majority Leader Harry Reidwas free to bring the deal struck by West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin and Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey to the floor for an up-or-down vote, and this background-checks amendment might have passed. It did convince 54 Senators, including four Republicans.

But under Senate rules, a simple majority vote would have opened the measure to up to 30 hours of debate, which would have meant inspecting the details. The White House demanded, and Mr. Reid agreed, that Congress should try to pass the amendment without such a debate.

Majority rules would have also opened the bill to pro-gun amendments that were likely to pass. That would have boxed Mr. Reid into the embarrassing spectacle of having to later scotch a final bill because it also contained provisions that the White House loathes. So Mr. Reid moved under "unanimous consent" to allow nine amendments, each with a 60-vote threshold.

The White House was right to worry. An amendment from John Cornyn of Texas that would have required all states to recognize every other state's concealed-carry permits earned 57 votes, 13 Democrats among them. The nearby table has the list. On Thursday, Wyoming's John Barrasso offered an amendment to protect gun ownership privacy that passed 67-30.

 

[billc]

Bickering like your kids...I know you have read the arguments here on the study...how is it that the supporters you listened to...with previews of the arguments here...sounded like kids...I'm sure the gun grabbers made their silly arguments about ineffective laws, and the pro-second amendment supporters pointed out how those laws would be ineffective...so how was it bickering?

 

[jezr74]

I take it the Wall Street journal is considered a medium right paper?

Its like watching Survivor. I'm starting to pick up on some of the politics here.

So the issue the NRA had was mainly the possible repercussion if it allowed a "win", to Obama, also a right wing but mild?



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

 

[jezr74]

Bickering like your kids...I know you have read the arguments here on the study...how is it that the supporters you listened to...with previews of the arguments here...sounded like kids...I'm sure the gun grabbers made their silly arguments about ineffective laws, and the pro-second amendment supporters pointed out how those laws would be ineffective...so how was it bickering?

Not from you guys, your posts are well thought through, and its the politics that trips me up on understanding some parts.

I started listening to some public radio on the way to work to try and start getting an understanding. And gun issues come up fairly regular, and they sound like kids fighting literally. I'm going to write down names next time.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

 

[billc]

No, the issue was that by allowing "universal background checks," to pass, the hidden aspects of the bill would more than likely require the government to start some sort of registration of guns owned by regular citizens to track the sales of the weapons for the "background checks."

That is what this part of the story was referring to...looking at the details buried in the "universal background checks"...

But under Senate rules, a simple majority vote would have opened the measure to up to 30 hours of debate, which would have meant inspecting the details.

The devil is always in the details in any type of gun control legislation and as you look at what happens with "innocent," measures, like banning 7 round magazines...which seems reasonable...until it is pointed out that all guns that have a magazine capacity over 7 rounds become unusable and illegal as well...you see the devil in the detail...

 

[jezr74]

You guys have had me on the fence on possession for a while now.

Mainly because, I'd like to see your studies put to the test. (I know you believe this is already proven)

But I still think checks and registry are a good idea.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

 

[billc]

Keep in mind they are on the radio, or television, and that effects how you present yourself. You are usually in an unfamiliar environment and no matter how much you may prepare you would tend to do poorly. Here on the study we can take our time and calmly assemble our thoughts in a post...under the cross talk on radio it isn't easy to form and defend arguments, especially since the time is limited by commercials and news breaks beside the limit on time due to programming schedules, and trying to get your points in while the other guy is interrupting or you are interrupting him. It is a different medium and it has it's problems...

 

[billc]

Okay...let's look at checks and registration...how do you think they would make things better. To start, I'll point out that it was pointed out that the so called Aryan Nation killer in Texas was actually a judge. He owned close to 40 firearms, and passed the background checks to get them...because he wasn't a criminal at the time he bought them. Registration only applies to law abiding citizens. Would a criminal really be impacted due to the fact that the weapon he stole or bought stolen was registered to a legitimate citizen?

Registration in the past is what the government has actually used to force the turn in of weapons...it isn't made up, that is the way it was done, register first, because it sounds reasonable, and once you have the votes, you force a turn in and you then know who has a weapon. That is why so many of us are against background checks and registration.

 

[billc]

This link contains a history of gun registration...

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_registration.html

Even in the United States, registration has been used to outlaw and confiscate firearms. In New York City,

a registration system enacted in 1967 for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns.

(Same source as previous paragraph) The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as "assault weapons." This was done despite the testimony of Police Commissioner Lee Brown that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city.

The 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city. (NRA/ILA Fact Sheet: Firearms Registration: New York City's Lesson)

More recently, California revoked a grace period for the registration of certain rifles (SKS Sporters) and declared that any such weapons registered during that period were illegal.

(California Penal Code, Chapter 2.3, Roberti-Ross Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 section 12281(f) ) In addition, California has prohibited certain semi-automatic long-rifles and pistols.

Those guns currently owned, must be registered, and upon the death of the owner, either surrendered or moved out of state.

(FAQ #13 from the California DOJ Firearms Division Page)

 

[arnisador]

“Compromise is a word found only in the vocabulary of those who have no will to fight.”

You're proposing that our congress fight against itself rather than together for us.

 

[arnisador]

I take it the Wall Street journal is considered a medium right paper?

A little extra-medium, but basically, yeah. Excellent paper but best read in conjunction with the NYTimes for balance.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

How about we simply require that before any bill be brought to a vote, Congress will have to read it, have it read into the record while all members are present, and if there are any technical briefings to help them understand things, they are also required to be present? No more walking out, voting on unread bills, or what not?

 

[arnisador]

No, the issue was that by allowing "universal background checks," to pass, the hidden aspects of the bill would more than likely require the government to start some sort of registration of guns owned by regular citizens to track the sales of the weapons for the "background checks."

Republican propaganda.

 

[Big Don]

Republican propaganda.

Yeah, look how well German gun registration worked out in the 1930's...

 

[ballen0351]

Republican propaganda.

So your saying there won't be a database of all the background checks that can't be searched? I bet you believed the "we won't save pictures from the air port body scanners". Too right. As soon as you name get put in the computer its there and searchable forever. I can subpoena and recover text messages you sent 5 years ago that have Long been "deleted" and were never "saved" anywhere.

 

[arnisador]

Yeah, look how well German gun registration worked out in the 1930's...

Thoroughly debunked. But thanks for letting paranoia flag fly free.

 

[billc]

It happened in Austria...