Gun "control" bill could actually expand gun "rights"!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Gun "control" bill could actually expand gun "rights"!

    Republicans are lining up behind an amendment that would effectively create a national conceal-carry law, a goal that gun groups have been pressing for years.

    “You could actually expand the Second Amendment” with the bill, said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina.

    Senate Democrats, trying to simply hold their ranks together behind a background check amendment written by Senators Manchin and Toomey met for an emotional luncheon on Tuesday.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/us/politics/senate-sets-flurry-of-crucial-votes-on-gun-measures.html?partner=MYWAY&ei=5065&_r=1

    Only 4% of Americans think Gun Control is the important problem.

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-only-4-americans-think-gun-control-important-problem

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Gun

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    Nothing like an insensitive a55hole making a joke of a tragedy to really highlight the the type of scum that can be found on these boards.

    Well done. I hope you're proud of yourself.

    And I hope you haven't the capacity to reproduce.

    Although judging by the level of ignorance displayed in most of your posts, it's unlikely you even know how to reproduce.



    Registering pressure cookers makes as much sense in this case as registering guns due to Newtown. The fact that you dont like it doesnt make it insensitive!

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Gun

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:


    Registering pressure cookers makes as much sense in this case as registering guns due to Newtown.

    [QUOTE]

    Why? Because you ideological nitwits say so?

    How do you explain the fact that 90% of Americans and 75% of NRA members support background checks and stricter gun control measures?



    I believe most everyone including me thinks that background checks are a good idea!

    If you think the NRA and 90% of Americans support MORE gun control you are dillusional!!

     

     

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Gun

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:


    So why don't you explain your grand idea to vet potential gun owners?

    How are you going to find those people who will commit mass murder in a sea of oddities?




    Vetting gun owners will do nothing. The law abiding gun owners are not the problem. Criminals are the problem and back ground checks work.

    Finding "those people who will commit mass murder" is what the conversation should be about instead of wasting time trying to create laws that only affect law abiding citizens. These are just political opportunities, not solutions.

     

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Gun

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    How are you going to find those people who will commit mass murder in a sea of oddities?

     



    The reality is you can't. Sorry, but Minority Report is only a movie. We still don't have ability to know people's thoughts...and until we do those who want to commit mass murder will continue to do so. It's sad and unfortunate but it's the world we live in.

    look at the Boston Marathon. Law enforcement spent time sweeping that area with bomb sniffing dogs prior to crowds gathering. They did all the right things prior to event as well as policing the area during. And STILL someone or ones, were able to bring bombs in and detonate. Point is...if someone want to commit heinous acts like this they will find a way.

     

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Gun

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     


    So why don't you explain your grand idea to vet potential gun owners?

    How are you going to find those people who will commit mass murder in a sea of oddities?

     




    Vetting gun owners will do nothing. The law abiding gun owners are not the problem. Criminals are the problem and back ground checks work.

     

    Finding "those people who will commit mass murder" is what the conversation should be about instead of wasting time trying to create laws that only affect law abiding citizens. These are just political opportunities, not solutions.

     




     

    How can you say that background checks work?

    Do you just ignore anything that disagrees with your prejudice?

    Newtown shooter had access to legal weapons.

    which were legally purchased by his mother....who to my knowledge didn't have a criminal background or mental health issues. Therefore even with background checks Newtown would have sadly happened 

    Aurora shooter purchased weapons legally.

    Did this person have a criminal background? How about a diagnosed mental health issue that was entered into database? If not then background check would have gone through fine and this person would have been able to purchase guns

    The VA Tech shooter bought his guns legally.

     Same question as above....did this person have criminal or mental health background? If not....

    I'm all for expanding background checks but lets not be fooled into thinking its panacea

    Your response is almost comical in it's denial of the facts.

     




     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Gun

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    How can you say that background checks work?

    Do you just ignore anything that disagrees with your prejudice?

    Newtown shooter had access to legal weapons.

    Aurora shooter purchased weapons legally.

    The VA Tech shooter bought his guns legally. 

    Your response is almost comical in it's denial of the facts.

    [QUOTE]

    Background checks work to filter out CONVICTED criminals!


    Newtown shooter stole his guns from his parent. So background checks would have done nothing.

    Both of the others had mental issues that the federal background check databases does not include sufficient information on.

    The VT killer:

    The in-person consultation at the center followed Cho's release from the psych ward at Carilion St. Albans hospital on Dec. 14, 2005. According to the documents, Cho had been admitted overnight to the hospital after his roommate became concerned when Cho threatened to take his own life.

    "I met with student for about 30 minutes," wrote triage counselor Sherry Lynch Conrad on a Post-It note stuck to Cho's file dated Dec. 14, 2005, the day after his release. "He denied any suicidal or homicidal ideation. Said the comment he made was a joke. Says he has no reason to harm self and would never do it."

    Even so, Conrad drew an "X" through the portion of the medical chart that assesses a patient's mental health, instead writing, "Did not assess -- student has had two previous triages in past two weeks -- last two days ago."

    Conrad wrote that she provided Cho with emergency numbers should he begin to have "suicidal or homicidal thoughts" over winter break, but she did not schedule a follow-up appointment because Cho didn't "know his schedule."

    Cho first made contact with the center on Nov. 30, 2005, when he was referred by a professor.

    In the records from his initial telephone conversation, another triage counselor checked off "Troubled: Further contact within 2 weeks" under the portion of the form that rates the severity of the patient's disposition.

    An in-person appointment was scheduled for Cho on Dec. 12, 2005, but when he failed to show up, another telephone consultation took place.

    According to the documents, Cho indicated in the second phone conversation that his symptoms of depression and anxiety had persisted. He also said that he was having trouble concentrating.

    That counselor's notes indicate that Cho said that "he did not want to come in at this time," despite his symptoms.

    This is the first time the public has seen the notes of three separate therapists who counseled Cho.

    On April 16, 2007, Cho killed 32 people and then himself on the Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg, Va., making the school the site of the deadliest shooting in U.S. history and the focal point for a renewed debate over gun control and mental health services.

    The Aurora Killer:

    (CBS News) Alleged Aurora, Colo, shooter James Holmes met with not one, but at least three mental health professionals at the University of Colorado prior to the massacre. How long he met with each one and the depth of their involvement is not clear, but it adds to the picture of Holmes being clearly on their radar in the time period leading up to the shootings. When contacted by CBS News, school spokesperson Jacque Montgomery declined comment, citing a judge's gag order.

     

     

Share