U.S. House approves expanded background checks for gun sales
Feb 28, 2019 12:20:17 #
Morgan wrote:
I'm sorry rose that comparison is what is lame.
I didn't give the numbers for a comparison but because Bob usually has no idea what he's talking about and posts silly one liners and cartoons.
Emotional appeals work. That's why the anti-gun faction uses them. Once given away, rights are never regained they are only progressively taken away and thats what they want to do.
"From 2009 to 2017, there were at least 173 shootings in the United States in which four or more people were killed, with at least 1,001 total deaths, according to the advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety."
Far more children died by drowning than were killed in mass shootings. This will do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Politicians want to give the appearance that they're doing something but they're not. This doesn't address root causes.
Feb 28, 2019 12:31:55 #
I haven't seen the bill, it seems like it went beyond the simple dealer requirement to do background checks, that would be with wait times I'd assume?
An actual place this is headed was already signed into law by Obama but eliminated by Trump before it went into effect, incorporating mental instability reporting with background checks.
The GOP sends a message that they are willing to protect the rights of unhinged people that should not have legal access to guns. Opposing that concept is going to result in far wider sweeping laws when people get fed up with the way the GOP has resisted all forms of even sensible gun control.
An actual place this is headed was already signed into law by Obama but eliminated by Trump before it went into effect, incorporating mental instability reporting with background checks.
The GOP sends a message that they are willing to protect the rights of unhinged people that should not have legal access to guns. Opposing that concept is going to result in far wider sweeping laws when people get fed up with the way the GOP has resisted all forms of even sensible gun control.
Feb 28, 2019 12:56:17 #
Morgan wrote:
I'm sorry rose that comparison is what is lame. People drown by accident, people intentionally KILL the innocent.
Sorry, I agree with Morgan, most of boob's responses are lame and juvenile.
Feb 28, 2019 12:57:53 #
Rose42 wrote:
Yes it does. More children drown than are killed in mass shootings. More people die in auto crashes.
They try and get people's support with emotional appeals. Gun control has never been about saving lives. It's about control.
They try and get people's support with emotional appeals. Gun control has never been about saving lives. It's about control.
As a result and to reduce the carnage we have laws that require drivers to be licensed and pools be fenced in. Do you think that because some people break the law and drive without license and insurance we should just do away with drivers licenses?
Feb 28, 2019 13:13:21 #
Kevyn wrote:
As a result and to reduce the carnage we have laws that require drivers to be licensed and pools be fenced in. Do you think that because some people break the law and drive without license and insurance we should just do away with drivers licenses?
And the effect that has had on idiots driving or idiots not properly supervising their children? None.
How many of these shootings are mass shootings? Less than one percent - a tiny fraction. Is this law really needed? Of course it isn't. Its being used to get a foot in the door.
This bill gives the illusion of safety.
Feb 28, 2019 13:18:13 #
Bad Bob
Loc: Virginia
buffalo wrote:
Sorry, I agree with Morgan, most of boob's responses are lame and juvenile.
Feb 28, 2019 13:22:37 #
Morgan wrote:
No, he didn't do that, paranoid gun fanatics did that. Obama never tried to take away anyoes guns, that was all right-leaning rhetoric to pin people against Obama, and it worked hook line and sinker, All they have to do is strike a match and whoooof off it goes like a brush fire to their useful idiots. So NO nothing to do with Obama. Look to your handlers.
Actually Obama was on record as being anti-gun. I used to have all that and it was not ambiguous at all but don't anymore. An outright grab will never work which is why he never tried it. That's why incrementalism is so effective. Animal rightists are experts with that strategy.
People are so willing to hand over other people's rights whether it be to control speech (hate speech, censorship), added surveillance, animal husbandry or guns. Americans used to be made of much sterner stuff. Those days are behind us and will likely never come back.
Feb 28, 2019 14:06:23 #
woodguru wrote:
I haven't seen the bill, it seems like it went bey... (show quote)
And who gets to decide if a person is mentally unstable? You anti-gun moonbats think anyone believing in the Second Amendment is mentally unstable.
Feb 28, 2019 14:11:33 #
buffalo wrote:
And who gets to decide if a person is mentally unstable? You anti-gun moonbats think anyone believing in the Second Amendment is mentally unstable.
You just hit on a big issue with this bill - who determines mental instability.
Feb 28, 2019 16:31:48 #
Rose42 wrote:
I didn't give the numbers for a comparison but bec... (show quote)
You're still confusing the issue Rose, while I see your point to protect our constitutional rights, your comparison to accidents and shootings are completely off base due to the fact one is on purpose, the other isn't. One is a situation out of control, the other is an issue of a person in complete control. I would use a different example is all I'm saying.
For example, I keep hearing how we can't get control over criminals with guns? Why not? They're not allowed to have them, are our laws not strict enough? Whether you like it or not NYC is one of the lowest rates of gun violence with a city of millions, compared to other cities, what that means is what they're doing...works! Yet other cities are not following suit, why not? One of the country's highest in the states has the lowest population, Alaska, what are they doing wrong?
The same with education, look at what is working, doesn't matter from where, and just do it.
Feb 28, 2019 16:44:24 #
Rose42 wrote:
Actually Obama was on record as being anti-gun. I... (show quote)
Obama may have been personally anti-gun but he was NEVER going for a gun grab, he was president for eight years and nothing of that caliber ever came up in a bill. Check his bill record. He knew that that would never fly, but still the rhetoric flew around, not from him.
It must be in human nature not to be curtailed, but sometimes it is for the best when it comes to protections. The Bald eagle, for example, was once almost extinct. We all need to just stay reasonable, and hold off on accusations. No one is listening to the other, each side is only yelling at the other, we all need to stop and listen to the other and not misinterpret.
Animal husbandry
I always knew my husband was an animal Feb 28, 2019 16:49:26 #
Bad Bob wrote:
I didn't say that about Bob, Rose did, and I don't agree with her, Bob's a good guy!
Feb 28, 2019 16:52:47 #
buffalo wrote:
And who gets to decide if a person is mentally unstable? You anti-gun moonbats think anyone believing in the Second Amendment is mentally unstable.
Anyone taking medication for the mind or that can affect the mind. Fairly simple. Or simply diagnosed, as many refuse to take their meds, they can be the most dangerous.
Feb 28, 2019 16:55:22 #
Rose42 wrote:
You just hit on a big issue with this bill - who determines mental instability.
Doctors
Feb 28, 2019 16:56:54 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.