They demanded a vote.

Who do we blame for the Boston bombs? The Bomber.Who do we blame for a school/campus/movie shooting? The Gun.Using Washington's logic, they need to make background checks for pressure cookers and nails.

Gray4lines

I read a little on Manchin's bill (since he's my senator and former gov'nor) and it was only background checks on legal sales and such. A special exclusion was "between family members or friends where no money is exchanged"

You think criminals and kooks are gonna buy legally, and agree to a background check, or find a friend to "trade with and bypass all of it? Just sayin.

xmacro

Rain:
Who do we blame for the Boston bombs? The Bomber.Who do we blame for a school/campus/movie shooting? The Gun.Using Washington's logic, they need to make background checks for pressure cookers and nails.

You're already too late. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) has said he'll introduce legislation requiring background checks for anyone buying black or smokeless powder in any quantity. So much for reloading without a hassle.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/345866/senator-introduce-legislation-requiring-background-checks-sale-explosive-powder

xmacro:
Rain:
Who do we blame for the Boston bombs? The Bomber.Who do we blame for a school/campus/movie shooting? The Gun.Using Washington's logic, they need to make background checks for pressure cookers and nails.
You're already too late. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) has said he'll introduce legislation requiring background checks for anyone buying black or smokeless powder in any quantity. So much for reloading without a hassle.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/345866/senator-introduce-legislation-requiring-background-checks-sale-explosive-powder

...sigh.

xmacro:
Rain:
Who do we blame for the Boston bombs? The Bomber.Who do we blame for a school/campus/movie shooting? The Gun.Using Washington's logic, they need to make background checks for pressure cookers and nails.
You're already too late. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) has said he'll introduce legislation requiring background checks for anyone buying black or smokeless powder in any quantity. So much for reloading without a hassle.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/345866/senator-introduce-legislation-requiring-background-checks-sale-explosive-powder

Frank Lautenberg is an idiot. I can make a bomb out of a potato.

cabinetmaker

beatnic:
xmacro:
Rain:
Who do we blame for the Boston bombs? The Bomber.Who do we blame for a school/campus/movie shooting? The Gun.Using Washington's logic, they need to make background checks for pressure cookers and nails.
You're already too late. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) has said he'll introduce legislation requiring background checks for anyone buying black or smokeless powder in any quantity. So much for reloading without a hassle.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/345866/senator-introduce-legislation-requiring-background-checks-sale-explosive-powder
Frank Lautenberg is an idiot. I can make a bomb out of a potato.

I can make a projectile from one...

I think we ought to have no bomb zones.

Amos_Umwhat

webmost:
I think we ought to have no bomb zones.

Especially near schools, don't you think?

And how 'bout carry permits for hammers, and baseball bats

and FBI investigations on anyone purchasing laundry soap and gasoline on the same day...

raisindot

Rain:
Who do we blame for the Boston bombs? The Bomber.Who do we blame for a school/campus/movie shooting? The Gun.Using Washington's logic, they need to make background checks for pressure cookers and nails.

By this logic, it should perfectly legal for people to buy, own and use (for protection or sport) anti-aircraft missiles, howitzers, bazookas, mortars, grenades, cluster bombs, machine guns, artillery weapons and mines. After all, any of these can be used for protection or sport, and none of these kill people--people kill people. Since all of these are technically "arms," they are thus protected by the second amendment. Therefore, anyone who believes that any of these weapons should be illegal to own has just landed on the slippery slope toward the erosion of your second amendment rights.

jadelt

I got the answer!

Lets make a new law that says it is illegal to steal guns and shoot people with them! Yeah that will solve the problems!

.... oh... wait.....

AVJim

jadelt:
I got the answer!

Lets make a new law that says it is illegal to steal guns and shoot people with them! Yeah that will solve the problems!

.... oh... wait.....

A potential way to end gun violence is to create a law that requires everyone to where a shirt or button that says, "Don't Shoot Me, Please" (very important to be polite to by saying please) and create more gun free zones. Yes.... I am joking.

raisindot:
Rain:
Who do we blame for the Boston bombs? The Bomber.Who do we blame for a school/campus/movie shooting? The Gun.Using Washington's logic, they need to make background checks for pressure cookers and nails.
By this logic, it should perfectly legal for people to buy, own and use (for protection or sport) anti-aircraft missiles, howitzers, bazookas, mortars, grenades, cluster bombs, machine guns, artillery weapons and mines. After all, any of these can be used for protection or sport, and none of these kill people--people kill people. Since all of these are technically "arms," they are thus protected by the second amendment. Therefore, anyone who believes that any of these weapons should be illegal to own has just landed on the slippery slope toward the erosion of your second amendment rights.

This is true. The second amendment simply says: "Shall not be infringed."

I'm thinking a surface to air anti-aircraft weapon is what will be needed to take down a government drone.

beatnic:
I'm thinking a surface to air anti-aircraft weapon is what will be needed to take down a government drone.

Or if your neighbor let's tree branches grow over a fence in to your yard. A JDAM will teach him.

raisindot

Guys, I might not agree with you, but I respect your unwavering commitment to allowing anyone to purchase any kind of weapon they want. It takes a lot of guts to admit that you're comfortable with allowing your mentally crazy non-criminal neighbors to purchase and own weapons of mass destruction.

I'm certainly happy to light up a cigar with any of you (in an area a suitable distance away from the gunpowder kegs), but I hope I never wind up living next door to any of you. And I'm also glad that 86% of Americans--Democrats and Republicans alike--disagree with your perfectly valid views--at least on the subject of background checks for gun sales.

Wait a second.Who here thinks that background checks are not needed?Raisin, I don't think people should be allowed to own all the weapons you mentioned. My only point was Washington harps on guns too much. As we see, lots of things can, and are, used as weapons. The only connection between guns and pressure cookers is people. Let's focus on background checks and making sure the only people who are getting guns are, to the best of our knowledge, sane. We can't do much about people who steal them and use them.

Amos_Umwhat

Rain:
Wait a second.Who here thinks that background checks are not needed?

dunno, I'm good with those

AVJim

Rain:
Wait a second.Who here thinks that background checks are not needed?Raisin, I don't think people should be allowed to own all the weapons you mentioned. My only point was Washington harps on guns too much. As we see, lots of things can, and are, used as weapons. The only connection between guns and pressure cookers is people. Let's focus on background checks and making sure the only people who are getting guns are, to the best of our knowledge, sane. We can't do much about people who steal them and use them.

Well put Randy.

Rain:
Wait a second.Who here thinks that background checks are not needed?Raisin, I don't think people should be allowed to own all the weapons you mentioned. My only point was Washington harps on guns too much. As we see, lots of things can, and are, used as weapons. The only connection between guns and pressure cookers is people. Let's focus on background checks and making sure the only people who are getting guns are, to the best of our knowledge, sane. We can't do much about people who steal them and use them.

Three points here:

1) If it does not work, stop doing it. We have added over 20,000 gun regs since Kennedy was shot. They haven't made the problem any better. When I was a lad, Dad could go in the hardware store and buy a gun unmolested. Nobody was shooting up schools. What has changed since then? More gun regs, more fatherless children, more atheism, gorier entertainment, you finish the list. If a godless culture whose main themes are fornication and gore produces lost children who shoot up their school in a gun free zone despite tens of thousands of gun regs, then how is the solution more gun regs? Hello?

2) Get to the point and stop wasting time. I understand that people feel like they have to do something, but doing the wrong thing won't get the job done. All the clamor for background checks soaks up time and attention which could otherwise be devoted to the real point at hand, which is how do we make a better society. Say the bill had passed with flying colors. Then everyone would have dusted off their hands and walked away feeling good about themselves for accomplishing something which does nothing while the root causes remain unaddressed.

3) Do what you swore to do. If you are sworn to uphold the Constitution, then stop trying to weasel your way around it. Hey, like it or not, here is exactly what separates us from confusion, is that we have a contract which limits the powers of government. Other countries do not. That's why we call ourselves the land of the free, and that's why we have had to go bail them other saps without a contract out from time to time. You can add a new amendment if you want. Otherwise, read and obey. If you obey this precept you will have government of by and for the people. If you ignore this precept, you will have government of by and for the government.

As recently as 1946, returning veterans had to pick up guns, even raid the armory to get assault rifles, and, yes, even use explosives, to bravely defend their right to a free and honest ballot count, against yet another Democratic Party machine. It happened in McMinn County Tennessee. That's right. In living memory. Right here in the good old USA. Google up the Battle of Athens.

Don't think that history is over yet. It is not. Our society still has time to get better. Left on its present course it can only get worse. Either way, if we discard our right to bear arms, which is ultimately our right to wield the power, then tyranny will most certainly surprise us.

Is it the easy way? No.
Is it the way? Yes.

raisindot

Rain:
Wait a second.Who here thinks that background checks are not needed?Raisin, I don't think people should be allowed to own all the weapons you mentioned. My only point was Washington harps on guns too much.

Ahh, okay. I thought you (and some others) were against any kind of regulation of guns, including background checks (the NRA and the senators who voted against this area. I don't believe that a gun registry was any part of this bill, and there were exemptions for guns gifted in families).

And, realistically, there was almost no legislative time spent on gun control measures between the end of the Brady Bill in the Bush administration and Newtownn. We're talking about a total of four months of debate during an 8 year period. I wouldn't call that harping at all. Hell, the Republicans have spent ten times as much time uselessly trying to overturn Obamacare, an equally fruitless endeavor.

But, you see, your statement that you don't think people should be allowed to own all the weapons I mentions proves my point. If I say I'm against the sale and ownership of semi-automatic weapons, then, by the definition of some, I'm limiting their second amendment rights. If you say people shouldn't be allowed to own howitzers, then someone else will say you're limiting their second amendment rights."Common sense" can't be the prevailing wind here, since your common sense may be very different than mine. I'm completely in support of the right to own most categories of guns, but if someone says guns should be allowed in their town then I'm saying that person is violating my second amendment rights.

Where does the slippery slope begin--where does it end?

We have to keep in mind that at no point will everyone agree with ANY law.I mean, to be honest, our entire form of Government is based on majority rules. You don't agree with the laws? Tough. I don't mean you, I mean that in a general sense.Do I think Cuban cigars should be illegal? Heck no. Which brings up a point though. If I smoke a cuban, I have knowingly broke the law...because I don't give a **** what the government says about cuban cigars. If someone steals a weapon and kills someone, they have knowingly broke the law. Should the government then focus on more Cuban export/import laws? No, they already have laws saying that what I did was wrong. It's up to them to enforce.

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

xmacro

raisindot:
Rain:
Who do we blame for the Boston bombs? The Bomber.Who do we blame for a school/campus/movie shooting? The Gun.Using Washington's logic, they need to make background checks for pressure cookers and nails.
By this logic, it should perfectly legal for people to buy, own and use (for protection or sport) anti-aircraft missiles, howitzers, bazookas, mortars, grenades, cluster bombs, machine guns, artillery weapons and mines. After all, any of these can be used for protection or sport, and none of these kill people--people kill people. Since all of these are technically "arms," they are thus protected by the second amendment. Therefore, anyone who believes that any of these weapons should be illegal to own has just landed on the slippery slope toward the erosion of your second amendment rights.

Got some news for ya: bazookas, howitzers, mortars, tanks, flame throwers, machine guns, artillery weapons and grenades are already legal for civilians to own.

I dunno about you, but I don't see "our streets turned into warzones", as the Left is so fond of predicting if they're flavor-of-the-day legislation isn't passed.

raisindot:
but I hope I never wind up living next door to any of you.

Ignoring the not-so-subtle "you're all a bunch of **** psycho's" implication of your statement, you'd be surprised how many people around you own a handgun and a rifle. 99.9% of gun owners are law abiding citizens who've never had a run in with the law; you really wouldn't know a gun owner from a non-gun owner by looks or even talking to them, much like you wouldn't know who drinks microbrew vs BMC by looking at or talking to them.

AVJim

webmost:
Rain:
Wait a second.Who here thinks that background checks are not needed?Raisin, I don't think people should be allowed to own all the weapons you mentioned. My only point was Washington harps on guns too much. As we see, lots of things can, and are, used as weapons. The only connection between guns and pressure cookers is people. Let's focus on background checks and making sure the only people who are getting guns are, to the best of our knowledge, sane. We can't do much about people who steal them and use them.
Three points here:

1) If it does not work, stop doing it. We have added over 20,000 gun regs since Kennedy was shot. They haven't made the problem any better. When I was a lad, Dad could go in the hardware store and buy a gun unmolested. Nobody was shooting up schools. What has changed since then? More gun regs, more fatherless children, more atheism, gorier entertainment, you finish the list. If a godless culture whose main themes are fornication and gore produces lost children who shoot up their school in a gun free zone despite tens of thousands of gun regs, then how is the solution more gun regs? Hello?

2) Get to the point and stop wasting time. I understand that people feel like they have to do something, but doing the wrong thing won't get the job done. All the clamor for background checks soaks up time and attention which could otherwise be devoted to the real point at hand, which is how do we make a better society. Say the bill had passed with flying colors. Then everyone would have dusted off their hands and walked away feeling good about themselves for accomplishing something which does nothing while the root causes remain unaddressed.

3) Do what you swore to do. If you are sworn to uphold the Constitution, then stop trying to weasel your way around it. Hey, like it or not, here is exactly what separates us from confusion, is that we have a contract which limits the powers of government. Other countries do not. That's why we call ourselves the land of the free, and that's why we have had to go bail them other saps without a contract out from time to time. You can add a new amendment if you want. Otherwise, read and obey. If you obey this precept you will have government of by and for the people. If you ignore this precept, you will have government of by and for the government.

As recently as 1946, returning veterans had to pick up guns, even raid the armory to get assault rifles, and, yes, even use explosives, to bravely defend their right to a free and honest ballot count, against yet another Democratic Party machine. It happened in McMinn County Tennessee. That's right. In living memory. Right here in the good old USA. Google up the Battle of Athens.

Don't think that history is over yet. It is not. Our society still has time to get better. Left on its present course it can only get worse. Either way, if we discard our right to bear arms, which is ultimately our right to wield the power, then tyranny will most certainly surprise us.

Is it the easy way? No.
Is it the way? Yes.

Even better stated....

jadelt

OK OK Here is another answer......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8

LOL