First it was assault rifles.
Then it was high capacity magazines.
Now it’s universal background checks.
If only we could have our way with these! Then all of our problems are solved.
The problem is, all are symbolic and useless gestures. None of them would have prevented any of the terrible recent events but that deters a liberal not.
Crises and tragedies are fungible in the liberal world. These can easily be converted into the currency of politics and they have done exactly that with both Newtown and Boston.
Sen. Kelly Ayotte voted against the Manchin-Toomey Amendment and in so doing immediately became a lightning rod for the left:
Kelly Ayotte’s big mistake on background checks
screams The Daily Kos
Ayotte was held up to ridicule by both the Washington Post and Huffington Post.
WaPo:
WARREN, N.H. — The contentious political fight over gun control moved into the White Mountains of New Hampshire on Tuesday as gun-control activists began to focus on Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) as a prime target in their effort to revive their push for stricter gun laws.
Ayotte was a key, high-profile vote against the bipartisan plan to expand the national gun background-check program, which failed in the Senate two weeks ago despite overwhelming public support and extensive efforts by the White House. The failure was widely seen as a triumph for the National Rifle Association.
Back home this week for a series of town hall meetings, Ayotte is facing new constituent anger and a coordinated effort by gun-control groups to turn her vote into a political liability. These organizations include Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the group founded by New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I), and the liberal think tank the Center for American Progress. Other groups are deploying organizers to New Hampshire, Arizona, Arkansas, Nevada and North Dakota in hopes of shaming moderate senators of both parties who voted against the background-check plan.
Much of the debate from both sides of the issue over the past week has centered around Ayotte’s vote. Pro-gun groups such as the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation ran radio ads commending her for protecting the rights of gun owners, while Americans for Responsible Solutions, the super PAC founded by Tucson shooting survivor and former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), ran its own radio ads criticizing her for voting against a measure that had the support of 90 percent of Americans. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s group Mayors Against Illegal Guns has also announced its plans to go after Ayotte over her vote.
You should see the comments over at HuffPo, e.g.
“Republicans are cowards who lack the courage of their convictions!!!” and
“Such a meeting would represent a breach of her contract with the gun lobby.”
Erica Lafferty, the daughter of Newtown victim Dawn Hochsprung, was ferried up from CT to embarass Ayotte:
Erica Lafferty, the daughter of slain Sandy Hook Elementary School principal Dawn Hochsprung, confronted Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) Tuesday over her vote against expanding background checks for firearm purchases.
“You had mentioned that day you voted, owners of gun stores that the expanded background checks would harm,” Lafferty said, during a town hall in Warren, N.H. “I am just wondering why the burden of my mother being gunned down in the halls of her elementary school isn’t more important than that.”
Never mind that Lafferty’s emotional plea defies logic. Expanded background checks would not have prevented Newtown. It would not have stopped Adam Lanza from gunning her mother down.
Nancy Lanza passed a background check. So did Jared Loughner. So did James Holmes. So did Seung Hui-Cho.
Liberals want action, but not solutions. Just action. Any action.
The bullying of Ayotte has gotten so bad that the New Hampshire Union-Leader has had enough:
“It’s disappointing and disgusting that she can pretty much look me in the eye and try to justify my mother’s murder and the murder of five other educators and the murders of 6- and 7-year-olds,” Lafferty told Politico afterwards. “It’s disgusting.”
No, what is disgusting is deliberately mischaracterizing someone’s position for the purpose of portraying that person as a willing accomplice to murder. That has been the left’s strategy since Newtown. It is a testament to the Senate that a majority of its members, including Ayotte, did not cave to such bullying.
Carolyn Maloney (Idiot-NY) wanted us not to forget that she has been swimming in the stupid pool as well:
Stronger gun control laws would have prevented the accused Boston bombers from getting firearms and could prevent future terror attacks, according to a New York Democratic lawmaker.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney said on Monday that tighter background checks and increased penalties for straw purchasers would help thwart terrorism, citing Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing, who waged a late-night firefight with police and are accused of shooting and killing an MIT security guard.
As if she and only she knows how the Tsarnaev brothers got their guns.
There is something that makes crystal clear what this is about. Five democrat Senators- count ’em- voted against this amendment.
Baucus, Begich, Heitkamp. Pryor and Reid all voted just as Ayotte did.
There is no assault on them. No bullying. NO “big mistake.” No victims’ wives, no children of victims try to intimidate them. It’s ONLY the Republican who is subject to the vendetta.
It’s disgusting.
The left has forfeited its moral authority on this issue entirely.
This is not about gun control. It’s not about safety. It’s not about background checks.
It’s pure, crass, bald-faced partisan politics on the bodies of the dead children of Newtown and the families of the victims.
Selective umbrage doesn’t cut it. This is straight out of Alinsky:
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
Ineffective legislation based on pure emotion is a really bad idea from the get go. Capitalizing on death and grief for pure politics is beyond despicable.
I dare not enter into this post the words which convey my true feelings about liberals.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
And yet, while the left will trot out the victims of Sandy Hood time after time to push their agenda of [gun] control, the seats reserved for the press at the Kermit Gossnell trial remained empty, save a few conservative reporters. Gossnell could go down as the serial killer with the most kills on record.
Jack Kervorkian proved that you don’t need guns to be a murderer.
Yet liberals seem to be embracing his type of murder.
Vermont:
Montana:http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/mailbag/dignity-in-death-assisted-suicide-is-still-not-legal/article_1e19a630-b332-11e2-8c96-0019bb2963f4.html
Oregon:http://www.catholicsentinel.org/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=35&ArticleID=21173
Just as they seem ready to embrace Kermit Gossnell’s type of murder.
Apparently murder is NOT really the issue at all.
You’re having trouble believing that the mothers and fathers of murdered children would be sufficiently motivated to speak their thoughts about firearm regulation in public?
If universal background checks and restrictions on magazine capacity are nothing but “symbolic and empty gestures,” why are you so riled up about it?
@Greg:
Remember Cindy Sheehan?
She thought her viewpoints were immune from being debated because her son’s death in battle.
The Left used her mercilessly.
Then, when they had run her through all the money her son left her, they abandoned her.
She was wrong….as well as used.
Her ideas needed to be debated and, if they were wrong, refuted.
So, too with these parents of murdered children.
They have every right to speak.
They have no immunity from refutation.
Had universal background checks and restrictions on magazine capacity been the law of the land before their children were killed, it would not have mattered.
Those children would be just as dead.
In THAT sense making laws about universal background checks and restrictions on magazine capacity would be symbolic and empty gestures.
What people are riled up about is that those restrictions would not stop criminals from gunning down both their intended targets as well as innocent bystanders.
All these proposed laws would do is further restrict law abiding people whose guns have never killed anyone.
Assault weapon is a political and legal term that refers to different types of firearms and weapons, and is a term that has differing meanings, usages and purposes.
An assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain cosmetic, ergonomic, or construction features. Semi-automatic firearms fire one bullet (round) each time the trigger is pulled; the spent cartridge case is ejected and another cartridge is loaded into the chamber, without requiring the manual operation of a bolt handle, a lever, or a sliding handgrip. An assault weapon has a detachable magazine, in conjunction with one, two, or more other features such as a pistol grip, a folding or collapsing stock, a flash suppressor, or a bayonet lug.[1] None of these alter the capability of the gun.. Most assault weapons are rifles, but pistols or shotguns may also fall under the definition(s) or be specified by name.
Just about every person asked confuses the term “Assault weapon” with “Fully automatic gun”. Banning assault weapon is a knee-jerk reaction to a term which merely sounds threatening. Please read James Thurber’s “A Very Proper Gander”!
CBS News reports that police believe the Tsarnaev’s murdered MIT campus police offier Sean Collier in order to get an additional pistol. The one pistol the brothers had at that time was acquired without the benefit of the required permits. So, apart from all the illegal bombs the brothers had made, each of which was a felony under both state and federal laws, they murdered a law enforcement officer to add to their arsenal of illegal weapons. Please tell me what law failed to protect the public.
Here is another episode where the failure of the law to protect innocent children resulted in attempts to pass yet more laws to control people for whom the law meant nothing.
During the Columbine massacre, in which 15 people were murdered and 21 injured, a total of four firearms were involved. The murderers also employed four knives and 99 explosive devices.
Of the firearms, only one qualified under the 1984 federal law as a banned “assault rifle”. One firearm was a doubled barreled shotgun with a shortened barrel. It has long been a federal felony to saw down the barrel of a shotgun and it was also a felony to possess such an altered weapon.
Every single explosive device was a federal and state felony to assemble, possess and use, and to use in the commission of a crime.
If the memory of Columbine is ever brought up today, the failure of the law to stop the use of explosives in a school massacre is never mentioned. It is never mentioned because that gets in the way of a Gollum-like fixation on the Precious, starting with the banning of certain firearms and certain accessories but to eventually to banning all firearms.
So far, the Precious Thing that progressives think will allow Utopia to arrive has slipped from their grasp. Being able to keep and bear arms gives free people the power to defend themselves from dangerous people or dangerous government. The Truth also gives power to defend as well. It is only a matter of time before progressives want to ban it as well.
We need to play the lefties word games against them… The Brady Bunch and their ilk are now “lobbyists”, and the NRA & GOA are now “gun owners’ rights activists”.
@Greg:
I know you know better, Greg, but you did provide another opportunity to hammer the point home.
If a tree falls on a house and hurts someone, liberals will demand that all lawns be cut on timely basis.
They want action. Doesn’t matter that it is not related to anything nor is it a solution to their problem.
Just gimme action.
Greg,
As if the liberal community at large doesn’t understand how a kneejerk reaction to an emotional event calling for some/any action seeking to atone for a grievous injury can go askew.
@<a href="http://floppingaces.net/2013/05/03/liberals-discover-the-fung, #5:
Give one homicidal lunatic headed for an unsuspecting crowd a six-shot revolver and a pocket full of ammunition. Give another homicidal lunatic headed for an unsuspecting crowd an AR-15 and jacket pockets stuffed with fully-filled 30-round magazines.
Is the difference between the two weapons and the loading mechanisms likely to be relevant to the final outcome or not?
I wouldn’t want to debate the point with the parents of any of the dead school children. Yet that’s exactly what a lot of republican politicians are setting themselves up to do before the next election.
I don’t imagine the argument that they’re being exploiting by “leftists” is going to carry much weight, either.
NOW I know why I liked her when she spoke publicly on other issues,
THANK GOD FOR KELLY AYOTTE, she has the guts to do what is right for THE PEOPLE,
the ones with brains who know the danger of BACKGROUND CHECKS
specially under THESES DEMOCRATES COWARDS calling her COWARD,
she is standing tall in front of those minions,
@Greg:
And put those “one” homicidal lunatics in a gun free zone (school, movie theater, or a Luby’s restraurant) and the body count will be great no matter what weapon the lunatic uses.
Perhaps we should have “assault” planes and restrict all large commercial airplanes. After all, 19 hijackers using four large commercial airplanes killed more people than the Japs killed at Pearl Harbor, and those hijackers didn’t have firearms with them. There were children on those planes, Greggie, and you know what Obama said “If it saves the life of one child…………” Are you ready to ban commercial airliners?
And what is your suggestion to end the massacres going on in Chicago, one kid at a time. Do you think that the death of a child, one at a time, is less important than the death of a children in larger numbers?
AND what about TOOMEY crossing over the liberals to vote with them.
he was not elected to vote against his party, he pull one on his voters,
they had it with him,
Greg
where do you find an homsuicidal lunatic?
are they advertizing in the PAPER?
oh yes in the FAIL BACKGROUND CHECK?
who put his name there? is it his wife angry with him,
or a friend he had a different point of view with?
or a LIBERAL DEM to ruin his profile?
how about your name someone pic up at GOOGLE,
HOW ABOUT A FELON WHO DID HIS TIME for a mild error?
and there is more
A big add in the PAPER:
I AM a lunatic homosuicidal looking for a job,
any time of the day or night,
join me and bring money to this obamaphone number,~!@#$%^
@Greg: The Utah Shooting Sports Council offers free concealed weapon class to any teacher or school administrator.
No matter which type of gun the lunatic brough into Sandy Hook Elementary a principal or other administrator could have stopped him flat …. had he or she been trained and carrying.
There’s the real preventative action.
@retire05: Most of those children in Chicago are black. Hence the reason. Kind of like how they were all in favor of stopping the killing of white, European looking Muslims in Bosnia but were opposed to stopping the killing of brown, Iraqi Muslims even though more of them were being killed.
Greg…how about lets not give “ANY” homicidal maniac “ANY” weapons to start with…whether it’s a revolver or an AR-15. Lets keep them homicidal maniacs off the streets to start with. And since the police have them, who said such a person can’t get such a weapon by killing a cop with the pistol first? Or do we outlaw such weapons for cops as well? I mean if the cops need them to fight the same people that are loose in our neighborhoods? What does that say? Here…I’ll take the AR-15…you take this 5 shot revolver. No thanks!!
Beyond that…there is no way to remove 30 round mags from availability EVEN if the gov invokes a ban as they did a while back. They can only “ban” the manf of them after a certain date. The manf would just ramp up production prior to any such ban, and there would be plenty of them for sale throughout the ban just as there were before. The only thing it does is drive up the cost of them.
Lets test your logic in another direction. The Gosnell case. An abortion clinic doing illegal, late term abortions under horrific conditions. The place was full of baby parts. A jar full of baby feet, etc. Testimony of babies born alive..that he killed and/or let die. Babies killed. What do you think our response to such horrific thing should be? (understanding that what he did was illegal to start with).
Should we pass more laws limiting abortions for women? Should we decrease the number of weeks for a legal abortion to take place? Should we register women to make sure that the abortion they are about to have does not exceed the regulated limit?
Since there is an inherent “right” to an abortion…..where should the burden be placed in such cases where you seek to prevent such abuse? On the people who commit the illegal act? On the agencies who are supposed to regulate and monitor such clinics? (it was not inspected for over 10 years). Or on “all” women and clinics that otherwise operate legally?
Be interested to hear what you think.
So far as I can see, the question of a woman’s right to have the final say concerning her own reproductive function is in no way connected to the question of what constitutes appropriate firearm regulation.
To make that connection, there must be an assumption that a pregnancy medically terminated as the result of a woman’s own conscious decision is the equivalent of having her child shot to death in an elementary school classroom.
That’s just too big of a leap for my own logic to make.
I’m speaking of the inherent right in our 2nd amendment to keep a firearm …vs crimes committed with them. Owning a gun is a choice you make..or have a right to make. Shooting kids in a school is not a right…it’s a crime.
Dr. Gosnell is on trial for murder for snipping the necks of babies born alive. (a crime). He was also performing abortions on women past 24 weeks…(also a crime). I have no problem separating the crimes committed here..from the right for a woman to “choose” to have one or not have on.
Perhaps we should start calling the 2nd amendment the “right to choose”.
What I’m getting out here…is can you separate the “right” from the “crime”? Or is that not possible?
@Greg:
Here, let me see if I can explain this so even you can understand it:
if you don’t want to risk killing someone with a gun, a) don’t buy a gun and b) don’t shoot at anyone if you do.
If you don’t want to run the risk of getting pregnant, a) don’t do the things that cause pregnancy and if you do, be smart enough to practice safe sex in the first place.
Contrary to the rape/incest meme of the left, abortions due to rape/incest are less than less 1% of all abortions. So much for that lie. Most abortions are done because women just didn’t want a baby because they are selfish bitches who want the right to have sex without the responsibility of having sex. And no surprise that, as a man, you support abortion. Just another get out of jail free card for you.
Now, Greggie, do you think Kermit Gosnell is guilty of murdering children? Do you think we should abolish commercial airplanes that caused the deaths of almost 3,000? Or are these questions you will ignore like you do every other question put to you.
Odd how Sandra Fluke wants the taxpayer to pay for her birth control but seems to have enough money to vacation in Italy this past month.
You’re a sad, pathetic, brainwashed fool, Greggie.
Joe Biden pointed up the idiocy of simply writing and passing more laws:
Of the form filled out for a ”universal background check,” Biden said ( I paraphrase) who has time to check whether every box on the form is filled in accurately?
Well, who indeed!?
Turns out Chicago doesn’t have the time or inclination.
http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/Screen-shot-2013-05-04-at-12.32.32-PM.png
Chicago ranks 80th out of 90 jurisdictions in federal firearms prosecutions.
In Chicago there is a shooting every 6.3 hours.
Of all the jurisdictions in the country, Chicago’s near last on enforcement of the federal gun laws.
Stats:
http://homicides.redeyechicago.com/
The TRAC study conclusions:
http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/249/
What I’ve begun to notice in Obama’s Administration is this:
He hires TONS of people who then sit around and do nothing.
@retire05, #21:
You apparently believe that a woman who becomes pregnant under any other circumstances automatically forfeits her right to make further decisions concerning her own body and reproductive function.
That is what is known as an opinion—and one that 99 percent of all women who seek termination of pregnancies would seem to disagree with. In each of those cases, it’s their own body they are exercising control over. For some odd reason, they seem to think that you shouldn’t get to cast the deciding vote.
I agree with them. They should get to decide what they do. You get to decide what you do.
THEY know about ALINSKI they used the rule 12 on the survivor of BENGHASI,
and the RULE 5 after on them,
ridicule the targetnumber 5
cut off the support network and isolate the target, number 12
12 was first and then 5 when they came out to talk.
JAY CARNEY said the number 5 today
Excellent videos: http://www.youtube.com/embed/_T-F_zfoDqI?feature=player_detailpage
Blind Oklahoma veteran takes down would-be attacker in broad daylight
@Greg:
Answer the questions, coward.
Ditto
I couldn’t get MR WRIGHT here AT FA
it came as 414 or 404 not found
but I got him in my site very well and the BLIND VETERAN
made my day, I got him here at FA,
thank you a treasure on top of a treasure,
Nice dodge, Greg.
Maybe for one who is trying to avoid the actual logic involved in Dc’s post, but probably not for most people.
Here is the logic in question form;
Do you support adding more laws to the books that limit what a citizen can do, simply because a crazy person has chosen to break the existing laws?
@Greg:
And yet, you also believe that when it comes to guns that YOU should be able to decide what I get to do and not myself.
That, Greg, is tyranny.
Greg
most of them are not responsible enough to decide, for many reasons it could be too young to make the decision they will carry the guilt all their life,
so make it easy for them, open a clinic in every corner,
but don’t give them a way to get their pregnancy to term,
erase every possibility when they show up distress afraid of this major life changing
human been they carry,
make it so ugly to panic them into decision of abortion,
don’t give them time to reflex and pray GOD for asking spiritual supportt
THEY TOOK GOD OUT OF SCHOOL
AND HELL AND FORNICATION IS REPLACING HIM
THEY DON”T TEACH THE YOUNG TO CROSS THEIR LEGS AND SAY NO,
they teach SEX to hungry YOUNGS who are at the age to need love , but they don’t teach love,
they don’t teach the way to restrain yourself,
schools teach unfinish lessons and send them out in the
LET”S HAVE FUN WORLD, without the tools they need,
and so easy is the solution to their pregnancy, just like throwing garbage out.
but their guilt stay with them all their lives,
@ilovebeeswarzone:
You comment reminded me of when rocker Bono had his ”mugged by reality” moment.
Bono had pushed feeding the poor, starving people of Africa.
He visited Africa often to make sure people were getting the food.
What he saw astonished his liberal bleeding heart.
Those ”poor,” were now sitting around, doing nothing productive.
BUT they were making babies in vast numbers!
More mouths to feed and no inclination to lift a finger to feed them!
That was what he had wrought with all his efforts to help the Africans.
He saw the error of his short-sightedness and changed his focus.
Now he encourages poor people to help themselves.
(The old adage is true: Give a man a fish and you feed him today; TEACH a man to fish and you feed him for his lifetime.)
Nan G
yes so true
how old rules fit so well for the young who think they own their lives,
and keep doing dumb actions and cry when stock in the middle of the lake
not knowing how to swim back and take the new event with a positive mind,
oh but they only hear negatives from OBAMA, threatening their WORLD
with his damn SEQUESTRER where their WORLD will crumble,
the young decide to live from day to day, and take all the so called forbidden pleasures,
today because TOMORROW will be doom,
I wonder –If I were to go to Sears this afternoon and went to the Home Appliances department just how many signatures I could get from the shoppers there on a petition banning pressure cookers!?!?
I
I haven’t seen it mentioned here but how are the authorities supposed to determine the mental stability of any prospective gun owner when that specific information is banned from public knowledge by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA)?!?!
The Act was put into place by those not wishing to reveal their possible substance abuses, sexual preference, or mental status. The PC, sensitivity trained, left enacted this 17 years ago and it is still a crime to violate the privacy of any person refusung to divulge any health information.
No need to browbeat Greg. I didn’t imagine he would answer it anyway.
Greg,
My goal here wasn’t to try and put you in a box and wait for an answer. It was to simply, perhaps, get you to think about the logic of it for a moment. If abortion/guns block any sort of thought for you, or is somehow a bad example…perhaps you (yourself) can think of one that applies the same logic…that might be more inclined to open you up to think about it.
Perhaps another/different example might help:
Suppose someone yells fire in a crowded theater, (an illegal act using speech…that is not protected by the right to speak), and the resulting panic kills (tramples) just as many people as the shooting in the Co theater (including women and children).
What do you think should be the response to that crime? (particularly involving the right to free speech).
Given yelling fire in a crowed theater is already a crime, and covered under law, would further limiting or regulating the right to free speech for “all” people be something you think would be reasonable to consider after such an event? (ie., do you believe the nature of the crime should be used to decide whether or not to limit the right to free speech for all people?). Or do you believe that this should be directed at the person who committed the crime and the right to speech should not be otherwise impacted given what they did was already a crime?
Or maybe this as a compromise: muzzle all people who attend a movie prior to them entering the theater? They shouldn’t need to talk during a movie anyway. If you need to talk…go home or go outside. (using opinion to form the basis of limiting others rights).
Or do you think the right to free speech…had nothing to do with this crime…even though “speech” (what came out of their mouth) was what was used as a weapon that ultimately caused the death of those people?
I’m sure you can come up with something…that could express your thoughts/views concerning rights…and people who misuse those rights to commit a crime.
If you accept that guns are a “right”, then i’m primarily interested in why that right is fundamentally different or should be treated differently when a crime is committed than any other right that can also be regulated?
If someone violates someones right to privacy in such a way that it causes the death of some person or persons….should the answer to that be…to limit everyone else’s right to privacy?
EDIT: let me help you out a bit here Greg,
A good example for you might be…what happens after a bombing that causes large loss of life. We all give up certain freedoms or restrictions in travel, or freedom to assemble…after such an event for “public safety”.
However, the thing to think about is…those things are normally temporary or related to ongoing threats. They aren’t permanent revocations of rights written into law.
We all go through the indignity and inconvenience of security checks at the airport as the result of 9/11 and other attempts after. But, we don’t expect congress to advocate writing permanent restrictions on our rights and privacy into law because of it.
Perhaps that could help you get started?
Dc
that is a super example for the antigun followers to understand
the gun owners, I’m not sure they will want to learn something different than what
they where told by OBAMA one reason only to ban and back checked every one,
they are all fixed on one road to walk on, even if the trees fall on them,
because OBAMA used his PRESIDENTIAL power to influence them,
so their laws where not pass because of the intent was not fitting in, as best for AMERICANS
and it smell the rat. instead, and they lost a majority who have seen it clearly.
Good question, Gerry.
Doctors want to know, too.
Physicians are increasingly being called on to pass judgment in the permitting process on whether their patient is physically and mentally competent to safely have and use a weapon.
But, most physicians have no medical training in weapons or how to make a determination of competence to use a weapon, and there are few if any established standards in place to help guide them, according to a new perspective article in the New England Journal of Medicine. (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1302795)
One of the authors’ of the above article:
“One of the real problems which we really found is there really are no standards by which physicians can assess the safety and how that relates to physical conditions and psychological conditions,” said Dr. Adam Goldstein, a professor at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine.
He adds that ObamaCare complicates matters:
Doctors worry about protecting themselves and their patients. They don’t want to compromise patient confidentiality or limits on what they can legally release.
Even if physicians don’t want to get involved with making judgments on their patient’s competency to carry a gun, Goldstein says that’s no longer an option.
Dr. Goldstein fears that some doctors may use their personal opinions on guns rather than making that decision based on safety standards.
http://www.wral.com/docs-in-tough-spot-in-gun-permit-process/12376661/
Doctors deciding if you or I may have a gun.
It is almost as bad as a judge deciding that a 15-year-old girl can understand and use Plan B properly.
The law as it stands right now…is a court has to determine that. The problem is..after that happens..the states are not reporting it into the background check database. (declaring it’s an issue of privacy). So, privacy trumps…shooting people in theaters. That’s the very reasons loughner and others passed a backround check.
And yet..when otherwise legal gun owners say they don’t want to be part of some gov data base….the roof and rafters vibrate with objections that they don’t care about the little children slaughtered by some crazy idiot in Conn. Why?
Now…tell me that it wouldn’t have mattered whether or not Lanza’s name was put in that database or not…because he stole his Mom’s guns and used them to shoot those kids. And then remind me why we are talking about background checks.
As a separate post. Lets question (perhaps) the numbers and statistics being tossed around here. They say only 60% of guns go through a background check. Where did that number come from?
It comes from a police survey asking gun owners where or how they obtained their guns. 60% said they bought them at a retail gun store. So, they extrapolate that only 60% woiuld have been subjected to a background check.
How many of you inherited a gun? From a relative? My father-in-law passed away…left 3 rifles, 2 shotguns, and 3 pistols. They were all taken by various family members. None of that went through a background check. None of those firearms have ever been used in a crime. The last Uncle that past….a WWII vet…left 6 rifles, 5 pistols, and 4 shotguns…none of which went through a background check. I’ve got 13 uncles.
None of those weapons have ever been used in a crime. All of them…legally passed ..through family. None of them are counted in that 60%.
Secondly…”any” federally lic firearms dealer (FFL) MUST complete a a record and background check for every firearm they transfer. Period. There is no exemption for that for gun shows. If you are a dealer and have a table at gunshow…you MUST use background checks. None of “that” is included in the 60%.
Internet sales: Internet sales are BIG for retail firearms because they can save money shopping it that way. However, any firearm purchased online from a retail dealer…MUST go through a local FFL dealer before it can be transferred. That means…a background check. THAT is not counted in the 60% above.
The “loophole” …has always been “private” citizens who bring guns to a gunshow and setup a table or seek to sell a firearm privately,. Because of the pressure from anti-gun lobbies…many gun shows..today..require a background check for ALL sales…regardless of the nature of it. That also is not included in the 60%. And many private gun owners also require a background check. That also is not included in the 60%.
Finally, the NRA sought to limit the amount of information that gov could collect on persons who own or purchase guns many years ago. Gun stores can keep serial numbers of guns sold which can only be accessed with a warrant. But, background check data cannot legally be retained for more than 90 days or so…before it has to be purged.
Therefore..there “is” no data available to make such a claim. There never has been. The data that the WH is using in this fight…is “old” data…that predates many laws that have already closed most of those loops holes.
The only “loop hole” that remains are ‘private” transactions…..ie., not retail. If I give my Dad a gun…that’s not registered, nor background checked. If I sell my gun to “you”…that’s not background checked. It’s up to YOU to ..the new gun owners…to follow the rules of your state and register it or not..etc. If you don’t…then YOU have broken the law. Not me…for selling it to you.
If you sell someone a car. IT’s not your reponsibility to register it for them, nor make sure they are lic to drive and have insurance.. Once that car transfers ownership…it’s up to THEM to do so. And just for some perspectives…cars kill more people every year than guns do. Or is it perhaps the “people” who drive those cars that commit the crimes?
You decide.
@retire05, #26:
I don’t think Kermit Gosnell has any more to do with the gun control issue—or with the issue of a woman’s right to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy—than Kermit the Frog.
It’s illogical to draw a generalized conclusion about anything, based a particular example that falls so far outside the norm that rational people on either side of the issue consider it totally outrageous.
So far as the taunts and personal insults go, I suggest you stick them up your butt to keep company with your brain. They aren’t furthering your position especially well.
@johngalt, #29:
The difference, to my mind, is that guns which other people own can have a direct effect on my own personal safety, and on the personal safety of people that I care about. What a woman privately chooses to do with regard to her own pregnancy has no such effect. I fail to see why her personal decisions regarding that are the proper business of the state, or of anyone other than herself.
I begin with the premise that it’s totally illogical to assert that our 2nd Amendment right is or should be absolute. If this were an absolute right, there would be no legal basis for denying people who are incompetent or irresponsible from acquiring firearms.
Once we agree that there’s some rational basis for restriction, the question comes down to the degree to which legal restrictions can be applied, without the restrictions becoming unconstitutional.
@Greg:
Ahhhhh: Yes.
So, given the nature of this crime (Gosnell) what restrictions on abortion do you suppose would be rational? Or are you saying abortion is exempt from restrictions?
Or are you saying the idea is once we agree that some restrictions are necessary…that we need to to restrict it to the limit of judicial review (constitutionality). ?
Just FYI….firearms are “already” restricted. The problem has been people violating the law. (ie., crime). Not the people who otherwise follow and adhere to those restrictions.
You are suggesting that because of the “crime” committed by mentally disabled persons…that the rights for all firearm owners should be restricted further.
Lastly, the idea that you should fear law abiding citizens because they have firearms…is a liberal/progressive meme. You have nothing to fear from them. YOU DO have something to fear from homicidal maniacs, and criminals…whether they have guns or not.
@Dc, #43:
Refer back to Kermit the Frog, in post #41.
Regarding Kermit Gosnell, he should permanently lose his licence to practice any sort of medicine. I assume he’s been subjected to a psychiatric evaluation? The story was so repugnant that I haven’t been following it very closely.
Dc
it was exempt because they never have check of any kind,
I bet he paid a lot back to the WHITE HOUSE so to get to do his work so freely
without restraints, they found a million dollar in his house,
@Greg:
Yes….”not only did he” lose his lic.. He’s on trial for murder! What should be done about the rest of the people having abortions (it’s a right). Should they be subject to restrictions because of “his” behavior??
As far as you not following the story…I understand. 🙁
However,…you do follow the story about people killed by firearms…no? You dont’ have any problem with that?
@Greg:
Sure they can. I agree. However, statistics on firearms used in crimes coupled with statistics of total firearms ownership show that regarding all legally owned firearms, only a very minute percentage is ever used to commit any sort of crime, let alone murders.
But so can a woman having an abortion, if done by a “doctor” such as Gosnell. Or do you think that the young woman who died as a result of Gosnell’s “work” didn’t have an effect on her family and friends, or society in general?
The reason that you so quickly dismiss the logic exercise that Dc presented is that you used the majority of the cases, regarding abortion, where no one but the fetus was injured, and therefore no one outside of that procedure was harmed, and compared that to the worst of our society, when it comes to guns and gun-control, to declare that there is no comparison. Neat trick. Probably not very many people noticed what you were doing there.
How about comparing the tens of millions of gun owners in this country who are law-abiding, who haven’t, and will never, commit a crime using a firearm that they own, to those thousands of women who have an abortion that in no way effects society beyond what happens in the room where the procedure is performed?
That is the point of the logic exercise, Greg.
I can go along with that, Greg.
It is a very repugnant story.
Now, imagine you find ALL abortion just as repugnant BUT ObamaCare FORCES you to pay for it!
See?
If I hadn’t moved to Utah where things are itemized and you can pick & choose and still be OK, I’d be paying partially for younger women (I’m too old to need birth control of any kind) to have their free California abortions.
YUCH!
Just as YUCH as you feel when you HAVE to follow this trial just so you can comment intelligently on it.
At least you can choose not to!
@johngalt: Gun control. Redistribution of wealth. Global Warming. The Fairness Doctrine. Political correctness. Bans on Big Gulps. Once you get through all the nitty gritty, they all come down to one concept- control. A certain segment of our society believes that the role of government should be to impose their views and beliefs on the rest of us. Perhaps they believe life was unfair to them. Perhaps they were bullied and this is their way of getting back. Or perhaps, they were the bullies themselves and this is just a continuation of bullying others into accepting their beliefs. If the majority of people thought like that, we’d be living under a dictatorship because that is invariably where it ends up.
I think the key to what is an obvious hole in logic concerning the right to keep/have firearms…despite it being written 2nd after freedom of speech as a right, is based on “need”. People judge firearms as something that is entirely unnecessary. I hear this a lot (Bloomberg…ie., you don’t “need” an AR-15…or 30 rounds to kill a deer” — as if the 2nd amendment was some NYS hunting regulation).
They also say…that the days of gov “tyranny” are past us…and no one needs worry about it. Over time, people have lost the connection with guns as tools. They see them only as criminal acts waiting to happen. And see the people who use them or buy them as redneck yahoos playing army.
The problem with these things (Greg)…is that they are “opinions”. You certainly would not someone deciding whether or not your right to free speech should be limited based on their opinion of what you might say or not. You are given the right…until…you abuse it or commit a crime. That’s what freedom is.
As far as guns having the potential to harm others….anything does. Yelling fire in a theater harms others. You car…certainly could harm others. Your choice as to how much drink before you get in your car has potential. But, you “do” have the right to choose….and we don’t pre-determine your guilt or innocence based on our opinions as to whether or not you should have the right to drive or drink at all, etc.
There are plenty of restrictions on automobiles related to public safety, etc…as there are with firearms as well. But, none of it would “stop” you from getting behind the wheel of your car and killing people with it. The choice, and the burden..is still on YOU and you are held responsible for your actions. We can’t “make” people be responsible either. We can only punish them if they are not.
But, given how many people are slaughtered every year with automobiles….you can STILL today…go buy a 600 hp, vette, or sports car. I could use your logic of opinion about firearms here…and suggest as an analogy that those type of cars….are no different than an AR-15 sporting rifle with a 30 round clip. Because “I” don’t see why anybody needs that much horsepower to just drive to the mall. Or needs to go that fast when the speed limit it (55-65). All they do is just encourage accidents. I could present statistics that show that those type cars…are more likely to be involved in an accident involving high speed, etc. And they have more potential to kill someone else. But, all these cars are “still” available today to anyone who would like to own one. You don’t see senators lining up to ban the type of car or vehicle that was commonly used in an accident. Because we inherently understand…it’s not the car…it’s the people driving it.
When you see some idiot on the road, drunk, driving a sports car…whip around you going 100mph almost taking your front fender off….what do you say to yourself? Do you say: “man…they should take that car off the market”? Do you think …wow…NOBODY should be able to own a car like that? Or do you say….look at that drunk a-hole! Somebody needs to get him off the road before he kills somebody! I think I know which one you’d be thinking.
You have to have a lic to drive a car on public roads. What you may not know is that you also, today, are required to have a concealed carry permit to keep a loaded firearm on your person in public. And this involves registration for you, and your firearm at a whole other level than a background check. My state is a “shall issue” state…which means that they cannot deny me a permit for concealed carry so long as there is no legal reason to. You are required to attend training, they take pictures and fingerprints, they ballistic finger print the weapon by firing it and saving the bullet. All this happens before you are allowed to have a firearm on your person in a public place. This already takes place today. In other states…the permits are much harder to get. So, the idea that we all walk around with our unregistered guns shoved in our pants…is ridiculous. Anybody who is doing that is either a criminal, or soon to be one.
There are more guns in this country than there are people. And there are shootings that happen accidental and criminal. But statistically you are FAR safer around your neighbor who has a gun, than you are around his car. If you see your neighbor walking around with a gun. Call the cops.
I respect your opinion Greg. And whether you know it or not…you “are” excercising the same 2nd amendment right…by choosing “not” to have one for your own personal reasons/beliefs. But, we don’t all share that same opinion nor exercise our rights in the same way. I do not believe that “guns” cause violence. I’ve grown up around them my entire life. Guns to some people are “tools” no different than a shovel or a rake. If it weren’t for guns…my father and his family would not have had as much meat as they did. The only veegans back then were starving people.