Why are the Dems NOW pushing for severe restrictions upon lawful gun owners

TurtleDude · Dec 23, 2012

Surtr said:
It's a punishment for the vast minority getting more media coverage. Out of millions upon millions of responsible gun owners, the media only focuses on the **** ups. Same with everything else, really. But lets judge about 50 million people based on the actions of one or two.

It won't solve the issue of violence in America, though. Just another bandaid.

which is why I wonder why gun haters don't target young white males or black males for that matter

less than one percent of gun owners who obtained their weapons legally will ever use those weapons in crime. 20-40% of black males will have a felony record by age 40. Of course blaming all black males for the sizeable number of their group that cause crime is unfair

but its even more unfair to try to restrict the rights of 99 people due to the criminal actions of one

Moot · Dec 23, 2012

TurtleDude said:
which is why I wonder why gun haters don't target young white males or black males for that matter.

I think they have.

less than one percent of gun owners who obtained their weapons legally will ever use those weapons in crime.

But 60% of guns used in crimes come from legal gun dealers and the rest seem to be stolen from law abiding citizens homes. All guns are legal from the manufacturers. The question is where do they go from there?

20-40% of black males will have a felony record by age 40.

Why do you think that is?

but its even more unfair to try to restrict the rights of 99 people due to the criminal actions of one

Then why doesn't the NRA demand harsher laws and sentences for negligent gun owners who don't store their weapons properly? Why don't they want mandatory gun training and safety to purchase a gun? Why don't they make it easier for LE to get guns out of the hands of criminals, instead of harder? Why don't they make it easier for LE trace the guns used in crimes back to their owners?

Moot · Dec 23, 2012

ttwtt78640 said:
8 months ago would have been perfect.

The Aurora massacre was about 6 months ago. But I think if one really wants to know why she wrote a gun bill a year ago then perhaps they need to look back at what was taking place around that time. Just a thought.

ttwtt78640 · Dec 23, 2012

Moot said:
The Aurora massacre was about 6 months ago.

Why wait until the maiximum time before (re)election? If these are such "good" and "popular" ideas then use them in a primary campaign and find out what the elctorate really thinks - don't wait until after election and then "pop" them up, declare a "crisis", push them through and say (to the public) after we pass it you can read it, to see what is in it. The timing of the gun control bill, as well as Hillary's "accident" simply do not pass the smell test.

H. Lee White · Dec 23, 2012

Simple:
They know they can play to the emotions of the unthinking.

This is proven as fact by the mindless rantings of those who support those restrictions.

Surtr · Dec 23, 2012

Moot said:
Then why doesn't the NRA demand harsher laws and sentences for negligent gun owners who don't store their weapons properly? Why don't they want mandatory gun training and safety to purchase a gun? Why don't they make it easier for LE to get guns out of the hands of criminals, instead of harder? Why don't they make it easier for LE trace the guns used in crimes back to their owners?

Because the NRA is composed of partisan tits who put their own interests ahead of everything else. They're lobbyists, a special interest group. No more no less.

Caine · Dec 24, 2012

Moot said:
I'm pretty sure Feinstein can handle her emotions just fine. But I have serious doubt about the tea partiers in congress. The sudden call to action? Theres been a quite a few massacres over the last ten years and they only seem to be increasing. So when is a good time for you? After five more massacres? Ten, twenty, what?

We can't legislate our way out of this problem.

We'll only lose our freedoms in the process, and still has massacres.

Caine · Dec 24, 2012

Surtr said:
Because the NRA is composed of partisan tits who put their own interests ahead of everything else. They're lobbyists, a special interest group. No more no less.

Yes, because 2nd amendment rights only belong to the NRA and not to the rest of Americans...

:roll:

Dooble · Dec 24, 2012

I checked every box because the Dems also prefer to control other people's lives.

"They earn too much! We need to raise their taxes" and "It's HIS fault! We inherited this mess". Or "You can't eat that! Here, this meets our standards, eat this". Or "You can't say that, but you can say this!".

mr4anarchy · Dec 24, 2012

TurtleDude said:
Is it the massacre or is it political expediency or just plain pandering

In order to better address the poll and the thread, could you list five suggestions / proposals by Democrats that you consider to be severe?

I assume by 'severe' you mean a government overreach that will eventually be overturned by SCOTUS. Because if you believe in the constitution and the checks and balances, then a law upheld by SCOTUS is the law of the land and should be respected as the will of the people--that is a law enacted by a representative government and reviewed by the constitutional authority.

Deuce · Dec 24, 2012

"Now is not the time to discuss airport security."

- Said nobody, on 9/12/01

MarineTpartier · Dec 24, 2012

TurtleDude said:
Is it the massacre or is it political expediency or just plain pandering

Meanwhile they are pro-abortion, we don't have seatbelts in school buses, they won't entertain funding a cop or private security guard in every school, some of them think we victimize child molestors by making them register and put a sign in their yard, etc, etc. They don't care about kids. They care about pandering obviously. This appeals to their constituents and once again the Dems beat the GOP to the punch of defining this tragedy. Just like they do every other issue that arises.

H. Lee White · Dec 24, 2012

You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.
-Rahm Emanuel

Lightning · Dec 24, 2012

TurtleDude said:
Is it the massacre or is it political expediency or just plain pandering

Because they are naive fool who believe destroying civil liberties will somehow stop deranged people from carrying out heinous crimes.

iguanaman · Dec 25, 2012

Fisher said:
It is liberal autocrats trying to force their will on people as they always do. They are ten times worse than the GOP about that despite their whining as to the opposite. What they fail to get now, as always, is that if they decided to adapt policies that promote or deter things instead of ramming it down people's throats, they would meet with a lot less resistance and garner a lot more support. Their Nannystate doctrine needs to be a little more Mary Poppins and a little less Bloody Mary.

Since gun owners are in the minority it seems to me that the NRA and the gun manufactuers are doing the forciing. Fewer and fewer gun owners are buying more and more guns in some sort of mad contest to prove something or other I guess and innocents are geting killed as a result. What are the majority supposed to do?

Moot · Dec 25, 2012

H. Lee White said:
You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.
-Rahm Emanuel

Thanks for clearing up just who Emanuel was talking about......

Gun sales surge; 3 1/2 years of ammunition magazines sold in 72 hours

"....Police say Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster AR-15 semi-automatic rifle on Dec. 14, when he went on a shooting rampage in Newtown, Conn. that left six adults and 20 children dead. He also killed his mother and himself.

In the AR15.com post, Brownell said he and his staff “absolutely apologize” for an order backlog on the company’s website that is slowing down usually instantaneous transactions.

“The demand for magazines actually exceeded the ability for the system to keep up with the volume that was being ordered,” he wrote.

“We’re working like crazy to get these orders to you as quickly as possible,” he added....

Gun sales surge; 3 1/2 years of ammunition magazines sold in 72 hours - latimes.com

KA-CHING$$$ as gun dealers and manufacturers gleefully dance around the cash register.

Moot · Dec 25, 2012

MarineTpartier said:
Meanwhile they are pro-abortion, we don't have seatbelts in school buses, they won't entertain funding a cop or private security guard in every school, some of them think we victimize child molestors by making them register and put a sign in their yard, etc, etc. They don't care about kids. They care about pandering obviously. This appeals to their constituents and once again the Dems beat the GOP to the punch of defining this tragedy. Just like they do every other issue that arises.

Pure garbage.

Colombine had two armed officers present at the school when the killers attacked and even engaged in a shoot out with them. After a week of so called reflection, Mr. LaPierre forgot to mention that fact during his pandering press conference last Friday. How come?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/columbine-armed-guards_n_2347096.html

Utah has had armed officers guarding our schools for YEARS and some even teach classes. So do tell how the NRA's plan is so "meaningful" in helping to stop the killing? It might have been meaningful if they offered to fund the police protection of schools....but they didn't. How come?

Surtr · Dec 25, 2012

Caine said:
Yes, because 2nd amendment rights only belong to the NRA and not to the rest of Americans...

:roll:

You either didn't read what I stated, or you have a problem understanding basic English.

DaveFagan · Dec 25, 2012

TurtleDude said:
Is it the massacre or is it political expediency or just plain pandering

It's opionions, just like buttholes, "everybody's got on." Some will check their opinion polls to see which vote gets them more votes at home. Some will do their homework and try to solve the problem. Some will go with the cash donations from those who buy politicians, including the NRA, weapons manufacturers and their opposites. In the end, we have the best politicians that money can buy, and the politicians will profit handsomely. That is what you can make book on. Will the results be satisfactory. Brings to mind the old axiom that "a camel is a horse designed by a committee."

Caine · Dec 25, 2012

Surtr said:
You either didn't read what I stated, or you have a problem understanding basic English.

The NRA is looking out for our 2nd amendment rights.....

Which is a little more than just "their own interests".... it also happens to be the best interests of All Americans.

Kind of like the ACLU will look out for your civil rights, regardless of how disgusting of a manner in which you might decide to use them.

Cephus · Dec 25, 2012

This really has nothing to do with the school shooting, that's just an excuse to bring up this same old tired desire once again, politicians never fail to trot out their fondest wishes when the opportunity presents itself. However, I think the Democrats, and the Republicans for that matter, really don't want to address the core problem, they just want to make a show of doing things for the voters without actually doing anything meaningful that would likely cost them votes.

Shadow Serious · Dec 25, 2012

First of all I assumed Turtle Dude was addressing those who are in a position of direct action that is President Obama, members of Congress, key members in Bureaucracy, and leading members of lobbyists.

The massacre was just a convenient circumstance to bring the gun control up after the election.

Even if Obama would have won the election if gun control was brought up before, it doesn't mean that it would not have had consequences to the politicians who were elected to Congress and most Democrats were not willing to risk their election for just this issue.

For whatever reason Democrats have fell behind the gun banners and of course are going to try to stick it to the pro-gun side.

I chose this since the Democrats do not want to deal with the budget and just want to raise taxes (and ban guns too).

A few might think it would reduce crime but the bulk would be aware that it would not. (I'm assuming that they are rational people and have other reasons for wanting to prohibit the ownership of guns for the general populace.)

Surtr · Dec 25, 2012

Caine said:
The NRA is looking out for our 2nd amendment rights.....

Which is a little more than just "their own interests".... it also happens to be the best interests of All Americans.

Kind of like the ACLU will look out for your civil rights, regardless of how disgusting of a manner in which you might decide to use them.

The NRA does more harm than good. With each stupid stunt they pull, they strengthen the other side. I support gun rights in this country, and the right for every American to continue to own a firearm long after I'm dead and buried, which is why I can never support the NRA. Partisan politics is not the way to protect rights, but it's a fine way to destroy them.

MarineTpartier · Dec 25, 2012

Moot said:
Pure garbage.

Colombine had two armed officers present at the school when the killers attacked and even engaged in a shoot out with them. After a week of so called reflection, Mr. LaPierre forgot to mention that fact during his pandering press conference last Friday. How come?

Columbine High School Had Armed Guard During Massacre In 1999

Utah has had armed officers guarding our schools for YEARS and some even teach classes. So do tell how the NRA's plan is so "meaningful" in helping to stop the killing? It might have been meaningful if they offered to fund the police protection of schools....but they didn't. How come?

And where, Moot, did you see me defend the NRA's plan? I simply stated that Dems wouldn't fund a guard in a school. And they won't. They'd rather spend it on less worthy causes. Politicians pretend to care, but they don't. They care about power. They care about money. They care about re-elected.
Columbine had 1 cop there, not 2. And the guy also wasn't wearing his prescription glasses as he is supposed to be, attempted to engage a target at 60 yards with a .45 cal pistol, and was outside the school on his lunch break when the shooting started. It was the perfect storm of stupid cop and bad timing. For all we know, the shooters timed it so he was on his lunch break. The fact of the matter is that no matter what we do, we aren't going to stop a determined individual or group of individuals from doing something like this. We can ban all guns, there would still be millions in circulation. We can put metal detectors up, see through backpacks, pat down every student, bar all of the doors, and still someone would find a way. There isn't a end all, be all solution to this.

Moot · Dec 26, 2012

MarineTpartier said:
And where, Moot, did you see me defend the NRA's plan? I simply stated that Dems wouldn't fund a guard in a school. And they won't. They'd rather spend it on less worthy causes. Politicians pretend to care, but they don't. They care about power. They care about money. They care about re-elected.

Baloney. Dems care just as much about protecting schools as the next guy if not more. Haymarket suggested putting guards in schools long before LaPierre did. Totally agree about politicians...except there are a few that seem to care more about people than power and money but they are helpless unless they play the game.

Columbine had 1 cop there, not 2.

Two. One was eating lunch in his car when the one of the killers saw him and started shooting at him. The other was a rapid first responder just seconds away, but didn't enter school because apparently he wasn't trained or equipped to SWAT and force his way in to seek out and kill the shooters, especially without knowing the situation inside.

And the guy also wasn't wearing his prescription glasses as he is supposed to be, attempted to engage a target at 60 yards with a .45 cal pistol, and was outside the school on his lunch break when the shooting started.

Yeah, thats what I just said.

It was the perfect storm of stupid cop and bad timing.

Such is real life.

For all we know, the shooters timed it so he was on his lunch break. The fact of the matter is that no matter what we do, we aren't going to stop a determined individual or group of individuals from doing something like this. We can ban all guns, there would still be millions in circulation. We can put metal detectors up, see through backpacks, pat down every student, bar all of the doors, and still someone would find a way. There isn't a end all, be all solution to this.

That is absolutely true. No matter how many guards are put at one school a determined killer will just find another vulnerable location and there's no guarentee that armed guards or police or even citizens with guns can be present at any given time or place to save the day. It's a cruel reality and sadly it's probably always been that way. But just not with quite the frequency that we are witnessing today.

Soo, we agree. Now what do we do? lol

Why are the Dems NOW pushing for severe restrictions upon lawful gun owners

WHy Are the Dems now Pushing Severe Gun Restrictions

Because of the School Massacre

Because Obama didn't want to lose the last election

Because the dems want to stick it to pro gun groups

Because the dems want to distract from the financial mess

Because they actually think it will decrease crime

Oher

warrior of the wetlands

Sometimes wrong

Outer space potato man

Haters gon' hate

Active member

Iconoclast

Haters gon' hate