gun control by candidates

[marcinstl]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...mpaign=partner

even a misogynist's worst nightmare, Hillary Clinton
Gun control advocates see Clinton as "an ally who can finish the push for tightened background checks that has stalled in President Obama's second term".

if serious background checks would prevent the insane, feeble, and ne're-do-wells from buying a gun and shooting anywhere around me, I'd be so happy.
there's these news stories about drug dealers being charged with murder when a customer OD's, how about charging the guy on the corner selling stolen pistols if one of his customers commits murder? why doesn't the NRA propose some effective measures for curbing gun stupidity, they're the experts?

[JohnR]

Criminals don't join the NRA or listen to voices of reason. The key is to understand why there are so many people who think they're too important to follow the law, any law. Or too important to follow the societally agreed-upon system of morals that have served humanity well for millennia. Figure that out, turn it into a solution, and this junk will stop.

[Armybrat]

Hillary Clinton is married to a misogynist.

[muggsy]

No law stops a criminal from committing a crime. Criminals are by definition law breakers. Only the law abiding obey the law and you don't need protection from the law abiding.

[marcinstl]

that's the point, we don't need more laws or politicians blah, blah- we need solutions. any number of politicians and the media would argue gun laws, etc. for ever. any of them have anything to say about mental health? how about some progress in the economy and poverty? anybody running for president want to talk about parenting? maybe something easy like education?

[Barth]

Naturally, with the latest church shooting, some politicians are again talking gun control?!?!?
How about all the existing laws that criminals will always ignore?
How about criminal control? (enforcing existing laws)
How about mental health?
How about who's going to protect the law abiding public after they are disarmed?

Don't dictators almost always disarm the public?
Live Free or Die Hard

Barth

[muggsy]

The world isn't a perfect place. It will never be a perfect place regardless of rules and regulations. Man himself is imperfect. Prepare for the worst and hope for the best is as good as it gets.

[CJB]

If one were to interpret the First Ammendment as the Second is currently interpreted, Moe Hammud cartoons would be banned. The bible would be banned. @#$@#$@# vulgarity would be banned. Flag burning would be banned. Church sale signs would be banned.

Well, maybe not the bible banned. You'd have to be over 21, show ID and fill out a form, then wait three to seven days to get one. And private sales or gifts between individuals would be prohibited, and you couldn't carry it out in the open in public.

After all, "laws that are just" can "regulate" rights.

We are so comfortable being regulated out of liberty....... Pretty much, we have rights, as suits the government, under limited conditions of course.

[Tilos]

When I lived in Florida, the governor at the time passed the 5/10/life mandatory law, for committing a crime while carrying a gun.
Didn't need to show/use the gun, just have it in the commission of a crime, you get 5 years.
And to get the 10 years, after serving the 5 yrs., it's simply possession, no crime needed.
...and it works.
jmo

[downtownv]

2 Hotties and a ScrewBall!

Listen to Dana Loesch’s Fiery Rebuttal After Guest Claims ‘Very Serious Data’ Show Gun Control Prevents Murders

Jun. 19, 2015 5:48pm Jason Howerton

Discussing the prospect of a push for greater gun control in the aftermath of the tragic Charleston church shooting, Blaze TV host Dana Loesch clashed with anti-gun advocate Nomiki Konst on Thursday night over whether stronger gun laws would prevent future mass shootings.
Loesch made it a point to note that suspected shooter Dylann Roof was already legally prohibited from carrying or obtaining a firearm as he had a felony drug possession charge pending against him. Roof was reportedly given a gun as a birthday present by his father in April.
“In South Carolina, all you have to do is be charged with a felony to be declared illegitimate to carry, which he was in February of 2015. He was charged with a felony for drug possession,” Loesch said. “It was methamphetamines and cocaine. His father purchased a firearm for him for his 21st birthday, April 4, 2015. That could have been a straw man purchase, which is also a felony. He reportedly told someone that he stole the gun that he used in these murders. That’s also a felony.”
She added, “Felony, felony, felony.”
Fox News

Later in the segment, when host Megyn Kelly stated that a man with a legal gun was able to save a womanfrom being decapitated in Oklahoma, Konst called it an “anecdote.”
“So, anecdotes are fascinating, but they’re not data,” she said. “And we do have very serious data that backs up that gun reform does prevent murders, massive murders — 49 of the 60 massive murders that we’ve had in our country have been due to illegal and legal purchasing of gun.”
“If it’s illegal, how is another law going to prevent it?” Kelly asked.
“Let me clarify, meaning, passing on, such as this situation, where it was gifted or stolen,” Konst replied.
Loesch then interrupted, “And it’s illegal, it’s a straw man purchase.”
Watch the entire segment below via Fox News:

(H/T: Newsbusters)
—

[JohnR]

When laws are your only tools, every problem looks like a crime.

[marcinstl]

so, if any 2 people were arguing gun control to the extreme, one would have to take the position of ridding the country of any and all guns, the other person would take the position of arming and training each and every citizen. either back to knives and clubs or everybody is packing, all the time.
after a 5, 10 year period would the crime and murder stats change if either extreme were put in place? would poverty, racism, education, demise of the middle class be affected?
would Megyn Kelly still be whining about something?

[DanTana]

so, if any 2 people were arguing gun control to the extreme, one would have to take the position of ridding the country of any and all guns, the other person would take the position of arming and training each and every citizen. either back to knives and clubs or everybody is packing, all the time.
after a 5, 10 year period would the crime and murder stats change if either extreme were put in place? would poverty, racism, education, demise of the middle class be affected?
would Megyn Kelly still be whining about something?

If you can't rid the country of 100% of all firearms, then only the lawless would possess them and it would be worse than what we have now. At least with the 2nd option, if all people were trained and even supplied a firearm, then I believe crime would go down. In the old west everybody had a gun of some kind, simple robberies were virtually unheard of. Sure they occurred, but the robber had better think twice knowing his victim is armed. I'd rather have the latter. You can't forget why the 2nd Amendment was written, to be able to fight a dictatorship, which is very close to what is happening now. Once they ban the guns, then you can toss out the rest of your freedoms.

[Planedude]

Pretty much the way it is in America these days...

[deadeye]

I agree with Megan whining and Fox News in general. Wish they would ban it. I am studying to be a gun hating left wing liberal and the truth keeps sidetracking me.
In times of tyranny, deceit and lies, the truth is our enemy!