Arizona Blue Dog Dem shot at public event

[Huckleman2000]

[...] the Prohibitionists [...]the anti-gun prohibtionists [...]the Prohibitionists [...]

Who is advocating gun-prohibition in either this thread or in the broader political arena?

No one.

Yet you capitalize this fictitious group as if it's a political party or something. It isn't. There is no organized political effort of any substance or influence to ban guns.

People won't treat you like a whackjob if you stop talking like a whackjob.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Not legally.

Why not enforce the existing prohibition on illlegal aliens possessing guns? It has only been on the books since 1968.

For that matter, why not just enforce drug and immigration laws - that's simple, isn't it?

WAIT-
I JUST THOUGHT OF A GREAT IDEA!!! WHY NOT JUST ENFORCE ALL OUR LAWS, AND THEN THERE WILL BE NO CRIME ANY MORE AT ALL!!!!

 

[Weird Harold]

Exactly. For all the drugs crossing the border going north, there are assault guns and high-capacity magazines going south. The scary violence that the right uses to whip up anti-immigrant fervor is a product, to a great extent, of the availability of military-grade weaponry.

I'm reminded of a recent embarassment fo the myth that legal american guns are being smuggled into Mexico. A big deal was made of a video showing Federales destroyng a huge pile of "guns made in America" -- all with the distinctive profile of AK-47.

The AK-47 and most its derivatives isn't legally for sale in America. The pile of guns destroyed in Mexico would comprise a significant percentage of all legal AK variants in the US because it just isn't that popular without the full-auto mode.

 

[amicus]

More utter BS from the Left, the preferred weapon remains the Kalishnivkof AK47, now manufactured in 40 nations, Semtex, surface to air missiles, Rocket Propelled Grenades, and much more coming in through South and Central America into Mexico and thus to the Drug Lords...Islamic Terrorism
is streaming across the border and they come well equipped.
Read up a little or continue to look the fool

Amicus

 

[SeaCat]

For that matter, why not just enforce drug and immigration laws - that's simple, isn't it?

WAIT-
I JUST THOUGHT OF A GREAT IDEA!!! WHY NOT JUST ENFORCE ALL OUR LAWS, AND THEN THERE WILL BE NO CRIME ANY MORE AT ALL!!!!

Hmmmmm, amazing concept you have come up with there. Enforcing the laws that are on the books. Now why didn't I think of that?

Can this be done? If not why not?

Cat

 

[DeeZire]

I'm reminded of a recent embarassment fo the myth that legal american guns are being smuggled into Mexico....

Here's a quote from the end of a FACTCHECK.ORG report on US guns in Mexico. The 90% figure quoted by many on the Left was proven false, as was the 18% figure quoted by FOX.

Whether the number is 90 percent, or 36 percent, or something else, there’s no dispute that thousands of guns are being illegally transported into Mexico by way of the United States each year.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/

 

[sr71plt]

Not legally.

Well, then everything's wonderful.

I guess in the gun lover's la la land that means something.

 

[sr71plt]

More utter BS from the Left, the preferred weapon remains the Kalishnivkof AK47, now manufactured in 40 nations, Semtex, surface to air missiles, Rocket Propelled Grenades, and much more coming in through South and Central America into Mexico and thus to the Drug Lords...Islamic Terrorism
is streaming across the border and they come well equipped.
Read up a little or continue to look the fool

Amicus

Ummm, Amicus. You didn't respond to my challenge on which of us is a deadbeat. Since you brought the issue up.

 

[JackLuis]

Limbaugh's 'Straight Shooter' Billboard Yanked in Tucson

Call him Mr. Sensitive?

 

[Weird Harold]

It was the presence of the gun that resulted in the deaths of those people in Tucson.

Who is advocating gun-prohibition in either this thread or in the broader political arena?

sr for one.

"It was the presence of a gun" "if guns weren't so available" and similar phrases are all over this thread.

"Why aren't extended magazines banned," "there's no legitimate reason to have a thirty round magazine" and the list goes on and on and on and on and on and on...

There's a lot of "we don't want to ban everything, just this one little thing" spouted by the Prohibitionists, too. It is part of the "baby steps" strategy -- sometimes called the slipery slope -- recommended by several national and international anti-gun lobbies.

As for organized anti-gun prohibitionists, I'm sure you've heard of Sarah Brady:

From that day on, I decided that much more needed to be done to help keep children safe from guns. And since that time, I have fought against the gun lobby and anyone else who wants guns "anywhere, at any time for any one."

That's from her official bio at http://www.bradycenter.org/about/bio/sarah

Jan 13, 2011
Sarah Brady urges stricter gun laws after Tucson tragedy

That's the headline from a USA Today article

I don't believe gun owners have rights.
Sarah Brady

Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.
Sarah Brady

That's just two of an entire page of similar quotes collected Brainyquotes -- I can't vouch for their accuracy -- the second seems a bit extreme even for Sarah.

7318 news articles related to gun control advocates

90 articles on new gun cntrollegislation proposed in direct response to Tucson

Category:Gun control advocates
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Articles about individuals who have actively worked for gun control. (This category is part of Category:Activists, and therefore is not intended for people who have merely espoused an opinion.)


Category:Gun control advocacy groups in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles about groups in the United States that advocate on behalf of gun control by promoting firearms legislation, stricter enforcement, and/or gun safety.

I could spend all day tracking down actual mission statements for all of those advocates and groups, but Sarah Brady's position sums up most of them:

Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. -- attributed to Sarah Brady

 

[Weird Harold]

Well, then everything's wonderful.

I guess in the gun lover's la la land that means something.

Well to rational people, not trying to usea tragedy to push an agenda, it means:

"if you can't or won't enforce the laws already on the books, what makes you think more laws will make any fucking difference?"

 

[Weird Harold]

WAIT-
I JUST THOUGHT OF A GREAT IDEA!!! WHY NOT JUST ENFORCE ALL OUR LAWS, AND THEN THERE WILL BE NO CRIME ANY MORE AT ALL!!!!

Sounds good to me.

I doubt that it would eleminate all crime and all tragedies, but it would be a fair start on the problem.

That is NOT sarcasm, BTW. Far too many crimes are commited by people who have been arrested and then released after plea bargaining felony charges down to a misdeameanor; if they had been prosecuted and incarcerated for the original felony charge, they would have at least wait a few years before commiting another crime.

 

[Weird Harold]

Here's a quote from the end of a FACTCHECK.ORG report on US guns in Mexico. The 90% figure quoted by many on the Left was proven false, as was the 18% figure quoted by FOX.



http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/

Thanks for that link.

 

[sr71plt]

sr for one.

"It was the presence of a gun" "if guns weren't so available" and similar phrases are all over this thread.

Ah, that's how you want to spin it. Speaking of the propriety of the presence of a gun in non-law enforcement hands at congresswoman's public meeting in a shopping center is a far cry from total ban.

But I can see why you have to go to the extreme on your position.

Why worry, though? Americans are going to keep on killing each other with guns. It's part of the American way.

 

[sr71plt]

Well to rational people, not trying to usea tragedy to push an agenda, it means:

Well, yes, it's obvious that we have entirely different concepts of the "rational." I, for instance, don't feel like I need a second phallus (a gun). The one I have suffices.

 

[Weird Harold]

Well, yes, it's obvious that we have entirely different concepts of the "rational." I, for instance, don't feel like I need a second phallus (a gun). The one I have suffices.

And that explains how more laws will be enforced when existing laws are not?

I am absolutely stunned by the magnifigance of your arguments -- NOT. I might be really stunned if you actually presented an argument, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[sr71plt]

And that explains how more laws will be enforced when existing laws are not?

I am absolutely stunned by the magnifigance of your arguments -- NOT. I might be really stunned if you actually presented an argument, but I'm not holding my breath.

You seem not to have noticed that "how more laws will be enforced when existing laws are not" hasn't been anything close to anything I've posted on to this point. This is your distraction game, so that argumentation you so sweetly talk about never existed. (You're sounding more and more like Amicus in your obfuscation techniques.)

I agree with the need to enforce existing laws. I don't agree that's what you really want, though. I see it as yet another smoke screen you are throwing up to keep your toy guns.

If the existing laws (which, however, thanks to the NRA and friends, don't go far enough) were to be enforced, that would be a good start.

But they aren't, are they? You and others in your set are going to keep throwing flak up in the air to make sure they're not.

 

[DeeZire]

Excuse me for butting in, but I thought this observation, lifted from the Shields and Brooks portion of the PBS News Hour, might be of interest. This has nothing to do with guns, BTW.

MARK SHIELDS: There was one observation that was made this week I just have to pass on to you by a friend of mine, Allen Ginsberg, who is an historian up in Maine, and he said, "This week, we saw a white, Catholic, Republican federal judge murdered on his way to greet a Democratic woman, member of Congress, who was his friend and was Jewish. Her life was saved initially by a 20-year-old Mexican-American college student, who saved her, and eventually by a Korean-American combat surgeon."

JIM LEHRER: Dr. Rhee.

MARK SHIELDS: Dr. Rhee, that's right.

"And then it was all eulogized and explained by our African-American president." And, in a tragic event, that's a remarkable statement about the country.

 

[Weird Harold]

I agree with the need to enforce existing laws. I don't agree that's what you really want, though. I see it as yet another smoke screen you are throwing up to keep your toy guns.

FWIW, MY guns aren't at risk even if you manage to duplicate Australia draconic legislation. The .22 rifle is the only one remotely at risk and then only under the Australia model.

I entered this "discussion" with the premise that there are more effective remedies to prevent a repeat of Tuscon and other notorius shooting than passing more gun control laws. I still hold that position -- if there had been mental health care available, and a way to ensure the shooter took advantage of it, there would be no incentive to howl at the moon and demand more gun control.

If you must pass more laws as aresult of the shootings in Tucson, then make mental health evaluations mandatory when mentally ill people are identified. Several opportunities for intervention which would have averted this incident have been identified. Similar opportunities to see the risk factor and avert tragedy can be found for most of the mass shootings.

Numerically, there have been far more points where forcing the killers into mental health programs could have averted the various than there are points where the killer could be stopped from obtaining a gun.

Of course, those kinds of solutions take far more thought and effort than shouting "OMFG! He used a gun!"

 

[SeaCat]

You seem not to have noticed that "how more laws will be enforced when existing laws are not" hasn't been anything close to anything I've posted on to this point. This is your distraction game, so that argumentation you so sweetly talk about never existed. (You're sounding more and more like Amicus in your obfuscation techniques.)

I agree with the need to enforce existing laws. I don't agree that's what you really want, though. I see it as yet another smoke screen you are throwing up to keep your toy guns.

If the existing laws (which, however, thanks to the NRA and friends, don't go far enough) were to be enforced, that would be a good start.

But they aren't, are they? You and others in your set are going to keep throwing flak up in the air to make sure they're not.

I am so sorry Oh Enlightened one but I just couldn't stay away. You see the blocks just weren't giving me the mental stimulation I need or enjoy.

So where shall i start? Hmmmmmm, how about that statement that so angers you?

"Guns don't kill people, people do". I hesitate to say this but the statement is factualy correct. The guns themselves don't kill people. They are inanimate objects much like a rock or a knife. They do however, and I think that this is the basis of your argument, make it easier for the person or persons wielding them to kill multiple targets and at a distance. (In the case that started this thread multiple people.)

As for the enforcement of the laws. Maybe we should consider this a bit more. These are the persons banned from owning a firearm or ammunition by the Federal Laws:

Those convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanors
Fugitives from justice
Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs
Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution and currently containing a dangerous mental illness.
Non-US citizens, unless permanently immigrating into the U.S. or in possession of a hunting license legally issued in the U.S.
Illegal Aliens
Those who have renounced U.S. citizenship
Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces
Minors defined as under the age of eighteen for long guns and handguns, with the exception of Vermont, eligible at age sixteen.
Persons subject to a restraining order
Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (an addition)
Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition

Now I feel that the enforcement of these laws alone would cut down on the numbers of people owning firearms, if they were enforced.

I can't attest to the laws in other states, I just know the ones in my state. (Florida) They are about the same as the federal laws but they do have additions. ie. the 10-20-life law. Again if these laws were enforced it would do a good job of cutting down on the numbers of those who commit crimes with firearms.

Unfortunately at least in the state of Florida and I can only surmise it is the same in other states, the laws aren't truly enforced. The Plea Deal is the name of the game.

As for the ownership of the so called assault weapons, I wouldn't argue against a ban or special licensing. If the government came up with an intelligent description of what an assault weapon is. Is the definition the number of rounds it carries? The caliber? The action it uses?

Cat

 

[Huckleman2000]

[...]Of course, those kinds of solutions take far more thought and effort than shouting "OMFG! He used a gun!"

Actually, he used a gun with an extended clip. That means he could kill or injure 20 people without reloading.

What's wrong with banning high-capacity magazines? Apart from your "slippery slope" nonsense?

Incidentally, one of your gun-toting superhero-codpiece brethren was on the scene in Tucson. He started running toward the scene when he heard gunshots. By the time he got there, the shooter had already emptied his 30 rounds and been tackled as he tried to reload. The guy with the gun thought that the tackler who picked up the gun was the shooter, and shoved him against a wall. Luckily, he didn't shoot him.

There's the reality of the gun-owners' vigilante fantasy.

The Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."

This is a much more dangerous picture than has generally been reported. Zamudio had released his safety and was poised to fire when he saw what he thought was the killer still holding his weapon. Zamudio had a split second to decide whether to shoot. He was sufficiently convinced of the killer's identity to shove the man into a wall. But Zamudio didn't use his gun. That's how close he came to killing an innocent man. He was, as he acknowledges, "very lucky."

That's what happens when you run with a firearm to a scene of bloody havoc. In the chaos and pressure of the moment, you can shoot the wrong person. Or, by drawing your weapon, you can become the wrong person—a hero mistaken for a second gunman by another would-be hero with a gun. Bang, you're dead. Or worse, bang bang bang bang bang: a firefight among several armed, confused, and innocent people in a crowd. It happens even among trained soldiers. Among civilians, the risk is that much greater.

 

[Weird Harold]

What's wrong with banning high-capacity magazines? Apart from your "slippery slope" nonsense?

I don't know. Perhaps tying a high-capacity magazine ban to a law so ineffective even Sarah Brady didn't serious oppose letting it fall to its sunset clause?

You know, Sarah Brady, The one who says in her official biography on her official website dedicated to gun control, "And since that time, I have fought against the gun lobby and anyone else who wants guns "anywhere, at any time for any one.""

You know, the Sarah Brady that is theleading spokesperson for the organized anti-gun organization that you claim doesn't exist. Even she couldn't justify extending the Assault Weapons (and extended magazine) Ban

 

[sr71plt]

I entered this "discussion" with the premise that there are more effective remedies to prevent a repeat of Tuscon and other notorius shooting than passing more gun control laws.

None of which you plan to take beyond stating this premise because you figure you and your ilk can just continue doubletalking this to death and ascribe extreme positions to others that they haven't voiced. (But your strategy most likely will work, because this is America, and America is crazy that way.)

 

[Weird Harold]

None of which you plan to take beyond stating this premise because you figure you and your ilk can just continue doubletalking this to death and ascribe extreme positions to others that they haven't voiced. (But your strategy most likely will work, because this is America, and America is crazy that way.)

You mean positions taken by founders of organizations dedicated to fight ..."against the gun lobby and anyone else who wants guns "anywhere, at any time for any one.""

I suppose cutting and pasting from her official bio is "... ascribing extreme positions ... they haven't voiced."

I haven't aligned you with the Prohibitonists, YOU have.

 

[colddiesel]

Can pet fish be used as an assault weapon?

In the State of Arizona you need a licence to cut toenails, do manicures, apply hair dyes, sell pet fish, look after children and any number of other innocuous things.

Most of these licences involve background checks... but buy a Glock with an extended magasine the only purpose of which gun is to kill people ???