Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-02-2013, 10:25 PM
FoieGrasIsEvil's Avatar
FoieGrasIsEvil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of Cheese Coneys
Posts: 18,031

Do Joe Biden's Recent Comments On Gun Control Bother You?


From this article, in which there is a GQ thread, I found some language from Joe Biden that is somewhat disturbing.

Here's the linked article, which shows Obama shooting a shotgun apparently skeet shooting, and what Biden says:


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...gun/?hpt=hp_t2

Now, the part that bothers me, as a semi-conservative owner of a single handgun is this weaselly language: Vice President Joe Biden led Obama's gun violence task force convened after the December 14 shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut.

He acknowledged to reporters after a Thursday meeting with Democrats on Capitol Hill that "Nothing we are going to do is fundamentally going to alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down." Obama had made similar comments earlier in the month.


It bothers me because it is essentially an admission (while having the President pose for a "see, I can shoot guns, ya'll" photo-op) that it will not do DICK to reduce gun violence, because THEY and WE know that the vast majority of thos homicides is by handgun. NOT some self-stylized military rifle....and NOR does the AR-15 afford any extra opportunity to kill MORE people than with a semi auto handgun....its just not true.


Nor will it ever be. Banning AR-15's due to their recent and highly publicized involvement in some heinous spree crimes doesn't change the facts about what type of guns are actually used in the vast majority of gun related homicides. Reducing a magazine size seems fruitless in the wake of handguns.

I own a handgun and just might give it up to the government....if their stance made sense.

This smacks of a "we gotta do something" ball-busting issue but is not properly investigated by people that actually know something about weapons....of which the likes of Feinstein cannot include themselves, nor can Obama, despite his photo-op.
  #2  
Old 02-02-2013, 10:33 PM
China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,675
If you really want to do something meaningful on gun control, then universal registration and universal pre-check before selling on to someone will be a giant first step.

I've said before, it's almost as if Feinstein is a NRA and GOP mole. Reframe the debate so that it rat holes on "assault style" weapons. The Republicans get alienation of a large swath of gun owners at a massive political cost. Net net, even if it passes, the Dems lose a lot of political capital and it does nothing on the handgun front...

Feinstein was an idiot when she was the mayor of SF (if only Jello Biafra had won that race ) and doesn't seem to have matured any since then.
  #3  
Old 02-02-2013, 10:34 PM
BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil View Post
This smacks of a "we gotta do something" ball-busting issue but is not properly investigated by people that actually know something about weapons....of which the likes of Feinstein cannot include themselves, nor can Obama, despite his photo-op.
Most of the somethings Obama wants to do at this point, as reflected in his recent stack of 23* gun-related executive orders, involve properly investigating the problems. He is not taking any precipitate gun-banning action.

Quote:
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

* Of course, that number alone should be a red flag to those in-the-know . ..
  #4  
Old 02-02-2013, 10:36 PM
DataX is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,925
No matter how much gun people insist the ban is illogical - there is some logic to things like restricting magazine size.

Will it prevent all deaths? Of course not. Will it prevent even 1 percent of deaths? Maybe not.

Will it actually never prevent a death? I doubt it. Thos against it see it as a needless intrusion into their 2nd amendment rights - those for it see it as a reasonable restriction.

You don't have to know much of anything about wine or beer to have an opinion on drunk driving.

If banning large capacity magazines is such a useless step - why do people want them? My understanding (perhaps incorrect) was that Gabrielle Giffords shooter was only stopped when he ran out of ammo and was trying to change magazines.

Gun rights advocates are parsing his language - everyone knows what he meant.
  #5  
Old 02-02-2013, 10:44 PM
FoieGrasIsEvil's Avatar
FoieGrasIsEvil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of Cheese Coneys
Posts: 18,031
I don't agree that "everyone knows what he means". The whole thing to me seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to recently highly publicized gun crimes that involved a certain weapon, while the 98% of murders committed with handguns gets a collective "ho-hum" from the legislative AND executive branch. Obama is presumably from Chicago, why has he not spoken out against the rampant handgun violence there? Or proposed legislation against handguns as a result?

Does ANYONE think that the reason this issue is solely revolving around "assault weapons" (which is a ridiculous term, when handguns are of the same ilk) because of recent events involving them rather than reasoned, rational debate about what to do about it?
  #6  
Old 02-02-2013, 11:07 PM
DataX is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,925
What is he going to do about handgun violence - other than the steps he outlined that covers all guns (like background checks)?

Do you really think Obama/Biden were saying that there was nothing they could do about gun violence - and therefore - that is proof that what they are trying to do is BS?

Is this debate solely brought on by the 2% of weapons (as you put it - not sure if that is true, but I am not disputing it - I agree it is small - and you may have just been taking an educated guess)?

Yes - I absolutely agree you are correct there. I don't see the problem. It still addresses (I am assuming the stuff about the background checks for example - applies to all guns - feel free to correct if I am wrong) all guns in some aspects.

Is some of this a political stunt? Yes. Sure it is. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. No one is trying to ban guns. Just cause there aren't double blind placebo controlled studies on all these things - doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to try some of them.
  #7  
Old 02-02-2013, 11:11 PM
Zoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Liberal South
Posts: 14,266
Foie Gras,I understand what you are saying about "assault weapons" being an inappropriate term. You and others on the SD have helped me to see the error of my claims.

If some of us had our druthers, all guns would be banned. That's not going to happen and maybe that's why Obama's executive orders don't address banning ordinary hand guns, shotguns or ordinary rifles. He is making a compromise. (I don't claim to have special knowledge of his preferences.)

The 2nd Amendment doesn't mention what arms Americans are entitled to. At the time of its conception, muskets were the "arm" of the day. I acknowledge that we are not going to return to that measure either. We need to be able to compromise to satisfy the Amendment and those who prefer no guns at all.

What specifically from BrainGlutton's list of Obama's executive orders do you think violates the 2nd Amendment? You say that this is a "knee jerk" reaction. I think it hasn't come quickly enough and certainly isn't based on one mass murder. However, the term "knee jerk" implies a quick reaction and that is exactly what is needed -- even if it is late in coming!

Since the Brady Bill (5 day waiting period on handguns) didn't seem to have much of an effect, why not have stronger measures?
  #8  
Old 02-02-2013, 11:19 PM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by China Guy View Post
If you really want to do something meaningful on gun control, then universal registration and universal pre-check before selling on to someone will be a giant first step.
Fist step? I hear a lot that about Obamas proposals being a good first step, but a first step to what? This:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoe
If some of us had our druthers, all guns would be banned.
No thanks.
  #9  
Old 02-02-2013, 11:29 PM
Zoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Liberal South
Posts: 14,266
About Biden's recent comment:

Biden: "Nothing we are going to do is fundamentally going to alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down."

Although this is one sentence taken out of context, he did not say what the exaggeration says that he said.

He talks about the possibility of another mass shooting not being altered. That makes sense to me. The possibility will always exist. And he said that nothing is going to guarantee that gun deaths will come down. He is not a stupid man. But we can hope that these measures do make a discernable difference.

What are the laws that have worked so well in New York?

Kable, we are long passed "No thanks" if you had rather have more children mass slaughtered. You did not read my post carefully, apparently. What I do stand behind is compromise. I know that I won't get my way on a gun ban. I hope that the NRA doesn't have it their way either. COMPROMISE!

Last edited by Zoe; 02-02-2013 at 11:32 PM.
  #10  
Old 02-02-2013, 11:52 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil View Post
I found some language from Joe Biden that is somewhat disturbing.
If gun control advocates describe the problem as simple, they're hypocrites or imbeciles. If gun control advocates describe the problem as complex, they're hypocrites or imbeciles. Got it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil View Post
I own a handgun and just might give it up to the government....if their stance made sense.
If the law required that you forfeit your handgun, you might do so ... if the law made sense to you. That's a concession!

Present company accepted, I have been amused to observe that it is the very people so concerned about 2nd Amendment sanctity that are most eager to break laws they disapprove of.
  #11  
Old 02-03-2013, 12:00 AM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoe View Post
Kable, we are long passed "No thanks" if you had rather have more children mass slaughtered. You did not read my post carefully, apparently. What I do stand behind is compromise. I know that I won't get my way on a gun ban. I hope that the NRA doesn't have it their way either. COMPROMISE!
A lot of us think you have had your compromise already. You just want us to compromise again, as a "step" in the direction of getting all guns banned, which we know (and you admitted) is what a lot of you really want. Like I said, not thanks.

And nobody wants children to be murdered. We hope that they will be protected. Like this girl...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPfz..._wgZ6g&index=1

...who if you had your druthers would have been defenseless. Is that really what you want?
  #12  
Old 02-03-2013, 12:55 AM
BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
Fist step? I hear a lot that about Obamas proposals being a good first step, but a first step to what? This:


No thanks.
No, sir. Univeral registration and pre-check are not first steps to banning all guns. That's just an instance of the slippery-slope fallacy.
  #13  
Old 02-03-2013, 12:58 AM
dexter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 116
There have been a ton of gun control “debate” threads lately, and because most people have long ago made up their minds about their position, I have tried to be somewhat reticent about voicing mine. But now I will try to communicate my opinion as best I can.

First, I think one of the things that could be realistically accomplished, and that might eventually do some good, would be to require the same background check for private transfer of firearms as is currently required for transfer from a FFL license holder (my reasoning is that it would make straw purchasers easier to prosecute). My understanding is that some states already require this, and it would probably be easier from a constitutional standpoint (the commerce clause has been abused enough, IMO) to work at the state level to accomplish this.

Now, if you really wish to ban or even seriously lower gun ownership in the US, you might want to think about what that would require. I’m not suggesting that it can’t be done. China was able to rid herself of a serious opiate problem, but it was rather bloody. Singapore also seems to know how to get serious when it wants to rid its society of gum chewers and graffiti artists, and I say more power to them, if that’s what the people there want. But I wouldn’t want to see that level of totalitarianism in the US, even though I think we flirt with it on such things as the “war on drugs”. Yes, I know that a drug and a gun are different things. Being able to effect real change on the possession of either requires a commonality of state powers, though.

Since one of the more common suggestions seems to be limits on high capacity magazines, I will take a moment to address this. For every round you add to a magazine’s capacity, there is a cost. The biggest cost is reliable feeding. For most inline magazines, the practical limit is between 20 and 30 rounds. Is this excessive? I won’t argue the point. I will say that if everything else is equal, two or three 10 round magazines will be more reliable than their larger kin. And it takes longer to clear a jam than it does to swap a successfully emptied magazine. To get to 50 or 100 rounds generally requires a drum magazine, and even the best of those are notorious for causing feed problems. It is my understanding that the theater shooter of recent history was using a 100 round “twin drum” magazine, it quickly jammed. Now that tragedy was plenty bad, but fact is that it could have been worse if the shooter’s gun had not jammed.

BTW, if you are open to hearing about use of firearms for non-criminal purposes, I would suggest you check out:

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

Yes, it is an NRA site, but the stories come from local news. These stories rarely make the national news wire feeds.
  #14  
Old 02-03-2013, 01:22 AM
Der Trihs's Avatar
Der Trihs is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
And nobody wants children to be murdered.
The pro-gun side has made it quite clear they don't care in the slightest if children or anyone else are murdered, however. Not even their own children, much less anyone else's. They care about guns. Period.
  #15  
Old 02-03-2013, 01:45 AM
Esox Lucius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil View Post
...having the President pose for a "see, I can shoot guns, ya'll" photo-op)...

...nor can Obama, despite his photo-op.
You say "photo-op" twice, yet the picture was taken last August well before the shit hit the fan, and the White House apparently had to go digging to find it. There was nothing "photo-op" about it.

But I can see how you'd object to Biden's statement. On the surface, it does look like he isn't holding out much hope for any new measures. I suspect he could have worded it better (good ol' Uncle Joe), but I haven't seen the context in which he said it, so I'm not going to rush to judgment on it.

I got a kick out of Marsha Blackburn's hissy fit, though. It looks like she's pissed that Obama can't be characterized anymore as a pansy-ass pussy who doesn't know anything about guns. She seems to think that if you don't advertise the fact that you shoot guns, you can't be a shooter, whereas I'd find it plausible if he, as an influential figure, didn't want to make a public display of shooting guns.

And this--"National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam reacted to the photo, telling CNN, "One picture does not erase a lifetime of supporting every gun ban and every gun control scheme imaginable."--is utter hyperbolic bullshit from a lying fucktard. Just another ignorant bozo caught with his pants around his ankles by assuming Obama knew nothing about guns just because he supports more gun control.
  #16  
Old 02-03-2013, 06:18 AM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
No, sir. Univeral registration and pre-check are not first steps to banning all guns. That's just an instance of the slippery-slope fallacy.
It's not fallacy at all when your side admits such and such regulations are the first step towards your ultimate goal. Call it incrementalism if you prefer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incrementalism
  #17  
Old 02-03-2013, 06:30 AM
Kable is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
The pro-gun side has made it quite clear they don't care in the slightest if children or anyone else are murdered, however. Not even their own children, much less anyone else's. They care about guns. Period.
I would like to think you are exaggerating but you probably really do think this don't you? You should really try and make friends with someone who shoots and go out shooting a few times. You'll find the vast majority of the people are not demons and their beloved guns really are not implements of evil.

Sorry if I'm biased, but a gun did save my life. That's good isn't it?
  #18  
Old 02-03-2013, 07:42 AM
eno801 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 374
Quote:
You don't have to know much of anything about wine or beer to have an opinion on drunk driving.
That's why we should ban 40's, what is wrong with 12 oz.
That is the level of ignorance on the issue. Yeah you don't have to know much, but even a little would help. Yeah maybe the drunk driver will think twice before reaching for another can of Busch something that would not happen if he was drinking a 40 oz bottle of malt liquor, and I might win the lotto. Could happen. would it make any meaningful difference I doubt it.

Last edited by eno801; 02-03-2013 at 07:42 AM.
  #19  
Old 02-03-2013, 11:41 AM
Condescending Robot is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Ubekibekibekibekistanstan
Posts: 1,416
Biden's comment is perhaps the most intelligent thing said by a Democrat about this issue in the last six weeks. You cannot create a utopia through making more and more things illegal. There were serial killers in the Soviet Union, for god's sake. No matter how many civil liberties you are willing to give up, perfect safety is impossible. People whose first reaction to every "bad thing" is "government need make bad thing go way" just don't understand this. It's not just about "yes, I'm willing to accept the occasional terrorist attack or school massacre as the cost of having a free society." It's about the reality that we don't even get to make the choice to begin with--you can have the most unfree society imaginable, ban all guns, shoot anyone who looks Muslim on sight (or stab them, I guess), whatever, and there will STILL be terrorist attacks and school massacres. You don't get to "trade liberty for safety," only trade liberty for nothing.
  #20  
Old 02-03-2013, 11:57 AM
Ca3799 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tejas
Posts: 4,333
The sentence "Nothing we are going to do is fundamentally going to alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down" seems to me to simply be a factual statement and nothing more.

You may be reading more into it than I am, but I guess that's all the rage these days.

Wayne LaPierre of the NRA saying 'You can't trust the government. They're taking your guns away,' like he said to Chris Wallace this weekend, is far, far more disturbing because it is not true and is designed to upset and alarm.
  #21  
Old 02-03-2013, 12:15 PM
Absolute is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: In flight
Posts: 4,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
No, sir. Univeral registration and pre-check are not first steps to banning all guns. That's just an instance of the slippery-slope fallacy.
No, it isn't. Your magic spell failed. *pfizzle*

The slippery slope fallacy is when someone says "You can't do reasonable thing X, it will inevitably lead to bad thing Y!" No one is claiming that universal registration will lead to a universal ban. That is obviously not the case. However, universal registration would make a ban easier to enforce. That is why people object to it. This is not a fallacy, it's self-evidently true.
  #22  
Old 02-03-2013, 12:22 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ca3799 View Post
The sentence "Nothing we are going to do is fundamentally going to alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down" seems to me to simply be a factual statement and nothing more.

You may be reading more into it than I am, but I guess that's all the rage these days.
But I think that's exactly the point. If it's a factual statement, then the logical question to ask is: why are you proposing this legislation then?

Quote:
Wayne LaPierre of the NRA saying 'You can't trust the government. They're taking your guns away,' like he said to Chris Wallace this weekend, is far, far more disturbing because it is not true and is designed to upset and alarm.
Can we see the quote where he said that? Because we wouldn't want to be "reading more into" something someone said, would we?
  #23  
Old 02-03-2013, 12:27 PM
Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,234

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
A lot of us think you have had your compromise already. You just want us to compromise again, as a "step" in the direction of getting all guns banned, which we know (and you admitted) is what a lot of you really want. Like I said, not thanks.

And nobody wants children to be murdered. We hope that they will be protected. Like this girl...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPfz..._wgZ6g&index=1

...who if you had your druthers would have been defenseless. Is that really what you want?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
The pro-gun side has made it quite clear they don't care in the slightest if children or anyone else are murdered, however. Not even their own children, much less anyone else's. They care about guns. Period.
I think that's enough hysteria from both sides. Take it to the Pit if you want to continue making comments like this; other posters want a relatively civil debate.
  #24  
Old 02-03-2013, 12:30 PM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil View Post
Obama is presumably from Chicago
The Kenyan truth will come out soon enough...
  #25  
Old 02-03-2013, 12:57 PM
Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil View Post
Obama is presumably from Chicago, why has he not spoken out against the rampant handgun violence there?
Just for the record: he has. Somehow it became a conservative talking point that he is ignoring this, but he mentioned it during the second presidential debate and he has talked about it in speeches with regard to gun registration.
  #26  
Old 02-03-2013, 02:01 PM
Ca3799 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tejas
Posts: 4,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
But I think that's exactly the point. If it's a factual statement, then the logical question to ask is: why are you proposing this legislation then?


Can we see the quote where he said that? Because we wouldn't want to be "reading more into" something someone said, would we?
Wallace asked LaPierre for his thoughts on a photo of Obama shooting a gun, released by the White House this weekend.

"I think of the same thing I did during the campaign when he said to people, 'I'm not going to take your rifle, shotgun and handgun.' They leafleted the country with flyers like this: 'Obama is not going to take your gun'; 'Obama will protect gun rights.' And now he's trying to take away all three," LaPierre said.

He predicted a universal gun registry is next -- a measure that, as Wallace reminded him, has not been proposed.

"Forgive me, sir, but you take something that is here and you say it's going to go all the way over there," Wallace said. "There's no indication -- I mean, I can understand your saying that's the threat, but there's nothing that anyone in the administration has said that indicates they're going to have a universal registry."

LaPierre said he doesn't find that convincing.

"And Obamacare wasn't a tax until they needed it to be a tax," he said. "I don't think you can trust these people."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...usaolp00000003

Last edited by Ca3799; 02-03-2013 at 02:06 PM.
  #27  
Old 02-03-2013, 02:40 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ca3799 View Post
Wayne LaPierre of the NRA saying 'You can't trust the government. They're taking your guns away,' like he said to Chris Wallace this weekend, is far, far more disturbing because it is not true and is designed to upset and alarm.
So when both Feinstein and Cuomo speak of confiscation and forced buy backs, we should just disregard them both as cantankerous seniors?
  #28  
Old 02-03-2013, 02:58 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
So when both Feinstein and Cuomo speak of confiscation and forced buy backs, we should just disregard them both as cantankerous seniors?
Cuomo

Feinstein on AW's 1995
  #29  
Old 02-03-2013, 03:13 PM
Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
It may be worth noting here that the bill Cuomo signed last month included neither buybacks nor confiscation, and Feinstein was talking about a bill she would have passed had she been able (but wasn't) in 1995, and also hasn't passed since.
  #30  
Old 02-03-2013, 04:23 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,956
Bidens statements are like a con man who reveals what he's doing is a con, but some people are still dumb enough to fall for it!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
Feinstein was talking about a bill she would have passed had she been able (but wasn't) in 1995, and also hasn't passed since.
So? An elected official talking about something draconian is nothing to be concerned about?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoe View Post
We need to be able to compromise to satisfy the Amendment and those who prefer no guns at all.
NO! HELL NO!
None of us should have to compromise any of our Constitutionally protected rights!

The answer to significantly reducing violent crime is to hammer those that perpetrate it. School/mall shootings are an extremely rare occurrence. The majority of violent crime takes place by repeat offenders that are continually put in and out of the system. Burglars, armed robbers, batterers, etc. rarely get sentenced to more than 10% of the maximum of what they could receive. The guy that shoots a gas station attendant this week would not have been able to had he still been locked up for the burglary he committed 2 years ago. The expense of keeping truly awful people locked up is dwarfed by the expense of our revolving door justice system and the carnage and human suffering such "people" cause while out on the street.

Adding new laws and encroachments on our liberties will have no effect. Even the Vice President of the United States of America agrees with me on this!
  #31  
Old 02-03-2013, 04:28 PM
Lobohan's Avatar
Lobohan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leffan's Ire
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
Adding new laws and encroachments on our liberties will have no effect.
That's nonsense. It's an assertion based on what, magic?
  #32  
Old 02-03-2013, 04:30 PM
Absolute is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: In flight
Posts: 4,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
It may be worth noting here that the bill Cuomo signed last month included neither buybacks nor confiscation, and Feinstein was talking about a bill she would have passed had she been able (but wasn't) in 1995, and also hasn't passed since.
Yes, so? They haven't succeeded yet. What is your point?
  #33  
Old 02-03-2013, 04:36 PM
FoieGrasIsEvil's Avatar
FoieGrasIsEvil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of Cheese Coneys
Posts: 18,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
The Kenyan truth will come out soon enough...

Wait I didn't mean it like that!





Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
Just for the record: he has. Somehow it became a conservative talking point that he is ignoring this, but he mentioned it during the second presidential debate and he has talked about it in speeches with regard to gun registration.

Well that's good then. The gun violence in certain parts of Chicago has been ludicrously bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post

The answer to significantly reducing violent crime is to hammer those that perpetrate it. School/mall shootings are an extremely rare occurrence. The majority of violent crime takes place by repeat offenders that are continually put in and out of the system. Burglars, armed robbers, batterers, etc. rarely get sentenced to more than 10% of the maximum of what they could receive. The guy that shoots a gas station attendant this week would not have been able to had he still been locked up for the burglary he committed 2 years ago. The expense of keeping truly awful people locked up is dwarfed by the expense of our revolving door justice system and the carnage and human suffering such "people" cause while out on the street.

Adding new laws and encroachments on our liberties will have no effect. Even the Vice President of the United States of America agrees with me on this!
I do agree that we should really bring the hammer down on people convicted of gun related crimes. Sentences should be served in full and should be extremely punitive.
  #34  
Old 02-03-2013, 04:50 PM
Condescending Robot is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Ubekibekibekibekistanstan
Posts: 1,416
We can't talk about people who want to confiscate guns until they actually confiscate guns. That's part of the "reasonable, common sense discussion on gun control" that the gun confiscators keep saying we need to have--nobody is allowed to talk about the issue but them until they get everything they want. Then, we can all discuss the wisdom of the guns we used to have as much as we'd like to. See? Reasonable!
  #35  
Old 02-03-2013, 05:07 PM
BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
Adding new laws and encroachments on our liberties will have no effect.
Then, they cannot be objectionable.
  #36  
Old 02-03-2013, 05:09 PM
BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable View Post
It's not fallacy at all when your side admits such and such regulations are the first step towards your ultimate goal. Call it incrementalism if you prefer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incrementalism
The "ultimate goal" is a less-armed society, not a disarmed society -- no American gun-control advocate seriously expects that.

Last edited by BrainGlutton; 02-03-2013 at 05:09 PM.
  #37  
Old 02-03-2013, 05:44 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil View Post
I do agree that we should really bring the hammer down on people convicted of gun related crimes.
Not good enough.

Assault, Battery, strong armed robbery, burglary. They are all serious crimes which don't require a gun to commit.
  #38  
Old 02-03-2013, 05:59 PM
ChickenLegs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
The pro-gun side has made it quite clear they don't care in the slightest if children or anyone else are murdered, however. Not even their own children, much less anyone else's. They care about guns. Period.
This, presumably, from the side that's always asking for a "rational" debate on gun control.
  #39  
Old 02-03-2013, 05:59 PM
BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
Not good enough.

Assault, Battery, strong armed robbery, burglary. They are all serious crimes which don't require a gun to commit.
Aren't the penalties strict enough now, and the law-enforcement vigorous enough? That is why we have the world's largest incarcerated population proportional to the general. Clearly, bringing the hammer down still harder won't help and is not what is needed; we've reached a point of diminishing returns there.

Last edited by BrainGlutton; 02-03-2013 at 06:00 PM.
  #40  
Old 02-03-2013, 06:11 PM
Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
It may be worth noting here that the bill Cuomo signed last month included neither buybacks nor confiscation, and Feinstein was talking about a bill she would have passed had she been able (but wasn't) in 1995, and also hasn't passed since.
Stop bothering us with the facts.
  #41  
Old 02-03-2013, 06:14 PM
Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Condescending Robot View Post
We can't talk about people who want to confiscate guns until they actually confiscate guns. That's part of the "reasonable, common sense discussion on gun control" that the gun confiscators keep saying we need to have--nobody is allowed to talk about the issue but them until they get everything they want. Then, we can all discuss the wisdom of the guns we used to have as much as we'd like to. See? Reasonable!
Okay, then please give us the names of some prominent Democratic politicians who want to "confiscate our guns" and provide evidence for this.

If what you're claiming is true, then it should be very easy to produce.
  #42  
Old 02-03-2013, 06:17 PM
Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
The pro-gun side has made it quite clear they don't care in the slightest if children or anyone else are murdered, however. Not even their own children, much less anyone else's. They care about guns. Period.
Oh please.

Provide evidence to support your claim that people on the "pro-gun side" "don't care in the slightest" if "their own children" are "murdered".

If what you're saying is true then it should be very easy for you to provide evidence.
  #43  
Old 02-03-2013, 06:18 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
Aren't the penalties strict enough now, and the law-enforcement vigorous enough?
They would be if the courts actually imposed them. For example, in my state armed robbery has a maximum term of 40 years. The typical sentence can be less than 10% of that, with concurrent terms for multiple offenses. Mandatory minimum sentences have no teeth when a majority of the sentence is served as probation.

What good does it do to add more meaningless laws when we are not making people suffer real consequences for violating the laws we already have? It's like putting braces on false teeth. It doesn't in any way fix the problem, but it looks like we've done something.
  #44  
Old 02-03-2013, 06:21 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq View Post
Okay, then please give us the names of some prominent Democratic politicians who want to "confiscate our guns" and provide evidence for this.

If what you're claiming is true, then it should be very easy to produce.
WTF?

It's already been posted!

http://www.infowars.com/video-dianne...-in-your-guns/
  #45  
Old 02-03-2013, 06:28 PM
BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
I hear her saying "Turn 'em all in," but in context it is clear that "'em" means assault weapons only.

And you really, really need to stop taking Infowars and Alex Jones seriously. He's a classic nutcase. Communists are more rational.
  #46  
Old 02-03-2013, 06:30 PM
BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
They would be if the courts actually imposed them. For example, in my state armed robbery has a maximum term of 40 years. The typical sentence can be less than 10% of that, with concurrent terms for multiple offenses. Mandatory minimum sentences have no teeth when a majority of the sentence is served as probation.

What good does it do to add more meaningless laws when we are not making people suffer real consequences for violating the laws we already have? It's like putting braces on false teeth. It doesn't in any way fix the problem, but it looks like we've done something.
Again, we already have the world's largest incarcerated population proportional to the general. Adding to it would take us in exactly the wrong direction.
  #47  
Old 02-03-2013, 07:46 PM
ChickenLegs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
Again, we already have the world's largest incarcerated population proportional to the general. Adding to it would take us in exactly the wrong direction.
Let's make crime legal then. And make lawful gun ownership that harms no one illegal.

Sometimes I wonder what kind of world I live in...
  #48  
Old 02-03-2013, 08:48 PM
China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,675
Kabel - anyone says anything about changing what we have now and you paint them with the "confiscate all guns" crowd. Sorry, dude, but you're putting gun grabber words into most people's mouths, including mine.

Hey, we go to universal registration, universal requirements for anyone to sell a gun on legally, funding for enforcement, and enforced penalties for straw buyers, and then and only then should we look at if that's "enough" or if more is needed. In parallel, we can also work on mental illness and other contributors. That's a rationale approach, implement something and enforce it, see if it works, and if it does we're good. If it doesn't work, or not well enough, then back to the drawing board.

If the above works to bring US gun violence down to a "reasonable" level. Maybe akin to the UK or other first world nations, then I'm willing to accept we've gone far enough. Hell, maybe we need draconian confiscation, but I fully support that is a last resort and hopefully not necessary.

Last edited by China Guy; 02-03-2013 at 08:49 PM.
  #49  
Old 02-03-2013, 08:56 PM
Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq View Post
Oh please.

Provide evidence to support your claim that people on the "pro-gun side" "don't care in the slightest" if "their own children" are "murdered".

If what you're saying is true then it should be very easy for you to provide evidence.
I didn't see Marley's note. I'm sorry I shouldn't have responded to the post and doing so isn't fair to DT. Would one of the mode mind deleting my post asking Der Trihs to back up his claim?
  #50  
Old 02-03-2013, 08:59 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq View Post
Okay, then please give us the names of some prominent Democratic politicians who want to "confiscate our guns" and provide evidence for this.

If what you're claiming is true, then it should be very easy to produce.
Already provided video and audio evidence. Cuomo and Feinstein have stated such.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017