Another CO shooting.

I'm really not interested in your NRA talking-points.

I have already stated, about 5 times, very clearly, that I want semi-automatic assault weapons gone; I want high-capacity magazines gone; I want to see body-armor and similar police gear restricted from sale to the public. Will it get passed? I doubt it. But that's what I would like to see, and that's what I'm going to keep pushing for, through my elected representatives.

You can't possibly imagine how much I don't care about your standard b.s. that "it wouldn't have prevented _______." It's a place to start. I think you're going to see some sort of control come out of all of this.

Watch what happens next.

Oh, and I just joined the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

http://www.bradycenter.org/

I figure it's time to start putting some of my money toward defeating the NRA...at all costs....

"The White House is weighing a far broader and more comprehensive approach to curbing the nation’s gun violence than simply reinstating an expired ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, according to multiple people involved in the administration’s discussions.

A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said."

Why is it that the conservatives seem to always use the excuse that because something won't solve the whole problem, we should do nothing. They used it on increased taxes for the wealthy.....if taxing the rich won't solve the deficit, then we shouldn't do it at all.....now with guns, if new regulations on assault weapons and high capacity mags won't stop all the shootings, then we shouldn't do anything at all. What is so wrong with doing what we can to mitigate the problem, many small steps can make a big difference. We need mental health improvements, we need better education of our children in gun safety.....just because you personally don't have guns doesn't mean your children shouldn't be taught what they are and the harm they can do........we will always be a gun totin' society, protect your kids with knowledge.

No one is advocating taking guns away from law abiding citizens, just some common sense regulations to keep them out of the hands of as many crazies as possible, limiting magazine capacity won't stop a crazy person bent on mass murder, but it could slow him down and give others a chance to intervene.....the Gabby Giffords shooting was a good example of that.

Landmark Victory Against Gun Companies Who Supplied Traffickers
Bush-Era Shield Law Doesn’t Protect Illegal Gun Suppliers, Rules NY Appeals Ct
Oct 8, 2012

Media Press Release

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Brady Center today announced that in a landmark decision Friday, a New York appeals court unanimously held that a gun manufacturer, distributor and dealer could be held liable for supplying a gun trafficking ring with 181 Saturday Night Special handguns, one of which was used to shoot Daniel Williams, then a high school basketball star in Buffalo.

The Brady Center brought the lawsuit on behalf of Williams, along with the law firm of Connors & Vilardo. The Appellate Division, 4th Department decision in Williams v. Beemiller held that a gun lobby-backed federal gun industry shield law, signed by President George W. Bush in 2005, did not provide immunity to gun companies who violate gun laws by illegally supplying gun traffickers.

The Brady Center's Jonathan Lowy, who argued the appeal, said, "This important ruling states that gun companies who choose to supply the criminal gun market are not above the law. When the gun industry places profits over people, it should and must be held accountable to the innocent victims of its dangerous practices."

This is the first case in which a court has held that a gun manufacturer or distributor may be held liable under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act for supplying gun traffickers and facilitating a criminal shooting. The Court reversed a trial court's dismissal of the case, and sends that case back to the trial court.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/1537/

archer wrote: Why is it that the conservatives seem to always use the excuse that because something won't solve the whole problem, we should do nothing. They used it on increased taxes for the wealthy.....if taxing the rich won't solve the deficit, then we shouldn't do it at all.....now with guns, if new regulations on assault weapons and high capacity mags won't stop all the shootings, then we shouldn't do anything at all. What is so wrong with doing what we can to mitigate the problem, many small steps can make a big difference. We need mental health improvements, we need better education of our children in gun safety.....just because you personally don't have guns doesn't mean your children shouldn't be taught what they are and the harm they can do........we will always be a gun totin' society, protect your kids with knowledge.

No one is advocating taking guns away from law abiding citizens, just some common sense regulations to keep them out of the hands of as many crazies as possible, limiting magazine capacity won't stop a crazy person bent on mass murder, but it could slow him down and give others a chance to intervene.....the Gabby Giffords shooting was a good example of that.

Both sides use this technique Archer. Government funding of PBS is a small percentage of their budget lets let them stand on their own. Same with Planned Parenthood getting federal funds. And people are advocating disarming law abiding Americans like Mayor Bloomberg.

Yeah, the "Big Bird" ploy worked so well for Mitt-Flop/RMoney... Please, keep it up... Their budget represents what percentage of the $94-million "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska?

And what does funding for something that educates poor children got to do with incrementally doing something about gun-control?

Deflect, deflect, deflect....(and then don't forget to insult the poster)....

You calling me for insulting another poster? That is rich. All I did was say both sides use the slippery slope.

archer wrote: Why is it that the conservatives seem to always use the excuse that because something won't solve the whole problem, we should do nothing. They used it on increased taxes for the wealthy.....if taxing the rich won't solve the deficit, then we shouldn't do it at all.....

Because I know all the knotheads (both D and R) would just spend the extra tax money rather than use it to reduce the debt. Any tax increases allow them to continue to avoid spending cuts. I'm against all tax increases until after some major advances have been made on a budget that cuts spending drastically.

archer wrote: now with guns, if new regulations on assault weapons and high capacity mags won't stop all the shootings, then we shouldn't do anything at all. What is so wrong with doing what we can to mitigate the problem, many small steps can make a big difference.

Because I don't believe it will solve the problem AT ALL. I don't think the assault weapon ban being discussed is even a small step in the right direction, I believe it's a large step in the wrong direction.

archer wrote: We need mental health improvements, we need better education of our children in gun safety.....just because you personally don't have guns doesn't mean your children shouldn't be taught what they are and the harm they can do........we will always be a gun totin' society, protect your kids with knowledge.

I agree completely with everything in this quote, and feel that this represents a large step in the right direction. Many "gun nuts" feel the same as I do, why doesn't congress focus their attention on the solutions that many agree will make a large difference rather than using tragedies to furthur their own anti-gun agenda?

archer wrote: No one is advocating taking guns away from law abiding citizens, just some common sense regulations to keep them out of the hands of as many crazies as possible, limiting magazine capacity won't stop a crazy person bent on mass murder, but it could slow him down and give others a chance to intervene.....the Gabby Giffords shooting was a good example of that.

You do realize that swapping magazines takes seconds, and police response is measured in minutes, right? A killer bent on destruction isn't going to care about a weapon ban or a gun free zone. The only way to head them off sooner is to allow more law abiding and trained civilians to carry concealed in more places.We need to quit giving mass murderers a defense free zone in which to operate.

I'm curious, are there any restrictions on the ownership of weapons that would be acceptable to those fighting against regulation? To those advocating restrictions, are there restrictions or bans you feel would go too far?

FredHayek wrote: You calling me for insulting another poster? That is rich. All I did was say both sides use the slippery slope.

Funny, I don't see anything in my post that "calls" you for "insulting another poster." I called b.s. on trying to use some kind of bullcrap "Big Bird" analogy to discuss implementing reasonable gun-control...

I still call b.s.