Gun Vote " Shameful Day," Obama Says

[Guest]

Guns do not kill people. People kill people with whatever they have at hand, guns, knives, explosives, poison, words, etc., etc.

Bombs don't kill people, people do..right?

[JDGRUEN]

For those of you who just cannot understand American politics and especially gun politics - then all I can say is stop reacting with the unbridled emotion as most liberals / leftists do. I am proud to say that last fall and winter into the first of this year - on TV topic threads about gun control in the USA - I posted several times that when all the clatter and hand wringing subsided - nothing - absolutely would change. I was 90 percent correct - at the Federal Level - 100% correct. Unfortunately, at the state level I was wrong. But I'll make another prediction - the extreme legislation enacted in N.Y. State will be repealed or modified heavily with replacement legislation - or struck down in the courts in the next 12 to 18 months as unconstitutional. The N.Y. police unions are already demanding repeal. Much the same will happen in Colorado and Connecticut to a greater or lesser extent.

The anti-gun people want to change a Constitutional Amendment without going through the process required to amend the Constitution which requires a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the states. See this link for further and more complete explanation http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html . The Constitution has been amended before - so it is not an impossible task. But the gun haters will not mount such a campaign because they know they will lose - so they wish instead to chip away at the Constitution via subterfuge and emotional rhetoric.

The wild eyed gun haters want to circumvent this process and back-door a Constitutional change. Basically ignore the Constitution. This works sometimes - regrettably - but is often shot down in the courts months and years later - but not always. By the way - the Second Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting or collecting. It is about reserving the right of the people to have self defense against - even their own tyrannical government. And Gun Control is not about Guns it is about Control.

If any gun haters could muster a calm period then read this article and it will explain that even Bill Clinton was cautious that the recent push to control guns should be pursued with caution... http://nationalreview.com/345881/gun-controllers-wide-mark

PS... For the life of me I cannot understand why this gun issue - a U.S. domestic issue that has little to no effect or impact outside the USA - has such a rabid following of gun hating people from other countries. For example I would spend little to no time campaigning to arouse Brits to do something about the loss of their culture to mass immigration of people who are replacing their population. It makes little difference to me if people who live in the U.K. want to throw away 2000 years of proud history and culture by just standing by and watching in a Politically Correct fashion their homeland self-destruct in slow motion. Therefore I am amazed that these same people wish to mind the internal domestic business of my home country on the issue of guns - which has Zero affect on them. It is wonderful that full freedom of speech is extended on this gun issue to those from around the world. But I will make note that if I was campaigning on a London street against or by the written word - their immigration invasion and used a Non PC term or phrase then I would be subject to prosecution for hate speech. So I am very happy that in the USA I have full freedom of speech rights under the Constitution of my country and can stand on street corners, pass out leaflets and discuss matters using words of my own choosing to combat gun haters and freedom deniers.

Edited April 18, 2013 by JDGRUEN

[yourauntbob]

The U.S. government has become dysfunctional mostly due to republican/right wing obstructionism. The elected officials are supposed to reflect the will of the people. The VAST MAJORITY of Americans were for this reform but it lost almost entirely due to the power of a radical right wing fringe group -- the notorious NRA. Obama needs to bring this fight to the PEOPLE. The legislature is USELESS. The only silver lining is that this sets up a major pro Obama shakeup in the next midterm elections.

Jing, your arguments are generally better than this. The vast majority of Americans were not for this reform. I would be surprised if a slight majority of Americans are for it, but at least that would be believable. I agree that the legislature is useless anymore, but good old Harry and crew are just as complicit as the republicans. How about some bi-partisanship? The obvious response is going to be that "this was a bi-partisan bill" but if that was the case there would have been some republicans on board.

This was a giant charade by Obama to help him boost his midterm election numbers. He has made it perfectly clear his main priority is to take back the house so he can continue to ram through extremely partisan bills that appease the far left in the country. I found it shameful that he would use the people of Newtown CT instead of finding compromise between the two sides.

Edited April 18, 2013 by yourauntbob

[yourauntbob]

How do I know?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/91-percent-americans-support-gun-background-checks-poll-144348180--politics.html

This vote was an outrage. There is no point in Obama even trying to play nice.

Despite concerns about how information on gun owners might be used, 91

percent of registered voters support universal background checks, according to a new poll released on Thursday.

91% favor background checks, not this particular bill. Nice try, but twisting words do not change facts.

[Potosi]

The assault weapons ban was defeated by a vote of 60-40, with Democrats voting for the defeat.

...

FIVE democrats. A TINY portion of democrats.

Ten percent (10%) is hardly a TINY portion.

Now, four percent (4%) IS a TINY portion.

Note that taxe increases for the rich are an even tinier problem, and terrorism no issue at all in this particular poll. What are the problems with them? 1, the time when they take place. The day after Sandy Hook, guns featured more prominently. The day after Boston, terrorism is on the list. 2, the folks questioned get a list, and can chose their favourite woe only. That's why when you add up all the %, you get close to 100%. Here is a whole lots of such polls, see for yourself. http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

Most people have a long list of grievances, so the polls should provide multiple selection. 3, how you phrase the suggestions. 'The economy', is usually used in place of 'jobs/unemployment', but those words don't express quite the same. Sometimes the opposite, sacking thousands of people can produce excellent profits. And the most important one, 4, the agenda to produce the desired results of a poll.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Potosi

[NeverSure]

No CNN went to gun shows in 3 Southeastern States and bought a small arsenal with no check, no questions asked, and they were not residents of the states. Only one person asked for ID and the crew just walked away.

Then the sellers and buyers broke both state and federal laws that are already in existence. Why would they then obey a new law?

The people from CNN should go to prison for illegal trafficking in guns.

The US is unique in that it is a republic of states, and laws vary by state. But the federal government has an agency called BATF and federal laws concerning guns and sales that affect all states. One of those laws regulates the interstate sale (sales among different states) of guns. Other laws regulate and license fully automatic (select-fire, machine gun) weapons and some other unusual weapons. Gun dealer licenses are issued by the feds.

It is a serious federal crime for a private citizen (non licensed gun dealer) to buy or sell a gun with someone who is a resident of a state other than his own. Therefore even private sellers must get ID from a buyer, and the buyer from the seller, to assure that they are both residents of the same state. The granularity of the process varies by state.

A wise person, wanting to avoid criminal charges, will document the sale with a bill of sale. That bill of sale will be signed by both parties, list the gun and serial #, list the driver's license number, names, addresses, etc., and two copies will be signed, one for each person for his own records.

There are already many laws in place to assure that only people without mental health and criminal issues can't buy guns.

Criminals break those laws, and would not obey new ones.

With the doubling of gun sales in the past two years, and a complete shortage of ammunition with sky high prices in the US due to a fear of this new law, There are probably now 100 million gun owners in the US. Many of the new owners are women, wishing to have home protection. Many attending shooting classes are women. With skyrocketing sales, there may be as many as 300 million guns in private ownership in the US. God only knows how much ammunition is owned, but it flies off the shelves when a store gets some. The shelves are empty.

No one will ever get control of 100 million people with up to 300 million guns and they don't need to. Those are law abiding citizens.

Pass all of the new laws you want to, and CNN and other criminals won't obey them.

[NeverSure]

I knew I should have returned to The States and opened a gun shop.

Well, it will be interesting to see. Due to fear of this new gun law, guns and ammo flew off the shelves as fast as dealers could get them, and at inflated prices. A lot of dealers made a lot of money by price gouging. I saw $900 AR-15's sell for $2,500. I saw 500 round bricks of .22lr ammo that normally fetch about $17 sell for $60 if you could find them.

Now what do all of those people who paid those prices do with their "treasures?" I didn't buy anything because I already had it.

I would guess that gun dealers will suffer for a long time. People are stocked up, and many may have to unload what they bought at a loss. People were hoarding, paying ridiculous prices, thinking they would make a bunch of money after the ban passed.

Now dealers and hoarders own a bunch of Dutch Tulips. I don't feel sorry for them at all.

My guess is that dealers' sales will plummet due to so many people recently buying guns they didn't even need, and ammo the same, and due to competition from private parties who need to unload their stashes to try to clear their big credit card balances.

Edited April 18, 2013 by NeverSure

[citizen33]

As a Brit who has always taken an interest in guns, fired them as a teenaged army cadet and later joined a rifle club, I confess to feeling that our present UK laws are over-restrictive regarding what club members can do at the range. Having said all that I struggle to understand our US cousins. I was recently in a discussion with some 'concealed carry' advocates who had some funny ideas. For them an assault rifle must by definition be fully automatic (sometimes they water this down to 'selective fire'), even though most military M-16s only have single shot/short burst capability. This means in their view that the semi-automatic Bushmaster AR-15 used in the Newtown shootings is only a .22 sporting rifle (I can't be bothered to go into .22/.223 actual bullet diameters, whether you will damage your gun if you fire a 5.56mm round etcetera as they do). They resist the idea that a weapon that can fire 5.56mm NATO ammunition may not be quite the same as a .22LR rabbit gun. They argue that Brits who say they should consider tougher background checks or a ban on large capacity magazines clearly know nothing at all about guns, as most Brits have never seen one.

My understanding is that the NRA was not always against all gun control, and I'd hypothesize that background checks that wouldn't change anything much for genuine enthusiasts would be good PR and make gun ownership more viable in the long run. But then some seem less interested in the sport than in being able to spray around automatic fire when the New World Order government takes over.

Edited April 18, 2013 by citizen33

[Jingthing]

Cowards!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/opinion/a-senate-in-the-gun-lobbys-grip.html?_r=0

They looked at these most benign and practical of solutions, offered by
moderates from each party, and then they looked over their shoulder at
the powerful, shadowy gun lobby — and brought shame on themselves and
our government itself by choosing to do nothing.

[NeverSure]

Do not believe those who are posting on this site that all gun sales already require a background check or that this bill was not popular with an overwhelming percentage of the American Public which includes gun owners. Local laws in some states do require you show a driver's license at gun shows but as recent investigations have shown, they don't even do that. You haggle the price and you walk out with a gun and ammunition. The percentage of Americans that Obama has used are actually reinforced by news organizations which have run their own polls. It is now harder for one to buy cough medicine in the USA if it contains Sudafed than it would be to buy a gun at a gun show or online. The NRA which uses the second amendment to hide behind and hoodwink the Americn public does not represent the average gun owner / user but instead represents the gun manufacturers. Politicians voted against this bill both Democrat and Republican(mostly Republican) because they are pussies that are owned by the NRA who can't wipe their own asses without the NRA"s permission. Remember, all guns leave the factory as legal sales. How do they get into the hands of criminals? Through the lax gun ownership laws in America. How do they get to Mexico to commit the slaughters south of our border? Through the lax gun laws in America and with the money to pay for them thanks to America's addiction nose candy.

This is so full of inaccuracies it's hard to even start. First, the NRA has power only because it has so many people (voters) behind it. It has millions of dues paying members who vote. It is those voters who collectively give the NRA a voice.

The Senators declined to pass this bill because they want to get re-elected. Many of them would have gone down in defeat in the next election had they voted for it. There are 50 states, each with equal say because each has 2 senators regardless of its population, for a total of 100 senators. No senator from the Heartland of America where guns are wanted would dare vote for this bill.

Guns leave the factory as legal, and get into the hands of criminals because people break the laws we already have. No new law would stop that. The perps are already criminals.

How do guns get into Mexico? Have you not heard of Fast and Furious, the scandal where the US Federal government sold thousands of guns to Mexican cartels, and that since Obama was elected? Have you not heard that at least one US federal agent was murdered with one of those guns?

Those guns that the feds sold to Mexico were intended to make the law abiding citizens' ownership of the guns look bad, and to make it look as if guns were naturally making their way over the border, but it backfired.

Your comment about Sudafed and buying guns online is just plain ignorant. I can buy guns online ONLY if they are shipped to a federally licensed gun dealer where I then go to get it, and pay that dealer his handling fee, and pay for the background check. The dealer runs the background check and fills out the federal form and I must identify myself, pass the background check, sign the federal form and pay the dealer. That's in addition to what I paid for the gun.

Bottom line: We already have a lot of gun laws and the problem is only that a few people don't obey them. Those people are committing crimes and therefore by definition are already criminals. Those people wouldn't have obeyed this new law either.

[Greer]

You have to remember that this is 4% who think it is important relative to the other major issues. It is not the same as saying that 91% of Americans are in favour of background checks or better gun control.

Actually the problem is that the waters get muddied by those who use the argument that criminals don't get guns legally anyway - the problem is simply that if guns are more readily available to all, then accidents or law abiding people flipping out and killing, are much easier to happen if they can grab the gun they legally bought. The issue should simply be to reduce the number of guns available - but nobody will ever convince a portion of the public until someone they love is shot or killed in a senseless or avoidable accident.

If that's the society they want, its up to them..

Edited April 19, 2013 by Scott

[Jingthing]

The NRA has a membership of about 4 million people. That's a tiny percentage of all Americans. They basically act as shills for the gun INDUSTRY. Period. I'm not saying they don't have a right to lobby. They clearly do. But something is rotten in the power they have to overrule the clear will of the majority.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/does-the-nra-really-have-more-than-45-million-members/2013/02/07/06047c10-7164-11e2-ac36-3d8d9dcaa2e2_blog.html

Edited April 18, 2013 by Jingthing

[JDGRUEN]

As a Brit who has always taken an interest in guns, fired them as a teenaged army cadet and later joined a rifle club, I confess to feeling that our present UK laws are over-restrictive regarding what club members can do at the range. Having said all that I struggle to understand our US cousins. I was recently in a discussion with some 'concealed carry' advocates who had some funny ideas. For them an assault rifle must by definition be fully automatic (sometimes they water this down to 'selective fire'), even though most military M-16s only have single shot/short burst capability. This means in their view that the semi-automatic Bushmaster AR-15 used in the Newtown shootings is only a .22 sporting rifle (I can't be bothered to go into .22/.223 actual bullet diameters, whether you will damage your gun if you fire a 5.56mm round etcetera as they do). They resist the idea that a weapon that can fire 5.56mm NATO ammunition may not be quite the same as a .22LR rabbit gun. They argue that Brits who say they should consider tougher background checks or a ban on large capacity magazines clearly know nothing at all about guns, as most Brits have never seen one.

My understanding is that the NRA was not always against all gun control, and I'd hypothesize that background checks that wouldn't change anything much for genuine enthusiasts would be good PR and make gun ownership more viable in the long run. But then some seem less interested in the sport than in being able to spray around automatic fire when the New World Order government takes over.

You are incorrect about M-16s ... M-16's / M-4s are select fire (semi-automatic and fully automatic) that is - single shot per each trigger pull or fully automatic with one trigger pull - which will empty even a 30 round magazine in seconds (not just a few shots) M-16s and M4s are Military rifles not legally sold to the public. Also - the AR-15 type rifle is a Semi-Automatic weapon. From the factory this commercial model of rifle will not fire fully automatic with just one trigger pull - it will not fire Fully Automatic at all. The trigger must be pulled for each shot. Fully automatic weapons cannot be owned in the U.S. legally without a special license, extensive background check and big fee. As a result very few people (except for hardened criminals) own fully automatic weapons legally or illegally in the USA. A person altering a weapon like the AR-15 to make it fully automatic will risk a severe prison term.

Anti-Gun people have been damning the AR-15 because it looks near identical to the Military M-16 / M-4 with pistol grips, etc. and in most other respects... even though it cannot spray a room full of people with bullets using one trigger pull - even though it is not fully automatic. It is boogieman scare tactics - associate a legal weapon with one that is not legal erasing the difference in the minds of the people. AR-15's and other weapons that have a military 'look' fire no differently than dozens of other rifles of the same caliber and of other calibers - it is just these 'others' do not have pistol grips and other military looking features (but they are not called 'assault rifles'). The Bushmaster AR-15 and similar type rifles are more correctly called 'Semi-Automatic Rifles.

The handguns / pistols used by Lanza in the school shootings are also semi-automatic - they just happen to be pistols rather than rifles. They are not 'Assault Pistols' even though this type of pistol is used by various military organizations in combat. At close range in a closed room the semi-automatic pistol would kill as many people as a semi-automatic rifle. In fact at close range in a room, a semi-automatic .22 rifle would kill as many defenseless people as either the AR-15 or the handguns. The size of bullet or the velocity of the round would make some difference - but in a closed room - not enough to make a difference in the end result.

By in large - this time around as before - the anti-gun people mounted a campaign of misinformation and disinformation to inflame the public and attempted to stir hatred for an object to act as a symbol to subdue the right to bear arms. Metal detectors and armed guards and even concealed carry for select school employees are more appropriate and effective ways of dealing with potential armed assaults in classrooms ... the same methods we use in courtrooms, federal buildings, and airports. How many mass shootings have there been in courtrooms, federal buildings and airports in the last ten years? Gun grabbers also want to ignore that of the typical mass shooters of recent times ALL had documented long term serious mental illness. But people can't be singled out and confined because they are long term documented nut cases - it might hurt their feeling. Gun grabbers don't want to solve the problem - they just want to grab guns - they want to CONTROL.

Edited April 18, 2013 by JDGRUEN

[Loptr]

The U.S. government has become dysfunctional mostly due to republican/right wing obstructionism. The elected officials are supposed to reflect the will of the people. The VAST MAJORITY of Americans were for this reform but it lost almost entirely due to the power of a radical right wing fringe group -- the notorious NRA. Obama needs to bring this fight to the PEOPLE. The legislature is USELESS. The only silver lining is that this sets up a major pro Obama shakeup in the next midterm elections.

The FACT that Mr. Obama could not get his gun legislation passed in a democratically controlled Senate has made him look like a fool, while YOU blame the GOP. Priceless.

Spoken like a true liberal. The system is working just fine, thank you very much. The right is there to balance and left, and vice versa. The only thing keeping Mr. Obama from exploding the treasury is the GOP, who are preaching fiscal restraint and a balanced budget. In the mean time, Mr. Obama is working overtime using his executive order capacity to circumvent the legislature.

You want to know what is really shameful? In my opinion, Mr. Obama is shameful for exploiting the tragedy at Newton to press HIS and the left's agenda on gun control. This is hardly a new issue and this ground has been covered over and over and over again, always with the same result. Recent Gallup Poll results show that only 4% of American citizens belief that gun control is the most important issue in America today, while Mr. Obama has spend every waking hour since this tragedy on this issue.

Mr. Obama is already being referred to as a Lame duck, and this is in the first 5 months of his second term. Usually Presidents are not referred to as Lame Ducks until after the mid-term elections, in this case in 2014. He has damaged his position and role in governing through his unbending demands to tax the rich and not negotiating with the right. His stance of "my way or the highway" has left him holding his privates wondering why no one agrees with him, including his own party.

[Loptr]

Forget about guns - the real menace is the pressure cooker.

Somewhere, somebody is dreaming of implanting a barcode on every American's forehead. Think of the possibilities. Anyone who ever buys, sells, or trades a pressure cooker, carpenter nails, or a cellphone will have that transaction recorded and the government can then track down the terrorists within minutes. Everybody will be so much safer and happier. I know, because somewhere there is a public opinion poll that will back me up on this.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/08/13/want-an-rfid-chip-implanted-into-your-hand-heres-what-the-diy-surgery-looks-like-video/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIzEoA3Pxxg

[NeverSure]

- snip - The issue should simply be to reduce the number of guns available - but nobody will ever convince a portion of the public until someone they love is shot or killed in a senseless or avoidable accident.

If someone I love is shot and killed by a criminal or in an accident, my reaction will be the same as if he were killed by a drunk driver. "Enforce the laws already on the books, and do so harshly. Don't take either the driving or the gun privileges from the law abiding. Life has risks and I won't give up my freedoms for a little more security."

Three times as many people are killed in traffic accidents in the US than by guns, but who cares? All of the blabber is about guns.

The US is way, way, way down the list of murders per capita by guns of all countries in the world including way below Thailand, UK Guardian but everyone wants to make gun ownership in the US his business, especially if he's from another country.

It's none of your business if you aren't a US voter, any more than what other countries do that I think is stupid is any of my business.

Edited April 18, 2013 by NeverSure

[Jingthing]

Only four democratic senators didn't support this modest background check enhancement bill which enjoyed MASSIVE and OVERWHELMING public support. Unfortunately 60 votes are needed to pass anything in the senate (100 members), not 51 so a simple majority isn't enough.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Jingthing

[JDGRUEN]

Europeans and Americans have very different views on guns in society.

Americans believe firearms are necessary to protect oneself against any agressor. Americans don't care to become a victim.

How would you protect yourself if the next Charles Manson and gang come to your home? If you don't have superior firepower you will be overtaken, or worse.

What group was unharmed during the L.A. riots ? It was those Koreans in Koreatown. They patrolled the tops of the buildings with AK-47s and no riot spread to their neighborhood because everyone knew they were armed to the hilt.

Americans cannot agree with sitting and waiting to be shot by someone who takes over a building or tries to enter your home. Americans will take up arms and fight.

If more responsible adults had a concealed weapon permit we would stop more assauts before they occur.

A criminal does not need a gun to kill. If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. And there will always be outlaws.

Lets's see: I wasn't there, when the Manson- gang went on a killing spree...but I think it is a save guess, it didn't happen like this:

"Good evening, ma'am...my name is Charles Manson and this is my gang. Would you mind us, coming inside have some alcohol and drugs and sex and little satan- worshipping...and after that...may we kill you?" And Sharon Tate went to look for here gun, but unfortunately she forgot to buy one earlier...and the rest is history!

And this is where the whole "waht would you do, if you wake up at night and there is a killer in your house"- thing blows up!

"Dear Mr. Killer /Rapist/ black drug-gang ...can you please wait until I get my gun, load it and take aim at you?"

It happens all the time in the USA - especially in Texas. Just monitor the newspapers in towns all over the country. Homeowners routinely defend their homes - successfully. Homeowners are frequently cited as pulling their shotgun or pistol and subduing or scaring off the home invasion perps. It is a daily occurrence somewhere in the U.S. Many reports even tell of teenagers and some younger kids getting out the family gun to run off intruders.

[Loptr]

I knew I should have returned to The States and opened a gun shop.

Mr. Obama has been the best thing for gun sales in the United States since WWII.

[Jingthing]

Again, the NRA is the villain in this. They have tampered with the popular will and even worse the PUBLIC GOOD and I believe in the long run, there is going to be a major backlash against them. This isn't over. The fight against the NRA continues:

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said Thursday morning that the National

Rifle Association “made a big mistake” by opposing his gun background
checks compromise legislation, saying the amendment would have gotten 70 votes without the NRA’s interference.

...

Manchin also echoed President Obama, who on Wednesday accused the NRA and other gun groups of lying about the Manchin-Toomey amendment’s effects. Manchin called their claims “ludicrous.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/04/18/manchin-nra-made-a-big-mistake/

Edited April 18, 2013 by Jingthing

[NeverSure]

Again, the NRA is the villain in this. They have tampered with the popular will and even worse the PUBLIC GOOD and I believe in the long run, there is going to be a major backlash against them. This isn't over. The fight against the NRA continues:

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said Thursday morning that the National

Rifle Association “made a big mistake” by opposing his gun background

checks compromise legislation, saying the amendment would have gotten 70 votes without the NRA’s interference.

...

Manchin also echoed President Obama, who on Wednesday accused the NRA and other gun groups of lying about the Manchin-Toomey amendment’s effects. Manchin called their claims “ludicrous.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/04/18/manchin-nra-made-a-big-mistake/

How silly. The NRA gets it's marching orders from its millions of dues paying members. The NRA is a collection of law abiding citizens who aren't afraid to put their names on the line by joining and paying dues. Without these millions of dues paying voters, there would be no NRA.

The Senators declined to vote for this bill because they would have been voted out of office next election and they knew it. Even some Democrats who follow Obama like lemmings wouldn't vote for it.

Some seem to think that "the people" didn't get their way in this. The truth is that they did, and those in a very vocal minority can't understand that this was what enough senators needed to do to stay in office.

[Bikkii]

Oh well, who cares really. How about next time some crazy f@#k runs around and kills a couple of dozen people within minutes, the world press just laugh at the US. America the great? My arse!

[JDGRUEN]

"Shameful Day" ... yes it was a shameful day - because obama threw a fit ... http://www.boblonsberry.com/writings.cfm?go=4

[JDGRUEN]

Again, the NRA is the villain in this. They have tampered with the popular will and even worse the PUBLIC GOOD and I believe in the long run, there is going to be a major backlash against them. This isn't over. The fight against the NRA continues:

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said Thursday morning that the National

Rifle Association “made a big mistake” by opposing his gun background

checks compromise legislation, saying the amendment would have gotten 70 votes without the NRA’s interference.

...

Manchin also echoed President Obama, who on Wednesday accused the NRA and other gun groups of lying about the Manchin-Toomey amendment’s effects. Manchin called their claims “ludicrous.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/04/18/manchin-nra-made-a-big-mistake/

How silly. The NRA gets it's marching orders from its millions of dues paying members. The NRA is a collection of law abiding citizens who aren't afraid to put their names on the line by joining and paying dues. Without these millions of dues paying voters, there would be no NRA.

The Senators declined to vote for this bill because they would have been voted out of office next election and they knew it. Even some Democrats who follow Obama like lemmings wouldn't vote for it.

Some seem to think that "the people" didn't get their way in this. The truth is that they did, and those in a very vocal minority can't understand that this was what enough senators needed to do to stay in office.

Well Neversure ... the plain and simple truth of this vote just escapes some people.. You said it well but I will add .. The NRA represents their millions of members without a doubt - but the NRA is also supported by people who are members of other gun organizations that are similar to the NRA and tens of millions of other Americans who share a similar mindset. Politicians learn sooner or later that on critical controversial issues they must vote as their constituents are insisting they do. That is - if they wish to retain office.

If you look at my TV profile photo (in lieu of an avatar)... you will see a holstered pistol. It was a Browning High Power 9mm which I carried in N.E. Thailand for a year forty some years ago. I still have it - and I will never give up this pistol -- nor will I register it ,,, no matter what U.S. laws are passed.

Edited April 18, 2013 by JDGRUEN

[JDGRUEN]

Oh well, who cares really. How about next time some crazy f@#k runs around and kills a couple of dozen people within minutes, the world press just laugh at the US. America the great? My arse!

In the U.S. 'crazy f@#ks' run around and kill a couple of dozen people every now and then because this country has succumb to a silly and sad Political Correctness pushed on to the American Society by Liberals and Leftists that precludes confining people in mental institutions even though they have a detailed - documented long term mental illness with a tendency for violence. Therefore we have these 'crazy f@#ks' running around everywhere.

Edited April 18, 2013 by JDGRUEN

[NeverSure]

Again, the NRA is the villain in this. They have tampered with the popular will and even worse the PUBLIC GOOD and I believe in the long run, there is going to be a major backlash against them. This isn't over. The fight against the NRA continues:

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said Thursday morning that the National

Rifle Association “made a big mistake” by opposing his gun background

checks compromise legislation, saying the amendment would have gotten 70 votes without the NRA’s interference.

...

Manchin also echoed President Obama, who on Wednesday accused the NRA and other gun groups of lying about the Manchin-Toomey amendment’s effects. Manchin called their claims “ludicrous.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/04/18/manchin-nra-made-a-big-mistake/

How silly. The NRA gets it's marching orders from its millions of dues paying members. The NRA is a collection of law abiding citizens who aren't afraid to put their names on the line by joining and paying dues. Without these millions of dues paying voters, there would be no NRA.

The Senators declined to vote for this bill because they would have been voted out of office next election and they knew it. Even some Democrats who follow Obama like lemmings wouldn't vote for it.

Some seem to think that "the people" didn't get their way in this. The truth is that they did, and those in a very vocal minority can't understand that this was what enough senators needed to do to stay in office.

Well Neversure ... the plain and simple truth of this vote just escapes some people.. You said it well but I will add .. The NRA represents their millions of members without a doubt - but the NRA is also supported by people who are members of other gun organizations that are similar to the NRA and tens of millions of other Americans who share a similar mindset. Politicians learn sooner or later that on critical controversial issues they must vote as their constituents are insisting they do. That is - if they wish to retain office.

If you look at my TV profile photo (in lieu of an avatar)... you will see a holstered pistol. It was a Browning High Power 9mm which I carried in N.e. Thailand for a year forty some years ago. I still have it - and I will never give up this pistol -- nor will I register it ,,, no matter what U.S. laws are passed.

How very true. To clarify or add, there are several other organizations that also lobby for gun owners. The NRA is only the biggest and best known. Many people belong to at least the NRA and one state-specific gun rights organization. There are also other national organizations which let their members' wishes be known to congress.

All of these organizations are supported by millions and millions of people who band together freely and willingly. There are a lot more pro-gun citizens who don't belong to an organization. Those gun owners who belong to the NRA or any organization are actually in the minority of gun owners.

The simple truth is that a majority of US citizens will not give up their gun rights. Anyone dumb enough to try to take upwards of 300 million guns from upwards of 100 million free people is, well... dumb.

[citizen33]

You are incorrect about M-16s ... M-16's / M-4s are select fire (semi-automatic and fully automatic) that is - single shot per each trigger pull or fully automatic with one trigger pull - which will empty even a 30 round magazine in seconds (not just a few shots) M-16s and M4s are Military rifles not legally sold to the public. Also - the AR-15 type rifle is a Semi-Automatic weapon. From the factory this commercial model of rifle will not fire fully automatic with just one trigger pull - it will not fire Fully Automatic at all. The trigger must be pulled for each shot. Fully automatic weapons cannot be owned in the U.S. legally without a special license, extensive background check and big fee. As a result very few people (except for hardened criminals) own fully automatic weapons legally or illegally in the USA. A person altering a weapon like the AR-15 to make it fully automatic will risk a severe prison term.

Anti-Gun people have been damning the AR-15 because it looks near identical to the Military M-16 / M-4 with pistol grips, etc. and in most other respects... even though it cannot spray a room full of people with bullets using one trigger pull - even though it is not fully automatic. It is boogieman scare tactics - associate a legal weapon with one that is not legal erasing the difference in the minds of the people. AR-15's and other weapons that have a military 'look' fire no differently than dozens of other rifles of the same caliber and of other calibers - it is just these 'others' do not have pistol grips and other military looking features (but they are not called 'assault rifles'). The Bushmaster AR-15 and similar type rifles are more correctly called 'Semi-Automatic Rifles.

By in large - this time around as before - the anti-gun people mounted a campaign of misinformation and disinformation to inflame the public and attempted to stir hatred for an object to act as a symbol to subdue the right to bear arms. Metal detectors and armed guards and even concealed carry for select school employees are more appropriate and effective ways of dealing with potential armed assaults in classrooms ... the same methods we use in courtrooms, federal buildings, and airports. How many mass shootings have there been in courtrooms, federal buildings and airports in the last ten years? Gun grabbers also want to ignore that of the typical mass shooters of recent times ALL had documented long term serious mental illness. But people can't be singled out and confined because they are long term documented nut cases - it might hurt their feeling. Gun grabbers don't want to solve the problem - they just want to grab guns - they want to CONTROL.

Thank you for illustrating the position I was arguing against.

I was fully aware that the AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle (i.e. one trigger pull one shot). You question my statement that most military M-16s currently in use do not have a fully automatic option and I stick with that.

The original M-16 and M-16A1 of the 1960s did have the full auto option (safe/semi/auto) but were withdrawn. Admittedly many were remade for airforce use as the GAU-5/A carbine and other variants that generally retained theauto option, but then ceased to be assault rifles.

The M-16A2 rifle introduced in the 1980s had only semi or 3 round burst (safe/semi/burst), and has been the main infantry rifle up until the present time.

The M163A reinstated the auto option (safe/semi/auto) but is used mainly by the Navy and Coast Guard.

The latest M16A4 issued to front-line troops in recent conflicts again has a safe/semi/burst selector.

There is a plan to move to the latest version of the M4 carbine - The M4A1 (a shorter version of the M16) in 2014, and this will have an auto option again. The original M4 carbine was in common army use and was essentially a shortened version of the M16A2 (no auto).

You can check this information in many places including Wiki (see table near bottom).

http://world.guns.ru/assault/usa/m16-m16a1-m16a2-m16a3-e.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

What this means is that despite the assertion that assault rifle = auto, most recent rifles used by infantry have only had semi and the 3 shot burst options.

The AR-15 was the design that Armalite developed into the M16, and as we know continues to be marketed as a civilian semi-automatic weapon. Some people converted early civilian AR-15s with older receivers to automatic. Indeed conversion was quite common in the movie industry, where film makers converted AR-15s or M16A2s to auto because they thought the viewers would expect this. For a time it was possible to convert early AR-15s to auto without major machining with a 'drop-in auto-sear' or a 'lightening link'. Nowadays the receivers are manufactured to make conversion difficult, and only a fool would risk the stiff penalties that apply by getting his receiver machined to accept extra parts. It is still the case, however, that an old conversion pre-dating relevant legislation is legal - apparently these weapons sell for very high prices.

The above is what I learned from my discussion with the 'concealed carry' people.

I am agnostic about whether the term assault rifle means anything much, but the fact is that an AR-15 isn't very different from an M16A2 (the 3 shot burst is missing). I don't suppose the patent holder on both - Armalite - would say anything different.

Edited April 18, 2013 by citizen33

[JDGRUEN]

You are incorrect about M-16s ... M-16's / M-4s are select fire (semi-automatic and fully automatic) that is - single shot per each trigger pull or fully automatic with one trigger pull - which will empty even a 30 round magazine in seconds (not just a few shots) M-16s and M4s are Military rifles not legally sold to the public. Also - the AR-15 type rifle is a Semi-Automatic weapon. From the factory this commercial model of rifle will not fire fully automatic with just one trigger pull - it will not fire Fully Automatic at all. The trigger must be pulled for each shot. Fully automatic weapons cannot be owned in the U.S. legally without a special license, extensive background check and big fee. As a result very few people (except for hardened criminals) own fully automatic weapons legally or illegally in the USA. A person altering a weapon like the AR-15 to make it fully automatic will risk a severe prison term.

Anti-Gun people have been damning the AR-15 because it looks near identical to the Military M-16 / M-4 with pistol grips, etc. and in most other respects... even though it cannot spray a room full of people with bullets using one trigger pull - even though it is not fully automatic. It is boogieman scare tactics - associate a legal weapon with one that is not legal erasing the difference in the minds of the people. AR-15's and other weapons that have a military 'look' fire no differently than dozens of other rifles of the same caliber and of other calibers - it is just these 'others' do not have pistol grips and other military looking features (but they are not called 'assault rifles'). The Bushmaster AR-15 and similar type rifles are more correctly called 'Semi-Automatic Rifles.

By in large - this time around as before - the anti-gun people mounted a campaign of misinformation and disinformation to inflame the public and attempted to stir hatred for an object to act as a symbol to subdue the right to bear arms. Metal detectors and armed guards and even concealed carry for select school employees are more appropriate and effective ways of dealing with potential armed assaults in classrooms ... the same methods we use in courtrooms, federal buildings, and airports. How many mass shootings have there been in courtrooms, federal buildings and airports in the last ten years? Gun grabbers also want to ignore that of the typical mass shooters of recent times ALL had documented long term serious mental illness. But people can't be singled out and confined because they are long term documented nut cases - it might hurt their feeling. Gun grabbers don't want to solve the problem - they just want to grab guns - they want to CONTROL.

Thank you for illustrating the position I was arguing against.

I was fully aware that the AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle (i.e. one trigger pull one shot). You question my statement that most military M-16s currently in use do not have a fully automatic option and I stick with that.

The original M-16 and M-16A1 of the 1960s did have the full auto option (safe/semi/auto) but were withdrawn. Admittedly many were remade for airforce use as the GAU-5/A carbine and other variants that generally retained theauto option, but then ceased to be assault rifles.

The M-16A2 rifle introduced in the 1980s had only semi or 3 round burst (safe/semi/burst), and has been the main infantry rifle up until the present time.

The M163A reinstated the auto option (safe/semi/auto) but is used mainly by the Navy and Coast Guard.

The latest M16A4 issued to front-line troops in recent conflicts again has a safe/semi/burst selector.

There is a plan to move to the latest version of the M4 carbine - The M4A1 (a shorter version of the M16) in 2014, and this will have an auto option again. The original M4 carbine was in common army use and was essentially a shortened version of the M16A2 (no auto).

You can check this information in many places including Wiki (see table near bottom).

http://world.guns.ru/assault/usa/m16-m16a1-m16a2-m16a3-e.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

What this means is that despite the assertion that assault rifle = auto, most recent rifles used by infantry have only had semi and the 3 shot burst options.

The AR-15 was the design that Armalite developed into the M16, and as we know continues to be marketed as a civilian semi-automatic weapon. Some people converted early civilian AR-15s with older receivers to automatic. Indeed conversion was quite common in the movie industry, where film makers converted AR-15s or M16A2s to auto because they thought the viewers would expect this. For a time it was possible to convert early AR-15s to auto without major machining with a 'drop-in auto-sear' or a 'lightening link'. Nowadays the receivers are manufactured to make conversion difficult, and only a fool would risk the stiff penalties that apply by getting his receiver machined to accept extra parts. It is still the case, however, that an old conversion pre-dating relevant legislation is legal - apparently these weapons sell for very high prices.

The above is what I learned from my discussion with the 'concealed carry' people.

I am agnostic about whether the term assault rifle means anything much, but the fact is that an AR-15 isn't very different from an M16A2 (the 3 shot burst is missing). I don't suppose the patent holder on both - Armalite - would say anything different.

My point is (and was) that the Anti-Gun lobby has for years attempted to sell the propaganda that 'Assault Rifles' sold on the civilian market - aside from looking like the Military Issued rifles - will also fire 'automatic' - whether fully automatic or limited auto burst. Therefore it is a devastating machine gun. The objective of the anti-gun propagandists is to project an image of a Rambo style spraying of a classroom with a fire hose of bullets. And that every 'Assault Weapon' sold on the civilian market in the U.S. is capable of such a Fire Hose spraying of people and thus not suitable or appropriate for any sane purpose in society. Anti-Gun fanatics go out of their way via propaganda to confuse the public into believing that what is sold to the military is sold on the American civilian market. In other words just keep telling the Big Lie long enough and often enough and the people will believe it. Yes - a semi-automatic AR-15 type rifle is a serious weapon and is capable of causing serious casualties - but it is not a Rambo Fire Hose.

By the way - I am happy to read that the latest versions of the M-4 (M4A1) to be shipped in 2014 will have the full automatic selection option. The rate of fire in combat should be determined by training and discipline of the soldier not by some bureaucrat - technocrat.

[wellred]

Well at least he tried. But hey let's all continue to cross our fingers that we never see a nut job go on a gun rampage again. Oh wait...

I shouldn't say this but I hope the next time something like this does happen it happens to families of those who vote pro guns. Maybe then they will see the error of their ways. It's people like that who allow these situations to continue to occur. Maybe there will be a really big one where a whole town is shot up and then people will take notice.

I'm not trying to sound sick or anything but as an outsider looking in this has to be one of those moments where you face palm and say really? Are they that stupid?

[JDGRUEN]

Well at least he tried. But hey let's all continue to cross our fingers that we never see a nut job go on a gun rampage again. Oh wait... I shouldn't say this but I hope the next time something like this does happen it happens to families of those who vote pro guns. Maybe then they will see the error of their ways. It's people like that who allow these situations to continue to occur. Maybe there will be a really big one where a whole town is shot up and then people will take notice. I'm not trying to sound sick or anything but as an outsider looking in this has to be one of those moments where you face palm and say really? Are they that stupid?

People perform the acts of violence. In mass shootings of recent vintage it has shown to be mentally ill people of long standing and solid documentation who were not taken off the streets. Get these people confined and the mass shootings will be few and far between.

Edited April 18, 2013 by JDGRUEN