Obama: NRA rejects compromise on new gun laws

It's funny how President Obama's only idea of compromise is him getting everything he want's without any concessions on his part.

Someone should get him a dictionary and point out the difference between a demand and a compromise.

- - - Updated - - -

So like labor unions?

 

Already been through this before with another poster chief. Can't help it if you can't pay attention. Gun suicide rates do matter. People dying from suicide from a gun is no different than one dying from a person with an illegal gun. They're both dead, so both need attention to reduce the numbers to practically zero. My proposal for criminals who should not own guns, would definitely help, big time to achieve that goal.

As for suicide deaths and guns, I agree with you. That's a tough one. Instead of laws, I think others, especially family members, if recognized, should pursue aggressive counseling, and or removing weapons from the home until the problem or problems with that individual are resolved.

 

Money, power, and privilege, particularly white privilege with its money and power, created the ghetto. "BY DESIGN"!

 

I hope you realize I'm not against people in their homes having guns for their own protection?

 

Are you just against people protecting themselves outside of their homes?

 

OH. MY. GOD.

A "white privilege" believer.

I have never encountered one in real life. They are like rumors of monsters under the bed. Even the concept is unbelievable. Most people I know think that its impossible for anyone to actually believe in "white privilege". Kind of like a man who thinks he is a woman. Unicorns.

Tell me. Exactly what "white privilege" obtains to the West Virginia coal miner's son whose father has been put out of a job by Obama's war on coal that makes his life easier than the son of, say, Robert Johnson,( head of BET Networks who is incredibly wealthy and privileged) such that Robert Johnston's son gets affirmative action placement in university, in a job, in "diversity" programs?

Don't you think its odd that the most egregious examples of "ghettos" are in areas totally run and controlled by Democrats? LA, Chicago, Detroit, New York City, Baltimore? All cesspools of racism and income inequality.

- - - Updated - - -

How about the castle doctrine?

 

I guess I missed your proposed solution that would keep criminals from having firearms without inconveniencing or limiting the rights of the law abiding. I haven't looked at every post in this thread.

Would you repeat it?

Before discussing background checks, you already realize there are background checks required by federal law, right? Including any that involves an interstate transfer of a firearm?

So, if suicide deaths won't be solved by more gun laws, then you can stop repeating the stats about suicides by gun or talking about laws to stop them. Like I said, it would be like telling Japanese to stop suicides by people jumping in front of trains by stopping running trains.

 

That's funny, when I sold my house a couple of years ago, the only thing I was thinking about was how the crime rate was increasing and how run down the neighborhood was getting.

So I sold my house and moved my white ass to another neighborhood. Who knew I did that by design and not by a desire to not have to put up with the (*)(*)(*)(*) that was creeping into that area?

 

Lol! You really don't get it do you? It probably has never dawned on you, that the "desire", is the "design". That's why the "design" exists in the first place.

 

Um, no! But you can go to post #53 and read it. It's a very good way of cutting down on those who shouldn't have guns through illegal sales.

There is no background check for private sales. That is why everyone should have a permit.

 

Interstate background check for private sales is law.

 

Senators and Representatives in the House can be bought like megaphones, however.

 

That's the whole point. Just because it is a law doesn't mean Joe can't sell criminal Jim who lives down the street a gun, without any one knowing it. That is how the permit would catch a lot of them. When they are stopped by a police officer, they run the tag on their computer to see who they are and if they have a gun permit, they immediately will know if the individual has prior convictions. And, if he has a criminal history and suspects weapons are in the car, then he would get a search warrant. Then, if caught with that weapon, since he or she has prior criminal charges, then the punishment should be twice as much as the first time. Believe me, that would take an awful lot of guns away from those who shouldn't have them, and, it will make the criminal think twice about buying a gun from Jim down the street again. Get it?

 

I have a permit. What makes you think any criminal would get one?

 

And what about NON-interstate sales?

Since they don't check ANYTHNG there...how does a seller even know if it's interstate or not?

 

The term "ghetto" came from Venice, Italy, actually.

Unless you live in a modern American ghetto, I'd imagine it's likely quite hard to pinpoint why and how certain factors led to it's creation, since there are many with long, complex stories stretching back many years. I'm not sure if you've got years of urban development study under your belt, but based on that post I'm going to assume it's not probable.

I highly doubt that there is some super secretive society of white people dedicating time, resources, and effort into turning certain areas into slummy, ghetto areas -- they turn that way due to poor economic and socioeconomic choices by elected officials, but let's indulge that idea. Lets look at some bad cities and see if some white dude is responsible for it's downfall, like democratically elected mayor of Detroit before/during the 2008 economic crash - Kwame Kilpatrick, or his successor, democratically elected Kenneth Cockrel Jr.

Or current mayor of Flint, MI - Karen Weaver.

Or current mayor of Atlanta, GA - Kasim Reed.

Or current mayor of D.C. - Muriel Bowser.

Or current mayor of Cleveland, OH - Frank G. Jackson.

All of those mayors are mayors of cities with rampant violence issues and by many are considered "ghetto."

Wait... They're all African Americans. Whoops, looks like the shoehorned narrative of white people being responsible for every bad economic decision for minorities has got to be created elsewhere in the US government.

Maybe the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development during all those Bush years was responsible for white people creating ghettos?
Wait... Both Ronald Reagan AND G.W.B. had black S.o.H.U.D... Hmm...


Well maybe there's a large national organization dedicated to keeping black people poor, uneducated, and underrepresented.
Wait...



Now please don't read this as "White people have never done anything wrong" which I am sure you will try to spin it as, I am saying at the current stage of political and economic landscape, race plays a much lesser role in how poverty is divided out. There's plenty of it to go around... to EVERYONE.

The only distinctly racist government-based organization would be the police and the criminal justice system, which are arguably so entangled in an incestuous relation that they are indiscernible.

 

Yes... and in that regard, the BCPGV is the same as the NRA.
Except, of course, their financial power is minuscule and no one notices when they support a candidate.

 

A whole lot of nonsense there, and a whole lot of correlation = causation going on.

People choose a gun because they know they are likely to die when they pull the trigger
This means they are serious in their decision to kill themselves.
Absent a gun, they will almost certainly find another way.

And, of course, the idea that gun control will prevent someone who is legally able to buy a gun from going out to buy a gun to kill themselves is patently silly.

 

What sort of gun control law will prevent people from killing themselves with a gun?
How many people do you think go buy a gun to commit suicide?

 

Your statement reads like the adults in a Peanuts cartoon sound. Gibberish that is just noise.

 

Read Terry v Ohio. He doesn't need a warrant to search the car for weapons if he has reason to believe the suspect may be armed and dangerous (read if he stops you). They already search criminal records when they run your plate and id.
Felon in possession of a firearm is already a crime and adds on to any other offenses you might have committed at the time.
Want to know how permitted joe gets around the law? permitted joe sells to criminal jim and then reports the firearm stolen.
You're not stopping a criminal from doing anything. All you're doing is making it more difficult and expensive for the law abiding to keep and bear arms. Why do you hate single mothers and ethnic minorities who are disproportionately more likely to be poor and therefore unable to afford this arduous set of poll taxes and voting tests you have created?

 

Wow, this has to be the most ignorant (*)(*)(*)(*)ing thing I have read today. Really? Put down the crack pipe before you go an a ramble next time.

 

I see I have already replied to this.

I shouldn't need a permit. Everything you talk about is in play today. Cops can stop me. Check out my ID to see who I am, if I have any warrants, or past criminal history. Search my car if they have probable cause. If I am a criminal or otherwise not allowed to have a firearm and have one, they can apprehend me and prosecute me for violation.

1. I have a carry permit. If I am stopped, I am supposed to show the officer my DL and my carry permit (here in the free state of Texas we can carry open or concealed). He can ask if I have a weapon with me at the time.
2. My permit has no specifics as to ID of the specific firearm I am carrying. I could have obtained it anywhere.
3. Some states had methods of detaining suspicious persons and searching them for contraband already. Stop and Frisk did a great job in keeping illegal weapons and drugs off the streets. It was particularly effective in high crime neighborhoods in the big urban centers. However, SJW politicians bowed to the racial grievance pushers and stopped officers from doing stop & frisk when it was discovered that most of those affected were in minority neighborhoods, like inner city Baltimore. So, the cops stopped vigourously enforcing the law. Crime and murders are way up. None of that has anything to do with my ability to get and carry a firearm.
4. Virginia, in the early 2000s discovered a great way to reduce gun violence and protect firearms freedoms. In cooperation with the NRA, and the federal government, the state imposed very harsh penalties on crimes committed with firearms, including long prison sentences to be served miles away in federal facilities away from friends, family and neighborhood criminal aquaintances. Crime with firearms dropped. The legislature also decreed that local officials could not arbitrarily deny citizens the right to buy firearms by delaying "background checks". Meanwhile, Maryland was passing stricter gun control laws at the same time it pushed lenient parole and "rehabilitation" programs for criminals. Violent crime rate in Maryland, just across the Potomac river from Virginia was nearly three times that of Virginia which punished criminals, not law abiding citizens.
5. The problem with permits and governments deciding who is worthy of obtaining and carrying weapons is that that process can be entirely arbitrary. Don't want some bureaucrat with the authority to decide whether or not I can exercise my firearms freedoms. Politicians and bureaucrats may decide that no one "needs" one.

 

Okay, well you just made the point that your inconveniences are more concerning to you than saving lives, because the plan I suggested, if carried out the way I outlined it, would cut down dramatically on criminals having guns.

You said some states already had methods of detaining suspicious persons, and I already knew that. But the permit confirms the suspicion, before the officer ever opens his own door. That's the big difference.

 

You have no proof whatever your plan would work. Its like the "global warming" hoaxers telling us to give them our money and control over their lives and they will save us from a calamity only they can see coming.

And I am much more concerned that I retain my liberties than that some unproven, ephemeral "solution" to violent crime be put in place that would serve to restrain or deny those liberties. Note that much of your "plan" is already in place. Cops can already do what you want to see happen in terms of stopping suspicious persons, seeing who is who. The cop would have to have reason to search a vehicle whether or not he "opened the door" with or without being presented a permit to know whether or not a firearm was even present. Its already illegal for a felon to be in possession of a firearm subject to prosecution. If a firearm was found, it would be a simple 2 minute check to know if the person was unauthorized to have it.

Virginia's plan drastically reduced violent crime with guns because it punished the criminals, not the law abiding. Is your goal to reduce violent crime with guns or get rid of guns? Because the gun grabbers want to get guns out of private hands altogether. Their plan, which they perceive may take up to 50 years to accomplish, is to make it harder and ever harder for law abiding people to own firearms - permits get required, fees get bigger, background checks take longer, taxes go up, lawsuits against manufacturers, taxes on ammo, etc.. Until the penultimate step - licensing and registration - after which it will be simple to pass legislation to just go and say "Mr and Mrs America, hand 'em in". Then they just go pick em up because they know where they are.

Did I tell you all mine fell into a deep, deep lake in a terrible boating accident last year? So, I'm afraid I won't be able to register anything. You know, like thousands of New Yorkers, tens of thousands of Californians, thousands of citizens of Connecticut have failed to do after passage of various strict gun laws in recent years.