No ma'am, I won't register my guns

unsung

JimmyV wrote:

I am going to wrap myself up in a warm blanket stitched out of liberty.

LIBERTY!

It is a scary concept, not everyone can handle it. Someday you'll be a big boy though and you might realize you no longer need those training wheels.

fife

unsung wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

I am going to wrap myself up in a warm blanket stitched out of liberty.

LIBERTY!

It is a scary concept, not everyone can handle it. Someday you'll be a big boy though and you might realize you no longer need those training wheels.

some people have different views of what liberty means too.

unsung

Do any of the meanings contain letting the government control just about everything?

JimmyV

unsung wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

I am going to wrap myself up in a warm blanket stitched out of liberty.

LIBERTY!

It is a scary concept, not everyone can handle it. Someday you'll be a big boy though and you might realize you no longer need those training wheels.

And someday you may grow up and take responsibility for your words and actions.

Good talk.

unsung

Responsibility for my words and actions? uh, ok.

usamamasan1

Fair and balanced...


Nearly twice as many voters say there would be less violent crime if more law-abiding Americans owned guns, than if guns were banned.

http://www.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html? ... roteus.fma

Prince Of Dorkness

unsung

She is manly. I'm sure someone likes that.

JimmyV

usamamasan1 wrote:

Fair and balanced...


Nearly twice as many voters say there would be less violent crime if more law-abiding Americans owned guns, than if guns were banned.

http://www.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html? ... roteus.fma

FOX has spoken! Debate over.

mickeyrat

JimmyV wrote:

usamamasan1 wrote:

Fair and balanced...


Nearly twice as many voters say there would be less violent crime if more law-abiding Americans owned guns, than if guns were banned.

http://www.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html? ... roteus.fma

FOX has spoken! Debate over.

TRUTHINESS!!!!

JonnyPistachio

So the NRA is still against expanded background checks, but this is their idea that has been floating around a bit:

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 ... staff?lite

NRA-backed task force pushes to arm teachers, school staff

A National Rifle Association-funded task force on Tuesday outlined a package of recommendations aimed at improving school safety, leaving aside the new gun controls that Congress is considering and instead advising schools to train teachers and other school personnel to carry guns to protect their students.

“I have not focused on the separate debate in Congress about firearms and how they should be handled," said former Republican Rep. Asa Hutchinson, who is heading up the National School Shield Program. The NRA has spent more than $1 million to back the task force, which was created in the wake of the Sandy Hook elementary shooting in Connecticut.

The push to change the subject away from gun control and toward increasing the presence of guns in schools comes the week before Senate Democrats are expected to consider a package of new gun laws on the floor of the upper chamber. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said the bill would expanded background checks for gun buyers and make gun trafficking a federal crime.

Former U.S. Rep. Asa Hutchinson announces recommendations arising from the NRA's National School Shield Program, an initiative aimed at providing schools with armed guards.

While the NRA has been working with members of Congress on legislative language for such proposals, it's publicly opposed to expanding background checks. :fp:

The group has also opposed a proposed ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, with some Republicans arguing that large and powerful weapons are necessary for self-protection.

The 225-page National School Shield report isn't offering specific recommendations for how many armed staff each school should have or the types of guns those people should carry -- though Hutchinson said the firearms could range from "sidearms, to shotguns, to AR-15s."

Hutchinson emphasized that the program should only be for those who are interested in going through 40-60 hours of firearms training.

"Let me emphasize -- this is not talking about all teachers. Teachers should teach," he said. Hutchinson also said that the idea of arming community volunteers -- an idea floated after the Newtown shooting -- wasn't workable because of liability and other issues.

Instead, the focus is on arming staff who are employed at the school. Joining Hutchinson on Tuesday was Mark Mattiolli, whose son was killed in the Newtown shootings. Other Sandy Hook parents have appeared at events on Capitol Hill and at the White House to advocate for stricter gun laws.

Mark Mattiolli, left, endorses new proposals laid out by Asa Hutchinson, right, after his announcement of the findings and recommendations of the the National School Shield Program at the National Press Club in Washington on April 2, 2013.

"As parents we send our kids off to school, and there are certain expectations and obviously at Sandy Hook those expectations weren't met," Mattiolli said. "This is recommendations for solutions. Real solutions that will make our kids safer."

Arming school personnel is the first of eight recommendations included in the plan. Among the other ideas: an online self-assessment tool that schools can use to evaluate their facilities and safety policies; changes to state laws to allow school personnel to carry guns while they're in training; increasing coordination among law enforcement agencies; encouraging states to make school safety part of their educational requirements; making the task force a permanent group; creating a pilot program to assess threats and mental health; and increasing federal funding for school safety.

Hutchinson presented the task force's findings at the National Press Club, where he was protected by at least 10 security guards, some uniformed and some in plain clothes.

"No, there's nothing I'm afraid of," he said when asked about the intense security presence. National Press Club executive director Bill McGowan said after the event that the security level was "unusual" and "definitely got our attention."

gimmesometruth27

of course they are going to say this.

their solution is "guns for everyone!!!!"



god forbid we actually make the tools a little more difficult to obtain.


9/10, yes that is 90% of all gun owners surveyed, support tighter background checks.


what the hell is the problem with that??


the nra is a lobbying arm for the gun manufacturers. nothing more.

josevolution

4 months after Newtown and their answer is let's arm everyone , no banning of anything no backround check no nothing and that Dad man i bet he got paid off i would have a big problem with him if my kid also got killed on that day and now hi's on the NRA SIDE ....It's a shame really those kids died in vain ..

gimmesometruth27

Australia's gun controls a political template for the U.S.

http://news.yahoo.com/australias-gun-co ... 53180.html

CANBERRA (Reuters) - Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard wore a bullet proof vest under his suit when he addressed an angry crowd of gun owners in 1996, telling them he was going to ban automatic and semi-automatic weapons for the safety of all Australians.

At other rallies, effigies of his deputy prime minister Tim Fischer were hanged by opponents of gun control.

The battle for gun control in Australia, after the country's worst massacre in which 35 people were shot dead, was risky both personally and politically. Howard alienated a large part of his conservative, rural base and was almost thrown from office.

But the gun reforms made Australia a safer place, with fewer homicides and suicides, and both Howard and Fischer are now urging U.S. President Barack Obama to take his gun control campaign to the people, just as they did, to gain a consensus.

"I knew that I had to use the authority of my office to curb the possession and use of the type of weapons that killed 35 innocent people. I also knew it wouldn't be easy," Howard wrote in the New York Times earlier this year.

"Penalizing decent, law-abiding citizens because of the criminal behavior of others seemed unfair...I understood their misgivings. Yet I felt there was no alternative," wrote Howard, adding he hoped his example would contribute constructively to the U.S. gun debate.

Obama wants to ban military assault rifles and high capacity ammunition clips after a gunman killed 20 children and six adults at a school in Newtown, Connecticut, in December. But his plans appear to be losing momentum ahead of debate in the U.S. Senate this month.

BRUTAL GUN POLITICS

Six weeks after Howard won office in 1996, Martin Bryant, a psychologically disturbed man, used semi-automatic rifles to kill 35 people in Port Arthur, Tasmania.

Fischer, a Vietnam war veteran, farmer and gun owner, said the politics of gun control in Australia were brutal.

"It was a battle royal, and John Howard laid down a template that was worth defending and taking to the public square, taking to the people, and shifting the tectonic plates in the process. And the result ... 200 less coffins a year on a conservative estimate," Fischer told Reuters.

"It was the right thing to do, but people had to be persuaded of it. And this is why our friends in the United States ... should now consider seriously taking it in a big way to the public square."

In Australia, gun owners were compensated when they handed in previously legal weapons. Almost 700,000 guns were destroyed, halving the number of homes with a gun. That would be equal to taking 40 million guns out of action in the United States.

But the reforms angered many constituents of Fischer's rural-based National Party, who vented their anger two years later at the ballot box. The pro-gun One Nation party won almost one million votes and the government narrowly avoided defeat.

Australia had 13 gun massacres in the 18 years before the 1996 gun reforms, but has not suffered any mass shootings since.

Studies found a marked drop in gun-related homicides, down 59 percent, and a dramatic 65 percent drop in the rate of gun-related suicides, in the 10 years after the weapons crackdown.

But some Australian gun owners, like hunter Stephen O'Donnell, still oppose Howard's gun control laws, arguing they have simply created paperwork not made Australia safer.

O'Donnell, a license kangaroo shooter, can only use a single shell, bolt-action rifle, limiting his ability to control mobs of kangaroos and feral pests which can wreak havoc on farms.

"If I could have a semi-automatic, that would be a much more efficient way of doing it. You could take multiple targets a lot quicker," he said.

81

gotta be honest....if i lived in CT, not sure i would register my large mags if i owned any.

JimmyV

Interesting. I am required to have insurance for my car in case I hit somebody. Why shouldn't the gun owners be required to have insurance for their firearms?

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/02/democ ... z2PPMRjiMe

A contingent of liberal Democrats in Congress is proposing a new federal gun control idea: mandatory liability insurance for gun owners.

When New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney introduced the legislation last month with eight other Democrats, she boasted that it is “the first bill to require liability insurance of gun buyers nationwide.”

Maloney’s “Firearm Risk Protection Act” requires gun buyers to have “a qualified liability insurance policy” before they are able to legally purchase a firearm.

It also calls for the federal government to impose a fine as much as $10,000 if a gun owner doesn’t have insurance on a firearm purchased after the bill goes into effect.

“It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insurance policy,” the bill text reads.

The bill would also make it a federal crime to sell a firearm to anyone without insurance.

“For too long, gun victims and society at large have borne the brunt of the costs of gun violence,” Maloney said as she introduced the legislation. “My bill would change that by shifting some of that cost back onto those who own the weapons.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/02/democ ... z2PPo6tpv2

Jason P

I don't think the people who use guns to shoot other people give a rats ass about getting insurance.

:think:

I can understand why someone who may be in bed with the insurance lobby would want to push this legislation.

JimmyV

I don't think the bill is targeting someone who plans to shoot someone else. The bill is targeting the so-called responsible gun owner who believes their guns are perfectly safe and not a danger at all right up until the moment when they discover they are very wrong.

But you are right about the involvement of insurance companies. No doubt.

OnTheEdge

Bentleyspop wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

bootlegger10 wrote:

Use your brain and see that a country doesn't just wake up one day and find out it is Cuba or pre-1990 SOviet Union (or even current Russia).

Oh please. What kind of bat shit paranoia is that?

It is various actions over time that lead a country to that point.

No, actually it was bloody revolutions, which would would know if you went to junior high. What the fuck do they teach in your schools, cow milking and basket weaving?

Putin shuts down the media in Russia. Liberals here want to shut down Fox News.

Fox News isn't "the news," it's a propaganda wing of the Republican party. They aren't a legitimate news agency, they even say so themselves.

FINALLY!!!! another voice of reason

True. But do you ever hear of the right trying to shut down MSNBC? hmmm do ya do ya do ya? FUCK NO YOU DONT!

unsung

Carrying insurance and these $25 per gun fees are racist.