Do these assholes ever read their own stuff? If the FBI has files on "undocumented immigrants," how can they be undocumented?
.
.
Posted on 01/22/2011 7:39:06 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
WITH the Tucson shootings still in the news, there’s a good chance President Obama will discuss gun control in his speech. How he does it could mean progress or stalemate on the issue.
Over the last few weeks, gun-control advocates have focused on banning the type of high-capacity clips that the police say was used by the man accused in the Tucson shootings, Jared Loughner. But even timely efforts to ban particular kinds of weapons face long odds politically, and historically have less success in reducing crime.
To get something done with a skeptical Congress, the president ought to shift the focus from the instruments of violence to the perpetrators by calling for a substantial increase in the number of people who are listed by the F.B.I. as barred from purchasing guns.
This year, the government will conduct about 14 million background checks on prospective firearm buyers. Only about 200,000, or just over 1 percent, will be denied permission to buy.
What’s more, while the F.B.I. database, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, has nearly 6.5 million records of prohibited buyers, two-thirds are simply the names of undocumented immigrants, who as a group constitute just 1 percent of those who were denied a gun....
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
“The president should therefore call for several additions to the database: names on the terrorist watch list, military recruits who fail drug tests and patients ordered to undergo mental-health treatment, if their doctor or family requests they be added.”
Ah yes. Brilliant.
I also think that people should not be allowed to speak if their doctor says they shouldn’t be able to. Like the author of this trash.
I have a better idea. Put only the liberals on the no buy list.
Administration of NICS would be much simpler if it always answered “denied.” No need for a database, just a one line program. You just “know” somebody has seriously proposed this. Keep the law as it is, but everybody fails the background check. Why? State secret.
No one should be able to write about firearms much less legislate if they don't own one, have at least 16 hours of professional training trigger time, and have a permit to carry.
Even Sean Vannity, who is discussing this topic quite a bit frequently, is totally clueless.
In regard to a proposed gun control laws, I think the unaddressed problem here has to do with inflammatory rhetoric. For just one example consider that in Fairfax County Virginia guns appear to live passive lives. However, as soon as they cross the Potomac River and enter the Anacostia area of Washington D.C., they become psychopaths when hearing rules associated with rigid gun control legislation.
We need to take a lead from the Obama administration, which has excised such phrases as “unlawful enemy combatant” and “war on terror” from any discussion surrounding the events of 9/11 and thereafter. Guns need to understand we are not at war with them. If we approach them with an open mind and without preconditions, then we can arrive at lasting détente.
Using this more embracing, benevolent approach to interacting with guns; legislation should consider ways to make guns feel welcome. As an example, Representative King and Senator Lautenberg should propose that individuals with a concealed carry permit, who attend an event at which a Congress person or federal judge appears, must be not more than 1,000 feet from the individual. In this way guns would not feel offended, and would be unlikely to react violently.
Over 99% of those denials will be false flags and overturned.
Do these assholes ever read their own stuff? If the FBI has files on "undocumented immigrants," how can they be undocumented?
.
.
It is crazy to set up a huge expensive bureaucratic system, require everyone to jump though hoops and prove that they are *not* criminals in order to try, ineffectively, to prevent the few individuals who are not responsible, from having legal access to guns.
This is a failed paradigm, and it should be abandoned. To accept the idea that the all gun sales should be monitored by the government, and only allowed to those it deems satisfactory is fundamentally wrong.
The entire idea of the enterprise has always been the death of a thousand cuts, where the restrictions on who can buy, and where, and how and what are continually increased until the number of gun owners is reduced to political insignificance.
Ban the hi-cap clips all ya want, but leave the mags alone.
I agree. Here we have regulation of an industry being attempted by people who only want to end it altogether, with the obvious results. It would be as foolish as placing the regulation of automobiles into the hands of bicycling fanatics who want no one to be able to use them. Which is essentially what the Greens are demanding.
"names on the terrorist watch list, military recruits who fail drug tests"
Anyone can end up on the TWL even accidentally or due to an anonymous tip. Additionally, you want your kid banned from owning a gun for the rest of his life because he came up positive for pot in a military piss test?
I'd wager 25% of ALL gun owners could come up positive on a urinalysis for SOMETHING.
I can deal with Democrats using piano wire, baseball bats, shoe strings, chain saws, bare feet...my options are endless.
Of course, they are going to have to wade through a rather significant amount of outlawed-but-already-acquired firepower to prove me right or wrong, but that's a risk I'm willing to endure.
I wonder if this proposal would pass: Examine the voting habits of those who commit the overwhelming number of murders in this country. Outlaw gun ownership to all those with the same voting habits. Think about it.
...well, I’m sure if they looked for Vitamin B they’d get a 100% hit rate.
Actual insanity is the only excuse for any ban on possession and carry.Everything else is fantasy insofar as preventing bad guys from having weapons. But the point is not preventing bad guys from having them, it is preventing good guys from having them. Bad guys with guns are not a threat to the rulers. Good guys with guns are a threat.
Actual insanity is the only excuse for any ban on possession and carry.Everything else is fantasy insofar as preventing bad guys from having weapons. But the point is not preventing bad guys from having them, it is preventing good guys from having them. Bad guys with guns are not a threat to the rulers. Good guys with guns are a threat.
This is what irritates me: when someone kills a bunch of people with a vehicle - no calls for banning vehicles (unless it’s an EVIL Hummer, of course).
Here’s how to translate the BS:
High-capacity clips = Anything that can hold over 10 rounds [soon to 5 rounds.. soon to be 2 rounds..]
And when they talk about wanting to expand who gets denied – just remember that as the title stated – they can implement a ban gradually by simply being more “Inclusive” in who should Denied their basic human rights.
Today it’s Leftist nutcases like Loughner, tomorrow it will be people with the “wrong” political views.
Our god given rights won’t disappear over night, but slowly over time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.