Moving beyond ban on assault weapons (barf alert)

Milwaukee J-S ^ | 21 mar 2013

[rellimpank]

Even after the horrific slayings of schoolchildren in Connecticut in December, it was probably inevitable that an effort to ban military-style assault weapons would come to naught.

There was widespread skepticism that the ban would do much good, especially since so many of these guns already are on the streets and in homes. There was no Republican support, and even red state Democrats were reluctant to back the measure.

We still think there is value in sending a message that assault weapons and extended magazines are dangerous and unnecessary, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has to count votes and made a wise decision this week to focus on the possible.

Now his goal is to pass bipartisan legislation to make gun trafficking a federal crime, boost funding for school security and toughen the background check program. We'd also like to see a ban on the sale of ammunition on the Internet.

[Travis McGee]

[winner3000]

(There was widespread skepticism that the ban would do much good)

Even liberals are saying what big hypocrites they are!

[kevkrom]

Summary: “We failed to exploit people’s emotions to ram through our top totalitarian goals, but we’re still going to try and push to get some of the lesser ones, despite the fact that none of them would have stopped the event we are supposedly so devastated over.”

[yldstrk]

‘horrific” is sooooooooooooooooooo overused, I want to cringe when these numbskulls use it to describe everything

[ScottinVA]

(There was widespread skepticism that the ban would do much good)

Even liberals are saying what big hypocrites they are!

---

Yep! Even Ricky Holder’s Social Justice Dept. acknowledged that undeniable, inconvenient fact.

[MrB]

Ask any liberal -

what do they want to do after citizens are disarmed
that they know they can’t do before they are disarmed?

And don’t accept “that’s absurd”, because there has to be a reason to disarm the people, or there wouldn’t be a push to disarm the people.

[apillar]

Obama, Feinstein and crew are quickly learning the lesson, “Those that live by the low information voter, die by the low information voter.” The problem with counting on the low information voter to push your legislation over the finish line, is that they have attention spans that rarely last more than a week or two and disappear as soon as another “shiny object” is dangled in front of them. Yes the gun grabbers managed to get them all lathered up for a couple weeks after Newtown, but as soon as the pictures were gone off the TV screen so was the outrage and passion to do something.

[John O]

“Even after the horrific slayings of schoolchildren in Connecticut in December”

The article lost all credibility right there. Why are 18 deaths in Connecticut horrific but the murder of 3000 children every day by the liberals in their abortionaries not horrific?

Until they start working against the murder of the unborn they have no right to talk about anything else.

[rellimpank]

—yep—and as others have pointed out, this isn’t over yet -—they’ll be back-—

[umgud]

Now his goal is to pass bipartisan legislation to make gun trafficking a federal crime,

It already is a fed crime. Transfering firearms accross state borders without using a federal firearms licensee is against the law.

I guess we need to make it really, really against the law.

[rellimpank]

—ping—

[manc]

unknown guns?

what does that mean?

[manc]

done this with liberals or Dem voters a few times .

If you are in bed next to your wife, the kids are in bed and two guys break in and come at you with a knife, at , gun what ever weapon they have, what do you do?
Would you not prefer to have a gun or let your wife have a gun to defend herself, yourself and defend your kids when you have 5 seconds before you are bashed to death or stabbed to death .

Always and I mean always get er er er HUH er er yes but we should ban guns

[Travis McGee]

Probably means a through and through gunshot wound, with no weapon recovered. Most are probably pistols, but they didn’t find a pistol bullet or recover a gun.

[manc]

yesterday a freeper put an article on here about a couple shooting back at two robbers at their home, lots of rounds exchanged and it went well for the elderly couple.

7 rounds in a mag would not have worked then, neither a gun ban.Infact Feinstein and co would have let this couple die along with so many in this country if they got their way.

[manc]

nail on head.

Also how many kids died in the big cities in one night by gangs, robbers, etc?

[MrB]

The reason you get the disconnect is that they won’t address their assumptions.

The sheeperals’ assumptions are humanistic, and the specific assumption is that if the society were “directed” to be a better society, then there wouldn’t be bad people (”sin”).

Of course, banning guns would, in their minds, create that better society, so there wouldn’t BE bad guys breaking into their houses. That’s why they can’t logically make the connection.

Address the assumption first. Then address the issue.

[manc]

OK thank you, that makes sense.

[manc]

I;ve always found that when I hear the left talk it reminds me of two kids, they cannot address the real facts, they seem to live in some mamby pamby la la land and can;t face reality.

I remember one woman talking about rapes and assaults on women and how they don;t need guns because we shoudl focus on telling men not to attack women.
Well yea we should and do but men already know if they rape a woman it;s wrong so that’s not working but the woman on TV just could not get it into her head that the world is not perfect and that men will and have always attacked woman in the past.
All this woman could say was to tell men not to rape women instead of hearing the other woman who said that women need to protect themselves as there will always be attacks and the world is not perfect.