Obama got PO'ed

I suppose after the Boston bombings you'd also like to limit access to pressure cookers? You're such an idiot. Guns, knives, pressure cookers, ammonium nitrate, automobiles, etc. are all weapons in the hands of the wrong people. And by "wrong people" I don't mean just those who couldn't pass a background check. You could probably pass a background check (just guessing, though), but I wouldn't trust you with a gun as far as I could throw you. Not after your comments about burning down buildings and calling for violence in the streets. You have some anger issues you need to deal with and I'm glad you don't own a gun. I think you're dangerous. But, you could still probably pass a background check. Just sayin'.

 

Moen.....I can only imagine the joyous shouts of YES !! YES !! YES !! in your place when you heard about Sandy Hook !!!! YES !!!! NO WE CAN GRAB THE GUNS!!! YES !!!!!! YIPEEEEEE !!!

I have seen every conservative on this forum denounce crime and criminals but when given the chance to denounce Bill Ayers, you refused too, in fact, YOU DEFENDED HIM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You have approved of violence and stated that you might even commit it !!!! I'm god damned glad you don't own guns !!!!!!

 

Bill Ayers is a criminal? What was he convicted of? How much time did he serve? What was he charged with? Please clarify.

 

Just exactly as I said - you try to defend violence so long as it is for your side.

BTW, Ayers was charged with terrorism;

Also, please note the crimes he has admitted. So, yes. he absolutely is a criminal

 

How about that? Tamerlan Tsamaev, one of the Boston Marathon bombers, passed a thorough "scrubbing" (in-depth background check) by the FBi in 2011 at the request of a foreign government. The "scrubbing" was probably much more thorough than the background checks mom and pop have to go through to buy a gun at the local gun shop.

So, Tamerlan passed the background check. He probably could have bought a gun if he had wanted to instead of creating bombs from pressure cookers. But, the point is that he passed the background check. Now, for those who want to implement background checks on our citizens before they can buy a gun, doesn't that make you feel better?

 

We have a saying in this country. Innocent until proven guilty. You can speculate all you want until the guy is either convicted or acquitted.

And then there is this wing nut idea that Ayers is some type of Left-wing hero. I had never even heard of this guy until the cons made him a boogie man. I had never met anyone the had even heard of Bill Ayers and I travel in some pretty Left circles. So your idea that there is some type of hero status bestowed on Ayers by the Left is really a pretty self-serving Right-wing fantasy.

I would however think that he would rise to the level of Right-wing hero given all the things he was accused of some 50 years ago. You know, fighting a tyrannical government, taking up arms, forming militias. All pretty standard Right-wing ideology these days. I'm sure there are countless admirers of Ayers on the lunatic fringe Right. Not so much in the tree hugging crowd.

 

Oh! Lordy! Lordy! Where do I start with that. I guess first off I notice that you have now omitted the word "charged". I gather you looked it up.
"We have a saying in this country. Innocent until proven guilty." - Uhm! I seem to remember such people as Bush, Cheney, Zimmerman, Romney, etc. being called criminals. I somehow do not remember hearing or seeing them admit that they were criminals let alone be convicted.
"I had never met anyone the had even heard of Bill Ayers" Ah! Admitting you own ignorance. Keep at it!.
And then again you advocate violence. Even before the innocent-until-proven, you have to follow the rules in order to maintain this country. Really!

 

If admitting that I never heard of someone you accuse me of worshipping makes me ignorant, I have to wonder what it makes you?

I guess the word dumbass comes to mind.

 

WOW! Out of my whole rant, you brag about your ignorance. Go for it!!

 

You f'ng liar!

 

I believe and have proven over and over again that lying is your forte.

 

Sorry the best you have done is twist the facts (or, more commonly, post other's twisted truth) trying to show something that is not. To wit;
The Boston bomber was not a right-wing radical.
The Republicans did not vote against aid for Sandy, but rather the Democrats pork.
The IRA does not arm the terrorists.
Background checks will not eliminate school shootings.
Bill Ayers is/was a criminal (by his own admission).
etc.

 

The NRA members support the idea of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, gangs, and the like, that the legislation would have provided the means for but, the NRA board is made up of...

...a bunch of gun and bullet manufacturers and other representatives of the gun industry who make money by selling guns and ammunition both to the cops (legally) and the criminals (via third-parties/but legal).

They stand to lose a lot of money should criminals be prevented from acquiring weapons. If the criminals don't have access to as many weapons as they can get, the cops wouldn't need as much of them to prevent crime, and ordinary citizens wouldn't feel compelled to buy them for home protection.

They need citizens to be frightened and insecure, in order to sell copious amounts of product.

 

Fear: They want our guns!!!
Reality: They don't want all of them, but they do want certain guns, fully-automatics and the like, which are (literally) overkill.

Fear: We won't be able to protect ourselves!
Reality: Your handguns* and hunting rifles are not being confiscated, see above.

*I think it was Chicago and DC that banned handguns. Do they still have bans? Either way, both cities are idiots. What they banned was the legal possession of handguns, I believe, meaning only criminals and formerly law-abiding citizens (now criminals), as well as law-enforcement and select citizens, have the right to carry/own them. Until a national ban on selling guns to criminals (via third-party), unless a gun can be tracked from manufacturer to it's criminal use, any such ban only hurts law-abiding citizens that much more, as it does little to nothing in preventing guns from being sold to criminals.

You gun-rights people want serious and lasting peace of mind? Allow for the tracking of guns from manufacturer to end-user. With that, crime will drop, and less people will die needlessly.

 

Hey, Jack! I did not realize that you made guns. I also did not realize Charlton, Ted, Harry (God forbid), etc made guns.

 

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner folks!

Arming both sides of a conflict is how arms dealers maximize the market. This has never been about the 2nd Amendment, protecting our rights, or the framers intent, but it is about selling as many weapons and bullets as possible and damn the consequences to society. If that wasn't true, why would poll after poll show that even NRA members in overwhelming numbers ARE for background checks and closing the gun show loophole? Maybe a long time ago the NRA represented the interests of hunters and target shooting enthusiasts but the NRA found the gun manufacturers to be a more lucrative constituency.

 

Even NRA members favor sensible gun control

A recent poll shows National Rifle Association members overwhelming favor closing the gun show loophole, and that has the NRA fuming. Never mind that the poll was conducted by Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster who is on Fox News so often that he may as well be considered a network personality. Or that the same poll shows NRA members do support many pro-Second Amendment positions (against a national gun registry, for example).
Once again, the NRA's leadership is out of step -- not only with average Americans but even with people who identify themselves as NRA members. That kind of extremism may help the organization raise money from its base, but it's only making the country more vulnerable to criminals who can now purchase firearms at a gun show in most states without a Brady criminal background check.
Leaving that loophole untouched is a preposterous position. And the poll commissioned by a coalition of mayors, including New York's Michael Bloomberg, shows most Americans understand that: 85 percent favor closing the loophole, including 69 percent of self-identified NRA members.
What's the NRA's response? To attack the pollster, Mayor Bloomberg and just about anybody associated with the finding. On the subject of loopholes, the chief criticism appears to be that some people may be denied the opportunity to buy a gun, and that gun shows would face more paperwork.
Might those polled have responded differently if NRA hot-button language had been used in the questions? Absolutely. But while the poll was paid for by an organization that would like to see the loophole closed, the questions are fairly worded. Respondents were simply asked if they supported a law requring "all gun sellers at gun shows" to conduct criminal background checks on the people purchasing guns.
No spin, no lengthy preamble talking about criminals and guns, just the basic premise of whether the Brady law should apply to all.

Read the full article
(The text of old articles, if missing, may be available in an archive, which sometimes requires a subscription.)

 

You quote a 4 year old article which references a "recent poll" taken by "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" (obviously a truly independent organization) in selected districts (selected by the independent organization). I will bet I know what results they received.

 

I will tell you one thing this whole gun law thing has done and that is pretty much dry up the ammo market. And some of the new gun market too...especially the smaller handguns. Hard to find a couple of models I am looking for. And handgun ammo is rough unless you know people or stumble in after a delivery. And even then sometimes. It is starting to loosen a little lately but is still not where it should be in availability or price.

And it is not just a local thing. I peruse a lot of sellers on the web from other states and it is the same story.

On the plus side, there is a new shooting range/club opening up nearby. It is run by a police officer who is also a tactical trainer for the force. He is shooting (pun intended) for a family atmosphere and focused on training and safety. They even have classes set up just for women on first time handgun use and safety...and taught solely by women. Lots of other classes are scheduled too from the NRA first shooters type classes to tactical classes.

 

That guns and ammo are getting hard to find is an indication of the paranoia surrounding the recent attempt to pass gun legislation.

Here's a link to a list of the "NRA's leadership", which contains many people currently serving on the 76-person board of directors.

http://www.meetthenra.org/board-list

For me, some of the more interesting players are people like Larry "I'm not gay, I just drop a lot of soap" Craig, Karl "I used to shoot hoops, now I shoot my .45!" Malone, and Tom "I haven't been relevant since the 80's" Selleck.