Jump to content
Geoff, you're right, and I don't intend to do anything. But I sure wish there was a way for Mr. Alley's fellow wine fans to realize just what kind of a person they were socializing with. My bet is that if they knew, he'd be drinking alone.
Alley, it's common form to put quotation marks around text you are quoting and also give the source of the quote. Sorry that this norm escapes you.
As for anger and hate, you sir are the most consistently angry and hateful poster who participates in this forum. You have a very bad case of "the pot calling the kettle black."
But keep posting. I'm keeping a "diary" of your most asinine and hateful posts, and I truly relish the idea of informing your fellow winos as to exactly who and what their "leader" is. You're going to lose most of your compatriots, many (most?) of whom are likely dreaded "wine and cheese liberals" who you hate so much.
Re: the National Gun Registry
"Opponents, which included Republicans and rural-state Democrats, said the measure would infringe on Second Amendment rights by imposing a burden on law-abiding gun owners while doing little to stop criminals. They also repeated the concern that the system could lead to a gun registry, though the amendment language prohibited this."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/18/dems-vow-to-ramp-up-gun-control-campaign-in-wake-defeat-take-on-gun-lobby-in/#ixzz2RIqCrSlv
"Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who has been raising fears that expanding background checks would bring about a national gun registry, conceded Wednesday that the legislation doesn’t actually do that. But he warned that the bill would encourage future efforts to allow a registry.
Federal law prohibits the creation of a national gun registry. And the Manchin-Toomey background check legislation makes it a felony, punishable by a fine and 15 years in prison. TPM asked Cruz on Wednesday morning how the bill would lead to a registry.
“I don’t disagree that on its face, the currently pending legislation does not purport to create a national gun registry,” Cruz said. But he argued that the bill wouldn’t achieve the desired results without a registry and motivate gun control supporters to push for the creation of one.
Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) have gone to great lengths to dispel the notion that their bill would bring about a gun registry. Both have “A” ratings from the National Rifle Association and vociferously oppose the idea. But the myth persists, and Democrats have been exasperated by its endurance."
Given the assurances by Manchin and Toomey, among others, that their Amendment to the proposed Gun Background Check bill, one wonders what language, if any, would provide reasonable assurance to those who fear the future creation of some kind of national gun registry list?
What letter Mr. Alley? Please provide the source and the text.
Old Spook: "Why do the liberals let repeat offenders back out to prey upon society? No Jim, more laws and restrictions placed upon honest citizenry is not even remotely a good answer."
That's nonsence. What is your source(s) for this assertion? Just how do "liberals" do this?
According to FBI statistics most murder victims knew their killer. I don't know why, but their breakdown of homocides does not identify how many wives were killed with firearms by their husbands, vice versa, and/or children in the family, or friends, neighbors, etc. Just that they knew their killer, and that the significant majority of murders are by firearms in general and handguns in particular. I rather suspect that the numbers are in the 1,000s annually (afterall, over 12,000 murders were committed in 2011). And these numbers don't include the number of injured, but not killed, the number threatened with shots fired, and threatened without shots fired. If I'm right, it may well be that the majority, or a least a high percentage, of firearms crimes are committed by previously "law-abiding" gun owners. I honestly don't know the answer to this. Surely it's worth finding out.
I do recall, however, seeing a study that indicated that people who live in a household where there is a firearm are several times more likely to be shot than people who live in a household where there are no firearms. If true, and I'll try to find it again, but others can try to as well (Hint, hint) the very act of buying a firearm for family protection is a counterintuitive act, though the purchaser may not realize it. Assuming the gun was purchased from a retail outlet, then a "law-abiding" gun owner now owns the gun. The big, and as yet unaswered, question is: Is this archetypal individual, who later uses his/her gun in an illegal fashion, the majority or minority of gun users in a given period of time?
Middleman: "jimt we are talking about a gun registry here..."
No actually, we're not. Find me chapter and verse where the Bill authorizes the creation of a gun registry?
The only people worried about a so-called gun registry are right-wing survivalist loonies like you who believe that you are the only thing stopping that communist/socialist/facist/muslim/african/dictator from "taking away your guns." By definition this belief should make you ineligible to own a firearm by reason of mental instability, i.e. paranoid and possibly (likely) schizophrenic.
I'm sorry Geoff, but unless you simply define away the problem, law-abiding gun owners are shooting people every day. You can define away the examples simply by retroactively stating that they are were, in actuality, not law-abiding gun owners or else they would not have illegally shot anyone. I doubt if this makes any difference to their victims.
How often do we read about the shooting of a wife, or an entire family by the father, who had no criminal record, was well respected, etc.,etc. Or of a girlfriend by a boyfriend? What about all the workplace shootings by a current or former employee, again, who had no illegal use of a gun record? Or no criminal record? Or no past history of violence?
I mean, come on, spend 15 minutes on the web and you'll a dozen or more such examples taking place without the last month. So get real. Would the enhanced background checks and closing the gun-show or private transaction loopholes reduce these kind of shootings? Maybe, I think, is the best we can honestly answer. Personally, I have grave doubts, but I certainly think they should have been voted into law just to see, and I fail to see how they would have done any harm, especially since the language explicitly forbade compiling a gun registry by the government, the "willfill" lie Obama spoke of since the NRA said the Bill would do so.
Your standard, that any new gun ownership laws "fix gun violence," is nonsense, which was the point of my earlier post. Yet that seems to be the stated standard for new gun control measures, as repeated over and over since opponents know it is a standard that cannot possibly be met. So as I said, let's get rid of murder laws, among others, since we know they don't stop murders.
Every law-abiding gun owner is so up to the instant when he/she isn't.
WE pass laws, in part, in the expectation that they will be broken. This breaking of the law gives us, as a society, leave to appoint and authorize people in our criminal justice system, the police, to prosecutors, judges, and juries, to arrest and punish those who break the law. WE also take steps to deter crime, in part, by informing people what the possible penalties will be if a given law is broken. WE also can take steps to try to decrease the likelihood of a given crime being committed by making it more difficult to commit the crime, e.g. locks, alarms, cameras, etc.
A tool, in this regard, to reduce the likelihood of gun crimes being committed is to close loopholes that now exist in "legal" gun acquisition by those who WE judge should not be permitted to acquire them. It is my understanding that this was the goal of the legislation the Senate just defeated, not withstanding that 90% of the U.S. public favored it.
Laws are never 100% effective in deterring any criminal activity. Should we therefore strike the laws against murder, assault, bank robbery, fraud, rape, speeding, and so on from the books since we know they will continue to occur? Yet that seems to be the implication behind the arguments against more comprehensive background checks, per Geoff's last post when he rhetorically asked JimRussel,with regard to a recent shooting locally, and enhanced background checks, "How would a background check have stopped the "owner" of this gun, and even if the shooter was background checked, would that have stopped this shooting, JER?"
By this logic, we should abandon background checks in total, since the current system does not deter or otherwise stop all gun violence. Indeed, why should we ban true automatic weapons from sale to the public? The ban on possessing automatic weaons won't "deter"/stop the criminal who wants one from finding a way to get one, right? Why ban grenades, anti-tank weapons, mines, or any weapon that I, as an American citizen, exercising my rights to self-defense of myself, my family, my property, deem necessary?
wddL "Are you making a personal attack on me and middleman? To accuse us of being crazy and needed to be locked away sure sounds like one"
Yes, you finally got something right.
Anniversary Announcement | Birthdays Over 80 | Birthdays Under 12 | Engagement Announcement | Site Feedback | Letter to the Editor | User Submitted Photo | Subscription Request | Vacation Start Stops | Wedding Announcement Subscribe | Advertising | Media Kit | About Us | Contact Us | Archives | Search
Physical Address: 145 W. Pennsylvania Avenue, Southern Pines, NC Mailing Address: P.O. Box 58, Southern Pines, NC 28388 910-692-7271 Fax: 910-692-9382