America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 11 years ago by HockeyDad. 25 replies replies.
Biden: New gun controls likely won't end shootings
dpnewell Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
Quote:
By Kasie Hunt, Political Reporter, NBC News

Vice President Joe Biden acknowledged that new gun laws would not "fundamentally alter" the likelihood of another mass shooting, though he insisted there has been a "sea change" in American views on guns in the wake of Newtown.

"Nothing we're going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to 1,000 a year from what it is now," Biden told reporters Thursday afternoon after he spent over an hour lunching with Democratic senators at the Capitol.

"But there are things that we can do, demonstrably can do, that have virtually zero impact on your Second Amendment right to own a weapon for both self defense and recreation that can save some lives," he said.

Biden was on the Hill to help sell a package of changes to the nation's gun laws that President Barack Obama is pushing in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shootings that killed 20 elementary school children and six adults. The president wants an assault weapons ban, limits on the size of gun magazines, universal background checks and a federal gun trafficking statute.

The 1994 assault-weapons ban was allowed to expire in 2004, and there had been little appetite to reenact it.

Still, that was before Newtown -- and the vice president insisted Thursday that the tragedy there changed the public's attitudes toward gun-safety legislation, a reality that would make new firearms regulations possible.

"I'm not saying there's an absolute consensus on all these things," Biden said, "but there is a sea change, a sea change in the attitudes of the American people. I believe the American people will not understand -- and I know that everyone in that caucus understands -- they won't understand if we don't act.

"The visual image of those 20 innocent children being riddled with bullets has, has absolutely, not only traumatized the nation, but it has caused-- like the straw that broke the camel's back."

As evidence, he pointed to what he said was new support from evangelical Christian groups for some gun regulation. Biden told reporters that support from conservative religious groups that represent largely rural constituencies was different than it's been during past legislative fights over guns.

Biden said he did not watch a gun violence hearing the Senate Judiciary Committee held Thursday; at that hearing, Democrats and gun-violence victims clashed with Republicans and the National Rifle Association over whether universal background checks would reduce gun crimes.

Biden on Wednesday met with former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly, who both testified at the Senate hearing.





___________________________________________________________________



So, even the proponents of gun bans and restrictions admit that it probably won't make any difference, yet they are still pushing for them.

Maybe you libs need to ask yourselves, if government admits that these bans are not going to do what they originally proposed them for, then why are they still trying to take away and further restrict folk's gun rights? No, they're not playing the American people for fools, just for another power grab, are they?
ZRX1200 Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,629
Unpopular ideas require unpopular methods.
daveincincy Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2006
Posts: 20,033
Funny thing is, I don't really hear much talk now about the reports that the shooter didn't even use an assault rifle during his shooting spree, but reportedly used nothing but handguns (4?). I guess bringing that up might let some air out of the anti-gun crowds' agenda.
DrafterX Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,566
Think
I like that he said this but with his past record of saying stupid chit I'm not sure this helps things much... Mellow
dpnewell Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
Dave,
The initial reports on all the news stations where that he had used hand guns, and that an AR was found in the trunk of his car. The reports said that the school was littered with 9mm and .40 shell casings. Then the story changed. Media initially reporting erroneous and unverified information? Probable. Police officers on the scene that didn’t know the difference between 9mm and .223 casings? Possible, yet very unlikely. But of course, those with an agenda would never lie to the American people, now would they? I'm not saying that there is a coverup, but the initial reports do raise some questions. I'd love to see photos of the crime scene, minus those dear, poor children of course.
dpnewell Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
BTW, libs, if you read the article, you'll find that what your dear vice Messiah is saying, is that these new rights restrictions probably won't stop these shootings, nor reduce crime, but since the propagandists have now swayed public opinion in the anti's direction, now is a great time to further shred the Constitution, and restrict folk's Constitutional rights. Of course many of you libs are following right behind in lock step, cheering and applauding another government power grab.
cacman Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
They admit further gun control won't solve anything yet they're still pushing it through??? Stupid is as stupid does.

Day-Care Boy Threatened With Suspension for Lego Toy Gun
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/day-care-boy-threatened-suspension-lego-toy-gun-132034481--abc-news-topstories.html

Student shot at Atlanta school; fellow student in custody
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/31/shooting-reported-at-atlanta-school/?iref=allsearch
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/31/us/georgia-student-shot/index.html?iref=allsearch

My hope is that NONE of this emotional legislation passes. If it won't make a difference why bother restricting legal responsible gun owners.
DrafterX Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,566
Coroner Confirms: No Assault Weapon Used in Sandy Hook Shooting
Posted on January 24, 2013


An AR-15, or the so-called “Assault Weapon”, was not used in the school shooting. The shooter even tried weeks earlier to buy a rifle but was turned down in the background check. So he had to kill his Mother to steal her rifle. There were initial reports, right after the shooting, that police found the AR-15 in his car, NOT IN THE SCHOOL. The rifle was not used. The shooter went into the school with 4 handguns, NOT an Assault Rifle as the media has charged.

In the initial hours of this shooting, the Police said they found the rifle in the car. But the Administration-controlled MSM had a pre-planned attack already waiting, to ban so-called assault weapons and jumped on that line of reporting, knowing it was a lie, which included people like Piers Morgan who said the shooter used an AR-15 that shoots hundreds of rounds per minute, as if it were a machine gun.



Film at 11..... Mellow
daveincincy Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2006
Posts: 20,033
dpnewell wrote:
BTW, libs, if you read the article, you'll find that what your dear vice Messiah is saying, is that these new rights restrictions probably won't stop these shootings, nor reduce crime, but since the propagandists have now swayed public opinion in the anti's direction, now is a great time to further shred the Constitution, and restrict folk's Constitutional rights. Of course many of you libs are following right behind in lock step, cheering and applauding another government power grab.


The snowball has started rolling and is picking up speed...kinda hard to stop now. Besides, if they decided to stop/limit all this anti-gun legislation at this point, just think of all the loss of potential voters. No turning back now.
DrafterX Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,566
they'll lose voters if it does go thru.... Mellow
DrMaddVibe Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,516
Pew....pew pew pew...pew.
Brewha Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
dpnewell wrote:
BTW, libs, if you read the article, you'll find that what your dear vice Messiah is saying, is that these new rights restrictions probably won't stop these shootings, nor reduce crime, but since the propagandists have now swayed public opinion in the anti's direction, now is a great time to further shred the Constitution, and restrict folk's Constitutional rights. Of course many of you libs are following right behind in lock step, cheering and applauding another government power grab.

Honestly DP, I don't think you understand Liberals. We would not expect illegalizing something prevents it from happening, as you would seem to.

You should post some rage about all the tax dollars we waste on speed limits signs - AND PEOPLE STILL DRIVE TOO FAST! ram27bat
Abrignac Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,332
Brewha wrote:
Honestly DP, I don't think you understand Liberals. We would not expect illegalizing something prevents it from happening, as you would seem to.

You should post some rage about all the tax dollars we waste on speed limits signs - AND PEOPLE STILL DRIVE TOO FAST! ram27bat


It's called the ripple effect. Stop sign manufactoring employees people who must buy groceries from Lancaster to survive (unless they are 100% self sufficient). Those goods are produced by someone like that guy who posted the phoney tractor picture then dissappeard who must purchase fuel to operate their farm machinery. We have to hire Whistlebritches to produce those petroleum products. When Ron fuqks up, he'll no doubt hire rfenst to get him out of a bind for causing an oil spill. Of course, rfenst needs a little cash to buy cigars the cigars zito sent King which are now listed on that other site. King will use those dollars to pay protection $$$ to campage........
DrafterX Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,566
Laugh
Brewha Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
No Ripple for Brewha.

Not even a bottle of Night Train . . . .
DrafterX Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,566
Brewha wrote:
No Ripple for Brewha.

Not even a bottle of Night Train . . . .



Obama Train is coming soon..!! ThumpUp
DadZilla3 Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
dpnewell wrote:
BTW, libs, if you read the article, you'll find that what your dear vice Messiah is saying, is that these new rights restrictions probably won't stop these shootings, nor reduce crime, but since the propagandists have now swayed public opinion in the anti's direction, now is a great time to further shred the Constitution, and restrict folk's Constitutional rights. Of course many of you libs are following right behind in lock step, cheering and applauding another government power grab.

'You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before. ' - Rahm Emanuel
dpnewell Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
Brewha wrote:
Honestly DP, I don't think you understand Liberals. We would not expect illegalizing something prevents it from happening, as you would seem to.

You should post some rage about all the tax dollars we waste on speed limits signs - AND PEOPLE STILL DRIVE TOO FAST! ram27bat


Nope, you still don't get it. Ok, you have folks obeying the speed limit, and you have folks who don't. According to your logic, the way to stop these speeders is to lower the speed limit from 65 to 50. All you have done is inconvenience the law abiding folks who already obey the speed limit. The speeders are still going to speed. Where the speeders breaking existing law when the limit was 65? Of course, and there where fines and penalties to pay if they where caught. But by your logic, if we just lower the limit to 50 and inconvenience all the law abiding, these speeders, may, just may, think twice before speeding. Absolute Nonsense.

Though you keep insisting on it, no where have I advocated doing away with existing laws. We already have thousands of gun laws. More then enough to properly prosecute the law breakers. Adding more only punish the law abiding. A criminal is a criminal if he breaks 1 law or 100. Punish the criminal when he breaks one law, and you don't need to add dozens more that only affect the law abiding. I don't know how you can't see that.

I have a compromise for you. Instead of forbidding the law abiding from owning semi-auto sporting rifles and magazines that hold over 10 rounds, pass laws that forbid criminals from using such. See, now you have the additional laws you seem to require, and the law abiding aren't punished for the actions of criminals.
Whistlebritches Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 22,128
Abrignac wrote:
It's called the ripple effect. Stop sign manufactoring employees people who must buy groceries from Lancaster to survive (unless they are 100% self sufficient). Those goods are produced by someone like that guy who posted the phoney tractor picture then dissappeard who must purchase fuel to operate their farm machinery. We have to hire Whistlebritches to produce those petroleum products. When Ron fuqks up, he'll no doubt hire rfenst to get him out of a bind for causing an oil spill. Of course, rfenst needs a little cash to buy cigars the cigars zito sent King which are now listed on that other site. King will use those dollars to pay protection $$$ to campage........



Just one more reason we need a "LIKE" button.


Ron
Brewha Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
dpnewell wrote:
Nope, you still don't get it. Ok, you have folks obeying the speed limit, and you have folks who don't. According to your logic, the way to stop these speeders is to lower the speed limit from 65 to 50. All you have done is inconvenience the law abiding folks who already obey the speed limit. The speeders are still going to speed. Where the speeders breaking existing law when the limit was 65? Of course, and there where fines and penalties to pay if they where caught. But by your logic, if we just lower the limit to 50 and inconvenience all the law abiding, these speeders, may, just may, think twice before speeding. Absolute Nonsense.

Though you keep insisting on it, no where have I advocated doing away with existing laws. We already have thousands of gun laws. More then enough to properly prosecute the law breakers. Adding more only punish the law abiding. A criminal is a criminal if he breaks 1 law or 100. Punish the criminal when he breaks one law, and you don't need to add dozens more that only affect the law abiding. I don't know how you can't see that.

I have a compromise for you. Instead of forbidding the law abiding from owning semi-auto sporting rifles and magazines that hold over 10 rounds, pass laws that forbid criminals from using such. See, now you have the additional laws you seem to require, and the law abiding aren't punished for the actions of criminals.

Sorry, but your circular logic makes me dizzy.

I'll make you a counter proposal; demonstrate the benefit that offsets the risk.
I know that people 'have a right to them', think they are cool, bond with their kids while tuning badgers into meatloaf and all, but these things are dangerous. And in all of your rage at the machine you don't address this. Which is the real meat of the matter.
Brewha Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
DrafterX wrote:
Obama Train is coming soon..!! ThumpUp

Is it Michelle approved?
HockeyDad Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,164
Brewha wrote:
Sorry, but your circular logic makes me dizzy.

I'll make you a counter proposal; demonstrate the benefit that offsets the risk.
I know that people 'have a right to them'....



Sounds like you are voluntarily surrendering that right if you are struggling to see a benefit that offsets the risk. Would you care for some cheese?
Brewha Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
HockeyDad wrote:
Sounds like you are voluntarily surrendering that right if you are struggling to see a benefit that offsets the risk. Would you care for some cheese?

Why is it the French always think of surrender?
Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!
TMCTLT Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
Brewha wrote:
Sorry, but your circular logic makes me dizzy.

I'll make you a counter proposal; demonstrate the benefit that offsets the risk.
I know that people 'have a right to them', think they are cool, bond with their kids while tuning badgers into meatloaf and all, but these things are dangerous. And in all of your rage at the machine you don't address this. Which is the real meat of the matter.



Why don't you entertain us with some figures that we can REALLY sink our teeth into.....like how many children annually ARE hurt / maimed or killed by their own dip**** parents who mow the grass with them on their laps!!!
I don't even need the figures as my wife works at a hospital and THAT injury has LED the list for decades!!!!

LAWNMOWERS and STUPID parents KILL OUTRAGE!!!!!
HockeyDad Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,164
Brewha wrote:
Why is it the French always think of surrender?
Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!



You taunting? What are you going to do....put "Don't Mess With Texas" mudflaps on your Prius?

Enjoy your cheese!
Users browsing this topic
Guest