kopking10 wrote:The point is that, law is there to prevent the law abiding citizens. In America, we will not be able to change the culture in the nearest future. Why not instead of strengthening the gun law, educate the law abiding citizens, teach them how to response for situation like this?
You touch upon a major problem in America, and that is that:
Anti-gun leftists control of our educational system. The NRA has a standing offer to educate school children about gun safety through their Eddie the Eagle program, but the commies who control education would rather that children die in utterly avoidable gun accidents than to admit that they can't eliminate guns from society. It is more important to them to teach 10 year olds how to properly put on a condom than how to properly handle a firearm.
Anti-gun leftists control the mainstream media. They are heavily vested in the anti-gun narratives, and they would rather get their unmentionables pounded flat with a mallet than to admit that maybe educating people about gun safety would be better than continuing to propagandize against the 2nd Amendment. Their single biggest fear is that if they admit they were wrong, it might affect their credibility.........as if they way they act NOW hasn't already killed it......
Anti-gun leftists populate a significant number of bureaucratic positions in government, and have already shown themselves all too willing to break laws (IRS Tea Party scandal, Fast & Furious, etc.) to attack pro-gun organizations or the 2nd Amendment. Short of catching them with kilos of cocaine for sale, they are very resistant to being pryed out of their positions, and in many cases, their elected fellow travellers protect them (as Obama protected Holder during the Fast & Furious investigation).
Lastly, because the American people are like people everywhere else in the world — they rely on their educational system to actually teach them, not indoctrinate them, their media to inform them and not indoctrinate them, and their government bureaucrats to do their dang jobs without injecting their personal ideologies into them — about half of these Americans either don't know any better or are willingly complicit in the spreading of untruth........so they elect democrats with an overtly communist bent (Bernie Sanders), or democrats with an overtly socialist bent (Barack Obama), or democrat ignoramuses (Hank Johnson), or democrat crooks (William J. Jefferson), or democrat serial philanderers (Bill Clinton). AND...they have a realistic chance of putting either a democrat fascist (Hillary Clinton) or the aformentioned democrat commie (Bernie Sanders) into the Oval Office.
THAT is why your question will not ever be appropriately answered by government.
.....that, and that little thing about using the Constitution as toilet paper, but that's another matter......
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
The Annoyed Man wrote:
[*]Anti-gun leftists populate a significant number of bureaucratic positions in government, and have already shown themselves all too willing to break laws (IRS Tea Party scandal, Fast & Furious, etc.) to attack pro-gun organizations or the 2nd Amendment. Short of catching them with kilos of cocaine for sale, they are very resistant to being pryed out of their positions, and in many cases, their elected fellow travellers protect them (as Obama protected Holder during the Fast & Furious investigation).
.....that, and that little thing about using the Constitution as toilet paper, but that's another matter......
Even that doesn't necessarily stop them.
[Marion] Barry came to national prominence as mayor of the national capital, the first prominent civil rights activist to become chief executive of a major American city;[3] he gave the presidential nomination speech for Jesse Jackson at the 1984 Democratic National Convention. His celebrity transformed into international notoriety in January 1990, when he was videotaped smoking crack cocaine and was arrested by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officials on drug charges. The arrest and subsequent trial precluded Barry seeking re-election, and he served six months in a federal prison. After his release, he was elected to the Council of the District of Columbia in 1992, and ultimately returned to the mayoralty in 1994, serving from 1995 to 1999.
I bet few realize that Marion Barry was the first elected official in the U.S. to ride to his inauguration in a limousine bearing license plates he had made.
/Slight drift
Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.
JP171 wrote:Dale blanker, how many of those in jail were convicted of weapons crime? less than 1 percent I would imagine. The over 1000 gun laws in the federal system let alone state laws are not prosecuted so there fore they do nothing. sorry dood but I gotta go with B.E. on that and that was what he was talking about and you know it.
OH VM, chairman Maobama was NEVER a professor, he was merely an speaker at the law college, he was not even an adjunct instructor just a lecturer and only did that 2 to 3 times a month and is also now disbarred from practicing law
My sentence wasn't clear...the professor I was referring to was Lott, not Obama. Lott talked about the fact that Obama's "lecturer" position was nothing more than a way to funnel him money so he could campaign. He didn't even put in 3 hours a week.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."
VMI77 wrote:
Given the lying government and lying administration and media we have I was highly suspicious about the 2.4 million rejected background checks, and I was right to be. On the way home from work I was listening to Mark Levin and he had John Lott on the show. After talking about Obama's arrogance and narcissism (Lott encountered him when he was a professor at the University of Chicago), Lott said that the background check system was a mess and that the 2.4 million rejected number was 99% false positives. IOW, 99% of these rejections were rejections of people legitimately entitled to purchase firearms, but were rejected by error. Nothing this narcissist says or our media says is anything but a lie, usually a lie of omission.
I'm not familiar with the context of Lott's comment but I suspect the false positive percentage was based on the number of actual followup indictments. Gun sales denials are not developed from a roll of the dice but from FBI and state/local records of felony convictions/indictments, domestic violence, mental health issues, dishonorable discharges, age, and other. Some denials are appealed and corrected but I believe this is a small percentage of the total denials.
As I said before... Cornyn's bill (as I understand it) might improve state reporting and federal database maintenance and thereby the background checking that is done. It might even help the few who would otherwise be false positives avoid a delay. But not including the 40% of gun sales done privately does not make much sense.
Follow up indictments. I am familiar with the context and I related it in my post. Sorry, you're plain wrong. What you "believe" is irrelevant. And there are virtually no indictments.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."
ROSEBURG, Ore. (AP) -- The gunman who executed nine people at an Oregon community college before killing himself ranted in writings he left behind about not having a girlfriend and thinking everyone else was crazy, a law enforcement official said Monday.
The official also said the mother of 26-year-old gunman Christopher Harper-Mercer has told investigators he was struggling with some mental health issues. The official is familiar with the investigation but wasn't authorized to speak publically because it is ongoing.
Harper-Mercer complained in the writings about not having a girlfriend, and he seemed to feel like he was very rational while others around him were not, the official said.
He wrote something to the effect of: "Other people think I'm crazy, but I'm not. I'm the sane one," the official said. The writings recovered at the shooting scene were a couple of pages long.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
VMI77 wrote:
Given the lying government and lying administration and media we have I was highly suspicious about the 2.4 million rejected background checks, and I was right to be. On the way home from work I was listening to Mark Levin and he had John Lott on the show. After talking about Obama's arrogance and narcissism (Lott encountered him when he was a professor at the University of Chicago), Lott said that the background check system was a mess and that the 2.4 million rejected number was 99% false positives. IOW, 99% of these rejections were rejections of people legitimately entitled to purchase firearms, but were rejected by error. Nothing this narcissist says or our media says is anything but a lie, usually a lie of omission.
I'm not familiar with the context of Lott's comment but I suspect the false positive percentage was based on the number of actual followup indictments. Gun sales denials are not developed from a roll of the dice but from FBI and state/local records of felony convictions/indictments, domestic violence, mental health issues, dishonorable discharges, age, and other. Some denials are appealed and corrected but I believe this is a small percentage of the total denials.
As I said before... Cornyn's bill (as I understand it) might improve state reporting and federal database maintenance and thereby the background checking that is done. It might even help the few who would otherwise be false positives avoid a delay. But not including the 40% of gun sales done privately does not make much sense.
Follow up indictments. I am familiar with the context and I related it in my post. Sorry, you're plain wrong. What you "believe" is irrelevant. And there are virtually no indictments.
Oops, you missed it... In a later post I provided a copy of a table from DOJ about FBI Background Check Denials in 2010 and I think I drew some reasonable conclusions about denials percentage-wise. The table is for only one year so if you think it was atypical find something more complete... Anyway, please check it out and show me where I'm "plain wrong".
But if Lott (as you understood him while on your way home from work) is right then it's all the more reason to improve the background check system with Cornyn's bill to improve state reporting and federal database maintenance. Or do you have a problem with Cornyn too?
"Law enforcement officials have said they recovered 14 firearms and spare ammunition magazines that were purchased legally either by Mr. Harper-Mercer, 26, or an unnamed relative."
What right does LEO have to confiscate all the mother's guns?
As the mother (facilitator?) of mass-murderer, I think her own life is in danger now.
Rex B wrote:"Law enforcement officials have said they recovered 14 firearms and spare ammunition magazines that were purchased legally either by Mr. Harper-Mercer, 26, or an unnamed relative."
What right does LEO have to confiscate all the mother's guns?
As the mother (facilitator?) of mass-murderer, I think her own life is in danger now.
Rex B wrote:"Law enforcement officials have said they recovered 14 firearms and spare ammunition magazines that were purchased legally either by Mr. Harper-Mercer, 26, or an unnamed relative."
What right does LEO have to confiscate all the mother's guns?
As the mother (facilitator?) of mass-murderer, I think her own life is in danger now.
Is this the same mother who knew he had mental problems and allowed him access to guns?
Of course, but the question was a serious one. Regardless of whether you or I or the State thinks she was irresponsible or negligent in giving a troubled youth access to firearms, is there existing law that enables the state to disarm a citizen in such a case?
-----------
“Sometimes there is no alternative to uncertainty except to await the arrival of more and better data.” C. Wunsch
Rex B wrote:"Law enforcement officials have said they recovered 14 firearms and spare ammunition magazines that were purchased legally either by Mr. Harper-Mercer, 26, or an unnamed relative."
What right does LEO have to confiscate all the mother's guns?
As the mother (facilitator?) of mass-murderer, I think her own life is in danger now.
Is this the same mother who knew he had mental problems and allowed him access to guns?
Of course, but the question was a serious one. Regardless of whether you or I or the State thinks she was irresponsible or negligent in giving a troubled youth access to firearms, is there existing law that enables the state to disarm a citizen in such a case?
Im no expert in Oregon law, but I'd guess they have a law in place to remove guns from irresponsible or negligent owners.
VMI77 wrote:
Given the lying government and lying administration and media we have I was highly suspicious about the 2.4 million rejected background checks, and I was right to be. On the way home from work I was listening to Mark Levin and he had John Lott on the show. After talking about Obama's arrogance and narcissism (Lott encountered him when he was a professor at the University of Chicago), Lott said that the background check system was a mess and that the 2.4 million rejected number was 99% false positives. IOW, 99% of these rejections were rejections of people legitimately entitled to purchase firearms, but were rejected by error. Nothing this narcissist says or our media says is anything but a lie, usually a lie of omission.
I'm not familiar with the context of Lott's comment but I suspect the false positive percentage was based on the number of actual followup indictments. Gun sales denials are not developed from a roll of the dice but from FBI and state/local records of felony convictions/indictments, domestic violence, mental health issues, dishonorable discharges, age, and other. Some denials are appealed and corrected but I believe this is a small percentage of the total denials.
As I said before... Cornyn's bill (as I understand it) might improve state reporting and federal database maintenance and thereby the background checking that is done. It might even help the few who would otherwise be false positives avoid a delay. But not including the 40% of gun sales done privately does not make much sense.
Follow up indictments. I am familiar with the context and I related it in my post. Sorry, you're plain wrong. What you "believe" is irrelevant. And there are virtually no indictments.
Oops, you missed it... In a later post I provided a copy of a table from DOJ about FBI Background Check Denials in 2010 and I think I drew some reasonable conclusions about denials percentage-wise. The table is for only one year so if you think it was atypical find something more complete... Anyway, please check it out and show me where I'm "plain wrong".
But if Lott (as you understood him while on your way home from work) is right then it's all the more reason to improve the background check system with Cornyn's bill to improve state reporting and federal database maintenance. Or do you have a problem with Cornyn too?
On to Schumer’s second falsehood — the claim that checks have stopped 1.7 million prohibited sales. In fact, these were only “initial denials,” not people prevented from buying guns.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives dropped over 94 percent of those “initial denials” after preliminary reviews. Further review cleared at least a fifth of the other 6 percent.
Truth is, these government databases are rife with flaws. Remember the five times that the late Sen. Ted Kennedy missed flights because his name was on the anti-terror “no fly” list? By Sen. Schumer’s method of counting, that means the “no fly” list stopped five flights by terrorists.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."
Rex B wrote:"Law enforcement officials have said they recovered 14 firearms and spare ammunition magazines that were purchased legally either by Mr. Harper-Mercer, 26, or an unnamed relative."
What right does LEO have to confiscate all the mother's guns?
As the mother (facilitator?) of mass-murderer, I think her own life is in danger now.
Is this the same mother who knew he had mental problems and allowed him access to guns?
Of course, but the question was a serious one. Regardless of whether you or I or the State thinks she was irresponsible or negligent in giving a troubled youth access to firearms, is there existing law that enables the state to disarm a citizen in such a case?
Im no expert in Oregon law, but I'd guess they have a law in place to remove guns from irresponsible or negligent owners.
We now have two school mass murder tragedies where a divorced Mom supported an unemployed, adult son with mental issues and at the same time kept multiple guns at home.
I am familiar with the context and I related it in my post. Sorry, you're plain wrong. What you "believe" is irrelevant. And there are virtually no indictments.