Smashing gun bans on Capitol Hill hearing

[Dave Workman]

Gun rights advocates clobber gun ban proposal

Deluging the Senate Judiciary Committee with facts and figures that some members clearly did not want to hear, three gun rights advocates and some pro-gun members of the panel hammered proposed bans on so-called “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines during a four-hour Wednesday hearing that was loaded with surprises.

<broken link removed>

Read More

 

[Modeler]

Thanks Dave, I needed a little good news today.

 

[duane black]

Gun rights advocates clobber gun ban proposal

Deluging the Senate Judiciary Committee with facts and figures that some members clearly did not want to hear, three gun rights advocates and some pro-gun members of the panel hammered proposed bans on so-called "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines during a four-hour Wednesday hearing that was loaded with surprises.

<broken link removed>

That video of Gayle Trotter was interesting. It seemed some in the room were in disbelief when she mentioned women are against a ban of these weapons. Like I said before, Delusional. I'm sitting 20 feet away right now from a woman that would use a AR15 sitting 5 feet away from me to protect her family.

 

[deadeye]

Watched the entire time and Ol Diane was I think a little put in her place a couple times and for the most part was quiet. The Cheaper than dirt catalog she was using to refer to a slide fire was kinda a lame attempt as well. Didnt know a slide fire made you go from 400rnds to 800 rds per minute, I believe she goes by salesman statements rather than facts a little too much.I think the Conn. cop got a little bent when the little girl (trotter) put some facts out that kinda refuted his arguments. All in all it seemed to be a well balanced discussion other than the pointed questions to specifice members of the panel, but I figured that would go as it did anyway.

 

[Silver Fox]

+1 for the good guys.

Thank you Dave for the hard work you do.

SF-

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Adding to that, he said the mental health system is broken, and that privacy laws “needlessly prevent” the inclusion of critical information on dangerously insane people in the National Instant Check System database.

That's a term (dangerously insane) that I've been using dozens of times per day as I address this issue with the NRA, congress members, and the general public. It's kind of like the term "assault weapon", in that it sets up a class of people (instead of a class of guns) upon whom we need to blame this violence. I hope it's somehow migrated from one of my messages to LaPierre's vocabulary.

 

[Mason3379]

It's going to be a long hard fight I think. This is just going to be the first of many attempts at the second amendment. We MAY win this one but there will be more to come you can be sure of that!

 

[hermannr]

That's a term (dangerously insane) that I've been using dozens of times per day as I address this issue with the NRA, congress members, and the general public. It's kind of like the term "assault weapon", in that it sets up a class of people (instead of a class of guns) upon whom we need to blame this violence. I hope it's somehow migrated from one of my messages to LaPierre's vocabulary.

The proper designation is "criminally insane" That is, they have acted in an irrational manner that would lead a jury to believe they were a danger to society.

 

[Kevinkris]

that doesnt mean anything. all this with the gun control groups saying its an up hill battle and saying they didnt do well in the hearing can only make us let our guard down. make sure you stay up to date and keep writing letters. we could still let them win if we slip up now.

 

[hermannr]

Gun rights advocates clobber gun ban proposal

Deluging the Senate Judiciary Committee with facts and figures that some members clearly did not want to hear, three gun rights advocates and some pro-gun members of the panel hammered proposed bans on so-called “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines during a four-hour Wednesday hearing that was loaded with surprises.

<broken link removed>

Dave, got something for you to look at..maybe write about. I commented on gangs, not guns are the real problem, and prohibition is how the gangs are funded..alcohol prohibitionn in the 20's and 30's, drug prohibition today.

Someone commented on my comment and stated that gang activity was responsible for only 12% of homocides...I looked in the FBI report on gangs for 2011 and it stated gangs were responsible for an average of 48% of all violent crime, and as high as 90% of all crime in some local areas.

So, where did this guy get his stats? and when are we going to start pushing on removing gang funding from the political agenda and start addressing the violence problem at it's roots?

 

[duane black]

Dave, got something for you to look at..maybe write about. I commented on gangs, not guns are the real problem, and prohibition is how the gangs are funded..alcohol prohibitionn in the 20's and 30's, drug prohibition today.

Someone commented on my comment and stated that gang activity was responsible for only 12% of homocides...I looked in the FBI report on gangs for 2011 and it stated gangs were responsible for an average of 48% of all violent crime, and as high as 90% of all crime in some local areas.

So, where did this guy get his stats? and when are we going to start pushing on removing gang funding from the political agenda and start addressing the violence problem at it's roots?

It really seems to me they are more interested in banning guns then reducing crime.

Gun crime could be reduced very easily in this country. Create and follow through with SEVERE penalty's for committing violent crimes with guns. I'm talking 30 year mandatory sentences without the possibility of plea deals, good behavior sentence reductions, parole, or anything else. You commit a violent crime with a gun, your life is over. This is mandatory, in addition to whatever punishment is on the books for the actual crime.

Very simple.




I will take a stab at world hunger tomorrow.


Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[ZigZagZeke]

It really seems to me they are more interested in banning guns then reducing crime.

Gun crime could be reduced very easily in this country. Create and follow through with SEVERE penalty's for committing violent crimes with guns. I'm talking 30 year mandatory sentences without the possibility of plea deals, good behavior sentence reductions, parole, or anything else. You commit a violent crime with a gun, your life is over. This is mandatory, in addition to whatever punishment is on the books for the actual crime.

Very simple.




I will take a stab at world hunger tomorrow.


Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

Crime, any kind of crime, is just an excuse. Feinstein and her cronies have been after guns for a long time. They're afraid of them and afraid of those who like and use them. They'll use any excuse to outlaw any guns they think they can.

 

[accessbob]

This is mandatory, in addition to whatever punishment is on the books for the actual crime.

Very simple.

Okay, if it is so simple then how are you going to pay for it? Sending people to jail is not free. It costs money to house, feed, clothe and provide the guards, etc. The more people you put away, the more facilities, food, clothing, and guards you will need. The money doesn't come from out of the air. It would need to come through more taxation. Can you say "hot topic?"

So, the solution isn't all that simple as it may seem upon first glance.

 

[duane black]

Okay, if it is so simple then how are you going to pay for it? Sending people to jail is not free. It costs money to house, feed, clothe and provide the guards, etc. The more people you put away, the more facilities, food, clothing, and guards you will need. The money doesn't come from out of the air. It would need to come through more taxation. Can you say "hot topic?"

So, the solution isn't all that simple as it may seem upon first glance.

I can think of dozens of ways to pay for it. Let's start by ending our world wide military presence, then the "war on terror", how about we shrink the federal governments foot print by oh 75 percent ?



Or we can do as our ancestors would have done.


On a serious note.

I believe we could reign in a lot of spending the federal government has been doing over the last 50 plus years. It makes absolutely no sense to send tax dollars over seas when we have some very serious issues here at home. Just ending the globalization of our military would pay for what I propose.

Yes, I know it will never happen.

Its much easier to ban guns, then to come up with logical solutions to our problems.

I concede, getting it done is not that simple

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Kevinkris]

Okay, if it is so simple then how are you going to pay for it? Sending people to jail is not free. It costs money to house, feed, clothe and provide the guards, etc. The more people you put away, the more facilities, food, clothing, and guards you will need. The money doesn't come from out of the air. It would need to come through more taxation. Can you say "hot topic?"

So, the solution isn't all that simple as it may seem upon first glance.

according to the bill of rights slavery can be used as a punishment for those committing crimes. simply put those bastards to work.

 

[Norm0931]

Then you are in a legal battle over the 14th amendment. We can however dramatically shrink our worldwide presence in the military. I'm not saying shrink the military, I'm saying we don't need so many bases in Germany or Diego Garcia. Then we can actually fund new equipment and hold manufacturers to their contracts.
And we don't need to be sending bribe money to half the planet to not hate us.

 

[Kevinkris]

Then you are in a legal battle over the 14th amendment. We can however dramatically shrink our worldwide presence in the military. I'm not saying shrink the military, I'm saying we don't need so many bases in Germany or Diego Garcia. Then we can actually fund new equipment and hold manufacturers to their contracts.
And we don't need to be sending bribe money to half the planet to not hate us.

youre not wrong but it does get a bit complicated. if you give your enemies a support line, they cant afford to go into an all out war with you either. its a pretty good deterant against acts of war without threatening anyone. sort of like the jokes when people say we would have to take out a loan from the Chinese so that we can go to war with them. its hard to find the means to fight a person that is supplying you with everything you need to go to war.

similarly we do give aid to places that dont need it for totally different reasons. sure, im all for sending people from other countries to medical school or teaching them how to properly maintain an infrastructure. we go a bit far when we donate multi-million dollar equipment for wildlife research or improving their national monuments, so that they can get more tourists.

 

[Dave Workman]

That's a term (dangerously insane) that I've been using dozens of times per day as I address this issue with the NRA, congress members, and the general public. It's kind of like the term "assault weapon", in that it sets up a class of people (instead of a class of guns) upon whom we need to blame this violence. I hope it's somehow migrated from one of my messages to LaPierre's vocabulary.

Zeke, when you talk about "dangerously insane," don't forget to include the anti-gun Democrats (and maybe the boneheads who vote for them ) in the mix. For a primer, give this a read:

Durbin disconnect defines Democrat delusions on gun control

Illinois Senator Richard Durbin’s exchange Wednesday with National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre defined the disconnect anti-gun Democrats have with the reality of so-called “universal background checks” and why they won’t stop criminals from obtaining firearms.

<broken link removed>


And thanks everyone for your kind remarks and continued support. My screed sort of balances out MSNBC and the Huffington Post crap..