Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

Carolla calls out gun control proponents for ignoring dead black inner-city kids

Posted by   + Show Post

11:57 AM 02/01/2013

By Jeff Poor

On his Thursday podcast, comedian Adam Carolla confronted the push for gun control in the wake of December’s tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

His rant, inspired by former Arizona Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ opening remarks before a congressional committee on Wednesday, focused on the racial component of gun control. According to Carolla, the author of “Not Taco Bell Material,” the calls for gun control only come when it happens somewhere besides inner-city urban areas.

“Listen, here’s the deal,” Carolla said. “It’s nice. It’s not going to do anything, but it’s nice. There’s too many [guns] out in circulation. It’s kind of "people control" we need to get over. And you know, whenever they do this math by the way — I was listening to the radio today. You know, this whole Sandy Hook thing — in Chicago they basically have two Sandy Hooks a month worth of dead kids that we don’t really give a sh*t about because it’s inner-city kids and we don’t count them. It happens — when it happens to the white kids or it happens in the theater, then it’s a big deal. But it goes on every day in the inner city, and no one seems to care about it.”

Not talking about gun violence in the inner-city and only raising the issue when it happens in the suburbs has a racial component, Carolla added.

“Over the course statistically, that’s how many dead kids there are,” Carolla said. “It’s been going on. It’s still going on. It continues to go on. We don’t seem to have any answers for it or we don’t seem to want to present any answers for it. I don’t know why. There’s a racial component to it. We’re all chicken-sh*t hypocrites, so no one wants to talk about that. But what’s more racist — hey when the white kids are dead, we’re all going to make a big f***ing flap about guns? But when all the blacks and Mexicans are dead, ‘Shh, don’t say anything. We don’t want to upset them.’ Don’t want to upset who, the dead people?”

“What’s racist?” he continued. “What’s the more racial component here? Talking about — oh we only care about dead white people, or dead white kids. But all the dead kids of color, ‘No, not going to bring that up. We’re not going to talk about gun control when it comes to that — when it comes to those people?’”

by on Feb. 1, 2013 at 2:23 PM
Replies (101-109):
SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Feb. 6, 2013 at 11:16 PM

It is so bizarre that Obama and so many of his appointees are intelligent people - but clueless about plain common sense. They care more about how they look and wanting people to like them, than about doing right by American citizens, WHOM THEY WORK FOR. More about style than substance.

I didn't mean funny/humorous, but funny/strange.

Quoting Farmlady09:

I don't think it's at all funny ... I haven't gotten past the 'furious' stage yet, and haven't actually made any plans to even try.

The only thing Holder cares about is making sure an angry population can't take aim at him literally. He is reduced to blubbering about the race card every time he gets called on his illegal actions, but the thought of the people who disagree with him remaining armed is more than unbearable for him. Hypocritical bastage! The one thing that I'm sure of is that Holder couldn't pass a mental competency test to own a weapon.


Quoting SallyMJ:

ABSOLUTELY. I fast became furious with Fast and Furious when I first heard about it. Outrageous.

THAT'S the kind of gun control we need. Funny how the Attorney General, the top lawyer in the country, does something so blatantly illegal, and wants to take firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

Quoting Farmlady09:

Ok ~ then the first prosecution should be against fast and furious ~ right?


Quoting MsDenuninani:

Well, I "got the idea" that the government has a responsibility to "keep tabs" on certain products in the United States the minute I learned I had to register my car.

Doesn't bother me.

I'm for a registry - but like you, I want it done well.  That said, simply keeping tabs would mean better data, and hopefully better tracking of what guns are used in what crimes, thereby helping to focus prosecutorial efforts on the worst gun dealers.

Quoting Farmlady09:

Where on earth did you get the idea that the government's job is to control, regulate, or keep tabs on the citizens of America? What sort of stupid civics teachers did you have, and WHY did anyone give them a license to teach?

The government itself IS the reason that those who are mentally ill and a danger are NOT allowed to be in a registry. Law enforcement (the cops) are the reason most of the known criminals that should be on the current registry are not on it.

If criminals and mentally unstable people are 'protected' and/or overlooked, what business is it of anyone's where the law abiding people are, what guns they own, or how many?

Sorry ~ I'm all for a registry, but NOT if it doesn't include the actual problem. The fda and agribusiness does the same thing with our food supply. It wants to have individual chickens that are no part of the food chain on a registry (that costs quite a bit I might add), but exempts the filthy slaughterhouses and allows factory farms to register lots of 10000 on a single number ... and the number of people getting sick from food borne illnesses keeps right on growing.

There is NO common sense ~ or anything Constitutional about either setup, but there are people who are dumb enough to say 'wow! yes! waste all that money and time so I can lie to myself about being safer' ... and the next time a bunch of people get shot or die from e coli those same dumb people will be even more eager for more controls and higher costs that do nothing.

Guns are not illegally obtained through legal means. Guns are illegally obtained through illegal dealings ... those who have them legally are NOT responsible for what criminals do ~ and the fact that you want to punish people who ARE obeying the laws and exempt or give a pass to the criminals is ... insane. That is the only word that even comes to mind. That's insane.

As an example, that is no different than everyone on CM holding you accountable for what I type in this little box, whether what I type is allowed in the TOS, whether it's criminal in nature, etc. Asking (or demanding) that members of CM be held accountable for what other members do is NO different than asking legal gun owners to jump on a registry that holds them liable for what criminals or the mentally insane do.

We are responsible for our own actions ~ not the actions of others!


Quoting MsDenuninani:

I disagree.  A large, government controlled gun registry could help.  

Guns are illegally obtained through legal means.  Knowing where guns are flowing to, and from what dealers those guns are coming from might actually help. 

Quoting Farmlady09:

Really? There are gang and drug related deaths every single day, many of them are minor children. Those deaths do NOT make people howl for gun control. Those deaths are ignored ~ and no amount of gun control will ever stop them because the guns involved are illegally obtained and owned. 

The sad truth is that there are people in our government who are quite willing to use and exploit the death of children to gain control over law abiding people that the Constitution says they have no right to. And, on my more cynical days, I think those same people revel in the deaths of those inner city children because those children serve no purpose ... and they likely won't vote even if they live.


Quoting Citygirlk:

I saw this post on Facebook the other day ( I don't agree with it, I'm just sharing) that said if it were minority's that were killed in that school we won't be having this gun control discussion today. And then the person goes on to talk about all the murders of young children in Chicago. What do you think about that sallymj.

 just in case you were wondering, I think a child is a child and Americans would care either way.

















MsDenuninani
by Bronze Member on Feb. 7, 2013 at 4:12 PM

 I have no idea what "prosecutions" should be instituted regarding fast and furious. 

My point was about the usefulness of a gun registry.  What people should be prosecuted for is another can of worms.


Quoting Farmlady09:

Ok ~ then the first prosecution should be against fast and furious ~ right?

 

Quoting MsDenuninani:

Well, I "got the idea" that the government has a responsibility to "keep tabs" on certain products in the United States the minute I learned I had to register my car.

Doesn't bother me.

I'm for a registry - but like you, I want it done well.  That said, simply keeping tabs would mean better data, and hopefully better tracking of what guns are used in what crimes, thereby helping to focus prosecutorial efforts on the worst gun dealers.

Quoting Farmlady09:

Where on earth did you get the idea that the government's job is to control, regulate, or keep tabs on the citizens of America? What sort of stupid civics teachers did you have, and WHY did anyone give them a license to teach?

The government itself IS the reason that those who are mentally ill and a danger are NOT allowed to be in a registry. Law enforcement (the cops) are the reason most of the known criminals that should be on the current registry are not on it.

If criminals and mentally unstable people are 'protected' and/or overlooked, what business is it of anyone's where the law abiding people are, what guns they own, or how many?

Sorry ~ I'm all for a registry, but NOT if it doesn't include the actual problem. The fda and agribusiness does the same thing with our food supply. It wants to have individual chickens that are no part of the food chain on a registry (that costs quite a bit I might add), but exempts the filthy slaughterhouses and allows factory farms to register lots of 10000 on a single number ... and the number of people getting sick from food borne illnesses keeps right on growing.

There is NO common sense ~ or anything Constitutional about either setup, but there are people who are dumb enough to say 'wow! yes! waste all that money and time so I can lie to myself about being safer' ... and the next time a bunch of people get shot or die from e coli those same dumb people will be even more eager for more controls and higher costs that do nothing.

Guns are not illegally obtained through legal means. Guns are illegally obtained through illegal dealings ... those who have them legally are NOT responsible for what criminals do ~ and the fact that you want to punish people who ARE obeying the laws and exempt or give a pass to the criminals is ... insane. That is the only word that even comes to mind. That's insane.

As an example, that is no different than everyone on CM holding you accountable for what I type in this little box, whether what I type is allowed in the TOS, whether it's criminal in nature, etc. Asking (or demanding) that members of CM be held accountable for what other members do is NO different than asking legal gun owners to jump on a registry that holds them liable for what criminals or the mentally insane do.

We are responsible for our own actions ~ not the actions of others!

 

Quoting MsDenuninani:

I disagree.  A large, government controlled gun registry could help.  

Guns are illegally obtained through legal means.  Knowing where guns are flowing to, and from what dealers those guns are coming from might actually help. 

Quoting Farmlady09:

Really? There are gang and drug related deaths every single day, many of them are minor children. Those deaths do NOT make people howl for gun control. Those deaths are ignored ~ and no amount of gun control will ever stop them because the guns involved are illegally obtained and owned. 

The sad truth is that there are people in our government who are quite willing to use and exploit the death of children to gain control over law abiding people that the Constitution says they have no right to. And, on my more cynical days, I think those same people revel in the deaths of those inner city children because those children serve no purpose ... and they likely won't vote even if they live.

 

Quoting Citygirlk:

I saw this post on Facebook the other day ( I don't agree with it, I'm just sharing) that said if it were minority's that were killed in that school we won't be having this gun control discussion today. And then the person goes on to talk about all the murders of young children in Chicago. What do you think about that sallymj.

 just in case you were wondering, I think a child is a child and Americans would care either way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

MsDenuninani
by Bronze Member on Feb. 7, 2013 at 4:19 PM

I find this really unpersuasive.

 There's nothing about the existence of a gun registry that infringes on the right to own a gun.   Moreover, registering a car has never prevented someone from owning one -- or using one, for that matter.


Quoting SallyMJ:

I don't think a gun registry is a good idea.

Yes, cars are registered. But we don't have a Constitutional right to own a car.

Countries who have confiscated weapons from their citizens - even current ones like the UK and Australia - were able to do it via lists of all citizens who had guns.

If that happened here, it would be easy to ban guns altogether. And would infringe on the 2nd Amendment right of We the People to protect ourselves.

Quoting MsDenuninani:

Well, I "got the idea" that the government has a responsibility to "keep tabs" on certain products in the United States the minute I learned I had to register my car.

Doesn't bother me.

I'm for a registry - but like you, I want it done well.  That said, simply keeping tabs would mean better data, and hopefully better tracking of what guns are used in what crimes, thereby helping to focus prosecutorial efforts on the worst gun dealers.

Quoting Farmlady09:

Where on earth did you get the idea that the government's job is to control, regulate, or keep tabs on the citizens of America? What sort of stupid civics teachers did you have, and WHY did anyone give them a license to teach?

The government itself IS the reason that those who are mentally ill and a danger are NOT allowed to be in a registry. Law enforcement (the cops) are the reason most of the known criminals that should be on the current registry are not on it.

If criminals and mentally unstable people are 'protected' and/or overlooked, what business is it of anyone's where the law abiding people are, what guns they own, or how many?

Sorry ~ I'm all for a registry, but NOT if it doesn't include the actual problem. The fda and agribusiness does the same thing with our food supply. It wants to have individual chickens that are no part of the food chain on a registry (that costs quite a bit I might add), but exempts the filthy slaughterhouses and allows factory farms to register lots of 10000 on a single number ... and the number of people getting sick from food borne illnesses keeps right on growing.

There is NO common sense ~ or anything Constitutional about either setup, but there are people who are dumb enough to say 'wow! yes! waste all that money and time so I can lie to myself about being safer' ... and the next time a bunch of people get shot or die from e coli those same dumb people will be even more eager for more controls and higher costs that do nothing.

Guns are not illegally obtained through legal means. Guns are illegally obtained through illegal dealings ... those who have them legally are NOT responsible for what criminals do ~ and the fact that you want to punish people who ARE obeying the laws and exempt or give a pass to the criminals is ... insane. That is the only word that even comes to mind. That's insane.

As an example, that is no different than everyone on CM holding you accountable for what I type in this little box, whether what I type is allowed in the TOS, whether it's criminal in nature, etc. Asking (or demanding) that members of CM be held accountable for what other members do is NO different than asking legal gun owners to jump on a registry that holds them liable for what criminals or the mentally insane do.

We are responsible for our own actions ~ not the actions of others!

 

Quoting MsDenuninani:

I disagree.  A large, government controlled gun registry could help.  

Guns are illegally obtained through legal means.  Knowing where guns are flowing to, and from what dealers those guns are coming from might actually help. 

Quoting Farmlady09:

Really? There are gang and drug related deaths every single day, many of them are minor children. Those deaths do NOT make people howl for gun control. Those deaths are ignored ~ and no amount of gun control will ever stop them because the guns involved are illegally obtained and owned. 

The sad truth is that there are people in our government who are quite willing to use and exploit the death of children to gain control over law abiding people that the Constitution says they have no right to. And, on my more cynical days, I think those same people revel in the deaths of those inner city children because those children serve no purpose ... and they likely won't vote even if they live.

 

Quoting Citygirlk:

I saw this post on Facebook the other day ( I don't agree with it, I'm just sharing) that said if it were minority's that were killed in that school we won't be having this gun control discussion today. And then the person goes on to talk about all the murders of young children in Chicago. What do you think about that sallymj.

 just in case you were wondering, I think a child is a child and Americans would care either way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Farmlady09
by Silver Member on Feb. 7, 2013 at 5:16 PM

The only way a gun registry would actually be useful would be if the criminals registered their guns. It's one thing for a gun owner to report a stolen weapon ... that is useful, mostly for the police (since it's rare that the gun owner ever gets that gun back). It proves that the criminal stole the gun they used to do something wrong, which helps convict them.

Having a long list of people who own guns, what guns they own, etc. serves no purpose whatsoever. It certainly does nothing for 'we the people'.

Fast and Furious ~ our government SOLD/GAVE weapons to known criminals (with the full knowledge and cooperation of the president, the AG, and half of the highest security holders), covered it up, lied about it, refused to turn over the pertinent documents when they were requested, those guns have been positively identified in the murder of several US citizens, and you have no idea what 'prosecutions' should happen? Ok.

Not.

The 'supposed' reason for a gun registry (and several states are taking that a step further and trying to make people purchase liability insurance for their guns) is so that the person who left a criminal get ahold of a weapon can be held accountable. It is so that the irresponsible person can be prosecuted and made to pay for the damage done by allowing a criminal to obtain one of their guns.

If the federal government itself can hand out weapons to criminals and refuse to cooperate with the legal process for such criminal action, I have no interest in them attempting to ram a law down the throat of 'we the people' saying that they can be held accountable ~ and that is all aside from the fact that the average law-abiding gun owner has zero interest in letting anyone who doesn't pay for one of their guns just take them. Uncle Sammy can take that 'do as I say, not as I do' thought process and shove it. Uncle Sammy seems to have been holding in his farts ... and the fumes have built up to a level that have given him shitty thoughts and ideas. Uncle Sammy doesn't need a gun registry, he needs a GasX.


Quoting MsDenuninani:

 I have no idea what "prosecutions" should be instituted regarding fast and furious. 

My point was about the usefulness of a gun registry.  What people should be prosecuted for is another can of worms.

 

Quoting Farmlady09:

Ok ~ then the first prosecution should be against fast and furious ~ right?

 

Quoting MsDenuninani:

Well, I "got the idea" that the government has a responsibility to "keep tabs" on certain products in the United States the minute I learned I had to register my car.

Doesn't bother me.

I'm for a registry - but like you, I want it done well.  That said, simply keeping tabs would mean better data, and hopefully better tracking of what guns are used in what crimes, thereby helping to focus prosecutorial efforts on the worst gun dealers.

Quoting Farmlady09:

Where on earth did you get the idea that the government's job is to control, regulate, or keep tabs on the citizens of America? What sort of stupid civics teachers did you have, and WHY did anyone give them a license to teach?

The government itself IS the reason that those who are mentally ill and a danger are NOT allowed to be in a registry. Law enforcement (the cops) are the reason most of the known criminals that should be on the current registry are not on it.

If criminals and mentally unstable people are 'protected' and/or overlooked, what business is it of anyone's where the law abiding people are, what guns they own, or how many?

Sorry ~ I'm all for a registry, but NOT if it doesn't include the actual problem. The fda and agribusiness does the same thing with our food supply. It wants to have individual chickens that are no part of the food chain on a registry (that costs quite a bit I might add), but exempts the filthy slaughterhouses and allows factory farms to register lots of 10000 on a single number ... and the number of people getting sick from food borne illnesses keeps right on growing.

There is NO common sense ~ or anything Constitutional about either setup, but there are people who are dumb enough to say 'wow! yes! waste all that money and time so I can lie to myself about being safer' ... and the next time a bunch of people get shot or die from e coli those same dumb people will be even more eager for more controls and higher costs that do nothing.

Guns are not illegally obtained through legal means. Guns are illegally obtained through illegal dealings ... those who have them legally are NOT responsible for what criminals do ~ and the fact that you want to punish people who ARE obeying the laws and exempt or give a pass to the criminals is ... insane. That is the only word that even comes to mind. That's insane.

As an example, that is no different than everyone on CM holding you accountable for what I type in this little box, whether what I type is allowed in the TOS, whether it's criminal in nature, etc. Asking (or demanding) that members of CM be held accountable for what other members do is NO different than asking legal gun owners to jump on a registry that holds them liable for what criminals or the mentally insane do.

We are responsible for our own actions ~ not the actions of others!

 

Quoting MsDenuninani:

I disagree.  A large, government controlled gun registry could help.  

Guns are illegally obtained through legal means.  Knowing where guns are flowing to, and from what dealers those guns are coming from might actually help. 

Quoting Farmlady09:

Really? There are gang and drug related deaths every single day, many of them are minor children. Those deaths do NOT make people howl for gun control. Those deaths are ignored ~ and no amount of gun control will ever stop them because the guns involved are illegally obtained and owned. 

The sad truth is that there are people in our government who are quite willing to use and exploit the death of children to gain control over law abiding people that the Constitution says they have no right to. And, on my more cynical days, I think those same people revel in the deaths of those inner city children because those children serve no purpose ... and they likely won't vote even if they live.

 

Quoting Citygirlk:

I saw this post on Facebook the other day ( I don't agree with it, I'm just sharing) that said if it were minority's that were killed in that school we won't be having this gun control discussion today. And then the person goes on to talk about all the murders of young children in Chicago. What do you think about that sallymj.

 just in case you were wondering, I think a child is a child and Americans would care either way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Feb. 7, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Well, we disagree on that. Which is OK.

Quoting MsDenuninani:

I find this really unpersuasive.

 There's nothing about the existence of a gun registry that infringes on the right to own a gun.   Moreover, registering a car has never prevented someone from owning one -- or using one, for that matter.


Quoting SallyMJ:

I don't think a gun registry is a good idea.

Yes, cars are registered. But we don't have a Constitutional right to own a car.

Countries who have confiscated weapons from their citizens - even current ones like the UK and Australia - were able to do it via lists of all citizens who had guns.

If that happened here, it would be easy to ban guns altogether. And would infringe on the 2nd Amendment right of We the People to protect ourselves.

Quoting MsDenuninani:

Well, I "got the idea" that the government has a responsibility to "keep tabs" on certain products in the United States the minute I learned I had to register my car.

Doesn't bother me.

I'm for a registry - but like you, I want it done well.  That said, simply keeping tabs would mean better data, and hopefully better tracking of what guns are used in what crimes, thereby helping to focus prosecutorial efforts on the worst gun dealers.

Quoting Farmlady09:

Where on earth did you get the idea that the government's job is to control, regulate, or keep tabs on the citizens of America? What sort of stupid civics teachers did you have, and WHY did anyone give them a license to teach?

The government itself IS the reason that those who are mentally ill and a danger are NOT allowed to be in a registry. Law enforcement (the cops) are the reason most of the known criminals that should be on the current registry are not on it.

If criminals and mentally unstable people are 'protected' and/or overlooked, what business is it of anyone's where the law abiding people are, what guns they own, or how many?

Sorry ~ I'm all for a registry, but NOT if it doesn't include the actual problem. The fda and agribusiness does the same thing with our food supply. It wants to have individual chickens that are no part of the food chain on a registry (that costs quite a bit I might add), but exempts the filthy slaughterhouses and allows factory farms to register lots of 10000 on a single number ... and the number of people getting sick from food borne illnesses keeps right on growing.

There is NO common sense ~ or anything Constitutional about either setup, but there are people who are dumb enough to say 'wow! yes! waste all that money and time so I can lie to myself about being safer' ... and the next time a bunch of people get shot or die from e coli those same dumb people will be even more eager for more controls and higher costs that do nothing.

Guns are not illegally obtained through legal means. Guns are illegally obtained through illegal dealings ... those who have them legally are NOT responsible for what criminals do ~ and the fact that you want to punish people who ARE obeying the laws and exempt or give a pass to the criminals is ... insane. That is the only word that even comes to mind. That's insane.

As an example, that is no different than everyone on CM holding you accountable for what I type in this little box, whether what I type is allowed in the TOS, whether it's criminal in nature, etc. Asking (or demanding) that members of CM be held accountable for what other members do is NO different than asking legal gun owners to jump on a registry that holds them liable for what criminals or the mentally insane do.

We are responsible for our own actions ~ not the actions of others!


Quoting MsDenuninani:

I disagree.  A large, government controlled gun registry could help.  

Guns are illegally obtained through legal means.  Knowing where guns are flowing to, and from what dealers those guns are coming from might actually help. 

Quoting Farmlady09:

Really? There are gang and drug related deaths every single day, many of them are minor children. Those deaths do NOT make people howl for gun control. Those deaths are ignored ~ and no amount of gun control will ever stop them because the guns involved are illegally obtained and owned. 

The sad truth is that there are people in our government who are quite willing to use and exploit the death of children to gain control over law abiding people that the Constitution says they have no right to. And, on my more cynical days, I think those same people revel in the deaths of those inner city children because those children serve no purpose ... and they likely won't vote even if they live.


Quoting Citygirlk:

I saw this post on Facebook the other day ( I don't agree with it, I'm just sharing) that said if it were minority's that were killed in that school we won't be having this gun control discussion today. And then the person goes on to talk about all the murders of young children in Chicago. What do you think about that sallymj.

 just in case you were wondering, I think a child is a child and Americans would care either way.















MsDenuninani
by Bronze Member on Feb. 7, 2013 at 5:31 PM

The only way a gun registry would actually be useful would be if the criminals registered their guns.

That's not true.

A gun registry would also help track where guns being used in crimes are coming from.  It would be a ueful tool for finding the dealerships responsible (and the dealers) for selling or pilfering guns on the black market.

Another thing - If the federal government itself can hand out weapons to criminals and refuse to cooperate with the legal process for such criminal action, I have no interest in them attempting to ram a law down the throat of 'we the people' saying that they can be held accountable -

You and I just disagree.  If it can stem the gun death rate (1,624 to date since Newtown)  by even one person, then it's worth gun owners being annoyed that they have to do something a government worker does not. 

As for the fast and furious program and my no opinion -- still no opinion, because that's not what we were talking about.  The way I see it, that's you saying they don't have the authority to tell me what to do because they screwed up. . .but the problem is is that that's simply not true.  They most certainly always have the authority to tell you what to do, despite what lousy decisions they do or don't make. 


Quoting Farmlady09:

The only way a gun registry would actually be useful would be if the criminals registered their guns. It's one thing for a gun owner to report a stolen weapon ... that is useful, mostly for the police (since it's rare that the gun owner ever gets that gun back). It proves that the criminal stole the gun they used to do something wrong, which helps convict them.

Having a long list of people who own guns, what guns they own, etc. serves no purpose whatsoever. It certainly does nothing for 'we the people'.

Fast and Furious ~ our government SOLD/GAVE weapons to known criminals (with the full knowledge and cooperation of the president, the AG, and half of the highest security holders), covered it up, lied about it, refused to turn over the pertinent documents when they were requested, those guns have been positively identified in the murder of several US citizens, and you have no idea what 'prosecutions' should happen? Ok.

Not.

The 'supposed' reason for a gun registry (and several states are taking that a step further and trying to make people purchase liability insurance for their guns) is so that the person who left a criminal get ahold of a weapon can be held accountable. It is so that the irresponsible person can be prosecuted and made to pay for the damage done by allowing a criminal to obtain one of their guns.

If the federal government itself can hand out weapons to criminals and refuse to cooperate with the legal process for such criminal action, I have no interest in them attempting to ram a law down the throat of 'we the people' saying that they can be held accountable ~ and that is all aside from the fact that the average law-abiding gun owner has zero interest in letting anyone who doesn't pay for one of their guns just take them. Uncle Sammy can take that 'do as I say, not as I do' thought process and shove it. Uncle Sammy seems to have been holding in his farts ... and the fumes have built up to a level that have given him shitty thoughts and ideas. Uncle Sammy doesn't need a gun registry, he needs a GasX.

 

Quoting MsDenuninani:

 I have no idea what "prosecutions" should be instituted regarding fast and furious. 

My point was about the usefulness of a gun registry.  What people should be prosecuted for is another can of worms.

 

Quoting Farmlady09:

Ok ~ then the first prosecution should be against fast and furious ~ right?

 

Quoting MsDenuninani:

Well, I "got the idea" that the government has a responsibility to "keep tabs" on certain products in the United States the minute I learned I had to register my car.

Doesn't bother me.

I'm for a registry - but like you, I want it done well.  That said, simply keeping tabs would mean better data, and hopefully better tracking of what guns are used in what crimes, thereby helping to focus prosecutorial efforts on the worst gun dealers.

Quoting Farmlady09:

Where on earth did you get the idea that the government's job is to control, regulate, or keep tabs on the citizens of America? What sort of stupid civics teachers did you have, and WHY did anyone give them a license to teach?

The government itself IS the reason that those who are mentally ill and a danger are NOT allowed to be in a registry. Law enforcement (the cops) are the reason most of the known criminals that should be on the current registry are not on it.

If criminals and mentally unstable people are 'protected' and/or overlooked, what business is it of anyone's where the law abiding people are, what guns they own, or how many?

Sorry ~ I'm all for a registry, but NOT if it doesn't include the actual problem. The fda and agribusiness does the same thing with our food supply. It wants to have individual chickens that are no part of the food chain on a registry (that costs quite a bit I might add), but exempts the filthy slaughterhouses and allows factory farms to register lots of 10000 on a single number ... and the number of people getting sick from food borne illnesses keeps right on growing.

There is NO common sense ~ or anything Constitutional about either setup, but there are people who are dumb enough to say 'wow! yes! waste all that money and time so I can lie to myself about being safer' ... and the next time a bunch of people get shot or die from e coli those same dumb people will be even more eager for more controls and higher costs that do nothing.

Guns are not illegally obtained through legal means. Guns are illegally obtained through illegal dealings ... those who have them legally are NOT responsible for what criminals do ~ and the fact that you want to punish people who ARE obeying the laws and exempt or give a pass to the criminals is ... insane. That is the only word that even comes to mind. That's insane.

As an example, that is no different than everyone on CM holding you accountable for what I type in this little box, whether what I type is allowed in the TOS, whether it's criminal in nature, etc. Asking (or demanding) that members of CM be held accountable for what other members do is NO different than asking legal gun owners to jump on a registry that holds them liable for what criminals or the mentally insane do.

We are responsible for our own actions ~ not the actions of others!

 

Quoting MsDenuninani:

I disagree.  A large, government controlled gun registry could help.  

Guns are illegally obtained through legal means.  Knowing where guns are flowing to, and from what dealers those guns are coming from might actually help. 

Quoting Farmlady09:

Really? There are gang and drug related deaths every single day, many of them are minor children. Those deaths do NOT make people howl for gun control. Those deaths are ignored ~ and no amount of gun control will ever stop them because the guns involved are illegally obtained and owned. 

The sad truth is that there are people in our government who are quite willing to use and exploit the death of children to gain control over law abiding people that the Constitution says they have no right to. And, on my more cynical days, I think those same people revel in the deaths of those inner city children because those children serve no purpose ... and they likely won't vote even if they live.

 

Quoting Citygirlk:

I saw this post on Facebook the other day ( I don't agree with it, I'm just sharing) that said if it were minority's that were killed in that school we won't be having this gun control discussion today. And then the person goes on to talk about all the murders of young children in Chicago. What do you think about that sallymj.

 just in case you were wondering, I think a child is a child and Americans would care either way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Farmlady09
by Silver Member on Feb. 7, 2013 at 6:16 PM

So you want to blame honest, law-abiding gun owners for what criminals do? You want to blame honest gun dealers because the cops can't be bothered with adding names to the national database to prevent criminals from buying guns?

EVERY statistic available shows that gun bans don't do squat to stop criminals. Keeping tabs on the people who obey the law just lets the criminals walk around even more openly because the cops are busy with the people who are cluttering up their desks with more paperwork. I guess the bright side is that if those same cops enter the data on honest people as well as they do the criminals, most gun owners would never have their names on the list anyway.

Giving the government a free pass to break the laws it enacts is a crock! You're saying that it's ok for law makers to be law breakers, and that they are above the laws they write! We go far beyond just disagreeing on this. I will NEVER condone anyone breaking the law, and I don't care if they are some thug gang member, a disgruntled pet neighbor, a cop, or a flipping lawyer congresscritter or elected president.

If it is wrong for a teenager to shoot another one, or sell a gun to someone illegally ~ but NOT wrong for the Attorney General of the United States along with the PRESIDENT to illegally provide drug cartels with guns, than you are saying that the law is only for certain people to follow ... and at that point you get to deal with each individual deciding which ones they will follow ~ or not follow. That is called 'without rule of law'. It violates EVERY law on the book, the Constitution itself, and leaves every US citizen open to illegal and unConstitutional action from everyone ... from their neighbor all the way up to the highest ranking officials in the country. WTH?!?

Quoting MsDenuninani:

The only way a gun registry would actually be useful would be if the criminals registered their guns.

That's not true.

A gun registry would also help track where guns being used in crimes are coming from.  It would be a ueful tool for finding the dealerships responsible (and the dealers) for selling or pilfering guns on the black market.

Another thing - If the federal government itself can hand out weapons to criminals and refuse to cooperate with the legal process for such criminal action, I have no interest in them attempting to ram a law down the throat of 'we the people' saying that they can be held accountable -

You and I just disagree.  If it can stem the gun death rate (1,624 to date since Newtown)  by even one person, then it's worth gun owners being annoyed that they have to do something a government worker does not. 

As for the fast and furious program and my no opinion -- still no opinion, because that's not what we were talking about.  The way I see it, that's you saying they don't have the authority to tell me what to do because they screwed up. . .but the problem is is that that's simply not true.  They most certainly always have the authority to tell you what to do, despite what lousy decisions they do or don't make. 

 

Quoting Farmlady09:

The only way a gun registry would actually be useful would be if the criminals registered their guns. It's one thing for a gun owner to report a stolen weapon ... that is useful, mostly for the police (since it's rare that the gun owner ever gets that gun back). It proves that the criminal stole the gun they used to do something wrong, which helps convict them.

Having a long list of people who own guns, what guns they own, etc. serves no purpose whatsoever. It certainly does nothing for 'we the people'.

Fast and Furious ~ our government SOLD/GAVE weapons to known criminals (with the full knowledge and cooperation of the president, the AG, and half of the highest security holders), covered it up, lied about it, refused to turn over the pertinent documents when they were requested, those guns have been positively identified in the murder of several US citizens, and you have no idea what 'prosecutions' should happen? Ok.

Not.

The 'supposed' reason for a gun registry (and several states are taking that a step further and trying to make people purchase liability insurance for their guns) is so that the person who left a criminal get ahold of a weapon can be held accountable. It is so that the irresponsible person can be prosecuted and made to pay for the damage done by allowing a criminal to obtain one of their guns.

If the federal government itself can hand out weapons to criminals and refuse to cooperate with the legal process for such criminal action, I have no interest in them attempting to ram a law down the throat of 'we the people' saying that they can be held accountable ~ and that is all aside from the fact that the average law-abiding gun owner has zero interest in letting anyone who doesn't pay for one of their guns just take them. Uncle Sammy can take that 'do as I say, not as I do' thought process and shove it. Uncle Sammy seems to have been holding in his farts ... and the fumes have built up to a level that have given him shitty thoughts and ideas. Uncle Sammy doesn't need a gun registry, he needs a GasX.

 

Quoting MsDenuninani:

 I have no idea what "prosecutions" should be instituted regarding fast and furious. 

My point was about the usefulness of a gun registry.  What people should be prosecuted for is another can of worms.

 

Quoting Farmlady09:

Ok ~ then the first prosecution should be against fast and furious ~ right?

 

Quoting MsDenuninani:

Well, I "got the idea" that the government has a responsibility to "keep tabs" on certain products in the United States the minute I learned I had to register my car.

Doesn't bother me.

I'm for a registry - but like you, I want it done well.  That said, simply keeping tabs would mean better data, and hopefully better tracking of what guns are used in what crimes, thereby helping to focus prosecutorial efforts on the worst gun dealers.

Quoting Farmlady09:

Where on earth did you get the idea that the government's job is to control, regulate, or keep tabs on the citizens of America? What sort of stupid civics teachers did you have, and WHY did anyone give them a license to teach?

The government itself IS the reason that those who are mentally ill and a danger are NOT allowed to be in a registry. Law enforcement (the cops) are the reason most of the known criminals that should be on the current registry are not on it.

If criminals and mentally unstable people are 'protected' and/or overlooked, what business is it of anyone's where the law abiding people are, what guns they own, or how many?

Sorry ~ I'm all for a registry, but NOT if it doesn't include the actual problem. The fda and agribusiness does the same thing with our food supply. It wants to have individual chickens that are no part of the food chain on a registry (that costs quite a bit I might add), but exempts the filthy slaughterhouses and allows factory farms to register lots of 10000 on a single number ... and the number of people getting sick from food borne illnesses keeps right on growing.

There is NO common sense ~ or anything Constitutional about either setup, but there are people who are dumb enough to say 'wow! yes! waste all that money and time so I can lie to myself about being safer' ... and the next time a bunch of people get shot or die from e coli those same dumb people will be even more eager for more controls and higher costs that do nothing.

Guns are not illegally obtained through legal means. Guns are illegally obtained through illegal dealings ... those who have them legally are NOT responsible for what criminals do ~ and the fact that you want to punish people who ARE obeying the laws and exempt or give a pass to the criminals is ... insane. That is the only word that even comes to mind. That's insane.

As an example, that is no different than everyone on CM holding you accountable for what I type in this little box, whether what I type is allowed in the TOS, whether it's criminal in nature, etc. Asking (or demanding) that members of CM be held accountable for what other members do is NO different than asking legal gun owners to jump on a registry that holds them liable for what criminals or the mentally insane do.

We are responsible for our own actions ~ not the actions of others!

 

Quoting MsDenuninani:

I disagree.  A large, government controlled gun registry could help.  

Guns are illegally obtained through legal means.  Knowing where guns are flowing to, and from what dealers those guns are coming from might actually help. 

Quoting Farmlady09:

Really? There are gang and drug related deaths every single day, many of them are minor children. Those deaths do NOT make people howl for gun control. Those deaths are ignored ~ and no amount of gun control will ever stop them because the guns involved are illegally obtained and owned. 

The sad truth is that there are people in our government who are quite willing to use and exploit the death of children to gain control over law abiding people that the Constitution says they have no right to. And, on my more cynical days, I think those same people revel in the deaths of those inner city children because those children serve no purpose ... and they likely won't vote even if they live.

 

Quoting Citygirlk:

I saw this post on Facebook the other day ( I don't agree with it, I'm just sharing) that said if it were minority's that were killed in that school we won't be having this gun control discussion today. And then the person goes on to talk about all the murders of young children in Chicago. What do you think about that sallymj.

 just in case you were wondering, I think a child is a child and Americans would care either way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

MsDenuninani
by Bronze Member on Feb. 8, 2013 at 11:20 AM

 How is creating a registry "blaming" gun owners?  I have to register my car -- should I consider that punishment?

It's not true that every statistic available shows that gun band don't "do squat" to stop criminals.  Banning guns stops people from dying of gun shots -- and the countries that have banned guns have the statistics to show it. The statistics you quote take crime statistics and correlate them with gun ownership.  I'm not interested in crime statistics.  I'm talking about death statistics.  I don't think robberies would go down -- I think deaths will go down. 

I'm also not in support of giving the government a "free pass" to break the law.  What I'm saying is that the law operates differently with respect to government officials, with good reason.  Easy example -- a policeman can stop you and frisk you on even slight suspicion.  If I did it, it would be assault.  I don't "condone" it -- but I do give certain aspects of the government pretty broad authority to do their job (and I believe in holding them accountable -- but that's another post.  I didn't comment on the fast and furious program because I simply do not know enough about it, and I hesitate to offer an opinion about something which I did not know, and especially since I find it irrelevant to the subject of whether a gun registry should exist, which was the original conversation.)

But, simply put -- my understanding of fast and furious is that it was a botched operation -- but it was, in fact, a legal one.  It's also hardly the first time the state has provided dangerous people with weapons that were later used against Americans.  Really and truly, not the first.  

What you are allowed to do is determined by the job you have, and the uniform you wear -- and the Supreme Court, interpreting the Constitution, said a long time ago that government officials have immunity from being prosecuted for a variety of things.  I don't love that fact, but I'm a pragmatic at heart, so I understand why it's necessary.   

Quoting Farmlady09:

So you want to blame honest, law-abiding gun owners for what criminals do? You want to blame honest gun dealers because the cops can't be bothered with adding names to the national database to prevent criminals from buying guns?

EVERY statistic available shows that gun bans don't do squat to stop criminals. Keeping tabs on the people who obey the law just lets the criminals walk around even more openly because the cops are busy with the people who are cluttering up their desks with more paperwork. I guess the bright side is that if those same cops enter the data on honest people as well as they do the criminals, most gun owners would never have their names on the list anyway.

Giving the government a free pass to break the laws it enacts is a crock! You're saying that it's ok for law makers to be law breakers, and that they are above the laws they write! We go far beyond just disagreeing on this. I will NEVER condone anyone breaking the law, and I don't care if they are some thug gang member, a disgruntled pet neighbor, a cop, or a flipping lawyer congresscritter or elected president.

If it is wrong for a teenager to shoot another one, or sell a gun to someone illegally ~ but NOT wrong for the Attorney General of the United States along with the PRESIDENT to illegally provide drug cartels with guns, than you are saying that the law is only for certain people to follow ... and at that point you get to deal with each individual deciding which ones they will follow ~ or not follow. That is called 'without rule of law'. It violates EVERY law on the book, the Constitution itself, and leaves every US citizen open to illegal and unConstitutional action from everyone ... from their neighbor all the way up to the highest ranking officials in the country. WTH?!?

Quoting MsDenuninani:

The only way a gun registry would actually be useful would be if the criminals registered their guns.

That's not true.

A gun registry would also help track where guns being used in crimes are coming from.  It would be a ueful tool for finding the dealerships responsible (and the dealers) for selling or pilfering guns on the black market.

Another thing - If the federal government itself can hand out weapons to criminals and refuse to cooperate with the legal process for such criminal action, I have no interest in them attempting to ram a law down the throat of 'we the people' saying that they can be held accountable -

You and I just disagree.  If it can stem the gun death rate (1,624 to date since Newtown)  by even one person, then it's worth gun owners being annoyed that they have to do something a government worker does not. 

As for the fast and furious program and my no opinion -- still no opinion, because that's not what we were talking about.  The way I see it, that's you saying they don't have the authority to tell me what to do because they screwed up. . .but the problem is is that that's simply not true.  They most certainly always have the authority to tell you what to do, despite what lousy decisions they do or don't make. 

 

Quoting Farmlady09:

The only way a gun registry would actually be useful would be if the criminals registered their guns. It's one thing for a gun owner to report a stolen weapon ... that is useful, mostly for the police (since it's rare that the gun owner ever gets that gun back). It proves that the criminal stole the gun they used to do something wrong, which helps convict them.

Having a long list of people who own guns, what guns they own, etc. serves no purpose whatsoever. It certainly does nothing for 'we the people'.

Fast and Furious ~ our government SOLD/GAVE weapons to known criminals (with the full knowledge and cooperation of the president, the AG, and half of the highest security holders), covered it up, lied about it, refused to turn over the pertinent documents when they were requested, those guns have been positively identified in the murder of several US citizens, and you have no idea what 'prosecutions' should happen? Ok.

Not.

The 'supposed' reason for a gun registry (and several states are taking that a step further and trying to make people purchase liability insurance for their guns) is so that the person who left a criminal get ahold of a weapon can be held accountable. It is so that the irresponsible person can be prosecuted and made to pay for the damage done by allowing a criminal to obtain one of their guns.

If the federal government itself can hand out weapons to criminals and refuse to cooperate with the legal process for such criminal action, I have no interest in them attempting to ram a law down the throat of 'we the people' saying that they can be held accountable ~ and that is all aside from the fact that the average law-abiding gun owner has zero interest in letting anyone who doesn't pay for one of their guns just take them. Uncle Sammy can take that 'do as I say, not as I do' thought process and shove it. Uncle Sammy seems to have been holding in his farts ... and the fumes have built up to a level that have given him shitty thoughts and ideas. Uncle Sammy doesn't need a gun registry, he needs a GasX.

 

Quoting MsDenuninani:

 I have no idea what "prosecutions" should be instituted regarding fast and furious. 

My point was about the usefulness of a gun registry.  What people should be prosecuted for is another can of worms.

 

Quoting Farmlady09:

Ok ~ then the first prosecution should be against fast and furious ~ right?

 

Quoting MsDenuninani:

Well, I "got the idea" that the government has a responsibility to "keep tabs" on certain products in the United States the minute I learned I had to register my car.

Doesn't bother me.

I'm for a registry - but like you, I want it done well.  That said, simply keeping tabs would mean better data, and hopefully better tracking of what guns are used in what crimes, thereby helping to focus prosecutorial efforts on the worst gun dealers.

Quoting Farmlady09:

Where on earth did you get the idea that the government's job is to control, regulate, or keep tabs on the citizens of America? What sort of stupid civics teachers did you have, and WHY did anyone give them a license to teach?

The government itself IS the reason that those who are mentally ill and a danger are NOT allowed to be in a registry. Law enforcement (the cops) are the reason most of the known criminals that should be on the current registry are not on it.

If criminals and mentally unstable people are 'protected' and/or overlooked, what business is it of anyone's where the law abiding people are, what guns they own, or how many?

Sorry ~ I'm all for a registry, but NOT if it doesn't include the actual problem. The fda and agribusiness does the same thing with our food supply. It wants to have individual chickens that are no part of the food chain on a registry (that costs quite a bit I might add), but exempts the filthy slaughterhouses and allows factory farms to register lots of 10000 on a single number ... and the number of people getting sick from food borne illnesses keeps right on growing.

There is NO common sense ~ or anything Constitutional about either setup, but there are people who are dumb enough to say 'wow! yes! waste all that money and time so I can lie to myself about being safer' ... and the next time a bunch of people get shot or die from e coli those same dumb people will be even more eager for more controls and higher costs that do nothing.

Guns are not illegally obtained through legal means. Guns are illegally obtained through illegal dealings ... those who have them legally are NOT responsible for what criminals do ~ and the fact that you want to punish people who ARE obeying the laws and exempt or give a pass to the criminals is ... insane. That is the only word that even comes to mind. That's insane.

As an example, that is no different than everyone on CM holding you accountable for what I type in this little box, whether what I type is allowed in the TOS, whether it's criminal in nature, etc. Asking (or demanding) that members of CM be held accountable for what other members do is NO different than asking legal gun owners to jump on a registry that holds them liable for what criminals or the mentally insane do.

We are responsible for our own actions ~ not the actions of others!

 

Quoting MsDenuninani:

I disagree.  A large, government controlled gun registry could help.  

Guns are illegally obtained through legal means.  Knowing where guns are flowing to, and from what dealers those guns are coming from might actually help. 

Quoting Farmlady09:

Really? There are gang and drug related deaths every single day, many of them are minor children. Those deaths do NOT make people howl for gun control. Those deaths are ignored ~ and no amount of gun control will ever stop them because the guns involved are illegally obtained and owned. 

The sad truth is that there are people in our government who are quite willing to use and exploit the death of children to gain control over law abiding people that the Constitution says they have no right to. And, on my more cynical days, I think those same people revel in the deaths of those inner city children because those children serve no purpose ... and they likely won't vote even if they live.

 

Quoting Citygirlk:

I saw this post on Facebook the other day ( I don't agree with it, I'm just sharing) that said if it were minority's that were killed in that school we won't be having this gun control discussion today. And then the person goes on to talk about all the murders of young children in Chicago. What do you think about that sallymj.

 just in case you were wondering, I think a child is a child and Americans would care either way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Farmlady09
by Silver Member on Feb. 8, 2013 at 5:32 PM

 


Quoting MsDenuninani:

 How is creating a registry "blaming" gun owners?  I have to register my car -- should I consider that punishment? Owning a car is not a right. It's a privilege. Fwiw, I consider the need to carry un/der insured insurance as punishment. My vehicle is insured more than adequately, so why should "I" pay more because other people don't pay enough or don't pay at all? The people who don't comply with the law aren't being punished. They are still driving cars. But 'some' people (law abiding, honest) should pay their share along with the deadbeats and criminals. Yeah, that is punishment.

It's not true that every statistic available shows that gun band don't "do squat" to stop criminals.  Banning guns stops people from dying of gun shots -- and the countries that have banned guns have the statistics to show it. The statistics you quote take crime statistics and correlate them with gun ownership.  I'm not interested in crime statistics.  I'm talking about death statistics.  I don't think robberies would go down -- I think deaths will go down. Those same stats show that more people now die from other weapons. Dead is dead ... and if I'm honest I'd rather be shot and die quickly than be hacked to pieces by a steak knife, or bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat. I was married to an abusive $^%$^ and I spent more time in the hospital healing than I did having babies ~ and carry the physical as well as the emotional scars to this day. If 20 people used to die from gun deaths and 10 people from knives, and 10 people from bats ...  and after a gun ban 10 people die from guns, 16 from knives, and 14 from baseball bats there are still 40 dead people. So, while I don't care what you decide is in your best interests, I intend to keep my rights ... and  I absolutely don't agree with either cops or the government carrying any weapon that law abiding citizens may carry. Background checks are fine. A data base of criminals and the mentally ill is fine. A data base that serves no purpose other than a map to show who has guns is not fine.

I'm also not in support of giving the government a "free pass" to break the law.  What I'm saying is that the law operates differently with respect to government officials, with good reason.  Easy example -- a policeman can stop you and frisk you on even slight suspicion.  If I did it, it would be assault.  I don't "condone" it -- but I do give certain aspects of the government pretty broad authority to do their job (and I believe in holding them accountable -- but that's another post.  I didn't comment on the fast and furious program because I simply do not know enough about it, and I hesitate to offer an opinion about something which I did not know, and especially since I find it irrelevant to the subject of whether a gun registry should exist, which was the original conversation.) Complying with an officer for a traffic stop is a far cry from giving Uncle Sammy an inventory of my guns. As for fast and furious, it is absolutely relevant, particularly since the guns involved are on the list some US officials want to prevent law abiding citizens from owning. If the gov't. gives an AR-15 to a drug cartel, that same gov't. has no business taking them all away from US citizens, particularly since several of the guns that were given to the cartels were used to kill US citizens!  

But, simply put -- my understanding of fast and furious is that it was a botched operation -- but it was, in fact, a legal one.  It's also hardly the first time the state has provided dangerous people with weapons that were later used against Americans.  Really and truly, not the first. Fast and furious was far from legal, and the gov't. is still doing it's best to keep the details out of the courts because of how illegal it was. 

What you are allowed to do is determined by the job you have, and the uniform you wear -- and the Supreme Court, interpreting the Constitution, said a long time ago that government officials have immunity from being prosecuted for a variety of things.  I don't love that fact, but I'm a pragmatic at heart, so I understand why it's necessary. It isn't necessary nor is it in the best interests of anyone except criminals ~ and yes, I consider quite a few of our elected officials as criminals. Should cops not be prosecuted for taking bribes? Should a mayor not be prosecuted for embezzlement? Exactly where do you draw this fuzzy line that puts a very few individuals above the law ~ the very laws that they write and enact??  

Quoting Farmlady09:

So you want to blame honest, law-abiding gun owners for what criminals do? You want to blame honest gun dealers because the cops can't be bothered with adding names to the national database to prevent criminals from buying guns?

EVERY statistic available shows that gun bans don't do squat to stop criminals. Keeping tabs on the people who obey the law just lets the criminals walk around even more openly because the cops are busy with the people who are cluttering up their desks with more paperwork. I guess the bright side is that if those same cops enter the data on honest people as well as they do the criminals, most gun owners would never have their names on the list anyway.

Giving the government a free pass to break the laws it enacts is a crock! You're saying that it's ok for law makers to be law breakers, and that they are above the laws they write! We go far beyond just disagreeing on this. I will NEVER condone anyone breaking the law, and I don't care if they are some thug gang member, a disgruntled pet neighbor, a cop, or a flipping lawyer congresscritter or elected president.

If it is wrong for a teenager to shoot another one, or sell a gun to someone illegally ~ but NOT wrong for the Attorney General of the United States along with the PRESIDENT to illegally provide drug cartels with guns, than you are saying that the law is only for certain people to follow ... and at that point you get to deal with each individual deciding which ones they will follow ~ or not follow. That is called 'without rule of law'. It violates EVERY law on the book, the Constitution itself, and leaves every US citizen open to illegal and unConstitutional action from everyone ... from their neighbor all the way up to the highest ranking officials in the country. WTH?!?

Quoting MsDenuninani:

The only way a gun registry would actually be useful would be if the criminals registered their guns.

That's not true.

A gun registry would also help track where guns being used in crimes are coming from.  It would be a ueful tool for finding the dealerships responsible (and the dealers) for selling or pilfering guns on the black market.

Another thing - If the federal government itself can hand out weapons to criminals and refuse to cooperate with the legal process for such criminal action, I have no interest in them attempting to ram a law down the throat of 'we the people' saying that they can be held accountable -

You and I just disagree.  If it can stem the gun death rate (1,624 to date since Newtown)  by even one person, then it's worth gun owners being annoyed that they have to do something a government worker does not. 

As for the fast and furious program and my no opinion -- still no opinion, because that's not what we were talking about.  The way I see it, that's you saying they don't have the authority to tell me what to do because they screwed up. . .but the problem is is that that's simply not true.  They most certainly always have the authority to tell you what to do, despite what lousy decisions they do or don't make. 

 

Quoting Farmlady09:

The only way a gun registry would actually be useful would be if the criminals registered their guns. It's one thing for a gun owner to report a stolen weapon ... that is useful, mostly for the police (since it's rare that the gun owner ever gets that gun back). It proves that the criminal stole the gun they used to do something wrong, which helps convict them.

Having a long list of people who own guns, what guns they own, etc. serves no purpose whatsoever. It certainly does nothing for 'we the people'.

Fast and Furious ~ our government SOLD/GAVE weapons to known criminals (with the full knowledge and cooperation of the president, the AG, and half of the highest security holders), covered it up, lied about it, refused to turn over the pertinent documents when they were requested, those guns have been positively identified in the murder of several US citizens, and you have no idea what 'prosecutions' should happen? Ok.

Not.

The 'supposed' reason for a gun registry (and several states are taking that a step further and trying to make people purchase liability insurance for their guns) is so that the person who left a criminal get ahold of a weapon can be held accountable. It is so that the irresponsible person can be prosecuted and made to pay for the damage done by allowing a criminal to obtain one of their guns.

If the federal government itself can hand out weapons to criminals and refuse to cooperate with the legal process for such criminal action, I have no interest in them attempting to ram a law down the throat of 'we the people' saying that they can be held accountable ~ and that is all aside from the fact that the average law-abiding gun owner has zero interest in letting anyone who doesn't pay for one of their guns just take them. Uncle Sammy can take that 'do as I say, not as I do' thought process and shove it. Uncle Sammy seems to have been holding in his farts ... and the fumes have built up to a level that have given him shitty thoughts and ideas. Uncle Sammy doesn't need a gun registry, he needs a GasX.

 

Quoting MsDenuninani:

 I have no idea what "prosecutions" should be instituted regarding fast and furious. 

My point was about the usefulness of a gun registry.  What people should be prosecuted for is another can of worms.

 

Quoting Farmlady09:

Ok ~ then the first prosecution should be against fast and furious ~ right?

 

Quoting MsDenuninani:

Well, I "got the idea" that the government has a responsibility to "keep tabs" on certain products in the United States the minute I learned I had to register my car.

Doesn't bother me.

I'm for a registry - but like you, I want it done well.  That said, simply keeping tabs would mean better data, and hopefully better tracking of what guns are used in what crimes, thereby helping to focus prosecutorial efforts on the worst gun dealers.

Quoting Farmlady09:

Where on earth did you get the idea that the government's job is to control, regulate, or keep tabs on the citizens of America? What sort of stupid civics teachers did you have, and WHY did anyone give them a license to teach?

The government itself IS the reason that those who are mentally ill and a danger are NOT allowed to be in a registry. Law enforcement (the cops) are the reason most of the known criminals that should be on the current registry are not on it.

If criminals and mentally unstable people are 'protected' and/or overlooked, what business is it of anyone's where the law abiding people are, what guns they own, or how many?

Sorry ~ I'm all for a registry, but NOT if it doesn't include the actual problem. The fda and agribusiness does the same thing with our food supply. It wants to have individual chickens that are no part of the food chain on a registry (that costs quite a bit I might add), but exempts the filthy slaughterhouses and allows factory farms to register lots of 10000 on a single number ... and the number of people getting sick from food borne illnesses keeps right on growing.

There is NO common sense ~ or anything Constitutional about either setup, but there are people who are dumb enough to say 'wow! yes! waste all that money and time so I can lie to myself about being safer' ... and the next time a bunch of people get shot or die from e coli those same dumb people will be even more eager for more controls and higher costs that do nothing.

Guns are not illegally obtained through legal means. Guns are illegally obtained through illegal dealings ... those who have them legally are NOT responsible for what criminals do ~ and the fact that you want to punish people who ARE obeying the laws and exempt or give a pass to the criminals is ... insane. That is the only word that even comes to mind. That's insane.

As an example, that is no different than everyone on CM holding you accountable for what I type in this little box, whether what I type is allowed in the TOS, whether it's criminal in nature, etc. Asking (or demanding) that members of CM be held accountable for what other members do is NO different than asking legal gun owners to jump on a registry that holds them liable for what criminals or the mentally insane do.

We are responsible for our own actions ~ not the actions of others!

 

Quoting MsDenuninani:

I disagree.  A large, government controlled gun registry could help.  

Guns are illegally obtained through legal means.  Knowing where guns are flowing to, and from what dealers those guns are coming from might actually help. 

Quoting Farmlady09:

Really? There are gang and drug related deaths every single day, many of them are minor children. Those deaths do NOT make people howl for gun control. Those deaths are ignored ~ and no amount of gun control will ever stop them because the guns involved are illegally obtained and owned. 

The sad truth is that there are people in our government who are quite willing to use and exploit the death of children to gain control over law abiding people that the Constitution says they have no right to. And, on my more cynical days, I think those same people revel in the deaths of those inner city children because those children serve no purpose ... and they likely won't vote even if they live.

 

Quoting Citygirlk:

I saw this post on Facebook the other day ( I don't agree with it, I'm just sharing) that said if it were minority's that were killed in that school we won't be having this gun control discussion today. And then the person goes on to talk about all the murders of young children in Chicago. What do you think about that sallymj.

 just in case you were wondering, I think a child is a child and Americans would care either way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN