You know what seems weird to me, that the flimsy excuse of the NRA spokesman can explain that "[a]ttempts to require the background checks have failed in Congress." The fact that background checks would take too long and impede legal gun owners cannot possibly be the real reasons. They must just be for the press release. It just doesn't make sense.Mayor Bloomberg's gun control group is dropping more than $250,000 on cable TV ads featuring surveillance video from the Columbine High School massacre to urge the Senate to put new restrictions on gun sales.
The ads say four guns used in the mass killings were bought at gun shows, where people can buy firearms without getting background checks.
"The killers got their guns because of a gap in the law," the announcer intones. "Momentum is building in the Senate to close the loophole. Eleven years after Columbine, it's time. Call your senator."
First aired Tuesday, the 11th anniversary of the Columbine killings, the ads run on national cable networks and in Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Ohio and Virginia to target senators there.
"If you want to buy a gun at a gun shop, you have to go through a background check," Bloomberg said. "Unscrupulous dealers, they take their inventory, they go to a gun show and they sell it without getting background checks."
The city spent $1.5 million last year on private detectives who went undercover at gun shows and bought weapons even after telling the sellers they wouldn't have passed a background check.
Bloomberg and his Mayors Against Illegal Guns group say the loophole allows firearms to end up in the hands of criminals.
Attempts to require the background checks have failed in Congress.
National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said background checks at gun shows would take too long and impede the rights of legal gun owners.
"They continue to try and abridge the rights of law-abiding citizens. They should focus their efforts on going after criminals," Arulanandam said. "The intent is to drive gun shows out of business."
What do you think the real reason for opposition to this is? Many consider universal background checks the most common-sense gun law which is still lacking? Do you think it's the old slippery slope theory that if they don't stop the crazy gun control folks now, they never will? Or, is it that paranoid one about background checks being the first step towards gun confiscation?
What else could it be? What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
It is no surprise that MAG would use Columbine.
ReplyDeleteMikeB: “The fact that background checks would take too long and impede legal gun owners cannot possibly be the real reasons.”
It is interesting that this is part that you jumped on for the NRA’s opposition when the only part quoted from the NRA spokesman is this:
"They continue to try and abridge the rights of law-abiding citizens. They should focus their efforts on going after criminals," Arulanandam said. "The intent is to drive gun shows out of business."
“the intent to drive gun shows out of business”, sounds to me like it is worth opposing. As I just posted earlier, have you ever rationalized to us why in CA after getting all the gun show regulations they asked for, they continued forward with a total ban on gun shows?
"have you ever rationalized to us why in CA after getting all the gun show regulations they asked for, they continued forward with a total ban on gun shows?"
ReplyDeleteBecause in the enlightened state of California, where all good trends begin, they realize that guns are in fact evil inanimate objects.
Mikeb: "What do you think the real reason for opposition to this is?"
ReplyDeleteFirst, the lies. VA Tech had nothing to do with gun shows. And "The killers got their guns because of a gap in the law" is another lie.
Mikeb: "Many consider universal background checks the most common-sense gun law which is still lacking?"
Yes, I kinda thought so about gun shows too. But the extremist agenda of gun control advocates regarding gun shows keeps me in opposition.
Mikeb: "Do you think it's the old slippery slope theory that if they don't stop the crazy gun control folks now, they never will?"
There is reasonable and accurate "slippery slope" and there is unreasonable "slippery slope" -- this is the former. Gun control advocates are already on record as favoring the follow-up attacks that they plan on gun shows after they pass a "loophole" law.
MikeB writes: Because in the enlightened state of California, where all good trends begin, they realize that guns are in fact evil inanimate objects.
ReplyDeleteInanimate objects aren't inherently good or evil. It is how they are used that makes them good or evil.
And yes, it is absolutely the slippery slope argument that prevents most gun owners from agreeing to any more restrictions on our rights. It has been proven time and again that the gun control side cannot be trusted. There will never be enough. As evidenced in Britain, eventually you'll be calling for a ban on the evil hoodies.
There can only be one rationale for such gunloonery: gunloons support terrorists and criminals.
ReplyDeleteThere's no other possible explanation.
Think about it: if you need to buy a firearm immediately--almost instantly--you probably aren't using that weapon for a legal purpose. Similarly, if you need to obtain a weapon without any sort of background check or documentation--chances are overwhelming you want that weapon for illegal purposes.
As for "slippery slope" arguments, I can only laugh. We're already on the slippery slope: the most powerful and successful nation on earth has homicide rates the equal to many Third World countries. US taxpayers spend about $400B annually on gun violence in this country. We all get to pay higher costs for healthcare and other products because of gun violence.
All because gunloons support criminality.
--JadeGold
Well said, JadeGold. No wonder they hate you.
ReplyDeleteThink about it: if you need to buy a firearm immediately--almost instantly--you probably aren't using that weapon for a legal purpose.
ReplyDeleteBullshit. Every gun I've bought has taken no more than ~ 10 minutes to purchase. None of my guns have ever been used for an illegal purpose.
There is NO logic to your statements whatsoever. (and no evidence)
US taxpayers spend about $400B annually on gun violence in this country.
ReplyDeleteand when you've gotten your gun free utopia and the violence has not disappeared what will you do then?
Oh wait, we already know. The reason we use the slippery slope argument is because anti-gunners use the same progression in every society when they implement gun control. Given the evidence, we'd have to be insane to trust any of you.
MikeB: Thank you. I wear their hatred proudly.
ReplyDeleteThe gunloon is very, very insecure and when you challenge the rationality of their insecurity, they become extremely scared and defensive. This often causes them to lash out.
It's not dissimilar to the reaction of religious zealots who view any slights to their faith as worthy of hatred and violence. After all, the gunloon's own self-worth is linked to firearms. If firearms are attacked, they feel as though their own worth is under attack.
It's also important to note firearms are perceived by the gunloon as filling a void in their lives. This void is usually a failure in the gunloon's personal and or professional life. Thus, an attack on firearms is regarded as a threat to the gunloon's own identity.
--JadeGold
Nope, just a threat to my rights.
ReplyDeleteBTW - to get back on topic.
Nice to see MAIG dancing in blood as usual. Classy folks those anti-gunners.
Mike W:
ReplyDeleteAs I'm sure you're aware, there's no group or organization advocating a total ban on guns. Never has been. Thus, to claim we're after a "gun-free utopia" paints you as either a liar or a dolt. Or both. I leave it to others to determine which.
Further, your claims that none of your guns has been used illegally is rather doltish from several perspectives. First, we don't know they haven't been--all we have is your bleating that it is so. But you've also claimed all gun owners are responsible, law-abiding, and expert in their use--except when they're not. Second, kindly explain to us why you *need* to buy a gun within 10 minutes. You really cannot save for that you want to. Sorry, but your insecurities and belief that a gun transforms you into something approximating a male doesn't constitute a need.
--JadeGold
JadeGuy writes:
ReplyDeleteThink about it: if you need to buy a firearm immediately--almost instantly--you probably aren't using that weapon for a legal purpose.
That's bullshit that you can't back up with any evidence. A person could just as easily be needing a gun to protect themselves from a stalker or someone else threatening them. If your statement is true, then we should be seeing increased gun crime in states that have went from mandatory waiting periods to instant NICS check would we not?
Similarly, if you need to obtain a weapon without any sort of background check or documentation--chances are overwhelming you want that weapon for illegal purposes.
Overwhelming statements require overwhelming proof. You would think if this statement were true, that the DOJ, the BATFE, or the FBI would have picked up on it by now.
JadeGuy lies about the following: As I'm sure you're aware, there's no group or organization advocating a total ban on guns. Never has been.
ReplyDeleteReally? Huh, then what to make about this statement from the founder of Handgun Control, Inc. which later became the Brady Campaign?
"We’re going to have to take this one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily - given the political realities - going to be very modest. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal - total control of all guns - is going to take time.....The final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal." NELSON T. (PETE) SHIELDS III (New Yorker Magazine, p.57-58, 26 Jul 76)
Or what to make of this statement by a current US Senator?
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them… ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it." DIANE FEINSTEIN (60 Minutes episode, CBS)
Or what about this statement from Sarah Brady of the Brady Campaign?
"There is no personal right to be armed for private purposes unrelated to the service in a well regulated militia." SARAH BRADY (Richmond Times-Dispatch, 6 June 97, pg. 6)
JadeGuy, please go take a bath. You reek of bullshit.
Is there any wonder why I say Jade is a liar?
ReplyDeleteyou've also claimed all gun owners are responsible, law-abiding, and expert in their use.
I've never claimed any such thing and to make such a claim would be moronic.
RR - Jade's default setting is to lie his ass off. It always has been. That's his thing.
Hell, this was the moron who tried to argue with me claiming that last years NRA convention in Phoenix did not allow carry, when I was at the convention carrying the whole time.
This is also the same Jadegold who has uttered other patently false statements like
"First you're assuming gun control has been tried, it really hasn't."
http://tinyurl.com/687z2o
So, 1st you say we have no reason to fear a "slippery slope" and that no one wants total guns bans, but then you claim that "gun control hasn't really been tried yet".
If DC, Chicago, Cali etc. is the anti-gun equivalent of "not really trying" that gives us a very good idea of the restrictions they really want but can't get.
If you need more, Jade has also told lies like,
Unfortunately for your argument, neither DC nor Chicago had gun bans, To say otherwise is just lying.
Hell, if a blanket prohibition on something is not considered a "ban" I'd love to hear what Jade considers the correct definition of the word.
After 2/5/77 you could not register a handgun in DC. From that date until Heller no one could legally purchase a handgun in D.C. Period.
Due to zoning restrictions there was not one gun shop / FFL in DC for the entire duration of the ban.
So, unless you were a DC resident who owned (and registered) his firearm prior to 2/5/77 YOU COULD NOT BUY OR POSSESS ANY FIREARM IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
So, MikeB - If for a 30+ year period no citizen could legally purchase & possess a computer what would you call that? Would you call it a BAN on personal computers?
Ruffridr - Please see the below thread (and many more)
ReplyDeleteJadegold is a proven liar who does not live in reality.
http://www.delawareliberal.net/2008/08/14/deep-thought-of-the-day/
"US taxpayers spend about $400B annually on gun violence in this country."
ReplyDeleteSo which way did you lean to pull that number out?
Aztec - I guess that depends on whose rearend he pulled it out of.
ReplyDeleteOh, and here's more classic Jadegold lying here.
http://www.delawareliberal.net/2008/08/13/alabama-democratic-party-chairman-shot/
DC and Chicago's GUN BANS are not "bans" in his alternate universe and according to him "handheld weapons have NEVER been restricted"
Again, outright lies by a pathological liar.
BTW - Jade made the same argument on your site MikeB. Verbatim, and was exposed as a liar then as well.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/01/niles-illinois-teen-shoots-sister.html
http://blog.joehuffman.org/2008/08/14/QuoteOfTheDayJadeGold.aspx
To steal a line from Tropical Thunder, Linoge shouldn't go full retard.
ReplyDeleteLinoge forgets the cardinal rule of analogies: that they ought to be analagous.
To wit, he tries to argue that computers are somehow analagous to child pornography because many child pornographers use computers to transmit their illegal activities. But such a connection fails in that the crime of child pornography need not involve a computer.
Child pornography involves an unhealthy and prurient interest in children. Similarly, gunloonery involves an unhealthy obsession with firearms. Thus when someone is convicted of child pornography, we don't restrict that person's use of computers, cameras, the US Mail or the like--we restrict their availability to children. In fact, society requires all those who come into frequent contact with children (teachers, doctors, counselors, coaches, etc) to submit to background checks.
Yet, we have Linoge demanding that anyone be given unfettered access to firearms.
Linoge then trots out the very silly argument that anything can kill therefore guns are no more dangerous than flour. Yes, anything can kill--a piece of paper, a spork, a piece of rope. Linoge's own poetry and attempts at creative writing have been known to cause readers to gouge their own eyes out.
But while anything can conceivably kill, a firearm is specifically designed for that purpose. For example, a car can easily kill--but it is often prohibitively difficult to get a car on the elevator to the 4th floor to kill your boss. And Linoge has yet to explain why we send troops into combat with firearms and not flour or paper or water.
--JadeGold
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be in a good mood, JadeGold--ingested a big load of pig semen today?
ReplyDeleteLies going out; pig semen coming in--you do manage a great deal of traffic.
Zorro and Ruffridr are such butch names.
ReplyDelete--JadeGold
You've asked this question many times, and here is my answer once again. Background checks =gun registration, and history makes it clear this makes us all less safe in the long run. But thank you for playing once again.
ReplyDeletehttp://sensiblyprogressive.blogspot.com/2010/04/bloomberg-launches-his-campaign-to.html
JadeGold:
ReplyDeleteYou said, of mikey:
"Thus, to claim we're after a "gun-free utopia" paints you as either a liar or a dolt. Or both. I leave it to others to determine which."
I would not rule out co-morbidity.
Of course, whereas some folks that are considered "Anti-gun" have stated, numerous times that guns are not the problem--ASSHOLES with gunz-- is the problem all folks who want some sort of regulation are considered "Anti-gun".
Otoh, I don't think I've seen a statement here by anyone who's a Type 2A that some sort of regulation might be appopriate.
Zorro:
Nice rhetorical device, the pig semen comment, classy.
Jadegold:” But such a connection fails in that the crime of child pornography need not involve a computer.”
ReplyDeleteAnd the crime of murder need not involve a gun. Or do you only care about “gun homicides”?
Jadegold: “As I'm sure you're aware, there's no group or organization advocating a total ban on guns. Never has been.”
Apart from the quotes given to you by Ruffridr that counter your claim, I have this to add:
1) So what? We are not happy with the bans and regulations that are proposed, so why should it be any consolation if gun control groups say “you can keep your .22 rim fires”?
2) We don’t know when gun control will stop. If groups are saying they don’t want a total ban, that could only be because it is not the “next step” and they are so far away from it politically that it would be foolish to suggest it. They would lose support of all the “moderates”, like Democommie claims to be. Sure, I bet most gun control advocates wouldn’t go all the way- but I don’t want to find out by giving them the chance.
3) What do you consider a “total ban”? All firearms, with confiscation? Because we saw a total ban passed in San Francisco in 2005. It was the equivalent of DC’s handgun ban for longarms (grandfather what you have- no transfers/inheritance), and confiscation of all handguns (no grandfather clause).
Democommie: “Otoh, I don't think I've seen a statement here by anyone who's a Type 2A that some sort of regulation might be appopriate.”
You have seen several of us post numerous times that we would be for background checks on all private transaction, not just gun shows.
Jadegold: “But while anything can conceivably kill, a firearm is specifically designed for that purpose. For example, a car can easily kill--but it is often prohibitively difficult to get a car on the elevator to the 4th floor to kill your boss.”
ReplyDeleteTry defending yourself from a rapist with a car. I don’t doubt the effectiveness of a gun- this is why it is ideal for self-defense.
Consider who needs a gun right away. The person who was never interested in guns, but suddenly finds they are in fear of their life (psycho ex, stalker, snitchin’ on gangsters, etc..), or the criminal/gangster mentally capable of murder who more likely already has a gun, or knows who to get one from on the street. It can happen both ways.
JadeGuy claims that no group has ever called for a ban on guns. So once again he is proven wrong with a number of quotes. What is his rebuttal?
ReplyDeleteZorro and Ruffridr are such butch names
Ahahahaha! Is that the best you can come up with? Even as far as insults go that one is pretty lame.
100% of the guns used in Colombine were manufactured in factories. Obviously those evil factories must be shut down. They also used machine tools. See, those have to go too. The perps at Colombine were breathing air. That air has to be ejected from the planet, for our safety...
ReplyDeleteI marvel at your leaps.
Dear Don Meaker, Thanks so much for coming by. We can never have enough of you guys who chant the party line of gun rights. It's terribly entertaining.
ReplyDeleteYour exaggerated examples of "leaps" in logic don't really have much to do with mine.
What I say is we need to make it harder for bad guys to get guns. I believe the MAIG, as well as the Brady Campaign for that matter, has some good ideas along those lines. I agree with some of the criticism's about them, but basically the attempt to keep guns away from dangerous people is a good idea which I support.
What do you support, Don? Are you one of those guys who opposes any and all gun regulations?
TS said, "Try defending yourself from a rapist with a car. I don’t doubt the effectiveness of a gun- this is why it is ideal for self-defense."
ReplyDeleteTS, please tell us how many times you've had to do that and if you wouldn't mind, give us the details of one time the gun saved you from rape.
MikeB, to answer your question… never. My account is quite different. When I was the victim of violence I had no gun to defend myself as the law did not allow it. I know what your stance is on this; since I am alive today a DGU in that situation would have been illegitimate. The beating I suffered in the name of altruism would have somewhere somehow prevented some gangbanger from being shot.
ReplyDeleteIn my case, I've had a number of occasions when, if I'd been armed, I might have used the gun. In retrospect, I didn't need a gun to save my life, obviously, I'm still here. Getting banged up a bit or, what for me was even harder to take, losing face, was a small price to pay for never having killed anyone unnecessarily, or for never having killed someone and later wondering if it really had been necessary.
ReplyDeleteEleven years after Columbine, when all is said and done, there's a lot more said than done.
ReplyDeletehttp://rockyhoffschneider.blogspot.com
Thanks God of Bacon. Your blog about Rocky is just fascinating. I'll check out some of your others.
ReplyDeleteI agree more has been said than done.
Hey, did you see the marvelous new website dedicated to Bloomberg and his criminal stooges? Gun Owners Against Illegal Mayors--I like it!
ReplyDeleteThanks I had seen that. Are you pointing it out because Jadegold keeps calling Gottlieb a convicted felon?
ReplyDeleteJadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:
ReplyDeleteThanks I had seen that. Are you pointing it out because Jadegold keeps calling Gottlieb a convicted felon?
Nah--Jadefool, as usual, isn't really coming up with anything worthy of a response. I just brought this up because it was brand new to me, and I had assumed (apparently incorrectly) that it was a brand new site.