U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer called for common-sense gun control laws after latest massacre in Charleston, S.C.
NY Daily News
Sen. Chuck Schumer vowed Sunday to make a major push to get new gun control legislation through Congress, connecting the Charleston massacre to other mass killings that have rocked the country.
“Everyone in the world scratches their heads and says what is wrong with America here,” Schumer (D-N.Y.) said, listing the Newtown, Conn.; Aurora, Colo., and Virginia Tech mass killings.
Schumer proposed three components of “common-sense” legislation: increasing the strength of gun background checks, particularly to weed out mentally ill individuals; requiring background checks at gun shows, and cracking down on the flow of guns from the South to cities in the Northeast.
Go ahead, Chuckie--advertise your impotence and irrelevance.
ReplyDeleteDo you fear losing your own ability to acquire more and more weapons, or is your concern for others less fortunate than yourself that may be prevented from purchasing weapons in the future? Do you fear confiscation, mandatory buyback programs, a complete ban on all gun ownership? God forbid, a ban on high-capacity magazines or semi-automatic weapons?
DeleteNever give an inch. Any form of control is a concession. It's a slippery slope. Guns must be manufactured in ever greater numbers and owned by more and more Americans so that our society can truly be safe and protected. Guns are life and health.
I guess you shall return that you are fearless. Why then, do you care one way or the other if newbies are subjected to background checks, waiting periods, less lethal types of guns, etc? Don't you already have just about everything that you need?
Any infringement on that which shall not be infringed must be opposed--preferably peacefully, but the necessity of opposing it is obviously far greater than the preference for keeping it peaceful.
DeleteNever give an inch. Any form of control is a concession. It's a slippery slope.
Exactly.
Guns must be manufactured in ever greater numbers . . .
I think the current production capacity is probably adequate, but if not, the market will sort itself out--at least if not interfered with by the Enemy in the White House and his minions.
I guess you shall return that you are fearless.
Fearless? No, I don't claim that. I do, however, vow to refuse to let fear rule my actions. The righteous cause of protecting the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms is far too sacred to be abandoned for fear of something as trivial as death, which comes to us all, anyway.
Kurt fully supports the freedom of that jerk-off in Kentucky who left his gun on the table and the kiddies got at it. Kurt opposes any and all restrictions that might have prevented that tragedy.
Delete"Never give an inch. Any form of control is a concession. It's a slippery slope."
DeleteFJ, this is the same philosophy of supporters of First Amendment rights, to say nothing of supporter of abortion rights when there is talk of any kind of restrictions.
That's sort of the expectation when people consider something to be an individual right.
"Kurt fully supports the freedom of that jerk-off in Kentucky who left his gun on the table and the kiddies got at it."
DeleteThat's sort of out of left field. Schumer doesn't seem to mention anything in regards to safe storage laws, though they did seem to have managed to charge someone in Kentucky in spite of there being no safe storage law on the books.
I'm sure the Senator will add more laws if he believes he can get away with it. I'm curious how he's going to stop the flow of guns from the south to the north.
By the way, though there is no word on the specifics of the charge, first degree wanton endangerment is a felony in Kentucky.
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=19734
I'm curious how he's going to stop the flow of guns from the south to the north.
DeleteNo way to do that. Only in Arizona do the sheriffs use dogs randomly against United States citizens.
One thing you guys may be right about. Nobody put up a fight or even paid any attention when the Fourth Amendment went out the window. We just watched it happen on TV. The Patriot Act was the nail in the coffin for that one.
I wouldn't say nobody noticed or fought against the Patriot Act.
DeleteWhen I referred to the death of the fourth amendment I was talking about unreasonable searches and seizures occurring in vehicles or to citizens out in public, such as happens with New York's ever-popular stop and frisk policy.
DeleteAll of this has been happening for going on thirty years now. The way that the police are able to search any car at any time is most likely a perversion of the implied consent law that states a motorist operating a vehicle must consent to a sobriety test.
Now the police can search your contacts and email right from your smartphone. This would be the modern equivalent of a person's papers found in the fourth amendment.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I agree with you in regards to the Fourth Amendment issues FJ. We have given up a lot of ground to the imagined protection from terrorism. In fact, recently, there was a big story up my way in regards to surveillance aircraft loitering in the airspace around the St. Paul/Minneapolis metro area.
Delete"For decades, the planes have provided support to FBI surveillance operations on the ground. But now the aircraft are equipped with high-tech cameras, and in rare circumstances, technology capable of tracking thousands of cellphones, raising questions about how these surveillance flights affect Americans' privacy."
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_28233542/fbi-behind-mysterious-surveillance-aircraft-over-us-cities
And of course, my state wasn't the only one to report these aircraft.
"During the past few weeks, the AP tracked planes from the FBI's fleet on more than 100 flights over at least 11 states plus the District of Columbia, most with Cessna 182T Skylane aircraft. These included parts of Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Minneapolis, Phoenix, Seattle and Southern California."
From aerial surveillance to cameras scanning your license plate repeatedly every time you drive by a certain point. There is simply no more expectation of privacy. Audio surveillance may be even more dangerous as careless comments can be preserved for future scrutiny.
DeleteIt's amusing, the Republicans are willing to go any length and pay any cost to stop immigration (people) from the South (build a wall, add more troops, stiffer jail penalties and deportation rules) but won't do a thing to stop illegal guns crossing the border. Proving they care more about the free flow of guns, than saving peoples lives. Of course we should not be surprised, that's been their position in the laws they pass, or deny regarding guns.
ReplyDelete. . . but won't do a thing to stop illegal guns crossing the border.
DeleteUm, dude--Schumer was whining about guns from southern states going north to states like New York, not about guns from Mexico coming to the U.S. When you geniuses whine about guns moving between the U.S. and Mexico, it's the southbound traffic that gets your panties in a bunch.
Try to keep up, Anon.
"It's amusing, the Republicans are willing to go any length and pay any cost to stop immigration (people) from the South (build a wall, add more troops, stiffer jail penalties and deportation rules) but won't do a thing to stop illegal guns crossing the border."
DeleteWell Anon, I'm thinking that the walls and troops tactic, while possibly intended to prevent people from entering the country illegally, will also have an effect on people smuggling arms. Though I don't think the issue is arms being smuggled into the US.
Schumer was referring to interstate movement of arms. Were you possibly referring to arms being smuggled out of the country? Like into Mexico? Again, walls and guards work in both directions. Except of course when the government allows the movement, such as with that wonderfully thought out event called Fast and Furious.
Isn't controlling goods entering Mexico the purview of the Mexican customs officers?
Nice insulting replies, expected from hate filled gun loons. Did I say Mexico? And you neglected to mention it's the Republicans who won't put up the money to do anything, which is what you gun loons want, nothing done about illegal guns. And by the way Fast and furious was Bush's declaration, not Obama's. Nice dishonest replies though, doing what you do best.
DeleteDid I say Mexico?
DeleteSo what other border are illegal immigrants crossing into the U.S. in wholesale numbers? We only have one border to the south.
And by the way Fast and furious was Bush's declaration, not Obama's.
Nope--that idiot's administration did have a couple similar operations on a much smaller scale, but Fast and Furious was all the work of this administration
"Did I say Mexico?"
DeleteWell Anon, you said this,
"It's amusing, the Republicans are willing to go any length and pay any cost to stop immigration (people) from the South (build a wall, add more troops, stiffer jail penalties and deportation rules) but won't do a thing to stop illegal guns crossing the border."
You mention illegal immigration from the south (Mexico), and then mention not stopping illegal guns from crossing the border. Were you somehow thinking of the Canadian border? And as I said before, isn't illegal items being smuggled into Mexico the responsibility of the Mexican Customs department and border patrol? Or if you think its the responsibility of the US, does that mean that people and drugs entering the US illegally is therefor the responsibility of the Mexican government?
As you said in your original comment, the evil Republicans want to build walls and station guards on the border to reduce illegal entry into the US. And as I said, the wall and guards work in both directions. Or do you think the guards will stop illegal operations in one direction?
"And by the way Fast and furious was Bush's declaration, not Obama's."
Sorry Anon, you are incorrect, the gunwalking operation that occurred under President Bush was called Operation Wide Receiver and resulted in about 450 guns moving into Mexico. Operation Fast and Furious was the operation run during the Obama Administration.
Both resulted in firearms being allowed to be smuggled into Mexico. However, the ATF managed to work more efficiently under the Obama administration resulting in about 2,000 firearms being allowed to cross the border into Mexico. For some reason the ATF under the Obama administration didn't learn from the mistakes made by the same type of operation conducted during the Bush administration.
And the President even became personally involved by invoking Executive Privilege to prevent the release of evidence to investigators.
Fast and Furious was entirely an Obama administration, so he gets the credit or the blame depending on how you look at it. Just as he also owns the Patriot Act by signing renewals during his Presidency.
Bush started this program, but nice attempt to rewrite history. Got anything better than your falsehoods?
Delete"Bush started this program, but nice attempt to rewrite history."
DeleteSorry Anon, you're a bit wrong here. Bush gets gedit/blame for "Wide Receiver" and President Obama gets credit/blame for "Fast and Furious", unless of course you can explain how Bush was able to start an ATF operation when he was no longer President. Are you suggesting that the ATF didn't get the memo as to the change in administrations?
Maybe you should read up on it a bit and tell me what parts I rewrote?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal#2006.E2.80.932008:_Operation_Wide_Receiver_and_other_probes
Wikipedia!
DeleteHA HA HA HA HA HA
Get a decent source and get back
DeleteHere you go Anon,
"But it turns out there was another gun operation run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives years before, using the same tactics of allowing guns to flow illegally onto U.S. streets and into Mexico. This operation was conducted under the Bush administration’s Justice Department.
Dubbed “Operation Wide Receiver,” the case was run out of Tucson between 2006 and 2007 and involved hundreds of guns that were purchased by small-time buyers who transferred them to middle men who then passed them up the chain and into Mexico."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/earlier-atf-gun-operation-wide-receiver-used-same-tactics-as-fast-and-furious/2011/10/06/gIQAuRHIRL_story.html
"(CNN)Here's some background information about Operation Fast and Furious. From 2009 - 2011, under Operation Fast and Furious, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Phoenix Field Division, along with other partners, allowed illegal gun sales, believed to be destined for Mexican drug cartels, in order to track the sellers and purchasers."
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/27/world/americas/operation-fast-and-furious-fast-facts/index.html
Thanks again for proving how dishonest and word twisting you gun loons are.
DeleteHey, SSG, speaking of the Obama regime's very own "Operation Fast and Furious," did you see that this very same operation may have armed one of the Garland, TX terrorists? Obama voters must be so proud.
DeleteI did notice that Kurt. An interesting question. Was it Laci or DG that claimed that most FFLs were crooked? I cant recall. This part is pretty interesting though,
Delete"Soofi's attempt to buy a gun caught the attention of authorities, who slapped a seven-day hold on the transaction, according to his Feb. 24, 2010, firearms transaction record, which was reviewed by the Los Angeles Times. Then, for reasons that remain unclear, the hold was lifted after 24 hours, and Soofi got the 9-millimeter."