24
   

Making Fun of the Clown Car of Republican Candidates

 
 
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2015 07:48 am
@Lash,
I did misunderstand you, thank you for correcting me. On Newtown shooting, I think he got his guns from his mother if I remember it right. But you are right, the gun owner who sold a to a person with a prior should be brought up on charges. I doubt he has though.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2015 08:20 am
@revelette2,
This is why I cast a wary eye to people pushing for new and stricter gun control laws when we have high profile shootings. The US seems to be defiantly refusing to prosecute the laws we currently have re gun control. I'm amazed that no one pushes this point in the media.
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2015 08:25 am
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:
You guys won the gun debate and reasonable people who want sane gun control restrictions lost.

Mr. Obama's mad push to violate people's civil rights for the fun of it was neither reasonable nor sane.

But yes, we won. Mr. Obama squandered every bit of his second-term political capital futilely attacking the NRA, and ended up with nothing to show for it.

Instead of using that political capital to achieve a legislative agenda like global warming regulations or immigration reform, by election day 2016 it will have been a long six years since he was able to push any legislation through Congress.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2015 08:26 am
@snood,
snood wrote:
That's so sweet!

It's just basic logic and facts. No big deal.


snood wrote:
It's good to believe in something.

It's good to believe in logic and facts.


snood wrote:
You keep holding onto that,

OK.


snood wrote:
even as the batshit crazy GOP ship goes up in flames and sinks.

That's not going to happen. Not after the 2013 gun control debacle.


snood wrote:
It's so brave of you.

Not really. Bravery is forcing yourself to do something that is necessary when you are terrified of doing it.

I'm neither terrified nor forcing myself to act. I'm just making an observation as to how the 2016 election is going to turn out.

After the Republicans dominate the 2016 election, they are going to pile a whole bunch of right-wing judges on the Supreme Court. We're at the dawn of a new era of Conservative dominance in America.


snood wrote:
I'm a little verklempft.

Interesting. I'd never seen that word before. Anyway, welcome to the beginning of America's future.
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2015 09:24 am
@Lash,
So far this what I have found on the subject of why the Charleston Church shooter was able to buy a gun, it was through weaknesses in the gun laws which need to be fixed. I hesitate to say this Lash, it looks like you are disagreement with democrats and probably Bernie Sanders on this one. Perhaps longer waiting times would be a fairly simple fix? It looks like they simply ran out of time and tragically nine people died.

Quote:
WASHINGTON — The man accused of killing nine people in a historically black church in South Carolina last month was able to buy the gun used in the attack because of a breakdown in the federal gun background check system, the F.B.I. said Friday.

Despite having previously admitted to drug possession, the man, Dylann Roof, 21, was allowed to buy the .45-caliber handgun because of mistakes by F.B.I. agents, a failure by local prosecutors to respond to a bureau request for more information about his case, and a weakness in federal gun laws.

“We are all sick this happened,” said James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director. “We wish we could turn back time. From this vantage point, everything seems obvious.”

The authorities’ inability to prevent Mr. Roof from obtaining the weapon highlighted the continuing problems in the background check system, which was intended to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, drug users and mentally ill people. Despite new procedures and billions of dollars that have been spent on computer upgrades in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the federal authorities still do not have a seamless way of examining Americans’ criminal histories that eliminates human error.

The disclosure also introduced another element of politics into the aftermath of the massacre, which has already led lawmakers in South Carolina to remove the Confederate battle flag that flew outside its State House. Republicans and Democrats quickly seized on the background check failure as the latest evidence to back up their views on gun laws.

Mr. Roof exploited the three-day waiting time that has allowed thousands of prohibited buyers to legally purchase firearms over the past decade — and some of those weapons were ultimately used in crimes, according to court records and government documents.

The Department of Justice’s inspector general has been investigating the three-day loophole for some time, Mr. Comey said.

In an hourlong briefing with reporters, Mr. Comey said the F.B.I. had begun informing the victims’ family members about the breakdown. He also said that he had ordered a review of the episode and that its findings be reported to him within 30 days.

According to Mr. Comey, Mr. Roof first tried to buy the gun on April 11 from a dealer in West Columbia, S.C. The F.B.I., which operates the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, received a call from the dealer, seeking approval to sell Mr. Roof the weapon. The F.B.I. did not give the dealer the authority to proceed with the purchase because the bureau said it needed to do more investigating of Mr. Roof’s criminal history, which showed he had recently been arrested.

Under federal law, the F.B.I. has three business days to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to deny a purchase. If the bureau cannot come up with an answer, the purchaser can return to the dealer on the fourth day and buy the gun.

Many major gun retailers, like Walmart, will not sell a weapon if they do not have an answer from the F.B.I., because of the fear of public criticism if the gun is used in a crime. The marginal sale of one gun means little to the bottom line of a large dealer, which is not the case for smaller stores like the one that sold Mr. Roof his gun.

Two days after Mr. Roof tried to buy the weapon, an examiner at the F.B.I.’s national background check center in Clarksburg, W.Va., began investigating his criminal history. The examiner found that Mr. Roof had been arrested this year on a felony drug charge, but not convicted. The charge alone would not have prevented him from buying the gun under federal law. But evidence that Mr. Roof had been convicted of a felony or was a drug addict would have resulted in a denial, so she continued to investigate his background.

Because Mr. Roof had been arrested in a small part of Columbia that is in Lexington County and not in Richland County, where most of the city is, the examiner was confused about which police department to call. She ultimately did not find the right department and failed to obtain the police report. Had the examiner gained access to the police report, she would have seen that Mr. Roof had admitted to having been in possession of a controlled substance and she would have issued a denial.

The examiner, however, did send a request to the Lexington County prosecutor’s office, which had charged him, inquiring about the case. The prosecutor’s office, however, did not respond.

Around that time the three-day waiting period expired, and Mr. Roof returned to the store and purchased the gun.

Mr. Comey said that he had spoken with the examiner, who he said had been working in that position for several years, adding that she was “heartbroken.”

Shortly after the details of the gun purchase were revealed, Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill, gun control advocates and Second Amendment defenders began wading into the matter.

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said the background check mistakes should not be used as an excuse to pass tougher gun laws.

The ranking Democratic member on the committee, Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, said: “We simply cannot have such failures in our background check system, and peoples’ lives are at stake. Clearly, more oversight is needed.”

Mr. Leahy said he expected the committee “will be looking further into this matter.”

Dan Gross, the head of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the disclosure “underscores the urgency of the message that Charleston families and the Brady Campaign took to Capitol Hill this week” for Congress to vote on a bill that would provide $400 million to enter the records of prohibited people into the F.B.I’s background check database.

“Brady background checks have been incredibly effective and have saved lives by blocking more than 2.4 million gun sales — more than 350 every day — to people we all agree shouldn’t have them, like domestic abusers, felons and other dangerous people,” Mr. Gross said.

Many of the deadliest shootings in the past decade have highlighted problems in the F.B.I.’s background check system.

After a 2007 shooting in which 33 people died at Virginia Tech University, investigators discovered that the gunman, Seung-Hui Cho, also should not have been able to buy a gun because a court had previously declared him to be a danger to himself. The shooting led to legislation aimed at improving the background check system.


source
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2015 09:52 am
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:
Perhaps longer waiting times would be a fairly simple fix?

On behalf of the gun rights movement, I deny your request.

There is no reason why a background check cannot be completed in a single day.

Further, with the way the Democrats are abusing the background check system to deny ordinary people who have the right to have guns, the entire background check system needs to be sidelined.

Have a nice day.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2015 11:04 am
@revelette2,
There should be a database immediately accessible at the POS. This could be handled easily with our technology. It should be top priority. I Disbelieve the veracity of people who grandstand over the bodies of murdered children, but refuse to enforce the laws on the books that would prevent these heinous murders.
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2015 11:23 am
@Lash,
Is it barely possible that not all those who speak out after a tragedy are totally disingenuous? I think I understand what you're saying about them needing to enforce the existing laws, but maybe trying to employ the momentarily heightened attention is not all for personal aggrandizement.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2015 11:49 am
@Lash,
Many states and the Federal govt have laws protecting gun sellers from being prosecuted or sued because of the crimes of those they sold a gun to.

http://www.guns.com/2015/06/19/judge-berates-brady-group-in-lucky-gunner-settlement/
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2015 03:48 pm
@snood,
What you heard was proof positive that brain washing works. Especially with the uneducated.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2015 03:50 pm
@oralloy,
Olley, you are almost as smart as CJ. ALMOST.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2015 03:59 pm
@Lash,
Maybe you should google background checks by state. Only sixteen have them and federal law can be gotten around. Its easy to get guns with the present hod podge of ineffective gun laws thanks to the N R A.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2015 04:37 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

What you heard was proof positive that brain washing works. Especially with the uneducated.

O-kay... Who was brainwashed - by who?
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2015 05:30 pm
@snood,
The fact that no one is following up on the prosecution of laws that are already in place - and vilifying gun ownership instead - does make me believe that these people have an anti-gun ownership agenda. It does harsh my opinion about the honesty of most of those people.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2015 05:35 pm
@parados,
Completely outrageous. THIS is what should be publicized.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2015 05:40 pm
@snood,
It looks like you're right and I've never heard it mentioned. This is what should brought up during shootings. Every damn case, the atty's name and who pays them. Their faces should be plastered on TVs next to the shooter's.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2015 05:45 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
Completely outrageous. THIS is what should be publicized.

What are you saying is outrageous? That gun stores are protected from frivolous lawsuits? Or that people attempt frivolous lawsuits against gun stores?
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2015 07:22 pm
@oralloy,
Keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people and criminals is a law that I support whole-heartedly. It makes sense, and anyone trying to weaken that law is responsible for what their negligence causes.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2015 07:30 pm
@Lash,
oralloy considers "arming the crazies" his Constitutional right. Unfortunately, hes right ,(at least for the generations now alive).


Id like freedom with verifiable responsibility as a guarantee. Oralloy just wants freedom, no matter what the consequences.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 05:42:53