Ongoing gun violence/injury thread
- Thread starter BeachBumDeac
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Two quotes out of a 1000 word article. The numbers were done by the author of the article and the IRS, but don't let the fact that multiple independent articles come up with the same numbers.
Here's another article from The Atlantic that supports my premise:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...might-be-just-another-corporate-front/267244/
If I came up with twenty more national articles, it wouldn't matter. To you facts are irrelevant. You are totally brainwashed.
You think those words you posted are true, and they simply are not. Post laws how they are, instead of innuendo. Otherwise, knock off...
"RICHMOND – A Senate bill increasing the penalties for “strawman” purchasing of firearms was meant to raise awareness about the enforcement of gun laws, said Sen. Tom Garrett, R-Lynchburg.
Senate bill 1378, passed by the Senate on Friday, would increase the penalty for knowingly providing a firearm to someone who was not allowed to own one, whether for mental health or criminal history reasons. It would also increase the penalty for purchasing a firearm with the intent to sell to someone who was not allowed to own a firearm, known as strawman purchasing.
The bill was introduced to the Senate by Garrett at the request of Gov. Bob McDonnell.
“Ultimately, will this bill stop [scenarios like the Newtown shootings], from ever happening again? The answer is, I’m afraid not, tragically,” Garrett said. “However, it may stop it from happening again in one instance or another.”
Garrett said the bill will also bring attention to another aspect of the problem: that gun laws are in place, but until it is ensured that they are enforced, criminals cannot be prevented from getting guns.
“Just because the law says [mentally ill people and criminals] can’t have [firearms], doesn’t mean that they can’t get them,” he said.
The bill does not create new code in Virginia, but increases the current penalty for straw purchases from a one to five year sentence a two to ten year sentence. Currently, there is no federal law against straw purchasing of firearms, Garrett said.
Regarding second amendment rights, he said, “While I’m not concerned with controlling the behavior of law-abiding citizens, I am concerned with controlling the behavior of criminals.”
Senate bill 1378, passed by the Senate on Friday, would increase the penalty for knowingly providing a firearm to someone who was not allowed to own one, whether for mental health or criminal history reasons. It would also increase the penalty for purchasing a firearm with the intent to sell to someone who was not allowed to own a firearm, known as strawman purchasing.
The bill was introduced to the Senate by Garrett at the request of Gov. Bob McDonnell.
“Ultimately, will this bill stop [scenarios like the Newtown shootings], from ever happening again? The answer is, I’m afraid not, tragically,” Garrett said. “However, it may stop it from happening again in one instance or another.”
Garrett said the bill will also bring attention to another aspect of the problem: that gun laws are in place, but until it is ensured that they are enforced, criminals cannot be prevented from getting guns.
“Just because the law says [mentally ill people and criminals] can’t have [firearms], doesn’t mean that they can’t get them,” he said.
The bill does not create new code in Virginia, but increases the current penalty for straw purchases from a one to five year sentence a two to ten year sentence. Currently, there is no federal law against straw purchasing of firearms, Garrett said.
Regarding second amendment rights, he said, “While I’m not concerned with controlling the behavior of law-abiding citizens, I am concerned with controlling the behavior of criminals.”
From Esquire, April 3, 2013:
"The NRA is not a citizen's organization. It's a trade lobby for the guns-and-ammo manufacturers, and they'd sell an atomic bomb to Charlie Manson if it meant another couple of million dollars. They want every dime that can be made. If it weren't background checks, it'd be something else. This isn't about the Constitution. It's about something much more American — money."
"The NRA is not a citizen's organization. It's a trade lobby for the guns-and-ammo manufacturers, and they'd sell an atomic bomb to Charlie Manson if it meant another couple of million dollars. They want every dime that can be made. If it weren't background checks, it'd be something else. This isn't about the Constitution. It's about something much more American — money."
The bill does not create new code in Virginia, but increases the current penalty for straw purchases from a one to five year sentence a two to ten year sentence. Currently, there is no federal law against straw purchasing of firearms, Garrett said.
Deacon923
Scooter Banks
could you guys go make your own RJ vs. Elkman slapfight thread, kthanxbye
There is no federal law. Why does the NRA oppose such laws?
FuckmouthedRube
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2011
- Messages
- 4,216
- Reaction score
- 233
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/sarah-palin-background-checks_n_3091643.html
Sarah Palin weighs in. Pat Toomey knows he can't win PA after getting crushed in the Philly suburbs. Dems need 17 seats in the House to gain control, so they want to force every 'Pub incumbent from a suburban district to vote against background checks. Conversely GOP would like to have Dem Senate incumbents from red states voting for additional gun control. Filibuster allows vulnerable Dems to avoid a vote that would hurt them in 2014. GOP can filibuster in the Senate, but it better be only by Senators in deep red seats. Gun lobby versions of Akin, Mourdock, O'Donnell, and Angle will hose the GOP in winnable states. Anyone (Paul, Rubio) with 2016 presidential ambitions should steer clear of a filibuster.
Sarah Palin weighs in. Pat Toomey knows he can't win PA after getting crushed in the Philly suburbs. Dems need 17 seats in the House to gain control, so they want to force every 'Pub incumbent from a suburban district to vote against background checks. Conversely GOP would like to have Dem Senate incumbents from red states voting for additional gun control. Filibuster allows vulnerable Dems to avoid a vote that would hurt them in 2014. GOP can filibuster in the Senate, but it better be only by Senators in deep red seats. Gun lobby versions of Akin, Mourdock, O'Donnell, and Angle will hose the GOP in winnable states. Anyone (Paul, Rubio) with 2016 presidential ambitions should steer clear of a filibuster.
avalon
Antwan Scott
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2011
- Messages
- 18,718
- Reaction score
- 1,355
BeachBumDeac
Cheap Date
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 27,635
- Reaction score
- 15,214
Better in a fucking PRIVATE message than the two of you spewing your shit all over the thread.
DeaconSlim2.0
-------------------------
Can someone succinctly explain why expanded background checks or a national gun registry would be a bad thing?
This shit pisses me off so much.
This shit pisses me off so much.
DistrictDeacon
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 13,054
- Reaction score
- 1,068
Was about to post the same thing. He seems legitimately pissed.
As he should be. Such a cowardly BS vote from the Senate today.
Respect Wood
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 900
- Reaction score
- 56
Burr continues to be an embarrassment to Wake and Winston Salem.
SkinsNDeacs
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 12,384
- Reaction score
- 550
I am one of the few people who is not passionate about this debate so I have not read this thread...forgive me if this has been covered.
What is the argument against this bill? Is it simply that "it will not help to stop these mass shootings" (I happen to agree with that)? That is the only one I have heard and I don't think it is enough to vote against it. Again, I am not passionate about this so I am not disgusted that it did not pass the Senate but I can't think of a good reason why someone would vote it down. What is the harm of passing it?
What is the argument against this bill? Is it simply that "it will not help to stop these mass shootings" (I happen to agree with that)? That is the only one I have heard and I don't think it is enough to vote against it. Again, I am not passionate about this so I am not disgusted that it did not pass the Senate but I can't think of a good reason why someone would vote it down. What is the harm of passing it?