Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[kaz]

[

Actually, we do.

It makes excellent moral policy. They've made a calculation that the benefits of arming citizens (there really aren't any) is outweighed by the lives saved in reductions in crime, murder, suicides and accidents.

And trust me, the minute we start holding the gun companies financially liable, will be the minute they won't be so keen on selling guns to the Nancy Lanzas of the world.

This is the same lie your tried to tell last time. Prove the above came from a gun manufacturer. All you have here is photoshop cut and paste. It's amazing to me how someone would be so stupid to be so blatantly dishonest.

And yes there are benefits. The benefits of being able to defend your own life for starters. The gun companies have nothing to do with the Lanzas. Whomever manufactured those guns is no more responsible than the auto company that manufactured the car that driven by a drunk driver that kills a family.

That's where you are going to go? "That's not a real ad!!!!"

Um, yeah, it is.

Bushmaster ?Man Card? ads: Consider your decency card revoked - Editorials - The Boston Globe

Bushmaster Firearms, Your Man Card Is Revoked

Bushmaster pulled it down right after Newtown, for some reason. (Probably because that was the gun used to kill all those kids.)

What's wrong with that ad? They sell cars, yard equipment, tools, lots of things that way. There's nothing targeting criminals or any of the other crap you claimed. You wanted an ad that appealed to you and your gay friends after you vacuum the carpet and admire the tapestry and sit down for a spot of tea, gay boy?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I already provided the evidence that Joe's claim that Germany, France, Great Brain and Canada are less violent then us is wrong. Hell Italy has the same rate as us as well.

Of course NOW he supports the notion that certain countries don't report the same, bring that up about firearm violence and he will revert to his claim it is the same.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Typical liberal argument. Your standard for yourself is a line painted on the floor. These have been explained to you several times, and you have no answer. You're hiding from me completely.

1) The Kellerman study only looked at actual shootings, it did not look at the big picture, which are all the times no shots were fired in self defense, which dwarfs what was studied. The big picture is never addressed by liberals because it never works to your advantage, so you have to splice a single statistic.

Except that they measured the ONLY statistic that mattered. Gun Deaths. Counting "how many times I felt better because I had a gun" vs. "how many time I threatened my family with that gun" is kind of unknowable and besides the point.

2) You're continuing to beg the question by assuming that if guns did not exist, bam, no crime. Everyone is safe, we can all go home now. You're wrong on that obviously, which is why you can't support your contention, you just assume it's true.

No, I'm saying if you have less guns, you have less gun death. Here's the thing. Most gun deaths are NOT hardened criminals hunting someone down. They are accidents, suicides and arguments within a household that go horribly wrong. Remove those from the mix, THEN you can concentrate on reducing the other thing.

3) You're also still begging the question still by assuming the truth of your own position that gun laws would remove guns and you have no plan to do that other than doing what we do with drugs, and it will work because "France."

And "Germany" and "England" and "Japan" and "Italy" and... Every other country that's tried it has gotten the desired result.

4) From a liberty standpoint, government cannot protect us from crime, they can only follow up when they are committed. How is it liberty then to prevent us from protecting ourselves?

As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us!" (The comic character, not [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] the poster, who is a pretty good guy.) It isn't the criminal that's the problem. It's the rest of us who really can't show very good judgement. It's the guy who shoots his own kid because he mistook him for a burglar or the kid who decided that his teenage angst needed a body count with dad's gun.

 

[Steven_R]

As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us!" (The comic character, not [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] the poster, who is a pretty good guy.) It isn't the criminal that's the problem. It's the rest of us who really can't show very good judgement. It's the guy who shoots his own kid because he mistook him for a burglar or the kid who decided that his teenage angst needed a body count with dad's gun.

There are over 100,000,000 American gun owners who didn't kill anyone today. Why should they all be treated like idiots who are irresponsible when they have done nothing to show they are irresponsible?

Right now there is someone in America convincing a friend to join a cult. Should we restrict religion because that guy doesn't show very good judgment? Maybe restrict freedom of the press because someone somewhere is writing a threatening letter to someone he is stalking? Gang members are congregating on a street corner and selling drugs. Maybe we need to eliminate the right to assembly because some people don't have the judgment to not join criminal organizations.

 

[JoeB131]

As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us!" (The comic character, not [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] the poster, who is a pretty good guy.) It isn't the criminal that's the problem. It's the rest of us who really can't show very good judgement. It's the guy who shoots his own kid because he mistook him for a burglar or the kid who decided that his teenage angst needed a body count with dad's gun.

There are over 100,000,000 American gun owners who didn't kill anyone today. Why should they all be treated like idiots who are irresponsible when they have done nothing to show they are irresponsible?

Right now there is someone in America convincing a friend to join a cult. Should we restrict religion because that guy doesn't show very good judgment? Maybe restrict freedom of the press because someone somewhere is writing a threatening letter to someone he is stalking? Gang members are congregating on a street corner and selling drugs. Maybe we need to eliminate the right to assembly because some people don't have the judgment to not join criminal organizations.

Works for me. A world without religion would truly be a better place.

Here's a better example. 13,000 flights were in the air on 9/11/2001. Only FOUR Of those were crashed into buildings that day. Should we take a bunch of sensible precautions to keep that from happening again? Um. Yeah.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us!" (The comic character, not [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] the poster, who is a pretty good guy.) It isn't the criminal that's the problem. It's the rest of us who really can't show very good judgement. It's the guy who shoots his own kid because he mistook him for a burglar or the kid who decided that his teenage angst needed a body count with dad's gun.

There are over 100,000,000 American gun owners who didn't kill anyone today. Why should they all be treated like idiots who are irresponsible when they have done nothing to show they are irresponsible?

Right now there is someone in America convincing a friend to join a cult. Should we restrict religion because that guy doesn't show very good judgment? Maybe restrict freedom of the press because someone somewhere is writing a threatening letter to someone he is stalking? Gang members are congregating on a street corner and selling drugs. Maybe we need to eliminate the right to assembly because some people don't have the judgment to not join criminal organizations.

Works for me. A world without religion would truly be a better place.

Here's a better example. 13,000 flights were in the air on 9/11/2001. Only FOUR Of those were crashed into buildings that day. Should we take a bunch of sensible precautions to keep that from happening again? Um. Yeah.

Already proved to you that your vaunted European Countries are awash in violence at a higher rate then the US. Even Canada.

 

[JoeB131]

[quo

Already proved to you that your vaunted European Countries are awash in violence at a higher rate then the US. Even Canada.

No, the only thing you proved to me is that whoever is writing your scripts needs to go to a stronger dose...

We are the most violent country in the industrialized world. Period.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

[quo

Already proved to you that your vaunted European Countries are awash in violence at a higher rate then the US. Even Canada.

No, the only thing you proved to me is that whoever is writing your scripts needs to go to a stronger dose...

We are the most violent country in the industrialized world. Period.

No we are not. I provided PROVEN links to FACTS. You are a lying moron and stupid to boot. England is over 3 times as violent, Germany almost twice as well as France , Canada over twice. The list is endless.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Doesn't list per capita but one can easily see that we are not the leader based on population compared to violent crimes.

Total crimes statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime

List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By population and crime stats.

Germany has about 1/4th our population and has more then half as many violent crimes per year.

France has about 1/5th our population and has 1/3rd the number of violent crimes per year.

Britain has about 1/5th our population and has over half as many violent crimes as we do per year.

Canada has 1/9th as many people as us and has a little more then 1/4th as many violent crimes a year.

Again for the truly stupid and slow.

 

[JoeB131]

Doesn't list per capita but one can easily see that we are not the leader based on population compared to violent crimes.

Total crimes statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime

List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By population and crime stats.

Germany has about 1/4th our population and has more then half as many violent crimes per year.

France has about 1/5th our population and has 1/3rd the number of violent crimes per year.

Britain has about 1/5th our population and has over half as many violent crimes as we do per year.

Canada has 1/9th as many people as us and has a little more then 1/4th as many violent crimes a year.

Again for the truly stupid and slow.

Guy, the Germans had 600 murders and we had 16,000.

They got it right, we got it wrong.

Period.

 

[Bern80]

As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us!" (The comic character, not [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] the poster, who is a pretty good guy.) It isn't the criminal that's the problem. It's the rest of us who really can't show very good judgement. It's the guy who shoots his own kid because he mistook him for a burglar or the kid who decided that his teenage angst needed a body count with dad's gun.

There are over 100,000,000 American gun owners who didn't kill anyone today. Why should they all be treated like idiots who are irresponsible when they have done nothing to show they are irresponsible?

Right now there is someone in America convincing a friend to join a cult. Should we restrict religion because that guy doesn't show very good judgment? Maybe restrict freedom of the press because someone somewhere is writing a threatening letter to someone he is stalking? Gang members are congregating on a street corner and selling drugs. Maybe we need to eliminate the right to assembly because some people don't have the judgment to not join criminal organizations.

Works for me. A world without religion would truly be a better place.

Here's a better example. 13,000 flights were in the air on 9/11/2001. Only FOUR Of those were crashed into buildings that day. Should we take a bunch of sensible precautions to keep that from happening again? Um. Yeah.

Again, if you were consistent in your argument, you would not insists we take precautions. You would insist on banning travel by airplane because that's exactly what you keep arguing with guns. That even though the incidents of violence and related injury and accidents is miniscule compared to the number of guns out there they should all be banned. Again, to be consistent in your argument you would need to insist that no one fly on planes anymore.

 

[Bern80]

Doesn't list per capita but one can easily see that we are not the leader based on population compared to violent crimes.

Total crimes statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime

List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By population and crime stats.

Germany has about 1/4th our population and has more then half as many violent crimes per year.

France has about 1/5th our population and has 1/3rd the number of violent crimes per year.

Britain has about 1/5th our population and has over half as many violent crimes as we do per year.

Canada has 1/9th as many people as us and has a little more then 1/4th as many violent crimes a year.

Again for the truly stupid and slow.

Guy, the Germans had 600 murders and we had 16,000.

They got it right, we got it wrong.

Period.

They have less people you moron. How intellectually dishonest are you?

 

[jon_berzerk]

There are over 100,000,000 American gun owners who didn't kill anyone today. Why should they all be treated like idiots who are irresponsible when they have done nothing to show they are irresponsible?

Right now there is someone in America convincing a friend to join a cult. Should we restrict religion because that guy doesn't show very good judgment? Maybe restrict freedom of the press because someone somewhere is writing a threatening letter to someone he is stalking? Gang members are congregating on a street corner and selling drugs. Maybe we need to eliminate the right to assembly because some people don't have the judgment to not join criminal organizations.

Works for me. A world without religion would truly be a better place.

Here's a better example. 13,000 flights were in the air on 9/11/2001. Only FOUR Of those were crashed into buildings that day. Should we take a bunch of sensible precautions to keep that from happening again? Um. Yeah.

Again, if you were consistent in your argument. You would not insists we take precautions. You wind insist on banning travel by airplane because that's exactly what you keep arguing with guns. That even though the incidents of violence and related injury and accidents is miniscule compared to the number of guns out there they should all be banned. Again, to be consistent in your argument you would need to insist that no one fly on planes anymore.

the people are fed up with the idiotic instance of the leftists

to infringe on ones right to self defense

this time

a recall effort of 4 democrats in Exeter Rhode Island

we are coming after those who are coming for our guns

Rhode Island Firearm Owners' League - Exeter Recall

the recall election will take place in the first half of December 2013

Exeter will have recall vote on 4 council members challenged over gun-permit resolution | Breaking News | providencejournal.com | The Providence Journal

 

[kaz]

the people are fed up with the idiotic instance of the leftists

to infringe on ones right to self defense

this time

a recall effort of 4 democrats in Exeter Rhode Island

we are coming after those who are coming for our guns

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Doesn't list per capita but one can easily see that we are not the leader based on population compared to violent crimes.

Total crimes statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime

List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By population and crime stats.

Germany has about 1/4th our population and has more then half as many violent crimes per year.

France has about 1/5th our population and has 1/3rd the number of violent crimes per year.

Britain has about 1/5th our population and has over half as many violent crimes as we do per year.

Canada has 1/9th as many people as us and has a little more then 1/4th as many violent crimes a year.

Again for the truly stupid and slow.

Guy, the Germans had 600 murders and we had 16,000.

They got it right, we got it wrong.

Period.

Murder is not the only indicator of violence. Moron.

 

[JoeB131]

Again for the truly stupid and slow.

Guy, the Germans had 600 murders and we had 16,000.

They got it right, we got it wrong.

Period.

They have less people you moron. How intellectually dishonest are you?

They don't have THAT many less people.

They have 25% of the people we have...

and only 3.5% the number of murders.

Now here's the gag. Germany does not totally ban gun ownership. There are about 17 million guns for 80 million germans.

But they severely restrict who can own them.

 

[Geaux4it]

Guy, the Germans had 600 murders and we had 16,000.

They got it right, we got it wrong.

Period.

They have less people you moron. How intellectually dishonest are you?

They don't have THAT many less people.

They have 25% of the people we have...

and only 3.5% the number of murders.

Now here's the gag. Germany does not totally ban gun ownership. There are about 17 million guns for 80 million germans.

But they severely restrict who can own them.

Who gives a rats a$$ Real Americans US, win- Communist Anti-Americans YOU, lose

We keep our guns, you keep your knife

Stock the guns deep and the ammo higher

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

Thanks NRA- I will send something in the mail for you tomorrow

-Geaux


U.S. Senate and House Send Letters Saying "NO" to U.N. Arms Trade Treaty
posted on October 18, 2013

Print
Share on print
Email
Share on email
Share
More Sharing Services Share on facebook Share on twitter
In October of 2009, at the U.N. General Assembly, the Obama administration reversed the positions of the two previous administrations and voted for the United States to participate in negotiating the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. On September 25, 2013, Obama's designs on international gun control were realized, as Secretary of State John Kerry signed the ATT on behalf of the Obama administration. The NRA strongly opposes this treaty, which clearly jeopardizes the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

A bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate is already on record in opposition to ratification of the ATT. On March 23rd of this year, the Senate adopted an amendment to its FY 2014 Budget Resolution, offered by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), which establishes a deficit-neutral fund for "the purpose of preventing the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty." This amendment is in addition to the previous efforts of Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) to pass concurrent resolutions opposing the treaty in their respective chambers.

This week, the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House released concurrent, bipartisan letters pledging their opposition to ratification of the ATT.

As detailed in his press release, on October 15th, Sen. Moran led a bipartisan group of 50 U.S. Senators, including Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Jim Inhofe, in reiterating to President Obama that the Senate overwhelmingly opposes the ratification of the ATT and will not be bound by its obligations.

"The Administration's recent signing of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty was a direct dismissal of the bipartisan Senate majority that rejects this treaty," Sen. Moran said. "Throughout this process, it has been disturbing to watch the Administration reverse U.S. policies, abandon its own 'red line' negotiation principles, admit publicly the treaty's dangerous ambiguity, and hastily review the final treaty text. Today I join my colleagues in upholding the fundamental individual rights of Americans by reiterating our rejection of the ATT. The Senate will overwhelmingly oppose ratification, and will not be bound by the treaty."

The press release further notes that, in the letter to the president, the Senators outline six reasons why they will not give advice and consent to the treaty and are therefore not bound to uphold the treaty's object and purpose.

"We urge you to notify the treaty depository that the U.S. does not intend to ratify the Arms Trade Treaty, and is therefore not bound by its obligations," the 50 Senators wrote to President Obama.

As noted by Senior Research Fellow, Ted Bromund, in a Heritage Foundation blog article, while the Senate has the lead responsibility for treaties, the House must pass any implementing legislation that is necessary to bring a treaty into effect. Because it has the power of the purse, it is also particularly responsible for funding the implementation of the ATT. A bipartisan letter, paralleling the one in the Senate and led by Representatives Mike Kelly and Collin Peterson (D–Minn.), has been signed by 181 Members--more than 40 percent of the House.

Rep. Kelly's press release notes that the House letter includes members of House Leadership, such as Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Republican Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas), and Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.).

Rep. Kelly said in the release, "Today the People's House takes a stand for national sovereignty where the White House failed to do so. The ATT is a clear threat to the Constitutional rights of all Americans and should never have been signed. This letter makes it absolutely clear to President Obama and his cabinet that the United States Congress will not support any implementing legislation to give this dangerous treaty the legs it needs to take effect. We will also oppose any efforts by this administration or future ones to implement or enforce this treaty through executive action. The liberty of the American people and the independence of the United States are far too sacred to ever be sacrificed at the altar of a dysfunctional global institution like the United Nations. For the sake of our freedom at home and our strength abroad, this fight must continue."

(The Senate letter can be accessed via Sen. Moran's press release, and the House letter can be accessed via Rep Kelly's press release.)

Once a treaty has been signed, it normally remains available for the Senate to ratify in perpetuity, unless a later president withdraws from it. This means that American gun owners must remain vigilant in ensuring this treaty is never ratified.

NRA applauds those Members of Congress who signed these letters and reaffirmed their commitment to stand by the Second Amendment and America's millions of law-abiding gun owners by opposing the U.N. ATT. The NRA will continue to work with our allies in the Congress to ensure the treaty remains unratified.

But as important as these letters are, they are not the end of the story. As Ted Bromund, concluded in his Heritage Foundation blog article, the State Department accepts under the customary international law of treaties that the U.S. is bound not to violate the "object and purpose" of a signed but unratified treaty. Both Senate and House letters reject this assertion. Further, the Administration has implied that it can implement the ATT through its existing authorities and without new appropriations. It is therefore incumbent on the Senate and House to reject this claim, hold appropriate hearings on the treaty and the Administration's proposed implementation of it, and prepare the way for this President or a future one to "unsign" the ATT.

 

[JoeB131]

They have less people you moron. How intellectually dishonest are you?

They don't have THAT many less people.

They have 25% of the people we have...

and only 3.5% the number of murders.

Now here's the gag. Germany does not totally ban gun ownership. There are about 17 million guns for 80 million germans.

But they severely restrict who can own them.

Who gives a rats a$$ Real Americans US, win- Communist Anti-Americans YOU, lose

We keep our guns, you keep your knife

Stock the guns deep and the ammo higher

-Geaux

Government will always have bigger, better guns, and when they take you away, the neighbors will be cheering because you were frightening the children.

 

[Geaux4it]

They don't have THAT many less people.

They have 25% of the people we have...

and only 3.5% the number of murders.

Now here's the gag. Germany does not totally ban gun ownership. There are about 17 million guns for 80 million germans.

But they severely restrict who can own them.

Who gives a rats a$$ Real Americans US, win- Communist Anti-Americans YOU, lose

We keep our guns, you keep your knife

Stock the guns deep and the ammo higher

-Geaux

Government will always have bigger, better guns, and when they take you away, the neighbors will be cheering because you were frightening the children.