Gun Control

happy jack wrote:

Just out of curiosity, why have you not unleashed diatribes against Barry Obama and Hillary Clinton for coming to the table so late on the gay marriage issue? Certainly someone who has such a Road to Damascus conversion when it happens to be politically convenient deserves your wrath every bit as much as does Mr. Dickey, correct?

They don't have a history of suppressing, ignoring, or fronting phony research on LGTB families and communities. And the legal recognition of LGTB relationships has little to do with saving lives, unlike the topics of gun control and global warming, hence why I am considerably more vocal.

Scorpion wrote:

sparks wrote:

Thanks for reading my article,Scorpion. The people who are subject to the forfeiture program have all
been a defendant in a criminal proceeding, a mental health hearing or have received a domestic violence restraining order.
As part of the hearing, they are told their legal options. They can sell the weapons to licensed gun dealer or surrender them.
This program targets prohibited people who have not complied with their court order.

Where are you getting your information from? I looked around a bit and I can't find anything that supports your contention about a "hearing" where people are advised about their legal "options."

In this article...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/california-seizes-guns-as-owners-lose-right-to-bear-arms.html

....it specifically states that names are added to the "list" on a daily basis, as part of a data processing update.

Quote :

The no-gun list is compiled by cross-referencing files on almost 1 million handgun and assault-weapon owners with databases of new criminal records and involuntary mental-health commitments. About 15 to 20 names are added each day, according to the attorney general’s office.

I followed a link in the story to a copy of the law...

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12010.php

And I don't see any reference to a "hearing" of any kind. Do you?

If you have some additional info that backs up your claim, please post it.

sparks wrote:

I can't say I have much sympathy for criminals not receiving compensation for their weapons. How often do victims of crimes receive compensation for the physical harm criminals cause?

I think it goes without saying that violent felons shouldn't be able to possess weapons.

It's the rest of this law that troubles me. Like I said, if you have some additional information about it, I'd sure like to see it.

Thanks!

I should have taken the time to write a better response. The state of California doesn't hold a hearing for gun forfeitures. In cases of domestic violence,which is what I was referring to when I said hearing, a hearing is held and an order of protection or temporary restraining order may be issued. Upon being served with the order, defendants have 24 hours to surrender their weapons to law enforcement or sell them to a FFL dealer. Within 48 hours, they must present proof of that surrender or sale to the court.
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/Cfl2007.pdf?
Requires a person subject to a temporary restraining order to surrender his or her firearm(s) within 24 hours of being served with the order or injunction without regard to whether the person appeared in court at the time the order was issued (Civil Code § 527.9).
C Requires a person subject to a temporary restraining order to present a receipt to the court acknowledging the surrender of his or her firearms within 48 hours after receipt of the temporary restraining order or injunction
There are also portions of California gun law that talk about surrenders.The law enforcement agency does have the right to charge storage fees for keeping the weapons in cases where they will be returned to the owners.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

So, unlike you on the 'Transgender' thread, no, I am not "making stuff up".

Look up the word opinion,dumbass.

This is your statement:

Artie60438 wrote:

When a transsexual gets assaulted or beaten up in a mens room,knuckle dragging cave men like yourself will be claiming that they brought it on the themselves for dressing that way.

[b]An opinion is prefaced by the words, "I think....", or ,"It seems to me....", or, "In my opinion...". What you wrote is not presented in the format of an "opinion"; what you wrote is a bald, unequivocal assertion of what you would have readers believe is fact when, in truth, it is entirely false.
Dumbass.
Oh, yeah .... and liar.

Sorry,but you've got a long history of demeaning gays and their issues. So if the shoe fits.....

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

So, unlike you on the 'Transgender' thread, no, I am not "making stuff up".

Look up the word opinion,dumbass.

This is your statement:

Artie60438 wrote:

When a transsexual gets assaulted or beaten up in a mens room,knuckle dragging cave men like yourself will be claiming that they brought it on the themselves for dressing that way.

[b]An opinion is prefaced by the words, "I think....", or ,"It seems to me....", or, "In my opinion...". What you wrote is not presented in the format of an "opinion"; what you wrote is a bald, unequivocal assertion of what you would have readers believe is fact when, in truth, it is entirely false.
Dumbass.
Oh, yeah .... and liar.

Sorry,but you've got a long history of demeaning gays and their issues. So if the shoe fits.....

Yes, the shoe does fit.
Unfortunately for you, you are the one wearing it and, as usual, lying fits you quite well.
If you find anything – and I mean absolutely anything - I have ever written that advocates violence against gays, transsexuals, bisexuals, etc., please post it.
Until then, you are, and will remain, a liar.
(And a dumbass, too, but that goes without saying.)

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Sorry,but you've got a long history of demeaning gays and their issues. So if the shoe fits.....

Yes, the shoe does fit.
Unfortunately for you, you are the one wearing it and, as usual, lying fits you quite well.
If you find anything – and I mean absolutely anything - I have ever written that advocates violence against gays, transsexuals, bisexuals, etc., please post it.
Until then, you are, and will remain, a liar.
(And a dumbass, too, but that goes without saying.)

Like I said "you've got a long history of demeaning gays and their issues." You may not have written anything specifically but it's been pretty obvious for a long time that you think they are somehow inferior to the rest of us and thus are to be ridiculed. Therefore,based on the facts I just presented,it is my opinion that given the right circumstances you would,at a minimum,look the other way.

Just thought it was time to "bump" this. I'm still waiting for some answers from Sparks. I realize that we are a "smaller audience," but I still think I deserve a frickin' answer. I don't see how he thinks he can gain any credibility with a "larger audience" if he can't answer a simple question. "Thanks for reading" isn't going to cut it.

Scorpion wrote:

sparks wrote:

Thanks for reading my article,Scorpion. The people who are subject to the forfeiture program have all
been a defendant in a criminal proceeding, a mental health hearing or have received a domestic violence restraining order.
As part of the hearing, they are told their legal options. They can sell the weapons to licensed gun dealer or surrender them.
This program targets prohibited people who have not complied with their court order.

Where are you getting your information from? I looked around a bit and I can't find anything that supports your contention about a "hearing" where people are advised about their legal "options."

In this article...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/california-seizes-guns-as-owners-lose-right-to-bear-arms.html

....it specifically states that names are added to the "list" on a daily basis, as part of a data processing update.

Quote :

The no-gun list is compiled by cross-referencing files on almost 1 million handgun and assault-weapon owners with databases of new criminal records and involuntary mental-health commitments. About 15 to 20 names are added each day, according to the attorney general’s office.

I followed a link in the story to a copy of the law...

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12010.php

And I don't see any reference to a "hearing" of any kind. Do you?

If you have some additional info that backs up your claim, please post it.

sparks wrote:

I can't say I have much sympathy for criminals not receiving compensation for their weapons. How often do victims of crimes receive compensation for the physical harm criminals cause?

I think it goes without saying that violent felons shouldn't be able to possess weapons.

It's the rest of this law that troubles me. Like I said, if you have some additional information about it, I'd sure like to see it.

Thanks!

Our elected officials remain as incapable as ever.

I'd like to say that when this fails to curb gun violence, we might actually be able to have a real discussion on gun control, but since we can't even get that with evolution or global warming... Truly disheartening.

I'm just so glad I'm never having kids.

Heretic wrote:

Our elected officials remain as incapable as ever.

.... we might actually be able to have a real discussion on gun control ....

Yeah, "we might actually be able to have a real discussion on gun control" if and when certain assholes can manage to stop lying about guns.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-newtown-shooter-gunned-down-20-children-fully-automatic-weapon_714527.html

Obama: Newtown Shooter Gunned Down 20 Children With 'Fully Automatic Weapon'

1:06 PM, Apr 4, 2013 • By DANIEL HALPER

At a fundraiser last night in San Francisco, President Barack Obama said that the Newtown killer gunned down 20 children using a "fully automatic weapon." From the official transcript, provided by the White House:
Now, over the next couple of months, we’ve got a couple of issues: gun control. (Applause.) I just came from Denver, where the issue of gun violence is something that has haunted families for way too long, and it is possible for us to create common-sense gun safety measures that respect the traditions of gun ownership in this country and hunters and sportsmen, but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon -- by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.






Police later found a 12-gauge shotgun in the Honda's glove compartment with two magazines containing 70 rounds of Winchester 12-gauge shotgun rounds ....




http://www.dailypaul.com/279889/sandy-hook-shooter-had-12-gauge-shotgun-in-glove-compartment

Sandy Hook shooter had 12 gauge shotgun in glove compartment?

Submitted by dsmith83 on Thu, 03/28/2013 - 11:12

Does anyone know what model shotgun this is?
I really want one for myself.

happy jack wrote:

. . . but kids are certainly a hoot to have around (not to mention you'd have someone to change your diapers when that time comes).

True, but I'll definitely feel better about having such little impact on improving the world we're leaving them. I won't have to lie to myself as much this way, or fight as hard. If Inhofe doesn't care about his family's future, why should I, right?

happy jack wrote:

Yeah, "we might actually be able to have a real discussion on gun control" if and when certain assholes can manage to stop lying about guns.

The media's inability to correctly identify weaponry or its location found after a shooting is far less egregious than their blanket statements of/ignoring statements from guests and pundits that are knowingly false and apply to the discussion as a whole - gun control/background checks never work, Hitler did it, UN black helicopters are coming, etc. The list is endless and depressing, since it largely comes from our politicians and their media counterparts to justify their continued inaction. I'd rather the media get some of the technical details of a biology story wrong, rather than give a creationist free reign to lie for the duration.

Then you're being cynical. I would be inclined to agree with you if they didn't have an equally abysmal record of reporting on global warming, evolution, GMOs, anything related to health, etc, ad nauseum (I've been complaining about their inability for what... the better part of a decade? At least?). I see no evidence to suggest "massive liberal conspiracy" here as opposed to simple laziness and sensationalism. You've offered nothing at all on the topic over the last 30 pages other than mere inconvenience, so yeah... Occam's razor > massive orchestrated liberal conspiracy (and a highly specific one to boot).

If you've got more evidence to cite, then by all means, do so. Otherwise, you're demonstrably talking out of your ass, and don't have the evidence to support your thesis, IMHO.

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

I see no evidence to suggest "massive liberal conspiracy" here as opposed to simple laziness and sensationalism.

I find it highly unlikely that so many major media outlets would get the same story wrong, in the identical manner, by accident. Just a bit too convenient for my liking.

Most of the time, major media outlets use the same source. In many cases, it's a straight cut and paste, with attribution.

And I really don't see the "convenience" of incorrectly stating that a shotgun was found in a glove compartment. How, exactly, does that support your contention that there is some kind of "fictitious narrative" being promoted? In other words, how, exactly, does this particular story promote the cause of gun control? What the hell is the difference if the gun was found in the trunk instead?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

And I really don't see the "convenience" of incorrectly stating that a shotgun was found in a glove compartment. How, exactly, does that support your contention that there is some kind of "fictitious narrative" being promoted? In other words, how, exactly, does this particular story promote the cause of gun control? What the hell is the difference if the gun was found in the trunk instead?

There is an astounding amount of ignorance of firearms among the general public. Promoting the false assertion that something as scary and deadly as a 12 gauge shotgun can be concealed in an area as small as a glove compartment, hence also making it able to be concealed in one's pocket, is a huge chunk of misinformation to feed to millions of impressionable people who know little to nothing about guns, and who base their impressions of guns and their lethality on information they get from the major media. The scarier the guns can be made to look by an ideologically complicit media (at least until they get caught), the more easily fear of and opposition to firearms in general can be fostered by that media.

Nonsense. I think that most people know how big a shotgun is... it's ridiculous to believe that the average "ignorant" Joe thinks that you can conceal a shotgun in your pocket.

To be honest, you come off as really pedantic when you discuss guns. IMHO, I think your problem has more to do with the fact that you believe that non-owners are simply ignorant.

Jesus H. Christ... remains unconvinced by the mountains of research and statistics on gun violence, dismissing all with a wave of his hand, but a bullshit news story that reads "glove box" instead of "trunk" and BAM... proof of widespread media conspiracy.

Wow. I'm at a loss.

happy jack wrote:

The scarier the guns can be made to look by an ideologically complicit media (at least until they get caught), the more easily fear of and opposition to firearms in general can be fostered by that media.

Why the hell do they even care? What's the endgame of this dastardly plot? Complete disarmament so the martians can attack? Or the Russians?

Whatever the media may be doing in their stories on gun control, it absolutely pales in comparison to things like this:

13-Year-Old Rush Caller Schools Liberals: 'Man-Made Global Warming Is A Hoax'

Demonstrable lies on a far more dangerous topic. How did you put it earlier, happy?

Quote :

Just out of curiosity, why have you not unleashed diatribes against Barry Obama and Hillary Clinton for coming to the table so late on the gay marriage issue?

Similar question. Why such outrage over these stories and not any of the others?