Some Good News, More State Laws Are Loosening Gun Restrictions

[redrocker35 9]

Gun Debate Prompts Some States to Ease Restrictions

Although it sometimes looks pretty discouraging, there are some silver linings. All those call and e-mails seem to be working, keep them up!

The Newtown school massacre has prompted much legislation concerning gun laws, but ironically most of the bills passed or being considered by states are aimed at loosening rules on gun possession.

Connecticut, Colorado and Maryland have grabbed headlines for passing tough new laws on gun ownership along with President Obama's campaign for a federal law.

Watch where your pointing that Douche Bag

At the same time, however, Georgia and Arkansas lawmakers have pursued legislation for opening more public places to guns.

Legislation in Georgia to allow guns in churches and bars was gutted in the state House after passing out of the state Senate, but in Arkansas, lawmakers approved a bill to let churches decide if their parishioners can tout pistols in the pews.

West Virginia was on the brink of implementing uniform gun laws across the state that would loosen restrictions in four counties, but stopped when state senators who opposed the bill received death threats.

"I will never reward that kind of behavior with legislative victory when you're resorting to that kind of terrorist, bullying behavior," Senate President Jeffrey Kessler told the Associated Press. "It just will not be tolerated"

Lawmakers in South Dakota made it legal for schools to allow faculty and administrators to carry guns to work – a measure the National Rifle Association recommended in its recently released School Shield Program panel.

Alaska, Iowa, Texas and Maine all also have considered expanding protections for gun owners in their states since the Connecticut slaughter took place last December.

 

Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners' Action League (GOAL) of Massachusetts hopes lawmakers will look at what happened in his state after the passage of measures that restricted gun access in 1998.

"Gun control laws simply didn't work because they went after the thing rather than the human criminal element which is where they should be spending their time," Wallace told ABC News.

 

"I think that's the frustration that gun owners are being made the scapegoats that if we only give up some of our rights then your children will be safer," Wallace said. "And that's simply not the case.

[redrocker35 9]

Someone tell me, am I drinking the kool-aid when I read this and feel tinge of hope? Or am I just reading it wrong, IYHO...

[Sim_Player 1,939]

A "tinge of hope" helps to get me get out of bed everyday. No you're not crazy.

 

I feel like it's been "opposite day" everyday, since Obama first took office.

 

Hopefully, years from now, we will look back and just shake our heads at all this crazy shit that "they"

are trying to pull.

 

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ (Come and Take)

Edited April 9, 2013 by Sim_Player

[devildogdakota 804]

Ain't is nice of "them" to loosen the restrictions on our constitutionally guarenteed GOD given rights? I try to keep it somewhat clean here (except in the "Gun Porn" section), but fuck these bastards! What part of "Shall not be infringed" do these people not understand?!

[redrocker35 9]

Ain't is nice of "them" to loosen the restrictions on our constitutionally guarenteed GOD given rights? I try to keep it somewhat clean here (except in the "Gun Porn" section), but fuck these bastards! What part of "Shall not be infringed" do these people not understand?!

I whole heartedly agree as does the majority of Americans. I read this and wanted to pass it on...some of the content is questionable, but you can read between the lines, I'm sure.

 

"The majority Democrats pushing for gun reform tout "90 percent of Americans agree"(BS) and have clung to that 90 percent number like the last life vest off a downed aircraft carrier. After the Newtown massacre, sure, some of their congressional leaders would introduce assault weapons bans, and magazine clip restrictions, and other pieces of gun legislation that couldn't pass.

The party would debate this in public, then triage, then focus on passing background checks. How could Republicans seriously oppose background checks? Even the donor class was in on the plan.

 

The problem: 90 percent doesn't always mean “90 percent.” On Thursday morning, Quinnipiac University released a poll that asked a follow-up to the background checks question. Nine in 10 backed the concept, but 48 percent of people worried that the state would “use that information in the future to confiscate legally owned guns.” By a 15-point margin, independents agreed: The suede-denim secret police might want to take their weapons."

 

And this is the group of people they targeted for this poll right after the Newtown incident, I believe this number to be very conservative, people know in their hearts that after what has happened in the past with this (or any ) type of gun reform (lets call it what it is, Stripping Americans of their Second Amendment rights) has ended with dire consequences such as the disarming the population and the rise of violent crime. England is a recent example, but the list is long.

[U.S. Pratorean 1,234]

Ain't is nice of "them" to loosen the restrictions on our constitutionally guarenteed GOD given rights? I try to keep it somewhat clean here (except in the "Gun Porn" section), but fuck these bastards! What part of "Shall not be infringed" do these people not understand?!

I whole heartedly agree as does the majority of Americans. I read this and wanted to pass it on...some of the content is questionable, but you can read between the lines, I'm sure.

 

"The majority Democrats pushing for gun reform tout "90 percent of Americans agree"(BS) and have clung to that 90 percent number like the last life vest off a downed aircraft carrier. After the Newtown massacre, sure, some of their congressional leaders would introduce assault weapons bans, and magazine clip restrictions, and other pieces of gun legislation that couldn't pass.

The party would debate this in public, then triage, then focus on passing background checks. How could Republicans seriously oppose background checks? Even the donor class was in on the plan.

 

The problem: 90 percent doesn't always mean “90 percent.” On Thursday morning, Quinnipiac University released a poll that asked a follow-up to the background checks question. Nine in 10 backed the concept, but 48 percent of people worried that the state would “use that information in the future to confiscate legally owned guns.” By a 15-point margin, independents agreed: The suede-denim secret police might want to take their weapons."

 

And this is the group of people they targeted for this poll right after the Newtown incident, I believe this number to be very conservative, people know in their hearts that after what has happened in the past with this (or any ) type of gun reform (lets call it what it is, Stripping Americans of their Second Amendment rights) has ended with dire consequences such as the disarming the population and the rise of violent crime. England is a recent example, but the list is long.

These people lie. Plain and simple, that's all they do. Their stats are pure-D-bullshit. Along with the 90% of gun owners agree with back round checks. You have to keep in mind king barry and his retarded followers operate that if you lie enough it become perceived as fact.

[redrocker35 9]

Hell, that feeling lasted for about five minutes...

I agree with Neil Pond @ Wilson County News when he expanded on the NRA's statement earlier in the day. Expanding background checks at gun shows will not prevent the next shooting, will not solve violent crime and will not keep our kids safe in schools. While the overwhelming rejection of President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg's "universal" background check agenda is a positive development, we have a broken mental health system that is not going to be fixed with more background checks at gun shows. The sad truth is that no background check would have prevented the tragedies in Newtown, Aurora or Tucson.

We need a serious and meaningful solution that addresses crime in cities like Chicago, addresses mental health deficiencies, while at the same time protecting the rights of those of us who are not a danger to anyone. President Obama should be as committed to dealing with the gang problem that is tormenting honest people in his hometown as he is to blaming law-abiding gun owners for the acts of psychopathic murderers.

Edited April 10, 2013 by redrocker35