It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Think that CCW permit holder is a safe individual? Maybe not:

page: 24
11
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Ok, think the gun lobby doesn't influence legislation? Doesn't buy off elected officials?

maplight.org...

And the bills they either supported, or opposed:

maplight.org...


Citizens Protection Act of 2013 H.R. 133 (113th) Massie Support No
To repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and amendments to that Act. (by CRS)



Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013 H.R. 137 (113th) McCarthy Oppose No
To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm… More


Gee, look at that, supporting repealing gun free school zones, opposing background checks.

Don't think the gun lobby tries to suppress background checks? Really?


edit on 31-7-2014 by HauntWok because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
Ok, think the gun lobby doesn't influence legislation? Doesn't buy off elected officials?


What does this have to do with enforcement? You do know the difference between legislators and a law enforcement personnel, right?


And the bills they either supported, or opposed:

maplight.org...

No votes, which means it has not been acted upon:



H.R. 133 - Citizens Protection Act of 2013

Crime and law enforcement. 113th Congress (2013-2014) View bill details
Sponsor:Thomas Massie Summary:To repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and amendments to that Act. (by CRS) Status:The bill has been referred to committee.
There have been no votes on this bill.




Citizens Protection Act of 2013 H.R. 133 (113th) Massie Support No
To repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and amendments to that Act. (by CRS)



Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013 H.R. 137 (113th) McCarthy Oppose No
To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm… More

Did you bother to check this one too?


S. 374 - Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013Crime and law enforcement. 113th Congress (2013-2014) View bill details
Sponsor:Charles Schumer Summary:A bill to ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale. (by CRS) Status:The bill has passed through committee and has been put on a legislative calendar.
There have been no votes on this bill.
Gee, look at that, supporting repealing gun free school zones, opposing background checks.


That bill has not even come up for a vote as well.

Do you even know how to use your sources?



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok
You said that the gun lobby affects enforcement of the laws.
This just says that they buy legislation.

The gun lobby that I am associated with does try to influence legislation.... that's why they get money from me. I want them to oppose stupid gun legislation that doesn't address problems and support legislation that makes sense.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
Ok, think the gun lobby doesn't influence legislation? Doesn't buy off elected officials?

maplight.org...

And the bills they either supported, or opposed:

maplight.org...

So, this means what?
maplight.org... 2008&end=12%2F31%2F2013

Your wonderful site states "Interest group as Gun Rights", yet doesn't show how it relates that to an individual contribution. In fact, each is listed with the persons occupation. Don't see "Gun Lobby" listed.


originally posted by: HauntWok


Citizens Protection Act of 2013 H.R. 133 (113th) Massie Support No
To repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and amendments to that Act. (by CRS)

What is the problem here.
Doesn't seem to be working.


originally posted by: HauntWok

Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013 H.R. 137 (113th) McCarthy Oppose No
To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm… More

So, another wonderful Progressive idea to create a law where a law already exists.
That right there is your shining example of the Progressive mindset.
Make a law for something that already exists.


originally posted by: HauntWok
Gee, look at that, supporting repealing gun free school zones, opposing background checks.

Don't think the gun lobby tries to suppress background checks? Really?



And again, very simply. HOW is the "gun lobby" stopping background checks from occurring.


And, as always, still waiting on that state with the "realistic gun laws".



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


Latest Major Action: 1/25/2013 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, And Investigations.


Thomas.gov

The point being is that the gun lobby in all effect bribes our elected officials to either suppress or support gun laws that enable these tragedies to take place.

So, apparently fixing the system, and enabling background checks is something to oppose.
edit on 31-7-2014 by HauntWok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok



gun lobby

You say it like it is a bad word.

It is ME and millions of other American citizens that care about protecting the 2nd Amendment.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
The point being is that the gun lobby in all effect bribes our elected officials to either suppress or support gun laws that enable these tragedies to take place.


You still have not answered the question. How does lobbying affect law enforcement? How does lobbying new bills (pro or con) affect law enforcement from doing their jobs and actioning on already passed laws?



edit on 31-7-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

So what law would have stopped any of these shootings listed?



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You expect a direct answer from a direct question?

SSSSPPPPPPPFFFT.

Yeah right.

What we should expect is now a change of the subject.

3....2....1



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: macman
What we should expect is now a change of the subject.


I would actually prefer some hysterical hyperbole.

It shows that their is no rationality to the argument and that I am, in fact, correct.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

Serious question, why don't you focus on having our current laws enforced with their maximum penalty?

This is something I don't understand about your crowd. Always harping about passing new laws, yet ignoring that our EXISTING laws are ignored. I just don't understand that.

Focus on having our current laws enforced and stop trying to reinvent the wheel.

We don't need more laws. We need our current laws enforced. Period!



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Female flavor or male flavor??


HauntWok can provide the male side.

Here is the dramatic, hysterical hyperbole of the female persuasion. www.momsdemandaction.org...

Both can't address specifics when cornered. Both rely on emotion rather than fact and logic. Both lie. Both omit portions of everything to try to provide ground for their stance. Both have no basic understanding of laws, either founding laws or current laws.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: KawRider9
We don't need more laws.


It is obvious by your blatant and unempathic reply that you, and people that think as you do, have not one care about the children. The only way children will ever be safe is if they are wrapped in the bubbly protection of laws so copious in nature that there can never been any chance of harm befalling them.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Don't be obtuse.


We just need newer laws. That will solve all the problems.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: macman

Brother, I posted a few pages ago how the "gun free zone" posters save the children.

You know, gotta save those children for our lodge night bbq's...



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: macman
Both can't address specifics when cornered. Both rely on emotion rather than fact and logic. Both lie. Both omit portions of everything to try to provide ground for their stance. Both have no basic understanding of laws, either founding laws or current laws.


My dear MacaroniMan, is it wrong to hold out hope that one day the blind will see? That an epiphany of knowledge may one day wash over those, who's ignorance, causes them to wrongly and unjustifiably present falsehoods as fact?

Can their be the miracle of moral salvation when, in an avalanche of evidence they climb to the highest point and proclaim, 'Yay, though I walked through the Valley of the Shadow of Purposeful Obtuseness I shall fear nor firearms! For thy logic, it comforts me and maketh me realize I have been lead astray by those who wish to perpetrate a fraud by perverting the words of the Constitution."

Can this happen?


No need to reply, it was a rhetorical question and I already know the answer.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   
I can't believe this, I mean, I really can't believe this.

You all are saying that they aren't enforcing the laws on the books, and when legislation comes up to do just that, you argue against it.

Really? All the deaths, all the failure to perform background checks, and you argue against your own god damned point.

How messed up is that?



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
You all are saying that they aren't enforcing the laws on the books, and when legislation comes up to do just that, you argue against it.


How does lobbying against additional legislation prevent law enforcement from pursuing current legislation?



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok



All the deaths

How many people do you know personally that died from gunshot wounds?

Wouldn't you save more people if you lobbied for legislation requiring all of us to wear helmets 24 hours a day? You know, to protect us from head injuries related to falls.

Or-
Why don't you get a law passed that makes heroin illegal.... no wait.... you don't have to do that it already is illegal. They why do thousands die from heroin OD's every year???
Maybe because the laws don't work???



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

I see the issue.


You don't have an understanding of enforcement and creation.


You see, creation is making laws.

Enforcement is the mechanism to which those laws are applied.

The mechanism does not work fully, so those laws are not being enforced.


Is this something that you can understand now??



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join