Mark Kelly Warns: Don't filibuster gun control

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


Have you ever purchased a firearm in the US before?
If not, let me walk you through it..
Once you decide on your firearm of choice, the shop attendee hands you a piece of paper with a big list of questions, regarding mental history and criminal history, among other things. After you've checked/signed/dated everything, the attendee will ask for your drivers license and then have a background check on you.
Once you're cleared, you can pay for the firearm and walk out.
So how does a "universal" background check change anything when we already have background checks?

The administration didn't expect the Semi auto AR15 and Magazines ban to work when they proposed it and (knowing it would fail) they proposed the background checks, using the Magazine/rifle ban as a buffer to the background check proposal, which is anyones guess what that really means since, again, we already have background checks.
Not sure if you can grasp the concept, though.




posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by kx12x
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


Have you ever purchased a firearm in the US before?
If not, let me walk you through it..
Once you decide on your firearm of choice, the shop attendee hands you a piece of paper with a big list of questions, regarding mental history and criminal history, among other things. After you've checked/signed/dated everything, the attendee will ask for your drivers license and then have a background check on you.
Once you're cleared, you can pay for the firearm and walk out.
So how does a "universal" background check change anything when we already have background checks?

The administration didn't expect the Semi auto AR15 and Magazines ban to work when they proposed it and (knowing it would fail) they proposed the background checks, using the Magazine/rifle ban as a buffer to the background check proposal, which is anyones guess what that really means since, again, we already have background checks.
Not sure if you can grasp the concept, though.


A lot of people don't understand the current background check system. Most people have no clue what is involved in purchasing a gun, it's not like you walk in to Walmart pick out your gun, then check out.

This admin knows that an outright ban will not work, so they will slowly etch their way there. Like I had stated previously, it'll start out modest, as a feel good measure, then when it's time for the handlers to cash in, they may use more heavy handed tactics. They are currently trying to keep the ammo supply exhausted so they can try and stem the flow, and hopefully discourage people from stocking up.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
I have this crazy theory. This is ATS after all.

I think maybe, possibly, that this whole thing might be a charade, between the "lawmakers" and the Gun Industry to SELL MORE GUNS!!!

What do we want? What we 'cant' have. How do we get it? By any means necessary, or by opening our wallets/purses.

Maybe there is a card up the sleeve for times to come for the residents of this great country, to defend. Defend from what? I leave that to speculation.

Lets be honest here, if they were to outlaw guns today, totally, they would have a hell of a task to try to confiscate whats already out there and quite possibly the bloodiest battle ever known to man. I firmly believe that if their was a gun confiscation, it would be brutal! I live in a state that for sure it would be brutal.

We already have ATF background checks in place and I am all for keeping firearms out of the hands of irresponsible people, mentally ill, and violent felons. But face the facts, they still get them.

So lets look at some figures...


In the four years since Barack Obama was first elected president in November 2008, an estimated 67 million firearms have been purchased in the United States.

source


Number of Privately Owned Firearms

The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,000


(I highly doubt this is even close to accurate as in waaaay low)


Rate of Civilian Firearm Possession per 100 Population

The rate of private gun ownership in the United States is 88.82 firearms per 100 people



Number of Military Firearms

The defence forces of the United States are reported to have 3,054,553 firearms



Number of Law Enforcement Firearms

Police in the United States are reported to have 1,150,000 firearms


Now to the meat.


In the United States, annual deaths resulting from firearms total
2011: 32,1635
2010: 31,6726
2009: 31,347 2
008: 31,593
2007: 31,224
2006: 30,896
2005: 30,694
2004: 29,569
2003: 30,136
2002: 30,242
2001: 29,573
2000: 28,663
1999: 28,874



In the United States, annual firearm homicides total
2011: 11,1015
2010: 11,0786
2009: 11,4936
2008: 12,179
2007: 12,632
2006: 12,791
2005: 12,352
2004: 11,624
2003: 11,920
2002: 11,8296
2001: 11,348
2000: 10,8016
1999: 10,8286 8



In the United States, annual handgun homicides total
2011: 6,220
2010: 6,115
2009: 6,501
2008: 6,800
2007: 7,398
2006: 997
2005: 1,074
2004: 1,011
2003: 1,011
2002: 1,024
2001: 1,014
2000: 1,068
1999: 1,082



In the United States, annual long gun homicides total
2011: 679
2010: 733
2009: 774
2008: 822
2007: 910
2006: 768
2005: 765
2004: 714
2003: 687
2002: 744
2001: 758
2000: 694
1999: 693



In the United States, annual firearm suicides total
2011: 19,7665
2010: 19,3926
2009: 18,735
2008: 18,223
2007: 17,352
2006: 16,883
2005: 17,0026
2004: 16,7506
2003: 16,907
2002: 17,108
2001: 16,8696
21 2000: 16,5866
1999: 16,599

source

So in the end, GUN SUICIDE is the highest on the list. True, it would make it harder for one to take their own life without guns but they will find another way to end their wretched lives. Don't make these people be the cause of our losing our RIGHT to bear arms!



A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


P.S. Buy more guns!


edit on 1-4-2013 by ElleLachyme because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Dont filibuster or?

Kelley will straw purchase a few more AR's and sick his dog on another baby seal?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ElleLachyme
 


Oh it's a clear fact that there is money to be made off of this from both sides of the isle, but the important thing is that they don't actually outright ban our right to bear arms, because if they did this, it would definitely deal a significant blow to the industry..

The possibility is there that the industry is working both sides of the isle, but I don't really care as I can still posses a tool that can be used in many different aspects. Thanks for your alternative input, much appreciated



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by eXia7
 


The problem our country has with guns is that they have ignored the mental health issue for many many years. We have become a pill society in that docs would rather prescribe a pill and send someone home due to the kickbacs from big pharma. It works fine while they are planning and acting sane then BANG one day they snap and decide to kill on a massive scale. Outlaw guns they will do it with knives, outlaw knives they will do it with clubs, etc. Mental health is the issue period. They have overlooked the corrective action for years and just want to jump on the bandwagon to get re-elected. I agree with universal background checks and hate what happened to his wife but this whole discussion is going in the wrong direction.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by undertheraydar
reply to post by eXia7
 


The problem our country has with guns is that they have ignored the mental health issue for many many years. We have become a pill society in that docs would rather prescribe a pill and send someone home due to the kickbacs from big pharma. It works fine while they are planning and acting sane then BANG one day they snap and decide to kill on a massive scale. Outlaw guns they will do it with knives, outlaw knives they will do it with clubs, etc. Mental health is the issue period. They have overlooked the corrective action for years and just want to jump on the bandwagon to get re-elected. I agree with universal background checks and hate what happened to his wife but this whole discussion is going in the wrong direction.


Yeah, it would be nice if all of these politicians had to submit a mental health evaluation quarterly, I wouldn't oppose this kind of measure. Mental health is a huge issue here, and like you said, doctors just push drugs for big pharma.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   

According to Kelly, if Paul, Cruz, Lee, Rubio, and Inhofe follow through with this opposition they will be held accountable by their constituents.


Damn right Im holding my senator accountable. (Cruz). I voted for him because he said he would defend the 2nd Amendment and that's what he's doing. If he keeps this up, I'll definantly be voting for him again.

Im guessing pretty much everyone who voted for Cruz and the other senators are cheering them on for this filibuster. (I guess Mr. Kelley forgot that people actually voted for these senators because one of their positions is that they defend the 2nd Amendment).

....I also have to wonder, does Kelley remember what happened after the ban in the early 90's? (Maybe Kelley just wants a Republican controlled Congress?)



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by eXia7
 


He is becoming somewhat of an outlandish character in reality. The guy is a complete shill, and he'll use the tragic incident that happened with his wife as leverage in the debate. That's why I said he would make a great puppet to push the agenda.

he reminds me of a certain Brady character, only the male version

i wonder if he remembers his wife's speeches regarding the 2nd, before the incident ?


If senators such as Rand, Lee, Cruz keep fighting, Hopefully we can gain momentum
if our representatives were actually representing the People, there should be no momentum necessary.

as for Giffords, she lost me when she voted for Pelosi (first vote)
her husband's decision to work rather be with her during her most trying moments left an impression i hope to never experience.

imho, at this point, they both should be ignored by the media hounds and evaluated for their criminal tendencies.

ps ... in case i'm called out ... here's a link ... Gabby Watch ... and another for good measure ... one citizen speaking

the really sad thing is all the time wasted on such a filibuster when they COULD be addressing real issues.

for such a complete waste of limited resources, they should all be re-called and replaced.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by kx12x
 

that's about it too, unless you have a "permit" already.
i've often wondered why it should be more difficult for law-abiding citizens to get them, as that makes -0- sense whatsoever.

however, i would like to add to this sentence ...

Once you're cleared, you can pay for the firearm and walk out.
it should be said, YOU, the buyer/consumer walks out without the weapon in hand.

purchasers who are not 'permitted' must abide by a 'waiting/cooling-off' period (thanks Brady BS) before they can 'claim' their purchase in person.

so, that requires more gas, more time and more effort to actually obtain what you've already paid for and been approved to receive ... what a crock of BS for a law-abiding citizen to endure.
how difficult is it again to buy one 'on the street' ???

oh yeah, regarding the MK person, he was also trying to complete a purchase outside of his resident state, which is also frowned upon and could legally entangle the seller.
a turd smells better than this guy ... these acts of his are so slimy and downright subversive that he should be charged but since he's a media darling (like that pundit fool in DC) it'll be flushed and forgotten.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by eXia7
 


Oh nooooooes??

What the hell are we gonna do now??



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
It needs to be filbusted why does a person need to ask permission to own a firearm?

Really someone explain it to me?

Background check did not stop the Newton shooter, Didn't stop the Columbine shooters.

So again why?


Correct. Adam Landza passed a background check.
edit on 2-4-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by neo96

Really someone explain it to me?
I'll try, but not sure if you will Grasp the Concept.

There are a Lot of Americans walking around who are a Few Nuggets short of a Six-pack.
Background checks will help stop some of these folks from attaining Firearms.
Is it Foolproof , of course not, But it will some some of them.
Of course we could go the other Route, and Ban all Firearm Sales.
Would that suit you better.




So you said it yourself, this is a MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE. Then, why is it that your Liberal gods wish to ignore and bury this issue?



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

proof please ??

Correct. Adam Landza passed a background check.

i'm curious how or where he did that when he isn't old enough to legally purchase a handgun.
Lanza age was reported to be 20.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

proof please ??

Correct. Adam Landza passed a background check.

i'm curious how or where he did that when he isn't old enough to legally purchase a handgun.
Lanza age was reported to be 20.


Handgun laws are much stricter than rifle and shotgun laws. And an AR isn't a handgun.

Cho, Holmes, and Laughner passed BG checks also. Expanded BG checks wouldn't have prevented Virginia Tech, Aurora, Sandy Hook, or AZ shootings.

edit on 2-4-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

your answer is "proof" how exactly ?

Handgun laws are much stricter than rifle and shotgun laws. And an AR isn't a handgun.

while the above is true, what proof are you offering that Lanza completed a BG at any dealer, was approved or purchased and took possession of any weapon, legally ?

as for the AR, the one supposedly found in the trunk ??
what proof is there that Lanza bought, owned or used it ?

i'm not in favor of BG checks, (any of them) so, what makes you think i might be ?
ps ... it was reported that he shot himself with a "handgun" ... that's why i ask.
edit on 2-4-2013 by Honor93 because: add ps

oh and btw, ppl don't complete BG checks without making a purchase, unless applying for a carry permit. so, what was Lanza's purchase again ??

if you suggest the AR, then back to the original question, where did he get it or who sold it to him ?? if there was a lawful sale, there is a record, period.
edit on 2-4-2013 by Honor93 because: add txt



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
It needs to be filbusted why does a person need to ask permission to own a firearm?

Really someone explain it to me?

Background check did not stop the Newton shooter, Didn't stop the Columbine shooters.

So again why?


So you think that it would be ok for someone to walk out of prison and be able to buy a gun?



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by neo96
It needs to be filbusted why does a person need to ask permission to own a firearm?

Really someone explain it to me?

Background check did not stop the Newton shooter, Didn't stop the Columbine shooters.

So again why?


So you think that it would be ok for someone to walk out of prison and be able to buy a gun?


I think you are splitting hairs at this point. I don't think any sane person will want a convicted violent criminal to get their hands on a firearm. But it doesn't matter, there are measures in place to stop criminals from getting them legally anyway. But the moral of the story is, criminals can still get firearms, that still isn't a good enough reason for us to just submit to this admin's will.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 

if he/she is a FREE individual, why should they be restricted ?
laws aren't designed to appease your or my 'feelings' ... if you 'feel' an x-con is too violent/unstable to own a weapon, why are they walking/living amongst us ??

and, since they are living/walking amongst us, why should they have any less protection than the next guy ??
and lastly, what business is it of yours anyway ?

you worry about you and yours and give the next guy room to do the same, ok ?

edit to add -- nothing in the proposed or passed laws restricts criminals from getting firearms ... how do you propose we achieve such a lofty goal ?
edit on 2-4-2013 by Honor93 because: add txt



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by undertheraydar
reply to post by eXia7
 


The problem our country has with guns is that they have ignored the mental health issue for many many years. We have become a pill society in that docs would rather prescribe a pill and send someone home due to the kickbacs from big pharma. It works fine while they are planning and acting sane then BANG one day they snap and decide to kill on a massive scale. Outlaw guns they will do it with knives, outlaw knives they will do it with clubs, etc. Mental health is the issue period. They have overlooked the corrective action for years and just want to jump on the bandwagon to get re-elected. I agree with universal background checks and hate what happened to his wife but this whole discussion is going in the wrong direction.
Ummm....The largest overarching statistic...is that allot of these pills prescribed for depression etc...CAUSE...suicidal and homicidal ideation. I can almost gaurantee you that if there were an "unbiased" study, you will find a direct correlation to suicidal/homicidal ideation coupled with SSRI prescribed medications and acting out the ideation...

These are the dots, and there is the connection...Bullying or ostracising, followed by Depression, followed by prescription of SSRI medication, followed by suicide or homicide...Homocide enacted in the setting of the original ostracising, in an attempt to wipeout the source/sources, before eventual suicide...

YouSir






top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join