Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: gun trafficing law - may help a bit

Posted 1 year ago on March 5, 2013, 1:46 p.m. EST by ericweiss (575)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy unveiled a new bipartisan proposal on gun trafficking on Monday, the Vermont Democrat’s office announced.

The legislation, sought by big-city mayors and sponsored by Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), will also have support from Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), giving it bipartisan cover other gun-control proposals lack. The trafficking bill is considered easier to pass than universal background checks, where the central legislative action on gun control in the Senate remains focused. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) has yet to agree with Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Kirk on a background checks provision requiring private gun sellers maintain sales records.

The Judiciary Committee will hold a markup Thursday in which Leahy’s measure will be considered, along with an assault weapons ban amendment to be offered by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). And some Republican senators are trying to slow walk the proceedings by offering a slew of amendments to the Democratic gun bills.

Schumer, Manchin and Coburn have tried — unsuccessfully to this point — to reach an accord on background checks. But Coburn remains opposed to a key provision requiring private sellers to retain records, and it’s uncertain whether an agreement can be reached.

Schumer now plans to reintroduce a background checks proposal without any GOP backers in time for for Thursday’s markup in Judiciary, and the panel is expected to approve that bill. He and Manchin will then search for another Republican to sign onto a compromise proposal.

But failing to get Coburn’s backing is a blow to Senate Democrats and President Barack Obama, who has led the push for new gun-control measures in the wake of the Newtown shooting.

People involved in the negotiations believe that with Coburn on board, Republicans like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and others would back the bill. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said to “count me in” to anything with Coburn’s seal of approval.


NOTE - beware any gun control language - "ban" has generally meant no sales or manufacture - so if you OWN 8 AR15s you are safe


52 Comments

52 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

The gun violence I'm concerned with is that which is happening in Afghanistan and Mexico.

Violence done by our own soldiers in the name of the "War on Terror" and in Mexico as a result of the "War on Drugs".

[-] 1 points by Narley (531) 1 year ago

“NOTE - beware any gun control language - "ban" has generally meant no sales or manufacture - so if you OWN 8 AR15s you are safe”

This is a ban over time, maybe a generation or two. Since the current AR’s and AK’s can’t be transferred or passed on to other it means the gun will die with you.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Banning is not enough. Gun owners need to voluntarily destroy their own guns.

[-] 0 points by Narley (531) 1 year ago

Yea, like that's gonna happen.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

That is the only way gun violence will cease.

[-] 1 points by Narley (531) 1 year ago

You could be right. But it's still not going to happen.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

The Law of Attraction is a powerful thing though. :D

[-] 1 points by Narley (531) 1 year ago

?? You lost me. The point is the 2nd Amendment isn't going away; and people won't give up their guns.

I understand you don't like guns; and that's your right. Just like it's peoples right to own guns. Face it, your pissing in the wind.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I can still think positively! :D

[-] -2 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

So honest law abiding citizens should be punished and give up their constitutional right because of some insane criminals?

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Yup! But in my opinion all gun owners are criminally insane. ;)

[-] 0 points by Narley (531) 1 year ago

So how did you arrive at such a conclution?

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Why have a gun if you don't intend on using it to something or someone?

[-] 2 points by Narley (531) 1 year ago

You are right. If someone is trying to kill me or someone else I will protect myself. To do otherwise would be insane.

Insanity is thinking taking guns from laws abiding citizens will solve gun crime.

[-] -1 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

I'm guessing you're being sarcastic.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Nope. :)

You are delusional paranoid if you own a gun in preparation for the impending attempt on you life and or the impending rape on you.

Gun owners are the problem. Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

[-] 0 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

That is probably the stupidest thing I have ever heard. You are saying it is wrong to own a gun even for the possible defense of you're own life. Say that to the people who have had their lives saved by guns.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

They'd probably shoot me. ;)

[-] 0 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

You don't know what you're talking about and you are just blind. Vaprosvyeh is right.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I'd rather be blind and have perfect hearing than have blurry vision.

[-] 0 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

What would you say to people who have saved their own lives and the lives if their own family's using guns?

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

"Why did someone feel the need to harm you? And why was your first reaction to use violence?"

That.

[-] 0 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

So pretty much you're saying that it is their fault that someone decided to mug them, rape them, or rob their house.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

no I was just asking questions. I did not make any accusations. You asked what I would 'say'.

[-] -3 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

"You are delusional paranoid if you own a gun in preparation for the impending attempt on you life and or the impending rape on you."

You are just plain delusional if you think that because you don't own a gun no one will every make an attempt on your life or try to rape you.

"Gun owners are the problem. Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people."

I don't see you saying anywhere "Knife owners are the problem. Knives don't kill people, people who own knives kill people" or "Blunt object owners are the problem. Blunt objects don't kill people, people who own blunt objects kill people." And more people get killed every year by people with cars, knives, blunt objects, ladders, and bodily weapons (hands, feet, etc) than die due to people with guns. It's almost like you really don't give a flying fig about how many people die at all....just the people who die from GUNS.

As I tried to copy your sentence structure I noticed something too. You said "Gun OWNERS are the problem" and then said "Guns don't kill people, people WITH guns kill people". Why the change?

It's almost like even you know that statistically speaking, the vast majority of gun OWNERS have never shot and killed anyone? That most gun crimes that result in death are done by people who did not OWN the gun used in the crime?

It's almost like YOU KNOW that people who want to kill people are the problem, and that such people will use whatever they can as a weapon to accomplish that desire. At least gun owners only want to kill the people who decided to hurt or kill them first.

[-] 2 points by satohirona (-20) 1 year ago

Gun owners who buy guns to protect their families kill or hurt their families more often than they kill or hurt intruders. Statistically speaking, the best protection you can offer your family is to not buy a gun.

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_9747969

A short quote from the article:

Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater.

[-] -1 points by Narley (531) 1 year ago

OK, enough of this babble. Allow me to put this in terms you should be able to understand.

I have a legal right o own guns. I have a legal right to carry a gun. I have a legal right to shoot anyone who is trying to harm me or others.

Your opinions on guns and gun owners are irrelevant. They don’t matter. You can espouse your gun phobia all you want and I’ll still keep my guns. Is that clear enough?

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Stop with the spin.

1)There is ZERO in that article that even remotely backs up your statement that "gun owners who buy guns to protect their families" are responsible for killing or hurting their families more often than they kill or hurt intruders!

2) There's a reason we have different words for suicide and homicide.

3) The mysterious "health studies" done by the supposed "experts" are not linked to, and all the article really does is imply that killing yourself with a gun is the preferred method of choice because it's the most lethal.

These are my favorite kind of quotes used as if they mean something:

"Studies have also shown that homes in which a suicide occurred were three to five times as likely to have a gun present as households that did not experience a suicide, even after accounting for other risk factors."

Using the above logic, what if we could demonstrate that every single home in which a suicide occurred was ALSO three to five times as likely to have a cat present as households that did not experience a suicide? If cats weren't counted as a "risk factor" in the study...then who knows?

What the article IGNORES is that while 17,050 firearm suicides took place in homes in the US in 2005, and 3-5 times more of those took place in homes where there were guns present as opposed to in homes where no gun was present, millions and millions of suicides DID NOT TAKE PLACE in OTHER homes in which guns (and/or cats) are present all the time.

[-] 2 points by satohirona (-20) 1 year ago

http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2013/01/09/2009-university-study-gun-owners-4-46-times-more-likely-to-be-shot-in-an-assault-than-those-not-in-possession/

Guns owners are 4.46 times more likely to get shot in an assault than those not in possession.


Guns are for men who like to hold hard phallus shaped objects in one hand while they imagine themselves as all powerful heroes shooting other people. It's a form of public masturbation that machos like to use. Some buy corvettes, others buy guns. In all cases, these men have small penises and need to find compensation in material objects.


Using the above logic, what if we could demonstrate that every single home in which a suicide occurred was ALSO three to five times as likely to have a cat present as households that did not experience a suicide? If cats weren't counted as a "risk factor" in the study...then who knows?

Your calling out a correlation without causation logical fallacy. None exist because the guns we are talking about are what caused the suicides. There is direct causation. Your cat analogy falls flat because they have no causation in relation to the suicides. Unless you can show they pulled the trigger?

What the article IGNORES is that while 17,050 firearm suicides took place in homes in the US in 2005, and 3-5 times more of those took place in homes where there were guns present as opposed to in homes where no gun was present, millions and millions of suicides DID NOT TAKE PLACE in OTHER homes in which guns (and/or cats) are present all the time.

That doesn't matter. What the research shows is if you own a gun you greatly increase the chance of your family getting hurt. Buying a gun to protect your family does not work, it has the opposite effect. It endangers your family.

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

I'm sorry. A gun study done on a specific time period (2003-2006) on a specific demographic (people living in Philadelphia) in which half the participants were selected BECAUSE they had already BEEN shot during an assault can't possibly produce a whole lot of scientific findings that can be responsibly applied anywhere outside of that study.


Please provide scientific proof or evidence to support your arguments regarding guns and men, public masturbation and machos, and penis size vs compensation or I'll be forced to call them all the worst use of logical fallacies here to date. And that's saying a LOT.


"Your calling out a correlation without causation logical fallacy."

YES! I called out just ONE of the many used in this article

"None exist because the guns we are talking about are what caused the suicides. There is direct causation."

Um...nope....you ASSUME it's the guns the article talks about that caused the suicides this statement addresses. Which just proves my point about how articles like this make you ASSUME certain things when in fact they don't actually SAY what you assume they do.

The quote (read it again) does NOT say that the suicides were caused by GUNS. It does NOT say "gun-related suicides". It simply states that "homes in which a suicide occurred were three to five times as likely to have a gun present as households that did not experience a suicide, even after accounting for other risk factors."

See, here's the paragraph before the one I used previously, ALSO a stupid statement to make-

"Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater."

WOW! Really? The "likelihood"??? They had to do research to conclude that? I conclude that in homes where natural gas is present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from fire or gas poisoning is much greater than in homes without natural gas present. And no research required!


"That doesn't matter. What the research shows is if you own a gun you greatly increase the chance of your family getting hurt. Buying a gun to protect your family does not work, it has the opposite effect. It endangers your family."

There is NO research shown in this article. Just mere mentions of it being done. So any ASSUMPTIONS made based on this article are not "proof" of anything other than naivete.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Really? I have got to get out to the range more often!

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Violence is always wrong and never justified. On top of that, violence is extremely ineffective.

Violence rarely prevents violence from happening in the first place.

[-] 1 points by satohirona (-20) 1 year ago

Violence rarely prevents violence from happening in the first place.

Rarely? As soon as you use violence to prevent violence you created violence. You should have said - "Violence guarantees that violence won't be prevented from happening in the first place."

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

THAT......,was sarcasm.... :)

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

"Violence is always wrong and never justified."

According to you. Everyone else has the right to disagree with your definition of violence and what is or is not justified.

"On top of that, violence is extremely ineffective."

Depends on what the violence is attempting to accomplish don't you think? I'd think that repeat criminals find it VERY effective or they wouldn't use it.

"Violence rarely prevents violence from happening in the first place."

Again, completely subjective. Just the THREAT of violence alone prevents violence from happening all the time. "I'm calling the police" can make violent people leave your home". A large, snarling, hungry dog often prevents violence from happening. Hell, I brush my teeth like a pro because the threat of the drills and pain and violence from my dentist is extremely effective.

And according to statistical reports, drawing a gun or defending oneself physically is extremely effective in preventing all kinds of things from happening.

(Yes, I realize that it's hard to know if it prevented actual violence or not because the people driven off by the self defense measures rarely come back and admit that their original intentions were violent, but I'll keep brushing my teeth even if I can't prove my dentist as violent intentions.)

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

"THREAT of violence alone prevents violence from happening all the time." -Subjective and very hard to prove. I can find far more instance where the threat of violence did NOT deter more violence from happening.

Violence almost always causes more violence and does not fix any underlying problems that may have lead to the use of violence in the first place.

[-] 0 points by Micah (-58) 1 year ago

Violence( the allies ) stopped Hitler from further violence against humanity

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Violence caused Hitler to come to power in the first place and violence used against Hitler caused the Cold War and by extendtion the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Grenada Invasion, the occupation of Afghanistan by both the USSR and the USA, among most other international violent conflicts where the US participated.

Non-violence would have prevented Hitler from coming to power in the first place.

[-] 0 points by Micah (-58) 1 year ago

Chamberlin did the "peace in our time " thing. It didn't work, talk doesnt work with bullies of any kind. The only way to deal with hitler was to kill him and destroy his armies.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Chamberlain used a Passive approach, I would have advocated for a non violent revolt against hitler. Don't appease evil.

You can fight without violence.

[-] -1 points by Micah (-58) 1 year ago

Chamberlain gave hitler land in exchange for peace. didnt work. A non violent revolt against hitler ? very funny,......those " revolting "would have been murderd or rounded up and sent to the camps and killed there.

[-] 2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Better dead than to be a murderer

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

It is the underlying problems that lead to violence that will always lead to violence. Guns don't cause it. Knives don't cause it. Bullets don't cause it.

And when you've solved those problems, I'll be the first in line to destroy my guns and maybe even my knives if you can find something to replace their function in my kitchen, garage, and workshop. But until then, I'm going to use whatever means I deem necessary to protect myself and my loved ones from that violence if it ever enters OUR HOME.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

The problem is that people are afraid of freedom. People are afraid of the unknown. Americans will continue to be oppressed as long as the violent are allowed to continue to rule with impunity over those who love freedom.

[-] 0 points by Narley (531) 1 year ago

Speak for yourself. I’m not afraid of freedom. I embrace it. I’m not afraid of the unknown. Why should I be? Americans aren’t oppressed; at least in the way you mean it.

Peace is just another name for prosperity. Violence is a natural human trait. Sometime people have to protect themselves from those would do them harm. It’s rational and logical.

Those who love freedom understand it is worth fighting for. Peace.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

"Those who love freedom understand it is worth fighting for. Peace."

You can fight without violence.

Does Micah understand that?

[-] -1 points by Micah (-58) 1 year ago

Cabret does not understand that concept.

[-] -3 points by Micah (-58) 1 year ago

What don't you understand about the second amendment?

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I want it repealed. What do you not understand about article 5?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by brady (-5) 1 year ago

It is time to change the Constitution. The 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th amendments must go. So must Posse Comitatus. The only people who should have guns is the government.

[Removed]