Gabby Gifford, Families of New Town

by free2beme 86 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  free2beme

  STOP being a tool for an agenda!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What happened to you was terrible, but seeing you used as a tool for a political agenda is like watching you get raped without knowing it. We believe guns hurt and killed people you care about, but we also belileve these people had mental illness. You do not attack rights, and call it common sense solutions and everyone else knows they are tools and falsehoods. Stop being tools! Stop allowing yourself to be used! Hope life goes better for you, but stop!

  This is how I feel and wish someone would tell these people this.
• 

  Berengaria

  Can you explain exactly how this legislation would have attacked rights?
• 

  BizzyBee

  These people - victims - have a right to express themselves. What gives you the right to dismiss and ridicule their pain?
• 

  DaCheech

  Some people can't come to terms that there are TRULY EVIL people out there, these people will do havoc with any tool they can get their hands on
• 

  Berengaria

  And?
• 

  BizzyBee

  Freetobe, BTW, 90 percent of the American people disagree with you.
• 

  soontobe

  Can you explain exactly how this legislation would have attacked rights?

  It would violate due process rights and privacy concerns, for starters.

  By the way, that 90% figure is bogus. You can get what you want in a poll depending on how you phrase a question. Seriously, when do you ever get 90% of people to agree on anything? That should be a clue bat that there's some deception going on.

  Furthermore,

  http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-only-4-americans-think-gun-control-important-problem

  Gallup: Only 4% of Americans Think Gun Control is an Important Problem

  Reid has pulled the bill.

  
• 

  sammielee24

  That's the most ridiculous pile of crud I've heard spewed in a while - once again - NOBODY is taking away your guns - NOBODY is taking away the second ammendment - common sense change is better background checks. Pastor Rick Warren's son just committed suicide - he bought his gun online - suffered severe prolonged depression for years and most likely under better background checks, his mental illness would not have allowed the purchase.

  Why do YOU have a problem with a background check? Do you think that a man who has raped a woman and spent a few years in prison should be able to walk in and get a gun at a gun show without anyone having to check his records? Do you think that a man who has been charged with domestic violence has a right to just walk in and buy a gun without any problems - even though he tried to choke his wife to death, gave her a few broken ribs and some black eyes? You think that's okay? You think that a woman who committed Elder abuse while working in the hospital should be able to walk in and pick up a gun wherever and whenever she wants? How about the guy that just violently assaulted the little boy down the street? You think his RIGHT to walk into any store or any gunshow or put a gun in his cart on the internet - his rights shouldn't be taken away in favor of more violence of any kind against a kid?

  If a universal background would stop all of the above from buying a weapon, then what is the problem with that? That's called common sense. The people who are being used in all this are those that support better background checks but who are political pawns between a minority of gun activists with money and their elected officials who want that money to back them in the next election.

  I don't know how anyone can argue against the universal background checks. To say otherwise means you are quite willing and actually advocate letting any person who has committed a violent act, no matter how bad, how sick, how perverse - continue on having some sort of obscene 'right' to purchase a weapon and quite possibly use it to committ another, possibly more horrific act of violence. In no way was this taking a gun away - it means perhaps not allowing someone who has committed a violent act or mentally ill - an open door to a cache of weapons used to kill. sammieswife
• 

  sooner7nc

  There should be measures to make sure that people that have tables, but no FFL, at gun shows can't sell guns without a background check.

  The Authorities should prosecute those who lie on a firearms purchase form (4473).

  Every one of us who own guns should make sure that our guns are secured and ought to suffer the consequences if their guns aren't secured and are used to harm someone.

  Mag limits and demonizing of certain features on guns does nothing positive however. It doesn't deter crime and makes many gun owners refuse to budge on this issue because it reeks of gun grabbing.

  What gives you the right to dismiss and ridicule their pain? That amendment before the second one.
• 

  sammielee24

  STB - here's another poll specifically on background checks -

  -----

  Universal background checks on gun buyers are favored by 92 percent of Americans, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll released Thursday.

  Support for the plan crosses demographics, with those in favor including 93 percent of gun households, 89 percent of Republicans, and 85 percent of households with NRA members.

  The poll was taken before President Barack Obama's press conference Wednesday, when he called for background checks, among a host of other gun control reforms.

  "The only way we can change is if the American people demand it," Obama said. "We are going to need voices in those areas and congressional districts where the tradition of gun ownership is strong."

  Surveys by Pew and ABC News/The Washington Post earlier this week also found broad, bipartisan support for background checks, which polled far ahead of other gun control measures that would limit types of weapons or ammunition. The sentiment that gun laws are too weak is at a 12-year high, according to Gallup, but remains under 40 percent.

  The CBS News/New York Times poll also found that three-quarters of Americans think armed security guards would reduce mass shootings, with little difference across party lines. About a third said more guards would do a lot to reduce shootings, while a quarter thought they would do nothing at all.

  The poll surveyed 1,110 adults by phone between Jan. 11 and Jan. 15, with a 3 percent margin of error.