HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Biden Is Back for a 2nd R...

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 12:40 AM

Biden Is Back for a 2nd Run at Gun Limits

Never much known for restraint, Joseph R. Biden Jr. did not hold back during a presidential primary debate in 2007 when a voter asking about gun rights in a recorded video displayed a fearsome-looking semiautomatic rifle and declared, “This is my baby.”

Mr. Biden, then a Delaware senator in a dark-horse bid for the White House, shook his head. “I tell you what, if that’s his baby, he needs help,” he said. “I think he just made an admission against self-interest. I don’t know if he’s mentally qualified to own that gun.”

(snip)
A president intent on pressing Congress to restrict access to high-powered guns could hardly find a more seasoned figure to take charge of the effort. Mr. Biden, who owns two shotguns, brings decades of experience and plenty of scar tissue from past battles with the National Rifle Association to frame recommendations that Mr. Obama wants ready by next month.

(snip)
“He’s basically been doing this for a little over 30 years,” said former Senator Ted Kaufman of Delaware, a longtime Biden adviser who was appointed to fill out his term. “I really do believe there isn’t anybody in America who has a better chance of getting this done by Jan. 15 than he does, not just because of his background in guns but because he’s not politically intimidated by the N.R.A., to put it mildly.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/us/politics/newtown-task-force-returns-biden-to-gun-control-arena.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

33 replies, 3387 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 33 replies Author Time Post
Reply Biden Is Back for a 2nd Run at Gun Limits (Original post)
cal04 Dec 2012 OP
Jenoch Dec 2012 #1
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #2
Jenoch Dec 2012 #3
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #5
krispos42 Dec 2012 #8
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #10
krispos42 Dec 2012 #18
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #25
krispos42 Dec 2012 #28
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #30
krispos42 Dec 2012 #31
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #32
krispos42 Dec 2012 #29
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #33
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #9
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #4
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #14
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #15
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #23
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #6
Jenoch Dec 2012 #7
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #11
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #16
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #19
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #20
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #21
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #22
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #24
Jenoch Dec 2012 #26
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #27
The Straight Story Dec 2012 #12
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #13
Kingofalldems Dec 2012 #17

Response to cal04 (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 01:30 AM

1. What is interesting about that 2007 debate

is Biden claiming credit for the 1994 AWB AFTER the guy from Michigan shows his fearsome looking assault weapon that he purchased when the AWB was in place.

http://www.the-coli.com/higher-learning/71045-joe-biden-bill-richardson-gun-control-2007-debate.html#.UN_ea_h5nTo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 01:49 AM

2. that isn't interesting in the least why bother typing it? it makes no sense.

how could he claim credit BEFORE the guy shows it?

wtf?

the guy is a psycho. joe makes him look bad. and?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 01:55 AM

3. Huh? Did you waych the video?

After the guy shows off his 'baby', Bill Richardson answers the question and the Joe Biden does. What are you talking about?

My point is the guy bought the assault weapon while the 1994 AWB was law. Biden wrote the law. It didn't work. Now do you understand?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 10:27 AM

5. yes

i get it, but-

i wouldn't believe the guy- first of all, that was obviously an attempt at being "shocking", but ended up looking lame.

so the guy is saying "this is my big baby gun, and your law can't and didn't take it away"

but he didn't even say if he'd bought it legally or not, or where, so who knows? maybe he bought it from his neighbor the illegal gun dealer? he looks full of crap to me, personally. i have little respect for people like that.

so you're saying the law was not extensive enough?

still confused

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:58 AM

8. An "assault weapon" is determined by secondary features.

The 1994 AWB defined, for example, a rifle as an assault weapon if it a) semi-automatic in operation, b) fed from a detachable magazine, and c) had two or more features from a list. The list included, among other things, protruding pistol grips, folding/telescoping buttstocks and bayonet-mounting lugs.


So, take an AR-15. It's semi-automatic with a protruding pistol grip and is fed from a detachable magazine. Let's say it also has a telescoping stock and a bayonet lug.

You need to make it compliant with the AWB. What do you do?

Grind off the bayonet lug and unscrew the telescoping stock and replace it with fixed one. Do that, it magically stops being an "assault weapon", and can thus be bought and sold legally, even during the ban.



This is a Ruger Mini-14. It is a semiautomatic rifle fed from a detachable magazine. As supplied by Ruger, it is not an assault weapon. It has none of the secondary features on the list (you're allowed 1, remember)



Now, let's removed the factory wooden stock and replace it with an after-market black plastic stock that has a protruding pistol grim and folding stock. Well, now it's an assault weapon, by definition under the law. It has 2 features on the list now. Uh-oh...



Okay, now that's bad. So let's ship that stock back to the vendor and buy a black plastic stock that has a protruding pistol grip but a fixed (not folding) stock. Voila! Once again, it's not a assault weapon! It has 1 and only 1 item on the list.





So the gun still looks "military" or "tactical", and definitely not "sporting" or "traditional", but it's legal to sell under the assault weapons ban.


Does that help?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:03 AM

10. secondary features is the problem, then! thanks!

i knew that, but the pics make it even more obvious-

the characteristics don't really matter that much, its the rpm and caliber that cause damage.

could you explain about Uzis? i don't mean pics and all, but, um, wtf? are they banned or not, and why or why not? and where?

obviously the "BAN" needs to be widened, and renamed, because it doesn't ban all guns, just some.

A large manufacturer like Colt cannot change its company name to allow possession of their AR-15s (“Colt AR-15″s are banned by “make and model”). But the fact that a company can change its name, and thereby produce a legal firearm identical to one that is banned except for the name, shows how ridiculous California “assault weapon” laws are.

http://www.ammoland.com/2011/04/11/rename-your-uzi-and-now-your-legal/#axzz2Gdql52Jr

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:00 PM

18. They're not banned, as far as I know...

...but the Uzi the military uses is very different from the Uzi you can buy in your local gun shot.

First off, under federal law, the barrel has to be at least 16" long. The military version had a 10" barrel, so the civilian-legal one is 6" longer.


The operating mechanism is also changed. The military version was full-automatic from an open bolt-position, which is a very simple and effective way to achieve full-auto fire. However, since full-auto can't be sold in in the US anymore and the mechanism is incredibly easy to make full-auto, the civilian version fires semiautomatic from a closed-bolt system instead.

And of course, they modified them during the Assault Weapons Ban period to comply with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:42 PM

25. which makes ME a little nervous...

that's one thing i don't like about the new laws- they're doing a list of 190 guns, but how do you stop the name changing thing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:17 PM

28. You don't

It's a dumb idea. It's like trying to ban high-powered sports cars by name. You think Ford's not going to make a new musclecar if the Mustang gets banned?


If the leaders in the gun-control movement had principles, they'd be calling for a ban on all semi-automatic long guns. They don't, so they're trying to CPR a mid-90's failure instead.


Of course, even if all semi-automatic long guns were banned for sale (thus eliminating the confusing and arbitrary attempt to separate "assault weapons" from "regular weapons"), the features that make them optimized for self-defense would simply crop up on new, manual-action guns.


How about a pump-action rifle that uses an AR-15 telescoping buttstock? One that uses an AR-15 railed handguard for mounting tactical lights and lasers? One that feeds from AR-15 magazines? One that has an accessory rail on top for red-dot sights?

How about a lever-action rifle that uses those same features?

No reason a lever-action or pump-action rifle can't shoot the same .223 ammunition that an AR-15 can. They just aren't built because AR-15s are freely available. There's no demand. Same with the 7.62x39mm ammo that an AK-47 shoots. Why bother with a lever when you can get a civilian-legal AK-47?

How about a lever-action rifle that has the AR-15 handguard and buttstock, but shoots handgun cartridges from a standard Glock or Ruger or Smith&Wesson magazine? 15 rounds, 17 rounds, whatever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #28)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:34 PM

30. too many gun words...not..sense. i get the point, though, but you're wrong. try reading more facts

of course it isn't dumb. you have to start somewhere. like the actual law being proposed, for instance-

Summary of 2013 legislation
Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
120 specifically-named firearms
Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds

so there's that. now,

the features that make them optimized for self-defense would simply crop up on new, manual-action guns.

WTF? do you write for a gun magazine, or OTHER miscellaneous gun...lobby? what is that? what kind of self defense?

you need a gun that you can hide, get quickly, and shoot a few bullets with for self defense. 'features optimized'

read the proposal and don't get back to me

They don't, so they're trying to CPR a mid-90's failure instead.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:41 PM

31. It's feel-good stuff.

Behold the AR-15 that would not be an assault weapon under the new, improved AWB 2:



See? No pistol grip. It's still a semi-automatic rifle fed from a detachable magazine. it will take all AR-15 accessories. You can mount lasers and lights to it. You can remove the handle and put on a red-dot sight. You can stick a 30-round magazine in it... or a 90-round one.

Do you think that if the Newtown shooter had had this gun instead of the one he used, the body count would be any less?



The AWB 2 might be an incremental step politically, but practically speaking, it's nonsense. It's pandering to people of high emotion without bothering to understand facts and debunk misconceptions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #31)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:49 PM

32. this won't make a gun lubber feel too good, i'd say. its from a gun site, so who knows if its real

other places say no list yet- this one looks pretty good, though. the rim fire part is cool.

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/11/22/obamas-gun-ban-list-is-out/


Streetsweeper. Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):
A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see below),
(iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.
Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than
10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles).

A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has:
(i) a second pistol grip,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a barrel shroud or
(iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and
(v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
A semiautomatic shotgun with:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),
(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds, and
(iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.
Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will: Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any “semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:21 PM

29. It's the perceived problem, really.

It's an attack on a culture that perceived as dangerous. All those gun nuts with their military-like weapons! It's disturbing! So they try to define "military-like" and got a shit sandwich.


By the way, it's the same Ruger in all those pictures. Same serial number. Just wanted to clarify.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #29)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:50 PM

33. look at #32 and stop posting pictures of guns, there's no point

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:49 AM

9. gotcha, but, a law not working isn't usually blamed on the guy who wrote it...

if a drunk driver hits somebody, you don't blame the law or the guy who wrote it?

as far as the AWB, you blame the....NRA!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 02:52 AM

4. That weapon was completely legal to buy under

the 1994 Comprehensive Assault Weapons Ban.

the way that video unfolded was sort of unfortunate.


Edit: The guy in the video CLAIMS it was bought under that ban. Obviously the detail level is too low for me to verify that, but it is certainly plausible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:37 AM

14. but WHY was it legal?

and i think the guy intended it to unfold like that- i wouldn't be surprised if ted nugent PAID the guy, honestly!

"The bureau (BATF) — which should have a lead role in protecting the nation from gun crimes — has been severely hindered by an array of N.R.A.-backed legislative restrictions. For example, a 1986 law prohibits A.T.F. agents from making more than one unannounced inspection a year on a gun dealer, a rule that serves no purpose other than protecting unscrupulous dealers. (As it is, a lack of agents means that a gun shop can go years between inspections.) "
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/a-broken-system-for-tracking-guns.html?hp&_r=0

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:32 AM

15. Because when you tell people what they cannot have

they push the maximum boundaries.

The original ban specified a bunch of safety features and a couple cosmetic features that you couldn't have too many of. So people pushed to the limit and got as much as they were allowed.

For instance, a rifle pistol grip doesn't make the weapon any more dangerous. The meme goes that it's more comfortable to shoot from the hip. That's silly. A BAR with stock furniture (classic rifle stock) is comfortable to shoot from the hip, insofar as .30 cal is comfortable in full auto goes, without a pistol grip. Ergonomically it fits. A pistol grip on a rifle practically requires you hold the weapon to your shoulder, properly, Hollywood theatrics aside. This is an ergonomics, safety issue.

A flash suppressor doesn't hide the shooter for some crazy sniper scenario. It reduces the fireball at the end of the barrel so the shooter doesn't get blinded and fall out of his or her tree stand in low light conditions. (Some states allow early morning, late evening deer hunting, for instance)

A collapsible stock doesn't let you hide an AR in your pants, the buffer tube will still protrude 6 inches, regardless. But it DOES allow two people (in my case, myself and my wife) to comfortably and safely shoot the same rifle. Our arms are different lengths. I pull it all the way out, she collapses it all the way down. That's a damn safety feature.

Bayonet lug not really a safety feature, but only partially useful. Sometimes a bipod might attach there. Maybe a light. meh.


Anyway, the point is, the video is unfortunate, because Biden took credit for a badly written bill that did very little material good at all, if any, and pissed off gun owners to the point they became a major force in the next mid-term election, and lo and behold, the republicans catered to that demographic in that election. It sucked.

So, Biden gets a second go at crafting some decent legislation. My hopes are not high, but hey, maybe he'll figure it out this time.

What I would do if I were him:


1. Repeal 1986 GOPA + Hughes Amendment.
(This allows both federal registration, and opens the NFA registry for new weapons)
2. Extend the NFA registry downward from select fire weapons, to all semi-automatic weapons.
3. Cut the cost of the NFA tax stamp to say, $50.
4. 5 year grace period to get every gun registered.
5. Funding for the registry out of the 11% federal excise tax on firearms.

Now, that contains multiple major benefits from a gun control standpoint:

1. No more 'gun show loophole', as all private transfers of NFA weapons MUST be done through the BATFE.
2. All semi-auto weapons would then be registered. This helps with straw purchases, and miscreant dealers that sell to grey or black market sources.
3. Full background checks. Not a NICS check, a full damn background check. This will catch a lot of people where crimes or medical adjudication of mental health didn't get reported to NICS. (Might have caught Cho, at VT, where NICS failed to stop him)

It also contains one carrot as an incentive:

1. Opening the NFA registry makes it possible for people to own select-fire weapons made after 1986, depending on their local state laws.

I suggest adding one additional carrot to achieve this:

2. Nationwide reciprocity for CPL's. Treat it like a driver's license. An opportunity to set a federal standard for training requirements on CPL's as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #15)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:29 PM

23. that IS the american way...

Anyway, the point is, the video is unfortunate, because Biden took credit for a badly written bill that did very little material good at all, if any, and pissed off gun owners to the point they became a major force in the next mid-term election, and lo and behold, the republicans catered to that demographic in that election. It sucked...skip...hey, maybe he'll figure it out this time.

definitely, but i wouldn't blame the bill sucking on joe or feinstein- it was compromised, obviously, and by whom is pretty obvious, too (3 letters, starts with N)...

and i'd say the demographic is a LOT different now- they probably should have waited until clinton's 2nd term (like now) to do it the 1st time around...of course, they couldn't see the future...


1. Repeal 1986 GOPA + Hughes Amendment.
(This allows both federal registration, and opens the NFA registry for new weapons)
2. Extend the NFA registry downward from select fire weapons, to all semi-automatic weapons.
3. Cut the cost of the NFA tax stamp to say, $50.
4. 5 year grace period to get every gun registered.
5. Funding for the registry out of the 11% federal excise tax on firearms.


1. absolutely

2. ditto

3. i'd do a sliding scale or ratio or whatever you'd call it- $50 for a "regular" gun. BUT it is still only $200 for a SILENCER, which is a 79 year old price- should be 10 times as much...

4. definitely, 5 years would be plenty of time, i'd think 1 or 2 would even be enough, IF they had funding for the BATF. or a boss at the BATF. maybe even leave enforcement to BATF and start up a whole new agency for the paperwork...

5. yes, but raise taxes by some sort of scale- for instance, tax the daylights out of the millions of RUSSIAN guns coming in- also economical benefits there.

the rest is great (now i all know all my acronyms!)
especially the 'carrots' part- gotta keep the 'gun bunnies' happy!

you have the right...NOT to be killed...(music @ :40 second mark)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cal04 (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 10:29 AM

6. thanks

hey, check out the very end of this one- the best line is cut from the one you posted...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:01 AM

7. I agree with Biden in what he said in that debate.

I think the guy from Michigan is an idiot who was seeking attention for himself. Biden said the focus should be in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable. His AWB did nothing to address those things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:25 AM

11. sorry if i sounded snarky, i've adopted a shoot first ask ???s later strategy here, i get carried

Last edited Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:02 PM - Edit history (1)

away...

the funny thing is, the idiot said the SAME thing!
but the mental side is SOOOO much harder than limiting objects, such as mags and rates...

"Mr. Townsend, now 36 years old and a contract writer at a construction company, said he bought the Bushmaster he displayed on television legally during the period that Mr. Biden’s ban was in place. “We don’t need politicians writing gun laws because they don’t know what they’re doing,” he said in a recent interview.

Mr. Townsend said he owned 13 guns and that he liked the Bushmaster’s accuracy when he goes target shooting with his father and friends. “There’s somebody on the end of every gun pulling the trigger,” he said. “We need to treat that person. The gun’s not the problem.” "
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/us/politics/newtown-task-force-returns-biden-to-gun-control-arena.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

having 13 guns is a bit sketchy, i'd say.
he's writing contracts in MI, not for halliburton in iraq...
my answer to that dork would be:

"we don't need guys like you owning 13 guns to go target shooting. what if somebody steals the other 12 while you are at the range? ever think of that, slappy? and furthermore, why the hell do you need 30 bullets in a mag to target shoot? you must not be very good at it, huh? or do you get paid per bullseye?"

Editorial
A Broken System for Tracking Guns
Published: December 30, 2012

As President Obama looks to reduce gun violence after the Connecticut massacre through reforms like reinstating the assault weapons ban, he and supporters of sane gun laws in Congress need to be equally serious about strengthening the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the beleaguered agency charged with enforcing federal firearm regulations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/a-broken-system-for-tracking-guns.html?hp&_r=0

i think we've learned enuf to make better laws, for sure...




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:39 AM

16. I have way more than that.

Different guns for different purposes.

Hell, I have four shotguns. One is practical really, only for turkeys and pheasants. Another practical for the rest of the upland game birds. One is practical for deer hunting. One is practical only for home defense.

For rifles, same thing. Different calibers for different purposes. You don't go deer hunting with a .22. You don't go rock chuck hunting with a .45-70. Not going to lug my 10lb .30-06 on an extended backpacking trip. Etc.

13 guns sounds like a lot, but not knowing anything about the owner, one can only guess what the motivation for owning them is. I'm an outlier. I hunt. Most gun owners don't. BUT, some gun owners don't even fire weapons. Hell, some of them keep them for investment purposes only. Sometimes family heirlooms. There is a broad spectrum of purposes, and possibilities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:01 PM

19. if you have a use for them, great!

why does this guy need that ridiculous gun for target shooting?

i just don't get it, its like "oh, we need diapers from 7-11? i'll get the Bentley out..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:05 PM

20. I would have to know a lot more about him to answer that, and

he doesn't seem like the sort of person I would want to get to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:08 PM

21. precisely!

or living in my neighborhood, really. "i have a big gun, kiss my ass" doesn't really work for me.

would you want your kids going over to THAT d-bags house???

like joe says at the end of post#6...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #21)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:10 PM

22. Absolutely not, but I can appreciate one thing about him...

He came right out and said it. At least, if he were my neighbor, I'd know precisely where he stood on some 'issues'.

Better the devil you know...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:38 PM

24. true dat!

i've never really met that type of person where i live..knock on wood? knock on my .22?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:08 PM

26. My father and one of my brothers both own

many more than 13 guns. I suppose they wouls be called collwctors or gun enthusiasts. 'Need' is not asked on the forms that are filled out at the gun dealer when applying for a background check. Although since my father has a CCW and my brother is a cop, they have pre-approval to purchase guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:14 PM

27. you're covered, i think...

http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/27/alert-sen-diane-feinstein-releases-gun-ban-summary-for-2013/

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration


i mean, people have to get fishing and hunting licenses. i'm sure there are places its harder to get a hunting lic. than a gun to do it with, for instance...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cal04 (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:31 AM

12. OMG Biden owns guns? Call out the banners quick

He might go off and kill someone any day now! How can we let him get away with having an evil gun, does he not know how they can turn you into a deranged personally (magically but sometimes with the help of unicorns)?

Oh...wait. He is rich and a politician, so we can trust him. Whew, was worried there for a sec.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:34 AM

13. give the guy a break, for chrissake, would YOU want his job?

Mr. Biden was at the White House when the Newtown massacre occurred. With the shootings coming just days before the 40th anniversary of the car accident that killed his first wife and baby daughter, an aide said, “all he could think about was those parents getting the same devastating phone call” that he once did.

After Mr. Obama assigned him to develop a response, Mr. Biden followed his 1990s script, inviting law enforcement leaders to the White House to harness their ideas and public credibility. “I’ve been in Washington over 20 years, and this was unique,” said Chuck Wexler, the executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum. “There is a sense of importance and urgency to this issue.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/us/politics/newtown-task-force-returns-biden-to-gun-control-arena.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:44 AM

17. Nice snide attack on our Vice President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread