Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf
Gaucho wrote:North Korea. WTF?
Shyster wrote:A Colorado Congresswoman who is the co-author (along with NY’s Carolyn McCarthy) of a bill banning what she calls “assault magazines” is apparently under the impression that magazines are disposable:
http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/03/congr ... -the-assau
Interestingly, a few months ago on Robert Mangino’s show on KDKA I heard the executive director of the anti-gun group Ceasefire PA make a similar statement that magazines would be “used up” as people fired them.
shafnutz05 wrote:Gaucho wrote:North Korea. WTF?
For the first time in the entire history of North Korea acting stupid, I am starting to grow concerned.
Police said when they found Richardson slumped over the wheel of a running vehicle he said that he was “going to be mayor” and that the officers were “subservient to the white man.”
The inclusion of universal background checks — the poll-tested lynchpin of most Democratic proposals — “raises two significant concerns,” the ACLU’s Chris Calabrese told TheDC Wednesday.
Calabrese — a privacy lobbyist — was first careful to note that the ACLU doesn’t strictly oppose universal background checks for gun purchases. “If you’re going to require a background check, we think it should be effective,” Calabrese explained.
“However, we also believe those checks have to be conducted in a way that protects privacy and civil liberties. So, in that regard, we think the current legislation, the current proposal on universal background checks raises two significant concerns,” he went on.
“The first is that it treats the records for private purchases very differently than purchases made through licensed sellers. Under existing law, most information regarding an approved purchase is destroyed within 24 hours when a licensed seller does a [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] check now,” Calabrese said, “and almost all of it is destroyed within 90 days.”
Calabrese wouldn’t characterize the current legislation’s record-keeping provision as a “national gun registry” — which the White House has denied pursuing — but he did say that such a registry could be “a second step.”
“[U]nfortunately, we have seen in the past that the creation of these types of records leads sometimes to the creation of government databases and collections of personal information on all of us,” Calabrese warned. “That’s not an inevitable result, but we have seen that happen in the past, certainly.”
shafnutz05 wrote:http://nation.foxnews.com/harry-reid/2013/04/04/aclu-significant-concerns-reids-gun-lawThe inclusion of universal background checks — the poll-tested lynchpin of most Democratic proposals — “raises two significant concerns,” the ACLU’s Chris Calabrese told TheDC Wednesday.
Calabrese — a privacy lobbyist — was first careful to note that the ACLU doesn’t strictly oppose universal background checks for gun purchases. “If you’re going to require a background check, we think it should be effective,” Calabrese explained.
“However, we also believe those checks have to be conducted in a way that protects privacy and civil liberties. So, in that regard, we think the current legislation, the current proposal on universal background checks raises two significant concerns,” he went on.
“The first is that it treats the records for private purchases very differently than purchases made through licensed sellers. Under existing law, most information regarding an approved purchase is destroyed within 24 hours when a licensed seller does a [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] check now,” Calabrese said, “and almost all of it is destroyed within 90 days.”
Calabrese wouldn’t characterize the current legislation’s record-keeping provision as a “national gun registry” — which the White House has denied pursuing — but he did say that such a registry could be “a second step.”
“[U]nfortunately, we have seen in the past that the creation of these types of records leads sometimes to the creation of government databases and collections of personal information on all of us,” Calabrese warned. “That’s not an inevitable result, but we have seen that happen in the past, certainly.”
“She simply misspoke in referring to ‘magazines,’ when she should have referred to ‘clips,’ which cannot be reused because they don’t have a feeding mechanism,” spokeswoman Juliet Johnson said.
Shyster wrote:In fact, clips for the most part are every bit as reusable as magazines. For example, M1 Garand en-bloc clips and revolver moon clips can be reused dozens if not hundreds of times. Not only does Congresswoman DeGette have no idea how the devices she wants to ban work, her staff doesn’t either.
MRandall25 wrote:Shyster wrote:In fact, clips for the most part are every bit as reusable as magazines. For example, M1 Garand en-bloc clips and revolver moon clips can be reused dozens if not hundreds of times. Not only does Congresswoman DeGette have no idea how the devices she wants to ban work, her staff doesn’t either.
From what you've been saying since the Newtown shootings, this seems to be a common theme.
DelPen wrote:MRandall25 wrote:Shyster wrote:In fact, clips for the most part are every bit as reusable as magazines. For example, M1 Garand en-bloc clips and revolver moon clips can be reused dozens if not hundreds of times. Not only does Congresswoman DeGette have no idea how the devices she wants to ban work, her staff doesn’t either.
From what you've been saying since the Newtown shootings, this seems to be a common theme.
Biden has already said these laws wouldn't have prevented Newtown and won't stop anything else in the future. They are a burden on the people who are already following the laws and the people who are or will break them don't care.
(7) Pursuant to a valid permit to carry a pistol or revolver, provided such large capacity magazine (A) is within a pistol or revolver that was lawfully possessed by the person prior to the effective date of this section, (B) does not extend beyond the bottom of the pistol grip, and (C) contains not more than ten bullets.
Shyster wrote:Not only does Congresswoman DeGette have no idea how the devices she wants to ban work, her staff doesn’t either.
DelPen wrote:Biden has already said these laws wouldn't have prevented Newtown and won't stop anything else in the future. They are a burden on the people who are already following the laws and the people who are or will break them don't care.
tifosi77 wrote:Shyster wrote:Not only does Congresswoman DeGette have no idea how the devices she wants to ban work, her staff doesn’t either.
They certainly don't know the difference between a clip and a magazine..... probably didn't even realize there was a difference before this.
tifosi77 wrote:DelPen wrote:Biden has already said these laws wouldn't have prevented Newtown and won't stop anything else in the future. They are a burden on the people who are already following the laws and the people who are or will break them don't care.
He also advocates a method of home defense ("go out on your balcony with a shotgun and fire off a few shots") that is illegal.
tifosi77 wrote:Shyster wrote:Not only does Congresswoman DeGette have no idea how the devices she wants to ban work, her staff doesn’t either.
They certainly don't know the difference between a clip and a magazine..... probably didn't even realize there was a difference before this.
They certainly don't know the difference between a clip and a magazine
columbia wrote:I hate when I have to do shad's job and point out shameless pandering by the POTUS....
Obama to take pay cut to draw attention to plight of federal workers facing furloughs
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... ml?hpid=z8
columbia wrote:I hate when I have to do shad's job and point out shameless pandering by the POTUS....
Obama to take pay cut to draw attention to plight of federal workers facing furloughs
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... ml?hpid=z8
columbia wrote:Jeremy Irons claims gay marriage laws could lead to a father marrying his son
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... s-son.html
What kind of pervert would even think of something like that happening?
Pucks_and_Pols wrote:columbia wrote:Jeremy Irons claims gay marriage laws could lead to a father marrying his son
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... s-son.html
What kind of pervert would even think of something like that happening?
i am sure it will happen. and it will occur at the exact same rate as straight fathers marrying their daughters and other types of incest. being gay doesnt alter your basic moral compass.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests