Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

I love my senators

politics gun control Feinstein California Senate 2013 Barbara Boxer

  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

#61 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 03 April 2013 - 12:55 AM

They're always like that and no matter the outcome, they always act.

I knew Barbara Boxer before she held any public office and I met Dianne Feinstein in the mid-70's, the same time period when I met Barbara. They have never wavered or backpedaled on important issues, and they're always wiling to listen and help (and being Senators hasn't changed them one bit).
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#62 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 03 April 2013 - 02:28 PM

Senator Boxer's office just sent me a copy of the letter her veterans specialist sent the VA on my behalf requesting clarification of a certain service that apparently changes when a veteran passes 65.  I'd rather not have any nasty surprises while traveling, so I've spent some time trying to find out.  I tried getting my former congresswoman's office interested, failed.  Boxer's office is doing a splendid job of helping me with this multi agency problem, and I appreciate it.

I love my senators.   :happy:
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#63 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 07:20 AM

So much for hypocrisy.  Here are the actual facts:

Dianne Feinstein Talks Guns, Opens Up About Her Own Firearm Ownership

http://www.huffingto..._n_3010058.html

Quote

SAN FRANCISCO -- Dianne Feinstein has long been one of the Senate's strongest advocates for gun control. But few people may know that the California Democrat used to own a firearm herself.
During an appearance at San Francisco's Commonwealth Club on Wednesday, Feinstein recounted the time she was targeted by a domestic terrorist group, the New World Liberation Front, while a member of the city's Board of Supervisors in the mid-1970s.
She described finding an unexploded bomb outside her San Francisco home, the lives of her family members saved only by a rare overnight freeze that disarmed the weapon's mechanism. Shaken from the scare, and another incident in which the windows of her beach house were shot out, Feinstein obtained a revolver that she kept in her purse.
"I thought if they were going to take me out, I wanted to take a few of them with me," she told the audience with a laugh.
But after witnessing the assassination of City Supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone in 1978, Feinstein's views on guns shifted. She later gave up her concealed weapons permit.
"I was the one that found Supervisor Milk's body, and I was the one to put a finger in a bullet hole, trying to get a pulse," Feinstein, who succeeded Moscone as mayor following his death, told the Advocate in an interview earlier this year. "Once you have been through one of these episodes, once you see what the crime scene is like -- it isn't like the movies -- it changes your view of weapons."
"I know from first-hand experience what damage ... weapons can do to bodies," she explained at Wednesday's event. "I have a deep belief that these weapons are antithetical to our values."...

Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#64 Balderdash

Balderdash
  • Islander
  • 5,729 posts

Posted 05 April 2013 - 06:14 AM

^^^

Yeah, I tried to find something, anything about it but all I found was rants on right wing blogs.  Thanks for clearing it up.  :)

Another Democrat leaning Independent that has to search for truth because it can't be found on Fox News OR MSNBC.



"Being gay is not a Western invention, it is a human reality"  by HRC


#65 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 05 April 2013 - 08:03 AM

View PostBalderdash, on 05 April 2013 - 06:14 AM, said:

^^^

Yeah, I tried to find something, anything about it but all I found was rants on right wing blogs.  Thanks for clearing it up.  :)

You're quite welcome.  I'm happy that someone finally provided the facts.   :)
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#66 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 05 April 2013 - 09:23 AM

Yet, I am a victim of handgun violence, and am not in favor of gun control.
There are philosophical issues in play. No on wants irresponsible and unstable people to have guns. Laws being proposed don't really solve that problem.
Instead, they make it inconvenient to legally own firearms, or legally buy ammunition.
How does this help?

Both in my case, and the recent Elkins shooting of a 13 month old in GA/US, the criminal had a prior record of violent assaults, but were out on the streets.
Rather than putting restrictions on inanimate objects (see Objects in Space) why not get over the politically correct attitude that puts violent and crazy offenders back on the streets?
We need more people control, in as least restricting of a way possible, not more gun control in as much of a restrictive way possible.
Rather than making otherwise law abiding citizens criminals, we need a more effective way of handling violent criminals.
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."

#67 Balderdash

Balderdash
  • Islander
  • 5,729 posts

Posted 05 April 2013 - 10:28 AM

View PostDarthMarley, on 05 April 2013 - 09:23 AM, said:

Yet, I am a victim of handgun violence, and am not in favor of gun control.
There are philosophical issues in play. No on wants irresponsible and unstable people to have guns. Laws being proposed don't really solve that problem.
Instead, they make it inconvenient to legally own firearms, or legally buy ammunition.
How does this help?

Both in my case, and the recent Elkins shooting of a 13 month old in GA/US, the criminal had a prior record of violent assaults, but were out on the streets.
Rather than putting restrictions on inanimate objects (see Objects in Space) why not get over the politically correct attitude that puts violent and crazy offenders back on the streets?
We need more people control, in as least restricting of a way possible, not more gun control in as much of a restrictive way possible.
Rather than making otherwise law abiding citizens criminals, we need a more effective way of handling violent criminals.

Inanimate objects?  Do you mean drums that can hold 50 bullets or more?  Drums?  No one needs to be able to shoot 150 rounds in a minute.
I was reading speculation yesterday that said if we were to see the autopsy photo's of those children in Connecticut we wouldn't even need this
ridiculous argument or the name calling.  I'm not being politically correct, that's just a way to try and shame me only I'm not ashamed.  Violent
criminals should not be getting out because we can't afford to keep them locked up and crazy people should not be able to get their hands on
a gun much less ammo magazines that allows them to take out a classroom full of kids.

Another Democrat leaning Independent that has to search for truth because it can't be found on Fox News OR MSNBC.



"Being gay is not a Western invention, it is a human reality"  by HRC


#68 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 05 April 2013 - 02:12 PM

Quote

Rather than making otherwise law abiding citizens criminals, we need a more effective way of handling violent criminals.
Ahhh...but law abiding people are sooooo much easier to control. Why take steps that would actually make the streets safer, when attacking non-criminals requires less effort...and serves a political agenda at the same time?

Quote

I was reading speculation yesterday that said if we were to see the autopsy photo's of those children in Connecticut we wouldn't even need this ridiculous argument or the name calling.
Problem is...gun control laws don't reduce crime, and wouldn't have protected those children. So if gruesome photos compelled someone to curtail our Bill of Rights, I'd suggest they didn't have a firm grasp of the facts to begin with.
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#69 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 05 April 2013 - 02:36 PM

View PostBalderdash, on 05 April 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

View PostDarthMarley, on 05 April 2013 - 09:23 AM, said:

Yet, I am a victim of handgun violence, and am not in favor of gun control.
There are philosophical issues in play. No on wants irresponsible and unstable people to have guns. Laws being proposed don't really solve that problem.
Instead, they make it inconvenient to legally own firearms, or legally buy ammunition.
How does this help?

Both in my case, and the recent Elkins shooting of a 13 month old in GA/US, the criminal had a prior record of violent assaults, but were out on the streets.
Rather than putting restrictions on inanimate objects (see Objects in Space) why not get over the politically correct attitude that puts violent and crazy offenders back on the streets?
We need more people control, in as least restricting of a way possible, not more gun control in as much of a restrictive way possible.
Rather than making otherwise law abiding citizens criminals, we need a more effective way of handling violent criminals.

Inanimate objects?  Do you mean drums that can hold 50 bullets or more?  Drums?  No one needs to be able to shoot 150 rounds in a minute.
I was reading speculation yesterday that said if we were to see the autopsy photo's of those children in Connecticut we wouldn't even need this
ridiculous argument or the name calling.  I'm not being politically correct, that's just a way to try and shame me only I'm not ashamed.  Violent
criminals should not be getting out because we can't afford to keep them locked up and crazy people should not be able to get their hands on
a gun much less ammo magazines that allows them to take out a classroom full of kids.

Did the Sandy Hook massacre involve such a large capacity magazine?
Is it really fair to say that because one or many people think no one needs to have such a capacity, it is fair, right or legal to restrict their option to do so, so long as they don't commit violent acts without justification of defending life and property?
One can say that no one needs to sit in the front of the bus, but would that make it right to tell people they can't?
You might not like the comparison, but rights are rights, and we all have them, and only when we do something very bad should they be restricted.
The political correctness is what puts violent offenders and dangerously mentally ill back on the streets.
Sadly, it is also the constitution.
The same document that protects the rights of non-violent people to own weapons also protects violent offenders in that they are entitled to reasonable bail, and a jury trial before being punished.

Grisly photos of dead children should not shock us into a reaction. If someone is shooting at kids, I am not running away, even unarmed.
If someone has several handguns each with 7 round magazines, the limit isn't meaningful or effective.
The desire to do something, and think of the children is understandable, but why do something that isn't at all likely to save lives in the future?

People with a similar skill set as me can make magazines that can hold many more rounds, and even make the gun to fire them, and even make the ammunition.
Even without that, one could go into a grocery store, pick up a knife from the cutlery section, and poke holes in a few bottles on the shelves, and many people would likely die as a  result.
You can't really stop people from killing others by passing laws. That was somewhat ambiguous, but I think the meaning is plain enough. Laws don't kill people. Andlaws don't and can't stop people from killing people.
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."

#70 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,309 posts

Posted 05 April 2013 - 02:37 PM

I persist in wondering how precisely people interpret the part of the 2nd Amendment that reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

To my mind, the "well-regulated" part of the amendment is why the government (federal and state) have a right and obligation to set ... um... regulations for the bearing of arms.  It seems perfectly reasonable and consistent with the 2nd amendment to require licensing as part of the right to bear arms - licensing that includes background checks, registration of weapons and ammunition, and training specific to the kinds of weapons one intends to use.  I'd be more than happy to forego a ban on assault weapons for private ownership if ownership of assault weapons also meant that one could be called into duty by local law enforcement agencies or the national guard.  Be good to not have to maintain standing local armies where a well-armed citizenry can be called to duty.   But it seems that rights advocates would have a problem with this - and to me, this renders the 2nd amendment meaningless.

Amongst other "well-regulated" aspects of gun policy, I think lifting the restriction on researching the effects of guns in society is a necessary part of things.  Mighty odd that people of goodwill would object to the government studying the effect of gun proliferation in society, so that informed policy (regulation) can be had that does not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  Heck - aggressive policy could even differentiate - make it possible for some people to own some kinds of guns but not others, rather than blanketly denying people access to ANY guns.  But we can't get there because we can't grapple with the regulation side of the amendment.

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#71 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 05 April 2013 - 02:41 PM

View PostDarthMarley, on 05 April 2013 - 09:23 AM, said:

Yet, I am a victim of handgun violence, and am not in favor of gun control.

My son was shot and murdered in a drive by in Los Angeles.  He was sitting in his car, waiting to take some friends home after they'd all been to a neighborhood party.  He was not one block from home at the time.  And, I am not for gun control.

I am however, in favor of background checks.  I don't care that gangs and criminals will get guns no matter what, that kind of argument can be used for any law.  We might as well throw them all out because criminals don't follow the law and that makes any law invalid.  Why even try? This is a circular logic, and it means nothing in the scheme of things.  

And, while we can all throw around examples of how a tragedy could not have been prevented with background checks,  no one can give me a good enough reason not to at least put background checks in place. I don't think we need to make it easy for criminals and crazy people to get guns.  And, I don't think we need to throw our hands up in the air thinking we can't stop illegal gun trafficking.  We pay taxes to fund the FTA, let them do their freaking jobs.  

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#72 Kota

Kota
  • Islander
  • 417 posts

Posted 05 April 2013 - 02:44 PM

And this is coming from a child!



#73 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,309 posts

Posted 05 April 2013 - 02:55 PM

She is very articulate, and I admire her speaking into the situation.  I have to point out, as we have in other threads, that the China stabbing incident resulted in quite few less deaths, than the Sandy Hook shooting, and I also have to point out that Chicago gun violence laws have very little to do with the ways in which gun violence in Chicago happens, but rather, various other kinds of weapons regulations that would make a difference, Chicago has no control over (for instance, federal policy closing loopholes in purchasing).

As Cait said, above, the fact that sensible laws will always be averted by criminals doesn't mean that there is no such thing as sensible law or that we should avoid law making.  Policy should follow the 2nd amendment requirement.  What constitutes "well regulated?"  How can "militia" be understood in today's world?  What constitutes "infringement" and in what cases do people generally forego "rights." (Yes - people do indeed forgo rights all the time - criminals don't have the right of freedom when their crimes send them to jail...).

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#74 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 05 April 2013 - 03:45 PM

View PostQueenTiye, on 05 April 2013 - 02:37 PM, said:

I persist in wondering how precisely people interpret the part of the 2nd Amendment that reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

To my mind, the "well-regulated" part of the amendment is why the government (federal and state) have a right and obligation to set ... um... regulations for the bearing of arms.  It seems perfectly reasonable and consistent with the 2nd amendment to require licensing as part of the right to bear arms - licensing that includes background checks, registration of weapons and ammunition, and training specific to the kinds of weapons one intends to use.  I'd be more than happy to forego a ban on assault weapons for private ownership if ownership of assault weapons also meant that one could be called into duty by local law enforcement agencies or the national guard.  Be good to not have to maintain standing local armies where a well-armed citizenry can be called to duty.   But it seems that rights advocates would have a problem with this - and to me, this renders the 2nd amendment meaningless.

Amongst other "well-regulated" aspects of gun policy, I think lifting the restriction on researching the effects of guns in society is a necessary part of things.  Mighty odd that people of goodwill would object to the government studying the effect of gun proliferation in society, so that informed policy (regulation) can be had that does not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  Heck - aggressive policy could even differentiate - make it possible for some people to own some kinds of guns but not others, rather than blanketly denying people access to ANY guns.  But we can't get there because we can't grapple with the regulation side of the amendment.

QT

Much like analyzing religious texts, historical records of the intent of the authors is key to understanding the meaning at the time.
As usual, there were opposing points of view. Everything before the comma, including "a well regulated militia being necessary, is a justification for that latter part; the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.
But the arguments in the Federalist papers do bear out the intent of the framers to include the individual right to bear arms.

The Texan pointing out the meaning of the phrase "of the people" made much more sense to me than anything Feinstein said defending her position. Her speech struck me as side stepping the questions posed, and offering a prideful and haughty "I don't have to defend myself to the likes of you" defense.

What I see here is a case of proposed law "A" is supposed to solve problem "B" while perhaps violating constitution "C."
When I point out that A does not solve B, we don't even have to get in to C at all to ask; Why A then?
It can make people feel good, and make people proud of their elected representatives.
Why someone would feel good about non-solutions to a real problem baffles me.
Why non-solutions that might even be unconstitutional make people proud baffles me.
And non-responsive retorts should be excoriated by a free and independent press, but for some reason is not.

I strongly doubt that even a national ban on all gun sales and a decidedly illegal confiscation of existing weapons would solve the problem of violence in Chicago. That means looking at socially uncomfortable solutions that might at least mitigate harm. Such solutions will touch on uncomfortable topics of race relations, drug prohibitions, and entrenched poverty. I doubt we have the political will to approach these problems in time to save a single life.
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."

#75 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 05 April 2013 - 04:14 PM

View PostCait, on 05 April 2013 - 02:41 PM, said:

View PostDarthMarley, on 05 April 2013 - 09:23 AM, said:

Yet, I am a victim of handgun violence, and am not in favor of gun control.

My son was shot and murdered in a drive by in Los Angeles.  He was sitting in his car, waiting to take some friends home after they'd all been to a neighborhood party.  He was not one block from home at the time.  And, I am not for gun control.

I am however, in favor of background checks.  I don't care that gangs and criminals will get guns no matter what, that kind of argument can be used for any law.  We might as well throw them all out because criminals don't follow the law and that makes any law invalid.  Why even try? This is a circular logic, and it means nothing in the scheme of things.  

And, while we can all throw around examples of how a tragedy could not have been prevented with background checks,  no one can give me a good enough reason not to at least put background checks in place. I don't think we need to make it easy for criminals and crazy people to get guns.  And, I don't think we need to throw our hands up in the air thinking we can't stop illegal gun trafficking.  We pay taxes to fund the FTA, let them do their freaking jobs.  

Background checks make sense.
Laws against murders don't stop murders, yet we still have the laws.

But laws against ammunition, or cosmetic features of firearms don't make sense, and don't solve any problem I have seen articulated.

Backdoor efforts to "ban guns" by making them inconvenient to own, maintain, or use (legally) should be viewed with the same scorn and derision as laws designed to make legal abortions inconvenient or more distressing than they already are.

I even favor background checks at the voting booth though.
If we will not check ID and eligibility at the polls, might we then question the motives of checking them to buy a firearm?
The answer is plain, we don't want criminals and those adjudicated to be incompetent, or minors to buy guns, just as we don't want non-citizens or felons who have lost their franchise to be able to vote.
In that sense, those who have an ideological constituency oppose reasonable laws for bad political reasons.
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."

#76 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,309 posts

Posted 05 April 2013 - 05:52 PM

View PostDarthMarley, on 05 April 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

I strongly doubt that even a national ban on all gun sales and a decidedly illegal confiscation of existing weapons would solve the problem of violence in Chicago. That means looking at socially uncomfortable solutions that might at least mitigate harm. Such solutions will touch on uncomfortable topics of race relations, drug prohibitions, and entrenched poverty. I doubt we have the political will to approach these problems in time to save a single life.

Is there a proposal for a national ban on all gun sales, or confiscation or existing weapons?  I'm not clear that there are any such proposals in the works, so not quite clear why they are offered in this conversation.  Is it because Chicago has some iteration of these laws?  If so, I would happily agree that these laws are absurd and not at all the model for public policy!

As to laws and their purpose, you make a sound point.  I think the purpose of regulations in guns is that guns are inherently (designed to be) dangerous, and so there is a public good justification in regulating their distribution and use.  It seems equally clear to me that those regulations must take into account the second part of the 2nd amendment, that the individual right to bear arms shall not be infringed. I recognize no infringement on the right to bear arms by coupling it with the obligation to carry registration proving legal purchase and responsible ownership.  Keeping in mind, of course, that knives are also arms, as are slingshots, arrows, etc, people can bear arms all day long.  But if a particular KIND of arms come under scrutiny of public policy concerns, the public has a right to regulate that as needed.

As to urban violence - it is of course necessary to look at urban violence through a number of lenses.  Drug policy creating black markets that can be defended by gangs is not new - we had similar problems during Prohibition.  I am entirely in favor of eliminating black markets, provided that we have really aggressive processes for moving people along into treatment, away from distructive behaviors that affect others, etc, as a result of relaxed drug laws.  That would be a first way to cut down on violence.  Decreasing lead exposure in children would help too.  There are all sorts of things we can do to curb urban violence and especially death by guns.  But it stands to reason that death by guns could be curbed at least partly by proper regulation. (Yes, domestic violence charges aught to come with a time-limited moratorium on buying guns, along with a process whereby rights can be restored.  How many victims of gun violence are victims of temporarily enraged people they know? Answer - more than likely, most.  And, of course, temporarily enraged people probably don't actually mean to KILL - they probably are really sorry after the fact... might be good to make them wait a bit before they can purchase lethal weapons, no?)

My sympathy with gun-rights advocates is that so often the laws proposed are reactionary, feel good, politically possible laws, rather than well-thought out, fact-informed laws.  But my sympathy wanes quite a bit when we find out that gun lobbies prevent us from getting all the facts we need by defunding research (or making research against the law).

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#77 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 05 April 2013 - 06:23 PM

View PostQueenTiye, on 05 April 2013 - 05:52 PM, said:

View PostDarthMarley, on 05 April 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

I strongly doubt that even a national ban on all gun sales and a decidedly illegal confiscation of existing weapons would solve the problem of violence in Chicago. That means looking at socially uncomfortable solutions that might at least mitigate harm. Such solutions will touch on uncomfortable topics of race relations, drug prohibitions, and entrenched poverty. I doubt we have the political will to approach these problems in time to save a single life.

Is there a proposal for a national ban on all gun sales, or confiscation or existing weapons?

No, but that's what they really want to do.JK.

Seriously, does bolding the word "even" make it plainer?
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."

#78 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,309 posts

Posted 05 April 2013 - 06:51 PM

^Actually, yes. Thank you for highlighting that, as I missed it. :)

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#79 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 06 April 2013 - 12:30 AM

For on topic review, and this does not make me proud of my Senator;

http://www.guns.com/...o-game-control/
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."

#80 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 06 April 2013 - 07:08 AM

View PostDarthMarley, on 05 April 2013 - 06:23 PM, said:

View PostQueenTiye, on 05 April 2013 - 05:52 PM, said:

Is there a proposal for a national ban on all gun sales, or confiscation or existing weapons?

No, but that's what they really want to do.JK.

Proof, please, and clarification of "they" would be appreciated.
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: politics, gun control, Feinstein, California, Senate, 2013, Barbara Boxer

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users