Scruit

Doesn't matter who said it - religious bias is not allowed.

- Adam's brother Ryan is a tax dude in New Jersey and was at work at the time of the shooting. http://www.voxxi.com/ryan-lanza-brother-shooter-wrong-id/ - Adam's father claimed the body, so his whereabouts are no longer unknown to the police / of concern. http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/31/us/connecticut-newtown-shooting/index.html - Had not heard anything about lack of paramedics on scene. i can imagine they were kept back until the shooter was known to be dead and the second shooter was identified or ruled out. - Second shooter was ruled out but nobody every explained the guy in the woods. Anyone hear the outcome form that? - I'd heard a suggestion that the medical examiner lied about the AR being the murder weapon, but that's based upon the news reports, and we all saw how confused those news reports were in the beginning. How many guns, what type, was his mother a teach, did she die at the school? All of that was eventually clarified. Not saying the ME is NOT lying, just saying that you'd need more than a disparity between his final report and the original confused news reports to make me think it's anything other than confused news reports. I'm not seeing the conspiracy here.

The state, and all agents thereof, must be neutral on religion. All faiths must be equally represented or none at all.

The 2a is absolute, but the 1a is not, apparently. The state should not lead my kid towards any religion, regardless of how popular they think it is. She is free to follow her beliefs on her own time, but not to use her classroom for same.

Not accurate huh? This page: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/14/poll-gun-control-that-americans-support/ Links to this study: http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/14/in-gun-control-debate-several-options-draw-majority-support/ Which says: Every study we come up with to show that gun control is not wanted, they will come back with one that shows it IS.

Politically speaking, you are on the wrong side of the argument. That is, the majority of Americans support gun control. Anyone who refuses to compromise may find the antis just flat-out getting what they want.

Problem is that we know who to blame for the Newtown shootings - Adam Lanza, and possibly his mother. That does not help anyone, though, considering they are both dead, along with 27 innocents. Having someone to blame is no consolation to them. That is why they are grasping at the false promise of gun control, thinking it will help.

Maybe put a clause in your will that states that whoever gets yours guns have to be able to legally possess them, else they are to be appraised (how much a gun shop would pay for them) and sold either to another family member who IS allowed to possess them, (or to gunshop) and the beneficiary gets the cash instead.

Seriously, I'd be all over that.

I'm out of lemon juice. Can I use gasoline mixed with hand sanitizer?

A teenager with at least one prior conviction is 200 times more likely to be commit a disqualification crime at some point in the future than a 50+ person with no criminal history. Only 0.3% of handgun purchasers who started with a clean history go on to commit a violent crime. They didn't say what the non-gun-owner rate is. He wants to add violent misdemeanors as a disqualifier in NICS. He also wants to end/not introduce the practice of allowing CHL holders to skip NICS checks (17 states do this?) because law abiding gun owners become disqualified at a high enough rate within 5 years that many disqualified persons can still buy guns under the current system. He instead favors NICS checks at the time of purchase for everyone.

Don't break the law in view of the front door. Or at all.

The judge has to approve it, and therefore must see good grounds.

This next guy is "One of the most creating thinkers in gun violence reduction." This should be interesting.

If the FFL does it then the bound book provides a trace capability without registration. If it's open for people to use there is no trace possible and they'd push for registering the transactions (not the guns)...

The thing about compromise, is that it's like walking down the no-mans land between the WW1 trenches... You think you're trying to bring people together, however in actuality you are just going to be shot at by both sides.

Now they are talking about adding new disqualification types for gun owners (Mental cases, felons etc) They are saying 60% of gun crimes in their study were committed by people not disqualified from owning guns under current rules. - Raise handgun ownership age from 18 to 21, or higher (30!) - Include juvenile offenses as disqualifiers

"Permanent Domestic Violence restraining orders are associated with a significant reduction on gun homicides and total homicides. We noted there was no 'substitution' effect." "Domestic violence misdemeanors are not statistically associated with homicides." "Domestic Violence restraining orders saves lives if the guns are removed" Recommendations from this lady: - Expand restraining orders and make then easier and quicker to obtain - Automatic data to NICS - NICS checks on private purchases - Register all guns to allow active confiscation when a person becomes disqualified due to restraining orders, convictions etc. - Expand domestic violence disqualifiers to include associated crimes like "stalking".

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/cvplive/cvpstream1&hpt=hp_t2#/video/cvplive/cvpstream1 They just showed a study that showed mental health records in NICS coincides with a significant drop of gun crimes committed by people adjudicated mental defective. Now they are talking about gun use in domestic violence, saying that the majority of domestic violence murders are gun murders. Dunno where the presenter is going yet.

The death penalty should be carried about using the Brazen Bull.

Are you saying the BATFE can enter your house without a warrant just to "check your papers" on an NFA firearm? If there is "another agency there and the violation falls under their jurisdiction" then that suggests there is a violation they are investigating and likely have a search warrant. That's different from BATFE just showing up unannounced at a law abiding NFA owner's house and entering without a warrant to search for evidence of wrongdoing.

Put your flame suit on. I proposed exactly the same things on here (except the public hangings) and I'm still putting aloe on the burns.

Have you seen the EOs they are proposing? It's all funding related. POTUS cannot create law through an EO, only clarify laws. - Fully fund the prosecutions of people who lie on the NICS form (only 77 of the 70k people caught filing fradulent NICS forms have been prosecuted due to funding) - Fully fund the NICS database and how it gets data from individual state databases. The system had funding allocated but they only actually received 5% of their funding so the NICS background check only get a small amount of the data it needs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order It's difficult to imagine how any EO that effects a sweeping ban on guns would pass SCOTUS, either under Heller (2a) or Youngtown Sheet & Tube co v Sawyer (Limitations on EO powers)

The supreme court recently ruled (in DC v Heller) that "banning a class of firearms that is overwhelmingly chosen for legal purposes does not pass constitutional muster" An AWB would be covered by the same ruling.

The FFL did nothing wrong. Any FFL who sold you the gun would do the same thing or lose their FFL status. They keep a list of guns that arrive and depart their business and they must give those records up by law when asked. If you refuse to do business there after this then you are punishing them for doing nothing wrong.