Post by DarylPost by RD SandmanPost by DarylPost by MattB .OBAMA REQUESTS $1.1 BILLION, DOJ $382.1 MILLION FOR GUN CONTROL
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/09/Obama-Requests-1-
1- Billion-DOJ-382-1-Million-For-Gun-Control
President Obama has requested $1.1 billion and the Department of
Justice (DOJ) asked for $382.1 million for gun control "to protect
Americans from gun violence."
Included in the DOJ's $382.1 million figure is a request for $2
million for smart gun technology grants.
According to The Washington Beacon, Obama's $1.1 billion
"[includes] $182 million to support the president's 'Now is the
Time' gun safety initiative."
1. Require background checks for all gun sales.
The only reason this won't go through the House is the "NO" factor.
Pawn Shop owners would like to see it, gun clubs would like to see
it, but the NRA doesn't for some odd reason.
Perhaps because it probably won't work without registration.
I don't see a need for registration other than the various fire arms
license that already do that. It can be done without registration.
OH? Tell me how the feds will know how many guns I have? If they don't
know....how will they know when I transfer one? Yes, that would be
illegal, but.....
Post by DarylWouldn't it be stupid to have to register that you are a law abiding
citizen? Amounts to about the same thing. REgister the Criminals,
and such but not the common citizen.
Can't do that as it pertains to firearms.....see Haynes v US, 390 US 85
(1968)
Post by DarylPost by RD SandmanPost by DarylPost by MattB .2. Strengthen the background check system for gun sales.
Having everyone go through a major gun sales check. How is this a
bad thing as long as it doesn't make it into a federal database.
The State can do a good job if only it will.
The state is probably the entity who would have to do it since the
federal government has no constitutional power to monitor sales of
private property from one individual to another within a state. One
reason why 16 states have already passed laws requiring transfers of
handguns and/or assault weapons to go through an FFL or law
enforcement or the purchaser possessing a permit to purchase or an
FOID type license.
What the Feds can do is pass a weak law
What part of "no constitutional authority" did you miss?
and allow the states to
Post by Daryltighten it up from there. Not a far sweeping piece of legislation.
Post by RD SandmanPost by DarylPost by MattB .3. Pass a new, stronger ban on assault weapons.
First they must define what an "Assault" weapon is. Colorado
defines an assault weapon as a weapon with a detachable magazine
with rails for mounting other weapons on it. It's pretty cut and
dried. It didn't stop the manufacture of the AR-15 Civilian or any
of the others. What it did stop was the manufacture/sales of the
military grade. I can buy bushmasters all over the place.
Just what do you consider to be "military grade"? It is, after all,
simply a medium powered clone of a military weapons that is semi auto.
Pretty easy answer. In a civilian grade, it's set to fire the .223
ammo. It's a lot less power than the .556 military grade.
All AR15s can shoot the .223 Remington. Even some .223 Remingtons can
fire 5.56 NATO. The difference is chamber pressure not any dimensions.
I wouldn't
Post by Darylsuggest you buy an AR or a Bushmaster off the shelf and start loading
.556 military ammo.
Why not? Most AR15 clones are certified for 5.56 NATO.....even
Bushmaster.
Most think they are the same. No, the .556
Post by DarylMilitary is much hotter and not healthy to fire too many times through
a civilian grade .223 rifle. If you know the difference, you still
can get your hands on a semi auto military grade .556 AR but they are
far and few in between.
Bullshit...... I have two of them. What you need to do is look on the
side of the chamber. That will tell you if that barrel type has been
tested for 5.56 chamber pressures.
Post by DarylPost by RD SandmanPost by DarylPost by MattB .4. Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.
I saw an AR-15 Civilian Grade with a 10 round clip. It just didn't
look right. The clip doesn't come much past the bottom of the
receiver. Yes, it's limited to 15 rounds but the 15 round clip is in
short supply.
I think that the limit should be 20 which would cover a few semi auto
hand guns as well.
That is a lot more livable than 7 or 10 round mags.
In otherwords, with a 20 round clip, nothing would
Post by Darylneed to be changed except the 30, 50 and 100 round clips.
Post by MattB .4. Finish the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the streets
And this is a bad thing? These are cop killers.
And which bullets are they? Please list by name.
I won't give URLs here since it might cause someone that doesn't know
how to get them when they shouldn't.
Again, bullshit. I suppose you consider teflon coated bullets and Black
Talons to be in that group. Besides, I didn't ask for URLs, I asked for
names of the rounds.
But a simple Search for armor
Post by Darylpiercing ammo for sale in google brings a ton of places to buy the
bullets for reloaders. These are steel cored bullets and normal body
armor will be penetrated every time.
Normal body armor will be penetrated by virtually any existing deer
cartrdge. Normal body armor or flak jackets are fairly good against
handgun ammo but not rifle.
Post by DarylPost by RD SandmanPost by DarylPost by MattB .5. Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute
gun crime
And this is a bad thing?
Depends on the tools.
We don't need a repeat of the funds given to various law enforcement
agencies like Homeland Security did where it was used for some pretty
rediculous things. But there needs to be better and more cops shoes
on the ground in those neighborhoods that are the problem areas.
And which neighborhoods are those? Newtown wasn't one. Nor was Virginia
Tech or Tucson or Ft Hood or Washington Navy Yard, etc..
Plus
Post by Darylclasses for the citizens in those areas to promote community
involvement even if it's just pick up the phone.
This one is good.
Post by DarylPost by RD SandmanPost by DarylPost by MattB .6. End the freeze on gun violence research
I wasn't aware that there was a ban on gun violence research. If
so, a ban on it is just plain stupid.
Post by MattB .7. Make our schools safer with new resource officers and
counselors, better emergency response plans, and more nurturing
school climates.
And this is a bat thing, How?
Nurturing climates at every turn are part of the reason we are having
these problems. Tough love needs to be put in place a lot more than
it is. Making parent responsible for some of the actions of their
kids wouls also be an interesting spur.
Around here, they are getting ready to kick off a program to get the
distruptive students out of the main stream classes. This gets the
bullies and the ones that continue to bring in weapons to school among
others. They have been using in house suspension which gives a false
reading. Get them off the school grounds.
Hmmmm, that doesn't sound like nurturing.....that sounds more like tough
love.
It's not like the District
Post by Daryldoesn't have some empty buildings. But put them with teachers that
won't put up with their BS with a Judge waiting in the background.
IOW, move the shooting down the street. Are you ready for metal
detectors, police officers and on duty judges? Who pays for all that?
Post by DarylPost by RD SandmanPost by DarylPost by MattB .8. Ensure quality coverage of mental health treatment, particularly
for young people.
And this is a bad thing how?
One of the first things that would need to occur is removal of the
stigma attached to mental illness.
That can come later. If a person is mentally ill and might be a
jeapordy to themselves or others, they shouldn't be able to buy or
possess firearms of any kind. But only if a Judge finds it that way.
Except for the judge it is already that way. That information is to be
in NICS, however, when someone like Loughner is expelled from college not
to return to campus without a mental health professional certifying he is
not danger to himself or others......yet no one, including local law
enforcement or his parents do anything...... When a person is under a
psychiatrist's care but that information is not place in NICS.....
Cho, Loughner, Holmes, Alexis and Lopez, for example, never had their
information placed in NICS.....
Post by DarylPost by RD SandmanPost by DarylPost by MattB .As Breitbart News has previously reported, expanded background
checks would not have stopped the heinous crime at Sandy Hook
Elementary; even Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin
(D-WV) admit this.
Making the person that owns the guns as liable as the ones shooting
it will make a difference.
That's called parental responsibility in cases like Lanza......Oh
wait, he killed her in her bed. Well, so much for asking permission.
One incident for the guns themselves. And he had to kill her to get
them.
No, he didn't. They were in his room in a storage unit. She bought them
to try and make peace with him. He was, apparently, suffering from
autism and Asperger's Syndrome.
The clip that did most of the killing was a 100 round clip that
Post by Daryljammed at about 50 rounds in.
Don't conflate Holmes and Lanza. Holmes was the one with the 100 round
drum that jammed and he was in the theater in Colorado. Lanza in Newtown
used a Bushmaster, model XM150E2S rifle with hi-cap 30 round magazines, a
Glock 10mm handgun and a Sig P226 9mm handgun. There was also a 12ga
shotgun seized from the car in the parking lot.
Two things, had the rifle been in a
Post by Daryllocked gun cabinet he still might have gotten to it but maybe not. As
for the clip, placing a 20 round clip limit would not have stopped the
killing but it would be half as much. While it might not have been
stopped, at least the damage could have been minimized.
With very little practice, the difference in time when firing 30 rounds
from a 30 round magazine and 30 rounds from three 10 round magazines is
less than 6 seconds.
Post by DarylPost by RD SandmanWe would see better security on those
Post by Darylweapons.
Those that don't have better security should be aware that they can do
the same prison sentence as the ones that they "Loaned" the weapons to.
Post by MattB .Moreover, as we reported on April 7th, murder rates were 19.3
percent higher while the federal "assault weapons" ban was in
place (1994-2004). Why would we, then, spend over a hundred million
dollars instituting another ban?
***********************
1.1 Billion?
What program he going to cut for this?
How about y our pay at the University?
Why do liberals always want to cough up someone else's money?
Becuase you and your people have been dipping into mine lately.
I don't have "people" other than my family and they don't know you from
Adam....the real Adam, not Lanza.
Post by DarylAgainst a 3+ percent cost of living and index, we get 1.5% to help pay
for things. Meanwhile the University employees, including the ones
that just take up space, get even more money.
Then go get a job with the university.
Post by DarylIt's okay to take it from someone else for you as long as it's not
taken from you. Does that make you a Liberal?
No, it makes you full of shit and ranting about things you don't
understand......but, then what's new? ;)
--
Sleep well tonight.......
RD (The Sandman}
One bullet in the possession of a criminal is too many.....
Ten bullets in the possession of a mother trying to protect
her children....may not be enough.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com