Seems the democrats don't know when to stop - 'Smart' gun control?

[WNYresident]

'Smart' gun control? Dem bill would require all new guns be 'personalized'

Sen. Edward Markey has unveiled a gun control bill he says will help reduce firearm violence by requiring all new guns be "personalized" with special features, such as fingerprint-reading technology, so they can only be fired by their owners or other authorized users. The Massachusetts Democrat says the bill will make it harder for stolen guns to be used in crimes and will reduce accidental firearm deaths by making it impossible for children to fire guns they find Markey said technology already exists to make guns inoperable for unauthorized users.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...-personalized/


Remember the support group for this party locally is the www.ecdems.com. They have card carrying registered members throughout out town boards and city council.

[BorderBob]

That's right, remember the party that looks to technology to stop the gun violence instead of the GOP who wants to see the slaughter continue in the name of the Second Amendment.




b.b.

[Frank Broughton]

That's right, remember the party that looks to technology to stop the gun violence instead of the GOP who wants to see the slaughter continue in the name of the Second Amendment.
b.b.

STRAW MAN ALERT!!!! STRAW MAN ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not hard to kick over a straw man Bobbie.

"instead of the GOP who wants to see the slaughter continue." It is very disingenuous of you to say this. Not even close to true. You have kids? I hope not.

[NY The Vampire State]

It don't matter to Bob... he can have a gun no matter what kind of legislation goes through. Your all just minions.


He will never face the reality of not being able to defend himself because he is in the right nonpareil group. In the mean time he's going to create red herrings about the GOP encouraging violence.

THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE "PROTECTING" THE BOARDERS. WONDERFUL AREN'T THEY?

[BorderBob]

"instead of the GOP who wants to see the slaughter continue." It is very disingenuous of you to say this. Not even close to true. You have kids? I hope not.

It is absolutely true. Look at the history. The NRA promoted background checks...until we tried to apply them universally, then they were against them. Then they were for procedures to keep "crazy people" away from guns...until we tried to actually document mental health histories. That is an infringement on privacy. The answer to gun violence is more gun violence.

Just for once, I would like to see the 2A, Molon Labe crowd just stand up and say what they believe, that the right to own guns is more important than the occasional slaughter of innocents.

Like that YouTube veteran who did exactly that, claiming that his right to firearms was more important than "your dead children." Of course him saying it was absolutely nuts, like he is some super citizen because he fought in a war, but at least he was honest about it.



b.b.

[Frank Broughton]

Just a bunch of gobbledygook there Bob - you did not answer your charge. "instead of the GOP who wants to see the slaughter continue." Please name one person in the GOP who has even come close to expressing this silly charge.

[Dan Roman]

Career politicians love to put forth these schemes, just like the Safe act. How is the ammo background check scheme working? NY state police said they don't have ability to do it, just like these "technolgies that exist" to make guns safer. Too many worthless politicians sucking off our taxes trying to justify their existence. Isn't there someone out there that needs to be saved from a 32 oz Coke?

[FMD]

I say, remove ALL restrictions on guns.. Let EVERYONE be armed! Let's see just how fast people stop robbing, raping and beating people up when their victims are armed.

[4248]

In a sense I have to agree with what Border Bob states: "Just for once, I would like to see the 2A, Molon Labe crowd just stand up and say what they believe, that the right to own guns is more important than the occasional slaughter of innocents."

I agree that a persons right to own a legal firearm has absolutely nothing to do with the "Occasional slaughter of innocent people" - the two have nothing in common.

Its Ludicrous to use the deaths of innocent people - as an excuse to remove the personal rights of those who had absolutely nothing to do with it.

I also agree that Border Bob is a product of the entitlement by association group. He feels he's more mentally stable - smarter and more deserving of the rights he/they feel we should not enjoy.

There's so many of them - that's the part Government depends on - whether their low level employees or full time LEO - their conditioned to believe their on a higher level than us ordinary people. Some actually have personal issues that feed into the superiority complex's - not all - just far too many ! But that's for another day .

[BorderBob]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/2...-gun-purchases

The failure of Manchin-Toomey means the broader bill still includes Democratic language passed by the Judiciary Committee to establish universal background checks. That language failed to attract a single Republican vote during the panel markup, and conservative Democrats such as Manchin and Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) have said they cannot support the package without changes to the language on background checks.

There is probably more, but this bill popped up first.




b.b.

[BorderBob]

I also agree that Border Bob is a product of the entitlement by association group. He feels he's more mentally stable - smarter and more deserving of the rights he/they feel we should not enjoy.

Personally, I don't go places where a threat exists and I am not afraid of my own shadow that I need to go armed everywhere I go. I had a guy I work with once suggest he keeps his gun handy just in case someone breaks in and tries to kill him. My response was "that happen to you a lot?"

But entitlement? That I carry a gun every day as part of my duties. That I train with it regularly, not only knowing how to shoot but when NOT to. I'm thinking about that guy who threw shots at that bank robber in Amherst a year or so ago. If training and experience add up to an entitlement, then yea, law enforcement officers carry the responsibility that citizens don't.

I recently learned in fact that under LEOSA I don't even need a permit when I retire in a year. It won't change my practices, and I already possess a pistol license.


But flame on...I know you want to.





b.b.

[4248]

OK - I will - Thanks.

Your training and job has nothing to do with anyone Else's rights to legally own a fire arm. But once again you emphasize the unequal treatment/laws - you stated: "I recently learned in fact that under LEOSA I don't even need a permit when I retire in a year. It won't change my practices, and I already possess a pistol license." -

So for some reason you don't even need to follow the rules/laws that everyone else does. Including the amount of ammo, the types of fire arms you can possess.

Also - many of us can relate to a few cases where "Retired" Officers shoot people for less than valid reasons. You may think about a guy who sent a few rounds down range after a bank robber -

Many people remember a retired officer who shot a guy because he threw popcorn at him - or another guy who shot a young man because his music was to loud.

You and other armed employees should be subjected to a mental exam and gun recertification every few years. Your need for gun permit and mental health should be subject to review upon retirement.

Now its your turn to flame on -


PS - I am in no way saying all law enforcement fit the above statements - this is just an opinion used to answer Border Bobs opinions.

[4248]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/2...-gun-purchases
There is probably more, but this bill popped up first. b.b.

Heres the date and beginning of the article you sighted :

04/17/13 08:27 PM EDT

The Senate delivered a devastating blow to President Obama’s agenda to regulate guns Wednesday by defeating a bipartisan proposal to expand background checks.

It failed by a vote of 54 to 46, with five Democrats voting against it. Only four Republicans supported it.

Democratic Sens. Mark Pryor (Ark.), Max Baucus (Mont.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Mark Begich (Alaska) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) voted against it. Reid supported the measure but voted against it to preserve his ability to bring the measure up again.

GOP Sens. John McCain (Ariz.), Susan Collins (Maine), Pat Toomey (Pa.) and Mark Kirk (Ill.) voted "yes."

The amendment sponsored by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Toomey appeared to have political momentum last week.

[Frank Broughton]

Bob, you made a huge horrible claim, back it up or apologize sir.

[Frank Broughton]

That I train with it regularly, not only knowing how to shoot but when NOT to. I'm thinking about that guy who threw shots at that bank robber in Amherst a year or so ago.

Glad to hear that. It is just as important for sure to know when NOT to fire as how to fire properly. I would never carry a gun. Cannot scare me with heaven.