Rob Rogers for April 19, 2013

Chickenhawks, stage two.

Or maybe people don’t like their constitutional right being infringed?

If you keep going that line I´m sure it becomes a right as well ;)

you mean this is the first time they have done this. How about the gay marrying in NY (Not bashing gay) but the republicans did this went agaist the people that voted for them. How about opening up the borders both parties done this but mostly democrats. sorry It seems that they for got that they are to make law for the good of all the people.

“They are good intentions…..Right???”Let’s not forget al qaeda has an informative video advising potential terrorists within the U.S. of the ease of obtaining heavy firepower by attending gun shows. The right supports what the terrorist exploits.

Well, a gun show is widely publicized, well stocked with guns ‘n ammo so I’d say anonymous accessibility to fire power.

For Gawd sake no one is coming after your guns!!! I have a glock, a shotgun, and a big dog. Why are you making it easier for terrorist to acquire guns?

The problem here is that Background Checks have never worked on keeping firearms out of the hands of people who are not legally allowed to have them in the first place—like Adam Lanza, who stole his from his mother.…But that is just one of the many problems that surround background checks.…The other problem here is what information is collected on the person who is seeking out the legal ownership of a firearm, who owns that information and what can they do with it once they have that information?…And there you have a bigger problem than just the problems of owning a firearm legally.…For one thing, a prospective legal firearms purchaser is giving their information to the seller of the firearm, to use that information to sell them more stuff, or even to sell that information to somebody else to sell them more stuff, or in some cases, even steal their identity.…And then there’s what happens when that information is collected and given to Law Enforcement as well as to the government that the Law Enforcement Agency answers to, and that information then becomes their property, too, to do with as they wish, including selling it to somebody else to sell the prospective purchaser stuff or even to steal their identity.…And that is always going to be a problem with anybody gathering background information and the questions should always be raised what is going to happen to that information once it is collected?…Because once information is collected, it’s never going to be destroyed or lost, instead it becomes the property of the person collecting that information, to do with as they wish, including to sell it or give it to somebody else for whatever reason they see fit.…And if an individual gives away their information, eventually it will wind up in the hands of somebody like an identity thief out there who can use that information to exploit that individual besides stealing their money but also using that information to launder somebody else’s bad reputation, or even give an illegal immigrant some legitimate information by which to establish themself here, as many Puerto Ricans and Guamanians have discovered when their names and SSN’s were sold to Mexicans illegally so that those Mexicans could get jobs in the US and fill out W-2’s and I-9 forms.…And no background check is going to stop anybody from obtaining a firearm illegally—because they may not even go through that system to get that firearm, once again back to Adam Lanza and adding in Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, who had others purchase those firearms legally for them.…And once again, what happens to all that information being collected on the people willing to go through that background check to purchase a firearm legally?…It pretty much goes back to what Benjamin Franklin wrote about a people who exchange their freedom for security and find that they will have neither.

Yes, Ima, 90% of liberals AND conservatives ALL say background checks will keep guns from criminals, and that’s because it’s incontrovertibly true. Only gun nuts and senators say otherwise, because facts are not relevant to their world view.

Background checks DO keep some folks from acquiring firearms, period. That some slip through the cracks doesn’t mean every driver behind the wheel is DUII. HOwever, with the flagrant violations of cell phone use by drivers, THAT is a law I see terribly UNenforced, and would like to see more stringent laws, and prosecutions for.

BTW: Staffordshire terriers (pit bulls) are banned in more jurisdictions in the U.S. than guns. Thirty people a year killed by dogs (not all Staffordshires), and there are thousands of dog bites every year. 30,000 people are killed by guns, but “regulation”, which even SCALIA says IS Constitutional, is an attack on freedom?

You bastard. How dare you criticize people who fought for YOUR rights. No liberal — let alone your fictional “Dem Libs” — would vote for “freeing violent criminals,” “open borders,” “taking away your means to protect yourself.”It is time you MET a liberal or two. Because your view is complete fiction.

I think we should legalise rape, murder and pedophilia. I mean, it’s not as if these things being illegal is preventing anyone from doing them anyway.

Then leave.

Why are those who say (rightly, in my opinion) that we shouldn’t judge all Muslims on the action of a few radicals so adamant in blaming all gun owners for the actions of a few disturbed individuals?