Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

[DKW 86 7,419]

1) Some child/person died somewhere from something!

2) Therefore ban that something...unless it was an Abortion, then we should fully fund it.

[homersapien 11,357]

Y'all can spin it all you want but if we are having gunfights on the highway there's something seriously wrong with our culture.

And as I said, I don't feel nearly as threatened by our government as I do some random armed yahoo.

[tgr4lfe 220]

Y'all can spin it all you want but if we are having gunfights on the highway there's something seriously wrong with our culture.

And as I said, I don't feel nearly as threatened by our government as I do some random armed yahoo.

Exactly! IT's the PEOPLE, not the gun, or the knife, or whatever they choose to use.

If you are worried about the random armed yahoo, become one too, so you can shoot the other one before he shoots you.

[homersapien 11,357]

Y'all can spin it all you want but if we are having gunfights on the highway there's something seriously wrong with our culture.

And as I said, I don't feel nearly as threatened by our government as I do some random armed yahoo.

Exactly! IT's the PEOPLE, not the gun, or the knife, or whatever they choose to use.

If you are worried about the random armed yahoo, become one too, so you can shoot the other one before he shoots you.

Thanks for making my point. :-\

[alexava 6,973]

Y'all can spin it all you want but if we are having gunfights on the highway there's something seriously wrong with our culture.

And as I said, I don't feel nearly as threatened by our government as I do some random armed yahoo.

Exactly! IT's the PEOPLE, not the gun, or the knife, or whatever they choose to use.

If you are worried about the random armed yahoo, become one too, so you can shoot the other one before he shoots you.

Thanks for making my point. :-\/>

yahoos among us whose rights shall not be infringed!

[Auburn4life 24]

Y'all can spin it all you want but if we are having gunfights on the highway there's something seriously wrong with our culture.

And as I said, I don't feel nearly as threatened by our government as I do some random armed yahoo.

The early 1940s Germans and Jews are calling and would happily trade places with you.

[DKW 86 7,419]

Y'all can spin it all you want but if we are having gunfights on the highway there's something seriously wrong with our culture.

And as I said, I don't feel nearly as threatened by our government as I do some random armed yahoo.

Exactly! IT's the PEOPLE, not the gun, or the knife, or whatever they choose to use.

If you are worried about the random armed yahoo, become one too, so you can shoot the other one before he shoots you.

Thanks for making my point. :-\

Always knew you self identified as a yahoo...lol ;-)

[homersapien 11,357]

Y'all can spin it all you want but if we are having gunfights on the highway there's something seriously wrong with our culture.

And as I said, I don't feel nearly as threatened by our government as I do some random armed yahoo.

The early 1940s Germans and Jews are calling and would happily trade places with you.

The assertion that gun control was key to the rise of the Nazis is a popular myth.

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4029&context=flr

[AUDub 11,137]

Y'all can spin it all you want but if we are having gunfights on the highway there's something seriously wrong with our culture.

And as I said, I don't feel nearly as threatened by our government as I do some random armed yahoo.

The early 1940s Germans and Jews are calling and would happily trade places with you.

I think I heard a Holocaust historian giggle somewhere off in the distance.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Y'all can spin it all you want but if we are having gunfights on the highway there's something seriously wrong with our culture.

And as I said, I don't feel nearly as threatened by our government as I do some random armed yahoo.

Exactly! IT's the PEOPLE, not the gun, or the knife, or whatever they choose to use.

If you are worried about the random armed yahoo, become one too, so you can shoot the other one before he shoots you.

But you can't talk restriction or changes to counter those PEOPLE without it automatically going into ban all guns and the government wants to take them away.

For instance lets look at those convicted of domestic violence.

An American woman’s chances of experiencing physical violence of some form at the hands of her male partner are more than one in three, and when a gun is present in a domestic violence situation, the risk of homicide increases by 500 percent.

http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2015/09/18/the-boyfriend-loophole-in-u-s-gun-laws-is-costing-womens-lives/

Now while there is a federal law in place in regards to ownership it suffers from the boyfriend loophole in many states in the US.

“[it’s] called the “boyfriend loophole,” Lindsay Nichols, senior attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, explained to Women in the World. “[For] a couple who has never been married – they don’t live together, they don’t have children together – gun prohibition won’t kick in. Even if there’s been a violent assault that does lead to a criminal conviction, [an abuser] will be able to get a gun

http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2015/09/18/the-boyfriend-loophole-in-u-s-gun-laws-is-costing-womens-lives/

Then in states where they try and fight the boyfriend loophole the NRA steps in, like in LA.

The provision would have allowed those accused of abusing "dating partners" to be charged with domestic abuse battery, not just "household members." Sport said she was told the NRA "didn't want to increase the pool of people who will dispossessed of their firearms," so the group opposed that provision, among to others.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/05/heres_what_the_nra_got_strippe.html

So the NRA is OK with the dispossession of those that beat their own children, but thinks those that beat their girlfriends children (as long as they don't live together) is OK? That is a PEOPLE issue. So this was what happened:

• Removes "dating partner" as an extension of the definition of a victim of domestic abuse battery. Domestic abuse battery only pertains to scenarios when the victim is a "household member," which refers to spouses, family members or co-habitants (within five years of the incident)

I like this one also, cause this a group of people that should have guns:

• Removes a provision prohibiting a person convicted of stalking from possessing a firearm.

Also this is a favorite, cause we don't want these guys blocking at Auburn University but we do believe they should have guns:

• Removes a provision adding strangulation to the definition of "serious bodily injury" regarding second-degree battery. Strangulation is often a red flag that abuse could lead to more lethal form.

Then in many states such as Alabama where when convicted of domestic abuse you are not allowed to have a gun, well then nothing is actually done to take the firearm of the criminal. In the city of Dallas they are taking actions to enforce that (of course this doesn't work if guns are not registered which people on this very forum have said they are against due to conspiracy of they gonna take my gun for no reason):

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/domestic-violence-offenders-dallas-are-surrendering-guns-under-new-program-n366796

So here is a prime of example of the type of gun changes I would like to see made that impacts the PEOPLE ISSUE. I want to see the boyfriend loophole eliminated and the confiscation of weapons from these people. This isn't a ban guns, overturn the second amendment thing. It is a address the people issue, just like those with background checks and mental illness.

[homersapien 11,357]

Y'all can spin it all you want but if we are having gunfights on the highway there's something seriously wrong with our culture.

And as I said, I don't feel nearly as threatened by our government as I do some random armed yahoo.

Exactly! IT's the PEOPLE, not the gun, or the knife, or whatever they choose to use.

If you are worried about the random armed yahoo, become one too, so you can shoot the other one before he shoots you.

But you can't talk restriction or changes to counter those PEOPLE without it automatically going into ban all guns and the government wants to take them away.

For instance lets look at those convicted of domestic violence.

An American woman’s chances of experiencing physical violence of some form at the hands of her male partner are more than one in three, and when a gun is present in a domestic violence situation, the risk of homicide increases by 500 percent.

http://nytlive.nytim...g-womens-lives/

Now while there is a federal law in place in regards to ownership it suffers from the boyfriend loophole in many states in the US.

“[it’s] called the “boyfriend loophole,” Lindsay Nichols, senior attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, explained to Women in the World. “[For] a couple who has never been married – they don’t live together, they don’t have children together – gun prohibition won’t kick in. Even if there’s been a violent assault that does lead to a criminal conviction, [an abuser] will be able to get a gun

http://nytlive.nytim...g-womens-lives/

Then in states where they try and fight the boyfriend loophole the NRA steps in, like in LA.

The provision would have allowed those accused of abusing "dating partners" to be charged with domestic abuse battery, not just "household members." Sport said she was told the NRA "didn't want to increase the pool of people who will dispossessed of their firearms," so the group opposed that provision, among to others.

http://www.nola.com/...ot_strippe.html

So the NRA is OK with the dispossession of those that beat their own children, but thinks those that beat their girlfriends children (as long as they don't live together) is OK? That is a PEOPLE issue. So this was what happened:

• Removes "dating partner" as an extension of the definition of a victim of domestic abuse battery. Domestic abuse battery only pertains to scenarios when the victim is a "household member," which refers to spouses, family members or co-habitants (within five years of the incident)

I like this one also, cause this a group of people that should have guns:

• Removes a provision prohibiting a person convicted of stalking from possessing a firearm.

Also this is a favorite, cause we don't want these guys blocking at Auburn University but we do believe they should have guns:

• Removes a provision adding strangulation to the definition of "serious bodily injury" regarding second-degree battery. Strangulation is often a red flag that abuse could lead to more lethal form.

Then in many states such as Alabama where when convicted of domestic abuse you are not allowed to have a gun, well then nothing is actually done to take the firearm of the criminal. In the city of Dallas they are taking actions to enforce that (of course this doesn't work if guns are not registered which people on this very forum have said they are against due to conspiracy of they gonna take my gun for no reason):

http://www.nbcnews.c...program-n366796

So here is a prime of example of the type of gun changes I would like to see made that impacts the PEOPLE ISSUE. I want to see the boyfriend loophole eliminated and the confiscation of weapons from these people. This isn't a ban guns, overturn the second amendment thing. It is a address the people issue, just like those with background checks and mental illness.

Excellent post!

You are right. The first response to ANY gun control legislation is objection to the banning and/or confiscation of guns as if that's the real issue. The political battle is being waged around common sense issues that rarely get discussed. That's because the NRA and their friends work so hard to define the issue as a single, straw man argument. (watch)

Hell, look at the loopholes in the background check system - private sales and gun shows exempt? What a joke.

[tgr4lfe 220]

Y'all can spin it all you want but if we are having gunfights on the highway there's something seriously wrong with our culture.

And as I said, I don't feel nearly as threatened by our government as I do some random armed yahoo.

Exactly! IT's the PEOPLE, not the gun, or the knife, or whatever they choose to use.

If you are worried about the random armed yahoo, become one too, so you can shoot the other one before he shoots you.

Thanks for making my point. :-\

It's you or them?? Take your stance, you wanna be the victim, then so be it, but

Y'all can spin it all you want but if we are having gunfights on the highway there's something seriously wrong with our culture.

And as I said, I don't feel nearly as threatened by our government as I do some random armed yahoo.

Exactly! IT's the PEOPLE, not the gun, or the knife, or whatever they choose to use.

If you are worried about the random armed yahoo, become one too, so you can shoot the other one before he shoots you.

But you can't talk restriction or changes to counter those PEOPLE without it automatically going into ban all guns and the government wants to take them away.

For instance lets look at those convicted of domestic violence.

An American woman’s chances of experiencing physical violence of some form at the hands of her male partner are more than one in three, and when a gun is present in a domestic violence situation, the risk of homicide increases by 500 percent.

http://nytlive.nytim...g-womens-lives/

Now while there is a federal law in place in regards to ownership it suffers from the boyfriend loophole in many states in the US.

“[it’s] called the “boyfriend loophole,” Lindsay Nichols, senior attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, explained to Women in the World. “[For] a couple who has never been married – they don’t live together, they don’t have children together – gun prohibition won’t kick in. Even if there’s been a violent assault that does lead to a criminal conviction, [an abuser] will be able to get a gun

http://nytlive.nytim...g-womens-lives/

Then in states where they try and fight the boyfriend loophole the NRA steps in, like in LA.

The provision would have allowed those accused of abusing "dating partners" to be charged with domestic abuse battery, not just "household members." Sport said she was told the NRA "didn't want to increase the pool of people who will dispossessed of their firearms," so the group opposed that provision, among to others.

http://www.nola.com/...ot_strippe.html

So the NRA is OK with the dispossession of those that beat their own children, but thinks those that beat their girlfriends children (as long as they don't live together) is OK? That is a PEOPLE issue. So this was what happened:

• Removes "dating partner" as an extension of the definition of a victim of domestic abuse battery. Domestic abuse battery only pertains to scenarios when the victim is a "household member," which refers to spouses, family members or co-habitants (within five years of the incident)

I like this one also, cause this a group of people that should have guns:

• Removes a provision prohibiting a person convicted of stalking from possessing a firearm.

Also this is a favorite, cause we don't want these guys blocking at Auburn University but we do believe they should have guns:

• Removes a provision adding strangulation to the definition of "serious bodily injury" regarding second-degree battery. Strangulation is often a red flag that abuse could lead to more lethal form.

Then in many states such as Alabama where when convicted of domestic abuse you are not allowed to have a gun, well then nothing is actually done to take the firearm of the criminal. In the city of Dallas they are taking actions to enforce that (of course this doesn't work if guns are not registered which people on this very forum have said they are against due to conspiracy of they gonna take my gun for no reason):

http://www.nbcnews.c...program-n366796

So here is a prime of example of the type of gun changes I would like to see made that impacts the PEOPLE ISSUE. I want to see the boyfriend loophole eliminated and the confiscation of weapons from these people. This isn't a ban guns, overturn the second amendment thing. It is a address the people issue, just like those with background checks and mental illness.

Just as much as there is the NRA involvement, there is also the complete opposite of those you want to restrict/ban firearms to the extreme. There has to be a balancing of 2nd amendment and keeping weapons out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. The problem is NO amount of legislation or laws will keep those people from obtaining a firearm if they really want one. Laws WILL be circumvented and ignored, guns sold on the street, at such alarming rates and there aren't enough LE to keep up with controlling it, b/c some of same ones wanting stricter guns laws are anti-police and that there are already too many. LE, i.e. ATF is already stretched out too thin, not to mention local LE. They are now having to be more worried about watching their back 24/7 and/or worried about making a mistake that they become more passive.

It would be great to be able to have those trying to obtain a weapon legally go through background check, mental health records check, etc., but it is just not feasible to do. The mental health field is so drastically underfunded and overwhelmed its just bad. People not going, not staying on meds (can't force them), mental health facilities already overcrowded and losing money. Then you add Local LE having to deal with the emotionally disturbed, it's all a huge mess.

There are likely many of those provisions that should and need to be corrected to close loopholes. They won't always work. The ex-con that shot me in 1999, had a .22 revolver, a 9mm, a rifle, and a shotgun in his house and he had not been in prison in over 20 years!

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Attempting to frame this debate in the extremes means, you are disingenuous, hypocritical, political. In general, not much of a human being.

[cooltigger21 0]

Y'all can spin it all you want but if we are having gunfights on the highway there's something seriously wrong with our culture.

And as I said, I don't feel nearly as threatened by our government as I do some random armed yahoo.

Of course you don't. You love government and think we don't have enough of it.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Y'all can spin it all you want but if we are having gunfights on the highway there's something seriously wrong with our culture.

And as I said, I don't feel nearly as threatened by our government as I do some random armed yahoo.

Exactly! IT's the PEOPLE, not the gun, or the knife, or whatever they choose to use.

If you are worried about the random armed yahoo, become one too, so you can shoot the other one before he shoots you.

Thanks for making my point. :-\

It's you or them?? Take your stance, you wanna be the victim, then so be it, but

Y'all can spin it all you want but if we are having gunfights on the highway there's something seriously wrong with our culture.

And as I said, I don't feel nearly as threatened by our government as I do some random armed yahoo.

Exactly! IT's the PEOPLE, not the gun, or the knife, or whatever they choose to use.

If you are worried about the random armed yahoo, become one too, so you can shoot the other one before he shoots you.

But you can't talk restriction or changes to counter those PEOPLE without it automatically going into ban all guns and the government wants to take them away.

For instance lets look at those convicted of domestic violence.

An American woman’s chances of experiencing physical violence of some form at the hands of her male partner are more than one in three, and when a gun is present in a domestic violence situation, the risk of homicide increases by 500 percent.

http://nytlive.nytim...g-womens-lives/

Now while there is a federal law in place in regards to ownership it suffers from the boyfriend loophole in many states in the US.

“[it’s] called the “boyfriend loophole,” Lindsay Nichols, senior attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, explained to Women in the World. “[For] a couple who has never been married – they don’t live together, they don’t have children together – gun prohibition won’t kick in. Even if there’s been a violent assault that does lead to a criminal conviction, [an abuser] will be able to get a gun

http://nytlive.nytim...g-womens-lives/

Then in states where they try and fight the boyfriend loophole the NRA steps in, like in LA.

The provision would have allowed those accused of abusing "dating partners" to be charged with domestic abuse battery, not just "household members." Sport said she was told the NRA "didn't want to increase the pool of people who will dispossessed of their firearms," so the group opposed that provision, among to others.

http://www.nola.com/...ot_strippe.html

So the NRA is OK with the dispossession of those that beat their own children, but thinks those that beat their girlfriends children (as long as they don't live together) is OK? That is a PEOPLE issue. So this was what happened:

• Removes "dating partner" as an extension of the definition of a victim of domestic abuse battery. Domestic abuse battery only pertains to scenarios when the victim is a "household member," which refers to spouses, family members or co-habitants (within five years of the incident)

I like this one also, cause this a group of people that should have guns:

• Removes a provision prohibiting a person convicted of stalking from possessing a firearm.

Also this is a favorite, cause we don't want these guys blocking at Auburn University but we do believe they should have guns:

• Removes a provision adding strangulation to the definition of "serious bodily injury" regarding second-degree battery. Strangulation is often a red flag that abuse could lead to more lethal form.

Then in many states such as Alabama where when convicted of domestic abuse you are not allowed to have a gun, well then nothing is actually done to take the firearm of the criminal. In the city of Dallas they are taking actions to enforce that (of course this doesn't work if guns are not registered which people on this very forum have said they are against due to conspiracy of they gonna take my gun for no reason):

http://www.nbcnews.c...program-n366796

So here is a prime of example of the type of gun changes I would like to see made that impacts the PEOPLE ISSUE. I want to see the boyfriend loophole eliminated and the confiscation of weapons from these people. This isn't a ban guns, overturn the second amendment thing. It is a address the people issue, just like those with background checks and mental illness.

Just as much as there is the NRA involvement, there is also the complete opposite of those you want to restrict/ban firearms to the extreme. There has to be a balancing of 2nd amendment and keeping weapons out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. The problem is NO amount of legislation or laws will keep those people from obtaining a firearm if they really want one. Laws WILL be circumvented and ignored, guns sold on the street, at such alarming rates and there aren't enough LE to keep up with controlling it, b/c some of same ones wanting stricter guns laws are anti-police and that there are already too many. LE, i.e. ATF is already stretched out too thin, not to mention local LE. They are now having to be more worried about watching their back 24/7 and/or worried about making a mistake that they become more passive.

It would be great to be able to have those trying to obtain a weapon legally go through background check, mental health records check, etc., but it is just not feasible to do. The mental health field is so drastically underfunded and overwhelmed its just bad. People not going, not staying on meds (can't force them), mental health facilities already overcrowded and losing money. Then you add Local LE having to deal with the emotionally disturbed, it's all a huge mess.

There are likely many of those provisions that should and need to be corrected to close loopholes. They won't always work. The ex-con that shot me in 1999, had a .22 revolver, a 9mm, a rifle, and a shotgun in his house and he had not been in prison in over 20 years!

Well geez, guess we should just quit and give up then. Wish they would take the same attitude with traffic laws, people that wanna drive are gonna drive and nothing we can do....screw it. Then LE could do something else besides sit behind bushes by Maxx Fitness all the time looking for that 39 in a 35 and snagging that easy $160 dollars in revenue.

Kids are gonna drink underage if they wanna drink underage. So you know what, screw it and stop going to teens hangouts and bugging them. Can't do that! That's $400 dollars a pop in revenue. And for the love of God!!! Stay out of college parties where you get to bust the MIP's and then toss down house rules on the owner for major $$$$.

Unfortunately some cops have earned their reps (like the Chicago PD) and should of policed themselves as much as others. I tried to stick up for cops in Dallas, you know against idiots like Watkins and gang that want to roll up armed and stand 3 ft away from them and film and distract them while they are doing their job. Got slammed for that.

And yes we get there are the extreme people that want all guns gone. I haven't seen one of those on these boards, but anyone here that wants a change in something is painted that way. My point was you were talking about it being a PEOPLE thing. I wasn't making an extreme comment, I was pointing out where the NRA interfered with a PEOPLE thing by not allowing closure of the boyfriend loophole in LA. But you know what, if someone really wants to beat a kid or a woman.. well they are gonna beat a kid or a woman so we should just toss that out the window also.

I will probably agree with 100% with mental health. Course now people want to 100% repeal every last word of something that finally tried to address issues in that arena. For the record some of those medications actually make you worse.

We get an understand that are zero absolutes with it, but does that mean you don't try in some arena's? Like changing a law to work the same way for a boyfriend that doesn't live with a woman/child as it does for that do or are married. Yes, there will still be the ones that say I'm going to shoot her and go get a gun and do it. But if it stops just one boyfriend from doing it, then isn't that change in wording worth it? Does anyone really believe the character of a person that would beat a child/woman is different just cause he lives with them or doesn't live with them?

Sorry you got shot. I got grazed the leg once, guess it counts as shot. Mine was just by an idiot that really shouldn't of had a gun in the first place.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Y'all can spin it all you want but if we are having gunfights on the highway there's something seriously wrong with our culture.

And as I said, I don't feel nearly as threatened by our government as I do some random armed yahoo.

Of course you don't. You love government and think we don't have enough of it.

I trust the government more than I trust the open carry individuals in Texas. Mean c'mon even the NRA doesn't like these guys being armed and they are fighting for the rights of boyfriends that beat women and children to be armed lol.

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2014/06/03/the-nra-becomes-a-critic-of-texas-open-carry-movement/

[cooltigger21 0]

Y'all can spin it all you want but if we are having gunfights on the highway there's something seriously wrong with our culture.

And as I said, I don't feel nearly as threatened by our government as I do some random armed yahoo.

Of course you don't. You love government and think we don't have enough of it.

I trust the government more than I trust the open carry individuals in Texas. Mean c'mon even the NRA doesn't like these guys being armed and they are fighting for the rights of boyfriends that beat women and children to be armed lol.

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2014/06/03/the-nra-becomes-a-critic-of-texas-open-carry-movement/

Well the open carry group may be a bunch of yahoos and I will say there are better ways of going about it. However I have yet nor do I expect to hear about one of them physically harming someone. On the other hand we have a federal government that is actively working to curtail the constitutional rights of citizens or at least the political enemies of this administration. The bureaucracy continually seeks more power and control. They get people to give up their rights in the name of safety and security. I fear that a hell of a lot more than a small group of people.

[DKW 86 7,419]

Y'all can spin it all you want but if we are having gunfights on the highway there's something seriously wrong with our culture.

And as I said, I don't feel nearly as threatened by our government as I do some random armed yahoo.

Of course you don't. You love government and think we don't have enough of it.

I trust the government more than I trust the open carry individuals in Texas. Mean c'mon even the NRA doesn't like these guys being armed and they are fighting for the rights of boyfriends that beat women and children to be armed lol.

http://politics.blog...carry-movement/

Well the open carry group may be a bunch of yahoos and I will say there are better ways of going about it. However I have yet nor do I expect to hear about one of them physically harming someone. On the other hand we have a federal government that is actively working to curtail the constitutional rights of citizens or at least the political enemies of this administration. The bureaucracy continually seeks more power and control. They get people to give up their rights in the name of safety and security. I fear that a hell of a lot more than a small group of people.

So citizens open carrying worries you but the BATF GIVING AWAY ASSAULT WEAPONS TO DRUG CARTELS THRU FAST & FURIOUS DOESNT BOTHER YOU AT ALL? Strange world you live in.

[DKW 86 7,419]

Y'all can spin it all you want but if we are having gunfights on the highway there's something seriously wrong with our culture.

And as I said, I don't feel nearly as threatened by our government as I do some random armed yahoo.

Exactly! IT's the PEOPLE, not the gun, or the knife, or whatever they choose to use.

If you are worried about the random armed yahoo, become one too, so you can shoot the other one before he shoots you.

But you can't talk restriction or changes to counter those PEOPLE without it automatically going into ban all guns and the government wants to take them away.

For instance lets look at those convicted of domestic violence.

An American woman’s chances of experiencing physical violence of some form at the hands of her male partner are more than one in three, and when a gun is present in a domestic violence situation, the risk of homicide increases by 500 percent.

http://nytlive.nytim...g-womens-lives/

Now while there is a federal law in place in regards to ownership it suffers from the boyfriend loophole in many states in the US.

“[it’s] called the “boyfriend loophole,” Lindsay Nichols, senior attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, explained to Women in the World. “[For] a couple who has never been married – they don’t live together, they don’t have children together – gun prohibition won’t kick in. Even if there’s been a violent assault that does lead to a criminal conviction, [an abuser] will be able to get a gun

http://nytlive.nytim...g-womens-lives/

Then in states where they try and fight the boyfriend loophole the NRA steps in, like in LA.

The provision would have allowed those accused of abusing "dating partners" to be charged with domestic abuse battery, not just "household members." Sport said she was told the NRA "didn't want to increase the pool of people who will dispossessed of their firearms," so the group opposed that provision, among to others.

http://www.nola.com/...ot_strippe.html

So the NRA is OK with the dispossession of those that beat their own children, but thinks those that beat their girlfriends children (as long as they don't live together) is OK? That is a PEOPLE issue. So this was what happened:

• Removes "dating partner" as an extension of the definition of a victim of domestic abuse battery. Domestic abuse battery only pertains to scenarios when the victim is a "household member," which refers to spouses, family members or co-habitants (within five years of the incident)

I like this one also, cause this a group of people that should have guns:

• Removes a provision prohibiting a person convicted of stalking from possessing a firearm.

Also this is a favorite, cause we don't want these guys blocking at Auburn University but we do believe they should have guns:

• Removes a provision adding strangulation to the definition of "serious bodily injury" regarding second-degree battery. Strangulation is often a red flag that abuse could lead to more lethal form.

Then in many states such as Alabama where when convicted of domestic abuse you are not allowed to have a gun, well then nothing is actually done to take the firearm of the criminal. In the city of Dallas they are taking actions to enforce that (of course this doesn't work if guns are not registered which people on this very forum have said they are against due to conspiracy of they gonna take my gun for no reason):

http://www.nbcnews.c...program-n366796

So here is a prime of example of the type of gun changes I would like to see made that impacts the PEOPLE ISSUE. I want to see the boyfriend loophole eliminated and the confiscation of weapons from these people. This isn't a ban guns, overturn the second amendment thing. It is a address the people issue, just like those with background checks and mental illness.

Excellent post!

You are right. The first response to ANY gun control legislation is objection to the banning and/or confiscation of guns as if that's the real issue. The political battle is being waged around common sense issues that rarely get discussed. That's because the NRA and their friends work so hard to define the issue as a single, straw man argument. (watch)

Hell, look at the loopholes in the background check system - private sales and gun shows exempt? What a joke.

Look, I think we need common sense closing of loopholes. I absolutely agree on the BoyFriend Loophole. The trouble is, we have laws on the books no one is enforcing. These laws almost always fall on legal gun owners and do ZERO to those who would actually use a gun in a crime.

IF YOU WANT TO FOCUS ON CRIMINALS GETTING GUNS, I THINK YOU WOULD GET ALL BUT 100% SUPPORT FROM EVERYONE.

The problem in the past has been just the opposite. The laws are designed to harass law abiding citizens that own guns that have never and will never be used in a crime and leave criminals completely alone. This is MY OBJECTION TO MORE LEGISLATION. If you want to concentrate on CRIMINALS, ABUSERS, DRUG CARTELS, I am all in support of 100% doing that. Leave the rest of us alone tho. We arent commiting crimes and will never commit any crimes.

[AUDub 11,137]

Well the open carry group may be a bunch of yahoos and I will say there are better ways of going about it. However I have yet nor do I expect to hear about one of them physically harming someone. On the other hand we have a federal government that is actively working to curtail the constitutional rights of citizens or at least the political enemies of this administration. The bureaucracy continually seeks more power and control. They get people to give up their rights in the name of safety and security. I fear that a hell of a lot more than a small group of people.

Don't you dare defend Watkins and his merry band of jackasses. They've been know to drop dox on people and threaten them with murder.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/guns-bullying-open-carry-women-moms-texas

A Schoolteacher in the Crosshairs

A top target for gun extremists has been the women of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, the grassroots group that began after Sandy Hook and has since merged with Michael Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns under the Everytown banner. The battle has grown particularly ugly in Texas, where gun groups such as Open Carry Texas have conducted demonstrations showcasing their right under state law to openly carry rifles in public. The sight of groups of (mostly) men carrying semi-automatic rifles along a busy road or inside the local Jack in the Box has prompted bystanders to call police. In response, Open Carry Texas has begun making open-records requests, identifying callers and threatening to publicize their personal information.

On April 10, Brett Sanders, a member of Open Carry Texas in Plano, a midsize city in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, posted a video on YouTube highlighting the name and cellphone number of a woman who'd called the police after seeing heavily armed men on her way to a shopping mall. The post drew condemnation not only for outing the woman but also because it was misleading: It claimed that the woman had called 911, though she'd called the nonemergency line of the Plano PD. And the footage it used came from friendly-looking demonstrations elsewhere—not from the one that the woman encountered. ("Feel free to contact me when you work for a real news organization," Sanders replied to my request for comment.)

The woman—a high school teacher who asked not to be identified—quickly got pummeled with text messages and voicemails, copies of which she provided to Mother Jones. Callers told her she was a "stupid bitch" and "mother****ing whore."

"They fought for their right to carry guns," said another. "You're a piece of s***." One caller threatened to come after her with a gun.

Over the next four days she received nearly two dozen such calls and text messages. Someone put her information into a phony profile on a large e-commerce site, and she got a barrage of calls about agricultural products and security systems.

"I really felt strongly about not changing my cellphone number—I'm not going to be intimidated," she told me. "But it just got to the point where it's not worth it."

[Editor's note: The teacher since changed her number; Mother Jones has redacted her name.]

A fifth-generation Texan from a small town, the teacher in Plano grew up hunting. She is not, as her antagonists claimed, a member of Moms Demand Action (though she now plans to join). But given the rapid rise of Moms, gun extremists tend to view any woman who lands in their crosshairs as part of what has become, as one state leader for Moms puts it, "kind of the new black helicopters for these guys."

According to Plano police records, two other people called in with concerns about the demonstration that day—both men. No member of Open Carry Texas publicized their information.

The attack left the teacher worried for the safety of her family: "I felt that if I walked out someone was going to be standing there." But in hindsight, she says, "I think they are very weak men. They use their guns because that's all they have. If you know what I mean."

Open Carry Texas has insisted that it plans to continue exposing people who call police about its armed demonstrations. "Gun control bullies are all up in arms over this video published by one of our members," the group stated in a Facebook post on April 13, since deleted from its page. "If you don't want your name publicized, simply don't make a false 911 call against law abiding gun owners."

[cooltigger21 0]

Well the open carry group may be a bunch of yahoos and I will say there are better ways of going about it. However I have yet nor do I expect to hear about one of them physically harming someone. On the other hand we have a federal government that is actively working to curtail the constitutional rights of citizens or at least the political enemies of this administration. The bureaucracy continually seeks more power and control. They get people to give up their rights in the name of safety and security. I fear that a hell of a lot more than a small group of people.

Don't you dare defend Watkins and his merry band of jackasses. They've been know to drop dox on people and threaten them with murder.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/guns-bullying-open-carry-women-moms-texas

A Schoolteacher in the Crosshairs

A top target for gun extremists has been the women of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, the grassroots group that began after Sandy Hook and has since merged with Michael Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns under the Everytown banner. The battle has grown particularly ugly in Texas, where gun groups such as Open Carry Texas have conducted demonstrations showcasing their right under state law to openly carry rifles in public. The sight of groups of (mostly) men carrying semi-automatic rifles along a busy road or inside the local Jack in the Box has prompted bystanders to call police. In response, Open Carry Texas has begun making open-records requests, identifying callers and threatening to publicize their personal information.

On April 10, Brett Sanders, a member of Open Carry Texas in Plano, a midsize city in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, posted a video on YouTube highlighting the name and cellphone number of a woman who'd called the police after seeing heavily armed men on her way to a shopping mall. The post drew condemnation not only for outing the woman but also because it was misleading: It claimed that the woman had called 911, though she'd called the nonemergency line of the Plano PD. And the footage it used came from friendly-looking demonstrations elsewhere—not from the one that the woman encountered. ("Feel free to contact me when you work for a real news organization," Sanders replied to my request for comment.)

The woman—a high school teacher who asked not to be identified—quickly got pummeled with text messages and voicemails, copies of which she provided to Mother Jones. Callers told her she was a "stupid bitch" and "mother****ing whore."

"They fought for their right to carry guns," said another. "You're a piece of s***." One caller threatened to come after her with a gun.

Over the next four days she received nearly two dozen such calls and text messages. Someone put her information into a phony profile on a large e-commerce site, and she got a barrage of calls about agricultural products and security systems.

"I really felt strongly about not changing my cellphone number—I'm not going to be intimidated," she told me. "But it just got to the point where it's not worth it."

[Editor's note: The teacher since changed her number; Mother Jones has redacted her name.]

A fifth-generation Texan from a small town, the teacher in Plano grew up hunting. She is not, as her antagonists claimed, a member of Moms Demand Action (though she now plans to join). But given the rapid rise of Moms, gun extremists tend to view any woman who lands in their crosshairs as part of what has become, as one state leader for Moms puts it, "kind of the new black helicopters for these guys."

According to Plano police records, two other people called in with concerns about the demonstration that day—both men. No member of Open Carry Texas publicized their information.

The attack left the teacher worried for the safety of her family: "I felt that if I walked out someone was going to be standing there." But in hindsight, she says, "I think they are very weak men. They use their guns because that's all they have. If you know what I mean."

Open Carry Texas has insisted that it plans to continue exposing people who call police about its armed demonstrations. "Gun control bullies are all up in arms over this video published by one of our members," the group stated in a Facebook post on April 13, since deleted from its page. "If you don't want your name publicized, simply don't make a false 911 call against law abiding gun owners."

I'm not defending them as such. I'm simply saying that I fear a massive federal government that can do far more damage than one small band of fools

An administration that tries to create situations such as with fast and furious, so they can infringe on the freedom of law abiding citizens is far more dangerous. I guess that is beyond your comprehension though

[homersapien 11,357]

Y'all can spin it all you want but if we are having gunfights on the highway there's something seriously wrong with our culture.

And as I said, I don't feel nearly as threatened by our government as I do some random armed yahoo.

Exactly! IT's the PEOPLE, not the gun, or the knife, or whatever they choose to use.

If you are worried about the random armed yahoo, become one too, so you can shoot the other one before he shoots you.

But you can't talk restriction or changes to counter those PEOPLE without it automatically going into ban all guns and the government wants to take them away.

For instance lets look at those convicted of domestic violence.

An American woman’s chances of experiencing physical violence of some form at the hands of her male partner are more than one in three, and when a gun is present in a domestic violence situation, the risk of homicide increases by 500 percent.

http://nytlive.nytim...g-womens-lives/

Now while there is a federal law in place in regards to ownership it suffers from the boyfriend loophole in many states in the US.

“[it’s] called the “boyfriend loophole,” Lindsay Nichols, senior attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, explained to Women in the World. “[For] a couple who has never been married – they don’t live together, they don’t have children together – gun prohibition won’t kick in. Even if there’s been a violent assault that does lead to a criminal conviction, [an abuser] will be able to get a gun

http://nytlive.nytim...g-womens-lives/

Then in states where they try and fight the boyfriend loophole the NRA steps in, like in LA.

The provision would have allowed those accused of abusing "dating partners" to be charged with domestic abuse battery, not just "household members." Sport said she was told the NRA "didn't want to increase the pool of people who will dispossessed of their firearms," so the group opposed that provision, among to others.

http://www.nola.com/...ot_strippe.html

So the NRA is OK with the dispossession of those that beat their own children, but thinks those that beat their girlfriends children (as long as they don't live together) is OK? That is a PEOPLE issue. So this was what happened:

• Removes "dating partner" as an extension of the definition of a victim of domestic abuse battery. Domestic abuse battery only pertains to scenarios when the victim is a "household member," which refers to spouses, family members or co-habitants (within five years of the incident)

I like this one also, cause this a group of people that should have guns:

• Removes a provision prohibiting a person convicted of stalking from possessing a firearm.

Also this is a favorite, cause we don't want these guys blocking at Auburn University but we do believe they should have guns:

• Removes a provision adding strangulation to the definition of "serious bodily injury" regarding second-degree battery. Strangulation is often a red flag that abuse could lead to more lethal form.

Then in many states such as Alabama where when convicted of domestic abuse you are not allowed to have a gun, well then nothing is actually done to take the firearm of the criminal. In the city of Dallas they are taking actions to enforce that (of course this doesn't work if guns are not registered which people on this very forum have said they are against due to conspiracy of they gonna take my gun for no reason):

http://www.nbcnews.c...program-n366796

So here is a prime of example of the type of gun changes I would like to see made that impacts the PEOPLE ISSUE. I want to see the boyfriend loophole eliminated and the confiscation of weapons from these people. This isn't a ban guns, overturn the second amendment thing. It is a address the people issue, just like those with background checks and mental illness.

Excellent post!

You are right. The first response to ANY gun control legislation is objection to the banning and/or confiscation of guns as if that's the real issue. The political battle is being waged around common sense issues that rarely get discussed. That's because the NRA and their friends work so hard to define the issue as a single, straw man argument. (watch)

Hell, look at the loopholes in the background check system - private sales and gun shows exempt? What a joke.

Look, I think we need common sense closing of loopholes. I absolutely agree on the BoyFriend Loophole. The trouble is, we have laws on the books no one is enforcing. These laws almost always fall on legal gun owners and do ZERO to those who would actually use a gun in a crime.

IF YOU WANT TO FOCUS ON CRIMINALS GETTING GUNS, I THINK YOU WOULD GET ALL BUT 100% SUPPORT FROM EVERYONE.

The problem in the past has been just the opposite. The laws are designed to harass law abiding citizens that own guns that have never and will never be used in a crime and leave criminals completely alone. This is MY OBJECTION TO MORE LEGISLATION. If you want to concentrate on CRIMINALS, ABUSERS, DRUG CARTELS, I am all in support of 100% doing that. Leave the rest of us alone tho. We arent commiting crimes and will never commit any crimes.

Your talking out of both sides of your mouth. You say you're OK with common sense changes to the gun laws but opposed to more legislation.

And again with the "laws should be restricted to criminals instead of me" argument. :-\ You really ought to think more about your posts.

[autigeremt 6,589]

Enforce the laws on the books. Like with immigration, we shouldn't continue to pile on more legislation until we have proven we can enforce the laws that are already in place. Liberals seem to look for every opportunity to rival conservatives.......the left wants to legislate morality as much as the right. If it's not gun laws it's marriage laws.

[alexava 6,973]

Enforce the laws on the books. Like with immigration, we shouldn't continue to pile on more legislation until we have proven we can enforce the laws that are already in place. Liberals seem to look for every opportunity to rival conservatives.......the left wants to legislate morality as much as the right. If it's not gun laws it's marriage laws.

i don't know about all that. Not all "left" myself because i totally agree with immigration laws. Why even have immigration laws?

[DKW 86 7,419]

Y'all can spin it all you want but if we are having gunfights on the highway there's something seriously wrong with our culture.

And as I said, I don't feel nearly as threatened by our government as I do some random armed yahoo.

Exactly! IT's the PEOPLE, not the gun, or the knife, or whatever they choose to use.

If you are worried about the random armed yahoo, become one too, so you can shoot the other one before he shoots you.

But you can't talk restriction or changes to counter those PEOPLE without it automatically going into ban all guns and the government wants to take them away.

For instance lets look at those convicted of domestic violence.

An American woman’s chances of experiencing physical violence of some form at the hands of her male partner are more than one in three, and when a gun is present in a domestic violence situation, the risk of homicide increases by 500 percent.

http://nytlive.nytim...g-womens-lives/

Now while there is a federal law in place in regards to ownership it suffers from the boyfriend loophole in many states in the US.

“[it’s] called the “boyfriend loophole,” Lindsay Nichols, senior attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, explained to Women in the World. “[For] a couple who has never been married – they don’t live together, they don’t have children together – gun prohibition won’t kick in. Even if there’s been a violent assault that does lead to a criminal conviction, [an abuser] will be able to get a gun

http://nytlive.nytim...g-womens-lives/

Then in states where they try and fight the boyfriend loophole the NRA steps in, like in LA.

The provision would have allowed those accused of abusing "dating partners" to be charged with domestic abuse battery, not just "household members." Sport said she was told the NRA "didn't want to increase the pool of people who will dispossessed of their firearms," so the group opposed that provision, among to others.

http://www.nola.com/...ot_strippe.html

So the NRA is OK with the dispossession of those that beat their own children, but thinks those that beat their girlfriends children (as long as they don't live together) is OK? That is a PEOPLE issue. So this was what happened:

• Removes "dating partner" as an extension of the definition of a victim of domestic abuse battery. Domestic abuse battery only pertains to scenarios when the victim is a "household member," which refers to spouses, family members or co-habitants (within five years of the incident)

I like this one also, cause this a group of people that should have guns:

• Removes a provision prohibiting a person convicted of stalking from possessing a firearm.

Also this is a favorite, cause we don't want these guys blocking at Auburn University but we do believe they should have guns:

• Removes a provision adding strangulation to the definition of "serious bodily injury" regarding second-degree battery. Strangulation is often a red flag that abuse could lead to more lethal form.

Then in many states such as Alabama where when convicted of domestic abuse you are not allowed to have a gun, well then nothing is actually done to take the firearm of the criminal. In the city of Dallas they are taking actions to enforce that (of course this doesn't work if guns are not registered which people on this very forum have said they are against due to conspiracy of they gonna take my gun for no reason):

http://www.nbcnews.c...program-n366796

So here is a prime of example of the type of gun changes I would like to see made that impacts the PEOPLE ISSUE. I want to see the boyfriend loophole eliminated and the confiscation of weapons from these people. This isn't a ban guns, overturn the second amendment thing. It is a address the people issue, just like those with background checks and mental illness.

Excellent post!

You are right. The first response to ANY gun control legislation is objection to the banning and/or confiscation of guns as if that's the real issue. The political battle is being waged around common sense issues that rarely get discussed. That's because the NRA and their friends work so hard to define the issue as a single, straw man argument. (watch)

Hell, look at the loopholes in the background check system - private sales and gun shows exempt? What a joke.

Look, I think we need common sense closing of loopholes. I absolutely agree on the BoyFriend Loophole. The trouble is, we have laws on the books no one is enforcing. These laws almost always fall on legal gun owners and do ZERO to those who would actually use a gun in a crime.

IF YOU WANT TO FOCUS ON CRIMINALS GETTING GUNS, I THINK YOU WOULD GET ALL BUT 100% SUPPORT FROM EVERYONE.

The problem in the past has been just the opposite. The laws are designed to harass law abiding citizens that own guns that have never and will never be used in a crime and leave criminals completely alone. This is MY OBJECTION TO MORE LEGISLATION. If you want to concentrate on CRIMINALS, ABUSERS, DRUG CARTELS, I am all in support of 100% doing that. Leave the rest of us alone tho. We arent commiting crimes and will never commit any crimes.

Your talking out of both sides of your mouth. You say you're OK with common sense changes to the gun laws but opposed to more legislation.

And again with the "laws should be restricted to criminals instead of me" argument. :-\ You really ought to think more about your posts.

Absolutely not. I am okay with ANY LEGISLATION that goes after the Criminals or the Mentally Ill. I oppose any legislation that instead goes after law abiding citizens and leaves the Criminals and Mentally Ill Alone.