Don't want to eliminate all guns. Want to prevent nut-jobs from getting guns. Want registration so guns used in crimes can be traced. Want waiting periods to allow checks. All of these are reasonable so of course the paranoid gun nuts refuse to consider them.
As to the "exoneration" of the climategate scientists, i'll just skip right over who did the exonerating at Penn State U, and just hone in on the facts, since that is something that repels the left like kryptonite and superman. The scientists were never "exonerated" from attempting to delude the public with 'hide the decline', not honor foi requests, or attempting to keep science journals from printing skeptics articles. How could they exonerate them on those issues? It was right there in black and white. What the "studies" did do, is attempt to tell us that those things "don't matter". That there is so much proof and agreement among scientists that global warming exists that it really doesn't matter that those scientists were involved in a conspiracy to delude. It was just like the recent ipcc report, which told us it doesn't matter that weather patterns are going in the exact opposite direction of what their models predicted, there is global warming anyway. What kind of idiots believe these people?????
Yes, yes, as the leftist statists acquire over one billion bullets for "domestic security", enough to fight multiple Iraq wars, and tanks and swat vehicles to deliver it all, they claim that any citizens complaining are deluded. I don't know if it's you or your brother that is a leatherboy, but what i do know is your head is so far up your butt that it may never come out.
Many of your fellow liberals do, Feinstein for example. So do we, how about you liberals stop opposing the profiling and institutionalization of the mentally ill? LOL, Traced to where exactly? The previous owner who had it stolen from him? Largely unnecessary. Ever here of computer data bases? Anyway background checks accomplish VERY little. 1) They're poorly performed by incompetent bureaucrats. 2)Most criminals misusing guns are never and will never be "checked" to begin with. You ever consider doing your own due diligence instead of just repeating debunked talking points?
Right now, people DO have to register to get a gun. And wait times are already in place, with checks. When I go to the store to buy a gun, I used to have to wait 3 days for the background check. The only reason I can do same day right now is because I have my concealed carry permit, which means the government already got my fingerprints and ran a thorough background check on me. So what is it you want to change?
Current regs are insufficient and not applied across all states. My biggie is handguns. I think they should be banned. Along with high volume magazines for any gun. Exceptions for some purposes of course. Anyone involved in the use of gun during a crime should lose their right to guns. This may have prevented this latest navy yard shooting. Anyhow, got to go work now.
Ok, so you think handguns should be banned. So we go back to the original question I asked you that you avoided three times now: How do you propose to get rid of all the hand guns in circulation in order to make any ban effective? No worries, just come back when the fries are done and give me the answer to the question I asked you.
It starts with banning them. Then they have to be turned -in and or collected. With heavy consequences like jail for possession they will eventually dissappear. Yes it will take time but it has to start sometime. The answer to the gun problem is certainly not more guns and laxer laws. How did Australia do it?
LOL, like alcohol disapeard during prohibition or drugs have disapeared since the war on drugs started? We have 22,000 federal state and local guns laws on the books now. So just one more, making it 22,001, law "banning" handguns is your solution? Actually many in Australia are wishing they hadn't. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/OyS3CEIbpJo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Australia didn't have hundreds of millions of guns in circulation. Programs to "buy back guns" will get legal owners of firearms, sure. But all that accomplishes is to remove weapons from those who don't commit crimes. All the people out there who use guns to commit murder aren't going to be dissuaded by your "heavy consequences" for possession of a firearm, since it is highly unlikely you are going to make it worse than the consequence of committing murder. So the criminals keep their weapons, and everyone else is removed. You do know that is how Chicago was for the longest time, right? No handguns. That led to it having the highest murder rate in the country. It got so bad that even the Liberals there said "You know what? We need people to have a way to protect themselves" and now offer handgun permits. You think your process would go better than Chicago, do you?