Patraeus, Kelly Start Gun Control Advocacy

[pianoman9701]

Apparently the general was relieved of his obligation to our beloved Constitution.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/david-petraeus-mark-kelly-gun-control/index.html

[pianoman9701]

It doesn't make sense to me that we start getting attacked and the General's instinct is to go for gun control. I don't get it.  I wonder if James Mattis feels the same way. Somehow, I doubt it.

[ctwiggs1]

We'll see what they push for.  I don't mind background checks, but I do very much mind registries.  Background checks have caught a lot of people.  They're relatively harmless for those of us who obey the law.

Curtis

[pianoman9701]

The only time i have a problem with background checks is when law abiding people are erroneously flagged and the lengthy process it takes to rectify that. It happens more often than you might think. Registry is out of the question. AR ban is out of the question. Magazine limits, out of the question.

[Bill W]

send Kelly back up in space!

[ctwiggs1]

The only time i have a problem with background checks is when law abiding people are erroneously flagged and the lengthy process it takes to rectify that. It happens more often than you might think. Registry is out of the question. AR ban is out of the question. Magazine limits, out of the question.

 

[Boss .300 winmag]

send Kelly back up in space!

Send them both to Mars on a one way ticket.

[bearmanric]

Traitors.

[kentrek]

Isis attacks paris and isis gets the blame...isis attacks here and they blame the tools isis used

It's disgusting and isis will take full advantage of it...this will happen again...regardless of any new laws

[pianoman9701]

Traitors.

I wouldn't go that far. Both served in combat. That means a lot. It just doesn't give them a right to turn their backs on our people and the Constitution.

[csaaphill]

Sorry the words shall not be infringed covers background checks, 4473's Gun permits, registration, NFA- all of it. Accepting one infringement means compromise and once you compromise your screwed, because once a new generation comes up not knowing what it was like before, and some that even fought against background checks, but now seem to accept them? means that they: the new generation will be more open to more infringements. All gun control is unconstitutional regardless what the courts said. The three branches: Judicial, Executive, and legislative were there to be the checks and balances not after the law is made. Courts rule any more on opinion, agenda, and emotion the no longer represent the people, and no longer represent the protection they were set up for.

[Wenatcheejay]

Traitors.

I wouldn't go that far. Both served in combat. That means a lot. It just doesn't give them a right to turn their backs on our people and the Constitution.

Not really. Service does not make one so entitled as to restrict RIGHTS of American citizens. There is no way I am going to bend over just because a couple of Liberals decided to betray the Constitution because the Clinton/Bloomberg money is just to good. That uniform and Kelly's wife's slurred speech gets no sympathy from me. Screw them, screw anti-gun, and screw anyone who supports them.

[pianoman9701]

I don't believe they're traitors. Kelly went through a lot with Gabby. Whatever Petraeus has going on, I don't know. I know I disagree with how they view the Constitution.

[csaaphill]

Traitors.

[Wenatcheejay]

It not hard for me. They are doing this for the money, they have amassed an empire worth million exploiting every bloody tragedy. They are jackals.

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

[timberfaller]

"Both served in combat"

So did Benedick Arnold!   Look at how he was treated!

Yep, in simple terms, Traitor's to their Oath

[Stein]

I don't believe they're traitors. Kelly went through a lot with Gabby. Whatever Petraeus has going on, I don't know. I know I disagree with how they view the Constitution.

trai·tor
ˈtrādər/
noun
noun: traitor; plural noun: traitors

    a person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc.

[ctwiggs1]

I don't believe they're traitors. Kelly went through a lot with Gabby. Whatever Petraeus has going on, I don't know. I know I disagree with how they view the Constitution.

And if you don't have sympathy for someone who took a bullet to the brain, you and I aren't coloring from the same box of crayons.  You can disagree with someone on a political level without using personal attacks.

I don't see how a background check infringes on my right to bear arms.  I see where you might say it's a slippery slope, but there have been a lot more advances since 1776 and we have to be real here: An AR-15 can do a lot more damage than a hunting rifle or a musket in a crowd of people (*gasp*, "oh no you can kill people with knives too!"). 

Enforcing background checks has prevented over a million felons from getting guns from commercial vendors.  I have no problem doing a background check to get a gun.  I don't think AR-15s should be banned, I am against the "assault weapon ban" that did absolutely nothing to make our country safer, and I am absolutely against any kind of registry.

[Stein]

I don't believe they're traitors. Kelly went through a lot with Gabby. Whatever Petraeus has going on, I don't know. I know I disagree with how they view the Constitution.

And if you don't have sympathy for someone who took a bullet to the brain, you and I aren't coloring from the same box of crayons.  You can disagree with someone on a political level without using personal attacks.

I don't see how a background check infringes on my right to bear arms.  I see where you might say it's a slippery slope, but there have been a lot more advances since 1776 and we have to be real here: An AR-15 can do a lot more damage than a hunting rifle or a musket in a crowd of people (*gasp*, "oh no you can kill people with knives too!"). 

Enforcing background checks has prevented over a million felons from getting guns from commercial vendors.  I have no problem doing a background check to get a gun.  I don't think AR-15s should be banned, I am against the "assault weapon ban" that did absolutely nothing to make our country safer, and I am absolutely against any kind of registry.

Do you assume the rules for who passes and who doesn't won't change?

The hard part is the guy legally bought the gun even though he was on a terror watch list at one point.  If you want to keep guns away from that guy, there are only two real choices - no guns for anyone or add guys to the don't buy list that are under suspicion.  That means let the government curtail your rights without judicial action.  They could put you on the list because they think you are a bad guy.

[ctwiggs1]

I don't believe they're traitors. Kelly went through a lot with Gabby. Whatever Petraeus has going on, I don't know. I know I disagree with how they view the Constitution.

And if you don't have sympathy for someone who took a bullet to the brain, you and I aren't coloring from the same box of crayons.  You can disagree with someone on a political level without using personal attacks.

I don't see how a background check infringes on my right to bear arms.  I see where you might say it's a slippery slope, but there have been a lot more advances since 1776 and we have to be real here: An AR-15 can do a lot more damage than a hunting rifle or a musket in a crowd of people (*gasp*, "oh no you can kill people with knives too!"). 

Enforcing background checks has prevented over a million felons from getting guns from commercial vendors.  I have no problem doing a background check to get a gun.  I don't think AR-15s should be banned, I am against the "assault weapon ban" that did absolutely nothing to make our country safer, and I am absolutely against any kind of registry.

Do you assume the rules for who passes and who doesn't won't change?

The hard part is the guy legally bought the gun even though he was on a terror watch list at one point.  If you want to keep guns away from that guy, there are only two real choices - no guns for anyone or add guys to the don't buy list that are under suspicion.  That means let the government curtail your rights without judicial action.  They could put you on the list because they think you are a bad guy.

He also beat his wife.  Had she turned him in, he would have been a felon who never would have been able to legally buy the guns.

[pianoman9701]

I don't believe they're traitors. Kelly went through a lot with Gabby. Whatever Petraeus has going on, I don't know. I know I disagree with how they view the Constitution.

And if you don't have sympathy for someone who took a bullet to the brain, you and I aren't coloring from the same box of crayons.  You can disagree with someone on a political level without using personal attacks.

I don't see how a background check infringes on my right to bear arms.  I see where you might say it's a slippery slope, but there have been a lot more advances since 1776 and we have to be real here: An AR-15 can do a lot more damage than a hunting rifle or a musket in a crowd of people (*gasp*, "oh no you can kill people with knives too!"). 

Enforcing background checks has prevented over a million felons from getting guns from commercial vendors.  I have no problem doing a background check to get a gun.  I don't think AR-15s should be banned, I am against the "assault weapon ban" that did absolutely nothing to make our country safer, and I am absolutely against any kind of registry.

I would like to see a faster process for being removed from the no-fly list or being flagged by a background check. As it is now, the DOJ estimates that 35% of the people on the No-Fly list shouldn't be on it. And, it takes months to be removed, if then. The same is true for being flagged in an NCIS check - it takes a very long time to get removed.

[ctwiggs1]

I don't believe they're traitors. Kelly went through a lot with Gabby. Whatever Petraeus has going on, I don't know. I know I disagree with how they view the Constitution.

And if you don't have sympathy for someone who took a bullet to the brain, you and I aren't coloring from the same box of crayons.  You can disagree with someone on a political level without using personal attacks.

I don't see how a background check infringes on my right to bear arms.  I see where you might say it's a slippery slope, but there have been a lot more advances since 1776 and we have to be real here: An AR-15 can do a lot more damage than a hunting rifle or a musket in a crowd of people (*gasp*, "oh no you can kill people with knives too!"). 

Enforcing background checks has prevented over a million felons from getting guns from commercial vendors.  I have no problem doing a background check to get a gun.  I don't think AR-15s should be banned, I am against the "assault weapon ban" that did absolutely nothing to make our country safer, and I am absolutely against any kind of registry.

I would like to see a faster process for being removed from the no-fly list or being flagged by a background check. As it is now, the DOJ estimates that 35% of the people on the No-Fly list shouldn't be on it. And, it takes months to be removed, if then. The same is true for being flagged in an NCIS check - it takes a very long time to get removed.

That's frustrating and I agree should be fixed.  Mistakes happen but Innocent law abiding citizens shouldn't have to wait long periods of time to have their names cleared. 

[huntnphool]

 Last time I checked it was "illegal", "against the law", both man and gods, to kill someone. Does anyone actually believe one more law would have been the determining factor for any of these lunatics to stop and say, "that's it, I was going to commit jihad but I can't legally buy a gun, damn it"

 How many laws is the breaking point for these lunatics, is there one? Liberals would suggest there is.

[JimmyHoffa]

Exactly.  All those gun control laws in France and the jihadis are still running around with AKs.

[huntnphool]

All those gun control laws in France and the jihadis are still running around with AKs.

 Within their own little "no police, Muslim/Sharia only" communities too.

[pianoman9701]

I don't believe they're traitors. Kelly went through a lot with Gabby. Whatever Petraeus has going on, I don't know. I know I disagree with how they view the Constitution.

And if you don't have sympathy for someone who took a bullet to the brain, you and I aren't coloring from the same box of crayons.  You can disagree with someone on a political level without using personal attacks.

I don't see how a background check infringes on my right to bear arms.  I see where you might say it's a slippery slope, but there have been a lot more advances since 1776 and we have to be real here: An AR-15 can do a lot more damage than a hunting rifle or a musket in a crowd of people (*gasp*, "oh no you can kill people with knives too!"). 

Enforcing background checks has prevented over a million felons from getting guns from commercial vendors.  I have no problem doing a background check to get a gun.  I don't think AR-15s should be banned, I am against the "assault weapon ban" that did absolutely nothing to make our country safer, and I am absolutely against any kind of registry.

Do you assume the rules for who passes and who doesn't won't change?

The hard part is the guy legally bought the gun even though he was on a terror watch list at one point.  If you want to keep guns away from that guy, there are only two real choices - no guns for anyone or add guys to the don't buy list that are under suspicion.  That means let the government curtail your rights without judicial action.  They could put you on the list because they think you are a bad guy.

He also beat his wife.  Had she turned him in, he would have been a felon who never would have been able to legally buy the guns.

She was an abuse victim. We don't blame victims even if they're Muslim. Blame always goes to the killer. The FBI could have done better, too. They didn't pull the trigger.

[ctwiggs1]

Now they're saying she knew about the plot.  Still no blame Pianoman?

[pianoman9701]

Now they're saying she knew about the plot.  Still no blame Pianoman?

Of course not. If she knew, she should go to prison, at the very least. I was only talking about her as a victim. I haven't heard the information she knew about the attack ahead of time. I would say kill her.

[csaaphill]

I don't believe they're traitors. Kelly went through a lot with Gabby. Whatever Petraeus has going on, I don't know. I know I disagree with how they view the Constitution.

And if you don't have sympathy for someone who took a bullet to the brain, you and I aren't coloring from the same box of crayons.  You can disagree with someone on a political level without using personal attacks.

I don't see how a background check infringes on my right to bear arms.  I see where you might say it's a slippery slope, but there have been a lot more advances since 1776 and we have to be real here: An AR-15 can do a lot more damage than a hunting rifle or a musket in a crowd of people (*gasp*, "oh no you can kill people with knives too!"). 

Enforcing background checks has prevented over a million felons from getting guns from commercial vendors.  I have no problem doing a background check to get a gun.  I don't think AR-15s should be banned, I am against the "assault weapon ban" that did absolutely nothing to make our country safer, and I am absolutely against any kind of registry.

infringement
   
Also found in: Thesaurus, Legal, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.



in·fringe·ment
   (ĭn-frĭnj′mənt)
n.
1.  A violation, as of a law, regulation, or agreement.

2.  An encroachment, as of a right or privilege:
Enough Said.

[konradcountry]

We'll see what they push for.  I don't mind background checks, but I do very much mind registries.  Background checks have caught a lot of people.  They're relatively harmless for those of us who obey the law.

Curtis

We already have background checks and he passed them. In fact he had a clean enough record to work for a security company.

What they are proposing now is not a background check. It's the ability to deny a firearm purchase without even a process. If they say you are suspicious then you don't get the gun. Why are you on the list? They don't have to explain.

This is why it isn't 'common sense' as many Democrats have claimed. It's a free pass for the government to bypass the second amendment.

[pianoman9701]

If they're going to add the terrorist watch list to background checks, at least they now have a vehicle for people to contest their inclusion on the list, which they didn't before. I understand that any of us could be labeled as a terrorist, especially when the rhetoric from some politicians labels all NRA members as terrorists. But it was a good addition to an otherwise bad idea.

[csaaphill]

No compromise for me. http://www.gunowners.org/ just re-did my membership to them the other night. 

[Wenatcheejay]

I don't need anyone's color crayons, safe spaces, or a thumb to suck. I'm as fed up as possible with the pity parties from people who have become famous and wealthy exploiting a tragedy and using it to punish law abiding citizens. Americans are so easily exploited. If they actually cared they focus on gang violence, RICO laws, misrepresentation on 4473's and prosecuting straw man purchases. But they don't care, they all make money every time a shooting happens. It is sick.

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

[timberfaller]

Seen dimwit Kelly this morning his eye lids blinked continually(first sign of a lair)What a idiot, oops a Educated Idiot!!