Patraeus, Kelly Start Gun Control Advocacy

[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.