Even So Called Conservatives Are Jumping on The Gun Control Bandwagon

Started by Shooterman, January 11, 2013, 10:14:42 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Shooterman

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/georgia-republican-rep-phil-gingrey-favors-gun-control-162924309--politics.html

Speaking at a local Chamber of Commerce breakfast on Thursday morning in his home state, Georgia Republican Rep. Phil Gingrey addressed some heavy issues, including the need for gun control in the wake of deadly shootings throughout the country, and former Missouri Rep. Todd Akin's controversial comments on the campaign trail last year about rape, saying Akin was "partly right."

As reported in the Marietta Daily Journal, Gingrey, a member of the conservative Republican Study Committee, said he would be open to some measures restricting high-capacity magazines and enforcing more rigorous requirements for background checks at gun shows.

"There are some problems, and maybe these huge magazines even for someone who says, 'Look, I just use an AR-15 for target practice.' But do you really need to be standing there shooting at a silhouette a shot a second or even quicker with that kind of weapon? For what purpose?" Gingrey said, according to the Journal. "I would be willing to listen to the possibility of the capacity of a magazine."

President Barack Obama plans to announce a proposal for stricter gun rules next week, and Gingrey's openness to an overhaul could help propel the Democratic administration's messaging effort.

RECALL THIS BASTARD NOW!
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

Solar

We really need to send these dumb asses to a Constitutional studies class before they are allowed to vote on any given issue.
These idiots have no concept of the meaning of the 2nd.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

taxed

Gingrey has some real balls.  He's a district over from me, and his covers a lot of west and north west Georgia.  He even reps the famous require-carry Kennesaw (a suburb of Atlanta).  He isn't exactly in pro-gun control lib land, so this will be interesting.
#PureBlood #TrumpWon

mhughes

Background checks at gunshows sounds reasonable.  Help me understand what's wrong with that.

taxed

Quote from: mhughes on January 11, 2013, 10:42:46 AM
Background checks at gunshows sounds reasonable.  Help me understand what's wrong with that.

It's the government interfering with the 2nd Amendment.
#PureBlood #TrumpWon

Shooterman

Quote from: mhughes on January 11, 2013, 10:42:46 AM
Background checks at gunshows sounds reasonable.  Help me understand what's wrong with that.

If you had ever been to a gun show, you would know that anyone buying from a licensed firearm dealer undergoes a background check. Hello world!

On a personal note, I do not believe any background check has ever kept one person from acquiring a firearm if that person sorely desired one. Can you show me differently.
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

Solar

Quote from: mhughes on January 11, 2013, 10:42:46 AM
Background checks at gunshows sounds reasonable.  Help me understand what's wrong with that.
What should happen is instant checks, if the Govt can't verify you at time of purchase, the purchase goes through anyway.
If the Govt wants a background check, the weight is against them to get their ass in gear.
It should be no different then buying groceries, you don't wait for permission at time of checkout.
We have the technology, lets use it.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

mhughes

Quote from: taxed on January 11, 2013, 10:44:33 AM
It's the government interfering with the 2nd Amendment.

Courts have upheld background checks and things like rejecting felons from possessing firearms.  How is expanding background checks to gun shows different?

taxed

Quote from: mhughes on January 11, 2013, 10:55:35 AM
Courts have upheld background checks and things like rejecting felons from possessing firearms.  How is expanding background checks to gun shows different?

There are many things the courts have upheld that are not constitutional.  To use that as your measuring stick is ridiculous.
#PureBlood #TrumpWon

mhughes

Quote from: Solar on January 11, 2013, 10:55:07 AM
What should happen is instant checks, if the Govt can't verify you at time of purchase, the purchase goes through anyway.
If the Govt wants a background check, the weight is against them to get their ass in gear.
It should be no different then buying groceries, you don't wait for permission at time of checkout.
We have the technology, lets use it.

I'm in favor of speeding up the check.  I'm also in favor of not selling guns to violent offenders.  So I guess I agree with half of your statement.

I assume you mean using a credit card at the grocery store?  There is a transaction history of those purchases, so if there is a fraudulent charge they can be reversed.  Are you in favor of a national gun registry so errors can be fixed?  I'll assume not.  So perhaps the default=allow policy isn't the best idea.


Solar

Quote from: Shooterman on January 11, 2013, 10:50:44 AM
If you had ever been to a gun show, you would know that anyone buying from a licensed firearm dealer undergoes a background check. Hello world!

On a personal note, I do not believe any background check has ever kept one person from acquiring a firearm if that person sorely desired one. Can you show me differently.
:laugh:
Not to mention many of the weapons on sale, can be bought on the street at a cheaper price.
Legal purchases are always done by the law abiding citizen, background checks are a complete waste of time, if someone is planning a murder, does anyone really think he cares about the law?
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

mhughes

Quote from: taxed on January 11, 2013, 10:57:15 AM
There are many things the courts have upheld that are not constitutional.  To use that as your measuring stick is ridiculous.

The courts get to interpret the constitution.  That's what the constitution says they are for.  I'll trust them over the president, congress, local governments, or you in that regard.

taxed

Quote from: mhughes on January 11, 2013, 11:04:14 AM
The courts get to interpret the constitution.  That's what the constitution says they are for.  I'll trust them over the president, congress, local governments, or you in that regard.

You may be fine trusting Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor -- and worst of all, Roberts, but they do not follow or respect the Constitution.  It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.  If you trust them, you don't appreciate the Constitution.
#PureBlood #TrumpWon

Solar

Quote from: mhughes on January 11, 2013, 11:04:14 AM
The courts get to interpret the constitution.  That's what the constitution says they are for.  I'll trust them over the president, congress, local governments, or you in that regard.
Interpret yes, legislate no.
Sadly many judges have screwed over the Constitution by legislating from the bench, and by precedent other courts follow his example, all because his original decision was never challenged to a higher court.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Bronx

Quote from: taxed on January 11, 2013, 10:41:21 AM
Gingrey has some real balls.  He's a district over from me, and his covers a lot of west and north west Georgia.  He even reps the famous require-carry Kennesaw (a suburb of Atlanta).  He isn't exactly in pro-gun control lib land, so this will be interesting.

Yup you are correct. I'm also a district over from, i'm in the 13 district of Power Springs. this should be interesting.
People sleep peacefully at night because there are a few tough men prepared to do violence on their behalf.

A foolish man complains about his torn pockets.

A wise man uses it to scratch his balls.