Jump to content

Welcome to mygnrforum.com Guns N' Roses Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account
Photo

Gun Law Debate

Your thoughts?

  • Please log in to reply
349 replies to this topic

#226
Rustycage

Rustycage

    FRONTMAN

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,715 posts
  • 23-March 04





What effect do you think a GPS device would have in preventing killings? I'm failing to see the correlation, so you shall have to point it out to me.
Rusty - can you point out to me where you found the 89% gun ownership statistic for America? That is clearly incorrect; laughably so.

The numbers are from small arms survey. 88.8% of every 100. Also gunpolicy.org reports the same data also with a total of 270,000,000 total guns owned in this country. Forbes has it estimated close to the same number. Also reported is that the USA owns close to 30% of the total firearms in the world. Unless you want to suggest that we have millions of people stockpiling weapons, I don't see why you're surprised.

I think what Pappy means is that you're quoting a per capita figure and presenting that as though every owner has only a single gun. The figure you quote may well be correct but that doesn't mean 89% of the population own one gun each it just means that there is one gun in circulation per 0.89 people in the country. :)


I understand what he's trying to say but there isn't any concrete number of how many are owned per person.

1/2 of the households in America are said to own a gun. Many of them with a growing son in it has a gun "owned" by the father but used by the son. I'm not sure if the 50% is counting illegal gun ownership. Maybe someone has those figures.


No way do half of American households own a gun.


americanfirearms.org

you're so tough and manly.


#227
Rustycage

Rustycage

    FRONTMAN

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,715 posts
  • 23-March 04
Also:

Juvenile Crime and firearms
Among juveniles (i.e., minors under the age of 16, 17, or 18, depending on legal jurisdiction) serving in correctional facilities, 86% owned a gun at some point, with 66% acquiring their first gun by age 14. There is also a tendency for juvenile offenders to own many firearms, with 65% owning three or more. Juveniles most often acquire guns from family, friends, drug dealers, and street contacts. Inner-city youths cite "self-protection from enemies" as the top reason for carrying a gun.
Lizotte, Alan J., Gregory J. Howard, Marvin D. Krohn, Terence P. Thornberry (1997). "Patterns of Illegal Gun Carrying Among Urban Young Males". Valparaiso University Law Review 31(2)]


That isn't something that will be cured by Mental Health legislation or stricter background checks. There is a market out there that makes it too easy for people to own guns illegally.

Race and ethnicity
  • For each type of weapon, victimization rates for whites were lower than those for blacks or Hispanics.
  • Blacks were victimized by offenders armed with guns at higher rates than Hispanics but at similar rates as American Indians.
  • Blacks had similar victimization rates as Hispanics for crimes committed with knives or blunt objects/other weapons.
  • The rate of firearm violence for blacks was more than twice that for whites (8 versus 3 per 1,000). The rate for Hispanics (6 per 1,000) was about twice that for whites.
  • No significant differences separated the rates at which whites and blacks were victimized by unarmed offenders.
Annual Household Income

Persons with annual household incomes of less than $7,500 experienced both armed violence and firearm violence at about 3 times the rates of persons with annual household incomes of $50,000 or more (23.1 versus 7.3 armed victimizations per 1,000 persons, and 8.4 versus 2.4 firearm victimizations, respectively)

At almost every level of household income, blacks were more vulnerable than whites and Hispanics to violence involving a weapon and involving a firearm


Race
From 1993 to 2001, blacks were 12% of the U.S. population age 12 or older but 49% of all homicide victims and 54% of all victims of firearm homicide. Among homicide victims, blacks were more likely than whites to have been killed with a firearm. About 8 in 10 black homicide victims and 7 in 10 white homicide victims died from gunshot injuries.

Blacks were about 7 times more likely than whites to be a homicide victim (30 versus 4 per 100,000 persons age 12 or older respectively), and approximately 9 times more likely to be a victim of a homicide committed with a firearm (25 versus 3 per 100,000 persons age 12 or older, respectively).


These statistics seems to point to a problem with economic and culture differences.

you're so tough and manly.


#228
Rustycage

Rustycage

    FRONTMAN

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,715 posts
  • 23-March 04
A study in 2007 showed that nearly 30% of guns seized in crimes were transported from other states.

The group found that Georgia was the biggest single supplier, with 2,631 weapons traced back to the state. Florida, Texas, and Virgina each supplied over 2,000.

It's a federal issue, not a state one.

you're so tough and manly.


#229
PappyTron

PappyTron

    FRONTMAN

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,969 posts
  • 16-May 07


What effect do you think a GPS device would have in preventing killings? I'm failing to see the correlation, so you shall have to point it out to me.



Let me start off by saying it's nothing that will happen overnight. It probably would take years to fully implement and there are many ways something like this could be done. A simple way would be to have every new gun manufactured that could legally be sold in the U.S. to have mandatory GPS tracking units installed in them. If removed, they would work similarly to the way ankle bracelets work for people on house arrest. Once removed, they would send a signal to either the police (or a private company, I'll get more into that later). It would be a 2 part system, so the the gun would always be tracked even if part of the GPS unit is removed. The GPS unit could also set off "red flag" signals if the gun enters school property, court houses, or anywhere else guns are forbidden.

The manufacturer would responsible for the guns they produce, that are intended to be sold to private citizens. It would be their responsibilty to set up the surveilance companies - similar to the way home security companies work. The manufacturer would be forced to set up supplemantal insurance because they would be the ones liable if a gun they produced ends up being sold illegally or used to commit a crime. They also would be taxed, in order to compensate for the additional government expense it will take to control the system. All of these combined, would dramatically increase the cost of ownership of a gun. When your average handgun costs $5000 vs. $450, people will think twice about how "necessary" they are.

As for illegal guns, there would be a federal mandate of a minimum 20 year prison term for simple possession of an illegal firearm, 20 years to life for the sale and even worse - up to capital punishment for the smuggling of illegal firearms. That alone will also increase the cost of guns on the black market. The black market is a risk/reward driven industry - the higher the risk, the higher the cost. Not only that, even the dumbest of the dumbest criminals would'nt come close to trying to own an illegal gun if they know they are going to jail for a minimum of 20 years ...nor would your average street criminal be able to afford one.

I could go on and on...but that's just a brief overview of one way...


Apart from looking like trying to phase firearms out through high pricing, I fail to see how that GPS system, as you typed it, would prevent crime. Let's say that a person has a gun and they are sick and tired of their neighbour so they decide to kill them. How does a GPS device in their pistol stop them from walking next door and shooting Mr Rogers? It doesn't.

Here are a few, off the top of my head, pertinent questions:

What would be the requirements for maintaining the battery on the gun?
What would the punishment for false-positives be?
How would the GPS system work for guns kept in steel safes?
How would a mandated 20 year sentence for having an illegal gun deter a person who is about to commit a felony murder which already carries a harsh penalty?
How would a manufacturer be responsible if their firearm is used in a crime? That is constitutionally unworkable.
If firearms are to be priced so high, based on your numbers, does that mean that only the rich should be able to have them?
How would a GPS system deter a street criminal who can simply remove the GPS unit?

"I actually had one cute hat, and it blew off at the CVS parking lot. And this whole car full of black kids ran over it, for no reason. AND THEY SAW IT! THEY SAW IT!"


#230
downzy

downzy

    OH MY GOD

  • MOD SQUAD
  • 4,073 posts
  • 18-February 06
For those who are interested in civil debate on gun control and gun culture in America, check this out:

http://www.cbsnews.c...h/?id=50137214n

#231
Kasanova King

Kasanova King

    FRONTMAN

  • SILVER
  • 13,197 posts
  • 02-December 04

Apart from looking like trying to phase firearms out through high pricing, I fail to see how that GPS system, as you typed it, would prevent crime. Let's say that a person has a gun and they are sick and tired of their neighbour so they decide to kill them. How does a GPS device in their pistol stop them from walking next door and shooting Mr Rogers? It doesn't.0

Knowing that there would be close to a 100% chance that they would be caught and then found guilty would be a deterrent. The GPS system would streamline prosecution, leading to much higher conviction rates, etc....further deterring gun related crimes.

Here are a few, off the top of my head, pertinent questions:

What would be the requirements for maintaining the battery on the gun?

Again, the blunt of the responsibilty would be with the manufacturer. With technology the way it is now, they could go as much as 10 years or more before needing to be charged. As technology further develops, they can be solar powered, motion powered, etc...possibly never having to be replaced. etc. If for some reason the unit fails in anyway, it would send off a signal, and the gun owner would bring it in for servicing.

What would the punishment for false-positives be?

Depending on the situation, there could be something like a 3 strike rule, similar to the way home security systems work. The first few times you get a warning, then fines...if you keep "screwing up" then you've pretty much proven that you shouldn't own a gun and your privledges will be revoked.

How would the GPS system work for guns kept in steel safes?

GPS has evolved to the state that they can be tracked even in steel safes. And even if not, they send off a signal from the last place they are at without motion. Once the unit moves again, the signal comes back, etc.

How would a mandated 20 year sentence for having an illegal gun deter a person who is about to commit a felony murder which already carries a harsh penalty?

Again, the biggest deterrent will be knowing that there is a much, much higher chance of getting caught...along with conviction.

How would a manufacturer be responsible if their firearm is used in a crime? That is constitutionally unworkable.

Not if federal legislation is passed deeming them liable. For example, if a pharmaceutical company develops a drug to treat heart disease but the drug fails miserably and thousands of people lose their lives because of it, they tend to face huge class action lawsuits, fines, penalties, etc. Same would go with the gun manufacturers.

If firearms are to be priced so high, based on your numbers, does that mean that only the rich should be able to have them?

Not necessarily. Firearms such as traditional 3-5 shot shotguns, .22 caliber rifles used for hunting, etc, would be taxed less, making them some what more affordable for the "hunting" enthusiasts. And most "rich" people I know show little interest in firearms other then for collection purposes.

How would a GPS system deter a street criminal who can simply remove the GPS unit?

Like I said in my initial post, the GPS system would be a 2 part system. Once the outer part is removed, there still would be another part imbedded inside the gun (possibly within the metal itself) so that the gun itself would still be able to be tracked as a "hot" gun.



Answers in bold.

Edited by Kasanova King, 16 December 2012 - 07:12 PM.

KASANOVA KING

 


#232
PappyTron

PappyTron

    FRONTMAN

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,969 posts
  • 16-May 07


Apart from looking like trying to phase firearms out through high pricing, I fail to see how that GPS system, as you typed it, would prevent crime. Let's say that a person has a gun and they are sick and tired of their neighbour so they decide to kill them. How does a GPS device in their pistol stop them from walking next door and shooting Mr Rogers? It doesn't.0

Knowing that there would be close to a 100% chance that they would be caught and then found guilty would be a deterrent. The GPS system would streamline prosecution, leading to much higher conviction rates, etc....further deterring gun related crimes.

Here are a few, off the top of my head, pertinent questions:

What would be the requirements for maintaining the battery on the gun?

Again, the blunt of the responsibilty would be with the manufacturer. With technology the way it is now, they could go as much as 10 years or more before needing to be charged. As technology further develops, they can be solar powered, motion powered, etc...possibly never having to be replaced. etc. If for some reason the unit fails in anyway, it would send off a signal, and the gun owner would bring it in for servicing.

What would the punishment for false-positives be?

Depending on the situation, there could be something like a 3 strike rule, similar to the way home security systems work. The first few times you get a warning, then fines...if you keep "screwing up" then you've pretty much proven that you shouldn't own a gun and your privledges will be revoked.

How would the GPS system work for guns kept in steel safes?

GPS has evolved to the state that they can be tracked even in steel safes. And even if not, they send off a signal from the last place they are at without motion. Once the unit moves again, the signal comes back, etc.

How would a mandated 20 year sentence for having an illegal gun deter a person who is about to commit a felony murder which already carries a harsh penalty?

Again, the biggest deterrent will be knowing that there is a much, much higher chance of getting caught...along with conviction.

How would a manufacturer be responsible if their firearm is used in a crime? That is constitutionally unworkable.

Not if federal legislation is passed deeming them liable. For example, if a pharmaceutical company develops a drug to treat heart disease but the drug fails miserably and thousands of people lose their lives because of it, they tend to face huge class action lawsuits, fines, penalties, etc. Same would go with the gun manufacturers.

If firearms are to be priced so high, based on your numbers, does that mean that only the rich should be able to have them?

Not necessarily. Firearms such as traditional 3-5 shot shotguns, .22 caliber rifles used for hunting, etc, would be taxed less, making them some what more affordable for the "hunting" enthusiasts. And most "rich" people I know show little interest in firearms other then for collection purposes.

How would a GPS system deter a street criminal who can simply remove the GPS unit?

Like I said in my initial post, the GPS system would be a 2 part system. Once the outer part is removed, there still would be another part imbedded inside the gun (possibly within the metal itself) so that the gun itself would still be able to be tracked as a "hot" gun.



Answers in bold.


We already have extreme deterrents in place for a huge number of crime, and I can tell you, although you already know it, that they don't work. Let me tell you a personal story; a few years ago I witnessed a homicide in downtown New Haven, Connecticut. Two groups of men got into an argument over a woman that both were trying to chat up in an underground nightclub and they were ejected by security. One of the groups then went to their cars which were parked down the street, came back, and shot one of the other men multiple times in front of clubbers, CCTV cameras, security officers and the police. GPS in their guns would not have been a deterent and it wouldn't have even crossed their minds or slowed them down for a second because they were content to execute a man in front of dozens of witnesses, knowing that they had been seen arguing with the victim and that they had been thrown out by security. Moreover, with the constitutional presumption of innocence, even GPS does not provide enough evidence to support a case on its own - it would place the weapon at the scene, or general scene, of a crime, but that goes not 1% towards proving who was the shooter, and that is the part that matters.

You say that you are happy for the constitution to be amended - what part/s of it? You would have to alter the entirety of the 4th Amendment, for a start, but would you just have it amended in relations to firearms tracking, or would you be happy to waive your rights to unreasonable search and seizure? Would you be happy for the police to enter your home, gun owner or not, at any time for any reason and without a warrant? That is what the 4th Amendment protects. You see, laws are put in place to provide a societal benefit, not to curtail the freedoms of law abiding citizens, and mandatory GPS tracking is both unworkable and a violation of multiple constitutional rights.

How would a gun manufacturer be responsible if a gun owners used their GPS equipped pistol to commit a crime? Is Ford responsible if a person decides to drink and drive?

If certain guns were to be taxed less so as to be deemed affordable who decides what taxes to apply to which guns? Why should a lever action .30-30 be taxed less than a Saiga-12? Where would you place something like a Mosin Nagant rifle? High tax or low tax?

"I actually had one cute hat, and it blew off at the CVS parking lot. And this whole car full of black kids ran over it, for no reason. AND THEY SAW IT! THEY SAW IT!"


#233
downzy

downzy

    OH MY GOD

  • MOD SQUAD
  • 4,073 posts
  • 18-February 06
We could go back and forward on this Pappy but ultimately I think it's absolutely nuts to assert that gun policy doesn't affect gun violence in the U.S. To suggest that one variable plays no part in the equation does no service to the conversation and ultimately in rectifying the problem. Issues like healthcare, social safety nets, violence in movies, television and video games are all part of the context of the issue. Not part of the context and far more directly involved to gun related violence is how society, through its elected government, moderates and controls citizens ability to own and operate a firearm. All I'm hearing from pro-gun advocates are that no gun policy will completely fix the problem. But the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. It is in the margins of gun laws where much good could come to curb firearm related violence. You can point to where gun laws haven't worked as well as they should have (the UK, but there have been no illegal gun-related massacre since the ban), but I could point to examples where they have (i.e. Australia: 13 mass shootings before the ban on semi-automatic weapons, 0 afterward since 1996; Japan: in 2007 there were 22 gun-related deaths and it was a national scandal, that same year the U.S. saw 587 people killed by guns accidentally discharged). Since 1968 there have been over 1 million Americans killed by guns. Ultimately, whether it is completely effective or only moves the needle a little bit, you have to ask yourself what kind of a society you want to live in. Do you want to live in a country dominated by fear, which fuels a perpetual arms race amongst citizens? Do you want to live in a country where your right to be a "gun enthusiast" supersedes another citizen's right not to be accidentally or intentionally shot? There is no way to outlaw crazy, but you can greatly diminish the effects of crazy by making common sense laws that prioritizes people's lives over your right to love and own a gun. Sure, you could argue that gun-related crime might increase as a result since criminals don't concern themselves with gun laws. But what about the thousands of people who get accidentally shot? What about the fact that gun massacres like the ones we've seen this year drop dramatically in other countries when you introduce comprehensive gun legislation? Statistically, a gun in a home is more likely to end up harming someone in the home than an intruder and raises the chance of a homicide in the home.

As the President mentioned in one of the better speeches I've heard him give in a long time yesterday, "We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and it is true. No single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. But that can't be an excuse for inaction. Surely we can do better than this... If there's even one step we can take to save one child, or one parent, or one town from the grief that has visited Tucson, and Aurora and Oak Creek and Newtown and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that, then surely we have an obligation to try... Are we prepared to say that the violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?"

#234
Kasanova King

Kasanova King

    FRONTMAN

  • SILVER
  • 13,197 posts
  • 02-December 04
Well said, unfortunately stubborn gun activists like Pappy may never see the light.

Considering that in the very first post of this thread, I demonstrated PROOF POSITIVE how gun control can save lives, I'm not sure what else can be written for him to see.

Edited by Kasanova King, 17 December 2012 - 01:56 PM.

KASANOVA KING

 


#235
Kasanova King

Kasanova King

    FRONTMAN

  • SILVER
  • 13,197 posts
  • 02-December 04



Apart from looking like trying to phase firearms out through high pricing, I fail to see how that GPS system, as you typed it, would prevent crime. Let's say that a person has a gun and they are sick and tired of their neighbour so they decide to kill them. How does a GPS device in their pistol stop them from walking next door and shooting Mr Rogers? It doesn't.0

Knowing that there would be close to a 100% chance that they would be caught and then found guilty would be a deterrent. The GPS system would streamline prosecution, leading to much higher conviction rates, etc....further deterring gun related crimes.

Here are a few, off the top of my head, pertinent questions:

What would be the requirements for maintaining the battery on the gun?

Again, the blunt of the responsibilty would be with the manufacturer. With technology the way it is now, they could go as much as 10 years or more before needing to be charged. As technology further develops, they can be solar powered, motion powered, etc...possibly never having to be replaced. etc. If for some reason the unit fails in anyway, it would send off a signal, and the gun owner would bring it in for servicing.

What would the punishment for false-positives be?

Depending on the situation, there could be something like a 3 strike rule, similar to the way home security systems work. The first few times you get a warning, then fines...if you keep "screwing up" then you've pretty much proven that you shouldn't own a gun and your privledges will be revoked.

How would the GPS system work for guns kept in steel safes?

GPS has evolved to the state that they can be tracked even in steel safes. And even if not, they send off a signal from the last place they are at without motion. Once the unit moves again, the signal comes back, etc.

How would a mandated 20 year sentence for having an illegal gun deter a person who is about to commit a felony murder which already carries a harsh penalty?

Again, the biggest deterrent will be knowing that there is a much, much higher chance of getting caught...along with conviction.

How would a manufacturer be responsible if their firearm is used in a crime? That is constitutionally unworkable.

Not if federal legislation is passed deeming them liable. For example, if a pharmaceutical company develops a drug to treat heart disease but the drug fails miserably and thousands of people lose their lives because of it, they tend to face huge class action lawsuits, fines, penalties, etc. Same would go with the gun manufacturers.

If firearms are to be priced so high, based on your numbers, does that mean that only the rich should be able to have them?

Not necessarily. Firearms such as traditional 3-5 shot shotguns, .22 caliber rifles used for hunting, etc, would be taxed less, making them some what more affordable for the "hunting" enthusiasts. And most "rich" people I know show little interest in firearms other then for collection purposes.

How would a GPS system deter a street criminal who can simply remove the GPS unit?

Like I said in my initial post, the GPS system would be a 2 part system. Once the outer part is removed, there still would be another part imbedded inside the gun (possibly within the metal itself) so that the gun itself would still be able to be tracked as a "hot" gun.



Answers in bold.


We already have extreme deterrents in place for a huge number of crime, and I can tell you, although you already know it, that they don't work. Let me tell you a personal story; a few years ago I witnessed a homicide in downtown New Haven, Connecticut. Two groups of men got into an argument over a woman that both were trying to chat up in an underground nightclub and they were ejected by security. One of the groups then went to their cars which were parked down the street, came back, and shot one of the other men multiple times in front of clubbers, CCTV cameras, security officers and the police. GPS in their guns would not have been a deterent and it wouldn't have even crossed their minds or slowed them down for a second because they were content to execute a man in front of dozens of witnesses, knowing that they had been seen arguing with the victim and that they had been thrown out by security. Moreover, with the constitutional presumption of innocence, even GPS does not provide enough evidence to support a case on its own - it would place the weapon at the scene, or general scene, of a crime, but that goes not 1% towards proving who was the shooter, and that is the part that matters.

You say that you are happy for the constitution to be amended - what part/s of it? You would have to alter the entirety of the 4th Amendment, for a start, but would you just have it amended in relations to firearms tracking, or would you be happy to waive your rights to unreasonable search and seizure? Would you be happy for the police to enter your home, gun owner or not, at any time for any reason and without a warrant? That is what the 4th Amendment protects. You see, laws are put in place to provide a societal benefit, not to curtail the freedoms of law abiding citizens, and mandatory GPS tracking is both unworkable and a violation of multiple constitutional rights.

How would a gun manufacturer be responsible if a gun owners used their GPS equipped pistol to commit a crime? Is Ford responsible if a person decides to drink and drive?

If certain guns were to be taxed less so as to be deemed affordable who decides what taxes to apply to which guns? Why should a lever action .30-30 be taxed less than a Saiga-12? Where would you place something like a Mosin Nagant rifle? High tax or low tax?


Pappy, when a very intelligent person such as yourself debates the issue that a GPS tracking unit on guns would not be a deterrent, it shows that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. A GPS unit installed in all guns is considered a "no brainer" in terms of deterring crime and people with IQ's much lower than yours can clearly see that.

Now if you want to argue that the cost, the system itself would be too hard to implement, etc, I can at least see logic and reason in that argument.

As for your questions regarding taxing, etc. there's a multitude of ways something like that could be handled. Standard shotguns used for hunting purposes would not be taxed, at least the first one or two in a home, etc. As the quantity of the firearms increases, so would the tax, etc. What logical reason does a person have to want or need dozens of guns? (other than collection purposes - and if they have the extra money to afford an enormous collection, surley they would be more than happy to pay the according taxes on such a luxury) As far as I am aware, most people are born with 2 arms and hands and even the best marksman would have trouble handling more than 2 guns at a time.

Like I previously stated, the GPS idea is just one way, just an idea. When you said that class II guns are seldom used in crimes because they are essentially slow and difficult to obtain, you basically stated what most gun control advocates are "wanting" for all guns...AND for that exact reason.

As for the legalities, YES, the constitution was designed to be ammended...that's why there are 27 of them already! As for your Ford Motor Company comparison, apples to oranges. Ford designs it's product to provide transportation - only if blatently misused, abused or in accidents does it cause the loss of life. Gun manufacturers design their product for ONE PURPOSE ONLY - TO CAUSE THE LOSS OF LIFE.

Edited by Kasanova King, 17 December 2012 - 01:48 PM.

KASANOVA KING

 


#236
Angelica

Angelica

    FRONTMAN

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,838 posts
  • 09-June 05
Bloomberg just kicked all manner of ass at his press conference. I was privileged enough to meet the person who heads his control policy for him, they are hell bent on changing things.

Edited by Angelica, 17 December 2012 - 01:45 PM.

citizendick_zpsf312adb4.jpg

A compliment for us, is a compliment for you


#237
Dazey

Dazey

    Redcoat Bastard!

  • SILVER
  • 16,875 posts
  • 25-November 02

Bloomberg just kicked all manner of ass at his press conference. I was privileged enough to meet the person who heads his control policy for him, they are hell bent on changing things.

How much does that mean realistically though when it comes to actually passing legislation?

HV's Current Shit-list: Black Sabbath, Broskirose, Skype Crew (except Graeme), Miser, wfse and Dazey. Especially Dazey...


#238
Angelica

Angelica

    FRONTMAN

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,838 posts
  • 09-June 05


Bloomberg just kicked all manner of ass at his press conference. I was privileged enough to meet the person who heads his control policy for him, they are hell bent on changing things.

How much does that mean realistically though when it comes to actually passing legislation?




We'll see. Obama's speech last night was significant too (although until now he's been the NRA's bitch). Polls are showing the public are more in favour of a change in legislation than ever.

citizendick_zpsf312adb4.jpg

A compliment for us, is a compliment for you


#239
bran

bran

    FRONTMAN

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,893 posts
  • 09-March 08


Bloomberg just kicked all manner of ass at his press conference. I was privileged enough to meet the person who heads his control policy for him, they are hell bent on changing things.

How much does that mean realistically though when it comes to actually passing legislation?


zero

insomnium_zps2978907e.jpg

"We're nothing more than shadows

      Glimmers of hope against the black sky"

#240
Dazey

Dazey

    Redcoat Bastard!

  • SILVER
  • 16,875 posts
  • 25-November 02



Bloomberg just kicked all manner of ass at his press conference. I was privileged enough to meet the person who heads his control policy for him, they are hell bent on changing things.

How much does that mean realistically though when it comes to actually passing legislation?


We'll see. Obama's speech last night was significant too (although until now he's been the NRA's bitch). Polls are showing the public are more in favour of a change in legislation than ever.

True but the president still doesn't hold enough seats to force through any legislation does he? I mean as long as the GOP still hold the house he's kinda screwed until midterms at least isn't he?

HV's Current Shit-list: Black Sabbath, Broskirose, Skype Crew (except Graeme), Miser, wfse and Dazey. Especially Dazey...





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users