• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The ugly truth behind Obama's war on the Second Amendment

Status
Not open for further replies.

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sometimes, when the government abuses its tremendous power to scapegoat someone, even proponents of government power find it to be too much.

Mike Weisser is a liberal who writes frequently for the Huffington Post in favor of gun control. Indeed, I have been the target of some of his attacks. But in a new book, “Sandy Hook: A Man Sold A Gun,” Weisser tells the story of a friend of his, Dave Laguercia, whose life was destroyed by the Obama administration in its quest to be seen as proactive in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook tragedy. Weisser describes Laguercia as an honest, law-abiding, decent man.

The emotions at the time were understandable. Adam Lanza had just massacred 27 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

Laguercia’s “offense” was that he had legally sold firearms to the shooter’s mother, Nancy Lanza. He sold a Bush Master AR-15 style “assault rifle” in 2011 and a Sig 226 semi-automatic handgun in 2010. All the paperwork was properly filled out, and Nancy Lanza had passed the background check. Laguercia did nothing wrong.


Weisser sums it up nicely: “For selling a legal product to a consumer and selling it following exactly the rules and regulations which governed such sales, Dave lost his entire business and millions of dollars in sales, inventory and future profits, lost his reputation, spent thousands of dollars on legal fees and now sits at home still waiting for the legal aftermath of Sandy Hook to come to an end.”

Weisser describes a regulatory system where it is essentially impossible not to make tiny recording errors. Wanting to blame someone for the Sandy Hook shootings, the Obama administration was determined to go through Laguercia’s records until they found some violations. If they didn't find enough dirt on Laguercia, they’d make up false charges.

The administration was not above constantly leaking false, damning stories of a “rogue” gun dealer with a “troubled history.” One story, leaked to the New York Post and other papers, blamed Laguercia for selling another gun in 2010 to another mass shooter. But he hadn’t sold that gun.

Another story described how Laguercia came under scrutiny by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for 33 guns that were stolen from his store. But Laguercia was the person who caught the thief and provided the videos that the government used to convict the miscreant, who was a part-time employee.

The ugly truth behind Obama's war on the Second Amendment
 

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sometimes, when the government abuses its tremendous power to scapegoat someone, even proponents of government power find it to be too much.

Mike Weisser is a liberal who writes frequently for the Huffington Post in favor of gun control. Indeed, I have been the target of some of his attacks. But in a new book, “Sandy Hook: A Man Sold A Gun,” Weisser tells the story of a friend of his, Dave Laguercia, whose life was destroyed by the Obama administration in its quest to be seen as proactive in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook tragedy. Weisser describes Laguercia as an honest, law-abiding, decent man.

The emotions at the time were understandable. Adam Lanza had just massacred 27 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

Laguercia’s “offense” was that he had legally sold firearms to the shooter’s mother, Nancy Lanza. He sold a Bush Master AR-15 style “assault rifle” in 2011 and a Sig 226 semi-automatic handgun in 2010. All the paperwork was properly filled out, and Nancy Lanza had passed the background check. Laguercia did nothing wrong.


Weisser sums it up nicely: “For selling a legal product to a consumer and selling it following exactly the rules and regulations which governed such sales, Dave lost his entire business and millions of dollars in sales, inventory and future profits, lost his reputation, spent thousands of dollars on legal fees and now sits at home still waiting for the legal aftermath of Sandy Hook to come to an end.”

Weisser describes a regulatory system where it is essentially impossible not to make tiny recording errors. Wanting to blame someone for the Sandy Hook shootings, the Obama administration was determined to go through Laguercia’s records until they found some violations. If they didn't find enough dirt on Laguercia, they’d make up false charges.

The administration was not above constantly leaking false, damning stories of a “rogue” gun dealer with a “troubled history.” One story, leaked to the New York Post and other papers, blamed Laguercia for selling another gun in 2010 to another mass shooter. But he hadn’t sold that gun.

Another story described how Laguercia came under scrutiny by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for 33 guns that were stolen from his store. But Laguercia was the person who caught the thief and provided the videos that the government used to convict the miscreant, who was a part-time employee.

The ugly truth behind Obama's war on the Second Amendment
The death rate due to firearms in the U.S. is nearly double the global average, according to the Global Health Data Exchange. Research published in the American Journal of Medicine last year also found that Americans are 25 times more likely to be killed by firearms than people in other developed countries.

Among countries ranked by total gross domestic product, rate of death by firearm assaults in the U.S. was more than 10 times higher than the next four highest countries combined, according to data from the Global Burden of Disease. Those four countries are China, Japan, Germany and the U.K.

Why do we need all these guns?
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...s-global-leader-in-gun-violence-and-ownership
 

Don

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
So FTW - you're suggesting that I shouldn't be able to purchase firearms if I want to?
 

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I guess the millions and millions of people that have guns for self defense and have not committed suicide or murder don't count!



Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.
The statistics show those guns are rarely actually used for self-protection.
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The statistics show those guns are rarely actually used for self-protection.

Do you suppose that gun owners go to the range and practice more often than they murder or commit suicide? In case they need them for protection? I do. Therefore, your claim that guns are used PRIMARILY for murder or suicide is blatantly false.
 

Alcott

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The statistics show those guns are rarely actually used for self-protection.

Neither are carbon monoxide detectors. Mine, which I had had for 10-?-15 years went off on Wednesday for the first time. But trusting science and reason, there was no source of CO in the house, as nothing is lit, so I unplugged and ignored it. Since then I have gotten a new one, concluding it was just so old it malfunctioned. The new one seems to verify that.

You can go years without actually having to use a gun or a CO alarm for self-preservation, but knowing they are there if needed is an encouraging thought.
 

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Do the statistics take into account that a weapon does not necessarily have to be fired to provide protection? I doubt it.
That's a reasonable point. But just look at the huge number of guns and deaths using guns in America compared with other countries. Now the government wants to make silencers legal for citizens. Why do we need those? For self-defense why do we need assault rifles? And I have an old friend married to an abusive husband. He is on Medicare disability for mental problems but can walk into a gun store and buy a gun. I simply argue that we take a common-sense approach and at least have appropriate background checks.
 

Baptist Believer

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Now the government wants to make silencers legal for citizens. Why do we need those?
For hearing protection. Unlike the way silencers are depicted in movies, silencers don't actually make a gun silent - just quieter.

For self-defense why do we need assault rifles?
The term "assault rifle" gets thrown around a lot. An assault rifle is actually an automatic weapon (aka,"machine gun"). Automatic weapons have been HEAVILY restricted since 1934 in the US. What you might be thinking of is "assault weapon," which is a political term created for the 1994 law, the "Federal Assault Weapons Ban" which banned, among other things, certain "scary looking" firearms, some safety devices (for instance, barrel shrouds and telescoping stocks), and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Since much of the public, and even a lower percentage of lawmakers, understand the terms and the usage of many of the devices and firearms that were banned, they thought they were banning machine guns and the "bad" weapons from "the streets" of the US. However, the ban ignored less "scary" firearms with just as much lethality and made firearms less safe for gun owners.

So, so-called "assault weapons" have many legitimate uses, including self-defense. "Assault weapons" are specially helpful if one's lives in a rural environment and help from the police or sheriff is more than 30 minutes away.

And I have an old friend married to an abusive husband. He is on Medicare disability for mental problems but can walk into a gun store and buy a gun.
Are you certain about that?

I simply argue that we take a common-sense approach and at least have appropriate background checks.
Background checks exist. There is always room for improvement, but we have to strike a balance between the rights of citizens and the need for public safety. What is unhelpful are politicians and members of the public who don't know a thing about guns (and often don't want to know), wanting to write laws that undermine the safety and rights of other Americans.
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
So when liberals say they want background checks it means they want to use them to restrict buy guns to the point it is difficult to get any at all under any conditions. It is not an honest request.
 

Alcott

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Do people who have "mental problems" [that is indefinite enough to include maybe all of us?] have to have their backgrounds checked to have free speech?
 

Don

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Do people who have "mental problems" [that is indefinite enough to include maybe all of us?] have to have their backgrounds checked to have free speech?
To add, not detract - are people with mental problems denied driver's licenses?
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I have owned firearms for over 50 years and have never committed suicide or murder.

My wife and I have been members of gun clubs and thoroughly enjoyed our many many target practice sessions.

HankD
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The death rate due to firearms in the U.S. is nearly double the global average, according to the Global Health Data Exchange. Research published in the American Journal of Medicine last year also found that Americans are 25 times more likely to be killed by firearms than people in other developed countries.

Among countries ranked by total gross domestic product, rate of death by firearm assaults in the U.S. was more than 10 times higher than the next four highest countries combined, according to data from the Global Burden of Disease. Those four countries are China, Japan, Germany and the U.K.

Why do we need all these guns?
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...s-global-leader-in-gun-violence-and-ownership

Even if all of this were to be true it does not justify the Obama admins behavior.
 

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
For hearing protection. Unlike the way silencers are depicted in movies, silencers don't actually make a gun silent - just quieter.


The term "assault rifle" gets thrown around a lot. An assault rifle is actually an automatic weapon (aka,"machine gun"). Automatic weapons have been HEAVILY restricted since 1934 in the US. What you might be thinking of is "assault weapon," which is a political term created for the 1994 law, the "Federal Assault Weapons Ban" which banned, among other things, certain "scary looking" firearms, some safety devices (for instance, barrel shrouds and telescoping stocks), and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Since much of the public, and even a lower percentage of lawmakers, understand the terms and the usage of many of the devices and firearms that were banned, they thought they were banning machine guns and the "bad" weapons from "the streets" of the US. However, the ban ignored less "scary" firearms with just as much lethality and made firearms less safe for gun owners.

So, so-called "assault weapons" have many legitimate uses, including self-defense. "Assault weapons" are specially helpful if one's lives in a rural environment and help from the police or sheriff is more than 30 minutes away.


Are you certain about that?


Background checks exist. There is always room for improvement, but we have to strike a balance between the rights of citizens and the need for public safety. What is unhelpful are politicians and members of the public who don't know a thing about guns (and often don't want to know), wanting to write laws that undermine the safety and rights of other Americans.
I'm certain about the fact that my friend's abusive husband who is on Medicare disability for mental problems is allowed to purchase a gun anyway in the state of Ill.

What's wrong about requiring background checks at gun shows? Also, why are convicted felons and those convicted of domestic abuse allowed to purchase guns?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top