Turnpike leader Johnston is leaving

Not surprising, but very sad nonetheless.

These are the politicians that our state has voted in. We are reaping what we sow and will continue to do so until they get voted out. And it's not just Brownback, it's the nuts in Congress as well.

But Brownback is a start.

April 26, 2013 at 6:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Letter: NRA sway?

" He doesn't, from an argumentation standpoint, get to throw out numbers and then say "prove them wrong. He has an affirmative burden to show that they are correct."

Considering this is a community forum and not a private messaging service, you need to acknowledge that someone else can join the discussion and directly answer your questions or accusations towards one particular person with well-known and verifiable facts. If you want to talk to appleday exclusively about it, I suggest you PM him instead. Until that time you're going to have to accept the fact that others can be involved in this public discussion. And since you don't seem to care whether those figures are valid or who gives them to you, from an argument standpoint I don't really care if you acknowledge the fact that this is a public forum. It still is exactly that nonetheless.

April 24, 2013 at 10:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Letter: NRA sway?

Please explain how a universal background check violates the 2nd Amendment. Then please explain how the current law of handgun background checks does not violate the 2nd Amendment. And if you think the current law does violate that somehow, please explain why there have been no successful challenges to the Supreme Court on that current law.

April 23, 2013 at 7:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Letter: NRA sway?

"Hold gun owners who's weapons end up in criminals hands more responsible, force trigger locks be sold with each gun purchased, punish gun crimes like you care instead of letting them out so fast, help law enforcement, and yet none of this was mentioned... "

Really? Huh, I guess you missed some of these things and others similar to it in the President's proposals to Congress as well as his Executive orders that he's already put into motion. Did you not read them? Here they are:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/20...

Funny how he proposes many of the very things and more that you've demanded. I'm guessing you haven't read that at all? I'm also guessing you won't either.

"Background checks, banning some guns, and smaller mags is all you want to focus on... "

Do you hear that noise? That's the sound of you flailing and yelling in the room about things that we are not discussing at all. Please put your straw man arguments away for another day and another discussion. We are only discussing universal background checks, and nothing more.

And as it seems, you are the 10% that doesn't want them in our country. Yet you seem not to be able to explain why you are so afraid of them. They will not harm you nor any other law abiding gun owner in any way. There is no downside that I'm aware of to them. Can you please tell me one downside to having them at all?

"As a gun owner I have trigger locks, and would have no problem paying a couple cents to help police and the govt catch, punish, and sentence individuals who should not have guns..."

Nor do I, which is something Obama actually proposed. Funny that. Now, what's wrong with universal background checks again, especially when 90% of Americans agree with them?

And I am curious, how do you propose gun locks are somehow a better deterrent for criminals to attain guns and use them in violent crimes? Do you have any statistics on this?

April 22, 2013 at 11:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Letter: NRA sway?

"Again please use your own source CBS and see that only 47% of Americans agree with gun regulation and that after the shootings it was only 54%..."

Irrelevant to the topic at hand. We are discussing background checks only, and nothing else. Why is it so difficult for you to just discuss this topic only? Enough of your straw man arguments.

"Yes the liberal answer is background checks and ban weapons... How exactly does that stop crime?"

I discussed it above how universal background checks could very well reduce the probability of a criminal attaining a gun. Did you not read what I posted and the support that I used?

"It does nothing to get guns out of criminals hands but you dont care about that because some of the idiots pushing for this dont know the difference.........."

Again, what is so scarwy about a background check to you and every Librul hater out there? Enough with your asinine rhetoric and tell me exactly what you have to lose with this simple piece of legislation.

"Why wont Obama work with law enforcement to do this?"

Umm, because he's in the Executive office and has a limited means of doing anything pertaining to Judicial branch of law enforcement? Kinda crazy, huh? But anyhoo, he has enacted a few Executive orders as well as gave a healthy number of proposals to Congress:

www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/1...

"Everything he has planned does nothing to stop crime now... Background check all you want!! Have a parade and celebrate!!

I think you need another explamation mark. Just can't seem to help yourself, can you? Again, no one expects it to rid us of gun violence, but we can and do expect it to help even a little bit, which I've demonstrated why above, and you've failed completely to address it (i.e. 80% of gun violent offenders attain their guns from non-licensed dealers that do not require background checks).

"You did nothing to stop the real problem of disarming felons... I know hating the nra and republicans is fun but at some point you have to attack the real problem..."

Oh, you mean video games like the twit leader from the NRA blames?

"Not one thing (background checks, banning "assault wepons", smaller mags) these idiots are pushing will stop the next mass shooting... "

You're really on rinse and repeat mode, aren't you? Now I know you haven't read anything I posted.

April 22, 2013 at 11:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Letter: NRA sway?

Didn't see any figures in there pertaining to background checks. Can you show us? If not, and considering that's exactly what we're talking about here, what's your point exactly?

April 22, 2013 at 12:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Letter: NRA sway?

"There isn't a federal system? Shows you know nothing about the process and your doing nothing but spewing liberal rhetoric with zero knowledge how the system works... When I purchased my first glock the FBI did a background check and 3 days later I returned and purchased my gun....."

Yes, there is a federal background check on all handguns through LICENSED FIREARMS DEALERS, which accounts for only 60% of all guns sold in the U.S. You do understand that, right? So I'm sure that's whom you went through, which incidently was brought to you by the Brady Bill back in 1994 by us crazy, silly little Libruls. I know that gets your little panties in a bunch, but I'm sure you can cope.

And that leaves 40% of guns that are sold through unlicensed dealers. And as my link earlier states:

"Data from a national survey of inmates indicated that nearly 80 percent of those who
had used a handgun in a crime had acquired it through a transaction with an individual who was not a licensed gun dealer"

But since you don't want to read all those silly facts and stuff (considering facts have that darn librul bias and all), I'm sure that will go right over your head.

Do I expect in my wonderful la la Librul land that this bill will solve all gun problems? Is that what you and Limbaugh are attempting to create in our little world? Of course not, but considering both the upside and downside of this bill - the upside assisting in helping to reduce the probability of someone with a bad criminal or psychological background of attaining a gun, versus the downside of, umm, well I'm not sure, and no one including you seems to be able to tell us what the potential negatives are -

I guess I think it's worth it. I know that sounds all crazy and librul to you, but oh well. Guess we can't please everyone.

And you were going to enlighten us about the added measures to the bill. Please do so.

You were also going to concede or not concede that 90% of Americans support background checks in accordance to the numerous polls I gave. Please do so now as well.

April 22, 2013 at 12:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Letter: NRA sway?

I also noticed how you went from saying the 90% number was fabricated, to then moving the goal posts and claiming that the background checks won't work. Are you willing to concede that, given those polls that I showed you, that 90% number is indeed not a fabrication?

Or will you just try to hand wave that away as if no one addressed it?

April 21, 2013 at 11:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Letter: NRA sway?

"It's not fair to compare cities? Is this because it goes against your views? "

Umm, did you read my reason why? Does that not make any sense to you? Can you explain why the Southern U.S. region which has characteristically the loosest gun control laws has the highest rates of gun violence?

" Must be tough when facts go against your theory and phd's."

Yur faks our kinda funnay......

"Campus was brought up because most university's are extremely liberal as are most of the sources you cited.."

Ad hominem much? Will you be addressing what's actually written, or will you continue to attack the source just like a good Limbaugh follower?

"Your assumptions that I am angry are completely false as are your theories"

Yeah, it's hard to believe such a thing with someone posts so many ??????, and !!!!, not to mention telling someone to "crawl back into a liberal rock," because that kind of talk and usage of end punctuations.....

"Sorry to prove your 90% wrong by using your own source but it is a fact..."

Uhh, ok champ, if you say so. You're beginning to sound like someone I've argued with before who changes his name numerous times in the past. Not exactly sure yet.

April 21, 2013 at 11:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Letter: NRA sway?

"Please mention the added measures in this bill as well... "

Please enlighten us and explain yourself.

"Background checks already exist, and no matter how many laws you have about who, what gun, and where it is purchased you make your still not getting guns out of the hands of criminals! "

They do not exist on a federal level, which as I explained above to you makes it a bit complicated to go after those criminals and lower the violent gun crimes when they're bringing in guns from other states and areas in those same states (like Chicago) where they have looser gun control laws. And that includes no background checks either.

Again, what on earth are you so afraid of with background checks? It's almost like borderline paranoia with you.

The rest of your post is more of the same NRA drivel about enforcing existing laws and educating people on guns, which I guess is a cute way of saying it's everyone else's fault for all the gun violence and mass murders. It's a sad dodge, and it's tedious.

April 21, 2013 at 11:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )