Just say "NO" to Kelly Ayotte - Page 2 - MP-Pistol Forum

Just say "NO" to Kelly Ayotte

This is a discussion on Just say "NO" to Kelly Ayotte within the New Hampshire forums, part of the Northeast category; Expanded back ground checks won't do diddly squat to reduce gun violence. CRIMINALS don't get guns LEGALLY. Really please tell me you don't honestly believe ...


Go Back   MP-Pistol Forum > Regions > Northeast > New Hampshire

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 3rd, 2013, 03:55 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Texas40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Antonio Texas
Posts: 639
Just say "NO" to Kelly Ayotte

Expanded back ground checks won't do diddly squat to reduce gun violence. CRIMINALS don't get guns LEGALLY.
Really please tell me you don't honestly believe they will accomplish anything except intrude on the rights of honest Americans who wish to exercise the rights under 2A.
You cannot be that gullible can you. If so sell all your guns now and go play for the other team.

Sandy hook shooter who was mentally disturbed stole the weapons from his MOM who had LEGALLY purchased them. How would A background check stopped that.
Texas40 is offline  
Old May 8th, 2013, 04:11 AM   #17
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: WS, Ma.
Posts: 499
Redryder.... is this the Ayotte you're talking about?


Ayotte: Setting the Record Straight - I voted to improve background check system
Setting the Record Straight

I voted to improve background check system
An op-ed by Sen. Kelly Ayotte

Out of state special interests are running false ads attacking me and even lying about my efforts to prevent gun-related violence. I want to set the record straight: I support effective background checks and in fact voted recently to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

As a former prosecutor who served for five years as New Hampshire's attorney general, I have a demonstrated record of punishing criminals and strengthening public safety. Having worked as a murder prosecutor, I've witnessed horrific crime scenes. I've spent time with victims - and I've worked day and night to put violent offenders behind bars.

From my experience working with police chiefs, detectives and prosecutors, I know how important it is to have laws that work - and I know how important it is to enforce the laws we have on the books.

Despite what the false attack ads say, I helped introduce and voted for the Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act, which improves the existing background check system, addresses mental health gaps in the criminal justice system, boosts resources to improve school safety, and criminalizes gun trafficking and straw purchases. The legislation also puts teeth into the law by creating a high level federal task force to increase the prosecution of gun-related violence.

Also, given the clear connection between mental illness and mass violence tragedies at Newtown, Aurora, and Virginia Tech, I cosponsored and voted for the Mental Health Awareness and Improvement Act. This bipartisan measure includes provisions of legislation I helped introduce that seeks to improve mental health first aid training and increase the effectiveness of mental health care across the nation. This amendment passed the Senate overwhelmingly by a vote of 95 to 2.

It's clear that criminals who attempt to illegally purchase firearms aren't being prosecuted as they should be - and have not been for years. For example, in 2010, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms screened 76,142 NICS denials. Of those, charges were brought in only 44 cases - and resulted in just 13 successful prosecutions. This sends the message to criminals that there won't be any consequences when they try to get their hands on guns.

Some of my colleagues want to expand the broken background check system we have now. In my view, we shouldn't be expanding a flawed system. The focus should be on fixing the existing system, which criminals are flouting. We need to make sure we are enforcing current law and prosecuting those who attempt to illegally obtain firearms. And we must ensure that NICS includes records currently not being entered in the system, including mental health adjudications where an individual is found to be a danger to themselves and others.

There are no easy answers. Even if the proposed expansion of background checks had been in place, it wouldn't have prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy - where the perpetrator obtained the firearms he used by killing his own mother, who owned them lawfully.

Like citizens across New Hampshire, I want to find solutions that will stop criminals and those who are mentally ill from obtaining firearms. I want to make sure we punish those who try to access guns illegally. And I want to improve the nation's mental health system so that those who are on the front lines can identify the warning signs of mental illness and help those in need get proper help.

In the Senate, I know that there are members of both parties who want to find common ground on this important issue. And my commitment to the people of New Hampshire is that I will continue to try to work across the aisle to prevent violence, enforce and improve our broken background check system, strengthen mental health services, and increase school safety - all while protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans.

Misleading television and radio ads are counterproductive and only help to poison this important discussion.
Kelly Ayotte Photo Warm Regards,

Kelly Ayotte
United States Senator
Turbo38GN is offline  
Old May 9th, 2013, 01:56 PM   #18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: NH & NS
Posts: 22
Yes, I read that too in our local paper. She stated her reasons and what she feels is the backlash from her vote. Guess we'll wait and see whether the voters agree with her position in 2016.
Redryder is offline  
Old May 9th, 2013, 02:12 PM   #19
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: WS, Ma.
Posts: 499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redryder View Post
Yes, I read that too in our local paper. She stated her reasons and what she feels is the backlash from her vote. Guess we'll wait and see whether the voters agree with her position in 2016.
So that doesn't make sense to you?
Turbo38GN is offline  
Old May 9th, 2013, 03:22 PM   #20
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: NH & NS
Posts: 22
Sorry . . . it doesn't. And if you have access to the Concord Monitor Letters to the Editor page on their website, the majority seem to disagree with her. Time will tell . . .

Thanks for posting the op ed from Kelly, I'm sure others would agree with you too.
Redryder is offline  
Old May 9th, 2013, 05:43 PM   #21
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: WS, Ma.
Posts: 499
For the record,... my wife is a teacher in CT, 20 minutes from where this tragedy occurred. No one wants to see her be safer than I. With that said, this so-called background check would have done nothing to prevent what happened there, nor WILL it do anything to prevent it from happening again. That my friend is why I side with Kelly, cause like me, she has enough sense to know what I just stated. She like I and many others want to do something to make our family and friends safer, wasting time and effort on this bill was a joke. The politicians that drafted it said so!! But, if you listened, the same politicians said they would push this as a beginning to push for more down the road... do you have any clue what that it? Do you know what THEY WANT DOWN THE ROAD... come on, you must be a smart man... you read the newspaper.... it's been printed what the ultimate goal is... can you tell me?
Turbo38GN is offline  
Old May 10th, 2013, 03:36 AM   #22
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: NH & NS
Posts: 22
Registration or confiscation or prohibition was never a part of the legislation. If Kelly thought it was leading to that she was mistaken. The legislation was only an attempt to close a loophole. Why would she have voted against that? What was the harm in voting "yea"? There's only one reason I can think of: NRA approval rating.
Redryder is offline  
Old May 10th, 2013, 03:51 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Texas40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Antonio Texas
Posts: 639
Just say "NO" to Kelly Ayotte

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redryder View Post
Registration or confiscation or prohibition was never a part of the legislation. If Kelly thought it was leading to that she was mistaken. The legislation was only an attempt to close a loophole. Why would she have voted against that? What was the harm in voting "yea"? There's only one reason I can think of: NRA approval rating.
She is SMARTER than you. The legislation would have done NADA to solve any crime issues or reduce the number of bad guys getting guns. I assure you criminals don't go thru BCs to buy a gun.
Hopefully most folks in NH are also smarter than you for the sake of all gun owners in the state.
Texas40 is offline  
Old May 10th, 2013, 10:25 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
LordRahl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Northen VA
Posts: 3,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redryder View Post
Registration or confiscation or prohibition was never a part of the legislation.
Study the history of the gun control movement. They have made it clear that their ultimate goal is total elimination of firearm ownership by civilians.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it.

This statement was made by California Senator Dianne Feinstein, one of the most vocal and active anti-gun legislators on the Hill.

Democrats learned early on that they will never get gun prohibition to pass in one bill. So now they have taken to trying to get there little by little as we have seen with New York and Marylandís limited magazine capacity and assault weapons ban, a firearm used in less than 1% of violent crimes.

These laws will do nothing to deter criminals. To the contrary it will embolden them as they are now more heavily armed that their vicims.

So why bother with banning a weapon that is rarely used to commit crimes? Because it is not deemed by many Americans a big a threat on their 2nd amendment rights as banning bolt action rifles and handguns. I have actually seen posters here and on other sites who voiced support on an AWB because they themselves do not own one.

Now there is a crack in the door.

When there is no effect on the crime rate or there is another maniac killing innocents, the anti-gun pundits will come back and claim not enough was done so then they will probably next go after hunting rifles probably claiming the armor piercing rounds are used to kill cops . The whole time they will be clamoring for universal background checks which will ultimately require national registration.

And so it will go. More gun restrictions with no reduction on crime because the criminals could care less about laws.

Based on what has happened elsewhere, crime in all likelihood will increase and again there will be the clamor for more restrictions only now they will want to come after the guns you already own. By this time they will have gotten national registration or possibly even repeal of the 2nd amendment (especially if they manage to pick up 11 million new democratic voters with the amnesty bill) so now they know just whose door to knock on.

By this time Americas will have given up their liberty for an illusion of security that never materializes in reality.

One must always be careful how much power they give politicians, for time and again they have demonstrated that they are never satisfied.

No I do not believe black helocopters are following me around and spy sattellites are trained on my house. However this administration and its democratic controlled Senate has proven that it is willing to manipulate rules and even ignore laws to get what it wants.

The bottom line is just because something is not part of a current legislation proposal does not mean it is not part of a bigger picture. We need to not only question what is being proposed but where its passage can lead.

It is a lot more difficult to regain a right once lost than it is to protect that right in the first place.
LordRahl is offline  
Old May 11th, 2013, 02:25 PM   #25
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: NH & NS
Posts: 22
Just a couple of comments to your post Lord Rahl:

Infowars apparently didn't provide the complete quote and context to what Senator Feinstein said. She made that statement in 1995 in response to the elimination of the AWB in 1994. She was speaking about assault weapons only. You can't enlarge that group to say she was referring to ALL guns without some sort of reference if that was your intent. I don't believe an AWB would accomplish much nor do I belive it would ever come to pass again - as long as Lindsey Graham has one.

I also don't see how you can link background checks to confiscation of hunting rifles and national registration. Do you have a cite for that or is it pure speculation?

Finally, although the democrats do outnumber republicans in the Senate, as you know it's not majority rule there. It takes 60 votes to pass legislation. Were that not the case, the 54 votes in favor of the background check legislation last month would have more than sufficient.

Last edited by Redryder; May 11th, 2013 at 02:28 PM.
Redryder is offline  
Old May 11th, 2013, 07:14 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
LordRahl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Northen VA
Posts: 3,750
Quote:
She made that statement in 1995 in response to the elimination of the AWB in 1994. She was speaking about assault weapons only. You can't enlarge that group to say she was referring to ALL guns without some sort of reference if that was your intent.
The AWB in 1995 was suppose to be merely the first step. Anti-gunners expected a drastic reduction in crime, which never materialized, that would have lent support to expanding the ban. When the AWB proved to not have been effective in the least, it left the anti-gun movement with nothing that would support making it permanent much less expanding the ban. Furthermore, the AWB cost many democrats who voted for it their seats. For a long time gun control was a third rail for democrats.

But now with the complicity of a left leaning media, Feinstein, Obama and the rest of the anti-gun pundits will milk a tragedy for everything it's worth regardless of the facts. Feinstein's latest proposal for a new AWB was not just drafted following Aurora or Newtown. It has very likely been sitting on a shelf just waiting for the moment, something Feinstein made clear in a 2009 interview when she said of gun control;

Iíll pick the time and the place, no question about that.

Quote:
I also don't see how you can link background checks to confiscation of hunting rifles and national registration. Do you have a cite for that or is it pure speculation?
It is a logical progression. There was a time you could mail order a rifle from Sears, Montgomery Wards (my age is showing) and other retailers. Then the government made background checks by firearm retailers law. Now they want background checks on any transaction of firearms by anyone, all in the name of public safety. This will do nothing to affect the crime rate as criminals illegally obtain their guns and therefore will not submit to a background checks. At this point it is not unreasonable to expect the legislature to attempt reversal of 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act provision which prohibits firearm registration. From there it is one small step to confiscation. Historically this has happened in places like Nazi Germany, Cuba, Australia, New Zealand and the UK. It has even occurred in the US in places like New York, California, Chicago and DC.

Nancy Pelosi herself made it very clear that she not only wants to register all weapons, she wants the prohibit them crossing state lines.

In 2000 Feinstein made a proposal for licensing and federal registration of all handguns and certain semi-automatic weapons.
LordRahl is offline  
Old May 11th, 2013, 07:43 PM   #27
Member
 
thesyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Raynham, MA
Posts: 46
Redryder, I would guess that you are either a troll or a Massachusetts transplant. You sound just like my idiot coworkers and family. If you truly believe the background checks should pass then I suggest a relocation to New York or California. You'll fit right in.
thesyguy is offline  
Old November 9th, 2016, 02:05 PM   #28
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: NH & NS
Posts: 22
Bye, bye Kelly. Don't let the door hit you on the way out!
Redryder is offline  
Reply

  MP-Pistol Forum > Regions > Northeast > New Hampshire

« NH FFL | - »
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
M&P40c and comparison, M&P 9Pro 5" vs. XDm 9mm 5.25 "Competition" mjw930 MP Range Reports 0 August 6th, 2012 09:08 AM
Decided on XS sights, now I need to decide "Big Dot" or "Standard Dot" Almighty Xerox MP Pistol Accessories 19 December 23rd, 2009 04:06 AM
M&P9 report form "Advanced Concealed Carry" class today... jholland MP Range Reports 1 November 28th, 2008 09:17 PM
NEW M&P "Jamming" or "1/2 Feeding" ? Anyone Else??? 19 Kilo MP Pictures 6 May 11th, 2008 11:06 AM



Powered by vBulletin 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © 2006-2012 MP-Pistol. All rights reserved.
MP-Pistol is a M&P pistol enthusiast forum, but it is in no way affiliated with, nor does it represent Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. of Springfield, MA.