Mich. Democrats push measures to halt gun violence

Michigan House Democrats are introducing legislation aimed at reducing gun violence in Michigan, including expanding background checks for gun purchases.
AP Wire
May 9, 2013


Reps. Jim Townsend of Royal Oak, Vicki Barnett of Farmington Hills and Andy Schor of Lansing announced the legislation Thursday.

One of the measures would expand the current permit-to-purchase process for pistols to all guns. Townsend said his legislation would require residents buying any kind of gun to get a permit from local law enforcement and pass a background check. That process currently only applies to pistols.

Another measure would ensure that insurance co-pays for physical health services and mental health services are the same. This is required under the federal Affordable Health Care Act, but Barnett said it won't apply to people on large employer plans until 2017.



Again, and again, how does this halt gun violence? All it insures is someone will be killed by a registered gun that is most likely a stolen. IT DOES NOTHING TO STOP VIOLENCE.


You're spot on, Wing. This legislation will do absolutely nothing to reduce violence. How about increasing the level of punishment for crimes involving guns. Now that might make a difference.


Here is a fairly unbiased link that answers some common questions regarding the Manchin-Toomey background check proposal. Of course, nothing will stop all violence, and nothing will catch all criminals from buying guns illegally. But why not make some attempt at tightening up on requirements, and closing obvious loopholes? Poll and after poll shows that vast majority of citizens (85%), including gun owners, want tighter background checks.



"Poll and after poll shows that vast majority of citizens (85%), including gun owners" I want to see a current poll, i think people are realizing this is a waste of time and money for reason that wing pointed out. To use a poll right after sandy hook is 100% biased. There is absolutely no way that 85% of the citizins are still for this proposal, i just dont buy it


I understand your scepticism. Here are some very current links showing poll numbers with explanations:




Interestingly enough Truth, I watched a PBS show last night regarding mass killings. It of course whipped up emotion about the victims families, the guns, the ammo (that the school knew he had..no action taken??)At the end of the program after the case was made about guns, registration....they ask you to go on line and take a poll to see if you are in favor of stricter gun registration. WTF do they think will be the result of the poll after a one sided report on the topic? Then they will put that poll out in the media and say see, see 90% of the people polled want stricter registration blah, blah blah! What a bunch of trsnsparent crap!


My question is why tighten and make it more restrictive for law abiding citizens to by a gun when it will not stop gun violence one bit. This is a stupid conversation seemingly intelligent people are having. What a complete waste of time an energy this whole discussion is unless....

Hey, does anybody know why our embassador in Libya died yet?


Just out of curiosity what is the issue with submitting to a background check if you want to purchase a gun?

Double checking never hurts.


there is already a system the requires a background check for purchasing a pistol...doing it twice is another way for government to waste money...get it right the first time!


Interesting you bring up Benghazi, Wing. Let's see - how much money has the House spent on hearings after hearings, testimony after testimony? Try as they might they just can't drum up a scandal to discredit Obama's first term, no matter how much money spent, how many hours wasted, or how stupid they look. But then they have this to account for:

"House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012....Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

"Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security."

Remember during the Bush years all the hearings on embassies being attacked and US staff being killed? No - that's because there wasn't any:

June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.

February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Truck bomb kills 17.

February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.

July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan
Suicide bomber kills 2.

December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.

March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide car bomber killed 4, including a U.S. diplomate directly targeted by the assailants.

September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria
Gunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb (though second truck bomb failed to detonate). 1 killed, 13 wounded.

January 12, 2007, U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece
Rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the embassy building. No one injured.

July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey
Armed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen killed.

March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Mortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls' school.

September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. 6 Yemeni soldiers and 7 civilians were killed. 16 more were injured.

Of course, these were embassies, which receive far greater security than consulates, such as Benghazi.

And then there was the intelligence leading up 9/11. Think the extremists attacked our country without any advance warning? Goodness no!

Remember the lengthy, exhausting Republican investigation into the facts surrounding the Bush administration's failure to prevent 9/11?


That's because they weren't.

"... the moderator reminded Cheney that Clarke had repeatedly warned the administration about al Qaeda’s determination to attack the U.S., Cheney .... replied, “That’s not my recollection..."

" ... New York Times reporter Philip Shenon’s book, “The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation,” reprinted some of Clarke’s emphatic e-mails warning the Bush administration ... throughout 2001:

“Bin Ladin Public Profile May Presage Attack” (May 3)

“Terrorist Groups Said Co-operating on US Hostage Plot” (May 23)

“Bin Ladin’s Networks’ Plans Advancing” (May 26)

“Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent” (June 23)

“Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats” (June 25)

“Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks” (June 30)

“Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delays” (July 2)

"... Time Magazine reported in 2002 that Clarke had an extensive plan to “roll back” al Qaeda — a plan that languished for months, ignored by senior Bush officials ... "

" ... The proposals Clarke developed in the winter of 2000-01 were not given another hearing by top decision makers until late April, and then spent another four months making their laborious way through the bureaucracy before they were readied for approval by President Bush.

But Benghazi! THAT'S something to get riled about!.


Sure did strike your "rile" button with that little quip didn't I. LOL, that's because you and your Lib brethren know there is much more to the story. Mr. Transparent gubment has been trying his best to run from it, mean it is ancient history. Did you know it was 7 mos. ago? My how time flys when your attacking the constitution.

Hey, Lan any feelings about what happen with that Fast n Furious thingy yet. Your last post and talking points was fun..what ya got for this little scandal?


Look at you! Nothing like a juicy scandal to make you sit up and smell the coffee. I understand. It's so hard when there is so little to work with - no sex scandal (Clinton), no lying to the country and sacrificing blood, treasure, not to mention the future credit of the US (Bush)....there's got to be something, anything, to get the public's attention off the incredibly pernicious actions of the House Repubs ( approval rating was 10% in February - the lowest ever recorded).

Sorry - I could not care less about 'Fast and Furious' - stuff happens. Move on. As far as your thinking you can "rile" me up with a little quip.....

"You're so vain", Carly Simon.


Oh Queen of disinformation. According to CBS News one year ago:

"(CBS News) The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency."

"If Mr. Obama wins re-election, and his budget projections prove accurate, the National Debt will top $20 trillion in 2016, the final year of his second term. That would mean the Debt increased by 87 percent, or $9.34 trillion, during his two terms." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-5035...

In the future I will simply write LMSF for this kind of behavior (Lanny Makin Stuff Up).


Sorry Vlad/Wing/Munutjob (or whatever-sp?): Try as you might - and I give you credit for trying very, very hard to change the topic when you are feeling the heat, since you're advocating for these politically expedient, self-serving and selfish Benghazi hearings, you will not be permitted to simply write LMSU (LMSF - NMSU??), or bring out your pirate's chest of shiny objects. The Repubs have for years cut back on diplomatic security budgets, and now the chicken-littles have come home to roost.

Frankly, it sickens me how you advocate for those who are exploiting the death of American diplomats. You hide behind the rationale of fact-finding when in fact, the Repubs are beating a dead horse, the Benghazi horse, spending time and money "investigating" via a kangaroo court something that should be studied and from which lessons should be learned regarding embassy/consulate security. Instead it is nothing more than a witch-hunt to excoriate Obama and Hillary.

This might work for you tea party echo chamber types who show glee at this opportunity for retribution for Watergate, Iran-Contra, Bush Wars of Lies, drag Obama/Hillary through the mud, etc but I have news for you: Beyond the need to honor those who served well and died and learn what we can from the experience, the rest of the country has moved on. People serving in dangerous zones around the globe know they are serving under compromised conditions. Remember the 1983 attack on our military barracks in Beirut which claimed the lives of 243 Marines. Remember all the investigations? No? Of course not, there were none. All this fixing blame is simply political, and shame on you.

Vlad - I hold you to a higher standard than this silly "making stuff up" you've created. This really is sound and fury signifying nothing, and I expect a better debate than this. I've said it before and will say it again - if any fact I write can be proven to be a falsehood, you point it out, and I will rectify. I, at least, have certain standards that guide me. And quit with the debt paranoia. Let's stick with one shiny object at a time, ok?


Wow Lan, I pose a simple question about an American citizen dying in the service to our country and you go off huffing and puffing like Jane Fonda on tour in N. Vietnam. Why so sensitive? Didn't you get the memo, your supposed to just move on cause its no big deal. It was a video that caused that little ruckus over there anyway, right!

You are delusional with your facts, its not possible to pull you back. Obama is not god, you do not need to worship him, he does make mistakes, a lot of them. Its kinda strange to watch a seemingly intelligent person twist themselves into knots to support such a flawed President. Kinda like "Blinded by the Light" - Manfred Mans Earth Band


Wing - let's calm down and get a grip. I used "Blinded by the Light" Manfred Mans a few months ago. Couldn't you find your own music without borrowing from me? And to think you are a 'seemingly' intelligent person.....


Sorry didn't know you owned the rights to reference a song. Like one of your hero's said regarding the most recent cover up "what difference does it make anyway"

If your selective memory serves you I correctly pointed out the original to the song...which would make for another fact you were incorrect about if anyone is keeping score!


I remember very well, and I also remember praising you by saying you were right. I can give credit when credit is due, unlike some.

Funny how we remember some things, and quickly forget others, no? Like Hillary's "what difference does it make anyway?" It only makes a difference when you choose to make it so. And then there's your hero who pronounced before the world, "Mission Accomplished". Now this is a wonderful example of how a few words can be interpreted differently, especially in lieu of the fact the war raged on for about another 10 years. Sorry to bring up Bush again - it's just that there is so much to work with.


Here's something else you can work with: http://www.realclearpolitics.com...


I enjoyed the article. It's good to know that the leader of the Free World for 8 years was perhaps not the doofus image he seemed to enjoy projecting.

But on the other hand, there's this: http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/...


I take your point - which article to believe? But then there is this: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/...


I think you've hit on something big. Clearly, he is attempting to cover something up,..Michelle. Or maybe Benghazi.

On the other hand, he might be shirking his presidential duties by horsing around and acting out his favorite childhood movie:


There is also the distinct possibility he and George have a bet going on who can look like the biggest doofus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M...


Your guy wins! (You enjoyed this before) http://youtu.be/p1MH_UEpVjQ


This trumps everything...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D...


And, Michelle My Belle looks concerned that darlin hubby might have sent a drone her way . . . .


Just got home after experiencing a wonderful concert by the 3 Divas - 3 very talented women who don't need to LMSU (I was distracted, thinking of my many years of smoking Lucky Strikes and got it wrong - my bad)will respond to your oh-so defensive rant later.


Please don't bother - it will only spoil the afterglow and good feelings of a wonderful concert. I'd rather you reflect on the talent you have enjoyed and experienced tonight, and internalize the good vibes, peace, and harmony so that future casting of your pearls of wisdom will resonate with the joy of life.


Duck, bob and weave Lan. Now bring out Boosh. Your so predictable.

Ok, try this http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynops... To bring us back to the topic. You wonder why I don't trust the gubment with records of gun purchases when they can so easily single out citizens like this! Note I used a CBS news, a lib outlet for my link on this. You might want to rethink your position on gun registration!

SOS Lan, Same ole Situation - Motley Crue


Cry me a river! Would you people man up and quit with the drama? Everything's the "worst", the "most horrible", the "meanest",...to coin Vlad's phrase: Wah! Wah! Grow up and start helping to make America a better place instead of hiding behind your 501(c)4 tax shelters. All you tea party people are good for is making stuff up,.


If anyone is still following along I hope the above statements by a self proclaimed centerist sends shivers up your spine.

In response to my concern over a government agency singling out Americans because of their politcal beliefs she says "cry me a river." This is a very dangerous attitude that left unchecked will eventually get around to one of YOUR freedoms that are protected by YOUR constitution.

Wolves are always looking to erode your freedoms to gain control over the people. It has been that way through out history. For that reason our brilliant founders wrote this amendment "A well regulated militia being necessary to security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"



Post a Comment

Log in to your account to post comments here and on other stories, galleries and polls. Share your thoughts and reply to comments posted by others. Don't have an account on GrandHavenTribune.com? Create a new account today to get started.