Speaker Paul Ryan says GOP will look at "system failures," not gun control, in wake of Florida shooting

In other words Trump's recent blabberings about "doing something" are meaningless. 

What a surprise. 

I don't think that's a fair reply to this. I think your hatred of all things Trump is coloring your replies too much. After all the president cannot make laws, that must come from Congress. Trump has been meeting with lots of different people on this and talking to people. But he cannot force Congress to make a law.

You can hate on Trump all you want, but I do wish you would try to be fair about it.

One day you will realize that Trump talks out of both sides of his mouth and is not a leader. 

Yeah, Trump is a fucking liar through and through, his word(s) are worth less than nothing. As far as anything meaningful being done, I'll believe it when I see it, until then I will assume they are all completely full of shit and the politicians can cram their thoughts and prayers up their asses, they will do more good there anyhow. 

After all the president cannot make laws, that must come from Congress. . . But he cannot force Congress to make a law.

True.

However as president of the U/S. and therefore the head of the Republican Party he has a lot of influence over McConnell  and Ryan as well as other Republicans in Congress. If he pushes an issue in most cases they will go along. (IN fact IIRC both leaders have said they wouldn't even bring certain bills to a vote if they were certain Trump wouldn't sign them.)

However as president of the U/S. and therefore the head of the Republican Party he has a lot of influence over McConnell  and Ryan as well as other Republicans in Congress. If he pushes an issue in most cases they will go along. (IN fact IIRC both leaders have said they wouldn't even bring certain bills to a vote if they were certain Trump wouldn't sign them.)

You are joking right?  The Republicans in Congress have a tenuous relationship with Trump at the best.  He is not one of them.  Of course they are not going to put bills in front of Trump they know he will not sign.  They did the same thing with Obama.  It takes a 2/3rds majority vote from Congress to override a presidential veto.  Which means any bill they hope to pass w/o the approval of Trump they will need a good amount of Democrat help.  Sound like anything doable with any Congress in modern times?

As for Trump being the head of the Republican Party- that also must be a joke.  See where the money is going from donors come election time.  That will tell the story.  Trump couldn't beat Hillary in fund raising; not even close.  The normal big money donors love the establishment; and Trump isn't a part of it.  Establishment money will be going to individual Republicans they want to support this election; not the Republican Party- unless the Party can insure that the majority of the money doesn't reach Trump.

When the next school shooter turns out to not have left any warnings of mental illness that could have been detected, and law enforcement is shown to not have made any mistakes identifying him,  Ryan and the rest will be shown for the craven idiots they are. 

How so? Because of all those new strict gun laws and weapon bans? Oh...and tell us just how background checks on private sales would be implemented and enforced.

and tell us just how background checks on private sales would be implemented and enforced.

Its the same with anything illegal. How can laws against Heroin and other hard drugs be enforced? Not easy-- but we still have those laws! (And just as there sometimes are very large drug busts, private guns sales would sometimes happen if those laws existed).

The Las Vegas shooter showed no advanced signs of any mental illness and as far as anyone knows was not sufferinng from any kind of one when he was firing on the crowd.

maybe , maybe not, what medications were he taking? I saw he was on diazepam(sp) and a couple other that has aggressive behavior side affects. Now don't get me wrong , there are millions of people who take psycotropics , that never have some of the side affects and it helps them greatly , BUT, there seems to be a percentage that suffer the worst of the known side affects that end up in the news. That could be a legislative fix that's being considered , the revisiting of the HIPPA laws and what should or could be reported . that is just a guess on my part. but it makes sense to me.

I take Psychotropic meds, including Diazepam which is the generic name for Valium. I have been on just about all of the anti-dependents and all of the anti-anxiety meds that are out there over the past 6 years as it's often very difficult to keep meds balanced in a person with mental illness because the symptoms can change without warning and you have to work with your meds person to readjust what you are taking to get straight again. Sometimes that part can take months. Still have never taken or been aware of any meds that can cause aggressive behavior, though sometimes that is a side effect of running out of some of my meds and being suddenly off from them. A sudden withdrawal can cause all kinds of strange feelings, which is why if you are going to stop taking a particular med you need to withdraw from them slowly with a doctor;s help.

about 18 yrs ago I was in a bad place mentally , decided to let a friend and co worker take care of my guns for me , with strict instructions to NOT let me have them back  unless I had a signed note from my Dr with a number he could call to verify.

Long story short , I was put on a very high dose of Paxil, I didn't really notice any effect other than I had a lot lower inhibitions , and I was more amiable to suggestion , and a loss of all fear. 

When I started having very strange dreams that I couldn't tell if they were real or a dream , I expressed my concerns to my GP ( he prescribed them) he wanted to lower the dose , and I said I wanted off them period , guess who won?

 I finally after 3 months got him to sign the note to my friend letting me retrieve my guns but only because I agreed to seek council to work on the issues I had without the meds.

Point is , even though some of these meds have predictable effects , everyones body chemistry is different , and as you said , it takes some work to keep them balanced. but not everyone does that.

I haven't had a prescription drug  since , not even when I had a finger amputated, did that under local. 

Good idea with the guns. When my 2nd wife wanted a divorce and left me, taking our two young sons with her, I was so depressed that I found myself drunk one night with the barrel of my 20 gauge single shot critter gun (I lived in the country in Michigan) in my mouth and crying. I can still remember the taste of it. The metal and the gun oil. Obviously I didn't pull the trigger and I sold it a few days later to a coworker who thought it'd be a good Christmas present for his 15 year old. I just wanted it out of my reach.

well ten years after that incident for me , the reason for my dark place left again , but by this time my kids were all grown and adults , and I just stepped aside and let her go, best move I ever made.

Looking at system failures.  At least they know where the problem is this time.  

Lax regulation of penis "enlargement" devices is a system failure. 

A pathetic lack of gun control IS a system failure.

*

System won't let me get rid of duplicate

I think Ryan is simply looking at what can be achieved legislatively feasibly on the federal level, first thing IMHO is the feds have to look at the reporting laws on the federal level and see what has to be fixed , on the state level the feds wont have much control, but they can share what they find out . and the state can also share what they find out with the feds . 

remember the feds have a little constraint called the US Constitution , and a separate but equal branch of government called the Supreme Court  that has final say on if any legislation passes constitutional muster. Lets not forget there is a second house of congress that will have their own Ideas and thoughts they will add to any pending legislation.

 The executive branch , I think has it the easiest , because the agencies under executive control are also allowed by law to make and change regulations without congress, but they as well have to be wary of constitutional constraints. take bumpstocks for example , the ATF made a ruling , without congress whether they could be possessed or not , no one will argue that they don't change the cyclic rate of a semi beyond the capability of a simple human operator,, but they ruled it was ok because it was external and an attatchment . they have been ordered by their bosses in the exec branch to revisit this ruling and determine if it conflicts with current law and policy on trigger modifications.

raising the age of purchase will take legislation , but what about everything an 18 y.o. has to do legally now ? such as selective service registration? will that be pushed back?, Fla ,listening to the Gov speak , mentioned , exemptions , under 21 such as active duty military or guard.

Another thing that has to be hashed out , will this only apply to these tactical weapons that are popular? will a shot gun or deer rifle like grandpa's be exempt? in other words , any of the firearms NOT being considered being banned .

 Thing is age of majority ( legal age of adulthood ) has been set at 18 for many years  and all states I am pretty sure recognize that , and at adulthood 18 y.o. are suppose to be afforded all constitutional protections of all rights , I know booze is an area that they lost, but not without a fight .

Except Ryan owes his existence to Freedom Works, Americans For Prosperity and the NRA.  Without the funding he'd be working at the Farmer's Market.

so can you reute my observation bbl-1? a simple yes or no will do , if yes do so.

can you refute my observation ? if yes , please do so.

Uh no.  The weapons aren't necessarily the problem.  People relying on them for their own irresponsibility and questionable other motives are the problem.

System failure?  Really? 

So it should be this?  A person who is suspected of having mental/emotional problems, but has not broken any specified laws should be taken into custody for his own protection and the protection of others?  Sounds like a right wing conservative's wet dream.

Anyway, guns weren't a problem until lie speech became free speech.  Too many people can't tell the difference or find the facts too inconvenient for their fears and prejudices.

I have a mental illness. Most members here know that and I don't keep it a secret because I think doing that adds to the unfair stigma of it since after all it really is just another disease, like epilepsy or diabetes. My diagnosis is (according to the DSM-V) "Persistent Depressive Disorder. With Suicidal Features and PTSD." I have made a serious attempt at suicide 5 and 1/2 years ago with a massive overdoes of Ambien and Soma. Obviously I was found out and spent time in a coma on a respirator in the ICU at UCLA and then in The Resnick Psychiatric Hospital there too. Since then 4 years ago I voluntarily spent another week in a locked facility in Covina when I was feeling very suicidal.

Now, under California law I had to sign an agreement when I went into the hospital the last time that I realized that I was giving up my right to own a firearm for 5 years. The first time in the hospital I was on what was known out here a 5150 (because that's the number of the form) and that 5 year limitation was automatic. The odd thing is that I don't remember them asking me when I signed into the hospital if I currently owed a weapon? I don't, but it struck me as odd that they didn't ask. It seemed like it was more that I just could not buy a firearm for 5 years? So I am sure I am on some list somewhere so I can't buy a weapon in California, at least for another year. I also have the restriction having a wife who would kill me if I bought one anyway.  Of course that restriction would be very easy to get around. I could easily go to one of many gun shows in AZ or NV and get a shotgun or rifle in a person to person sale with no background check.

I have not violated any laws. I am not sure if attempting suicide is illegal and if it is that's pretty absurd and I certainly wasn't charged with it. Since just before my suicide attempt I have been on SSDI and heavily medicated. I live at home with my wife who is retired. I am not a threat to anyone but myself and I am a walking and talking reason why re-opening the old mental hospital and warehousing all of the mentally ill people is just a terrible idea. I see my Therapist at Jewish Family Services for an hour every two weeks and my Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner every three months to keep my meds in balance. I currently take a balance of 7 different depression and anxiety medications every morning and evening.

Not only would hospitalizing people like me be much more expensive it would not stop the problem of keeping guns out the hands of people who are a real danger to others. However I think I see a very slippery slope ahead when I hear Trump complain about all of the old mental hospitals being closed down. While we certainly could use much more funding for more short term mental health beds, especially in cites, for those who really need them, going back to the bad old days of mental hospitals as human warehouses is not the answer. Far, far, far too many people who went to one, not needing to be in one in the first place, only became much worse because of being in one.

If you read 3 documents: The Declaration of Independence, The US Constitution, and Title 10 of the US Code; then you should come away with the fact that there is only one possible gun control law that is anywhere near acceptable.  That would be one requiring all able-bodied males between ages 17 and 45 and women in the National Guard to carry a gun and proper ammunition for that gun at ALL times.

The Declaration of Independence states that the people have the responsibility to get rid of oppressive government and could be argued as stating that we actually have the OBLIGATION to do so.  The Constitution’s Second Amendment states that the well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state and that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.  That means government can regulate who is in the militia and how that militia is run, but it cannot do anything to prevent those in the militia from having arms of ANY type, if interpreted as written.  Title 10 of the US Code states that the unorganized militia is made up of all able-bodied males between ages 17 and 45 and women in the National Guard.  Therefore, in keeping with our Foinding documents and the US Code, there is only one possible gun control law IF you truly believe in freedom.

Awwwwww.  It's so cute to see all the liberals whine, bitch, moan and complain because someone is actually acting like an adult, and not blaming the gun.

Morning Uncle Bruce....it's true, the system failed in a bigly way.

Liberals want guns controlled and taken away from everyone but criminals. They believe that banning certain weapons and imposing really strict gun laws and background checks will end the gun violence, forgetting about all of the guns in circulation in the hands of really bad people. What good are all these measures if the stupid authorities ignore all the warning signals and red flags that Cruz was waving?

.

LOL

Awwww, it's also so CUTE when ultra-cons reach deep in "The GOP handbook of over-used talking points, clichés and insults."

Sadly for you, no one's been cut to the quick and no-one on the left is whining, so I guess you wasted your day.

More smoke. Ryan and crew will work real hard to analyze "system failures" (maybe leaving a few out if they don't match up) and at the proper time will reveal the results with movie slides, re-enactments, pie charts, maybe a choir and a sad tear in their eyes when they decide that no single law will stop all the killings, so no sense trying to do anything to stop it at all, as usual. (Nod from the NRA and maybe a bonus.)

Ending with thoughts and prayers for the fallen.

"Speaker Paul Ryan said Tuesday that House Republicans would focus on law enforcement failures, not tighter gun control"

I'll believe it when I see it ..... But if it happens.... It's about FUCKING time !

There are shit loads of rules, regulations and laws on the books that regulate us everyday, and that have "Human Failure" written all over them when it comes to enforcing those massive amounts of rules, regulations and laws on the books.

Adding more to the books just makes "Human Failure" more likely than it is now !

Pretty soon, the entire population will have to be hired by government just to enforce ALL the Crap already on, and those that keep getting added to the BOOKS ! 

LAWS ARE ONLY AS GOOD AS THE ENFORCEMENT BEHIND THEM !