It's the Prevalence of Guns & the NRA, The Partisan Members of the Supreme Court via Big Money (Citizens United), and Gutless Republicans and Democrats
THE BLOOD OF INNOCENT CHILDREN IS ON YOUR HANDS!
• WRITE WHAT YOU WILL -- AND LET US SEE WHO YOU ARE !
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
72 visitors
DO SOMETHING!
• EVEN REAGAN AND SCOLIA SAID THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT DOESN'T ENTITLE ANY PRIVATE CITIZEN TO OWN AN ASSAULT WEAPON!
• Restore the LIMITATIONS ON AMMUNITION MAGAZINE CAPACITIES
• Whatever number of needless gun deaths can be prevented achieved via BACKGROUND CHECKS, A BAN OF ASSAULT WEAPONS and DECREASED MAGAZINE/AMMUNITION CLIPS …
REPRESENTS INNOCENT LIVES SAVED!
I have no problem with those things, if they are written by people who understand what they are talking about, which the authors of the Clinton Assault Rifle ban certainly didn't. Even though I doubt it would have any effect, I think reasonable restrictions are worth the attempt.
But if the goal is stop the murder of innocents, why not do enact policy that would have an actual effect? It's incredibly easy to find example of violent criminals with long rap sheets who commit murder after a brief respite in jail. IF you really want to decrease gun deaths, imprison anyone who commits any crime with a gun for 30 years, with no chance of parole.
If you really want to save innocent lives, that's a much more productive use of your time.
It's also interesting to watch the same politicians who thrust the bodies of these victims in the spotlight to to further their crusade oppose common sense border security and enforcement tools like e-verify to ensure illegal immigrants are allowed to remain free. How many people a year are raped, assaulted and murdered by illegal aliens? Why not take reasonable steps to ensure those murders don't occur? Do the lives of people murdered by illegal aliens matter less than those killed by a "assault rifles?."
Damn! Sean!
We pretty much AGREE!
And this is on Florida Governor, Rick Scott's head!
In Florida, an AR-15 Is Easier to Buy Than a Handgun
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. FEB. 15, 2018
Seems...handguns aren't the problem huh.
Every Fucking State allows 18 year olds to by a Long Gun, after they fill out the paperwork and go through what the rest of us have to go through.
I hear the Feds are the ones that get that paperwork, and decide who gets what.
I also hear that "Democrats and liberals" have been in Government for quite some time too.
oh....
....My bad for FORGETTING !
I heard that Democrats and Liberals have had total control in Government MORE times than Conservatives !
Wonder why this So-Called Problem hasn't been SOLVED waaaaaay before NOW !
They have the capability to be set on full or semi.
Share blame for WHAT ?
Making Laws already on the books about guns ?
I know....and you probably know too....."MURDER" is a big Huuuuuuuge no-no. What more is needed law wise ?
The problem with that is when one race has too many imprisoned, it will have to be changed.
Making assault type weapons legally available to the public makes MURDER MORE EFFICIENT … the same goes for LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION MAGAZINES.
However many lives would be spared for each such item made legally more difficult to obtain … ARE WORTH SAVING!
No reasonable person believes that any law will prevent some individuals from committing the act that law prohibits … BUT THE INSANE, WILLINGLY BLIND AGENDA THAT FAILS TO PASS ANYTHING BECAUSE "NO LAW WILL PREVENT EVERYTHING," is the REFUGE OF PROSTITUTE-LEGISLATOR-COWARDS!
School safety money would be slashed in Trump budget
By KIMBERLY HEFLING
02/15/2018 03:00 PM EST
Two days before the school shooting in Florida that left 17 dead, the Trump administration proposed cutting millions in federal education programs meant to help prevent crime in schools and assist them in recovery from tragedies.
Funds targeted for reduction or elimination in the Trump administration's fiscal 2019 request have helped pay for counselors in schools and violence prevention programs. Such funds were used for mental health aid for students and teachers in the Newtown, Conn., school district following the deadly shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in 2012.
ANY weapon used in a murder is an "Assault Weapon".
Liberals are great at making "Assault Weapon" sound like a Military "Assault Rifle".....which is not the same thing AT ALL !
Have you ever wondered why a Ruger Mini14 hasn't EVER been on the list of Ban Wants by the left ?
Do you know what a Mini14 is ?
Same magazine size, Same Caliber, same capability, same premise and workings of an AR15, sold to the public everyday.
I HAVE ONE. Neat little thing.
It Just doesn't have all the neat nifty plastic "Black" COOL pieces the AR has, and hasn't been seen on the Hyped Media as a threat !
"The infamous 1986 FBI Miami shootout nearly single-handedly spurred the FBI and police departments around the country to begin carrying more powerful handguns. Why? During the fight, bank robber Michael Lee Platt did most of the regrettable incident’s damage while armed with his Mini-14, which possessed significantly more firepower than anything the responding law enforcement officials had brought with them."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Two days before the school shooting in Florida that left 17 dead, the Trump administration proposed cutting millions in federal education programs meant to help prevent crime in schools and assist them in recovery from tragedies."
Preventing someone from committing crimes.....STARTS IN A HOME ! NOT SOME OTHER GOVERNMENT WELFARE PROGRAM.
????
Interesting Mac. So, you seem to be saying that, when AR-15's with high capacity magazines became available to the general public, the murder rate skyrocketed, particularly involving mass shootings at schools.
AR-15's with high capacity magazines have been freely available to the general public since Colt/Armalite started manufacturing them in 1964. Aside from a couple of incidents during the 1990's, mass shootings at schools (or anywhere else) did not become common until the Sandy Hook incident in 2012. WHAT CHANGED DURING THAT 48 YEARS? The weapons were even more available then than they are now. Until 1968, there wasn't even a background check. Since the availability of such arms has been a constant and the mass shootings have only started occurring recently, the availability of the firearms or magazines is not a factor. In other words, IT'S NOT ABOUT THE GUNS. The availability of such guns did not cause the problem and removing them (even if that were possible) will not stop the problem. I know that you hate hearing this since it removes the quick, easy solution and leaves us with finding and fixing the real problem, which is much harder to solve.
My time is limited right now (have to pick up grandkids from school) so I'll just give you a quick hint about the real problem and let you think about it. It's not in the slightest about GUN CONTROL, it's about PARENTAL CONTROL of their children. Since the protests of the late 60's and early 70's our organized society has collapsed, with all the rules by which people were taught by their parents to live, gone by the wayside. People now have a sense of entitlement just because they happened to get born. No one, least of all their parents (who were the protestors) teaches children that there are rules that must not be broken. Naturally, if their parents don't moderate it, children revert to the basic human pattern that is in their genes, that is the pattern producing a predatory, aggressive, wild animal. When a child acted this way before the 60's, his father straightened him out, using as much force as necessary. This doctrine is exemplified by the quotation "Raise up a child in the way he should go and, when he is old, he will not depart from it". Now, many of the children don't even know who their fathers are. Now, when a boy starts acting out, his father (if known) doesn't discipline him; instead, the kid is doped to the eyeballs with drugs that have side effects that can make him violent.
The society must be changed back to what it used to be. That system had flaws but it worked for hundreds of years. Whether that is possible, I don't know.
I've gotta go now. Think hard about this Mac. You might find something useful here. Of one thing I'm certain, if you just jump back to IT'S THE GUNS-IT'S THE GUNS, your focus is in the wrong direction; and that would make you part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Oh sure....all the edyacashun would really, really, would make a big difference.
No question that that is a huge factor … but inept parenting in a gun-glutted nation makes inept parenting more of a problem than inept-parenting alone.
You cannot realistically take the word GUN out of GUN KILLINGS! And the attempt to do so is dsingenuous.
(CNN)An analysis performed for CNN found that states that have enacted magazine restrictions are associated with fewer mass shooting events.
Those stats are totally irrelevant. You've totally ignored everything I told you and are right back to IT'S THE GUNS, IT'S THE GUNS. No, it's not the guns. The guns, with large capacity magazines have been available to anyone with the money to buy one for the last 50 years. Mass shootings have only been a regular thing for about 10 years. Why did nothing happen during the 40 years when the guns were available but very few mass shootings were taking place? WHAT CHANGED? The available guns and magazines haven't changed so they are not a factor. They are a constant and haven't caused any change at all in types or numbers of shootings. In order to have any effect, you must look at the actual source of mass shootings. Once you've done that and located the actual cause, you can start looking for solutions. You will, of course, be totally unable to look for the cause of the mass shootings as long as you focus your attention on the guns. Start looking at people and their psychological reactions to their lives. That's where the solution to the problem is to be found. How many rounds a magazine holds doesn't matter at all if you can get people to stop going out with the intention of killing a lot of people. Sure, it's a harder problem to solve than restricting guns, but it actually has the capacity to solve the problem rather than just putting a band aid on it. Even the band aid wouldn't work. There are about 15-20 million AR-15's out there with several hundred million high capacity magazines. You don't actually believe that they would be turned in, do you?
Does "shouting" - specifically large font and bold script - somehow adds credibility to a rather old, tired, and unenlightened diatribe?
If you watch the liberal media in melt-down mode - a nightly occurrence anymore - they are shouting too - and the message is "Save the children", "It's for the children", We have to get rid of the guns for the safety of our children".
Why is it that liberals that campaign for open borders and the right to perform on demand abortions are so suddenly worked up about weapons?
After all, open borders demonstrably facilitate Mexican drug cartels and MS-13 entrance, illegally, into our country and give them access to our schools, these two entities that prey on the same children liberals say they want to protect.....the same children they kill by abortion.
If liberals were truly interested in caring for children they'd want to stop the drugs from coming into the US instead of obstructing Trump's efforts to lock them out, they would want to incarcerate illegals and gang members instead of protecting them in sanctuary cities - and they would want to consider actions that would protect the schools instead of taking constitutional rights away from law abiding responsible American citizens. If liberals loved children and wanted to keep them safe would they be aborting them, crushing their skulls and sawing them up to "part out" like an old car? If liberals really believed that bullshit about "needing workers" as an excuse for open borders then why, why are they killing their own children?
No - the liberals are as hypocritical as it gets. They simply use the children as pawns in their political power schemes.
They would rather talk about disarming the public - something they have wanted to do for decades, since long before school shootings. The founding fathers, the framers of the Constitution understood something that the left doesn't want to discuss - the real reason for the 2nd amendment.
The framers understood that a disarmed populace is a population of sheep. Sheep don't fight back....and that's an especially important fact when you consider what the Democratic party is engaged in right now - trying to overturn, to nullify a legal and lawful election - a coup in other words.
You want to protect the schools from mass shootings? One locked entrance, metal detectors, and an on sight security guard, armed and trained. Problem solved.....without substituting the Constitution for toilet paper.
Does "shouting" - specifically large font and bold script - somehow adds credibility to a rather old, tired, and unenlightened diatribe?
No! But commenting on font choice detracts from viable rebuttal … and/or often implies that the font-critic has none.
Shouting over people can certainly be a type of attempted bullying - not say that this is the case here - but either way it's not a good faith attempt at a rational discussion - but then the passive/aggressive bluster of "Blood is on your hands" isn't either. There are sane and sensible solutions to this - but quite o number of liberals are not thinking about sane or sensible - just advancing their agenda.
Here is another question:
If disarming the entire population of legal, lawful and responsible gun owners is the solution to stopping a handful of wackos, then is the next step to take cars away from legal, lawful and responsible drivers so we can solve drunk driving?
And you're Mr. Objectivity.
Have you heard the one about the crazy bastard who drove his Toyota into a school and went room-to-room running down children?
Give us a break … brake.
I haven't advocated taking away all guns. Address what I write not the font size, color or what YOU SAID THAT I SAID (which I didn't).
My dad used to say "You can't hear anything or learn anything with you mouth open". Perhaps that is how you missed the half dozen paragraphs pointed directly at the silly notions you posted.
Or as per usual, do you find it much easier respond with a personal attack and insults to deflect when you have no rebuttal? When nobody attacked or insulted you?
That seems to be your default response. How "liberal" in nature. Are you admitting that reasonable, rational conversation just is not at home in your debating tool box?
Do you want to shout some more? It didn't seem to advance your credibility any of those last hundred-thousand times you've trotted it out - but who knows - someday you might stumble upon someone it will work on.
Why don't we examine what other developed nations have done and mimic them? Their efforts seem to be working pretty well since in those countries things like this are actually shocking and rare.
Wow - do you think making jokes about "running down children" is funny - especially when you're talking about the insanity of violence directed at kids - after 17 of then died? Do you think using dead children as fodder for you humor is a rational response?
That's about as low as it gets.
You might want to consider retiring to your safe space for a while to consider how you're interacting with others.
They are also fairly rare here - not less abhorrent - just rare when considering the number of wackos doing this compared to the general population.
My guess is this - that should the day come liberals try to go house to house - as was done in Australia - that there would some people that complied out of civic responsibility - but there are going to be quite a few that will take exception to having their constitutional rights ripped away.
I offered a solution - rational, workable, affordable and logical - that will not require people to surrender their freedom.
Why is it that liberals that campaign for open borders and the right to perform on demand abortions are so suddenly worked up about weapons?
Maybe for the same reasons that anti-abortion people are also against birth control measures … ya' see … if a woman isn't pregnant …
Then there are the simultaneously Pro-life, pro-gun, pro-war, pro-torture, silent on woman-beating and sexual abuse, anti-health insurance for children holier-than-thou folk …
If you're pre-birth, you're good, if you're pre-school, you're fucked.
What else ya' got?
Did you know that a significant percentage of DACA kids were brought here by parents who were fearful of their children being killed by drug gangs, kidnapped by human traffickers …
What's the Pro-lifer take on that?
Do tell.
Tell ya what. You address my points in a reasonable, civil manner - apologize for making a joke about killing kids - and I'll think about what you posted.
But you'll have to convince me you're capable of a rational exchange first. If ya can't them taking time to respond to your "stuff" isn't worth my time - although it would have no effect on me feeling free to comment on any posted nonsense I see.
I do think it's adorable that you "vote up" your own posts though.........Bothered when nobody else will?
He'll tell you to not//not focus on the 'font size', but the message.
Both are usually vain attempts at getting the attention obviously lacking in life.
Third man in … otherwise, I gave you a list of culpable individuals and entities … feel free to specifically address any/all and rebut my premises … otherwise, the FONT POLICE thing is weak-ass ad hominem.
It's an analogy!
You need to learn to recognize analogies, or, to stop misrepresenting their meaning and intent to create a straw man. Summary dismissals and ad hominem commentary don't validate your "contributions".
Pick one-point-at-a-time and comment/rebut with specifics and without the ad hominem stuff and I will dialogue with you in a point-counter-point-fashion.
You made the comment above, failing inadvertently or intentionally not to acknowledge the ridiculous premise made about FIXING GUN VIOLENCE BY GIVING EVERYONE A GUN! That is as inane a "strategy" as putting more drunks on the street to deter other drunks from driving DUI.
And one comment inanely posited the idea that if guns were taken away, crazies could use cars as their mass murder weapons-of-choice! That's the same irrational excuse for arguing against any gun law reform because it wouldn't prevent ALL gun crimes.
You tend to open every comment (to me at least) with an in-your-face smack down … I rarely begin any one-on-one dialogue … so, when someone throws the first punch, they will likely get one in return.
Drop the personal "votes up" and other irrelevant picky stuff and I will gladly respectfully agree or disagree with you on any issue.
Actually the premise being that more gums would prevent mass killings because an armed populace would greatly outnumber the assailant. To apply that standard to drunk drivers, who get stopped by police for drunk driving, would be to make everyone a cop. Yeah, that would stop drunk driving if EVERYONE could pull you over.
The logic behind letting everyone have a gun (with the exception of the mentally ill of course and convicted violent criminals) is extremely intelligent thinking really. (Yes, I think everyone should have a gun, but I also believe that everyone should have to take a gun safety course first). Simply think about it this way: Even if a nutcase decided to go on a rampage, if everyone in the crowd he targets is carrying, how long would his rampage last? Mere seconds instead of minutes or hours (includes police standoffs with hostages involved) like they do now. Another thing to keep in mind is the simple deterrent factor of knowing everyone around you is also armed and that opening fire would instantly make you a target of the ENTIRE crowd toting guns. These people being the cowards they are would no more open fire on a crowd carrying guns than they would parade through Harlem dressed in Klan attire by themselves late at night. They may be cowards, but they aren't THAT stupid.
What this would also do is create a case of instant Justice too. No more long trials; no more mental health dodges. Instead of long trials and years of living off the government in prison, they would be dead, in the ground, never to commit another crime or pull another trigger. Even the majority of people who have mental health issues also retain their self-preservation instincts. Those that don't are readily recognizable by their insane behavior. No, these people who do these kinds of things would have to find another way to pull off their mass killings and still have a chance to survive them. For those that ARE looking to die, but want to be famous in the process, well maybe we could give them their own YouTube channel where they can blow themselves up to get their 15 minutes of fame...
The fact of the matter is that you spoiled the children by sparing the rod. Enjoy what you have created!
While the Left and Right are playing the blame game at each other, here is something the WH is trying to keep covered up....however, it is not working out for Trump very well at this point.
White House refuses to release photo of Trump signing bill to weaken gun law
yah we can't have those on social security owning guns---had trump not signed this , we could have prevented this tragedty---NOT--
people obviously don't even do minimal research on this
Where did I say anything to do with that at all? Making up more political BS? Not interested in your excuses or blame games. The article speaks for itself. I didn't write it. So go play your blame games with those who enjoy playing with you. I'm not interested.
yes i voted for trump because these shootings are the result of a hate filled, moral less society the libs have produced. hell their dems reps and senators cheered the shooting of scalise and they also have some of their members saying they would kill trump themselves--what a fine example they set--and libs want to blame guns and not the crazy haters they produce as the reason.--they want their safe rooms and any disagreements censored but they don't censor their own hate speech--if they need a reason for these shootings all they have to do is look in the mirror---notice how on twitter the libs were all upset about this latest school shooting until they saw a father had a trump tee shirt on and then they were all giddy and not so upset that particular kid got killed---sickening.
Citation please!
you obviously don't listen to your dem politicians like maxine waters--can't say i blame you..
Citation please.
And what aspects of modern society, specifically, have liberals single handedly created that is driving the current epidemic of mass killings? And I mean specifically, not bullshit general platitudes or stereotypes.
Projection. Any past or present social woe that can be used to blame liberals by rightwing extremists can be traced back to a single source, conservative greed. Sucks that the latest maniakkk murderer with a gun was a trumpster wanna be, don't it?
LOL---YOU GUYS try so hard but miss every time..
So prove it. Other than that you are just spewing partisan BS.
Can't now, the eye holes cut in the pillow case are off kilter.
Yep. Almost as much as the shooter at the Congressional ball game turned out to be a Democratic supporter huh? Meanwhile, all of us Independents are looking at BOTH sides wondering WTF is wrong with you? Here you are attacking your fellow Citizen's instead of getting to the root of the Evil--Politician's (except for the baseball shooter that is) who are deep in the pockets of Corporation's and Special Interest groups. Clean out your own glass houses before you start throwing rocks at theirs...
READ THE CONSTITUTION AND TITLE 10 OF THE US CODE before making such a knee-jerk article or comments. If the Second Amendment was enforced as written, the ONLY ACCEPTABLE gun control is to require all men between the ages of 17 and 45 to carry a gun at ALL TIMES. This is due to them being part of the unorganized militia and the necessity of the SECURITY OF THE USA.
And more drunk drivers on the road to deter other drunk drivers from driving drunk lest they be hit by a drunk driver.
And yet, it would never occur to you to inhibit someone's ability to purchase a vehicle.
or not to give illegals who have been deported multiple times a sanctuary home and license to kill.
Why are you trying to compare apples to oranges, AMac? Driving is not a right, it is a privilege; whereas gun ownership is a ENUMERATED RIGHT spelled out in the Second Amendment. Besides, guns are not what actually cause a person to kill someone else. People have been killing people since the Stone Age. If you want to stop people from killing other people, you would end up having to ban everything that could possibly be used as a weapon, including pens and pencils.
Tom,
I want to mitigate the killing efficiency of those who acquire assault style weapons and large capacity magazines by passing laws that make it difficult to acquire them.
Hardly any assault weapons were used in the Stone Age … I think they mostly used … uhhhm … stones maybe … and that would likely have resulted in less efficient killing and fewer deaths.
No one is advocating banning everything that could be used as a weapon and that straw man needs to be burned once-and-for-all because it begs the realities. That fear tactic was used by Trump and other gun-panderers …
There is a difference between your stance and mine. I want to STOP these bad people from killing by having a force multiplier at those points where they would be tempted to attack, while you want to make their attacks just slightly less deadly.
...you could make the argument that civilians should be allowed to own nukes. Thankfully, we have saner heads like Justice Scalia who ruled the 2nd amendment is NOT unlimited and sensible gun laws are constitutional. We have many laws restricting the ownership and use of military weapons and explosives. Having a reasonable debate as to whether we should have universal background checks, regulate the sale of assault weapons and have limits on magazine size are constitutional. It is not an attack on the 2nd amendment as some gun zealots claim.
If you want ALL men between 17 and 45 to carry a gun, make it a black powder muzzle loader and none of us would have a problem. No one is going to try and gun down 17+ with one of those at a school.
"sensible gun laws" is what libs say--what they mean is no one but the military is allowed to get one...we all know libs are such great judges of mental sanity with reps like maxine waters, who said she wanted to kill our president and the black circus and pelosi and schumer spewing hatred at every opportunity--and don't mind subjecting us to crimes done by illegals
and we all know how much they stand for our constitutional rights and americans by their sitting on their thumbs and and scowling, couldn't even get up for victims of illegal crimes or our vets or brutal regimes-- the very same people that ran illegal guns to mexican drug dealers and refused to send help to our ambassador and soldiers in bengahzi but helped iran and isis get funding and weapons-- --
yah these are the very same people who they want to decide "sensible" gun laws for americans--i think i'll keep my guns and vote against ANYONE WHO TRIES to limit it in any way. because my rights were given to me BY GOD and not politicians,
And, you ignored what I stated. What part of AS WRITTEN did you not understand. What courts have ruled on is interpretation of intent.
It actually says, "arms", not guns. Arms could mean a rake or a pitch fork.
Tom,
I gave you several entities to discuss/rebut …
Tom, that comment couldn't scream BULLSHIT any louder if you had somehow added a bullhorn to it.
How is that BS, Atheist? I don't like guns, but I will fight for people being able to carry and use guns, and do I have to post links to what I am talking about in Title 10 of the US Code and in the Second Amendment?
Fuckin' A, you do, tom. I dare ya. I can hardly wait to see what sort of total bullshit rightwing, gun freak, NRA shill you use. But the fact that you didn't do it in the first place and instead put of that multi-colored screech already tells us that's where you got it.
LOL I have actually linked to them several times already. One is the Cornell Law School's site and the other is the US Archives.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Title 10 US Code Subtitle A Part I Chapter 12 Subsection 246:
forgot another source tom , if I may , title 10 is federal , if one desires to find out more, one simply has to check their home states statutes on militia requirements and compositions .
The feds limit it to 45 years old , the states however can , and some do have a higher age limit . my state can call me to duty until I am 72 years old if the state requires it .
Some would be surprised what their own states can do legally by state statute.
Mark, I deliberately limit myself to Federal law regarding gun control, because the Second Amendment trumps state laws due to it not mentioning just Congress. It states it shall not be infringed PERIOD, unlike the First Amendment which as written can be trumped by state laws as it specifically mentions “Congress shall make no law...”. As for militias, those can be regulated by states just as much as the Federal government.
That's cool go with the argument you believe in and know best.
Since all the states have in statute already about militias in some form or another , think what would happen IF, big if there , the states or even a single state decides to harken back to the days if the original militia act of the forming of the nation. requiring all those individuals capable of bearing arms to be required to do so? at their own costs. In other words what if the push was the exact opposite of banning guns but to insure that each capable person was required to have a firearm suitable for modern day military or law enforcement actions if called to do so by their state and local governments?
State statutes already hold provisions so that a County Sheriff CAN assemble a posse if and when ever needed ,the statutes lay out the perameters with all the nessisary requirements to implement it.
As for the states regulations , it is the people of the states who elect their governments so the regulations are of the choice of the people , locally , not some distant entity. Point to case , in my home state , the only ones that can authorize the formation of any form of militia or Guard , be it the accepted national guard where the costs are shared by the state and the feds , or the State guard which would be funded wholly by the state( yes my state has the provision for BOTH in statute) is the state legislature or the Gov.
To do so without that express authorization , is against the law in my state and punishable by law , so much for some drunken ( be they literally or power hunger) slob thinking they can get a bunch of likeminded people together and form their own little armed camp.
Long enough , and just something to think about , just imagine if the push was actually in the other direction as is sometimes claimed.
I say we need to increase school security.
there is no reason why a person not attending that school got inside the school to begin with.
talking about banning guns ONLY sells more guns.
go ahead, talk about limiting honest peoples ability to defend themselves so we know who you are
seriously... let us see the left run on banning guns in the midterms... please? I am begging you.
I am talking about assault weapons and high capacity magazines; not about banning all guns (which no Democrat I know of, has advocated. Trump pushed that bullshit during the campaign and the willing dupes never bother to check the facts.
if they could not pass that under a leftwing administration? it will never happen
all that will happen is the sale of a million more guns.
federal gun bans of any kind are a third rail issue... touch it and you get shocked by the results.
Give dems (i.e., real dems, not Manchinkins) a filibuster proof Congress and it'll be done.
if they could not pass that under a leftwing administration? it will never happen
all that will happen is the sale of a million more guns.
IT WAS PASSED UNDER THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION AND REPUBLICANS LET IT EXPIRE UNDER BUSH (W).
The amount of WRONG INFORMATION FROM the gun crowd is frightening.
So, why did Congress decide to let that assault weapons ban expire?
Well, it was 2004. Democrats had lost control of the House, so they were starting to feel shy about pushing for the assault weapons ban in an election year even though polls showed two-thirds of Americans supported it, The New York Times reported at the time.
One of those Americans supporting the ban had been George W. Bush, but he seemed disinclined to pressure Congress to renew the law.
"The president doesn't set the Congressional timetable. Congress sets the timetable," then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters, who asked what Bush was going to do to get the ban renewed.
Led by Tom DeLay, who called the ban "feel-good" legislation, the House failed to bring the legislation to the floor for debate or a vote , PBS reported at the time.
Gil Kerlikowske , who was at the time chief of police in Seattle, told PBS that Congress' inaction sent a horrible message to the nation.
"The last thing we need are more military-style assault weapons on the streets of this country," he said.
Gee, why would Democrats pass a gun law with an expiration date?
Why did they put an expiration date in the law?
your opinion. (since you posted Im guessing you share that opinion)
I say we need more. /my opinion
post a guard with an ar15 at every door of every school, keep the kids safe and create millions of jobs
Cheers
The ten-year ban was passed by the U.S. Congress on September 13, 1994, following a close 52–48 vote in the Senate, and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment, and it expired on September 13, 2004, in accordance with its sunset provision .
Because it was the only way it could get enough Republican votes to pass it!
You should never ask a gotcha' question if you don't know the answer before asking it!
and that is exactly why you will never see a fillibuster proof / leftwing controlled congress in your lifetime.
Cheers
And have gun crimes risen or fallen since the ban ended?
obviously, gun crimes have gone down but you will wait a lifetime for the left to admit it.
Cheers
Well, let's see.
A number of surveys show that bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are popular among the general public. A 2017 Pew Research Center poll found that 68 percent of adults favor banning assault weapons, and 65 percent support a ban on high-capacity magazines.
More strikingly, substantial numbers of gun owners supported the measures as well : 48 percent of gun owners in that poll said they would support a ban on assault style weapons, and 44 percent said they favored a ban on high-capacity magazines. A Quinnipiac poll conducted later in the year showed similar numbers .
In 1996, Australia passed the National Firearms Agreement after a mass shooting in Tasmania in April of that year. In that incident, a 28-year-old man, armed with a semi-automatic rifle, shot and killed 35 people, and injured 18 others , in what was known as the Port Arthur Massacre.
Under the 1996 law, Australia banned certain semi-automatic, self-loading rifles and shotguns, and imposed stricter licensing and registration requirements. It also instituted a mandatory buyback program for firearms banned by the 1996 law.
During the buyback program, Australians sold 640,000 prohibited firearms to the government, and voluntarily surrendered about 60,000 non-prohibited firearms. In all, more than 700,000 weapons were surrendered, according to a Library of Congress report on Australian gun policy. One study says that the program reduced the number of guns in private hands by 20 percent.
In 2002, Australia further tightened gun laws , restricting the caliber, barrel length and capacity for sport shooting handguns.
Since 1996, the number and rate of homicides — defined as murder and manslaughter — has fallen. Below is the chart that appeared in our 2009 Ask FactCheck article, showing a 20 percent decline in homicides from 1996 to 2007.
We wrote at the time: “Have murders increased since the gun law change, as claimed? Actually, Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law change. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year for which official figures are available.”
Way to provide lots of info that doesn't address my question, which is really straight-forward and simple:
Have gun crimes increased or decreased since the gun ban ended?
I'll answer in this way … Yes, overall, gun deaths have gone down, but to ignore the reality of the correlation between the prevalence of guns and gun deaths is to pretend that lifting the ban has fixed the problem. Anyway you slice it, where there are more guns, there are more gun deaths …
Crime overall is down "since the ban was lifted" … but that's not the reason; the prevalence of video surveillance, cell phone recordings of crimes-in-progress and other security phenomena are one significant reason.
MORE GUNS IN THOSE AREAS WHERE THERE ARE MORE GUNS = MORE GUN DEATHS -- that's a fact.
5) States with more guns have more gun deaths
8) States with tighter gun control laws have fewer gun-related deaths
When economist Richard Florida took a look at gun deaths and other social indicators, he found that higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness didn’t correlate with more gun deaths. But he did find one telling correlation: States with tighter gun control laws have fewer gun-related deaths. (Read more at Florida’s “The Geography of Gun Deaths.” )
This is backed by other research: A 2016 review of 130 studies in 10 countries, published in Epidemiologic Reviews , found that new legal restrictions on owning and purchasing guns tended to be followed by a drop in gun violence — a strong indicator that restricting access to guns can save lives.
9) Still, gun homicides (like all homicides) have declined over the past couple decades
The good news is that all firearm homicides, like all homicides and crime , have declined over the past two decades. (Although that may have changed in 2015 and 2016 , with a recent rise in murders nationwide.)
There’s still a lot of debate among criminal justice experts about why this crime drop is occurring — some of the most credible ideas include mass incarceration, more and better policing, and reduced lead exposure from gasoline. But one theory that researchers have widely debunked is the idea that more guns have deterred crime — in fact, the opposite may be true, based on research compiled by the Harvard School of Public Health’s Injury Control Center .
14) In states with more guns, more police officers are also killed on duty
So gun crimes are down, and you think a ban would stop criminal from getting guns.
SMDH
No one is suggesting you can't. But honestly, if crime is that high where you live? Move.
my neighborhood is flooded with guns in the hands of honest upright folk
every member of every church each has enough guns to arm their entire church congregations.
there is no way I could possibly be in a safer neighborhood - I do not even have to lock my doors
and our schools have plenty of armed good guys at the schools all day
Sounds like you have some extremely paranoid neighbors. And if you think you are safe in church? Think again..
Who wanted open borders? Obama? He is the first president in history that saw more illegals leave the country than came in, (look it up). Must be why the illegals called him, "the deporter-in-chief".
I have seen no one even propose banning guns. Hyperbole much?
Trade deals. Were they really bad? Or were they bad because our current liar-in-chief said so and you believe everything that retard says? No one, in no way, can say that Obama was bad for the economy, the numbers don't lie. Sorry.
Higher taxes. Yea, it's called trying to cut down on the debt. You want the government to increase spending on the military, corporate welfare, infrastructure, etc...but want to lower taxes? Are all republicans bad at math? If you decrease your income, you cannot increase your spending, basic math. Doing so is effing stupid. Oh wait, that's EXACTLY what TRUMP is doing. If you complained about Obama exploding the debt? You ain't seen nutthin yet. But my guess is that you'll be fine with it...it's only bad when the dems do it... Got ya.
Fewer jobs? Obama added 15 million jobs in 8 years. I think you have him mixed up with Bush, who was losing 800k jobs a month when he was finally thrown out of office.
Bathrooms. Who gives a crap? It's a bathroom, you go in there to poop or pee. It's not a dating site or a singles bar. Go in, do your business, wash your hands and leave. Big deal.
As usual, all of your right wing talking points are nothing but BS. Nothing but lies and hyperbole.. Oh yea, here, enjoy this...
Maybe if there were fewer guns in your "safe" neighborhood …
… you wouldn't need all those armed good guys!
said as if guns are the problem and not the sick demented people.
hows this for a common sense gun law
if anyone shoots anyone and lives thru it? we kill them asap
enforce that gun law and see how safe your neighborhood gets
the good news is we will get to watch that shooter in florida die by public execution
The bad news is that 17 innocent people were murdered because he went into a school with an assault weapon and big ammo he had no problem buying in Rick Scott's and Marco Rubio's Florida.
The shooter should die … I'm all for it …
… but had he been unable to attain his weaponry …
… see where I'm going with that?
Ronal Reagan and Justice Scalia both stated that the 2nd Amendment did not entitle citizens to own assault weapons.
no... that is horrible news
see where I am going with this?
The only people "taking about" (i.e. lying) are the NRA and its toady gun freaks around the country. No serious gun control has ever advocated. It's just a slogan designed to feed the paranoia which seems to be a pre-requisite for those freaks.
except for the fact that we know how the left operates.
give an inch, they take a mile, and then try to run a marathon with it.
the entire bill of rights (amendments 1-10) are tools against tyrannical govts both foreign and domestic.
if all the people had are muskets or pea shooters with 3 bullets? we would have been invaded long ago
meaning.. the 2nd is about the security of our nation and it will not be watered down without a fight
our civilian population is the largest armed unorganized militia in the world...
we will be keeping our guns and our country as result.
All these REAL MEN frightened by the lies of the NRA.
Go figure.
how to spot authoritarian assholes?
any attack, on any aspect of our bill of rights.
real men are ready to stand up and defend their country at a moments notice. that is what the 2nd is for.
overly emotional liberals are not going to limit our ability to defend our country. simply not happening.
your attempts to ridicule patriots only serves to expose your liberal progressive socialist communist bent.
please continue
LOL
everyone who knows me for real says I am cold as ice.
now I am overly emotional?
interesting
Imagine you live in a time where the country you love has so many nukes it could destroy the earth. Not just make it difficult to live, but actually break it apart. Crazy isn’t it?
Now imagine the biggest nuke countries agree that mutually assured destruction is failed logic. So together they come to an agreement to reduce nuke inventories to say about four thousand or so. Which puts all in a better mood, but still would really hurt life, if not still destroy us all.
Good intentions still suck. One day we could elect a narcissistic developmentally challenged fascist who thinks he/she is always right. Hit the button make everyone’s day the worst possible.
My point is this, if we aren’t serious about removing threats in our world and become responsible for our actions, what is the point in discussing it. It’s moot without empathy for all life.
Feel free to substitute the weapon of your choice in this analogy, if you like...peace
Are you willing to give up other Constitutional rights or at least have them so heavily regulated that they are practially unusable? How about the First Amendment, the Eighth Amendment or maybe the Fourth Amendment? I mean giving up the First and Fourth Amendments would make the populace much safer from external and internal threats, right?
Loughner was stopped when he had to reload. The ban on extended mags is a no brainer and should never have been lifted, but my idea is not a ban on any guns or gun equipment. Have all the guns you want, but they STAY AT HOME. Ordinary citizens should NOT be able to run around with loaded guns on them, concealed or otherwise. You can have all the firepower you want to protect your home, and, of course, fight off the evil gubmint when the black helicopters swoop down to confiscate your guns, but you don't get to play gunslinger and strut around in public with your gun, sorry.
Make simply having a gun on you a very serious crime with serious time. Get the guns off the street. Lenny Lynx Gun Law.