A Divided Senate Rejects Gun Curbs, Despite Orlando Massacre [W: 710]

[cpwill]

We've had decades to think about this and possible solutions, all the way back to Charles Whitman in the U. of Texas bell tower in the 60's. It's not like we are flying off the handle here with ill considered solutions.

Um. Yeah we are. That's kinda precisely what we are doing.

The proposed gun bans would not have stopped the shootings that inspired the latest series of calls. The proposed ban on Muslim immigration wouldn't have stopped Pulse, and probably wouldn't have stopped San Bernadino. All these things would do is reduce the rights of American citizens - but because they take our fear of this kind of event and promise us a simple answer that conveniently blames an outgroup that we disagree with, we hop on board with them.

Stupid Republicans. Stupid Democrats.

But the belief that we cannot do anything to slow down the repeated slaughter of our fellow citizens is moronic.

I've dedicated a not insignificant portion of my life, repeated, occasionally long periods of loneliness from my family, and any private-sector earning potential I could have built to slowing down and reducing the repeated slaughter of our fellow citizens. We had the WWII Generation? I'm a member of the War on Terror generation. I work with the TIDE database professionally. You are confusing "taking due process away from American citizens" with "do anything".

 

[TurtleDude]

I believe you are correct. So, if we want to do anything about it, we need to act BEFORE they commit mass murder. That is the only way to make progress that I see. We must deny these crazy angry people the right to buy a gun, so they cannot commit mass murder. We already to it to domestic abusers, and we need to do it to people on the terror watch list, and expand the list of people that we deny gun purchases to.

If you have stated threats against your fellow citizens, why should you be allowed to buy a gun?

well first we have to define threats. when I shot someone in self defense, the mugger's attorney found a witness (who btw refused to testify) who told him that I had threatened to "kill him". The judge laughed when she demanded the attorney to proffer proof and what had happened was during an intramural basketball game I went over this guy to dunk and he committed a flagrant foul that could have hurt me badly and I said-if you ever pull that crap again on me I am going to kill you sorry F'ng ass. so we have to define threats. Domestic abusers have been convicted after due process (though many caught by the retroactive nature of the idiotic Lautenberg amendment would have not PLED out DV misdemeanors years ago if they knew the consequences down the road and many claims of DV are nothing more than a dishonest scheme by the other partner in a divorce to gain leverage)

 

[TurtleDude]

The majority of NRA members support universal background checks. Your position is selfish, putting your own convenience in front of the public safety of your fellow citizens. This is not about harassing you, it is about slowing the mass murders like in Orlando, San Bernadino, Sandy Hook, Charleston SC.

oh here it goes-if I don't give up my rights so you can pretend YOU have done something I am selfish. I reject your moronic claims that it will slow mass murders down. Why is it that liberals are so quick to demand OTHERS give up freedom so you can pretend you have done something positive?

 

[Ahlevah]

Even beyond that, if someone is such a threat to society that we can't trust them to buy a gun, WTF are they doing in society?

I've been asking the same question for years about the loons who, instead of being committed to non-existent public mental hospitals, walk into gun stores and buy all of the weapons and ammo they want.

 

[blackjack50]

A big part of the problem is mental illness, and I wholeheartedly endorse doing things to reduce the slaughter of our fellow citizens, by denying guns to those that are likely to use them to commit murder or mass murder.

There is NO one thing that is the answer, we need to improve in many areas.

Govt. is good at enforcing simple policies, and not good at exercising discretion, in my experience.

So, what is the policy? Should we deny guns to anyone diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic? Or do you think we should sell guns to all paranoid schizophrenics?

It is not mental illness, it is personality disorders. These are different things . Specifically antisocial personality disorder. There have been a ton of studies that have showed that everything from gang violence to terrorism and mass shooters all have these problems.

And yes I do agree that there are variety of things that cause the problem, but this one is a big one given how many people who commit violent acts have this problem. You also have to consider Socio economic's and things like the drug trade. Blaming the tool is not going to solve the problem. Does it matter if I decide to bomb you or stab you or shoot you? If someone decides to kill that is a problem. Not the tool they use.

 

[tres borrachos]

So in plain language you support the right of a terrorist buying guns...........Of course you have heard how it is believed that ISIS is sending teams of terrorist to the US ...........with ISIS knowing the teams of terrorists can readily buy weapons to do mass murder...........

That is not even close to what he said and you know it.

 

[Moderate Right]

I know that over and over, crazy angry people inspired by different hate ideologies kill a bunch of folks, and the nation that put man on the moon can't come up with any idea how to improve, so that fewer of our fellow citizens are killed by these mad men. That's pathetic. The republicans are pathetic.

The Democrats are pathetic for thinking that gun control will actually make much of a difference. Do you really honestly believe that if there were already gun laws in place banning the sale and use of assault weapons that Orlando would have never happened? This guy was a radical Islamic (yes, I said radical Islamic) loony tune, hell bent on killing as many as he could. Assuming he couldn't get his hands on an automatic weapon (which is just an assumption), don't you think he would have gone to the store and bought some nails and pressure cookers, like they did in Boston? Do you really think this guy would have been stopped and turned into a goody two shoes because he couldn't get an assault rifle? This is the liberal fantasy land, not based in reality.

 

[Moderate Right]

I believe you are correct. So, if we want to do anything about it, we need to act BEFORE they commit mass murder. That is the only way to make progress that I see. We must deny these crazy angry people the right to buy a gun, so they cannot commit mass murder. We already to it to domestic abusers, and we need to do it to people on the terror watch list, and expand the list of people that we deny gun purchases to.

If you have stated threats against your fellow citizens, why should you be allowed to buy a gun?

That's whats wrong with the left. In case you haven't noticed, domestic abusers get guns and kill with them all the time. If you have stated threats against your fellow citizens you should be locked up so you can't buy a gun. Otherwise, they will get a gun anyway or use a different method of killing. How can you not see that? If you are a threat to others you shouldn't be allowed to be free. Period.

 

[ellesdee]

Never let a crisis go to waste. It's the Democrat way.

Taking advantage of crises for political gain has always had bipartisan support. You're own post is just another example of it.

 

[jonny5]

If there is a Probable Cause that this innocent person is about to commit a crime or be involved in a crime, so yea I think his rights should be taken for a short amount of time.

That would be due process then. The person has to be notified and read their rights and given a day in court to defend themselves. Thats not what Democrats want though. They want to put people on secret lists without any oversight.

 

[jonny5]

All fine, except that what we have now allowed Mateen to get an assault rife and kill 49 people. What we have now is not adequate. We can deny the gun purchase up front if the individual has been reported and investigated, turn the individual down if he is suspected of being a threat, and let him have his due process later in a formal hearing to determine is he has made lethal threats.

Domestic abusers in many states cannot legally possess guns, even for misdemeanor abuse. It's not because they have killed anyone, it is because their behavior is often enough associated with lethal violence that they should all be denied a gun, since it is hard to tell in advance who will kill and who will not.


Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence ? Gun Law Information Experts

Similarly, while many talk big and made verbal threats against certain groups, and most will not follow through, it happens often enough and the results are so horrendous, that they also should be denied access to guns. It's not that hard, if the republicans had a little brains and balls. Unfortunately.....

The key there is theyve been CONVICTED. Due process. You can not take someones rights on suspicion alone.

 

[jonny5]

Congress followed The Constitution. Its that simple. The 2nd Amendment make infringement on gun ownership illegal.

The, "90% of Americans support gun control", is going to still be a lie, no matter how many times you repeat it.

90% can support it all they want. Until 3/4 of states actually votes on something in writing, its irrelevant.

 

[jmotivator]

Taking advantage of crises for political gain has always had bipartisan support. You're own post is just another example of it.

What advantage am I taking?

 

[ellesdee]

What advantage am I taking?

Taking cheap shots against the opposition party.

 

[finebead]

1) so you supported the HUGHES Amendment in 1986: and you obviously supported the perversion of the commerce clause to give congress a power it never was properly given

2) or that local LE can deny someone a tax stamp for no stated reason

3) do most people understand that congress doesn't have the constitutional power to demand private citizens-who are, by federal law, not permitted to engage in INTERSTATE sales? do you understand that you cannot enforce UBGC without registration? and the real purpose behind UBGC other than pandering to people like you, is to create a demand for registration

4) why is it that the only way to "protect fellow americans" from mass killers are more restrictions on gun owners.

What I understand is that crazy angry people are repeatedly committing mass murders, in the last of a long list of sick mass murders killing 49 and wounding 50 more. The USA has a big problem with mass murderers, and we need to take steps to minimize the occurrence.

How would you propose to protect our fellow americans, or do you think we just have to take it. We are not smart enough to describe actions that would make the situation improve, i.e. reduce the incidence of mass murder. Is that what you think? What steps would help?

 

[jmotivator]

Taking cheap shots against the opposition party.

That isn't taking advantage. I'm not trying to do anything. I'll let former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel explain what the statement means:

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." - Rahm Emanuel

 

[finebead]

Um. Yeah we are. That's kinda precisely what we are doing.

The proposed gun bans would not have stopped the shootings that inspired the latest series of calls. The proposed ban on Muslim immigration wouldn't have stopped Pulse, and probably wouldn't have stopped San Bernadino. All these things would do is reduce the rights of American citizens - but because they take our fear of this kind of event and promise us a simple answer that conveniently blames an outgroup that we disagree with, we hop on board with them.

Stupid Republicans. Stupid Democrats.

The fact that the proposed ban did not stop Orlando or San Bernadino only means we have not had the guts to go far enough to make a difference. Mateen was on the terror watch list for a time, then removed. Perhaps we should change that process so if you are placed on the terror watch list, you can't buy a gun for 5 or 10 years, without a thorough investigation by the FBI, erring on the side of protecting the lives of americans. If you've been convicted of spouse abuse, even misdemeanor, in most states you can no longer buy a gun. Most of those guys probably wouldn't murder their ex wives, but you can't tell which ones would and which would not. So we deny all of them the right to buy a gun. That is the way it must be done.



I've dedicated a not insignificant portion of my life, repeated, occasionally long periods of loneliness from my family, and any private-sector earning potential I could have built to slowing down and reducing the repeated slaughter of our fellow citizens. We had the WWII Generation? I'm a member of the War on Terror generation. I work with the TIDE database professionally. You are confusing "taking due process away from American citizens" with "do anything".[/QUOTE]

 

[TurtleDude]

What I understand is that crazy angry people are repeatedly committing mass murders, in the last of a long list of sick mass murders killing 49 and wounding 50 more. The USA has a big problem with mass murderers, and we need to take steps to minimize the occurrence.

How would you propose to protect our fellow americans, or do you think we just have to take it. We are not smart enough to describe actions that would make the situation improve, i.e. reduce the incidence of mass murder. Is that what you think? What steps would help?

well the first thing we have to do is to understand that the only way to stop someone from committing mass murder is not to disarm everyone else. the people least likely to be deterred by laws that make it harder for people to LEGALLY buy and own guns are the ones most likely to kill others. there were multiple indicators that this guy was a ticking time bomb and it was not a failure of gun control laws.

the problem is finebread is that there are so many people whose real agenda is banning guns, that its hard to determine who actually wants to actually prevent massacres vs those who use massacres to advance their anti gun agendas

 

[finebead]

well first we have to define threats. when I shot someone in self defense, the mugger's attorney found a witness (who btw refused to testify) who told him that I had threatened to "kill him". The judge laughed when she demanded the attorney to proffer proof and what had happened was during an intramural basketball game I went over this guy to dunk and he committed a flagrant foul that could have hurt me badly and I said-if you ever pull that crap again on me I am going to kill you sorry F'ng ass. so we have to define threats. Domestic abusers have been convicted after due process (though many caught by the retroactive nature of the idiotic Lautenberg amendment would have not PLED out DV misdemeanors years ago if they knew the consequences down the road and many claims of DV are nothing more than a dishonest scheme by the other partner in a divorce to gain leverage)

No, we don't have to define "threats". THere are laws on the books regarding criminal threats, already done. Then you could appeal your denial to buy a gun to the court, if we set it up that way. The only way to deal with the crazy angry mass murderers is to keep the gun out of their hand BEFORE they commit the crime, just like the way to reduce spousal murders is to deny the gun purchase to men who have indicated by their actions that they are potential threats to their spouse.

 

[TurtleDude]

The fact that the proposed ban did not stop Orlando or San Bernadino only means we have not had the guts to go far enough to make a difference. Mateen was on the terror watch list for a time, then removed. Perhaps we should change that process so if you are placed on the terror watch list, you can't buy a gun for 5 or 10 years, without a thorough investigation by the FBI, erring on the side of protecting the lives of americans. If you've been convicted of spouse abuse, even misdemeanor, in most states you can no longer buy a gun. Most of those guys probably wouldn't murder their ex wives, but you can't tell which ones would and which would not. So we deny all of them the right to buy a gun. That is the way it must be done.



I've dedicated a not insignificant portion of my life, repeated, occasionally long periods of loneliness from my family, and any private-sector earning potential I could have built to slowing down and reducing the repeated slaughter of our fellow citizens. We had the WWII Generation? I'm a member of the War on Terror generation. I work with the TIDE database professionally. You are confusing "taking due process away from American citizens" with "do anything".

If you wrongly deprive someone of their rights, there must be an avenue those wrongly denied can use to seek and obtain massive punitive damages against those who have so deprived them. Like jail sentences or million dollar personally liable verdicts. so if you are placed on a terror watch list and its bogus-the person who put you on it needs to be financially responsible in such a way as to make an example out of that person to prevent future abuse

 

[TurtleDude]

No, we don't have to define "threats". THere are laws on the books regarding criminal threats, already done. Then you could appeal your denial to buy a gun to the court, if we set it up that way. The only way to deal with the crazy angry mass murderers is to keep the gun out of their hand BEFORE they commit the crime, just like the way to reduce spousal murders is to deny the gun purchase to men who have indicated by their actions that they are potential threats to their spouse.

well we have seen that the war on drugs-which completely bans crack and heroin, has been a complete failure. There is no evidence that the Lautenberg amendment-which wrongfully stripped thousands retroactively of their rights-has done squat

 

[ellesdee]

That isn't taking advantage.

Sure, it is. Just because your comment is insignificant and petty doesn't mean it isn't taking advantage.

I'm not trying to do anything.

If you weren't trying to do anything, you wouldn't have written anything.

 

[Moderate Right]

What I understand is that crazy angry people are repeatedly committing mass murders, in the last of a long list of sick mass murders killing 49 and wounding 50 more. The USA has a big problem with mass murderers, and we need to take steps to minimize the occurrence.

How would you propose to protect our fellow americans, or do you think we just have to take it. We are not smart enough to describe actions that would make the situation improve, i.e. reduce the incidence of mass murder. Is that what you think? What steps would help?

Not letting these guys run free in the first place.

 

[finebead]

oh here it goes-if I don't give up my rights so you can pretend YOU have done something I am selfish. I reject your moronic claims that it will slow mass murders down. Why is it that liberals are so quick to demand OTHERS give up freedom so you can pretend you have done something positive?

Nobody is asking you to give up your right. A universal background check will allow you to purchase a gun, unless you are prohibited by a good reason specified by the law. What right would you give up? I have not asked that you give up any right at all.

And what is moronic is to repeatedly watch mass murderers kill big numbers of your fellow citizens and fail to dedicate any brain power to figure out how to make the situation any better.

 

[finebead]

It is not mental illness, it is personality disorders. These are different things . Specifically antisocial personality disorder. There have been a ton of studies that have showed that everything from gang violence to terrorism and mass shooters all have these problems.

And yes I do agree that there are variety of things that cause the problem, but this one is a big one given how many people who commit violent acts have this problem. You also have to consider Socio economic's and things like the drug trade. Blaming the tool is not going to solve the problem. Does it matter if I decide to bomb you or stab you or shoot you? If someone decides to kill that is a problem. Not the tool they use.

So, what do you propose that we DO about it? Nothing, and just continue to watch our husbands, wives, children and extended family members get slaughtered?

And the tool does make a difference. That is why the major powers work to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, because they can kill more people faster than other weapons. Yes, the Orlando killer could have killed a few people if all he had was a knife, but he could not have killed 49 and wounded 50 before he was stopped. The tool makes a difference.