GUNS: What the Senate Will Do

[haymarket]

The pressure seems to be building on Mitch McConnell to do something after this last weekend. Many people think nothing will be done. They could be right based on the past.

I think something will be done. I suspect the Senate will be called to action and they will do the absolute bare less than minimum to say they did something and then move on patting themselves on the back as heroes.

I suspect will will see some variation of making it harder for mentally ill people to obtain a gun.

There will be be no universal background checks on all firearm acquisitions.

There will be no banning of any firearms.

There will be no bill on magazine sizes.

There will be so system of national registration.

There will be no federal law impacting gun owners without a history of mental illness.

They will do as little as possible to crawl back to the NRA and say they really did nothing to impact the vast vast vast majority of gun owners so don't worry about it.

 

[Mycroft]

Good.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Mitch McConnell will do nothing, other than continue to watch his career come to an end.

 

[Fledermaus]

The pressure seems to be building on Mitch McConnell to do something after this last weekend. Many people think nothing will be done. They could be right based on the past.

I think something will be done. I suspect the Senate will be called to action and they will do the absolute bare less than minimum to say they did something and then move on patting themselves on the back as heroes.

I suspect will will see some variation of making it harder for mentally ill people to obtain a gun.

There will be be no universal background checks on all firearm acquisitions.

There will be no banning of any firearms.

There will be no bill on magazine sizes.

There will be so system of national registration.

There will be no federal law impacting gun owners without a history of mental illness.

They will do as little as possible to crawl back to the NRA and say they really did nothing to impact the vast vast vast majority of gun owners so don't worry about it.

Tell us what you believe would have stopped the recent shooters?

 

[haymarket]

Mitch McConnell will do nothing, other than continue to watch his career come to an end.

You certainly could be right. Based on his history - you probably are right.

However, I think he is smart enough politically to know that this is approaching critical mass and he must do something. So the answer is to do as little as possible, make a big deal of what little you do eventually do, and give yourself a parade, pat yourself on the back, and then tell your friends in private not to worry about it because it does not impact them anyways and was all for show.

 

[Captain Adverse]

The pressure seems to be building on Mitch McConnell to do something after this last weekend. Many people think nothing will be done. They could be right based on the past...

...I suspect will will see some variation of making it harder for mentally ill people to obtain a gun.

There will be be no universal background checks on all firearm acquisitions.

There will be no banning of any firearms.

There will be no bill on magazine sizes.

There will be so system of national registration.

There will be no federal law impacting gun owners without a history of mental illness.

They will do as little as possible to crawl back to the NRA and say they really did nothing to impact the vast vast vast majority of gun owners so don't worry about it.

Nothing should be done to disarm citizens.

But you already know all the arguments against mass gun control laws. Just in case though, here is the list:

1. Despite the headlines such shootings are a statistical nothing when compared to the millions of people who own guns and do no harm.

2. Gun control laws will not be obeyed by criminals, they only serve to restrict/punish all those millions of people who own guns and have done no wrong.

3. The penultimate purpose behind gun control law is to identify and control those who either already do, or seek to, own guns. The ultimate purpose is to disarm "the people," who cannot be trusted, in favor of giving absolute power to the forces of government.

No matter how raucous or reasonable the cry for "gun control," the sole purpose is to keep "scary guns" out of the hands of common people. It is the death of a thousand cuts. Once started it will only stop when "reasonable people" accept they don't need guns at all, and the government can finally confiscate them all.

Yet IMHO every single one of those "mass shootings" would have been prevented, or at the very least minimized, by a "good citizen" with a gun if we embraced the ideal of open gun ownership as a right.

Like the most recent Mall shooter said, (and as acted out in literally every past mass-shooting) he deliberately sought a place he KNEW no guns would pose a counter to his actions.

 

[snakestretcher]

Tell us what you believe would have stopped the recent shooters?

Probably the same thing that stopped mass shootings in countries with stringent firearms legislation. Just guessing, but the words 'stringent' and 'legislation' might give you a clue.

 

[RealityNow]

What can stop this madness is for the same scrutiny that society does to other ethnicity people be done to white people... Society can't go on with a generalized "non suspect" mentality about white people. And white people can't go on with this "delusions that having white skin" means some generalized concept of innocence even when they see the behaviors of people in their community they know is suspect.

It does not matter if its a community with expensive homes, or a old trailer park; some of these shooters come from communities with expensive homes and they have the resources to buy these "weapons of war". It's not so much people from the dire poor sectors that commit these mass murders, they are frequency from the "non suspect" areas of people with resources.

Some areas allow white people to walk around carrying guns, and people walk about like its nothing,
(what you see in this image should Never be allowed) but if any other ethnicity walked around with guns the same, the scrutiny would be at an extreme level, there'd be an immediate ATF, FBI, State Police and every other organization, investigating and possibly any other actions they can find to take upon the person.

Both former classmates told The Associated Press that Betts was suspended during their junior year at suburban Bellbrook High School after a hit list was found scrawled in a school bathroom. That followed an earlier suspension after Betts came to school with a list of female students he wanted to sexually assault, according to the two classmates, a man and a woman who are both now 24 and spoke on condition of anonymity out of concern they might face harassment.

"There was a kill list and a rape list, and my name was on the rape list," said the female classmate.

A former cheerleader, the woman said she didn't really know Betts and was surprised when a police officer called her cellphone during her freshman year to tell her that her name was included on a list of potential targets

White people often know who these people are, but they do the slap on the finger and pretend its an anomaly...and they go back into the non suspect mode, because the person has white skin. "Wake Up People".... call it out before people get killed. [/quote] Now, how does someone with that activity in their background get an Assault Weapon or any other kind of gun???

 

[haymarket]

Nothing should be done to disarm citizens.

But you already know all the arguments against mass gun control laws. Just in case though, here is the list:

1. Despite the headlines such shootings are a statistical nothing when compared to the millions of people who own guns and do no harm.

2. Gun control laws will not be obeyed by criminals, they only serve to restrict/punish all those millions of people who own guns and have done no wrong.

3. The penultimate purpose behind gun control law is to identify and control those who either already do, or seek to, own guns. The ultimate purpose is to disarm "the people," who cannot be trusted, in favor of giving absolute power to the forces of government.

No matter how raucous or reasonable the cry for "gun control," the sole purpose is to keep "scary guns" out of the hands of common people. It is the death of a thousand cuts.

If you truly believe that the goal is to "disarm the people", you fall right into the trap offing nothing or as little as possible. We have lived at the corner of Slippery Slope Street and Paranoia Place for far too long.

 

[snakestretcher]

You certainly could be right. Based on his history - you probably are right.

However, I think he is smart enough politically to know that this is approaching critical mass and he must do something. So the answer is to do as little as possible, make a big deal of what little you do eventually do, and give yourself a parade, pat yourself on the back, and then tell your friends in private not to worry about it because it does not impact them anyways and was all for show.

While the NRA and the gun maker's lobby continues to insert its millions into the pockets of those with real power to do something, nothing will be done and Americans can all look forward to the next mass-shooting and offer mollifying prayers for the victims of last week's murders, secure in the knowledge that their 'freedom' remains unfettered. So that's settled, and cash rules.

The gun lobby: See how much your representative gets

 

[Irredentist]

Nothing should be done to disarm citizens.

But you already know all the arguments against mass gun control laws. Just in case though, here is the list:

1. Despite the headlines such shootings are a statistical nothing when compared to the millions of people who own guns and do no harm.

2. Gun control laws will not be obeyed by criminals, they only serve to restrict/punish all those millions of people who own guns and have done no wrong.

3. The penultimate purpose behind gun control law is to identify and control those who either already do, or seek to, own guns. The ultimate purpose is to disarm "the people," who cannot be trusted, in favor of giving absolute power to the forces of government.

No matter how raucous or reasonable the cry for "gun control," the sole purpose is to keep "scary guns" out of the hands of common people. It is the death of a thousand cuts, once started it will only stop when "reasonable people" accept they don't need guns at all, and the government can finally confiscate them all.

Yet IMHO every single one of those "mass shootings" would have been prevented, or at the very least minimized, by a "good citizen" with a gun. Like the most recent Mall shooter said, he deliberately sought a place he KNEW no guns would pose a counter to his actions.

So what's your suggestion, diddly squat? Real helpful.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

do something

Even if its proven to be ineffectual or not proven to be effectual, at the expense of civil liberties?

No haymarket, never, especially not for the likes of you.

If you truly believe that the goal is to "disarm the people", you fall right into the trap offing nothing or as little as possible. We have lived at the corner of Slippery Slope Street and Paranoia Place for far too long.

You're not fooling anyone, your post history on this subject is evidence enough never to give you an inch.

 

[haymarket]

While the NRA and the gun maker's lobby continues to insert its millions into the pockets of those with real power to do something, nothing will be done and Americans can all look forward to the next mass-shooting and offer mollifying prayers for the victims of last week's murders, secure in the knowledge that their 'freedom' remains unfettered. So that's settled, and cash rules.

The gun lobby: See how much your representative gets

There is some talk that gun laws must happen now or soon because the NRA is on the ropes and weakened with internal problems of its own. If that is true, I can think of no other way to revitalize and energize the NRA than in scaring the living daylights out of its members and calling them to political action to stop whatever laws might be proposed. They will see it as their own moment of crisis and adopt a Last Stand mentality.

 

[haymarket]

Even if its proven to be ineffectual or not proven to be effectual, at the expense of civil liberties?

No haymarket, never, especially not for the likes of you.



You're not fooling anyone, your post history on this subject is evidence enough never to give you an inch.

Nobody can take away rights you do not have in the first place.

 

[snakestretcher]

There is some talk that gun laws must happen now or soon because the NRA is on the ropes and weakened with internal problems of its own. If that is true, I can think of no other way to revitalize and energize the NRA than in scaring the living daylights out of its members and calling them to political action to stop whatever laws might be proposed. They will see it as their own moment of crisis and adopt a Last Stand mentality.

Yes, the 'cold dead hands' bunch of idiots would happily kill people to ensure they still have the right-to kill people.

 

[snakestretcher]

Even if its proven to be ineffectual or not proven to be effectual, at the expense of civil liberties?

No haymarket, never, especially not for the likes of you.



You're not fooling anyone, your post history on this subject is evidence enough never to give you an inch.

If you haven't tried anything how can you claim it is ineffectual? If your idea of civil liberties is the mute acceptance of 251 mass killings so far this year alone as a fair price to pay for what you believe is 'freedom', I don't know what to tell you. America is looking more like a violent third-world banana republic as each year passes.

 

[ocean515]

The pressure seems to be building on Mitch McConnell to do something after this last weekend. Many people think nothing will be done. They could be right based on the past.

I think something will be done. I suspect the Senate will be called to action and they will do the absolute bare less than minimum to say they did something and then move on patting themselves on the back as heroes.

I suspect will will see some variation of making it harder for mentally ill people to obtain a gun.

There will be be no universal background checks on all firearm acquisitions.

There will be no banning of any firearms.

There will be no bill on magazine sizes.

There will be so system of national registration.

There will be no federal law impacting gun owners without a history of mental illness.

They will do as little as possible to crawl back to the NRA and say they really did nothing to impact the vast vast vast majority of gun owners so don't worry about it.

What the New Democratic Party leadership in the House will do:

Scream and yell, blame the President, blame his supporters, blame Caucasians, etc.

What they won't do:

Look at the why behind these tragic events...….

 

[snakestretcher]

What the New Democratic Party leadership in the House will do:

Scream and yell, blame the President, blame his supporters, blame Caucasians, etc.

What they won't do:

Look at the why behind these tragic events...….

I know what the "why" is. Too many ****ing guns far too ****ing easy to get hold of. A small price to pay for your 'freedom', right?

 

[Captain Adverse]

So what's your suggestion, diddly squat? Real helpful.

Funny.

If guns don't help the non-criminal, non-fanatic, non-terrorist...then why are our police, security forces, and military all armed?

My suggestion is to embrace gun ownership as it was originally envisioned. As a bulwark of self-defense against robbers, raiders, foreign invaders, and if need be against one's own government's tyranny.

The truth is tens, and perhaps hundreds of millions of American citizens own guns. Yet only a tiny fraction have done harm, even if you take all criminal, terrorist, and other acts in toto.

Yet whenever some fringe incident occurs, what is the cry? Disarm everyone, that'll do the trick. But it never does, because those who make up the same tiny fraction still act out anyway.

 

[ocean515]

I know what the "why" is. Too many ****ing guns far too ****ing easy to get hold of. A small price to pay for your 'freedom', right?

LOL

No, you don't know.

Kind of like saying there are too many knives in the UK, or too much acid......

 

[snakestretcher]

LOL

No, you don't know.

Kind of like saying there are too many knives in the UK, or too much acid......

Yes, there's a problem here with knife crime, but it pales into insignificance compared to your epidemic that nobody wants to do anything about. 251 mass shootings in the US this year alone, but that's a pittance to pay compared with your holy 'freedom', right?
Nearly 400 million guns in circulation in America, but there's no problem. What a sick, damaged society you live in-and welcome to it.

 

[Irredentist]

Funny.

If guns don't help the non-criminal, non-fanatic, non-terrorist...then why are our police, security forces, and military all armed?

My suggestion is to embrace gun ownership as it was originally envisioned. As a bulwark of self-defense against robbers, raiders, foreign invaders, and if need be against one's own government's tyranny.


The truth is tens, and perhaps hundreds of millions of American citizens own guns. Yet only a tiny fraction have done harm, even if you take all criminal, terrorist, and other acts in toto.

Isn't that what we already do? Americans already own more guns per capita than any country on earth. So, any new ideas, or just more of the same that's not working?

 

[ocean515]

Yes, there's a problem here with knife crime, but it pales into insignificance compared to your epidemic that nobody wants to do anything about. 251 mass shootings in the US this year alone, but that's a pittance to pay compared with your 'freedom', right?

I keep seeing this number thrown around. Do you have a clue what has been included in that number?

Clean you own home, then maybe someone will think you have anything of value to say about cleaning theirs.

 

[snakestretcher]

I keep seeing this number thrown around. Do you have a clue what has been included in that number?

Clean you own home, then maybe someone will think you have anything of value to say about cleaning theirs.

We already did address gun crime. Guess what; no more mass shootings. Strange how that works.
According to my link 44% of Americans personally know someone who was shot. A statistic to be proud of, don't you think?

Facts on U.S. gun ownership and gun policy views | Pew Research Center

 

[independentusa]

Good.

You seem to be one who enjoys seeing people killed, interesting.