America's Gun Violence

unsung said:

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmm.

I wonder what it could be.

I'm truly embarrassed for your lack of knowledge on subjects on which you opine.  Senate republicans blocked EVERY PROPOSAL put forth after Sandy Hook.   Thus included assault rifles, magazine capacity,  and background checks,  all individually.  Educate yourself please,  rather than relying on Twitter. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gun-control-overhaul-is-defeated-in-senate/2013/04/17/57eb028a-a77c-11e2-b029-8fb7e977ef71_story.html?utm_term=.ba61151317ee

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmm.

I wonder what it could be.

What is this, a joke?? Surely you know the answer to this.....

I voted for obama twice but to be fair he did have control of both houses for his first two years in office and didn't do shit.  If it was that important to the democratic party they should have attempted to pass something.  

Conversely the repubes controlled both houses of Congress for 6 of 8 years that Obama was president and could have sent him a bill that he could have signed, particularly after Sandy Hook. They didn’t do shit, particularly after Sandy Hook.

well yes of course but republicans aren't going to send any sort of gun control bills, we all know that.  Like I said, democrats had two years to pass whatever gun control measures they wanted but dropped the ball for some reason.  I guess it wasn't that important.  

The 60 votes they had in the first two years included senators from Arkansas,  west Virginia,  Alaska,  and Montana.  They didn't have 60 gun control votes. 

 Oh yeah and lets not forget Bernie Sanders.  He has never been reliable on gun control historically. 

mrussel1 said:

unsung said:

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmm.

I wonder what it could be.

I'm truly embarrassed for your lack of knowledge on subjects on which you opine.  Senate republicans blocked EVERY PROPOSAL put forth after Sandy Hook.   Thus included assault rifles, magazine capacity,  and background checks,  all individually.  Educate yourself please,  rather than relying on Twitter. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gun-control-overhaul-is-defeated-in-senate/2013/04/17/57eb028a-a77c-11e2-b029-8fb7e977ef71_story.html?utm_term=.ba61151317ee

You are missing the point.

No idea on his point, but...

1) One side gets a crazy amount of $ and they want to keep that $ and keep their political power
2) The other side is deathly afraid of those NRA voters and that $ and want to keep a low profile so they can keep their political power

It's true, almost no one in congress has the guts to stand up and do what's right here.  But it's very clear to me that the biggest problem is the Republican party....even though the spineless Dems continue to do nothing and blame others.  There are very few republicans I can vote for anymore...maybe none.  It's pretty sad.

Gern Blansten said:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/380406-former-supreme-court-justice-repeal-the-second-amendment?rnd=1522154198

Retired Republican-appointed Supreme Court Justice says we should repeal the 2nd amendment

Hillary made him say it. Or was it Soros? 

I don't think the 2nd amendment needs repealed...though i might be in favor

I do think we need an updated version.  It's being interpreted differently by many people.  It's funny, people blame the courts for making laws through interpretation...but the laws are soooooo vague in some cases. 

"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."

So - is it saying that because a well regulated militia is needed everyone has an individual right to have guns?
Is it saying that if you are part of a well regulated militia you have that right?  meaning the feds can't take guns away from state militias?
And what are "Arms"....any?  rifles?

I personally think that it was written more with State's rights in mind than individual gun ownership, but I'm no legal scholar.  I do think that those that want any and all Arms are missing the "well regulated" portion...most likely don;t know that text is even in there. 

Democrat candidate for Sheriff

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/03/it-begins-democrat-candidate-for-sheriff-suggests-killing-people-to-take-their-guns/

unsung said:

Democrat candidate for Sheriff

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/03/it-begins-democrat-candidate-for-sheriff-suggests-killing-people-to-take-their-guns/

Look who can’t take a joke, albeit in poor taste, and believes it to be a policy or vast movement? Why am I not surprised?

cincybearcat said:

I don't think the 2nd amendment needs repealed...though i might be in favor

I do think we need an updated version.  It's being interpreted differently by many people.  It's funny, people blame the courts for making laws through interpretation...but the laws are soooooo vague in some cases.  

"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."

So - is it saying that because a well regulated militia is needed everyone has an individual right to have guns?
Is it saying that if you are part of a well regulated militia you have that right?  meaning the feds can't take guns away from state militias?
And what are "Arms"....any?  rifles?

I personally think that it was written more with State's rights in mind than individual gun ownership, but I'm no legal scholar.  I do think that those that want any and all Arms are missing the "well regulated" portion...most likely don;t know that text is even in there. 

It is not realistic to suggest it would ever be repealed anyway.  At this point, I would absolutely be in favor.  I firmly believe it's outlived its usefulness and has been subject to interpretations that a) are rigid in terms of any law being against it and at the same time b) ignore some of the language (well-regulated militia).  It was written at a time when the idea of a weapon getting off 30 shots per second would not have occurred to anyone.  

As you allude to, this is probably the most fascinating language in our Constitution.  "Well regulated militia" is the most ignored language in the constitution.  And it makes the whole thing confusing and open to oodles of interpretation.

The truth is, I don't really know what to do about the fact that we have hundreds of mass shootings for every one that our peer nations have.  Guns are out there and you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.  I believe the law against using federal funds for researching the issue is being repealed.  That's good.  The other thing is we have to get the NRA away from the table.  This is about what is right and best...and while individual liberty is a part of it, so is safety within the reality of what is happening.  The NRA is not a civil rights organization.  It is a trade organization and its first duty is to sell more product.  The level to which they are involved creates a conflict of interest.  Legislators are literally being paid to defend them.  

For my part, I've decided I can't vote for anyone that takes money from the NRA.  In Minnesota, one of the key Democrats in the race for the soon-to-be-empty Governorship has taken NRA money.  If he wins the nomination, I can't vote for him.  For myself, I have to be firm on that because if a critical mass of people would be (particularly the middle folks that vote for both parties, and I am not one of those), it would be difference-making.  If Trump's 2020 opponent has taken NRA money, I'll be voting 3rd.  That's just where I am now.  Again, I don't know what the best way to address our gun culture is, but we're not going to get there when the NRA literally purchases most of the decision-makers.