Filibuster for Gun Safety

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I just don't understand this at all! It seriously makes me want to cry that we can't even get something this small and logical passed

Because if this "small and logical" bill is passed, it is only another "small and logical" step to ban another weapon type say any rifle over 30 caliber, then the number of bullets you can have and then eventually all weapons to disarm the law-abiding population.

Taking away the rights of the citizenry rarely starts with one big sweep of legislation, it is small steps during a "crisis" where these freedoms and rights are chipped away.
We have the right to bear arms, any arms, and as many and of whatever type we want. Period. End of discussion. No one, no matter how pompous and big mouthed does not get to filibuster away our constitutional rights.

You mean regulating the rights of citizenry in ways that are sensible and will PROTECT the citizenry . . . because you know as well as I do that no one is taking away your rights. Asking to show that you're a law abiding, sane person before having guns is NOT asking a lot. And the only ones being targeted for "banning", and rightfully so, are the military style assault rifle which have no place in civil society. If you don't see that, there is not a shred of sense in you.

And as to the second bold, that just shows you don't understand constitutional law. Becuase that is NOT what it means. Even constitutional rights like free speech and assembly and religion can be and are regulated. Go yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater and see what happens . . . .

Here is the problem with having to prove to the government that I am sane: it is an affront to my sensibilities that I am guilty (of insanity) by default until I can prove otherwise.

That is obnoxious. Criminals certainly are not going to abide by any such limitatoins but we law-abiding citizens will have to just as they have to in Chicago and DC where the criminals can pretty much gun down anyone they want with impunity because the attempts to circumvent the 2nd amendment make it difficult to keep and bear arms.

Yeah, I know there are limitations on the right to bear arms just as there are with freedom of speech but the two are not comparable: a person should be able to have as many and of any type of arm for self defence, collecting, or just to feel safe.

Furthermore, the citizenry should be armed with military grade weaponry to send a clear message to the government: you try to mess with us and you see Orlando? Well, try to get uppity and tyrannical and it will be the senate floor, supreme court room, or the house of reps where you'll see the gunning down.

A government that has a healthy fear of its citizens is a good thing because it prevents evil leaders from acting with impunity like it has so many times with the kings of Europe and the communist dictators of the world

I'm sorry but you just sound silly. We have so many checks and balances in our government. And your fear-mongering just has no place in this discussion b/c that's what it is. Nothing more. The only fear I have is of citizens like yourself who have an arsenal in their homes. Those people have a bad day, get ill, get drunk, whatever . . . Last I checked, that is where the problems lie.

And as for the not comparable rights . . . there is no precedence or importance. That is clear from a reading of it and, if there was, the first amendment was, well, first. And, "obnoxious" is really not a reason going to pass the sniff test. The fact is, this is about the safety of the citizens you proclaim to care about so much. That is the need for regulation and we've seen that proven time and again, from 20 dead innocent first-graders in their classrooms to 49 innocent people just celebrating their lives. It's disgusting that you woudl place your convenience over their lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No I'm being realistic that if all these laws would have been passed

THE SHOOTINGS STILL WOULD HAVE OCCURRED

You know what the actual solution is. Actually talking with and caring about your neighbors something we all can do without any sort of government action which again is just window dressing

No they would not have- terrosists aren't gangsters. they are random crazy people living suburban lives. Do you know how to score some crack? i don't, if it is hard to get guns- ei you have to go to some sketchy part of town to do it as opposed to driving to walmart when you lose your shit at 2 am that will make a difference to lone wolf attacks & school shootings. the san bernadine shooting probably would still have happened but Orlando, Chattanooga probably not. If you are on a watch list and start hanging out with criminals the FBI will notice- it will be more than just shooting off your mouth. Also the 2nd Amendment says 'well regulated militia" If we don't even have a registry of who owns guns how is that "well- regulated"? Its not regulated at all. What we have now is not a well regulated militia:

a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

we don't even know who these gun owners are. Also a requirement to have smart guns- guns that have to be registered is not unconstitutional nor is the concept of having to register and buy gun insurance. the 2nd amendment doesn't protect the right of private citizens to anonymously own weapons. It protects there right to own them. Why don't we start with a registry at least.

[Anonymous]

Furthermore, the citizenry should be armed with military grade weaponry to send a clear message to the government: you try to mess with us and you see Orlando? Well, try to get uppity and tyrannical and it will be the senate floor, supreme court room, or the house of reps where you'll see the gunning down.

Are you part of the David Koresh clan or something?

No. Don't be silly.

the only tyrannical leader that I think the US needs to be wary of is Trump. In the history of our country, when has the public needed to rise up with weapons against our gov't other than during the revolutionary and civil war, one of which was to fight tyranny and the other to fight slavery and to keep the country together?

So far, fortunately, the public has not needed to rise up with weapons other than the two you mentionned. The North was not so much for fighting against slavery (they really did not care what those stupid Southerners did with their cotton fields and buck-tooth banjo pickin') their primary intent was to keep the union together. Lincoln wanted to deport the blacks back to Africa and yes, the blacks ought to have been able to amass arms and say to the government "Go ahead and try it!" Fortunately, no such thing happened and hopefully no such thing will happen in the future.

You say if a tyrannical leader of the US attempted to mess with you (like maybe rounding up you and your people and putting them in detention centers), then you'd take up arms? Well, one such prospective leader may try to do just that - Muslims, so then maybe they should rise up against the tyrant according to you?

Yes, if the government tried to round me up and put me away I would use all of the means at my disposal to prevent it after all legal means were exhausted. I have not followed what Trump says, do not listen to his speeches because it is to me a bunch of hollering and gesturing without any substance to back it up. So, I do not know what his plans are with Muslims. If he intends to round up Muslims who are American citizens then yes, the Muslims ought to arm themselves and resist because they have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If the Muslims president elect Trump is talking about are illegal aliens then he has every right to detain, contain, and deport for they are not American
citizens and have no right to anything other than as a guest to be here on a legal visa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If someone is dangerous enough to be put on a no-fly list, doesn't it make sense to also stop that same person from buying guns? #NoFlyNoBuy

People are routinely put on the no fly list by error. Including 60 members of homeland security, US arm forces trying to get home from war, and Senstir Ted Kennedy to name a few.

Big damn deal. They can get off it. I'm so sick of people acting like this it's some HUGE societal problem if these people can't buy a gun for a while because of a mistake. I don't give a fuck. You're inconvenienced. I don't care. Other things are more important.

How do they get off it? Senator Ted Kennedy fought for 3 years to get off it. You think it's easy? Try it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Here is the problem with having to prove to the government that I am sane: it is an affront to my sensibilities that I am guilty (of insanity) by default until I can prove otherwise.

That is obnoxious. Criminals certainly are not going to abide by any such limitatoins but we law-abiding citizens will have to just as they have to in Chicago and DC where the criminals can pretty much gun down anyone they want with impunity because the attempts to circumvent the 2nd amendment make it difficult to keep and bear arms.

Yeah, I know there are limitations on the right to bear arms just as there are with freedom of speech but the two are not comparable: a person should be able to have as many and of any type of arm for self defence, collecting, or just to feel safe.

Furthermore, the citizenry should be armed with military grade weaponry to send a clear message to the government: you try to mess with us and you see Orlando? Well, try to get uppity and tyrannical and it will be the senate floor, supreme court room, or the house of reps where you'll see the gunning down.

A government that has a healthy fear of its citizens is a good thing because it prevents evil leaders from acting with impunity like it has so many times with the kings of Europe and the communist dictators of the world

Okay, I don't agree with you my self, but I'm way more sympathetic to many of the arguments you are making because people I love, like my DH, agree with some of them.

But as you've stated things, it goes too far. The two things that stand out to me are:

(1) You seem to implying that you're willing to accept more restrictions on the First Amendment than the Second. What?! Why? That makes no sense at all. Can you explain this?

(2) What do you mean by "military grade weaponry" and going to Capitol building? You realize that the government has tanks, surface to air missiles, and nuclear weapons, right? I actually get the desire to have weapons to protect yourself from the government, it's baked into our nation's history. But we already accept the military having better weapons than we do. If you're intention is just to take a stand, I guarantee that you can do pretty well with a revolver and a hunting rifle. If you want to launch a full on attack on the US government, you're already pretty screwed due to limitations I'm pretty sure you wouldn't disagree with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, if the government tried to round me up and put me away I would use all of the means at my disposal to prevent it after all legal means were exhausted. I have not followed what Trump says, do not listen to his speeches because it is to me a bunch of hollering and gesturing without any substance to back it up. So, I do not know what his plans are with Muslims. If he intends to round up Muslims who are American citizens then yes, the Muslims ought to arm themselves and resist because they have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If the Muslims president elect Trump is talking about are illegal aliens then he has every right to detain, contain, and deport for they are not American
citizens and have no right to anything other than as a guest to be here on a legal visa.

LOL... From your mouth to Trump's ears! Would love for you to suggest that to the NRA, Trump and his supporters because I'm pretty sure most of them, and many of whom are avid anti-gun control advocates, would balk at such a suggestion. Or, I guess maybe they would say, "Let'em, we'll just shoot 'em all." We live in such a civilized society...not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, if the government tried to round me up and put me away I would use all of the means at my disposal to prevent it after all legal means were exhausted. I have not followed what Trump says, do not listen to his speeches because it is to me a bunch of hollering and gesturing without any substance to back it up. So, I do not know what his plans are with Muslims. If he intends to round up Muslims who are American citizens then yes, the Muslims ought to arm themselves and resist because they have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If the Muslims president elect Trump is talking about are illegal aliens then he has every right to detain, contain, and deport for they are not American
citizens and have no right to anything other than as a guest to be here on a legal visa.

LOL... From your mouth to Trump's ears! Would love for you to suggest that to the NRA, Trump and his supporters because I'm pretty sure most of them, and many of whom are avid anti-gun control advocates, would balk at such a suggestion. Or, I guess maybe they would say, "Let'em, we'll just shoot 'em all." We live in such a civilized society...not.

This is really what gets me. I get the feeling that all the "we have a right to any gun at any time" people are white men who will freak the f out if the large numbers of (legal) immigrants entering our country start taking up arms at the astonishing rate that white dudes do. Moreover, the Southern white dudes will lose it if African Americans in the south start stockpiling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here is the problem with having to prove to the government that I am sane: it is an affront to my sensibilities that I am guilty (of insanity) by default until I can prove otherwise.

That is obnoxious. Criminals certainly are not going to abide by any such limitatoins but we law-abiding citizens will have to just as they have to in Chicago and DC where the criminals can pretty much gun down anyone they want with impunity because the attempts to circumvent the 2nd amendment make it difficult to keep and bear arms.

Yeah, I know there are limitations on the right to bear arms just as there are with freedom of speech but the two are not comparable: a person should be able to have as many and of any type of arm for self defence, collecting, or just to feel safe.

Furthermore, the citizenry should be armed with military grade weaponry to send a clear message to the government: you try to mess with us and you see Orlando? Well, try to get uppity and tyrannical and it will be the senate floor, supreme court room, or the house of reps where you'll see the gunning down.

A government that has a healthy fear of its citizens is a good thing because it prevents evil leaders from acting with impunity like it has so many times with the kings of Europe and the communist dictators of the world

Okay, I don't agree with you my self, but I'm way more sympathetic to many of the arguments you are making because people I love, like my DH, agree with some of them.

But as you've stated things, it goes too far. The two things that stand out to me are:

(1) You seem to implying that you're willing to accept more restrictions on the First Amendment than the Second. What?! Why? That makes no sense at all. Can you explain this?

(2) What do you mean by "military grade weaponry" and going to Capitol building? You realize that the government has tanks, surface to air missiles, and nuclear weapons, right? I actually get the desire to have weapons to protect yourself from the government, it's baked into our nation's history. But we already accept the military having better weapons than we do. If you're intention is just to take a stand, I guarantee that you can do pretty well with a revolver and a hunting rifle. If you want to launch a full on attack on the US government, you're already pretty screwed due to limitations I'm pretty sure you wouldn't disagree with.

#1 I am not willing to accept any restrictions upon the First Amendment. You can yell Fire!" in a theater if you want to but there are consequences if someone gets hurt. Just because it is illegal does not mean someone cannot do it.
Furthermore, you can bear arms can go shoot and kill someone and that would be murder, but to try and ban all guns thinking it will prevent murder or mass shootings is not the correct path of action. It opens the door where all the citizens are disarmed which is a very dangers state because it removes a barrier to prevent, should it occur, a vain, rapacious, evil, Emperor Nero kind of person doing as he pleases. If you think some people are not as evil now as they were during the Roman Empire times, or the Age of Kings, well, you are mistaken: they are still just as evil, still make plots to get all the power they can to run roughshod over whomever it fancies them to run roughshod over.

An armed citizenry is a deterrent to tyranny. It does not mean it will stop tyranny led by a determined leader to wage war on We the People but it is a deterrent.

#2 Military grade weaponry is automatic weapons, grenades, grenade launchers, psy-ops, anti-air missiles and so forth that, when in the hands of hundreds of millions of citizens would outnumber the regular armed forces and act as a deterrent to the government from stomping on the citizens in any way it wants like Stalin did. It would not stop the government if it wanted to wipe out such citizens but there would be a cost involved and a cowardly, tyrannical leader is unlikely to want to pay the price for such a "victory".

It is not possible for a mob of citizens who are not trained soldiers to conduct a successful military campaign against soldiers led by West Point graduates who have at their disposal almost unlimited finances and logistics to support a campaign in the field lasting for as many years as necessary. It is not going to happen and as far as I know, never in the history of warfare have irregular troops in a lengthy campaign bested trained veterans except in very small and unusual circumstances. It just does not happen.

It simply is not possible for ordinary citizens to form themselves into platoons, divisions, corps, and armies and march into DC and take it over. That is never going to happen. General Washington, even with his trained troops, and the nearly useless irregulars, men who were mostly "fair weather soldiers" who did not have the endurance to spend months in the field, almost did not win. Only the timely arrival of the French fleet to bottle up the British on the peninsula was final victory able to be attained.

My argument against Gun Control is to prevent the final elimination of the 2nd amendment in the name of "safety". I admit there may be holes in my argument as it is not something I have thought deeply about, do not give it much thought. But when I hear every time a shooting occurs the problem is guns and we need to stop people having them, red flags go up in my mind. That is it really. I am not some kook hunkering down in a bunker with 100 lbs of canned meat wondering when mean ole Uncle Sam's gonna get me.

[Anonymous]

I say again - retreating again behind your rights while doing nothing to stop these slaughters from happening as regularly as they do makes you complicit in murder. Period.

Fuck you and your hypocrisy. Suddenly you care about your rights? Didn't seem to matter when we were stomping all over rights in the name of fighting terrorism. Or keeping gay people from having rights that straight people had. Or allowing women freedoms with their reproductive choices.

Blood is on the hands of anyone who continues to push the status quo.

[Anonymous]

^ there are many countries that have very strict gun laws. Do you see their people worried about their gov't treading on them? It's the other way around. Take the UK for example. A British politician who was for the UK staying in the EU was just gun down by a right wing extremist. Dude, you are totally paranoid.

I bet you are a prepper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, if the government tried to round me up and put me away I would use all of the means at my disposal to prevent it after all legal means were exhausted. I have not followed what Trump says, do not listen to his speeches because it is to me a bunch of hollering and gesturing without any substance to back it up. So, I do not know what his plans are with Muslims. If he intends to round up Muslims who are American citizens then yes, the Muslims ought to arm themselves and resist because they have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If the Muslims president elect Trump is talking about are illegal aliens then he has every right to detain, contain, and deport for they are not American
citizens and have no right to anything other than as a guest to be here on a legal visa.

LOL... From your mouth to Trump's ears! Would love for you to suggest that to the NRA, Trump and his supporters because I'm pretty sure most of them, and many of whom are avid anti-gun control advocates, would balk at such a suggestion. Or, I guess maybe they would say, "Let'em, we'll just shoot 'em all." We live in such a civilized society...not.

This is really what gets me. I get the feeling that all the "we have a right to any gun at any time" people are white men who will freak the f out if the large numbers of (legal) immigrants entering our country start taking up arms at the astonishing rate that white dudes do. Moreover, the Southern white dudes will lose it if African Americans in the south start stockpiling.

yep, and then you'd have an all out race war. I feel like this is what those right wingers want, though.

[Anonymous]

13:16, there are several confusing things about your post, but I don't have time to argue them all.

The one thing I will say is that *no one* is trying to ban all guns. There are two proposals on the table: (1) Subject people to more background checks before buying guns in order to prevent terrorists and known criminals from buying them, and (2) Banning certain guns.

You can disagree with one or both of the above, but it's disingenuous to say people want to ban all, or even most, guns.

I'm pretty liberal, and I kind of hate the idea of owning guns even though my DH grew up owning them, but I actually understand and agree with some of the Constitutional issues (and even the more philosophical arguments) around gun control. But that doesn't make them insurmountable, and it seems like there is a compromise position between what the Senate Republicans and the Senate Democrats are proposing today. The truth is, mass murders aren't actually the biggest public concern with guns...though these tragedies do shed light on some of the issues and we would likely have fewer with better gun control...but that doesn't mean gun violence isn't basically an epidemic in this country that we should simply ignore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cornyn's Republican Proposal (backed by NRA): Under Republican legislation, the federal government may delay the sale of a firearm to someone on the watch list for up to 72 hours. During that time, if the government can show a judge there's "probable cause" that the individual is plotting terrorism, then the gun sale is denied outright. But if the government cannot show that the individual is plotting terrorism within 72 hours, the individual gets the gun.

Dem Proposal: The Democratic bill allows the federal government to block anyone on the government's watch list from buying a gun. The gun buyer can challenge the block in court. The government's decision will be sustained only if a "preponderance of evidence" [i.e., more likely than not] indicates that the attorney general has a "reasonable belief" that the prospective gun buyer may be engaged in terrorism.

I can see the Republican one as having far more points of failure because quite likely even the workflow alone will eat up 72 hours not even getting into doing background research on the subject. Not to mention the likelihood that the Republicans will then go on to starve the agency of resources so that they can't do the background check in the first place.

Probably would be better to err on the side of safety and go with the Dem proposal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, if the government tried to round me up and put me away I would use all of the means at my disposal to prevent it after all legal means were exhausted. I have not followed what Trump says, do not listen to his speeches because it is to me a bunch of hollering and gesturing without any substance to back it up. So, I do not know what his plans are with Muslims. If he intends to round up Muslims who are American citizens then yes, the Muslims ought to arm themselves and resist because they have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If the Muslims president elect Trump is talking about are illegal aliens then he has every right to detain, contain, and deport for they are not American
citizens and have no right to anything other than as a guest to be here on a legal visa.

LOL... From your mouth to Trump's ears! Would love for you to suggest that to the NRA, Trump and his supporters because I'm pretty sure most of them, and many of whom are avid anti-gun control advocates, would balk at such a suggestion. Or, I guess maybe they would say, "Let'em, we'll just shoot 'em all." We live in such a civilized society...not.

This is really what gets me. I get the feeling that all the "we have a right to any gun at any time" people are white men who will freak the f out if the large numbers of (legal) immigrants entering our country start taking up arms at the astonishing rate that white dudes do. Moreover, the Southern white dudes will lose it if African Americans in the south start stockpiling.

Yep. Just look at how they freaked out about the idea of 3 Black Panthers in Philly - and they weren't even carrying guns. Or about BLM protersters - who've also been non-violent and unarmed. If they were all out there protesting with AR-15s strapped to their backs they would be screaming for the National Guard to come in and arrest them and take their guns away. Such cognitive dissonance...

[Anonymous]

Meanwhile we also still aren't dealing with the fact that we allow guns to be sold to people who are mentally ill...

What about it, Republicans?