Filibuster for Gun Safety

[Anonymous]

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.

Well shoot yo, then I want a canon! And a tank while we're at it.

Can we make Lawn Darts legal again if I shoot them out of a bazooka.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Hey bozo, why do you think that country doesn't have strict gun laws? Because it doesn't have a high gun murder rate. I think you might want to think about going back because if you think that the US culture is "compassionate", then you'd be wrong because it did jack shit about the gun culture after 20 5/6 yr olds were murdered. I BET, if this happened in your parents' country, they'd be screaming for tighter gun laws. But no, the US gov't and gun-lovers aren't "compassionate" enough to lift a finger even after this horrible tragedy.

Every civilized country that has had a mass murder related to guns has passed stricter gun laws because of it.. from Canada, to Australia and the UK. It's only the US that hasn't.

I agree, it is all cultural. I bet your parents' country doesnt' have a gun culture like the US does. The US has an issue with gun culture. So, the country you came from is more "compassionate" than the US culture.

Where did I say I thought the US culture was compassionate? I only said that about my parent's country. You are the nutcase and dumbass in this thread because you have a lack of reading comprehension skills and are putting words in my mouth. Are those "stricter" gun laws preventing violence in those countries? Because it has been obvious it has not in the UK with the recent terrorist attacks. The EU gun laws are not stopping the gun trade, Like I said before,

No we dont need to change our culture but not allow someone who is even being watched by the fbi or suspected to purchase a gun and not be so pc to assume those from ME countries will assimilate and be non racists.

My DH is from the UK, and he thinks the guns laws in this country are insane. How many shooting deaths does the UK have compared to this country? When there was a mass shooting of kids in Scotland, they passed strict gun laws. BTW, did you read the article about a right wing extremist in the UK who just shot to death a UK politician who was for staying in the EU? I'm betting some UK politicians are thinking about even more strict gun laws. Or the mass shooting in Finland not that long ago committed by another right wing white extremist. I think he shot 70 people or something, mostly teens. Mass shootings are not just committed by Muslims, or don't you read the news?

You are only thinking about "terrorist attacks", while some of us are thinking about gun deaths of everyone in this country, especially our children, perpetuated by non Muslims of this country, as well.

You didn't answer my question -- if your parents' country had several mass shootings, especially of children, don't you think that country would pass strict gun laws? I bet they would because most sane countries have.

Yes, we do need to change our gun culture here. It's insane that you and others don't think the gun culture here is not an issue.

Wow! It says that guy was diagnosed with a personality disorder and sentenced to just 21 years for killing 77 people under Norway's law! Where is the common sense in that? It is said he will spend his 21 year sentence in a 3 room suite with a laptop, tv, and exercise equipment albeit no internet service lol that is just wrong

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/world/europe/anders-behring-breivik-murder-trial.html?_r=0

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Hey bozo, why do you think that country doesn't have strict gun laws? Because it doesn't have a high gun murder rate. I think you might want to think about going back because if you think that the US culture is "compassionate", then you'd be wrong because it did jack shit about the gun culture after 20 5/6 yr olds were murdered. I BET, if this happened in your parents' country, they'd be screaming for tighter gun laws. But no, the US gov't and gun-lovers aren't "compassionate" enough to lift a finger even after this horrible tragedy.

Every civilized country that has had a mass murder related to guns has passed stricter gun laws because of it.. from Canada, to Australia and the UK. It's only the US that hasn't.

I agree, it is all cultural. I bet your parents' country doesnt' have a gun culture like the US does. The US has an issue with gun culture. So, the country you came from is more "compassionate" than the US culture.

Where did I say I thought the US culture was compassionate? I only said that about my parent's country. You are the nutcase and dumbass in this thread because you have a lack of reading comprehension skills and are putting words in my mouth. Are those "stricter" gun laws preventing violence in those countries? Because it has been obvious it has not in the UK with the recent terrorist attacks. The EU gun laws are not stopping the gun trade, Like I said before,

No we dont need to change our culture but not allow someone who is even being watched by the fbi or suspected to purchase a gun and not be so pc to assume those from ME countries will assimilate and be non racists.

My DH is from the UK, and he thinks the guns laws in this country are insane. How many shooting deaths does the UK have compared to this country? When there was a mass shooting of kids in Scotland, they passed strict gun laws. BTW, did you read the article about a right wing extremist in the UK who just shot to death a UK politician who was for staying in the EU? I'm betting some UK politicians are thinking about even more strict gun laws. Or the mass shooting in Finland not that long ago committed by another right wing white extremist. I think he shot 70 people or something, mostly teens. Mass shootings are not just committed by Muslims, or don't you read the news?

You are only thinking about "terrorist attacks", while some of us are thinking about gun deaths of everyone in this country, especially our children, perpetuated by non Muslims of this country, as well.

You didn't answer my question -- if your parents' country had several mass shootings, especially of children, don't you think that country would pass strict gun laws? I bet they would because most sane countries have.

Yes, we do need to change our gun culture here. It's insane that you and others don't think the gun culture here is not an issue.

Are you the pp? If so is this your alternate personality?

[Anonymous]

If these immigrants are filled with hate, then logic would tell you it's not a good idea to make it easy for these hate-filled people to purchase assault weapons.
You can't erase the hate, but you can at the very least, make it harder for them to obtain the means to murder innocent Americans.
The immorality of gun-rights advocated never fails to astound me.

[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.

Well shoot yo, then I want a canon! And a tank while we're at it.

Can we make Lawn Darts legal again if I shoot them out of a bazooka.

The Second Amendment does not give Americans the right to bear any arms. When it was written, arms were muskets and cannons, too heavy to "bear." The NRA has completely distorted the scope of the Second Amendment, a major flaw in our Constitution. I believe the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment is that it confers the right of members of a militia to bear arms. Join the military, and you can bear arms to protect our nation.

[Anonymous]

Here's the text of the Second Amendment:

"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."

It clearly links the militia to the right to bear arms. People is plural. It does not mention individual rights.

The gun lobby has twisted and manipulated that sentance so much it's unrecognizable today.

But let's face it: It's our fault. We don't stand up to them and pass gun laws that restrict access to dangerous weapons, such as assault rifles. The majority of Americans want these weapons banned, want thorough background checks for every gun buyer, want strict licensing laws. Why are we so complacent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If these immigrants are filled with hate, then logic would tell you it's not a good idea to make it easy for these hate-filled people to purchase assault weapons.
You can't erase the hate, but you can at the very least, make it harder for them to obtain the means to murder innocent Americans.
The immorality of gun-rights advocated never fails to astound me.

"Australia hasn’t had a mass shooting since 1996"
? October 21 2002: Monash University's Clayton campus. Two dead, five wounded.
? April 30, 2011: Siege at Hectorville. Three dead, two injured.
? September 11, 2014: The bodies of Kim Hunt, Fletcher, Mia, and Phoebe, along with that of their mother, were found on their Boree Creek Rd property outside Lockhart, west of Wagga Wagga. All shot to death.
? December 15, 2014: Depending how you form your tally, during the "Martin Place Siege" (also known as the "Lindt Cafe siege") in Sydney: one hostage was killed by the hostage-taker / terrorist (Monis), one hostage was killed by police bullets, and three hostages and a police officer were shot and injured.

Ok, so much for the "there hasn't been a mass shooting since 1996." On to other things...

Here's a real conundrum for those who believe in the "More Guns = More Firearm Homicides" mantra... It seems that:

? The Northern Territory (NT) had a homicide rate of 5.5/100,000 in 2012.
(Note: US rate for 2012 was 4.8/100,000, for the rest of Australia about 1.1±/100,000). http://aic.gov.au/.../mr/21-40/mr23/04_homicide-2010-12.html

? The NT police says the NT has the 2nd-highest rate of gun ownership in Australia (#1 being Tasmania), but the lowest rate of firearm crime! In 2012 the NT had 15 murders; 10 by knives, and ZERO (as-in none) by firearm! http://www.news.com.au/.../story-fnn3gfdo-1227174002714

If the firearms laws in Australia are so great - as touted by the likes of President Obama - then one would expect Utopia to be stable, no? I mean, once you have that perfect set of laws, everything should be smooth sailing! So then why is gun ownership back to pre-1996 levels, and why is the government crying "we need MORE gun laws!" and how are guns being smuggled into the island country? (Hint: it's not the lax gun laws of Australia's neighbor, New Zeland).

[Anonymous]

"The Second Amendment does not give Americans the right to bear any arms. When it was written, arms were muskets and cannons, too heavy to "bear." The NRA has completely distorted the scope of the Second Amendment, a major flaw in our Constitution. I believe the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment is that it confers the right of members of a militia to bear arms. Join the military, and you can bear arms to protect our nation."

^^^Product of our dumbed down education system.^^^

Read The Federalist No. 46 and then get back to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If these immigrants are filled with hate, then logic would tell you it's not a good idea to make it easy for these hate-filled people to purchase assault weapons.
You can't erase the hate, but you can at the very least, make it harder for them to obtain the means to murder innocent Americans.
The immorality of gun-rights advocated never fails to astound me.

I see plenty of white American born filled with hate too. Can we prevent them from buying guns? They seem to kill people on a regular basis, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Compassion would certainly help but it is more than that because it is a different culture. Your dumb shit logic is that implementing stricter gun laws that countries YOU used as an example already have will prevent more gun deaths but surprise! they have not. Like I said before since you lack in reading comprehension EU gun laws are not stopping the gun trade. What will help is what I said in the last sentence. Let me explain it like a kindergartener because you act like one. A bad person can still be bad if they have the will to carry out whatever demonic plan they have. Stricter gun laws won't stop them but it might stop a good person from using a gun that might actually help them or others.

You know why the gun laws we have now won't stop crazy people from shooting people, because they past background checks. You know why the VTech shooter was able to buy a gun and shoot 30 some people; because he past a background check. You know why this latest shooter was able to buy a gun, because he past a background check. Get it.

Your dumb shit logic can't grasp that, can it. No access to guns = less gun deaths. In the EU, crazy people can still access guns, though maybe not as easily as in the US. That's the problem. Like I said, you can't stop all crazy people from doing crazy things but you should make it harder, not easier.. BTW, those BE shooters got their guns illegaly, from a gun runner.

Or, I guess your logic is "See we can't stop them so let's join them by arming everyone and shooting anyone who looks suspicious, ie, anyone who looks like he's from the ME, and in some cases, dumb shit people think that includes Seikhs."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Compassion would certainly help but it is more than that because it is a different culture. Your dumb shit logic is that implementing stricter gun laws that countries YOU used as an example already have will prevent more gun deaths but surprise! they have not. Like I said before since you lack in reading comprehension EU gun laws are not stopping the gun trade. What will help is what I said in the last sentence. Let me explain it like a kindergartener because you act like one. A bad person can still be bad if they have the will to carry out whatever demonic plan they have. Stricter gun laws won't stop them but it might stop a good person from using a gun that might actually help them or others.

You know why the gun laws we have now won't stop crazy people from shooting people, because they past background checks. You know why the VTech shooter was able to buy a gun and shoot 30 some people; because he past a background check. You know why this latest shooter was able to buy a gun, because he past a background check. Get it.

Your dumb shit logic can't grasp that, can it. No access to guns = less gun deaths. In the EU, crazy people can still access guns, though maybe not as easily as in the US. That's the problem. Like I said, you can't stop all crazy people from doing crazy things but you should make it harder, not easier.. BTW, those BE shooters got their guns illegaly, from a gun runner.

Or, I guess your logic is "See we can't stop them so let's join them by arming everyone and shooting anyone who looks suspicious, ie, anyone who looks like he's from the ME, and in some cases, dumb shit people think that includes Seikhs."

I don't know about the VTech shooter, but my understanding is that Mateen did not have to undergo a background check for the type of gun he used (some weird Florida thing). Dylann Roof probably would have been stopped except for it took longer than 72h to complete the check. I'm not arguing that today's gun laws are awesome, but better background checks should be part of gun control policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Compassion would certainly help but it is more than that because it is a different culture. Your dumb shit logic is that implementing stricter gun laws that countries YOU used as an example already have will prevent more gun deaths but surprise! they have not. Like I said before since you lack in reading comprehension EU gun laws are not stopping the gun trade. What will help is what I said in the last sentence. Let me explain it like a kindergartener because you act like one. A bad person can still be bad if they have the will to carry out whatever demonic plan they have. Stricter gun laws won't stop them but it might stop a good person from using a gun that might actually help them or others.

You know why the gun laws we have now won't stop crazy people from shooting people, because they past background checks. You know why the VTech shooter was able to buy a gun and shoot 30 some people; because he past a background check. You know why this latest shooter was able to buy a gun, because he past a background check. Get it.

Your dumb shit logic can't grasp that, can it. No access to guns = less gun deaths. In the EU, crazy people can still access guns, though maybe not as easily as in the US. That's the problem. Like I said, you can't stop all crazy people from doing crazy things but you should make it harder, not easier.. BTW, those BE shooters got their guns illegaly, from a gun runner.

Or, I guess your logic is "See we can't stop them so let's join them by arming everyone and shooting anyone who looks suspicious, ie, anyone who looks like he's from the ME, and in some cases, dumb shit people think that includes Seikhs."

I don't know about the VTech shooter, but my understanding is that Mateen did not have to undergo a background check for the type of gun he used (some weird Florida thing). Dylann Roof probably would have been stopped except for it took longer than 72h to complete the check. I'm not arguing that today's gun laws are awesome, but better background checks should be part of gun control policy.

THIS. Dylann roof is one of tens of thousands who eventually did not pass the background check. But by default was able to purchase after 3 days. This default is written into law. Ok. But also when the fbi discovers later that the gun was not ok to sell...they send an alert. Thousands. To the ATF. Anyone here work for them? They have within the law the ability to follow up on confiscating the illegally purchased weapon. At the least they could send a warning notice to hand it over, or else face arrest. At least. This is all within the current system, but isn't happening. Set up legislation to enforce follow up!!!

[Anonymous]

Who filibustering to protect us from criminals? Criminals will not surrender their guns. If they don't have one yet need one, they'll get one. That's wha criminals do. They don't obey law.

[Anonymous]

They are trying to figure out how to close a loophole that allows suspected terrorists to buy weapons. That is trying to protect us from criminals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who filibustering to protect us from criminals? Criminals will not surrender their guns. If they don't have one yet need one, they'll get one. That's wha criminals do. They don't obey law.

But wouldn't it be nice to be able to arrest and charge them for the crime of illegally possessing a gun rather than the charge of killing someone?