Filibuster for Gun Safety

[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.

How many 'criminals" have shot up schools and workplaces? Most of these guys bought guns legally, and even passed a background check. These guys weren't criminals until they started shooting at people.

I have kids. I don't worry about "criminals" shooting the school. I do worry about the crazies who can buy guns easily because they don't have a criminal record yet shooting the schools.

How many "criminals" have you shot at, or how many times have you had to use a gun to protect yourself from a criminal? Yes, I know it happens. But you know what seems to happens more frequently? Kids dying from an accidental shooting either from their own hands or other kids' hands. You know how many school shootings there were? Probably more than the number of times you might've had to use that gun to protect yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

In fact, in some cities, then do not arrest for illegal gun possession (well, sales), even when it's clear a crime was committed. Ever hear of straw buyers? Those without a record who legally buy gun after gun after gun, then sell or hand over to gangs. Many cities--ones with democratic mayors, AGs, etc., will NOT bother to prosecute straw buyers. It takes a lot if work, funding, and again, they have no record so they get off easy. Not worth it to them.....but THIS is how so many illegal guns get on the streets of say, Chicago. The solution would be to enforce again, the guns laws that already exist. You don't have to prosecute every last straw buyer, but enough, and harshly enough, to send a message.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

In fact, in some cities, then do not arrest for illegal gun possession (well, sales), even when it's clear a crime was committed. Ever hear of straw buyers? Those without a record who legally buy gun after gun after gun, then sell or hand over to gangs. Many cities--ones with democratic mayors, AGs, etc., will NOT bother to prosecute straw buyers. It takes a lot if work, funding, and again, they have no record so they get off easy. Not worth it to them.....but THIS is how so many illegal guns get on the streets of say, Chicago. The solution would be to enforce again, the guns laws that already exist. You don't have to prosecute every last straw buyer, but enough, and harshly enough, to send a message.

That is absolute horseshit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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!!!

Quote from the national review this week:

"The precise number of wrongly approved gun sales that the federal government allows to proceed and then fails to address is, at the moment, unknown, but the only acceptable number is zero."

Seriously who is responsible for this? Obama, congress, get on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

In fact, in some cities, then do not arrest for illegal gun possession (well, sales), even when it's clear a crime was committed. Ever hear of straw buyers? Those without a record who legally buy gun after gun after gun, then sell or hand over to gangs. Many cities--ones with democratic mayors, AGs, etc., will NOT bother to prosecute straw buyers. It takes a lot if work, funding, and again, they have no record so they get off easy. Not worth it to them.....but THIS is how so many illegal guns get on the streets of say, Chicago. The solution would be to enforce again, the guns laws that already exist. You don't have to prosecute every last straw buyer, but enough, and harshly enough, to send a message.

That is absolute horseshit.

Look up the ratio of illegal gun arrests to prosecutions. I've seen it before and it's not pretty all over the country. I'll gladly look it up, and we'll see who gets it first.

Anyway, who are you? Are you a conservative? I am. Why are you against the enforcement of existing laws? Are you liberal? Why would you want to do any additional bills without first addressing current laws? Why would you trust that a new bill would change anything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

In fact, in some cities, then do not arrest for illegal gun possession (well, sales), even when it's clear a crime was committed. Ever hear of straw buyers? Those without a record who legally buy gun after gun after gun, then sell or hand over to gangs. Many cities--ones with democratic mayors, AGs, etc., will NOT bother to prosecute straw buyers. It takes a lot if work, funding, and again, they have no record so they get off easy. Not worth it to them.....but THIS is how so many illegal guns get on the streets of say, Chicago. The solution would be to enforce again, the guns laws that already exist. You don't have to prosecute every last straw buyer, but enough, and harshly enough, to send a message.

That is absolute horseshit.

Look up the ratio of illegal gun arrests to prosecutions. I've seen it before and it's not pretty all over the country. I'll gladly look it up, and we'll see who gets it first.

Anyway, who are you? Are you a conservative? I am. Why are you against the enforcement of existing laws? Are you liberal? Why would you want to do any additional bills without first addressing current laws? Why would you trust that a new bill would change anything?

That data is here. I can't log in from my mobile--I can at work--but it's here.
http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/bulletins/jatf/monthlyapr16/gui/

And an article citing some of the data:
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/31/obama-gun-control-push-undercut-by-fall-in-prosecu/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

In fact, in some cities, then do not arrest for illegal gun possession (well, sales), even when it's clear a crime was committed. Ever hear of straw buyers? Those without a record who legally buy gun after gun after gun, then sell or hand over to gangs. Many cities--ones with democratic mayors, AGs, etc., will NOT bother to prosecute straw buyers. It takes a lot if work, funding, and again, they have no record so they get off easy. Not worth it to them.....but THIS is how so many illegal guns get on the streets of say, Chicago. The solution would be to enforce again, the guns laws that already exist. You don't have to prosecute every last straw buyer, but enough, and harshly enough, to send a message.

That is absolute horseshit.

Look up the ratio of illegal gun arrests to prosecutions. I've seen it before and it's not pretty all over the country. I'll gladly look it up, and we'll see who gets it first.

Anyway, who are you? Are you a conservative? I am. Why are you against the enforcement of existing laws? Are you liberal? Why would you want to do any additional bills without first addressing current laws? Why would you trust that a new bill would change anything?

That data is here. I can't log in from my mobile--I can at work--but it's here.
http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/bulletins/jatf/monthlyapr16/gui/

And an article citing some of the data:
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/31/obama-gun-control-push-undercut-by-fall-in-prosecu/

Another link for your reading pleasure. Before you call it shit:
http://m.startribune.com/part-3-illegal-gun-market-thrives-in-minn-penalties-light/200356861/

[Anonymous]

That's fine-let's prosecute.

But let's also fix the current laws, which is exactly what the senate dems are asking for with the terrorist watch list loophole. I just don't see how any reasonable person can be against that, at least in theory. I get that there are problems with the list in its current form, but why not address that to make it better and less problematic?

Can we please find places to compromise and stop retreating to our corners and refusing to budge?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How many 'criminals" have shot up schools and workplaces? Most of these guys bought guns legally, and even passed a background check. These guys weren't criminals until they started shooting at people.

I have kids. I don't worry about "criminals" shooting the school. I do worry about the crazies who can buy guns easily because they don't have a criminal record yet shooting the schools.

How many "criminals" have you shot at, or how many times have you had to use a gun to protect yourself from a criminal? Yes, I know it happens. But you know what seems to happens more frequently? Kids dying from an accidental shooting either from their own hands or other kids' hands. You know how many school shootings there were? Probably more than the number of times you might've had to use that gun to protect yourself.

This emotional tirade, based upon the author's unnatural fear of guns, is completely devoid of facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How many 'criminals" have shot up schools and workplaces? Most of these guys bought guns legally, and even passed a background check. These guys weren't criminals until they started shooting at people.

I have kids. I don't worry about "criminals" shooting the school. I do worry about the crazies who can buy guns easily because they don't have a criminal record yet shooting the schools.

How many "criminals" have you shot at, or how many times have you had to use a gun to protect yourself from a criminal? Yes, I know it happens. But you know what seems to happens more frequently? Kids dying from an accidental shooting either from their own hands or other kids' hands. You know how many school shootings there were? Probably more than the number of times you might've had to use that gun to protect yourself.

This emotional tirade, based upon the author's unnatural fear of guns, is completely devoid of facts.

Every shooter that shot up a school or bar was a criminal! They intended to commit a crime, set a plan, and executed a plan. They put a lot of time and effort into their plans - Columbine and San Hook illegally procured guns by theft. Orlando did so legally buT he would have found a way to murder all those people with or without legally getting guns. You don't spend all that time and effort planning something only to give up because you can't buy a gun. He could have made PVC pipe bombs just as easy (Columbine duo made almost a 100) or done something else. He planned on breaking the law by illegally carrying a handgun without a license, he illegally carried weapons into an establishment that sold alcohol, he illegally carried gun into an establishment with a no-carry sign, he illegally fired a weapon in a public establishment, he illegally shot over 100 individuals, and he illegally murdered 49 others. But I'm sure he NEVER would have illegally found a means to procure a weapon if he couldn't have legally bought one. How silly of me.

We can't even enforce current law and you think new ones will solve everything. Why not question why the FBI wasn't informed of his intent to purchase when the first gun shop turned him away and report suspicious behavior? Or when Disney reported his suspicious behavior? The FBI had him! What stopped them? Fix those laws. Enforce current laws.

[Anonymous]

After all of these tragedies people always come and out and say 'yeah we knew he was a wack job' so the government says 'if you see something, say something'. So people did and the future criminal was Investigated twice! Then again just prior to the shooting, a gun shop owner said no I'm not selling to you and reported it. The response...crickets. If we don't have the manpower to enforce and support current law then what? Create new laws that won't fix the issue? Or figure how how to strength and enforce current law and response to it when called upon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After all of these tragedies people always come and out and say 'yeah we knew he was a wack job' so the government says 'if you see something, say something'. So people did and the future criminal was Investigated twice! Then again just prior to the shooting, a gun shop owner said no I'm not selling to you and reported it. The response...crickets. If we don't have the manpower to enforce and support current law then what? Create new laws that won't fix the issue? Or figure how how to strength and enforce current law and response to it when called upon.

The unfortunate thing about the gun shop owner reporting him is that he didn't have a name, because nothing was sold. And no cameras got him.
Almost...if that was concerned, next time (I hope not), he'd give him a heck of a deal on something fairly innocuous (all our pepper sprays are on sale for $5! Or we're selling these target practice papers for $3 today.) and then he'd get s transaction and something to give to police.

[Anonymous]

Almost...if that was concerned, next time (I hope not), he'd give him a heck of a deal on something fairly innocuous (all our pepper sprays are on sale for $5! Or we're selling these target practice papers for $3 today.) and then he'd get s transaction and something to give to police.

Great suggestion. I had been wondering how they could have learned his name. But, even though they were concerned, I'm sure they never thought to the level of what occurred in Orlando. A license tag would also have been helpful.

[Anonymous]

Yet, again, fine-I'm willing to compromise that current laws can be better enforced. Help us figure out how to do that. Help us to figure out how to keep obvious whackos like this dude and Lanza and countless others from obtaining weapons.

But ffs, help us do something, anything, to stop this insanity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yet, again, fine-I'm willing to compromise that current laws can be better enforced. Help us figure out how to do that. Help us to figure out how to keep obvious whackos like this dude and Lanza and countless others from obtaining weapons.

But ffs, help us do something, anything, to stop this insanity.

One of the things we can do is to stop demonizing people who report things that are suspicious.
Remember how the teacher who reported the “clock boy” incident was treated and how this administration embraced clock boy and his family?
This kind of nonsense really discourages others to report suspicious behavior for fear they will be raked over the coals.