Filibuster for Gun Safety

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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

Right, but there's this tricky little matter of the Constitution. Either approach is fine with me, but civil libertarians (not just Second Amendment nut jobs) might differ.

[Anonymous]

http://www.zmescience.com/science/gun-control-works/

"Around the world there have been many changes in gun control legislation, yet pinpointing with clarity which measures are effective in reducing firearm related mortality proves to be a challenge. This systematic review aims to make sense of all this clutter. The evidence strongly points to reductions in firearm deaths after the simultaneous application of law restricting firearm use."

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-oe-hemenway-guns-20150423-story.html
"I also found widespread confidence that a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates (62% vs. 9%). Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%)."

More interesting reading here:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/report/the-science-of-gun-violence-and-gun-control-in-the-u-s/

Such as...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-slow-firearm-death-without-banning-all-guns/

"The NRA has cynically framed the debate as a choice between banning all guns and doing nothing. It is a false choice. Congressman Dickey, for one, has recanted; he has publicly stated that firearms research is the best way to reduce the violence. We didn't have to ban automobiles to cut roadway fatalities, and we don't have to ban all guns to reduce gun-related deaths. All we need is a willingness to examine the causes of violence with dispassion—and the stomach to go where the data lead."




Let's at least try **something**.

[Anonymous]

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

Flying is not a constitutional right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I have been wondering about one thing . Why can't we do for guns , what we did for prohibition? The 21 amendment repealed prohibition, however it gave states wide latitude to regulate the distribution , retail and consumption of alcoholic beverages with little to no federal involvement .

The results can be seen in how different laws governing alcoholic beverages vary widely by states . In some states you can buy beer and wine at a grocery store, in others you can't . In some states you buy can spirits on a Sunday , in others you can't . These are just a few examples

We may be living in the same country but we are not culturally alike and we don't face the same realities . It is absurd for millions of people to be held hostage by some antiquated law that brings nothing but carnage every other day in this country . Does anyone really think that if voters in say California , MD, DC , NY, NJ to name a few were to head to the ballot to decide whether to keep or ban guns , that the outcome will be the same ?

Booze is free-flowing in every county and city in the country (as it was during Prohibition) as is pot, cocaine and heroin. Low tax cigarettes are smuggled by the vanful from Virginia to NY every day. Guns used to be practically illegal in DC yet it was the murder capital at one time. Even if there were a gun ban, you would have a hard time rounding up the 300 million guns out there and have an even harder time keeping new ones from coming in from Mexico.

-Gun ownership is illegal in Mexico . Guns used by drug cartels are manufactured and sold by American citizens and gun manufacturers
-Booze isn't free flowing in every county in this country . How old are you? Ever heard of dry counties ? America may be consuming a lot of drugs but the idea that these drugs are free flowing is something only a liar could come up with . Cigarette smuggling might be a thing , but it is extremely niche and the ATF ( assuming you know what that is ) is the regulatory body in charge of cracking down on tobacco smuggling . Speaking off , how many lives are lost to tobacco smuggling ? As opposed to gun violence ?
-DC murder problem was intricately tied to the easy access to guns that assholes like you continue to shamefully peddle. Drug trafficking is not an American exclusivity . Whenever there's demand for drugs , there's going to be individuals or organizations ready to corner the market . If Germany doesn't gang murders , it isn't because of the absence of gangs or better yet their unwillingness to resort to murder, they happen to operate in countries where political leaders have had the common sense to know that guns shouldn't be things you easily get access to.
- if you actually read and understood what I wrote then you wouldn't be making dumb arguments about rounding up 300 million firearms , hence the need to tackle this issue at the state level . It appears that you've gotten a red state style of education , which is why you're inadvertently advocating for the status qui. I hope for your own sake you don't have kids , at the rate at which things are going, yours could be next . Careful what you wish for

Jeez, put down the wine and go to bed.

Says the intellectual midget . Let me know when you're actually able ( if ever) to bring pertinent arguments defending the status quo. Until then, you're free to maintain your cognitive abilities at daycare level .

[Anonymous]

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

Flying is not a constitutional right.

"[Gun ownership] is not an absolute right....there's not an individual right to any firearm under any conditions at any time that you want it."
Sen. Murphy

[Anonymous]

Ok, they will vote. Now let's take note on how these votes go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has ANY control law proved to prevent crime?

We don't need gun "safety". We need criminal safety.

Take all guns away and criminals will still have them. That's because they're criminals, and criminals don't obey laws.

But it's harder. Mass shooters like Mateen and the Sandy Hook shooters weren't part of some criminal gang. Where would they have gotten a gun? I'm not in favor of abolishing all guns by the way- but I am in favor of restricting semi-automatic weapons to police/military use. And other common sense measures.

Nut what do you mean by "criminal safety" exactly?

The vast majority of all gun today are semi-auto including revolvers. 1 pull, 1 bullet, gun cycles itself for the next round. Perhaps you mean semi-autimatic rifles?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

+1


People are more inconvenienced by an inability to fly when the have family or work commitments than by not being able to immediately purchase a gun.

[Anonymous]

^^ and I want to add, I know this is the ACLU's position, too, not just NRA's. Let me be clear: I'm a liberal and sometimes (often?) I think the ACLU is just wrong.

[Anonymous]

Bernie Sanders was noticeably absent. So weird.

[Anonymous]

This won't accomplish anything

How many perpetrators of mass shootings have been on the terror list..... answer a big fat 0

Why waste precious capitol on a non-issue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bernie Sanders was noticeably absent. So weird.

If you look at his record on gun issues, maybe it's not so weird?