Paul Ryan has already come out and said they are going to focus on "mental health". This is a hell of a position to take when your party has been trying non-stop the entire year to strip 20-30 million people of their health insurance and gut Medicaid by a 1/3rd.
It looks like a case of people hiding behind the "oh, I'm oh so sensitive, you can't critise that" excuse for doing nothing.
Here is truth: caring leads to action. If you take no action, you don't care. To pretend otherwise is hypocrisy.
I don't care about people I don't know dying in far off places enough to do anything about it, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise because my honesty might hurt someone's feelings.
This thread is a tiny microcosm of the total paralysis on this issue. Those who want something done know nothing will change. Those who are skeptical of any extra regulations are convinced they won't do any good, or will take decades to wield results. So we sit, and we'll chat about it for another 48 hrs, then we'll talk about something else. Until in 3 months another maniac with a automatic rifle shoots up a mall food court, killing 45. And we'll do this same dance all over again. Same as it ever was. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Why didn't the Democrats take away the guns when the controlled both houses of Congress?
Unless you have 60 votes, you can't get much done because of the filibuster. I'm pretty sure a republican or two just might try to filibuster any gun regulation. They were determined to be obstinate because they could not stand a black president. With a simple majority then you can only do so much with budget reconciliation as we are seeing now.
Also the Democratic party then and today is pretty center right actually while the Republican party is just far looney tunes to the right. Do Democrats actually don't want to piss off the nutty Republican voters that love their guns even though those same types would probably never vote for them.
It looks like a case of people hiding behind the "oh, I'm oh so sensitive, you can't critise that" excuse for doing nothing.
Here is truth: caring leads to action. If you take no action, you don't care. To pretend otherwise is hypocrisy.
I don't care about people I don't know dying in far off places enough to do anything about it, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise because my honesty might hurt someone's feelings.
You can certainly say whatever you want and look like whatever it is you look like when you say terrible things. That's your right.
I can also say those things you said are terrible and we should be above trivializing the situation. Just opinions. Take it or leave it.
I'm thinking maybe the shooter did this to show the gun nut crowd the error of their ways.
As of 21 November 2013, the nuclear option now applies in the Senate, so any and all motions may be passed by a simply majority vote--this will be part of Harry Reid's legacy. (As of 6 April 2017, even Supreme Court nominees may be approved by simply majority vote, which is probably a bad idea--this will be Mitch McConnell's legacy.) It gets even better--many votes may be passed by a simple majority once a quorum is reached; a quorum for the Senate is 51, so a majority vote at quorum means that only 26 Senators have to vote "yea" on something and it passes. Unlike the rules of physics, you can bend the rules of politics until they break.
People care about the victims in Las Vegas right now because it happened only two days ago. 3 months from now no one will give a rip because they will have moved on (obviously, not the people who had friends/relatives who were victims).
Why didn't the Democrats take away the guns when the controlled both houses of Congress?
On this particular question, though, the answer is simple: they wouldn't have the authority to do what you suggest. Even if they passed a law tomorrow that said "owning any sort of gun is completely illegal for private citizens" that law would not retroactively apply to current gun owners. All it could accomplish would be to prevent people from trying to purchase or sell guns once the law is in effect and this presumes that no Federal Circuit court judge issues a stay on the law, preventing it from being implemented until it undergoes judicial review.
*************
The SCOTUS is hearing testimony today about a Wisconsin case involving gerrymandering. Any decision they render won't come in time for maps to be redrawn (if needed) for 2018 but they will for 2020.
This gerrymandering thing the left is bitching about now is hilarious to me. I never heard a peep about it when the Democrats controlled the House in the 70s and 80s. The district I was in was most of the Downriver Detroit area except for a sliver of land along the Detroit River that was considered part of a Detroit district. I always wondered about that until I found out later that particular area was very conservative so it was deliberately thrown into a Detroit district that was 90% Democrat leaning. Those nasty Republicans certainly aren't the only ones cooking the books, the shoe's just on the other foot now...
This gerrymandering thing the left is bitching about now is hilarious to me. I never heard a peep about it when the Democrats controlled the House in the 70s and 80s. The district I was in was most of the Downriver Detroit area except for a sliver of land along the Detroit River that was considered part of a Detroit district. I always wondered about that until I found out later that particular area was very conservative so it was deliberately thrown into a Detroit district that was 90% Democrat leaning. Those nasty Republicans certainly aren't the only ones cooking the books, the shoe's just on the other foot now...
Then we should be able to agree that gerrymandering is indefensible and should be illegal.
The best way to stop gerrymandering once and for all would be to use a set of district lines which are not defined by race, income, or other social/ethnic demographic and which do not change based on Census results--just use current Post Office-defined zip codes. Simple. If you live in 12345 and you don't like the politics in that code, then get involved and try to change it or move over to 12346 where the politics are more to your liking. If the population in a zip code gets too large for only one representative then people in that district will have to vote for two representatives. Drawing ridiculous maps which make follow no logic other than "this will fill the seat with a Republican (or Democrat)" should be absolutely illegal.
There is another way to improve maps and prevent them from becoming overbalanced politically--the party out of power in a State gets to redraw the district lines for the next election. That would be awesome, resulting in the flip-flop of R, D, R, D, R, D, etc until people get sick and tired of it and stop voting either D or R.
Ideally, we wouldn't be looking at individual cases, saying "this is illegal," and then reversing it. Ideally, we would have regulations on hand to prevent it from happening in the first place--which would not require litigating every single accusation.
We could prevent it by handing over the drawing of districts to an independent commission, but I think we should also have specific rules about how it should be done. We could minimize the distortion by simply requiring that districts be convex and that the population, area, and/or dimensions of the smallest district should be no more than 10% (or pick a number) less than the largest district.
This would make it nearly impossible for even a biased commission to gerrymander districts. And it would obviate the need for litigation or Supreme Court debates, because you don't need a committee to determine if one district is more than 10% larger than the other in terms of population or area. You can determine it by using hard, indisputable math.
The best way to stop gerrymandering once and for all would be to use a set of district lines which are not defined by race, income, or other social/ethnic demographic and which do not change based on Census results--just use current Post Office-defined zip codes. Simple. If you live in 12345 and you don't like the politics in that code, then get involved and try to change it or move over to 12346 where the politics are more to your liking. If the population in a zip code gets too large for only one representative then people in that district will have to vote for two representatives. Drawing ridiculous maps which make follow no logic other than "this will fill the seat with a Republican (or Democrat)" should be absolutely illegal.
There is another way to improve maps and prevent them from becoming overbalanced politically--the party out of power in a State gets to redraw the district lines for the next election. That would be awesome, resulting in the flip-flop of R, D, R, D, R, D, etc until people get sick and tired of it and stop voting either D or R.
Even simpler, take the census results and voting results and then create districts utilizing those results. Make it so there can't be less districts than the population that voted for that particular party. Then it doesn't matter how it's drawn up. Not sure how 3rd parties (or 4th, 5th, etc...) could be handled except giving them a district if they get over a certain threshold of votes.
I think the best way to stop gun violence in the states is to take both the NRA and federal government to civil court over a mass shooting like the one that just occurred.
Alleging that they least partially responsible for what had just occurred and seeking high damage costs will not only eat away at resources, but can end up being a PR nightmare for both, especially if the party suing does not settle out of court.
If they win, it opens the door for other suits be filed whenever an incident likes this happens till the government smartens up and realizes dealing with the devil isn't a good business practice.
This type of tactic was responsible for taking down the tobacco lobby, and the NRA maybe a tougher egg to crack, but give it enough time, they eventually will.
@deltago It will nearly impossible to prove culpability on the part of the NRA and/or the Federal Government in such a suit. Should the families of the victims in Oklahoma City have been able to sue Penske because McVeigh used one of their trucks in his attack? Were the airlines liable for the actions of the 11 Sept hijackers? Is Dodge liable for that actions of that murderer in Charlottesville? In all cases the answer is "no" because we clearly understand that a corporation is not liable for its customers misusing its products. This same logic applies to guns--if I buy a Glock and I kill someone with it the company is not responsible for my action; the extremity of my actions will be irrelevant, whether I shot another armed male or if I pick off kids at a little league game.
Yes, the bar is lower in a civil suit as compared to a criminal court but even if you managed to obtain a judgement it will likely be overturned or the other side will file a countersuit. That tactic did indeed work with cigarette manufacturers but filing this sort of case against the NRA would fail completely given that they are not the manufacturer of any of the guns used in these events.
@deltago It will nearly impossible to prove culpability on the part of the NRA and/or the Federal Government in such a suit. Should the families of the victims in Oklahoma City have been able to sue Penske because McVeigh used one of their trucks in his attack? Were the airlines liable for the actions of the 11 Sept hijackers? Is Dodge liable for that actions of that murderer in Charlottesville? In all cases the answer is "no" because we clearly understand that a corporation is not liable for its customers misusing its products. This same logic applies to guns--if I buy a Glock and I kill someone with it the company is not responsible for my action; the extremity of my actions will be irrelevant, whether I shot another armed male or if I pick off kids at a little league game.
Yes, the bar is lower in a civil suit as compared to a criminal court but even if you managed to obtain a judgement it will likely be overturned or the other side will file a countersuit. That tactic did indeed work with cigarette manufacturers but filing this sort of case against the NRA would fail completely given that they are not the manufacturer of any of the guns used in these events.
No, but they are nothing but a lobbying group for gun manufacturers. Incidentally, as is always the case, gun stocks have soared in the wake of another mass shooting. Because the paranoid ammosexuals are convinced gun control that never, ever materializes is just around the corner, and they add to their arsenal.
deltago It will nearly impossible to prove culpability on the part of the NRA and/or the Federal Government in such a suit. Should the families of the victims in Oklahoma City have been able to sue Penske because McVeigh used one of their trucks in his attack? Were the airlines liable for the actions of the 11 Sept hijackers? Is Dodge liable for that actions of that murderer in Charlottesville? In all cases the answer is "no" because we clearly understand that a corporation is not liable for its customers misusing its products. This same logic applies to guns--if I buy a Glock and I kill someone with it the company is not responsible for my action; the extremity of my actions will be irrelevant, whether I shot another armed male or if I pick off kids at a little league game.
Yes, the bar is lower in a civil suit as compared to a criminal court but even if you managed to obtain a judgement it will likely be overturned or the other side will file a countersuit. That tactic did indeed work with cigarette manufacturers but filing this sort of case against the NRA would fail completely given that they are not the manufacturer of any of the guns used in these events.
How do you file a countersuit against a person who was innocently attending a concert?
Yes it can be overturned, but the outcome isn't the reasoning for the trial. It's the media coverage and point blank rebuttal of every gun owner reason to be able to own one. It opens the debate and keeps it open for the course of trial (which is longer if they attempt to get it overturned) allowing Americans, many of them, allegedly for some sort of gun control, to be heard over lobbyist. Especially when those lobbyist have been putting out far more aggressive ads lately. That's all you need to state (not prove) to bring the NRA into it, that the aggression they have embodied helped influence this persons (or next mass shooter, because there will be a next) actions.
It's optics. It is attempting to take control of the narrative from the people who are saying, "it isn't time for knee jerk reactions, its time for mourning," and forcing it into a conversation through the courts.
How do you file a countersuit against a person who was innocently attending a concert?
*shrug* I have absolutely no idea. I am not a trial lawyer even though I portray one on TV.
Which aggressive ads? I haven't seen any NRA ads lately...then again, I don't watch TV and I don't listen to very much AM radio, except in the morning to get the traffic report before heading out the door. Anyway...if you have an ad in mind link it so the rest of us may understand what you mean.
Establishing a link between a lobbying group's *words* and an individual's *actions* is a slippery slope, even if it would be for a good cause. Once done, every established group will have to measure its public messages extremely carefully lest any individual misinterpret them and act out violently.
On the other side of the equation, a judge recently ruled that Black Lives Matter cannot be sued because it is not an established entity--there is no national organization, there are no chapters who pay dues, there is no set platform or mission statement, etc. Its amorphous nature gives it a layer of protection from that point of view even if it does hinder its ability to put together a cohesive message or lobbying effort. If a civil suit against the NRA seems likely, I suspect the organization could simply disassemble itself and cease all operations. Their lawyers have been playing the legal game for years (obviously).
@jjstraka34 *laugh* "ammosexuals" It is a shame you can't copyright that.
How do you file a countersuit against a person who was innocently attending a concert?
*shrug* I have absolutely no idea. I am not a trial lawyer even though I portray one on TV.
Which aggressive ads? I haven't seen any NRA ads lately...then again, I don't watch TV and I don't listen to very much AM radio, except in the morning to get the traffic report before heading out the door. Anyway...if you have an ad in mind link it so the rest of us may understand what you mean.
Establishing a link between a lobbying group's *words* and an individual's *actions* is a slippery slope, even if it would be for a good cause. Once done, every established group will have to measure its public messages extremely carefully lest any individual misinterpret them and act out violently.
On the other side of the equation, a judge recently ruled that Black Lives Matter cannot be sued because it is not an established entity--there is no national organization, there are no chapters who pay dues, there is no set platform or mission statement, etc. Its amorphous nature gives it a layer of protection from that point of view even if it does hinder its ability to put together a cohesive message or lobbying effort. If a civil suit against the NRA seems likely, I suspect the organization could simply disassemble itself and cease all operations. Their lawyers have been playing the legal game for years (obviously).
@jjstraka34 *laugh* "ammosexuals" It is a shame you can't copyright that.
Oh, I definitely can't take credit for that one. Among left-wing online circles that is common parlance.
Now there is confirmation that the shooter in Vegas had 12 "bump fire" stocks, which essentially turn semi-automatic weapons into automatic weapons. They are legal. Now, it has been mentioned that it is already very hard or impossible to get fully automatic weapons in many states. Fine. But that doesn't make a lick of difference if you can purchase a simple modification that circumvents them only being semi-automatic. That would be like outlawing chicken curry being served as a prepared meal, but still allowing people to go to the super-market and buy rice, chicken, and curry powder.
Something that has gone totally under the radar, and is beyond reprehensible: Today the UN voted on a resolution condemning the use of the death penalty as punishment for being gay. The United States voted AGAINST this resolution. The response here is going to be "who cares about a UN resolution, it means nothing". Fine. It doesn't mean anything. But we're on the record with being ok with this, and we're about to send Roy Moore to the Senate. If you are a LGBT citizen in this country, I'd be VERY wary of what is coming down the pike next in this Administration. Banning transgender service members from the military. An incoming Senator who thinks you're very existence is illegal. And an Administration that doesn't much care if people like you are EXECUTED in other countries.
Even in this one, it says "they use their movie stars, and singers, and comedy shows to repeat their narrative..."
It's a stretch, but that doesn't matter, what matters is the perception, and the aggressiveness of the ad. I am also grasping right now for this situation. Once more is known about the shooter and his motives can we paint a picture. This is generally speaking. If at some time, a known NRA supporter does this type of act, then you may have more grounds to go after them.
But, with this incident, if you can get politicians of both stripes saying that the NRA lobbied for the "bump fire" stocks, that there maybe enough to drag them into it. But once again, there's a lot of ifs to that.
But once again, it isn't winning or losing a civil case, it is bringing them in, under oath and forcing a dialog.
Establishing a link between a lobbying group's *words* and an individual's *actions* is a slppery slope, even if it would be for a good cause. Once done, every established group will have to measure its public messages extremely carefully lest any individual misinterpret them and act out violently.
Which is part of the point. Why have their ads and messages turned aggressive? Every message should be carefully screened to make sure that is the message they want to portray. With the NRA, they have happily said on interviews and follow up ads, this aggressive stance is here to stay and wasn't a mistake.
They swung wide right with an overly angry tone. Those that follow this association will mimic the message and guns and aggression should not be mixed.
Between 2001 and 2014, 440,095 deaths by firearms occurred on US soil, while deaths by terrorism during those years numbered 3,412. Today, America faces approximately one mass shooting per day on average.
On April 28, 1996, a 28-year-old Australian man named Martin Bryant opened fire with a gun. By the time Bryant was caught a day later, 35 people were dead and 23 wounded in what became the worst mass shooting in Australian history. 20 days later, they had passed reforms and now mass shootings are a thing of the past, a nearly non-existent problem.
I don't think anywhere else has the number of gun manufacturers, guns being produced for sale, or the stockpile of weapons, supplies, and modifications for those supplies. Now, I like my guns and the given privilege to carry them, so keep that in mind when reading.
So, maybe, and I am being serious here, even though it would be tough and a nasty fight. 1. Immediately shut down all gun manufacturing except for private contracts with the military. 2. Enact a recall of all licensed guns and ammo sold legally to private citizens and enforce harsh penalties and door to door searches for those that do not. 3. Serve search warrants on everyone else, business's, warehouse's, private property, etc., as they may have guns and ammo not reported ,passed down by family without a license, etc. 4. Do not bring this to a public vote in govt, just do it (I know..). 5. Repeal the right for a private citizen to be a licensed gun dealer and open a business as such, same with pawn store sales, gun shows, etc.
6. Remind me what one of my gun dealers from long ago said to me while he was quoting me scripture from the Bible, for a book he was writing on his C64 about Jesus, while at the same time telling another customer about the benefits of a .357 over a 9mm (one always had to hear some bible from him when goin in his store):
Him "I tell my son to keep one gun hidden, wrapped in silicone cloth, boxed and buried. One day you might have to shoot the president for taking away our rights on one issue or another. Now as I was saying, Jesus, right, see he..." A lil weird that guy but he had the best prices around.
Was he off his rocker, was he a seer from 25 years ago, seeing the election of some president taking ALL guns away or having just a rotten to the core president?
I never forgot that, and at the time I thought it a bit 'overboard', and bordering on a threat to a future president because I thought, no way would anyone limit a private citizen's right to personal defense.,. but just making a point.
Yes I know, not all guns, not out of homes, etc At the time though I was in working 3rd shift in a gas station, in a bad part of a big city next to the overpass of an interstate. That was when a .44 special would have to be my constant companion.
Honestly though, and taking into acct. my own belief in 'privilege' to own guns. I think those steps might work to a point. It would cause some bloodshed and bashed heads but it would probably stem the the tide of gun violence a little in this country.
Oh, forgot, 7. scan ALL incoming mail and internet traffic, to the letter.
Im all for it. But the NEXT time I am faced with another gun, held with ill intent, without mine... Mad would not begin to cover my thoughts. Even though, given my experiences of the last few years, death holds little fear over me any longer, as I have already faced it, I still have loved ones that do, and I feel the need to protect. The thought that really gets me though, would be allowing the bad seed hangin in some scumbag's pants, being allowed to propagate itself afterwards, and continue living, is a deal breaker for me.
Again, this is a serious proposition. AND, I wouldn't hide a thing, my hand on a Bible I say it true.
Responses to this serious proposition are welcome, and it is a VERY serious one at that.
Tell me Im not willing to do whatever it takes. Tell me Im not going against my beliefs to try and bring change. Tell me it would never do a darn thing (deaths would still occur but maybe a little less from guns here). Tell me that's crazy (yeah, I know...) and wouldn't do a thing.
Im open to ALL idea's, I really am.
I am for other ideas and I have papers written with the the possibilities of other actions to take but this is one that throws all the cards on the table. Papers, talkin, meetin, votin, lobbyin, more papers, more research, more votin, more hiding bills within bills goin for a vote, etc. etc. Yeah, I'll keep tying, and my skills and insight into some situations are increasing, but it get's mighty tiring sometimes. ------------------- One of my granddaddy's owned a logging co. and sawmill, and later, a building supply. He had a saying. "Sometimes it takes a 2x4 in ya hand and bein madder ina poked hornet's nest afore you can get people ta listen to some sense"
Now, 40 years after his death, even being trained in conflict management, especially in conflict negotiations, I have found this not entirely to be untrue.
Your damn right granddaddy , with Washington DC, your just about damn right. (sorry, these shootin's, machete choppin's, rights march clubbin's, bombin's, etc, really bug me, whether here or anywhere else in the world)
It's not the guns so much as the gun culture that's the issue. Somewhere like Finland for example has very high rates of gun ownership, but far lower gun crime.
Having said that I do think that restricting gun ownership would help in the longer term, though the reason for doing that would be more to do with culture and education rather than actual supply (and therefore I wouldn't suggest trying to confiscate existing weapons). Currently most of the messages about guns appear to be aimed at encouraging their use by everyone (the best way to stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun etc). If use was discouraged culturally instead (including far more limited use by law enforcement) that would help over time.
I'm not suggesting this would be an instant quick-fix, but it is surprising how quickly cultural change can come about when assisted by changes in the law and consistent attitudes within government. Examples of that I've seen in my life-time in the UK include for instance: - reductions in drink-driving - increases in wearing seatbelts - reductions in smoking, particularly in workplaces - far greater acceptance of LGBT
Yup, culture definitely plays a big part. Politicians and lobbyists getting everyone riled up about it all the time both helps and hurts at the same time it would seem. Both end in a darn stalemate. Most changes, with all things, take a little bit of getting used to.
Between 2001 and 2014, 440,095 deaths by firearms occurred on US soil, while deaths by terrorism during those years numbered 3,412. Today, America faces approximately one mass shooting per day on average.
On April 28, 1996, a 28-year-old Australian man named Martin Bryant opened fire with a gun. By the time Bryant was caught a day later, 35 people were dead and 23 wounded in what became the worst mass shooting in Australian history. 20 days later, they had passed reforms and now mass shootings are a thing of the past, a nearly non-existent problem.
The difficulty which gun control advocates face in the United States is always the Second Amendment, which expressly forbids Congress from restricting citizens' right to own guns. Since the Amendment does not quantify which types of guns, as written it means that private citizens can own *any* type of gun. Of course, there is no reason a private citizen *needs* a fully-automatic weapon....
Anyway, like I said, Congress is forbidden from enacting any laws which restrict our right to own guns. States, however, have no such restriction so the best road for gun control advocates to pursue is at the State level. That is a slow road, I know, but if that is the path you wish to pursue then that is where it leads.
*************
The shooter apparently had a prescription for diazepam, the active chemical in Valium. In some people, this chemical can cause aggressive tendencies.
It's not the guns so much as the gun culture that's the issue. Somewhere like Finland for example has very high rates of gun ownership, but far lower gun crime.
Having said that I do think that restricting gun ownership would help in the longer term, though the reason for doing that would be more to do with culture and education rather than actual supply (and therefore I wouldn't suggest trying to confiscate existing weapons). Currently most of the messages about guns appear to be aimed at encouraging their use by everyone (the best way to stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun etc). If use was discouraged culturally instead (including far more limited use by law enforcement) that would help over time.
I'm not suggesting this would be an instant quick-fix, but it is surprising how quickly cultural change can come about when assisted by changes in the law and consistent attitudes within government. Examples of that I've seen in my life-time in the UK include for instance: - reductions in drink-driving - increases in wearing seatbelts - reductions in smoking, particularly in workplaces - far greater acceptance of LGBT
I don't think anywhere else has the number of gun manufacturers, guns being produced for sale, or the stockpile of weapons, supplies, and modifications for those supplies. Now, I like my guns and the given privilege to carry them, so keep that in mind when reading.
So, maybe, and I am being serious here, even though it would be tough and a nasty fight. 1. Immediately shut down all gun manufacturing except for private contracts with the military. 2. Enact a recall of all licensed guns and ammo sold legally to private citizens and enforce harsh penalties and door to door searches for those that do not. 3. Serve search warrants on everyone else, business's, warehouse's, private property, etc., as they may have guns and ammo not reported ,passed down by family without a license, etc. 4. Do not bring this to a public vote in govt, just do it (I know..). 5. Repeal the right for a private citizen to be a licensed gun dealer and open a business as such, same with pawn store sales, gun shows, etc.
6. Remind me what one of my gun dealers from long ago said to me while he was quoting me scripture from the Bible, for a book he was writing on his C64 about Jesus, while at the same time telling another customer about the benefits of a .357 over a 9mm (one always had to hear some bible from him when goin in his store):
Him "I tell my son to keep one gun hidden, wrapped in silicone cloth, boxed and buried. One day you might have to shoot the president for taking away our rights on one issue or another. Now as I was saying, Jesus, right, see he..." A lil weird that guy but he had the best prices around.
Was he off his rocker, was he a seer from 25 years ago, seeing the election of some president taking ALL guns away or having just a rotten to the core president?
I never forgot that, and at the time I thought it a bit 'overboard', and bordering on a threat to a future president because I thought, no way would anyone limit a private citizen's right to personal defense.,. but just making a point.
Yes I know, not all guns, not out of homes, etc At the time though I was in working 3rd shift in a gas station, in a bad part of a big city next to the overpass of an interstate. That was when a .44 special would have to be my constant companion.
Honestly though, and taking into acct. my own belief in 'privilege' to own guns. I think those steps might work to a point. It would cause some bloodshed and bashed heads but it would probably stem the the tide of gun violence a little in this country.
Oh, forgot, 7. scan ALL incoming mail and internet traffic, to the letter.
Im all for it. But the NEXT time I am faced with another gun, held with ill intent, without mine... Mad would not begin to cover my thoughts. Even though, given my experiences of the last few years, death holds little fear over me any longer, as I have already faced it, I still have loved ones that do, and I feel the need to protect. The thought that really gets me though, would be allowing the bad seed hangin in some scumbag's pants, being allowed to propagate itself afterwards, and continue living, is a deal breaker for me.
Again, this is a serious proposition. AND, I wouldn't hide a thing, my hand on a Bible I say it true.
Responses to this serious proposition are welcome, and it is a VERY serious one at that.
Tell me Im not willing to do whatever it takes. Tell me Im not going against my beliefs to try and bring change. Tell me it would never do a darn thing (deaths would still occur but maybe a little less from guns here). Tell me that's crazy (yeah, I know...) and wouldn't do a thing.
Im open to ALL idea's, I really am.
I am for other ideas and I have papers written with the the possibilities of other actions to take but this is one that throws all the cards on the table. Papers, talkin, meetin, votin, lobbyin, more papers, more research, more votin, more hiding bills within bills goin for a vote, etc. etc. Yeah, I'll keep tying, and my skills and insight into some situations are increasing, but it get's mighty tiring sometimes. ------------------- One of my granddaddy's owned a logging co. and sawmill, and later, a building supply. He had a saying. "Sometimes it takes a 2x4 in ya hand and bein madder ina poked hornet's nest afore you can get people ta listen to some sense"
Now, 40 years after his death, even being trained in conflict management, especially in conflict negotiations, I have found this not entirely to be untrue.
Your damn right granddaddy , with Washington DC, your just about damn right. (sorry, these shootin's, machete choppin's, rights march clubbin's, bombin's, etc, really bug me, whether here or anywhere else in the world)
That reminds me of the movie Red Dawn where the Cuban leader sees a pick-up with the bumper sticker 'You'll have to pry my gun from my cold, dead hands' then bends over and pries a handgun out of the dead driver's hand...
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/02/las-vegas-gun-control-caleb-keeter-josh-abbott-band
Here is truth: caring leads to action. If you take no action, you don't care. To pretend otherwise is hypocrisy.
I don't care about people I don't know dying in far off places enough to do anything about it, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise because my honesty might hurt someone's feelings.
Unless you have 60 votes, you can't get much done because of the filibuster. I'm pretty sure a republican or two just might try to filibuster any gun regulation. They were determined to be obstinate because they could not stand a black president. With a simple majority then you can only do so much with budget reconciliation as we are seeing now.
Also the Democratic party then and today is pretty center right actually while the Republican party is just far looney tunes to the right. Do Democrats actually don't want to piss off the nutty Republican voters that love their guns even though those same types would probably never vote for them.
I can also say those things you said are terrible and we should be above trivializing the situation. Just opinions. Take it or leave it.
I'm thinking maybe the shooter did this to show the gun nut crowd the error of their ways.
People care about the victims in Las Vegas right now because it happened only two days ago. 3 months from now no one will give a rip because they will have moved on (obviously, not the people who had friends/relatives who were victims).
edit/add: On this particular question, though, the answer is simple: they wouldn't have the authority to do what you suggest. Even if they passed a law tomorrow that said "owning any sort of gun is completely illegal for private citizens" that law would not retroactively apply to current gun owners. All it could accomplish would be to prevent people from trying to purchase or sell guns once the law is in effect and this presumes that no Federal Circuit court judge issues a stay on the law, preventing it from being implemented until it undergoes judicial review.
*************
The SCOTUS is hearing testimony today about a Wisconsin case involving gerrymandering. Any decision they render won't come in time for maps to be redrawn (if needed) for 2018 but they will for 2020.
There is another way to improve maps and prevent them from becoming overbalanced politically--the party out of power in a State gets to redraw the district lines for the next election. That would be awesome, resulting in the flip-flop of R, D, R, D, R, D, etc until people get sick and tired of it and stop voting either D or R.
We could prevent it by handing over the drawing of districts to an independent commission, but I think we should also have specific rules about how it should be done. We could minimize the distortion by simply requiring that districts be convex and that the population, area, and/or dimensions of the smallest district should be no more than 10% (or pick a number) less than the largest district.
This would make it nearly impossible for even a biased commission to gerrymander districts. And it would obviate the need for litigation or Supreme Court debates, because you don't need a committee to determine if one district is more than 10% larger than the other in terms of population or area. You can determine it by using hard, indisputable math.
Alleging that they least partially responsible for what had just occurred and seeking high damage costs will not only eat away at resources, but can end up being a PR nightmare for both, especially if the party suing does not settle out of court.
If they win, it opens the door for other suits be filed whenever an incident likes this happens till the government smartens up and realizes dealing with the devil isn't a good business practice.
This type of tactic was responsible for taking down the tobacco lobby, and the NRA maybe a tougher egg to crack, but give it enough time, they eventually will.
Yes, the bar is lower in a civil suit as compared to a criminal court but even if you managed to obtain a judgement it will likely be overturned or the other side will file a countersuit. That tactic did indeed work with cigarette manufacturers but filing this sort of case against the NRA would fail completely given that they are not the manufacturer of any of the guns used in these events.
Yes it can be overturned, but the outcome isn't the reasoning for the trial. It's the media coverage and point blank rebuttal of every gun owner reason to be able to own one. It opens the debate and keeps it open for the course of trial (which is longer if they attempt to get it overturned) allowing Americans, many of them, allegedly for
some sort of gun control, to be heard over lobbyist. Especially when those lobbyist have been putting out far more aggressive ads lately. That's all you need to state (not prove) to bring the NRA into it, that the aggression they have embodied helped influence this persons (or next mass shooter, because there will be a next) actions.
It's optics. It is attempting to take control of the narrative from the people who are saying, "it isn't time for knee jerk reactions, its time for mourning," and forcing it into a conversation through the courts.
Which aggressive ads? I haven't seen any NRA ads lately...then again, I don't watch TV and I don't listen to very much AM radio, except in the morning to get the traffic report before heading out the door. Anyway...if you have an ad in mind link it so the rest of us may understand what you mean.
Establishing a link between a lobbying group's *words* and an individual's *actions* is a slippery slope, even if it would be for a good cause. Once done, every established group will have to measure its public messages extremely carefully lest any individual misinterpret them and act out violently.
On the other side of the equation, a judge recently ruled that Black Lives Matter cannot be sued because it is not an established entity--there is no national organization, there are no chapters who pay dues, there is no set platform or mission statement, etc. Its amorphous nature gives it a layer of protection from that point of view even if it does hinder its ability to put together a cohesive message or lobbying effort. If a civil suit against the NRA seems likely, I suspect the organization could simply disassemble itself and cease all operations. Their lawyers have been playing the legal game for years (obviously).
@jjstraka34 *laugh* "ammosexuals" It is a shame you can't copyright that.
Something that has gone totally under the radar, and is beyond reprehensible: Today the UN voted on a resolution condemning the use of the death penalty as punishment for being gay. The United States voted AGAINST this resolution. The response here is going to be "who cares about a UN resolution, it means nothing". Fine. It doesn't mean anything. But we're on the record with being ok with this, and we're about to send Roy Moore to the Senate. If you are a LGBT citizen in this country, I'd be VERY wary of what is coming down the pike next in this Administration. Banning transgender service members from the military. An incoming Senator who thinks you're very existence is illegal. And an Administration that doesn't much care if people like you are EXECUTED in other countries.
Even in this one, it says "they use their movie stars, and singers, and comedy shows to repeat their narrative..."
It's a stretch, but that doesn't matter, what matters is the perception, and the aggressiveness of the ad. I am also grasping right now for this situation. Once more is known about the shooter and his motives can we paint a picture. This is generally speaking. If at some time, a known NRA supporter does this type of act, then you may have more grounds to go after them.
But, with this incident, if you can get politicians of both stripes saying that the NRA lobbied for the "bump fire" stocks, that there maybe enough to drag them into it. But once again, there's a lot of ifs to that.
But once again, it isn't winning or losing a civil case, it is bringing them in, under oath and forcing a dialog.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-puerto-rico-hurricane-maria-trump-20171003-story.html
God I sure hope people learnt from their mistakes when they elected this... I don't even have words for it.
On April 28, 1996, a 28-year-old Australian man named Martin Bryant opened fire with a gun. By the time Bryant was caught a day later, 35 people were dead and 23 wounded in what became the worst mass shooting in Australian history. 20 days later, they had passed reforms and now mass shootings are a thing of the past, a nearly non-existent problem.
Now, I like my guns and the given privilege to carry them, so keep that in mind when reading.
So, maybe, and I am being serious here, even though it would be tough and a nasty fight.
1. Immediately shut down all gun manufacturing except for private contracts with the military.
2. Enact a recall of all licensed guns and ammo sold legally to private citizens and enforce harsh penalties and door to door searches for those that do not.
3. Serve search warrants on everyone else, business's, warehouse's, private property, etc., as they may have guns and ammo not reported ,passed down by family without a license, etc.
4. Do not bring this to a public vote in govt, just do it (I know..).
5. Repeal the right for a private citizen to be a licensed gun dealer and open a business as such, same with pawn store sales, gun shows, etc.
6. Remind me what one of my gun dealers from long ago said to me while he was quoting me scripture from the Bible, for a book he was writing on his C64 about Jesus, while at the same time telling another customer about the benefits of a .357 over a 9mm (one always had to hear some bible from him when goin in his store):
Him "I tell my son to keep one gun hidden, wrapped in silicone cloth, boxed and buried. One day you might have to shoot the president for taking away our rights on one issue or another. Now as I was saying, Jesus, right, see he..."
A lil weird that guy but he had the best prices around.
Was he off his rocker, was he a seer from 25 years ago, seeing the election of some president taking ALL guns away or having just a rotten to the core president?
I never forgot that, and at the time I thought it a bit 'overboard', and bordering on a threat to a future president because I thought, no way would anyone limit a private citizen's right to personal defense.,. but just making a point.
Yes I know, not all guns, not out of homes, etc
At the time though I was in working 3rd shift in a gas station, in a bad part of a big city next to the overpass of an interstate. That was when a .44 special would have to be my constant companion.
Honestly though, and taking into acct. my own belief in 'privilege' to own guns. I think those steps might work to a point. It would cause some bloodshed and bashed heads but it would probably stem the the tide of gun violence a little in this country.
Oh, forgot, 7. scan ALL incoming mail and internet traffic, to the letter.
Im all for it. But the NEXT time I am faced with another gun, held with ill intent, without mine...
Mad would not begin to cover my thoughts. Even though, given my experiences of the last few years, death holds little fear over me any longer, as I have already faced it, I still have loved ones that do, and I feel the need to protect. The thought that really gets me though, would be allowing the bad seed hangin in some scumbag's pants, being allowed to propagate itself afterwards, and continue living, is a deal breaker for me.
Again, this is a serious proposition. AND, I wouldn't hide a thing, my hand on a Bible I say it true.
Responses to this serious proposition are welcome, and it is a VERY serious one at that.
Tell me Im not willing to do whatever it takes.
Tell me Im not going against my beliefs to try and bring change.
Tell me it would never do a darn thing (deaths would still occur but maybe a little less from guns here).
Tell me that's crazy (yeah, I know...) and wouldn't do a thing.
Im open to ALL idea's, I really am.
I am for other ideas and I have papers written with the the possibilities of other actions to take but this is one that throws all the cards on the table.
Papers, talkin, meetin, votin, lobbyin, more papers, more research, more votin, more hiding bills within bills goin for a vote, etc. etc.
Yeah, I'll keep tying, and my skills and insight into some situations are increasing, but it get's mighty tiring sometimes.
-------------------
One of my granddaddy's owned a logging co. and sawmill, and later, a building supply. He had a saying. "Sometimes it takes a 2x4 in ya hand and bein madder ina poked hornet's nest afore you can get people ta listen to some sense"
Now, 40 years after his death, even being trained in conflict management, especially in conflict negotiations, I have found this not entirely to be untrue.
Your damn right granddaddy
(sorry, these shootin's, machete choppin's, rights march clubbin's, bombin's, etc, really bug me, whether here or anywhere else in the world)
Having said that I do think that restricting gun ownership would help in the longer term, though the reason for doing that would be more to do with culture and education rather than actual supply (and therefore I wouldn't suggest trying to confiscate existing weapons). Currently most of the messages about guns appear to be aimed at encouraging their use by everyone (the best way to stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun etc). If use was discouraged culturally instead (including far more limited use by law enforcement) that would help over time.
I'm not suggesting this would be an instant quick-fix, but it is surprising how quickly cultural change can come about when assisted by changes in the law and consistent attitudes within government. Examples of that I've seen in my life-time in the UK include for instance:
- reductions in drink-driving
- increases in wearing seatbelts
- reductions in smoking, particularly in workplaces
- far greater acceptance of LGBT
Anyway, like I said, Congress is forbidden from enacting any laws which restrict our right to own guns. States, however, have no such restriction so the best road for gun control advocates to pursue is at the State level. That is a slow road, I know, but if that is the path you wish to pursue then that is where it leads.
*************
The shooter apparently had a prescription for diazepam, the active chemical in Valium. In some people, this chemical can cause aggressive tendencies.
USA 112 guns per 100 residents
Finland 34 guns per 100 residents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
Not even comparable...