Dec. 27, 2014 |
See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
Cowardly U.S. Senate thwarts will of public on gun safety
The U.S. Senate’s handling of a gun safety package was cowardly and contemptible.
With a series of procedural votes, most Republican senators and a handful of Democrats opted Wednesday afternoon to not even debate modest gun safety measures. They included a bipartisan bill to close the loophole that allows people to purchase weapons at gun shows without a background check. Proposals to limit the size of gun magazines and to ban some of the most deadly assault weapons were also struck down without debate.
“All in all, this was a pretty shameful day in Washington,” President Barack Obama said in a news conference.
A very shameful day. What kind of a governing body responds to a national crisis by refusing to even discuss it openly and publicly?
On the background check measure, 54 senators voted to advance the bill, 46 voted against. Republicans Pat Roberts and Jerry Moran of Kansas
And I thank our Senators for voting against these bad bills. I also find it interesting that none of the liberals are complaining that the Dems voted against several bills that would have actually helped the situation by providing resources to actually address the problems of violence and mental health...
This Congress may go down in history as one of the most corrupt, irresponsible and moronic in the history of our country.
Most of them work for the NRA or corporations. They don't even bother listening to the people anymore.
I think what we've forgotten is that WE live in a free country. If you don't like it, leave!! I will NOT allow anyone to infringe on MY rights!! I've lost family members in the armed services fighting for these rights and I will not give them up without a fight.
I think we have also forgotten that if someone wants to cause large causalities they will find a way. Look at the Boston Marathon!!!! Explosives are illegal but yet I can go to the grocery store and buy the stuff to make a bomb.
Wake up people. Trying to take away or restrict my right to purchase and own a firearm is not going to fix the mental illness in this country!! It is time to take another approach like requiring or allowing Law Enforcement access to mental health records so that when a medical professional comes across a patient that it mentally ill and poses a threat, the real professionals can take action!!
Thank you NRA!!
All the want you to do is a background check. How is that taking away your rights? Are you afraid you wouldn't pass? Do you think felons have a right to own guns? Do you think that mentally ill people have a right to own guns?
It's very simple, really. Many of the anti-gun crowd have stated they want to start with background checks, then with mandatory registration, and finally with confiscation. Personally, I don't disagree with background checks-but too often we (the people) have been lied to, mislead, etc. Obamacare is a good example. And the criminals and mentally ill among us aren't likely to submit to a background check anyway They'll just (continue) to steal the guns they use.
"Do you think felons have a right to own guns? "
"Do you think that mentally ill people have a right to own guns?"
Until they have been adjudicated dangerous by a judge, yes.
"Are you afraid you wouldn't pass?"
I have agoraphobia. That is a mental illness. I will not harm any living creature outside of self-defense and you seem to think I should be prevented from owning a gun.
And you wonder why we stand up and fight back to preserve our constitutional rights.
Sorry about the agoraphobia - that must make life very difficult.
I take it you're a vegetarian then? "I will not harm any living creature,..."
Agoraphobia is pretty nasty. It is somewhat controlled, but I can't drive more than about 3 miles away from home alone before it kicks in. As for being a vegetarian, no, we buy meat that someone else killed.
So much for not harming any living creatures except in self-defense then.
The fact that somebody else did the actual killing doesn't really absolve you of responsibility if you choose to eat it, in my view.
Felons, unless you know something we ALL don't already know, can't own guns. Federal Law
Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.” Where are you coming up with these questions? This isn't what I hope to expect coming from you throughout the rest of your posts is it?
But even a felon can buy a gun over the internet or in a gun show, since they won't check. Does it make sense to you?
so you're advocating for improvements in reinforcement of the existing laws then? Super! Let's start with mandatory background checks, always.
I agree completely... However I am not pushing to ban the sale of certain guns just because of the caliber or magazine capacity. Let's all remember that just recently in the news a child died of a BB gun wound. I don't think that we should now start regulating BB guns now. I think SAFETY should be taught at a young age if guns are present in a household. I have many guns in my house and I have a 5 year old. My son knows to never touch any guns and I keep them locked up as well. Mandatory background checks is a great addition however, and I agree with you on that.
Thank you Skinny...
It matters not that a "majority" support universal background checks. The Bill of Rights exists to protect citizens from a tyranny of the majority. If you don't like it, work to amend it or repeal it. But don't try to legislate end-runs around it. If we go down that road, we might as well toss the entire document in the trash for all it will be worth.
That being said, can anyone name a mass shooting that would have been prevented by universal background checks?
this is hilarious, its like you don't know how government works, if the fore fathers knew how corrupt the government was they would go back to England
Obviously, you are unfamiliar with the Supreme Court's ruling on the subject of the limits on the Second Amendment. This is what Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion in the Heller case. In case you don't know what the Heller case was, it is the basis for the claim you are making concerning the right of an individual to bear arms, rather than the right of a well regulated militia.
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
So, KSManimal, there was absolutely nothing unconstitutional about the proposed legislation. And as for your objection that it wouldn't be effective, that isn't an argument against legislating gun controls. Instead, it's an argument in favor of still stricter legislation. Have every citizen who wishes to own a firearm register for ownership, just like every citizen who wishes to vote must register. Make the owners criminally and civilly liable if they or any another, unregistered, person misuses that firearm. Do the same with ammunition. Anyone guilty of an infraction loses the right to bear arms, permanently. That wouldn't stop all shootings, but it would reduce them significantly. And it wouldn't inhibit responsible gun owners at all.
Or maybe, KSManimal, you goal is to continue to allow dangerous and irresponsible people free access to firearms?
Funny how majority rule is hand picked depending on the subject. I guess since majority rules, we should dump Obamacare
Reports national telephone survey finds that 47% of Likely U.S. Voters now view the health care law favorably, while 49% have an unfavorable opinion of it. This includes 18% who regard the law Very Favorably and twice as many (35%) with a Very Unfavorable view.
I find it ironic that so many who wish to do away with guns altogether (citing safety concerns) have no trouble killing unborn babies. Why is that?
BlackVelvet, name one dozen specific persons (that's a minimum to meet the "so many" classification in my book) who has publicly endorsed both confiscation of all firearms and abortion. Provide links to reputable sources. If you can't do it, then you are just blowing incendiary smoke, attributing to other people views they do not hold.
I applaud the decision by the US Senate on the Manchin-Toomey proposal. It was a very bad bill, would have done nothing to prevent gun violence, and four Democrats helped ensure that it did not become law. Law Professor and expert on Second Amendment law discussed the problems with the bill at the Volokh.com law blog.
Which is the more rational, and more likely successful, approach to dealing with gun violence?
..."In the hours before the vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) also attempted to rally last-minute support for the bill by issuing an ominous warning to his colleagues.
“If tragedy strikes again…if innocents are gunned down in a classroom, theater or restaurant, I would have trouble living with myself as a senator, as a husband, a father, or grandfather and friend, knowing that I didn’t do everything in my power to prevent that incident,” Reid said."
From a peer reviewed publication (American Behavioral Scieintist) by one of the most outstanding researchers on guns and violence.
Mass Shootings in Schools
The Worst Possible Case for Gun Control
Florida State University, Tallahassee
The most frequent policy lesson drawn following the Columbine school shootings was the need for more gun controls. Review of the details of both Columbine and other contemporary school shootings indicates, however, that the specific gun control measures proposed in their aftermath were largely irrelevant and almost certainly could not have prevented the incidents or reduced their death tolls. These measures included restrictions on gun shows, child access prevention laws mandating locking up guns, and bans on assault weapons. Ironically, exploitation of school shootings for the advocacy of irrelevant gun controls may have obscured the genuine merits of various gun control measures for reducing “ordinary” gun violence. Thus, mass school shootings provided the worst possible basis for supporting gun control.
During the Clinton era Bill finally figured out that gun control was a loser for Democrats and so he dropped this foolishness. The SNL skit they did on gun control is a blatant admission where the votes are. The people do not support gun control nation wide. Heidi Heitkamp, the newly minted Democratic Senator from North Dakota voted against gun control. Do you actually think she could get re-elected ever in North Dakota voting for gun control?
People nationwide are buying weapons at a feverish pace and they're setting records for obtaining concealed carry permits. Do we actually think they're doing that so they can support gun control?
The President needs to get busy on the economy and forget all of these distractions. he should be showing the way to economic prosperity, not tilting at windmills. That was Bill Clinton's great secret and is still revered as a great leader in spite of his personal problems.
"THEY'RE COMING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY!! STOCK UP NOW!!"
Yes, they are.
"“I am really chagrined and concerned. If anybody cares, vote at least to prospectively ban the manufacture, the sale, the importation of military-style assault weapons,” she said in remarks on the Senate floor."
Time to get over the fixation of an inanimate object(guns) and recognize that America has a violence problem. Maybe if our government started addressing the why instead of the what, things might get better in this country. Time to reevaluate our failed war on drugs, reducing drug related violence. Not saying all violence is drug related, but if we could reduce the crime linked to the buying and selling of drugs we'd put a big dent in violent crime in this country.
There are increasing official reports that thugs are breaking into occupied Lawrence homes. When you dig though the pile of emoting, this issue is the one that settles the issue.
One could not have found a better person to debate our second amendment rights than Patricia Stoneking. This lady knows guns, the constitution, and politics from top to bottom. A few years ago I was writing a letter to try and help the students get concealed carry on campus. Pat let me know in no uncertain terms that the wording I used was not what they wanted. The students did not tell me what was needed, but she sure did. Since then I have had the utmost respect for this lady. We came to agreement very quickly, and I have counted her as a good friend ever since. We are indeed fortunate to have her in our corner.
Does anyone have any idea how many guns (all types) are in the USA at present, not counting those owned by police or the military services? I suspect the number is so high that gun control is futile. The only way to fix this is to confiscate all guns from everyone, shut down the gun companies,gun shows, retailers and make all guns illegal under any circumstance. Also shut down all ammunition plants except for those making ammunition specifically for the police & military services. All the other support companies (parts, etc.) would just fade away. And we also know this is not going to happen, right?
(let's re-visit a certain argument having to do with the recent i.d. law for voting)
"You need an i.d. for everything! I need to show mine to cash a check, drive, etc.... I find it perfectly acceptable to need one to vote" Can't we use the same discussion for background checks? "I need to pass a background check to rent a house, get a loan, get a job, etc... I find it perfectly acceptable to pass one to buy a gun" ???
How come it's ok to require an i.d. to vote but not pass a background check for acquiring a firearm? Isn't it the same idea?
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies
1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.
You not only have to show an ID to vote, but you also have to register, in advance, at a specific residence. You are allowed to exercise your right to vote only at specific places and specific times. And voting, also, is a constitutionally-guaranteed right, and arguably one even more basic than owning a firearm. So, if you have to register to exercise your right to vote, why shouldn't you have to register in order to exercise your right to bear arms?
One of the biggest advocates for the NRA; a multimillionaire who has been a member since 1975, has resigned from the NRA's board of directors and the organization. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/18/adolphus-busch-iv-nra_n_3112750.html
In his resignation, Adolphus Busch IV, an avid hunter and gun sportsman stated,
"The NRA I see today has undermined the values upon which it was established," wrote Busch, who also dropped his NRA membership. "Your current strategic focus clearly places priority on the needs of gun and ammunition manufacturers while disregarding the opinions of your 4 million individual members."
The heir to the beer fortune also said, "It disturbs me greatly to see this rigid new direction of the NRA." He singled out the gun lobby's reversal of its 1999 position in favor of universal background checks, as well as its opposition to an assault weapons ban and a ban on high-capacity magazines. "I am simply unable to comprehend how assault weapons and large capacity magazines have a role in your vision," he wrote."
Licensed firearms dealers are required to do background checks at gun shows and when you buy a gun on the internet. So technically a felon cannot buy a gun at a gun show or on the internet. However, felons always seem to get guns anyway. Maybe they don't obey the laws we already have in place.
So should we just do away with all laws, since they're not 100% effective?
It is much harder for people to buy pot than it would be if it were legal - it's more expensive, and you have to associate with folks who are breaking the law. Anybody who wants a drink can buy liquor at a variety of stores, and/or go to a bar, without having to associate with criminals.
So, why have laws at all, since criminals will just disobey them?
It's an odd argument, to say the least.
There are numerous loopholes in our gun laws right now, all of which make it much easier for those who shouldn't have guns to get them. Why on earth is it a bad idea to make that harder? Do you lock your doors and windows? Why, since criminals who really want to can still break in?
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Find more businesses on Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment ·