Not holding much hope and it's definitely too little too late for anyone shot in the past, but hopefully it's a start.
Gun control
- Thread starter ukbob
- Start date
Not holding much hope and it's definitely too little too late for anyone shot in the past, but hopefully it's a start.
Too right. Unfortunately even if Wayne Lapierre's grandchildren were slaughtered in the crowd last night he still wouldn't change his position. He would probably want the crowd to turn around and unload on the hotel. Such a fecking scumbag.
I remember liking her in Sessions' public hearing.
When the GOP leaders weren't telling her to be quiet and know her place, of course.
I would get banned and probably have a bunch of angry feminists after me if I was a reporter listening to her. I would immediately jump up and say "Well when is the right time you thunder cnut?"
I mean if it was a statement of "Now is not the time, let us mourn, but we will take up the question beginning this date at this time." (adn the time would have to be soon) I could go okay, fine. But all they are doing is trying to avoid the issue.
I despise her. Her and her fake Christian dad. It irritates me no end how she doesn't get challenged more. I think you should go to the next briefing and say that. I'll set up a GoFundMe page to help pay your legal fees.Next time ISIS do something is she going to say "now is not the time to discuss terrorism"??
Fecking idiot. Saying the lunatics are running the asylum is an insult to lunatics everywhere.
Everyone talking about the NRA - they were in favour of gun control, as was the Republican party/Reagan, when the Black Panthers started using their 2nd amendment rights.
That shows they can change under some types of pressure, though what precisely it would have to be this time I don't know.
That shows they can change under some types of pressure, though what precisely it would have to be this time I don't know.
Slowly, but surely the light comes on for some people. Just a shame so many are still completely in the dark.
ugly cow isn't she?
Seeing the usual crap about how easy it is to get guns illegally anyway. These people don't take into account that a) it isn't for most people and it'll be a lot harder for those who just flip but have no 'contacts', and b) the demand for guns will fall dramatically so less will be manufactured and eventually be harder to acquire, along with the amount of ammo to do something like this.
Comment is bang on.
those politicians that get money from the NRA to run for their seats are murderers.
simple.
They can stick their 'thoughts and prayers' up their arses.
simple.
They can stick their 'thoughts and prayers' up their arses.
People have made the argument that the 2nd Amendment was written at a very different time in history and automatic weapons didn't exist then right?
An important reminder that inflexible texts such as constitutions and doctrine that are sacred and above scrutiny are not good ways to govern. Why I hate the idea of a british version of a "constitution"..out of date as soon as it's written.
An important reminder that inflexible texts such as constitutions and doctrine that are sacred and above scrutiny are not good ways to govern. Why I hate the idea of a british version of a "constitution"..out of date as soon as it's written.
NRA wouldn't like that.
Aren't most "illegal guns" at first "legal guns"?
Or it can be used as a living document, not interpreted by a very strict previously fringe doctrine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution
v/s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism
Lapierre's son is actually in prison (or was, he may be out by now) for shooting someone in a road rage incident.
It's so great how the good guys with guns stopped this guy before he murdered 58 people and injured hundreds more. But again politicians will say how sad this all is and after that go to vote against background checks or any form of reasonable gun regulation. Same old, same old.
It's wasn't inflexible when it was "amended" tbf... In fact the Constitution (created in 1787 and fully enacted in 1789) has been amended a full 27 times. The 2nd coming in 1791, and the 27th, in 1992.
There are just sadly too many dumb, inflexible idiots (sorry, "patriots") to realise this.
Last edited:
Maybe nothing new for many, but...
It's sad reading the replies to his initial tweets. Lots seem more intent on relishing their chance to crow than welcoming a convert. The division is so entrenched now.
I couldn't agree more. It's just all so sad though. You're right about the division too, it's gone past the tipping point in my opinion. It's almost blind hatred for many, and I'm struggling to see how it can end well. It's going to take a lot of hard work, give and take, love and education and patience, that's for sure.
It's going to take one of these asshole right wings kid or someone close to them getting caught up in one of these situations to have any chance of gun laws being passed. If Newton didn't do it,I don't know what will. Either that or do what Chris Rock says and charge a $1000 a bullet. It's getting so common place now that it just numbs you. These people who are dead set against even a background check have blood on their hands too.
1) how many amendments have been amended?
2) the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10) aren't viewed as things that can be altered because they're not viewed as Rights granted by the government, but rather as Rights that existed before government and therefore are protected by the creation of government
Not trying to argue that gun laws shouldn't be enacted, just explaining the context of the American Bill of Rights.
There's a problem, going forward, when a society adheres most strongly to religious and constitutional laws framed in the long distant past. Things change, and the rate of change is accelerating. If a society tries to move forward while having its most fundamental laws stuck in the past it can't help but tear itself apart. Add to that the fact that money is the new god, and that politics is ruled by lobbying, and that the spread of (mis) information is in the hands of rich and powerful megalomaniacs... Well. It's going to end in tears, isn't it?
If Sandy Hook did not get gun controls, nothing will.
While I understand that argument, the right to keep and bear arms isn't the only thing we would be opening up for amendment here...
Our freedom of speech, religion, press, and assembly are part of the Bill of Rights.
Our right to due process, privacy, to trial by jury, freedom from self incrimination, quartering of soldiers, unreasonable search and seizure, double jeopardy, excessive bail, and cruel and unusual punishment are part of the Bill of Rights.
Those things weren't granted to us by the government, therefore they also cannot be taken away by it. If we throw that away, then what?
Again, I think gun control needs to happen. But with the foundation of the Bill of Rights being one that says the Rights existed before government did, they cannot come through an amendment to that Bill, and frankly it is a waste of time trying to do that.
Which do you think is legally more feasible?
A 28th amendment saying that "Notwithstanding anything said in <whatever part of the const contains the 2nd amendment>, states may pass any law restricting the sale of weapons including firearms" or an amendment that junks the 2nd a. from the constitution?
What you said also reminds me of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_structure_doctrine
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying everything should be chucked out and redrawn. Some things are clearly unsuited to the present and future and must change though or you're fecked.
Basically the most feasible thing that could happen is something like your proposed 28th Amendment... but it already exists in the form of the 10th Amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Those changes will have to come through Congressional legislation and within the bounds of the Bill of Rights.
You can enact much stronger gun control legislation within the bounds of the 2nd Amendment
You (America) really have to change so many things. If you don't it's going to be worse. Can you imagine? A worse president. More and more horrific gun crimes. A more deluded view of the wider world. More, not less, inequality and racism. More religious bigots. It doesn't look good.
Ah I forgot the US vs state dichotomy of US laws.
But from what I know, the 14th amendment means that the constitution including bill of rights is applicable to states as well, and hence state laws must comply with the 2nd amendment (and both this and the meaning of the 2nd amendment itself was tested by DC v Heller). Which means that ordinary legislation which calls for a wide ban will be overturned.
*I re-read DC v Heller and the 2nd amendment, and now I rephrase my 28th to "restricting the sale and ownership of...". Do you think, legally, such an amendment could be used even against the bill of rights? Is there any precedent for anything within the bill of rights being challenged?
there is so much misinformation. that all guns will be taken away. We have so many rural communities.
There really is no need for automatic weapons. They belong with military.
But its about money.
That is why we have all this.
There really is no need for automatic weapons. They belong with military.
But its about money.
That is why we have all this.
I agree with you completely here. Guns are only one of a myriad of issues we are facing. To me, what we are seeing is something like the internal disintegration of Rome in the years preceding the Barbarian conquest.
Much more stringent gun control laws could be passed and still be Constitutional. I mean... we had an Assault Weapons Ban from 1994 to 2004 in this country.
While I agree with you, it is being reported that the shooter in question altered semiauto weapons to fire full auto.
there is no need for them either.
obviously you know more about such things.
I have no problems with people owning hunting rifles or hand guns.
But even with these there needs to be background checks and wait times.
I always mention Canada. What are they doing right?
Dwayne is the poster I always say is a good example.
Even for these automatic weapons, there are gun clubs where they can be used and kept there. Keeping guns under lock and key. Licenses. We need a license to drive a car.
It boils down to money and corruption. Just look at the health care vote they tried to ram down.
Follow the money.
Personally I would love to own an old love western revolver. Perhaps go use it in a range.
But my wife will have none of it.
But my wife will have none of it.