Sen. Diane Feinstein to Introduce Gun Control Bill

[Glas Ridire]

Wouldn't the logical outcome involve conservatives taking up guns and fighting the government NOW or could the first statement simply be a fantasy of theirs?

For how long was there discontent over perceived injustices by the English before the American Revolution? Was there not a tipping point, some issue or issues that caused it to boil over? It could be a fantasy that history doesn't repeat for those who refuse to learn it.

 

[JCSr]

Have you ever been to Chicago? Seriously, Chicago had gun bans, and was more dangerous that Baghdad, Iraq...

What the Democrats are trying to do is profit off of a horrible situation in order to push through something to disarm law abiding citizens.

What I'd like to know is why the Police Officer that was supposed to be at the school, didn't do anything. Oh right, that program had been DEFUNDED!

Profit? Each time one of these massacres occurs, the only people profiting are gun manufacturers because of increased gun sales.

 

[Glas Ridire]

Profit? Each time one of these massacres occurs, the only people profiting are gun manufacturers because of increased gun sales.

Were that true the only thing that spurs those increased sales is talk about gun bans enacted by democrats so who is to blame? Certainly not the manufacturers who don't alter their web pages one iota, certainly not the stores that either price gouge or leave prices the same. . .. seems to me the Democrats are responsible for adding more guns by rattling that "gun ban" sabre.

 

[Quincunx]

What good does taking guns away from me, and about 80 million other law abiding citizens do?

So what's the answer? Do we need more guns? We already have laws on gun ownership and the studies show lots of confusing and mixed messages.

What's the answer?

And when there's another horror show of gun violence that takes place in a month or two, what will the answer be?

Just tell us loony lefties: what is the answer?

 

[Quincunx]

Were that true the only thing that spurs those increased sales is talk about gun bans enacted by democrats so who is to blame? Certainly not the manufacturers who don't alter their web pages one iota, certainly not the stores that either price gouge or leave prices the same. . .. seems to me the Democrats are responsible for adding more guns by rattling that "gun ban" sabre.

So, what is the answer?

Last week alone there were two random rampage gun horrors. Connecticut overshadowed the earlier gunning in a mall in Portland.

Guns. Virginia Tech? Guns. Aurora? Guns. Columbine? Guns.

So if we want to have fewer cases where innocent people get gunned down what is the ANSWER.

The folks who like the guns, tell us what the answer is. More guns?

Is that it? Are we insufficient armed? Too few people with guns?

What is the answer?

 

[MachZer0]

Here's a "third way"....maybe, just maybe the US Government isn't sitting there waiting to destroy you. Maybe, just maybe, the "magic" that is America is that we actually have a stable society.

The government probably doesn't NOT destroy us because we have guns ourselves, but because we are the Government in this glorious experiment.

Maybe the problem we have is that some of us live their lives fantasizing about how they could hold off a government gone rogue and they see every action the government takes that they personally don't like as a direct threat to life and liberty.

Raise taxes on the richest? Oh noes!!! The gubmint is using the money to make FEMA COFFINS and CONCENTRATION CAMPS!

Healthcare reform so more people can get healthcare? OH NOES! The gubmint is going to EUTHANIZE OLD PEOPLE and experiment on the young!

Jeezly, the sheer level of paranoia on the Right would lead me to believe that if we actually had mental health tests as a prerequisite for gun ownership many of the staunchest gun advocates would fail!

Ugh.

The government is changing and there are no guarantees that it won't move to brutalize the citizenry. Moreover, healthcare laws demonstrate the government's willingness to exert power and control over our lives. When the day comes, some people will be prepared to defend their freedom, others will be prepared to acquiesce.

 

[jayem]

Just tell us loony lefties: what is the answer?

Don't you know? More people coming to Jesus. Or at least being more God-fearing. That's the answer for most everything.

Though as Bertrand Russell said, "If Christianity is supposed to make men moral, I haven't noticed it."

 

[JCSr]

Were that true the only thing that spurs those increased sales is talk about gun bans enacted by democrats so who is to blame? Certainly not the manufacturers who don't alter their web pages one iota, certainly not the stores that either price gouge or leave prices the same. . .. seems to me the Democrats are responsible for adding more guns by rattling that "gun ban" sabre.

When in doubt, blame a democrat.

Don't blame the gun manufactures

 

[GarfieldJL]

So what's the answer? Do we need more guns? We already have laws on gun ownership and the studies show lots of confusing and mixed messages.

What's the answer?

And when there's another horror show of gun violence that takes place in a month or two, what will the answer be?

Just tell us loony lefties: what is the answer?

Thing is, the guy could have waited until the kids were leaving the school and just as easily had used his mom's car to run down as many kids as possible as they were walking to the school bus, should we ban cars now?

He could have gone on a rampage with a chainsaw, should we ban those?

He could have gone on a rampage with a sword or a knife, should we ban those (heck there was a guy in China whom stabbed/slashed 20 kids (thankfully the it seems guy didn't know much about anatomy cause nobody got killed, but it could have easily resulted in a similar body count)).

If you want to see a shining example of gun bans, maybe you should look at Chicago, because it shows just how stupid gun bans are.

Or you want to ban people whom have "mental illness" from owning guns, well define "mental illness?"

I know of several people whom are Autistic/Aspergers whom own firearms and none of them would even contemplate going on a shooting spree in a school, let alone actually going on a shooting spree in a school...


Furthermore, the state in question has strict gun laws, and they didn't do much good, because the shooter really didn't care what the law was.

Btw, after what happened with Fast & Furious, I actually do think we need to question the motivations of our Government. It could easily be that Fast & Furious was intended to cause mass shootings and gun violence in an attempt to generate more gun control laws. Fortunately, the gun dealers started taping their conversations with DoJ and turned those tapes over to congress.

 

[JCSr]

Thing is, the guy could have waited until the kids were leaving the school and just as easily had used his mom's car to run down as many kids as possible as they were walking to the school bus, should we ban cars now?

He could have gone on a rampage with a chainsaw, should we ban those?

He could have gone on a rampage with a sword or a knife, should we ban those (heck there was a guy in China whom stabbed/slashed 20 kids (thankfully the it seems guy didn't know much about anatomy cause nobody got killed, but it could have easily resulted in a similar body count)).

If you want to see a shining example of gun bans, maybe you should look at Chicago, because it shows just how stupid gun bans are.

Or you want to ban people whom have "mental illness" from owning guns, well define "mental illness?"

I know of several people whom are Autistic/Aspergers whom own firearms and none of them would even contemplate going on a shooting spree in a school, let alone actually going on a shooting spree in a school...


Furthermore, the state in question has strict gun laws, and they didn't do much good, because the shooter really didn't care what the law was.

Guns were easier and more effective than all the other scenarios you posted. He could have lined them all up and strangled each one, but he didn't....he used an assault weapon.

Guns are the problem.

 

[rambot]

I love the outrage at INTRODUCTION of a bill. As if a discussion on gun control in itself is tantamount to the passing of the bill.

And the idea that you should never let a crisis go to waste. That is just a cynical way of saying that there are no problems and despite the tragedy, no change should EVER occur because of it.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Guns were easier and more effective than all the other scenarios you posted. He could have lined them all up and strangled each one, but he didn't....he used an assault weapon.

Guns are the problem.

A gun is an inanimate object, blaming an inanimate object is stupid.

Guns can be used for good or evil, it is a tool, not a devil, not a monster, it is an inanimate object.

The gun is not responsible for any of the good or evil that it is used for; the person wielding the gun is responsible for the acts of good or ill.

I love the outrage at INTRODUCTION of a bill. As if a discussion on gun control in itself is tantamount to the passing of the bill.

And the idea that you should never let a crisis go to waste. That is just a cynical way of saying that there are no problems and despite the tragedy, no change should EVER occur because of it.

Does Fast & Furious mean anything to you?

 

[rambot]

Thing is, the guy could have waited until the kids were leaving the school and just as easily had used his mom's car to run down as many kids as possible as they were walking to the school bus, should we ban cars now?

He could have gone on a rampage with a chainsaw, should we ban those?

He could have gone on a rampage with a sword or a knife, should we ban those (heck there was a guy in China whom stabbed/slashed 20 kids (thankfully the it seems guy didn't know much about anatomy cause nobody got killed, but it could have easily resulted in a similar body count)).

What is the point in answering these questions. Seriously. The guy did NOT use a knife or a chainsaw or a car. Why are we answering hypothetical questions when there are REAL ACTUAL questions that need addressing.

(there are supposed to be question marks but my keyboard is acting up and i am getting è every time I am pressing the button).

 

[Glas Ridire]

When in doubt, blame a democrat.

Don't blame the gun manufactures

Do you blame Ford because someone got a speeding ticket? Blame Dodge because of a drunk driver? But when there is talk about Pontiac closing its doors, the value of GTO's goes up. Huh. So if the Democrats forced Pontiac to close and the value of GTO's went up, it'd be wrong to say that Democrats were responsible for an increase in GTO sales/value/ demand. I think, I didn't have any doubt, but I did reach a conclusion based on having passed an economics class once, it was a basic class, nothing fancy.

Last week alone there were two random rampage gun horrors. Connecticut overshadowed the earlier gunning in a mall in Portland.

Funny you should say that. The Portland shooter only got a few shots off before a citizen with a legal firearm confronted him, the Portland shooter retreated to a stairwell and shot himself without taking another shot. In CT, there was no armed response until well after the death toll became unbearable. You ask for answers but then point at them, gun free zones and citizen disarmament yield high body counts.

 

[Rion]

You want to tell me exactly why you need a clip with more than ten rounds in it?

Now for some edumacation for you non-gun users.
In an adrenaline-pumping situation (i.e. any time you're not just shooting at a practice target), your accuracy could suffer because of the following:

• The target is likely going to be moving.
• The target might be behind another object.
• Emotional factors/adrenaline.

Also, you have to be trained to not empty a standard clip into a target when you fire. Cops are trained to stop at three. No, I'm not going to empty ten rounds into an animal or criminal, but if there are multiple threats (i.e. more than one robber, wild dog, etc.) then if I only have ten rounds, I may not have enough. If they know they simply have to wait for my ten rounds to go, in the case of human threats, that creates a disadvantage to me.

See? Here's your freaking PROBLEM! You insist on using fire arms to KILL PEOPLE! And you even use the smiley face while defending it!

I could use my three-section staff to kill people too, but if they had a gun, I'd be all sorts of crap out of luck.

Of course we're going to insist on using it to kill people who are a threat to us or our loved ones. You have a grand-daughter, do you not? If you had to chose between shooting some thug who was threatening her or waiting for the police and hope they get there before the guy kills her, which would you chose?

 

[GarfieldJL]

What is the point in answering these questions. Seriously. The guy did NOT use a knife or a chainsaw or a car. Why are we answering hypothetical questions when there are REAL ACTUAL questions that need addressing.

(there are supposed to be question marks but my keyboard is acting up and i am getting è every time I am pressing the button).

The knife scenario is not hypothetical cause some guy in China went on a rampage using a knife (thankfully he seemed to not know much about anatomy or he would have had a body count nearly as high as the shooter).

You didn't answer my question about Fast & Furious btw.

 

[Rion]

I love the outrage at INTRODUCTION of a bill. As if a discussion on gun control in itself is tantamount to the passing of the bill.

Because we should wait until they pass a law to complain about it?

And the idea that you should never let a crisis go to waste. That is just a cynical way of saying that there are no problems and despite the tragedy, no change should EVER occur because of it.

Nope, just quoting the god-father of Chicago, Rahm himself. The idea was that one uses terrible tragedies to push agendas that people would normally find undesirable. Also, as I've pointed out in other threads, restricting guns will not solve anything.

 

[rambot]

Because we should wait until they pass a law to complain about it?

Well, I do not think you have to be paranoid about it. Certainly you can see that your country will never allow any type of gun control to be passed; it is too much a part of your psyche. I LOVE that a discussion is taking place but it is pretty clear that the gun lobby is such that we would never ever ever see legislation limiting your guns.

Nope, just quoting the god-father of Chicago, Rahm himself. The idea was that one uses terrible tragedies to push agendas that people would normally find undesirable. Also, as I've pointed out in other threads, restricting guns will not solve anything.

I highlighted the important section. You have a presumption that people would normally find SOME type of gun control undesireable.

I would agree that restricting guns is not really going to solve your problem. America has a cultural problem.

 

[wing2000]

The Portland shooter only got a few shots off before a citizen with a legal firearm confronted him, the Portland shooter retreated to a stairwell and shot himself without taking another shot.

Good. And I would venture to guess the citizen didn't need a twenty round magazine or semi-automatic weapon to achieve the desired effect.

 

[Ryal Kane]

There's no one solution to the problem of gun violence in America. Part of it is gun access, part of it is attitudes, mental health services, social services, poverty, drug laws, media response.. the list goes on. But admitting it's a complex issue, doesn't mean it can never be dealt with. It just means working on a lot of areas.

If high end guns were10% harder to get your hands on and it caused a 10% reduction in mass killings then wouldn't it be worth it? The gun lobby is extremely powerful in the US and gun attitudes are fueled by a right wing paranoia.
Obama mentions guns - Gun sales go up.
Obama doesn't mention guns - It's a trick! Gun sales go up.
School Massacre - Gun sales go up.
This is as indicitive of the attitude problem as it is of the prolifferation problem.

I don't know that the answers are for this but it's worth trying something. Other countries don't have this problem. Sadly many of the really strong gun advocates overlap with the group that can't accept that the US doesn't do everything better than everyone else.

And as an even grimmer final note, I suspect that if fascism ever comes to the US, it will be a lot of those same 2nd Amendment supporters helping the government track down and get rid of all them damn libruls and godless athiests.