Political Update Gun Legislation

38 posts / 0 new
Last post
mykcob4's picture
Political Update Gun Legislation

Democratic Senator from Connecticut Wins with a 15 hour filibuster. After the recent tragic mass shooting in Orlando, Sen. Chris Murphy started a filibuster to force the Senate to vote on a gun legislation bill....FINALLY! It is a small victory, but it is the first time anyone has faced down the NRA lobby.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orlando-nightclub-massacre/filibuster-e...

As a consequence even the House is leaning toward some sort of agreement with the Senate over gun regulation. Even Bill O'Reilly made comments tonight that seem to be moving the conservatives in the correct direction over this issue.

http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-oreilly-orlando-fox-news-2016-6

Given the fact that every demographic Wants sensible gun regulation to the tune of 50% to 80% in all break downs, there is a climate for republicans to finally follow the Democrats and do the right thing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/19/the-nra-will...

I personally have been a huge advocate for gun control since I retired from the USMC. No one needs a gun. Stats prove you aren't safer. Killing things for "fun" is just stupid and childish. It's cheaper to shop at a grocery store than actually hunt, not that anyone really hunts. Oh they put on camouflage and carry a big gun, but they don't know the first thing about hunting. Training wild deer to eat corn at certain times of the day in the same place every day isn't hunting.

The old argument about the Second Amendment is flimsy and wrong headed. If you follow the Constitution literally the USA would not have a standing Army, so don't hand me any bullshit about guaranteed to have any gun you want with out restriction or common sense.
This is a big deal and just the beginning. The USA is the most violent industrialized nation in the world. The reason are the uneducated immature assholes that watch too many John Wayne pseudo-macho blow-em-up movies. The NRA has completely brainwash to weak minded fools and put a political stranglehold on conservative legislators. We may be able to end that criminal bond and if not destroy then at least weaken the NRA lobby!

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

chimp3's picture
I distrust any human being

I distrust any human being with an AR-15. Why? Because most humans are irrational and prone to corruption by the power an AR-15 gives them. I doubly distrust the assault rifle bearer when they are elected to office or hired by the police force. Same irrational people but now they could end up being the only ones with guns.
Orlando the largest mass shooting in history? My ass! Wounded Knee.
A well regulated militia? Kent State.
I don't trust my neighbor who has his own firing range. I don't trust my small town police force which has an armored assault vehicle and a stash of M-16s.

mykcob4's picture
I somewhat agree. Facts prove

I somewhat agree. Facts prove that the general public are irresponsible with hover boards, laser lights, and drones. Why should we expect the general public to be responsible with firearms of any sort without proper and sensible regulation. Jeff is correct in the fact that there is an unreasonable gun culture in America, based on fear and the notion that the federal government is the enemy. These wackos think that they are protecting themselves not from criminals, but from the federal government. They think that if they have an arsenal they can stop the US military....ridiculous. What prevents the US military from tyranny is law not guns. There have been many times in American history where some wacked out general has decided to enact a form of tyranny and the law stopped them dead in their tracks. I can just see some idiot think that he and his assault rifle will stop the 82nd airborne from invading his home. STUPID ideology. This idealism is born out of the propaganda of the NRA. It's fear mongering and hype, the media hyping violent criminal acts to get ratings (blood). The most endangered person in the USA is a male African-American between the age of 14 to 30. Many people that are shot, injured, or killed, are done so with their own legally obtained weapon. There are 8 fire arms per person in the USA owned by about 100 million people or about one third of the population. Ironically that equates to the number of conservatives. As far as wounded knee goes, that was a tragedy. The native Americans were politically backed into a corner and had to act. Unfortunately they acted incorrectly and the government response was incorrect and criminal. Muhammad Ali did more for native Americans when he spoke to Congress than any person in history. That was the correct way to do things.

Pitar's picture
Wounded Knee took out about

Wounded Knee took out about 150 native Americans. It was actually another mass killing outside of Tulsa in the '20s by whites on an affluent town of black people. The town was decimated and the entire population (300) killed.

But,

Who's counting?

It's all what it is and that's man's self-hatred. Sometimes I wonder if man isn't collectively frustrated with himself because he wants to know he's immortal but without revelation he's simply harboring a lifetime of doubt. That could be mighty weighty.

Anyway, the assault rifle scare is just that. The rifle looks imposing but any .22 caliber weapon could have done as much considering the close-in tactical situation he was in. Truth be told, he did far more damage with the 9mm Glock pistol he used. It has twice the penetrating power of the AR15 and contrasts at .354" vs the AR15s .223". In an interview with the doctors who performed the work patching together the wounded, one commented on the large and small caliber wounds. Mere mention of it is telling of the damage of the larger caliber weapon. Assault rifles just look meaner but they aren't. They have decent range and hitting power but the round is basically a .22 bullet. It's the talking heads who scare the ignorant with the words assault and rifle as if one squeeze of the trigger decimates everything in a general compass heading. That Glock is a tactical weapon pistol. It was really all he needed. He probably felt like super-trooper with the AR15, though, feeding his ego, and that's my guess why he brought it. It's also the point you make.

Regarding weapon ownership, I'm against it.

mykcob4's picture
Sorry to disagree The .223 is

Sorry to disagree The .223 is a far faster round than the pistol 9mm and therefore has more penetrating power. Now a 9mm can create more damage given it is a bigger and slower round, but it can't come close to actual penetration power. You are correct in saying all he needed was the Glock. A pistol in close quarters is far more effective.

Sir Random's picture
All right, so when YU get

All right, so when YU get shot by the man walking into you hous/place of business/ theater/ ect., I suppose we will see how well this anti gun legislation works out. Mabye if you cracked down on the sale of illegal firearms and put fail-safes into place(ie. Background checks, mental health tests, ect.) To prevent THOSE people from aquireing guns, you might actually get somewhere. Besides, you really think an angry person whom whants to murder people will really give two shits about a law?

ZeffD's picture
Perhaps the problem isn't

Perhaps the problem isn't political or evidential, but cultural. Guns don't kill people, an unhealthy gun culture does. The UK has a gun culture where enthusiasts privately own and shoot many sorts of firearms. What is different is that people here don't incorporate an extreme gun-culture into some daft ideology about individual rights, personal protection and limiting the power of central government.

Sir Random's picture
That....is actually a very

That....is actually a very good point. It's not unreasonable to think that the culture surrounding guns could be a key factor in the problems the U.S is having. Nor is it illogical.
Thank you, ZeffD. That post was most thought provoking.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Yeah it is weird. While the

Yeah it is weird. While the USA has one of the largest gun ownership rates of the world, there are plenty of western countries with high rates which don't seem to suffer the same kinds of problems. Canada for example.

ThePragmatic's picture
I've been aware of this

I've been aware of this conundrum for some time without being able to put it into words. Thank you for expressing it in actual intelligible language.

Alembé's picture
Why is there a core of gun

Why is there a core of gun-worshipers here in the USA who are so adamantly opposed to even the most sensible regulations? I posit that part of the answer has to do with their loss power and the visceral desire to retain some vestige of what has been lost.

Consider the economic, social, religious and political changes that have occurred over the last 30 years.

For many middle and working class Americans, real and inflation-adjusted incomes have stagnated or declined. They see their jobs going overseas as part of free trade agreements and here at home being replaced by robots in the push by companies for greater profits to reward rich shareholders. Thus the blow is two-fold: personal financial stability has decreased concomitant with diminution of economic power by this group as a whole.

Socially, the Caucasian family headed by the alpha male is losing dominance. Immigration (both legal and illegal) plus demographic trends are resulting in a “browning” of America. Combined minority groups have or soon will outnumber whites in many jurisdictions. In addition, LGBT Americans are coming out of the closet onto TVs and social media, are demanding and receiving their equal rights e.g. to marry, etc. and are gaining cultural acceptance and legal protection.

On the religious front, fewer people are active church members and more of us identify as atheist. Organized religion is also losing its ability to control its version of the moral agenda (e.g. see rise of LGBT acceptance above).

For the past 8 years conservatives have seen their political power evaporate as they elected Republican politicians who promised to roll back the programs of the reviled and denigrated Obama administration and who have seriously under-delivered.

For any person who ticks off 3 or more boxes above, that is a tremendous loss of actual and perceived power to control their personal lives and affect the course of the nation.

What power do they have left?

Ownership of their guns, enshrined in the Second Amendment, by which these people will protect their Fortress Home, their own family Bubble, their Family Values, from the Federal Government, immigrants, Satanists and Queers.

This group will fight tooth and nail to resist any legislation that proposes sensible gun control. May they be defeated.

Nyarlathotep's picture
"For many middle and working

"For many middle and working class Americans, real and inflation-adjusted incomes have stagnated or declined. They see their jobs going overseas as part of free trade agreements and here at home being replaced by robots in the push by companies for greater profits to reward rich shareholders. Thus the blow is two-fold: personal financial stability has decreased concomitant with diminution of economic power by this group as a whole."

We are also seeing a shocking increase in the death rate of the middle class, white, under-educated. http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/15078.full.pdf

ZeffD's picture
Quote Alembe: "Ownership of

Quote Alembe: "Ownership of their guns, enshrined in the Second Amendment,..."? It is not the 1790s now. It is one thing to argue against gun controls, but the 2nd Amendment doesn't, as a matter of fact, guarantee anything like as much as USAmericans on either side of the debate claim it does.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

A modern militia wouldn't have to keep their arms in their houses or cars. What US militia exists today? A group of armed citizens these days are arguably a mob or possibly a hazard to the general public and each other, not an organized militia.

In any case, it has little or nothing to do with gun ownership in the 21st century unless USAmericans choose to interpret it that way, en masse. They could give it an interpretation appropriate to our time and in the light of what has been learned and what has changed since 1800.

Quote: Survey...shows 57 percent of Americans now favor such a ban. That's up from 44 percent in December, when the question was last asked in CBS News polling. Now, 38 percent of respondents oppose the legislation, compared to the 50 percent who opposed it in December. Unquote. (CBS news)

As comedian Hassan Minhaj tells it, see short video...
http://www.salon.com/2016/06/17/is_this_what_you_want_your_legacy_to_be_...

The USA sets so many good examples to the world. The misinterpretation or misunderstanding of their constitution's 2nd Amendment isn't one of them.

Alembé's picture
@ZeffD,

@ZeffD,

I agree with you. I was writing from the point of view of gun-worshipers, not mine. Sorry I was not more clear.

Sir Random's picture
I don't worship guns. I just

I don't worship guns. I just want something to defend myself with. And a pocket knife won't do me much good here. Remember the phrase "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight".

Sir Random's picture
Then again, I wouldn't have

Then again, I wouldn't have that problem if people didn't bring guns to the fight in the first place.

Alembé's picture
@ Sir Random,

@ Sir Random,

In 2013 in the US there were 33,636 deaths from firearms (1).

21,175 were suicides, 11,208 were homicides (2) (the rest were police action and accidents).

Thus 62.3% of all firearm deaths were suicides. Please be careful with that “something to defend myself with.”

1) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

2) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf (Table 10)

Sir Random's picture
Apparently you did not make

Apparently you did not make note of my second post.

chimp3's picture
This much I will say for the

This much I will say about the Second Amendment : When it was written every man had a rifle they used for hunting . 30-50 caliber balls fired from black powder muzzle loading long guns. When the call came for the militia they showed up with their hunting rifles and used those in battle. The range of weaponry available to the average consumer today was inconceivable to James Madison. My personal gun collection consists of an older 20 gauge pump action shot gun that holds three shells. I would not stand a chance in a battle today. Although my pea shooter would have been superior fire power in 1776. 185 grain slug with three shot capacity.

CyberLN's picture
On the Constitution:

On the Constitution:
The 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791. The folks responsible for it had no way of imagining that with which we are faced today. What they intended makes exactly zero difference. U.S. Citizens must make the decisions that are right for them. These decisions may be different from previous generations and will likely be different from successive generations. That is as it should be.

On gun control:
I own guns. I like owning my guns. I like going to the range with my guns. I carried a gun for a living for quite a while. Do I support enacting reasonable measures to try keeping guns out of the hands of wackos? Yep. Do I think that, if enacted, gun violence will go away? Nope. Actually, even if handguns were banned, murder rates would probably not go down (and in some countries that have banned them, it has risen).

Actually, I think there are actions other than gun control that would have a bigger impact on this kind of violence.
But we tend to slap band aids onto gaping wounds and walk away thinking we have done something great. IMO, without addressing the systemic causes of violence, no amount of gun legislation will effectively or substantially reduce it.

mykcob4's picture
After the Port Arthur tragedy

After the Port Arthur tragedy in Australia the Parliament there enacted one of the stiffest gun regulation in modern history. Murders and deaths in general hit an all time low in that nation.

http://www.businessinsider.com/australia-gun-control-shootings-2015-10

In many ways Australia is like Texas in it's attitudes and life styles. That being said, they were a gun culture society, fiercely apposed to federal laws of any kind. The Port Arthur tragedy shed light on how wrong they were as a society, so they did something about it. The result is for 17 straight years deaths, murders have plummeted!
It's a fact that gun legislation will have a positive impact. The USA is the only industrialized nation that has had NO gun legislation and the result is that the USA has the highest by far deaths due to firearms per capita.
To say that no amount of legislation would have an impact is not only incorrect but also irresponsible.
Even in the USA gun legislation passed on local levels have made an impact. The only reason that gun violence remains high is that the legislation isn't nation wide. Ergo neighboring areas have no restriction thus allowing people to make a short journey to acquire firearms.
Latin American drug cartels get all of their weapons from the US. The fact is that American gun culture has caused wide spread firearm violence way beyond it's own borders.
So don't hand me this notion that gun restriction and legislation would have no effect. It would and it does, the facts bear that out!

Sir Random's picture
Even so, you would not be

Even so, you would not be able to stop them all. This is an all or nothing world, and anything in-between isn't worth mentioning.

ZeffD's picture
Quote Myke:

Quote Myke:
"the only reason that gun violence remains high is that the legislation isn't nation wide. Ergo neighboring areas have no restriction thus allowing people to make a short journey to acquire firearms."
I was just about to post the same thing!

Isn't part of the problem that current thinking is that US Supreme Court justices should interpret the Constitution so as State rather than Federal lawmakers have the ultimate say on gun control? You point to a fundamental problem with this. To obtain full benefit of a healthy gun culture, the culture needs to extend at least across the 48 states. It should be as uniform as possible from Canada to Mexico because criminals go to the nearest supply. The Constitution needs to be interpreted in our age as moving ultimate control over gun laws FROM the States TO the Fed govt and US Supreme Court. Distance from supply is very beneficial, (e.g. the UK?).

The answer to a bad man with a gun is good gun laws and fast armed response to incidents, not wholesale deregulation.

There is no case for poorly regulated gun ownership. I'd like to hear of a case where murder rates went up due to a lack of gun availability.

Sir Random's picture
Perhaps we should adopt

Perhaps we should adopt Switzerland's approach. Everyone has a gun, but everyone also has to serve a time in a military function of some sort.

mykcob4's picture
The Swiss live in a very

The Swiss live in a very different dynamic than the USA.
1) The Swiss have tight gun laws and not everyone has a gun or CAN have a gun there.
2) The guns they do have there are stored in an armory so access to those guns is restricted.
3) Those that have guns are required to train each year, AND are evaluated for capability and psychologically. If they fail the training and evaluation they are restricted from having contact with firearms.

It's not like every household in Switzerland has a firearm. That simply is not the case. Even though every Swiss citizen is required to serve in their defense, not all are combatants. Only about 10% are actually combatants. Which is ironic given the fact that Switzerland is a declared neutral country.
The Swiss Guard serves only the Vatican and isn't part of the Swiss nation national defense. They are like a version of the USA Secret Service for the pope.

Sir Random's picture
Still. I think the Swiss have

Still. I think the Swiss have it right. Besides to Pope part.

mykcob4's picture
For those of you that think

For those of you that think you need a gun to protect yourself let me relate a situation that happened to me.
A few years ago a neighbor's kid started selling drugs out of his house. His parents were "cool" meaning that didn't give two shits about anything but getting drunk, getting high, and getting laid. I staged a vigil (not a prayer vigil) for two straight years standing in my front yard and recording and reporting drug deals. I had guns pointed at me a number of times. I simply called the police. Eventually all the users and dealers were arrested or moved on. If you have a police department, you don't need guns. You need common sense and or courage. Don't put yourself in harms way, or have the courage to stand up to criminals without using a gun.

Sir Random's picture
So, someone breaks into my

So, someone breaks into my house. Giving the distance from the nearest town I would guesstimate a 15-30 minuite wait time for the cops to arrive. What course of action do you suggest?

mykcob4's picture
Well I would doubt that

Well I would doubt that anyone would have a gun if good restriction were in place, but if they did have a gun and you had a gun, what do you think would be the end result. You think that just because you have a gun that you could actually stop someone? The stats prove otherwise. You are more likely to be shot than the person breaking in if both of you are armed. You can't make your home burgle proof, but you can make it less of a target.

Sir Random's picture
I was asking for a solution.

I was asking for a solution. Not a lecture.

mykcob4's picture
I gave you a solution. Make

I gave you a solution. Make your home less of a target.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.