Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sanders does propose dealing with people with mental health issues better than we do.
Perhaps, but he also supports a litany of other wacky proposals, like banning "assault weapons" ( the majority of these killers are using weapons that wouldn't be touched by such a ban ) and expanding the current failed background check system ( which 9/10 of these killers passed )
The only 2A bona fides Sanders has imo is his unapologetic support of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005.
If we're going to talk about laws that might prevent mass killers, than that means having an honest discussion about laws that would have an impact, not laws that simply have the appearance of "doing something" while doing absolutely nothing in actuality. However, the fact is that it would be politically ( and perhaps Constitutionally ) impossible to pass the kinds of laws necessary to stop incidents of mass shootings. So that's where we are with this.
Won't read article for fear of 'wasting bandwidth' - wastes bandwidth speculating on unread article.
Good job!
Why waste time reading an article that says nothing in actuality? Of course you'll have less "gun deaths" where there are less guns, much in the same way you'll have less traffic fatalities in countries where automobiles aren't the principle mode of transportation. The question is, is the murder rate less where guns are tougher to acquire, NOT if the "gun murder" rate is lower.
"the big problem with the proposals is that we have this thing called the Constitution."
Oh please. I don't know how many times it has been explained that current gun control laws and the many additional do NOT contradict the protections provided by our Constitution. Continuing to use that unwarranted fear or concern is really a stretch for most reasonable people who know better.
Knowing better is maybe the problem in general, because as I read the responses to my basic question "why not" do as Hillary proposes, there are many claims of "unenforceable" and "will do absolutely nothing" and complete confusion about my argument that doing all possible is a good deal more than doing absolutely nothing.
Preventing all gun violence is not possible, right, but again, this does not mean that all efforts at prevention are not warranted. Stopping even one (and probably more than we can know) by simply making things more difficult for those who would be hampered due to criminal or mental health background checks is well worthwhile!
Far more harm than good can come of these impositions in any case, because AGAIN, no law-abiding clean-record gun enthusiast is kept from doing his gun thing, whether it be to hunt or shoot targets or just feel mas macho.
No time for more, and no doubt I will likely just get more typical knee-jerk NRA "Hell no" reaction regardless the questions, facts or justifications, but surely there are reasonable gun enthusiasts that have better reasons to object than the reasons presented here.
I know there are, because many very reasonable gun enthusiasts have joined ranks with the likes of Hillary on tighter controls, because of exactly that! They are reasonable and willing to do what can be done even if the results are not full-proof or entirely satisfactory.
Hillary doesn't even acknowledge the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, as conveyed in her recent statement that the Supreme Court "got it wrong" on the 2nd Amendment....
How could I ever trust that someone will find ways to keep guns out of the wrong hands while at the same time respect 2A rights, when they don't even acknowledge those rights exist? I'd rather go with a 2A absolutist who doesn't want any laws rather than someone who doesn't even recognize our 2A for the individual right that it is.
Perhaps, but he also supports a litany of other wacky proposals, like banning "assault weapons" ( the majority of these killers are using weapons that wouldn't be touched by such a ban ) and expanding the current failed background check system ( which 9/10 of these killers passed )
I'm not going to defend him for piling on and going with this generic argument. Unfortunately there is a segment that eats it up even though in the end it means nothing.
Politician: I stand before you and make this claim that is really meaningless and really won't do anything because it's what you want to hear.
Crowd: Yeah, that's what we want to hear.
Whatever.
Quote:
The only 2A bona fides Sanders has imo is his unapologetic support of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005.
If we're going to talk about laws that might prevent mass killers, than that means having an honest discussion about laws that would have an impact, not laws that simply have the appearance of "doing something" while doing absolutely nothing in actuality. However, the fact is that it would be politically ( and perhaps Constitutionally ) impossible to pass the kinds of laws necessary to stop incidents of mass shootings. So that's where we are with this.
I agree that laws that would do things are better. Dealing with the mental health issues many have will do that.
If we're going to talk about laws that might prevent mass killers, than that means having an honest discussion about laws that would have an impact, not laws that simply have the appearance of "doing something" while doing absolutely nothing in actuality. However, the fact is that it would be politically ( and perhaps Constitutionally ) impossible to pass the kinds of laws necessary to stop incidents of mass shootings. So that's where we are with this.
We would really be opening a can of worms with laws that 'prevented' mass shootings with mental health care. Some of these wackos were never identified until after the crime. Is being a 'loaner' a metal health issue? Now, with the social media the way it is, somebody could pull up statements you made many years ago and say 'crazy'. I just think there is a lot of gray area and you toss in politics and who knows what would happen.
Before I retired as a truck driver I came up with the term 'election year blacktop'. I would travel through some states, like my own, and see crews applying thin layers of blacktop right before an election. In many cases the blacktop would only last until after the election or the next Spring. My feeling is that our incumbents want the electorate to believe that they are responsible for the smooth ride to the polls. They are using our tax dollars as 'free' (to them) advertisement. They do not care that we paid to pave our roads and that we will have to pay to mill and pave them in the near future.
This is what I see happening with the knee-jerk remarks after any tragedy like this one. Our politicians come out of the woodwork looking for votes, for themselves or their parties.
Preventing all gun violence is not possible, right, but again, this does not mean that all efforts at prevention are not warranted. Stopping even one (and probably more than we can know) by simply making things more difficult for those who would be hampered due to criminal or mental health background checks is well worthwhile!
....
I have nothing against background checks but you won't stop mass killings with them nor will you stop them with waiting periods. Background checks won't pick up untreated mental illness and in many cases treated due to confidentiality laws and waiting periods won't work because these are not impulse crimes. They are well thought out and planned well in advance.
All new laws do is give people who haven't thought things through a false sense of control. This is something we cannot control other than to not plaster it all over the press. That kind of notoriety encourages other would be mass killers. Arming those in the area would do more good. Schools are often targets because they are gun free zones and the shooter knows he will face no opposition until the police arrive. Unarmed people are easy pickings. FTR, I'm not for arming teachers but arming campus police and putting armed guards in buildings would do more good than new laws.
You complain when no one addresses your points but when I do you have nothing to say about them?
You copy/paste only one part of my comment to complain, apparently not reading the whole comment. I don't get that, but clearly we have the SCTUS to insure we don't pass laws that are not in accordance with the Constitution. I have little patience arguing with gun enthusiasts who act as if they are the only ones who believe in upholding the Constitution, pretending they are Constitutional scholars. No matter how many times or how many ways it is explained that these tighter gun control measures ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
"That being said, why have there not been legislation been brought forward and debated?"
The history of legislative effort doesn't so much lead to debate as much as it leads to flat-out "we'll hear none of it."
2013
President Obama Proposes Sweeping Changes to Gun Control
In response to recent massacres, including the killing of 20 first graders in Newtown, Conn., and 12 moviegoers in Aurora, Colo., President Barack Obama introduces proposals to tighten gun-control laws. His plan includes universal background checks for gun sales, the reinstatement and strengthening of the assault weapons ban, limiting ammunition magazines to a 10-round capacity, and other measures.
Colorado Recalls Pro-Gun Control State Senators
On Sept. 10, voters threw out of office Democrats John Morse and Angela Giron for their support of recently enacted gun-control laws that mandate background checks on private gun sales and limit magazine clips to 15 rounds. The election drew national attention not only for the ouster of the officials but also for the influx of money on both sides, from the National Rifle Association and New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, a gun-control advocate.
"If we're going to talk about laws that might prevent mass killers, than that means having an honest discussion about laws that would have an impact, not laws that simply have the appearance of "doing something" while doing absolutely nothing in actuality. However, the fact is that it would be politically ( and perhaps Constitutionally ) impossible to pass the kinds of laws necessary to stop incidents of mass shootings. So that's where we are with this."
If we're going to talk about gun control laws, we really need to do a little better in terms of understanding some fundamentals.
1) There is no law that "might prevent mass killers." I am not sure who is fooled by these set-up introductions, but the intent is to pass laws that might reduce gun violence. There is no way to prevent gun violence just like preventing terrorism is impossible, but surely this does not mean we don't do all possible to reduce the number of incidents, tragedies.
2) The claim that we are considering laws that "do absolutely nothing" is another argument I find altogether unreasonable. Who is to say or know that running a back-ground check prior to a gun show gun sale may not prevent some nut case from going through with his immediate act of rage?
3) In the same way, who is to judge what can't be passed politically or Constitutionally? Simply to lay down on the tracks and continuously claim there is "no way no how" does not make it so, but it sure seems to convince a lot of people who seem altogether Hell bent to tow the NRA line.
Me personally, I would so far prefer that I be allowed to hunt, shoot, have my guns and ALSO be able to support all sensible gun control laws intended to keep guns out of the wrong hands, again if nothing other than to have peace of mind that all that can possibly be done is being done. I mean, if our politicians didn't have to fear the loss of NRA funding and if Constitutionally okay, why the Hell not?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Come again?
