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.
This is a DNC Vice Chair calling for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Liberals are feeling brave enough to be honest about there agenda.
It’s going to be very hard for @Democrats to argue that a sizable portion of their party does not want to repeal/ban/confiscate firearms in the midterms.
This is a liberal base issue.
KarenCarterPeterson on Twitter:
"Repeal the Second Amendment"
And most white men are republicans, and most 3rd grade teachers are democrats. And after these school shootings many 3rd grade teachers will want to ban all guns, its just who they are.
When looking at the liberal state of Vermont's gun laws and peoples different positions in life, the issue of guns is more complicated than just democrat/republican. And its republicans that are fueling the dream of banning all guns in America.
And after the Newton school shooting 189 million Americans got tougher gun laws on the state level. Do republicans speak of this or have a plan to stop this from further happening? (No) https://www.motherjones.com/politics...after-newtown/
The political campaigns of Washington republicans are financed by large corporations, and these republican politicians are in Washington to get CEO tax cuts, corporate tax cuts, and corporate deregulation (not to protect gun rights). And the republican corporate machine uses guns as a political tool to get votes.
And while the republican corporate machine ignores gun ownership rates and ignores Americans loosing gun rights on the state level they simply spread the fear that "the democrats want to take your guns."
The most important part of owning guns is being a responsible gun owner. Like keeping your guns out of the reach of children, teaching people proper safety rules before allowing them to shoot your guns, and not selling your guns to criminals, the mentally ill, or terrorists. But Washington republicans do not follow the rules of responsible gun owners, and Washington republicans even oppose laws to stop the mentally ill and terrorists from buying guns. House GOP Blocks Measure to Keep Guns from Mentally Ill GOP blocks bill to stop terrorists from buying guns | MSNBC
And since republicans refuse to pass the regulations of responsible gun owners on the federal level states are forced to do it themselves. And this gives states the opportunity to head toward European-like gun laws (but Washington republicans could care less because they simply use guns to get the votes needed to pass their corporate agenda.)
Instead of simply saying the corporate soundbite of "the liberals want to grab your guns", why not have a conversation about how to give all of America gun laws like the liberal state of Vermont, and then talk about what federal gun regulations we should have as responsible gun owners?
But having the above conversation won't win republicans elections.
Ok, you have outed our real agenda..........we want to break down your doors and remove every gun from every home ! Assault weapons, shotguns, pistols, and even BB guns ! If we find so much as a slingshot in anyone's possession, there is going to be Hell to pay ! We will be dragging gun lovers out in the middle of the night and crushing their beloved weapons right in front of them and their screaming children !
There, does that make all of you happy ??
There is nothing wrong with seeking out help or taking a mental break when you need it.
Sure we don't want to take your firearms...not according to Debbie Dingell
During live broadcast Dingell said, “Rep. Fred Upton (R) and I are looking at introducing … legislation … at the national level.” She added, “I grew up in a home where a man shouldn’t have had access to a gun, and I remember some very frightening moments, and there was ability to deal with it. A family who knows that someone in their family could be a danger to themselves or to others needs to have tool that they can take that gun away.”
Dingell stressed that seizure of firearms must occur in a way that protects due process, but she did not explain how such protection is possible.
Time she gets voted out. A shame though, I kind of like her, and side with her on some issues.
During live broadcast Dingell said, “Rep. Fred Upton (R) and I are looking at introducing … legislation … at the national level.” She added, “I grew up in a home where a man shouldn’t have had access to a gun, and I remember some very frightening moments, and there was ability to deal with it. A family who knows that someone in their family could be a danger to themselves or to others needs to have tool that they can take that gun away.”
Dingell stressed that seizure of firearms must occur in a way that protects due process, but she did not explain how such protection is possible.
Time she gets voted out. A shame though, I kind of like her, and side with her on some issues.
Interesting, because it looks to me like Rep Dingell is trying to make sure that a law is in place to ensure a gun owner has due process. In other states, guns can be seized without the owner being notified. So, we basically have three possible scenarios:
1. No gun can ever be taken out of the possession of the owner.
2. A gun can sometimes, if situations warrant, be taken out of the possession of the owner.
3. A gun can be taken from the owner any time for any reason.
What Dingell is proposing is #2. If there is a clear indication that an individual is a danger to herself or others, her gun(s) can be legally removed from her possession if the correct procedure is followed, and (I assume) a remedy to return the gun(s) to the owner if the seizure is unwarranted.
So, what do you think is the best way to handle it? You don't think there should be a legal process to address a gun in the possession of someone who is making threats? Or do you think it should be a free-for-all, where any time someone points & says, "She shouldn't have a gun!" that gun can be removed without due process? Or is it that a saying "I'm going to shoot everyone at work tomorrow" should be allowed to keep all the guns all the time?
Interesting, because it looks to me like Rep Dingell is trying to make sure that a law is in place to ensure a gun owner has due process. In other states, guns can be seized without the owner being notified. So, we basically have three possible scenarios:
1. No gun can ever be taken out of the possession of the owner.
2. A gun can sometimes, if situations warrant, be taken out of the possession of the owner.
3. A gun can be taken from the owner any time for any reason.
What Dingell is proposing is #2. If there is a clear indication that an individual is a danger to herself or others, her gun(s) can be legally removed from her possession if the correct procedure is followed, and (I assume) a remedy to return the gun(s) to the owner if the seizure is unwarranted.
So, what do you think is the best way to handle it? You don't think there should be a legal process to address a gun in the possession of someone who is making threats? Or do you think it should be a free-for-all, where any time someone points & says, "She shouldn't have a gun!" that gun can be removed without due process? Or is it that a saying "I'm going to shoot everyone at work tomorrow" should be allowed to keep all the guns all the time?
Good question. And first off, I think how Michigan handles firearms ownership is good, as far as handguns. If that could extent out to long guns on both new sales and any secondary or more transfers.
Now to your question. I really think that HIPAA regulations should be loosened so information could be shared with the BATF/NICS. I'm pretty sure that an FFL can refuse the sale to an individual even if they pass the check, so with that , if they were also aware that the individual has a history of violence or has mental issues they might deny the sale. I know this would probably be unconstitutional but in the case of Cruz, and Parkland if the FFL knew he probably wouldn't have sold him the firearm.
I don't see how she (Rep. Dingell) will be able to pull off a "confiscation" without due process. As far as the "Extreme Risk Protection Orders" , So I guess , what is different about this , than the law we currently have ?
Mich. Comp. Laws § 28.422.
A person will not qualify for a license if:
The person is under an order of involuntary commitment in an inpatient or outpatient setting due to mental illness; or
The person has been adjudged legally incapacitated in this state or elsewhere.
Good question. And first off, I think how Michigan handles firearms ownership is good, as far as handguns. If that could extent out to long guns on both new sales and any secondary or more transfers.
Now to your question. I really think that HIPAA regulations should be loosened so information could be shared with the BATF/NICS. I'm pretty sure that an FFL can refuse the sale to an individual even if they pass the check, so with that , if they were also aware that the individual has a history of violence or has mental issues they might deny the sale. I know this would probably be unconstitutional but in the case of Cruz, and Parkland if the FFL knew he probably wouldn't have sold him the firearm.
I don't see how she (Rep. Dingell) will be able to pull off a "confiscation" without due process. As far as the "Extreme Risk Protection Orders" , So I guess , what is different about this , than the law we currently have ?
Mich. Comp. Laws § 28.422.
A person will not qualify for a license if:
The person is under an order of involuntary commitment in an inpatient or outpatient setting due to mental illness; or
The person has been adjudged legally incapacitated in this state or elsewhere.
Conservatives should keep attacking victims of school shootings to learn more about who wants to 'take their guns away'
Where in this entire thread has anyone attacked the victims ? If you can't add to the topic, and just want to insult those that think differently than you (Conservatives), go run along somewhere else, the adults are talking...
Please merge this thread into, "America's unique gun violence" thread. We have enough threads about gun control, right?
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.
Sure we don't want to take your firearms...not according to Debbie Dingell
