In Washington
Two gun control measures failed in the Senate, with votes divided mostly on party lines:• Democrat Dianne Feinstein proposed barring people on the no-fly list from purchasing guns, a vote that failed 45-54.
• Democrat Joe Manchin and Republican Pat Toomey proposed an expansion of background checks – The measure failed 48-50.
US gun control: Day after San Bernardino, Republicans line up to crush gun control effortsAll four GOP senators running for president vote against extending FBI checks to every firearm sold and banning sale to individuals on terror watchlists"A day after 14 people were killed in the mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, all four Republican presidential candidates in the US senate – Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio – opposed a measure that would introduce tighter gun laws.
They were among Republicans who overwhelmingly voted down a measure that would introduce tighter gun laws by extending FBI background checks on every firearms purchase."Information from
The Guardian Nice to see that our Congress has their priorities straight.
Comments
We must obstruct your constitutional right to shoot off your mouth (vote) by requiring you to obtain government issued photo id for checking against a (voter) list, because there is so much voter fraud.
I guess the pen is mightier (more dangerous) than the sword. The question is ... dangerous to whom?
@VintageFreak- We'd only f___ up the new planet up also. The problem ain't the planet- it's us. I've gotten to the point where I really believe that the human race is a failed experiment.
I can only relate to the issues OJ raises through sarcasm ... which could be misintrerpreted.
So I'll refrain from further comment.
1. If you threaten gun control, what happens is stuff like this (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/12/01/black-friday-breaks-record-185k-gun-background-checks/76624604/) If someone was thinking about a purchase, you've hurried it up.
2. I think we do have to make real decisions as to the specifics of who can get guns - if you're on a no fly or you have a previous history of serious issues (mental, etc), then no. Things like that. Ultimately, a lot of things in this country have to change in a manner that requires difficult decisions. Just saying "everyone has to have healthcare or pays a penalty" has not fixed a healthcare system that is broken and whose costs continue to ramp higher.
We have to really make some sensible decisions about this topic and the whole "we should do something" (and then nothing gets done) is not helping anything but to rush purchasing decisions. There needs to be some unity in this government as to quickly making some decisions on how to handle topics like this. Oh wait, I forgot what government I was talking about. That won't happen.
3. We don't ask why. Why is there the rush in this country to buy weapons? Why is there the anger? Labeling all of those people as this, that or the other doesn't help. Is there that level of upset in this country? We need to really look inward as a country a little bit and perhaps address not only the accessibility of weapons but why the seemingly increasing desire. To me, it's sort of like the popularity of Trump. People's first thought is often, "OMG, WHY?" The first thought is not, "Is there really that much upset with the status quo from that many people?"
4. Ultimately, politics is really destroying any chance of progress that this country has. Political games, money, it's all leading to a government that basically accomplishes nothing and I don't see Hillary (lets elect someone who clearly thinks she's above the rules), Bernie (who probably actually does want your vacuum pennies***) or the Donald (who would probably leave a worse end result after being president than he fictionally did for president Lisa Simpson on "The Simpsons") changing things. A lot is really, genuinely broken in this country and real, actual change is needed but feels increasingly unlikely. Like a lot of things in this country, change will not happen until it gets to that ultimate breaking point where it absolutely has to.
***- "He semi-shouted that the coins he wants aren’t the new ones either. He wants the old, gum-caked ones you can hardly read, like the ones you find in your vacuum. “So America, if you believe in Bernie, I need you to go home, open your closet, pull out your vacuum, dump it upside down, and send me all the pennies that fall out of it,” he continued. “That’s right, I’m Bernie Sanders and I want your vacuum pennies.” (http://qz.com/544300/larry-david-was-the-best-part-of-donald-trumps-saturday-night-live-episode/)
5. I mean, really, over the last several years, what has the plan been? Energy plan? No plan, we're selling it from the SPR at low prices because apparently we need to raise money. Education? No. Infrastructure? No. Healthcare? Everyone has to have it or pay a penalty, yet prices still soar. The only plan: raise asset prices - unsustainable in the past, unsustainable now.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/opinion/on-guns-were-not-even-trying.html
"Even among gun owners, 85 percent approve of universal background checks, according to a poll this year."
This is not a Democrat or Republican issue, it's a common sense human(ity) issue. But as Scott has noted - "Oh wait, I forgot what government I was talking about. That won't happen."
""What President Barack Obama described as the greatest threat to future generations was neither terrorism nor ISIS. It wasn't nuclear weapons in rogue states either.
"No challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change," said Obama.""
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/21/us/climate-change-us-obama/
========================
From some of the posts on this forum, some posters here terrorize me and should lose many of their constitutional rights. Habeas corpus should be suspended for them and they should be thrown in jail. Then I could feel safe coming back here.
Ultimately, people on both sides (politics, whatever) have to be willing to be civil and hear other people if we want to have a real chance of coming together and really becoming a progressive, healthy society.
...but that's probably not going to happen (especially on the internet.)
Would the measures/bill proposed have stopped these shooters? -- That is, are the proposals (drafted in RECORD TIME after this terrorist action) tailored to prevent repeats of THIS act of terrorism or tailored with other political objectives?
Would they have cleared their background checks? -- Had they committed any crimes BEFORE 12/2/2015? -- They were legal residents, with no criminal background, weren't they?
If the draft proposals would not have stopped THIS incident, then proposing them now is a sham. -- If these "innocent proposals" pass, and then fail to prevent the next mass shooting, then new proposals will offered. This process will repeat again and again, until the 2nd Amendment is effectively gutted.
Migrants from the Middle East are a problem. American citizens adhering to Islam (born or converted) are the problem. The Paris shoot-up is an Islamic problem.
The reason we are all subjected to intrusive searches when we fly is NOT because we have a 2nd Amendment. Its because of devout Muslims, their paranoid delusions, and the murder and mayhem they perpetrate.
The twin towers were not destroyed because of the 2nd Amendment. Are the Boko Haram a threat to Nigeria because of Nigeria's 2nd Amendment (they probably don't have one...). The incessant beheadings & stonings in Saudi Arabia are not due to the 2nd Amendment. There are civilizations and then there is devout Islam.
The radical Islamist problem continues to erode our civil liberties (we are now all being constantly surveilled & monitored, both in real- and cyberspace) -- sacrificing our constitutional rights because of the Islamic threat. I am not surrendering any more rights. NONE.
President Hussein Obama refuses to face facts. What if, after 12/7/1941, FDR had declared the attack on Pearl Harbor as just a "criminal act" of a "few, mis-understanders of Japanese culture", not sought a declaration of war? And not mobilized us? Or proposed that in light of the attack on Pearl Harbor, FDR would seek to restrict gun rights in America.... Would we be safer today? (And FDR would probably have been impeached.)
We are being led by dhimmies. Radical Islam is at war with civilization. It's past time to put civilization (Western, Russian, Hindu, Sub-Saharan Africa) on a common war footing and end the threat common to our civilizations.
You don't fight a zombie outbreak by passing a law restricting guns.
But, that's just my opinion.
Thoughts for the families.
There is a huge issue with a sizeable portion of our citizenry - that they flat do not trust the U.S. gov't. Where do you think Donald is garnering so much support? Not only don't they trust the gov't, they don't trust the media including FOX. Donald can spout off some obvious mistruth and not only don't they care, they don't trust anyone that would naysay him (i.e. those lying east coast liberal media type).
These same people are insistent that they be able to own full military quality ordnance and munitions - assault rifles, banana clips, body armor, etc. They are insistent because they sincerely believe that the gov't is the enemy that they need to prepare for. Please not that I'm not one of these type of believers - but please realize that they exist and are skewing the argument. Not only do they have to arm, it's imperative that their guns be 'off grid'. If they gov't knows about them, they'll come after them. This is why gun shows are 'off grid' sales. Same/same with sales between relatives.
All the evidence shows that they more guns you have means the more killings. Check Australia . . . the rest of the world. It's nut.
They current argument in Michigan about guns in schools. The crazies aver the only way to keep our kids safe is to allow guns in schools. My problem with this logic is that if you run the calculus it always leads to having to arm the children. Is this the world you wan to live in?
They used to ban guns in town out west - check 'em when you arrive and pick 'em up when you leave.
Oh, and I'm a believer in the 2nd . . . but crazy is crazy.
and so it goes,
peace,
rono
But I'm sure you hurt someone's feelings and you committed some crime for which you will be tracked down and jailed. You have been warned.
Regarding climate change - that is an existential threat to the US and to the world. Terrorism is, to appropriate a word, inconvenient. It kills individuals, it disrupts, but it doesn't threaten US existence. (Or does one believe the US is that frail?)
However, if you require an existential threat, none of those things need to be done.
I hesitate to comment on any part of the cowardly act executed (that’s what it was) in San Bernardino, especially on a website committed to helping individual investors. But the subject has been raised and has attracted some diverse and semi-informed (?) opinions.
I can contribute just a little because I lived in San Bernardino and Redlands for about 8 years in the 1960s. Subsequently, I was hired to consult with firms in that region until very recently. I know the area and am somewhat familiar with the folks there.
In my opinion, the likelihood of a terrorist attack within the U.S. was 100%, an absolute certainty. The uncertainties were the when and the where. That the answer to those uncertainties were Now and San Bernardino was not all that shocking.
To over-generalize, San Bernardino is a troubled community from many dimensions. Compared to California as a whole, San Bernardino suffers from many marginal jobs and inhabitants. Both the local climate (smog and desert-like environment) and the paucity of financial resources operate to make living in San Bernardino and some nearby communities a heavy-load challenge. As a general observation, these folks struggle in battling the severe weather conditions and a tough scarcity of good income sources.
San Bernardino is a poor city; nearby Redlands is an exception in terms of elevated wealth and city prestige. In San Bernardino, the median per capita income, the family income, the cost of housing, and the percentage of folks with advanced education are all below California averages. Some folks live in the town because it is relatively cheap to do so.
Anecdotally, I suspect there are more guns per capita in that region then the national average of roughly one per person. More then 35 % of the local population owns guns. One reason, nothing to do with terrorism or self-protection, is the easy access to unoccupied desert areas where shooting is a practiced sport.
I did exactly that when living there, and even traveled greater distances several times a year to fire a few practice rounds. I no longer make that trek but my kids do. By the way, I secured my M1 Garand rifle in the 1980s when the government reduced their inventory with a free giveaway project to qualified individuals.
Guns do kill, and must be monitored with respect. When the kids were young, our weapons were kept in a large safe that only my wife and I could access. Americans have owned guns forever. As you guys anticipated, I do not post without some statistical reference. Here is a Mother Jones article that appeared a few months ago:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/gun-owners-study-one-in-three
Please take especial note of the Gun ownership vs. Gun Death chart. Alaska leads all states while California is near the bottom of the pack. Good for us.
With respect to the San Bernardino tragedy, focusing on gun proliferation within the U.S. is misguided. Gun ownership is not the problem; Radical religious terrorism is. Finally the government acknowledges what was obvious several days ago.
My heart is heavy for those folks who (according to reports) just a few months earlier gave a baby shower to celebrate the birth of their killer's child, and disastrously attended that sad Christmas party.
Best Wishes.
Gun "registration"/gun "control". Better ask (esp. when Dianne Feinstein's name is attached to it), "whatchu mean, Willis?!" Besides, it really doesn't matter much anyway:
http://theantimedia.org/feds-illegally-maintain-registry-of-firearm-owners-media-fails-to-report-it/
It's already being done. So it's illegal--- what are you going to do with the information, huh, chump? We'll have someone from the Community Minder Program pay you a visit and you can discuss your concerns with them. Been wanting to have a chat for awhile now anyway.
However, for those interested in the whole “gun violence” issue in the USA, a couple things to consider:
1. Accordingly to this article in the NYTimes (hardly a conservative bastion), MOST gun deaths in the USA are suicides. Suicide is a tragedy, but let’s face it a suicide will find some other method – and I suspect most suicides have no criminal issues which would cause them to fail the background check for purchasing a gun. ---
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/gun-deaths-are-mostly-suicides.html?_r=0
And also:
http://www.vocativ.com/usa/guns/suicides-outnumber-homicides-comes-gun-violence/
What is the answer? Suicides are as old as humanity. You won’t stop suicides – so those of you REALLY concerned about gun violence/deaths (as opposed to stripping citizens of their civil rights to own guns), realize suicides will just find some other method. Personally, I think suicide at a certain age (say 50 and up) should be legal, and handled humanely – a la the way Edward G. Robinson’s character ‘exited’ in Soylent Green. (Obviously, we want to avoid converting remains into ‘edibles’ afterwards.)
2. Drug-related murders seem to be a large percentage of homicides (I presume most of these homicide are done with a gun.. Refer to page 4 of the link:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/DRRC.PDF
3. Gang-related : Some gang-related violence is drug related, but other times not. The following link (old study, but probably still valid, discuss this (down/lower on the page/link:
http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html
4. Men and sex: The following is going to be controversial. But, here goes -- For a lot of the true “lone wolf” shooters, one thing I’ve noticed -- they are men (not women), and they have no woman, and no prospect of having a relationship with a woman. Women tend anchor men to society -- civilize them. Having a woman whether in a long-term relationship, or even just the periodic fleeting (meaningless, but fun) liaison takes the edge off. A man without a woman is rudderless. Men “not getting any” in any society is a prescription for violence (whether petty crime or radicalism, or (historically) wars). Men who can reasonably look forward to regular female companionship, may be less-disposed to dying in a bloody slaughter, or spending their life in prison. After all, they have something to look forward to. The Dem pols who bemoan gun violence won’t address this -- as it would counter to a key Democratic constituency (the feminist groups) but perhaps its time to consider legalized, regulated prostitution in this country. Would that “destroy this country”? Unlikely. Canada has it, and most people think of Canadians as pretty “laid back”. Get and keep potential lone-wolf “relaxed” and you probably eliminate a lot of lone-wolf shootings.
I’m WAY long. Apologies. Gotta go.
It might just be time to revisit this, assuming the NRA deems it acceptable.
From the article: " When the Second Amendment is discussed today, we tend to think of those “militias” as just a bunch of ordinary guys with guns, empowering themselves to resist authority when and if necessary. Nothing could be further from the founders’ vision.
Militias were tightly controlled organizations legally defined and regulated by the individual colonies before the Revolution and, after independence, by the individual states. Militia laws ran on for pages and were some of the lengthiest pieces of legislation in the statute books. States kept track of who had guns, had the right to inspect them in private homes and could fine citizens for failing to report to a muster.
These laws also defined what type of guns you had to buy — a form of taxation levied on individual households. Yes, long before Obamacare, the state made you buy something, even if you did not want to purchase it. (The guns required by law were muskets, not pistols. The only exceptions to this general rule were the horsemen’s pistols that dragoons and other mounted units needed.)
The founders had a word for a bunch of farmers marching with guns without government sanction: a mob. One of the reasons we have a Constitution is the founders were worried about the danger posed by individuals acting like a militia without legal authority. This was precisely what happened during Shays’ Rebellion, an insurrection in western Massachusetts that persuaded many Americans that we needed a stronger central government to avert anarchy.
Many people think that we have the Second Amendment so that we can take up arms against the government if it overreaches its authority. If that interpretation were correct, it would mean that the Second Amendment had repealed the Constitution’s treason clause, which defines this crime as taking up arms against the government. In reality, in the first decade after the Constitution, the government put down several rebellions similar to Shays - and nobody claimed that they were merely asserting their Second Amendment rights."
Reply: Really? --- Because a bunch of farmers marching with guns without govt sanction is what the FOUNDERS were -- vis a vis George III.
Most of the founders did sign a little document which states, among other things: "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles...."
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
The men who signed that document used GUNS --- not jabber ---to secure those rights. Men overthrowing tyrannies with guns is the basis for for our liberty. That document is deemed to be the founding document of our nation -- and our national birthdate July 4th, is the date on that document.
I am sure George III, if he had a 'do-over' would have loved to have instituted gun control. Gun control is beloved by tyrants around the world. A state monopoly on the weapons of deadly force is the basis for every tyranny. The emergence of Western democracies --- the American Revolution, but also the Magna Carta in England, and the French Revolution -- is the existence of an armed citizenry -- willing and able to overthrow tyranny. Without those armed & agitated citizens, modern, civil society would not exist.
It's worth noting too, the 2nd Amendment -- like the entire Bill of Rights are in no way intended to be an exhaustive list of "permissible privileges" which are granted to individuals by a beneficent state --privileges which can be encroached upon, and given and taken away. Rather they are intended as a check on the limits of government power. The inclination of some statists (calling them "liberal" is a mockery of the word) to cleverly attempt to whittle away our rights, runs directly counter to the Constitution. I will concede, today's gun control advocates may be well meaning, but their objectives are fundamentally UN-American based on the Constitution, and the act of our founding (the Revolution).
To whatever degree militias were or were not regulated in the colonies, the "right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". -- Note: there is no qualifying language which states "unless it is determined by the national government that guns rights should be infringed on...".
Those who don't like 2nd Amendment are free (because of guns) to attempt to amend the constitution. Until such time as it is amended, those who prefer living in a country with severe gun control, North Korea may suit them better -- very little gun violence there -- except which is perpetrated by the state.