Congressman shot

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: KeithE

Re: Congressman shot

Postby Sandy » Sun Jun 18, 2017 9:16 am

Jon Estes wrote:
Sandy wrote:A small step. Maybe. If the Republicans would just put some common sense and reality into their fantasyland, they might actually accomplish something beneficial for the population at large. I know that's antithetical to their principles, helping and protecting people and all, but they might find they like it if they give it a try.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpos ... a9999d6a07


When the Democrats had the house and senate, why didn't they do something about this? It must have been antithetical to their principles, helping and protecting people and all.


They did. As much as they could get through, during the period when they had control of congress. And they do, where they can. I live in a state where the Democrats used the opportunity they had to put in some common sense legislation regarding registration and ownership of guns, following a school shooting that would have been preventable if there had just been a waiting period in place. Right wingers and NRA nuts think that what the Democrats want to do is just ban guns, because they can scare people with that narrative. But that's not what they want. What happened here was consultation with law enforcement, district attorneys, sheriff departments and people who find themselves on the front lines, and legislation which has reduced gun violence
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8057
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Congressman shot

Postby Jon Estes » Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:13 am

Timothy Bonney wrote:Jon, I'm not Sandy. But backgrounds checks for mentally ill people I understand was recently removed by a bill that went through congress. I see that background check potentially having a positive effect. Most Americans support background checks.

The Democrats have failed as much as the GOP on the issues of guns and violence. Neither should get a pass because the other failed.


|Timothy,

I have no problem with background checks as long as they do not make them so restrictive keeping solid Americans can still buy / own / collect guns.

The problem is, in response to Sandy's assertion... What laws can be passed now that would have prevented the shooting... mass killings?
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:14 am

Re: Congressman shot

Postby Sandy » Sun Jun 18, 2017 6:55 pm

One is accountability. Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter, did not own the guns he used in the shooting. Nor did Jared Lee Loughner, who shot Congresswoman Gabirelle Giffords and killed 6 and injured 13. Both had a history of run-ins with the law, drug use and mental illness. Both had access to weapons in the house in which they lived. A simple law, going one step further, requiring their parents to ensure that they couldn't get their hands on the weapons, would have prevented both shootings. A 48 hour waiting period, to allow for a thorough background check, would have prevented Charles Roberts from obtaining the weapons he used in the West Nickle Mines Amish School shooting. Owning a gun is a right, but if you've run up a record of misdemeanors, have a pattern of run-ins with the law, or have been arrested for using illegal drugs, you forfeit that right. Conservatives want to take welfare benefits away from people for less than that. How many mass shootings would have been prevented if a shooter had to have a full year with a clean record, and no misdemeanors or drug or alcohol violations before being allowed to purchase a gun. If they live in a house with someone--relatives or their parents--who are gun owners, they should be required to ensure that access is restricted.

The deeper registration requirements, longer waiting periods and more extensive background checks for which Democrats have advocated at least since Columbine do not restrict anyone's right to bear arms. If the NRA is genuinely interested in defending "law abiding citizen gun owners," then this kind of legislation would do exactly that.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8057
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Congressman shot

Postby Jon Estes » Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:46 pm

Sandy wrote:One is accountability. Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter, did not own the guns he used in the shooting. Nor did Jared Lee Loughner, who shot Congresswoman Gabirelle Giffords and killed 6 and injured 13. Both had a history of run-ins with the law, drug use and mental illness. Both had access to weapons in the house in which they lived. A simple law, going one step further, requiring their parents to ensure that they couldn't get their hands on the weapons, would have prevented both shootings. A 48 hour waiting period, to allow for a thorough background check, would have prevented Charles Roberts from obtaining the weapons he used in the West Nickle Mines Amish School shooting. Owning a gun is a right, but if you've run up a record of misdemeanors, have a pattern of run-ins with the law, or have been arrested for using illegal drugs, you forfeit that right. Conservatives want to take welfare benefits away from people for less than that. How many mass shootings would have been prevented if a shooter had to have a full year with a clean record, and no misdemeanors or drug or alcohol violations before being allowed to purchase a gun. If they live in a house with someone--relatives or their parents--who are gun owners, they should be required to ensure that access is restricted.

The deeper registration requirements, longer waiting periods and more extensive background checks for which Democrats have advocated at least since Columbine do not restrict anyone's right to bear arms. If the NRA is genuinely interested in defending "law abiding citizen gun owners," then this kind of legislation would do exactly that.


So, a greater big brother state.

I'm not sure a more thorough background check would have kept a gun out of the GOP shooters hands. The killer at Sandy Hook killed his mom first. Gaining access to the guns after such action is more than likely easy. Nancy Lanza had the guns, locked in a gun cabinet... described as a lock box.

The DNC want the restrictions so tight that some non dangerous people would be denied their constitutional right to bear arms. Who gets to decide what is the red line to who cannot get a gun? To think the DNC doesn't want to take guns away is being totally ignorant.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:14 am

Re: Congressman shot

Postby Sandy » Mon Jun 19, 2017 9:02 am

Jon Estes wrote:
Sandy wrote:One is accountability. Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter, did not own the guns he used in the shooting. Nor did Jared Lee Loughner, who shot Congresswoman Gabirelle Giffords and killed 6 and injured 13. Both had a history of run-ins with the law, drug use and mental illness. Both had access to weapons in the house in which they lived. A simple law, going one step further, requiring their parents to ensure that they couldn't get their hands on the weapons, would have prevented both shootings. A 48 hour waiting period, to allow for a thorough background check, would have prevented Charles Roberts from obtaining the weapons he used in the West Nickle Mines Amish School shooting. Owning a gun is a right, but if you've run up a record of misdemeanors, have a pattern of run-ins with the law, or have been arrested for using illegal drugs, you forfeit that right. Conservatives want to take welfare benefits away from people for less than that. How many mass shootings would have been prevented if a shooter had to have a full year with a clean record, and no misdemeanors or drug or alcohol violations before being allowed to purchase a gun. If they live in a house with someone--relatives or their parents--who are gun owners, they should be required to ensure that access is restricted.

The deeper registration requirements, longer waiting periods and more extensive background checks for which Democrats have advocated at least since Columbine do not restrict anyone's right to bear arms. If the NRA is genuinely interested in defending "law abiding citizen gun owners," then this kind of legislation would do exactly that.


So, a greater big brother state.

I'm not sure a more thorough background check would have kept a gun out of the GOP shooters hands. The killer at Sandy Hook killed his mom first. Gaining access to the guns after such action is more than likely easy. Nancy Lanza had the guns, locked in a gun cabinet... described as a lock box.

The DNC want the restrictions so tight that some non dangerous people would be denied their constitutional right to bear arms. Who gets to decide what is the red line to who cannot get a gun? To think the DNC doesn't want to take guns away is being totally ignorant.


Yeah, that's always the right wing extremist argument. The Democrats just want to take away your guns, and any additional control related to background checks, waiting periods, or responsibility is "a greater big brother state," yadda yadda yadda. You bemoan abortion, and elevate it to a place of singular support, yet you are unwilling to allow even the most common sense, rudimentary legislation to protect children from being murdered in their classrooms or citizens from being murdered as they go about their lives.

There's nothing the Democrats have proposed over the past 24 years, back to the beginning of the Clinton administration, that remotely suggests they want to take everyone's guns away, and it is ignorant to make that claim. A longer waiting period, stricter accountability or a more thorough background check might not have stopped the shooter at the Republican baseball practice, but it would have stopped dozens of others who wound up taking multiple lives. And it wouldn't have taken a single gun or round of ammunition away from a legitimate, responsible citizen gun owner who has the constitutional right to bear arms, and who loves to hunt with AK-47 assault rifles and rocket launchers.

If you're against the murder of children before they are born, and you're clearly in favor of a "big brother state" when it comes to those very personal, individual decisions, then you need to be against their murder after they are born. If it takes a big brother state to protect children from both abortion and being gunned down in school, then so be it. Your inconsistency on the sanctity of human life, and protecting it after birth, undermines your credibility.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8057
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Congressman shot

Postby KeithE » Mon Jun 19, 2017 9:15 am

Sandy wrote:
Jon Estes wrote:
Sandy wrote:One is accountability. Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter, did not own the guns he used in the shooting. Nor did Jared Lee Loughner, who shot Congresswoman Gabirelle Giffords and killed 6 and injured 13. Both had a history of run-ins with the law, drug use and mental illness. Both had access to weapons in the house in which they lived. A simple law, going one step further, requiring their parents to ensure that they couldn't get their hands on the weapons, would have prevented both shootings. A 48 hour waiting period, to allow for a thorough background check, would have prevented Charles Roberts from obtaining the weapons he used in the West Nickle Mines Amish School shooting. Owning a gun is a right, but if you've run up a record of misdemeanors, have a pattern of run-ins with the law, or have been arrested for using illegal drugs, you forfeit that right. Conservatives want to take welfare benefits away from people for less than that. How many mass shootings would have been prevented if a shooter had to have a full year with a clean record, and no misdemeanors or drug or alcohol violations before being allowed to purchase a gun. If they live in a house with someone--relatives or their parents--who are gun owners, they should be required to ensure that access is restricted.

The deeper registration requirements, longer waiting periods and more extensive background checks for which Democrats have advocated at least since Columbine do not restrict anyone's right to bear arms. If the NRA is genuinely interested in defending "law abiding citizen gun owners," then this kind of legislation would do exactly that.


So, a greater big brother state.

I'm not sure a more thorough background check would have kept a gun out of the GOP shooters hands. The killer at Sandy Hook killed his mom first. Gaining access to the guns after such action is more than likely easy. Nancy Lanza had the guns, locked in a gun cabinet... described as a lock box.

The DNC want the restrictions so tight that some non dangerous people would be denied their constitutional right to bear arms. Who gets to decide what is the red line to who cannot get a gun? To think the DNC doesn't want to take guns away is being totally ignorant.


Yeah, that's always the right wing extremist argument. The Democrats just want to take away your guns, and any additional control related to background checks, waiting periods, or responsibility is "a greater big brother state," yadda yadda yadda. You bemoan abortion, and elevate it to a place of singular support, yet you are unwilling to allow even the most common sense, rudimentary legislation to protect children from being murdered in their classrooms or citizens from being murdered as they go about their lives.

There's nothing the Democrats have proposed over the past 24 years, back to the beginning of the Clinton administration, that remotely suggests they want to take everyone's guns away, and it is ignorant to make that claim. A longer waiting period, stricter accountability or a more thorough background check might not have stopped the shooter at the Republican baseball practice, but it would have stopped dozens of others who wound up taking multiple lives. And it wouldn't have taken a single gun or round of ammunition away from a legitimate, responsible citizen gun owner who has the constitutional right to bear arms, and who loves to hunt with AK-47 assault rifles and rocket launchers.

If you're against the murder of children before they are born, and you're clearly in favor of a "big brother state" when it comes to those very personal, individual decisions, then you need to be against their murder after they are born. If it takes a big brother state to protect children from both abortion and being gunned down in school, then so be it. Your inconsistency on the sanctity of human life, and protecting it after birth, undermines your credibility.


Amen to that. I’d take away multi-round assault weapons as well (though I have no idea how to define that - I’ll leave that to rational/humane gun-lovers).
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8277
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Congressman shot

Postby Sandy » Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:36 am

Oh, I don't know Keith. You know that target practice with assault rifles and automatic, rapid fire weapons is part of the right to bear arms. And of course, we are talking about responsible, gun owning citizens who want this stuff, not criminals, or anyone like that. You know that if you have a couple of parents who don't have anything else to do, they can come and hang out with their arsenal at their kids' elementary school, to shoot down an intruder if one happened to walk up, right? Besides, the right to bear arms means that private citizens must be allowed to own the weaponry they might need in the event that they have to overthrow a tryannical government, like all those Trump supporters who went on camera to advocate for that if he didn't win. :lol:
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8057
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Congressman shot

Postby Haruo » Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:43 pm

Privatize the nukes. Ŵhy ŝhould they all be in the hands of the oppressiv, tax-stealing Feds?
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11536
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Congressman shot

Postby Mrs Haruo » Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:47 pm

I'd be worried that if I went hunting with a rocket launcher I would end up with Vaporized Venison. I prefer doing my hunting with a 35mm Minolta, but I am pretty "old school".
Don't despair if your job and your rewards are few, remember that the mighty oak was once a nut like you!
User avatar
Mrs Haruo
 
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 2:54 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Congressman shot

Postby Haruo » Mon Jun 19, 2017 2:02 pm

Mrs Haruo wrote:I'd be worried that if I went hunting with a rocket launcher I would end up with Vaporized Venison. I prefer doing my hunting with a 35mm Minolta, but I am pretty "old school".

Yeah, that she is, take it from one who knows.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11536
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Previous

Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests