world

Republicans in Congress reject new gun limits

101 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2018.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

101 Comments
Login to comment

Trump has told the NRA that he does not need them and he told them he wants more gun controls following the tragic Florida mass shooting and even pulled up VP Pence when he attempted to downplay Trump's words during a meeting with congress members.

Trump wants more gun controls.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

And with the NRA publishing deceitful propaganda urging gun owners to exercise violence against anyone they politically disagree with, it may actually happen.

The NRA has been advocating killing cops for years, labeling them as 'jackbooted thugs'. That's why ex-Pres. George H W Bush quit his NRA membership in 1993.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

America, vote these backward fools who are totally beholden to the NRA out of office! The pen can truly be mightier than the sword.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

mmwkdw: Still, if the US cant have consistency across states, one has to wonder how "United" it really is ... ?

Actually America is structured to allow differences between the states assuming all states adhere to an overall organizing principle and to basic restrictions on the power of government.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

So who's on the right - Trump or the NRA

It's just so funny. The NRA 2A people here (who choose to live without the safety of their ARs in the big gun free zone of Japan) are blaming the Liberals about what's going on pertaining to this article. Wake up Trump followers. Trump is the one presenting proposed gun restrictions and not President Hillary.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

"Donald Trump Breaks With NRA in Latest Gun Control Comments"

http://time.com/5179995/donald-trump-nra-gun-control-comments/

'Take the Guns First.' President Trump's Latest Comments on Gun Control Defy the NRA

At one point, Trump urged taking guns away from anyone who could be considered dangerous, even before they have to he opportunity to defend themselves in court. “Take the guns first, go through due process second,” he said.

In his meeting Wednesday, Trump encouraged lawmakers to pass a comprehensive bill that would expand background checks and raise the age limit for purchasing weapons to 21. The NRA has said it opposes raising the age limit for buying guns.

Some of the proposals Trump advocated on Wednesday directly conflict with the views of the NRA, a point Trump seized on. He acknowledged the influence of the NRA, agreeing with other lawmakers who had said their colleagues were gripped by the tentacles of the gun lobby.

“It doesn’t make sense that I have to wait until I’m 21 to get a handgun but I can buy this weapon at 18, I don’t know, so I was just curious as to what you did in your bill. We didn’t address it Mr. President. You know why? Because you’re afraid of the NRA right,” said Trump.

So who's on the right - Trump or the NRA

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Each country has its own Achilles heels. 15000+ gun deaths every year in the US , its far worse than an Achilles heel more like gangrene

0 ( +3 / -3 )

the people were to be protected from an abusive government.

In Japan? The government has all the guns. Why choose to move to Japan where the government has all the guns with that kind of paranoia? I would avoid Japan like the plague if I was an NRA 2A person.

the Founders believed in the Lockian natural right to self defense.

What would you do if you were attacked violently in Japan?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@zichi... Re: Mental health checks... that's a can of worms:

https://www.mentalhealth.gov/basics/what-is-mental-health

This one suggests some free testing ideas;

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4310476/

But you can see even Eating disorders fall under Mental Health, and if you go into the past-history, being LBGT was considered a Mental Health issue... (and still is in some Countries).

Peoples Mental health continually changes due to many different influences, if you go out on a Pub crawl... your Mental Health drops, but it doesn't necessarily mean you're going to wipe out the neighbour.

If you'd like a long read - this one appears to present the challenges well:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Came across this article, not sure if it's correct:

https://www.thoughtco.com/who-cannot-have-gund-in-america-4051068

If it is, then 2 issues spring out. (a) consistency across states - Federal Law appears to takes 2nd place, and (b) enforcement of those background checks.

Raising the age limit may help, but but that may just help give Law enforcement some more time to act on (b) being committed by younger people. And the Bump-stock ban, may address the work-around to the automatic/machine-gun controls loophole.

Still, if the US cant have consistency across states, one has to wonder how "United" it really is ... ?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Didn’t trump say arming teachers would make things safer?

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/world/georgia-teacher-facing-charges-after-firing-gun-at-school-1.4555939

0 ( +2 / -2 )

**arrestpaul:**

They should be focusing on identifying mass murdering psychopaths BEFORE they commit mass murders.

Every adult over 18 years should be given a mental health check and given a grading 1-10 and low grades banned from owning guns.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Arrestpaul: They should be focusing on identifying mass murdering psychopaths BEFORE they commit mass murders.

OK. Then what? You are OK with us banning him from having guns because he fits a profile?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

StrangerLand: No they didn't. From the right you quoted yourself, they stated that it was a right of a militia. There is nothing there that says they thought of it as a general right.

Well it says there is a right to a well regulated militia and there is the right to bear arms. Both halves of the amendment have equal weight.

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.”

In America today there is a national guard that serves the purpose of the militia. Of course that doesn’t mean that a militia could not again be organized in a national emergency or in some other extenuating circumstance. The idea of a militia itself is clearly not un-Constitutional. The existence of a national guard is not a de facto repeal of the right to bear arms as the Left often suggests. In fact you could say that, in the event that a well regulated militia is needed, the right to bear arms should not be infringed.

Everywhere in the Constitution that the Founders say that there is a right, it is provided to the people and not to government. At no time did the Founders insist that those individuals that were not members or potential members of a militia be disarmed. In fact, there is plenty of evidence that the Founders believed in the Lockian natural right to self defense. They also believed that rights were for people and not government. Based on their experience with King George, the people were to be protected from an abusive government.

The Constitution lists all those things that it has the power to do. All other rights belong to the people (and the states). Barring an amendment or outright abolishment of the second amendment, gun control advocates would better serve their cause in the short term if they were to focus on the states for solutions. At the same time they can push for an amendment to abolish the right to bear arms. That’s how it should be done. No rights are unlimited and guns can be and are regulated. They cannot, at this point in time, be denied to anyone anymore than free speech or freedom of religion.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Nearly two thirds of firearm deaths in the US are suicides, with men accounting for about 70% of successful attempts. Middle aged white men represent the majority of these. Studies have shown a strong association between suicidal ideation and depression, anxiety and substance abuse. Other studies have indicated that in many incidences the escalation from suicidal ideation to an actual suicide attempt is often just a matter of having a ready means at hand, and in the absence of a means the ideation subsides.

So if the objective of gun control is to reduce potential harm and save lives, it behooves society to pay close attention to the single largest cause of firearm deaths (suicide) and look for a reasonable strategy of harm reduction. States that have imposed a mandatory waiting period for the purchase of a handgun have seen a drop in suicide rates, maybe a Federally required waiting period would have the same desired effect. Identifying and addressing the root causes of the rising suicide rate among middle aged white men would probably help, too.

It doesn't get the attention of a school shooting but every day over 60% percent of Americans that die by a gun, die by their own hands. Doing something about that will go a long way towards lowering the firearm death rate. Of course, that's if the goal is really saving lives.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

"We shouldn't be banning guns from law-abiding citizens. We should be focusing on making sure that citizens who should not get guns in the first place don't get those guns," House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan told a news conference.

They should be focusing on identifying mass murdering psychopaths BEFORE they commit mass murders. Foreign nationals, and Democrats, still insist on blaming an inanimate firearm for the actions of the psychopath. There were plenty of warning signs BEFORE the last mass murder occurred. Repeatedly choosing to ignore those warning signs suggests that local, state, and federal authorities failed to properly do their jobs.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

zichi: Planes, cars, trucks and knives have all been used by terrorists to kill people but we don't ban those because they have another real domestic use

Irrelevant. None of these things are Constitutionally protected. They could be added or guns could be removed through the amendment process. But until that happens, the right to bear arms will continue to exist whereas the right to fly on a plane, for example, will not.

Nothing more than a Faux News headline. Trump has married thrice divorced twice. 

If it is false, what evidence do you have to back up the claim that most mass killers are from dysfunctional single parent (no father) homes? And how is Trumps parents situation have to do with mass shooters? I didn’t say or even imply that are males from single parent homes are mass shooters.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

cleo: We do plenty to as far as possible stop the bad people from being able to use the planes for their atrocities

That’s irrelevant. Flying on a plane or any other form of transportation is not a Constitutionally protectorated right. If you want to be ruled by the law instead of the passions of the mob, you must adhere to the Constitution as written.

Keep in mind that there are lawful ways to change the Constitution. It has been changed more than two dozen times. I am not opposed to redifining the second amendment but there is a right way to do so other than simply ignoring its words.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

This just in, the sun rose again today. (This is about as predictable as this article.)

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Laguna: Sorry, Wolf - have to disagree. The background of the Second Amendment was the Whiskey Rebellion

False. The Bill if Rights was written in 1789. The Whiskey Rebellion began in 1791. Although ratified in in same year the rebellion started, it was conceived prior to it.

* "The people" in this context should be read as "local authorities". *

The Constitution refers to the people (ie. each person) and to the rights of states. The Founders did not see the Federal government as being in control of “local authorities”. They are under the purview of the states within a republic.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

How much does all the media coverage give other teens ideas?

More people die in the USA on roads (over 100/day) or from heart disease (1600+/day) or from smoking (1300+/day) every day than from non-suicide gun acts (54/day).

Wearing seat belts and having airbags in vehicles drastically reduced vehicle deaths.

We need something similar for firearms, at least until the country decides to repeal the 2nd amendment. Mandatory gun safes/trigger locks would be a good start.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Some of your people are stocking up on semi-automatic weapons because they can't trust the media? Who are they intending to shoot?

No one, but better to have and not need them than to not have them when you need them.

Either by guns or something else, not only the States, evil is everywhere. no other first world country has more gun related deaths than the US, many 2nd and 3rd world country fair better than the US on a per capita basis.

But they have other problems to deal with and a list too long to mention.

Evil is everywhere but nowhere has it easier access to the tools of mass killings than in the US,

I call BS on that because I can make the counter argument of how guns have saved countless peoples lives.

hence the US is unchallenged in gun deaths, facts backed by statistics.

Ok and? Each country has its own Achilles heels.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Either by guns or something else, not only the States, evil is everywhere. no other first world country has more gun related deaths than the US, many 2nd and 3rd world country fair better than the US on a per capita basis. Evil is everywhere but nowhere has it easier access to the tools of mass killings than in the US, hence the US is unchallenged in gun deaths, facts backed by statistics.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

"Live by the sword, die by the sword!"

1 ( +4 / -3 )

A lot of people, not a small group feel they can’t trust their law enforcement, the Federal government and the media, sales will go on registered and on the illegal side as well.

Some of your people are stocking up on semi-automatic weapons because they can't trust the media? Who are they intending to shoot?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Thank God for that. Kudos!

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

I said yesterday that he NRA owns the Republican Party. This story today proves it.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

A hand gun in Chicago can be bought for less than $50 off the streets. They are coming from Indiana with its very much less strict gun laws. So it don't matter how strict the Illinois gun laws are if in the next State the guns are easy to buy.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Bass:

Remember this?

CNN was the one that tried to script the kids into saying things emotional and it worked for them, they got enough clicks. 

https://japantoday.com/member/bass4funk

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Everyone IS armed in Chicago and that idiot Emanuel did nothing aggressive to stop it, but he sure wants their votes though. This guy is disgusting!

Similar to those idiots Trump, Ryan, Rubio, et. al. Those guys are disgusting.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Carry a gun to protect your own life,no alternatives!

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

fully automatic weapons are **very expensive, upwards of $10,000 and more, **total BS you can pick up a used AK47 in some states for less than a $1000 , can of surplus ammo 7.62x39mm 700rnd for around $160, so you can be a one man killing machine for less than $1000.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

That is clearly not how the Founders viewed gun ownership. They understood and accepted gun ownership as a general right. 

Sorry, Wolf - have to disagree. The background of the Second Amendment was the Whiskey Rebellion, which was precisely why they wanted an "organized militia" - a government force to fight against hoodlums and outlaws. "The people" in this context should be read as "local authorities". Reading the wording in those terms, both grammatically and historically, should give the Supremes sufficient cause to interpret the Amendment in the way I believe it was originally meant.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

At least a militia as envisioned by the framers.

Don't forget the "well regulated" part of militias. If you want a clearer picture of what the framers really envisioned, take a look at the Articles of Confederation on which the Second Amendment was based.

"every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage"

It's not as concise and catchy as they likely wanted for the Bill of Rights, but it makes it clear that the intent was militias, not individuals. I guess they overestimated future generations' ability to reasonably interpret.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

So, the problem in Chicago is gun restrictions? Sounds familiar.

Doesn't work.

Arming everyone in Chicago is your idea of a good idea?

How about not allowing guns to be sold by unlicensed dealers as a start? Consider removing gun restrictions then. There are systems to register title to cars but why not guns.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

When it comes to gun control laws in Chicago it does not apply when it comes to the gang warfare.

Chicago is considered the most gang-infested city in the United States, with a population of over 100,000 active members from nearly 60 factions. Gang warfareand retaliation is common in Chicago. Gangs were responsible for 61% of the homicides in Chicago in 2011.

The homicide rates would be lower without the gang related crime.

Former Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy blames Chicago's gang culture for its high rates of homicide and other violent crime, stating "It's very frustrating to know that it's like 7% of the population causes 80% of the violent crime.

The majority of shootings occur in the city’s most impoverished neighborhoods. The majority of victims are African-American men, with nearly 50 percent in their teens and twenties.

Chicago needs much more than gun control laws. Social change. Commission on gangs. End to corrupt politicians and cops.

Change happened in New York and can also happen in Chicago.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

So, the problem in Chicago is gun restrictions? Sounds familiar.

Doesn't work.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

That of a militia to bear arms.

The framers considered an armed citizenry to constitute the militia.

The Bill of Rights protects individual rights. A militia, in and of itself, has no rights beyond the rights of its individual citizen members, therefore the right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms is essential for the formation of a militia. At least a militia as envisioned by the framers.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Yet we have seen that even states with strong gun restrictions have high rates of gun violence. 600 murders in Chicago. 

So, the problem in Chicago is gun restrictions? Sounds familiar.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Gods sake guns are too easy to get in America, Some Americas are saying "it's our right to be armed" from a 200+ Year old piece of paper. And that justifies the frequent mass saluter of innocents? Arm teachers? Their solution is more guns? Look at any other nation and guns are not held in such reverence. It's beyond a sick fascination, how many deaths are enough? These highly paid representative people need to get a grip.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

The 2nd amendment does not grant American citizens the right to keep and bear arms

That's correct.

it protects what the framers considered to be a natural and inalienable right, from government infringement.

That of a militia to bear arms.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Gun ownership have been constant since 1972-2017. Always 40+% something. 47% in 1990. 37% in 2013. 42% in 2017.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/249740/percentage-of-households-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/

Number of mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and February 2018, by mass shooter's race and ethnicity

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

many other stats on that site.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

bass4funk

That just didn’t sound good at all on so many levels.

No sex change for you then, but really so many good points and less crime against women since the attacker is usually male, won't know if their target is armed. No female mass shooters.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Only American women should be allowed to own guns since they are the safer half of the sexes and there are never any female mass shooters even from dysfunctional and broken families. 

Would make gun control quicker and easier and reduce gun crimes too.

That just didn’t sound good at all on so many levels.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Actually gun ownership has been declining for some time.

You have a smaller number of people buying more and more weapons.

Not in the Red States, gun sales have been slowly increasing.

And apparently that smaller group of people seem to be partly fueled by, "I don't trust the media so let me go out and buy an AR-15 and a few thousand rounds."

A lot of people, not a small group feel they can’t trust their law enforcement, the Federal government and the media, sales will go on registered and on the illegal side as well.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

They understood and accepted gun ownership as a general right.

No they didn't. From the right you quoted yourself, they stated that it was a right of a militia. There is nothing there that says they thought of it as a general right.

Although the first ten amendments of the US constitution are called the Bill of Rights, they bestow no rights. The purpose of the amendments is to define the limits of the government's power over the individual rights of the citizenry. The framers clearly stated that the rights the amendments were protecting were natural and inalienable.

The 2nd amendment does not grant American citizens the right to keep and bear arms, it protects what the framers considered to be a natural and inalienable right, from government infringement.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Schools are safer than they were in the 90s, and school shootings are not more common than they used to be, researchers say

https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/02/schools-are-still-one-of-the-safest-places-for-children-researcher-says/

And before the squawking starts: Fridel and Fox used data collected by USA Today, the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Report, Congressional Research Service, Gun Violence Archive, Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries, Mother Jones, Everytown for Gun Safety, and an NYPD report on active shooters.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

America’s gun laws have always been relatively “loose” compared to other countries.

Compared to other countries, yes. Compared to current gun laws, no. America's gun laws used to be much stricter back in the day, despite guns having become more dangerous.

What is different today is America’s dysfunctional culture and the break-up of the family.

That change occurred in most wealthy nations around the world. What is different is that America has a LOT more guns.

We don’t blame terrorist attacks on planes - we blame the people that use the planes for the atrocities.

No, but we passed regulations to improve plane safety almost instantly.

The Supreme Court has ruled what is common sense to any thinking person that the right to self defense is an individual right (Heller vs. District of Columbia).

That Supreme Court ruling is an interpretation of the Second Amendment. It was a 5-4 ruling (take a guess on the split) made in 2008. It was the latest in the continued loosening of the amendment's interpretation.

The only way to remove the individual right is to amend the Constitution.

See how Supreme Court rulings can change the interpretation of "individual rights"? They can change them in either direction. The Constitution was designed to be amended to keep up with the times, but it's not even necessary in this case.

Yet we have seen that even states with strong gun restrictions have high rates of gun violence. 600 murders in Chicago.

You guys always bring this up, ignoring the fact that strict laws in Illinois mean nothing without border checks at state lines. As long as gun laws are loose in enough states, the gun manufacturers will profit by cranking out more guns/ammo, making access easy for everyone.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Only American women should be allowed to own guns since they are the safer half of the sexes and there are never any female mass shooters even from dysfunctional and broken families.

Would make gun control quicker and easier and reduce gun crimes too.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

"...and Republicans in Congress will themselves be REJECTED this coming November."

0 ( +3 / -3 )

as you stated, the Second Amendment states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

No, that's not what it says.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Most mass killers are men from families without fathers.

Most mass killers are men. So lets apply your comments to men. After all, we don't blame the plane for being flown into buildings, right?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

They understood and accepted gun ownership as a general right.

No they didn't. From the right you quoted yourself, they stated that it was a right of a militia. There is nothing there that says they thought of it as a general right.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Most mass killers are men from families without fathers. 

Nothing more than a Faux News headline. Trump has married thrice divorced twice. Headline to increase viewers and readers. So what if all people who loss their fathers, for whatever reason have a life time ban from owning guns or at least required to have deep file analysis and background checks.

If as you claim, the cause of mass shootings are the dysfunctional families and the break-up of families and not the gun control laws, which allow for unlimited ownership of guns which only have the purpose to kill and with assault weapons to kill as many as possible in the shortest time, points for the need for extensive background checks to ensure the buyer is not from a dysfunctional or broken family.

Gun regulations are the issue because there is no other way to ensure mostly males from the dysfunctional and broken families are not buying deadly weapons.

We don’t blame terrorist attacks on planes - we blame the people that use the planes for the atrocities.

Something similar could be stated about bombs. Domestic and foreign terrorists have attacked and killed with their deadly weapons, but we don't say it was the terrorists who killed and not the bombs therefore we will allow people to have bombs. Deadly poisons are also strictly controlled.

Planes, cars, trucks and knives have all been used by terrorists to kill people but we don't ban those because they have another real domestic use, like transporting people and knives are used in our kitchens to prepare our foods.

Although, many countries including Japan, have banned the carrying of hunting style knives or knives with blades over a certain length on the public streets and highways.

When it comes to guns they are mostly designed for the purpose of killings which the possible exception of sport shooting and a huge caliber bullet is not required to hit a sports target or destroy it. Hunting guns are designed to kill animals and prey but without destroying the kill. The real hassle of shooting ducks with a shot gun is getting the lead pellets out before you can cook and eat it. Automatic and semi automatic weapons are not needed for hunting nor for farmers who prefer rifles and shot guns.

So how would it be decided who is safe to own a gun and who comes from a dysfunctional and broken family. A gun owner register. Extensive background checks including mental health tests. Banning of all gun sales from unlicensed traders including private sales, online and gun shows and preventing people under 21 years from being gifted a gun and gifted guns must remain within the same family.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

We don’t blame terrorist attacks on planes - we blame the people that use the planes for the atrocities. Gun regulations aren’t the issue

We do plenty to as far as possible stop the bad people from being able to use the planes for their atrocities: all passengers are screened and searched, luggage likewise, there are watch lists to keep potentially dodgy people off the planes, the cockpit where the pilots and controls are has a locked and fortified door to keep control of the plane out of the hands of the bad guys. Pilots go through rigorous training before they're allowed to take charge of a plane full of passengers.

And there are no 19-year-old airline captains.

Overlay that on the gun problem and it gives us some handy pointers: anyone wanting to own or even handle a gun should be subjected to strict vetting, licensing and training, anyone on a watch list should be denied all access to guns, all guns should be kept safely locked away and inaccessible to anyone deemed in the least bit iffy (well over half the population, if we believe the pro-gun 'it's all because of mental health' posters).

No one under the age of thirty should be anywhere near a gun.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

I'm all for tougher gun laws, because we all know that the last thing a school mass-shooter would want to do is break the law and get a gun illegally...

Fortunately we do know that not being able to buy guns legally means less potential murderers actually go through with it.

Thing is, guns make it really, really easy to kill a lot of people quickly, going down in a blaze of 'glory'.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Laguna: Please transcribe for me the Second Amendment and why you interpret it as you do. Until you do not, your arguments have zero meaning.

OK. That is a reasonable request.

“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.”

I used to believe that the Second Amendment meant that only individual members of a militia have the right to bear arms - of any type. But that reading takes the amendment out of context. That is clearly not how the Founders viewed gun ownership. They understood and accepted gun ownership as a general right. Just because militias in America do not exist today in the same form does not preclude them from existing in that form again someday in the future. Unlikely but not out of the realm of possibility. So until the Second is repealed or modified through the amendment process, it must be accepted in the same manner as its authors conceived it. To do otherwise makes all laws fungible and subject to corruption.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Gun owners and the NRA are cowards, and that's all there is to it. These guys don't want to enforce any laws or make gun laws strict because they get donations from the NRA. Plain and simple. They are cowards; Trump among them, which he proved after his phone call and backpedalled on his promises.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

MrBum: Florida's loose gun laws not only failed to protect citizens, they were the very cause of the problem.

America’s gun laws have always been relatively “loose” compared to other countries. What is different today is America’s dysfunctional culture and the break-up of the family. Most mass killers are men from families without fathers. We don’t blame terrorist attacks on planes - we blame the people that use the planes for the atrocities. Gun regulations aren’t the issue.

Except it's not enshrined in the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment only talks about the security of the state, specifically mentions militias, and says "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 

The Supreme Court has ruled what is common sense to any thinking person that the right to self defense is an individual right (Heller vs. District of Columbia). Even so, as you stated, the Second Amendment states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. That language hasn’t changed regardless if you consider it an individual right or not. The US Constitution has been amended nearly 30 times. The only way to remove the individual right is to amend the Constitution. But you make a good point about the fact that states can make regulations on gun use. Yet we have seen that even states with strong gun restrictions have high rates of gun violence. 600 murders in Chicago. There are a lot of young men and boys raised without fathers in Chicago.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

The multiple failures of the government to defend the students in Florida is a good reason why the second amendment exists.

Respectfully agree, good sir. The current interpretation of the Second Amendment is precisely the cause of the multiple failures of the government to defend the students in Florida.

Please transcribe for me the Second Amendment and why you interpret it as you do. Until you do not, your arguments have zero meaning.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Bass: What do you think of republicans obstructing the ideas the Dems are trying to advance regarding firearm regulation?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

@Raw Beer

I'm all for tougher gun laws, because we all know that the last thing a school mass-shooter would want to do is break the law and get a gun illegally...

The idea of tougher gun laws it to make it harder for them to get such weapons......

3 ( +6 / -3 )

I'm all for tougher gun laws, because we all know that the last thing a school mass-shooter would want to do is break the law and get a gun illegally...

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

The Republic-Cons are unfit for any position of public trust and have put all of us at the mercy of this puppet of a foreign hostile power, compromised money-launderer, serial bankrupt, proud abuser of women, authoritarian buffoon, and con-man. They all need to go at the first electoral or prosecutorial opportunity.

"When our children act like leaders, and our leaders act like children, you know it's time for a change."

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Too many congress republicans taking care of the NRA cash wagon than a small improvement to any gun laws. For them the second amendment reads more like a bank statement. So Trump's request to raise the age, increase background checks and ban bump stocks will go bye-bye and Trump is covered with "it's congress stupid!"

5 ( +8 / -3 )

2nd amendment was written when black powder muzzle loading weapons were the norm, it was also written after a war with England. It has no relevance today, unless assault weapons are replaced with muzzle loading weapons...and a fear of an English invasion is imminent.

Cricky, you are correct!! That was partly what I alluded too, but most Americans comprehend the actual HISTORY behind the 2nd amendment!

As we see on some posts here many distort it all to hell & many DEATHS are a DIRECT result!! Pretty sad & beyond pathetic.

The even scarier thing is if the US ever really TANKS badly it will make the Afghanistan, Iraq & Syria all look like picnics, the fools stocking up on guns & ammo are often nut jobs of the highest order!

2 ( +6 / -4 )

I'm about to SNAP, off my Meds but thank God my second amendment rights allow me to own a high capacity bump stock assault rifle. Actually 12 but can't use them all at once, unless I was an octopus, octopus always holding me back. Where is my constitutional right to be an octopus. Stupid neighbour always looking at me.....

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Bass: You're surprised by that? More and more people have such a growing distrust in government and the media as well as people in the intelligence agency and see what these people are doing. Not condoning it, but I understand.

Actually gun ownership has been declining for some time. You have a smaller number of people buying more and more weapons.

If the media were more honest and less partisan, people wouldn’t be doing this, but as such, the trust has totally eroded with these people and it won’t change.

And apparently that smaller group of people seem to be partly fueled by, "I don't trust the media so let me go out and buy an AR-15 and a few thousand rounds."

2 ( +6 / -4 )

The government at all levels was given multiple opportunities to stop Cruz but they all failed - the FBI, local sheriff, police, and the school system. They are representatives of government and all failed to protect their citizens.

Florida's loose gun laws not only failed to protect citizens, they were the very cause of the problem.

The right to self defense is a fundamental human right - that is why it is enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

Except it's not enshrined in the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment only talks about the security of the state, specifically mentions militias, and says "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That last bit is all gun advocates have in support, but "Arms" is a vague term and we already infringe on the right to bear needlessly dangerous arms like automatic weapons, explosives, etc. There's no reason we can't go further and include everything but low capacity weapons in that category.

It would take a massive gun confiscation program the likes of which the world has never seen

Yup, to remedy a massive proliferation of guns the likes of which the world has never seen.

a police state to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals.

Law enforcement confiscated a massive amount of drugs from armed criminals throughout the drug war. It didn't result in a police state.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

Maybe the next generation will be smarter than the current dumb as rocks one calling the shots (no pun intended) now. Our generation has made things worse by not doing a thing.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Federal overreach again. Just like when they withheld DoT money to force states to raise their drinking ages to 21.

Shameful.

States rights need to be respected and state legislatures should be addressing this in the way they feel is needed, while still being constitutional for both the state and US constitutions. That isn't always easy.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

@Dwight

Want to be rational about this?

Yes, let's be sensible about this. Here you have an item that is designed for 1 thing and 1 thing only, to kill. Any logical, reasonable or rational person would think allowing unfetted access to such items, especially those of a violent or homicidal nature, would be , well .......irrational. The most logical thing to do, is not arm teachers or ordinary citizens to the teeth, but to have some form of control. Call me crazy......

6 ( +10 / -4 )

2nd amendment was written when black powder muzzle loading weapons were the norm, it was also written after a war with England. It has no relevance today, unless assault weapons are replaced with muzzle loading weapons...and a fear of an English invasion is imminent.

It is relevant as long as the people do not amend the Bill of Rights to remove it. The right to defend oneself is relevant no matter what gun technology exists. The multiple failures of the government to defend the students in Florida is a good reason why the second amendment exists. The government at all levels was given multiple opportunities to stop Cruz but they all failed - the FBI, local sheriff, police, and the school system. They are representatives of government and all failed to protect their citizens. The right to self defense is a fundamental human right - that is why it is enshrined in the Bill of Rights. It would take a massive gun confiscation program the likes of which the world has never seen and a police state to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals.

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

It's well underway. Members of militias throughout the country are adding more bump stocks, semi- and fully automatic weapons to their arsenals and stocking up on ammo. 

You're surprised by that? More and more people have such a growing distrust in government and the media as well as people in the intelligence agency and see what these people are doing. Not condoning it, but I understand. If the media were more honest and less partisan, people wouldn’t be doing this, but as such, the trust has totally eroded with these people and it won’t change.

This minority

Yeah, keep thinking that.

of Americans, backed by the NRA and GOP and led by Cadet Bonespurs, are on the march. Google 'come and take it' and 'open carry' rallies to get a sense of these folks, aptly called the American Taliban. 

Dear lord, there is just No hope for the left. Smh.

Watch what happens on March 24th when people asking for changes to the gun laws are confronted by the American Taliban.

Personally, I want the left to go as far as they can in order to just alienate as many people as they possibly can. Hey, when you start seeing people like us doing the exact same atrocities as the Taliban then you can make that claim, if not, then it’s just more looney left-wing gebabble.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

2nd amendment was written when black powder muzzle loading weapons were the norm, it was also written after a war with England. It has no relevance today, unless assault weapons are replaced with muzzle loading weapons...and a fear of an English invasion is imminent.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

The NRA is a gun manufacturing lobby. Think about that. The Second Amendment to them supports profits and jobs.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

The next mass murders by an under 21 year old should see them implicated in the murders and imprisoned.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

I have said it before & will say it again the NRA needs to made a terrorist organization, CLEARLY that IS very much part of the NRA's DNA if you will!!

Most Americans support the 2nd Amendment, contrary to what the corporate media is trying to claim.

Yes they do!! BUT most Americans DO NOT UNDERSTAND what the 2nd amendment even means!! They distort the HELL out of it & dead kids & adults are the result year in year out in the US!!

8 ( +11 / -3 )

This, and all other gun control laws are unconstitutional and should be repealed.

Let's just ignore that tedious "well-regulated" part of the 2nd amendment, and hope nobody notices...

6 ( +9 / -3 )

The reason these school shootings cause such an uproar is because they occur in the suburban middle class areas, and hit too close to home for white voters.

Agreed - except for the "white" part. Gun violence in the US is primarily conducted with easily-concealable pistols between bad people. Those not involved, no matter their race, are usually not caught up and therefore ignore it. The problem is that mass shootings are usually conducted using high-capacity rifles such as the AR-15. Ban those, and the problem will largely return to the traditional gang-banger feuding.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

This, and all other gun control laws are unconstitutional and should be repealed. 

Someone doesn't understand Constitutional Law or Second Amendment jurisprudence.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

@Dwight Rider: Having Canadian relatives and friends, I am amazed that they can live free and prosperous lives without 300 million plus guns in circulation and no school shootings as far as I know. The US needs to quit thinking we are special and look to superior models of freedom and safety across the border and seas.

11 ( +14 / -3 )

should not get guns in the first place don't get those guns," House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan told a news conference.

So where are your mental health proposal? Oh, right...

[Schumer] called for Congress to expand the background check system to cover all gun sales, including those conducted at gun shows and over the internet. That legislation has failed in Congress twice over the past five years, and it fell short again in the House on Tuesday as Republicans rejected an effort by Democrats to bring it up for a vote.

Of course it did. That's what it's all about. Enforce the existing laws!!!! (but don't take away the loopholes that make some laws optional)

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Want to be rational about this? With only two exceptions all of the mass shootings in America have taken place after the passage of the 1968 Gun Control Act. That act was primarily initiated by the assassination of John and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King. It was mostly legislation aimed at protecting elected officials and has resulted in a lack of accountability on the part of our elected officials. This, and all other gun control laws are unconstitutional and should be repealed. Should Cruz have been able to buy a rifle? According to the Constitution which does not deny anyone that right, yes he should. Our Founding Fathers believed in a liassez faire system of economics and government whereby issues are decided locally. Anti-gun laws prevent this from taking place. Anyone that wants a gun should be able to have a gun. What they do with it after they get it should be dealt with by other citizens equally well armed. Arm the teachers? Why? They should have been armed before the shooting ever occurred. By passing a single law you have created a myriad of problems that were did not exist before the law was passed. Who is responsible for what happened in Florida? The people, the sheriff they elected who refused to enforce the law, and the other elected officials who would rather report less crime by ignoring the problem. Will it happen again? Yes, sooner than you might want because the rights of the people have been so denied. Want to know how many will die before solid gun laws are enacted? The answer is "many." Want to know how many will die after gun restrictions are removed and the problem is allowed to be dealt with by those who refuse to run? The answer is a lot "less" than the condition in which we now exist. The choice in Broward County was decided by ill-informed and easily swayed voters. Live with it

-12 ( +4 / -16 )

When I lived in the US, the only gun violence that affected me was when I lived in an inner city. Had a pistol pointed at me once and saw the police chase someone through my subway car once with their pistols out and aimed. Both were pretty scary. In the smaller towns or more rural areas, I have shot rifles for practice with my friends but never saw a weapon used outside of for sport. The reason these school shootings cause such an uproar is because they occur in the suburban middle class areas, and hit too close to home for white voters. If you remove urban areas from the US gun violence calculus I think gun violence is much less of a problem and that is what these NRA folks are echoing.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

The pic looks way more like a Dem.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Of course nothing will happen. All they need is 1 more week to pass and the momentum to change will be lost as the Florida shooting will begin to disappear from everyones' minds

3 ( +7 / -4 )

The GoP led legislature will do nothing except expand the NRA's agenda.

The house has passed an expansion of gun laws to require concealed weapon permits be recognized in states that may not allow them or that have higher requirement with some tacked on BG check requirements.

The GoP has also refused to pass laws on bump stocks.

So, nothing is going to happen except expanding gun proliferation.

Again, the conservative identity is tied to not curtailing gun proliferation, so there will be no gun control laws passed because it will damage their identity as a conservative.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

And there you have it.

Many more Americans will lose their lives as the medieval fascination with weapons continues. As the country seemingly slides further into a dangerous mix of moderates and fundamentalists, one despairs.

Because of the cowardice when it comes to removing guns and worship of the NRA death cult, there is only one way the country can be united. War.

I hope I'm wrong with that conclusion.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

And the cycle continues. More dead kids, more prayers and more condolences. Seriously, what sort of society thinks that is okay to have armed guards at a place of learning (believing well this is how things are now), kids fearing there is going to be another Sandy Hook, Columbine, so on and so on. Pardon the pun, but when will they bite the bullet and have the nads to do something about it.

9 ( +13 / -4 )

It's going to take a nursery school shooting, or worse before any unenforceable laws with teeth come into force. Guess Americans are destined to kill each other in greater numbers than their solders at war. 17 students killed Oh well! 50 in Los Vegas Oh well? Why anyone needs a assault rifle is beyond justification. Not for hunting! Not for target shooting...just being prepared for that day they snap.

7 ( +11 / -4 )

This is too amazing to pass up. Spokeswoman Sanders clarified Trump's comment about rushing in to a school under fire:

He was just stating that as a leader he would have stepped in and hopefully been able to help.

I'm fine with that - the man is in his 70s, after all. The point is that, as a leader, he can still step in and hopefully help. Will he? I think we all know the answer to that.

10 ( +13 / -3 )

Anyone who expected differently is deluded. The GOP tactic for dealing with gun violence is essentially wack-a-mole - constantly substitute targets that you can "endorse" so as to look reasonable but then vote against while simultaneously "endorsing" another rational-sounding proposal so as to sound reasonable. Ad infinitum.

Case in point is the outrage that the FBI did not immediately follow up on tipsters' advice and immediately converge to confiscate his weapons. Outrageous! But mark my words: before too long, there will be a case in which the FBI does immediately follow up on tipsters' advice and immediately converge to confiscate weapons, and the gun nuts (i.e., GOP's) response will be: Outrageous!

11 ( +14 / -3 )

‘If you do live in a state which allows automatic weapons, you must possess a Type 1 Federal Firearms License as well as a type 3 (Often confused with class 3) SOT (Special Occupation Tax) to sell, and an ATF Form 4 with $200 tax stamp to purchase. This makes it expensive to qualify a person to purchase an automatic weapon.

In addition, no new automatic weapons can be registered for private ownership that have been manufactured since 19 May 1986, so fully automatic weapons are very expensive, upwards of $10,000 and more.’

. All that regulation and it doesn't infringe on the Second Amendment, And deaths by automatic gunfire are a rarity in the US.

Geez. What type of regulation would be both constitutional and effective?

9 ( +12 / -3 )

"What are the dem ideas?" asks B4F constantly. The ones they keep trying to bring up but don't get republican support:

*Senate Democratic leader Charles Schumer said that by itself would not be adequate. He called for Congress to expand the background check system to cover all gun sales, including those conducted at gun shows and over the internet.*

*That legislation has failed in Congress twice over the past five years, and it fell short again in the House on Tuesday as* Republicans rejected an effort by Democrats to bring it up for a vote.

Glad to see republicans are open to a reasonable discussion.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

Most Americans support the 2nd Amendment, contrary to what the corporate media is trying to claim.

-18 ( +5 / -23 )

Daniel NaumoffToday  07:03 am JST

Fighting itself... Guess it is about time America had its own revolution.

And with the NRA publishing deceitful propaganda urging gun owners to exercise violence against anyone they politically disagree with, it may actually happen.

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/6/29/15892508/nra-ad-dana-loesch-yikes

12 ( +15 / -3 )

‘Members of militias throughout the country are adding more bump stocks, semi- and fully automatic weapons to their arsenals and stocking up on ammo.’

Any evidence to support the claim that people are stocking up on fully automatic weapons? The qualification costs $200, and the weapons average $10,000-12,000 each. Not exactly within the reach of a lot of people.

‘If you do live in a state which allows automatic weapons, you must possess a Type 1 Federal Firearms License as well as a type 3 (Often confused with class 3) SOT (Special Occupation Tax) to sell, and an ATF Form 4 with $200 tax stamp to purchase. This makes it expensive to qualify a person to purchase an automatic weapon.

In addition, no new automatic weapons can be registered for private ownership that have been manufactured since 19 May 1986, so fully automatic weapons are very expensive, upwards of $10,000 and more.’

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

Fighting itself... Guess it is about time America had its own revolution.

It's well underway. Members of militias throughout the country are adding more bump stocks, semi- and fully automatic weapons to their arsenals and stocking up on ammo.

This minority of Americans, backed by the NRA and GOP and led by Cadet Bonespurs, are on the march. Google 'come and take it' and 'open carry' rallies to get a sense of these folks, aptly called the American Taliban.

Watch what happens on March 24th when people asking for changes to the gun laws are confronted by the American Taliban.

12 ( +17 / -5 )

Republican's are going to end up paying for their inability to do anything about gun control. The mid-term elections this year are going to end up costing them seats.

24 ( +28 / -4 )

Fighting itself... Guess it is about time America had its own revolution.

3 ( +10 / -7 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites