Now is not the time to talk about gun control (1 Viewer)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    Sandman said:
    Honestly, I think the Democrats are getting played...again. Gun control is a strong issue for them in the mid-terms. This deal would effectively take it off the table. I think the Democrats could have obtained greater concessions if they just stuck to their "guns."
    Click to expand...
    I don’t agree that it would take it off the table. Universal background checks and raising the age to buy assault rifles to 21 or even 25, which I would prefer, are still hugely popular stances that Rs have blocked. They still essentially have no plan to curb gun violence, and several have stated that these massacres are “the price we must pay” for gun rights. These stances can be used to go after them.

    Plus, I’m still not convinced the Rs won’t make up some excuse to keep this outline from becoming a bill. I think enough of them will weasel out - which will really give the Ds something to beat them up about.
     
    doesn't seem to be all that much

    www.reuters.com

    What's in and what's out of the Senate's gun-safety plan

    A bipartisan group of U.S. senators said on Sunday they had reached an agreement on a framework for gun safety legislation, potentially the first significant new U.S. gun law in decades, following a string of recent high-profile mass shootings.
    www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
     
    zztop said:
    doesn't seem to be all that much

    www.reuters.com

    What's in and what's out of the Senate's gun-safety plan

    A bipartisan group of U.S. senators said on Sunday they had reached an agreement on a framework for gun safety legislation, potentially the first significant new U.S. gun law in decades, following a string of recent high-profile mass shootings.
    www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
    Click to expand...
    Yea, after reading that I would say it's actually nothing.
     
    Posted in EE also



    In the wake of the Uvalde, Tex., mass shooting, some Hollywood storytellers are questioning the film industry’s love affair with guns.

    There’s one thing these filmmakers and showrunners could do to try to stem the tide of gun violence: stop sanitizing what guns do to human bodies.

    Hollywood should step up and show what journalists generally can’t depict, be it the victim of a mass shooting identifiable only by DNA or the aftermath of a suicide carried out with a gun.

    Working in concert with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, more than 200 writers, directors, and producers such as J.J. Abrams, Mark Ruffalo, and Adam McKay recently signed on to an open letter calling for a period of introspection into how guns are used on-screen.

    “Cultural attitudes toward smoking, drunk driving, seatbelts and marriage equality have all evolved due in large part to movies’ and TV’s influence,” the letter says. “It’s time to take on gun safety.”……..

     
    We’ll see how this turns out
    =====================

    With Congress potentially closing in on a bipartisan gun deal after last month’s run of mass shootings, the Supreme Court soon will issue a ruling that could make it easier for people in at least a half-dozen states to legally carry loaded firearms in public.


    It will be the first major Second Amendment decision from the court in more than a decade.

    And if the justices strike down New York’s century-old restrictions on carrying concealed firearms, as appeared likely when the case was argued last fall, similar regulations in California, New Jersey, Maryland, Hawaii and Massachusetts would be vulnerable.


    Elected leaders in those liberal-leaning states and gun-control advocates throughout the country are bracing for a decision that extends the constitutional right to gun ownership beyond a person’s home to gathering spots such as restaurants and shopping malls.

    And they fear that, depending on how broadly the court may rule, related restrictions, including state bans on high-powered semiautomatic firearms, also could be at risk.

    “Recent events have underscored the importance of this case. How the court interprets the Second Amendment is far from an abstract exercise,” said Eric Tirschwell of Everytown for Gun Safety, an advocacy group.


    “If the court forces New York to allow more people to carry guns in public, the result will be more people shot and more people killed, and that’s what the evidence and social science tells you.”

    New York’s law requires a gun owner to obtain a license to carry a handgun. To get the license, they must demonstrate to local authorities a specific need for carrying the gun.

    Gun rights advocates say citizens should not have to justify the need to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms.

    If New York’s “proper cause” requirement is invalidated, the Second Amendment groups will be closely monitoring states with similar laws to ensure that officials take steps to loosen permit rules…….

     
    Optimus Prime said:
    Posted in EE also



    In the wake of the Uvalde, Tex., mass shooting, some Hollywood storytellers are questioning the film industry’s love affair with guns.

    There’s one thing these filmmakers and showrunners could do to try to stem the tide of gun violence: stop sanitizing what guns do to human bodies.

    Hollywood should step up and show what journalists generally can’t depict, be it the victim of a mass shooting identifiable only by DNA or the aftermath of a suicide carried out with a gun.

    Working in concert with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, more than 200 writers, directors, and producers such as J.J. Abrams, Mark Ruffalo, and Adam McKay recently signed on to an open letter calling for a period of introspection into how guns are used on-screen.

    “Cultural attitudes toward smoking, drunk driving, seatbelts and marriage equality have all evolved due in large part to movies’ and TV’s influence,” the letter says. “It’s time to take on gun safety.”……..

    Click to expand...

    I don't know whether showing more realistic scenes would help or not but do you think this stopped any violence or changed anyone's mind when it came to purchasing a military type weapon?

     
    Last edited:
    of course! Why didn't we think of this before? See, the problem is rap music, video games and the internet!

    www.theroot.com

    Texas Congressman Blames Rap Music and Video Games, Not Guns For Texas Shooting

    Meanwhile, Senate Republicans still won't commit to common-sense gun control measures after recent shootings
    www.theroot.com www.theroot.com

    “When I grew up, things were different,” he continued. “And I just think that kids are exposed to all kinds of horrible stuff nowadays too. I look back, and I think about the horrible stuff they hear when they listen to rap music, the video games that they watch from a really early age with all of this horrible violence and stuff, and I just think that they have this access to the internet on a regular basis, which is just, you know, it’s not good for kids.”
     
    Optimus Prime said:
    Who was the Democrat who voted nay?
    Click to expand...

    Rep. Ron Kind (Wis.)

    He was mentioned here, but no comment as to why he voted against it:
    thehill.com

    House fails to pass bill creating active shooter alert system

    The House on Wednesday failed to pass a bill that sought to create a communications network that would alert people when an active shooter is in their community. The legislation, dubbed the Active …
    thehill.com thehill.com

    The bill called for creating an Active Shooter Alert Communications Network, which would inform community members when active shooters are in their areas. The program, according to the bill’s sponsors, would function similarly to the Amber Alert system.
     
    Maybe anyone intending to vote for Paxton in the next election should write in God.

    They need make sure the person with power is the one with the plan.
     
    Only thing better than more people with guns is more people with guns in public
    ==========================


    (CNN) - The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York gun law enacted more than a century ago that places restrictions on carrying a concealed handgun outside the home.

    "Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State's licensing regime violates the Constitution," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court's 6-3 majority……..


    www.cnn.com

    Supreme Court says Constitution protects right to carry a gun outside the home | CNN Politics

    The Supreme Court opinion is the widest expansion of gun rights in a decade.
    www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
     
    Apparently there was a New York law requiring people to demonstrate a particular need for carrying a gun in order to get a license to carry one in public. This seems rather sensible...right? not so fast says the supreme court!
    apnews.com

    Supreme Court expands gun rights, with nation divided

    The Supreme Court has ruled that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, a major expansion of gun rights.
    apnews.com apnews.com
     
    Another article
    ============
    The US supreme court has opened the door for almost all law-abiding Americans to carry concealed and loaded handguns in public places after the conservative majority struck down a New York law that placed strict restrictions on firearms outside the home.

    The majority decision renders the New York law an unconstitutional violation of the second amendment right to bear arms. The law had required anyone wanting to carry a handgun in public to prove that they had a “proper cause” to do so.

    The ruling has profound implications for the safety and conduct of up to 83 million people who live in New York and seven other states plus Washington DC, which have similar “proper cause” laws.

    They include some of the most heavily populated states in the country such as California and New Jersey, which between them account for roughly three out of every four Americans……

    www.theguardian.com

    US supreme court overturns New York handgun law in bitter blow to gun-control push

    Biden says ruling ‘should trouble us all’ as conservative majority strikes down law requiring ‘proper cause’ to carry handguns in public
    www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
     
    zztop said:
    Apparently there was a New York law requiring people to demonstrate a particular need for carrying a gun in order to get a license to carry one in public. This seems rather sensible...right? not so fast says the supreme court!
    apnews.com

    Supreme Court expands gun rights, with nation divided

    The Supreme Court has ruled that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, a major expansion of gun rights.
    apnews.com apnews.com
    Click to expand...

    Full opinions and dissent here.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

    The concurring opinion and clarification by Kavanaugh summarizes it pretty well, actually.

    Shall issue vs may issue. They felt the NY method was too subjective, so it doesn't follow Heller (which was a 2008 decision, mind you).
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom