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)
    Click to expand...
    "First on CNN: 10-year-old trapped with the Uvalde school shooter repeatedly called 911 for help. It took officials 40 minutes to act"


    I can not read, listen, or follow what this little girl said to 911 during the shooting. It's the first time I have ever purposely not read something like this. It is too painful to imagine what she was going through.
     
    Last edited:
    BullSheetBuddha said:
    "First on CNN: 10-year-old trapped with the Uvalde school shooter repeatedly called 911 for help. It took officials 40 minutes to act"


    I can not read, listen, or follow what this little girl said to 911 during the shooting. It's the first time I have ever purposely not read something like this. It is too painful to imagine what she was going through.
    Click to expand...
    I heard it the other night. It's downright terrible. CNN purposely blocked out seconds of the call when gun shots from the shooter were going off. Just total failure across the board in Texas and it won't change a thing.
    :mad1:
     
    County sheriffs in Oregon are taking a stand against the state's newly-adopted gun law and say they will not enforce a major piece of the law that sets limits on magazine capacity because it violates the Second Amendment, wastes law enforcement resources and is the product of "pure anti-gun politics."

    Measure 114, known as the Reduction of Gun Violence Act, was approved by Oregon voters in last week's midterm election. The new law outlaws ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and requires police to maintain an electronic, searchable database of all firearm permits, provide additional hands-on firearm training, and collect fingerprints from people before issuing permits to purchase a gun.

    However, at least five county sheriffs say they will not enforce all or parts of the law, and they are focusing their opposition on language that limits magazine capacity. They argue that the provision infringes on Second Amendment rights, ignores real problems associated with gun violence in the state and will drain already-depleted law enforcement resources.

    "The biggest thing is this does absolutely nothing to address the problem," Sheriff Cody Bowen of Union County told Fox News Digital. "The problem that we have is not… magazine capacity. It's not background checks. It’s a problem with mental health awareness. It's a problem with behavior health illness."

    "Our society as a whole is a bigger problem rather than saying that, you know, the guns are killing people," he said.

    Bowen said enforcement of magazine capacity limits is simply not impossible. "There’s just no way possible for us to enforce that and nor would I simply because it's an infringement on our Second Amendment, you know, our right to keep and bear arms," he said............

    MSN

    www.msn.com
     
    Optimus Prime said:
    County sheriffs in Oregon are taking a stand against the state's newly-adopted gun law and say they will not enforce a major piece of the law that sets limits on magazine capacity because it violates the Second Amendment, wastes law enforcement resources and is the product of "pure anti-gun politics."

    Measure 114, known as the Reduction of Gun Violence Act, was approved by Oregon voters in last week's midterm election. The new law outlaws ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and requires police to maintain an electronic, searchable database of all firearm permits, provide additional hands-on firearm training, and collect fingerprints from people before issuing permits to purchase a gun.

    However, at least five county sheriffs say they will not enforce all or parts of the law, and they are focusing their opposition on language that limits magazine capacity. They argue that the provision infringes on Second Amendment rights, ignores real problems associated with gun violence in the state and will drain already-depleted law enforcement resources.

    "The biggest thing is this does absolutely nothing to address the problem," Sheriff Cody Bowen of Union County told Fox News Digital. "The problem that we have is not… magazine capacity. It's not background checks. It’s a problem with mental health awareness. It's a problem with behavior health illness."

    "Our society as a whole is a bigger problem rather than saying that, you know, the guns are killing people," he said.

    Bowen said enforcement of magazine capacity limits is simply not impossible. "There’s just no way possible for us to enforce that and nor would I simply because it's an infringement on our Second Amendment, you know, our right to keep and bear arms," he said............

    MSN

    www.msn.com
    Click to expand...

    Le sigh. Once again, gun control advocates shoot themselves in the foot. Magazine capacity is a red herring, a hassle and an intrusion. Fingerprinting is going to go nowhere in rural areas and only serves to alienate the very voters you're trying to win over on the economic side.

    If you want to make headway, forget that garbage and get these LEO's on record when you ask them to campaign for more mental health funding, for a reassignment of duties so cops aren't being called to deal with mental crises for which they're woefully untrained and for funding to really enforce existing registration laws.
     
    Taurus said:
    Le sigh. Once again, gun control advocates shoot themselves in the foot. Magazine capacity is a red herring, a hassle and an intrusion. Fingerprinting is going to go nowhere in rural areas and only serves to alienate the very voters you're trying to win over on the economic side.

    If you want to make headway, forget that garbage and get these LEO's on record when you ask them to campaign for more mental health funding, for a reassignment of duties so cops aren't being called to deal with mental crises for which they're woefully untrained and for funding to really enforce existing registration laws.
    Click to expand...


    The right continuously blames mental illness, but seems to care very little about it!
     
    Sad story, and I know the lawyers job is to defend his client but damn
    =====================
    In May, Louisville police were called to deal with a domestic violence complaint against a man named Litsson Perez-Gallan.

    The alleged victim, the mother of Perez-Gallan’s child, “states she was sitting on the bed holding their child and perp struck her on the left side of her face,” an officer wrote. “Vic then sat the baby down on the bed and vic stated perp then drug her to the bathroom and struck her in the face again and then began hitting her in the rib area.

    Vic had red marks on the left side of her face, a small laceration on her lip and pain around her chin area.”
The criminal justice system — a system that has too often ignored or underplayed domestic violence — worked, up to a point.

    Perez-Gallan was subjected to a restraining order. It barred him from being within 500 feet of his alleged victim or communicating with her.


    In addition — and this is the subject of this column — the order prohibited Perez-Gallan from having a firearm.

    The next month, Perez-Gallan was stopped while driving an 18-wheeler in Texas, near the border with Mexico. In his backpack, he had a stolen Sig Sauer pistol; in his wallet, a copy of the court order stating his conditions of release. He was charged with violating a federal law that prohibits gun possession by those under domestic violence restraining orders.


    So far, so good?

    Not in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling this year in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen.

    The six-justice conservative majority, rejecting New York’s concealed-carry licensing law, said that the gun regulations had to be based on, or similar to, those that existed historically to pass constitutional muster.

    Without a historical analogue, the gun law violates the Second Amendment.

    You might be able to guess where this is heading.

    Turns out, in Colonial times and beyond, authorities didn’t take domestic violence seriously. So, Perez-Gallan’s lawyer did what lawyers do: He seized on Bruen to argue that the law violates Perez-Gallan’s Second Amendment rights.


    “The American Revolution secured the rights of white men to be protected from interference by the government in their private affairs,” wrote the lawyer, Shane O’Neal.

    After the revolution, he argued, “the newly minted American States moved away from laws in England and the New England colonies that punished domestic violence. Instead, practices that protected women and children from maltreatment by male heads of house were discarded as incompatible with a newfound sanctity for the family — a private sphere outside of the reach of government.”

    He quoted a historian: “Courts became notably reluctant to impose constraints on men’s abusive treatment of their household dependents.”


    And no surprise: With domestic violence not seen as a problem, there isn’t much evidence of founding-era rules that prohibited the possession of firearms by those accused of it.

    “Our founders would never have anticipated disarming people accused but not convicted of domestic violence,” O’Neal argued.


    That’s right: Because the law then countenanced abusing women, it cannot be interpreted to protect them now.


    Defending his client zealously is O’Neal’s job. Interpreting the Constitution both faithfully and reasonably is the judge’s job, and here is where things really went off the rails. U.S. District Judge David Counts found this month that the federal law violates the Second Amendment and ordered Perez-Gallan’s indictment dismissed…….

     
    Person who shot up nightclub in CO was known to police for making a bomb threat. They didn’t take his weapons, in spite of a red flag law in that county.

     
    MT15 said:
    Person who shot up nightclub in CO was known to police for making a bomb threat. They didn’t take his weapons, in spite of a red flag law in that county.

    Click to expand...

    Somehow the pro gun folks will use this as an example of why red flag laws don't work.
     
    Optimus Prime said:
    Someone’s going g to have to answer some hard questions
    Click to expand...

    No they won't. We had a classroom of kids murdered here in Uvalde and accountability has been as absent/illusive as a day without a mass shooting.

    People won't care that much about mass shooting at an LGBTQ+ club to force change. Accountability isn't a concept the gun supporters and the right wing in this country care about in the least. They just want their "rights", regardless of the cost to others (and eventually themselves).
     
    coldseat said:
    No they won't. We had a classroom of kids murdered here in Uvalde and accountability has been as absent/illusive as a day without a mass shooting.

    People won't care that much about mass shooting at an LGBTQ+ club to force change. Accountability isn't a concept the gun supporters and the right wing in this country care about in the least. They just want their "rights", regardless of the cost to others (and eventually themselves).
    Click to expand...

    Yea, didn't Gregg Abbot still win the county where Uvalde is?
     

    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