It would be more heartening if it wasnt an obvious violation of the constitution. If you are going to do that at least do it for something like universal background checks which would hold up against any court challenge.
Because it shows that not all of those in power in the USA are blind to the obvious, that people are willing to take a stand, figuratively speaking, against the way that ****ing guns are freely available to virtually anyone
What you probably don't hear outside of the US is that most of our existing gun laws aren't properly enforced, which is driven by policy initiatives from the federal Justice Department. We don't need more laws. We need the laws we have enforced. Is it a coincidence that the party demanding more gun laws is the same party which sets policy initiatives from the Justice Department? I don't think so. Second, so-called assault weapons bans are nothing more than emotional ploys. The Democrats are focusing on weapons that haven't been used in these crimes. The last time an assault weapons ban went into effect the number of crimes using these weapons, which are quite small mind you, actually increased a bit. When the ban was rescinded 8 years later the number of crimes went back down.
To be fair I don't know enough about the issue to comment, what I do know is that my youngest lad has just emigrated to Indianapolis and almost everybody he knows owns a gun, and the majority of those people, so says he, would rather die than give up their guns. In certain parts of America it's a way of life, and I can't see that changing any time soon.
you know what, I dont know enough either! I don't know if what they'r etrying to achieve is self serving publcity or something genuine, but I do know that there are people who want to put in some kind of reform, not taking guns away from people, but to put some law in place to make it harder for people on FBI watchlists and with terror links, like the bellend who carried out the Orlando massacre. I personally find it heartening that there are some people in power that are willing to take a stand which could harm their political careers to try and get people to move towards a situation that must surely be better than it is now? The below is from a townhall session after the Orlando shootings, and it I hope sums up what these guys are trying to achieve. Tex Elle, feel free to correct any misunderstanding of mine!
That isn't what we hear, and that is simply ridiculous frankly. I do question why ANYONE would need an assault riffle, I mean honestly that's a bit over the frigging top! Fair enough carry a concealed hand gun if you're that worried. The problem as I see it is that the 2nd amendment was written when people had 1 shot muskets and lived in frontier territory, that is so far away from where we are now the 2nd amendment from an outsiders perspective is simply not fit for purpose. The problem as summed up by Obama in the above video is that any suggested reform is met with pant pissing fear that people's guns will be taken
Its important to remember that there is 80% support in the US to get rid of assault rifles and even 60% of card carrying NRA members want assault rifles to be banned. For every person who actually thinks that universal background checks are meant to take away everyone's guns there is someone who still believes the earth is flat. Tex is wrong, the assault weapons ban was not rescinded 8 years later. When the assault weapons ban was voted on it had a 10 year time limit (lots of our laws have expiration dates its very common) and had to be passed again for it to continue. The ban expired in 2004 under Bush (it was passed in 1994 under Clinton) without being passed again. The drop in gun deaths after the ban had nothing to do with the ban and had to do with economic causes. Like most crime, violent crime and gun crimes drop as an economy improves. The early 1990's saw improving economic conditions and even a budget surplus. Also 1994 was coming off the heals of the crack epidemic in the US which happened in the 1980's. It was inevitable that crime was going to drop when the epidemic started to subside. Assault weapons that were already in the market or in personal hands were grandfathered in so there was not a decrease in the number that were on the street nor a decrease in practice in the number that were available. An assault weapons ban would really only take effect after enough time that the assault weapons in circulation were no longer functional. Part of the problem is the way the Republican party has progressed since the 1960's when the NRA was a gun safety organization and not a gun rights organization. You can read up on it yourself if you want but basically the NRA was taken over by some very radical conservatives for the purpose of trying to start a movement. What has happened is that support for the NRA is seen as a bench mark for a conservative politician. Meaning, that even though almost every single american (90%) want universal background checks the Republicans have to fight it. They dont fight it because its what their constituents actually want, they fight it because when it comes down to election day support for the NRA is seen as proof that this politician is a true conservative. So support for the NRA is tied up to being a fiscal conservative, a religious conservative, social conservative, etc. A politician who breaks with the NRA has now broken with the values of conservatism. They still might believe in everything the voter believes in but most voters are simply uniformed without that NRA support it appears that they are not conservatives.
The Republican party has supported background checks and has introduced bills thereof. I don't know where you are getting that. What the GOP in Congress is currently fighting is the establishment of lists by federal agencies as to who can buy particular firearms. I spoke of lack of enforcement in a previous post, this would be foregoing the law, i.e. the due process guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. If the Democrats want to blacklist certain people, shall we bring back the House Un-American Activities Committee?
The republican party has fought gun control since forever, fought background checks lost in the courts and is now fighting universal background checks. I get that from the facts. Newt Gingrich wants to bring back the HUAAC. Using the no fly list as a method for stopping people from getting guns is a clear violation of the 2nd amendment. The democrats trying to bring that to a vote is for political theater.
Its more scary to you than it is to us really. Its just the way it is, its not something that we really worry about. I have guns and they are not a big deal to me. The pit bulls on my street are more dangerous then the guns. The only people who want all guns removed are a very tiny group of people who do not have any real power. I dont own any assualt weapons but I have family members and lots of friends who do. Its not something I am worried about. In my personal opinion we need a general assault weapons ban but allow for people to apply to get them much like a concealed carry permit. I feel thats a good compromise that people could get behind. I think we need universal background checks. I am ok with high capacity magazines and silencers being banned outright. I would like to see a lot of money put towards mental health. I do not think that banning all guns is a good idea even if you could get past the constitutional problems. I am though fine with any sort of gun buy back program. To truly decrease gun deaths you really need the majority of your focus on mental health, coupled with more money being put into areas that have high crime. Simply put unless you focus on what causes gun deaths you wont fix the issue because there is 0 chance that we give up our guns. Tex and I are in perfect agreement on that, it would start a civil war and you would have to kill both of us to get them out of our hands.
The same thing that happens about every other day in the US, another african-american was shot by the police. This being the 114 such shooting so far this year.
Are you asking why he was shot in particular? Why certain segments of our society are shot at a higher rate than others? Why the police constantly shoot unarmed people? Why the police don't use nonlethal weapons instead of lethal ones? Perhaps you want to ask broader questions like why do the police draw their gun on you when they pull you over for speeding, etc? You will really have to be more specific.
If you feel like watching the video. Warning you will see a cop shoot a man who is pinned on the ground twice in the chest.
