FOLLOW BOREME
 
TAGS
<< Back to listing
US presidents respond to school shootings

US presidents respond to school shootings

(2:27) There have been 10 mass school shootings since Columbine High School massacre in 1999. Here's how US presidents have responded.

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Mesmerelda Mesmerelda (219 days ago)

Shocking fact: More people have died from gun violence this year in the US, than this year in Syria.

ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment

Shocking fact: More people have died from gun violence this year in the US, than this year in Syria.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (219 days ago)

Please provide a link to your supporting documentation to substantiate your "Shocking fact." The 2018 data is hard to come by this early in the year.

ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment

Please provide a link to your supporting documentation to substantiate your "Shocking fact." The 2018 data is hard to come by this early in the year.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: MB (215 days ago)

Can someone explain to me what the 2nd Amendment really is? its just words are they not? but why is it a flat no disussion end of conversation "thing"! it seems to be to be rolled out as a "dont go there mate" it's the 2ND AMENDMENT - oh ok sorry shall lets talk about someting else...

To those of us who do not live in the USA please explain as surely an "amendment", by definition, means to change or add to an early document. Well for fec sakes just add another "amendment" that superseds the crap ones and which are now out of date or in our modern times not fit for purpose. you've done 27 so far so add number 28 you idiots (amendment 28: overalls amendment 2 as that was ok back in 1792 but now seems a bit stupid) - job done

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

Can someone explain to me what the 2nd Amendment really is? its just words are they not? but why is it a flat no disussion end of conversation "thing"! it seems to be to be rolled out as a "dont go there mate" it's the 2ND AMENDMENT - oh ok sorry shall lets talk about someting else...

To those of us who do not live in the USA please explain as surely an "amendment", by definition, means to change or add to an early document. Well for fec sakes just add another "amendment" that superseds the crap ones and which are now out of date or in our modern times not fit for purpose. you've done 27 so far so add number 28 you idiots (amendment 28: overalls amendment 2 as that was ok back in 1792 but now seems a bit stupid) - job done

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (215 days ago)

It is an amendment to our constitution. The constitution is a document that describes how our three branches of government works: The executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch. None of those branches are allowed to create any laws that contradict the constitution. It is done this way to prevent any single branch from gaining too much power.

The constitution can be changed and it has been in the past as you pointed out with the 27th amendments. To make another change, it would require someone from congress to make a proposal and then it needs to be approved by both the house of representative and the senate by 2/3rds vote. Once that is approved, then it goes to the individual states for ratification. 3/4ths of the states need to ratify it. The President is not part of this process in any way.

There is a backdoor process where 2/3rds of the state legislatures can assemble and propose the amendment. States call their legislatures “State Legislature,” “General Assembly,” “General Court,” or “Legislative Assembly.” None of the current 27 amendments were proposed this way.

Now the big question is, if you were a congressman, what exact verbiage would you propose for the next amendment that will fix this mass shooting problem?

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment

It is an amendment to our constitution. The constitution is a document that describes how our three branches of government works: The executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch. None of those branches are allowed to create any laws that contradict the constitution. It is done this way to prevent any single branch from gaining too much power.

The constitution can be changed and it has been in the past as you pointed out with the 27th amendments. To make another change, it would require someone from congress to make a proposal and then it needs to be approved by both the house of representative and the senate by 2/3rds vote. Once that is approved, then it goes to the individual states for ratification. 3/4ths of the states need to ratify it. The President is not part of this process in any way.

There is a backdoor process where 2/3rds of the state legislatures can assemble and propose the amendment. States call their legislatures “State Legislature,” “General Assembly,” “General Court,” or “Legislative Assembly.” None of the current 27 amendments were proposed this way.

Now the big question is, if you were a congressman, what exact verbiage would you propose for the next amendment that will fix this mass shooting problem?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (215 days ago)

It's a flat end of conversation thing because even most americans realise its kind of impossible to successfully change thre constitution . The politicans are in the pockets of big business and the process is so drawn out that it aint worth trying it . Its been around for 250 years or so and despite all the changes to society they manage to add another amendment document only 27 times . Tragic they have tthere lives dictated by dead people , land of the free huh

ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment

It's a flat end of conversation thing because even most americans realise its kind of impossible to successfully change thre constitution . The politicans are in the pockets of big business and the process is so drawn out that it aint worth trying it . Its been around for 250 years or so and despite all the changes to society they manage to add another amendment document only 27 times . Tragic they have tthere lives dictated by dead people , land of the free huh

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Meehh (218 days ago)

Weapon sales in america is a billion dollar industry. It is said that it is for protection.

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

Weapon sales in america is a billion dollar industry. It is said that it is for protection.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (219 days ago)

Nothing will happen as a result of this atrocity. Nothing. The names of the children killed will be forgotten by all but their families, one young man will go to jail and the sales of firearms will probably rocket upward for a while, but there will be more of the same kind of incident. Those too, will cause domestic grief and outrage across the world but, once again, nothing will happen because of an outdated idea that you can never have too many guns in too many hands as it makes for a safer society. The trouble is - that premise is totally wrong. The amount of mass shootings in the US so far this year proves it. Less availability of firearms means less access to them, but since the gun lobby put so much money into the NRA and the hands of politicians to do nothing, nothing will change.

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

Nothing will happen as a result of this atrocity. Nothing. The names of the children killed will be forgotten by all but their families, one young man will go to jail and the sales of firearms will probably rocket upward for a while, but there will be more of the same kind of incident. Those too, will cause domestic grief and outrage across the world but, once again, nothing will happen because of an outdated idea that you can never have too many guns in too many hands as it makes for a safer society. The trouble is - that premise is totally wrong. The amount of mass shootings in the US so far this year proves it. Less availability of firearms means less access to them, but since the gun lobby put so much money into the NRA and the hands of politicians to do nothing, nothing will change.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Get Real (219 days ago)

People seem to love spouting off facts to 'prove' their own personal opinions. OK then, lets play that game some more here:

At any given moment there are 25-50 serial killers active in the US.

Way more...and I mean WAY more people are killed by knives and hammers and scrrewdrivers each year than school children.

The Blacks just in Chicago, who's lives matter too, not that they demonstrate that, kill off over 500 of their brothers and sisters each year.

Google what I claim here.

Killing of people is a national sport in America.

Humans are a very defective species.

I'll make you a deal. Nationalize Big Pharma and Monsanto and clean out all the corruption in DC and kill off all the Gang members and fully legalize all drugs and close the borders for real and then I may give up my guns.

ReplyVote up (91)down (101)
Original comment

People seem to love spouting off facts to 'prove' their own personal opinions. OK then, lets play that game some more here:

At any given moment there are 25-50 serial killers active in the US.

Way more...and I mean WAY more people are killed by knives and hammers and scrrewdrivers each year than school children.

The Blacks just in Chicago, who's lives matter too, not that they demonstrate that, kill off over 500 of their brothers and sisters each year.

Google what I claim here.

Killing of people is a national sport in America.

Humans are a very defective species.

I'll make you a deal. Nationalize Big Pharma and Monsanto and clean out all the corruption in DC and kill off all the Gang members and fully legalize all drugs and close the borders for real and then I may give up my guns.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (218 days ago)

We should ban screw drivers and hammers too. Also automobiles because people die in car accidents. Let's make America great again by making it the nanny state.

We should make illegal drugs illegal as those kill people. Seems silly since they are already illegal but make them more illegal. The more illegal you make something, the less likely someone will use them, right? Make guns illegal and all the criminals will turn in their guns.

ReplyVote up (101)down (86)
Original comment

We should ban screw drivers and hammers too. Also automobiles because people die in car accidents. Let's make America great again by making it the nanny state.

We should make illegal drugs illegal as those kill people. Seems silly since they are already illegal but make them more illegal. The more illegal you make something, the less likely someone will use them, right? Make guns illegal and all the criminals will turn in their guns.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (218 days ago)

Funny, every other country seems to have nailed the balance between civil liberties, modern convenience, and curbing mass slaughter.

ReplyVote up (101)down (87)
Original comment

Funny, every other country seems to have nailed the balance between civil liberties, modern convenience, and curbing mass slaughter.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (218 days ago)

Really? Every other country? Have you seen the gun ownership stats in Israel, Venezuela, Mexico, and Columbia? Even countries like Switzerland has a high gun ownership of 24% per capita.

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment

Really? Every other country? Have you seen the gun ownership stats in Israel, Venezuela, Mexico, and Columbia? Even countries like Switzerland has a high gun ownership of 24% per capita.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: duh (217 days ago)

dont use switzerland as an example. They have the strictest gun laws anywhere. You are only allowed to keep your gun at home if you are an active service member. And NO ONE is allowed to have ammo at home.

ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment

dont use switzerland as an example. They have the strictest gun laws anywhere. You are only allowed to keep your gun at home if you are an active service member. And NO ONE is allowed to have ammo at home.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (217 days ago)

"You are only allowed to keep your gun at home if you are an active service member." That's not true. When you join the military, you are issued a gun. When you leave the military, they let you take the gun home. That means you are not an active service member.

ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment

"You are only allowed to keep your gun at home if you are an active service member." That's not true. When you join the military, you are issued a gun. When you leave the military, they let you take the gun home. That means you are not an active service member.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (218 days ago)

This is the dumbest argument for guns I've ever heard and I've seen it challenged time and time again.

We get it. You care more about cowering with weapons than you do about your children.

ReplyVote up (101)down (89)
Original comment

This is the dumbest argument for guns I've ever heard and I've seen it challenged time and time again.

We get it. You care more about cowering with weapons than you do about your children.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (218 days ago)

Cowering? I think it's the exact opposite. When we have guns, we don't have fear of being raped, pillaged, or abused.

But, the whole point of gun ownership is so we don't end up with a monarchy like the UK or a dictatorship like North Korea. We are guaranteed to have a non tyrannical government since we can create a well regulated militia to overthrow the government if we need to.

ReplyVote up (101)down (89)
Original comment

Cowering? I think it's the exact opposite. When we have guns, we don't have fear of being raped, pillaged, or abused.

But, the whole point of gun ownership is so we don't end up with a monarchy like the UK or a dictatorship like North Korea. We are guaranteed to have a non tyrannical government since we can create a well regulated militia to overthrow the government if we need to.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (218 days ago)

Hahahahahaha. Yes cowering. There aren't many nations on earth that are so terrified of being raped and pillaged that they even allow children to arm themselves. I can't imagine being that scared within my own country.

As we can see, you've ended up with a completely corrupt system where politicians buy their way into power with communist interference, and bodies like the NRA can control politics at a high level. Good job.

If you can't stop an angsty teen from shooting up a school, you can't overthrow a government, especially one that keeps you submissive by feeding you misinformation.

ReplyVote up (99)down (101)
Original comment

Hahahahahaha. Yes cowering. There aren't many nations on earth that are so terrified of being raped and pillaged that they even allow children to arm themselves. I can't imagine being that scared within my own country.

As we can see, you've ended up with a completely corrupt system where politicians buy their way into power with communist interference, and bodies like the NRA can control politics at a high level. Good job.

If you can't stop an angsty teen from shooting up a school, you can't overthrow a government, especially one that keeps you submissive by feeding you misinformation.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (218 days ago)

We aren't terrified of being raped. Owning a gun makes it so we feel safe in our homes. Having a gun makes me less afraid of many terrible things that could happen if I didn't have a gun. You're more than welcome to try calling 999 when someone breaks into your house to rape you and your wife. It's more likely that you'll place the call after it's over though or you might even be dead after that ordeal. Good luck over there but I have no worries here because I'm protected from such acts.

You think our system is corrupt because of communist interference? What communist interference? Please elaborate. I know of 5 communist countries: China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba. I have not heard of any interference where any of those countries bought a candidate's way into our political system.

If you think it's easy to stop a teen from shooting people in a school, what would you do to stop it if you were the leader of the country?

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

We aren't terrified of being raped. Owning a gun makes it so we feel safe in our homes. Having a gun makes me less afraid of many terrible things that could happen if I didn't have a gun. You're more than welcome to try calling 999 when someone breaks into your house to rape you and your wife. It's more likely that you'll place the call after it's over though or you might even be dead after that ordeal. Good luck over there but I have no worries here because I'm protected from such acts.

You think our system is corrupt because of communist interference? What communist interference? Please elaborate. I know of 5 communist countries: China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba. I have not heard of any interference where any of those countries bought a candidate's way into our political system.

If you think it's easy to stop a teen from shooting people in a school, what would you do to stop it if you were the leader of the country?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (217 days ago)

You're not protected from anything otherwise your country would be the safest in the world. Of course you're scared, you definitely sound scared. You're scared that your emergency services won't respond quickly enough.. you're so scared, you think that rape is likely enough to make it worth owning a gun. You have no confidence in your security forces, you even think you could overthrow your own army. I've lived in developing countries where people haven't been so afraid that they arm themselves. It's pathetic but unsurprising, your nation isn't known for its bravery after all. The tragedy is that its your kids who pay the cost year after year while the rest of you whimper behind your silly little pistols.

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

You're not protected from anything otherwise your country would be the safest in the world. Of course you're scared, you definitely sound scared. You're scared that your emergency services won't respond quickly enough.. you're so scared, you think that rape is likely enough to make it worth owning a gun. You have no confidence in your security forces, you even think you could overthrow your own army. I've lived in developing countries where people haven't been so afraid that they arm themselves. It's pathetic but unsurprising, your nation isn't known for its bravery after all. The tragedy is that its your kids who pay the cost year after year while the rest of you whimper behind your silly little pistols.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (217 days ago)

You still have it wrong. I’m not scared of anything. We don’t have to be the safest country in the world but I know the part that I live in is pretty damn safe. I don’t carry my gun with me all the time. Just leave it at home for safety. Nothing happens around here but I’m prepared in case it does.

I’m not scared about our emergency services, I just know physics. If someone broke my window and started coming in, if I called the police, they would have to travel faster than the speed of light to help me. It’s not possible to get here that fast so I’ll call them after the incident is over and for them to identify the body of the perp.

Don’t know if you realize this but our army is comprised of citizens. If the people wanted to overthrow the government, the individuals working for the army will want to do it as well. Even if they didn’t, the army is prohibited from operating on US soil. Refer to the Posse Comitatus Act.

Besides, the same thing can be said about your country. If it becomes more tyrannical than it already is, people on Boreme have stated that they have killed their monarch in the past. Well, I’d like to see how your people with sticks and stones can get past your modern army. At least with guns the American people have a chance.

“I've lived in developing countries where people haven't been so afraid that they arm themselves.” You keep using “afraid.” Maybe you don’t understand the meaning of that word.

ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment

You still have it wrong. I’m not scared of anything. We don’t have to be the safest country in the world but I know the part that I live in is pretty damn safe. I don’t carry my gun with me all the time. Just leave it at home for safety. Nothing happens around here but I’m prepared in case it does.

I’m not scared about our emergency services, I just know physics. If someone broke my window and started coming in, if I called the police, they would have to travel faster than the speed of light to help me. It’s not possible to get here that fast so I’ll call them after the incident is over and for them to identify the body of the perp.

Don’t know if you realize this but our army is comprised of citizens. If the people wanted to overthrow the government, the individuals working for the army will want to do it as well. Even if they didn’t, the army is prohibited from operating on US soil. Refer to the Posse Comitatus Act.

Besides, the same thing can be said about your country. If it becomes more tyrannical than it already is, people on Boreme have stated that they have killed their monarch in the past. Well, I’d like to see how your people with sticks and stones can get past your modern army. At least with guns the American people have a chance.

“I've lived in developing countries where people haven't been so afraid that they arm themselves.” You keep using “afraid.” Maybe you don’t understand the meaning of that word.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (217 days ago)

No I get it. You're a big tough American and you don't like to admit being scared, but you are and it shows in what you write. You claim your area is safe, but you're so scared of crime that you possess a lethal weapon with no other use.

I know what fear is, and sure if I heard someone breaking in, at that point I might be scared, particularly if I lived in a country where gun laws meant any spotty scared teen half my weight had a good chance of killing me, even if they only wanted my iPhone. But I'm not so scared of that moment that I try to mitigate that risk all the time I'm in my house. I can't imagine being that scared in my own country. Either your country is particularly lawless and violent and you have no alternative but to arm yourselves and your children, or you accept that you're just scared of something that's completely improbable.

You don't understand Posse Comitatus. The federal military can still be used on US soil under the Insurrection Act, the Army and Air national guard can be used under the authority of a state governor, and the president can enfroce federal law at his discretion. In a country where you can be put into a 'free speech cage' just for speaking out, you don't have a chance.

The army are defined by their obedience to directives issued to them. Sure, individuals can leave the army and form a militia (maybe ask the French to help you out again), but they'd still be crushed. Purse pistols at the ready, here come the tanks and drones.

ReplyVote up (101)down (88)
Original comment

No I get it. You're a big tough American and you don't like to admit being scared, but you are and it shows in what you write. You claim your area is safe, but you're so scared of crime that you possess a lethal weapon with no other use.

I know what fear is, and sure if I heard someone breaking in, at that point I might be scared, particularly if I lived in a country where gun laws meant any spotty scared teen half my weight had a good chance of killing me, even if they only wanted my iPhone. But I'm not so scared of that moment that I try to mitigate that risk all the time I'm in my house. I can't imagine being that scared in my own country. Either your country is particularly lawless and violent and you have no alternative but to arm yourselves and your children, or you accept that you're just scared of something that's completely improbable.

You don't understand Posse Comitatus. The federal military can still be used on US soil under the Insurrection Act, the Army and Air national guard can be used under the authority of a state governor, and the president can enfroce federal law at his discretion. In a country where you can be put into a 'free speech cage' just for speaking out, you don't have a chance.

The army are defined by their obedience to directives issued to them. Sure, individuals can leave the army and form a militia (maybe ask the French to help you out again), but they'd still be crushed. Purse pistols at the ready, here come the tanks and drones.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (216 days ago)

I do understand the Posse Comitatus act. The federal government (congress or the President) does not have the power to deploy the Army on US Soil to prevent a well regulated militia from doing their job.

The local government is responsible for local law enforcement. If, for whatever reason, the local government cannot handle the enforcement, they can ask the federal government for help. But, if they don’t, the military cannot be used even in a support role.

In 2009, in Alabama after a murder spree, 22 soldiers were deployed but only to assist with traffic control and securing the crime scene, not military action. The governor, Bob Riley, did not ask for help. The Posse Comitatus Act was violated and several military personnel received administrative action. The constitution states the punishment is a fine of up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment of up to 2 years. I couldn’t determine what their sentence was without spending more time researching.

The Insurrection Act that you referred does allow the President to employ the armed forces but under specific conditions, none of which is to prevent the well regulated militia. Mainly, it’s to keep martial law after a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident. Another clause gives the right in the event citizens are being deprived of their rights that are named in the constitution. This does not give them the right to prevent a well regulated militia from performing their duties as that is a right given in the constitution.

ReplyVote up (94)down (101)
Original comment

I do understand the Posse Comitatus act. The federal government (congress or the President) does not have the power to deploy the Army on US Soil to prevent a well regulated militia from doing their job.

The local government is responsible for local law enforcement. If, for whatever reason, the local government cannot handle the enforcement, they can ask the federal government for help. But, if they don’t, the military cannot be used even in a support role.

In 2009, in Alabama after a murder spree, 22 soldiers were deployed but only to assist with traffic control and securing the crime scene, not military action. The governor, Bob Riley, did not ask for help. The Posse Comitatus Act was violated and several military personnel received administrative action. The constitution states the punishment is a fine of up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment of up to 2 years. I couldn’t determine what their sentence was without spending more time researching.

The Insurrection Act that you referred does allow the President to employ the armed forces but under specific conditions, none of which is to prevent the well regulated militia. Mainly, it’s to keep martial law after a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident. Another clause gives the right in the event citizens are being deprived of their rights that are named in the constitution. This does not give them the right to prevent a well regulated militia from performing their duties as that is a right given in the constitution.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (216 days ago)

Do you really not get this? Bearing in mind you obviously had to Google it in order to quote clause A in the correct order of "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency", how come you didn't manage to also read clause B which says "suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy"? You didn't know, did you?

Even with your cherry picking, can't you see how much of your new argument hinges on a definition of a 'well regulated militia'? If a significant proportion of the population wanted to rebel against an unjust government, do you really think that same government would respect your definition of 'well regulated militia' or be worried about legal action? While you're cowering behind your cars taking pot shots at drones, tanks, and squadrons of soldiers, feel free to threaten them with the prospect of a $10K fine or a lawsuit. That'll scare them as much as your purse pistols.

ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment

Do you really not get this? Bearing in mind you obviously had to Google it in order to quote clause A in the correct order of "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency", how come you didn't manage to also read clause B which says "suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy"? You didn't know, did you?

Even with your cherry picking, can't you see how much of your new argument hinges on a definition of a 'well regulated militia'? If a significant proportion of the population wanted to rebel against an unjust government, do you really think that same government would respect your definition of 'well regulated militia' or be worried about legal action? While you're cowering behind your cars taking pot shots at drones, tanks, and squadrons of soldiers, feel free to threaten them with the prospect of a $10K fine or a lawsuit. That'll scare them as much as your purse pistols.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (215 days ago)

I didn't quote Clause B is because that clause only pertains if there is a condition met in paragraph (2).

(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that --

(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment

I didn't quote Clause B is because that clause only pertains if there is a condition met in paragraph (2).

(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that --

(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (215 days ago)
Latest comment:

Really, is that really why? Because that Clause A pertains if there is a condition met in paragraph 2 as well. So why mention one but not the other? I wonder. Can't you see what you're doing?

If the military is able to act whenever they can claim that a 'right, privilege, immunity, or protection' is under threat, or whenever a law isn't being enforced to their satisfaction, then that's pretty much always, right? You're disturbing the peace, you're inciting a public disturbance, you're too close a site protected by HR347, whatever they like. Feel free to quote legislature at them though. I'm sure that will work.

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment
Latest comment:

Really, is that really why? Because that Clause A pertains if there is a condition met in paragraph 2 as well. So why mention one but not the other? I wonder. Can't you see what you're doing?

If the military is able to act whenever they can claim that a 'right, privilege, immunity, or protection' is under threat, or whenever a law isn't being enforced to their satisfaction, then that's pretty much always, right? You're disturbing the peace, you're inciting a public disturbance, you're too close a site protected by HR347, whatever they like. Feel free to quote legislature at them though. I'm sure that will work.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (218 days ago)

Let's talk about it then. If you were the President of the USA, what would you do about the gun "problem."

1. Cannot make guns illegal to own as that is a right granted by the constitution.

2. Background checks are already required before purchasing a gun but people that don't qualify buy them illegally. Making a law to prohibit illegal purchasing of guns already exists but they still do it.

3. Guns are already illegal to bring into areas such as schools, banks, and federal buildings like court houses and even the post office. Since a law already exists to prohibit this, what other law would you inact to stop this problem?

ReplyVote up (93)down (101)
Original comment

Let's talk about it then. If you were the President of the USA, what would you do about the gun "problem."

1. Cannot make guns illegal to own as that is a right granted by the constitution.

2. Background checks are already required before purchasing a gun but people that don't qualify buy them illegally. Making a law to prohibit illegal purchasing of guns already exists but they still do it.

3. Guns are already illegal to bring into areas such as schools, banks, and federal buildings like court houses and even the post office. Since a law already exists to prohibit this, what other law would you inact to stop this problem?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (218 days ago)

We have the same conversation every time there's a significant mass shooting. The same arguments get trotted out. 'Prayers and condolences', 'Oh we can't possibly change our constitution, we must abide by our ancestors wishes for ever more'.

Your tyrannical constitution is more important than the lives of your kids. We can't stop that. We learned that at Sandy Hook so nothing anyone can write on BoreMe will change it. It's like arguing with a Flat Earther.

ReplyVote up (101)down (95)
Original comment

We have the same conversation every time there's a significant mass shooting. The same arguments get trotted out. 'Prayers and condolences', 'Oh we can't possibly change our constitution, we must abide by our ancestors wishes for ever more'.

Your tyrannical constitution is more important than the lives of your kids. We can't stop that. We learned that at Sandy Hook so nothing anyone can write on BoreMe will change it. It's like arguing with a Flat Earther.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (218 days ago)

The constitution can be changed but the President cannot do it. It must be proposed by Congress with a 2/3rds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Then, it needs to be ratified by 3/4ths of the states. No problem.

Now that you understand what it takes to make a change, what change would you propose that will fix this "problem"?

ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment

The constitution can be changed but the President cannot do it. It must be proposed by Congress with a 2/3rds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Then, it needs to be ratified by 3/4ths of the states. No problem.

Now that you understand what it takes to make a change, what change would you propose that will fix this "problem"?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (218 days ago)

To all intents and purposes it can't be. A few sensible people with minds of their own have tried. They've managed to change an ancient document a total of 27 or so times in 240 years, that's a total joke and only twice in 50 years. You're forever tied to what your racist ancestors decided so deal with it. Your congress are all paid up by corporations, the NRA etc, so you can't change jack.

So now that you understand why you'll never achieve change, you can see why conversations about it are irrelevant. People explained what was needed at Sandy Hook, and before, and none of your have the guts to do it. We get it. So it's your problem.

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

To all intents and purposes it can't be. A few sensible people with minds of their own have tried. They've managed to change an ancient document a total of 27 or so times in 240 years, that's a total joke and only twice in 50 years. You're forever tied to what your racist ancestors decided so deal with it. Your congress are all paid up by corporations, the NRA etc, so you can't change jack.

So now that you understand why you'll never achieve change, you can see why conversations about it are irrelevant. People explained what was needed at Sandy Hook, and before, and none of your have the guts to do it. We get it. So it's your problem.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (218 days ago)

If people tried to change the constitution and failed, that means our representatives and the individual states did not agree with the proposed changes. Power to the people!

"Your congress are all paid up by corporations, the NRA etc". Wrong! None of our federal elected officials are allowed to take donations from corporations or the NRA. Since you're from outside the USA, I will forgive you on that mistake because it seems a lot of you think that. Look it up and you will see it's not allowed.

Maybe I don't remember what was said after Sandy Hook so please refresh my memory. What did they say was needed to guarantee nobody would ever get shot in this country again?

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

If people tried to change the constitution and failed, that means our representatives and the individual states did not agree with the proposed changes. Power to the people!

"Your congress are all paid up by corporations, the NRA etc". Wrong! None of our federal elected officials are allowed to take donations from corporations or the NRA. Since you're from outside the USA, I will forgive you on that mistake because it seems a lot of you think that. Look it up and you will see it's not allowed.

Maybe I don't remember what was said after Sandy Hook so please refresh my memory. What did they say was needed to guarantee nobody would ever get shot in this country again?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (217 days ago)

"None of our federal elected officials are allowed to take donations from corporations or the NRA." Do you seriously believe they haven't found a way to circumvent that? If your statement is true, how does the Young Turks guy state that the top "bribe" (of the top 10 they aired) is in excess of $3.3 million. If that wasn't substantiated, you can be sure the Senator or congressman would have them in court for defamation. The US government is corrupt. They threw the rest of the country overboard years ago and are only staying put because they have power and money. I'd guess that there are very few American politicians who actually have the best interests of their country's population at heart because they are busy greasing the wheels that allow big corporations - they ones who pay them most in bribes - to prosper. So, I'd say take your head out of the clouds or remove your rose tinted glasses and wake up to the fact that your government is being run by whoever pays best and the NRA is among them. At their level, the 'rules' don't apply since they are accountable to so few. As George Carlin said 'It's a great big club; and you ain't in it'.

ReplyVote up (101)down (85)
Original comment

"None of our federal elected officials are allowed to take donations from corporations or the NRA." Do you seriously believe they haven't found a way to circumvent that? If your statement is true, how does the Young Turks guy state that the top "bribe" (of the top 10 they aired) is in excess of $3.3 million. If that wasn't substantiated, you can be sure the Senator or congressman would have them in court for defamation. The US government is corrupt. They threw the rest of the country overboard years ago and are only staying put because they have power and money. I'd guess that there are very few American politicians who actually have the best interests of their country's population at heart because they are busy greasing the wheels that allow big corporations - they ones who pay them most in bribes - to prosper. So, I'd say take your head out of the clouds or remove your rose tinted glasses and wake up to the fact that your government is being run by whoever pays best and the NRA is among them. At their level, the 'rules' don't apply since they are accountable to so few. As George Carlin said 'It's a great big club; and you ain't in it'.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (217 days ago)

"Do you seriously believe they haven't found a way to circumvent that?" If they did and are doing it, that's when Cenk should bring his evidence to the board so something can be done about it. The Senators will probably be arrested if there was evidence.

"If your statement is true, how does the Young Turks guy state that the top "bribe" (of the top 10 they aired) is in excess of $3.3 million. If that wasn't substantiated, you can be sure the Senator or congressman would have them in court for defamation." Is that the new standard of proof, if nobody sues then it must be true?

"government is being run by whoever pays best and the NRA is among them" There could be some truth to this statement but it's not whoever pays the Senators the most. Could be who pays the most taxes or who pays the most employees. See, government wants companies to hire people and the companies that hire the most may get better benefits. When a company is looking for a headquarter location, they take bids from several cities and part of those bids are tax breaks for the company. Many cities want those big companies to be in their city to help with the unemployment in that city. Get it?

"At their level, the 'rules' don't apply since they are accountable to so few." You have it wrong. Congress is accountable to so many. It is the people who put them in charge and we can take them out of that position easily unlike you being unable to take out your precious queen.

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

"Do you seriously believe they haven't found a way to circumvent that?" If they did and are doing it, that's when Cenk should bring his evidence to the board so something can be done about it. The Senators will probably be arrested if there was evidence.

"If your statement is true, how does the Young Turks guy state that the top "bribe" (of the top 10 they aired) is in excess of $3.3 million. If that wasn't substantiated, you can be sure the Senator or congressman would have them in court for defamation." Is that the new standard of proof, if nobody sues then it must be true?

"government is being run by whoever pays best and the NRA is among them" There could be some truth to this statement but it's not whoever pays the Senators the most. Could be who pays the most taxes or who pays the most employees. See, government wants companies to hire people and the companies that hire the most may get better benefits. When a company is looking for a headquarter location, they take bids from several cities and part of those bids are tax breaks for the company. Many cities want those big companies to be in their city to help with the unemployment in that city. Get it?

"At their level, the 'rules' don't apply since they are accountable to so few." You have it wrong. Congress is accountable to so many. It is the people who put them in charge and we can take them out of that position easily unlike you being unable to take out your precious queen.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (217 days ago)

Basically, you could cut down on all they typing by saying that you value your ability to feel safe and protected above the lives of your countrymen who don't have the ability to defend themselves, since most victims of these mass shootings are unarmed, randomly chosen and innocent. You're one of the Charlton Heston 'out of my cold dead hands' types.

ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment

Basically, you could cut down on all they typing by saying that you value your ability to feel safe and protected above the lives of your countrymen who don't have the ability to defend themselves, since most victims of these mass shootings are unarmed, randomly chosen and innocent. You're one of the Charlton Heston 'out of my cold dead hands' types.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (216 days ago)

That's not how it is. I want to protect myself. I fail to see how protecting myself kills innocent people that don't have the ability to defend themselves. Should a couple bad people prevent the rest of us from protection?

If someone accidentally electrocutes himself, should we remove electricity from the rest of the country?

ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment

That's not how it is. I want to protect myself. I fail to see how protecting myself kills innocent people that don't have the ability to defend themselves. Should a couple bad people prevent the rest of us from protection?

If someone accidentally electrocutes himself, should we remove electricity from the rest of the country?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (215 days ago)

Yes ban electricity if it has no other use but to electrocute people and ban cars if they have no other use but crashing and killing people

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

Yes ban electricity if it has no other use but to electrocute people and ban cars if they have no other use but crashing and killing people

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (215 days ago)

Are you saying that guns have no other purpose than to perform mass murder?

ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment

Are you saying that guns have no other purpose than to perform mass murder?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (215 days ago)

Guns have no purpose other than to take life. All the other dumb examples that guntards come up with are always non-lethal things that are in daily use and you proved it

ReplyVote up (99)down (101)
Original comment

Guns have no purpose other than to take life. All the other dumb examples that guntards come up with are always non-lethal things that are in daily use and you proved it

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (215 days ago)

That's where you're wrong. Just like the USA nuclear weapons arsenal, weapons are a good deterrent and defense mechanism. You do not have to use the weapon but having it makes criminals think twice before committing a crime.

Cops frequently point guns at criminals and yell orders to lay down on the ground. That happens many more times than a cop killing someone with their gun.

If someone breaks into my house and I point a gun at them, they may think it’s a good idea to run. Otherwise if they attempt to hurt me, then they will get hurt instead. The deterrent is there but there’s no guarantee the perp will run so you still have to be prepared to defend yourself.

ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment

That's where you're wrong. Just like the USA nuclear weapons arsenal, weapons are a good deterrent and defense mechanism. You do not have to use the weapon but having it makes criminals think twice before committing a crime.

Cops frequently point guns at criminals and yell orders to lay down on the ground. That happens many more times than a cop killing someone with their gun.

If someone breaks into my house and I point a gun at them, they may think it’s a good idea to run. Otherwise if they attempt to hurt me, then they will get hurt instead. The deterrent is there but there’s no guarantee the perp will run so you still have to be prepared to defend yourself.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (215 days ago)

Wrong. How can you even think that? It's incredible. Guns are not a deterrent otherwise your country would be the safest among developed countries instead of the least safe. That's the most ridiculous argument ever. If your country had low levels of violent crime, then you could try to use that argument. As it stands, it's just laughable.

There are loads of studies that show definitively that guns don't deter crime. "An FBI analysis revealed that unarmed civilians are more than 20 times as likely to end an active shooting than are armed civilians (excluding armed security guards)."

Not just that they don't deter crime either, they obviously encourage it. If you think your victim might be armed, then you're forced to arm yourself and you're more likely to kill them too. In your burglar thinks there might be some terrified homeowner hiding with a purse pistol and fantasising about rapists, he is likely to shoot anything that moves instead of grabbing your valuables and leaving.

There are many effective deterrents and control devices, and guns are by definition lethal, have no purpose but death and are only ever used where the option to kill someone is desired.

Think of a country without electricity. Think of a country without cars. Think of a country without any sort of knife. Now think of a country without guns. Get it?

ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment

Wrong. How can you even think that? It's incredible. Guns are not a deterrent otherwise your country would be the safest among developed countries instead of the least safe. That's the most ridiculous argument ever. If your country had low levels of violent crime, then you could try to use that argument. As it stands, it's just laughable.

There are loads of studies that show definitively that guns don't deter crime. "An FBI analysis revealed that unarmed civilians are more than 20 times as likely to end an active shooting than are armed civilians (excluding armed security guards)."

Not just that they don't deter crime either, they obviously encourage it. If you think your victim might be armed, then you're forced to arm yourself and you're more likely to kill them too. In your burglar thinks there might be some terrified homeowner hiding with a purse pistol and fantasising about rapists, he is likely to shoot anything that moves instead of grabbing your valuables and leaving.

There are many effective deterrents and control devices, and guns are by definition lethal, have no purpose but death and are only ever used where the option to kill someone is desired.

Think of a country without electricity. Think of a country without cars. Think of a country without any sort of knife. Now think of a country without guns. Get it?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (217 days ago)

Intelligence

ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment

Intelligence

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (217 days ago)

Power to the people! That's naive, even by US standards. Since you're a Republican, I will forgive you, because it seems a lot of you drink the Koolaid and don't have the political understanding to realise.

The NRA’s campaign contributions to individual federal candidates are well-documented, with each contribution limited to $2,700 per cycle to each candidate or their PAC. But the NRA can also give to party committees and the national party. A donation to the national party quickly can increase campaign spending to more than $100,000. Any organization – or person – can also give $33,400 to a party committee. Finally, state and local parties can each receive a $10,000, quickly allowing campaign finance totals to sour to nearly half-a-million dollars. As an example, in 2016, the NRA poured $14.4m into supporting 44 candidates who won. Now you know. That's why you can't achieve change. Your representatives are all taking the money. Corporations decide which candidates get publicity, which candidates you vote for, and which candidates succeed.

Strawmen time again? No one is suggesting there is a law that would guarantee nobody would ever get shot again. In a country as terrified and fractured as the USA, that's impossible. But there are laws, tried and tested, that would reduce the number of mass shootings. You don't scrap a law on murder just because there will always be people who murder.

ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment

Power to the people! That's naive, even by US standards. Since you're a Republican, I will forgive you, because it seems a lot of you drink the Koolaid and don't have the political understanding to realise.

The NRA’s campaign contributions to individual federal candidates are well-documented, with each contribution limited to $2,700 per cycle to each candidate or their PAC. But the NRA can also give to party committees and the national party. A donation to the national party quickly can increase campaign spending to more than $100,000. Any organization – or person – can also give $33,400 to a party committee. Finally, state and local parties can each receive a $10,000, quickly allowing campaign finance totals to sour to nearly half-a-million dollars. As an example, in 2016, the NRA poured $14.4m into supporting 44 candidates who won. Now you know. That's why you can't achieve change. Your representatives are all taking the money. Corporations decide which candidates get publicity, which candidates you vote for, and which candidates succeed.

Strawmen time again? No one is suggesting there is a law that would guarantee nobody would ever get shot again. In a country as terrified and fractured as the USA, that's impossible. But there are laws, tried and tested, that would reduce the number of mass shootings. You don't scrap a law on murder just because there will always be people who murder.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (217 days ago)

"Since you're a Republican" Wrong.

"or their PAC". Ah, someone finally said the word PAC. The candidate does not create the PAC and they have no control over the money put into the PAC. Even Bernie had a PAC but he had no say in it. He probably didn't like the fact a PAC was made in his honor but he couldn't do anything about it. Anyone can create a PAC and use the money they get to buy advertisements or whatever they want. That's the freedom we have in this country. But I assure you, nobody is giving more than the federal limits to individual candidates and no corporations are doing it either.

Even when money is given to a party committee, there are so many candidates represented by that party that you cannot state specifically which money is going to which person and the candidates have no control over that money.

"No one is suggesting there is a law that would guarantee nobody would ever get shot again." Then what law is someone suggesting? I keep hearing people say that our leaders should do something about it but what is it that they expect the leaders to do? You say some are tried and tested so let me know what law we can make that would fix this "problem."

"You don't scrap a law on murder just because there will always be people who murder." I didn't believe anyone was talking about scrapping any current laws.

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

"Since you're a Republican" Wrong.

"or their PAC". Ah, someone finally said the word PAC. The candidate does not create the PAC and they have no control over the money put into the PAC. Even Bernie had a PAC but he had no say in it. He probably didn't like the fact a PAC was made in his honor but he couldn't do anything about it. Anyone can create a PAC and use the money they get to buy advertisements or whatever they want. That's the freedom we have in this country. But I assure you, nobody is giving more than the federal limits to individual candidates and no corporations are doing it either.

Even when money is given to a party committee, there are so many candidates represented by that party that you cannot state specifically which money is going to which person and the candidates have no control over that money.

"No one is suggesting there is a law that would guarantee nobody would ever get shot again." Then what law is someone suggesting? I keep hearing people say that our leaders should do something about it but what is it that they expect the leaders to do? You say some are tried and tested so let me know what law we can make that would fix this "problem."

"You don't scrap a law on murder just because there will always be people who murder." I didn't believe anyone was talking about scrapping any current laws.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (217 days ago)

Holy crap, the naivity. It doesn't matter who creates a PAC. If it is set up to pump money towards certain candidates and parties, then obviously those who benefit will want to stay on friendly terms with the source of their extra funding. It's not rocket science.

You missed the point about murder. You don't avoid having laws just because you know that the law can't make the crime impossible. Just because nothing will completely fix a problem, it doesn't mean some action shouldn't be taken. Such a limp and cowardly response. Surprise surprise.

I don't know if there have ever been any suggestions about possible laws that would help in some way. After-all, it's pretty much the first time this has happened. I guess nothing that can be done (other than a stricter age limit, assault weapons ban, bar sales to all violent criminals, semiautomatic gun ban, high-capacity magazine ban, universal checks for gun buyers, universal checks for ammo buyers, bar sales to people deemed dangerous by mental health provider, bar sales to convicted stalkers, require gun licenses, ammo purchase limit, centralized record of gun sales, report lost or stolen guns, 3-day waiting period, gun purchase limit, workplace weapons ban, school weapons ban, guns that microstamp bullets, require gun safes, require safety training, fingerprint gun owners and that kind of thing). Nothing whatsover.

It doesn't matter. Even if you weren't too scared to give up your security blanket, it's not actually your choice. Your political system isn't controlled by voters, but by money.

ReplyVote up (101)down (88)
Original comment

Holy crap, the naivity. It doesn't matter who creates a PAC. If it is set up to pump money towards certain candidates and parties, then obviously those who benefit will want to stay on friendly terms with the source of their extra funding. It's not rocket science.

You missed the point about murder. You don't avoid having laws just because you know that the law can't make the crime impossible. Just because nothing will completely fix a problem, it doesn't mean some action shouldn't be taken. Such a limp and cowardly response. Surprise surprise.

I don't know if there have ever been any suggestions about possible laws that would help in some way. After-all, it's pretty much the first time this has happened. I guess nothing that can be done (other than a stricter age limit, assault weapons ban, bar sales to all violent criminals, semiautomatic gun ban, high-capacity magazine ban, universal checks for gun buyers, universal checks for ammo buyers, bar sales to people deemed dangerous by mental health provider, bar sales to convicted stalkers, require gun licenses, ammo purchase limit, centralized record of gun sales, report lost or stolen guns, 3-day waiting period, gun purchase limit, workplace weapons ban, school weapons ban, guns that microstamp bullets, require gun safes, require safety training, fingerprint gun owners and that kind of thing). Nothing whatsover.

It doesn't matter. Even if you weren't too scared to give up your security blanket, it's not actually your choice. Your political system isn't controlled by voters, but by money.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (216 days ago)

“It doesn't matter who creates a PAC.”

Actually it does matter who creates it. The statement was made that senators were being bribed with millions making it sound like they were given cash in briefcases that allowed them to do whatever they wanted with the money like buy a mansion or something. That is far from the case. They have absolutely no say on what happens with that money. The senators have no control over what the PAC does and they could even disagree with things they do. If you don’t have control over how money is spent and cannot prevent the money from going into an account, then you didn’t receive that money. Period!

You made some good suggestions so let me go through them one by one.

“stricter age limit” - what age do you think is appropriate? An analysis of 153 shooters determined the “vast majority were between the ages of 20 and 49.”

“assault weapons ban.” All guns are made for assault purposes. What is your definition of an assault weapon? Many disagree about this definition so you have to be specific because a weapon with a detachable magazine is one definition and a simple 9 mm handgun fits that.

“bar sales to all violent criminals” Already banned. There are background checks required before a legal purchase of a gun and if you have been convicted of a violent crime, or even a misdemeanor that has a sentence of more than 2 years, you cannot purchase. If during the background check, you lied about your criminal history, you committed another felony punishable of up to 5 years.


“semiautomatic gun ban” Simple handguns meet this criteria. This just means when you pull the trigger, a round is fired and then the gun automatically reloads. You have to pull the trigger again to fire a second time. I would say that any handgun that uses a magazine is considered a semi-automatic gun.”

“high-capacity magazine ban” What is high capacity in your opinion? Since it’s a magazine, it’s very easy to reload in about 3 seconds so I’m not sure what you’re trying to prevent. Besides, those magazines are so cheap to buy at less than $20 at full retail. People have 3D printed them as well so it would be hard to ban them.

“universal checks for gun buyers” All dealers must perform a background check before a customer can purchase a gun.

“universal checks for ammo buyers” Absolutely wholeheartedly disagree with this. If you have ever bought a gun, you’d know that the person behind the counter calling in your information for a background check spends at least an hour on the phone before talking with someone. Sometimes it can take up to 3 days. (After 3 days, the law allows the sale to go through anyway.) When buying a gun, that’s fine because it’s not a frequent purchase. But when buying ammo, that could be a weekly event and is an unnecessary stress on the dealer, the customer, and the federal government that has to do that background check. The amount of paperwork that would need to be stored would be ridiculous. Many people get their rounds through online stores and you would put all those dealers out of business.

“bar sales to people deemed dangerous by mental health provider” I have mixed feelings about this. First, I wouldn’t want someone that has a dangerous mental health issue to have a gun but I also like our HIPAA act. I don’t want the government to know all my medical conditions unless I tell them and give them authorization. Then you have the problem of what is considered a mental health issue to prevent the purchase. What about someone with depression? Anxiety? Schizophrenia? Someone Baker Acted? What happens when someone has a mental health issue and gets medicine to correct it? Someone might fall through the cracks and be denied their constitutional rights.

“bar sales to convicted stalkers” If someone is found criminally guilty of a felony, I agree. But stalking covers many minor crimes and some are simple misdemeanors. One is stalking through electronic means causing emotional distress. It could be argued that you are doing that to me right now.

“require gun licenses” This is debatable because the background check sort of covers this. Some say the license puts a fee on the purchase which is unconstitutional because you’re causing someone to pay to enjoy one of their rights.

“ammo purchase limit” Nope, I again disagree. Many gun owners like to go to shooting ranges and fire their guns for practice. You can consume thousands of rounds in one day at the range. This also puts an un-do stress on the system because I could buy my limit at one store then go to another store to buy another batch. To avoid this, you would need to have each store register their sales to a federal website and that would need to be checked before each purchase. To get around this, all I would have to do is buy online to 100 different shops all on the same day. By the time the records are updated, the sale has already gone through.

“centralized record of gun sales” Not sure how this would help. What are you trying to prevent from doing this? Do you think this would have prevented any gun deaths?

“report lost or stolen guns” It’s always a good idea to do this. If someone took any of my guns, I would get a police report immediately. If someone gets shot using my weapon, I don’t want to be accountable for that death. With current forensic ballistics, they can tell which gun a bullet came from. My fingerprints can even be on some of the rounds that are in the magazine right now.

“3-day waiting period” We already have a waiting period in many states from 24 hours to 14 days. Florida has a 3 day waiting period and it did not prevent the last mass shooting.


“gun purchase limit” Why? What if I want to buy and resell guns? What if I collect them, especially antiques? Some states like South Carolina and Virginia enacted laws to limit purchases to one handgun per month. Both were repealed. California, Maryland, and New Jersey have a similar law but those may be challenged because the District of Columbia had that law but it was appealed and struck down in 2015. That sets a precedence.

“workplace weapons ban, school weapons ban” This is where the problem is. Because nobody is allowed to bring guns to some of those places, that’s where the mass murders are done. You know nobody is going to shoot back at you if you do it in a school. I think some teachers and security people should be trained and allowed to bring a weapon so they have some kind of defense should a shooting event occur. Good people with guns can stop bad people with guns, that’s no BS.

“guns that microstamp bullets” Not sure how this would stop a mass murder because by the time you look at the casings, the murders have already occurred. This would only pertain to a single murder where the perp is unknown and you’re trying to find out who did it. But then forensic ballistics can tell which gun it came from (if the weapon is retrieved).

“Require gun safes”. Many people use safes because they have children at home but what about adults living alone? I don’t see any reason to make them spend 3 minutes opening a safe to get a gun out to protect themselves. Also, those gun safes would not have prevented the Florida mass shooting.

“require safety training” I can agree with this in a way but that would require some licensing again. Some states require licensing and some do not. It’s not fair to make someone pay to exercise their constitutional rights. If the training is provided by the state for free then I can be for that.

“fingerprint gun owners and that kind of thing” That goes with the background check but, unfortunately, it’s done over the phone. How would they transmit that data over the phone at a gun shop? Fax? Would that have prevented the Florida mass shooting?

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

“It doesn't matter who creates a PAC.”

Actually it does matter who creates it. The statement was made that senators were being bribed with millions making it sound like they were given cash in briefcases that allowed them to do whatever they wanted with the money like buy a mansion or something. That is far from the case. They have absolutely no say on what happens with that money. The senators have no control over what the PAC does and they could even disagree with things they do. If you don’t have control over how money is spent and cannot prevent the money from going into an account, then you didn’t receive that money. Period!

You made some good suggestions so let me go through them one by one.

“stricter age limit” - what age do you think is appropriate? An analysis of 153 shooters determined the “vast majority were between the ages of 20 and 49.”

“assault weapons ban.” All guns are made for assault purposes. What is your definition of an assault weapon? Many disagree about this definition so you have to be specific because a weapon with a detachable magazine is one definition and a simple 9 mm handgun fits that.

“bar sales to all violent criminals” Already banned. There are background checks required before a legal purchase of a gun and if you have been convicted of a violent crime, or even a misdemeanor that has a sentence of more than 2 years, you cannot purchase. If during the background check, you lied about your criminal history, you committed another felony punishable of up to 5 years.


“semiautomatic gun ban” Simple handguns meet this criteria. This just means when you pull the trigger, a round is fired and then the gun automatically reloads. You have to pull the trigger again to fire a second time. I would say that any handgun that uses a magazine is considered a semi-automatic gun.”

“high-capacity magazine ban” What is high capacity in your opinion? Since it’s a magazine, it’s very easy to reload in about 3 seconds so I’m not sure what you’re trying to prevent. Besides, those magazines are so cheap to buy at less than $20 at full retail. People have 3D printed them as well so it would be hard to ban them.

“universal checks for gun buyers” All dealers must perform a background check before a customer can purchase a gun.

“universal checks for ammo buyers” Absolutely wholeheartedly disagree with this. If you have ever bought a gun, you’d know that the person behind the counter calling in your information for a background check spends at least an hour on the phone before talking with someone. Sometimes it can take up to 3 days. (After 3 days, the law allows the sale to go through anyway.) When buying a gun, that’s fine because it’s not a frequent purchase. But when buying ammo, that could be a weekly event and is an unnecessary stress on the dealer, the customer, and the federal government that has to do that background check. The amount of paperwork that would need to be stored would be ridiculous. Many people get their rounds through online stores and you would put all those dealers out of business.

“bar sales to people deemed dangerous by mental health provider” I have mixed feelings about this. First, I wouldn’t want someone that has a dangerous mental health issue to have a gun but I also like our HIPAA act. I don’t want the government to know all my medical conditions unless I tell them and give them authorization. Then you have the problem of what is considered a mental health issue to prevent the purchase. What about someone with depression? Anxiety? Schizophrenia? Someone Baker Acted? What happens when someone has a mental health issue and gets medicine to correct it? Someone might fall through the cracks and be denied their constitutional rights.

“bar sales to convicted stalkers” If someone is found criminally guilty of a felony, I agree. But stalking covers many minor crimes and some are simple misdemeanors. One is stalking through electronic means causing emotional distress. It could be argued that you are doing that to me right now.

“require gun licenses” This is debatable because the background check sort of covers this. Some say the license puts a fee on the purchase which is unconstitutional because you’re causing someone to pay to enjoy one of their rights.

“ammo purchase limit” Nope, I again disagree. Many gun owners like to go to shooting ranges and fire their guns for practice. You can consume thousands of rounds in one day at the range. This also puts an un-do stress on the system because I could buy my limit at one store then go to another store to buy another batch. To avoid this, you would need to have each store register their sales to a federal website and that would need to be checked before each purchase. To get around this, all I would have to do is buy online to 100 different shops all on the same day. By the time the records are updated, the sale has already gone through.

“centralized record of gun sales” Not sure how this would help. What are you trying to prevent from doing this? Do you think this would have prevented any gun deaths?

“report lost or stolen guns” It’s always a good idea to do this. If someone took any of my guns, I would get a police report immediately. If someone gets shot using my weapon, I don’t want to be accountable for that death. With current forensic ballistics, they can tell which gun a bullet came from. My fingerprints can even be on some of the rounds that are in the magazine right now.

“3-day waiting period” We already have a waiting period in many states from 24 hours to 14 days. Florida has a 3 day waiting period and it did not prevent the last mass shooting.


“gun purchase limit” Why? What if I want to buy and resell guns? What if I collect them, especially antiques? Some states like South Carolina and Virginia enacted laws to limit purchases to one handgun per month. Both were repealed. California, Maryland, and New Jersey have a similar law but those may be challenged because the District of Columbia had that law but it was appealed and struck down in 2015. That sets a precedence.

“workplace weapons ban, school weapons ban” This is where the problem is. Because nobody is allowed to bring guns to some of those places, that’s where the mass murders are done. You know nobody is going to shoot back at you if you do it in a school. I think some teachers and security people should be trained and allowed to bring a weapon so they have some kind of defense should a shooting event occur. Good people with guns can stop bad people with guns, that’s no BS.

“guns that microstamp bullets” Not sure how this would stop a mass murder because by the time you look at the casings, the murders have already occurred. This would only pertain to a single murder where the perp is unknown and you’re trying to find out who did it. But then forensic ballistics can tell which gun it came from (if the weapon is retrieved).

“Require gun safes”. Many people use safes because they have children at home but what about adults living alone? I don’t see any reason to make them spend 3 minutes opening a safe to get a gun out to protect themselves. Also, those gun safes would not have prevented the Florida mass shooting.

“require safety training” I can agree with this in a way but that would require some licensing again. Some states require licensing and some do not. It’s not fair to make someone pay to exercise their constitutional rights. If the training is provided by the state for free then I can be for that.

“fingerprint gun owners and that kind of thing” That goes with the background check but, unfortunately, it’s done over the phone. How would they transmit that data over the phone at a gun shop? Fax? Would that have prevented the Florida mass shooting?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (216 days ago)

Basically, too long didn't read. I don't have time and there are more qualified commentators than me to go through the fine detail if you're interested. I will take certain points though.

No. It doesn't matter who starts a PAC. Imagine you were on a football team. Coca Cola say they will pay for all your training, all your equipment, some parties, and will publicise your team across the globe - and all you have to do is say you like drinking Coke and maybe wear a hat. Suddenly your teammates starting talking about how much they like Coke and hats start coming out. Sure, they didn't start up Coca Cola, and no, they don't get to choose what Coca Cola buys for the team, and perhaps some of them liked drinking Coke anyway, but obviously they are now incentivised to act according to their new funds. Get it?

Age - 21 would be an obvious mark. If someone isn't responsible enough for alcohol, why would they be responsible enough to buy guns? But when you quote “vast majority were between the ages of 20 and 49” that is deliberately misleading. You forgot to mention that it was only 150 incidents were a single shooter had killed 4 or more people, and not in a private residence. Even if it reduced your mass shootings by one incident a year, it would be worth it.

What's an assault weapon? Start with an assault rifle ban. You guys can come up with a definition and enforce it, like you do with any law, but it should include high-calibre semi-automatic rifle with large-capacity magazines. Hunting is common in Australia, and they still managed to control these types of weapons after their largest mass shooting, and sure enough they haven't had any others since.

"There are background checks required before a legal purchase of a gun and if you have been convicted of a violent crime, or even a misdemeanor that has a sentence of more than 2 years, you cannot purchase." J ust factually untrue . Shame on you. Most states do not require any background checks at all for firearms legally purchased from private individuals -- federal law only requires licensed dealers to conduct checks, and currently that's only 78% of guns. I mean even Donnie Trump is considering this move. You have to worry about yourself when he has more common-sense than you.

Good guys with guns don't stop bad guys with guns. Highly trained and well-armed professional response teams stop bad guys with guns, using rehearsed procedures. Simple good guys with guns crap themselves when they realise the guy shooting up their room has high-calibre assault rifles, whereas they just have a pistol, and they desperately don't want to make themselves the next target.

It's great to see the time you've spent wriggling your way through those suggestions that would all have an effect on safety in your country. The point I was trying to make is that lawmakers in the USA have already come up with dozens and dozens of viable laws to protect your children, and your inadvertent point is that cowardly citizens will desperately find reasons why they won't work instead of trying them out, and will even distort figures, make up stuff, do whatever they can to hold on to their beloved security blanket.

ReplyVote up (101)down (85)
Original comment

Basically, too long didn't read. I don't have time and there are more qualified commentators than me to go through the fine detail if you're interested. I will take certain points though.

No. It doesn't matter who starts a PAC. Imagine you were on a football team. Coca Cola say they will pay for all your training, all your equipment, some parties, and will publicise your team across the globe - and all you have to do is say you like drinking Coke and maybe wear a hat. Suddenly your teammates starting talking about how much they like Coke and hats start coming out. Sure, they didn't start up Coca Cola, and no, they don't get to choose what Coca Cola buys for the team, and perhaps some of them liked drinking Coke anyway, but obviously they are now incentivised to act according to their new funds. Get it?

Age - 21 would be an obvious mark. If someone isn't responsible enough for alcohol, why would they be responsible enough to buy guns? But when you quote “vast majority were between the ages of 20 and 49” that is deliberately misleading. You forgot to mention that it was only 150 incidents were a single shooter had killed 4 or more people, and not in a private residence. Even if it reduced your mass shootings by one incident a year, it would be worth it.

What's an assault weapon? Start with an assault rifle ban. You guys can come up with a definition and enforce it, like you do with any law, but it should include high-calibre semi-automatic rifle with large-capacity magazines. Hunting is common in Australia, and they still managed to control these types of weapons after their largest mass shooting, and sure enough they haven't had any others since.

"There are background checks required before a legal purchase of a gun and if you have been convicted of a violent crime, or even a misdemeanor that has a sentence of more than 2 years, you cannot purchase." J ust factually untrue . Shame on you. Most states do not require any background checks at all for firearms legally purchased from private individuals -- federal law only requires licensed dealers to conduct checks, and currently that's only 78% of guns. I mean even Donnie Trump is considering this move. You have to worry about yourself when he has more common-sense than you.

Good guys with guns don't stop bad guys with guns. Highly trained and well-armed professional response teams stop bad guys with guns, using rehearsed procedures. Simple good guys with guns crap themselves when they realise the guy shooting up their room has high-calibre assault rifles, whereas they just have a pistol, and they desperately don't want to make themselves the next target.

It's great to see the time you've spent wriggling your way through those suggestions that would all have an effect on safety in your country. The point I was trying to make is that lawmakers in the USA have already come up with dozens and dozens of viable laws to protect your children, and your inadvertent point is that cowardly citizens will desperately find reasons why they won't work instead of trying them out, and will even distort figures, make up stuff, do whatever they can to hold on to their beloved security blanket.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: MB (217 days ago)

The citizens of the USA need to get a grip with just one point to help them understand why they must change and more importantly the incentive to change. The UK is often used as an example of a no gun society; Guns can be found in the UK and criminal who wants them can get them without too much trouble. The reason these criminals generally don’t is because they don’t need to - If you were going to break into a home, for example, in the UK, you possibly smash a window and ransack the house. If you hear the occupants you run, if the police come you run. If caught you go to jail for theft. In the USA its highly likely that the occupants have one or more guns so you will obviously take when with you. If the occupants interrupt your thieving you automatically will try shoot first as the occupant will be thinking the same. If the police come they will assume you will have a gun and shoot first and ask questions later possibly after an exchange of fire as you try not get arrested for not only breaking and entry but also carrying a firearm with intent or worse used. So the good people of the USA are unknowingly upping the game – if they had no guns then the bad guys would not too and its NOT the other way round as they seem to think. Granted a transition to no guns is going to be difficult and really has to be done in one hit else a some have some not will not work - Australia managed to go through this transition. If you included the stats that you are 3-4 times more likely to get shot by your own gun then it’s a no-brainer.

ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment

The citizens of the USA need to get a grip with just one point to help them understand why they must change and more importantly the incentive to change. The UK is often used as an example of a no gun society; Guns can be found in the UK and criminal who wants them can get them without too much trouble. The reason these criminals generally don’t is because they don’t need to - If you were going to break into a home, for example, in the UK, you possibly smash a window and ransack the house. If you hear the occupants you run, if the police come you run. If caught you go to jail for theft. In the USA its highly likely that the occupants have one or more guns so you will obviously take when with you. If the occupants interrupt your thieving you automatically will try shoot first as the occupant will be thinking the same. If the police come they will assume you will have a gun and shoot first and ask questions later possibly after an exchange of fire as you try not get arrested for not only breaking and entry but also carrying a firearm with intent or worse used. So the good people of the USA are unknowingly upping the game – if they had no guns then the bad guys would not too and its NOT the other way round as they seem to think. Granted a transition to no guns is going to be difficult and really has to be done in one hit else a some have some not will not work - Australia managed to go through this transition. If you included the stats that you are 3-4 times more likely to get shot by your own gun then it’s a no-brainer.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (217 days ago)

“The UK is often used as an example of a no gun society” Really? No guns? From my understanding, citizens are allowed to own rifles and shotguns and guns in Northern Ireland (still part of the UK). You even had a killing spree in 2010 (after your new laws) called the Cumbria shootings who killed 12 people and injured 11. Some of the people killed were targeted and some were random. More random people were killed than targeted. HIS WEAPONS WERE LEGALLY HELD.

“and criminal who wants them can get them without too much trouble.” That’s where the problem is. In my opinion, if you make any law banning those weapons, you’re only taking them away from the law abiding citizens. The criminals will still get them because they don’t care about breaking the law.

“If the occupants interrupt your thieving you automatically will try shoot first as the occupant will be thinking the same” Although many jurisdictions have a stand your ground law, you cannot shoot someone in the back if they try to run away. So there’s still no need to bring a gun to a robbery because if the homeowner has a gun, you can still run away. If you shoot the perp and your life was not in danger, you can be arrested for murder. Remember the Zimmerman case. He had to prove it was self defense because it was a white guy killing a black guy.

“If the police come they will assume you will have a gun and shoot first and ask questions later” That is not how it works at all. You know nothing about how the police operate if that’s what you think.

“the good people of the USA are unknowingly upping the game – if they had no guns then the bad guys would not too” It’s sort of a catch-22 situation.

“transition to no guns is going to be difficult and really has to be done in one hit” Please explain to me how you will guarantee that all the criminals will turn in their guns? They are criminals so they already break the laws and have no problem keeping a gun even if it’s illegal to do so. If it was as simple as creating a law for everyone to turn in their guns and that worked, then the police would turn theirs in too because nobody around would have any but that’s not what would happen in the real world.

“Australia managed to go through this transition” Australia population approximately 24 million. USA population is 323 million. Australia is about the population size of Texas which has 26 million. There are 49 other states plus DC, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Guam too.

“If you included the stats that you are 3-4 times more likely to get shot by your own gun then it’s a no-brainer.” Maybe during a robbery. That is a disturbing fact and it’s probably because the homeowner is afraid to shoot and kill someone. You cannot hesitate or the perp will disarm you. There are training classes to help you with this and I’d advise anyone that isn’t sure about their handling of weapons to take those classes.

ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment

“The UK is often used as an example of a no gun society” Really? No guns? From my understanding, citizens are allowed to own rifles and shotguns and guns in Northern Ireland (still part of the UK). You even had a killing spree in 2010 (after your new laws) called the Cumbria shootings who killed 12 people and injured 11. Some of the people killed were targeted and some were random. More random people were killed than targeted. HIS WEAPONS WERE LEGALLY HELD.

“and criminal who wants them can get them without too much trouble.” That’s where the problem is. In my opinion, if you make any law banning those weapons, you’re only taking them away from the law abiding citizens. The criminals will still get them because they don’t care about breaking the law.

“If the occupants interrupt your thieving you automatically will try shoot first as the occupant will be thinking the same” Although many jurisdictions have a stand your ground law, you cannot shoot someone in the back if they try to run away. So there’s still no need to bring a gun to a robbery because if the homeowner has a gun, you can still run away. If you shoot the perp and your life was not in danger, you can be arrested for murder. Remember the Zimmerman case. He had to prove it was self defense because it was a white guy killing a black guy.

“If the police come they will assume you will have a gun and shoot first and ask questions later” That is not how it works at all. You know nothing about how the police operate if that’s what you think.

“the good people of the USA are unknowingly upping the game – if they had no guns then the bad guys would not too” It’s sort of a catch-22 situation.

“transition to no guns is going to be difficult and really has to be done in one hit” Please explain to me how you will guarantee that all the criminals will turn in their guns? They are criminals so they already break the laws and have no problem keeping a gun even if it’s illegal to do so. If it was as simple as creating a law for everyone to turn in their guns and that worked, then the police would turn theirs in too because nobody around would have any but that’s not what would happen in the real world.

“Australia managed to go through this transition” Australia population approximately 24 million. USA population is 323 million. Australia is about the population size of Texas which has 26 million. There are 49 other states plus DC, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Guam too.

“If you included the stats that you are 3-4 times more likely to get shot by your own gun then it’s a no-brainer.” Maybe during a robbery. That is a disturbing fact and it’s probably because the homeowner is afraid to shoot and kill someone. You cannot hesitate or the perp will disarm you. There are training classes to help you with this and I’d advise anyone that isn’t sure about their handling of weapons to take those classes.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: MB (216 days ago)

“The UK is often used as an example of a no gun society” - i didnt say we had no guns I said we did! and the UK is often used as an example but bad guys can still get guns. Yes we still get shootings like Cunbria as you mentioned which was done by a mentally disturbed man. BUT what we did is tightened our laws even more after this to hopefully prevent the same again. Unike in the USA, when under simimilar circumstances, the UK citezens did not go out and arm themselves even more, as a broad reaction. Which in turn puts more guns in the hands of the unstable, granted, very small minority. Your statement in reply to "more likely get shot by your own gun" says it all with little need for me to respond and it sadly confirms, if you are representative of the USA, that there is no hope for you and you will have to accept that your country will forever have the highest gun crime and gun deaths in the world.

ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment

“The UK is often used as an example of a no gun society” - i didnt say we had no guns I said we did! and the UK is often used as an example but bad guys can still get guns. Yes we still get shootings like Cunbria as you mentioned which was done by a mentally disturbed man. BUT what we did is tightened our laws even more after this to hopefully prevent the same again. Unike in the USA, when under simimilar circumstances, the UK citezens did not go out and arm themselves even more, as a broad reaction. Which in turn puts more guns in the hands of the unstable, granted, very small minority. Your statement in reply to "more likely get shot by your own gun" says it all with little need for me to respond and it sadly confirms, if you are representative of the USA, that there is no hope for you and you will have to accept that your country will forever have the highest gun crime and gun deaths in the world.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (216 days ago)

Always funny when Yanks cite Cumbria or Dunblane. The USA has had more fatalities from mass shootings in the past 6 weeks than the UK has had in 30 years, because the UK isn't terrified and the UK learns from mistakes. I can literally name every mass shooting that has taken place within 60 years in the entire country. I'd love to see this donut try to name every one that has happened just in his state in the past 10.

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

Always funny when Yanks cite Cumbria or Dunblane. The USA has had more fatalities from mass shootings in the past 6 weeks than the UK has had in 30 years, because the UK isn't terrified and the UK learns from mistakes. I can literally name every mass shooting that has taken place within 60 years in the entire country. I'd love to see this donut try to name every one that has happened just in his state in the past 10.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (216 days ago)

Although that may be true, it's not about gun ownership as much as it is culture. We have a drug problem here and gangs are killing each other. Those count in the statistics.

There are other countries like Israel and Switzerland that has high gun ownership but less gun violence. There are countries like Columbia and Venezuela that made guns illegal but has higher gun violence.

ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment

Although that may be true, it's not about gun ownership as much as it is culture. We have a drug problem here and gangs are killing each other. Those count in the statistics.

There are other countries like Israel and Switzerland that has high gun ownership but less gun violence. There are countries like Columbia and Venezuela that made guns illegal but has higher gun violence.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (216 days ago)

Yeah your culture... I suppose the USA is more lawless than most developed countries, and yes your security forces have failed to keep a lid on your inner city crime, and sure, your residual racism and failure to embrace diversity has led to ghettoised minorities, and entire populations feel disenfranchised and excluded from mainstream culture. Aside from that, it's also worth noting your pitiful healthcare provision and weak public welfare means that most gun-related deaths are suicides. Still, access to guns has a part to play in those statistics along with all the others. At some point in our lives, most of us have felt so desperate or angry that we have lost control, and a minority of those people want to lash out at others or end their lives. In most civilised countries though, our ability to lash out is restricted by the fact we don't have access to a cowardly weapon which allows us to make spur-of-the-moment decision to kill a large number of people, without fear of injury. It's a no-brainer.

Remember, no one is expecting you to be able to solve the issue entirely, but we do expect you to conquer your fears and try SOMETHING, just for the sake of your children. Actually we don't. We learned that at Sandy Hook. You don't have it in you to achieve change, even if it were possible with your corrupt politics and tyrannical constitution. But the universe will keep teaching you the same lesson until you learn it.

ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment

Yeah your culture... I suppose the USA is more lawless than most developed countries, and yes your security forces have failed to keep a lid on your inner city crime, and sure, your residual racism and failure to embrace diversity has led to ghettoised minorities, and entire populations feel disenfranchised and excluded from mainstream culture. Aside from that, it's also worth noting your pitiful healthcare provision and weak public welfare means that most gun-related deaths are suicides. Still, access to guns has a part to play in those statistics along with all the others. At some point in our lives, most of us have felt so desperate or angry that we have lost control, and a minority of those people want to lash out at others or end their lives. In most civilised countries though, our ability to lash out is restricted by the fact we don't have access to a cowardly weapon which allows us to make spur-of-the-moment decision to kill a large number of people, without fear of injury. It's a no-brainer.

Remember, no one is expecting you to be able to solve the issue entirely, but we do expect you to conquer your fears and try SOMETHING, just for the sake of your children. Actually we don't. We learned that at Sandy Hook. You don't have it in you to achieve change, even if it were possible with your corrupt politics and tyrannical constitution. But the universe will keep teaching you the same lesson until you learn it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Obama vs Trump: Fox News hypocrisy over North Korea
Obama vs Trump: Fox News hypocrisy over North Korea
Did Obama really say that?
Did Obama really say that?
Comparison of Trump and Obama responding to school shootings
Comparison of Trump and Obama responding to school shootings
US presidents respond to school shootings
US presidents respond to school shootings
TYT - Obama issues warning about social media and civil discourse
TYT - Obama issues warning about social media and civil discourse