America is under attack': Dem candidates call for gun control after shootings

[Remarkableriots]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/breakingnews/america-is-under-attack-dem-candidates-call-for-gun-control-after-shootings/ar-AAFjsKN?ocid=AMZN#page=2

Quote

In a statement Sunday after both shootings, Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan said, "I'm calling in Congress to immediately end its August recess and reconvene in Washington to take up a package of legislation meant to stop these acts of horror and other acts of gun violence that affect every single American."

 

[mclumber1]

They should  enact Senator Coburn's proposal from 2013.  It would probably pass both house of Congress.  The President might even sign it.  

[finaljedi]

By the time it gets to the Senate and news cycle will have moved on and Mitch won't even have to give a reason why he won't let it come to a vote.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

Once people decided that dead children were worth the price of "muh freedoms" in 2012, the gun control debate died.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

9 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Once people decided that dead children were worth the price of "muh freedoms" in 2012, the gun control debate died.

The number of acceptable losses will always outnumber the victims of any and all shootings. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

America is "under attack" alright.

 

And the "state actor" behind them resides in the Oval Office. 

[SuperSpreader]

35 minutes ago, finaljedi said:

By the time it gets to the Senate and news cycle will have moved on and Mitch won't even have to give a reason why he won't let it come to a vote.

I trust in Americans to kill other Americans by then.

[SaysWho?]

37 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

They should  enact Senator Coburn's proposal from 2013.  It would probably pass both house of Congress.  The President might even sign it.  

 

He proposed an amendment to ease gun control laws and I think said he supported background checks without a registry.

 

That would be the limpest proposal -- to do Coburn's in 2013 -- that would still attract complete opposition and would have Dems arguing for barer than the bare minimum and once again move the debate to the NRA's direction as opposed to away from it.

[GeneticBlueprint]

1 minute ago, 2user1cup said:

I trust in Americans to kill other Americans by then.

 

Definitely this.

 

36 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Once people decided that dead children were worth the price of "muh freedoms" in 2012, the gun control debate died.

 

But also this

[SaysWho?]

I also disagree with the notion that after Sandy Hook, we were screwed. I get it and I understand that infamous tweet. But what I truly remember is since then, the gun control movement has gotten so large and so well-funded that they actually compete with the NRA, and now instead of having support from both parties with Democrats talking about how they like to hunt, you have one of the two major parties giving the NRA the finger and not suffering blowback from it as they used to think they would.

 

The truth is, the gun control movement is more powerful now than I can remember in recent memory. The sad truth also is that, while I think we'll get there, many people are going to die first.

[PaladinSolo]

41 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

I also disagree with the notion that after Sandy Hook, we were screwed. I get it and I understand that infamous tweet. But what I truly remember is since then, the gun control movement has gotten so large and so well-funded that they actually compete with the NRA, and now instead of having support from both parties with Democrats talking about how they like to hunt, you have one of the two major parties giving the NRA the finger and not suffering blowback from it as they used to think they would.

 

The truth is, the gun control movement is more powerful now than I can remember in recent memory. The sad truth also is that, while I think we'll get there, many people are going to die first.

Yes, gun control groups are spending far more money than the NRA can spend even if they wanted to.

[skillzdadirecta]

1 hour ago, mclumber1 said:

They should  enact Senator Coburn's proposal from 2013.  It would probably pass both house of Congress.  The President might even sign it.  

What was his proposal?

[skillzdadirecta]

49 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

I also disagree with the notion that after Sandy Hook, we were screwed. I get it and I understand that infamous tweet. But what I truly remember is since then, the gun control movement has gotten so large and so well-funded that they actually compete with the NRA, and now instead of having support from both parties with Democrats talking about how they like to hunt, you have one of the two major parties giving the NRA the finger and not suffering blowback from it as they used to think they would.

 

The truth is, the gun control movement is more powerful now than I can remember in recent memory. The sad truth also is that, while I think we'll get there, many people are going to die first.

How many mass shootings have occurred since Sandy Hook with higher body counts? How much legislation has passed regarding gun control since then? The gun control movement in this country ( if there is one) has accomplished absolutely nothing. We can tell ourselves otherwise to feel better but the truth is the truth unfortunately.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

I mean, the movement is bigger and better funded, but as long as Republicans control part or all of the government, shit won't be done. 

[Bacon]

I can't see gun control advancing until a domestic american made 9/11 scale event.  An event makes us stop saying we live in a post 9/11 america. 

[SaysWho?]

13 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

How many mass shootings have occurred since Sandy Hook with higher body counts? How much legislation has passed regarding gun control since then? The gun control movement in this country ( if there is one) has accomplished absolutely nothing. We can tell ourselves otherwise to feel better but the truth is the truth unfortunately.

 

The gun control movement was minuscule in 2012, and Republicans controlled a House of Congress. It's powerful and well-funded now and significantly more gun control Democrats are in the Congress.

 

It got to the point where Florida governor Rick Scott signed gun control legislation and the NRA was tepidly against it. The gun control movement is huge now, and we actually have a party that's not trying to get their vote. It was just last decade in 2006 when we elected a bunch of Democrats who were happy to say they weren't going to "take away your guns." Now you have a Democratic Senator in Alabama using his first floor speech to tackle gun control.

 

This stuff doesn't happen overnight. The NRA is powerful because it took them years and years to develop a stranglehold on Congress. Republicans have had control of at least one part of government since January 2011, which includes since Sandy Hook. The gun control movement was nonexistent in the 2000s. It's powerful and well-funded now, and gun safety is now a far bigger priority for Democrats than 10 years ago. There's an actual movement among Democratic voters to pursue massive gun legislation, whereas before there was not.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

2 minutes ago, Bacon said:

I can't see gun control advancing until a domestic american made 9/11 scale event.  An event makes us stop saying we live in a post 9/11 america. 

I don’t think we can ever have an event large enough. Any kind of event that would kill as many Americans as 9/11 would take either a large armed group or far more than just guns. The end result will be everything but a general access to guns will be to blame. 

 

The closest that might do it, would be if Congress and Senate came under direct fire. And I don’t mean figurative, and it be Dems and Republicans targeted. Not just one of them. When Giffords was shot not one thing was done. It needs to be a massacre that rivals the Las Vegas shooting, but with legislative members being taken out. 

 

That might stir some movement from the congress and senate, because then THEY are the ones afraid for their lives. They feel the same fear as children in schools feel all across America. Then something might get done. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO

 

 

[Littleronin]

4 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

I also disagree with the notion that after Sandy Hook, we were screwed. I get it and I understand that infamous tweet. But what I truly remember is since then, the gun control movement has gotten so large and so well-funded that they actually compete with the NRA, and now instead of having support from both parties with Democrats talking about how they like to hunt, you have one of the two major parties giving the NRA the finger and not suffering blowback from it as they used to think they would.

You are right the gun control debate died after Columbine and to an lesser extent after a my friend watched her teacher get shot in Edinboro. 

[SaysWho?]

2 minutes ago, Littleronin said:

You are right the gun control debate died after Columbine and to an lesser extent after a after my friend watched her teacher get shot in Edinboro. 

 

True. For the next 50,000 years, gun control will never be enacted nationally. Nothing will change and the NRA will continue to own Congress even then. It died at Columbine and things don't change; time moves but the way of the world is static. 1999 was the end of any gun control until the sun grows and takes Earth with it, so that's it.

[Anathema-]

Gun ownership has been taken as a symbol of white privilege, something not available equally to all Americans, and so even without the NRA it's a partisan issue for Republicans. The NRA was always nothing more than a vehicle to measure a politician's adherence to the system that puts guns in the hands of white people (while uncritically supporting a police state that effectively bans gun ownership in the black community).

[Remarkableriots]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/mexico-to-announce-legal-actions-to-protect-mexicans-in-u-s/ar-AAFkzJQ?ocid=AMZN

Quote

“Mexico expresses its deepest rejection and condemnation towards this barbaric act where innocent Mexicans lost their lives,” Ebrard said in the video. “What happened is inadmissible, and I’ll be announcing the first legal steps we’ve taken in accordance with international law.”

Mexico’s ambassador to the U.S., Martha Barcena, was among the many who condemned the attack. “The intentionality of the attack against the Latino and Mexican community in El Paso is frightening,” she tweeted Sunday. “Xenophobe and racist discourse has to stop. No to violence. No to hatred.”

 

[skillzdadirecta]

1 hour ago, SaysWho? said:

 

True. For the next 50,000 years, gun control will never be enacted nationally. Nothing will change and the NRA will continue to own Congress even then. It died at Columbine and things don't change; time moves but the way of the world is static. 1999 was the end of any gun control until the sun grows and takes Earth with it, so that's it.

I would love for there to be serious gun legislation in this country... but given the severity of the problem and the not even baby steps we are taking to solve it, I don't see anything substantive happening in our lifetimes. I could be wrong and hope I am... but this forward progress you seem to see in this country on gun control just hasn't manifested itself in my view. If I'm wrong tell me... what are the significant gun legislative accomplishments that have occurred since Columbine? Arming teachers?

[SaysWho?]

8 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

I would love for there to be serious gun legislation in this country... but given the severity of the problem and the not even baby steps we are taking to solve it, I don't see anything substantive happening in our lifetimes. I could be wrong and hope I am... but this forward progress you seem to see in this country on gun control just hasn't manifested itself in my view. If I'm wrong tell me... what are the significant gun legislative accomplishments that have occurred since Columbine? Arming teachers?

 

The latter isn't relevant to what I'm saying, dude. The gun control movement had little power and little urgency at the time and throughout the 2000s; look at the backlash after the Brady Bill and how Gore and Kerry tried to tout how they liked to hunt (people forget large gun control legislation was passed in our lifetime). I'm saying the NRA was not super powerful its entire lifetime but grew; you can't expect a movement that's really gaining steam this decade to enact monumental change already when it's already working against an established powerhouse like the NRA. I said many will die before nationwide gun control happens again. Lifetime? Doubtful that it'll take beyond our lifetime. It certainly didn't for the NRA to change the conversation.

 

If you want gun control accomplishments, look no further than Florida, where Democrats united and joined a Republican governor and legislature in passing gun control legislation in a state that's red-tinted. That would not have happened 10 years ago. Democrats are significantly less likely to try to tout anti-gun control legislation now that the NRA is so unpopular within the party.

[mclumber1]

2 hours ago, SFLUFAN said:

OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO

 

 

 

What insurance company is going to pay out after the commission of a crime?  What exactly is the insurance going to accomplish except "gate keep" poor people from owning firearms?  Firearms accidents are largely covered already under homeowners/renters, health, and life insurance policies.  

[LazyPiranha]

31 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

What insurance company is going to pay out after the commission of a crime?  What exactly is the insurance going to accomplish except "gate keep" poor people from owning firearms?  Firearms accidents are largely covered already under homeowners/renters, health, and life insurance policies.  

 

...all of them?  

 

This isn’t exactly a new phenomenon, your car insurance will pay out damages you cause up to your policy limits if you’re driving drunk.  

 

It’s an incredibly stupid idea because it’s essentially impossible to enforce in a meaningful way given the existence of private gun sales and the fact that most of these mass shooters don’t have a significant history that would escalate the cost of their insurance.  Honestly, what kind of idiot thinks of this?  A better solution is simply that if you have the kind of history that makes it so your fun insurance premiums go up, you don’t get to own a fucking gun in the first place.

[finaljedi]

3 hours ago, SFLUFAN said:

OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO

 

 

 

This is like when Ben Shapiro said coastal flooding wouldn't be that big of a deal because people would sell their houses and move inland

[mclumber1]

7 minutes ago, finaljedi said:

 

This is like when Ben Shapiro said coastal flooding wouldn't be that big of a deal because people would sell their houses and move inland

 

Do they plan to sell their houses to mermen? 

[thewhyteboar]

13 minutes ago, finaljedi said:

 

This is like when Ben Shapiro said coastal flooding wouldn't be that big of a deal because people would sell their houses and move inland

Ben Shapiro is an Intellectual. 

[Littleronin]

Wife's idea as we seen our flags here at half-staff. Just pass legislation that would move the permanently to half-staff. It would save the effort of yo-yoing the flags constantly. 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

3 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

 

What insurance company is going to pay out after the commission of a crime?  What exactly is the insurance going to accomplish except "gate keep" poor people from owning firearms?  Firearms accidents are largely covered already under homeowners/renters, health, and life insurance policies.  

Who’s home owner’s/renters insurance pays out when the nut shoots up Walmart, or an SUV at gas station because their music was too loud? I may as well only need car insurance that protects me from liability while the damn thing is parked in the garage. Because who gives a fuck if I cause any damage or harm out and about. 

 

5 hours ago, SFLUFAN said:

OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO

 

 

The only good that comes from $5 a year mandatory insurance is it creates a list of every gun owner and their inventory. Other than that $5 a year doesn’t even cover the cost to process and file that policy. 

[mclumber1]

6 proven policies for reducing crime and violence without gun control

 

By German Lopez

 

It's solutions that are better used for street violence and not mass shooting, but it's a pretty good list of things we can do.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

 

[mclumber1]

18 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

 

[Littleronin]

Sadly it will be like whack-a-mole. It will just pop up someplace else.