Another mass shooting, church in Texas

[Balta1701]

it didn't go to the floor because of the language.

 

“It shall be unlawful for any person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a trigger crank, a bump-fire device or any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun,” the bill states.

 

That bolded part is what kills it. You replace a trigger or a spring and the gun fires a half second faster, you now violated a law. Springs break and get replaced all the time. Some people need a lighter trigger pull, but in theory that makes the gun shoot faster, so off to jail for you! yeah, that's common sense alright.

So...you do realize that if a bill is brought up before a committee, it is possible to offer something called an "Amendment" to the bill that would alter the language? Same thing on the floor of the House/Senate? And that amendments can be added by majority vote if that is something the majority wants to happen?

 

The majority wants bump stocks legal right now. Las Vegas was great marketing. That is the majority opinion of the United States Congress as run by the Republican Party.

[StrangeSox]

Gun control means using 2 hands.

 

Nice joke, next complement the shooter who murdered over two dozen people on his trigger discipline! Boy he sure had great two-handed control of his gun as he shot that 18-month old! LOL!

 

Do you want them to 'do something' or 'do something that will work'. because all I ever see from Democrats is crap that won't work. but hey, they did 'something'.

 

Democrats. Don't. Control. Congress.

 

I don't know why you keep bringing up Democrats. They don't have power. Republicans do. If they wanted to do something, literally anything, they could do it entirely without Democratic votes. What the Democrats propose isn't relevant except as a weak deflection from "nothing will ever work or could ever work."

 

You love guns and you're willing to accept dozens of people murdered in mass shootings. That's fine, just be honest about it. You don't want any additional gun control.

Edited November 7, 2017 by StrangeSox

[Quin]

The GOP subscribes to the price of freedom.

 

Get used to mass shootings, because the GOP doesn't care who or how many die as long as the NRA lines their pockets.

[southsider2k5]

The reporting I saw was that the military"forgets" to report this information routinely.

 

Gotta love when once again our government fails to uphold the standards it demands of others.

[StrangeSox]

Gotta love when once again our government fails to uphold the standards it demands of others.

The Military Is Reporting Almost No Domestic Abusers to the Main Gun Background Check Database

 

A year before committing Sunday’s mass shooting at a tight-knit church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, Devin Kelley walked into a sporting goods store and bought a Ruger assault-style rifle that he should have been banned from owning because of his history of domestic violence. An agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said Kelley had lawfully bought two more guns that were found in his car after the massacre.

 

In a statement, the Air Force said that Kelley’s records were never reported to the databases on which the FBI’s background check system relies.

 

The answer may lie in differences between how civilian courts and the U.S. military, in which Kelley had previously served, treat domestic violence, and how each submits abusers’ records for gun background checks.

 

While enlisted in the Air Force, Kelley was convicted by a court martial of charges stemming from an assault on his then-wife and young child in 2012 and sentenced to a year in confinement. The offense was the equivalent of the civilian crime of misdemeanor domestic assault — one of the 12 categories of records that automatically bar someone from legal gun possession.

 

But the military has no distinct charge for domestic violence, notes Grover Baxley, a former judge advocate general who now practices military law as a civilian. “We see this all the time,” Baxley said. “There is no specific domestic violence article.” Instead, military prosecutors charge abusers with other offenses, like assault.

 

A scan of active records shows that the Department of Defense has just a single misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence on file with the National Criminal Instant Background Check System, or NICS.

 

Here’s the chart, which also shows that the military has currently submitted zero records for members subject to domestic violence restraining orders, the other category of domestic abuse that gets a civilian barred from buying guns from licensed dealers. (Unlicensed sellers, who in most states do not have to conduct background checks, are a whole separate problem.)

 

[EvilMonkey]

Nice joke, next complement the shooter who murdered over two dozen people on his trigger discipline! Boy he sure had great two-handed control of his gun as he shot that 18-month old! LOL!

 

 

 

Democrats. Don't. Control. Congress.

 

I don't know why you keep bringing up Democrats. They don't have power. Republicans do. If they wanted to do something, literally anything, they could do it entirely without Democratic votes. What the Democrats propose isn't relevant except as a weak deflection from "nothing will ever work or could ever work."

 

You love guns and you're willing to accept dozens of people murdered in mass shootings. That's fine, just be honest about it. You don't want any additional gun control.

And when they DID control congress, what did we get? Not a damn thing.

 

And yes, I love guns. Ban bump stocks all you want. I don't care, the NRA even doesn't care. They are stupid and unreliable. You want gun control? Start by enforcing the laws on the books. Straw purchasing is a very big thing, and is rarely prosecuted for some reason. it would seem like a slam dunk for DA's, but maybe they think it is a waste of time? You will hear stories about one or two gun shops int he suburbs where a lot of 'chicago' gun s come from. The stores have been repeatedly investigated and yet are still open. ATF is notorious for fining and even closing down stores for minor paperwork problems, yet these stores are still here. That means there has to be a ton of straw purchasing going on. Looks like a good place to start.

 

Earlier someone complained that there weren't any electronic records kept. You know damn well that those would be used and abused by people with an agenda if there were to exist. You have proof of that in NYC where someone got a hold of a gun registry in NY and published it for all to see. it's nobody's business what i have unless I feel like telling them.

[Quin]

That's the weakest argument against having a registry I've ever seen

 

[Dick Allen]

And when they DID control congress, what did we get? Not a damn thing.

 

And yes, I love guns. Ban bump stocks all you want. I don't care, the NRA even doesn't care. They are stupid and unreliable. You want gun control? Start by enforcing the laws on the books. Straw purchasing is a very big thing, and is rarely prosecuted for some reason. it would seem like a slam dunk for DA's, but maybe they think it is a waste of time? You will hear stories about one or two gun shops int he suburbs where a lot of 'chicago' gun s come from. The stores have been repeatedly investigated and yet are still open. ATF is notorious for fining and even closing down stores for minor paperwork problems, yet these stores are still here. That means there has to be a ton of straw purchasing going on. Looks like a good place to start.

 

Earlier someone complained that there weren't any electronic records kept. You know damn well that those would be used and abused by people with an agenda if there were to exist. You have proof of that in NYC where someone got a hold of a gun registry in NY and published it for all to see. it's nobody's business what i have unless I feel like telling them.

Hasn't one of the big arguments the NRA has used is people won't mess with you if they know you are packing? The safest place to be is somewhere everyone is armed? Why wouldn't you want them to know your entire stash? They would never bother you.

[Dick Allen]

I am really surprised Trump didn't blame Obama for the Air Force error, and then blamed him for this entire episode. He really can't now since he has already said extreme vetting wouldn't have stopped this.

Edited November 7, 2017 by Dick Allen

[Iwritecode]

The system works fine, it is the human component that failed. And just what 'proposal' do you want them to pass that would have made a difference? i agree that mental health needs to be addressed. it has been that way for a while, not just some oversight that happens to be a problem for any one party.

 

I agree with all of this. This isn't a new problem. Mass shootings have been happening for decades. Neither political party seems to be able to fix it. Everyone keeps yelling that we need to do "something" but nobody seems to know exactly what that "something" is.

[EvilMonkey]

Hasn't one of the big arguments the NRA has used is people won't mess with you if they know you are packing? The safest place to be is somewhere everyone is armed? Why wouldn't you want them to know your entire stash? They would never bother you.

Not quite. if a robber looks at 5 people and knows that 3 of them are armed, he might think twice about robbing ANY of them. if he looks at them and knows which 3 are armed, he can either go for the soft targets or just go guns blazing at the hard targets.

[EvilMonkey]

That's the weakest argument against having a registry I've ever seen

if you think that a registry won't lead to some sort of confiscation you are mistaken.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/c..._n_3117238.html

 

The California state legislature passed a bill Thursday approving $24 million to expedite the confiscation of the estimated 40,000 handguns and assault weapons illegally owned by Californians.

[Dick Allen]

Not quite. if a robber looks at 5 people and knows that 3 of them are armed, he might think twice about robbing ANY of them. if he looks at them and knows which 3 are armed, he can either go for the soft targets or just go guns blazing at the hard targets.

So what did the guy in the church do? Seems he didn't know what anyone had and he went in guns blazing at every target.

[RockRaines]

if you think that a registry won't lead to some sort of confiscation you are mistaken.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/c..._n_3117238.html

 

The California state legislature passed a bill Thursday approving $24 million to expedite the confiscation of the estimated 40,000 handguns and assault weapons illegally owned by Californians.

WHy wouldn't we want illegal guns confiscated?

 

I want people owning guns who should own guns. It should be just as hard to get a gun than to get a driver's license if not harder. An electronic records system would be the absolute minimal action taken by the government.

[Dick Allen]

I agree with all of this. This isn't a new problem. Mass shootings have been happening for decades. Neither political party seems to be able to fix it. Everyone keeps yelling that we need to do "something" but nobody seems to know exactly what that "something" is.

What something would be is the weakening of the NRA. There are far too many guns on the streets. More guns means more gun related deaths. I don't know how anyone could conclude anything else.

[EvilMonkey]

WHy wouldn't we want illegal guns confiscated?

 

I want people owning guns who should own guns. It should be just as hard to get a gun than to get a driver's license if not harder. An electronic records system would be the absolute minimal action taken by the government.

But they weren't 'illegal' when they were purchased, they just changed the law to make them illegal. You ban guns, now they are illegal. Go round em up!

 

Last I heard you can't get a gun with a domestic violence conviction, but you can still drive. You can even drive with a DUI on your record.

[Quin]

if you think that a registry won't lead to some sort of confiscation you are mistaken.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/c..._n_3117238.html

 

The California state legislature passed a bill Thursday approving $24 million to expedite the confiscation of the estimated 40,000 handguns and assault weapons illegally owned by Californians.

 

So you support people illegally owning guns?

[EvilMonkey]

So what did the guy in the church do? Seems he didn't know what anyone had and he went in guns blazing at every target.

Gun free zone, go figure.

[EvilMonkey]

So you support people illegally owning guns?

I don't support banning guns for stupid reasons.

[RockRaines]

But they weren't 'illegal' when they were purchased, they just changed the law to make them illegal. You ban guns, now they are illegal. Go round em up!

 

Last I heard you can't get a gun with a domestic violence conviction, but you can still drive. You can even drive with a DUI on your record.

You also cant get a license without education, testing and certification. Buying a gun is as easy as walking into a walmart in some places, or even just a gun show.

 

And if they make my shotgun or handgun illegal, I would be ok with a buy back, but not confiscation.

[Quin]

I don't support banning guns for stupid reasons.

 

So, let's ignored the "well regulated" part of the second amendment.

 

Desire to own gun >>> the actual second amendment

[RockRaines]

So, let's ignored the "well regulated" part of the second amendment.

 

Desire to own gun >>> the actual second amendment

The problem with the second amendment is that its outdated. The constitution is a living breathing document, and legislation HAS to change as technology changes. The founder never envisioned the Assault Weapons we have today. A hunting rifle per household? Absolutely.

[EvilMonkey]

You also cant get a license without education, testing and certification. Buying a gun is as easy as walking into a walmart in some places, or even just a gun show.

 

And if they make my shotgun or handgun illegal, I would be ok with a buy back, but not confiscation.

You are forgetting the background check you need to purchase the gun. Form 4473 needs to be filled out and sent in to get your background check, even at Walmart and gun shows. The ONLY way you can get one legally without it is a private sale. You want to make an argument for that, you might have something. However as usual, every attempt at this so far have over-reached. In Seattle they tried to enact something like that but they worded it so broadly that a 'transfer' could be me handing you my new gun to check out or try a few shots while at the range.

[Iwritecode]

But they weren't 'illegal' when they were purchased, they just changed the law to make them illegal. You ban guns, now they are illegal. Go round em up!

 

Last I heard you can't get a gun with a domestic violence conviction, but you can still drive. You can even drive with a DUI on your record.

 

I don't think it's the guns that are illegal. I think it's something about the person that changed. Like if they got a domestic violence conviction after they purchased a gun, they are no longer legally allowed to own one.

 

 

[EvilMonkey]

So, let's ignored the "well regulated" part of the second amendment.

 

Desire to own gun >>> the actual second amendment

Constitutional scholars way smarter than you have already tackled that so yo get no response from me.

 

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm