Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:03 AM Jun 2016

White House Petition: Ban the AR-15 from Civilian Ownership

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//petition/ban-ar-15-civilian-ownership

Guns in America is a complicated issue for many reasons. However, the AR-15 is the weapon of choice for Domestic Terrorists and others who wish to kill and harm people quickly and efficiently. It serves no other purpose other than to accomplish this. Banning this gun will show that we can act on this issue. It will have symbolic weight while also making one small step forward on dealing with this epidemic.
121 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
White House Petition: Ban the AR-15 from Civilian Ownership (Original Post) Scuba Jun 2016 OP
What happens when you ban a specific model of weapon, the case of the TEK-9... PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #1
Pointless. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #2
Why do you say this Ms. 81 posts? vkkv Jun 2016 #59
If 20 dead 1st graders didn't get anything done, why would a petition? NightWatcher Jun 2016 #3
Credit where it's due. It would have at least as much impact as the petition to build a Death Star. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #9
Laws must be constutional, it doesn't matter how many people support it... pipoman Jun 2016 #4
The Assault Weapons Ban wasn't found to be unconstitutional and it banned specific weapon models. PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #5
Because it was allowed to sunset in 2004...why? pipoman Jun 2016 #6
It did survive several legal challenges... PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #10
The 80 year old SCOTUS standard is pipoman Jun 2016 #11
Assume a Democrat is elected and appoints a liberal replacement for Scalia. Do you think the newly PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #13
Yes. pipoman Jun 2016 #15
Tough call - look at the 4th circuit re:the Maryland ban. jmg257 Jun 2016 #12
Indeed. As Heller was a 5-4 decision a liberal justice replacing Scalia could swing the court PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #14
Not likely, the precedent is 80 years old pipoman Jun 2016 #22
symbolism over substance Crepuscular Jun 2016 #7
No thank you. aikoaiko Jun 2016 #8
Pointless Calista241 Jun 2016 #16
^^ All of this. pablo_marmol Jun 2016 #21
I dont get this. ncjustice80 Jun 2016 #109
Not true progressives. Folks on the fence. NT pablo_marmol Jun 2016 #114
Signed, even though they already had enough signatures. liberalnarb Jun 2016 #17
thanks. I signed, and passed it along - but ellenrr Jun 2016 #18
The weapon used in Orlando wasn't actually an AR-15. NT Adrahil Jun 2016 #19
So what? HuckleB Jun 2016 #90
So, if we want effective legislation, we need... Adrahil Jun 2016 #93
So DU should be writing legislation? HuckleB Jun 2016 #99
Forgive me. I thought we were having an adult conversation... Adrahil Jun 2016 #100
No, you didn't. You were the one who played the NRA hand. HuckleB Jun 2016 #102
We've already had more than enough security theater, thanksverymuch. Lizzie Poppet Jun 2016 #20
Just signed. Even if this may be pointless, it sends a message to some in congress and the senate. Laser102 Jun 2016 #23
Exactly. Scuba Jun 2016 #25
signed. eom LittleGirl Jun 2016 #24
At this point it would be like trying to ban human slaves from civilian ownership IronLionZion Jun 2016 #26
Anyone who owns an AR-15 desperately wants to kill someone? Marengo Jun 2016 #29
If you think someone is coming to murder you IronLionZion Jun 2016 #30
That doesn't answer the question. Yes or no, do you believe they WANT to? Marengo Jun 2016 #33
Yes IronLionZion Jun 2016 #34
Do you realize that there are DU members who own AR-15s or similar rifles? Marengo Jun 2016 #38
I'm sure law enforcement monitors online forums IronLionZion Jun 2016 #39
Another non-answer. Are YOU saying they are potential mass killers. Marengo Jun 2016 #52
Are YOU saying they are potential mass killers. Yes i am..... stonecutter357 Jun 2016 #56
I'd like to see you respond with that answer to DU members who state... Marengo Jun 2016 #63
I own an AR....... stonecutter357 Jun 2016 #68
I must have misunderstood your post, I thought you were answering for yourself... Marengo Jun 2016 #72
I own a Colt 6920 rifle Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #107
potential mass killers. stonecutter357 Jun 2016 #110
So what? Lizzie Poppet Jun 2016 #57
There were many law abiding responsible slave owners too IronLionZion Jun 2016 #40
You are equating owning an AR-15 to owning slaves? Marengo Jun 2016 #53
So I want to kill people? Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #105
Not desperately ... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #69
Is that the case for any gun owner? Wanting to kill? Marengo Jun 2016 #74
No, just people who buy devices DESIGNED to kill a lot of humans relatively efficiently uponit7771 Jun 2016 #75
I own several AR-15s and I am not desperate to kill anyone hack89 Jun 2016 #41
I'm sure many confederates owned several slaves without mistreating any of them IronLionZion Jun 2016 #42
The vast majority of gun owners will never hurt someone hack89 Jun 2016 #43
That 1% is what ruins things for everyone IronLionZion Jun 2016 #46
I am not worried about losing my guns nt hack89 Jun 2016 #47
People are worried about losing their lives IronLionZion Jun 2016 #48
The Democratic party has been good to gun owners hack89 Jun 2016 #49
You have the ability to kill a lot of people efficiently relatively speaking though uponit7771 Jun 2016 #70
So? hack89 Jun 2016 #73
Not with a device DESIGNED to do so though... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #76
So? hack89 Jun 2016 #77
Strawman, I said devices I could care less what they are if its designed to kill a lot of humans... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #78
That is the fundamental difference between us hack89 Jun 2016 #79
I have faith in people just not wackos, that's the difference between us... I want a high filter uponit7771 Jun 2016 #80
Good luck. hack89 Jun 2016 #81
I disagree with the NRA and punk ass'd legislators on that account, it''s not long or difficult ... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #82
Playing fast and loose with facts does not help you hack89 Jun 2016 #84
Strawman, didn't say they did... I said regulations... I'm correct and right on that account uponit7771 Jun 2016 #86
There are plenty of new laws we can pass hack89 Jun 2016 #87
And it's not a great target shooting gun, either. HuckleB Jun 2016 #92
It is the standard for high power rifle competition hack89 Jun 2016 #94
Well, when everyone I know who does competition says it's crap, I'm going with that. HuckleB Jun 2016 #98
I'm more inclined to believe the multitudes that use ARs for competition linuxman Jun 2016 #121
Then why spend money an AR-15? HuckleB Jun 2016 #91
It is the standard for high power rifle competition hack89 Jun 2016 #95
Sorry, but that's not what anybody I know says. HuckleB Jun 2016 #97
You need better informed friends hack89 Jun 2016 #104
Bullshit amateur psychoanalysis aside, that's the elephant in the room for confiscation advocates. Lizzie Poppet Jun 2016 #58
And the bloodshed continues IronLionZion Jun 2016 #66
Now if only we cound get someone on board for the mental help programs being proposed right now... Matt_R Jun 2016 #115
Yeah, there will be violent resistance ... some harsh language... obscene gestures and pictures... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #71
I Signed - Over 104,000 To Date scottie55 Jun 2016 #27
You get to keep it hack89 Jun 2016 #44
Pass pintobean Jun 2016 #28
What we need is a new constitutional amendment to repeal the 2A and ban all guns. LonePirate Jun 2016 #31
France, Belgium, Netherlands, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, bernie_is_truth Jun 2016 #32
But they don't have near daily mass gun murders like we have in the US. LonePirate Jun 2016 #35
So repeal the 2nd, go ahead and get started DonP Jun 2016 #54
I like the 'near daily' part bernie_is_truth Jun 2016 #113
Exactly! The real problem is that people have guns. That's why gun violence rates are so high in hughee99 Jun 2016 #96
So the fact that all "mass shooters" had mental health problems is a-ok. Matt_R Jun 2016 #116
A vague law is a bad law; it's unenforceable. Our laws rely on precision of language. But when Brickbat Jun 2016 #36
The petition (I assume) was not intended to be a legal draft. Scuba Jun 2016 #50
Banning is not: well regulated. Festivito Jun 2016 #37
"Flick says he saw some grizzly bears near Pulaski's candy store!" MisterP Jun 2016 #67
Cute? Obtuse? Obfuscation? Redirection? Cathartic? Or, Festivito Jun 2016 #89
hidden agenda? I'm pretty damn open about being anti-semiautomatic MisterP Jun 2016 #108
I see opinion and no resolve to have anything other than having an opinion. eom Festivito Jun 2016 #111
signed! MisterP Jun 2016 #112
Nah. Waste of time and effort. Bonx Jun 2016 #45
Yes. We look quite foolish to the rest of the civilized world. ErikJ Jun 2016 #51
Goodbye AR-15... JohnnyRingo Jun 2016 #55
The problem with that idea is that it wouldn't have stopped the massacre... spin Jun 2016 #60
This bolt-action rifle owner says 'IT'S ABOUT FUCKING TIME OBAMA!" vkkv Jun 2016 #61
"F" as in "Fudd"? ;) jmg257 Jun 2016 #64
OK, yes, that is funny! ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #120
Fascinating how many poster miss the point that this is to raise awareness in DC, not serve ... Scuba Jun 2016 #62
Would police officers also be considered "civilian ownership"? Glassunion Jun 2016 #65
Done. marybourg Jun 2016 #83
I won't be signing it. n/t Waldorf Jun 2016 #85
Signed. ananda Jun 2016 #88
Congress would need to do this. NRA pays them too much Agnosticsherbet Jun 2016 #101
Signed. 125,000 signatures now. n/t livetohike Jun 2016 #103
No. greytdemocrat Jun 2016 #106
So the next day Armalite markets the "BS-16" Recursion Jun 2016 #117
It worked in 1994, why not again? ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #118
I'm still convinced the AWB was an idea planted by gunmakers (nt) Recursion Jun 2016 #119

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
1. What happens when you ban a specific model of weapon, the case of the TEK-9...
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:08 AM
Jun 2016

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEC-9

After the Cleveland School massacre, the TEC-9 was in California's list of banned weapons. To circumvent this, Intratec rebranded a variant of the TEC-9 as the TEC-DC9 from 1990 to 1994 (DC standing for "Designed for California&quot . The most noticeable external difference between the TEC-9 and the later TEC-DC9 is that rings to hold the sling were moved from the side of the gun with the cocking handle, to a removable stamped metal clip in the back of the gun. The TEC-9 and TEC-DC9 are otherwise identical.[citation needed]

The TEC-9 and, eventually, TEC-DC9 variants were listed among the 19 firearms banned by name in the USA by the now expired 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB).[5] This ban caused the cessation of their manufacture, and forced Intratec to introduce a newer model called the AB-10, a TEC-9 Mini without a threaded muzzle/barrel shroud and limited to a 10-round magazine instead of a 20- or 32-round magazine. However, it accepted the standard capacity magazines of the pre-ban models.

NightWatcher

(39,343 posts)
3. If 20 dead 1st graders didn't get anything done, why would a petition?
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:10 AM
Jun 2016

Has ANY White House petition accomplished anything?

Is signing this petition anything more than offering "thoughts and prayers", which is also known as doing absolutely nothing?

The only thing these petitions do is make people feel better while accomplishing nothing.

 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
4. Laws must be constutional, it doesn't matter how many people support it...
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:21 AM
Jun 2016

Oh...and the weapon wasn't an AR15...

 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
6. Because it was allowed to sunset in 2004...why?
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:30 AM
Jun 2016

Because it takes 10 years for the challenges to come down...they were getting close and would have prevailed....

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
10. It did survive several legal challenges...
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:40 AM
Jun 2016

Hard to say what might have happened in future "what if" challenges.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Legal challenges

A February 2013 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report to Congress said that the "Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was unsuccessfully challenged as violating several constitutional provisions." The report said that challenges to three constitutional provisions were easily dismissed. The ban did not make up an impermissible Bill of Attainder. It was not unconstitutionally vague. And it was not incompatible with the Ninth Amendment.

Challenges to two other provisions took more time to decide.

In evaluating challenges to the ban under the Commerce Clause, the court first evaluated Congress' authority to regulate under the clause, and second analyzed the ban's prohibitions on manufacture, transfer, and possession. The court held that "it is not even arguable that the manufacture and transfer of 'semiautomatic assault weapons' for a national market cannot be regulated as activity substantially affecting interstate commerce." It also held that the "purpose of the ban on possession has an 'evident commercial nexus.'"

The law was also challenged under the Equal Protection Clause. It was argued that it banned some semi-automatic weapons that were functional equivalents of exempted semi-automatic weapons and that to do so based upon a mix of other characteristics served no legitimate governmental interest. The reviewing court held that it was "entirely rational for Congress ... to choose to ban those weapons commonly used for criminal purposes and to exempt those weapons commonly used for recreational purposes." It also found that each characteristic served to make the weapon "potentially more dangerous," and were not "commonly used on weapons designed solely for hunting."

The federal assault weapons ban was never directly challenged under the Second Amendment. Since its expiration in 2004 there has been debate on how it would fare in light of cases decided in following years, especially District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).
 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
11. The 80 year old SCOTUS standard is
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:44 AM
Jun 2016

"In common use for lawful purposes". It was going down when it got to SCOTUS and everybody knew it...

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
13. Assume a Democrat is elected and appoints a liberal replacement for Scalia. Do you think the newly
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:52 AM
Jun 2016

composed court would really find a new assault weapons ban unconstitutional?

Heller was a 5-4 decision.




jmg257

(11,996 posts)
12. Tough call - look at the 4th circuit re:the Maryland ban.
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:49 AM
Jun 2016

We will likely get the chance to find out, much will ride on the make up of the USSC.

 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
22. Not likely, the precedent is 80 years old
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:19 AM
Jun 2016

There is a limitation on limitations to Constitutional amendments without amending the constitution...a liberal judge will not want to set a new precedent which can endanger other amendments.

It is time for substantive activism toward the constitutionally possible instead of repeating the same failed proposals expecting different results.

Crepuscular

(1,057 posts)
7. symbolism over substance
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:30 AM
Jun 2016

silly proposal that lacks any potential impact of actually addressing the issue of gun violence. All these sorts of proposals will do is drive voters towards Trump.

Calista241

(5,586 posts)
16. Pointless
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:58 AM
Jun 2016

1. the shooter didn't even use an AR-15, despite all the incorrect reporting to the contrary. He actually used a Sig Sauer MCX, which is a very high end, very expensive, totally different from an AR rifle.

2. It will never survive appeal. There are 10+ million AR's in circulation, and if that's not "common usage" I don't know what is.

3. consumers will just switch to another platform, like AK or bullpup, or even other designs like the Sig Sauer the crazy dude actually used. and millions of AR's are already in circulation and the gov't will not start confiscating property. The shit storm that would come from a confiscation campaign would be obscene.

pablo_marmol

(2,375 posts)
21. ^^ All of this.
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:12 AM
Jun 2016

Especially this:

The shit storm that would come from a confiscation campaign would be obscene.

Let's just hand over the nation to the GOP, shall we?

ncjustice80

(948 posts)
109. I dont get this.
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:10 PM
Jun 2016

What true progressive would vote for the Rethuglicans over this issue? Do we really have that many lukewarn supporters??

ellenrr

(3,864 posts)
18. thanks. I signed, and passed it along - but
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:02 AM
Jun 2016

it won't do any good.
The only thing that would make a difference against the NRA would be millions of people in the streets.
I don't see that happening.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
90. So what?
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 05:32 PM
Jun 2016

It's just popular jargon for guns that do the same basic thing, which is what the gun used in Orlando was. This is just a silly thing to point out.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
93. So, if we want effective legislation, we need...
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 05:38 PM
Jun 2016

... precise and technically meaningful legislation. It's like the old "assault weapons ban." The only part of it worth a shit was the ban on large capacity magazines. The rest focused on completely meaningless cosmetic features.

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
20. We've already had more than enough security theater, thanksverymuch.
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:12 AM
Jun 2016

Banning an item of which there are already tens of millions of examples in circulation is nothing more than window dressing...it's "stunt politics" to give the impression of doing something, without actually doing fuck-all. Comparatively few crimes are committed with these weapons, and there are literally dozens of other similarly-functioning weapons for spree killers to select (while all the while exponentially more homicides are committed with handguns).

BTW, civilian ownership is the only kind of ownership those rifles have. The military uses a different model, a selective fire (that is, capable of fully automatic "machine gun" fire that the civilian model doesn't have).

Oh, and the Orlando killer didn't use an AR-15.

IronLionZion

(45,427 posts)
26. At this point it would be like trying to ban human slaves from civilian ownership
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:44 AM
Jun 2016

it's a worthy goal, but do you want that level of bloodshed again?

We're dealing with people who are heavily armed and paranoid and desperately want to kill someone.

I would not want to be the law enforcement officer who has to go face these people.

 

Marengo

(3,477 posts)
38. Do you realize that there are DU members who own AR-15s or similar rifles?
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 11:20 AM
Jun 2016

You are saying these persons are potential mass killers?

 

Marengo

(3,477 posts)
63. I'd like to see you respond with that answer to DU members who state...
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 12:09 PM
Jun 2016

They own an AR-15. Shouldn't be hard to find the threads, you up to the challenge?

 

Marengo

(3,477 posts)
72. I must have misunderstood your post, I thought you were answering for yourself...
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 02:02 PM
Jun 2016

In the affirmative.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
107. I own a Colt 6920 rifle
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:38 PM
Jun 2016

And an M16A1 clone that is semi-automatic. both are AR 15 style rifles. So you say I want to kill people in a mass shooting?

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
57. So what?
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 11:51 AM
Jun 2016

If you're implying that law enforcement is ready to carry out a massive confiscation of AR-15s in the aftermath of a ban, then you don't understand the numbers involved: about 800k LEOs with arrest powers nationwide...c. 15 million AR-15s in civilian hands. And that's leaving aside the overwhelming support for civilian gun ownership among rank-and-file officers, many of whom would not carry out such orders.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
41. I own several AR-15s and I am not desperate to kill anyone
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 11:28 AM
Jun 2016

I just like competitive target shooting.

IronLionZion

(45,427 posts)
42. I'm sure many confederates owned several slaves without mistreating any of them
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 11:30 AM
Jun 2016
?t=2m10s watch from 2:10

IronLionZion

(45,427 posts)
46. That 1% is what ruins things for everyone
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 11:34 AM
Jun 2016

as with economic issues and other issues, the god damn 1% of fuckwits who are psychotic assholes are why you can't have things you like.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
49. The Democratic party has been good to gun owners
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 11:39 AM
Jun 2016

It is not going to change. I don't care what the NRA says on the matter.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
77. So?
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 02:20 PM
Jun 2016

The fact that so few people are killed by rifles compared to other weapons proves that people can be trusted with them.

uponit7771

(90,335 posts)
78. Strawman, I said devices I could care less what they are if its designed to kill a lot of humans...
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 02:30 PM
Jun 2016

... relatively efficiently then it should NOT be trusted in the hands of the avg owner.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
79. That is the fundamental difference between us
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 02:43 PM
Jun 2016

I have much more faith in people and I am willing to trust their judgment.

uponit7771

(90,335 posts)
80. I have faith in people just not wackos, that's the difference between us... I want a high filter
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 02:45 PM
Jun 2016

... and that's pretty easy and constitutional to enact.

uponit7771

(90,335 posts)
82. I disagree with the NRA and punk ass'd legislators on that account, it''s not long or difficult ...
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 02:52 PM
Jun 2016

... just people need to stop making excuses for voting for those who don't agree with 90% of US populous who want some common sense regulations.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
84. Playing fast and loose with facts does not help you
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 02:56 PM
Jun 2016

Yes, 90% support stronger background checks. 90% do not support gun bans or strict measures like registration.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
87. There are plenty of new laws we can pass
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 03:00 PM
Jun 2016

The only ones I reject out of hand are AWBs and registration.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
94. It is the standard for high power rifle competition
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 05:38 PM
Jun 2016

It is extremely accurate. I think you need to do some research.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
98. Well, when everyone I know who does competition says it's crap, I'm going with that.
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 05:56 PM
Jun 2016

You, I don't know.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
95. It is the standard for high power rifle competition
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 05:41 PM
Jun 2016

with the right barrel and trigger group combination it is extremely accurate. You forget it is a modular design - it is very easy to customize.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
104. You need better informed friends
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 06:49 PM
Jun 2016

Last edited Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:25 AM - Edit history (1)

High Power Rifle is a specific style of competitive shooting popular in the United States. It is also referred to as "Across the Course", XTC, as well as 'traditional' High Power.

Types of matches popular in High Power Rifle include service rifle, open, Axis and Allies, and F-class.

In service rifle matches, a competitor may only use an M1 Garand style rifle, an M1A (M14) style rifle, an SR-25 (M110) style rifle, or an AR-15 (M16) style rifle. A post front sight is required for the service rifle category.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_power_rifle

Here is a bunch of pictures of competitors using AR-15s

https://www.google.com/search?q=high+power+rifle+competition+ar+15&biw=1173&bih=588&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiz2qDozKjNAhVE-2MKHR2IBv8Q_AUIBygC
 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
58. Bullshit amateur psychoanalysis aside, that's the elephant in the room for confiscation advocates.
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 11:55 AM
Jun 2016

Any real effort to do so will result in violent resistance. That shouldn't even be in question. The notion that potentially saving the 500 or so lives lost via rifles of any type (not just ARs and such) is remotely worth the bloodshed an aggressive confiscation program would cause is insane.

Matt_R

(456 posts)
115. Now if only we cound get someone on board for the mental help programs being proposed right now...
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 07:51 PM
Jun 2016

no? We don't have mental health programs being proposed, well I'll be damned. I thought we were going to tackle this "mass shooting" problem we have "from multiple angles" not just from rifle control. That is what is being proposed "rifle control" not "gun control"

Now if we could only get the population the help they need, be it counseling, medication, etc. We could get a handle on our mental health problems we face as a nation.

uponit7771

(90,335 posts)
71. Yeah, there will be violent resistance ... some harsh language... obscene gestures and pictures...
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 02:02 PM
Jun 2016

... of Donald tRump being shown to rational adults.

Most people don't want early death so it'll be subdued relatively speaking...

There would be relatively little bloodshed

 

scottie55

(1,400 posts)
27. I Signed - Over 104,000 To Date
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:44 AM
Jun 2016

And I own an AK-47/SKS.

I will give up mine, if you give up yours......

LonePirate

(13,417 posts)
31. What we need is a new constitutional amendment to repeal the 2A and ban all guns.
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:57 AM
Jun 2016

Prohibiting one type of gun or a specific gun does not address the real problem.

 

bernie_is_truth

(17 posts)
32. France, Belgium, Netherlands, ad infinitum, ad nauseum,
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 11:08 AM
Jun 2016

don't have 2nd ammendments and yet somehow terrorists still end up with big guns killing lots of people.

 

DonP

(6,185 posts)
54. So repeal the 2nd, go ahead and get started
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 11:46 AM
Jun 2016

How to repeal any amendment is all laid out for you.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

You'll need to start with super majorities (2/3) in both houses of Congress, the ratification process of 3/4 of all the states (38) is going to require a pretty substantial grass roots effort.

You'll need petitions to get it on ballots in all those states and there is a time limit to get the ratification votes.

But after all, 90% of America agrees with you, so no problem right?

So, instead of courageously posting "Fuck the NRA" 45 times in threads as if it matters, get off your ass and get busy starting the petition drive in your state and building the network and funding you'll need.

Or ... too much work? Then just keep whining online.

 

bernie_is_truth

(17 posts)
113. I like the 'near daily' part
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 09:52 AM
Jun 2016

You left out the certain daily use of firearms by citizens to protect themselves from evil being brought upon them whereas in countries without a 2nd ammendment law abiding citizens are completely at the mercy of evil doers.

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
96. Exactly! The real problem is that people have guns. That's why gun violence rates are so high in
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 05:46 PM
Jun 2016

places with lax gun laws, like Vermont, but are so low in places with strict legislation, like D.C or Chicago.

Matt_R

(456 posts)
116. So the fact that all "mass shooters" had mental health problems is a-ok.
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 07:58 PM
Jun 2016

Maybe we should tackle the mental health problems we face as a nation. Get people the help they need. Maybe even make it free or low cost, just so people go without making excuses. Or not, ban some guns, just like we ban drugs that seem to make it over our south boarder just fine.

Brickbat

(19,339 posts)
36. A vague law is a bad law; it's unenforceable. Our laws rely on precision of language. But when
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 11:15 AM
Jun 2016

precision moves to overly specific, that's also a bad law. "Ban the weapon" is overly specific; the AWB was vague. Educate yourself on what it is you really want to control; educate yourself on how many guns that would actually apply to; educate yourself on whether you want a ban on further sales or a confiscation, and then figure out how many people that would affect and how many resources it would require to put into place.

Festivito

(13,452 posts)
37. Banning is not: well regulated.
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 11:18 AM
Jun 2016

When living in rural America and confronted with a biker gang, what do I want by my side on my front porch?

Not a BB gun.

ADDING UPON EDIT:

It's a compelling argument for me.

But, if I live down the road from this guy, I want his ownership well regulated.

Festivito

(13,452 posts)
89. Cute? Obtuse? Obfuscation? Redirection? Cathartic? Or,
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 05:30 PM
Jun 2016

just hiding an agenda that lacks a good response?

MisterP

(23,730 posts)
108. hidden agenda? I'm pretty damn open about being anti-semiautomatic
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:46 PM
Jun 2016

there's a reason Malala Yousafzai's made more inroads with the people who shot her than with the American NRA that lives off nothing but idiot fantasies

MisterP

(23,730 posts)
112. signed!
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:32 PM
Jun 2016

eventually the amount of phantom lives saved from roiling biker mobs will outweigh the real people killed, I presume

JohnnyRingo

(18,624 posts)
55. Goodbye AR-15...
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 11:48 AM
Jun 2016

...Hello AK-47

The Kalishnakov is the most widely produced assault rifle in the world. It's produced in every industrialized country around the globe, including the US.

It's like banning Vicodin and being surprised addicts switched to Demerol.

spin

(17,493 posts)
60. The problem with that idea is that it wouldn't have stopped the massacre...
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 11:58 AM
Jun 2016

at the nightclub.

The weapon was not an AR-15, it was a semiautomatic rifle with a much different design known as the Black Mamba.

This Is the Assault Rifle Used by the Orlando Mass Shooter
Developed for US special operations forces, the weapon is known as the "Black Mamba."


MARK FOLLMANJUN. 13, 2016 2:45 PM


Since the Orlando massacre early Sunday morning, pro-gun pundits have come out in force to argue that the weapon used in the attack is not an assault rifle. The gun lobby prefers to call these weapons "modern sporting rifles," euphemistic ammo it can fire in an ongoing semantic debate. But make no mistake: What the Orlando attacker used was a weapon of war. It was designed to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. Witness this harrowing audio captured by a bystander outside the Pulse nightclub in which Omar Mateen fires 24 shots in 9 seconds.

According to a federal law enforcement official, the rifle Mateen used to murder and maim more than 100 people was a Sig Sauer MCX. Mateen legally purchased the weapon, similar to an AR-15, on June 4 in Port St. Lucie, Florida, near where he lived. (He legally purchased a Glock 17 handgun the following day, which he also carried during the attack.)

Sig Sauer bills the MCX as "an innovative weapon system built around a battle-proven core." The company says it "stands as the first rifle to be silenced from the ground up. It also accepts a broad array of accessories, enabling you to build a complete weapon system for any scenario or environment." It has a military-spec trigger and a magazine capacity of 30 rounds. According to the book Guns of Special Forces 2001-2015, the MCX is known in military circles as the "Black Mamba" and was developed at the request of the US Army's special operations forces.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/assault-rifle-used-by-orlando-mass-shooter
 

vkkv

(3,384 posts)
61. This bolt-action rifle owner says 'IT'S ABOUT FUCKING TIME OBAMA!"
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 12:00 PM
Jun 2016

- and I rarely use the 'F' word...

BAN 11+ CAPACITY magazines as well, will ya?!!
 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
62. Fascinating how many poster miss the point that this is to raise awareness in DC, not serve ...
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 12:02 PM
Jun 2016

... as draft legislation. Almost makes one think they're missing the point on purpose.






.

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
101. Congress would need to do this. NRA pays them too much
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 06:06 PM
Jun 2016

Too do nothing.
Elect a better Congress.
Also , they need to ban a class of semiautomatic weappns. There are other semiautomatic rifles just like the AR15.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»White House Petition: Ba...