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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jpak

(41,741 posts)
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 04:35 PM Jun 2016

After Orlando, it’s simple: Ban AR-15 rifles - great blog post from Bangor Daily News

http://callahan.bangordailynews.com/2016/06/15/home/after-orlando-its-simple-ban-ar-15-rifles/

Ever since the tragedy in Orlando last weekend, I’ve been trying to think of something to say in a post. All I can come up with is that Congress sucks. What is up with not banning AR-15 guns from civilian use?

Not to single him out, but as I sought words I found myself thinking about a recent post Rep. Bruce Poliquin put up on Facebook. He was referring to transgender bathrooms and called the idea “intrusive and unsafe.” Want to know what is more “intrusive and unsafe” than transgender people using the bathroom of their choice? AR-15s in movie theaters, elementary schools, workplaces and bars.

<snip>

If our elected officials are worried that a few extremist gun rights folks might cry that such a restriction is an attack on their rights and will keep them from using such guns for target practice, then let them cry. Let them cry their eyes out. Let them cry pools of tears because their pools of tears are preferable to the pools of blood left by a massacre involving semiautomatic weapons with high-capacity magazines.

I’d much rather watch AR-15 toting people cry over the loss of their guns than watch people sobbing over the corpses of their friends, loved ones, children, colleagues and students. Again, it’s that simple.

<more>

64 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
After Orlando, it’s simple: Ban AR-15 rifles - great blog post from Bangor Daily News (Original Post) jpak Jun 2016 OP
Exactly-- let gunners Cry!! Their sick habit/hobby has sure made lots of families cry. Hoyt Jun 2016 #1
nice wordplay RussBLib Jun 2016 #2
I like to think that we Mainers are smarter than that, ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #3
There they go with the semantics again. librarylu Jun 2016 #4
The big problem is.. Matrosov Jun 2016 #5
Finally, someone thinking logically. ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #10
So will the tens of millions of Americans who own such rifles simply have them confiscated, Just reading posts Jun 2016 #6
Oh right. So we shouldn't open that can of worms. elias7 Jun 2016 #7
So will the tens of millions of Americans who own such rifles simply have them confiscated, Just reading posts Jun 2016 #8
Buy them back like Australia did - but if they continue to cling jpak Jun 2016 #9
The "Confiscation Squad"? That would end well. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #11
Yup - for the Bad Guy with a Gun jpak Jun 2016 #12
You don't think there'd be any law enforcement casualties if there were millions of door to door Just reading posts Jun 2016 #13
Compared to the Gun Casualties we have every year - without the Confiscation Squad jpak Jun 2016 #14
Thoughts SuperDutyTX Jun 2016 #15
Fair market prices for each *prohibited illegal* gun would not exceed $1500 jpak Jun 2016 #18
Yikes SuperDutyTX Jun 2016 #20
We're not talking about antiques or collectibles - just AR's, AK's and similar long guns jpak Jun 2016 #21
There are many such rifles that are worth well in excess of $3000. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #27
There would be be no legitimate market for used illegal guns jpak Jun 2016 #30
The authoritarian streak is some people is truly something to be concerned about. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #33
How about this? oneshooter Jun 2016 #64
When Connecticut instituted their recent mandatory registration after Sandy Hook, they think Waldorf Jun 2016 #29
Those would be the Good Guys jpak Jun 2016 #31
"Minor". Just reading posts Jun 2016 #16
We are ready to go jpak Jun 2016 #17
Lol. linuxman Jun 2016 #19
Black helicopters - check jpak Jun 2016 #23
Really? Could we have some details, please? Surely there are at the very least some websites Just reading posts Jun 2016 #24
That's classified too - but we have beau-coup Tear Buckets jpak Jun 2016 #26
He ain't serious. He'd watch the theater from a row to far. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #62
"Compared to the Gun Casualties we have every year" EX500rider Jun 2016 #53
most will just say Adrahil Jun 2016 #55
So you're saying the people who own them are dangerous and violent? LeftyMom Jun 2016 #56
Do you plan to volunteer for that? Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #37
In the area I live many of the local police own AR-15 style rifles. ... spin Jun 2016 #46
Sadly this is the rationale for never changing the status quo elias7 Jun 2016 #57
Well, since you were kind enough to ask.... Just reading posts Jun 2016 #61
Eminent domain should cover it. Orrex Jun 2016 #28
Do you what eminent domain is Travis_0004 Jun 2016 #32
When you join the military, obviously. Orrex Jun 2016 #47
seems like it'd be a good thing for the many manufacturers to produce modified replacement receivers HereSince1628 Jun 2016 #22
Would there also be modified replacement receivers for AKs, FN FALs, Steyr AUGs, FN SCARs, Just reading posts Jun 2016 #25
I would require recalls on all the rifle models that meet whatever standard becomes law HereSince1628 Jun 2016 #34
I presume the same would apply to pistols as well? After all, you wouldn't want to go to all that Just reading posts Jun 2016 #36
Yes, If the legal standard could be applied to pistols, and if suitable replacement parts HereSince1628 Jun 2016 #41
There have been literally thousnads of different models of semiautomatic pistols produced over the Just reading posts Jun 2016 #42
Yes, but just as wih unmodified rifles I think there could be special permits for unmodified pistols HereSince1628 Jun 2016 #44
Actually, Callahan's comments are informative. She wants her enemies to "cry." Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #60
Round them up and feed them into the furnace mwrguy Jun 2016 #35
Cheerleading posts for gun confiscation aside, you do realize there isn't the slightest chance Just reading posts Jun 2016 #38
I remember when people said the same thing about a Black Man being elected president mwrguy Jun 2016 #39
You think that's comparable to the chance that Congress will vote to authorize door to door Just reading posts Jun 2016 #40
my solution rdking647 Jun 2016 #43
Guns are mean. ileus Jun 2016 #45
There will be no more Federal gun bans. aikoaiko Jun 2016 #48
No GOP controlled committees or GOP controlled Congress jpak Jun 2016 #49
advocating for gun bans will only ensure an R congress. aikoaiko Jun 2016 #50
Isn't that like invading Iraq in response to the 9-11 attacks? mahatmakanejeeves Jun 2016 #51
Not freaking enough. No individual can own any gun that is capable of killing more than 50 people Squinch Jun 2016 #52
Stop thinking and praying, and start acting! hoffmanfiles Jun 2016 #54
'64 Civil Rights ended the Jim Crow laws disarming blacks. Good thing.... Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #63
Gun folks crying is the only thing that would happen - massacres will continue aikoaiko Jun 2016 #58
Banning a subset of semi-automatic rifles makes zero sense Recursion Jun 2016 #59
 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
1. Exactly-- let gunners Cry!! Their sick habit/hobby has sure made lots of families cry.
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 04:50 PM
Jun 2016

For those who'll say, "but their aren't that many rifle shootings," semi-auto pistols need to be banned too. Let em sob, cry, whine -- who really cares?

ManiacJoe

(10,136 posts)
3. I like to think that we Mainers are smarter than that,
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 04:52 PM
Jun 2016

but in the end, it all averages out to the same people being everywhere.

 

Matrosov

(1,098 posts)
5. The big problem is..
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 05:00 PM
Jun 2016

Ban AR15s and people still have access to AKs, Mini-14s, etcetera.

The only way to get rid of these rifles is to ban ALL semi-automatic rifles.

 

Just reading posts

(688 posts)
6. So will the tens of millions of Americans who own such rifles simply have them confiscated,
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 05:26 PM
Jun 2016

or will they be compensated for the rifles, ammunition, scopes, magazines and other accessories for their market worth of hundreds of billions of dollars?

Just curious how this works in the alternate universe in which this is politically feasible.

elias7

(3,976 posts)
7. Oh right. So we shouldn't open that can of worms.
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 05:32 PM
Jun 2016

I guess climate change policy is right out as well, since that would shake up a number of industries and people would lose jobs. And no single payer, since that would destroy the health insurance industry and all those employed by it, as well as those making millions from it. Come to think of it, change is not good, because there's all that nasty status quo to deal with. Ok. Let's just sell more guns and play roulette with all of our lives.

 

Just reading posts

(688 posts)
8. So will the tens of millions of Americans who own such rifles simply have them confiscated,
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 05:37 PM
Jun 2016

or will they be compensated for the rifles, ammunition, scopes, magazines and other accessories for their market worth of hundreds of billions of dollars?

 

Just reading posts

(688 posts)
13. You don't think there'd be any law enforcement casualties if there were millions of door to door
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 06:16 PM
Jun 2016

gun confiscations?

jpak

(41,741 posts)
14. Compared to the Gun Casualties we have every year - without the Confiscation Squad
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 06:19 PM
Jun 2016

they would be minor.

Most hardcore gun nuts are just plain stupid - and will end up like the Bundy Bunch

Clueless, gun-less and behind bars.

yup

SuperDutyTX

(79 posts)
15. Thoughts
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 06:22 PM
Jun 2016

Although I'm probably very moderate relative to my other gun owning brethren, I would comply, but Uncle Sam would need to write me close to a six figure check at legitimate "fair market prices" for as much as I've got invested.

Even considering the likely large level of "non-compliance" you'd get some some of the population, there are many folks just like me who would comply vs. face criminal charges, but I imagine it would get very expensive, very quickly.

Edit: I could see payments and confiscation/enforcement easily getting into the trillions if you're going after all Semi-Auto's.

jpak

(41,741 posts)
18. Fair market prices for each *prohibited illegal* gun would not exceed $1500
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 06:27 PM
Jun 2016

no six figure checks for you.

SuperDutyTX

(79 posts)
20. Yikes
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 06:30 PM
Jun 2016

If that's your stance, then more power to ya! That said, I personally wouldn't agree with it.

Some of the rifles/handguns that would be banned are quite literally historical pieces, and/or are worth quite a bit of money.

oneshooter

(8,614 posts)
64. How about this?
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 07:06 PM
Jun 2016

Not an "assault rifle"

No flash hider

clip fed

wooden stock

4' long

Would those be banned also?

Waldorf

(654 posts)
29. When Connecticut instituted their recent mandatory registration after Sandy Hook, they think
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 06:54 PM
Jun 2016

compliance was between 12-16%.

jpak

(41,741 posts)
23. Black helicopters - check
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 06:35 PM
Jun 2016

Soviet armored vehicles - check

Blue helmets - check

Jack boots - check

Tactical weapons - classified

yup

 

Just reading posts

(688 posts)
24. Really? Could we have some details, please? Surely there are at the very least some websites
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 06:45 PM
Jun 2016

giving details of how the Confiscation Squad works. Do they have comprehensive dental?

EX500rider

(10,517 posts)
53. "Compared to the Gun Casualties we have every year"
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:37 PM
Jun 2016

You mean the 300 to 400 people who get killed by rifles every year on avg?

As compared to about 9,000 shot dead with pistols?
Or compared to over 40,000 dead in auto crashes? Over 30,000 who die in from falling? Over 38,000 who die in accidental poisonings?

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
55. most will just say
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 09:49 PM
Jun 2016

"sorry, don't own it anymore."

Now what? You sure as hell ain't gonna get a search warrant based on "I don't believe him."

LeftyMom

(49,212 posts)
56. So you're saying the people who own them are dangerous and violent?
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 11:11 PM
Jun 2016

That's some argument, but I don't think it's the one you want to make.

 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
37. Do you plan to volunteer for that?
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 07:10 PM
Jun 2016

Because I an tell you as someone who has done the job you won't get cops in 99% of the US to do it.

The Feds don't have enough manpower to do it even if they did one state a year.

So who is going to lead that squad? Is your hand raised?

spin

(17,493 posts)
46. In the area I live many of the local police own AR-15 style rifles. ...
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 07:52 PM
Jun 2016

They would are willing to take weapons from the bad guys but very reluctant to take them away from honest, responsible people.

I would feel exactly the same if I was a cop. 99.999 percent of the people who own AR-15 style rifles pose no danger to anyone. I can better spend my time trying to stop crime in my area.

If we were able to remove all such rifles from civilian hands the bad guys would just smuggle them into our nation. If you can smuggle tons of marijuana into our nation, you can easily smuggle firearms. If that happens the weapons that are smuggled in will likely be able to fire in full automatic mode.

elias7

(3,976 posts)
57. Sadly this is the rationale for never changing the status quo
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 05:43 PM
Jun 2016

Can't go single payer because of the havoc it would wreak on the folks in the insurance industry.

Can't do climate change because of the havoc wreaked on the industries that must adhere to new regs, on the oil and coal and gas industries that will disintegrate...

Your argument is for never changing the status quo, regardless of the future cost, because of present cost.

Where do you draw your lines?

 

Just reading posts

(688 posts)
61. Well, since you were kind enough to ask....
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 06:33 PM
Jun 2016
Where do you draw your lines?

Repeal the 1986 ban on new manufacture of transferable machine guns. Repeal the "sporting purposes" aspects of the 1968 GCA. Take suppressors and SBRs off the NFA, and pass national concealed carry reciprocity.

Orrex

(63,083 posts)
28. Eminent domain should cover it.
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 06:53 PM
Jun 2016

Recognize the public good of the seizure of those guns, and purchase them at fair market value analogous to the way homes and other property are acquired by the government.

 

Travis_0004

(5,417 posts)
32. Do you what eminent domain is
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 07:04 PM
Jun 2016

The right to take private property for public use?

So when do I get to shoot these confiscated guns?

Orrex

(63,083 posts)
47. When you join the military, obviously.
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 07:59 PM
Jun 2016

Tell me where you live, and I'll direct you to the nearest recruitment center.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
22. seems like it'd be a good thing for the many manufacturers to produce modified replacement receivers
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 06:33 PM
Jun 2016

for the rifles involved. Those new receivers could still incorporate or use many of the existing accessories. That would mitigate the losses to owners.

The losses associated with prohibited features like detachable magazines could be compensated relatively cheaply. Not sure if there are other optional features that might be lost on the lower receiver but those could also be compensated. I don't think people really care about the bayonet mount on the barrel.

Replacement receivers would be rather cheaper for the government to buy than whole rifles and the exchange could be made as an even swap in the same manner as an auto recall using the manufacturer's usual outlets.

It would be expensive but not prohibitively so.


 

Just reading posts

(688 posts)
25. Would there also be modified replacement receivers for AKs, FN FALs, Steyr AUGs, FN SCARs,
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 06:48 PM
Jun 2016

M!As, Mini-14s, Uzis, AR-10s, etc.?

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
34. I would require recalls on all the rifle models that meet whatever standard becomes law
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 07:06 PM
Jun 2016

unmodified would be subject to special permitting similar to what is provided for automatic weapons. Unmodified, weapons owned or lent by persons without permits would be offenses of law. Persons caught with them without special permits would be subject to prosecutions that could lead to judgements requiring fines for tardy modification, requirement to personally pay for the cost of modification, or at the owners' option release the gun in confiscation.

That would make confiscation, perhaps the most popular anxiety of gun owners, a matter of their own choice.

This would require cooperation with the manufacurers to create a timeline on the recalls that could meet production capacity.

In the end it would produce rifles that meet socially accepted operational capabilities, it would not prevent all shootings, woundings or deaths, from these weapons.

 

Just reading posts

(688 posts)
36. I presume the same would apply to pistols as well? After all, you wouldn't want to go to all that
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 07:10 PM
Jun 2016

trouble to retrofit tens of millions of rifles, and still let 100 million (at least) semiautomatic pistols remain in circulation with the ability to use detachable magazines?

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
41. Yes, If the legal standard could be applied to pistols, and if suitable replacement parts
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 07:20 PM
Jun 2016

could be produced. I'm not a gun owner or user. So I am not familiar with handguns and don't know if a modification with a fixed magazine, or a modification that otherwise limited the length of a magazine would be feasible.

What I am looking for is something of a workable compromise. A way that doesn't result in a restriction based on appearance but because of its socially unacceptable capacity which is at the heart of much of the concern.

The government has provided billions in rebate dollars for energy modifications and equipment installation, providing for modifications that reduce public anxiety and to some extent the rate of fire of mass-shooters, seems as important as energy conservation.




 

Just reading posts

(688 posts)
42. There have been literally thousnads of different models of semiautomatic pistols produced over the
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 07:28 PM
Jun 2016

last 120 years. Making sets of replacement parts for that many different pistols would be a logistical nightmare, and cost would be astronomical.

What I am looking for is something of a workable compromise.

Well, by definition a compromise means each side has to engage in give and take. Here's my compromise.

The gun control side gets Universal Background Checks.

In return, the pro-gun rights crowd gets NFA reform. SBRs (short barreled rifles) and silencers will no longer be restricted items requiring a $200 tax stamp and months of paperwork.

Each side gets something. Sound good?

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
44. Yes, but just as wih unmodified rifles I think there could be special permits for unmodified pistols
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 07:44 PM
Jun 2016

Higher standards for permitted ownership of unmodified pistols could be applied. And as firearms are often part of collections I think that the permit would be for the owner and not for each gun, although I can imagine variances in law that might require different types of permit.

I do indeed understand there are logistical issues even including manufacturers long out of business. One-off custom modifications could be possible but they might be prohibitively expensive.

I'm really not sure how, across the evolution of a model series various feature that could provide a useful modification evolved. AFAIK there may be parts which were relatively stable in their designs and that would facilitate a modification.

One thing to keep in mind is that public fear is about mass-shootings and although pistols are often used in crimes people are rather less concerned about them. So it may be politically possible to introduce something in the permitting process and not a requirement for physical change in capacity of some pistols.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
60. Actually, Callahan's comments are informative. She wants her enemies to "cry."
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 06:26 PM
Jun 2016

It's a good example of where gun control priorities are: "The most exquisite of moral pleasures" (Huxley) with the promise of "inflicting pain." She doesn't even have to go to war against an army of invaders to get her hate-on, just a comfy spot with MSM.

All she and her ilk have left, it seems.

 

Just reading posts

(688 posts)
38. Cheerleading posts for gun confiscation aside, you do realize there isn't the slightest chance
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 07:11 PM
Jun 2016

of that actually happening, do you not?

 

Just reading posts

(688 posts)
40. You think that's comparable to the chance that Congress will vote to authorize door to door
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 07:18 PM
Jun 2016

confiscation of the most popular rifles in America?

 

rdking647

(5,113 posts)
43. my solution
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 07:30 PM
Jun 2016

dont ban the rifles. in practicality that wont work

instead make any magazine greater than 15 rounds an NFA item like we treat automatic weapons and silencers now.
a $200 tax per magazine,and they require a through background check.
violation is punishable by 10 years in jail and loss of ALL firearms plus the right to own firearms in the future

mahatmakanejeeves

(56,874 posts)
51. Isn't that like invading Iraq in response to the 9-11 attacks?
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:17 PM
Jun 2016

Last edited Thu Jun 16, 2016, 09:37 AM - Edit history (2)

Members of Class A were hurt by members of Class B, so let's make members of Class C pay the price.

If you check old threads, you'll see that that line of reasoning was not held in high regard here.

With the passage of time, the difficulty of finding freedom fries on anyone's menu only increased, as what seemed like a good idea at the time came to be viewed as folly, quite like Prohibition. Then the folly became lunacy. Then the lunacy became disaster.

In America, we punish people for committing crimes, not for having the ability to commit crimes.

Your proposal might meet with a warmer reception in some country with a legal system that is not like ours.

Squinch

(50,773 posts)
52. Not freaking enough. No individual can own any gun that is capable of killing more than 50 people
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:27 PM
Jun 2016

in a ten minute period.

hoffmanfiles

(7 posts)
54. Stop thinking and praying, and start acting!
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 08:44 PM
Jun 2016
http://blog.timesunion.com/hoffmanfiles/stop-thinking-and-praying-and-start-acting/10073/


“Hey hey, LBJ, how many laws did you pass today?” Um, a hell of a lot more than the last few congresses, that’s for sure. (Getty Images)
The other day, my wife and I were watching the HBO movie All the Way with LBJ. Bryan Cranston’s portrayal of Lyndon Baines Johnson, the 36th President of these United States was uncanny. (Bryan Cranston finally found a character more diabolical than Walter White.) He channeled LBJ in all of his insecurities, paranoia, and rage. He also captured the man’s skills when it came to legislating as well as governing. Cranston’s performance brought forth all of LBJ’s passion for bringing relief to the poor as well as ending discrimination against African-Americans. All the Way with LBJ demonstrated Johnson’s almost frantic need to accomplish something while holding the highest office in the land.

LBJ sought power, in fact, he practically lusted after it, and would do almost anything to acquire it. While this and so many of his other character flaws and personality traits may not have made him the kindest, gentlest, or most pleasant man to be around, it also drove him to achieve great accomplishments. The numerous laws passed by Johnson during his presidency had more of a lasting effect on our country than perhaps any other president in our nation’s history. When it came to passing legislation, LBJ had more success than FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, and certainly more than any of the last several inhabitants of the White House. After all, what’s the point of being the president if you’re not going to try to do anything?. Of course, it was LBJ who stated “Well, what the hell’s the presidency for?” when asked about his ambitious agenda.


LBJ signs the Civil Rights Act of 1964 despite all of the Liberals who said it didn’t go far enough, and all of the Conservatives who said it was too much too soon. (That must mean it was right) Many said that you couldn’t force white people to like black people through legislation. That’s true. But you can force them to treat them equally under the law as the Constitution clearly states. (New York Times)
Yes, LBJ was flawed to be sure. In fact, if you compared him to today’s Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, and asked me to choose either Johnson or Ryan to hang out with, I’m pretty sure Paul Ryan would be my choice every day of the week. Johnson was mean, vindictive, selfish, needy, nasty to his wife, and at least from a political perspective throughout most of his career, a racist. However, when he was given the chance to make a difference when it came to race, he acted as none others ever have, before or since.


He seems like a good guy. Family man, football fan, grows a beard in office, likes rock ‘n’ roll, and is serious about the job, and careful with his words. Wonderful. Now, get something done!!! (New York Times)
As I sit and reflect over another horrible mass shooting, this one being the deadliest in U.S. history, I can only think of what LBJ, flaws and all would have done when faced with what seems to be an endless stream of vicious killings. I’m pretty sure he would have risked alienating his base, the old Democratic South, and he would have found a way to pass some sort of sensible gun control legislation.

Unfortunately, the way the House of Representatives is gerrymandered, with members reelected in their safe districts every election year, that type of legislation is all but impossible. The Senate isn’t gerrymandered, but there are far too many Republicans as well as “Red-State” Democrats who are unwilling to propose any type of laws that would in any way infringe on the rights of gun owners, even those who are on terror watch lists. How have we come to this?


The pride of Siena College, Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice-President of the NRA. LaPierre is so powerful that there literally can be no gun control legislation passed unless he says yes, and he never does. (You Tube)
The NRA will not allow any gun control measures to pass the Congress. They have a tremendous amount of money, and they have made it quite clear to Democrats as well as Republicans that they will use all of their energy and wealth to defeat any politician who advocates for any form of gun control, no matter how bloody and shocking the murderous rampage may have been. 50 people were slaughtered in Orlando this past weekend, and you can expect your federal government to do nothing.

Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump has shed any pretense of his former sensible gun control self, and has basically advocated for more guns as the only methodology for stopping mass shootings and terrorist attacks. Our political system seems to have left us with no room for compromise. The only mutual points of agreement between the political parties is that the other side is to blame. The Democrats are too soft on Muslims entering the country, the Republicans are draconian and inflammatory in their approach to the Muslim world and in their intransigence over guns. Is there a solution? Yes, but it will only come from us, the public. We must demand it, and now.


America’s worst mass shooter, Omar Mateen. Was he involved with ISIS, or just an a-hole? Me thinks the latter not the former. (You Tube)
On Monday, under the leadership of Speaker Paul Ryan, the United States House of Representatives paused for a moment of silence to remember the victims murdered in Orlando, Florida this past weekend. The House and Senate of course both offered up “thoughts and prayers” for the victims, but for once, Democrats actually fought back. They heckled the congressional leadership’s empty offerings of condolences, and demanded action. What were their outrageous demands?

Pass background check legislation so we can see who’s buying these very powerful and deadly weapons.
Make it illegal for people on “No-Fly Lists” to purchase a gun. In other words, Republican members of the House and Senate are comfortable with people who the government has deemed to be too dangerous to get on a commercial airliner, buying assault rifles
What’s frustrating is that these aren’t radical anti-Second Amendment approaches. They are small but significant steps towards limiting some of the more questionable members of our society from getting their hands on dangerous weapons

I’m pleased that the Democrats walked out on the “Moment of Silence”, but I doubt there will be any action enacted by the House or the Senate until at least after the next election, if ever.


The AR-15, the mass-murderer’s weapon of choice. Now available in black, appropriate for any type of deranged killer with a score to settle, real or imagined! (Getty Images)
So, what is it that the federal government could do that would at least perhaps save a few lives, because even a few lives would be worth our while.

Outlaw assault rifles. (Sorry Conservatives) They are impractical for home defense, and you can’t take them out in public and pretend that you are going to stop a mass shooting that you just happen to stumble upon. Shotguns and handguns, and hunting rifles, fine, (Sorry Liberals!) but the place for compromise lies with assault rifles.
Strictly vet any person coming in to the United States from Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, or Saudi Arabia. (Sorry Liberals) This isn’t a ban on Muslims which is asinine, impractical, and impossible, and of course, illegal! (Sorry “Trumpsters”), However, people who come from countries where ISIS has established a presence, or who are carrying passports stamped from those countries need a closer look. (Sorry Liberals)
An American citizen who spends time in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, or Afghanistan needs to be at the very least briefed by the FBI. The last time I checked, those aren’t exactly vacation hot spots, so why would somebody go there? There are some countries that simply aren’t safe for Americans, and we are better off limiting visits to those nations.
Tell Donald Trump, you are not helping. A ban on Muslims is ridiculous, illegal, immoral, and carries the same judicial weight and effectiveness as the Burger-Meister’s law to outlaw toys! Donald, could you please enlighten us on how we will be able to tell what a Muslim looks like? Could somebody tell this orange-faced blowhard that the largest Muslim nation in the world isn’t even in the Middle East, it’s Indoneisia…a country in maritime southeast Asia! Ahhghhhh!!!!
(I’m sorry, but this is not a coherent policy. It’s a racist knee-jerk reaction, and it accomplishes nothing. (You Tube)

As we learn more about the killer, we find that he wasn’t so much an Islamic radical, as much as he was your basic “nut-job”. He hated gays and woman, but apparently he hung out at the very bar he ended up attacking. He used gay dating Apps as well. Perhaps this was nothing more than a case of a frustrated man who felt shame about his homosexuality, and took it out on woman as well as the gay community. Perhaps his religion played a role as well. It’s hard to say until more facts emerge, but banning a religion is not an answer, nor is it even a discussion worth having.

There is compromise to be had, but it will take leadership and guts. LBJ said himself after he enacted meaningful civil rights legislation that he had most likely lost the south for the Democratic party for a generation. It’s been longer than that, but it was certainly worth it. Are Republicans and Democrats willing to take that chance today? Don’t hold your breath.
 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
63. '64 Civil Rights ended the Jim Crow laws disarming blacks. Good thing....
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 06:45 PM
Jun 2016

too bad some of those laws have moved north of the Mason-Dixon Line.

Thought you'd lke to know.

aikoaiko

(34,127 posts)
58. Gun folks crying is the only thing that would happen - massacres will continue
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 06:11 PM
Jun 2016


Did having an AWB in place in CT make you feel any better about the Sandy Hook massacre when a AWB compliant AR was used?

Yup.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
59. Banning a subset of semi-automatic rifles makes zero sense
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 06:15 PM
Jun 2016

Reschedule the entire class of equally-capable weapons, or don't. Otherwise we wind up with "well it doesn't have a bayonet lug" or "the grip extends at an angle of 67 degrees from the body" nonsense.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»After Orlando, it’s simpl...