Solid gun control article
- Thread starter Cie
- Start date
Do you like to drink? You can thank the idiots who repealed the 18th amendment for that.
And when a pissed off teacher kills a student out of anger that he wouldn't have normally been able to kill had he not had a gun strapped to his waist what will be your ignorant, fucked up reply then?
Not to mention, in pretty much all of these shooting the assailant ends up shooting himself so I guess he went into it knowing he was going to die so strike the logic about them being afraid to do it if they might get shot back at.
When a kid takes the gun off the teacher and shoots up the classroom when he normally wouldn't have had access to a gun what will be your ignorant, fucked up reply then?
You need to realize that you are as stupid as people on here claim you are. Maybe then you can get some help because, you really are as stupid as people on here say you are and you don't know it. You have no clue what a dumbass you are.
This article is a bit dated, but the sentiment remains true. The GOP/NRA is not even willing to allow for the creation of a study to come up with possible solutions to the problem. In short, absolutely NO RESEARCH to try and prevent any future massacres. This twisted logic makes no sense. It's like these individuals are immune to knowledge and facts. So, for the foreseeable future, thoughts and prayers will suffice.
As a personal aside, no other Western post-secondary system (that I know of) has implemented mandatory lockdown/active shooter training. This, in itself, is quite telling.
Peace!
A House panel on Thursday rejected multiple efforts by Democrats to eliminate a budget amendment that has frozen nearly all government research into gun violence for 17 years.
During a markup of next year?s health spending bill, Republicans blocked two amendments that would have allowed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to study gun-related deaths. Neither had a recorded vote.
Eliminating the provision has become a priority for Democrats since the June 12 attack on a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., that killed 49 people ? the nation?s deadliest mass shooting.
The provision, known as the Dickey Amendment for former Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.), was first enacted in 1996 after groups including the National Rifle Association (NRA) accused federal agencies of trying to advance gun control.
The amendments came from leading Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee, Reps. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.) and Nita Lowey (N.Y.). Both lawmakers mentioned that the bill?s namesake has since urged Congress to repeal the language.
?Congressman Dickey has made it clear that the Second Amendment is not threatened by science,? Lowey, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said. ?All I?m saying is, let?s do what the original author of this language advises.?
Only one current Republican lawmaker is on record in support of repealing the language. Rep. Bob Dold (R-Ill.), who is among the most endangered House lawmakers this cycle, quietly signed a letter last December from several medical groups that urged GOP leadership to make the change.
The 1997 budget amendment specifically prohibits federal funds ?to advocate or promote gun control,? which researchers say has had a chilling effect.
But Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), who leads the Appropriations health subcommittee, pointed out that it is not an outright ban.
?Mr. Dickey?s amendment itself simply says none of the funds made available in this title may be used in whole or part to advocate for gun control. That?s what it says,? Cole said.
DeLauro, a longtime advocate of gun control, blasted Republicans for refusing to buck the NRA.
?The fact is, the gun lobby has a lock on this Congress, and they have continued to block this research at every turn,? DeLauro added. ?They?ve taken away our ability to protect the public from gun violence.?
Top Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), made a similar attempt to remove the budget rider last year after 14 people were killed in San Bernardino, Calif., but ultimately came up empty.
Democrats made clear that they would keep working to eliminate the provision during the full committee markup next week, though it will almost certainly be dismissed again by GOP members.
?I view this in terms of saving lives, and this is a committee that has that ability to do it,? DeLauro said. ?It?s common sense to direct the CDC to engage in research.?
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/286847-gop-blocks-dem-attempts-to-allow-federal-gun-research
As a personal aside, no other Western post-secondary system (that I know of) has implemented mandatory lockdown/active shooter training. This, in itself, is quite telling.
Peace!
A House panel on Thursday rejected multiple efforts by Democrats to eliminate a budget amendment that has frozen nearly all government research into gun violence for 17 years.
During a markup of next year?s health spending bill, Republicans blocked two amendments that would have allowed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to study gun-related deaths. Neither had a recorded vote.
Eliminating the provision has become a priority for Democrats since the June 12 attack on a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., that killed 49 people ? the nation?s deadliest mass shooting.
The provision, known as the Dickey Amendment for former Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.), was first enacted in 1996 after groups including the National Rifle Association (NRA) accused federal agencies of trying to advance gun control.
The amendments came from leading Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee, Reps. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.) and Nita Lowey (N.Y.). Both lawmakers mentioned that the bill?s namesake has since urged Congress to repeal the language.
?Congressman Dickey has made it clear that the Second Amendment is not threatened by science,? Lowey, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said. ?All I?m saying is, let?s do what the original author of this language advises.?
Only one current Republican lawmaker is on record in support of repealing the language. Rep. Bob Dold (R-Ill.), who is among the most endangered House lawmakers this cycle, quietly signed a letter last December from several medical groups that urged GOP leadership to make the change.
The 1997 budget amendment specifically prohibits federal funds ?to advocate or promote gun control,? which researchers say has had a chilling effect.
But Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), who leads the Appropriations health subcommittee, pointed out that it is not an outright ban.
?Mr. Dickey?s amendment itself simply says none of the funds made available in this title may be used in whole or part to advocate for gun control. That?s what it says,? Cole said.
DeLauro, a longtime advocate of gun control, blasted Republicans for refusing to buck the NRA.
?The fact is, the gun lobby has a lock on this Congress, and they have continued to block this research at every turn,? DeLauro added. ?They?ve taken away our ability to protect the public from gun violence.?
Top Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), made a similar attempt to remove the budget rider last year after 14 people were killed in San Bernardino, Calif., but ultimately came up empty.
Democrats made clear that they would keep working to eliminate the provision during the full committee markup next week, though it will almost certainly be dismissed again by GOP members.
?I view this in terms of saving lives, and this is a committee that has that ability to do it,? DeLauro said. ?It?s common sense to direct the CDC to engage in research.?
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/286847-gop-blocks-dem-attempts-to-allow-federal-gun-research
Anything taken from me that is my right to have scares me. The whole slippery slope thing, u know. I already know that many people are afraid their guns will be taken. I know that?s not true, Bc there?s no way to do that. Imagine going door to door requesting guns to be surrendered. Who?s going to volunteer for that duty?
- Mar 19, 2006
- 38,210
- 374
- 83
- 74
"Sorry for your loss."
how many more must die ...?
how many more must be wounded....?
how many more must suffer ruin...?
HOW MANY MORE..?
"Sorry for your loss."
how many more must die ...?
how many more must be wounded....?
how many more must suffer ruin...?
HOW MANY MORE..?
"Sorry for your loss."
I guess it would be better than going to the door telling a set of parents that their kid has just been slaughtered, but don't you worry about that.
As far as the "it's my right" thing, how long is that tired argument going to be used as a crutch by the "Grog just want to keep gun" crew? A document written over 200 years ago by people who could not possibly see things changing the way they have simply cannot be the basis of an argument to adhere to woefully inept set of ideals.
According to your argument there should still be slavery because it was once the normal and accepted practice. We as a society should have the right to learn from our mistakes and try to improve the world in which we live.
Penguinfan as soon as all Liberal politicians eliminate there security details. We can talk. And would you please join up on the first team to go door to Door to start the collection. Please start with all those deplorable s in the south.
Hold on, cowboy. I was asked a question, and I gave my honest answer. I don?t think I?m on Madjacks voicing far right gun rhetoric, am I? I said I was open for discussion. Attacking me is the wrong thing to do.
- Apr 10, 2015
- 2,443
- 55
- 0
You literally can not type two sentences without using the word liberal. You have zero credibility and clearly have nothing to add to any reasonable discussion.
You don?t have an argument. You have an entrenched political view point.
I asked you last week to answer a simple questions about vehicles and guns. Which one was designed solely to inflict max damage and kill things. You didn?t respond because you are an ignoramus.
You think teachers packing heat is goin to deter school shooters. Really? That?s going to deter them because they might be killed?
Don?t these shooters end up offing themselves or getting in a shootout with the cops at the end of it anyway? They are rarely captured alive. I?m pretty sure whether or not they might die from a teacher carrying a weapon is going to dissuade them from committing a mass shooting.
God damnit I?m pissed that people even respond to you, myself included. You are as thick as pig shit.
And what yyz said about the rest of the world laughing is 100% accurate. I spend a lot of time in the UK and it is embarrassing to be an American sometimes. The rest of the world is so far ahead in logical thinking and safety and we are miles behind. When people hear of stories about things people like hedgehog say they don?t even think it?s real because it?s so fucking insane.
Then you?re left with the stark realization that to the rest of the world, you and hedgehog are lumped in together and both ?Americans?. Christ that is depressing.
You can?t even distinguish between to, two, and too and you are calling everyone else an idiot.
Ok.
I am a Conservative, many people in America think exactly the same way as I do on many issues. My point is schools should not be gun free zones, someone on campus needs to be armed. If someone is armed an assailant may have second thoughts.
You think a madman cares about gun laws? :facepalm:
You have your opinion and I have mine :0008 Many others in America agree with me I promise you
But a madman will care about armed civilians? Everyone should be armed then? Then no mad men will dare do anything because OH FUCK EVERYONE IS ARMED. They?ll completely rethink their plan and go on the straight and narrow. Crisis averted.
Fuck me you are so fucking ignorant.
Why aren?t you armed? Didn?t you get robbed by a stripper? Couldn?t you have saved yourself that embarrassment by packing heat?
- Feb 23, 2005
- 6,744
- 129
- 63
Translation: I just got owned and don't know what to say nor how to respond to logic :0008 Fox News says others agree so it must be true
The constitution needs to be updated to reflect the real world we live in, not that of 200 years ago. I admit that I have a 45 cal pistol with two 7 round clips by my bed side and fuck knows how many additional rounds boxed in my ammo can. Stupid reasoning on my part, no one in this neighborhood has been broken into :facepalm:
I do believe we should be entitled to own a gun and keep it in our home. I DO NOT think anyone other than law enforcement should have the right to bear arms in public. I know several guys that have a permit to carry, that is bull shit. The problem that I see is that guns are so available to EVERYONE? That needs to change.....JMO
The younger guys are right about gun control..... as I have gotten older I just want to feel safe at home, at the very least, if no where else.
My question now would be? How do we control guns from getting to all the bad/sick/deranged fuckers of the world?
Good post, Steve.
You can't without restricting the availability to everyone, which is what clearly needs to happen since we can't keep guns out of their hands.
The Constitution is supposed to be a living document. As someone already pointed out, we had to fix the constitution so people couldn't enslave other humans. At the same time that they thought enslaving other humans was fine, they passed the 2nd amendment. Think about it.
I know what your point was, and I asked a couple questions that refute your point. You chose to ignore those questions and just reiterate your point. Your point is garbage and easily dismissed as the ramblings of a moron who simply wants to cling to his guns as his source of self worth and tricking himself to thinking he has power over something.
Let me ask again, when one of your armed teachers gets pissed off and shoots a kid out of anger with a weapon he otherwise would not have had access to what will be your reply then?
Let me guess, "sorry for your loss", right?
