The calls for more gun control are already starting

Status
Not open for further replies.
The guy that did this was mentally deranged and a sicko, why not ban deranged and sicko people ?
If someone wants to shoot or blow people up they will fund a way regardless of more gun controls. He has explosives setup in his apartment, does this mean there should be a ban on fertilizer and fuel oil which can be used to make an explosive ? What about gasoline, ban that too ? There is a need to realize that there are sick people walking freely among us and this can happen at any time with or without more gun control.
The government says they need to protect us from ourselves, the police will protect us, well where was either one when these people needed protecting ? The proof in the pudding is that incidents like this can and will continue to happen, you cannot control every sick and deranged person with more gun controls.
 
The liberal, mainstream media is already in a tizzy because they may not get more gun laws effecting only law abiding citizens.

Despite periodic mass shootings - five slain in May in Seattle, 13 dead on an Army base in Texas in 2009, and the deadliest U.S. mass shooting ever at Virginia Tech in 2007 with 32 slain - the political calculus seems locked down. Most Republicans adamantly oppose tighter gun controls, and most Democrats would prefer to focus on other issues.

Since Democrat Al Gore's gun-control stance was said to have helped Republican George W. Bush edge him out in the 2000 presidential election, the movement to rein in firearms has fallen on hard times.

In 2004, with Bush in the White House, the assault-rifle ban expired after 10 years. The measure, passed when Bill Clinton was president, also banned high-capacity magazines for assault rifles; that provision, too, has now expired.
Click to expand...

Note how he mentions Bush with the AWB sunset. Never mind Congress didn't vote to keep it. :rolleyes:

It is media people like these that we need to out, and email as liers.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20120722_Still_little_interest_in_U_S__gun_control.html
 
Frankly, I don't know that I would rather face one guy with one gun than a guy who has played too many video games and is trying to tote a rifle, precision rifle, shotgun, pistol and BUG along with assorted ammo. If someone wants to go on a spree killing, limiting their choice of firearms is not an effective way to mitigate damage.

The spree killing with the most fatalities to date was conducted with a handgun nobody is proposing to ban and he only needed one. More than a few of these spree killing have also involved the shooter reloading multiple times. If you spent the effort on mental health that we spend blaming Hollywood, video games and guns for these things, you might actually have some useful effect.
 
^ Foolish to think next election is not critical. One more Justice to join Kagan, Sotomayor, Bryer and Ginsberg and we are toast as far as SCOTUS goes. If Kennedy is replaced by nominee by current POTUS everything will change for the worse, possibly forever. The news just drives the agenda and at least four of the justices are waiting for another like minded Justice. Not much talk here about anything but "we got two victories" and ignore that both were 5-4.
 
They have to wait awhile to carry out their plan. If they're already expecting to have to plan long term then the wait means nothing to them.
Click to expand...
True. Anders Breivik originally went to the Czech Republic, thinking he'd get guns easily. When that didn't work, he returned to Norway and got his guns and ammo legally, enduring the waiting periods, hunting club memberships, and other restrictions present there.

These people are fundamentally broken. They are set on a course. Logistical and legal impediments are of little use stopping them.
 
Agreed. Very critical next election due to the damage that can be done to, and through the SCOTUS. The next Pres will get to appoint two judges.
 
Very critical next election due to the damage that can be done to, and through the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
Well, then vote. I know the turnout numbers from 2006 and 2008.

There was no conspiracy involved. People apparently just couldn't be bothered.
 
With regard to voting, one of my pet peeves is that absentee ballots often will only get counted if an election falls within a certain percentage of closeness. This means that a candidate who would have received those votes, won't get them in time to enjoy the "bandwagon" effect - IE that of voters choosing a candidate because he is already doing well in the polls.

Of course, I'll be in Afghanistan this November...

I was on an aircraft carrier for the 2000 election, when the party that now wants to protect illegal aliens from disenfranchisement wanted to disallow military absentee ballots because the APO postal system had postmarked the mail bags, instead of each individual ballot envelope.

(Wonder if our illustrious AG plans to protect military voters this year, or only those voters who can't come up with photo IDs?)

I need to find out if Missouri allows early voting. I'd like to bypass concerns about postmarks, and possibly give my candidates some bandwagon impetus.
 
I'll take my chances as I know what will happen if nothing changes. The media would love nothing more than to keep things as they are after November and use unfortunate tragedies to "make things better."
MLEAKE thank you for your service and yes, a certain party has, for the past few elections purposefully attempted to stop your vote from being counted by going to court, slow-walking ballots etc. As far as I'm concerned, you all should get to pick the POTUS as he is you commander-in-chief and the rules of engagement put your lives at risk, not necessarily mine.
 
Well, then vote. I know the turnout numbers from 2006 and 2008.
There was no conspiracy involved. People apparently just couldn't be bothered.
Click to expand...

Tom said it well. I am always astonished at how many people want to complain, and when you ask them if they voted they say they didn't because their vote doesn't matter or some other lame excuse.
 
Heller allowed reasonable restrictions, so you don't have a strong realistic argument about infringement. Note, Heller and McDonald did NOT wipe out gun laws.

To monitor ammo sales, amounts of guns - would take an incredible data processing entrerprise and cost a fortune. Look at the Canadian Registry fiasco. The country is in no mood to do such.

Politico.com had a good analysis of gun legislation. Their take is no chance of draconian measures. The pockets of urban antigun culture in NY, MA, CA or IL will speak up. Say Bloomberg, mayor of big cities even in gun states that face lots of urban crime. The victims or witnesses to gun violence like Feinstein or McCarthy will again speak up. But the chances of new bans are incredibly small. The current administration with a very tight election won't go officially near it.

Yes, the UN and a re-elected President will take immediate control of the country and giant robots will come for you. Realistically, we've been through Columbine, VT and Giffords with the same news stories, experts and nothing happened. Gun sales increase, many states improve their gun laws.

I'm not particularly scared of bans, etc. Fun to fret on the Internet.

We have reasonable takes on mental illness on the 4473. In fact, Cho was not reported as he should be. Idiots give guns to mental ill kids like Kip Kingle. Parents don't monitor their kids like the Columbine shooters.

So without absolute bans and confiscation (which won't happen), there isn't more to be done. Gun control advocates don't think through their suggestions, and pro-gun folks can get all in a tizzy. The AWB fight and subsequent elections and SCOTUS decisions made politicians outside of the anti-enclaves very leery of such pop ranting.
 
According to twitchy.com, Rupert Murdoch tweeted innsupport of gun control - specfically weapon bans and licensing. Given the media empire he controls, that is not an opinion to overlook lightly.

While I agree the chance for more gun control is slim, it isn't a bad time to remind your Representatives and Senators why that is the case with a short, polite letter.
 
Both sides have a point:

1) The crisis du jour will always arise, and most ultimately turn out to be full of sound and fury, yet signify nothing; but

2) It is never a bad idea to remind your local politicians that their constituency may not wish to hear gun control sound bites on the news, and will vote unfavorably should new gun control laws be proposed.
 
The media reaction is completely expected. Anytime there's shooting that comes to national attention such as Columbine, Virginia Tech, Gabby Giffords, or now Aurora CO, the usual suspects waste little time "dancing in the blood of the victims" and trying to use a tradgedy for their own political gain. This is not the first mass shooting to occur and it won't likely be the last and when it happens again, the Brady's, Bloomberg, Feinstein, Schumer, McCarthy Michael Moore, and the other notable gun-control advocates will almost undoubtedly screech about it again. That's not really what's important though.

What's important is whether or not the screeching about gun control actually resonates with the majority of the American People and it doesn't seem to any longer. Yes, some Senator or Representative from a far-left leaning district will probably introduce a bill, just like the ones that Carolyn McCarthy has introduced every session for years, but in all likelihood that bill will never make it out of committee. Already, many in the major media outlets are running stories lamenting that, in spite of this incident and others like it, gun control has not enjoyed popular support for many years.

While not scientific, I often read the comments section of online news stories just to get a feel for how people are reacting to a given event. In this case, the call for gun control is far from overwhelming and, in some cases in the extreme minority. The only articles I found where a majority of commenters supported gun control were those from MSNBC, and that's not really all that surprising given the audience that particular organization seems to cater to.
 
Were all on board against more gun controll that im very sure of. I will though, second the guy who said in not so many words if any business or public place wants to have a "gun free" zone then it should be law that they provide at least a set measure of security and armed personell as well as meet certain building codes pertaining to entrance and exits and fire. I think that was a very good point. Where i live all emergency exits ive seen have alarms that sound once opened and the doors to these are flat on the outside with no knobs or handles to grab and they open to the outside this is building code here. If theyre going to tell the public no guns allowed in any place then they need to start meeting some security requirements to go along with it not just put up a sign. The anti gun people will still push for more gun laws shooting or not its just when there is one they all show up using it as a tool to push their agenda which i think is sad. I personally hope the brady centers as well as anti- gun politics in general will eventually be stamped out for good in this country and fade into distant memory but i suspect that might never happen.
 
I wish politicians would understand that there are more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens than there are in the hands of criminals... Every new gun control law just inconveniences honest people and criminals alike... only difference is, criminals are not opposed to breaking the law and finding alternatives to get firearms and high cap magazines.

My theory on this issue is... why would they want to take guns away? If this kid was mentally ill (which, I would have to say, 99.9999999999% of shooters are just insane) why wouldn't we want to fund mental health initiatives rather than just remove guns from the equation? That's not going to fix the underlying problem.
 
Its my understanding the gunman used a 100 round drum magazine. If so the NRA is rightly going to get hammered over this.

This is why I gave up my NRA membership long ago, their extremism and complete and total inflexibility is actually doing more harm than good in the long run. They give reponsible gun owners a bad name.
 
It is odd how they never publicly ask how this might have gone had a concealed weapon carrier or two had been there... It might be that they were in the right place at the right time or not...
Click to expand...

The guy was wearing armor. Looks like he'd prepared for the eventuality of someone being armed in the theater. I tend to doubt my ability to stand up to a guy with an AR-15 and body armor when all I got is a concealed handgun. Oh and the smoke probably wouldn't help my aim.

Four guns, a few thousand rounds of ammo, some magazines and some unrelated junk makes an "arsenal" in the eyes of the newsies
Click to expand...
To be fair there are posts on this forum that describe a small amount of firearms as an "arsenal" or even an armory.

why wouldn't we want to fund mental health initiatives rather than just remove guns from the equation? That's not going to fix the underlying problem.
Click to expand...
Because people who tend to oppose gun control are even more against funding any kind of health care.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top