House Passes Gun "control" Bills

House passes package of gun control bills

Driving the news: The legislation, which will likely fail in the Senate, would raise the legal purchasing age for semi-automatic rifles from 18 to 21 and ban the sale of high-capacity magazines.

https://www.axios.com/2022/06/08/ho...lert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts_all

 

And from another source:

House passes slate of bills to restrict access to guns and ammunition; it faces long odds in Senate

The House on Wednesday passed a series of new gun measures, including raising the minimum age to buy semi-automatic rifles from 18 to 21, in response to a horrific spate of mass shootings across the country. The legislative package passed in a 223-204 vote, with five Republicans joining all but two Democrats in supporting the measure. It now heads to the evenly split Senate, which is not expected to take up the legislation as negotiators attempt to craft a much narrower measure designed to win enough bipartisan support to overcome a GOP filibuster.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...CSWkXY8m2aIW0tlwvQkrChokrtq9sw8aKP77J9IcgAQAA


Odds against it passing are pretty high. .gun enthusiasts/owners want less laws. It was probably a big mistake to make it a "right" to " won and bear arms............as it has been taken literally for far too long. and is an entrenched part of the america cultures..........as is gun violence. Gun lobbies would rather accept a high rate of ghastly deaths than any gun restrictions. The wild west mindset will not go away anytime soon. It seems t be woven into the fabric of the nation.

 

........And nothing about the shooters? It is the shooters that do the shooting. This will make lefties happy but it won't reduce school shootings. Getting young male sociopaths away from society certainly will.

 

I partially agree, the issue is team red only wants to talk about the shooters but are unwilling to make any concessions on how to identify and block those individuals.

Res flag laws are fought against
As is mental health programs, mental health screenings, more in depth background checks, no cost licensing, no cost training — those items are also said to be an infringement

It is disingenuous to say we need to focus on the shooter when nothing is really proposed to do anything about preventing shooters outside of we need Christian indoctrination back in schools or fewer doors / windows. Or the laughable items such as we need to arm the already underpaid teachers that are being called groomers and expect them to do what we don’t even expect police officers to do.

 

It was intended to be taken literally because fear of strong federal government was woven into the fabric of this nation by it's founders. Rebellion being the way they started this experiment and all.

 

This, however, is the reality of how the 2nd Amendment is interpreted and applied presently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

This is not what the founders intended.

 

It's what they said and they seem to have meant pretty much all of what they included.

 

Wow. I just saw a clip of a RINO jackass actually claiming that the 2nd Amendment is a "God-given right."

Someone needs to clue him in that God didn't write the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any amendment to the Constitution. What a piece of sleazing, lying, manipulative ****.

It's not a "God-given right" for mentally unstable, dangerous little shits to have access to weapons of war. When the hell are Americans going to find a modicum of reason and sanity where gun rights are concerned? It's not black and white. It's not either-or. We can control guns better and prevent mass shootings without taking them all away, but these 2A extremists keep obstructing the process and children keep getting massacred as a result.

 

Nope. The 2A does not cover modern weapons and how they are being misused. Mass shootings were impossible in the 1700s because firearm technology did not allow for them. We need the damned law to keep up with the damned technology. It has in every other aspect of modern life, but here alone we seem to be stuck in the 18th century because of extremist idealogues who oppose the most reasonable, moderate attempts at sufficient regulation to prevent this kind of recurring violence.

 

The 2bd wasn't tailored to the times any more than the 1st was. They perceived a threat and put up a road block and it still stands today because for most Americans it's still necessary. If not then there is a process to repeal it but we aren't hearing much about that.

 

Bet dem North Koreans wake up every mourning being grateful that they don't own guns and don't have to face gun violence like those poor American [expletive].

 

Ad Hominem fallacy. Several.

Do you know anything about "Natural Law?"

https://nccs.net/blogs/our-ageless-...law-the-ultimate-source-of-constitutional-law

What gets peopel killed and otherwise subject to criminals/violence is by and large is the liberal run criminal justice system. How come public safety is an issued to liberals only with respect to their attacks on the 2nd Amendment?

But like I keep saying. Put up or shut up. Make repeal of the 2nd Amendment part of the National DNC platform. Please do that before the mid-term elections. Tell the people that the same liberals that let anarchists run amok for months and clamored to defund police now want to take away their right to own firearms. See how that works out for you.

 

Blah blah liberals blah blah liberals blah blah..

The criminal justice system has nothing to do with psychos easily obtaining and misusing weapons of war. That is entirely on those who insist on overly liberal (in the proper sense) gun ownership laws.

America is unique in allowing some emotionally and mentally unstable, suicidal and homicidal ******* to buy and keep an arsenal of semi-auto weapons and body armor at home, and the results are obvious -- we have way more mass shootings and gun violence in general than any other stable, functioning society.

Quit trying to shift blame and ignore the obvious. Quit trying to make lame excuses for your support for this ongoing massacre of innocent people by people who have no business owning guns, especially guns of the kind that are most frequently used in these acts.

 

The ban on high cap mags is a barter line. They'll negotiate it down to just an increase on the minimum age and then call it a win because 'we compromised' and only lost a little more of our rights.

Then in 4 years they'll 'negotiate' a ban on 'assault weapons' down to a ban on 'high cap' mags and call it a win again.

Then in 4 years they'll negotiate a ban onall semi-autos down to just 'assault weapons' and call it a win.

And so on and so forth until people in the states that still havnt seceded yet have the right to bear only pointy sticks in their defense against all the criminals that didnt turn in their 'assault weapons' and 'high capacity' mags.

 

If liberals want a concession they need to make a concession. How bout this? AR-15s become illegal and in return CCW permits from one State are legal in all 50 States and localities. Does that work for you?

And who is proposing arming groomers? Had to work that strawman in, didn't you?

 

Perhaps you should move to North Korea or Cuba and feel safe.

 

gun owners are dealing from a position of strength. They shouldn't compromise any more. all federal gun restrictions violate the tenth amendment. that is too big a concession

 

This is the slippery slope argument. Generally speaking I find this argument valid (ie euthanasia, trans issues, abortion, drug liberalization etc.)
But Australians have agreed to ban assault and semi-auto weapons without intense licensing. There are MORE guns in Australia than in the past, but we don't have mass killings anymore. Same as the UK, same as Japan. You still have gun rights, but like any other right there are responsibilities involved.

 

I'm very new here so I can't tell who stands where because sarcasm doesn't work well in a chat room.
But based on your comment......why should an AR become illegal? By description it fits about 60% of the firearms in the USA right now.
Criminals, by definition are illegal.......but what gets done about that....other than the revolving door judicial system and the "no bail" arrangements to not discriminate against poor criminals.

 

how many mass killings did Australia have before the gun bans

 

How does a 'restriction' violate your right to have a gun? If I say some crazed, mental druggie with a grudge against the local school shouldn't be given six AR15's and 10,000 rounds of ammunition - is that 'violating' YOUR right to a gun? And what about the rights of those kids who happen to know this guy has gone to buy a gun?

 

Jim Jefferies answers your question. If you haven't watched this I suggest you do - he sums up our Australian position perfectly.
(1) Jim Jefferies -- Gun Control (Part 1) from BARE -- Netflix Special - YouTube

 

Just admit that little kids being massacred in their classrooms is a price you deem acceptable for gun freedumb.

 

the second amendment is not about what I can do but what the government cannot do.

 

that's both dishonest and stupid. his freedom has nothing to do with someone committing a crime that will merit the death penalty in that state.