VentureBeat reports
[Early on June 22], Democratic lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives voiced their protest over not being able to vote on gun control legislation. Presiding Congressman Ted Poe (R-Texas) quickly called for a recess and ordered video cameras in the chamber to be turned off in the hopes of quelling the protest. It didn't.
Wired continues
House Democrats are in the midst of a historic sit-in on the floor of Congress to protest the Republican majority's inaction on gun control in the wake of the Orlando massacre. But since the House isn't technically in session, C-Span's cameras are not filming [though they could be operating if it wasn't for, once again, the intransigence of the Republican majority].
The Verge adds
C-SPAN has been airing live video from representatives on the House floor: first using Periscope footage from Representative Scott Peters, a Democrat from California and later using Facebook Live footage from an unnamed source.
[...] The protest began on the House floor around 11:30 this morning [Wednesday, June 22]. As the House left for recess, Democrats gathered together and refused to leave. Because the House is in recess--and because only the House has the power to turn C-SPAN's cameras on--C-SPAN isn't able to film these events as it normally would.
Democrats are in protest in an attempt to bring gun control legislation to a vote, in response to the attack in Orlando. The Senate accomplished this same feat using a filibuster, although none of the legislation it voted on passed.
It looks like the protest could continue for a while--the House was supposed to return from its recess over three hours ago at this point. As long as that's happening, it seems like Peters will keep streaming and C-SPAN will keep relying on live-streaming.
Also covered at Ars Technica .
[Update: 23 Jun at 9:00 A.M.] Current C-SPAN footage has a graphic: "House has adjourned until July 5".
(Score: 3, Informative) by bucc5062 on Thursday June 23 2016, @01:19PM
I watched some of that periscope feed last night, then switched around to see if any MsM outlet was getting on this moment in history.
Nothing, nada, nilch.
I would have started to see people massing at the steps of the capital in support of this effort. I mean, 90%+ support the bills, both D and R yet no major crowds.
To me this political protest is astounding and would not have happened without folks inspired by Sanders' push for progressive revolution. Finally Dems got backbones only to find out that the people just don't care or......
With corporate control of the major entertainment...erm..I mean news outlets, do they even know what is going on and why? We have fallen far from Mr. Smith goes to Washington. Then again, has Boss Taylor just gotten big enough to now own the national news.
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @02:44PM
[expected] to see people massing at the steps of the capital in support [...] yet no major crowds
You seem to have missed the point that that chamber is in recess.
The Congresscritters who need persuading are headed back to their districts for the 4th of July holiday.
On his weekly radio program,[1] Ralph Nader has mentioned multiple times that a way to get action is taking your gripes and suggestions to your Congresscritter's LOCAL office. [google.com]
He suggests -organizing- as well as alerting the LOCAL media of your plans.
[1] At 10AM Saturdays, my Pacifica Radio affiliate in SoCal has a stream of that program. [kpfk.org]
Webcasts too. [kpfk.org] (available for months afterward)
Webcasts and transcripts also available at RalphNaderRadioHour.com [ralphnaderradiohour.com]
without [...] Sanders
While we're patting people on the back, let's not forget Congressman John Lewis who got this action started.
5 decades ago, he was literally getting his skull busted by racist cops while protesting for civil rights|voting rights.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @07:26AM
I mean, 90%+ support the bills
The bills to strip people of their constitutional rights without first giving them due process? 90%+ support these bills? That is troublesome, if so.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 23 2016, @01:21PM
Politics. The GOP puts their spin on crap, but turn the cameras off when things don't go their way. The Dems think they made some points by broadcasting a "sit-in". Whoop-ti-do.
What was this all about, now? Oh - the dems want to vote stricter gun control laws.
Well, fek 'em.
Every single mass shooting that has occured in the US has taken place in a gun free zone. Well, all except one. The one in Texas, where the tur'rists pull into a parking lot, pull out their guns, and promptly get blown away by a couple of security guards. THAT is what the right to bear arms is all about - it isn't about hunting, recreation, or any of that other superflous nonsense.
Before anyone points at Fort Hood, and Major Hassan - yes - that was in Texas, but it happened on federal property. Fort Hood. A gun free zone. That's right, one of those idiot democrat presidents decided that soldiers shouldn't have guns. Which one was that? Oh yeah - Clinton.
I simply cannot believe that sane people want MORE "gun free zones".
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @01:38PM
No one said anything about "Gun Free Zones"
They wanted a vote on a bill to stop people on The No-Fly List from buying guns legally.
Yes they wanted to put a hurdle up to stop people on that list from buying guns. Clutching your 2nd amendment yet?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 23 2016, @01:51PM
Due process. COnvict a man of a felony, and he's lost the right to own weapons. I'm not saying that it's "right", but it's "legal". Due process.
Oh wait - how did he get on the no-fly list anyway? Someone didn't like him? Didn't like something he said? So, it's down to "only people that we like can buy guns!"
Funny thing about that - the Orlando shooter was a Democrat's Golden Boy. He worked for a global contractor, contracted to DHS. He was one of the guys who are "liked". Until he shot a hundred people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @04:54PM
Due process? So depriving anyone on that list from rights available to others - such as freedom to travel between states, freedom to associate, etc - is OK unless it's their freedom to purchase a firearm? And don't say "they can do those things but without getting on a plane" because depriving anyone of any right available to everyone without due process is on par with making it harder to get a firearm without due process.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 23 2016, @05:28PM
I suggest you read my post again. I specifically said that before you can deprive a citizen of a right, he must have "due process". By extension, that applies to ALL OF HIS RIGHTS. With due process, you may be deprived of any, or even all, of your rights. Without due process, only a totalitarian state deprives you of your rights.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday June 23 2016, @07:20PM
We could just end the discussion by pointing out that the No-Fly-List is run by complete fucking morons that will put a 5-year old child on it. The entirety of the list and its operations occurs outside of due process... and intelligence, national or otherwise. It is not a court order that places you on a list after deliberation, and after you had your right to appeal and defend yourself satisfied. AFAIC, it's one big fucking popularity contest, and the list is run by teenagers in high school.
Part of me is happy the Dems are fighting for stricter gun controls, and I don't disagree with all of the restrictions. That being said, trying to take away a Constitutional right over being on a shitty anti-Freedom list is a deal breaker for me. Not to mention, it's purely 100% security theater. If you made sure that everyone on that list had no guns at all, we would have about zero measurable increase in security against mass shootings. The current proposals will not stop any of these tragedies from happening in the future. Even getting rid of all guns in the U.S period, will still not stop these sick men (predominately) from planning out how they're going to die and take dozens with them on their hate filled rant to hell. Oklahoma happened without guns.
Definitely, Fuck em'. Admire their gusto, but fuck their goals on this one.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @10:12PM
I agree with some of this.
Gun control wouldn't solve the Miami Massacre (he was certified in a category of people vetted to weird guns even if stricter regs WERE in place.) The failure was in the feds not taking that one gun store's call about him seriously, and in not finding anything wrong with him the previous times they had interviewed him. That indicates procedural, intellectual, or or issues with the federal investigatory body, not with the laws already on the books.
Regarding the no fly list: Restricting guns to people on the no fly list would limit them to quite a few american citizens of american origin who got on some political assholes shit-list. This may or may not be a good thing, but it means people who may need to defend themselves with guns against politically connected and possibly corrupt individuals trying to coerce them into changing their views, or eliminate them when they become inconvenient enough won't be able to. There may in fact be reasons said people cannot take their complaints to their local police (be it corruption, incompetence, or simple overwork, causing them to only investigate/prosecute certain forms of crimes.)
If we really want to clean this mess up, it doesn't start with being reactionary about gun violence, it starts with operating on the rot in the government and figuring out what it will take to return it to being a healthy and functioning organization, or if is so sick that it needs to be put down/buried and replaced with a new healthier specimen.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday June 23 2016, @07:05PM
how did he get on the no-fly list anyway? Someone didn't like him? Didn't like something he said?
Its actually much much simpler to get on the no fly list: Marshals actually admit they have a QUOTA to fill. [thedenverchannel.com]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 24 2016, @01:08AM
Wow. Just like traffic cops in many cities.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Fishscene on Thursday June 23 2016, @02:04PM
...except for the fact that the no-fly list is illegal as it bypasses due process and restricts the freedoms of those on it to freely travel. It is practically impossible to get off the list too, and it is just a name list. If your name matches someone else on that list, you don't fly. Feel like fighting for freedoms you should already have for 7 years?
http://www.activistpost.com/2014/02/woman-on-no-fly-list-for-7-years.html [activistpost.com]
If I were a terrorist, I'd be gaming this country like a master puppeteer. "Every time I send a minion, American's lose more and more of their rights and are less able to protect themselves from further minions. Scare them for political gain in my favor for my evil plans, that America the great will fall when I turn their own government into agents to terrorize the people".
I know I am not God, because every time I pray to Him, it's because I'm not perfect and thankful for what He's done.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @05:15PM
"I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in -- and the West in general -- into an unbearable hell and a choking life."
-- Osama bin Laden in his only interview after 9/11 [cnn.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @03:05PM
Look, I'm a EU citizen and 'Murica's creepy love for guns and the 2nd just sickens me, but I'm with the gun lovers on this one: the no-fly list is as anti-democratic and arbitrary as it gets.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Thursday June 23 2016, @04:42PM
Considering the lessons of less than a century ago, you should deeply understand why an armed populace is essential to Liberty. Neither Hitler nor Stalin could have so efficiently marched millions into genocide had they been armed. We have guns for similar reasons to fire extinguishers. We try to avoid fires but we prepare for them too.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @04:56PM
Hitler, Stalin, et al, won the hearts of their people by spouting divisive hate. If the populations had guns they would have done the dirty work for their leaders.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday June 23 2016, @05:07PM
Jo Cox.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Thursday June 23 2016, @11:30PM
It was not a legal weapon (in the UK), and she was stabbed as well (did the autopsy give cause of death?).
This was a disgraceful and despicable murder. Condolences to the family. I have had personal experience of criminal attacks on members of my family, including the use of a firearm in the UK.
But let's not absolve the psychopathic criminal their actions, because it was easier than beating her to death with his hands. Criminals do not follow laws, and this case highlights just how hard it is to legislate without appropriate social and educational policies.
And I will never forget the London police gunning down of Jean Charles de Menezes [wikipedia.org], in cold blood. The only legal guns in the UK, and highly trained police officers still manage to execute and deny they did anything wrong.
Plenty of blame to go around, but let's start with the criminals....
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday June 24 2016, @12:14AM
Thanks for diving, but the point went that way...
The man who killed an EU-friendly British MP, regardless of how, gave his name at his first hearing as "death to traitors, freedom for Britain".
He lives in a country not know for gun violence, but in the midst of a pretty nasty political environment, which find parallels on both sides of the pond.
I was responding to "Hitler, Stalin, et al, won the hearts of their people by spouting divisive hate. If the populations had guns they would have done the dirty work for their leaders. "
The gun wasn't necessary. It helped, but in this case likely wouldn't have changed the outcome by its absence.
But my five-letter comment wasn't about "criminals", it's about the people spouting divisive hate in front of cameras, inciting violence (directly or implicitly), and finding people willing to act, whether we brand them Patriots, Criminals, or Terrorists.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Friday June 24 2016, @01:37AM
but it is hard not to be REALLY cynical, that this guy could have shouted any rubbish. Who cares? It's a criminal act of amazing depravity, no matter what words are used.
The whole brand image of "terrorism", has basically become a way to stop any argument - let's just label this act as "special" so we can be less careful.
"But when you go carry pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't going make it with anyone, anyhow..."
(Score: 5, Informative) by TheRaven on Thursday June 23 2016, @05:31PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Thursday June 23 2016, @08:26PM
That's a bit different. It's a good example of the cultural blowback from being a militaristic country, with a draft, multiplied by going to war. Hitler's Sturmabteilung was not the first political army in Germany, as the various demobilized but not disarmed troops formed Weimar-era Freikorps years before. As too were the early members of the Red Army former Tzarist troops, many were deserters who brought materiel and arms.
In both cases these were quasi-national entities before becoming officially part of the State. Those disarmed by those groups, the Jews, the Poles, and various Soviet minorities are who would have most benefited from guns. Once the Nazis or the Reds came to power, everything they did was legal. It was only those with illegal guns who had any hope of putting up a fight.
One wacko with an improvised weapon is a terrorist not a freedom fighter. RIP Jo Cox.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Thursday June 23 2016, @06:30PM
Look, I'm a EU citizen and 'Murica's creepy love for guns and the 2nd just sickens me, but I'm with the gun lovers on this one: the no-fly list is as anti-democratic and arbitrary as it gets.
As some one who is sick and tired of all these people getting shot, who deeply hopes that we soon really restrict who all has guns (especially the police...), I have to concede that this is an important point that I need to ponder.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @02:54PM
Every single mass shooting that has occured in the US has taken place in a gun free zone.
The reason these shootings happen in "gun free zones" is because they happen in places where crowds gather. Places a responsible gun owner would, or at least should, hesitate to carry his own weapon. Seriously: if you think you're practicing responsible gun ownership when you stick a pistol in your belt and head down to the bar to drink yourself silly and watch the Texas/Oklahoma game, you need to re-evaluate your standards.
Responsible gun owners are great. They can, on occasion, even limit the scope of violence. The point of gun control laws is to give everyone else some hope that the person buying a gun is going to be a responsible gun owner. Because it turns out that some gun owners will get shot in the back by their own toddlers, in their own car. Not just once [washingtonpost.com], but twice [fox6now.com] in a month. It turns out that some gun owners will go Dirty Harry on shoplifters in a crowded parking lot and not understand why it's a bad idea [nytimes.com].
I get that the no-fly list is a bad tool for restricting gun ownership. Right now, Congress consistently votes in favor of selling guns to the most reckless, moronic, irresponsible people you know.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 23 2016, @03:10PM
"the most reckless, moronic, irresponsible people you know."
YOu mean, like DHS approved security guards, right? Like, gay Muslims? Like, second generation immigrants from dysfunctional tribal lands? Yep - you're right!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @06:36PM
Like, gay Muslims? Like, second generation immigrants from dysfunctional tribal lands? Yep - you're right!
See, this is the reason no one pays attention to you outside of the internet: you equate conditions of birth with responsibility. It may shock you to learn that white people commit crimes. Some of them are rapists and do drugs. Some Christians are bomb-throwing religious extremists.
A shocking 99.8% of African Americans are not in prison. Neither are 99.9% of Caucasian Americans. Religious statistics are pretty hard to find, but I'd be willing to bet that 99.9% of US Muslims are not in prison, either. 99.998% of global Muslims have no affiliation with ISIS. Curiously, in the US, only 99.9% of people have no affiliation with white supremacy. Turns out that people are just people, regardless of what TV news or David Duke tells you.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Tork on Thursday June 23 2016, @06:40PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @10:22PM
The gay vegan moooosl... too soon?
(Score: 2) by Fnord666 on Thursday June 23 2016, @08:44PM
The reason these shootings happen in "gun free zones" is because they happen in places where crowds gather. Places a responsible gun owner would, or at least should, hesitate to carry his own weapon. Seriously: if you think you're practicing responsible gun ownership when you stick a pistol in your belt and head down to the bar to drink yourself silly and watch the Texas/Oklahoma game, you need to re-evaluate your standards.
I can't speak for other states in the US, but in the state that I live in you are explicitly not permitted to carry a concealed weapon into a bar or other establishment that servers liquor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @02:17AM
There's been a big push lately - driven in part by mass shootings - to eliminate the restrictions on concealed carry. In Georgia, it was considered "too confusing" for CC holders to have to give up their guns at bars, schools and churches, so we got the Guns Everywhere law. Our governor is likely to lose his job because he vetoed the bill that would let drunken college students carry their guns around campus.
Responsible gun ownership: fine. Great. Restrictions to help less responsible people understand how common society interprets as "responsible": even better.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday June 23 2016, @08:56PM
I can think of 4 others, off the top of my head, that don't fit your rule:
- The nutjob in Orlando shot his way past an armed security guard and two responding cops before making his way inside.
- The Gabrielle Giffords shooting had among its many bystanders a US Marine home on leave, armed with a pistol ... who never fired a shot.
- Ditto for a shooting at a university near me - two campus police were there very early on and were driven off by a nutjob's superior firepower.
- At Columbine High School, an armed cop on site exchanged fire with the two kids in trenchcoats until he was thoroughly overwhelmed.
And of course there are numerous less-famous incidents that meet the definition of "mass shooting" along the lines of an angry dad shooting his kids, their mother, and finally himself, which often occur at home.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Thursday June 23 2016, @01:29PM
Both sides of the US Congress are demonstrating their maturity, or lack thereof. A "sit in", like a bunch of college students occupying their Student Union building? Or like little kids throwing a collective tantrum in the candy aisle? Meanwhile, the other side cuts off CSPAN coverage? Scary, that they can do that. More to the point, what a great way to give their opponents more publicity. Ignoring the tantrum would have been more intelligent.
I think Scott Adams has it about right [dilbert.com]: The two sides are irreconcilable, because they have fundamentally different world views.
Legally, gun control advocates have an almost insurmountable problem: The 2nd amendment is entirely clear: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". The rest of that sentence is a subordinate clause offering context and explanation, without changing the meaning in any way. The basic statement is black-and-white. In order to get around that, the only solution is a Constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @01:44PM
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday June 23 2016, @06:39PM
Is it still satire if you regurgitate their exact point without adding anything to it? If you take off "The Onion" from the story it sounds like a normal non-satirical article.
cf. Poe's Law
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Informative) by naubol on Thursday June 23 2016, @01:45PM
You could drive a truck through that ellipsis.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by iwoloschin on Thursday June 23 2016, @02:00PM
So, you're saying the Second Amendment gives me the right to keep and bear Arms, without any infringement? Cool, so that means I can keep my own little tactical nuclear grenade, for personal defense of course, right? Or how about a bazooka? Everyone loves a good game of rocket tag! Oh, ok, I'm being ridiculous, yes, so how about we just settle on a good old fashioned fully automatic machine gun. Yeah, they're really heavy and chew threw ammo really quick, but it's a great home defense tool, right?
Except all of these things have been made illegal for citizens to possess, due to their extreme lethality and lack of practical use. No one hunts with a nuclear bomb, much less a machine gun. So we've already had the battle of if the right to bear arms can be infringed, and the answer is yes, it absolutely can, and is, and not a single politician will argue that everyone should have access to automatic machine guns. Since the First Amendment is limited (you can't libel, you can't shout "Fire" in a crowded public space, etc) to protect the public I think it's already a forgone conclusion that the Second Amendment can (and really should!) be limited as well.
Honestly, if you want a semi-automatic rifle, join the Armed Forces. If you just want it to go play around with for fun, well, that's hardly a protected right, though I could see a good compromise wherein you need to at least join the National Guard (and train regularly!) to carry a semi-automatic rifle.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @02:57PM
The second amendment was not meant for hunting and sporting, it was meant to give the people the ability to rise up and fight against a tyrannical government.
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Thursday June 23 2016, @03:39PM
So, you're saying the Second Amendment gives me the right to keep and bear Arms, without any infringement? Cool, so that means I can keep my own little tactical nuclear grenade, for personal defense of course, right? Or how about a bazooka?
Yes actually. According the 2nd amendment, the Federal government may not prosecute you for owning a nuclear weapon. State governments, on the other hand, may not be so forgiving. If a state were to permit private ownership of such things, it might find itself no longer a member of a federation, and possibly on the receiving end of some states acting in their own defense.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Thursday June 23 2016, @04:06PM
Keep in mind that after Lincoln's war, the Amendments added put the same restrictions on the States as well. And for any functional purposes, the 10th Amendment does not exist.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by CirclesInSand on Thursday June 23 2016, @05:18PM
I didn't mention it to keep it simple. But I'll say similarly, keep in mind that the 14th amendment was written at a time when the federal government had just won a war saying that states were no longer voluntary members of the union, and to win the war many constitutional laws were broken. Almost 40,000 people were incarcerated without trials.
I think it is safe to say that when the 14th amendment was passed, no one in congress understood or cared about the nature of the US Constitution.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @04:37PM
State governments (and counties, cities and so on) are bound similarly by the force of the 14th Amendment.
Interestingly, this followed some people in the Old South deciding that the 2nd Amendment didn't prevent them from disarming black people before sending the good ol' boys in for some lynchings ...
If more black people knew their history, they'd be the loudest advocates for the 2nd Amendment.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @04:35PM
The language stipulated "arms".
Not "ordnance" nor "explosive articles" or anything else that suggests anything more than a lance, rifle, sidearm, or sword.
The difference between ordnance and arms was well understood at the time, and is pretty clear now in most respects. Congress and the courts drew a line around fully automatic weaponry, which makes sense since keeping it supplied with ammunition effectively renders it a crew-served weapon; hence ordnance under a reasonable interpretation.
And as for the Secret Hidden Magic of Semiautomatics, last night I participated in a shooting competition with a revolver, and beat several people who used semi-automatics. So, yeah. They're a lot less magical than people seem to think.
Frankly, the Orlando shooter could probably have done just as well with granddad's 30-30, if he knew how to use it.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Capt. Obvious on Thursday June 23 2016, @04:54PM
Fully automatic machine guns are legal for a citizen to possess. They are tightly regulated, and very expensive and require you to be fingerprinted and photographed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @07:38AM
Where does the second amendment say that you must submit to such things before you're allowed to get a gun? What you describe is a violation of the constitution.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @06:05PM
Cool, so that means I can keep my own little tactical nuclear grenade, for personal defense of course, right? Or how about a bazooka? Everyone loves a good game of rocket tag!
Gun Restriction zealots like to assume that "the founders didn't anticipate assault weapons", however the Belton flintlock was developed during the revolutionary war and could fire approx. 20 rounds in 5 seconds with one pull of the finger. The Puckle gun, a rapid fire predecessor to the Gatling gun was created 60 years before the revolutionary war. The Pepper box revolver some could hold more than 20 rounds and was developed hundreds of years prior to the writing of the 2nd Amendment.
The disparity in power between the state and its citizens is the reason so much corruption is allowed to exist. Terrorists attacks using a single weapon are only successful due to the long term disarmament of citizens. The founders knew this and that's why they wrote the 2nd Amendment. It's not their fault people more people aren't armed. The famous Kentucky abolitionist, Cassius Clay, was frequently harassed for his anti-slavery views and thus kept a cannon on his roof for dispersing lynch mobs -- That's what the 2nd Amendment is for. [upenn.edu]
Your extremist argument of having nuclear arsenals is laughable at best. Nuclear weapons can destroy an entire nation's populace and poison the land for generations. We're arguing restrictions on rifles here. Get some perspective or be seen as a fool regurgitating irrational extremist rhetoric.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @07:42AM
Your extremist argument of having nuclear arsenals is laughable at best. Nuclear weapons can destroy an entire nation's populace and poison the land for generations.
The consequences are irrelevant. What matters is what is constitutional. There is nothing in the constitution that permits the government to stop someone from owning weapons simply because they are deemed to be too powerful, and in fact, the second amendment would seem to explicitly forbid that.
You shouldn't cower in the face of reductio ad absurdum arguments; instead, you should surprise by the fool making the argument by saying 'That's fine by me.'
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @09:39PM
Idiot. Semi-Automatic: One trigger pull, one bullet. NOT a military weapon, just a design from the 1900s.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday June 24 2016, @01:10AM
No one hunts with a nuclear bomb
That's what you say! I also prefer Goblin fishing rods!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @07:36AM
Cool, so that means I can keep my own little tactical nuclear grenade, for personal defense of course, right? Or how about a bazooka? Everyone loves a good game of rocket tag! Oh, ok, I'm being ridiculous, yes, so how about we just settle on a good old fashioned fully automatic machine gun. Yeah, they're really heavy and chew threw ammo really quick, but it's a great home defense tool, right?
All of that is fine. If you don't like it, amend the constitution. Your reductio ad absurdum has failed miserably.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bucc5062 on Thursday June 23 2016, @02:13PM
Did you forget something:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
They are not separate statements, the comma ties them together. The intent then is that the People (not the capital) may keep "arms" (weapons) to maintain the security of a Free State (again, not capital).
In today's age, we do have a well regulated militia, it is called the National Guard and is applied to the security of a Free State within the US. We also have a well regulated militia, it's called the Army (or Military) and it is is applied to the security of a Free State, that of the United States of America.
No where in that one sentence has the individual been granted an individual right to "bear arms" or own a personal weapon. Want to bear arms, protect the State, shoot people by all means join the NG or USM. Want to hunt, perform in sport shooting, now that becomes a privilege, because it has in no way a connection to the security of a Free State. Thus I have no problem restricting, just as we do with the first, access to personal use weapons for private citizens, because I understand that while it can kill a deer at 100 yards, shoot down a bird at 25, it can also kill a human being just as well. That is why it needs to be restricted.
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 3, Informative) by tangomargarine on Thursday June 23 2016, @02:22PM
The intent is irrelevant to the statement itself. It's just explanatory. Or how about:
"In order to make seatbelt companies more money, seatbelts are now required in all cars." If the companies stop making "enough" money, does that mean we should get rid of the rule?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bucc5062 on Thursday June 23 2016, @02:42PM
I'm sorry, that just does not make any sense.
I did read more and while there were some compelling positions on individual ownership, it was this that helped me see that times have changed and we need to change withit
This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's militias ability to be a match for a standing army: " . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ."
In the 21st century there is no way for a "peoples militia" to match a standing army. It would require that we then allow individuals to own very powerful weapons. In the time of Madison and Hamilton, the most advanced weapon was the fast loading musket. Today....it's not even close since we need our standing army to have the very best weapons for their protections.
Put basically, over time we increased the ability of our standing army to defend the country by making the weapons many fold more dangerous. I do not think that Hamilton, today, would want M50s, Bazookas, JDAMS, bouncing Bettys, shoulder fired missiles in the hands of individuals to counter a standing army (oh and tanks, and jets and nukes). The second has been made moot, because if we even concede the original intent, it cannot happen unless we dumbed down killing weapons of our standing army.
the "People" would get wiped out in a second against tyrannical forces.
So, unless you are all for individuals owning weaponry that matches what our standing army uses today, let's cut the crap and realize that the only thing individuals can do with an AR15 is kill other people, not soldiers against a standing army.
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Thursday June 23 2016, @03:13PM
Then get a damn Constitutional amendment passed already instead of arguing the Constitution doesn't say what it says.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @03:20PM
Perhaps you are unaware, but amendments don't just happen out of the blue. It takes a lot of incremental change before the ideas become accepted enough to garner the necessary votes. For example, Prohibition was already the law in 33 states before the 18th amendment was passed. This is exactly the process by which an amendment becomes viable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @07:44AM
It's also deeply unethical to violate the constitution.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @03:20PM
AR15 can easily kill a modern solider in gorilla warfare, it penetrates right through kevlar helmets. A scar in .308 (also legal) with armor penetrating rounds (a big more difficult to get) will pierce right through a marines body armor. Also we wouldn't be out standing in fields wearing uniforms like in classic warfare, no one fights like that anymore. If the people fought a tyrannical government, for one there would be many defectors and lots of military equipment would fall in the handles of the uprising rebels. The US military is terrible at gorilla warfare. Imagine Vietnam all over again with soldiers defecting and joining the other side. AR15 is the only weapon that could give an opportunity to resist. You can't fight solders with a glock, but the AR15 with some .556 is going to be close to as effective as the soldier with the automatic version, backed up with some civilian scars and 50 bmg, you have a nice fighting force. Steal some weapons and ammo caches from the battle field, steal a few tanks and tank drivers who defected, you've got a hell of a battle.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @04:16PM
AR15 can easily kill a modern solider in gorilla warfare
Why are we fighting gorillas and how did they get access to AR15s?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday June 23 2016, @10:48PM
AR15 can easily kill a modern solider in gorilla warfare
Why are we fighting gorillas and how did they get access to AR15s?
Some kid fell over the barrier and into the moat. We had to take out the gorilla before he took out us. Fortunately, gorillas don't wear kevlar!
So learn how to spell "automatic" and know that it only refers to "gorilla automatic", not to "monkey automatic", which is only useful for hunting. And stop sleeping with your rifle! That's just sick! Damn illiterate ammosexuals!
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday June 24 2016, @03:18AM
oblig Capt Ron: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyG0G96UB6k [youtube.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by rts008 on Thursday June 23 2016, @04:55PM
You posted an interesting comment, and obviously put more thought into it than the typical emotionally driven, knee-jerk reaction that usually(already evident here) predominates this subject. *tip o' the hat to ya*
However, I would like to opine that the subject is a messier can of worms than presented.
For example: again, the ex-military(veterans) are usually left out of the discussion; they will run the gamut from ultra right-wing, to (maybe)ultra left-wing, with more 'weight' on the right-wing side(I speculate). Some of the veterans will side with 'the rebels', and provide useful experience and knowledge, some will stay out of the fight for various reasons- only defending 'their own', some will turn ostrich, and some will side with the gov't. to varying degrees and forms.
Predominance of civilian contractors within the gov't./military: unpredictable IMO, but a big factor.
Gov't. emplyees(of all stripes) are going to be a factor, maybe a big factor.
Civilians(non-veterans) will be potentially big factor, but again, unpredictable at this current stage of society, and social media influence.
Foreign influence will be a big factor, but who knows how...
Gov't.'s willingness to destroy the civilians and infrastructure...'collateral damage' style, or deliberately.
ad nauseam...
Over the decades as I pondered the oath I took to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, I put a lot of thought into this subject, and concluded that change should come about through the soapbox and ballot box, otherwise it will get hopelessly messy...
BTW, the "You can't fight soldiers with a glock,..." bit: special warfare types are taught that the only point in having a knife, is to acquire a sidearm, which is used to get a shotgun/subgun, which is used to get a battle rifle, which is THEN used for battle. You do not willingly take on battle rifle armed soldiers with a sidearm.
Think Fallout: when in doubt--kill it, and ALWAYS loot the corpse...
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Thursday June 23 2016, @05:41PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 4, Touché) by sjames on Thursday June 23 2016, @05:12PM
Our problems in the Middle East suggest that a bunch of poorly disciplined people with rifles and improvised weapons can put up quite a fight against a well trained and armed military that they do not welcome.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by shortscreen on Thursday June 23 2016, @09:45PM
In addition to that, if the people really wanted to do something effective against "gun violence" then they should be going after the biggest gun runner of them all: the US government. It sucks that 50 people were killed in a nightclub. If "guns" are to blame for that tragedy, then what about the thousands of people who died in Yemen because the US sent weapons there? What about the thousands of people who died in Syria because the US sent weapons there? What about Libya? What about Ukraine? Surely, people who talk funny and/or have brown skin count as humans too?
What sense does it make to (preemptively, for that matter) go after the small time criminals, while ignoring the big one? Especially when this big criminal is the same party that you expect to take care of your safety after you voluntarily abdicate this responsibility (and try to have it involuntarily seized from your fellow citizens).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:52AM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 23 2016, @08:55PM
In the 21st century there is no way for a "peoples militia" to match a standing army. It would require that we then allow individuals to own very powerful weapons. In the time of Madison and Hamilton, the most advanced weapon was the fast loading musket. Today....it's not even close since we need our standing army to have the very best weapons for their protections.
Who allows a rebellion to own weapons? That legal authority would stem from the rebellion itself. And as another poster noted, the rebellion could acquire the weapons it needs from the standing army. Second, a key tactic of any successful rebellion would be logistics disruption. It doesn't matter if you have better weapons, if you can't move and can't shoot due to lack of supply.
the "People" would get wiped out in a second against tyrannical forces.
Using what weapons? Even nuclear weapons take longer to kill people than that.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Friday June 24 2016, @02:09AM
I think we can all agree that none of us were in the room when the authors of the Second Amendment actually came up with the wording. That's unfortunate, as it would be really helpful to know if the first part was really just window-dressing context, or a critical element restricting the scope of a very powerful statement.
I just re-read the text of the first ten Amendments and none of the others include contextual statements explaining the thinking behind the wording. It seems curious to me that the authors would deem it necessary to include 'fluff text' for one Amendment only. On that basis, I believe that the most likely objective explanation is that the wording of the first half of the Second Amendment actually matters.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @03:04PM
"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
"No where in that one sentence has the individual been granted an individual right to "bear arms" or own a personal weapon"
Do my lying eyes deceive me?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @03:56PM
Already covered in nauseating detail here:
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=13958&cid=357804#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
The choice bits:
Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
- Tench Coxe
Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
- Patrick Henry
Learn a little history. Learn how grammar actually works. Quit clouding the issue with shit that can't be backed-up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @04:51PM
200+ years of precedent beg to differ. Why weren't they rounding up civilian muskets in 1789?
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Thursday June 23 2016, @05:08PM
When that was written, the "militia" consisted of every person who owned a rifle and was capable of firing it at an enemy. That is, the individual citizens. Well regulated meant practiced. That is, able to hit the broad side of a barn.
So basically that means that you have to be able to practice and so it's necessary that people be able to keep and bear arms even in peace time.
(Score: 2) by Fnord666 on Thursday June 23 2016, @08:57PM
In today's age, we do have a well regulated militia, it is called the National Guard and is applied to the security of a Free State within the US. We also have a well regulated militia, it's called the Army (or Military) and it is is applied to the security of a Free State, that of the United States of America.
Except that is not what the framers of the Constitution meant by "well regulated". If you take into consideration the context of the time and all of the events that transpired in order to win freedom from British rule, the last thing that our forefathers would be supporting would be any sort of government controlled standing army. The intent was to insure that if the new government were to ever become as tyrannical as the the one they had just ousted, the citizens of the newly formed United States would have the means to do the same thing again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @07:50AM
They are not separate statements, the comma ties them together. The intent then is that the People (not the capital) may keep "arms" (weapons) to maintain the security of a Free State (again, not capital).
That simply provides a justification for the second amendment; it does not limit people's rights to that reason alone.
No where in that one sentence has the individual been granted an individual right to "bear arms" or own a personal weapon.
Right, the founders just put that there because they forgot to mention that, in addition to the government being able to assemble an army, the government also had the power to provide weapons to said army. That's the real reason for the second amendment.
There is no such thing as a collective right.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 23 2016, @02:21PM
Excellent post - and less "offensive" than my own.
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Thursday June 23 2016, @02:47PM
It's election year politics, grandstanding on both sides at it's finest. Well if we have to have morons in congress, the least they can do is be somewhat entertaining on occasion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @03:15PM
If the Sandy Hook incident didn't change things, it's hard to image what would.
USAians can be pretty lax in their insistence that their gov't accede to their wishes--even when a supermajority all wants the same thing.
Now, Aussies were a different matter.
Following years and years of lax gun regulations, they had the Port Arthur massacre. [wikipedia.org]
1 dude (carrying an AR-15, of course) killed 35 people and wounded 23 more.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @04:44PM
And your argument is what, precisely?
That the majority should be able to trample the rights of the minority because ... there are more of them?
That the finest argument for public policy is sad stories about violent lunatics who could as easily have achieved what they did with a fire axe?
That heartfelt pleas trump the rule of law (i.e. the constitution as written)?
Let's get specific. What is your precise logical chain from "Tots got murdered" to "Fuck all y'all's rights"?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @07:16PM
The AR-15 has been used in every mass shooting I can think of.
My position is that civilians don't need weapons of war.
Serious target shooters don't use that weapon.
Serious hunters don't use that gun.
Home defenders would use a pistol.
This weapon and other like it serve no useful function in society.
Its purpose is to spray bullets in order to kill large numbers of people.
I would be fine with gun ranges owning and renting them within their boundaries to guys with tiny dicks who need to spray bullets to feel like a man.
...and if the death by gunfire of children doesn't move you to want to remove an unnecessary threat to society, you are a monster.
y'all's rights
There is no individual right to own a weapon of war in the 2nd Amendment.
If you are in the National Guard, you have a right to a muzzle-loading firearm.
(Original Intent. Right?)
Now, want to see what I expect out of a bunch of "militia" men?
Check out the flick "Southern Comfort".
...and the USA has FIVE fulltime armed forces to intercept any invasion.
"Red Dawn" was silly fiction.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Thursday June 23 2016, @05:07PM
Adams here scratches the surface of a topic that America spends much time pussyfooting around - race. If you word swap Democrats for Blacks and Republicans for Whites, as Adams infers, it's a different and yet accurate column.
Republicans are too afraid of alienating Black voters, or driving them to turn out to vote against them. Democrats aren't going to risk losing their potent paintbrush that Republicans are all racist and Democrats aren't, so neither side will draw attention to the fact that among black Americans, 82 percent of gun deaths are homicides. [washingtonpost.com] The article quoted by the Post says the vast majority (77 percent) of white gun deaths are suicides; less than one in five (19 percent) is a homicide. [brookings.edu]
So this is a massive cultural problem in the urban Black community where violence is respected if not honored. And so long as that cultural dynamic symbiotically exists with the political dynamic, nothing will change.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday June 23 2016, @01:47PM
The Republicans have taken a lot of money over the years from the NRA, which is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. In their hearts, though, they are as terrified of gun-totin' Americans as the Democratic members of Congress are. What to do, what to do? Do they alienate the 3rd most powerful lobby in America after the American Association of Retired People (AARP) and the American-Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC), and the rank-and-file who are sharpening the guillotines as we speak, or do they do what they'd really love to do and cripple and tag every American the way the Democrats (and really, the puppet masters who stand above them all) wish to do?
I can only imagine the consternation among the puppet masters right now. Their quants are trying and trying to maintain power-maintenance models that just won't work anymore, trying to tweak variables to preserve system stability, only to find that everything fails. They're panicking, building bunkers and tropical island bugout spots, trying to put their limitless wealth in vehicles that will survive a collapse and preserve their power. Some factions among them are trying to gin up war between NATO and Russia, others between the US and China (because those measures have always, always worked in the past), others are trying to brainwash the masses into believing the impossible, that unemployment is the unemployeds' fault, that an environment spiralling into self-destruction is imaginary, and that the solution to everyone's problems is to hate on flavor-of-the-month (immigrants/Muslims/Muslim-immigrants!).
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @03:12PM
Even the NRA is in favor of no-fly, no-buy
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @04:46PM
With a proviso: that the no-fly list be based on due process. Which it presently is not.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday June 23 2016, @01:53PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @02:27PM
"Another terrorist attack! Quick, pass gun control! Let no good crisis go to waste!"
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 23 2016, @02:51PM
Another terrorist attack!
That does bring up the Republican side of the exploitation of this tragedy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @03:01PM
"Another lone wolf mass shooting hate crime! Quick, pass gun control! Let no good crisis go to waste!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @03:29PM
> It wouldn't stop the shooter from acquiring his firearms.
You are being too literal. The fact that the only laws that have a chance of passing are too minor to have made a difference in the most recent high-profile case is not an indictment of the people pushing for those laws. It is an indictment of congress being so disconnected from the will of the people that a measure that 90% of the population at large, and even 80%+ of NRA membership, supports can't be passed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @03:35PM
>90% of the population at large, and even 80%+ of NRA membership
I don't support it, source on your statistic?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @03:46PM
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/jan/05/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-say-claim-90-support-gun-background/ [politifact.com]
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2015/mar/18/lena-taylor/most-nra-members-back-background-checks-all-gun-pu/ [politifact.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @04:05PM
Oh background checks for private gun sales? So I need to go to an FFL so I can sell a gun to my friend? Yeah that will stop criminals haha. They would never exchange cash for a gun without going to an FFL and running a background check if this was a federal law. How many mass shooting would that have stopped?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @04:09PM
Goal posts moved!
You've switched from denying that an overwhelming majority are in favor of the law to a "if it isn't perfect, it isn't worth doing" defense.
Both are bullshit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @04:15PM
>I don't support it, source on your statistic?
I never denied it
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @05:17PM
No you just asked a leading question that implied it.
Retreat to the literal is the last defense of the rhetorical coward.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @05:38PM
You say I denied it. I showed you how I clearly didn't, and now you say I implied I denied it by asking for a source? Who is moving goals posts now? Skepticism, is not denial. With they way false statistics are thrown around on the internet you would have to be a fool to trust a statistic posted by a user on a message board without fact checking.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @06:17PM
You denied it by saying that you weren't one of those people.
Since you are sticking to the literalism shtick:
I didn't claim that 100% of the population were in favor of background checks, so your claim was literally irrelevant to "skepticism."
The only value in that unnecessary addition to the discussion was to register your disagreement with the premise.
That literalism bullshit cuts both ways.
> you would have to be a fool to trust a statistic posted by a user on a message board without fact checking.'
Which you could have done in literally 60 seconds with google because that's how long it took me to find those links.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @06:34PM
Have a good one friend, I don't argue semantics.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @04:24PM
I don't support passing more gun control if wouldn't have made any difference with the issues we are trying to solve. It's feel good legislation.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday June 23 2016, @09:19PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday June 23 2016, @05:21PM
This is a stupid argument. All the mass shootings I know of were done with legally-purchased guns from dealers, not guns bought through friends.
Buying a gun illegally from a friend requires two things: 1) a friend who has a gun he wants to sell, and 2) that said friend is willing to sell it to you illegally (in a hypothetical future where such sales must go through a FFL to be legal). I'm sorry, but for mass shooters, this likely *would* prevent them from arming themselves. These people weren't career criminals before they went on a shooting rampage: they're not going to have friends or contacts in the underworld willing to sell them guns illegally.
Yes, for career criminals, it won't completely solve the problem, but do we care? How many mass shooting are committed by career criminals who have such contacts? None. How many shootings at all are done by these people? Probably a bunch, but mostly something involving organized crime, which people outside those circles simply aren't exposed to much. Not that many people really care that much about drug dealers shooting each other in turf wars. It's when people shoot up nightclubs or movie theaters or schools that people get really upset.
So yes, this law probably would have stopped ALL the mass shootings.
(Score: 3, Informative) by melikamp on Thursday June 23 2016, @03:31PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @04:28PM
Limiting the magazine capacity does not make a big difference. If you are trained you can swag a mag in a little more than a second. Here is a video debunking the myth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjnsBH9jGxc [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday June 23 2016, @05:15PM
Well, you do have to do it three times as often under the proposed limits. Even if you're trained, that gives opportunities to take you down or run (and it's easier to count to 10 under stress than 30, to know when).
Most bad guys don't walk around with a PEZ dispenser for magazines. the fifth one may be upside down in your pocket.
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Friday June 24 2016, @08:04PM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 26 2016, @12:34AM
For desert, please explain how reducing the magazine size infringes on the right to bear arms.
People shooting back at a maniac killer(s) aren't likely to carry a bunch of extra ammunition. Your gun is useful for self-defense only as long as it has ammunition.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @05:09PM
I'm going to assume that you're just ignorant.
Here are some facts to help:
If you have a tube fed (typical in lever and pump action rifles and shotguns) system you can top up the magazine without ever unloading.
If you have an old school bolt action rifle, it only has a dinky little internal magazine - but it's clip-fed, so you use the clip to quickly reload it in the field. This was also how you reloaded some semi-automatic rifles (WWII era).
A lot of people who have a hate-on for magazines of $size learned their facts from Hollywood, and develop weird ideas about how the magazine is the limiting factor in rate of fire. In reality, there are lots of limiting factors, many of which relate to the reliability of the system under discussion, and the biggest element is the skill of the shooter. A skilled shooter with a single-shot break-action weapon will not do much worse in terms of aimed shot rate than someone with the Evil Black Rifle of your deepest, darkest nightmares.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @07:05PM
Lol your comment reminded me how last week Bill O'Reily and someone he had on the show was calling AR15 a "big gun with a big clip" and they kept saying big clips. If you don't know a mag from a clip you probably shouldn't be part of the gun control discussion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @08:27PM
such as limiting the magazine capacity
And changing a magazine is such a hard thing to do.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday June 23 2016, @01:56PM
Democrats are pitching a fit because they can't lose a vote on gun control legislation?
If the Republicans have a majority, and they vote as a bloc like usual, it doesn't matter anyway. If they did get their way, one can only hope 35 votes don't ensue :P
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Thursday June 23 2016, @05:21PM
If it's really that simple, why didn't the R's call for an immediate vote and squash the thing properly, Then call a recess?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday June 23 2016, @05:54PM
Probably because they want to vote it down like hotcakes, but they don't want anybody to *know* they did so.
That plus various other reasons politics is crazy and facepalmworthy :P
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @11:33PM
[The Republicans] don't want anybody to *know*
Yup.
For starters, the GOP majority doesn't want anybody else setting the agenda, determining what gets debated and voted on.
You've been indicating that there is no point to this action.
The point is to make sure that, come November, -everybody- understands what each of the Big 2 stands for.
It's working.
Kim Kardashian tweeted her support for the Democrats to her 46 million followers [google.com]
If Trump hasn't already destroyed all the down-ticket GOP candidates by then (traditional GOP voters staying home on election day), this is another black mark against the incumbent Pachyderms.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by rcamera on Thursday June 23 2016, @06:56PM
because they don't want to be on record voting against what upwards of 90% of their constituents are in favor of. they know that voting against turns directly into "congresscritter X votes AGAINST protecting school-children and nuns from mass murderers" during the next election cycle. it's much better for them to keep the status quo without having to go on-record with a vote.
/* no comment */
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday June 23 2016, @09:56PM
They would look a lot less silly by calling for a division vote. That leaves no record of who voted which way.
Personally, though I generally lean left, I am glad they killed the bill which would have made the ill-conceived no-fly list even more powerful, I just don't appreciate the way it was done.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @12:00AM
I am glad they killed the bill which would have made the ill-conceived no-fly list even more powerful
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by snick on Thursday June 23 2016, @02:02PM
House rules (written back at the beginning of the session) say that when the house is not in session, the cameras are off.
1) D's staged a sit-in
2) Ted Poe (R-Texas) called for a recess
3) The cameras turned off as a matter of house policy
4) No one on the R side is interested in changing the rules on the fly to give the D's more camera time
5) ZOMG!! Censorship!
Look. I'm with the D's on the underlying issue, and a sit-in may just be the right way to go, but this posing about "The R's turned off the cameras man" is stupid spin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @03:34PM
What?
Did you miss the part that they called for recess because of the sit-in?
Do you seriously believe that the republicans did not intend to turn the cameras off as a direct result of adjourning?
Are you really arguing that because there is one extra dot in the line that connecting the dots is "stupid spin?"
(Score: 3, Informative) by snick on Thursday June 23 2016, @05:04PM
ummm, yeah, sure.
1) D's: BLAH BLAH BLAH ... We won't let you do anything until you do what we want.
2) R's: Fuck this. We're out of here. Call us when you are ready to get back to work.
I'm on the D's side, but in this particular case, the R's response is ENTIRELY understandable. If someone staged a sit-in in my office, I'd take the day off too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @05:21PM
Whether you agree with one side or the other is irrelevant. In fact such claims come across as concern trolling.
What you are ignoring is that this isn't just a sit-in in some random office.
Dealing with this sort of thing is their job. All they had to do was take a vote, 15 minutes and it would be over with.
(Score: 2) by snick on Thursday June 23 2016, @06:12PM
A few tear gas canisters and a paddy wagon would end it quickly too, but the response: "Meh. Call me when you have finished with your tantrum" seem to be a better one than either escalating the situation, or your suggestion that they capitulate to terrorists.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @06:20PM
> or your suggestion that they capitulate to terrorists.
So concern trolling is your only position. Sad to have my original suspicions confirmed. My naive self is constantly disappointed by the frequency of insincerity here. Ultimately you and your ilk will win by chasing off those who grow tired of wrestling with pigs.
(Score: 2) by snick on Thursday June 23 2016, @07:58PM
Oh please. Just get over yourself, Mr. Coward.
I'm trying to even put together how you get "concern trolling" from my comment ... and I'm coming up with nothing. "Concern trolling" actually has a meaning that is more specific than "saying something that gives AC a sad." Nowhere in this whole thread did I express concern about ... anyone ... but somehow I am concern trolling. Does this make you a concern troll-troll?
Yes. "Capitulating to terrorists" was gross rhetorical excess. Big deal. Welcome to the internet. Gross rhetorical excess is what we do.
You suggested that giving in to the side that was trying to use force to get their way in contravention of the rules was the obvious way out. So, yeah ... capitulating to terrorist is way, way, WAY over the top, but an intelligent life form would have taken the meaning.
Lighten up, Francis.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday June 23 2016, @08:38PM
You suggested that giving in to the side that was trying to use force to get their way in contravention of the rules was the obvious way out. So, yeah ... capitulating to terrorist is way, way, WAY over the top, but an intelligent life form would have taken the meaning.
If the Republicans had the courage of their convictions they would have held the vote, which they were 100% sure of winning. The only reason they used the maneuver to call recess is because they were afraid of going on record as being against the measure. The Democrats are trying to force them to go on the record with their positions. It is all election year gamesmanship.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @06:32PM
Not quite. There's a process. The democrats wanted to sidestep the process to do what they wanted, damn anything else.
Paul Ryan didn't want to do that - his prerogative - and so went to recess as someone suggested. All good. Standard procedure.
(Score: 2) by Ken_g6 on Thursday June 23 2016, @02:55PM
I just got a terrible, awful idea. What if Senate Democrats tried the same thing? The net result is that either the Senate has to stay in session, with Democrats chanting on the floor, or the Senate has to recess...and President Obama gets to make recess appointments!
Republicans would probably keep the Senate in session, and Democrats chanting on the floor would look kind of stupid, as they do here. Which is why it's a terrible, awful idea.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @04:11PM
> What if Senate Democrats tried the same thing?
It is called a filibuster.
And they did.
Just last week.
And they got what they wanted - republicans officially on record voting against the wishes of the majority of the population.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @05:11PM
Minor detail: their job is not to reflect the wishes of the majority of the population.
Got that? I know, it's crazy town. But their job is not to reflect the wishes of the majority of the population.
Their job is to reflect the wishes of the majority of their constituents - and I see no evidence to suggest that they failed to do so.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @05:23PM
Boy you aren't very bright are you?
When 90% of the population is in favor of universal background checks voting against universal background checks is failing to represent their constituents.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @06:47PM
Unless of course if the representatives voting against it represent the 10% that holds the same viewpoint.
(Score: 5, Informative) by butthurt on Thursday June 23 2016, @03:10PM
In 2008, a few Republicans used the same tactic because they wanted a vote regarding offshore oil drilling. The Democratic speaker adjourned, turning off the cameras and (briefly) the lights and microphones. This was a year before the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Imagine if they'd been given a proper hearing.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-now/2008/08/house-dems-turn-out-the-lights-but-gop-keeps-talking-010724 [politico.com]
(Score: 2) by Ezber Bozmak on Thursday June 23 2016, @03:11PM
This sit-in would never of happened without the internet. The republicans turned off the cameras and adjourned congress. Traditional media is basically locked out so historically this would have been a non-event. But social media lets politicians communicate directly with their supporters now, completely bypassing traditional media. It is why Clinton has been able to go 200+ days without a single press conference and why Trump is so hyper-active on twitter. Pols no longer need the "gatekeepers."
That's good and bad. Now the gatekeepers have less of a role in determining who gets to have a say. But the downside is that no one is required to answer hard questions any more. It is all just preaching to the choir. It enables each group to exist within its own bubble which makes compromise much more difficult to achieve. And politics is the art of compromise, because no matter how much you despise the other group's politics we still all have to live in the same country.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @03:39PM
the gatekeepers have less of a role in determining who gets to have a say
That's the theme I'd hoped would be apparent.
would never of happened
When you shorten the word "have", it should look like this:
would never've happened
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @03:50PM
> When you shorten the word "have", it should look like this:
> would never've happened
Thank you mr pedantical.
Next time I right for a miniscule websight I be sure to've a english teacher proofreed it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @06:45PM
if people should rise up against the government they will have no arms.
however people with arms will defend the law that says that they can bear arms with their arms ...
i think this law doesn't support a meta philosophy of being able to reset a government (and the laws it
is based on) but rather it is law that makes people feel "empowered" ... to defend the law itself.
the gun law is NOT a possible nucleation point to rot away at a government.
anybody making such a law would be like somebody building a iron sky scrapper and intentionally leaving a
spot unpainted so rust can take hold.
how? how? can you argue that it is NOT the 2nd law that is killing people? statistics from all over the world really proofs it.
but hey, never mind, it's your country, yours law and your guns. have fun and tears! make more youtube gun videos!
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Thursday June 23 2016, @09:13PM
BTW, I'm not even arguing for or against gun ownership/restriction.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @11:16AM
How about just applying common sense
I hope that some day you will realize that "common sense" is an informal, subjective term which carries no meaning in an objective debate.
C'mon people, shouldn't we be reasonable people that can put scripture aside when it makes sense to do so?
There is a clear, defined, and viable process by which this so-called "scripture" may be amended. If the current "scripture" is such a problem, the legislature has the power to enact change upon it.
You've completely misunderstood the constitution, anyway. It is not a kind of "super law" which overpowers other laws; it is the contract between the people and the state.
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Friday June 24 2016, @01:27PM
How should this realization come about? Not by applying common sense, I hope?
But when people try to do so, the discussion turns into a holy war in which the founding fathers act as deities and the constitution as the infallible word of them. That makes amending the constitution very hard.
Most countries have a constitution (AFAIK), but only in the US are people so obsessed with it. What's with that?