Dont Taze Me Bro

The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

Recommended Posts

Larry, Able bodied men is the "reserve militia".

10 USC 311...

 

Thanks.  I thought I'd read that that law had been repealed.  in 1903.  Learn something new. 

 

Just in case there's somebody else who's as misinformed as I used to be (hey, it could happen), here's a link to said statute

 

Got to say, I wonder why the Congress of 1956 would write things that way. 

 

Maybe they have to write it that way, to give them the authority to draft people? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry,

Able bodied men is the "reserve militia".

10 USC 311...

 

and women and others now .....bigot  ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three of my successes last night: 

 

I shot a bunch of guns (west coast terminology).

I hit most of what I aimed at.

I did not shoot myself or anyone else or anything living.

 

 

 

 

I had gun control and no one debated me.  :ph34r:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I had gun control and no one debated me.  :ph34r:

Quibble. You had partial gun control. After all, you missed some targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quibble. You had partial gun control. After all, you missed some targets.

 

 

When I hit everything all the time people start to suspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/paul-ryan-john-lewis-larson-225144

Rebuffed by Ryan, Dems plot next move on guns

 

Speaker Paul Ryan on Tuesday rejected Democratic demands for votes on their proposals to reduce gun violence, and Democrats warned they may renew their unprecedented sit-in on the floor until they get what they want.

 

Three weeks after the Orlando massacre, the issue of guns and what to do about gun violence continues to roil Capitol Hill, but there is no sign Congress is going to act before it adjourns for the summer recess and the party conventions.

 

Ryan met with Democratic Reps. John Lewis of Georgia and John Larson of Connecticut, leaders of last month's sit-in, for about 30 minutes in a bid to defuse the partisan tension between the two parties over guns.

 

The two Democrats said afterward that although Ryan was respectful and courteous, the Wisconsin Republican would not agree to allow votes on their gun proposals. Democrats had invited Ryan to speak to their full caucus on the issue, but Ryan decided to meet with Lewis and Larson instead.

 

"I think the speaker heard us. He's listening," said Lewis, a highly respected veteran of the civil rights movement. "But he couldn't give us any assurances or guarantee that the bills that we've been asking to be placed on the agenda, that they would be brought up."

 

Many Republicans were furious about the Democratic floor protest, and they have urged Ryan to take a harder line in responding to the Democrats' tactics, including removing unruly members from the floor. Ryan and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) are meeting with Paul Irving, the sergeant at arms, to review Democrats' behavior during the 25-hour sit-in.

Edited by visionary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting watching how the democrats in the senate would refuse to allow certain bills the GOP wanted votes on, and the GOP ****ed.

Now the GOP in the house is refusing to allow votes on this, and the democrats ****.

 

I get that there is a use case for now allowing a vote, but "we don't like what you're proposing" isn't one of them to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weren't there already votes on gun control measures?

Yeah but I imagine these are different ones?

Not putting the same thing to vote over and over is one of the use cases I think of for refusing to allow a vote. I was under the impression this was a somewhat different bill? Maybe it's the same and I'm just thinking it was already voted on in the senate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong but I believe it is a slightly different version. Ryan knows it will be the same outcome as the 4 other bills that didn't pass. Isn't it his job to prioritize bills that are brought up? Seems to me the left is protesting more that their ideas aren't passed than they are a vote isn't being brought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 4 votes occurred in the Senate. The sit-ins and protests have occurred in the House.

Democrats want to put GOP lawmakers on record for being against even limited background check.

The way the Senate works, you need get 60 votes to actually have a majority vote. Basically GOP could vote "Yes" on gun control but still not reach 60 for their preferred bill.

The GOP in the House would most likely a vote against any expansion of gun control - if they block the vote they won't be able to be put on record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, more than 24 hours after the police in Dallas get murdered, and NO ONE here is calling for gun control.  Not surprised, bunch of hypocrites on this issue.

 

Never about saving lives, always about government taking more control over individuals lives.  Just like when 30+ people a month die in Chicago/Detroit/B-More etc, no mention of gun control then.

 

I guess we will just wait for next Democrat to shoot up a gun free zone to re-kindle this thread. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, more than 24 hours after the police in Dallas get murdered, and NO ONE here is calling for gun control. Not surprised, bunch of hypocrites on this issue.

Never about saving lives, always about government taking more control over individuals lives. Just like when 30+ people a month die in Chicago/Detroit/B-More etc, no mention of gun control then.

I guess we will just wait for next Democrat to shoot up a gun free zone to re-kindle this thread. :(

Actually, I made multiple posts in the Dallas thread alluding to SA weapons and Kevlar piercing "sporting" ammo. We all just decided to put that topic aside while the bodies were still fresh and there were still reports of "multiple suspects".

Also, I think this is a really awful post. Shallow and petty, IMO.

Edited by TryTheBeal!
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, more than 24 hours after the police in Dallas get murdered, and NO ONE here is calling for gun control.  Not surprised, bunch of hypocrites on this issue.

 

Never about saving lives, always about government taking more control over individuals lives.  Just like when 30+ people a month die in Chicago/Detroit/B-More etc, no mention of gun control then.

 

I guess we will just wait for next Democrat to shoot up a gun free zone to re-kindle this thread. :(

Actually, I did a couple of times in the BLM thread. It's the same issue. The presence of these weapons designed not for self defense, but military offense is empowering and making it too easy for the unbalanced and hateful within our society. Dallas' even is a call for gun control in a very real way. When the police's body armor isn't designed to stop the firepower you can buy at Walmart something is desperately wrong.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, more than 24 hours after the police in Dallas get murdered, and NO ONE here is calling for gun control. Not surprised, bunch of hypocrites on this issue.

Never about saving lives, always about government taking more control over individuals lives. Just like when 30+ people a month die in Chicago/Detroit/B-More etc, no mention of gun control then.

I guess we will just wait for next Democrat to shoot up a gun free zone to re-kindle this thread. :(

This is one of the most nonsensical truthiness-filled posts we've seen on ES in quite some time. Congrats.

How's the weather in the alternate reality you live in?

Edited by skinsfan_1215
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another call to ban military type large capacity magazines and the weapons that use them, expanded background checks for private and other sales besides licensed gun shops.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that there's been lots of false rumors thrown around, about this case.  But have I read that he had body armor, too?  I thought that **** was supposed to be hard to get. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that there's been lots of false rumors thrown around, about this case.  But have I read that he had body armor, too?  I thought that **** was supposed to be hard to get. 

 

I didn't hear whether he did or not. I just went to Google Shopping and typed in body armor and got a bunch of results though.

So, more than 24 hours after the police in Dallas get murdered, and NO ONE here is calling for gun control.  Not surprised, bunch of hypocrites on this issue.

 

Never about saving lives, always about government taking more control over individuals lives.  Just like when 30+ people a month die in Chicago/Detroit/B-More etc, no mention of gun control then.

 

I guess we will just wait for next Democrat to shoot up a gun free zone to re-kindle this thread. :(

Bad feelings lead to bad things man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case no one misunderstands my position: I am for a Constitutional amendment that sharply curtails gun rights. I am for gun control similarto Germany - you can't even own an airsoft or paintball gun. I am for regular mental health evaluations for gun owners (first six years). I am for a 6 month waiting list to buy a gun. I am for you can only open carry if you are in hunting gear. I am for abolishing of CCW.

I am for redefining "militia" to be the local police department. I am for local PDs to disarm their officers... however they can have a large cache of weapons and use if they decide our Federal govt becomes tyranical and citizens need to be armed. There needs to be some formal notice by local authorities that "it is time to invoke the anti-tyranny portion of the 2nd amendment" to avoid fringe groups going crazy. (These are some of my ideas to protect the citizens right to fight a tyrannical govt).

I am for stigmatizing gun brandishing in public - even with peace officers. I am for strict enforcement of anti gun laws.

I believe society has changed too much in the past 200 years and that the risk of "crazy" or "bad" gun owners is too great.

I believe contrary to pro-gun folks this will make us safer - that we can no longer handle the 2nd amendment.

I believe that it is gun proliferation that threatens "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" more than a ruling fist.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that there's been lots of false rumors thrown around, about this case.  But have I read that he had body armor, too?  I thought that **** was supposed to be hard to get. 

 

 

yes he did and you can easily get it, most cops,security and military wear it

used to not be unusual for family or friends to buy and ship to military deployed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wondering when that changed.  I thought that, for a long time, body armor was regulated similar to the way they regulated full-auto weaponry. 

 

I understood the other guy having it.  He was a licensed security guard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wondering when that changed.  I thought that, for a long time, body armor was regulated similar to the way they regulated full-auto weaponry. 

 

I understood the other guy having it.  He was a licensed security guard. 

 

I don't recall it ever being restricted sale....but I could be wrong

 

add

 

pretty much anyone but felons 

http://www.bulletsafe.com/body-armor-law.html

Edited by twa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this moment, yes - no chance of it happening. In 5 years, who knows.

That is not going to stop me from loudly proclaiming and advocating that strict gun control is a reasonable public safety measure, that the only way to accomplish this is with a Constitutional Amendment, that sitting back and accepting gun violence as it stands.

Any other public safety crisis, is looked at differently. Yes, I am a middle age white male, so perhaps I can ignore this issue and say "probably won't happen to me". But, I think it is bad to look at the data from other countries and then say, "well, we have this 2nd Amendment".

The Declaration of Independence states that America was founded for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - guns are now way on the wrong side of that equation. I can't just accept "There will be victims, there will be casualties" because of the 2nd Amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.