Hillary Clinton Wants to Reinstate Assault Weapons Ban in Wake of Orlando Attack

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: Melen

Where did I say I would revolt? That was an observation not a threat. Don't put words in my mouth.

This country has always had at its core a principle of independence. To literally ban private property that is owned by millions of law abiding citizens, based on a miniscule percent of these types of firearms being used in crime will create serious problems.

If you want to get serious about the dialogue then maybe people should be consistent in their logic. If you want to ban AR15s because a tiny % are used to commit criminal acts, then maybe they should ban Islam in this country because a tiny % of muslims committed crimes. Sounds extreme, but it is the same exact logic.

I concur.

originally posted by: intrptr

Which begs the question, what other agenda are mass murders being perped for?

I'll admit, I let my mind wander in conspiracy theory land for a few. I was thinking, this shooting virtually guarantees a Trump presidency. It's odd that it appears this guy was a homophobe, and at the last second he decided to call 911 and pledge allegiance to ISIS? Does this not seem weird to anyone else? (Note: I am not a Trump or Clinton supporter)

He had access to government facilities, possibly, at one point, but he didn't strike against the evil US government. Instead, even according to his father (which could be lies, I don't know), seeing 2 guys kiss is what set him off. I realize ISIS has a serious issue with gay people, but to me this all seems a bit ... off. The ISIS affiliation almost seems like an afterthought.

Of course, mainstream media has basically latched onto the ISIS angle, so I have little faith any other information will be disseminated. Was he just a homophobe who decided, since he was going to die, might as well throw some support over to ISIS? Maybe ISIS has nothing to do with this at all. Something we'll never know, because I doubt the public will ever be allowed to know all the details. Even the information coming across major media, sometimes it's just wrong (gotta love the constant corrections from media these days because they report on details before verification), and ultimately how will we ever know if what is reported are the real facts?

a reply to: Kryties

Who cares what Australia does ?

I don't.

Guess what ?

Columbine happened during the height of Clinton's unconstitutional 'ban'.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

If there's on thing I agree with when it comes to the NRA is that the gun violence problem in America, is a mental health issue mostly.

Tenth.

There is no such thing as 'gun' violence.

People are violent.

That is why we have laws that tells us to be nice to others.

Even though they get ignored.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Kryties
We still have access to guns, we just need a license and to pass strict checks.

I have a license and had to pass a background check.

Yes,Yes !

You need a license from the STATE to practice your RIGHT.

Then after proving your innocence to the STATE. You might be able to practice your RIGHT.

You only get to buy what the STATE says you get to.

That's a great victory for civil liberties!

Frankly I believe the rise in mass shootings to be a psyop to scare the US population into accepting draconian gun control. Our Government kills people indiscriminately every single day, but Joe and Jill America shouldn't be able to defend themselves against our Government . . . . . It's not like that's the reason the second amendment is the right to bear arms. Sarcasm

a reply to: neo96

Took over 3 months to get that license too.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: redempsh

We also need bans and high taxes on pressure cookers and suicide vests.

Don't forget background checks to buy them.

$200 tax stamps.

And waiting 6 months to make them quieter!

YES WE NEED THAT!

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: neo96

Took over 3 months to get that license too.

Absolute bull snip IMO.

A right is suppose to be a right.

a reply to: neo96

The town of Montclair, which is one over from me, actually told my friend they were out of permits for the year.

I gave him another friend's number who is a civil rights attorney. They magically produced a form for him the next day.

originally posted by: Melen


You're being flippant.

Actually, it was sarcasm. I was definitely trying to be sarcastic.

No, banning any gun will not fix the problem. Maybe it'll slow things down enough for us to get a handle on the problem?

That was the terminology that Trump used for banning muslim intrants into the USA---temporarily, to slow things down enouigh to get a handle.

I don't believe our customs service has any clue as to what to look for when dealing with entrants to the USA. Likewise our federals have no idea, or won't admit an idea of, what to look for when dealing with who has access to guns.

Rather then going back and forth and getting pissed off at each other, I will ask: What is your suggestion to start addressing the issue of hatred that seems to be the root cause of all these murders?

I think there are only 3 possibilities that we have come up with so far:
A) try to outlaw hate
B) Thought control to change how people think
C) Give the government the power to deny some or all people access to guns.

C), which is the topic of this thread, is problematic because the establishment has decided that the answer is to ban all guns, for "the little people." There would be exceptions for the police (because no member of the police has ever misused a gun), and exceptions for the security guards who protect the establishment and their children.

Mateen worked for a security company that contracts for the DHS; so he conceiveably would have had the right to law enforcement-grade weapons, even in a gun-ban, due to his work transferring prisoners who were detained for entering the US illegally.

Personally, I think the cheapest method would be armed guards for the neighborhood or the bar specifically.

In addition to an insanely high crime rate, the US also has the lowest ratio of active-duty police to civilians of any Western nation---1 in 376. Compare that with France at 366 (another recent target of terror).

or these:

Netherlands: 328
Scotland: 326
Germany 296
Ireland 261
UK: 227
Canada: 202
Australia: 217

The one exception for the west I found was... Belgium, with one officer for every 421 residents. Of course, belgium just suffered a massive terror attack....

America has way more guns than everyone else. we also have way fewer cops than most other nations who are otherwise similar to us.

I suspect it is easier to commit mass attrocities (with either pipe or gun) in locations with comparatively few police.

It wouldn't require ARMED police be increased either. Some countries have young people who don't serve in the military, to serve in a sort of police auxillary. They don't carry guns, but they help direct traffic around traffic accidents, help secure crime scenes, deal with drunks, and foot patrol in high density areas, acting as eyes and ears for the armed police.

So yeah, that would help reduce ALL crime, not merely the shooting sprees. And it would help young people develop more respect for the police, if working alongside them was a cultural norm. And it wouldn't cause nearly the expense and societal chaos of a gun confiscation.

So, yeah... that's my suggestion.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Such a dumb idea. There are so many assault weapons out there that aren't registered that this won't do any good. If someone wants to get an assault weapon bad enough they can find one illegally.

I have no idea how to buy a gun illegally. Seriously.

I think you have to already be a criminal, and pretty low in life, running around with established criminals who have illegal guns to find illegal guns.

People act like you can just go to the "bazaar" in Aladdin and pick up illegal guns. Yeah no, we don't have open air black market gun stalls lining the back alleys of our cities.

a reply to: redempsh

Outlaw hate?

How do you "outlaw hate" and still claim to have a free society?

BTW, liked your answers.

a reply to: redempsh

Well thought out response, thank you. It's hard to find any counter argument. My only concern is we keep giving up our rights, our autonomy, our privacy as we wrestle with all of this, but in the end it never really seems to help.

originally posted by: neo96
Who cares what Australia does ?

I don't.

Amen.

If Australia found a set of gun laws that work for them, I'm happy for them. That's great and I have no issue with that.

That being said, this isn't Australia. The cultural attitudes toward firearms, the usage by law-abiding owners, types of popular firearms, number of firearms in circulation, the types of firearm-related crime...they're all significantly different. Hell, we can't get on the same page on a regional basis WITHIN the US, and some think another country's laws are the solution? Not likely, to say the least.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I have no idea how to buy a gun illegally. Seriously

It's rather easy actually.

All it takes is being a drug cartel or a terrorist over in the middle east and the people that tells us we shouldn't have them will give them to you for free, among other things they have deemed 'too dangerous' in our hands.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

She didnt get the votes is the thing. Fraud in state after state..

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen

So a terrorist attacks American people, and the first ###ing thing she wants to do, is disarm American people.

#### you, Hillary.

Bitch.

that's a lie....she never said she wanted to "disarm all Americans"....but, just keep making up crap to get your point across.

a reply to: Kryties

I think that that the Hilary/Obama bashers and Trump supporters are ignoring that post

UGH. Whoever advised Clinton that this was a smart move must be on Donald Trump's payroll. Read the f'n poll results you morons — there is no popular support among Americans for a reinstatement of the AWB.

Poll: Support for assault weapons ban drops to lowest level in 20 years

For the first time in more than 20 years, support for a ban on assault weapons dipped below 50 percent. Just 45 percent of those polled in an ABC News/Washington Post survey out Wednesday, support a ban — the lowest number in more than two decades. Fifty-three percent are opposed to such a ban, the largest plurality yet.

It'll never pass Congress because it shouldn't. Banning certain guns because of what they look like has got to be one of the most irrational positions imaginable. Restricting access to firearms will not stop a lone wolf terror attack any more than banning pressure cookers. Any potential slight inconvenience it may pose to a would be mass murderer is far far far outweighed by the infringement on personal liberties.

I was really hoping she'd abandon "gun control" as a part of her platform going into the general election but it looks like she's determined to shoot herself in the foot.

It doesn't make sense ideologically, it doesn't make sense pragmatically and it doesn't even make sense politically.