Schumer Announces Gun Legislation Inspired by Tucson Shooting, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

Topic started on 24-2-2011 @ 03:47 PM by filosophia

www.dnainfo.com...

This looks a day old but I didn't see it posted up here. The trial is not even over yet and they are urging legislation as a result of the Tucson, shooting. We should at least wait for the trial to be over before declaring new legislation.

reply posted on 24-2-2011 @ 03:51 PM by Helig

That is probably the most sensible legislation I've heard proposed in a while, while it may be rushed its at least decent and not the knee-jerk crap I was expected as soon as the story broke in the news. Hopefully this is the extent of the laws that will result of this tragedy, but I know better than to expect such things out of Congress.

reply posted on 24-2-2011 @ 03:57 PM by Open_Minded Skeptic

reply to post by filosophia

About par for the course, I guess, that they make a big deal about "closing the gun show loophole"... didn't what's his name buy his at a local Tucson sporting goods store?

The proposals would also force all gun buyers to pass a background check, even if they make their purchases at gun shows, which are currently exempt.

And the phrase that always shows up:

"These common sense reforms would help us protect innocent citizens

Source

If they want to push for this, that is a discussion we can and should have, but to try to take advantage of the Tucson event, which would not have been affected by these changes, near as I can tell, smacks a bit of opportunism.

Imagine my surprise.

reply posted on 24-2-2011 @ 03:58 PM by mydarkpassenger

reply to post by filosophia

Schumer is a piece of crap. I expected nothing better from that lousey bum.

EDIT: starred and flagged, thanks.

edit on 24-2-2011 by mydarkpassenger because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 24-2-2011 @ 04:00 PM by CosmicCitizen

Dont we already have legislation on the books to prevent the insane (and criminals) from being able to go out and buy a gun? (rhetorical ?....of course we do). What we need is not more laws but enforcement of existing laws.

reply posted on 24-2-2011 @ 04:11 PM by Whereweheaded

"These common sense reforms would help us protect innocent citizens without taking away any rights from law-abiding gun owners," Read more: www.dnainfo.com...

Sure they would protect us, or would they? Giving more information about the Law abiding citizens background, more so than we already do, handing that info over to the Feds? Yeah, that sounds really logical?

Bloomberg, a long-time advocate against illegal guns

This above goes to show this guys ignorance! There is no such thing as an " illegal " gun? Is he suggesting a fully automatic weapon? Um...yo jerk face, guess what?...you have to obtain a class III license for that one, thus suggesting " not illegal "?

Last month, the mayor unveiled video footage of undercover agents easily purchasing guns at an Arizona gun show after telling sellers that they likely would not have been able to pass a background check had they been required to.

Um...can you say entrapment? Would appear, that embracing the 2nd Amendment right isn't on his agenda? But infringing on the purchasers ability to do so would be?

"If we’ve learned anything in the past two months it’s that we have to do a better job of making sure people who are not supposed to have guns don’t have them,

Does this dumb * SNIP * not know that guns are inanimate objects? They only respond to the hands of the beholder?

"Those who cannot responsibly own a gun shouldn’t have access to a gun. It’s that simple," he said.

Since when did the 2nd Amendment right decide who gets access to a weapon or not?

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.

What part of " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" does he not get? So this guys means to tell me, that due to the acts of one lone, crazed guy, that all the other citizens should be held accountable as well?

"It’s not bad politics to save people’s lives," Bloomberg said.

Sure it is, increasing the background information of a user, only to have it handed over to the Oh so honest and dear USG is not my idea of freedom, much less liberty.

reply posted on 24-2-2011 @ 04:15 PM by Aliensdoexist

Originally posted by filosophia
www.dnainfo.com...

This looks a day old but I didn't see it posted up here. The trial is not even over yet and they are urging legislation as a result of the Tucson, shooting. We should at least wait for the trial to be over before declaring new legislation.

Yeah I'm with you on that lets wait till the trial is over. I'm a gun owner and so laws that infringe on our 2nd Amendment Rights are always a touchy subject. I do agree that something more should be done to insure that people that shouldn't own a gun cannot get one, but any new laws on gun control needs to be real specific and not something that covers a broad spectrum and basically anyone could be found guilty. If they say any mental illness they need to specify which types of mental illnesses because there are literally hundreds of different mental illnesses that people have that doesn't make them wanna go out and shoot up a whole town (example: someone with "Obsessive Compulsive Disorder", its a mental illness that can be anything from washing your hands exactly 100 times a day to having to take an even amount of steps everywhere you walk because you fear odd numbers). Illnesses like that should not be in that mix its usually just some phobia like fear of spiders that gets more extreme as time goes on but is harmless to everyone, heck if you fear spiders then you also have a mental illness therefore should not own a firearm, you see it just needs to be specific.

Heck you can be a Police Officer and have Obsessive Compulsive Dissorder and thats ok but you cannot buy your own personal gun, but its ok for your department to provide you with one and protect and serve the population with that gun while your on duty. This is why any law that passes must be specific on what mental illnesses are to be enforced.

reply posted on 24-2-2011 @ 04:19 PM by Alucard666

imo we dont need more gun laws we need the ones already have enforced but thats just me

reply posted on 24-2-2011 @ 04:39 PM by 46ACE

Originally posted by Aliensdoexist

Originally posted by filosophia
www.dnainfo.com...

This looks a day old but I didn't see it posted up here. The trial is not even over yet and they are urging legislation as a result of the Tucson, shooting. We should at least wait for the trial to be over before declaring new legislation.

Yeah I'm with you on that lets wait till the trial is over. I'm a gun owner and so laws that infringe on our 2nd Amendment Rights are always a touchy subject. I do agree that something more should be done to insure that people that shouldn't own a gun cannot get one, but any new laws on gun control needs to be real specific and not something that covers a broad spectrum and basically anyone could be found guilty. If they say any mental illness they need to specify which types of mental illnesses because there are literally hundreds of different mental illnesses that people have that doesn't make them wanna go out and shoot up a whole town (example: someone with "Obsessive Compulsive Disorder", its a mental illness that can be anything from washing your hands exactly 100 times a day to having to take an even amount of steps everywhere you walk because you fear odd numbers). Illnesses like that should not be in that mix its usually just some phobia like fear of spiders that gets more extreme as time goes on but is harmless to everyone, heck if you fear spiders then you also have a mental illness therefore should not own a firearm, you see it just needs to be specific.

Heck you can be a Police Officer and have Obsessive Compulsive Dissorder and thats ok but you cannot buy your own personal gun, but its ok for your department to provide you with one and protect and serve the population with that gun while your on duty. This is why any law that passes must be specific on what mental illnesses are to be enforced.

I'll put money on it "conservativism or clinging to "old world values like:"nationalism", will be called a mental illness by Maxine Waters,Barbara Boxer and Pelosi theunions and the communists soon enough ( if it fits their purposes)

edit on 24-2-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 24-2-2011 @ 04:47 PM by filosophia

The second amendment is very clear that all people have a right to own guns. So if someone is convicted of a crime they are now not allowed to protect themselves? So many people are overcome by fear and can not trust that freedom and liberty works better than bureaucracy and legislation.

reply posted on 24-2-2011 @ 06:49 PM by LordBaskettIV

Gun shows around my parts have been doing "background checks" for years.....so what, you can still make a person to person sale that doesn't require a check or any form of record keeping. Where is the outrage over the "citizen to citizen" loop hole. Lol.

reply posted on 24-2-2011 @ 11:27 PM by kinda kurious

Originally posted by filosophia
The second amendment is very clear that all people have a right to own guns. So if someone is convicted of a crime they are now not allowed to protect themselves?

Nice job.

You were able to contradict yourself in only two sentences. Might be a new ATS record.

You often forfeit your "rights" when you break the law and convicted of a crime. Key word convicted as in guilty Period. Using your logic a person convicted of DUI should be allowed to drive. Sorry pal. Law don't work like that.

You pay for committing a crime and if that means forfeiting "right" to bear arms so be it. Good law.

edit on 24-2-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 25-2-2011 @ 10:02 AM by LordBaskettIV

Committing a crime does not forfeit ones rights "forever", only during imprisonment. If someone can't own a weapon, then why should they be let out of jail/prison in the first place? Also, the right to protect oneself is inborn, not given or mandated by anyone voted into power. Your view sounds as if no one can be normal ever again once they commit a crime, and if thats true, why don't we kill all criminals as they cannot be trusted or change.

If someone can afford a weapon, and is not currently in jail, then by all means go out and buy one.
Strangly, we still allow felons without "gun rights" to buy knives, crossbows, bows, swords, spears,ect. Are those not just as dangerous in the hands of someone willing to use them?

reply posted on 25-2-2011 @ 10:12 AM by thisguyrighthere

Reply to post by LordBaskettIV

That's a very important concept.

You're out of jail your time has been served. If we are supposed to have faith in our justice system then once released the individual has paid his debt and is now back into the fold of society.

But see we don't have any faith in the system. Even the system doesn't have faith in itself. Which is why we get this lifelong felon concept. After release, after probation, you're still just a crook.

So why hasn't the system changed in all these decades? If we can't trust these individuals upon release why are they being released?

It's just easier to live with the lie than it is to face it and fix it.

They'll never say at sentencing "we know this is bull and you're just going to come out more violent than when you went in and there's no rehabilitation or justice to be found here but we're going to go ahead and follow through on our own stupidity regardless" but that's the reality of it and anyone with half a brain knows it.

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Pages: ^^TOP^^