Biden - Nothing would have stopped the violence but we're attacking gun owners anyway

If you look at every one of the tragic events that have attracted so much attention, it’s hard to be able to pinpoint what you would have done to assure it wouldn’t have happened. But there’s also things we know, we know, that there’s certain actions we take that have diminished the extent of the gun violence that otherwise would be occurring in the United States. There’s an emerging set of recommendations, not coming from me, but coming from the groups we’ve met with, and I’m gonna focus on the ones that relate primarily to gun ownership, what types of weapons can be owned.

CBS

Great. A hellstorm of hot stupid air is about to strip liberties away from millions of people.

Patriot Act 2.0. Stupid, intrusive, expensive, harmful, accomplishes nothing.

Hmm. Not sure what to make of this:

...Among those possible proposals include universal background checks, restrictions on high-capacity magazines, and increased federal capabilities for effectively researching gun violence.

I can only assume that it means beefed-up federal domestic-spying measures. I truly fail to understand how the feds would currently have less capability to research gun violence than the public at large has. It's not hard. I mean, you have to be able to read at a 5th-grade level and do basic math....

I am still not concerned that our 2nd amendment right is under attack. Seems to me that this entire stage show is just a way for the politicians, and the WH, to appear like they are doing something about gun violence. It's just a show.

When I see bills hit the floors of congress or executive orders being signed......then I will be pissed. Until then, I will sit back and let everyone knee-jerk their way through this issue.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

If you look at every one of the tragic events that have attracted so much attention, it’s hard to be able to pinpoint what you would have done to assure it wouldn’t have happened. But there’s also things we know, we know, that there’s certain actions we take that have diminished the extent of the gun violence that otherwise would be occurring in the United States. There’s an emerging set of recommendations, not coming from me, but coming from the groups we’ve met with, and I’m gonna focus on the ones that relate primarily to gun ownership, what types of weapons can be owned.

CBS

Great. A hellstorm of hot stupid air is about to strip liberties away from millions of people.

Patriot Act 2.0. Stupid, intrusive, expensive, harmful, accomplishes nothing.

Well its like I said in a thread posted yesterday.....hes going to make it look like his plan is comming from the voices he hears. This type of old dog and pony "summit" and then come out of the smoke like the new pope with all the right answers.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


The only two remaining amendments, to the bill of rights, are #2 and #10.

#2 is being destroyed here and now.
#10 will be destroyed as stated legalize recreational drug use.

People will give up their guns before they consider cancelling their cable TV and entertainment internet; which ironically is what has them in this stupor to begin with.

At the end of the day we have to ask "What are we fighting for?". This nation is already fat and dumb.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


wow something intelligent coming from the gun debate. all hope is not lost.

reply to post by SecludedGamer


www.abovetopsecret.com... Or this post, America will do nothing.

increased federal capabilities for effectively researching gun violence.

Sounds like some think tank is about to get a lot of money. Smoke and mirrors.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Our country has always had a problem with these issues. My very first memory as a child was about what Charles Whitman did, and all I could think was how could something so horrible happen in our own country.

I think there is one step that could be taken that would greatly reduce these problems, I don't know if anything could eliminate them. Not that its when the problem started, but I feel it could have been a turning point. Back when Regan was California govenor, he worked very hard at closing down as many mental facilities as he could. His success in this continued into his presidency and he closed many more.

Regan had this idea that mental hospitals were a waste of tax payers money, and they didn't really serve a purpose. Apparently he was so successful at closing them down that a cry for help was eventually heard to stop doing so, as the crime rate had rocketed out of control.

Oddly enough Regan died with his own mental illness of Alzheimers.

What this country needs is many more mental facilities reopened up and used. There are to many sick people walking around that aren't getting the proper attention. Sometimes we see them act out, as in these shootings. If these people had the right help, none of these would happen. The help needs to be available before anything can get better, and thats the bottom line. Our country could even randomly test people for mental illness, and when a risky person is found, they could research to see if they have access to guns, thus stopping the problem before it starts.

reply to post by itsthetooth


I agree for the most part, except the random mental illness testing. Who would set the standards? If our government did, then we are all in trouble. How many normal, healthy people such as the majority here on these forums would be locked up for political dissent, never to be heard from again?

Assume the position.

It's whipping boy time. Someone commits a crime, someone else pays the price. Unless it's some line of fire position.

We're going to have to re-brand everything in self-defense, because using guns against this kind of attack on freedom, well, it's sort of immoral. I mean, people voted these guys in. People are NIMBY about it, not in their back yard, with anti-tyranny, but if some guy all the way over there does it, it takes some time for the shock to set in.

Why do politicians have to react? The gun pathogen ran its course, people got sick and died by the gun virus. Why must we punish the guns? My gun didn't hurt anybody; I never hurt anybody. Why do I have to be screwed for this?

I will give a real story though, of what happened to me once: my brother shot me with a BB gun, and it hurt me. My dad destroyed his BB gun, by bashing it against a tree. My brother cried; he got what he deserved. And then brother got calloused and grew up to be a gun nut who committed crimes of having an automatic weapon in the wrong state, lost his rights, but still he has illegal guns.

Meanwhile, I have a gun, I never pointed it at anybody, I kept it in self defense. Using it meaning mostly like, pointing it at attackers (like kidnappers), not exactly firing it, except in an emergency. That's the way good gun owners hope events play out, that there are no shots. But I'm at risk of losing my freedom for weaponizing myself because of the history of mental illness, which was mostly, you can guess, from being victimized by cruel people with guns. Where is that equalizing weapon for me here?

Why would I have to pay for someone else's deviance? The gun is there so I don't have to pay for it!

Just the offender's gun is what I'd prefer. Where is the respect for the respectable? That whole innocent before being proven guilty thing is important. I hate the rights segregating that seems to be looming on the horizon.