Temporary ban on magazine capacity over 10 rounds and long-barrel semi-automatic weapons

[gr8indoorsman]

In light of the recent mass killing in Orlando, I'd like to hear people's thoughts on requiring all gun owners to temporarily exchange their 30 round magazines for 10 round magazines, and then turn in their long barrel semi-automatic weapons to the government until we can get a handle on mass shootings.

President Obama could legally do this, and it would only be temporary until all the shootings stop.

Interested to hear people's thoughts.

 

[IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW1]

In light of the recent mass killing in Orlando, I'd like to hear people's thoughts on requiring all gun owners to temporarily exchange their 30 round magazines for 10 round magazines, and then turn in their long barrel semi-automatic weapons to the government until we can get a handle on mass shootings.

President Obama could legally do this, and it would only be temporary until all the shootings stop.

Interested to hear people's thoughts.

It would be great for all the drug dealers that got 50 cals from Obama through fast and furious and all the clandestine mafia organizations to terrorize America. They'd have fully automatic weapons and grenades. Americans would have 10 clip reloads while Americans get run over. Very nice rule. Lets give more advantage to Orlando shooters. I mean Hillary Clinton blocked the FBI investigation. The guy was trained by the CIA through the security company. Lets give them more of an advantage.

 

[kescwi]

In light of the recent mass killing in Orlando, I'd like to hear people's thoughts on requiring all gun owners to temporarily exchange their 30 round magazines for 10 round magazines, and then turn in their long barrel semi-automatic weapons to the government until we can get a handle on mass shootings.

President Obama could legally do this, and it would only be temporary until all the shootings stop.

Interested to hear people's thoughts.

I don't know if the first response was poetic or a sad example of the my side v your side noise created today that stops actual conversation.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I don't know if the first response was poetic or a sad example of the my side v your side noise created today that stops actual conversation.

I just want someone to explain to me why this is wrong, but a "temporary ban on Muslim immigration" is right...

 

[ecouch]

In light of the recent mass killing in Orlando, I'd like to hear people's thoughts on requiring all gun owners to temporarily exchange their 30 round magazines for 10 round magazines, and then turn in their long barrel semi-automatic weapons to the government until we can get a handle on mass shootings.

President Obama could legally do this, and it would only be temporary until all the shootings stop.

Interested to hear people's thoughts.

I don't even troll this hard.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I don't even troll this hard.

Yeah, no one does, but Bruce1 said he would answer if I started a thread about it. I'm waiting.

 

[ecouch]

Yeah, no one does, but Bruce1 said he would answer if I started a thread about it. I'm waiting.

What is the hit rate of trained police officers and trained swat teams across the nation?

What percentage of hits are recorded in a lethal force situation? Bear in mind we are talking target contact. No regard to lethality. Finger, toe, ear lobe, a graze..target contact.

 

[kescwi]

I just want someone to explain to me why this is wrong, but a "temporary ban on Muslim immigration" is right...

As you know, they can't, they won't. You'll get rhetoric and deflection, you're right re the hypocrisy, but it comes from deep in their beliefs and most just can't see it.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

What is the hit rate of trained police officers and trained swat teams across the nation?

What percentage of hits are recorded in a lethal force situation? Bear in mind we are talking target contact. No regard to lethality. Finger, toe, ear lobe, a graze..target contact.

I don't know the statistics. If you're talking about how would a lower round magazine affect that, I can give you plenty of information on that. The bottom line is the more frequently you force someone to reload and disengage a moving target, the fewer accurate projectiles they're able to get downrange in a certain amount of time. This is true no matter the proficiency of the shooter, but would obviously affect an untrained shooter more than a SEAL operator.

 

[ecouch]

As you know, they can't, they won't. You'll get rhetoric and deflection, you're right re the hypocrisy, but it comes from deep in their beliefs and most just can't see it.

Why did NATO adopt 5.56?

 

[kescwi]

Why did NATO adopt 5.56?

I don't know, is the answer in Genesis, Deuteronomy, somewhere in between?

 

[ecouch]

I don't know, is the answer in Genesis, Deuteronomy, somewhere in between?

No, the answer isn't fictional. It is factual.

 

[ecouch]

I don't know the statistics. If you're talking about how would a lower round magazine affect that, I can give you plenty of information on that. The bottom line is the more frequently you force someone to reload and disengage a moving target, the fewer accurate projectiles they're able to get downrange in a certain amount of time. This is true no matter the proficiency of the shooter, but would obviously affect an untrained shooter more than a SEAL operator.

80%

 

[gr8indoorsman]

80%

I wouldn't doubt that number in most lethal force situations, which are close range, weapon up, no reload or reengaging necessary. I doubt that 80% of the shots fired in Orlando hit their target, and in tactical, moving target situations such as the Orlando shooter, there is no way the hit rate was anywhere near 80%.

 

[IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW1]

The answer is to give the government all the weapons and disarm the population so that any military force in the world can occupy the United States and exterminate the population. Let the government have all the guns and see where that gets yah. Because I got some news for you, a government willing to terrorize its population to get those guns is a government willing to exterminate its population. There is no other reason they are being this aggressive. The UN has given them an order and a time table, believe it. And foreign royalty wants Americans in the camps.

 

[Purdue97]

In light of the recent mass killing in Orlando, I'd like to hear people's thoughts on requiring all gun owners to temporarily exchange their 30 round magazines for 10 round magazines, and then turn in their long barrel semi-automatic weapons to the government until we can get a handle on mass shootings.

President Obama could legally do this, and it would only be temporary until all the shootings stop.

Interested to hear people's thoughts.

How could he legally do this? Think it starts a Civil War. I do not see that happening with a temporary ban on Muslim's entering a country. I am still not sure on this, and I know it would be argued, but is banning any one group from immigration really unconstitutional? I did not think Constitutional Rights applied to prespective immigrants-but not sure. Pretty sure Carter did it.

And when I hear that people think that 30 round magazines are the issue, I just realize how ignorant they are in terms of guns/magazines. One literally presses a button, the magazine falls out, and one puts new one in. Can always use the tape method as well. Takes all of two seconds. (I will say I do not see the need for 30 round magazines. I can count the times I needed that on both hands)

Asking someone to turn in their long barrel semi-automatic weapon would include a lot of hunting rifles and shotguns. They are all capable of same thing.

Anyway, for the record, do not have an issue with immigration. I do think that that prespective immigrants should be vetted. I also think we are to the point where immigrants that come need to be able to support themselves instead of 1)Having a certain political party buy votes 2) More people burden an already taxed system

 

[MJ-79Boiler]

This is a VERY complicated issue, as I am sure everyone knows. While I have always been a strong NRA proponent, etc.. even though I do NOT own a gun myself, it appears that some changes are now needed.

1.) The SALE of ASSAULT weapons and large clips need to be temporarily banned (except between family members) to keep these individuals from getting easy access to them. Should we ask current gun owners to turn in existing assault weapons? No ! If I lived in southern Texas, as an example, and had to worry about repeated break-ins and gangs, I would want a weapon like this to protect my family. (especially at night when it could be you with average shooting skills versus a group) - just stop the NEW sales for awhile and see if it makes a difference. The current ownership provides a deterrent against future govt. over-reach.

2.) If . . . this doesn't help, more metal detectors are going to be needed to prevent people from bringing weapons into MAJOR gathering areas along with a bullet proof door which doesn't unlock until you pass the metal detection step and possibly a few weapons. (by security or owners) Corporations already have such access to their facilities

- maybe someone could build a small room (4x4 or 4 x 8) for the metal detection step, so if you have a gun you are immediately TRAPPED. (ie you walk in and the rear door locks, next door unlocks only when you pass the test)

3.) I NEVER believe Americans will give up their existing guns. It just won't happen ! The 2nd amendment is sacred.

 

[Bruce1]

I think a better plan than what I have read in these posts are as follows

1. Integrate databases across the country to form a national database
2 include no fly lists and terrorist lists.
3. Include people with a history of mental illness. This is very difficult to do given Hippa laws, definitions of mental health, etc but something has to be done to done to include this information. If nothing else a doctors statement...something.
4. Extend the waiting periods for all guns to 30 days or,longer to allow for adequate background checks.
5. People on a terrorist list, no fly list, or other high risk status will have.a 90 day waiting period. Provide an appeal process for anyone refuses an ownership permit.
6. Implement penalties for illegal gun ownership.

Other thoughts not completely thought out

1. Require the completion of a recognized training program prior to getting a gun license. This would be similar to a drivers license.
2. All guns should be tracked like a car with title, registration, etc. transfer must be authorized, documented, and recorded.
3. Anyone convicted of a felony would have permits revoked and guns confiscated

 

[MJ-79Boiler]

I think a better plan than what I have read in these posts are as follows

1. Integrate databases across the country to form a national database
2 include no fly lists and terrorist lists.
3. Include people with a history of mental illness. This is very difficult to do given Hippa laws, definitions of mental health, etc but something has to be done to done to include this information. If nothing else a doctors statement...something.
4. Extend the waiting periods for all guns to 30 days or,longer to allow for adequate background checks.
5. People on a terrorist list, no fly list, or other high risk status will have.a 90 day waiting period. Provide an appeal process for anyone refuses an ownership permit.
6. Implement penalties for illegal gun ownership.

Other thoughts not completely thought out

1. Require the completion of a recognized training program prior to getting a gun license. This would be similar to a drivers license.
2. All guns should be tracked like a car with title, registration, etc. transfer must be authorized, documented, and recorded.
3. Anyone convicted of a felony would have permits revoked and guns confiscated

For the most part, I believe your response is very thorough and reasoned. However, I would make 2 points:

1. Mental Illness, as you highlight, will be a very difficult thing to define and implement without triggering extensive numbers of lawsuits and another wave of gun purchases before the laws are changed. You not only need to get into HIPPA, confidentialities, and significant differences, but whatever outcome is generated will change behaviors. For example, what are you going to do on vets with PTSD ? (do you want people going to their doors are trying to forcibly take their guns?), Are you really going to stop people with bouts of depression from trying to protect their families? What about people who developed mental illness because THEY were abused in some way (raped, attacked, etc..) and they want and NEED protection to feel safe again? The phrase two wrongs don't make a right comes to mind. As for behaviors, . . your answers to these questions will influence future behavior, possibly negatively. If people know their hunting rights are going to be affected, they won't seek treatment when they need to, etc.. for fear of losing their guns. People with depression won't seek help to control it.

Many going through treatment were VICTIMS and will see this blanket decision as another ATTACK against them. (ie If you want to take EVERYONE's guns, so be it, but don't limit my ability to prevent a future attack against me) Bottom line: To those that have no mental illness in their family, I am sure this sounds like a very easy decision to make, but . . .it's not.

In theory, tracking guns sounds great, but do you really think those possessing guns will allow that to happen? No way ! They will hide them, bury them and DEFEND the taking of them. My fear is that too aggressive a stance will shift more people towards a radical/supremacist gun-toting leaning hell bent on depending their rights to the death - look what's happening already with Trump. (which is worse - going for overkill on guns and triggering a greater growth in these groups or preventing a reasonably small number of attacks? ) something to consider.

My guess is that the changes will have to be gradual. Start with those that have criminal records or those with severe mental illness (those who have been hospitalized, have attacked others, etc..)

The last issue with some of your suggestions is the RESOURCES needed to implement them - Similar to illegal immigration. Which is a higher priority - trying to take people's gun rights away that haven't violated any laws or pursuing those who have? (illegal immigration, violent offenders, those who are bigger threats) The answer sends a VERY powerful message to people, whether they want to pursue mental health help and can just drive one more wedge into the American fabric.

 

[MJ-79Boiler]

sorry, . .guess I rambled way past a few points, but . . it's quite complicated

 

[Bruce1]

For the most part, I believe your response is very thorough and reasoned. However, I would make 2 points:

1. Mental Illness, as you highlight, will be a very difficult thing to define and implement without triggering extensive numbers of lawsuits and another wave of gun purchases before the laws are changed. You not only need to get into HIPPA, confidentialities, and significant differences, but whatever outcome is generated will change behaviors. For example, what are you going to do on vets with PTSD ? (do you want people going to their doors are trying to forcibly take their guns?), Are you really going to stop people with bouts of depression from trying to protect their families? What about people who developed mental illness because THEY were abused in some way (raped, attacked, etc..) and they want and NEED protection to feel safe again? The phrase two wrongs don't make a right comes to mind. As for behaviors, . . your answers to these questions will influence future behavior, possibly negatively. If people know their hunting rights are going to be affected, they won't seek treatment when they need to, etc.. for fear of losing their guns. People with depression won't seek help to control it.

Many going through treatment were VICTIMS and will see this blanket decision as another ATTACK against them. (ie If you want to take EVERYONE's guns, so be it, but don't limit my ability to prevent a future attack against me) Bottom line: To those that have no mental illness in their family, I am sure this sounds like a very easy decision to make, but . . .it's not.

In theory, tracking guns sounds great, but do you really think those possessing guns will allow that to happen? No way ! They will hide them, bury them and DEFEND the taking of them. My fear is that too aggressive a stance will shift more people towards a radical/supremacist gun-toting leaning hell bent on depending their rights to the death - look what's happening already with Trump. (which is worse - going for overkill on guns and triggering a greater growth in these groups or preventing a reasonably small number of attacks? ) something to consider.

My guess is that the changes will have to be gradual. Start with those that have criminal records or those with severe mental illness (those who have been hospitalized, have attacked others, etc..)

The last issue with some of your suggestions is the RESOURCES needed to implement them - Similar to illegal immigration. Which is a higher priority - trying to take people's gun rights away that haven't violated any laws or pursuing those who have? (illegal immigration, violent offenders, those who are bigger threats) The answer sends a VERY powerful message to people, whether they want to pursue mental health help and can just drive one more wedge into the American fabric.

I agree with you. I should have thought about how to grandfather the existing people. One approach would be to make is a law that existing gun owner register their guns and either give them 5 yrs, or something, to do it or make the penalties minor like a speeding ticket or something. My ideas would spark a lot of pushback of course but I think it is worth it. Of course the slippery slope is once controls like this begin they have a tendency to grow rapidly.

 

[Bruce1]

Yeah, no one does, but Bruce1 said he would answer if I started a thread about it. I'm waiting.

Where you at GR?

 

[Bruce1]

Where you at GR?

Bump. For someone who is so outspoken you are silent on this post that you started and challenges for a response. How about some discussion?

 

[qazplm]

Bump. For someone who is so outspoken you are silent on this post that you started and challenges for a response. How about some discussion?

He has a day job ya know. I spent last week at a military conference on the opposite coast with little to no internet. So howsabout you simmer down a bit?

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I think a better plan than what I have read in these posts are as follows

1. Integrate databases across the country to form a national database
2 include no fly lists and terrorist lists.
3. Include people with a history of mental illness. This is very difficult to do given Hippa laws, definitions of mental health, etc but something has to be done to done to include this information. If nothing else a doctors statement...something.
4. Extend the waiting periods for all guns to 30 days or,longer to allow for adequate background checks.
5. People on a terrorist list, no fly list, or other high risk status will have.a 90 day waiting period. Provide an appeal process for anyone refuses an ownership permit.
6. Implement penalties for illegal gun ownership.

Other thoughts not completely thought out

1. Require the completion of a recognized training program prior to getting a gun license. This would be similar to a drivers license.
2. All guns should be tracked like a car with title, registration, etc. transfer must be authorized, documented, and recorded.
3. Anyone convicted of a felony would have permits revoked and guns confiscated

Cool your britches dude, I have a job and a life that make it so I don't always post here every day, week, month...

So "no" to a temporary ban while we implement all these things? Because the point of this thread was not to push a temporary ban, but instead to get your opinion on whether it was Constitutional or not. Anyway, that was pretty clearly trolling as pointed out above.

FWIW, I agree with 1. You'd have to define "terrorist" lists for me because I'm not sure I want every single person on the watch lists' rights removed, and anyone already on the actual "wanted for terrorism list" this already applies to. 3. I don't think is feasible. 4. Maybe, but time is rarely the limiting factor. 5. same as 2. 6. We have these already, don't we?

Others:

1. Already required in some states, which makes me wonder how this is allowed (like in CA) but a voter ID isn't because it's racist.
2. Already the case in some states.
3. This is already true for most states and is actually federal law.

The thing about all this stuff is that gun rights advocates always say, "_________ happened in a state with the most restrictive gun laws, so gun laws don't work!" The tough spot gun control advocates are put in is proving that laws will work better than the ones already in place. Some of the laws being pushed at the Federal level are already in place in CA, but didn't prevent the Santa Monica shooting nor San Bernardino.

Personally, I am in favor of federal mag limits and restrictions on long barrel semi-auto mags as well. Basically, anything that limits the rate at which accurate projectiles can be put downrange makes sense to me.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

On another note, nothing is more frustrating than seeing a bunch of my liberal FB friends posting the voting records from ONE of the four votes on gun control yesterday, and Warren spouting off about "Selling guns to ISIS." While I generally agree that the Democratic proposals would be more up my alley than the Republican proposals were, it's just pure intellectual laziness for people to not understand that all four votes failed, and Democrats didn't cross party lines to pass something yesterday either, and it would've taken less of them to do it.

We're all just playing "team politics" and it pisses me off.

 

[Bruce1]

Cool your britches dude, I have a job and a life that make it so I don't always post here every day, week, month...

So "no" to a temporary ban while we implement all these things? Because the point of this thread was not to push a temporary ban, but instead to get your opinion on whether it was Constitutional or not. Anyway, that was pretty clearly trolling as pointed out above.

FWIW, I agree with 1. You'd have to define "terrorist" lists for me because I'm not sure I want every single person on the watch lists' rights removed, and anyone already on the actual "wanted for terrorism list" this already applies to. 3. I don't think is feasible. 4. Maybe, but time is rarely the limiting factor. 5. same as 2. 6. We have these already, don't we?

Others:

1. Already required in some states, which makes me wonder how this is allowed (like in CA) but a voter ID isn't because it's racist.
2. Already the case in some states.
3. This is already true for most states and is actually federal law.

The thing about all this stuff is that gun rights advocates always say, "_________ happened in a state with the most restrictive gun laws, so gun laws don't work!" The tough spot gun control advocates are put in is proving that laws will work better than the ones already in place. Some of the laws being pushed at the Federal level are already in place in CA, but didn't prevent the Santa Monica shooting nor San Bernardino.

Personally, I am in favor of federal mag limits and restrictions on long barrel semi-auto mags as well. Basically, anything that limits the rate at which accurate projectiles can be put downrange makes sense to me.

I think it is a very slippery slopes to ban certain weapons. in any case there are enough ak 47's in the world that could find their way here so I don't think gun bans would be effective. I think significant regulations could make a big difference. I would go after much tougher regulations and In addition, I would go after getting illegal guns off the street. Laws to give law enforcement more leeway are much more palatable to most. Infringing on the rights of criminals make more since than tampering with the rights of many law abiding citizens.

 

[qazplm]

On another note, nothing is more frustrating than seeing a bunch of my liberal FB friends posting the voting records from ONE of the four votes on gun control yesterday, and Warren spouting off about "Selling guns to ISIS." While I generally agree that the Democratic proposals would be more up my alley than the Republican proposals were, it's just pure intellectual laziness for people to not understand that all four votes failed, and Democrats didn't cross party lines to pass something yesterday either, and it would've taken less of them to do it.

We're all just playing "team politics" and it pisses me off.

Well, one of the two republican proposals included defunding sanctuary cities so it wasn't a clean bill. That's the definition of playing politics. The second republican proposal would have done nothing...all it would have done is "provide additional funding for prosecuting felons and fugitives who fail background checks, as well as criminalize straw purchasing and gun trafficking"

That's not remotely solving the problem and doesn't even qualify as "something." So, you have two "clean" bills from Dems, one bill loaded with a poison pill provision by republicans, and one bill by republicans that did literally nothing.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Well, one of the two republican proposals included defunding sanctuary cities so it wasn't a clean bill. That's the definition of playing politics. The second republican proposal would have done nothing...all it would have done is "provide additional funding for prosecuting felons and fugitives who fail background checks, as well as criminalize straw purchasing and gun trafficking"

That's not remotely solving the problem and doesn't even qualify as "something." So, you have two "clean" bills from Dems, one bill loaded with a poison pill provision by republicans, and one bill by republicans that did literally nothing.

One of the "clean" bills eliminated due process for thousands, which is the whole reason we wanted to close Gitmo, right? Goes. Both. Ways.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I think it is a very slippery slopes to ban certain weapons. in any case there are enough ak 47's in the world that could find their way here so I don't think gun bans would be effective.

That's basically the same thing the gun lobby says.

 

[qazplm]

One of the "clean" bills eliminated due process for thousands, which is the whole reason we wanted to close Gitmo, right? Goes. Both. Ways.

I'm simply responding to your both sides are equally wrong claim because the Dems could have voted for the republican bills and "something" would have been done.

I don't necessarily agree that "due process was eliminated for thousands" but one of the two bills provided both for review of being on the do not buy list AND paying of attorney's fees if someone was wrongfully put on that list...and it STILL failed.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I'm simply responding to your both sides are equally wrong claim because the Dems could have voted for the republican bills and "something" would have been done.

I don't necessarily agree that "due process was eliminated for thousands" but one of the two bills provided both for review of being on the do not buy list AND paying of attorney's fees if someone was wrongfully put on that list...and it STILL failed.

There's no price tag for the indignity of being wrongly accused IMO, but it doesn't matter. I'm hoping the Senate (at least) passes the fifth bill that seems more reasonable than any of the other four.

 

[qazplm]

There's no price tag for the indignity of being wrongly accused IMO, but it doesn't matter. I'm hoping the Senate (at least) passes the fifth bill that seems more reasonable than any of the other four.

Even if something passes the Senate, can't see how it passes the House.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Even if something passes the Senate, can't see how it passes the House.

Yeah, snowball's chance in hell.

 

[IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW1]

You mean this ban on weapons?

Or is it this ban on weapons?

 

[BoilerMadness]

On another note, nothing is more frustrating than seeing a bunch of my liberal FB friends posting the voting records from ONE of the four votes on gun control yesterday, and Warren spouting off about "Selling guns to ISIS." While I generally agree that the Democratic proposals would be more up my alley than the Republican proposals were, it's just pure intellectual laziness for people to not understand that all four votes failed, and Democrats didn't cross party lines to pass something yesterday either, and it would've taken less of them to do it.

We're all just playing "team politics" and it pisses me off.

If the Dems really wanted to pass the gun control laws that they are constantly yammering about and the immigration reform, that they beat the Republicans over the head with, why didn't they do it when they had the supermajority during Obama's first two years? Obviously, they really don't want to do anything to fix these perceived problems, they just want to keep the issues, so they can use them for fund raising. Follow the money...

There are plenty of laws on the books regarding gun control and immigration control. Enforcement on both has been spotty at best, with the latter getting virtually no enforcement under the current administration.

Chicago has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country and one of the highest gun related death rates, as well. Hmmm, perhaps actually enforcing the existing laws might save some lives, but the cops are reluctant to enter some of the war zones in the city. Since most of the guns involved in these shootings are illegally obtained, how will a new gun law change anything?

 

[BoilerMadness]

There's no price tag for the indignity of being wrongly accused IMO, but it doesn't matter. I'm hoping the Senate (at least) passes the fifth bill that seems more reasonable than any of the other four.

Yup, that's the solution. We've got about 20K gun control laws on the books now, so this one will be the magic bullet that will make all gun violence stop. If it weren't for those damn guns, murder wouldn't exist.

If you listened to the Dems after the Orlando shooting, few, if any, talked about fighting Islamic terrorism. Their agenda was all about gun control. The funniest was Juan Williams, who said, that the Orlando shooting was a hate crime against gays. When he was asked about the shooter's references to ISIS, he said it was just his cover story, but the shooting was all about him hating gays. It must have been self loathing then, because several of the gays said that they had had affairs with the guy in the past. Yup, that Islamic Terrorism stuff is all a myth. These Droids aren't the ones you're looking for. Move on.

Oh well, as Rahm Immanuel said, "Never let a crisis go to waste."

 

[TheCainer]

If the Dems really wanted to pass the gun control laws that they are constantly yammering about and the immigration reform, that they beat the Republicans over the head with, why didn't they do it when they had the supermajority during Obama's first two years? Obviously, they really don't want to do anything to fix these perceived problems, they just want to keep the issues, so they can use them for fund raising. Follow the money...

There are plenty of laws on the books regarding gun control and immigration control. Enforcement on both has been spotty at best, with the latter getting virtually no enforcement under the current administration.

Chicago has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country and one of the highest gun related death rates, as well. Hmmm, perhaps actually enforcing the existing laws might save some lives, but the cops are reluctant to enter some of the war zones in the city. Since most of the guns involved in these shootings are illegally obtained, how will a new gun law change anything?

I'm sure you meant well but once again "your side" messed up. The so-called supermajority that you, and others on here, keep blaming President Obama for not doing anything "meaningful" is factually wrong, especially given the obstructive pledge your party's members took on the night of Obama's first innauguration. I never see you guys mention that though. I wonder why? Besides, if he had done anything with his "supermajority" as you claim, your side would have cried that it was rammed down your throat.

I think this may be about the sixth time I have posted this link. Hopefully it will work THIS TIME to debunk the RW's continual false narrative. smh

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-m-granholm/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869.html

 

[qazplm]

If the Dems really wanted to pass the gun control laws that they are constantly yammering about and the immigration reform, that they beat the Republicans over the head with, why didn't they do it when they had the supermajority during Obama's first two years? Obviously, they really don't want to do anything to fix these perceived problems, they just want to keep the issues, so they can use them for fund raising. Follow the money...

There are plenty of laws on the books regarding gun control and immigration control. Enforcement on both has been spotty at best, with the latter getting virtually no enforcement under the current administration.

Chicago has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country and one of the highest gun related death rates, as well. Hmmm, perhaps actually enforcing the existing laws might save some lives, but the cops are reluctant to enter some of the war zones in the city. Since most of the guns involved in these shootings are illegally obtained, how will a new gun law change anything?

so you were in favor of "ramming Obamacare down our throats" then, yes?

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

I'm sure you meant well but once again "your side" messed up. The so-called supermajority that you, and others on here, keep blaming President Obama for not doing anything "meaningful" is factually wrong, especially given the obstructive pledge your party's members took on the night of Obama's first innauguration. I never see you guys mention that though. I wonder why? Besides, if he had done anything with his "supermajority" as you claim, your side would have cried that it was rammed down your throat.

I think this may be about the sixth time I have posted this link. Hopefully it will work THIS TIME to debunk the RW's continual false narrative. smh

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-m-granholm/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869.html

Maybe no one believes it because it omits that from july 09-feb 10 they did have 60. I mean how did obamacare get passed? Oh ya, they did have a super majority!!!