Current Affairs The " another shooting in America " thread

[verreauxi]

There will always be movement of purchases either up or down after certain events. I do accept that Democrats are more likely to implement gun control rather than Republicans, they are just inept at doing it and making excuses for their failure just allows the carnage to continue......

Okay, now you really are just on a wind-up. I should have known better.

About two pages back we already went through this: Democrats are not inept, they are out-numbered by NRA-republicans in Congress. Their sensible gun legislation always gets shot down by Republicans.

 

[SteveSC]

They are just facts and not ‘skewed’. He could have taxed the manufacturers, he could have taxed their suppliers, he could have taxed at the point of sale, he could have limited via a myriad of ways the production of the raw materials for making bullets. It’s just a fact that gun manufacturing more than doubled on his shift, having been pretty steady under republicans and other democrats before him. ....

Think you pretty much glossed over the rest of what i said about the President needing the house and congress to pass just about everything.

Do you understand how the US Government works and what powers the president has?

Even if he tried with executive orders they could be overturned too by judicial review.

Either way its not as simple as you make it out to be.

Seen as you are using other past presidents why didn't the guys before him do that? When gun crime and mass shootings were still as apparent and there were just as many as under Obama

 

[peteblue]

You got it backwards. Every time the Dems are in power going back to about the late 80s, the sale of guns go up. This is because Dems want to put better control on gun-availability, so when Obama was elected office, the paranoid narrative is that he will sign legislation to reduce gun availability (which, of course, the Republicans block every time) and thus sales go way up. This is the same reason that gun sales are way way down since Trump and why Remington arms just went out of business: gun owners know Trump and the Republicans won't do jack-sh_t to limit gun availability.

It is the fear of gun control legislation that drives up the sale of guns.

That’s fine, but manufacturing didn’t just increase as before, it doubled, it continued to climb throughout his presidency with absolutely no chance of additional gun control. Why do you make excuses for your politicians, they have ALL failed you...

 

[LinekersLegs]

They are just facts and not ‘skewed’. He could have taxed the manufacturers, he could have taxed their suppliers, he could have taxed at the point of sale, he could have limited via a myriad of ways the production of the raw materials for making bullets. It’s just a fact that gun manufacturing more than double on his shift, having been pretty steady under republicans and other democrats before him. ....

All of which would require 60 votes in the Senate, as far as I know Obama couldn’t implement a single one of those actions as an executive order. Obama could have raised import taxes, as Trump has done on washing machines and solar panels, but know of no way he could have done say the equivalent of raising taxes on booze sales that the UK Chancellor has.

Please expand on “myriad ways” he could impact production as I can’t think of a single one without going through legislation and not even sure that would be possible, not least because any legislation would also have been challenged via the courts as a violation of the 2nd amendment.

 

[ilikecheese]

NRA fear mongering increases the sale of firearms. When the NRA feels threatened gun sales spike. End of discussion.

 

[peteblue]

Okay, now you really are just on a wind-up. I should have known better.

About two pages back we already went through this: Democrats are not inept, they are out-numbered by NRA-republicans in Congress. Their sensible gun legislation always gets shot down by Republicans.

Perhaps the $50Bn+ contribution to the economy has something to do with it......

 

[LinekersLegs]

Okay, now you really are just on a wind-up. I should have known better.

About two pages back we already went through this: Democrats are not inept, they are out-numbered by NRA-republicans in Congress. Their sensible gun legislation always gets shot down by Republicans.

Aye, think I’ll go and do something more productive and enjoyable like bang my head against a wall.

 

[peteblue]

Aye, think I’ll go and do something more productive and enjoyable like bang my head against a wall.

Well, I’m off to the pub then......

 

[peteblue]

Okay, now you really are just on a wind-up. I should have known better.

About two pages back we already went through this: Democrats are not inept, they are out-numbered by NRA-republicans in Congress. Their sensible gun legislation always gets shot down by Republicans.

Nice pun by the way.......

 

[Prevenger17]

I do accept that Democrats are more likely to implement gun control rather than Republicans, they are just inept at doing it and making excuses for their failure just allows the carnage to continue......

The Republican (NRA) controlled congress resist every single attempted measure. If Obama tried to circumvent Congress, you'd be one of the first to cry tyranny

 

[Pettifogger]

All of which would require 60 votes in the Senate, as far as I know Obama couldn’t implement a single one of those actions as an executive order. Obama could have raised import taxes, as Trump has done on washing machines and solar panels, but know of no way he could have done say the equivalent of raising taxes on booze sales that the UK Chancellor has.

Please expand on “myriad ways” he could impact production as I can’t think of a single one without going through legislation and not even sure that would be possible, not least because any legislation would also have been challenged via the courts as a violation of the 2nd amendment.

The truth is that if Democrats felt the American appetite for gun control was present, I think they would have made a genuine push. Isn't that what they should do if they feel it is important? Propose the "sensible" thing and then get to work selling people on it?

As for challenges under the 2nd Amendment, good, that's how it probably should work. Let the government craft something they think will work, and let's hold it up to what is now akin to strict scrutiny in the American appellate courts.

 

[LinekersLegs]

The truth is that if Democrats felt the American appetite for gun control was present, I think they would have made a genuine push. Isn't that what they should do if they feel it is important? Propose the "sensible" thing and then get to work selling people on it?

As for challenges under the 2nd Amendment, good, that's how it probably should work. Let the government craft something they think will work, and let's hold it up to what is now akin to strict scrutiny in the American appellate courts.

I personally thought the 2013 AWB was a genuine push by Democrats and they did try to sell people on it. I don’t think it failed because they didn’t try hard enough, I think it failed because a lot of voters don’t want an assault weapon ban and their representatives knew it. Doesn’t do any good if the entire 35million of Californians want a federal ban if the 600k in Wyoming don’t as both states have 2 senators.

No argument that legislation can and should be challenged in court to see if violates the constitution, was just raising it as a way that even if both the executive and legislative branches of government had agreed to something it didn’t necessarily mean that the judicial branch would as well. Neither Obama nor Trump can waive a wand and make something happen which probably has made both of us happy, just at different times.

 

[Pettifogger]

I personally thought the 2013 AWB was a genuine push by Democrats and they did try to sell people on it. I don’t think it failed because they didn’t try hard enough, I think it failed because a lot of voters don’t want an assault weapon ban and their representatives knew it. Doesn’t do any good if the entire 35million of Californias want a ban if the 600k in Wyoming don’t as both states have 2 senators.

No argument that legislation can and should be challenged in court to see if violates the constitution, was just raising it as a way that even if both the executive and legislative branches of government had agreed to something it didn’t necessarily mean that the judicial branch would as well. Neither Obama nor Trump can waive a wand and make something happen which probably has made both of us happy, just at different times.

Agreed wholeheartedly with the bolded. I'm not really criticizing the Democrats for not trying hard enough, although I think their level of effort is impacted by their beliefs about the public's desire. So far, that public groundswell just doesn't exist, or politicians don't think it does, anyway. I know advocates will point to polling about various gun control measures, but I imagine if you could get a liberal congressional democrat to give you an honest answer on that subject, they'd probably tell you they're not confident it reflects the political reality.

 

[LinekersLegs]

Agreed wholeheartedly with the bolded. I'm not really criticizing the Democrats for not trying hard enough, although I think their level of effort is impacted by their beliefs about the public's desire. So far, that public groundswell just doesn't exist, or politicians don't think it does, anyway. I know advocates will point to polling about various gun control measures, but I imagine if you could get a liberal congressional democrat to give you an honest answer on that subject, they'd probably tell you they're not confident it reflects the political reality.

From what I have seen there is some support for tighter gun procedures, for instance I think the gun violence restraining orders we have here in California might have a chance of passing at federal level after Parkland
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/gun-control-republicans-consider-grvo/

Also seem some supoort for restrictions on magazines.

Just don’t think there is much for banning the base hardware although as I’ve said previously the younger generation may have different views.

 

[Pettifogger]

From what I have seen there is some support for tighter gun procedures, for instance I think the gun violence restraining orders we have here in California might have a chance of passing at federal level after Parkland
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/gun-control-republicans-consider-grvo/

Also seem some supoort for restrictions on magazines.

Just don’t think there is much for banning the base hardware although as I’ve said previously the younger generation may have different views.

I think the GVROs have a lot of initial, kneejerk support. The problem, like the restrictions tied to the TSDB and No Fly List, are in the details. People will, somewhat understandably, lash out at people saying "they're difficult to implement" or "they're subject to abuse" - but they are. I personally think that restrictions of that sort are worth exploring to see if we can't sufficiently identify parameters and make them viable.

GVROs are relatively new, and it's absolutely reasonable for people to have questions about a new state authority to confiscate private property. I think it's reasonable to start with "this is a theme we can all get behind, so then let's move on to concerns about implementation."