Gun nuts are going to lose this one.

[onehandle]

It's becoming more apparent that this had little to do with international terrorism and more about the easy availability of guns, the power of modern guns and ammunition, and mostly about the paid off shitstains in Government, the gun industry, and gun culture, all of which will not allow for even the possibility of sensible gun regulations.

[beachbum bob]

1. the real fight should center on reasonable background checks

and keeping weapons out of the hands of those who present a clear and present danger to others

[Duckhunter935]

2. He passed several reasonable

Background checks

[Demsrule86]

71. No he didn't

The fact he beat his wife and was on the FBI's radar and went to Saudi Arabia...should have made it impossible to get a gun. And AR - 15 need to be banned period...all automatic need to be banned...as do some kinds of ammo.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

77. Anyone who is guilty of a misdemeanor domestic violence charge is ineligible.

[Demsrule86]

103. Not true.

we need real gun registration. If this guy got a gun then the system failed.

[X_Digger]

109. It actually is true. Someone subject to a protective order for harrassment of a partner, or..

... under indictment for domestic violence, or convicted of domestic violence-- will not pass the NICS check that this shooter did.

The fact that there were never any charges levied, nor a protective order sworn out-- means that there was no due process means of disqualifying him from passing a background check.

You know, that pesky clause in the 14th amendment? 'nor deprived of liberty..' and all that.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

111. It is true, it's called the Lautenburg Amendment and registration wouldn't have stopped Mateen.

He had a special permit associated with his employment. He basically had the same level of credentials as the police and he was a graduate of the academy. The company he worked for is contracted by DHC itself to guard nuclear facilities.

Not that registration deters or interdicts dead-enders. If they're determined to die or be captured -- and they all are -- then they do not care if their weapons are recovered and traced back to the point of purchase.

[jmg257]

78. He didn't use an AR-15 and it wasn't an automatic.

NOT nit-picking, just getting the info correct so we really know what we are angry about.

[jmg257]

86. Yes - as many "assault weapons" are - semi-auto versions of military assault rifles.

Which makes this a bit confusing:

"And AR - 15 need to be banned period...all automatic need to be banned."

[Demsrule86]

104. My bad

Let's ban all assault style weapons then...no one needs them. Just as lethal...fifty people dead.

"On Monday night, officials clarified that the rifle Omar Mateen used in the shooting was not an AR-15, but a Sig Sauer MCX rifle.

While aesthetically similar to and just as lethal as an AR-15, the MCX is internally a different beast, thus all but removing it from the AR-15 family of rifles. Yet while the weapon is different, the MCX and the AR-15 share the same design purpose: providing a highly portable, customizable, easy to operate and accurate rifle for the individual who possesses it."

[jmg257]

106. No worries. Targeting "assault weapons" is understandable, which both the AR and MCX (and AK) are.

"Large capacity mags" too are usually included in AWBs.

Trick is defining them accurately (or make sure they are all included in any proposed ban), and of course the law being found constitutional.

[davidn3600]

100. He wasn't even charged with a crime!

Yes, he beat his ex-wife. Guess what...she never reported it!
The state had no idea it even happened until she told the media just hours after the shooting.

[scscholar]

101. DV and the terrorism shoudl have...

made him ineligible for the privilege of owning one of those things, but Bernie has long stood up against reasonable restrictions.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

113. There was no DV charge or conviction

and he wasn't on any terrorist watch list.

On what grounds would you have denied him the weapon?

[uponit7771]

7. +1, The shop owner was lamenting on how ridiculous our gun laws are where a cop couldn't

... get a gun under certain circumstances.

[DashOneBravo]

80. He's a retired NYPD dude

Lot of them feel they are a special class. I believe there is a Federal Law now for current / retired LEO to carry a weapon. I'm not sure

[jmg257]

87. I think federal laws would be tough - but just about every state control law has exemptions for LE

and retired LE, though even those have been tightened a bit in some cases.

[cali]

3. I don't think so. Nate Cohn had a piece in today's NYT

about it. I think he's far more astute and informed than you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/upshot/why-gun-control-probably-gives-donald-trump-an-edge.html

[yallerdawg]

28. You're proposing Hillary should not take a principled stand...

on enacting reasonable, common-sense gun regulation because it hurts her politically with a portion of Democrats.

That a majority of Democrats, and in some cases a majority of Americans, should have no one campaigning on gun control.

Because it isn't "astute and informed."

Can Hillary do anything that you would be compelled to acknowledge as a positive attribute of a decent human being - or is that just too much?

[cali]

35. I'm proposing no such thing.

I damn well do think she should be doing just as she is doing with pushing gun control.

I'm suggesting that it isn't astute to assume that we'll win this battle.

You read into my post something I never said or hinted. And I have defended and praised Hillary when I think it appropriate. I've also posted positive stories about her that I thought her supporters might enjoy.

It's obviously way too fucking much for YOU to not make shit up.

Puke.

[secondwind]

44. over 90% of Americans want better background checks

[Indydem]

48. Great!

Let's get those before we start grabbing guns!

Let's start by mandating that people who are investigated for terrorism are added to a do-not-buy list by a judge.

[HoustonDave]

64. Investigation

And if they are cleared by the FBI? That is the problem with that suggestion in this situation - he was cleared. Or are you advocating that anyone investigated for any reason, no matter how groundless, should forever go on a list? How Himmlerian...

[Indydem]

94. No. Not at all.

I think the best bet solution to these kinds of things is that a list is created where questionable individuals are added to a list by a judge for a definite period of time. If the individual appeals with good reason, they can be removed. If they show more signs of instability, their stay on the list is extended.

The key is the judge. The terrorist watch list is arbitrary, constructed with no authority and no regard for civil liberties. A judge isn't perfect, but it's something to try to protect rights.

[lostnfound]

102. Those who support gun ownership need to propose sensible controls

As it is, the loudest voice among gun owners is the NRA, and I've seen nothing sensible from them.

[pablo_marmol]

51. Agreed.

Though by the time November rolls around, this may be a non-issue. Problem is, gun owners have very long memories. If Hillary really steps in it, it still could cost her.

[Calista241]

4. I disagree. You can't go 5 minutes on any news station without hearing about ISIS.

It's clear he picked his target based on the fucked up ISIS ideology.

Yes, a gun was his weapon of choice, but he had special certifications that would have allowed him to buy a weapon no matter what additional regulations were put in place.

[Orrex]

8. Your assessment seems to exlude a vital element of the shooter's personality

It's looking more and more like ISIS was a convenient scapegoat to mask his true motives, so it's not exactly "clear he picked his target based on the fucked up ISIS ideology."


But you're otherwise correct: the media has decided to play this as a case of another Muslim radicalized by ISIS, so that's the story we'll continue to hear regardless of other considerations.

[jack_krass]

107. "another Muslim radicalized by ISIS"

Is this not the case?

[BeyondGeography]

9. It's clear he used ISIS as a front for his own unhappiness

And it's also clear Americans will be duped into thinking otherwise. Even some here.

[Cosmocat]

47. it just was the final element

for him to justify what he was going to do ...

[reign88]

88. I think the majority of people

who join ISIS are using it as a front for their own unhappiness.

That doesn't take away from the fact that it gives them an outlet in which to express that rage and find support. ISIS and radicalized Islam is definitely an issue to be dealt with, the last religion left to exit the dark ages.

Here's hoping in the age of enlightenment it evolves, and quickly. When stoning to death, beheading, and locking women in prison for being raped are accepted as part of an ideology in today's world, something is broken.

[BeyondGeography]

89. I think that's right, but this incident was different

The killer used ISIS to add an element to his real motives that may not have been present at all, or was at best secondary. Called the authorities three times during the incident just to make sure they got the message...

[pintobean]

5. Just like Sandy Hook?

[Orrex]

6. Following all gun crimes, the first response is to defend the guns at any cost

And if that means 30K sacrificed annually on the altar of gun worship, then so be it.
What possible alternative could there be? Not facing 30K annual gun deaths? Preposterous!

[loyalsister]

55. Worst argument I have come across

"But that's only a tiny percent of the population"
It's not enough to justify "trampling" on the right of all USAers to prepare themselves to efficiently kill other people.

It's a narcissistic demand that consistently ignores the suffering of the people who lose loved ones and the fear these shootings inspire.

[ileus]

10. Only here are we willing to over look the terrorist watchlist, and FBI report.

Have we abandoned the whole "how can he get a gun if he's on the terrorist watch list" argument?

Now we're down to "well he was just an angry gay guy, let's ban guns"

[BeyondGeography]

11. There has been plenty of such discussion here

complete with the usual people screaming about losing their Constitutional rights if they're on a secret goverrnment list .

I'm not seeing a resolution.

[Ikonoklast]

62. You know who also liked secret lists? Joe McCarthy. He loved putting names on lists.

And ruined lives in the process.


People who have no problem with secret government lists are all fine with them.

Until *their* name shows up on one.

[BeyondGeography]

76. Et voilà!

Of course, McCarthy didn't set up a process to get yourself off the list if you were there in error, but who cares about such nuances? Anything to protect your sacred gun shopping rights.

[Ikonoklast]

96. Did you know Obama unilaterally suspended remediation for getting off of some lists?

A few months back, by executive order. Just ordered the ATF to stop remediation.

If your name is on that list, your rights are forfeit with no due process or hearing.


Would you want Trump to have the same power?

Because sooner or later, a Republican administration will be making the lists.

[BeyondGeography]

97. Ooooh, "some" lists...I know that's a biggie for gun shoppers

most of whom probably don't even know how much of this shit they already own.

People who think their private unfettered rights to purchase murderous shit they don't even need matter more than any possible public good make this country suck.

Walk with pride.

[friendly_iconoclast]

98. A desire to engage in moral posturing isn't sufficient reason to set aside the Constitution

[Ikonoklast]

99. You have no answer but an Ad Hominen.

Do you want a Republican president to have the power to put your name on a list curtailing your rights with no recourse, Yes or No?



Because the next guy might find your free speech troublesome to domestic order.

[LynneSin]

14. And he was a wife beater too

Let's make sure those guys are armed too!

[HockeyMom]

24. As with George Zimmerman,

it is unfortunate that these women never pressed Domestic Violence charges. Bye, bye, legally owned guns, if convicted of that.

[deaniac21]

50. It's illegal for anyone charged with domestic violence

to own a gun.

[PoliticAverse]

74. A mere charge isn't sufficient. There has to be a conviction or a restraining order.

See: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons

[ManiacJoe]

92. Unforunately, in his case there was no follow through.

[IronLionZion]

12. That's great but wishful thinking

media coverage can't help themselves with the islamic/foreigner angle. Even though it's increasingly apparent to normal people that the person was a mentally ill and unhappy American, to racists he was a muslim foreigner and that is the problem they they will like to solve through discrimination in hiring.

[LynneSin]

13. But he wasn't a foreigner

He was born in the USA. Yes his parents were from Afghanistan but they immigrated here back in the 80s.

[IronLionZion]

15. So is President Obama

that doesn't stop people who believe that Americans are white and other colors are foreigners.

I've had many people including liberals tell me that being a US citizen born in America doesn't make me any less of an immigrant.

People are racist and it makes life simpler for them to think in the us vs them mentality.

[greymattermom]

25. Those must be the same folks

who believe that white people can't be the minority.

[IronLionZion]

43. Make America Great Again!

there's a reason why hate groups endorsed Trump and his supporters are so hateful.

[Dustlawyer]

16. I will keep saying this, the only way we can stop the gun Lobby, and all the other Lobby's is

to fight for and achieve Publicly Funded Elections! As long as we allow the to legally bribe our politicians we will lose!

The root cause of this and many other intransigent problems is to eliminate the reason why the will of the people gets thwarted. They buy our so called "Representatives" to do their bidding. It is not freakin rocket science!

You really want to get sensible gun control, universal health care, good public schools, repair infrastructure, make sure big corporations and the wealthy pay taxes at all, much less their fair share, we need to have Publicly Funded Elections!

[oberliner]

17. They are digging in

They've already established the "radical Islamic terrorist" idea. Whatever information that comes out in the coming days will not get those folks off their belief, since it is what they want to believe. That this was ISIS - and that more ISIS attacks are coming and that ISIS must be stopped. Very 1984.

[Cryptoad]

18. It takes a a Federal Law to ,,,

control firearms. State Laws will not do! We already have a Federal Law in place, the Firearm Act of 1934. It has proved to be very effective controlling military automatic weapons and all we have to do is amend it so to include all guns.

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. They're triumphalist shitbags

They own the government. Not a one of them can be taken seriously so long as the NRA blocks research on gun violence, but they will crow away anyway. Fuck them to a one.

[aikoaiko]

20. Says the person who describes a 7-round pistol as a weapon of mass destruction in his sigline

You've been wrong about gun control predictions for the last 11 years.

[friendly_iconoclast]

91. They made essentially the same prediction (which obviously didn't happen) 3 1/2 years ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022155570#post3

Nothing is going to stop gun control from advancing. Not this time. nt

Only difference is, this time they got 56 marks overly credulous people
to fall for it..

[B Calm]

21. I'll go with history and predict even more guns will be sold in the next few months.

[seabeckind]

22. Yep. Fear is good for the gun business.

The manufacturers will probably open a new factory to satisfy the demand.

[Bettie]

26. On another board I used to frequent

was a woman who owns a gun shop. After Sandy Hook, she was really excited because it meant a lot of special orders and extra business.

She was in ecstasy over the amount of profit she'd be making due to the deaths of all those little kids. I imagine she's similarly giddy over this, actually, even more so as she's one of those "teh gays are sinners" type of people.

But, I learned something from her. When there is a mass killing, some people actually do rush out to buy more guns of the type that was used and a whole lot of ammunition.

Was going to poke my head into that board and see if she's crowing about yet another massacre, but I can't bring myself to do it.

There will be no action. Actually, that is wrong, state legislatures all over the country will be falling all over themselves to loosen regulations, to ensure that it is easier for people to get weapons that can kill as many people in a few minutes as possible.

[Crunchy Frog]

36. We're living in a very, very sick society.

I don't see that changing for the better in my lifetime.

[Cosmocat]

45. this is in fact the case

the owner of the gun shop where this asshole got his weapons is reporting that he would sell maybe six or so of these a day, and since this happened has sold up to a dozen an hour ...

One of my HS graduates posted after this that he has given in and he and his wife are now talking about purchasing and carrying.

A couple dozen responses, the only one not masturbating to guns was mine, that I do not own or carry and likely never will.

This country if full on fucking stupid.

[Just reading posts]

52. Safe bet.

[PoliticAverse]

73. If you want to make something more popular, threaten to ban sales of it. n/t

[treestar]

23. It's like they adapted terrorist attacks to

fit the easiest way to do it in our country.

No more need to hijack planes. No need to build bombs. You want to do a terrorist attack, all you have to do is get a gun, which is plenty easy to do.

[seabeckind]

29. Don't forget the take credit part.

Give the fearful something more to fear and no more expense than a telephone call.

[Just reading posts]

27. Not as long as Republicans control Congress. No meaningful legislation will pass this year.

[seabeckind]

31. Your first sentence wasn't needed. n/t

[humbled_opinion]

37. What meaningful legislation would have

stopped this? The man went through a background check to get his WMD"s, so universal background checks wouldn't have stopped it... the point I am making is when we ask for minor changes the wingnuts call us out with a logic statement that says you really don't want what your asking for because in no way would it stop the acts that happened, what you really want is gun confiscation and the end of the second amendment, it's hard to fight...

[Just reading posts]

41. Nothing that would have the slightest chance of being passed.

Oh, people can talk about banning all semiautomatics and/or handguns all they like. It's not going to happen.

Period.

The only thing that might pass in the next few years is universal background checks and/or a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, and then only if Democrats control both the Congress and White House at the same time. And even then there would still be the tens of millions of weapons and hundreds of millions (perhaps more) of magazines already in circulation. It's not as if they're going to be confiscated.

These weapons are here to stay.

[Lizzie Poppet]

49. Universal background checks are a good possibility.

I've been happy to see them take root in several states (I worked on the campaign here in Oregon), but a federal-level rule would be better. Not that they're a panacea; it should go without saying that career criminals (and wannabees) will ignore the provision. But it could be an inhibiting factor for spree killers, although the best reform in this specific gun control area would be adding to the number of disqualifying conditions and expanding the data available to the NICS database used to conduct the checks.

Banning paramilitary semi-automatics would be security theater, basically. As you say, there are tens of millions of these weapons already in circulation. A "ban" that isn't obeyed is actually worse than useless (it erects a barrier between the gun owner and law enforcement that wasn't previously there). Keeping them out of the wrong hands is the real key, for all that it's a difficult thing to do.

[PoliticAverse]

72. And in this specific case the shooter apparently passed the background checks. n/t

[Lizzie Poppet]

75. He did.

And that frustrates me, since he'd apparently been showing the sort of signs that point to a blow-up. Multiple co-workers and his employer mentioned something. There were domestic violence incidents (although nothing that would have triggered the Lautenberg amendment's provision to make him ineligible to receive a firearm...I'm assuming no conviction?). And so forth... Yet the current system is such that none of this was able to flag him in the NICS database as ineligible. This is an area ripe for reform.

[RantinRavin]

90. My understanding is that nothing was reported to authorities

so there would be no way for anything to show up in the database.

[MillennialDem]

30. Is this April Fools Day? You think they give a shit about the countless innocents slaughtered

by their special toys?

[bullwinkle428]

32. No. If Sandy Hook wasn't a tipping point, then a tipping point does not exist.

[MillennialDem]

34. Gun show.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

83. Precisely right.

[humbled_opinion]

33. Good luck with that

in an election year....The rightwing is loud and proud when it comes to their WMD"s...The debate will go something like this, calls for sensible gun regulations met with the standard, nothing you are asking for would have stopped this massacre so we really know you want a complete ban on guns and confiscation of those in society because that would have stopped this massacre..

I hear it all the time.

[greymattermom]

38. I noticed a little change in the language though

Hillary is describing them as weapons of war. She should also call the automatic machine guns "weapons of mass destruction". Let's see the Republicans be for weapons of mass destruction hidden everywhere in the good old USA. Because that's what we have.

[Just reading posts]

42. He didn't use an automatic machine gun, it was an ordinary semiautomatic rifle.

[pablo_marmol]

57. Oh damn.......now you've done it.

Introducing truth into the conversation.

[Just reading posts]

59. Good heavens....what was I thinking?

[Cosmocat]

46. Knowing democrats don't have the guts to really call it for what it is

but, if they were to really go on the offensive, get in line with everyone saying the NRA is guilty of arming home grown terrorists ...

[ManiacJoe]

93. Unfortunately, such nonsense just makes her look

like an idiot. She knows better and yet does it anyway.

[leftyladyfrommo]

39. I wish.

But the gun nuts aren't going to care about a bunch of gay guys. No big loss.

I hate what this country is becoming.

[RoccoR5955]

40. Don't count on it.

The NRA OWNS the Congress and the Senate. They have bought and paid for them lock, stock, and barbell.

[Lil Missy]

53. From your lips to God's ears. n/t

[KPN]

54. You are being overly optimistic.

The wingnuts have run their own Party into the ground over their fallacious beliefs. What makes you think they won't do the same with the whole damned country over guns and the fallacy of "freedom" they so fervently adhere to.

This issue could well be the nation's demise. When people have a deep distrust of government and are armed, it is never a good thing.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

58. I admire your optimism, but I can't help but feel it's another Charlie Brown....

.....trying to kick the football from Lucy type of moment.

After the only apparent response to Sandy Hook which featured 20 dead first graders was that a bunch of sick gun nuts went out to gun shows and gun shops to buy more AR-15s, I've grown increasingly jaded and pessimistic.

[Kablooie]

60. Nope. The NRA specifically fought to sell guns to terrorists and won.

Until we get a Democratic majority in both houses and the Whitehouse and SCOTUS, guns will remain easy to buy for every insane fanatic in the country.

[Captain Stern]

61. I doubt anything happens at all.

It will be out of the news in less than a month.

I don't even think it would be smart for Clinton to make gun control a big part of her platform right now.

Because of this shooting, Trump is going to spit out a bunch of emotional bullshit about fighting ISIS, banning muslims, stopping our enemies, etc. Hillary's counter-argument should not be to make it harder for Americans to get guns. That's a loser.

[sweetapogee]

63. Say it loud...

say it plowed!

[BainsBane]

65. I think the perceived connection between the two

May be the tipping point--if there is one.

[cab67]

66. Far be it for me to call for the elimination of a lucrative industry -

but I honestly think gun shows, where people can buy guns without background check, should be straight-up banned.

[krispos42]

108. That's an incorrect idea you have there

Common, but incorrect.

Gun shows don't sell guns. Vendors at gun shows do. A gun show is essentially a temporary mall for gun vendors.

An analogy is your regular shopping mall... If you buy a pair of socks at "the mall", you're actually buying them from a retailer who had rented space from the mall owner. Westfield didn't sell you socks; their tenant Target did.

Nearly all the gun sellers at a gun show are federally-licenced gun dealers from the area gathering at a single event.

Whether a background check is done depends on the seller, not the geographic or retail location. A federally licensed dealer MUST perform a background check REGARDLESS of geographic location.

Gun show, storefront, parking lot, kitchen table, it doesn't matter.


Now, private sales are more flexible state by state. And private sellers can rent a table at a gun show as well, but it's not common.

[valerief]

67. Men with guns and men who can buy men with guns always seem to win, though. nt

[Logical]

68. We lose votes when we talk about banning guns! End of story. Nt

[TexasBushwhacker]

69. Sadly, I can't say I agree

If 20 slaughtered children at Sandy Hook Elementary didn't change things, 50 victims at a gay bar won't.

[hibbing]

70. Unfortunately, I highly doubt anything will happen n/t

[MuttLikeMe]

79. They didn't budge when their savior St. Ronnie got shot

and that was nineteen eighty fucking one. Over 30 years ago.

You think they care about some young children and some gay people? Hell nah.

[PoliticAverse]

95. That shooting ultimately led to the Brady bill.

Supported by Reagan himself: http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act

[MuttLikeMe]

112. Which ultimately didn't do a damn thing

we still got assault weapons on the streets.

[Amishman]

81. I wonder how many here who demand/expect a sweeping ban live in a city or liberal leaning area.

I live way out in rural PA. There are a huge number of people around me who are extremely opposed to banning anything. No event, argument, or speech will sway them for a second.

The point I am trying to make is for those who keeps saying 'everyone wants this', you might be projecting based on your personal experience and locale. When I lived in DC, I thought America was a lot more progressive because of the same effect.

I've posted this in other threads, but we need to focus all efforts on something obtainable and with real universal appeal. (And an assault weapons ban definitely is not that, we can't even agree on that here on DU). Improve the background check system; with notifications to the FBI, holds/delays based on expanded lists, and improvements for due process. Throw the 'fight the terrorists' card right back in the Pubs face. No one outside the Alex Jones crowd would try to claim that this proposal is a gun grab.

Lets not waste this chance to get something done. Nothing happened after Sandy Hook because all conversations devolved into a shouting match between the two extremes. Lets actually fix something.

[0rganism]

82. pardon me if i don't hold my breath waiting

GOP runs the House. any relevant legislation isn't even going to get out of committee.

meanwhile, i expect the media-propagated response to be something along the lines of how very effectively the club-goers would have been able to defend themselves if only they'd all been carrying. never mind that it was dark or they were drunk and tired or it might be hard to aim at the actual shooter while being jostled by hundreds of people running away in every direction. no, see, if only they'd all been armed everything would be better.

of course firearm sales gonna go through the roof again, because big bad 'bama comin' for yer god-given guns.

[Dem2]

84. They never lose

The only way to defeat them is, well, using a means they can relate to...

[Marengo]

105. Do I detect the advocacy of violence?

[AgadorSparticus]

110. No. They won't. When the heat of this situation cools off, it will go back to the same as before.

This is a hot, sensitive topic for the right. There will be no changes until dems control both the executive and legislative branches. And even then, I don't think it will happen.