Mark Kelly calls for nationwide gun-control campaign
Source: the Hill
October 04, 2015, 09:38 am
Mark Kelly calls for nationwide gun-control campaign
By Alexander Bolton
Mark Kelly, the husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was seriously injured in a mass shooting, is calling on people across the country to pressure Congress for more gun control in the wake of a mass shooting in Oregon.
Kelly, who founded Americans for Responsible Solutions, a group in favor of tighter firearm restrictions, said 40 percent of guns are sold without background checks.
“We have laws that make it easy for domestic abusers and stalkers to get their hands on guns,” he said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
“There’s one basic and pretty simple solution. Members of Congress and elected leaders in state legislatures around the country can certainly do something about it,” he said. “We really need to call up Washington, D.C. [and ask] members of the House and Senate to take action on this issue.”
Kelly said lawmakers in Washington need “to close these loopholes that make it very easy for the mentally ill to get firearms.”.......
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/255866-mark-kelly-calls-for-nationwide-gun-control-campaign
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Kingofalldems
(38,452 posts)trillion
(1,859 posts)that include mental heath in one database. As, well as a limit on how many any gun owner can have - 3 max.
riversedge
(70,200 posts)The top recipients of contributions from the gun rights lobby Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) & Mitch McConnell (R-KY), http://thkpr.gs/3708885
trillion
(1,859 posts)is that stuff happens to his kids directly and then we tell him, stuff happens. That's the only thing I can think about Boehner's gun support. Poetic Justices is stuff happens to the gunnut's kids and not everyone else's too.
riversedge
(70,200 posts)sure that you--or any sane person does not want 'stuff happens' to any kid. Karma or not.
former9thward
(31,987 posts)
sarisataka
(18,627 posts)two other posters have "wished stuff" on children in the last couple days. It was pretty clear what they wished, as it is clear here.
It is called 'moral bankruptcy'.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)to the children of "gunnuts"?
That's pretty fucking warped.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)did you happen to catch any interviews with family members in oregon? its not just the sheriff who is wacko. i heard a mom whose kid was there but uninjured say that taking away guns is not the answer, and maybe the students should have beem armed as well.
gun nuts continue to be gun nuts even if one of their own gets hurt or is close to getting hurt. The only difference is that they think more guns will solve the problem.
sarisataka
(18,627 posts)that they would see children murdered to make a point.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7221303
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027230325#post7
So three wishes for dead children, one suggestion to pry guns from the cold dead hands of the gun owners, a suggestion to have bullets that seek out NRA members (also in this thread)... five calls for murder that I have seen in the last 48 hours.
This is a progressive board? Opposed to violence? Or did I wander onto the wrong site?
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Enable statutory access to nics for anyone who wants to transfer a firearm. Without this step there will be no private intrastate background checks required in most states... ever....
riversedge
(70,200 posts)http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence
994 mass shootings in 1,004 days: this is what America's gun crisis looks like
The Oregon school shooting is evidence that the US response to gun violence ‘has become routine’, Barack Obama says. The data compiled by the crowd-sourced site Mass Shooting Tracker reveals an even more shocking human toll: there is a mass shooting – defined as four or more people shot in one incident – nearly every day
Friday 2 October 2015 16.08 EDT
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)for domestic violence you can't legally possess a firearm, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban
http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1117-restrictions-possession-firearms-individuals-convicted
PADemD
(4,482 posts)It should also be illegal for someone to knowingly allow a mentally ill person to have access to firearms.
former9thward
(31,987 posts)PADemD
(4,482 posts)
freebrew
(1,917 posts)close the loopholes for gun shows and tighten the background checks.
What about the real problem?
Hate radio and idiots like Palin, O'Reelly, Hannity, Limpballs and on and on...
Studies from Europe a few years ago show little correlation between violent gaming and real-life violence. So, it doesn't appear to be games as many predicted.
Hate is being preached in the churches, taxfree.
So, think hard. How many of the perpetrators were liberal or leftists or Democrat?
There is a pattern here. It's obvious to me, at least, that the right-wing is behind this.
Not as a planned conspiracy, I haven't gone there...yet.
But, think of who gains from the violence.
The issue of gun control splits our party.
Who gains in this?
I understand the emotions in this issue.
I also see the reality of the past.
I don't have the answer, prohibition doesn't work it creates a black-market.
It's the hate preachers causing it, they need to go.
All of them.
former9thward
(31,987 posts)He shot students after asking their religion.
freebrew
(1,917 posts)and all these assholes should be treated as such.
So, were his actions politically motivated? Racial?
I think if we honestly start looking at where the hate is coming from, we'll start to find answers to other problems.
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)A coward, no glory just a coward, they're all just cowards really, shooting unarmed persons.
You're right about following where the hate is coming from.
Vinca
(50,269 posts)Any shooter could be stopped after 6 shots if he had to reload the old fashioned way. Of course, that will never happen. After years and years and years of politicians telling us what danger we're in from all corners, half the population is so paranoid they probably should be committed for treatment. In the meantime, they insulate themselves with guns and tell themselves they're safe. Except they aren't, but it's only because the people (including themselves) who have accumulated the 300 million guns in this country are the ones who've made us all unsafe.
Response to Vinca (Reply #11)
Post removed
Vinca
(50,269 posts)To be so naïve and ignorant as to wish America was a country we didn't have to be ashamed of because of the out-of-control gun worship/negligence. Pardon me for not wanting to see any more innocent lives taken.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)WOW!
branford
(4,462 posts)Vinca suggested that "half the population is so paranoid they probably should be committed for treatment," a ridiculous and insulting statement suggesting anyone who supports gun rights is dangerously mentally ill. Indydem then used Vinca's own gratuitous hyperbole and offensiveness as a basis to then suggest, due to this perceived paranoia, that he (or she) might be part of the half of the population that supposedly needs to be committed.
If you choose to be free and loose with accusations of mental illness for political gain, don't be surprised if it then bites you in the rear end.
NickB79
(19,233 posts)Assuming the House and Senate could get a semi-automatic weapon ban and confiscation bill to the President for signing, and the courts upheld it, those surrendering their firearms would be legally entitled to financial compensation. Even the Australian gun confiscation ban in the 1990's paid citizens for their weapons.
If you estimate 100 million semi-automatic firearms in the US, and a compensatory value of $500-$1000, you're looking at $50-$100 billion dollars that needs to be set aside.
Factor in the accompanying high-capacity magazines (likely 1 billion of those in circulation, at $20 per magazine), and you add another $20 billion to that figure.
Vinca
(50,269 posts)in this country than died in that war which was over a decade long. When it's you or your loved one laying on the ground in a puddle of brains and blood, I image the billions will seem like a small price to pay. I do have one idea that would cost almost nothing. License guns in the same way cars are licensed and require liability insurance and training in addition to background checks. If the gun issued to a person turns up at a crime scene, they're liable in addition to whoever perpetrated the crime unless they've reported the weapon as stolen. There should be no more underground market in guns. They should be trackable from the point of manufacture to the sale of the gun to the home of the owner.
NickB79
(19,233 posts)We spent a trillion dollars in large part because of substantial public support (largely misguided) because of 9/11.
And while a school shooting is a horrific event, it doesn't have quite the visceral impact of two towers knocked down and 3,000 people killed in a few hours.
The way I see it, if we can collectively turn a blind eye to 20 kindergartners gunned down at Sandy Hook, there's not much more visceral you can get to motivate the populace to act.
Vinca
(50,269 posts)Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)I'm SO sick of human beings dying to protect the gun rights of stupid, cruel, selfish NRA and 2nd amendment devotees.
One of those people who bought into the NRA line 100% is the Umpqua shooter's mother. Ten people would be alive today if she hadn't become infested with NRA propaganda.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/exclusive-mom-ore-shooter-stockpiled-guns-article-1.2384460
Knowing that it will never change, that as long as there's a US it will be awash in guns and blood, is so very depressing.
mainstreetonce
(4,178 posts)Shows for dangerous weapons, dangerous
branford
(4,462 posts)You're offering a solution in search of a problem.
The fact that you don't like guns is not sufficient constitutional justification for a blanket prohibition of all gun shows, even if such a proposal could ever garner sufficient support in Congress.
-none
(1,884 posts)It is where the crime starts. It is afterwards, using the loophole of an unregistered sale of a gun bought at a gun show, by the unscrupulous that is the problem. It is the unwarranted and false belief that the 2nd amendment allows anyone to possess almost any kind of firearm they wish. That is not what the 2nd Amendment says and not what was meant when it became part of the Bill of Rights. Militias and all that, because of not having or affording a standing army back at the beginning. Well, we have a standing army now. So much so, our army is standing all over the world. It is well past time to update the 2nd Amendment to reflect that.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)used in crimes come from gun shows. I see most are purchased legally through a dealer and background checks performs, at least in these spree murders.
branford
(4,462 posts)How many of firearms used in mass shootings were not originally purchased in a lawful manner with a federally mandated NICS background check?
Moreover, your complaints about Second Amendment interpretation are not particularly relevant in the current debate. Many of the current gun control proposals, including universal background checks, are generally constitutional. These restrictions are not law because they lack popular, and thus Congressional, support for passage. Instead of whining about the purported omnipotence of the NRA or basic constitutional jurisprudence to explain the myriad of gun control failures, it might be time to accept that a great many of your fellow American simply believe you're views are wrong, and those people encompass Republicans, Democrats and independents.
Even if the Second Amendment disappeared tomorrow, there would be an embarrassing lack of support for your idea to nationally prohibit gun shows, particularly if purportedly more popular measures like universal background checks cannot find the vote for passages when the Senate was controlled by Democrats.
Lastly, to the extent that you were unaware, FFL's must perform a background check anywhere they sell firearms, including gun shows. In fact, the laws does not allow non-FFL's to access NICS to perform checks, despite the wishes of many gun rights proponents!
So, to ask again, do you have actual data other than your opinion proving that transfers of firearms at gun shows by non-FFL's where no NICS background checks were performed is actually where "crime starts?"
rockfordfile
(8,702 posts)
IDemo
(16,926 posts)-- surprisingly little population-level evidence supports the notion that individuals diagnosed with mental illness are more likely than anyone else to commit gun crimes. According to Appelbaum, less than 3% to 5% of US crimes involve people with mental illness, and the percentages of crimes that involve guns are lower than the national average for persons not diagnosed with mental illness. Databases that track gun homicides, such as the National Center for Health Statistics, similarly show that fewer than 5% of the 120 000 gun-related killings in the United States between 2001 and 2010 were perpetrated by people diagnosed with mental illness.
former9thward
(31,987 posts)Every one of these mass shootings have been carried out by mental ill people. But it has nothing to do with it, right?....
november3rd
(1,113 posts)Problem with mental illness restriction is that insanity is episodic, temporary.
Somebody can get depressed or psychotic for the first te at any
Point of adulthood.
We need tougher restrictions than just mental illness.
Bloofer
(20 posts)Too much violence too many mass murders
ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)It has been well documented that the majority of US citizens want better gun laws, regulation, and fewer guns.
Why is no one connecting the dots that lead directly from the NRA lobbyists to the pocket of the republican representatives.
To change anything and be meaningful, it has to be voted on in congress.
As long as congressmen are bought by lobbyists they will never vote the will of the people.
They are such a corrupt group it is disgusting.
branford
(4,462 posts)Really?
You must be reading very different polls than me.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-have-no-impact-on-support-for-gun-rights-in-the-us
http://www.gallup.com/poll/179213/six-americans-say-guns-homes-safer.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/179045/less-half-americans-support-stricter-gun-laws.aspx
http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/10/growing-public-support-for-gun-rights/
ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)I would say it depends on the question. See this 2015 poll - when asked regarding background checks, mental illness, and the need for stricter sales etc Americans are clear - Refer to all questions after the first.
Yet the NRA and gun lobby are against ANYTHING.
So yes, Americans want more control and restrictions when it comes to gun safety.
branford
(4,462 posts)More Americans oppose stricter gun laws than support, and the trend is growing opposition and weakening support, with no side have a majority. The CBS poll is certainly better for your side, but about everything else is much worse, particularly the trend lines.
As to opposing people with mental illness from purchasing guns, I'm surprised support wasn't 99+%. However, our current federal and state laws already prohibit people adjudicated a danger to themselves or others from purchasing a firearm, and I've seen no move to change this status quo from gun rights advocates, including the dreaded NRA. Anything more draconian would likely be unconstitutional for due process and related concerns, and no amount of public support overcomes the constitution.
Nevertheless, I agree with you to the extent that the wording of the question (and sometimes timing of the poll) does indeed make a difference in some responses. It's also a good indicator than many people don't have a clue about the current state of gun laws or much knowledge about firearms.
As an aside, I, and likely many other gun rights proponents, would support a UBC law, if gun control advocates would get out of their own way. Stop offering the legislation with non-starters like assault weapon bans and magazine limits, ensure the proposals cannot be used as a national registration list, and for heaven's sake, stop using language to supporters about such legislation being a "good start" or "just the beginning." It also wouldn't hurt to try to actually compromise by offering things gun rights supporters want, such as national concealed carry reciprocity (which received more votes in the Senate than the UBC law).
In any event, majority support for stricter regulation is most certainly not a obvious as you contend, and arguable the opposite. More importantly, much of the opposition is regional which affects support and voting in Congress, and the enthusiasm, dedication and political support of the gun rights side, particularly among one issue voters, far outstrips that of the control side.
Lastly, you complaints about the nefarious and omnipotent powers of the NRA is far more myth than reality.
The NRA has about 5 million members, and there are 80-100 million legal gun owners in the USA. Blaming the NRA, an organization that represents a mere 5-6% of gun owners, for the multitude of gun control failures is little more than an exercise in denial and excuses. Their wealth is also vastly overstated, with the relevant records of the NRA's lobbying arm, the NRA-ILA, generally available. In fact, the two biggest gun rights victories in recent years, the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions, were not the result of the NRA, but rather the Second Amendment Foundation, and they are still the vanguard of most of the current gun rights victories in courts nationwide.
Besides, gun control proponents have ample money for their cause, including a pet billionaire, and numerous celebrities, politicians, photogenic family members of victims, sympathetic media, and organizations willing to advocate their cause. Notably, in the recent Colorado recall elections, Bloomberg and his allies actually outspent the opposition by 6 to 1 and still badly lost. Gun control simply isn't losing because of money.
ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)Leaving polls and the NRA lobby out of the discussion....
I know the USA is the most (or one of the most) violent country's in the world because of our love affair with guns.
We kill each other intentionally or accidentally in excess and with no serious plan to change this.
I will never understand how to tell the good guy from the bad guy if everyone can have a gun, anywhere, anytime, any kind and any amount. Can you explain this to me - and yes, I am completely serious about this.
If I walked into a store, a restaurant, a bar, or a meeting, and I see someone with a gun and they are not wearing a police uniform, I will leave.
Why should it be harder to get a license to drive a car than to own a gun?
What the hell is so awful about a national registration?
Why does anyone need an automatic assault weapon?
Why do we need to tiptoe around gun proponents when they simply say NO to any and every suggested reasonable regulation?
What do gun proponents have to offer in any compromise ???????
branford
(4,462 posts)The USA is not violent because of guns. Firearms do not magically turn people into psychopaths. Violence in American history and culture exists for a variety of complicated reasons, and the solutions are similarly difficult. Pardon the phase, but there's no magic bullet to address this aspect of our country, and even if firearms disappeared tomorrow, we would be no less violent.
I believe this is a great and fair question. First, I would note that historically and in many parts of the country today, seeing a firearm is hardly notable, no less cause for concern. The fear is generally a result of regional and urban vs. rural differences among many Americans.
I would not object to laws restricting open carry, with obvious exceptions for matters like simple transport, hunting and sport. I have no desire to gratuitously cause my fellow citizens any distress (although I personally own no firearms). However, in return I would expect liberalized concealed carry laws under a "shall issue," rather than "may issue," regime.
The trite and simple answer is owning a firearm is a right, and a car, a privilege.
The details and nuances are obviously slightly more complicated. However, be careful what you wish for if a drivers license should be a model for firearms ownership and carrying laws. Currently, felons, the dangerously mentally ill, domestic abusers, etc., are not permitted to own guns, state and local law predominate for regulation, etc. With cars, a near idiot-proof test, and you can drive anywhere in the country. Simply, there are far more hurdles to firearm ownership than you realize.
Registration leads to confiscation. When gun control proponents use countries like Britain and Australia as examples of model firearm regulation, it's entirely unsurprising that gun rights proponents are not about to willing foster incremental gun bans. Moreover, states like New York have recently used such registration lists to actually confiscate weapons, ostensibly because the targets suffered mental illness Unfortunately, the lists were wrong, and innocent gun owners were humiliated and needed to spend thousands on legal fees to correct the government's mistakes. Unsurprisingly, this does not build confidence. The lists have also proven to be mostly useless. Canada had a long gun registry that was so expensive and useless that they decided to repeal much of the legislation.
Constitutional rights are not restricted by "need."
Note that the total amount of crime committed by ALL rifles is tiny, the bans normally target cosmetic and other features that do not affect lethality, and this invented class of guns is not more or less dangerous than anything else. AWB are usually little more than solutions looking for a problem, and amount to bans on "scary looking guns."
Most importantly, the research of the DOJ and Obama's NIJ found that the 194 AWB, and AWB's generally, to have no measurable effect on crime or anything else.
Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf
Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies
https://archive.org/stream/NijGunPolicyMemo/nij-gun-policy-memo_djvu.txt
What do gun proponents have to offer in any compromise ???????
If you want to restrict a constitutional right, you bear the burden of both establishing any proposal passes constitutional muster as well as demonstrating with reliable evidence that such policy will actually work without needlessly affecting tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners who pose no statistical risk to anyone.
Compromise does not mean you want draconian gun control, you have no chance of getting it, so you'll accept only some restrictions. That's a demand for conditional surrender. If you want certain restrictions, you need to actually offer things to gun rights proponents that they want, but are having trouble procuring.
For instance, gun rights supporters very much want national concealed carry reciprocity. Is your side willing to deal?
ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)I have such a hard time believing you own no guns !
I also have a hard time when your argument resorts to "it's a right".
When friends and family members are taken away all in the name of the "right" to bear arms it makes me cringe.
Just because you interpret the constitution to mean you have the right to own a gun, it does not mean that such a right should not be regulated, and and restricted. If that were the case we could not restrict gun ownership to those with a criminal record or mental illness.
Will you concede that rights can be limited and regulated for the safety of others?
If not there is no conversation.
If regulations (gun control) means preventing the next mass shooting, the next "accidental" shooting of a child by another child who found a gun, and the next death of an innocent bystander, then we need to act.
If we do nothing the we should be ashamed.
branford
(4,462 posts)I'm a NYC litigation attorney who researched firearm issues early in my career while working at the National Institute of Justice.
As to whether the right to keep and bear arms is subject to some restriction, indeed it is.
We have an entire body of detailed and complicated law to determine the nature and type of restrictions permitted on fundamental rights. SCOTUS, in Heller and McDonald, even reviewed some of the permissible restrictions on firearm ownership, including the current no felons and dangerously mental ill rules.
More importantly, many of the current proposals for gun control, at least in the abstract, are generally constitutional. They are not law because they lack popular and Congressional support, and not because of the Second Amendment.
ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)"They are not law because they lack popular and Congressional support, and not because of the Second Amendment."
My initial point was that the NRA Lobby prevents congress (for the most part republicans) from voting for gun safety laws with the threat of the almighty dollar being withheld.
You will not convince me that this is not the case, but thanks for a rational (mostly 
conversation.
branford
(4,462 posts)They are not nearly as wealthy as some suggest, only represent a very small fraction of gun owners as members, and gun control advocates have more than ample funding and media exposure. The NRA wasn't even responsible for the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court victories, it was the Second Amendment Foundation. If the populace didn't already completely or mostly agree with the NRA's positions, they would not be able to get people to the polls, and their sway with our elected representatives would be minimal. Given America's history and culture with firearms, if the NRA didn't exist, another organization just like it would take its place.
Those who support gun control have made the NRA their boogeyman and fall guy to excuse their inability to move public opinion or the courts in their direction. This denial and contempt and underestimation of their opponents is the reason why gun control continues to fail on all levels.
If you wish to succeed, stop looking for forces to blame or believing your opponents stupid or evil, and speak to the voters with respect while offering lawful polices with evidence of success. Stop lamenting the Second Amendment, and look for ways to improve the current system. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)If the deaths of so many children and innocent lives and the ruination of families across this country is not enough to drive us to get control of what is completely out of control. If so many like you can not see the ugly reality of gun violence in America there may be no hope.
I wonder, if you were personally affected by the loss of a loved one by a random and senseless shooting would you feel differently ?
If you don't want me to use the NRA a a "boogeyman" fine - then I will place the blame directly on you and all the other gun rights advocates.
The hell with the pain and suffering of those who have been devastated by the onslaught of gun violence. As long as those that want guns get them, and an abundance of them, thats all that really matters cause hey - the second amendment !
beevul
(12,194 posts)I'm not sure we agree on what it is that actually IS out of control. Are you referring specifically to people misusing guns, or gun to ownership in general?
ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)It's nice you can self identify to be one of 99.9 % of gun owners that have not yet used their gun to shoot at, or kill, another person.
I'm guessing you also believe your gun will never find it's way to the hands of a criminal or the hands of a child.
The 99.9% (or whatever the number is) need to set the example and lead the movement to better regulate and establish guidelines for responsible gun ownership. Why ? Because you are part of a civilized society and because those who have no malice in mind and are upstanding law abiding citizens should have no objection to the efforts to protect others from the .1%
Why should I believe otherwise?
We already set the example for responsible ownership by not committing gun violence, yet they do not follow it, and here you and the other anti-gunners come telling us that not committing gun violence is simply not enough.
I have no objections to protecting others from the .1 percent, however, I expect those measures to revolve around the .1 percent, not the 99.9, like so much of the annual anti-gun wish list does. If someone shouldn't have a gun, perhaps they shouldn't be free to roam roam around, in a society full of them.
ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)regarding registering gun sales made by private parties and we need to impeach the sheriff of that county that said he won't enforce them because he didn't personally didn't believe in them. He took an oath to uphold those laws.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)including private sales.
That part of OR is very conservative, as is the Sheriff, what do you think the chances are of convincing the voters of that county to recall the Sheriff?
Remember, only the residents of that particular county get to vote for impeachment, not the whole state.
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)I live on the Southern Oregon Coast in a small town of 1200 persons, even here the mood is changing, but you're right, the residents wouldn't vote for impeachment.
randys1
(16,286 posts)DustyJoe
(849 posts)Mark Kelly lost all credibility in his spouting gun control after he was outed in Arizona trying to buy one of the scary black assault rifles that he now tirades against.
Making 100 million gun owners jump through all sorts of new gun control hoops or forced to relenquish their guns because a mental deficient autistic moron in Oregon is pure bonkers nutz and he and his Mom massed a dozen gun purchases is moronic. So now 100 million non mental deficient gun owners need to give up their guns because of this and other nuts.
So when a drunk driver killed a mother and three young daughters at christmastime a few years back. Using the anti-gunner logic it should be that all persons who drink alcohol and own a car should have their cars confiscated nationwide.
Now if you'll all excuse me I have to finish cleaning my shotgun from dove season just ending and breaking out my deer hunting arsenal of one rifle for deer season opening this weekend before someone 2000 miles away breaks a law and i'm told no hunting this season.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)I'd do it if I had magic powers.
If only all the people who died from guns were the people who choose to love guns.
mcar
(42,307 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Check that: gun nut fuckers are gonna buy more guns.
Elmergantry
(884 posts)One could even mail order a tommy gun!
No background checks...no waiting periods....
Yet mass shootings were rare...
Guns haven't changed; the character of our people has.
frizzled
(509 posts)nt
DustyJoe
(849 posts)Let the travel embargo start with S. America, Asia and the ME, would be a great start.
Plus. calling their immigrants home would show the US.
branford
(4,462 posts)I hope you would like phrases such as "President Cruz," or maybe "Secretary of State Huckabee."
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Lets make this happen!
C Moon
(12,212 posts)Oregon Killer’s Mother Wrote of Troubled Son and Gun Rights
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/us/mother-of-oregon-gunman-wrote-of-keeping-firearms.html
In an online forum, answering a question about state gun laws several years ago, Ms. Harper took a jab at “lame states” that impose limits on keeping loaded firearms in the home, and noted that she had AR-15 and AK-47 semiautomatic rifles, along with a Glock handgun. She also indicated that her son, who lived with her, was well versed in guns, citing him as her source of information on gun laws, saying he “has much knowledge in this field.”
“I keep two full mags in my Glock case. And the ARs & AKs all have loaded mags,” Ms. Harper wrote. “No one will be ‘dropping’ by my house uninvited without acknowledgement.”
Law enforcement officials have said they recovered 14 firearms and spare ammunition magazines that were purchased legally either by Mr. Harper-Mercer, 26, or an unnamed relative. Mr. Harper-Mercer had six guns with him when he entered a classroom building on Thursday and started firing on a writing class in which he was enrolled; the rest were found in the second-floor apartment he shared with his mother.