by Countable | Updated on 11.12.18
“We know that we’ve been elected to do a job, and we’re going to do it.”
"The American people deserve real action to end the daily epidemic of gun violence that is stealing the lives of our children on campuses, in places of worship and on our streets.”
Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL) told CNN that his list includes:
“What we do is say, how do we make certain that we protect the Second Amendment and protect our citizens?” Blackburn said.
Do you want the House pushing gun-control legislation? Or do you want Congress to expand gun rights? Take action above, then share your thoughts below.
(Photo Credit: iStockphoto.com / VistaVision)
Written by Countable
Why is getting a drivers license a longer more strict process than buying a deadly weapon? I do believe people have the right to own guns but we need legislation to regulate who can own them if we plan to stop mass shootings.
Do not take away guns from law abiding citizens. This is the first step to more governmental control and losing our freedom. We must be allowed to defend ourselves!
Absolutely not. Gun control does not work, never has and never will. What we need to do is eliminate gun free zones so law abiding citizens can protect themselves. Roughly 97% of shootings occur in gun free zones. Just look at Chicago. If anything we should be abolishing gun control laws.
This is a loaded question. I fully support the right to bear arms. I don’t support unstable people having an arsenal of weapons to use in mass shootings. I have to take a birth certificate and/or passport, a bill, a bank card and current driver’s license to renew my driver’s license. There are tests to pass to drive. Why not proficiency and safety tests for gun owners? Why shouldn’t it be just as hard to obtain a gun license as a driver’s license?Why not license gun owners by their state of residence and have them renew their licenses periodically? And I have to register every car I own. Why not guns? But I think it should be up to each state to set the guidelines. A federal mandate on gun control is not necessarily a good thing. And, no, I don’t own a gun and never will, but I do concur with the constitutional right to bear arms.
Let the citizens be able to protect themselves from people who will never obey the “gun laws” you create. It is our right under the Second Amendment. Please stop hindering this protection.
I personally don’t feel civilians should have guns BUT maybe we need to stop calling it “gun control” and start calling it “gun safety”. Maybe that way it will be easier to have a reasonable conversation about this with responsible gun owners. Because I don’t think they want guns in the hands of the wrong people either.
I want a little more security when it comes to guns but I do not want any guns to be banned or any able people to not be allowed to have a gun
Around 15K people (excluding suicides) are killed with guns each year. 500K to 2-3 MILLION PEOPLE defend themselves with guns each year. Over 100x more people are saved by guns than murdered. Violence has gone down since the 90s as gun owners increased. Most gun deaths are from gangs and these deaths can be prevented by legalizing marijuana and taking away the gang’s source of income and fighting. Places with the strictest gun control have the most crime. Gun control didn’t stop the California shooting, it actually caused people to die because security wasn’t allowed to be armed. 99% of mass shootings happen in GUN FREE ZONES. Norway, Serbia, France, and Albania are ahead of the United States in terms of mass shootings. America doesn’t have a gun problem.
No I want them to pursue criminal control, not mechanical devise control.
“Shall not be infringed...”
2nd amendment is our right. Disarm yourself and save us the tax payer money. I am willing not to pay for your security if you don’t thinks my right to secure my family and your own is worth it. I am a free man. My wife is a free woman. You will not change that. Praise be to the Lord that the Republicans hold the Sensate and the Presidency.
English! “Shall not infringe”. Criminals do Not obey laws, DUH!
Pure and Simple.....Hell No...... SneakyPete..... 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸. 11*12*18.....
It doesn’t matter what kind of gun law you put into effect because the fact is criminals will always find a way to do harm to someone weather it is with a firearm a knife a baseball bat or any other type of weapon
Abide by the Constitution.
Democrats and gun control? Are you crazy? Do we want our cops to be like the British cops? Democrats do not have the morals to deal with gun control. By controlling the guns they will control the people. Just like welfare!
If you are against guns, then please take away guns from our military and see how long you have freedom!
There are limitless gun controls in place already, for instance the Thousand Oaks shootings were done with a gun which went through all kinds of regulation in California.
No one is trying to take away guns from law abiding citizens, we just want to feel safe.
Some of the strictest gun control has been legislated in the very states where these tragedies have occurred. I live in Wyoming where we have the highest gun ownership, per capita. It is of no coincidence that we also have the lowest crime rate. People think twice before invading one’s home, as they know there is a very high probability that there will be an armed home owner on the other side. Besides. I do not support the “must do something” mentality that is part and parcel of the political class, which brings me to the bottom line. Gun control affects only the law abiding, those least likely to commit a crime. It has no affect on criminals, terrorists, and or psycho's who don't obey gun control laws — by definition. This can't be said often enough, Self-defense is a basic human right. Our right to keep and bear arms enables that right and is explicitly enumerated in our Constitution (the law of the land) and the only constitution in the world that recognizes and protects our basic human right to self-defense. What is it about, “...shall not be infringed,” that Dems and libs have such a hard time understanding? You can't fix a problem until you face up to the the problem: A very small fraction of the population is responsible for most of the violent crime in our country. And most of them have an undiagnosed—often a well known and diagnosed— mental illness. ENFORCING current gun laws makes more sense. The liberal courts often turn repeated illegal gun owner-offenders back on the streets. Lastly, why is it that most liberals turns the 2nd amendment into whether a gun’s utility is that it meets or surpasses the power needed to hunt? Since when did that become a prerequisite for gun ownership? The 2ndA is about defense; the greatest defense being liberty. Stop framing and reframing the narrative to fit your agenda. We the people see right through it!
The second amendment is not and has never been unlimited. Most recently in DC vs Heller but there is plenty of case law going back to 1925 that all say the same thing. And in DC vs Heller even though the 5-4 majority ruling makes an intellectual end run around the language of the Second Amendment to get to their ruling, they very clearly state that society (government, convened to collectively protect us from what we can’t protect ourselves from as individuals) has the right to, and legitimate interest in controlling gun ownership, in several specific ways. On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by the late conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ” The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.” That language refers to many of the gun control ideas being discussed now. Prohibitions on carrying ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ certainly might apply to assault rifles. Ammunition clips that hold 100 bullets…30…even 10, are hardly ‘usual’, certainly not for self-defense, or hunting. “..conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” might include requiring that everybody who wants to own a gun has to get a permit, and have a background check, conditions and qualifications that already pertain to purchases through gun stores, but not through private gun shows. “…laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” That certainly seems to challenge the NRA’s idea that more guns in schools is a good idea. And perhaps most striking, the majority ruling in Heller specifically leaves open the question of whether the public has a right to carry “concealed weapons”, a bedrock claim of gun rights advocates. Despite these critical qualifications, gun rights advocates say they are protected by the 2008 Supreme Court ruling, yet selectively ignore the many ways the court allows for some forms of gun control. And despite the way the court newly enshrines gun ownership as a personal right, gun control advocates criticize the ruling, yet selectively fail to acknowledge or try to take political advantage of the ways it gives them the legal ammunition to accomplish much of what they want. Why is that? First, of course, because few of us have read the ruling. We take our news in bits and bites from the media, and rarely dig any further. In fact, many of us don’t really read or watch or listen to the news at all. We get our information from advocates, or friends, or social connections, sources who generally share and thus only reinforce our ideologies and basic values. Those values are what the fight over gun control is really about, of course. It’s not about weapons or self defense or even the specific right to own a firearm. It is a surrogate for the battle being waged in the United States over the basic way society should be organized and operate. The most adamant most closed-minded gun rights advocates want guns less to protect themselves against physical danger and more to fight back against the threat of a society they feel is taking away their ability to control their own lives. “People with these concerns have been identified by research into the Theory of Cultural Cognition as Individualists, people who prefer a society that grants the individual more freedom and independence and leaves them more personally in control of their individual choices and values. Contrast that with the sort of society preferred by Communitarians, who feel most comfortable, and safest, in a ‘We’re all in it together’ world of shared control and communal power, a society that that sacrifices some individual freedoms in the name of the greater common good. These deeply conflicting worldviews drive the central conflict in the fight over gun control.” Those deep underlying tribal affiliations are important to us social animals, since we depend on our tribes for our health and safety. Being a member of the tribe in good standing feels safe. Disagreeing with the tribe risks social rejection, which feels scary. So when a Supreme Court ruling supports an Individualist sort of society, Individualists celebrate, and selectively reject or ignore how the ruling also supports Communitarian goals. Communitarian gun control people do the same sort of selective perception, criticizing the ruling because it threatens their sort of society, and failing to acknowledging the parts that support them, because doing so would weaken their attack on the ruling's support of Individualist goals. There is actually a ray of hope in all this. There’s legal support in the Heller ruling for both sides. More than that, the ruling protects some of the underlying tribal imperatives of both Individualists and Communitarians. That allows each tribe to give some ground but maintain the vital self-identities that truly motivate this conflict. If more people were aware of the details of Heller, the ruling may provide grounds for some compromise in this battle, and undermine the credibility and impact of the people at the extremes (mostly the virulently closed-minded ‘take no prisoners’ gun rights folks, I have to say) who think their values matter more than playing by America’s basic rules. So maybe it’s time for the gun cult to let go of the steel security blanket they need to suppress their paralyzing phobias. They need a professional therapist, not a semi-automatic. That way we don’t have another Parkland or Las Vegas or Orlando or Aurora or Sandy Hook or San Bernardino or Virginia Tech or Sutherland Springs or Killeen or San Ysidro or Edmond. Because in all of the latest incidents — Newtown, Conn., in 2012; San Bernardino, Calif., in 2015; Orlando, Fla., in 2016; Las Vegas, 2017; Sutherland Springs, Texas, 2017 — the attackers primarily used AR-15 semiautomatic rifles. Shooters also commonly use the rifles with 30-round magazines, which allow them to fire more rounds uninterrupted, compared with the smaller magazines commonly used in handguns. Capisce?
I say absolutely not I don’t want them mired in some silly gun control debate. In American that’s a debate that’s an un-winnable, predictable and circular debate about gun control. It plays right into the Democrats are gonna take your guns farce and activates the right when nothing of the sort is true. Leave guns alone until the GOP sees the futility and moves to center. We won the Congress and the Senate is still a wide open debate. Don’t do silly nonsense because you can and help Trump look good by vetoing it while saying see I told you Democrats were too radical. Oh, and by the way I’m a Democrat and not especially a gun enthusiast. You can take away my 12 gauge anytime with zero resistance. I know you won’t and there’s no danger.
The new leftist Antifa controlled House will of course vigorously pursue every bad idea they’ve had since 1918. Hang in there folks it’s actually a good thing. Crazies such as Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi will further alienate normal people, thus strengthening Conservative candidates positions for 2020. We hold the Senate. So let the wackos shine and show who they are! Our Senate will derail their legislation.