The Guns thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Florida Governor Rick Scott: 'The Second Amendment Didn't Kill Anybody'

In an interview with CNN today, Florida Governor Rick Scott—an empty shell of a man so comically villainous that comparisons to Voldemort are unfair to Voldemort—defended Florida’s gun laws. In the interview, Scott was asked about President Obama’s speech where he challenged, “those who defend the easy accessibility of assault weapons,” to meet with the families of the 49 people murdered at an Orlando LGTBQ nightclub.

CNN asked Scott:

“Has it changed your views at all, this experience meeting with the victims and the fact that it’s easier to walk out with an AR-15 in the state of Florida than a handgun?”​

Scott, always terrible with reasonable talking points, let alone incredibly bad ones, muttered something about ISIS before saying providing this insight, “the Second Amendment didn’t kill anyone.”

It’s probably no surprise that Scott, who refused to acknowledge that the Pulse shooting specifically targeted members of the LGTBQ community, would immediately rush to defend the “Second Amendment” (i.e. the right of every true Floridian to buy a military-grade weapon without a moment’s hesitation).

As the governor of Florida, Scott has never seen an NRA-sponsored bill that he wasn’t eager to sign. Almost two years ago today, Scott signed five pro-guns bills into law. By the end of 2014, Scott had managed to sign 12 NRA-sponsored bills. That year, the NRA’s Insitute for Legislative Action noted that Scott, “a strong supporter of the Second Amendment,” has “signed more pro-gun bills into law—in one term—than any other Governor in Florida history.” That was the year that he eked out the victory over Jeb Bush in the contest of which Floridian governor can do more for the NRA.

The contest is heated; Jeb Bush will forever be remembered for signing Stand Your Ground into law. But Scott also has managed to sign some equally insane gun laws, including:

2011: The commonly called “Docs vs. Glocks” bill that restricts doctors from discussing gun ownership with patients.

2011: A bill that fines cities and counties if they enforce gun restrictions. Oh, it also allows the governor to remove elected officials if they continue to enforce gun restrictions even after a fine.

2014: The “Yosemite Sam” bill which expanded Stand Your Ground by decriminalizing the discharge of a gun as a “warning.”

2014: The “Pop Tart” bill which protects kids who want to mimic gunplay at school or something.

2014: Two bills that fast-tracked concealed weapons permits.

In addition to these laws, Scott sides with the NRA and opposes expanded background checks and “universal background checks,” a proposal that would effectively close the gun show loophole. Universal background checks gained national steam after Newtown, but ultimately failed to go anywhere.

Scott also opposes the renewal of the federal ban on assault weapons, signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1994. The ban, which expired in 2004, covered weapons with large-capacity magazines, like the Sig Sauer used by Omar Mateen at the Pulse shooting. It also applied to large-capacity magazines (again, like the kind used by Mateen) that held more than ten rounds. The Trace notes that many experts believe that regulating large-capacity magazines “would be a more effective strategy in limiting the carnage from a mass shooting.” Eight states currently ban some form of high-capacity magazines, but Florida is not one of them.

So sure, the Second Amendment didn’t kill anyone; after all, it’s an inanimate object, a series of words written on crusty paper, but Florida’s gun laws, and a Governor who is practically a lobbyist for the NRA, sure did help.

http://theslot.jezebel.com/florida-governor-voldemort-rick-scott-the-second-amend-1782159343

Rick Scott is a spineless scumbag and who regularly sells out and steals from Floridians.
 
Haha the S***y Kitty huh? I heard all kinds of crazy stories about that ship. Did you hear they locked down drinking for all service members out in japan after a string of booze-related incidents?

Wouldn't surprise me, I was part of the turnover crew when she moved from San Diego to replace the Independence - but barely a month after we got there, there were incidents on base and out in town

I worked TAD in security for my last 6 months before transferring and saw a good amount of craziness
 
Wouldn't surprise me, I was part of the turnover crew when she moved from San Diego to replace the Independence - but barely a month after we got there, there were incidents on base and out in town

I worked TAD in security for my last 6 months before transferring and saw a good amount of craziness

When did you serve? Had to be after me since the Kitty was notorious and stil doing WestPacs when I served from 2004-2006.

Stories I heard were things like you basically had to join a gang on board that ship when you got there. :oldrazz:
 
So a handgun has stricter regulations than an assault rifle? That's some a** backwards logic there....
 
When did you serve? Had to be after me since the Kitty was notorious and stil doing WestPacs when I served from 2004-2006.

Stories I heard were things like you basically had to join a gang on board that ship when you got there. :oldrazz:

98-2000

no, not that bad from what I remember...there was some sketchiness happening and you could find trouble if you went looking

guys in the galley had a nice wine making operation going, it wasn't great but you got a nice buzz
 
So a handgun has stricter regulations than an assault rifle? That's some a** backwards logic there....

If you mean semiautomatic rifle (an assault rifle is fully automatic rifle, and more stringently regulated) like an AR-15, then it's really not that backwards.

Most crimes, including mass murders are committed with handguns. 86% if memory serves. Handguns are much easier to conceal.
 
If you mean semiautomatic rifle (an assault rifle is fully automatic rifle, and more stringently regulated) like an AR-15, then it's really not that backwards.

Most crimes, including mass murders are committed with handguns. 86% if memory serves. Handguns are much easier to conceal.
The more you know :yay:
 
I have no idea. It seemed like a losing race since you have people stocking up immediately after these events while politicians discuss policy changes.

I had this big argument with my younger brother about guns and politics today, he told me proudly he had joined the NRA after the Orlando events. He noticed the stinkeye I was giving him, and he was defensive, saying "well if the government wants to take away our guns, how are we going to protect ourselves?"

I patiently tried to explain my side of things and the flawed logic about it. I even told him even if the nightclub patrons were packing heat when the gunman stormed in, how would the police distinguish the gunman's shots from those defending themselves? The only defense he put up was, "If the nightclub attendees fired back, he would flee!"

Even tried to explain the common sense gun reform issues, and he still doesn't get it.
 
Even After the Orlando Shooting, the NRA Won't Change Its Stance on Gun Control

[YT]8H6e8ZOHRw4[/YT]

In a move that some sources categorized as “unhinged fearmongering,” the National Rifle Association’s executive vice president Wayne LaPierre not only adamantly stated that the organization would not change its opinion on gun control, but urged American citizens to buy more guns, because terrorists are “on the verge of overwhelming us.”

In an interview Sunday morning with host John Dickerson on CBS’ Face the Nation, LaPierre asserted that the real issue with last week’s shooting at the gay club Pulse, which left 49 dead and 53 wounded, wasn’t the fact that it was a targeted hate crime against the LGBT community, or that the shooter, Omar Mateen, was able to purchase an assault rival despite being investigated by the FBI for terrorist connections. Instead, the de facto NRA spokesperson typified it as an excuse for the Obama administration to further their own gun control ban, and take away from the “real” matter at hand: terrorism.

“What happened this past week is the President, the whole gun ban movement, said ‘hey, don’t look at terrorists, look over here, divert your attention, take your eyes off the problem,’” LaPierre told Dickerson, “because they don’t want to face the embarrassment of their failure in this terrorist area, and they want to cover their butts and not talk about it.”

(As The Daily Dot pointed out, there have been no proposals to ban guns in their entirety, though there have been moves to put forward an assault weapons ban.)

But when Dickerson brought up the subject of a government watch-list designed to bar suspected terrorists from purchasing weapons—a bill which was blocked this past December—LaPierre suddenly balked, stating that the bill was riddled with “misinformation and poorly researched stories.”

What happens on the watch-list? People forget, law enforcement set it up, just the way they wanted it, federal law enforcement. NRA didn’t take the guy’s name off the list, the federal government did, FBI did, largely because of some of these politically correct policies that I think I’ve been talking about earlier.​

LaPierre added that blocking would-be terrorists from purchasing guns would be “tipping off the bad guy.”

When Dickerson countered LaPierre’s stance by pointing out that he “also didn’t want terrorists with guns in their hands,” the NRA executive VP compared gun control legislation to “trying to stop a freight train with a piece of Kleenex,” while once again insisting that the shootings in Orlando were about terrorism, not accessibility to firearms.

LaPierre concluded his argument with an old American pastime: McCarthyist paranoia.

“The fact is, we need to face what’s coming,” he cautioned. “They’re trying to kill us. They’re not going to attack hard targets…They’re going to go for shopping malls, they’re going to go for churches. The fact is, we need vigilance, we need preparedness. We need a full court press on personal protection.”

“They’re coming,” he added. “And they’re going to try to kill us, and we need to be prepared.”

http://jezebel.com/even-after-the-orlando-shooting-the-nra-wont-change-it-1782248410

THis is complete BS and that man is clearly insane.
 
ClbX7YiWMAAQpbL.jpg


As if I didn't hate Ted Cruz's face enough already...
 
LGBT Gun Rights Group Sees Membership Skyrocket After Orlando Shooting

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ip-skyrocket-after-orlando-shooting/86147114/

Pink Pistols has 35 active chapters across the U.S., and nationally, its Facebook membership has increased from 1,500 before the shooting to about 6,500 as of Monday afternoon, spokeswoman Gwendolyn Patton said.
Because the LGBT community is often the target of violent attacks, it’s important for LGBT people to carry guns to protect themselves, said Dave Kopel, an attorney and gun rights advocate.
“People have to be their own first responders,” he said. “Law enforcement tries to get there as fast as possible to intervene, but they can’t be there all the time and it’s good when people have the tools and abilities to stay alive until law enforcement shows up.”
:up:
 
Perhaps most frustrating are the gun control detractors who become galvanized by an incident such as that in Orlando; their logic being this shows that easy access to guns is needed to defend America against such incidents.

Interestingly, I have never seen the headline "Private gun owner prevents mass shooting," or "NRA member thwarts terrorist."

I actually do believe private citizens should be able to own guns. I also believe that thoroughly regulating who can own a gun and what variety of gun isn't a matter for political debate: it's a matter of common sense.
 
Last edited:
I'm all for common sense gun control but the catch 22 here is let's say Mr. Terrorist is plotting away. He thinks he's doing a good job but of course he's on the radar since the NSA is all up everyone's ass these days. He decides now he needs to go get his guns, at the shop though he is denied and knows the only reason he could possibly be denied is because they are watching him. So now he goes hardcore underground and still finds black market ways to obtain the weapons he's looking for while taking as many precautions as he can to go undetected.

It's almost as problematic as the whole mental health debate and who should not get a gun because of that. It's quite the damn mess we find ourselves in.
 
I'm all for common sense gun control but the catch 22 here is let's say Mr. Terrorist is plotting away. He thinks he's doing a good job but of course he's on the radar since the NSA is all up everyone's ass these days. He decides now he needs to go get his guns, at the shop though he is denied and knows the only reason he could possibly be denied is because they are watching him. So now he goes hardcore underground and still finds black market ways to obtain the weapons he's looking for while taking as many precautions as he can to go undetected.

It's almost as problematic as the whole mental health debate and who should not get a gun because of that. It's quite the damn mess we find ourselves in.
He should be detained as soon as he tries to buy a weapon. Due process would clear him if he's innocent. No rights are infringed upon.
 
The Democrats Are Boldly Fighting For a Bad, Stupid Bill

After Democrats in the Senate staged a filibuster in support of gun control measures, their colleagues in the House have begun a “sit-in” aimed at embarrassing Republicans into allowing a vote on a measure that would restrict the ability of suspected terrorists to legally buy guns. The move is fantastic political theater. It’s also a tremendous waste of popular support and activist energy in support of a measure that isn’t just ineffective but also actively offensive.

The Democratic proposal has been catch-phrased and hashtagged as “no fly, no buy,” because it would prevent people who end up on government terrorism watchlists, including the “no fly list,” from purchasing firearms. This would do little to reduce gun violence, but it would add an additional layer of surveillance and government scrutiny to a particular class of people.

That certainly sounds like a solid principle on which to take a stand—terrorists shouldn’t have AR-15s! Meanwhile, most gun deaths in the United States are not caused by suspected terrorists armed with military-style semi-automatic rifles. The vast majority of gun deaths—suicides as well as homicides—are caused by handguns, and the majority of people firing those guns are not suspected terrorists (which invariably refers, in contemporary discourse, to Muslims, and no other groups or individuals dedicated to political violence).

The no-fly list is a civil rights disaster by every conceivable standard. It is secret, it disproportionately affects Arab-Americans, it is error-prone, there is no due process or effective recourse for people placed on the list, and it constantly and relentlessly expands. As of 2014, the government had a master watchlist of 680,000 people, forty percent of whom had “no recognized terrorist group affiliation.” This is both an absurdly large number of people to arbitrarily target in gun control legislation, and far, far too few to have any meaningful effect on actual gun ownership, let alone gun violence.

Perhaps such a bill makes political sense as a sort of desperate attempt to get something through a conservative-dominated Congress. But if it is, as it appears to be, more of an effort to highlight the unpopular extremism of Republicans on gun issues, it is a stupid and counterproductive hill to theatrically die on. Almost any popular and previously debated gun control measure would have made a better symbolic lost cause. Democrats could be staging a sit-in in support of universal background checks* and waiting periods, nationally standard gun licensing and training requirements, and tougher restrictions on where and how guns are sold. All of those, or even any one of those, would have been more defensible both politically and morally. Instead House Democrats are going to the mat for a ******, racist, useless bill.

Since the San Bernardino shootings (or even before), an easy, cynical predication has been that the only form of gun control with a realistic shot of being enacted in the near future would be measures that would ban only Muslims from purchasing guns. As is too often the case, Democrats seem determined to prove cynics right.

[Correction: Expanded background checks are indeed a measure Democrats are currently demanding a vote on.]

http://gawker.com/the-democrats-are-boldly-fighting-for-a-bad-stupid-bil-1782449026

So more useless posturing in Washington or just people trying to get any damn thing they can done?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,268
Messages
22,077,064
Members
45,876
Latest member
Crazygamer3011
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"