CNBC: Democrats quickly call for tighter gun laws after Las Vegas shooting massacre

[The Original Tree]

Source: CNBC.COM
Article: Democrat on Las Vegas shooting massacre: 'Time for Congress to get off its a-- and do something'

"Following the shooting, some top Democrats — often proponents of tighter restrictions on guns — urged the Republican-controlled Congress to take action to prevent similar mass shootings.


"This must stop. It is positively infuriating that my colleagues in Congress are so afraid of the gun industry that they pretend there aren't public policy responses to this epidemic," said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., in a statement. "There are, and the thoughts and prayers of politicians are cruelly hollow if they are paired with continued legislative indifference. It's time for Congress to get off its a-- and do something."

Well it certainly didn't take long for the buzzards-D to form up and start picking the corpses clean of any politically advantageous morsels they could get their bloody beaks on.

One wonders why the Democrats didn't pass any of this gun control legislation back when they had a lock on Congress in 2009, guess there wasn't any political advantage in it for 'em then.

The gun lobby pretty much clobbered them after Sandy Hook. It's about money and one issue voters. Someday perhaps Americans will support legislation limiting the number of weapons owned and their storage. I don't see that as a total fix for the problem of mass shootings. Apparantly its' ok to ban Muslims for coming here, but not ok to make gun sellers very wary about selling an individual a whole truck load of rifles.

I'm not sure why you single out people who jump on the gun legislation issue, when you know damn well the AltR would be ejaculating if this guy had been a Muslim. Just look at the fake threads yesterday.

We need guns to protect ourselves from THE RACIST VIOLENT DEMOCRAT PARTY. Look how many GOP Congressmen, Trump Supporters, Country Music Fans they have tried to kill. They even killed Seth Rich, and threatened to assassinate the president.

Yeah they're coming for you chump. LOL

Probably the only ACCURATE thing you have ever said on this board.

 

[iceberg]

Source: CNBC.COM
Article: Democrat on Las Vegas shooting massacre: 'Time for Congress to get off its a-- and do something'

"Following the shooting, some top Democrats — often proponents of tighter restrictions on guns — urged the Republican-controlled Congress to take action to prevent similar mass shootings.


"This must stop. It is positively infuriating that my colleagues in Congress are so afraid of the gun industry that they pretend there aren't public policy responses to this epidemic," said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., in a statement. "There are, and the thoughts and prayers of politicians are cruelly hollow if they are paired with continued legislative indifference. It's time for Congress to get off its a-- and do something."

Well it certainly didn't take long for the buzzards-D to form up and start picking the corpses clean of any politically advantageous morsels they could get their bloody beaks on.

One wonders why the Democrats didn't pass any of this gun control legislation back when they had a lock on Congress in 2009, guess there wasn't any political advantage in it for 'em then.

The gun lobby pretty much clobbered them after Sandy Hook. It's about money and one issue voters. Someday perhaps Americans will support legislation limiting the number of weapons owned and their storage. I don't see that as a total fix for the problem of mass shootings. Apparantly its' ok to ban Muslims for coming here, but not ok to make gun sellers very wary about selling an individual a whole truck load of rifles.

I'm not sure why you single out people who jump on the gun legislation issue, when you know damn well the AltR would be ejaculating if this guy had been a Muslim. Just look at the fake threads yesterday.

i don't know why we keep pretending that the ALT-L or ALT-R is a good example of an average person.

 

[miketx]

Source: CNBC.COM
Article: Democrat on Las Vegas shooting massacre: 'Time for Congress to get off its a-- and do something'

"Following the shooting, some top Democrats — often proponents of tighter restrictions on guns — urged the Republican-controlled Congress to take action to prevent similar mass shootings.


"This must stop. It is positively infuriating that my colleagues in Congress are so afraid of the gun industry that they pretend there aren't public policy responses to this epidemic," said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., in a statement. "There are, and the thoughts and prayers of politicians are cruelly hollow if they are paired with continued legislative indifference. It's time for Congress to get off its a-- and do something."

Well it certainly didn't take long for the buzzards-D to form up and start picking the corpses clean of any politically advantageous morsels they could get their bloody beaks on.

One wonders why the Democrats didn't pass any of this gun control legislation back when they had a lock on Congress in 2009, guess there wasn't any political advantage in it for 'em then.

Democrats, just like shit stinking, are predictable.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Only an uninformed fool thinks ars are easily modified to shoot full auto...

Ummmmm....Guess what?

The guy used an AR type weapon with a large capacity magazine and a bump stock
The bump stock allows firing in the 400-700 rpm range


Question?
Why is this legal?

it is certainly not a machine gun nor full auto

At 400-800 rpm it might just as well be

Why does anyone legally need those firing ranges?

No one "needs" a car, but owning a firearm is a right

Owning a weapon that shoots 400-800 rpm is not a right

indeed it is

 

[hunarcy]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Based on this statement it could be argued that no civilian has a right to keep and bear arms. Looks to me that being part of a regulated Militia is the criteria for owning a weapon. We have a regulated militia. Its called the National Guard.

The right, if you read the Amendment is not reserved to the militia. It is the right of THE PEOPLE that is preserved.

That would make sense if it was a completely separate sentence. The problem with your logic is that the comma makes it contingent on the first part of the sentence.

And the problem with your interpretation is that you are giving the dependent clause the same weight as the independent clause. But, the fact remains that the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment had already used the word "militia", so obviously they could spell it. They CHOSE the word "People" because the right was not limited to the Militia.

No they chose the word "people" because they had no standing military reserve like they do now. The needed ordinary civilians to be their reserves.

That's what YOU believe, but the fact is that they said "the People" not the militia.

 

[hunarcy]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Based on this statement it could be argued that no civilian has a right to keep and bear arms. Looks to me that being part of a regulated Militia is the criteria for owning a weapon. We have a regulated militia. Its called the National Guard.

The right, if you read the Amendment is not reserved to the militia. It is the right of THE PEOPLE that is preserved.

That would make sense if it was a completely separate sentence. The problem with your logic is that the comma makes it contingent on the first part of the sentence.

And the problem with your interpretation is that you are giving the dependent clause the same weight as the independent clause. But, the fact remains that the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment had already used the word "militia", so obviously they could spell it. They CHOSE the word "People" because the right was not limited to the Militia.

Militias relied on an armed population for their members. Militias were not armed, soldiers brought their own weapons

They wanted them well regulated so that they were trained, had an organizational structure and they knew who needed to be contacted

Yes, so the PEOPLE kept their arms and joined the militia as they chose. Same as now.

 

[Asclepias]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Based on this statement it could be argued that no civilian has a right to keep and bear arms. Looks to me that being part of a regulated Militia is the criteria for owning a weapon. We have a regulated militia. Its called the National Guard.

The right, if you read the Amendment is not reserved to the militia. It is the right of THE PEOPLE that is preserved.

That would make sense if it was a completely separate sentence. The problem with your logic is that the comma makes it contingent on the first part of the sentence.

And the problem with your interpretation is that you are giving the dependent clause the same weight as the independent clause. But, the fact remains that the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment had already used the word "militia", so obviously they could spell it. They CHOSE the word "People" because the right was not limited to the Militia.

No they chose the word "people" because they had no standing military reserve like they do now. The needed ordinary civilians to be their reserves.

That's what YOU believe, but the fact is that they said "the People" not the militia.

They said "the people" in order to populate a well regulated militia. I thought they taught reading comprehension where you are from?

 

[Asclepias]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Based on this statement it could be argued that no civilian has a right to keep and bear arms. Looks to me that being part of a regulated Militia is the criteria for owning a weapon. We have a regulated militia. Its called the National Guard.

The right, if you read the Amendment is not reserved to the militia. It is the right of THE PEOPLE that is preserved.

That would make sense if it was a completely separate sentence. The problem with your logic is that the comma makes it contingent on the first part of the sentence.

And the problem with your interpretation is that you are giving the dependent clause the same weight as the independent clause. But, the fact remains that the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment had already used the word "militia", so obviously they could spell it. They CHOSE the word "People" because the right was not limited to the Militia.

Militias relied on an armed population for their members. Militias were not armed, soldiers brought their own weapons

They wanted them well regulated so that they were trained, had an organizational structure and they knew who needed to be contacted

Yes, so the PEOPLE kept their arms and joined the militia as they chose. Same as now.

You dont keep your arms now. They issue you one.

 

[TheDude]

64,000 US citizens were killed by drugs last year, and over 10,000 by DUI.

33,635 were killed by guns, what percentage of those were killed by illegal guns? Without looking over 50%. Then consider how many were killed because they had it coming.

It's hypocrisy and stupidity to suggest guns should be illegal and drugs legal, yet that's the liberal calling. Apparently personal responsibility is important, but only when it suits the narrative.

That said, IMO common citizens should not have access to automatic weapons. Save those for the police, military and licensed collectors.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The right, if you read the Amendment is not reserved to the militia. It is the right of THE PEOPLE that is preserved.

That would make sense if it was a completely separate sentence. The problem with your logic is that the comma makes it contingent on the first part of the sentence.

And the problem with your interpretation is that you are giving the dependent clause the same weight as the independent clause. But, the fact remains that the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment had already used the word "militia", so obviously they could spell it. They CHOSE the word "People" because the right was not limited to the Militia.

Militias relied on an armed population for their members. Militias were not armed, soldiers brought their own weapons

They wanted them well regulated so that they were trained, had an organizational structure and they knew who needed to be contacted

Yes, so the PEOPLE kept their arms and joined the militia as they chose. Same as now.

You dont keep your arms now. They issue you one.

--LOL

since when did the government start handing out firearms

a trumpgun

similiar to the obamaphone

--LOL

 

[Asclepias]

That would make sense if it was a completely separate sentence. The problem with your logic is that the comma makes it contingent on the first part of the sentence.

And the problem with your interpretation is that you are giving the dependent clause the same weight as the independent clause. But, the fact remains that the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment had already used the word "militia", so obviously they could spell it. They CHOSE the word "People" because the right was not limited to the Militia.

Militias relied on an armed population for their members. Militias were not armed, soldiers brought their own weapons

They wanted them well regulated so that they were trained, had an organizational structure and they knew who needed to be contacted

Yes, so the PEOPLE kept their arms and joined the militia as they chose. Same as now.

You dont keep your arms now. They issue you one.

--LOL

since when did the government start handing out firearms

a trumpgun

similiar to the obamaphone

--LOL

Since people joined the military or the reserves. Long before Drumpf was around.

 

[jon_berzerk]

And the problem with your interpretation is that you are giving the dependent clause the same weight as the independent clause. But, the fact remains that the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment had already used the word "militia", so obviously they could spell it. They CHOSE the word "People" because the right was not limited to the Militia.

Militias relied on an armed population for their members. Militias were not armed, soldiers brought their own weapons

They wanted them well regulated so that they were trained, had an organizational structure and they knew who needed to be contacted

Yes, so the PEOPLE kept their arms and joined the militia as they chose. Same as now.

You dont keep your arms now. They issue you one.

--LOL

since when did the government start handing out firearms

a trumpgun

similiar to the obamaphone

--LOL

Since people joined the military or the reserves. Long before Drumpf was around.

hey dummy that is not the militia

 

[Asclepias]

Militias relied on an armed population for their members. Militias were not armed, soldiers brought their own weapons

They wanted them well regulated so that they were trained, had an organizational structure and they knew who needed to be contacted

Yes, so the PEOPLE kept their arms and joined the militia as they chose. Same as now.

You dont keep your arms now. They issue you one.

--LOL

since when did the government start handing out firearms

a trumpgun

similiar to the obamaphone

--LOL

Since people joined the military or the reserves. Long before Drumpf was around.

hey dummy that is not the militia

Hey dummy thats what the Militia Act says.

Militia (United States) - Wikipedia

Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is primarily used to describe two groups within the United States:

• Organized militia – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[9] (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)
• Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[10]

 

[JoeB131]

So blame the one selling things they can legally sell when a NUT misuses it? How ridiculous but coming from someone that's a gutless coward, I'm not surprised.

The thing is, it's kind of their job to know they are selling a deadly object to a nut.

The hotel this guy stayed at WILL be sued and will probably do settlements in the millions.

The gun industry that made him possible should be held to the same standard.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Yes, so the PEOPLE kept their arms and joined the militia as they chose. Same as now.

You dont keep your arms now. They issue you one.

--LOL

since when did the government start handing out firearms

a trumpgun

similiar to the obamaphone

--LOL

Since people joined the military or the reserves. Long before Drumpf was around.

hey dummy that is not the militia

Hey dummy thats what the Militia Act says.

Militia (United States) - Wikipedia

Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is primarily used to describe two groups within the United States:

• Organized militia – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[9] (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)
• Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[10]

state national guard dummy the federal reserve is not the militia

perpich vs dod

 

[JoeB131]

Okay, as long as we can sue every last motherfucker who ever comes in contact with a car or other inanimate object sold to someone who uses said object for any form of malice or crime whatsoever.

Otherwise, fuck your stupid plan.

Cars aren't designed to kill people. Guns are.

And as I said, the MGM is going to get their pants sued off because someone helped Packard take 10 suitcases full of weapons to his room and didn't say anything.

 

[Asclepias]

You dont keep your arms now. They issue you one.

--LOL

since when did the government start handing out firearms

a trumpgun

similiar to the obamaphone

--LOL

Since people joined the military or the reserves. Long before Drumpf was around.

hey dummy that is not the militia

Hey dummy thats what the Militia Act says.

Militia (United States) - Wikipedia

Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is primarily used to describe two groups within the United States:

• Organized militia – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[9] (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)
• Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[10]

state national guard dummy the federal reserve is not the militia

perpich vs dod

I didnt say the federal reserve was the militia dummy. How did you get so confused? I guess now youre going to claim National guard doesnt issue you a weapon?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The crazy Nazicrat Gun Banners don't actually care about the victims of crime.
They just want to protect their Criminals and Terrorist buddies from armed victims.

 

[Asclepias]

So blame the one selling things they can legally sell when a NUT misuses it? How ridiculous but coming from someone that's a gutless coward, I'm not surprised.

The thing is, it's kind of their job to know they are selling a deadly object to a nut.

The hotel this guy stayed at WILL be sued and will probably do settlements in the millions.

The gun industry that made him possible should be held to the same standard.

I think the hotel would fight any attempt to sue and win. You would have to prove negligence on the hotels part.

 

[jc456]

Source: CNBC.COM
Article: Democrat on Las Vegas shooting massacre: 'Time for Congress to get off its a-- and do something'

"Following the shooting, some top Democrats — often proponents of tighter restrictions on guns — urged the Republican-controlled Congress to take action to prevent similar mass shootings.


"This must stop. It is positively infuriating that my colleagues in Congress are so afraid of the gun industry that they pretend there aren't public policy responses to this epidemic," said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., in a statement. "There are, and the thoughts and prayers of politicians are cruelly hollow if they are paired with continued legislative indifference. It's time for Congress to get off its a-- and do something."

Well it certainly didn't take long for the buzzards-D to form up and start picking the corpses clean of any politically advantageous morsels they could get their bloody beaks on.

One wonders why the Democrats didn't pass any of this gun control legislation back when they had a lock on Congress in 2009, guess there wasn't any political advantage in it for 'em then.

The gun lobby pretty much clobbered them after Sandy Hook. It's about money and one issue voters. Someday perhaps Americans will support legislation limiting the number of weapons owned and their storage. I don't see that as a total fix for the problem of mass shootings. Apparantly its' ok to ban Muslims for coming here, but not ok to make gun sellers very wary about selling an individual a whole truck load of rifles.

I'm not sure why you single out people who jump on the gun legislation issue, when you know damn well the AltR would be ejaculating if this guy had been a Muslim. Just look at the fake threads yesterday.

well unfortunately, this is what happens in a free society.