Senate Democrats plan to hold the floor to protest inaction on gun legislation

[iceberg]

Then you want laws based on what "you think they need" instead of them thinking what they need.

No car needs to reach speeds over 100 mph, but most cars do.

Yes of course don’t we all support laws that we think we need? That’s a strange statement

Usually we can link the law to a positive effect for the law.

A law to make you feel better isn't that effective for society. Just you.

If it doesn’t make you feel better or if it doesn’t convince you that it is worth passing then don’t vote for it, that’s your right.

I want to know it will address problems, not be a phyric law

I believe you’ve said you supported the ban on automatic weapons is that right? If so what problem did that solve?

Never said I supported it as it never came up. But since you ask, yes I do but if I did say anything, I said we know what trait we are banning. Banning the AR bans no trait. Banning high cap mags has no known impact. And no I won't confuse emotional ploys with common sense.

 

[iceberg]

So then what you are saying is that it's the people and not the guns. Am I correct? Because that's what we've been saying all along.

It’s the people first and foremost but some use guns to kill people so let’s not easily arm them with super dangerous weapons. We can be safe and responsible

Define "super dangerous" please. We are going back to scare tactics you said you hated the NRA for, but couldn't point to a single tactic. So you say you hate the emotional play but you keep using it. Do you hate yourself? If not, isn't that hypocritical?

Super dangerous is what gets defined through debate, analysis and law making. Just like “weapons of war”

They use a bayonet in a war.

Now what?

They also use knives and walkie talkies in war. I think you know that’s not the point

Then stop using "weapons of war" as a fear tactic.

 

[Slade3200]

Yes of course don’t we all support laws that we think we need? That’s a strange statement

Usually we can link the law to a positive effect for the law.

A law to make you feel better isn't that effective for society. Just you.

If it doesn’t make you feel better or if it doesn’t convince you that it is worth passing then don’t vote for it, that’s your right.

I want to know it will address problems, not be a phyric law

I believe you’ve said you supported the ban on automatic weapons is that right? If so what problem did that solve?

Never said I supported it as it never came up. But since you ask, yes I do but if I did say anything, I said we know what trait we are banning. Banning the AR bans no trait. Banning high cap mags has no known impact. And no I won't confuse emotional ploys with common sense.

Well please explain what problem the auto ban solved which justifies your support of that law. Apply the same criteria you are asking of me in this conversation.

 

[Slade3200]

It’s the people first and foremost but some use guns to kill people so let’s not easily arm them with super dangerous weapons. We can be safe and responsible

Define "super dangerous" please. We are going back to scare tactics you said you hated the NRA for, but couldn't point to a single tactic. So you say you hate the emotional play but you keep using it. Do you hate yourself? If not, isn't that hypocritical?

Super dangerous is what gets defined through debate, analysis and law making. Just like “weapons of war”

They use a bayonet in a war.

Now what?

They also use knives and walkie talkies in war. I think you know that’s not the point

Then stop using "weapons of war" as a fear tactic.

I’m using the term because that’s what Beto said and it came up in this thread earlier. I made the case that it isn’t a bad thing, it just needs to have a specific definition. What qualifies as a weapon of war.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then you want laws based on what "you think they need" instead of them thinking what they need.

No car needs to reach speeds over 100 mph, but most cars do.

Yes of course don’t we all support laws that we think we need? That’s a strange statement

No, not when we know they won't work we don't. Why would I support a law that only makes it inconvenient and dangerous to the average law abiding citizen? Because let's face it, the criminals will still kill when they want to. All we can do is try to defend ourselves from them. The more firepower we have, the better chance at survival.

I disagree... fighting fire with fire just causes more fire. I prefer water

There is no water here. If there were, we would have used it a long time ago.

Of course there is... water is everything other than arming up to fight the bad guys. I don’t think you understood the analogy

Nothing else has worked so I don't know where you get the water from. We can't stop the bad guys from getting guns, that much we know. We have hundreds of gun laws on the books already, and state laws add even more. There are certain people not legally allowed to buy guns, but they buy them anyway.

Now if your goal is to reduce casualties and deaths, then the only thing in the past that has done that is another person with a gun.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So then what you are saying is that it's the people and not the guns. Am I correct? Because that's what we've been saying all along.

It’s the people first and foremost but some use guns to kill people so let’s not easily arm them with super dangerous weapons. We can be safe and responsible

"We" are not arming anybody. People who legally purchase guns pay for those guns themselves. People who illegally purchase guns do so with their own money.

Punishing "everybody" for the possible actions of a few is grade school stuff. What if we made a law that prohibited cars from going over 70 mph because of speeders who get into accidents and kill people? What if made a law that bars and restaurants could only sell 2% alcohol beer because some get drunk and run their car into a house, or hit police officers on the side of the road when they're with another vehicle?

Summers can get pretty miserable if we outlawed pools because of the drownings we have every single season.

It doesn’t matter who pays for them, when we allow products to be legally manufactured and/ or sold in our country then we are responsible for the effects of those products. If they cause a safety hazard to our public then government has a responsibility to regulate. Of course there is a line to draw and that’s what debate is for

Then it goes back to the comment you just responded to. Should government restrict vehicles from going over 70mph, outlaw swimming pools, and close down bars and stop the sale of alcohol in public places? After all, over 40,000 Americans a year die on the road. We "allow" all of these things.

Pools and cars are regulated. They also aren’t tools made to kill others

Well.....guns are regulated too, aren't they?

They may not be manufactured to kill people, but thousands die using these devices.

You said we "allow" people to buy guns, but because people die from them, it's governments responsibility to prevent deaths using them. So why not do the same with other things?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's what this is. So far it's emotions not changing facts.

And let me know if I'm wasting my time asking for the top 5 cities of gun control and how that's faring. That's getting ignored by you more than I was ignored on prom night.

I think gun violence in big cities is a result of poverty and crime and many many other factors... not gun control laws. It’s a much more complicated situation than a simple answer can address

So then what you are saying is that it's the people and not the guns. Am I correct? Because that's what we've been saying all along.

It’s the people first and foremost but some use guns to kill people so let’s not easily arm them with super dangerous weapons. We can be safe and responsible

"Super dangerous"
Is there any other kind?
Isn't it kind of the point?
The point of the spear has to actually be useful if it is going to be a deterrent. Otherwise it is nothing more than bully and bluster.
What's that gonna get you when someone comes at you with evil intent? If you don't have the right tools to defend yourself what are you gonna use? A "non super dangerous weapon?"
We can go down many rabbit holes with your hyperbole. However, I'd like to see you answer the question posed to you in a multitude of ways as straight forward as possible. Why do you want to punish the law abiding, the vast majority that are the law abiding, who have not in any way, shape, form, nor fashion broken any laws because some mental defective, who are a very, very, miniscule percentage, lost their shit and decided it was okay to break the law and kill people?

Addressing your question... I don’t want to punish law abiding citizens I want to be responsible with how we regulate the commerce of weapons made to kill others. I don’t look at seatbelt laws and helmet laws and airbag laws and emissions laws as regulations made to punish citizens. They were made for public safety and responsible commerce.

Seat belts, air bags, helmet laws were written for bad drivers. We all have to pay for those items in our vehicles because we have no choice but to buy them in the price of the car.

 

[Slade3200]

Yes of course don’t we all support laws that we think we need? That’s a strange statement

No, not when we know they won't work we don't. Why would I support a law that only makes it inconvenient and dangerous to the average law abiding citizen? Because let's face it, the criminals will still kill when they want to. All we can do is try to defend ourselves from them. The more firepower we have, the better chance at survival.

I disagree... fighting fire with fire just causes more fire. I prefer water

There is no water here. If there were, we would have used it a long time ago.

Of course there is... water is everything other than arming up to fight the bad guys. I don’t think you understood the analogy

Nothing else has worked so I don't know where you get the water from. We can't stop the bad guys from getting guns, that much we know. We have hundreds of gun laws on the books already, and state laws add even more. There are certain people not legally allowed to buy guns, but they buy them anyway.

Now if your goal is to reduce casualties and deaths, then the only thing in the past that has done that is another person with a gun.

Then you go ahead and take that position. I think the abundance of guns in our society is a factor in the high rate of gun violence. Just compare to other countries.

 

[Slade3200]

I think gun violence in big cities is a result of poverty and crime and many many other factors... not gun control laws. It’s a much more complicated situation than a simple answer can address

So then what you are saying is that it's the people and not the guns. Am I correct? Because that's what we've been saying all along.

It’s the people first and foremost but some use guns to kill people so let’s not easily arm them with super dangerous weapons. We can be safe and responsible

"Super dangerous"
Is there any other kind?
Isn't it kind of the point?
The point of the spear has to actually be useful if it is going to be a deterrent. Otherwise it is nothing more than bully and bluster.
What's that gonna get you when someone comes at you with evil intent? If you don't have the right tools to defend yourself what are you gonna use? A "non super dangerous weapon?"
We can go down many rabbit holes with your hyperbole. However, I'd like to see you answer the question posed to you in a multitude of ways as straight forward as possible. Why do you want to punish the law abiding, the vast majority that are the law abiding, who have not in any way, shape, form, nor fashion broken any laws because some mental defective, who are a very, very, miniscule percentage, lost their shit and decided it was okay to break the law and kill people?

Addressing your question... I don’t want to punish law abiding citizens I want to be responsible with how we regulate the commerce of weapons made to kill others. I don’t look at seatbelt laws and helmet laws and airbag laws and emissions laws as regulations made to punish citizens. They were made for public safety and responsible commerce.

Seat belts, air bags, helmet laws were written for bad drivers. We all have to pay for those items in our vehicles because we have no choice but to buy them in the price of the car.

agreed, what’s your point

 

[Slade3200]

It’s the people first and foremost but some use guns to kill people so let’s not easily arm them with super dangerous weapons. We can be safe and responsible

"We" are not arming anybody. People who legally purchase guns pay for those guns themselves. People who illegally purchase guns do so with their own money.

Punishing "everybody" for the possible actions of a few is grade school stuff. What if we made a law that prohibited cars from going over 70 mph because of speeders who get into accidents and kill people? What if made a law that bars and restaurants could only sell 2% alcohol beer because some get drunk and run their car into a house, or hit police officers on the side of the road when they're with another vehicle?

Summers can get pretty miserable if we outlawed pools because of the drownings we have every single season.

It doesn’t matter who pays for them, when we allow products to be legally manufactured and/ or sold in our country then we are responsible for the effects of those products. If they cause a safety hazard to our public then government has a responsibility to regulate. Of course there is a line to draw and that’s what debate is for

Then it goes back to the comment you just responded to. Should government restrict vehicles from going over 70mph, outlaw swimming pools, and close down bars and stop the sale of alcohol in public places? After all, over 40,000 Americans a year die on the road. We "allow" all of these things.

Pools and cars are regulated. They also aren’t tools made to kill others

Well.....guns are regulated too, aren't they?

They may not be manufactured to kill people, but thousands die using these devices.

You said we "allow" people to buy guns, but because people die from them, it's governments responsibility to prevent deaths using them. So why not do the same with other things?

It is the same with other things as I pointed out.

 

[iceberg]

Define "super dangerous" please. We are going back to scare tactics you said you hated the NRA for, but couldn't point to a single tactic. So you say you hate the emotional play but you keep using it. Do you hate yourself? If not, isn't that hypocritical?

Super dangerous is what gets defined through debate, analysis and law making. Just like “weapons of war”

They use a bayonet in a war.

Now what?

They also use knives and walkie talkies in war. I think you know that’s not the point

Then stop using "weapons of war" as a fear tactic.

I’m using the term because that’s what Beto said and it came up in this thread earlier. I made the case that it isn’t a bad thing, it just needs to have a specific definition. What qualifies as a weapon of war.

Anything used in a war.

 

[iceberg]

Usually we can link the law to a positive effect for the law.

A law to make you feel better isn't that effective for society. Just you.

If it doesn’t make you feel better or if it doesn’t convince you that it is worth passing then don’t vote for it, that’s your right.

I want to know it will address problems, not be a phyric law

I believe you’ve said you supported the ban on automatic weapons is that right? If so what problem did that solve?

Never said I supported it as it never came up. But since you ask, yes I do but if I did say anything, I said we know what trait we are banning. Banning the AR bans no trait. Banning high cap mags has no known impact. And no I won't confuse emotional ploys with common sense.

Well please explain what problem the auto ban solved which justifies your support of that law. Apply the same criteria you are asking of me in this conversation.

That's where I draw the line I suppose. Like I said, the 7-11 analogy is stupid and "so you think it's OK to own nukes" is stupid. I don't like the extreme points as if it's really feasible.

 

[OldLady]

The democrats won't put gang members on red flag lists and confiscate their guns. WTF?
Aren't they serious about reducing gun violence?
All they want is to collect rural law-abiding guns?
Gun control is dead without gang members on red flag lists.

That is not what a red flag law is for. This is an intentional add on to bomb the bill, keep it from being passed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So then what you are saying is that it's the people and not the guns. Am I correct? Because that's what we've been saying all along.

It’s the people first and foremost but some use guns to kill people so let’s not easily arm them with super dangerous weapons. We can be safe and responsible

"Super dangerous"
Is there any other kind?
Isn't it kind of the point?
The point of the spear has to actually be useful if it is going to be a deterrent. Otherwise it is nothing more than bully and bluster.
What's that gonna get you when someone comes at you with evil intent? If you don't have the right tools to defend yourself what are you gonna use? A "non super dangerous weapon?"
We can go down many rabbit holes with your hyperbole. However, I'd like to see you answer the question posed to you in a multitude of ways as straight forward as possible. Why do you want to punish the law abiding, the vast majority that are the law abiding, who have not in any way, shape, form, nor fashion broken any laws because some mental defective, who are a very, very, miniscule percentage, lost their shit and decided it was okay to break the law and kill people?

Addressing your question... I don’t want to punish law abiding citizens I want to be responsible with how we regulate the commerce of weapons made to kill others. I don’t look at seatbelt laws and helmet laws and airbag laws and emissions laws as regulations made to punish citizens. They were made for public safety and responsible commerce.

Seat belts, air bags, helmet laws were written for bad drivers. We all have to pay for those items in our vehicles because we have no choice but to buy them in the price of the car.

agreed, what’s your point

The point is all this crap we pay for does punish people the have no use for them. I don't care about emissions. That makes the environ whacko's happy. I don't need seat belts. I don't use them anyway. Because I'm an excellent driver, I have no use for air bags either, but I am penalized by having to buy all these things anyway.

 

[OldLady]

Yes of course don’t we all support laws that we think we need? That’s a strange statement

No, not when we know they won't work we don't. Why would I support a law that only makes it inconvenient and dangerous to the average law abiding citizen? Because let's face it, the criminals will still kill when they want to. All we can do is try to defend ourselves from them. The more firepower we have, the better chance at survival.

I disagree... fighting fire with fire just causes more fire. I prefer water

There is no water here. If there were, we would have used it a long time ago.

Of course there is... water is everything other than arming up to fight the bad guys. I don’t think you understood the analogy

Nothing else has worked so I don't know where you get the water from. We can't stop the bad guys from getting guns, that much we know. We have hundreds of gun laws on the books already, and state laws add even more. There are certain people not legally allowed to buy guns, but they buy them anyway.

Now if your goal is to reduce casualties and deaths, then the only thing in the past that has done that is another person with a gun.

How many guns do we have in this country? Why aren't we the safest country in the world, then?

 

[iceberg]

No, not when we know they won't work we don't. Why would I support a law that only makes it inconvenient and dangerous to the average law abiding citizen? Because let's face it, the criminals will still kill when they want to. All we can do is try to defend ourselves from them. The more firepower we have, the better chance at survival.

I disagree... fighting fire with fire just causes more fire. I prefer water

There is no water here. If there were, we would have used it a long time ago.

Of course there is... water is everything other than arming up to fight the bad guys. I don’t think you understood the analogy

Nothing else has worked so I don't know where you get the water from. We can't stop the bad guys from getting guns, that much we know. We have hundreds of gun laws on the books already, and state laws add even more. There are certain people not legally allowed to buy guns, but they buy them anyway.

Now if your goal is to reduce casualties and deaths, then the only thing in the past that has done that is another person with a gun.

How many guns do we have in this country? Why aren't we the safest country in the world, then?

How many gun laws does California have? Why are they one of the worst in gun violence?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, not when we know they won't work we don't. Why would I support a law that only makes it inconvenient and dangerous to the average law abiding citizen? Because let's face it, the criminals will still kill when they want to. All we can do is try to defend ourselves from them. The more firepower we have, the better chance at survival.

I disagree... fighting fire with fire just causes more fire. I prefer water

There is no water here. If there were, we would have used it a long time ago.

Of course there is... water is everything other than arming up to fight the bad guys. I don’t think you understood the analogy

Nothing else has worked so I don't know where you get the water from. We can't stop the bad guys from getting guns, that much we know. We have hundreds of gun laws on the books already, and state laws add even more. There are certain people not legally allowed to buy guns, but they buy them anyway.

Now if your goal is to reduce casualties and deaths, then the only thing in the past that has done that is another person with a gun.

Then you go ahead and take that position. I think the abundance of guns in our society is a factor in the high rate of gun violence. Just compare to other countries.

People who want to kill will kill with guns or not. Our two largest mass murders didn't involve one gun. They involved box cutters and fertilizer.

On Friday, some goof drove his SUV into a Sears store in Illinois trying to kill shoppers. He failed, but the point is he figured out a way to try and kill a bunch of people. Last year, London surpassed NYC murder rate, mostly with the use of knives. In France, some crazy drove a truck into a crowd killing 85 people.

So here is the problem: If you take a nice middle-class suburb, make a law that all citizens must have a firearm in their home, and do the reverse in a low income crime riddled area, the crime statistics won't change in either neighborhood. Because it's the people, not the weapon that kills other people.

 

[DamnDude]

That's what this is. So far it's emotions not changing facts.

And let me know if I'm wasting my time asking for the top 5 cities of gun control and how that's faring. That's getting ignored by you more than I was ignored on prom night.

I think gun violence in big cities is a result of poverty and crime and many many other factors... not gun control laws. It’s a much more complicated situation than a simple answer can address

So then what you are saying is that it's the people and not the guns. Am I correct? Because that's what we've been saying all along.

It’s the people first and foremost but some use guns to kill people so let’s not easily arm them with super dangerous weapons. We can be safe and responsible

"Super dangerous"
Is there any other kind?
Isn't it kind of the point?
The point of the spear has to actually be useful if it is going to be a deterrent. Otherwise it is nothing more than bully and bluster.
What's that gonna get you when someone comes at you with evil intent? If you don't have the right tools to defend yourself what are you gonna use? A "non super dangerous weapon?"
We can go down many rabbit holes with your hyperbole. However, I'd like to see you answer the question posed to you in a multitude of ways as straight forward as possible. Why do you want to punish the law abiding, the vast majority that are the law abiding, who have not in any way, shape, form, nor fashion broken any laws because some mental defective, who are a very, very, miniscule percentage, lost their shit and decided it was okay to break the law and kill people?

Sure, every gun is dangerous. But put a musket next to a machine gun and you see there are many levels of dangerous. Some are made for combat and should be left in the hands of trained soldiers. Others for licensed citizens and law enforcement. Others for average citizens for self defense, sport and hunting

Come on Slade.... The musket in 1770 was the "super dangerous" weapon of choice at the time.
Times change, so does the item in question.
Hell's bells, just 100 years ago people were still getting around mainly by horse, horse and buggy (or other animal drawn cart)or steam locomotive.
I get it, you keep wanting to appeal to emotions and cannot see a "valid reason" for anyone to own what you deem acceptable. Problem is, I can.
You deal with your little slice of the world and I bet rarely ever venture out of it. I deal mainly in a rural setting and there are many and various animals to be wary of.. Least of them the 2 legged variety. I also have to deal with the business world in a city enviroment. I don't encounter every type of incident and I hope I never do. I just don't want the law abiding to be limited should they ever have a need. I have been blessed in my personal life as to not have a need... Yet. However, my previous life/upbringing/career/life experience leave me with an understanding. Just because I don't believe it to be so doesn't mean it isn't needed for someone else.
What you want doesn't negate what someone else needs.

 

[DamnDude]

Super dangerous is what gets defined through debate, analysis and law making. Just like “weapons of war”

They use a bayonet in a war.

Now what?

They also use knives and walkie talkies in war. I think you know that’s not the point

Then stop using "weapons of war" as a fear tactic.

I’m using the term because that’s what Beto said and it came up in this thread earlier. I made the case that it isn’t a bad thing, it just needs to have a specific definition. What qualifies as a weapon of war.

Anything used in a war.

I used a pen quite often on my deployments.
Far more than my m4...

 

[Markle]

Then you go ahead and take that position. I think the abundance of guns in our society is a factor in the high rate of gun violence. Just compare to other countries.

Your ignorance of the facts is not surprising! It would be amusing if it were not so sad and characteristic of the far left.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
UPDATED:18:14 EST, 2 July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 920 and South Africa 1,609.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.

Read more: The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online

UK is violent crime capital of Europe