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

[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.

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

Guns don't guarantee everybody will be safe. Nobody is safe in any country. But if you are attacked, having a gun may save your life just as it does hundreds of thousands of times every year in the US.

 

[Preacher]

I had to look up the definition of this one. Apparently, they're going to throw a temper tantrum and cause a disruption. Might be fun to watch on CSPAN

ˌhold the ˈfloor
speak at a public meeting, etc. for a long time, often stopping others from speaking:

hold the floor

"Senate Democrats are planning to hold the floor on Tuesday evening for an hours-long talk-a-thon on the issue of gun violence.

The floor marathon comes as the White House is struggling to find a place to land in the weeks-long debate over potential gun-law reforms.

“Many of my colleagues have seen their communities torn apart by gun violence; some by horrific mass shootings, others by a relentless, daily stream. Many of them have worked for years to bring commonsense gun safety measures before the Senate,” Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday, in announcing the plan from the Senate floor..."

Senate Democrats to hold the floor to protest inaction on gun violence

Fine with me. The less time these clowns who run our country have to screw over working class Americans the better.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

Of course. Nobody in these countries can or are allowed to protect themselves. They run to government to try and solve their problems just like the Democrats want over here.

Years ago one of my elderly tenants moved out. We stayed in touch via e-mail for a while, and she wrote me a disturbing letter.

She was panicked because she got beat up in Europe, and had her passport stolen. She had no money, no way to get help, and she was so frantic she thought she was writing to her daughter instead of me.

I never responded to her letter since it was not her intent to tell me in the first place. But even in this neighborhood, she never had anything to fear. Everybody here was armed. She was such a frail and scared thing too. I felt so bad. She moved because the neighborhood was changing and left her apartment of 30 years because of it. Then she goes to Europe on a vacation and had the most traumatic experience of her life.

 

[lantern2814]

Inaction? Seems it was the DEMS who voted against putting registered gang members on the red flag list. So they're protesting themselves? Anything to protect those violent animals instead of American citizens.

 

[OldLady]

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?

Lots of cities. Urban areas have more gun crime.

 

[OldLady]

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?

Guns don't guarantee everybody will be safe. Nobody is safe in any country. But if you are attacked, having a gun may save your life just as it does hundreds of thousands of times every year in the US.

Your argument doesn't hold water. "The only thing in the past that has done that is another person with a gun." It obviously doesn't work. Our homicide rate is obscenely higher than any other developed country. And we have the most "persons with a gun." Having guns means more gun homicide, and that's actually a no brainer.

 

[Bush92]

I had to look up the definition of this one. Apparently, they're going to throw a temper tantrum and cause a disruption. Might be fun to watch on CSPAN

ˌhold the ˈfloor
speak at a public meeting, etc. for a long time, often stopping others from speaking:

hold the floor

"Senate Democrats are planning to hold the floor on Tuesday evening for an hours-long talk-a-thon on the issue of gun violence.

The floor marathon comes as the White House is struggling to find a place to land in the weeks-long debate over potential gun-law reforms.

“Many of my colleagues have seen their communities torn apart by gun violence; some by horrific mass shootings, others by a relentless, daily stream. Many of them have worked for years to bring commonsense gun safety measures before the Senate,” Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday, in announcing the plan from the Senate floor..."

Senate Democrats to hold the floor to protest inaction on gun violence

I will clean my weapons as they blather.

 

[Bush92]

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?

Guns don't guarantee everybody will be safe. Nobody is safe in any country. But if you are attacked, having a gun may save your life just as it does hundreds of thousands of times every year in the US.

Your argument doesn't hold water. "The only thing in the past that has done that is another person with a gun." It obviously doesn't work. Our homicide rate is obscenely higher than any other developed country. And we have the most "persons with a gun." Having guns means more gun homicide, and that's actually a no brainer.

Democrats make our crime rate so “obscene.” The real obscenity is that liberals refuse to face the fact.

 

[iceberg]

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?

Lots of cities. Urban areas have more gun crime.

And a shit load of laws ain't stopping it.

 

[DamnDude]

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?

Guns don't guarantee everybody will be safe. Nobody is safe in any country. But if you are attacked, having a gun may save your life just as it does hundreds of thousands of times every year in the US.

Your argument doesn't hold water. "The only thing in the past that has done that is another person with a gun." It obviously doesn't work. Our homicide rate is obscenely higher than any other developed country. And we have the most "persons with a gun." Having guns means more gun homicide, and that's actually a no brainer.

And we have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the most populous places. Providing for the argument that those intent on breaking the law will not be stopped by words on paper. Which adds to Ray's argument that a law abiding legally carrying citizen could stop and have stopped law breakers when present.
Whose argument isn't carrying water?
Rhetorical.

 

[Bush92]

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?

Lots of cities. Urban areas have more gun crime.

And a shit load of laws ain't stopping it.

Increase the death penalty.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

Guns don't guarantee everybody will be safe. Nobody is safe in any country. But if you are attacked, having a gun may save your life just as it does hundreds of thousands of times every year in the US.

Your argument doesn't hold water. "The only thing in the past that has done that is another person with a gun." It obviously doesn't work. Our homicide rate is obscenely higher than any other developed country. And we have the most "persons with a gun." Having guns means more gun homicide, and that's actually a no brainer.

There are a lot of reasons for that besides guns. First of all, we have a huge drug problem in this country. OD deaths have been increasing every single year the past five years. Drugs are money, and drugs involve violence. If it's not a bad drug deal going down, it's territorial issues.

Secondly we are a much more diverse country than those others. That means we have different cultures whereas others, perhaps one maybe two.

You are eight times more likely to be shot to death by a black than a white person. And if you look at white homicides only, we are not that out of sync with those other countries you probably have in mind.

 

[Markle]

Your argument doesn't hold water. "The only thing in the past that has done that is another person with a gun." It obviously doesn't work. Our homicide rate is obscenely higher than any other developed country. And we have the most "persons with a gun." Having guns means more gun homicide, and that's actually a no brainer.

Freedom isn't free in more ways than one.

We (The United States) as you know, also has one of the lowest violent crime rates.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

Nukes aren’t firearms and arent protected by the 2nd amendment. The question of whether we can legal regulate firearms is a contentious one so the 711 scenario shows what side of that argument people are on

 

[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

"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.

That’s fine you can look at it that way. I don’t agree

 

[Slade3200]

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.

I like my odds better vs a box cutter or vehicle vs a semi auto with 100 bullets in it. What would you rather go up against?

 

[iceberg]

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.

Nukes aren’t firearms and arent protected by the 2nd amendment. The question of whether we can legal regulate firearms is a contentious one so the 711 scenario shows what side of that argument people are on

It's stupid.

 

[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?

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.

You asked what I meant by “super dangerous” I used the musket-machine gun example to explain how weapons have different levels of danger. We determine what the threshold is for civilians and our legal market. I for one don’t think untrained civilians should have the same firepower as trained soldiers given the type of weapons we have on the market today.

 

[Markle]

I like my odds better vs a box cutter or vehicle vs a semi auto with 100 bullets in it. What would you rather go up against?

As you know, your odds of being killed by a vehicle, whether driven by you or not, is far, far greater than someone killing you with any sort of rifle.

 

[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?

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.

I totally agree with the last part of your statement. Well said