OPINION: Could The FBI Have Stopped The Terrorist In Orlando?

what's the awesome part?
The part where they spend the political capital they have on a bill that will go no where?
Or the part where they are supporting a bill that would gut the 5th amendment right to due process?

birdwell wrote:

what's the awesome part?
The part where they spend the political capital they have on a bill that will go no where?
Or the part where they are supporting a bill that would gut the 5th amendment right to due process?

The bills I've read about have mechanisms to challenge your ban if you were placed on the shit list by mistake - due process is guaranteed.

birdwell wrote:

what's the awesome part?
The part where they spend the political capital they have on a bill that will go no where?
Or the part where they are supporting a bill that would gut the 5th amendment right to due process?

The awesome part was the symbolism and the scant hope that something can, or will, be done. But I'm not naive. If killing a bunch of babies at Sandy Hook didn't bring about some sort of change, killing a bunch of gay people in Orlando surely won't. This is Amurica. We rank babies far higher than queers. USA! USA! USA!

A nice article on the bill the democrats are wanting to pass
boldly fighting for a stupid bill

birdwell wrote:

A nice article on the bill the democrats are wanting to pass
boldly fighting for a stupid bill

It is premature to judge the success or failure of this sit-in. There could be repercussions far beyond the bad stupid bill - changes to how the no-fly list works, November elections, other bills that are not so bad stupid, etc.

I don't believe the Dems have any intention or "wanting" of passing any sort of Bill. They know they can't. If the Dems came up with a Bill that did away with income tax while still funding the budget, a Bill that also included free ice cream with sprinkles, the Republicans would shoot it down simply because it's Democrats trying to pass it. The sit-in isn't to blackmail anyone into passing any Bill. It's mostly to make the Republicans look stupid. Who was the Representative last night who yelled that it wasn't guns who killed the people in Orlando, it was Islamic Jihadists? I think he was from Texas. What a giant steaming pile of feces he is. It's all nothing but theater. Nothing will be done. We'll all forget about gun control soon enough until the next bloodbath, and then we'll all cry and wring our hands and do absolutely nothing about it again.

I think the main purpose of the sit in is the election. Getting them on record now has more clout than any bill in the past. I like it in theory but just wish weapons with multiple rounds were on the list. Getting some kind of restriction would be my choice.

[quote="RSX"]I think the main purpose of the sit in is the election. Getting them on record now has more clout than any bill in the past. I like it in theory but just wish weapons with multiple rounds were on the list. Getting some kind of restriction would be my choice. [/quote]


What do you mean when you say "multiple rounds"? I take it you're not a gun guy and I'm just trying to understand.

I have guns. Several guns. One is a Ruger 10/22. A little .22 caliber plinker carbine. I have two 30 round magazines that can snap back to back, making it possible to fire off 60 rounds almost as fast as my finger can pull the trigger. I would have no problem with it if the govt said we can't buy or sell those magazines anymore. And if they said "hey Banana!!, we know you already own these magazine and we'll let you keep them but you gotta register them" I'd have no problem with that either. Like i said, mine's just a .22 and nobody busts into a Kindergarten to shoot children with a .22, but they also make these sorts of magazines for more high powered calibers. So why not restrict the magazine's capacities, or build the guns so that it takes more than a press of a button to drop a magazine? Do something to slow it down so that if someone is unloading on a group of people, maybe they'll at least have a chance to duck for cover while the nutjob is changing magazines. Where I live you have to have a plug in your shotgun so it'll only hold 3 rounds when you go dove hunting. 3 rounds!! Why do we give dove a fighting chance, but not little children or innocent adults?

Banana!! wrote:

I have guns. Several guns. One is a Ruger 10/22. A little .22 caliber plinker carbine. I have two 30 round magazines that can snap back to back, making it possible to fire off 60 rounds almost as fast as my finger can pull the trigger. I would have no problem with it if the govt said we can't buy or sell those magazines anymore. And if they said "hey Banana!!, we know you already own these magazine and we'll let you keep them but you gotta register them" I'd have no problem with that either. Like i said, mine's just a .22 and nobody busts into a Kindergarten to shoot children with a .22, but they also make these sorts of magazines for more high powered calibers. So why not restrict the magazine's capacities, or build the guns so that it takes more than a press of a button to drop a magazine? Do something to slow it down so that if someone is unloading on a group of people, maybe they'll at least have a chance to duck for cover while the nutjob is changing magazines. Where I live you have to have a plug in your shotgun so it'll only hold 3 rounds when you go dove hunting. 3 rounds!! Why do we give dove a fighting chance, but not little children or innocent adults?

Why do they even make those high capacity magazines anyway? They argue these guns are for "hunting" and "personal defense" but if you need 30 or more rounds to take down a deer or a burglar, you're doing it wrong.

birdwell wrote:

RSX wrote:

I think the main purpose of the sit in is the election. Getting them on record now has more clout than any bill in the past. I like it in theory but just wish weapons with multiple rounds were on the list. Getting some kind of restriction would be my choice.

What do you mean when you say "multiple rounds"? I take it you're not a gun guy and I'm just trying to understand.

Not a gun guy, but not against them. When I hear terms like a certain gun can fire off 17 rounds before reloading, I am assuming that means more than 6 bullets or possibly (17x6).

Why do they make magazines that can hold 30 rounds?
Probably for the same reason they make cars that can go north of 200 MPH. Some people like them and there is a market for them.

Full disclosure - I got to shoot an AR-15 for the first time ever this week. A buddy of mine who is active duty Army visited and brought a few "toys" with him. I also got to shoot his AR-10 (chambered in .308). We went out target shooting and rabbit hunting with it. It wasn't as much fun to shoot as I thought it would be. I prefer my Winchester 94.

I think it's also important to point out that 99.9999999999% of the owners of AR-15 type rifles never inflict any harm upon anyone.

I'm trying to look at the argument from all sides. Certain people should not have weapons of any sort. But is it really fair and just to punish everyone else for the actions of a handful of people?

Those who wish to do harm will always find a way to do harm.

It seems like whenever there is an instance of gun violence in America, it's the "guns" fault. We don't talk about banning alcohol or cars when drunk drivers kill our children. We don't talk about banning doctors when prescription drugs are used inappropriately by people.

Another thing.

The people who are responsible gun owners and follow the law, would follow the laws that ban high capacity magazines. They might gripe and groan, but they would obey the law.

The people who want to do harm, don't care about the laws.

I would bet money that there are over 50 million high capacity magazines for AR-15's in circulation in America right now. Those things aren't going to disappear over night. The good guys would turn them over, but the good guys aren't the ones to worry about.

The obvious solution is just to get rid of all the guns everywhere, but that isn't ever going to happen.

See, nothing done but hand wringing and political theatrics. What's it been, 2 weeks? Orlando who??