The property of an FFL holder which must be accounted for in their black book. Every time a firearm enters or leaves the inventory of an FFL it must be recorded, and that record is accessible to the BATFE at any time during normal business hours. As far as the law is concerned the inventory of a retail or manufacturer FFL is separate from that individual's privately owned firearms.
Yes and if they sell it to Joe Smo, he is free to sell it no questions asked to anyone with no background check or record keeping. That's nonsense and that's the gun show loophole
That's the sale of private property, or private sales.
Who cares? Society has determined and an overwhelming majority agree that certain people as determined by a background check should not be able to buy guns. They can do so if they buy it from someone who doesn't have a FFL. That it was bought off Craigslist doesn't make it OK.
eehhhh. I really don't like that as the standard. "Society has determined and an overwhelming majority [have] agree[d]" to some pretty fucking awful things in the past. (I don't believe I need to provide a list.)
Society has also determined and overwhelmingly agreed to some pretty fucking awesome things, so this is a really silly rebuttal to the point at hand.
Both are equally true, yes, which is why I'm very uncomfortable with that being put forth as, apparently, the only standard in the post I was replying to.
I mean, society once determined and overwhelmingly agreed that it was just peachy to own brown people. And that homosexuality was mental illness. And...
Like I really really cannot emphasize enough how stupid it is that it's a literal list of names. Names, as though no one in the world has the same name as any other person.
And it takes months to get resolved if they know you're right. And the process of protesting your inclusion is a sign that you're suspicious so hey maybe instead of erasing you we just put you on the "allow them to fly but keep an eye on them at all times and also fuck with them at airport security" list.
And it's secret, so you've already been fucked if you actually needed to be someplace at a time.
It's one of the dumbest things we came up with in our terror-haze, and it absolutely needs to be gotten rid of as soon as possible.
God forbid you find out that you're on it while in a foreign country
Hey, wow, that's an amazing nightmare. Geez.
I tried doing some googling to find the last shooter that was actually on the list at the time they shot people and I'm back to 2009. Anybody know more recently?
The property of an FFL holder which must be accounted for in their black book. Every time a firearm enters or leaves the inventory of an FFL it must be recorded, and that record is accessible to the BATFE at any time during normal business hours. As far as the law is concerned the inventory of a retail or manufacturer FFL is separate from that individual's privately owned firearms.
Yes and if they sell it to Joe Smo, he is free to sell it no questions asked to anyone with no background check or record keeping. That's nonsense and that's the gun show loophole
That's the sale of private property, or private sales.
Who cares? Society has determined and an overwhelming majority agree that certain people as determined by a background check should not be able to buy guns. They can do so if they buy it from someone who doesn't have a FFL. That it was bought off Craigslist doesn't make it OK.
eehhhh. I really don't like that as the standard. "Society has determined and an overwhelming majority [have] agree[d]" to some pretty fucking awful things in the past. (I don't believe I need to provide a list.)
Society has also determined and overwhelmingly agreed to some pretty fucking awesome things, so this is a really silly rebuttal to the point at hand.
Both are equally true, yes, which is why I'm very uncomfortable with that being put forth as, apparently, the only standard in the post I was replying to.
I mean, society once determined and overwhelmingly agreed that it was just peachy to own brown people. And that homosexuality was mental illness. And...
And that's how a democratic system works. Democracies aren't designed to make good choices, just legitimate ones.
+2
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
Like I really really cannot emphasize enough how stupid it is that it's a literal list of names. Names, as though no one in the world has the same name as any other person.
And it takes months to get resolved if they know you're right. And the process of protesting your inclusion is a sign that you're suspicious so hey maybe instead of erasing you we just put you on the "allow them to fly but keep an eye on them at all times and also fuck with them at airport security" list.
And it's secret, so you've already been fucked if you actually needed to be someplace at a time.
It's one of the dumbest things we came up with in our terror-haze, and it absolutely needs to be gotten rid of as soon as possible.
God forbid you find out that you're on it while in a foreign country
Fuck, I didn't like it as it was and i hadn't even considered that particular application.
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
It's not the job of the House to pass any bill that's popular with the public at large, and it's not the Speaker's job to bring forward any bill that would, under reasonable speculation, pass the house were it to be considered (trivial proof: sometimes multiple incompatible versions of the same bill would all pass—perhaps on the basis of different votes—but they are, by stipulation, incompatible, ergo at least some bill that would pass cannot be brought to the floor). Controlling the proceedings is one of the powers of the speakership, and it has varied over time how concessive speakers have been to the minority party in that regard. I recall back and forth fights over the ability of the minority party to offer amendments under both parties speakerships, with the that conflict just being the same as this but in microcosm.
I think the American system is pretty flawed. A better system would be less malapportioned. And the "free proposal" period that Friendishrabbit mentions, where anyone can bring a bill, sounds just fine to me. So, I would support institutional reform. Nonetheless, we currently have the system we do, and in that system nothing stands against Ryan refusing to consider a bill he doesn't want to. It might be distasteful, but it's no kind of violation of his duties. I don't think the same can be said of the house members sitting in and singing and chanting over Ryan when he tried to bring the house to order.
Of course, it's rather minor. In terms of the immediate effect of wasting some floor time on the house, it's not a big deal. I don't much like it, though, because of what it stands for as sign and symptom. Anywhere you look these days you can read stories about the historic breakdown Congressional function. Partisan polarization is up and legislative norms are dissolving. Think of it this way: when you read a headline in isolation that says "the minority party has begun a physical occupation of the legislative floor in protest of the actions of the majority leader," are you more confident that you're reading about a quasi-stable third-world democracy, or about the USA? For me, it's the former; or, it would have been. So, even though I doubt the sit in really did anything particularly bad, I still find it disquieting. I'm glad they ended it after a day.
When it comes to the bill itself, I don't really share the sense of extraordinary times calling for extraordinary measures. Part of the reason is that I don't like the bill that much, for basically the reasons outlined by Pareene, (and quoted approvingly by djw at lawyers guns and money):
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.
…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 shitty, racist, useless bill.
Actually they are "going to the mat" for several measures. One is an expansion of background checks. The other is making being on one of the various watch a flag for a review on the purchase. And then also power to block sales based on someone being "a threat to public safety" as defined in the amendment.
So, firstly, they are using one of those "previously debated gun control measures" you mention as their symbolic lost cause. And secondly while one can (and should) object to the No Fly list or the like, that's not actually much of anything in the bill you are complaining about since being on the list the bill uses doesn't actually bar you from buying a gun, a determination by the Attorney General (someone hired by him one imagines specifically) is what does.
So however extraordinary our times might be, this doesn't seem like a particularly attractive measure. But even bracketing the bill itself, I don't think the times are really that extraordinary in the first place: that is, I don't think the current rates of gun violence present any kind of existential crisis in government. Gun violence in general and mass shootings in particular are certainly nationally visible and very horrifying. But they are not, in the final balance, a particularly large risk factor for Americans. I mean, we can begin by noting that an American selected at random is more likely to have shot themselves than to have been shot by someone else, which at the very least suggests that suicide is a bigger public health problem than gun violence (perhaps a sit in for better mental health service at free clinics?).
Now, one might object that this statistic ignores a racial reality to gun violence. Once you specify that the American you have selected at random is black, then the odds flip; that is to say, a white American is more likely to have shot themselves than to have been shot by someone else, whereas a black American is more likely to be shot by someone else than to have shot themselves. Yet even among the group most often killed by gun violence—black men—it's unclear, as far as I can tell, that gun violence is a uniquely bad risk factor. So, in another comparison: a black American man is more likely to die from medical complications due to diabetes than they are from gun violence (38 per 100,000 as against 34 out of 10,000).
So that's gun violence in general. Once we confine our attention to mass shootings, though, the numbers really do become relatively miniscule. So, again, to frame things: around 475 Americans per year die in a mass shootings, as opposed to the ~13,000 a year dying in gun violence and the ~30,000 a year dying to suicide. Not only is gun violence a significantly less common cause of death than suicide, but mass shootings make up a tiny portion of gun deaths. Hence, measures targeted specifically at preventing mass shootings (as 'no fly no buy' appears to be) seem, even within the world of preventing gun violence, to be likely to have a minuscule effect on the total.
This is not to say that gun violence isn't a problem, or one that we should solve: I believe that it is and we should. I support gun control. But "blood on our hands" and all strikes me as lacking perspective. Gun violence is one public health problem among many. I don't think it's special in a way that would uniquely justify, for instance, attempting to continue the sit in and shut down the house until they really did get a vote—if that were the end game, I would be fully on board with Ryan having the sergeant at arms or whoever clear them out.
Times aren't extraordinary only in that the US has had it's ridiculous levels of gun violence for quite awhile now. The current backlash is not to a change in the status quo, but a lack of action on the rather large problems in the status quo (as compared to, say, other first world countries) that continue to remain unaddressed.
Like any political movement, momentum grows over time. A lack of action on the issue is causing more and more reactions over time.
I admit that part of me knows this will go nowhere, and nothing will get done, legislatively speaking, to enact gun control as a result of this sit-in.
But it's sort of overridden by my happiness at seeing elected officials do something in the wake of a mass shooting besides post a tweet about how their "prayers" are with the victims and their families. If all this does is make some waves and make people more aware that one party is willing to protest doing nothing while the other party tries to shut the cameras off so nobody else can see how bad they look as a result, it's still better than useless hackneyed platitudes.
I find this whole "innaction", "extraordinary circumstance" narrative uncompelling as US homicide rates are at a 50 year low and have been declining every year for close to 25 years.
Quick! Quick! Do something or else this problem will keep going away!
I find this whole "innaction", "extraordinary circumstance" narrative uncompelling as US homicide rates are at a 50 year low and have been declining every year for close to 25 years.
Quick! Quick! Do something or else this problem will keep going away!
And yet still remain consistently higher then other similar countries, where fyi rates are also declining over the same period.
These arguments are always silly because ya keep pretending like the US isn't abnormally gun killy.
I find this whole "innaction", "extraordinary circumstance" narrative uncompelling as US homicide rates are at a 50 year low and have been declining every year for close to 25 years.
Quick! Quick! Do something or else this problem will keep going away!
Cool, I have some data too
The problem with looking at the rate corrected by population is that the population can increase drastically, and gun violence can increase or stay the same and it looks like your problem is going away.
But it's not.
+1
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
The property of an FFL holder which must be accounted for in their black book. Every time a firearm enters or leaves the inventory of an FFL it must be recorded, and that record is accessible to the BATFE at any time during normal business hours. As far as the law is concerned the inventory of a retail or manufacturer FFL is separate from that individual's privately owned firearms.
Yes and if they sell it to Joe Smo, he is free to sell it no questions asked to anyone with no background check or record keeping. That's nonsense and that's the gun show loophole
That's the sale of private property, or private sales.
Who cares? Society has determined and an overwhelming majority agree that certain people as determined by a background check should not be able to buy guns. They can do so if they buy it from someone who doesn't have a FFL. That it was bought off Craigslist doesn't make it OK.
eehhhh. I really don't like that as the standard. "Society has determined and an overwhelming majority [have] agree[d]" to some pretty fucking awful things in the past. (I don't believe I need to provide a list.)
Society has also determined and overwhelmingly agreed to some pretty fucking awesome things, so this is a really silly rebuttal to the point at hand.
Both are equally true, yes, which is why I'm very uncomfortable with that being put forth as, apparently, the only standard in the post I was replying to.
I mean, society once determined and overwhelmingly agreed that it was just peachy to own brown people. And that homosexuality was mental illness. And...
Interestingly enough, places with legitimate elections and various forms of elected representatives have made owning people illegal and overwhelmingly have accepted homosexuality as no big deal.
You know those places that haven't? Ones that tend to ignore the will of the people the government is supposed to be working for.
So sure, people are dumb sometimes. But the most progressive nations of the world are all some kind of representative democracy.
Or do you have an example of totalitariann regime that is as progressive?
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.
Or do you have an example of totalitariann regime that is as progressive?
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.
Paul "I am totally the president and not dictator of Rwanda" Kagame.
Trippling income per capita (mostly due to building up a booming service sector from Rwandas, previously, highly agrarian economy and being the 3rd most business friendly state in Africa), putting almost 20% of the state budget into education (doubling the literacy rate), tripling the health budget (halving infant mortality and making steady progress in combatting malaria).
Rwanda is also no.2 world wide in gender equality (Sweden being no.1), with especially high numbers of women in decision making positions (especially in the Public sector. 64% of parliamentary representatives are women), with equal legal rights and an actual well-funded department dedicated to promoting womens rights (the Ministry for Gender and Family promotion).
All of this has been done in 15 years (following a Civili war and genocide of nightmarish proportions), transforming Rwanda from a lawless country deep in civil war to one of the most progressive nations of Africa.
Yeah, it's the exception that proves the rule. Still.
Also, benevolent dictatorships so rarely stay benevolent dictatorships. They either become democracies, or stop being benevolent. Is it Jordan that has the current record for lasting the longest?
Fiendishrabbit on
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
I'm going to leave this thread, because either I'm splitting a rhetorical hair, or some people here are sincerely advocating that whether the majority is in favor of a thing should be the only test ... and neither of those is good, IMO.
Commander Zoom on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
I'm going to leave this thread, because either I'm splitting a rhetorical hair, or some people here are sincerely advocating that whether the majority is in favor of a thing should be the only test ... and neither of those is good, IMO.
Well, the counter is that the majority of people want something (Expanded background checks) that do not place unreasonable burden on people interested in owning a gun. The background checks are much more thorough in Canada, and you can only buy/own/transport a firearm with the proper licensing, which means if someone wants to buy a gun privately, they have to have that license, which means the background check has already happened. When I got my license the RCMP phoned up my references and had a bunch of questions for them about me, so they follow through on those checks.
Honestly, I had more trouble getting my driver's license the first time (Failed the damn thing twice).
So, that said, it's pretty ridiculous to state that majority will is the only test when the other test is that it's reasonable legislation.
I'm not willing to argue the no fly list, it's my opinion that the government should be able to deny firearm purchases to whoever as long as they're willing to go on record as to why, but the currently popular interpretation of the second amendment complicates any kind of legislation. I simply have my opinion, not the answer.
I'm going to leave this thread, because either I'm splitting a rhetorical hair, or some people here are sincerely advocating that whether the majority is in favor of a thing should be the only test ... and neither of those is good, IMO.
Well, the counter is that the majority of people want something (Expanded background checks) that do not place unreasonable burden on people interested in owning a gun. The background checks are much more thorough in Canada, and you can only buy/own/transport a firearm with the proper licensing, which means if someone wants to buy a gun privately, they have to have that license, which means the background check has already happened. When I got my license the RCMP phoned up my references and had a bunch of questions for them about me, so they follow through on those checks.
Honestly, I had more trouble getting my driver's license the first time (Failed the damn thing twice).
So, that said, it's pretty ridiculous to state that majority will is the only test when the other test is that it's reasonable legislation.
But neither of those (unreasonable burden, reasonable legislation) were in the post I was responding to. Only what "Society has determined and an overwhelming majority agree". And that, IMO, is not nearly good enough, not considering all the other things it's been used to justify. Up to and including depriving entire classes of people of their rights and/or lives, which is one heck of an "unreasonable burden."
I'm going to leave this thread, because either I'm splitting a rhetorical hair, or some people here are sincerely advocating that whether the majority is in favor of a thing should be the only test ... and neither of those is good, IMO.
Well, the counter is that the majority of people want something (Expanded background checks) that do not place unreasonable burden on people interested in owning a gun. The background checks are much more thorough in Canada, and you can only buy/own/transport a firearm with the proper licensing, which means if someone wants to buy a gun privately, they have to have that license, which means the background check has already happened. When I got my license the RCMP phoned up my references and had a bunch of questions for them about me, so they follow through on those checks.
Honestly, I had more trouble getting my driver's license the first time (Failed the damn thing twice).
So, that said, it's pretty ridiculous to state that majority will is the only test when the other test is that it's reasonable legislation.
But neither of those (unreasonable burden, reasonable legislation) were in the post I was responding to. Only what "Society has determined and an overwhelming majority agree". And that, IMO, is not nearly good enough, not considering all the other things it's been used to justify. Up to and including depriving entire classes of people of their rights and/or lives, which is one heck of an "unreasonable burden."
Right. Rhetorical hair. I'll see myself out.
Who then decides what is or is not an undue or unreasonable burden?
Arguments have been made, evidence has been brought forth, and majority has found them compelling.
Should every possible law made vetoable by anyone for whatever reason?
System may not be perfect, but we don't have a better one.
I'm going to leave this thread, because either I'm splitting a rhetorical hair, or some people here are sincerely advocating that whether the majority is in favor of a thing should be the only test ... and neither of those is good, IMO.
Well, the counter is that the majority of people want something (Expanded background checks) that do not place unreasonable burden on people interested in owning a gun. The background checks are much more thorough in Canada, and you can only buy/own/transport a firearm with the proper licensing, which means if someone wants to buy a gun privately, they have to have that license, which means the background check has already happened. When I got my license the RCMP phoned up my references and had a bunch of questions for them about me, so they follow through on those checks.
Honestly, I had more trouble getting my driver's license the first time (Failed the damn thing twice).
So, that said, it's pretty ridiculous to state that majority will is the only test when the other test is that it's reasonable legislation.
But neither of those (unreasonable burden, reasonable legislation) were in the post I was responding to. Only what "Society has determined and an overwhelming majority agree". And that, IMO, is not nearly good enough, not considering all the other things it's been used to justify. Up to and including depriving entire classes of people of their rights and/or lives, which is one heck of an "unreasonable burden."
Right. Rhetorical hair. I'll see myself out.
Why isn't it a good reason?
The problem with your argument here is that you are missing that the way democratic systems like the US generally work is "Society determines what it wants and it gets that so long as there is not some higher up rule saying you can't do that no matter how much you want to". Specifically in the US it's more or less "Congress can do what it wants as long as it's Constitutional". (Although, since the Constitution is itself amendable, constitutionality is simply a higher bar of "what society has determined it wants".)
This isn't the splitting of a rhetorical hair, this is you fundamentally making a bad argument. If you want to argue that the will of the people should not be enacted by their legislature, you have to explain why according to some right )or procedure or the like) laid down in something like the US Constitution. Because otherwise "the people want it" is a very good reason for a democratic government to do something. That's the point of democracy after all.
I find this whole "innaction", "extraordinary circumstance" narrative uncompelling as US homicide rates are at a 50 year low and have been declining every year for close to 25 years.
Quick! Quick! Do something or else this problem will keep going away!
Cool, I have some data too
The problem with looking at the rate corrected by population is that the population can increase drastically, and gun violence can increase or stay the same and it looks like your problem is going away.
But it's not.
No, if the incident rate is decreasing then the problem is less severe.
0
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
I find this whole "innaction", "extraordinary circumstance" narrative uncompelling as US homicide rates are at a 50 year low and have been declining every year for close to 25 years.
Quick! Quick! Do something or else this problem will keep going away!
Cool, I have some data too
The problem with looking at the rate corrected by population is that the population can increase drastically, and gun violence can increase or stay the same and it looks like your problem is going away.
But it's not.
No, if the incident rate is decreasing then the problem is less severe.
Incident per capita is decreasing, not gun deaths overall. The actual number of incidents in the US has stayed within a couple of percentage points of itself for the last 15-16 years, as josh's chart shows.
The reason incident per capita is decreasing is the US population has seen a nearly 15% jump over the same span (more than 40 million since 2000).
BlackDragon480 on
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
I find this whole "innaction", "extraordinary circumstance" narrative uncompelling as US homicide rates are at a 50 year low and have been declining every year for close to 25 years.
Quick! Quick! Do something or else this problem will keep going away!
Cool, I have some data too
The problem with looking at the rate corrected by population is that the population can increase drastically, and gun violence can increase or stay the same and it looks like your problem is going away.
But it's not.
No, if the incident rate is decreasing then the problem is less severe.
Incident per capita is decreasing, not gun deaths overall. The actual number of incidents in the US has stayed within a couple of percentage points of itself for the last 15-16 years, as josh's chart shows.
The reason incident per capita is decreasing is the US population has seen a nearly 15% jump over the same span (more than 40 million since 2000).
If the rate of murder and the odds that you may be murdered were not going down the chart wouldn't be a level one, but an increasing one (like the suicide track).
I mean you can try to manipulate the data and the way you present it but the fact is the average individual is less likely to be murdered by a gun.
If gun crime was not going down I would expect josh's graph to roughly track the suicide total with the homicide totals.
I find this whole "innaction", "extraordinary circumstance" narrative uncompelling as US homicide rates are at a 50 year low and have been declining every year for close to 25 years.
Quick! Quick! Do something or else this problem will keep going away!
Cool, I have some data too
The problem with looking at the rate corrected by population is that the population can increase drastically, and gun violence can increase or stay the same and it looks like your problem is going away.
But it's not.
No, if the incident rate is decreasing then the problem is less severe.
Incident per capita is decreasing, not gun deaths overall. The actual number of incidents in the US has stayed within a couple of percentage points of itself for the last 15-16 years, as josh's chart shows.
The reason incident per capita is decreasing is the US population has seen a nearly 15% jump over the same span (more than 40 million since 2000).
Also: incidents of suicide by gun went up by nearly 500,000 between 2007 and 2013, and none of this addresses non-fatal shootings either. I suppose it's possible that suicides and non-fatal shootings don't count in this discussion and only mass shootings in which deaths occur do, but those have been increasing in frequency as well.
The gun deaths per capita argument is a disingenuous way of looking at the stats. Are fewer people dying or getting hurt by guns? No? Then it's still a problem.
No the per capita argument is not a disingenuous way to look at statistics. If your population goes up 500k, you expect none of those additional people to be capable of murder? At the same time you have the suicide total going up.
I find this whole "innaction", "extraordinary circumstance" narrative uncompelling as US homicide rates are at a 50 year low and have been declining every year for close to 25 years.
Quick! Quick! Do something or else this problem will keep going away!
Cool, I have some data too
The problem with looking at the rate corrected by population is that the population can increase drastically, and gun violence can increase or stay the same and it looks like your problem is going away.
But it's not.
No, if the incident rate is decreasing then the problem is less severe.
Incident per capita is decreasing, not gun deaths overall. The actual number of incidents in the US has stayed within a couple of percentage points of itself for the last 15-16 years, as josh's chart shows.
The reason incident per capita is decreasing is the US population has seen a nearly 15% jump over the same span (more than 40 million since 2000).
This is just the most bizarre unreasoning...
Is gun violence is worse now than in the 30s, when it occurred at 2.5x the rate it does now today, but our population was only 1/3 of what it is currently?
Or how about other things?
Are auto death now 32k a year, 10.3 per 100k people, 1.1 per 100m miles traveled, better or worse than 1930 when we had 31,204k deaths, 25.353 per 100k people, and 15.12 per 100m miles traveled?
Is leukemia more of a problem now, that we can cure it ~80% of the time than it was in 1880 where it was 100% fatal, but we only had 15% of the current population?
No the per capita argument is not a disingenuous way to look at statistics. If your population goes up 500k, you expect none of those additional people to be capable of murder? At the same time you have the suicide total going up.
Gun ownership is going down, though. Population growth is far outpacing it.
No the per capita argument is not a disingenuous way to look at statistics. If your population goes up 500k, you expect none of those additional people to be capable of murder? At the same time you have the suicide total going up.
Gun ownership is going down, though. Population growth is far outpacing it.
I'm not sure what you are driving at?
If the population is growing faster than the ownership rate is decreasing, that would imply total gun ownership to be increasing. While the homicide total is flat.
Gallup is showing household ownership rates as relatively flat since the mid 90s though.
Which means that while the rate of ownership has remained flat since 2000(and the total number of owners increased), the homicide rate has decreased(While total homicides remained relatively flat).
No the per capita argument is not a disingenuous way to look at statistics. If your population goes up 500k, you expect none of those additional people to be capable of murder? At the same time you have the suicide total going up.
Gun ownership is going down, though. Population growth is far outpacing it.
So you are going to use a per-capita argument to say that your non-per capita argument is valid.
By your chart the gun ownership total would be going up. Per-capita it is declining but total ownership is up.
I mean you can just change the way data is presented to support your argument I suppose...
is there a list somewhere of every rep/sen that participated in this?
0
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
edited June 2016
While more in line with the Right to Bare thread, I will say that my feelings on the matter is that while the per capita rate is going down, the overall number of incidents is still alarmingly high, especially when a large number of other countries in the first world have seen not only per capita rates decrease, but number of gun related casualties (fatality and injury) overall. I feel this is due to other countries taking active measures to regulate their markets for legally available firearms and ensuring that high-risk/low-utility variants (like large capacity long guns and fully auto anything) are either unavailable to civilians or well tracked/logged and far less likely to be used in a criminal act. As such, I applaud the House and Senate Dems for showing a little spine and at least trying to get something rolling.
Also note that I myself am a gun-owner, I have a Winchester 70 bolt-action in .308 that I use for deer hunting, but have never felt the need or desire to own more.
BlackDragon480 on
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
While more in line with the Right to Bare thread, I will say that my feelings on the matter is that while the per capita rate is going down, the overall number of incidents is still alarmingly high, especially when a large number of other countries in the first world have seen not only per capita rates decrease, but number of gun related casualties (fatality and injury) overall. I feel this is due to other countries taking active measures to regulate their markets for legally available firearms and ensuring that high-risk/low-utility variants (like large capacity long guns and fully auto anything) are either unavailable to civilians or well tracked/logged and far less likely to be used in a criminal act. As such, I applaud the House and Senate Dems for showing a little spine and at least trying to get something rolling.
Also note that I myself am a gun-owner, I have a Winchester 70 bolt-action in .308 that I use for deer hunting, but have never felt the need or desire to own more.
Rifles in general, including semi auto repeating rifles, are already far less likely to be used in a criminal act (~.04% of firearms homicides, ~300 or less annually). In fact a rifle is more likely to be used in Canada in a criminal homicide by three orders of magnitude.
While more in line with the Right to Bare thread, I will say that my feelings on the matter is that while the per capita rate is going down, the overall number of incidents is still alarmingly high, especially when a large number of other countries in the first world have seen not only per capita rates decrease, but number of gun related casualties (fatality and injury) overall. I feel this is due to other countries taking active measures to regulate their markets for legally available firearms and ensuring that high-risk/low-utility variants (like large capacity long guns and fully auto anything) are either unavailable to civilians or well tracked/logged and far less likely to be used in a criminal act. As such, I applaud the House and Senate Dems for showing a little spine and at least trying to get something rolling.
Also note that I myself am a gun-owner, I have a Winchester 70 bolt-action in .308 that I use for deer hunting, but have never felt the need or desire to own more.
Rifles in general, including semi auto repeating rifles, are already far less likely to be used in a criminal act (~.04% of firearms homicides, ~300 or less annually). In fact a rifle is more likely to be used in Canada in a criminal homicide by three orders of magnitude.
Man they're looking like a super good option after Orlando and Sandy Hook, though. You could trend using an AR-15!
...
Okay I just grossed myself out. Sorry.
+1
Options
valhalla13013 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered Userregular
I don't really have a problem with the sit in but I can't help but be amused at how in this thread when you lose and are in the minority it's perfectly acceptable to demand concessions from someone who has every right to deny them and in other threads, people in the same position need to shut up and fuck off because they lost.
You can not like Ryan not allowing a vote but he's got every right to. He's the speaker.
The Dems are in the weaker position here*, they're not tearing their own party for their goal and they're not giving someone like Trump a stick they can use against the nominee. The two situations aren't identical.
edit: Whatever happens this may be something Hillary can add to her arsenal against Trump and the GOP in the general.
* what they lack in power is making up for leverage in other ways, making sure they can "win" indirectly if they lose via optics
The only difference is that you agree with this 43% minority instead of the 56% majority. Its a group of people that haven't won elections for majority control in six years and have no rightful authoritative say, fighting passionately for the things they believe are important regardless of the fact that they have continually lost.
This has to be addresses properly. The reason the Demo haven't won those election sis because the Repubs have gerrymandering the fuck out of the country to make sure there was no way Dems could win. They've also enacted voter ID laws that they have explicitly stated were to get Repubs elected. They've managed to get a conservative Supreme Court to strike down the VRA, so states could start discriminating again , and what did several southern states do immediately?
This has never been a fair fight, but Dems have been fighting fair, and losing. When you're in an institution of civility and governance, and one side has dedicated itself to subverting the will of a majority of the people thru legal rules lawyering, don't turn around and blame the lsoing side for not "winning."
+5
Options
valhalla13013 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered Userregular
Just because the No Fly list is shitty doesn't mean it can't be used to accomplish something un-shitty in the short term, e.g. stopping guns from falling into the hands of those suspected of terrorist involvement. I believe the no fly list and other watchlists are important tools, though i also firmly believe that they need reformed so that the process of resolving false positives becomes transparent and relatively painless (like once you become aware of your status on a list and after you lodge your objection, the government has 90 days to run an emergency full background check and determine whether you stay on or get booted).
They're extra judicial enemies lists with little in the way of appeals process or public disclosure that you're on them.
I would really really really like for them to not be any more firmly established in law.
I get the argument and the rhetorical framing but as a practical matter I still think it's shitty governance. Though the fact we don't universal background check and register is also shitty governance.
I am "perfect enemy of the good"-ing here but I'm not convinced they're even good on balance. Unless I missed something huge it wouldn't have done a damn thing in this case. When was the last shooting it would have?
Emanuel Cleaver, Democratic Rep of Missouri's 5th district (My district!) and one of the participants of the sit-in, was placed on the no-fly list for a time because a cousin of his with the same initials and last name was a high-ranking member of the Black Panthers.
He was asked this morning on the local NPR station if he thought there needed to be changes to the bill to help deal with those who were wrongly placed on the no-fly list, his answer? No.
Now, I'm not sure if I agree with my Rep. on that, but I thought it was very interesting that someone who has been fucked by the no-fly list is still completely OK with using it as it is today to stop possible terrorists from buying guns.
If it was just about guns I would agree with him, as I'm of the opinion the 2nd Amendment is pretty fucking stupid in a modern context. But I worry about the precedent it sets for other rights.
Well, the conservative elements in our country have already done plenty to screw with the other rights. Why is the 2nd the only one they care about?
Wonderful. Maybe you should win the fucking house then.
This is a pathetic and childish display more suited to the Democrats of the 1800s than those of today.
It's a disgrace. They should be embarrassed. And they should come to fucking order. You're in the minority party (is what this forum said a billion times in 2007) so suck it up and act like you have a shred of dignity or respect for your office.
I knew this shit was going to happen after Wisconsin Democrats fled the state to avoid doing their fucking jobs.
Yes, the 'minority party'.
Which party does the POTUS belong to, again? Which party won the large vote that people actually care about, again (for better or worse)?
Yes, your party won the vote that nobody shows up for. Congratulations?
You are among an almost microscopic, fringe minority group that does not want any firearm legislation. Sorry, but in this instance it's you who does not curry democratic favor. People overwhelming want firearm legislation - the split is close to 60/40, and it's not in your favor. So why should you get your way, again? Why is this 'childish nonsense' when representatives are busy attempting to represent their constituents?
Just because the No Fly list is shitty doesn't mean it can't be used to accomplish something un-shitty in the short term, e.g. stopping guns from falling into the hands of those suspected of terrorist involvement. I believe the no fly list and other watchlists are important tools, though i also firmly believe that they need reformed so that the process of resolving false positives becomes transparent and relatively painless (like once you become aware of your status on a list and after you lodge your objection, the government has 90 days to run an emergency full background check and determine whether you stay on or get booted).
They're extra judicial enemies lists with little in the way of appeals process or public disclosure that you're on them.
I would really really really like for them to not be any more firmly established in law.
I get the argument and the rhetorical framing but as a practical matter I still think it's shitty governance. Though the fact we don't universal background check and register is also shitty governance.
I am "perfect enemy of the good"-ing here but I'm not convinced they're even good on balance. Unless I missed something huge it wouldn't have done a damn thing in this case. When was the last shooting it would have?
Emanuel Cleaver, Democratic Rep of Missouri's 5th district (My district!) and one of the participants of the sit-in, was placed on the no-fly list for a time because a cousin of his with the same initials and last name was a high-ranking member of the Black Panthers.
He was asked this morning on the local NPR station if he thought there needed to be changes to the bill to help deal with those who were wrongly placed on the no-fly list, his answer? No.
Now, I'm not sure if I agree with my Rep. on that, but I thought it was very interesting that someone who has been fucked by the no-fly list is still completely OK with using it as it is today to stop possible terrorists from buying guns.
If it was just about guns I would agree with him, as I'm of the opinion the 2nd Amendment is pretty fucking stupid in a modern context. But I worry about the precedent it sets for other rights.
Well, the conservative elements in our country have already done plenty to screw with the other rights. Why is the 2nd the only one they care about?
Wankish power fantasies and NRA meddling best I can tell.
Posts
Both are equally true, yes, which is why I'm very uncomfortable with that being put forth as, apparently, the only standard in the post I was replying to.
I mean, society once determined and overwhelmingly agreed that it was just peachy to own brown people. And that homosexuality was mental illness. And...
Hey, wow, that's an amazing nightmare. Geez.
I tried doing some googling to find the last shooter that was actually on the list at the time they shot people and I'm back to 2009. Anybody know more recently?
And that's how a democratic system works. Democracies aren't designed to make good choices, just legitimate ones.
Fuck, I didn't like it as it was and i hadn't even considered that particular application.
Actually they are "going to the mat" for several measures. One is an expansion of background checks. The other is making being on one of the various watch a flag for a review on the purchase. And then also power to block sales based on someone being "a threat to public safety" as defined in the amendment.
So, firstly, they are using one of those "previously debated gun control measures" you mention as their symbolic lost cause. And secondly while one can (and should) object to the No Fly list or the like, that's not actually much of anything in the bill you are complaining about since being on the list the bill uses doesn't actually bar you from buying a gun, a determination by the Attorney General (someone hired by him one imagines specifically) is what does.
Times aren't extraordinary only in that the US has had it's ridiculous levels of gun violence for quite awhile now. The current backlash is not to a change in the status quo, but a lack of action on the rather large problems in the status quo (as compared to, say, other first world countries) that continue to remain unaddressed.
Like any political movement, momentum grows over time. A lack of action on the issue is causing more and more reactions over time.
But it's sort of overridden by my happiness at seeing elected officials do something in the wake of a mass shooting besides post a tweet about how their "prayers" are with the victims and their families. If all this does is make some waves and make people more aware that one party is willing to protest doing nothing while the other party tries to shut the cameras off so nobody else can see how bad they look as a result, it's still better than useless hackneyed platitudes.
Quick! Quick! Do something or else this problem will keep going away!
Guess what problem they don't have and we do
And yet still remain consistently higher then other similar countries, where fyi rates are also declining over the same period.
These arguments are always silly because ya keep pretending like the US isn't abnormally gun killy.
Cool, I have some data too
The problem with looking at the rate corrected by population is that the population can increase drastically, and gun violence can increase or stay the same and it looks like your problem is going away.
But it's not.
Interestingly enough, places with legitimate elections and various forms of elected representatives have made owning people illegal and overwhelmingly have accepted homosexuality as no big deal.
You know those places that haven't? Ones that tend to ignore the will of the people the government is supposed to be working for.
So sure, people are dumb sometimes. But the most progressive nations of the world are all some kind of representative democracy.
Or do you have an example of totalitariann regime that is as progressive?
Paul "I am totally the president and not dictator of Rwanda" Kagame.
Trippling income per capita (mostly due to building up a booming service sector from Rwandas, previously, highly agrarian economy and being the 3rd most business friendly state in Africa), putting almost 20% of the state budget into education (doubling the literacy rate), tripling the health budget (halving infant mortality and making steady progress in combatting malaria).
Rwanda is also no.2 world wide in gender equality (Sweden being no.1), with especially high numbers of women in decision making positions (especially in the Public sector. 64% of parliamentary representatives are women), with equal legal rights and an actual well-funded department dedicated to promoting womens rights (the Ministry for Gender and Family promotion).
All of this has been done in 15 years (following a Civili war and genocide of nightmarish proportions), transforming Rwanda from a lawless country deep in civil war to one of the most progressive nations of Africa.
Yeah, it's the exception that proves the rule. Still.
Also, benevolent dictatorships so rarely stay benevolent dictatorships. They either become democracies, or stop being benevolent. Is it Jordan that has the current record for lasting the longest?
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Well, the counter is that the majority of people want something (Expanded background checks) that do not place unreasonable burden on people interested in owning a gun. The background checks are much more thorough in Canada, and you can only buy/own/transport a firearm with the proper licensing, which means if someone wants to buy a gun privately, they have to have that license, which means the background check has already happened. When I got my license the RCMP phoned up my references and had a bunch of questions for them about me, so they follow through on those checks.
Honestly, I had more trouble getting my driver's license the first time (Failed the damn thing twice).
So, that said, it's pretty ridiculous to state that majority will is the only test when the other test is that it's reasonable legislation.
I'm not willing to argue the no fly list, it's my opinion that the government should be able to deny firearm purchases to whoever as long as they're willing to go on record as to why, but the currently popular interpretation of the second amendment complicates any kind of legislation. I simply have my opinion, not the answer.
But neither of those (unreasonable burden, reasonable legislation) were in the post I was responding to. Only what "Society has determined and an overwhelming majority agree". And that, IMO, is not nearly good enough, not considering all the other things it's been used to justify. Up to and including depriving entire classes of people of their rights and/or lives, which is one heck of an "unreasonable burden."
Right. Rhetorical hair. I'll see myself out.
Arguments have been made, evidence has been brought forth, and majority has found them compelling.
Should every possible law made vetoable by anyone for whatever reason?
System may not be perfect, but we don't have a better one.
Why isn't it a good reason?
The problem with your argument here is that you are missing that the way democratic systems like the US generally work is "Society determines what it wants and it gets that so long as there is not some higher up rule saying you can't do that no matter how much you want to". Specifically in the US it's more or less "Congress can do what it wants as long as it's Constitutional". (Although, since the Constitution is itself amendable, constitutionality is simply a higher bar of "what society has determined it wants".)
This isn't the splitting of a rhetorical hair, this is you fundamentally making a bad argument. If you want to argue that the will of the people should not be enacted by their legislature, you have to explain why according to some right )or procedure or the like) laid down in something like the US Constitution. Because otherwise "the people want it" is a very good reason for a democratic government to do something. That's the point of democracy after all.
No, if the incident rate is decreasing then the problem is less severe.
Incident per capita is decreasing, not gun deaths overall. The actual number of incidents in the US has stayed within a couple of percentage points of itself for the last 15-16 years, as josh's chart shows.
The reason incident per capita is decreasing is the US population has seen a nearly 15% jump over the same span (more than 40 million since 2000).
~ Buckaroo Banzai
If the rate of murder and the odds that you may be murdered were not going down the chart wouldn't be a level one, but an increasing one (like the suicide track).
I mean you can try to manipulate the data and the way you present it but the fact is the average individual is less likely to be murdered by a gun.
If gun crime was not going down I would expect josh's graph to roughly track the suicide total with the homicide totals.
Also: incidents of suicide by gun went up by nearly 500,000 between 2007 and 2013, and none of this addresses non-fatal shootings either. I suppose it's possible that suicides and non-fatal shootings don't count in this discussion and only mass shootings in which deaths occur do, but those have been increasing in frequency as well.
The gun deaths per capita argument is a disingenuous way of looking at the stats. Are fewer people dying or getting hurt by guns? No? Then it's still a problem.
This is just the most bizarre unreasoning...
Is gun violence is worse now than in the 30s, when it occurred at 2.5x the rate it does now today, but our population was only 1/3 of what it is currently?
Or how about other things?
Are auto death now 32k a year, 10.3 per 100k people, 1.1 per 100m miles traveled, better or worse than 1930 when we had 31,204k deaths, 25.353 per 100k people, and 15.12 per 100m miles traveled?
Is leukemia more of a problem now, that we can cure it ~80% of the time than it was in 1880 where it was 100% fatal, but we only had 15% of the current population?
Gun ownership is going down, though. Population growth is far outpacing it.
I'm not sure what you are driving at?
If the population is growing faster than the ownership rate is decreasing, that would imply total gun ownership to be increasing. While the homicide total is flat.
Gallup is showing household ownership rates as relatively flat since the mid 90s though.
Which means that while the rate of ownership has remained flat since 2000(and the total number of owners increased), the homicide rate has decreased(While total homicides remained relatively flat).
By your chart the gun ownership total would be going up. Per-capita it is declining but total ownership is up.
I mean you can just change the way data is presented to support your argument I suppose...
Also note that I myself am a gun-owner, I have a Winchester 70 bolt-action in .308 that I use for deer hunting, but have never felt the need or desire to own more.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
This is from Think Progress:
Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME), Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD), Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY), Rep. David Jolly (R-FL), Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-OH), Rep. Bob Brady (D-PA), Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM), Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA), Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT), Rep. Pete Aguilar ( D-CA), Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL), Rep. John Larson (D-CT), Rep. Janice Hahn (D-CA), Rep. Tony Cardenas (D-CA), Rep. Norma Torres (D-CA), Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rep. Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA), Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-CA), Rep. Albio Sires (D-NJ), Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. Charles Range (D-NY), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-MA), Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY), Rep. Gwen Graham (D-FL), Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA), Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI), Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), Rep. Ami Bera (D-CA), Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX), Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-IL), Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI), Rep. David Price (D-NC), Rep. Jackson Lee (D-TX), Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY), Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-Virgin Islands), Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ), Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA), Rep. Robin Kelly (D-IL), Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL), Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL), Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN), Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), Rep. Grace Meng (D-NY), Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-NY), Rep. Dan Kildee (D-MI), Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN), Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA), Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO), Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX), Rep. Alma Adams (D-NC), Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH, Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), Rep. John Carney (D-DE), Rep. Earl Blumenbauer (D-OR), Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-MI), Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI), Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. Bill Keating (D-MA), Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL), Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA), Rep. Lois Frankel (D-FL), Rep. Dave Loebsack (13-1A), Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-VA), Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA), Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY), Rep. Elizabeth Esty (D-CT), Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY), Rep. Katherine Clark (D-MA), Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-MA), Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA), Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA), Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI), Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-MO), Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY), Rep. Julia Brownley (D-CA), Rep. Jim Langevin (D-RI), Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA), Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ), Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL), Rep. John K. Delaney (D-MD), Rep. Donald M. Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Patrick E. Murphy (D-FL), Rep. Bill Foster (D-IL), Rep. Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM), Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA), Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH), Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI), Rep. Marc Veasey (D-TX), Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ), Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-WA), Rep. Xavier Becerra (DOCA), Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI), Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT), Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Sorry about the awful formatting, but I'm not fixing it with that many names. It's also missing a number of Senators.
Through the magic of find-and-replace ", " with "\n", Here's the list in a more readable form:
Rep. John Lewis (D-GA)
Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA)
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)
Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME)
Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD)
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA)
Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY)
Rep. David Jolly (R-FL)
Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-OH)
Rep. Bob Brady (D-PA)
Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM)
Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA)
Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT)
Rep. Pete Aguilar ( D-CA)
Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA)
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA)
Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL)
Rep. John Larson (D-CT)
Rep. Janice Hahn (D-CA)
Rep. Tony Cardenas (D-CA)
Rep. Norma Torres (D-CA)
Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN)
Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS)
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Rep. Lacy Clay (D-MO)
Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT)
Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA)
Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-CA)
Rep. Albio Sires (D-NJ)
Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY)
Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA)
Rep. Charles Range (D-NY)
Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)
Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-MA)
Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY)
Rep. Gwen Graham (D-FL)
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA)
Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO)
Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA)
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI)
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD)
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA)
Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA)
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL)
Rep. Ami Bera (D-CA)
Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX)
Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-IL)
Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI)
Rep. David Price (D-NC)
Rep. Jackson Lee (D-TX)
Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY)
Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC)
Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-Virgin Islands)
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI)
Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ)
Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA)
Rep. Robin Kelly (D-IL)
Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL)
Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL)
Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN)
Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY)
Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY)
Rep. Grace Meng (D-NY)
Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-NY)
Rep. Dan Kildee (D-MI)
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN)
Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA)
Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO)
Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR)
Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX)
Rep. Alma Adams (D-NC)
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH
Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI)
Rep. John Carney (D-DE)
Rep. Earl Blumenbauer (D-OR)
Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-MI)
Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)
Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)
Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI)
Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
Rep. Bill Keating (D-MA)
Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY)
Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL)
Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA)
Rep. Lois Frankel (D-FL)
Rep. Dave Loebsack (13-1A)
Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-VA)
Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA)
Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL)
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY)
Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY)
Rep. Elizabeth Esty (D-CT)
Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY)
Rep. Katherine Clark (D-MA)
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA)
Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-MA)
Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA)
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN)
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA)
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY)
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI)
Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ)
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-MO)
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD)
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY)
Rep. Julia Brownley (D-CA)
Rep. Jim Langevin (D-RI)
Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA)
Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ)
Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL)
Rep. John K. Delaney (D-MD)
Rep. Donald M. Payne (D-NJ)
Rep. Patrick E. Murphy (D-FL)
Rep. Bill Foster (D-IL)
Rep. Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM)
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA)
Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH)
Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI)
Rep. Marc Veasey (D-TX)
Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ)
Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-WA)
Rep. Xavier Becerra (DOCA)
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)
Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI)
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT)
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
pleasepaypreacher.net
Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA)
Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA)
Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-OH)
Rep. Xavier Becerra (DOCA)
Rep. Ami Bera (D-CA)
Rep. Earl Blumenbauer (D-OR)
Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR)
Rep. Bob Brady (D-PA)
Rep. Julia Brownley (D-CA)
Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-IL)
Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC)
Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA)
Rep. Tony Cardenas (D-CA)
Rep. John Carney (D-DE)
Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL)
Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX)
Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA)
Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI)
Rep. Katherine Clark (D-MA)
Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY)
Rep. Lacy Clay (D-MO)
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-MO)
Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN)
Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ)
Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-VA)
Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)
Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN)
Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT)
Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY)
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD)
Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL)
Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO)
Rep. John K. Delaney (D-MD)
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)
Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA)
Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL)
Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI)
Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD)
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN)
Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY)
Rep. Elizabeth Esty (D-CT)
Rep. Bill Foster (D-IL)
Rep. Lois Frankel (D-FL)
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI)
Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ)
Rep. Gwen Graham (D-FL)
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL)
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM)
Rep. Janice Hahn (D-CA)
Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT)
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD)
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA)
Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY)
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA)
Rep. David Jolly (R-FL)
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH
Rep. Bill Keating (D-MA)
Rep. Robin Kelly (D-IL)
Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-MA)
Rep. Dan Kildee (D-MI)
Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-WA)
Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI)
Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ)
Rep. Jim Langevin (D-RI)
Rep. John Larson (D-CT)
Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-MI)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA)
Rep. Jackson Lee (D-TX)
Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI)
Rep. John Lewis (D-GA)
Rep. Dave Loebsack (13-1A)
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-CA)
Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY)
Rep. Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM)
Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA)
Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY)
Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY)
Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA)
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN)
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA)
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA)
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY)
Rep. Grace Meng (D-NY)
Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI)
Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA)
Rep. Patrick E. Murphy (D-FL)
Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA)
Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)
Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX)
Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ)
Rep. Donald M. Payne (D-NJ)
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO)
Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA)
Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME)
Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-Virgin Islands)
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI)
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI)
Rep. David Price (D-NC)
Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL)
Rep. Charles Range (D-NY)
Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-NY)
Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA)
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA)
Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH)
Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT)
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)
Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA)
Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL)
Rep. Albio Sires (D-NJ)
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY)
Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA)
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA)
Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA)
Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS)
Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY)
Rep. Norma Torres (D-CA)
Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-MA)
Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)
Rep. Marc Veasey (D-TX)
Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY)
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL)
Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY)
Lookit this nerd.
Rifles in general, including semi auto repeating rifles, are already far less likely to be used in a criminal act (~.04% of firearms homicides, ~300 or less annually). In fact a rifle is more likely to be used in Canada in a criminal homicide by three orders of magnitude.
Man they're looking like a super good option after Orlando and Sandy Hook, though. You could trend using an AR-15!
...
Okay I just grossed myself out. Sorry.
This has to be addresses properly. The reason the Demo haven't won those election sis because the Repubs have gerrymandering the fuck out of the country to make sure there was no way Dems could win. They've also enacted voter ID laws that they have explicitly stated were to get Repubs elected. They've managed to get a conservative Supreme Court to strike down the VRA, so states could start discriminating again , and what did several southern states do immediately?
This has never been a fair fight, but Dems have been fighting fair, and losing. When you're in an institution of civility and governance, and one side has dedicated itself to subverting the will of a majority of the people thru legal rules lawyering, don't turn around and blame the lsoing side for not "winning."
Well, the conservative elements in our country have already done plenty to screw with the other rights. Why is the 2nd the only one they care about?
Yes, the 'minority party'.
Which party does the POTUS belong to, again? Which party won the large vote that people actually care about, again (for better or worse)?
Yes, your party won the vote that nobody shows up for. Congratulations?
You are among an almost microscopic, fringe minority group that does not want any firearm legislation. Sorry, but in this instance it's you who does not curry democratic favor. People overwhelming want firearm legislation - the split is close to 60/40, and it's not in your favor. So why should you get your way, again? Why is this 'childish nonsense' when representatives are busy attempting to represent their constituents?
Hey, there is a Republican in there!
Hooray for David Jolly!
Wankish power fantasies and NRA meddling best I can tell.