1 person is dead and 2 others are wounded after a shooting at church

[BobbyFK]

When will it end?

1 person is dead and 2 others are wounded after a shooting at church near Birmingham

One person was killed Thursday in a shooting at a church in a suburb of Birmingham, Alabama, police said.

www.cnn.com

 

[carolinakid]

this is just crazy in the world we live in

 

[lemartinsports]

this is such a common thing now, smh. this is why i want to live on a giant farm with all my animals away from all human beings. need some peace

everyone try to be safe out there, please

 

[Gary]

this shits becoming like a normal part of a news segment everyday. this is not going to end.

 

[Tanko]

They also said the negotiations in the senate on the "bi-partisan" bill to address some issues on gun control have broken down. Senator Cornyn (REP) walked out and went home to Texas.

Not looking good for reaching any resolution on these issues.

 

[stormtrooper8]

How about some damn gun control? Is this that hard?

 

[MinnesotaFats]

How about some damn gun control? Is this that hard?

It is.

There's 2 large issues:

1- Background checks on a minors record; mental health records access. Both currently illegal in most States (remember- Congress cannot override a State law that isn't implicitly contradicting the Constitution)

2- The definition of a "boyfriend". Yes, here we get into symmantics. Liberals want every "partner", including past lovers, that have even a petty misdemeanor assault charge (not conviction) to be barred from ownership.

This is never going to happen, it's too broad and would impact hunting rights & employment in bothe LE & civilian work that requires firearms.

There is probably no way to define what qualifies as a lover, boyfriend, ex, Co parent, stalker, intimidator, etc or in this day and age quantify it- i.e. does social media count? What if dude subscribes to an OnlyFans of an ex, etc.

This is where the liberals are taking this, so it will never get done.

Instead of a quid pro qou like this, that I think EVER Republican would support and makes perfect common sense:

21 to vote w Background check & ID verification/ 21 to buy a gun w Background check & ID verification. No voting or gun ownership right for convicted felons of drug or kidnapping or gun related / involved offenses. Establishment of a Federal gun ownership registry & any gun related crime involving a kidnapping, death or robbery in excess of $5k is a FEDERAL crime.

 

[biggins]

It is.

There's 2 large issues:

1- Background checks on a minors record; mental health records access. Both currently illegal in most States (remember- Congress cannot override a State law that isn't implicitly contradicting the Constitution)

2- The definition of a "boyfriend". Yes, here we get into symmantics. Liberals want every "partner", including past lovers, that have even a petty misdemeanor assault charge (not conviction) to be barred from ownership.

This is never going to happen, it's too broad and would impact hunting rights & employment in bothe LE & civilian work that requires firearms.

There is probably no way to define what qualifies as a lover, boyfriend, ex, Co parent, stalker, intimidator, etc or in this day and age quantify it- i.e. does social media count? What if dude subscribes to an OnlyFans of an ex, etc.

This is where the liberals are taking this, so it will never get done.

Instead of a quid pro qou like this, that I think EVER Republican would support and makes perfect common sense:

21 to vote w Background check & ID verification/ 21 to buy a gun w Background check & ID verification. No voting or gun ownership right for convicted felons of drug or kidnapping or gun related / involved offenses. Establishment of a Federal gun ownership registry & any gun related crime involving a kidnapping, death or robbery in excess of $5k is a FEDERAL crime.

Cliff notes

 

[Capitalist Pig]

We have done a lot actually in the USA to decrease gun deaths, but that will never make the news.

From the CDC “On a per capita basis, there were 13.6 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 2020 – the highest rate since the mid-1990s, but still well below the peak of 16.3 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 1974.”

Not to mention 25% of those gun deaths are from suicide, so I don’t even count them, to quote Archie Bunker” would it make you feel better little girl if they jumped out windows”

 

[MinnesotaFats]

A great example of why this will never actually occur would the Johnny Depp example.

A Heard filed a restraining order vs Depp.

Under Democrats proposed guidelines, that's it for Johnny. He would have to surrender his firearms....even thou the whole thing turned out to be false & she lost millions because of it.

The result here, would be Depp disenfranchised of a Constitutional Right, and as such, would be eligible to sue the County, State or Federal government fir damages.

This is the issue when drafting broad language in bills

 

[edawg]

Shall not be infringed. People forget that we live in a Constutional Republic not a democracy. Biggest trick they use is to get people to actually debate anything.

 

[Tanko]

Shall not be infringed. People forget that we live in a Constutional Republic not a democracy. Biggest trick they use is to get people to actually debate anything.

This is a good point but our rights are infringed upon all the time regardless of what the constitution says.

One example... Freedom of speech. It is limited in a number of ways by cities/states/feds. You have to get a permit to hold a rally and give a speech. You can't yell "fire" in a movie theater. Another example.... We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet many states have the death penalty. Pursuit of happiness is infringed upon all the time.

There are hundreds of examples of infringements that have been adopted by every state/city. Just because it says "shall not be infringed upon", doesn't mean its what we as a country adhere to.

 

[edawg]

Agree but that is exactly the problem

 

[MinnesotaFats]

See, the language in the 2nd Ammendment is quite specific...the RIGHT of the People.

That's where there's a difference in the other examples...the right to a gun, doesn't impact anyone else, whereas the examples cited above (a collective group holding a rally, endangering the public by Yelling Fire, FYI the right to life, liberty, etc isn't in the Constitution, that was the DOI) impact others so we preserve those rights by using good government to setvaside space for the rally or laws against endangering the public by reckless threats, etc.

Again, this issue isn't a gun issue. Cops have guns, we protect the Capitol & the Prez w secret service/ FBI and they have guns, most gas stations have guns, crowd control has guns even in Europe the subways & airports are guarded by guns.

This is a mental health issue and a judicial system/ political failure. Too much praise and sympathy for mentally ill people...not enough bars/ walls.