Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid formally introduces gun violence bill, debate to start once recess - Polidicks

[quote](CNN) – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid formally introduced a much-anticipated gun bill Thursday, his office announced. The Senate is expected to debate the legislation when the upper chamber returns from a two-week recess. The bill, released just over three months after the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, is made up of three measures. One measure expands the background check system, while the other two deal with school safety and gun trafficking. “The bill I advance tonight will serve as the basis for opening debate," Reid, the Senate’s leading Democrat, said in a statement. Reacting to the news that the Senate will consider a universal background check bill, NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam told CNN they are "strongly opposed" to the legislation, which was initially pushed by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York. “We have made our position clear, and we will do whatever we can to defeat it,” Arulanandam said. --- Vice President Biden's twitter: "Thanks @SenatorReid for your leadership in ensuring a vote on assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and background checks. --VP"[/quote] [url]http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/21/reid-formally-introduces-legislation-to-combat-gun-violence/[/url]

So I take it the AWB is not, in fact, dead? FUCK.

[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;40018031]So I take it the AWB is not, in fact, dead? FUCK.[/QUOTE] [quote]The bill, released just over three months after the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, is made up of three measures. One measure expands the background check system, while the other two deal with school safety and gun trafficking. [/quote]

[QUOTE=King Tiger;40018050]*countering what Ekalektik just said*[/QUOTE] I was going on Biden's comment, but I guess that wasn't relevant to the current bill. Sorry, my eyes jumped to the buzzwords.

Yay, more discrimination against the mentally ill.

[QUOTE=FrankOfArabia;40018088]Yay, more discrimination against the mentally ill.[/QUOTE] I have a great idea, let's issue the blind driving licenses.

[QUOTE=archangel125;40018387]I have a great idea, let's issue the blind driving licenses.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2013/03/guns-and-mentally-ill[/url] [quote]The post-Newtown national discussion about mental health is distinctly double-edged, says Dr Schwartz. It may increase access to some programmes. But the debate is also being used by those with other motives. Mental illness is ubiquitous, he notes, with rates of schizophrenia or bipolar disorders more or less the same around the world, with some rare exceptions. Yet rates of gun violence differ dramatically between America and comparable countries. And those differences tally closely with differences in the accessibility of weapons. To Dr Schwartz the diagnosis is straightforward: "the NRA is demonising mental illness to distract from the obvious, in-your-face relationship between the availability of guns and murder rates."[/quote]

[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;40018031]So I take it the AWB is not, in fact, dead? FUCK.[/QUOTE] The AWB was never dead. Feinstein and co. are still shoehorning it and the standard cap mag ban in as amendments. It's really a dangerous position because people who think it's dead are letting their guards down. I wouldn't be surprised if that's part of the strategy behind removing it from the bill.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;40018417][url]http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2013/03/guns-and-mentally-ill[/url][/QUOTE] It's not even that simple. The USA's culture (at least in many states, if not everywhere) revolves around guns, glorifies guns, and everyone has fantasies of being a hero. Violence is arguably a precious part of the national identity. All these bills are only dealing with the most peripheral issues because no politician wants to be the one to point out the elephant in the room.

[QUOTE=archangel125;40018502]It's not even that simple. The USA's culture (at least in many states, if not everywhere) revolves around guns, glorifies guns, and everyone has fantasies of being a hero. Violence is arguably a precious part of the national identity. All these bills are only dealing with the most peripheral issues because no politician wants to be the one to point out the elephant in the room.[/QUOTE] Americans don't have any pre-disposition to violence.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;40018512]Americans don't have any pre-disposition to violence.[/QUOTE] Americans don't have any predisposition to violence, but they do have a morbid fascination with instruments designed to kill people, and the Republican element of society can't imagine a world without good guys and bad guys. They've had a boner for war and shitty action movies since the Second World War.

[QUOTE=archangel125;40018502]It's not even that simple. The USA's culture (at least in many states, if not everywhere) revolves around guns, glorifies guns, and everyone has fantasies of being a hero. Violence is arguably a precious part of the national identity. All these bills are only dealing with the most peripheral issues because no politician wants to be the one to point out the elephant in the room.[/QUOTE] this is true I can't go to a walmart in south georgia without my uncle ray and my uncle rick carrying their AR-15's with them. I myself can't even go to a mcdonalds without having my revolver strapped to my waist. us unedumacated suthenors lifestyles revolves around gun culture

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;40018560]this is true I can't go to a walmart in south georgia without my uncle ray and my uncle rick carrying their AR-15's with them. I myself can't even go to a mcdonalds without having my revolver strapped to my waist. us unedumacated suthenors lifestyles revolves around gun culture[/QUOTE] Very funny. Are you denying that a gun culture exists?

[QUOTE=archangel125;40018523]Americans don't have any predisposition to violence, but they do have a morbid fascination with instruments designed to kill people, and the Republican element of society can't imagine a world without good guys and bad guys. They've had a boner for war and shitty action movies since the Second World War.[/QUOTE] The number of generalizations in this post is astounding.

[QUOTE=archangel125;40018583]Very funny. Are you denying that a gun culture exists?[/QUOTE] No, but you're over exaggerating it and making it sound like every American totes a gun everywhere they go, when it is blatantly untrue. You also make it seem like only republicans have a fascination with firearms, which is also blatantly untrue. I might go as far as to say that you're talking directly out of your ass. You also made a cute little jab at "They've had a boner for war and shitty action movies since the Second World War." It's funny because the majority of your countries (I'm assuming Canada, correct me if I'm wrong) gun laws are based off banning scary guns they see in movies and magazines.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;40018417][url]http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2013/03/guns-and-mentally-ill[/url][/QUOTE] No one has said that the issue is that mental issues are more prevalent in America than the rest of the world. The issue is that in the U.S., mental healthcare is outrageously expensive and state-run mental hospitals were largely shut down in the 60's and 70's.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40018599]The number of generalizations in this post is astounding.[/QUOTE] From the point of view of a lot of people who are not American, the massive opposition to proposed gun control from both liberal and conservative elements makes no sense at all. Maybe I'm failing to grasp the importance of guns in American culture, but from the reaction you'd think the government had just proposed slaughtering the firstborn of every American family. Two points. First, the Second Amendment was designed to give people the ability to resist their government if the government was leaning towards dictatorship. Well and good. But if you think that means an insurgency against the United States military at any point in the forseeable future, you're not seeing the big picture. People in the military would sooner shoot themselves than American citizens. Second. The government doesn't need, has NEVER needed, to use force against its people to control their lives. Americans are owned by the corporations that have the major political influence in their country. These corporations can't be fought with guns or militia, and they're clever enough to keep their backroom deals out of the public eye. It is in their interests and not the interests of the people that the government will act nine times out of ten. Your big clue was when the Supreme Court ruled that corporations were recognized as people and monetary donations were a protected form of free speech. So guns are completely irrelevant, and that the American people seem to love them so much seems, to me, a sign of an unhealthy obsession with them. Sure, maybe I'm wrong. But it's more saddening to see that people will let themselves get bent over and fucked by organizations to whom they're worth no more than cattle so long as they get to keep their shiny Armalites.

[QUOTE=Gordy H.;40018682]No one has said that the issue is that mental issues are more prevalent in America than the rest of the world. The issue is that in the U.S., mental healthcare is outrageously expensive and state-run mental hospitals were largely shut down in the 60's and 70's.[/QUOTE] I think a lot of good could come from reform in mental healthcare and their relationship with firearms, and improvements are necessary. But the gun lobby is using mental illness as handwavium or a scapegoat in a way that makes me feel a little uncomfortable. We don't want the wrong laws passed for the wrong reasons.

[url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1252542]I guess this thread only applies to North Korea in regards to archangel125[/url]

[QUOTE=archangel125;40018683]wordswordswords[/QUOTE]You're right, we are owned by large corporations and the general public is dumb as horse shit. [i]However,[/i] corporate elements can be fought against in the same way the government can be fought against. The second amendment's purpose has not and will not ever be a defensive measure, that comes from the threat of the offensive option the 2nd gives us. If things get [i]so bad[/i] to the point where we're forced to clean house, there is going to be a [i]lot[/i] of motherfuckers being strung up from bridges and trees. A lot of the "1%" that was such a big deal not too long ago will be executed in this scenario because the mob's rage will not be easily sated. So your statement that our corporate masters can't be fought in a conventional sense is wrong, they're actually easier to fight than your regular government. Why? Well, because they don't have a lot of people who took an oath to fight for them against enemies, both foreign and domestic. That is the big picture. That's the true purpose of the 2nd amendment. It's not as romantic and glorious as some people make it out to be, the down-trodden people fighting against the big, scary government and all that. Not exactly, anyway. Nope, it's literally there to make sure we have the tools needed to effectively riot on a national level. We're not there yet, so the 2nd is still important.

Eh, the Republican party is bought and paid for by the NRA, and will never, ever support any kind of gun legislation. They may not have the majority in the Senate, but they can stop anything from happening that they don't want to happen.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;40018785]You're right, we are owned by large corporations and the general public is dumb as horse shit. [i]However,[/i] corporate elements can be fought against in the same way the government can be fought against. The second amendment's purpose has not and will not ever be a defensive measure, that comes from the threat of the offensive option the 2nd gives us. If things get [i]so bad[/i] to the point where we're forced to clean house, there is going to be a [i]lot[/i] of motherfuckers being strung up from bridges and trees. A lot of the "1%" that was such a big deal not too long ago will be executed in this scenario because the mob's rage will not be easily sated. So your statement that our corporate masters can't be fought in a conventional sense is wrong, they're actually easier to fight than your regular government. Why? Well, because they don't have a lot of people who took an oath to fight for them against enemies, both foreign and domestic. That is the big picture. That's the true purpose of the 2nd amendment. It's not as romantic and glorious as some people make it out to be, the down-trodden people fighting against the big, scary government and all that. Not exactly, anyway. Nope, it's literally there to make sure we have the tools needed to effectively riot on a national level. We're not there yet, so the 2nd is still important.[/QUOTE] I don't think there is a serious academic alive that thinks the 2nd amendment is worth its original intention. There is no correlation worldwide between civilian firearm ownership and democracy. And there never has been. Revolutions and revolts are not decided by civilians with semi-automatics but rather foreign intervention or military defections. Because you need to realise that dictorships stay in power by popular support, populised, bought, coerced or whatever. There will be 'civilian militia' working for the government as much as against. The idea of this metaphysical entity of 'The Government' vs 'The People' is a romantic myth. Syria prior had less firearms per capita than even the UK by quite the distance, and they certainly don't lack the ~tools~.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;40018814]I don't think there is a serious academic alive that thinks the 2nd amendment is worth its original intention. There is no correlation worldwide between civilian firearm ownership and democracy. And there never has been. Revolutions and revolts are not decided by civilians with semi-automatics but rather foreign intervention or military defections. Syria prior had less firearms per capita than even the UK by quite the distance, and they certainly don't like the ~tools~.[/QUOTE] Tell that to the Libyans. [QUOTE]I have a great idea, let's issue the blind driving licenses.[/QUOTE] That's not even a fair comparison.

[QUOTE=FrankOfArabia;40018841]Tell that to the Libyans.[/QUOTE] [img]http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/1/26/1327606897726/Libyan-militia-ben-walid-007.jpg[/img] ? Libya is [B]the case study[/B] on military defections and foreign intervention.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;40018814]I don't think there is a serious academic alive that thinks the 2nd amendment is worth its original intention. There is no correlation worldwide between civilian firearm ownership and democracy. And there never has been. Revolutions and revolts are not decided by civilians with semi-automatics but rather foreign intervention or military defections. Because you need to realise that dictorships stay in power by popular support, populised, bought, coerced or whatever. There will be 'civilian militia' working for the government as much as against. The idea of this metaphysical entity of 'The Government' vs 'The People' is a romantic myth. Syria prior had less firearms per capita than even the UK by quite the distance, and they certainly don't lack the ~tools~.[/QUOTE]I don't disagree with anything you said except for the first three sentences, so... where does that leave us?

[QUOTE=archangel125;40018683]From the point of view of a lot of people who are not American, the massive opposition to proposed gun control from both liberal and conservative elements makes no sense at all. Maybe I'm failing to grasp the importance of guns in American culture, but from the reaction you'd think the government had just proposed slaughtering the firstborn of every American family. Two points. First, the Second Amendment was designed to give people the ability to resist their government if the government was leaning towards dictatorship. Well and good. But if you think that means an insurgency against the United States military at any point in the forseeable future, you're not seeing the big picture. People in the military would sooner shoot themselves than American citizens. Second. The government doesn't need, has NEVER needed, to use force against its people to control their lives. Americans are owned by the corporations that have the major political influence in their country. These corporations can't be fought with guns or militia, and they're clever enough to keep their backroom deals out of the public eye. It is in their interests and not the interests of the people that the government will act nine times out of ten. Your big clue was when the Supreme Court ruled that corporations were recognized as people and monetary donations were a protected form of free speech. So guns are completely irrelevant, and that the American people seem to love them so much seems, to me, a sign of an unhealthy obsession with them. Sure, maybe I'm wrong. But it's more saddening to see that people will let themselves get bent over and fucked by organizations to whom they're worth no more than cattle so long as they get to keep their shiny Armalites.[/QUOTE] Blah blah blah the corporations blah blah blah. This corporate machine of which you speak is in EVERY single country where the government doesn't take that role already. It's not a uniquely American thing. We like our guns because they won us our INDEPENDENCE. We keep them because our founders knew something could happen again. Also our government has used force to keep people down and keep order. Ask any black person who was around in the 60's. Also not all corporations are evil not by a long shot. Especially when you look at the value of life in a place like China. Anyway the legislation they want to pass is not going to do shit to curb gun violence. If they want to take a big chunk of gun crime out they need to address the war on drugs. A large majority of gun crime is drug related. Also they need to take the money were giving to other nations and spend it here. We could use that money to build regional mental health facilities and reopen all the still standing closed ones to house these dangerous lunatics before they can do any harm. Also how about no plea bargains for crimes where a gun was used max sentence first time.