Will new a gun control law be introduced after naval yard shooting?

[Texashiker]

In the wake of the naval yard shooting Dianne Frankenstein wasted no time in renewing her calls for stronger gun control.

With the defeat of the bill after sandy hook, and the colorado recall, is there a chance new gun control will be seriously considered?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


My personal opinion, after the Colorado recall, and with mid-terms just 1 year away, no elected official is going to talk gun control.

I do not look for a serious debate on gun control until the presidential election of 2016. Obama is pretty much a lame duck at this point on gun control. And there is no way any new gun control bill is going to pass the house and the senate.

 

[QuantumPion]

Hard to say, but I for one am not wasting any time to stock up on lower receivers and ammo. I suspect there's a good chance republicans will lose the house next year and result in some sort of semi- auto ban or ammo ban.

 

[woolfe9998]

If you mean newly proposed legislation, I doubt it will happen and if it does, it will die even more quickly and with less fanfare than whatever happened in wake of Sandy Hook.

If you mean will people in general debate it, yes of course. People on both sides of the issue are already doing so on this board alone, and undoubtedly elsewhere.

 

[boomerang]

Feinstein is already up on her soap box. She didn't even wait for the blood to dry.

 

[Incorruptible]

The debate already started yesterday before the whole thing was over. There were several morons calling for more gun control and didn't even care about the people who died. These idiots will use the shooting to push for more gun control but hopefully they fail.

 

[SaurusX]

Hard to say, but I for one am not wasting any time to stock up on lower receivers and ammo. I suspect there's a good chance republicans will lose the house next year and result in some sort of semi- auto ban or ammo ban.

I'm more optimistic than you are, but then why take the chance? Stack it tall and stack it deep.

 

[PokerGuy]

I'm sure the gun grabbing zealots will not waste a good opportunity such as this to push their agenda, and I'm sure their terminally stupid followers will lap it all up. Hopefully there are enough sane people to see it for what it is and boot those idiots out of office asap.

 

[moonbogg]

Feinstein is already up on her soap box. She didn't even wait for the blood to dry.

She tweeted about AR-15 being used, but the shooter used pistols and a shot gun. Any gun can be used for these shootings, but gun haters go for the low hanging AR-15 fruit first.
One quote that i'll never forget came during the big gun debate and some sheriff or something said the following, "You can't go hunting with a gun as powerful as an AR-15! There won't be anything left to eat! You destroy all the meat!"
I shit you not. That was an argument.
Also, no. I expect no steam for a new gun debate.

 

[Agent11]

Part of me wishes they would try, it would be political suicide.

 

[monovillage]

There will be Bills introduced and they will fail. Only Democrats in very, very, very safe districts or States will do it.

 

[thraashman]

I need to buy stock in gun companies every time there's a mass shooting. Second Amendment revisionists will make me rich!

 

[Fern]

The anti-gun people in the media are already pushing the subject. But I expect no new bills etc. There's no real support and it's not a good issue for most Dems (political wise).

Fern

 

[rudder]

Heaven forbid mental health is discussed or the fact that the shooter had his security clearance renewed after a few known incidents that should have been red flags.

But by all means we need to have all U.S. citizens should turn their firearms to a local PD by the end of the week.

 

[z1ggy]

They will hoot and holler for a few weeks, then it'll fade away.

While of course the real topic, mental health, will continue to be ignored.

 

[Texashiker]

Heaven forbid mental health is discussed or the fact that the shooter had his security clearance renewed after a few known incidents that should have been red flags.

But by all means we need to have all U.S. citizens should turn their firearms to a local PD by the end of the week.

According to the obama administration, background checks are a form of discrimination.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/2/now-its-racist-to-pass-on-hiring-ex-cons/?page=all

 

[hal2kilo]

The question asked and the poll answers to not match. I voted no on will therer be a new gun contol bill.

But, will this become yet another gun avocate thread. Of course, fanatics gotta fan.

 

[boomerang]

I need to buy stock in gun companies every time there's a mass shooting. Second Amendment revisionists will make me rich!

Careful, you could get branded as a capitalist.

 

[Texashiker]

The question asked and the poll answers to not match. I voted no on will therer be a new gun contol bill.

You are correct.

Thread title has been changed to better reflect the poll.

 

[Sonikku]

The lobbyists say no.

 

[thraashman]

Careful, you could get branded as a capitalist.

I'm quite good at capitalism. Unregulated capitalism is a problem, but regulated capitalism has a chance to thrive. Pure capitalism is as unworkable as pure socialism.

 

[shortylickens]

The Naval Yard is already a "secure" area. I hope people arent dumb enough to pass ineffective laws.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

If nothing was done after Sandy Hook, nothing will be done. And there is no single solution to this epidemic. Banning guns won't do it, fixing the mental health issues won't do it.

However, a background check to buy a gun seems like basic common sense and does not infringe on any rights. Granted it won't eliminate all of these occurrences, but what if it stopped 1, wouldn't it be worth it? A simple background check stopped some mentally unstable person from obtaining a gun and subsequently prevented a tragedy.

Again, what if implementing background checks prevented just one mass shooting, wouldn't it be worth it? Not banning guns, not even restricting the types of weapons available. Just a background check before your purchase is complete.

 

[Texashiker]

If nothing was done after Sandy Hook, nothing will be done.

Again, what if implementing background checks prevented just one mass shooting, wouldn't it be worth it? Not banning guns, not even restricting the types of weapons available. Just a background check before your purchase is complete.

Adam Lanza shot and killed his mother, then stole her firearms.

The naval yard shooter legally purchased his firearm through a gun store. Which means he went through a background check.

So I do not understand your suggestion on a background check, when we already have background checks in place. Those who wish to bypass the background check will find a way to do so.

Saying background checks will prevent gun violence, is like saying drug dealers will get a tax stamp to sell crack.

 

[Tom]

Its kind of a pointless question, it doesn't really make any difference if a Bill is introduced.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Adam Lanza shot and killed his mother, then stole her firearms.

The naval yard shooter legally purchased his firearm through a gun store. Which means he went through a background check.

So I do not understand your suggestion on a background check, when we already have background checks in place. Those who wish to bypass the background check will find a way to do so.

Saying background checks will prevent gun violence, is like saying drug dealers will get a tax stamp to sell crack.

Ok, I'll type it in small words so you can digest it better.

More thorough background checks, universal background checks, and like I said, this can't prevent all, but if this would prevent ONE tragedy, wouldn't it be worth it?

Drunk driving laws prevent some assholes from driving drunk, yet others choose to drink and drive and reap the consequences if caught, they actively chose to drink and drive (most of the time, I know how atp&n likes to nitpick the fuck out of things) and tried to circumvent the law and avoid being caught.