After Capitol all-nighter, US Democrats push on for gun control

[webfact]

After Capitol all-nighter, Democrats push on for gun control
By ERICA WERNER

WASHINGTON (AP) — Exhausted but exuberant, House Democrats vowed to fight on for gun control Thursday as they ended their high-drama House floor sit-in with songs, prayers and defiant predictions of success. Republicans offered a dose of political reality, denying House Democratic demands and holding a Senate vote designed to show a bipartisan gun compromise can't pass.

"They're staging protests. They're trying to get on TV. They're sending out fundraising solicitations," House Speaker Paul Ryan complained in an angry denunciation of the Democrats' 25-hour occupation of the Capitol chamber. "If this is not a political stunt, then why are they trying to raise money off of this, off of a tragedy?"

Ryan said the House would not be giving in to Democrats' calls for votes on legislation expanding background checks for gun buyers and keeping people on the no-fly list from getting guns in the wake of the Orlando shooting. And in the Senate, GOP leaders scheduled a vote on a bipartisan compromise by moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, but only to show the "no-fly" legislation does not command the 60 votes needed to pass.

A visibly deflated Collins suggested Senate leaders were intentionally draining support from her bill by allowing a GOP alternative to also come to a vote.

"Let us not miss an opportunity to get something done," she pleaded on the Senate floor prior to the 52-46 vote. But Republican leaders, unmoved, were ready to move on.

"I think we need to be engaged in something more constructive that would have actually stopped shooters like the Orlando shooter," said the No. 2 Senate Republican, John Cornyn of Texas.

Yet while they may have lost the legislative battles at hand, Democrats on both sides of the Capitol were congratulating themselves on a remarkable success in gaining attention for their demands for action to curb the widespread availability of firearms, first by a 15-hour Senate filibuster last week and then with their extraordinary occupation of the House floor.

That latest effort broke up around midday Thursday after going through the night, even after Ryan moved up the Fourth of July recess and gaveled a chaotic House out of session in the early morning hours. Democrats chanted, "Shame! Shame!" and "No bill, no break."

On Thursday Democrats streamed onto the steps of the East Front of the Capitol, where cheering crowds welcomed them with cries of "We're with you!" under humid skies. Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, the civil rights icon who helped lead the sit-in, urged the crowd not to give up and to vote in the fall elections.

"We're going to win," Lewis declared. "The fight is not over. This is just one step."

Lewis' voice was firm as he evoked phrases from the civil rights movement, but the 76-year-old also showed his age and the hours of protest as members around him called "Help him up" as he stood on a makeshift podium to speak.

For hours on the floor of the House, Lewis had led members in delivering speeches that mixed victory declarations with promises not to back down in their drive to curb firearm violence. Placards with photos of gun victims were prominently displayed. As night wore into morning some members rested with pillows and blankets, sustaining themselves with snacks sent over by allied Democrats in the Senate.

The public could see it all, because even after Republicans shut off the cameras in the House chamber, Democrats began recording the action on their cellphones, and C-SPAN and other networks carried the feeds. It was not the first time the minority in the House commandeered the floor, but was the first time social media allowed the world to see it, giving Democrats a public relations success and a megaphone.

Democrats said public opinion is with them and will shift votes on the issue over time. The National Rifle Association disputed that. In an interview, Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, said of Collins' bill: "What the vote today showed was she doesn't have 60 votes, and the reason she doesn't have 60 is because it's an unconstitutional approach" lacking an effective appeal process for people denied guns.

Pressure has built on Capitol Hill following the shootings at a gay nightclub in Orlando this month that killed 49 people and injured 53 others. The assailant also died. The attack followed other violent incidents over the past years including the elementary school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

___

Associated Press writers Richard Lardner, Matthew Daly, Mary Clare Jalonick, Sarah Taylor and Alan Fram contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2016-06-24

[OMGImInPattaya]

"I've had it with the gun grabbing Democrats and their sit-in anti 2nd amendment jihad Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, said in a post on Twitter. Im going to go home and buy a new gun."

Source: New York Times

So the only concrete result of their political stunt is at least one more gun on the streets ?

Edited June 24, 2016 by OMGImInPattaya

[johnnynmonic]

Lewis' voice was firm as he evoked phrases from the civil rights movement,

Evoking phrases from the civil rights movement while championing the further restriction civil rights. So noble. Kudo sir, kudos.

[Boon Mee]

They just looked like the fools they are...

[OMGImInPattaya]

Lewis' voice was firm as he evoked phrases from the civil rights movement,

Evoking phrases from the civil rights movement while championing the further restriction civil rights. So noble. Kudo sir, kudos.

Not to mention that "gun control" laws were often used in the past to deny guns to blacks in the Jim Crow South.

[Boon Mee]

Democrats Make BIG SHOW for Gun Control Sit-In – Then Head to the Buffet Line When the Cameras Turned Off

Such sacrifice!

And on the taxpayer dime, of course

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/suffering-democrats-cater-buffet-fluffy-pillows-sit-gun-control/

But they ran out of food so went home!

Edited June 24, 2016 by Boon Mee

[boomerangutang]

From OP: House Speaker Paul Ryan complained in an angry denunciation of the Democrats' 25-hour occupation of the Capitol chamber. "If this is not a political stunt, then why are they trying to raise money off of this, off of a tragedy?"

In case Ryan skipped American History classes at High School, I'll let him in on some info: the US was founded on political stunts. Boston Tea Party, for one. Ryan would probably call the "Shot Heard Round the World" at Bunker Hill 'a political stunt.' He would have been on the side of the Redcoats, as many right wing conservative colonists were back then- sticking to establishment, sticking with the big money, not wanting to 'rock the boat' of authority.

[boomerangutang]

Lewis' voice was firm as he evoked phrases from the civil rights movement,

Evoking phrases from the civil rights movement while championing the further restriction civil rights. So noble. Kudo sir, kudos.

The only way guns relate to civil rights: they restrict a shot person's right to life and happiness. (getting a knee cap, or part of a skull blown off is not conducive to happiness).

There is no civil rights stanza anywhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights which allows individuals to own semi-automatic weapons - except possibly for law enforcement officials or military.

[OMGImInPattaya]

From OP: House Speaker Paul Ryan complained in an angry denunciation of the Democrats' 25-hour occupation of the Capitol chamber. "If this is not a political stunt, then why are they trying to raise money off of this, off of a tragedy?"

In case Ryan skipped American History classes at High School, I'll let him in on some info: the US was founded on political stunts. Boston Tea Party, for one. Ryan would probably call the "Shot Heard Round the World" at Bunker Hill 'a political stunt.' He would have been on the side of the Redcoats, as many right wing conservative colonists were back then- sticking to establishment, sticking with the big money, not wanting to 'rock the boat' of authority.

Typical libbie...equates the hot-air of these gubment blow-hards with the heroic actions of true patriots.

[Boon Mee]

WHAT THE DEMOCRATS’ SIT-IN WAS INTENDED TO DISTRACT FROM: Orlando: Parade Of The Red Flags.

Meet young Omar Mateen: Things took a dark turn on Sept. 11, 2001. As classmates looked on in shock, Mateen celebrated the terrorist attacks that day, claiming that Osama bin Laden was his uncle, said one person who was present. His antics prompted the school to call his father, and the classmate remembers watching through a school window as Mateen’s father approached his son and then slapped his face…

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/436745/parade-red-flags

Pretty pathetic of the Dems - par for the course for them though...

[bassman]

Shoot up a grade school and you get little democrat congress protest, shoot up a gay nightclub and you get sit ins. Both are horrible acts but the latest is a pure play on politics. Demo/libos are blowing the "we are all victims" horn: women, crack head moms, gang bangers, illigal aliens, LGBT and on, on and on.

The Demos are trying to paint Orlando as done by the white guys in the NRA and not a radicalized Muslim with Taliban parents. A predominantly white grade school did not show "victimization" like a gay night club did...especially on Latin night, nor was the school shooting done during a presidential election campaign.

Obama administration has brought on the worst divisions in America since the early 70's. "Obama the great divider"

[55Jay]

Dems ought to go for a total ban on cigarettes. That, at least on its face, would save more lives than this effort.

[MaxYakov]

"I've had it with the gun grabbing Democrats and their sit-in anti 2nd amendment jihad Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, said in a post on Twitter. Im going to go home and buy a new gun."

Source: New York Times

So the only concrete result of their political stunt is at least one more gun on the streets ?

At the very least, one more (assuming he was serious and not just prodding). How much did gun sales spike after their stupid, sit-in stunt, do you suppose?

BTW, their stunt made it to at least one Thai newspaper - so it's a worldwide embarrassment for the US Congress, IMHO.

Rep. Steven King's comment was probably not serious, but you failed to note Rep Louie Gohmert's more to the point and appropriate counter:

"Rep. Brad Sherman was dramatically interrupted during his plea for a vote on gun legislation at the House Democrats' sit-in Wednesday night. As Sherman spoke, Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert stormed onto the floor, screaming that "radical Islam" killed the Orlando mass shooting victims.

A group of at least 50 Democrats had been staging a sit-in on the House floor for nearly 12 hours to try to force a vote on gun legislation before the House adjourned for the Fourth of July holiday."

Source: LA Times Article - June 23, 2016 (emphasis mine)

Another failure to mention was that the four gun laws that were in contention by these 60s-era, hardcore, leftwing, Democrats failed in the Senate:

"The Senate voted down four separate gun measures Monday in the aftermath of the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history — showing the partisan paralysis over gun control has barely moved on Capitol Hill despite the stream of continued gun violence across the country."

Source: Politico Article - June 20, 2016

Note: It appears to me that the gun measures were defeated largely because of fears of the lack of due process that could occur under them. I know I would not like to find myself on a no-buy or a no-fly or some such list without being notified and, especially, without due process. Such a system is open to corruption and error and encourages and supports a tyrannical government.

Another point is that it may be a bad idea to enact law immediately after a traumatic event, or pass it based on the high emotional state at the time. This, often called politicizing the issue is more like emotionalizing it.

To me, this not just about gun control, but control in the absence of due process and I don't support tyrannies.

Do you?

Edited June 24, 2016 by MaxYakov

[mrwebb8825]

An interesting read:

Throughout American history, high-profile gun violence has focused the national spotlight on gun control.

The Dec. 14, 2012 tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School and othermass shootings are typically followed by a public debate of gun safety and gun owners' rights in America.

The following is a timeline of important federal legislation and milestones reached by national organizations tied to the Second Amendment and the issue of gun control.

1791 Second Amendment Ratified

It states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." See U.S. Constitution.

Top

1871 National Rifle Association Founded

Union soldiers Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate found the NRA to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis." Civil War Gen. Ambrose Burnside, who was also the former governor of Rhode Island and a U.S. Senator, serves as the organization's first president.

Top

1934 National Firearms Act

Brought about by the lawlessness and rise of gangster culture during prohibition, President Franklin D. Roosevelt hoped this act would eliminate automatic-fire weapons like machine guns from America's streets. Other firearms such as short-barreled shotguns and rifles, parts of guns like silencers, as well as other "gadget-type" firearms hidden in canes and such were also targeted. All gun sales and gun manufacturers were slapped with a $200 tax (no small amount for Americans mired in the Great Depression; that would be like a tax of $2,525 today) on each firearm, and all buyers were required to fill out paperwork subject to Treasury Dept. approval.

Top

1938 Federal Firearms Act

Congress aimed this law at those involved in selling and shipping firearms through interstate or foreign commerce channels. Anyone involved in the selling of firearms was required to obtain a Federal Firearms License from the Secretary of Commerce ($1 annual fee). They were also required to record the names and addresses of everyone they sold guns to and were prohibited from selling to those people who were convicted of certain crimes or lacked a permit.

Top

1968 Gun Control Act

The assassination of John F. Kennedy, who was killed by a mail-order gun that belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald, inspired this major revision to federal gun laws. The subsequent assasinations of Martin Luther King and presidential candidate Robert Kennedy fueled its quick passage. License requirements were expanded to include more dealers, and more detailed record keeping was expected of them; handgun sales over state lines were restricted; the list of persons dealers could not sell to grew to include those convicted of felonies (with some exceptions), those found mentally incompetent, drug users and more. The act also defined persons who were banned from possessing firearms.

The key element of this bill outlawed mail order sales of rifles and shotguns; Up until this law, mail order consumers only had to sign a statement that they were over 21 years of age for a handgun (18 for rifle or shotgun); it also detailed more persons who were banned from possessing certain guns, including drug users, and further restricted shotgun and rifles sales.

Top

1972 Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms created

Enforcement of the Gun Control Act was given to the Dept. of the Treasury's Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the Internal Revenue Service. The organization replaced "tax" with "firearms," nearly doubled in size, and became the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).

Top

1986 Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act

Made it illegal for anyone to manufacture or import armor piercing ammunition, or "cop-killer bullets," which are capable of penetrating bulletproof clothing.

Firearms Owners' Protection Act

Eased restrictions on gun sellers and the sale of some guns. Imposed additional penalties for persons using a firearm during certain crimes and persons with robbery or burglary convictions who are illegally shipping guns.

Top

1990 Crime Control Act

Directed the attorney general to develop a strategy for establishing "drug-free school zones," including criminal penalties for possessing or discharging a firearm in a school zone. Outlawed the assembly of illegal semiautomatic rifles or shotguns from legally imported parts.

Top

1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

Imposed, on an interim basis, a five-day waiting period and background check before a licensed gun importer, manufacturer or dealer can sell or deliver a handgun to an unlicensed individual.

Required a new National Instant Criminal Background Check System, run by the FBI, be ready to replace the waiting period by Nov. 30, 1998. The new background check system will apply to all firearms and will allow checks to be done over the phone or electronically with results returned immediately in most cases.

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act

Commonly referred to as the "Assault Weapons Ban," this bill banned the manufacture, possession, and importation of new semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (or magazines) for civilian use.

Criteria for semiautomatic assault weapons that fall under the ban are provided as well as a list of 19 specific firearms.

Prohibits juveniles from possessing or selling handguns and directs the attorney general to evaluate proposed and existing state juvenile gun laws.

Top

2013 President Obama Proposes Sweeping Changes to Gun Control

In response to recent massacres, including the killing of 20 first graders in Newtown, Conn., and 12 moviegoers in Aurora, Colo., President Barack Obama introduces proposals to tighten gun-control laws. His plan includes universal background checks for gun sales, the reinstatement and strengthening of the assault weapons ban, limiting ammunition magazines to a 10-round capacity, and other measures.

Colorado Recalls Pro-Gun Control State Senators

On Sept. 10, voters threw out of office Democrats John Morse and Angela Giron for their support of recently enacted gun-control laws that mandate background checks on private gun sales and limit magazine clips to 15 rounds. The election drew national attention not only for the ouster of the officials but also for the influx of money on both sides, from the National Rifle Association and New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, a gun-control advocate.

Makes you wonder just what they think they can do that hasn't already been "ordered" to be done but mostly not done. How did the orders in 1994 fail so miserably or did it get swept under the carpet? (not the assault rifle ban but the mandate for an FBI Information Data Base)

[boomerangutang]

Shoot up a grade school and you get little democrat congress protest, shoot up a gay nightclub and you get sit ins. Both are horrible acts but the latest is a pure play on politics. Demo/libos are blowing the "we are all victims" horn: women, crack head moms, gang bangers, illigal aliens, LGBT and on, on and on.

The Demos are trying to paint Orlando as done by the white guys in the NRA and not a radicalized Muslim with Taliban parents. A predominantly white grade school did not show "victimization" like a gay night club did...especially on Latin night, nor was the school shooting done during a presidential election campaign.

Obama administration has brought on the worst divisions in America since the early 70's. "Obama the great divider"

The Dems are saying: if guns, particularly semi-automatics, are readily available everywhere to anyone, then gun violence will be more likely. If you put 10,000 straight razors everywhere in a school, there would be many more cuts than if there were just a few razors kept in the nurse's office.

Dems ought to go for a total ban on cigarettes. That, at least on its face, would save more lives than this effort.

Probably true. If you want to broaden the topic, then let's do it: Pharma Drugs cause more harm and deaths than all illegal drugs combined, so let's outlaw pharma drugs. Alcoholic drinks also cause many more deaths than all illegal drugs combined. Am not sure which cause more harm & deaths: alcohol dealers or Big Pharma, but their cumulative harm is much more than all illegal drugs. Guns cause tens of thousands of deaths/year, but am not sure how they compare to legal drugs.

Then there's sugar, which is arguably more harmful to Americans than tobacco and coffee combined. Indeed, Americans are world champs at harming themselves and others. Perhaps they deserve the harm, suffering and death which emanate from a gun-saturated country. There's an old expression: "You make your bed, so you've got to sleep in it."

[55Jay]

I'm a gun owner, at least when I'm in the US, obviously not here in LoS. Not a gun enthusiast even though I carried one at work for many years.

I wouldn't mind a total gun ban IF mutual, total disarmament could be guaranteed. That's not possible or realistic so in the meantime, I prefer having a weapon because there are nutters and criminals out there with weapons. If one comes over the fence and tries to crawl through my window, and ignores a verbal warning, then it's their ass. I have a double barrel 12ga shotgun but I miss my old Remington 870 pump shotgun. Working the slide action to put a shell in the chamber is a powerful, globally recognized sound all on its own, without ever having to fire a shot.

No problem with most of the gun control proposals from the Republicans. I have a problem with Feinstein's "reasonable belief" proposal, which puts gun dealers in the position of making a subjective judgement call, and that is wide open to abuse and stupidity.

That idea reminds me of my first run in with the US capital controls (Bank Secrecy/Patriot Act, money laundering, etc) where run of the mill $7 an hour private sector bank tellers act as agents/informants for the federal government. There is the 10,000 threshold for reporting, then you get into this subjective "structuring" issue or even worse, the teller "feels" something is amiss. Based on what? Watching movies? Doesn't like Arabs or black people, who might be up to no good? Doesn't sound very Democratic, then again, Feinstein would take away everyone's guns if she could, without any guarantees. Lambs tied to the stake in a field of wolves.

[smotherb]

From OP: House Speaker Paul Ryan complained in an angry denunciation of the Democrats' 25-hour occupation of the Capitol chamber. "If this is not a political stunt, then why are they trying to raise money off of this, off of a tragedy?"

In case Ryan skipped American History classes at High School, I'll let him in on some info: the US was founded on political stunts. Boston Tea Party, for one. Ryan would probably call the "Shot Heard Round the World" at Bunker Hill 'a political stunt.' He would have been on the side of the Redcoats, as many right wing conservative colonists were back then- sticking to establishment, sticking with the big money, not wanting to 'rock the boat' of authority.

Your mind is in the right place, even if you have missed a few of the facts.

"The shot heard round the world" is a phrase from a Ralph Waldo Emerson poem. It refers to the notion of independence and democracy begun by the American Revolution. However, Emerson's poem was erroneous in that it attributed the shot to the Battle of Concord when the first shots of independence were fired at the Battle of Lexington earlier the same day. The Battle of Bunker Hill in itself is erroneous because that battle was fought on Boston's Breed's Hill a couple of months after Lexington.

However, your major point is spot-on; if it weren't for liberal Americans, there would be no America. Do you think the American rebels were conservatives? Go back and read your history. The Americans who remained loyal to the British were Tories. If you are unfamiliar with the term Tory, ask a Brit.

Edit: I failed to add, it was liberal Americans who wrote the Constitution and its second amendment. So search your souls, remember your conservative catch phrase, "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and think; aren't there some people who should not have guns?

Edited June 24, 2016 by smotherb

[NumbNut]

I'm a gun owner, at least when I'm in the US, obviously not here in LoS. Not a gun enthusiast even though I carried one at work for many years.

I wouldn't mind a total gun ban IF mutual, total disarmament could be guaranteed. That's not possible or realistic so in the meantime, I prefer having a weapon because there are nutters and criminals out there with weapons. If one comes over the fence and tries to crawl through my window, and ignores a verbal warning, then it's their ass. I have a double barrel 12ga shotgun but I miss my old Remington 870 pump shotgun. Working the slide action to put a shell in the chamber is a powerful, globally recognized sound all on its own, without ever having to fire a shot.

No problem with most of the gun control proposals from the Republicans. I have a problem with Feinstein's "reasonable belief" proposal, which puts gun dealers in the position of making a subjective judgement call, and that is wide open to abuse and stupidity.

That idea reminds me of my first run in with the US capital controls (Bank Secrecy/Patriot Act, money laundering, etc) where run of the mill $7 an hour private sector bank tellers act as agents/informants for the federal government. There is the 10,000 threshold for reporting, then you get into this subjective "structuring" issue or even worse, the teller "feels" something is amiss. Based on what? Watching movies? Doesn't like Arabs or black people, who might be up to no good? Doesn't sound very Democratic, then again, Feinstein would take away everyone's guns if she could, without any guarantees. Lambs tied to the stake in a field of wolves.

Question for the pro-gun US citizens living in Thailand; do you feel safe living here in LoS not being able to legally own a firearm?

I'm interested in your perspective, keeping in mind the number of firearms that would appear from even a casual glance at local news reports to be in circulation here.

[smotherb]

Shoot up a grade school and you get little democrat congress protest, shoot up a gay nightclub and you get sit ins. Both are horrible acts but the latest is a pure play on politics. Demo/libos are blowing the "we are all victims" horn: women, crack head moms, gang bangers, illigal aliens, LGBT and on, on and on.

The Demos are trying to paint Orlando as done by the white guys in the NRA and not a radicalized Muslim with Taliban parents. A predominantly white grade school did not show "victimization" like a gay night club did...especially on Latin night, nor was the school shooting done during a presidential election campaign.

Obama administration has brought on the worst divisions in America since the early 70's. "Obama the great divider"

The Dems are saying: if guns, particularly semi-automatics, are readily available everywhere to anyone, then gun violence will be more likely. If you put 10,000 straight razors everywhere in a school, there would be many more cuts than if there were just a few razors kept in the nurse's office.

Dems ought to go for a total ban on cigarettes. That, at least on its face, would save more lives than this effort.

Probably true. If you want to broaden the topic, then let's do it: Pharma Drugs cause more harm and deaths than all illegal drugs combined, so let's outlaw pharma drugs. Alcoholic drinks also cause many more deaths than all illegal drugs combined. Am not sure which cause more harm & deaths: alcohol dealers or Big Pharma, but their cumulative harm is much more than all illegal drugs. Guns cause tens of thousands of deaths/year, but am not sure how they compare to legal drugs.

Then there's sugar, which is arguably more harmful to Americans than tobacco and coffee combined. Indeed, Americans are world champs at harming themselves and others. Perhaps they deserve the harm, suffering and death which emanate from a gun-saturated country. There's an old expression: "You make your bed, so you've got to sleep in it."

I am neither Democrat nor Republican; I do not need the herd mentality to portray my thoughts and beliefs. However, I am a gun owner, do not want my right to guns taken away, but I am in favor of controlling some peoples’ access to guns.

You can spout all the rhetoric and fanciful ideas about outlawing whatever—I prefer the facetious notion of outlawing motorized vehicles because more people are killed by people operating vehicles than are killed by people operating guns—but that will never solve the problem.

Any rational person would realize that simply controlling the purchase or even banning the ownership of guns will not work. There are already more guns in America than there are people. Guns could still be purchased from individual gun owners or illegal gun dealers. A gun call-back, as in Australia, could have every American turn in a gun, and there would still be millions of guns left in gun owner hands.

It seems obvious, we need a new mindset on how to address this problem. There is one pure truth—guns do not kill people, people kill people. Democrats and Republicans alike need to work in conjunction to develop a solution upon which each can agree. However, that would take an open mind and the ability to compromise. A dual problem for which I see no resolution until the American people can override our legislative idiots.

[sgtsabai]

"Question for the pro-gun US citizens living in Thailand; do you feel safe living here in LoS not being able to legally own a firearm?" No. I'd feel a lot more comfortable with just a Remington 870 3.5 inch chamber 12 gauge, for starts. I don't know about under present "government" but before farang could legally own certain firearms. 870 was one, .38/9mm pistol also but no long guns. Carry permit next to impossible. I think shoot a Thai and you up s..t creek without a paddle no matter what even in your own home. I do miss my Govt Mod. 1911A1 .45, along with my AK-47, M-1's, M-14, custom long range rifles and many others.

[smotherb]

"Question for the pro-gun US citizens living in Thailand; do you feel safe living here in LoS not being able to legally own a firearm?" No. I'd feel a lot more comfortable with just a Remington 870 3.5 inch chamber 12 gauge, for starts. I don't know about under present "government" but before farang could legally own certain firearms. 870 was one, .38/9mm pistol also but no long guns. Carry permit next to impossible. I think shoot a Thai and you up s..t creek without a paddle no matter what even in your own home. I do miss my Govt Mod. 1911A1 .45, along with my AK-47, M-1's, M-14, custom long range rifles and many others.

Sgt, a friend of mine found a great solution to that, his gf is a cop.

[boomerangutang]

Shoot up a grade school and you get little democrat congress protest, shoot up a gay nightclub and you get sit ins. Both are horrible acts but the latest is a pure play on politics. Demo/libos are blowing the "we are all victims" horn: women, crack head moms, gang bangers, illigal aliens, LGBT and on, on and on.

The Demos are trying to paint Orlando as done by the white guys in the NRA and not a radicalized Muslim with Taliban parents. A predominantly white grade school did not show "victimization" like a gay night club did...especially on Latin night, nor was the school shooting done during a presidential election campaign.

Obama administration has brought on the worst divisions in America since the early 70's. "Obama the great divider"

The Dems are saying: if guns, particularly semi-automatics, are readily available everywhere to anyone, then gun violence will be more likely. If you put 10,000 straight razors everywhere in a school, there would be many more cuts than if there were just a few razors kept in the nurse's office.

Dems ought to go for a total ban on cigarettes. That, at least on its face, would save more lives than this effort.

Probably true. If you want to broaden the topic, then let's do it: Pharma Drugs cause more harm and deaths than all illegal drugs combined, so let's outlaw pharma drugs. Alcoholic drinks also cause many more deaths than all illegal drugs combined. Am not sure which cause more harm & deaths: alcohol dealers or Big Pharma, but their cumulative harm is much more than all illegal drugs. Guns cause tens of thousands of deaths/year, but am not sure how they compare to legal drugs.

Then there's sugar, which is arguably more harmful to Americans than tobacco and coffee combined. Indeed, Americans are world champs at harming themselves and others. Perhaps they deserve the harm, suffering and death which emanate from a gun-saturated country. There's an old expression: "You make your bed, so you've got to sleep in it."

I am neither Democrat nor Republican; I do not need the herd mentality to portray my thoughts and beliefs. However, I am a gun owner, do not want my right to guns taken away, but I am in favor of controlling some peoples’ access to guns.

You can spout all the rhetoric and fanciful ideas about outlawing whatever—I prefer the facetious notion of outlawing motorized vehicles because more people are killed by people operating vehicles than are killed by people operating guns—but that will never solve the problem.

Any rational person would realize that simply controlling the purchase or even banning the ownership of guns will not work. There are already more guns in America than there are people. Guns could still be purchased from individual gun owners or illegal gun dealers. A gun call-back, as in Australia, could have every American turn in a gun, and there would still be millions of guns left in gun owner hands.

It seems obvious, we need a new mindset on how to address this problem. There is one pure truth—guns do not kill people, people kill people. Democrats and Republicans alike need to work in conjunction to develop a solution upon which each can agree. However, that would take an open mind and the ability to compromise. A dual problem for which I see no resolution until the American people can override our legislative idiots.

The enlarged phrase is the gist of the problem. Turtles evolved by having their vertebrae expand to become a shell. Americans are evolving (or devolving, depending on one's perspective) by each building a shell. There's Trump's wall proposal, a sort of shell for the country. Then there are millions of Americans who are buying guns in order (in their afeared minds) to build a shell of protection around themselves. Note: walls restrict freedom of people on both sides of the wall, and turtle shells restrict turtles - slows them down and are encumbering.

There's a true story from 2012 of a small group of young men leaving a bar. There's an argument. So far, nothing unusual, happens tens of thousands of times each night. Then one of the men in one group pulls out a gun (legally registered) and shoots an unarmed man four times, nearly killing him. A court case ensues. The shooter is let off scot-free.

I've resided in Thailand 18 years but have been planning to reside part of each year in SW US. I'm seriously doubting returning because of the intense saturation of guns. If I slightly offend anyone there (who is carrying) then that person can shoot me and get away with it. Let's say I'm driving and pass someone on a hwy. The other person is angered. He shoots me. POW! game over. Or I take a parking spot which someone else thinks should be theirs. POW! the guy shoots me. It's legal now in the US. Or I'm in a grocery story and I look at a pretty girl for a split second. The mother thinks I'm leering. POW! she shoots me. .......you get the picture? The US is so saturated with guns, and then add concealed (or open) carry, then anyone can shoot anyone for any reason. Because NRA and gun-lovers have so dominating the American landscape, they can do no wrong. Lots of people are going to get shot for no good reason, and the NRA will justify it. Already, gun makers are offering to pay for legal cases when purchasers get in trouble for shooting innocents. I shit you not.

[55Jay]

I'm a gun owner, at least when I'm in the US, obviously not here in LoS. Not a gun enthusiast even though I carried one at work for many years.

I wouldn't mind a total gun ban IF mutual, total disarmament could be guaranteed. That's not possible or realistic so in the meantime, I prefer having a weapon because there are nutters and criminals out there with weapons. If one comes over the fence and tries to crawl through my window, and ignores a verbal warning, then it's their ass. I have a double barrel 12ga shotgun but I miss my old Remington 870 pump shotgun. Working the slide action to put a shell in the chamber is a powerful, globally recognized sound all on its own, without ever having to fire a shot.

No problem with most of the gun control proposals from the Republicans. I have a problem with Feinstein's "reasonable belief" proposal, which puts gun dealers in the position of making a subjective judgement call, and that is wide open to abuse and stupidity.

That idea reminds me of my first run in with the US capital controls (Bank Secrecy/Patriot Act, money laundering, etc) where run of the mill $7 an hour private sector bank tellers act as agents/informants for the federal government. There is the 10,000 threshold for reporting, then you get into this subjective "structuring" issue or even worse, the teller "feels" something is amiss. Based on what? Watching movies? Doesn't like Arabs or black people, who might be up to no good? Doesn't sound very Democratic, then again, Feinstein would take away everyone's guns if she could, without any guarantees. Lambs tied to the stake in a field of wolves.

Question for the pro-gun US citizens living in Thailand; do you feel safe living here in LoS not being able to legally own a firearm?

I'm interested in your perspective, keeping in mind the number of firearms that would appear from even a casual glance at local news reports to be in circulation here.

Yes and no. Depends on the environment and circumstances.

Living in the US, in/near a concentrated population center, crime, violent and otherwise, is higher. I prefer to have a firearm should my number get pulled, as it did one night when some jagoff tried to break in to my house at the back door. Throwing on the outside lights and yelling at him through the door window didn't work like I thought it would. I pointed my firearm at him, warned again, and he took off. Ideal outcome. I did wonder if he found a softer target to victimize that night.

Here? I live in a small town, about 30km outside the city, small population, no window bars or steel, security screen doors. I do not have a firearm at the moment, nor do I feel I need one.

I did keep my FiL's .38 revolver in the bedroom closet for a while a few years ago, because of a budding gang of yabba eating motorcycle retards on our soi. I didn't like the way they eyeballed me increasingly when I rode past their hooch or as they hung around the Tesco ATMs drinking. As time wore on, they pulled up outside my drive gate a couple times late night, yelling and laughing, getting my dogs all riled up. They were getting bolder, the group dynamic reinforcing each incremental step. It was just a matter of time before one them took it to the next-level of stupid, fueled by alcohol and/or drugs. The two 1 Bullet Barney cops riding around town on their Hello Kitty Scoopies, aren't very proactive. Or reactive for that matter.

Thankfully, the retards (not the cops, the other ones) have moved on, dead, jailed, whatever., my threat needle back in the green zone, and thus, no more pistol.

Re: legally owning a gun here, my understanding is it is permissible but I've never pursued it because I don't feel it's necessary, at the moment. I don't imagine the BiB get many permit requests from resident farangs. Perhaps we all "feel" "safe". Might also be that a good portion of expat population is from UK/EU and share a similar outlook on guns.

[mopar71]

In related news, a California Democrat who was a champion of gun control has been sent to prison for weapons trafficking...

Ex-Calif. State Sen. Leland Yee, gun control champion, heading to prison for weapons trafficking

Yee also discussed buying weapons overseas and bringing them to the U.S. with two associates and an undercover agent. He accepted $6,800 and a list of arms for purchase in the Philippines.

The maneuvers were not only illegal, but also in stark contrast to what he had long purported to stand for.

Yee told CBS two years before he was arrested: “It is extremely important that individuals in the state of California do not own assault weapons. I mean that is just so crystal clear — there is no debate, no discussion.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/25/ex-calif-state-sen-leeland-yee-gun-control-champion-heading-to-prison-for-weapons-trafficking/

[Pimay1]

In related news, a California Democrat who was a champion of gun control has been sent to prison for weapons trafficking...

Ex-Calif. State Sen. Leland Yee, gun control champion, heading to prison for weapons trafficking

Yee also discussed buying weapons overseas and bringing them to the U.S. with two associates and an undercover agent. He accepted $6,800 and a list of arms for purchase in the Philippines.

The maneuvers were not only illegal, but also in stark contrast to what he had long purported to stand for.

Yee told CBS two years before he was arrested: “It is extremely important that individuals in the state of California do not own assault weapons. I mean that is just so crystal clear — there is no debate, no discussion.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/25/ex-calif-state-sen-leeland-yee-gun-control-champion-heading-to-prison-for-weapons-trafficking/

Just more hypocrisy coming from the liberal left democrats.

[boomerangutang]

Dems ought to go for a total ban on cigarettes. That, at least on its face, would save more lives than this effort.

Makes you wonder just what they think they can do that hasn't already been "ordered" to be done but mostly not done. How did the orders in 1994 fail so miserably or did it get swept under the carpet? (not the assault rifle ban but the mandate for an FBI Information Data Base)

The 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban," banned the manufacture, possession, and importation of new semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (or magazines) for civilian use.

Yet, get this, in order to get passed, NRA lobbyists insisted it have a 10 year expiration date. Thus, in 2004, the ban was rescinded. Voila! No more ban on semi-automatic assault weapons. NRA is happy, even though there was a 10 year ban. NRA and gun huggers are patient. Now semi-automatic weapons are legal for civilians to own in the US. They're easily available (at 3,000 are available online as we speak). ....and killers of kids and gays (and others) can get some military-grade guns + ammo, and go on killing sprees. .....all justified by NRA and their fans.

[boomerangutang]

Future projection (2027): NRA on steroids. It will be called SUPER NRA or SNRA. If you like the idea of semi-automatic weapons being owned by any American, you'll love the SNRA. With their hundreds of millions of dollars war chest and their excellent lobbying abilities, they've now advocating that anyone can have ever more fun/lethal weapons. Why stop at just semi-automatic guns? Here's what you will be able to get in the near future, if you're an American citizen:

>>> flame throwers

>>> grenades

>>> mustard gas (no matter that it's banned worldwide. Fans of Trumpsters aren't going to let wimpy foreigners tell them what they can own or not own).

>>> biological weapons.

>>> RPG's

>>> land mines (a guy has the right to protect his property, doesn't he?)

[up2u2]

All credit to the House Democrats for at least trying but gun violence is simply a cultural way of life for Americans.

For all the misinformation from the NRA and corrupted politicians propaganda there is not one piece of evidence that rationalises the need for a society to be awash with firearms.

Nations that have strict gun control would NEVER contemplate the relaxation of gun control laws. They simply see their societies are inoculated from gun violence and mass executions of citizens. In fact any politician that dared to stand on a platform of relaxing gun laws would be absolutely relegated to the backwaters of political history.

It is just one of the many areas that America is backward in and prohibits it from being considered a civilised society.

[smotherb]

boomerangutang said, "I've resided in Thailand 18 years but have been planning to reside part of each year in SW US. I'm seriously doubting returning because of the intense saturation of guns. If I slightly offend anyone there (who is carrying) then that person can shoot me and get away with it. Let's say I'm driving and pass someone on a hwy. The other person is angered. He shoots me. POW! game over. Or I take a parking spot which someone else thinks should be theirs. POW! the guy shoots me. It's legal now in the US. Or I'm in a grocery story and I look at a pretty girl for a split second. The mother thinks I'm leering. POW! she shoots me. .......you get the picture? The US is so saturated with guns, and then add concealed (or open) carry, then anyone can shoot anyone for any reason. Because NRA and gun-lovers have so dominating the American landscape, they can do no wrong. Lots of people are going to get shot for no good reason, and the NRA will justify it. Already, gun makers are offering to pay for legal cases when purchasers get in trouble for shooting innocents. I shit you not."

Well, if you are that apprehensive, my advice to you is don't go back.

[55Jay]

boomerangutang said, "I've resided in Thailand 18 years but have been planning to reside part of each year in SW US. I'm seriously doubting returning because of the intense saturation of guns. If I slightly offend anyone there (who is carrying) then that person can shoot me and get away with it. Let's say I'm driving and pass someone on a hwy. The other person is angered. He shoots me. POW! game over. Or I take a parking spot which someone else thinks should be theirs. POW! the guy shoots me. It's legal now in the US. Or I'm in a grocery story and I look at a pretty girl for a split second. The mother thinks I'm leering. POW! she shoots me. .......you get the picture? The US is so saturated with guns, and then add concealed (or open) carry, then anyone can shoot anyone for any reason. Because NRA and gun-lovers have so dominating the American landscape, they can do no wrong. Lots of people are going to get shot for no good reason, and the NRA will justify it. Already, gun makers are offering to pay for legal cases when purchasers get in trouble for shooting innocents. I shit you not."

Well, if you are that apprehensive, my advice to you is don't go back.

It happens. I've been out of the US for about 18 years. My last stretch was 5 years without going back, and during that time, my perspective was skewed by the concentrated, dire news on the internet. Why in the hell would I want to insert myself in what is CLEARLY an out of control hornet's nest! I could be shot the moment I walk out of the LAX arrival terminal! OMG!

We went anyway, and it was a total anti-climax. Been back for 2 months each summer the past 4 years. Haven't been shot or beaten up yet. Maybe it's my white, heterosexual privilege.

If it's not guns, it's global warming. If Trump doesn't get elected and crash the economy and the Dollar, and send us reeling into all out war with Zimbabwe, well, we've always got the imminent threat of a pissed off, transgender Baby Jesus, impervious to AR-15 bullets, coming back to settle the score; and that includes Democrats.