"Warren: "Our children died because there are Republicans in Congress who continue to insist that we can't put just basic safety measures in place."

[Auburn85 438]

https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/elizabeth-warren-nashville-shooting-massachusetts-gun-laws-trump-indictment/

 

Quote

 

NEW YORK -  Sen. Elizabeth Warren says America would be a safer place if the gun laws in her home state were in place everywhere.

 

"In Massachusetts we have tougher gun laws," Warren said Friday on CBS Mornings, in the wake of a Nashville school shooting that killed three children and three adults. "If the laws that we have in Massachusetts were the laws all across this country, independent studies show we would reduce the deaths from gun violence by about 70%."

The Boston Globe editorial board cited the same statistic in 2018, arguing that 27,000 lives could be saved in a year if the nation followed Massachusetts gun laws.

According to gun control advocacy group Everytown For Gun Safety, Massachusetts stands out for its "comprehensive background checks on all gun sales," "disarming domestic abusers," and red flag laws. 

Warren indicated that Congress is unlikely to act in a bipartisan fashion to make any changes to the nation's gun laws.

"I just can't tell you how frustrating this is," she said. "Our children died because there are Republicans in Congress who continue to insist that we can't put just basic safety measures in place."

 

Warren also reacted to the indictment of former President Donald Trump in a "hush money" case.

"No one is above the law, not even a former president of the United States," she said. 

She said she's trusting in the legal process as the case unfolds, even as Trump accused Democrats of "weaponizing our justice system to punish a political opponent."

"There is no reason to believe there's been anything other than an independent investigation," Warren said. "Take a deep breath. . . Donald Trump is going to have plenty of opportunities to make his case in open court."

 

 

 

[Son of A Tiger 649]

Pocahantas speak with forked tongue.

[aubiefifty 18,430]

1 hour ago, Son of A Tiger said:

Pocahantas speak with forked tongue.

i see her trying to save lives while you just do not care. you put your pop guns ahead of the childrens lives. hell just own it and quit acting like you care. a childs life is worth more than carrying a military grade weapon with all the bells and whistles. all you guys care about is being able to play with your guns while violence and mass shootings is at an all time high. and this is on your party son. you guys can throw what ever you want out there but there is blood on you guys hands...............

[Son of A Tiger 649]

5 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

i see her trying to save lives while you just do not care. you put your pop guns ahead of the childrens lives. hell just own it and quit acting like you care. a childs life is worth more than carrying a military grade weapon with all the bells and whistles. all you guys care about is being able to play with your guns while violence and mass shootings is at an all time high. and this is on your party son. you guys can throw what ever you want out there but there is blood on you guys hands...............

BS. I have 3 daughters and a lot of grandkids that I love very much. One grandson goes to a school just 3 miles from the Covenant shooting. I only have a 22 rifle and a 380 pistol (primarily for my wife). We rarely shoot them and I don't belong to the NRA. So kiss my butt with your sanctimonious rhetoric. As we can see, the feds want more and more power by the day and would love for us not to have guns. And we have a POTUS who don't even know where he is most of the time. Today he was in Rolling Fork, Miss. and TWICE said he was in Rolling Stone. Pitiful. You are just lost in the fifties, terribly naive and gullible to what is the real world we live in now.

Edited April 1, 2023 by Son of A Tiger

[I_M4_AU 9,031]

11 hours ago, Son of A Tiger said:

a 380 pistol (primarily for my wife).

For clarification;  is the gun to be used by your wife or on your wife?  

Edited April 1, 2023 by I_M4_AU

[SaltyTiger 8,638]

36 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

For clarification;  is the gun to be sued by your wife or on your wife?  

Pretty sure SOT means “to be used”. A cattle prod usually keeps the wife in check 😉

[aubiefifty 18,430]

21 hours ago, Son of A Tiger said:

BS. I have 3 daughters and a lot of grandkids that I love very much. One grandson goes to a school just 3 miles from the Covenant shooting. I only have a 22 rifle and a 380 pistol (primarily for my wife). We rarely shoot them and I don't belong to the NRA. So kiss my butt with your sanctimonious rhetoric. As we can see, the feds want more and more power by the day and would love for us not to have guns. And we have a POTUS who don't even know where he is most of the time. Today he was in Rolling Fork, Miss. and TWICE said he was in Rolling Stone. Pitiful. You are just lost in the fifties, terribly naive and gullible to what is the real world we live in now.

you side has not done a damn thing to stop this gun madness. and ol raygun outlawed assault rifles. it has gotten completely out of hand and  thousands dying now because if it. we sell to people who do not deserve a gun. in fact i believe one dude on your side was talking to give felons their gun rights back. maybe he did not reflect the whole party but the truth is if you take countries that do not allow guns have pretty much no shootings or massacres. it has gotten so bad it is to the point cops are afraid to go in like the um shooting before last. the point is the right is responsible for this along with the nra. we are gun crazy in this country and if i am not mistaken we are the most violent non third world country existing today. and since you want to insult  biden your guy just got indicted on the first of what i believe will be many charges against him. i could care less if he is a former president. no one should be above the law. the point is your side does not want to do a damn thing about guns and making america safer. in using those three words you guys have made it worse. you might as well own it. you can act all outraged but i am outraged because we are allowing  our kids to be murdered and all you guys have is thoughts and prayers. what a shame. and you are damn straight i am mad about it. and you kiss ,y ass buddy for enabling this crap to continue because you damn sure have not mentioned one word on alternatives. and kids die. and then you make fun of them when they get on the air and try to envoke some kind of change themselves. see how that works? that is the truth. you guys made fun of the the on kid to the point of him getting death threats after he survived a school shooting many of his friends did not.

[aubaseball 2,894]

On 3/31/2023 at 5:46 PM, aubiefifty said:

i see her trying to save lives while you just do not care. you put your pop guns ahead of the childrens lives. hell just own it and quit acting like you care. a childs life is worth more than carrying a military grade weapon with all the bells and whistles. all you guys care about is being able to play with your guns while violence and mass shootings is at an all time high. and this is on your party son. you guys can throw what ever you want out there but there is blood on you guys hands...............

Nothing military about an AR 15.   Shows that A. You were never in military B. You don’t know anything about weapon systems in the military compared to public accessible weapons.  C. You’re just speaking about what you hear on tv.  

[Leftfield 3,412]

4 hours ago, aubaseball said:

Nothing military about an AR 15.   Shows that A. You were never in military B. You don’t know anything about weapon systems in the military compared to public accessible weapons.  C. You’re just speaking about what you hear on tv.  

Genuinely curious....what are the differences between an AR-15 and modern military rifles?

[TitanTiger 21,511]

7 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Genuinely curious....what are the differences between an AR-15 and modern military rifles?

The primary difference between the civilian and military equivalent of the AR-15 is “select fire” - a function that enables military personnel to switch between multiple firing modes (semi-automatic, automatic, burst fire).  You can alter an AR-15 to be fully automatic but it's illegal to do so, requires some expertise and depending on the quality of your work, could make firing less reliable (more likely to jam, etc).

There are also minor differences such as barrel length and attachments, but these do not fundamentally affect the rifle.

Beyond that, it's mostly cost.

https://www.pewpewtactical.com/ar15-vs-m4-difference/

Even this decidedly pro-2A site above gets it:

M4 vs. AR-15: Which is Better?

Unless you join the military or are already serving (and if the latter, then thank you!), then you’ll have to settle for the AR-15. The M4 is only available for use by military personnel.

Don’t sweat it too much, though, because the AR-15 is virtually the same gun without the fully automatic capabilities. Not to mention, options exist for making it even more similar.

The easiest and most accessible way is to buy a mil-spec lower and M4 handguards. These are easy to find and upgrade your AR-15 with them.

Under federal law you can also purchase or create an AR-15 with an M4 length barrel — assuming you fill out the correct form, pass the NFA background check, and purchase the $200 tax stamp.

They even expound on the idea that making an AR fully automatic is illegal.  It's not.  At least not entirely:

You can even have a fully automatic AR-15, but this is considerably more difficult and expensive. For a fully automatic weapon to be civilian legal, it has to have been produced before 1986. Fully automatic AR-15s that meet this requirement do exist, but they’re relatively rare and in very high demand.

Getting one can easily set you back $14,000. Though I guess, in context, the NFA background check and addition tax stamp that is also required don’t seem so bad.

So to be clear, it's only illegal to alter an AR manufactured after 1986 to be fully automatic.  But if you're willing to part with a good bit more money to buy on made in 1986 or earlier, it is perfectly legal to convert it to fully auto.

 

[Leftfield 3,412]

50 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

The primary difference between the civilian and military equivalent of the AR-15 is “select fire” - a function that enables military personnel to switch between multiple firing modes (semi-automatic, automatic, burst fire).  You can alter an AR-15 to be fully automatic but it's illegal to do so, requires some expertise and depending on the quality of your work, could make firing less reliable (more likely to jam, etc).

There are also minor differences such as barrel length and attachments, but these do not fundamentally affect the rifle.

Beyond that, it's mostly cost.

https://www.pewpewtactical.com/ar15-vs-m4-difference/

Even this decidedly pro-2A site above gets it:

M4 vs. AR-15: Which is Better?

Unless you join the military or are already serving (and if the latter, then thank you!), then you’ll have to settle for the AR-15. The M4 is only available for use by military personnel.

Don’t sweat it too much, though, because the AR-15 is virtually the same gun without the fully automatic capabilities. Not to mention, options exist for making it even more similar.

The easiest and most accessible way is to buy a mil-spec lower and M4 handguards. These are easy to find and upgrade your AR-15 with them.

Under federal law you can also purchase or create an AR-15 with an M4 length barrel — assuming you fill out the correct form, pass the NFA background check, and purchase the $200 tax stamp.

They even expound on the idea that making an AR fully automatic is illegal.  It's not.  At least not entirely:

You can even have a fully automatic AR-15, but this is considerably more difficult and expensive. For a fully automatic weapon to be civilian legal, it has to have been produced before 1986. Fully automatic AR-15s that meet this requirement do exist, but they’re relatively rare and in very high demand.

Getting one can easily set you back $14,000. Though I guess, in context, the NFA background check and addition tax stamp that is also required don’t seem so bad.

So to be clear, it's only illegal to alter an AR manufactured after 1986 to be fully automatic.  But if you're willing to part with a good bit more money to buy on made in 1986 or earlier, it is perfectly legal to convert it to fully auto.

 

Thanks. I knew about these things, but the way aubaseball described it it seemed I was missing something. Sounded like he meant it wasn't as powerful as "military grade."

If these are the only differences, I don't understand the statement "there's nothing military about it."

Edited April 2, 2023 by Leftfield

[DKW 86 7,946]

An AR-15 and a google search will either give you the info to make it, or to buy a kit to render an AR-15 into full auto. 

THAT IS ILLEGAL. NO ONE SHOULD SUPPORT THAT. GUN SHOULD BE CONFISCATED.

An AR-15 purchased perfectly legally and remains unaltered, cannot be confiscated. The legal purchase and no-illegal activity make the owner a fully law-abiding citizen. and protected by the 4th and 2nd Amendments. 

Edited April 2, 2023 by DKW 86

[TitanTiger 21,511]

46 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Thanks. I knew about these things, but the way aubaseball described it it seemed I was missing something. Sounded like he meant it wasn't as powerful as "military grade."

If these are the only differences, I don't understand the statement "there's nothing military about it."

Gun control advocates aren’t the only ones who frequently talk out their ass about guns.

[AUFAN78 4,162]

On 4/1/2023 at 7:04 PM, aubiefifty said:

you side has not done a damn thing to stop this gun madness. and ol raygun outlawed assault rifles. it has gotten completely out of hand and  thousands dying now because if it. we sell to people who do not deserve a gun. in fact i believe one dude on your side was talking to give felons their gun rights back. maybe he did not reflect the whole party but the truth is if you take countries that do not allow guns have pretty much no shootings or massacres. it has gotten so bad it is to the point cops are afraid to go in like the um shooting before last. the point is the right is responsible for this along with the nra. we are gun crazy in this country and if i am not mistaken we are the most violent non third world country existing today. and since you want to insult  biden your guy just got indicted on the first of what i believe will be many charges against him. i could care less if he is a former president. no one should be above the law. the point is your side does not want to do a damn thing about guns and making america safer. in using those three words you guys have made it worse. you might as well own it. you can act all outraged but i am outraged because we are allowing  our kids to be murdered and all you guys have is thoughts and prayers. what a shame. and you are damn straight i am mad about it. and you kiss ,y ass buddy for enabling this crap to continue because you damn sure have not mentioned one word on alternatives. and kids die. and then you make fun of them when they get on the air and try to envoke some kind of change themselves. see how that works? that is the truth. you guys made fun of the the on kid to the point of him getting death threats after he survived a school shooting many of his friends did not.

Thanks for your work on inner city gun violence where disproportionate numbers of child deaths occur compared to mass shootings. Oh wait! Your side has done nothing but reinforce the obvious. Let the perp walk. Who cares about black and brown kid deaths right fidy?  &%#^ @$$.

 

[Mims44 2,033]

On 4/2/2023 at 8:22 AM, TitanTiger said:

The primary difference between the civilian and military equivalent of the AR-15 is “select fire” - a function that enables military personnel to switch between multiple firing modes (semi-automatic, automatic, burst fire).  You can alter an AR-15 to be fully automatic but it's illegal to do so, requires some expertise and depending on the quality of your work, could make firing less reliable (more likely to jam, etc).

There are also minor differences such as barrel length and attachments, but these do not fundamentally affect the rifle.

Beyond that, it's mostly cost.

https://www.pewpewtactical.com/ar15-vs-m4-difference/

Even this decidedly pro-2A site above gets it:

M4 vs. AR-15: Which is Better?

Unless you join the military or are already serving (and if the latter, then thank you!), then you’ll have to settle for the AR-15. The M4 is only available for use by military personnel.

Don’t sweat it too much, though, because the AR-15 is virtually the same gun without the fully automatic capabilities. Not to mention, options exist for making it even more similar.

The easiest and most accessible way is to buy a mil-spec lower and M4 handguards. These are easy to find and upgrade your AR-15 with them.

Under federal law you can also purchase or create an AR-15 with an M4 length barrel — assuming you fill out the correct form, pass the NFA background check, and purchase the $200 tax stamp.

They even expound on the idea that making an AR fully automatic is illegal.  It's not.  At least not entirely:

You can even have a fully automatic AR-15, but this is considerably more difficult and expensive. For a fully automatic weapon to be civilian legal, it has to have been produced before 1986. Fully automatic AR-15s that meet this requirement do exist, but they’re relatively rare and in very high demand.

Getting one can easily set you back $14,000. Though I guess, in context, the NFA background check and addition tax stamp that is also required don’t seem so bad.

So to be clear, it's only illegal to alter an AR manufactured after 1986 to be fully automatic.  But if you're willing to part with a good bit more money to buy on made in 1986 or earlier, it is perfectly legal to convert it to fully auto.

 

It's closer to 20-25k than 14k. At least as of 2021, though you may be able to find some beat up crap for cheaper. (I'm pretty particular)

 

On 4/2/2023 at 9:13 AM, Leftfield said:

Thanks. I knew about these things, but the way aubaseball described it it seemed I was missing something. Sounded like he meant it wasn't as powerful as "military grade."

If these are the only differences, I don't understand the statement "there's nothing military about it."

To be fair, semi-automatic vs fully automatic is a big difference.

[homersapien 12,289]

48 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

To be fair, semi-automatic vs fully automatic is a big difference.

Not really a huge difference for reasons I've explained, at least in the context of a mass shooting.  Semi-auto allows one to acquire and shoot "targets" quite effectively.  In the military, automatic fire is used primarily for fire suppression in combat against armed opponents (obviously).

What puts the AR15 into the "military weapon class" is high capacity detachable magazines and it's overall compact, light weight design (which is more or less identical to the M4). 

Edited April 3, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 12,289]

4 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Thanks for your work on inner city gun violence where disproportionate numbers of child deaths occur compared to mass shootings. Oh wait! Your side has done nothing but reinforce the obvious. Let the perp walk. Who cares about black and brown kid deaths right fidy?  &%#^ @$$.

 

Classic diversion tactic:  We can't address school shootings because of the number of inner-city shootings.   

Ironically, both are largely influenced by the ready availability of guns.

Edited April 3, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 12,289]

55 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

It's closer to 20-25k than 14k. At least as of 2021, though you may be able to find some beat up crap for cheaper. (I'm pretty particular)

Perhaps attaching a federal excise tax to AR15 would be one strategy to reduce the amount of these weapons, along with increasing regulations?

[Mims44 2,033]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Not really a huge difference for reasons I've explained, at least in the context of a mass shooting.  Semi-auto allows one to acquire and shoot "targets" quite effectively.  In the military, automatic fire is used primarily for fire suppression in combat against armed opponents (obviously).

What puts the AR15 into the "military weapon class" is high capacity detachable magazines, overall compact, light weight design. 

magazines bring up a whole different topic. They are so easily made by people at home, I really can't think of a way to stop people from simply making their own. And definitions rule in these situations.

If I create a 70round mag for a semi-auto glock. It is also compact and light weight. Did I just turn a pistol into an assault rifle, or a military weapon class firearm... a "battle rifle" perhaps? 

[Mims44 2,033]

27 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Perhaps attaching a federal excise tax to AR15 would be one strategy to reduce the amount of these weapons, along with increasing regulations?

I also don't think it's an issue. Most of these terrorists are not gun nuts or particularly savvy with weapon modifications.

Outside of the terrorist in Vegas with his bump stocks firing into a large crowd. Has there been an incident where people circumvented the '86 ban by buying an older automatic?

How many have even tried doing the highly illegal and dangerous as hell modifications to a semi-auto weapon to make it automatic? I know it's popular with organized crime and to a smaller extent low level criminals, but I can't think of a time these school shooters did that... they simply don't have and don't care to have the money or technical know-how.

[aubiefifty 18,430]

5 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Thanks for your work on inner city gun violence where disproportionate numbers of child deaths occur compared to mass shootings. Oh wait! Your side has done nothing but reinforce the obvious. Let the perp walk. Who cares about black and brown kid deaths right fidy?  &%#^ @$$.

 

here have a tissue. most people not completely stupid would understand all mass shootings would be included in my thoughts. i think ALL people are sacred. i think ALL people count. i do not look at deaths in color but in black and white. but you can get as pissy as you want you people are not doing a damn thing to make this country safer concerning guns. that blood is and will remain on your sides hands. you got what you want so own it scooter.................

[homersapien 12,289]

13 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

If I create a 70round mag for a semi-auto glock. It is also compact and light weight. Did I just turn a pistol into an assault rifle, or a military weapon class firearm... a "battle rifle" perhaps? 

Well first, a pistol is not a rifle by definition. 

What you would have done is essentially create an "assault pistol" (hard to argue one needs a 70 round magazine for self-defense or target practice).  At least the rounds it would fire are not as lethal as a rifle.  

Bottom line - just as with an AR15 type rifle - it's designed for combat or military use - killing people as efficiently as possible.     

 

   

[homersapien 12,289]

1 hour ago, Mims44 said:

I also don't think it's an issue. Most of these terrorists are not gun nuts or particularly savvy with weapon modifications.

Outside of the terrorist in Vegas with his bump stocks firing into a large crowd. Has there been an incident where people circumvented the '86 ban by buying an older automatic?

How many have even tried doing the highly illegal and dangerous as hell modifications to a semi-auto weapon to make it automatic? I know it's popular with organized crime and to a smaller extent low level criminals, but I can't think of a time these school shooters did that... they simply don't have and don't care to have the money or technical know-how.

I was referring to placing a very large tax on all weapons of this type (in addition to other regulations.)

The problem with these types of assault is as much of a mass merchandizing problem as it is the guns themselves.  The country is awash in semi-automatic weapons, including pistols in the inner city.   Making them extremely expensive would be one way of addressing that, at least indirectly.

To your point - other than the Las Vegas incident - I too don't see the lack of automatic capability to be relevant to the problem of mass shootings, one way or the other.

Edited April 3, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 12,289]

After Nashville, Action on Assault-Style Weapons?

Mass shootings are happening with a frequency that numbs, but Republicans are working to loosen, not tighten, gun restrictions.

 

by Jill Lawrence  April 3, 2023 5:30 am

 

s the funerals began on Friday for the victims of last week’s shooting at the Covenant School in Nashville, three 9-year-olds and three adults, I remembered a moment in Beto O’Rourke’s otherwise forgettable 2020 presidential campaign. It was when, at a Democratic debate in Houston in September 2019, O’Rourke blurted out: “Hell yes we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.”

A few weeks earlier, on August 5, a shooter targeting Latinos had used an AK-47 to kill 23 people at a Walmart in O’Rourke’s hometown of El Paso. The former Texas congressman said soon afterward that owners of assault-style weapons would “have to sell them to the government.” Which led the debate moderator to ask: “Are you proposing taking away their guns?”

“I am,” O’Rourke replied, “if it’s a weapon that was designed to kill people on a battlefield, if the high-impact, high-velocity round when it hits your body shreds everything inside of your body because it was designed to do that so that you would bleed to death on a battlefield, not be able to get up and kill one of our soldiers. When we see that being used against children . . .” He described a mother watching her 15-year-old bleed to death in the Walmart parking lot because there were too many wounded to help everyone, and finished: “Hell yes we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We’re not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore.”

Those weapons of war are still very much in use against our fellow Americans. The shooter in Nashville last week was armed with an AR-15, as well as a semiautomatic carbine rifle and a handgun, all legally purchased.

O’Rourke’s White House bid went nowhere and during his run for Texas governor last year he backed off his mandatory buyback proposal. But it’s worth asking after this latest mass shooting, and every mass shooting, why what he proposed hasn’t happened in the United States. Especially since mass shootings in other countries—including the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand—prompted quick adoption of bans on assault-style weapons, buybacks, registration, and other restrictions that have dramatically reduced gun violence. Why not here?

---

No civilian needs to own semiautomatic weapons, and they’re so dangerous for cops that bans have support from groups like the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators. And yet, as I wrote of gun rights zealots in 2014, “I’m not sure they’d budge even if the Founding Fathers personally assured them that they were good with expanded background checks and bans on certain types of weapons and magazines.”

At least back then, lawmakers didn’t wear AR-15 lapel pins or send Christmas cards of their families (including their kids) posing with guns. This is a fetish that only gets worse, not better.

The Second Amendment seems pretty harmless when you read it devoid of context: “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.” But since America’s early days it has evolved into a nightmare of murder, trauma, and extreme politics. Retired Justice John Paul Stevens (a Gerald Ford appointee) wrote in a 2018 op-ed that the amendment is “a relic of the 18th century” and should be repealed.

Stevens wasn’t the only justice nominated by a Republican who wanted the Second Amendment to disappear. Chief Justice Warren Burger, a 1969 Richard Nixon appointee who retired in 1986 and died in 1995, was a conservative, a hunter, and a gun owner—but he told PBS in December 1991 that “If I were writing the Bill of Rights now, there wouldn’t be any such thing as the Second Amendment. . . . This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word fraud—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

He added, “If the militia, which was going to be the state army, was going to be well regulated, why shouldn’t 16 and 17 and 18 or any other aged persons be regulated in the use of arms the way an automobile is regulated?”

Burger did not mellow with (even more) age. In an April 1993 interview with Sen. Paul Simon (D-Illinois), at a conference in Nebraska, Burger said National Rifle Association officials “have trained themselves and their people to lie” and added that as an American citizen, he was outraged by the NRA’s “pernicious influence and conduct.” He also declared: “The notion that registering gun purchases somehow violates the Constitution is unmitigated nonsense.”

Even the late Justice Antonin Scalia (a Ronald Reagan appointee) wrote in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” President Joe Biden channeled both Scalia and Burger when he said last week, “There’s nothing absolute about any amendment. And this is ridiculous. And it’s all about money—big, big, big money.”

What makes the situation especially absurd is that—as millions of Americans under the age of, say, 30 are too young to remember—the United States actually had a ban on assault-style weapons, and not that long ago. Biden, when he was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, guided it to passage in 1994. It was allowed to expire in 2004, when George W. Bush was president, despite Biden’s fight to renew it. He kept pushing for it as a 2020 presidential candidate and made the same plea after the Nashville shooting. “I have gone the full extent of my executive authority to do, on my own, anything about guns,” Biden said. “The Congress has to act. . . . I can’t do anything except plead with the Congress to act reasonably.”

---

At least theoretically, the Nashville shooting has the makings of an inflection point.

Consider that Ashbey Beasley of Highland Park, Illinois, a mother-turned-activist who survived the July Fourth parade shooting last year with her 6-year-old, happened to be* visiting relatives in Nashville last week. She planned to lunch with an activist friend whose older son was killed in Nashville’s last big mass shooting, five years ago at a Waffle House in nearby Antioch. Instead her friend called in a panic because her younger son’s school—near Covenant—was on lockdown. “I couldn’t even fully process it,” Beasley told the Washington Post.

Also consider that two of the adults killed at Covenant used to teach at a school with Maria Lee, wife of the state’s Republican governor. One of them, Cindy Peak, “was supposed to come over to have dinner with Maria last night after she filled in as a substitute teacher” at Covenant, Gov. Bill Lee said in a video the day after the shooting. “Cindy and Maria and Katherine Koonce were all teachers at the same school and had been family friends for decades.”

But Tennessee has some of the laxest gun laws in the country, including permitless carry, and is continuing to remove restrictions, lower age limits and expand opportunities to carry all kinds of weapons, openly or concealed. Concerned state law enforcement officials recently argued against some of this, the Tennessean reported, but supporters countered that there is “a constitutional right to bear any arms” and their state had too many limitations.

Lee carefully noted that “prayer is the first thing we should do, but it’s not the only thing.” But he also, maddeningly, framed gun violence as a battle against “evil itself.”

No, it’s a battle against several hundred million civilian-owned guns circulating in the United States as restrictions and safeguards erode; inflammatory speech that inspires self-styled anti-government militias, threats, and attacks; the assumption that everyone’s mental health can be controlled, tracked, or predicted; the shootings and death that kill, scar, and haunt ever more Americans; and the legislatures and courts that keep trying, often successfully, to make it easier to buy guns meant for the battlefield, often with no training or permit, and carry them in a widening variety of public spaces.

If single-minded gun rights expansionists in Tennessee or anywhere else think this trend is impressive or reassuring, or that owning multiple dangerous weapons makes them more of a man, they’re wrong. It’s terrifying.

What’s even more terrifying is this: We’ve seen the GOP sleepwalk into the Trump era, with its armed militias and violent protests. We’re now watching as, state by state and ruling by ruling, the party drifts deeper into gun worship and absolutism. We know there will be no happy endings, just more tragedy. And Republican leaders, as usual, are standing by and letting it happen.

https://www.thebulwark.com/after-nashville-action-on-assault-style-weapons/

 

[AUFAN78 4,162]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

Classic diversion tactic:  We can't address school shootings because of the number of inner-city shootings.   

Ironically, both are largely influenced by the ready availability of guns.

Nope. I can address both. You can only address one. And once again you accuse others of precisely what you are guilty of doing. I'm shocked!