Parents of children in TX shooting asked for DNA samples because the murdered kids are unrecognizable.

[DrHoops]

Think about that. Your 2nd grader mutilated so badly that they are unrecognizable.



Imagine the people first on the scene…what they had to witness. Imagine the children’s classmates having to live with this scene seared into their memory for the rest of their lives.

Parents can’t even recognize their own children because bubba needs to have an AR-15. They’re fun to shoot!

Dear God.

As George Patton said, “When you put your hand into a pile of goo that used to be your best friend’s face, you’ll know what to do.”

Well, we all know what we need to do, and what is right. It’s time to take action. There is no way anyone should be able to have these types of weapons. Period.

Good grief. When will enough be enough?

 

[jet812]

Think about that. Your 2nd grader mutilated so badly that they are unrecognizable.

View embedded media

Imagine the people first on the scene…what they had to witness. Imagine the children’s classmates having to live with this scene seared into their memory for the rest of their lives.

Parents can’t even recognize their own children because bubba needs to have an AR-15. They’re fun to shoot!

Dear God.

As George Patton said, “When you put your hand into a pile of goo that used to be your best friend’s face, you’ll know what to do.”

Well, we all know what we need to do, and what is right. It’s time to take action. There is no way anyone should be able to have these types of weapons. Period.

Good grief. When will enough be enough?

What are you doing about it other than crying on a message board?

 

[outside shooter]

An 18 year old that cannot legally buy a can of beer or rent a car can easily buy TWO AR15s & 375 rounds of ammunition.

makes sense

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

What are you doing about it other than crying on a message board?

Showing support for change.

He is doing much more than the people voting for politicians that make it easier for nuts to own guns

 

[ulrey]

Showing support for change.

He is doing much more than the people voting for politicians that make it easier for nuts to own guns

bless your little heart.

 

[ribbont]

Showing support for change.

He is doing much more than the people voting for politicians that make it easier for nuts to own guns

Lol. As I posted in another thread, Reid, after the MAJORITY voted 52-48 with 9 dems, Reid had an amendment filibustered that focused on background checks and mental illness.

 

[DrHoops]

What are you doing about it other than crying on a message board?

Voting

 

[DrHoops]

bless your little heart.

ulrey, so do you think 210 mass shootings so far this year is acceptable? I’m not trying to be a jerk. There HAS to be some middle ground here.

 

[ulrey]

ulrey, so do you think 210 mass shootings so far this year is acceptable? I’m not trying to be a jerk. There HAS to be some middle ground here.

Of course not. Pointing fingers isn't helping a damn thing! Mental illness is celebrated in America now.

 

[ulrey]

Voting

Voting isn't going to help this mess!

 

[zeke4ahs]

Lol. As I posted in another thread, Reid, after the MAJORITY voted 52-48 with 9 dems, Reid had an amendment filibustered that focused on background checks and mental illness.

You comparing that with now when we’d never be able to get 9 Republicans to vote for the most rudimentary gun laws?

 

[ribbont]

You comparing that with now when we’d never be able to get 9 Republicans to vote for the most rudimentary gun laws?

Pls show the "rudimentary gun law" that has been voted upon?

 

[zeke4ahs]

Pls show the "rudimentary gun law" that had been voted upon?

Uh that’s my point

 

[ribbont]

Uh that’s my point

Show the dem bill. I showed you one the Pubs did. Got passed but Reid killed it with filibuster. Show me the dem bill the Pubs killed. Put up or shut up.

 

[ribbont]

ulrey, so do you think 210 mass shootings so far this year is acceptable? I’m not trying to be a jerk. There HAS to be some middle ground here.

Can you show me a dem bill that has been voted upon during this Congress when the dems have control of both houses?

 

[jet812]

Voting

For the people that have failed to pass any legislation? Great job…

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

For the people that have failed to pass any legislation? Great job…

Only because the gop won't vote for anything that a dem proposes

 

[ribbont]

Only because the gop won't vote for anything that a dem proposes

The dems have both chambers, propose away! Make the Pubs filibuster like the dems did in 2013. Just do it! What are the dems waiting for?

Edit: start with the simple Grassley Cruz bill that already passed 52-48 until Reid killed it.

 

[cosmickid]

The dems have both chambers, propose away! Make the Pubs filibuster like the dems did in 2013. Just do it! What are the dems waiting for?

Edit: start with the simple Grassley Cruz bill that already passed 52-48 until Reid killed it.

I was curious about your repeated mention of this "bill", so I did some googling...

It appears that Reid actually proposed a bill, and Cruz proposed amendments designed to weaken some of the original bill's provisions regarding background checks... It seems like an attempt by Cruz to grandstand after the Texas Church shooting, while his amendment actually weakened the original bill...

"The original bill from then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., would have expanded background checks on purchases from only federally licensed gun dealers to all transfers, even private ones among family members, with few exceptions. But the Grassley-Cruz amendment chucked the expansion of background checks and even allowed for the interstate sale and transportation of firearms."

My suspicion is that the biggest objection the NRA and gun lobby had to the original, and why Cruz proposed his weakened amendment is the interstate sale and transportation provision...

"If anything, the only way this would have affected the Texas shooting would be to make it easier for the shooter to attack a church in a neighboring state instead," said Gregory Koger, a political science professor at the University of Miami."

And while Cruz's amendment failed with 52 votes, you fail to mention that a bi-partisan amendment favored by Dems (Toomey-Mancin) actually got more votes 54, but was filibustered by Pubs. So it doesn't seem particularly accurate to say Reid killed the bill, because by all rights he should have allowed Toomey-Mancin to pass and by pass the filibuster, but he remained consistent and didn't allow the more popular bi-partisan bill favored status...

You keep saying the Dems filibustered, but it was actually the Pubs who filibustered the more popular bill...Cruz's amendment was a concession to the gun lobby, which opposed the original bill.

Would Cruz amendment have prevented the church shooting?

Reacting to the church shootings in Sutherland Springs, Texas, Sen. Ted Cruz said there could have been laws on the book

www.politifact.com

"The notion that the Democrats are responsible for the failure of this proposal ignores the fact that the GOP was filibustering the underlying bill, which had all the same provisions except the state-to-state expansion of gun rights and a requirement to expand background checks," Koger said.

 

[jet812]

I was curious about your repeated mention of this "bill", so I did some googling...

It appears that Reid actually proposed a bill, and Cruz proposed amendments designed to weaken some of the original bill's provisions regarding background checks... It seems like an attempt by Cruz to grandstand after the Texas Church shooting, while his amendment actually weakened the original bill...

"The original bill from then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., would have expanded background checks on purchases from only federally licensed gun dealers to all transfers, even private ones among family members, with few exceptions. But the Grassley-Cruz amendment chucked the expansion of background checks and even allowed for the interstate sale and transportation of firearms."

My suspicion is that the biggest objection the NRA and gun lobby had to the original, and why Cruz proposed his weakened amendment is the interstate sale and transportation provision...

"If anything, the only way this would have affected the Texas shooting would be to make it easier for the shooter to attack a church in a neighboring state instead," said Gregory Koger, a political science professor at the University of Miami."

And while Cruz's amendment failed with 52 votes, you fail to mention that a bi-partisan amendment favored by Dems (Toomey-Mancin) actually got more votes 54, but was filibustered by Pubs. So it doesn't seem particularly accurate to say Reid killed the bill, because by all rights he should have allowed Toomey-Mancin to pass and by pass the filibuster, but he remained consistent and didn't allow the more popular bi-partisan bill favored status...

You keep saying the Dems filibustered, but it was actually the Pubs who filibustered the more popular bill...Cruz's amendment was a concession to the gun lobby, which opposed the original bill.

Would Cruz amendment have prevented the church shooting?

Reacting to the church shootings in Sutherland Springs, Texas, Sen. Ted Cruz said there could have been laws on the book

www.politifact.com

"The notion that the Democrats are responsible for the failure of this proposal ignores the fact that the GOP was filibustering the underlying bill, which had all the same provisions except the state-to-state expansion of gun rights and a requirement to expand background checks," Koger said.

So the Dems are no better than the Pubs on the issue, as many have suggested in multiple threads. Will you concede as much?

 

[ribbont]

I was curious about your repeated mention of this "bill", so I did some googling...

It appears that Reid actually proposed a bill, and Cruz proposed amendments designed to weaken some of the original bill's provisions regarding background checks... It seems like an attempt by Cruz to grandstand after the Texas Church shooting, while his amendment actually weakened the original bill...

"The original bill from then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., would have expanded background checks on purchases from only federally licensed gun dealers to all transfers, even private ones among family members, with few exceptions. But the Grassley-Cruz amendment chucked the expansion of background checks and even allowed for the interstate sale and transportation of firearms."

My suspicion is that the biggest objection the NRA and gun lobby had to the original, and why Cruz proposed his weakened amendment is the interstate sale and transportation provision...

"If anything, the only way this would have affected the Texas shooting would be to make it easier for the shooter to attack a church in a neighboring state instead," said Gregory Koger, a political science professor at the University of Miami."

And while Cruz's amendment failed with 52 votes, you fail to mention that a bi-partisan amendment favored by Dems (Toomey-Mancin) actually got more votes 54, but was filibustered by Pubs. So it doesn't seem particularly accurate to say Reid killed the bill, because by all rights he should have allowed Toomey-Mancin to pass and by pass the filibuster, but he remained consistent and didn't allow the more popular bi-partisan bill favored status...

You keep saying the Dems filibustered, but it was actually the Pubs who filibustered the more popular bill...Cruz's amendment was a concession to the gun lobby, which opposed the original bill.

Would Cruz amendment have prevented the church shooting?

Reacting to the church shootings in Sutherland Springs, Texas, Sen. Ted Cruz said there could have been laws on the book

www.politifact.com

"The notion that the Democrats are responsible for the failure of this proposal ignores the fact that the GOP was filibustering the underlying bill, which had all the same provisions except the state-to-state expansion of gun rights and a requirement to expand background checks," Koger said.

Once again you only give half the story. Did you look at the Grassley/Cruz amendment? I am saying no. The amendment increased funding and tools for criminal gun prosecutions. It provided more money for school safety at $30M a year.. It increased resources for mental health At $40M a year. It increased reporting to Congress. And yes it did the following:

•Includes pro-gun provisions:

oAllows interstate firearm sales.
oAllows military members to buy guns in state of residence or where stationed.
oAllows firearms dealers to access NICS to do background checks on employees (with notice and their consent).
oAllows interstate transportation of firearms if certain conditions are met (e.g., in vehicle, unloaded, locked or in trunk.

So I would not say the amendment “weakened” the original bill, but everyone can decide for themselves now that I have give them more information compared to the limited, biased information you wanted people to know. BTW, I am not going to link it. If I can find it, so can you or anyone else and spend time reading the bill and it‘s contents.

And to say the Pubs filibustered a “more popular amendment” is misleading. Dems held a 56-44 advantage in the Senate. 9 Dems switched to vote for the Grassley Cruz amendment while 3 Pubs switched to vote for Manchin Toomey. That’s 16% of Dems switched for GC while 7% switched for MT. That is not a “more popular amendment”.

From Politifact: “Reid set a 60-vote threshold on all amendments to his Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013 to prevent a situation in which the amendment passed by a bare majority and then was filibustered — by the Republican minority.” So Reid, with a 56-44 majority, wanted to make sure the Pubs couldn’t peel off 7 votes to put in an amendment. He wanted HIS bill with no changes. He knew the pubs could not get 16 more votes. Maybe the Dems could get 4 more for an amendment and he was fine with that.

The bottom line is neither party wants to ”do something”. It’s too great of a political issue at election time.

 

[snarlcakes]

Once again you only give half the story. Did you look at the Grassley/Cruz amendment? I am saying no. The amendment increased funding and tools for criminal gun prosecutions. It provided more money for school safety at $30M a year.. It increased resources for mental health At $40M a year. It increased reporting to Congress. And yes it did the following:

•Includes pro-gun provisions:

oAllows interstate firearm sales.
oAllows military members to buy guns in state of residence or where stationed.
oAllows firearms dealers to access NICS to do background checks on employees (with notice and their consent).
oAllows interstate transportation of firearms if certain conditions are met (e.g., in vehicle, unloaded, locked or in trunk.

So I would not say the amendment “weakened” the original bill, but everyone can decide for themselves now that I have give them more information compared to the limited, biased information you wanted people to know. BTW, I am not going to link it. If I can find it, so can you or anyone else and spend time reading the bill and it‘s contents.

And to say the Pubs filibustered a “more popular amendment” is misleading. Dems held a 56-44 advantage in the Senate. 9 Dems switched to vote for the Grassley Cruz amendment while 3 Pubs switched to vote for Manchin Toomey. That’s 16% of Dems switched for GC while 7% switched for MT. That is not a “more popular amendment”.

From Politifact: “Reid set a 60-vote threshold on all amendments to his Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013 to prevent a situation in which the amendment passed by a bare majority and then was filibustered — by the Republican minority.” So Reid, with a 56-44 majority, wanted to make sure the Pubs couldn’t peel off 7 votes to put in an amendment. He wanted HIS bill with no changes. He knew the pubs could not get 16 more votes. Maybe the Dems could get 4 more for an amendment and he was fine with that.

The bottom line is neither party wants to ”do something”. It’s too great of a political issue at election time.

Question for you. Could the Democrats propose a similar bill and pass it with a slim majority or would it require 60 votes in the senate?

 

[kraft cheese+macaroni]

Once again you only give half the story. Did you look at the Grassley/Cruz amendment? I am saying no. The amendment increased funding and tools for criminal gun prosecutions. It provided more money for school safety at $30M a year.. It increased resources for mental health At $40M a year. It increased reporting to Congress. And yes it did the following:

•Includes pro-gun provisions:

oAllows interstate firearm sales.
oAllows military members to buy guns in state of residence or where stationed.
oAllows firearms dealers to access NICS to do background checks on employees (with notice and their consent).
oAllows interstate transportation of firearms if certain conditions are met (e.g., in vehicle, unloaded, locked or in trunk.

So I would not say the amendment “weakened” the original bill, but everyone can decide for themselves now that I have give them more information compared to the limited, biased information you wanted people to know. BTW, I am not going to link it. If I can find it, so can you or anyone else and spend time reading the bill and it‘s contents.

And to say the Pubs filibustered a “more popular amendment” is misleading. Dems held a 56-44 advantage in the Senate. 9 Dems switched to vote for the Grassley Cruz amendment while 3 Pubs switched to vote for Manchin Toomey. That’s 16% of Dems switched for GC while 7% switched for MT. That is not a “more popular amendment”.

From Politifact: “Reid set a 60-vote threshold on all amendments to his Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013 to prevent a situation in which the amendment passed by a bare majority and then was filibustered — by the Republican minority.” So Reid, with a 56-44 majority, wanted to make sure the Pubs couldn’t peel off 7 votes to put in an amendment. He wanted HIS bill with no changes. He knew the pubs could not get 16 more votes. Maybe the Dems could get 4 more for an amendment and he was fine with that.

The bottom line is neither party wants to ”do something”. It’s too great of a political issue at election time.

"I'm not gonna link it so nana nana boo boo"

 

[jet812]

"I'm not gonna link it so nana nana boo boo"

“I’d rather bitch & remain willfully ignorant than take 30 seconds to look it up”

 

[ribbont]

"I'm not gonna link it so nana nana boo boo"

Wow. You add sooo much to the discussion. An obvious display of your limited intellect.

 

[kraft cheese+macaroni]

Wow. You add sooo much to the discussion. An obvious display of your limited intellect.

Ouch.

 

[ribbont]

Question for you. Could the Democrats propose a similar bill and pass it with a slim majority or would it require 60 votes in the senate?

In 2013, it would have taken 4 Pubs to switch and vote with all 56 Dems to pass an amendment. But I am not entirely clear what you are asking.

 

[snarlcakes]

In 2013, it would have taken 4 Pubs to switch and vote with all 56 Dems to pass an amendment. But I am not entirely clear what you are asking.

Yeah, I wasn’t clear. I was trying to ask about the filibuster rules. I know some bills can be passed with only 50 votes and other bills require 60 votes. I was trying to ask if Democrats could write a gun reform bill and pass it with 50 votes. Also, why wouldn’t they write a bill and hold a vote to make the Republicans look bad?

 

[UncleMark]

Yeah, I wasn’t clear. I was trying to ask about the filibuster rules. I know some bills can be passed with only 50 votes and other bills require 60 votes. I was trying to ask if Democrats could write a gun reform bill and pass it with 50 votes. Also, why wouldn’t they write a bill and hold a vote to make the Republicans look bad?

Budget reconciliation bills (i.e. big money stuff) and judicial appointments can be done with 51 votes. Everything else takes 60 votes to move the bill to an actual vote. Sixty votes only gets the bill to the floor -- it then can pass with 51.