Democrats Tanked Gun Control To Up Their Election Chances Apparently Democrats would rather have no gun sales ban than a sales ban that allows Americans due-process rights. June 21, 2016 By Gabriel Malor On Monday evening, Senate Democrats put party over principle in rejecting common-sense, reasonable gun control measures. After the mass murder at Orlando gay club Pulse, Sen. Chris Murphy and his colleagues staged a flashy talk-a-thon in which they demanded that votes be taken on legislation strengthening gun control laws. The Senate Republicans agreed to the Democrats’ demand. Democrats got what they asked for, then blew it. Senate Republicans agreed to vote on four gun control proposals—two offered by Democrats and two offered by Republicans. The Democratic proposals included Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s bill linking a terrorism watch list to a gun sales ban. On the Republican side, Sen. John Cornyn also offered legislation that would link a terrorism watch list to a gun sales ban, but his version added due process protections for Americans who are put on the list. The other two proposals expanded the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, although the Republican version did not go as far as the Democratic version. For a brief moment it seemed as if the Senate would take some kind of action.
Then all four gun control proposals were voted down because of the Democrats. Rather than agree to the incremental gun control measures Republicans proposed, the Democrats chose to pass no gun control legislation at all. At some point after loudly demanding legislation for more than a week, Senate Democrats decided it would be better for their reelection prospects that no gun control bills pass the Senate during the election season. Their decision was hypocritical, unprincipled, and pure politics. Republicans were willing to link the terrorism watch list to a gun sales ban, as Democrats have demanded. The price of agreement was due-process protections for Americans placed on the list. But apparently due process is too much for the Democrats. They would rather have no sales ban than a sales ban that comports with the Fifth Amendment. The Democrats similarly rejected an incremental expansion of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Apparently, some gun control is not worth sharing credit with the Republicans. Not content to merely vote against incremental gun control, Senate Democrats then decided to throw a tantrum about it. Murphy sleazed that Senate Republicans “have decided to sell weapons to ISIS.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted her agreement. Sen. Harry Reid nonsensically accused Republicans of blocking the very gun control measures Republicans had proposed. Make no mistake: Senate Democrats rejected two incremental gun control bills for no other reason than that Republicans were voting for them. Democrats’ hatred for Republicans was more important to them than the moral standards they claim to possess.
Americans must resist calls from the Left and the Right to curtail individual freedoms in reaction to the atrocity at Orlando gay nightclub Pulse. Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton is urging us to “get back to the spirit of 9/12.” Democrats on Capitol Hill are reviving their defeated gun sales watch list, and they’ve got an enthusiastic ally in Republican Party candidate Donald Trump. Here’s what you need to know to stand up to this attack on our civil liberties.
1. Neither the no-fly list nor the terrorist watch list were meant to adjudicate individual rights. The no-fly list and the terrorist watch list are tools to evaluate and monitor security threats at the investigative stage. They are not good vehicles for adjudicating individual rights, as they utterly lack the procedural safeguards Americans are owed from their government. In due process terms, these lists and their administration lack notice, an opportunity to respond, and finality. The government is not obligated to inform you that you’ve been put on these lists and consequently stripped of some of your rights. Your ability to challenge your inclusion—should you even find out, of course—is also limited. Further, there are no rules in place to prevent a nameless and unknowable government bureaucrat from putting you back on either list even if you do successfully challenge them. 2. The Democrats are still falsely conflating the no-fly list with the terrorist watch list.We’ve been over this before. The no-fly list is not the same thing as the terrorist watch list. The no-fly has roughly 40,000 names on it and many of them are not the names of U.S. citizens. By contrast, the terrorist watch list has more than a million names on it (we can’t know the actual number). The legislation Democrats are pushing relies on a definition similar, but not identical, to the one used to create the terrorist watch list on a rolling basis. It has nothing to do with the no-fly list. That won’t stop Democrats from conflating the two intentionally (as an aide to Sen. Diane Feinstein admitted she does), nor will it stop ignorant journalists from confusing them accidentally (as several have conceded to me they have). 3. The Democrat’s proposed gun sales ban list has all of the infirmities of the no-fly and terrorist watch lists. The Democrats are pushing legislation to create a secret anti-gun list run by bureaucrats whose job has nothing to do with looking out for your interests. The government does not have to tell you that you’re on the list, even if you are denied authorization to purchase a firearm. The opportunity to challenge inclusion is sharply limited. You can be added to the list at the whim of hundreds of faceless bureaucrats without judicial oversight. And the legislation intentionally avoids finality.
In the name of national security, naturally, these same bureaucrats may add or remove you from the list as they please. This is an obvious violation of due process as protected by the Fifth Amendment, something even the compromised American Civil Liberties Union admits. 4. Even if the Democrats’ proposed gun sales ban list had been made law, it would not have stopped the Orlando attack. As frequently seems to be the case, political reaction to terrorism does not seem tailored to prevent terrorism. Pulse shooter Omar Mateen was placed on the terrorist watch list in 2013 and 2014. The FBI investigated him and, after determining that he did not have ties to terrorism, took him off the list. The terrorist watch list uses almost the same definition as the Democrats’ proposed gun sales ban list. So even if the Democrats’ proposed solution been enacted, it would not have stopped Mateen from purchasing the firearms that he used to kill at least 49 people and radically alter the lives of hundreds more. 5. Hillary Clinton’s ‘Spirit of 9/12’ is the specter of pervasive government surveillance. It is true that in the shocked days after 9/11, the two major sides of American politics came together for a brief moment. But their response went too far. During this period of unity, Congress authorized an indefinite military action in Southwest Asia that almost 15 years later stretches across the Middle East and into Africa with no end in sight. During this period of unity, Clinton and 97 other senators came together to pass the USA PATRIOT Act, which established a surveillance regime that took civil libertarians more than a decade to dismantle. In light of these previous terrorism overreactions, the burden is on the individuals demanding that we do something (anything!) to demonstrate that their proposals are reasonable and include responsible safeguards for constitutionally protected rights.
6. Democrats’ response to terrorism looks exactly like their last call for gun control. It is no vice to want to respond forcefully to terrorist attacks. But in this case the response looks exactly like the Democrats’ last call for gun control. In the months since they last pushed this legislation, the Democrats have not granted even for a second that the due process concerns that defeated it last time are reasonable. This strongly suggests that the Democrats do not have the due process rights of Americans in mind in this legislation. One can reasonably wonder why the Democrats’ response to terrorism seems to set its sights on something other than terrorism
Historically, Australia has had relatively low levels of violent crime. Overall levels of homicide and suicide have been in decline for several decades, while the proportion of these crimes that involved firearms has consistently declined since the early 1980s. Between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm-related deaths in Australia declined 47%.[37] According to a 2011 report from the Australian government, "...the number of victims of homicide has been in decline since 1996". There were 354 victims in 1996, but only 260 victims in 2010, a decrease of 27%. Of those 260 victims however, only 36 were homicides involving a firearm. Also, "The proportion of homicide victims killed by offenders using firearms in 2009–10 represented a decrease of 18 percentage points from the peak of 31% in 1995–96 (the year in which the Port Arthur massacre occurred with the death of 35 people, which subsequently led to the introduction of stringent firearms legislation).". In 2014, only 35 people were victims of firearms homicide (1 in 685000 population),[38] compared to 98 people in 1996 [39] (1 in 186000 population). A 3.7 fold decrease in firearm homicide rates since controls were introduced.
Historically, Australia has had relatively low levels of violent crime. Overall levels of homicide and suicide have been in decline for several decades, while the proportion of these crimes that involved firearms has consistently declined since the early 1980s. Between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm-related deaths in Australia declined 47%.[37] According to a 2011 report from the Australian government, "...the number of victims of homicide has been in decline since 1996". There were 354 victims in 1996, but only 260 victims in 2010, a decrease of 27%. Of those 260 victims however, only 36 were homicides involving a firearm. Also, "The proportion of homicide victims killed by offenders using firearms in 2009–10 represented a decrease of 18 percentage points from the peak of 31% in 1995–96 (the year in which the Port Arthur massacre occurred with the death of 35 people, which subsequently led to the introduction of stringent firearms legislation).". In 2014, only 35 people were victims of firearms homicide (1 in 685000 population),[38] compared to 98 people in 1996 [39] (1 in 186000 population). A 3.7 fold decrease in firearm homicide rates since controls were introduced. ikipedia
It is US smuggling guns to Mexico. Do you know you that? The lax laws on guns (Because of the power of NRA) in USA brings impact on violence in Mexico.
1. 奥兰多事件是一个标准的恐怖袭击，却被liberal 民主党给spin 成了禁枪控枪
政府需要做的是禁恐怖分子，打击恐怖分子，而不是禁旁人的枪。这个恐怖分子是合法的武装保安，不论是否禁枪，禁枪多严厉，这种武装保安都是有枪的。所以对这个案子本身而言，跟禁枪控枪压根没有关系。
而且这时候控枪是搞笑： 刺客已经潜入温家堡杀掉了49人， 现在开始收缴堡内菜刀。。。。。 -----是不是笑喷了？
2. 这周总共4个控枪法案被提出（两个民主党的，两个共和党的）都被对方毙掉了。
其中民主党共和党各有一个关于禁止上“watch list ”的人买枪的提案。 区别是， 民主党的提案要求建立一个secret list， 不给上名单人due process 去appeal； 而共和党的提案要求due process 给上名单的人申辩机会。这俩提案哪个好？结论显而易见。 但是都被对方毙掉了 --- 所以民主党不要装作无辜少女卖身葬父状，这不work
很多大妈觉着民主党的要求很合理，那是因为不合理的部分媒体就不告诉你。 想知道哪些不合理么？ 佩洛熙名言: "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In it!!!@R$$%$^%&。。。。
下面看英文新闻介绍以及评论
Democrats Tanked Gun Control To Up Their Election Chances Apparently Democrats would rather have no gun sales ban than a sales ban that allows Americans due-process rights.
June 21, 2016 By Gabriel Malor
On Monday evening, Senate Democrats put party over principle in rejecting common-sense, reasonable gun control measures. After the mass murder at Orlando gay club Pulse, Sen. Chris Murphy and his colleagues staged a flashy talk-a-thon in which they demanded that votes be taken on legislation strengthening gun control laws. The Senate Republicans agreed to the Democrats’ demand. Democrats got what they asked for, then blew it.
Senate Republicans agreed to vote on four gun control proposals—two offered by Democrats and two offered by Republicans. The Democratic proposals included Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s bill linking a terrorism watch list to a gun sales ban. On the Republican side, Sen. John Cornyn also offered legislation that would link a terrorism watch list to a gun sales ban, but his version added due process protections for Americans who are put on the list. The other two proposals expanded the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, although the Republican version did not go as far as the Democratic version. For a brief moment it seemed as if the Senate would take some kind of action.
Then all four gun control proposals were voted down because of the Democrats.
Rather than agree to the incremental gun control measures Republicans proposed, the Democrats chose to pass no gun control legislation at all. At some point after loudly demanding legislation for more than a week, Senate Democrats decided it would be better for their reelection prospects that no gun control bills pass the Senate during the election season. Their decision was hypocritical, unprincipled, and pure politics.
Republicans were willing to link the terrorism watch list to a gun sales ban, as Democrats have demanded. The price of agreement was due-process protections for Americans placed on the list. But apparently due process is too much for the Democrats. They would rather have no sales ban than a sales ban that comports with the Fifth Amendment. The Democrats similarly rejected an incremental expansion of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Apparently, some gun control is not worth sharing credit with the Republicans.
Not content to merely vote against incremental gun control, Senate Democrats then decided to throw a tantrum about it. Murphy sleazed that Senate Republicans “have decided to sell weapons to ISIS.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted her agreement. Sen. Harry Reid nonsensically accused Republicans of blocking the very gun control measures Republicans had proposed.
Make no mistake: Senate Democrats rejected two incremental gun control bills for no other reason than that Republicans were voting for them. Democrats’ hatred for Republicans was more important to them than the moral standards they claim to possess.
Guns6 Things To Know About Tying Gun Sales To A Watch List Democrats are pushing legislation to create a secret anti-gun list run by bureaucrats whose job has nothing to do with looking out for your interests.
By Gabriel Malor
By Gabriel Malor June 15, 2016
Email
Print
[url=]
[url=]
[/url][url=]
[/url][url=]
[/url]
[url=]
[/url]
[url=]
[/url]
[url=]
[/url]
Americans must resist calls from the Left and the Right to curtail individual freedoms in reaction to the atrocity at Orlando gay nightclub Pulse. Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton is urging us to “get back to the spirit of 9/12.” Democrats on Capitol Hill are reviving their defeated gun sales watch list, and they’ve got an enthusiastic ally in Republican Party candidate Donald Trump.
Here’s what you need to know to stand up to this attack on our civil liberties.
1. Neither the no-fly list nor the terrorist watch list were meant to adjudicate individual rights. The no-fly list and the terrorist watch list are tools to evaluate and monitor security threats at the investigative stage. They are not good vehicles for adjudicating individual rights, as they utterly lack the procedural safeguards Americans are owed from their government.
In due process terms, these lists and their administration lack notice, an opportunity to respond, and finality. The government is not obligated to inform you that you’ve been put on these lists and consequently stripped of some of your rights. Your ability to challenge your inclusion—should you even find out, of course—is also limited. Further, there are no rules in place to prevent a nameless and unknowable government bureaucrat from putting you back on either list even if you do successfully challenge them.
2. The Democrats are still falsely conflating the no-fly list with the terrorist watch list. We’ve been over this before. The no-fly list is not the same thing as the terrorist watch list. The no-fly has roughly 40,000 names on it and many of them are not the names of U.S. citizens. By contrast, the terrorist watch list has more than a million names on it (we can’t know the actual number). The legislation Democrats are pushing relies on a definition similar, but not identical, to the one used to create the terrorist watch list on a rolling basis. It has nothing to do with the no-fly list. That won’t stop Democrats from conflating the two intentionally (as an aide to Sen. Diane Feinstein admitted she does), nor will it stop ignorant journalists from confusing them accidentally (as several have conceded to me they have).
3. The Democrat’s proposed gun sales ban list has all of the infirmities of the no-fly and terrorist watch lists. The Democrats are pushing legislation to create a secret anti-gun list run by bureaucrats whose job has nothing to do with looking out for your interests. The government does not have to tell you that you’re on the list, even if you are denied authorization to purchase a firearm. The opportunity to challenge inclusion is sharply limited. You can be added to the list at the whim of hundreds of faceless bureaucrats without judicial oversight. And the legislation intentionally avoids finality.
In the name of national security, naturally, these same bureaucrats may add or remove you from the list as they please. This is an obvious violation of due process as protected by the Fifth Amendment, something even the compromised American Civil Liberties Union admits.
4. Even if the Democrats’ proposed gun sales ban list had been made law, it would not have stopped the Orlando attack. As frequently seems to be the case, political reaction to terrorism does not seem tailored to prevent terrorism. Pulse shooter Omar Mateen was placed on the terrorist watch list in 2013 and 2014. The FBI investigated him and, after determining that he did not have ties to terrorism, took him off the list. The terrorist watch list uses almost the same definition as the Democrats’ proposed gun sales ban list. So even if the Democrats’ proposed solution been enacted, it would not have stopped Mateen from purchasing the firearms that he used to kill at least 49 people and radically alter the lives of hundreds more.
5. Hillary Clinton’s ‘Spirit of 9/12’ is the specter of pervasive government surveillance. It is true that in the shocked days after 9/11, the two major sides of American politics came together for a brief moment. But their response went too far. During this period of unity, Congress authorized an indefinite military action in Southwest Asia that almost 15 years later stretches across the Middle East and into Africa with no end in sight.
During this period of unity, Clinton and 97 other senators came together to pass the USA PATRIOT Act, which established a surveillance regime that took civil libertarians more than a decade to dismantle. In light of these previous terrorism overreactions, the burden is on the individuals demanding that we do something (anything!) to demonstrate that their proposals are reasonable and include responsible safeguards for constitutionally protected rights.
6. Democrats’ response to terrorism looks exactly like their last call for gun control. It is no vice to want to respond forcefully to terrorist attacks. But in this case the response looks exactly like the Democrats’ last call for gun control. In the months since they last pushed this legislation, the Democrats have not granted even for a second that the due process concerns that defeated it last time are reasonable.
This strongly suggests that the Democrats do not have the due process rights of Americans in mind in this legislation. One can reasonably wonder why the Democrats’ response to terrorism seems to set its sights on something other than terrorism
控枪不是禁枪。
重要的事情说三遍
控枪越严格，越少危险分子可以拿到枪（不能杜绝，但是少一个是一个）
对守法华人公民来说，无论控枪多么严，想拥有枪支在家里自卫都是没有问题的。
但自己儿子女儿在学校里被其他同学滥用枪支一枪暴毙的情况就会少很多用正常人的逻辑来思考，都会支持“控枪”的吧？
说弱女子出门带枪防身的，认真思考一下，就知道
1）对方如果也有枪，用枪一下子指着你/女儿，让你别动，是根本连你摸枪的机会都没有的。
2）对方没有枪，从背后袭击你，然后从你身上把你的枪搜出来反而用来威胁你/你女儿，这比没枪还惨
3）外出袭击情况，对方在暗你在明，胜算本来就几乎为零明泽保身最重要。入室抢劫，控枪不控枪不会影响良民在家备枪，但控枪会大大减少犯罪分子持枪的可能性。
对良民，绝对是要支持控枪
澳大利亚1996年开始严格禁枪，连用枪自卫都为非法。但是杀人案中枪击案比例不过从总数的28%下降到22%，能弄到枪的十年之后仍然有枪。
而且守法公民拿枪在家自卫一定没有问题么？那要看两方怎么谈。在加拿大澳大利亚拿枪自卫就有问题。
</br>
ford hood发生过两次震惊全美的枪击案第一次恐怖分子高喊(omitted)专门跑到医院去屠杀，医院的医护用桌椅板凳还击牺牲，最后是两名过路警察击毙歹徒
第二次某士兵因为吵架仇杀，随机杀人中因为过路警察对其开枪(没打中)而自杀。
蝙蝠侠首映枪击案枪手供诉一路经过多个电影院均未动手，最后找到一个gun free电影院开始屠杀
枪手都知道找gun free zone, 你还要帮他们制造机会么？
隐蔽持枪者制止屠杀的例子
从1996年澳大利亚禁枪之后（美国是要控枪，不是禁枪），不但杀人案遇害者人数降低了27%，涉枪杀人案比例更是从95-96年的 31%直降了18个百分点。
Historically, Australia has had relatively low levels of violent crime. Overall levels of homicide and suicide have been in decline for several decades, while the proportion of these crimes that involved firearms has consistently declined since the early 1980s. Between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm-related deaths in Australia declined 47%.[37] According to a 2011 report from the Australian government, "...the number of victims of homicide has been in decline since 1996". There were 354 victims in 1996, but only 260 victims in 2010, a decrease of 27%. Of those 260 victims however, only 36 were homicides involving a firearm. Also, "The proportion of homicide victims killed by offenders using firearms in 2009–10 represented a decrease of 18 percentage points from the peak of 31% in 1995–96 (the year in which the Port Arthur massacre occurred with the death of 35 people, which subsequently led to the introduction of stringent firearms legislation).". In 2014, only 35 people were victims of firearms homicide (1 in 685000 population),[38] compared to 98 people in 1996 [39] (1 in 186000 population). A 3.7 fold decrease in firearm homicide rates since controls were introduced.
Wikipedia
维基跟官网比权威？http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide/weapon.html
涉枪死亡人数是少了，改用刀子是一样的。
而且全面禁枪也禁不了犯罪分子的黑枪，
1996年禁枪，禁枪后持枪/不持枪抢劫案均暴增，性侵案持续上升。
你的数据反而说明了禁枪之后，持枪抢劫案（绿线）相比普通抢劫案（黑线）之间的比例越来越低（看图中两条线之间越来越宽的gap。受害者只是破财，而不会丢命
第二张图更可笑了，是“Assault（身体攻击，比如你和一哥们在路上对打一拳）”的数据，根本不是性侵。和枪毛关系都没有
大家有兴趣去官网看看就知道啦，所有事实支持控枪，控枪，控枪（不是禁枪）对良民有好处
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics.html
按你的说法应该是用“不可提及之物”打一下
要不是为Trump拉票，正常人用脑子想一下就知道要支持控枪了。何必呢
作为正常人，难道不是用脑子想一下就知道要禁恐怖分子，禁犯罪分子，禁犯罪分子的枪么？
知道今年芝加哥一个城市，枪杀已经死了多少人么？ 280！！！ 枪伤1500！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！ 芝加哥南城闲逛的小天使们，问问他们通过控枪法案是不是能让他们老实点。。。
干脆说都怪Trump好了
楼主好贴。。。。。。。。。。。。
Violence of Chicago is fueled by a lax gun law in Indiana.
左派现在拼命提控枪，口号喊得响，但是绝对不会有什么bipartism的投入的。因为目的是party agenda，为了做够姿态，抹黑对手。不能让gop在控枪上拿到任何credit，至于能不能实施有效控枪法案，不是他们关心的重点。控枪也是万精油, 一有恐怖攻击就拿出来涂一下。
上面那个给芝加哥找理由的不就是在说是别人州不好吗，哈哈
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/20/concealed-permit-holder-stops-attempted-mass-shooting-in-chicago/