SB 2017-135: Gun Control Expansion Act of 2017 (Debating)

[Grumpier Than Thou]

I'd like to ask for anyone who thinks this legislation is even remotely sensible:

1. Do you know anything about hunting/have you ever been hunting?
2. Do you own a firearm?
3. Have you ever operated a firearm?
4. Have you even been in the same room as a firearm?
5. If you answered no to at least two of the above questions, what would you consider makes you knowledgeable enough to vote in favor of this legislation?

Have you ever known somebody killed in a mass shooting? Would you look into the eyes of someone who lost a relative in Vegas, Orlando, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, or anywhere else and tell them that's the trade-off for hunting rights?

I know about the whole "good guy with a gun" argument, and as I stated before, I am opposed to taking firearms away from law abiding citizens. But it is in my opinion that no law abiding citizen has any use for large capacity magazine weapons, in the same way that law abiding citizens have no use for bombs. Making bombs illegal for private citizens to own wasn't a "slippery slope", it was done out of public safety concerns. This is a public safety concern.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I'd like to ask for anyone who thinks this legislation is even remotely sensible:

1. Do you know anything about hunting/have you ever been hunting?
2. Do you own a firearm?
3. Have you ever operated a firearm?
4. Have you even been in the same room as a firearm?
5. If you answered no to at least two of the above questions, what would you consider makes you knowledgeable enough to vote in favor of this legislation?

Have you ever known somebody killed in a mass shooting? Would you look into the eyes of someone who lost a relative in Vegas, Orlando, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, or anywhere else and tell them that's the trade-off for hunting rights?

I would. The bill of rights and the principles embedded in them are more important than any individual. They are bigger than you and me. Exploiting victims to undermine our fundamental inalienable rights is terrible, especially coming from advocates who dont know what exactly they are advocating for. Having people who have never owned, fired, or even seen a gun write gun legislation often leads to policies which are even more cluelessly bad than when old white male republicans write birth control legislation.This law is so cluelessly worded that a lot of .22 rifles would be banned, whereas I could retrofit my AK47 clone with a fixed 30 round springbox with a bullet button, and my AK would NOT be banned. I mean hell, if I just dont insert a magazine, my AK would not be "with a magazine" as long as I didnt take it shooting.

We were taught in law school, argue the law. If we cant argue the law, argue the facts. And if you cant argue the law or facts, pound the table and shout. Relying solely on a purely emotional  "think of teh kidz"  argument to make your point is the political equivalent of pounding the table in desperation to distract from how bad this bill is.

[fhtagn]

I know about the whole "good guy with a gun" argument,

That's nice, but had nothing to do with what I said.

I am opposed to taking firearms away from law abiding citizens. But it is in my opinion that no law abiding citizen has any use for large capacity magazine weapons, in the same way that law abiding citizens have no use for bombs.

What you are supporting is exactly taking firearms away from law abiding citizens. The vast majority of gun owners, especially ones who own assault weapons, are not harming anyone. And I laid out a very practical use for them that average people use them for. It shouldn't be this hard to get someone to take off their blinders and actually think, rather than use their emotions to make decisions. And it's all fine and dandy that you have your opinion on the matter, but laws shouldn't be based on opinions, it should be based on facts (which currently are not on your side).

This is a public safety concern.

Oh, is that what this is about?
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

TL;DR: It's great that you care so much about public safety and want to do some good. But to put it in the simplest terms possible: You're doing it wrong.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

I move for a final vote on this bill. I think that it's time to get a vote going on this because debate has stalled for a few days and I am not planning on proposing any further amendments.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The question is now on the table.  Senators, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Nay.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Aye

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Aye

[ZuWo]

Nay

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Less than 24 hours left on this.  The vote is currently tied.

[PPT Spiral]

Nay

[Anna Komnene]

Aye

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

With three votes in favor and three opposed, the vote is tied.

The Vice President shall cast the deciding vote.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Aka the bill fails

[Fmr. Representative Encke]

Aka the bill fails

Cause for celebration.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Nay

[Mr. Reactionary]

Im almost disappointed, since i had a 5 pg lawsuit prepared.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

By a vote of four nays and three ayes, the bill is rejected.