Senate reaches bipartisan agreement on gun control.
|
Senate reaches bipartisan agreement on gun control.
|
06-12-2022, 08:17 PM
RgrF wrote: I am old, so I am comfortable saying that Chuck Schumer is too old for this job. He still thinks one can compromise with the GOP and they will respond by compromise on other legislation. That's all over, Chuck, you have to go to war.
06-12-2022, 08:26 PM
$tevie wrote: I am old, so I am comfortable saying that Chuck Schumer is too old for this job. He still thinks one can compromise with the GOP and they will respond by compromise on other legislation. That's all over, Chuck, you have to go to war. I'm no Chuck fan, but what the hell could have been done? ANYTHING that threatens gun ownership in any way is a no go. What law do you think he could suggest that would pass the senate? Frankly, I'm amazed that anything described as 'gun control' passed the senate.
06-12-2022, 08:36 PM
hal wrote: I am old, so I am comfortable saying that Chuck Schumer is too old for this job. He still thinks one can compromise with the GOP and they will respond by compromise on other legislation. That's all over, Chuck, you have to go to war. I'm no Chuck fan, but what the hell could have been done? ANYTHING that threatens gun ownership in any way is a no go. What law do you think he could suggest that would pass the senate? Frankly, I'm amazed that anything described as 'gun control' passed the senate. Nothing has passed. This is not even a draft bill yet, just a framework for drafting a future bill that may not pass. I have no idea what Schumer has done to show leadership and courage on this issue, and that in itself is a problem.
06-12-2022, 09:36 PM
Lemon Drop wrote: I have no idea what Schumer has done to show leadership and courage on this issue, and that in itself is a problem. He is defeated before he starts. There is NO WAY to pass significant anti-gun legislation in 2022. Even insignificant anti-gun legislation would take everything we got and then some to pass. Why do people pretend that this can be fixed with a better effort?
06-12-2022, 10:00 PM
hal wrote: He is defeated before he starts. There is NO WAY to pass significant anti-gun legislation in 2022. Even insignificant anti-gun legislation would take everything we got and then some to pass. Why do people pretend that this can be fixed with a better effort? I'm not pretending anything. And it's anti-gun violence, not anti-gun. Why pass "insignificant " legislation? Not to mention, beefing up school security is not only a huge diversion of funds away from actual education, it has been proven not to reduce violence. Why would any Democrat get excited about that? I want leaders who will tell the truth because we know and have known for a long time what works, and what does not. I'm sick of the games and every American who cares about this issue should be too.
06-12-2022, 11:32 PM
Lemon Drop wrote: He is defeated before he starts. There is NO WAY to pass significant anti-gun legislation in 2022. Even insignificant anti-gun legislation would take everything we got and then some to pass. Why do people pretend that this can be fixed with a better effort? I'm not pretending anything. And it's anti-gun violence, not anti-gun. Why pass "insignificant " legislation? Not to mention, beefing up school security is not only a huge diversion of funds away from actual education, it has been proven not to reduce violence. Why would any Democrat get excited about that? I want leaders who will tell the truth because we know and have known for a long time what works, and what does not. I'm sick of the games and every American who cares about this issue should be too. I don't think many Democrats are excited about this but feel like they need to give it a thumbs up because if Democrats opposed this initiative, Republicans would have been running around saying that Democrats aren't even willing to do "commonsense" things to keep our kids safer. A cynical ploy on their part, no doubt, but electorally could very well have some efficacy. I totally get where you are coming from and what happened here stinks.
06-13-2022, 12:09 AM
Some of the ideas are worthwhile, but not the school security one. I would like to see several of the other things pass.
School security might be all the GOP will approve, "harden the doors" so they can send pork to their districts and pretend they are saving the children. They may also approve the expanded mental health services and that is great, but it will not reduce gun violence because people with mental illness are not the cause of the gun violence epidemic, though this measure suggests they are. Which disgusts me. We'll see what happens, but I have little optimism on this.
06-13-2022, 12:26 AM
Ted King wrote: He is defeated before he starts. There is NO WAY to pass significant anti-gun legislation in 2022. Even insignificant anti-gun legislation would take everything we got and then some to pass. Why do people pretend that this can be fixed with a better effort? I'm not pretending anything. And it's anti-gun violence, not anti-gun. Why pass "insignificant " legislation? Not to mention, beefing up school security is not only a huge diversion of funds away from actual education, it has been proven not to reduce violence. Why would any Democrat get excited about that? I want leaders who will tell the truth because we know and have known for a long time what works, and what does not. I'm sick of the games and every American who cares about this issue should be too. I don't think many Democrats are excited about this but feel like they need to give it a thumbs up because if Democrats opposed this initiative, Republicans would have been running around saying that Democrats wouldn't aren't even willing to do "commonsense" things to keep our kids safer. A cynical ploy on their part, no doubt, but electorally could very well have some efficacy. I totally get where you are coming from and what happened here stinks. I agree with Ted here. They had to do something. That something can always be pushed further, even if the baseline is set low, and perhaps exactly because the baseline is low. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
