Home | About | Donate

Two Months After Nation's Deadliest Mass Shooting, GOP House Passes 'Dangerous' Bill to Undermine Local Gun Control Laws

Two Months After Nation's Deadliest Mass Shooting, GOP House Passes 'Dangerous' Bill to Undermine Local Gun Control Laws

Julia Conley, staff writer

"If this bill becomes law, the body count of innocent victims killed by concealed carry permit holders will only rise."


Hey if you have exported all their jobs, give them all guns.

1 Like

Oh goody, let’s go out into the streets and start using our concealed weapons so our militarized POLice can roll out their tanks

1 Like

Interesting. They don’t want us to have unemployment benefits, social security, medicare, healthcare, national parks that aren’t poisoned by fracking waste, solar power, an end to the illegal wars, reasonable campaign finance laws, traceable paper ballots, an end to the policies that favor the extremely wealthy and that subsidize multinational corporations, reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act, ending gerrymandering of districts, ending the blatantly illegal civil asset forfeiture program, a reasonable minimum wage, fair prices on pharmaceuticals, accurate labels on food products, internet neutrality,…

But guns, we can have.

This is some messed up thinking, right here.


I’ve seen enough to convince me that the corporate endgame is to cull the herd of its unneeded members by removing or undermining all means that support their continued survival. Jobs, fair wages, healthcare, nutrition, environment, infrastructure, affordable housing, and many other things that lead to social stability and well-being are on the chopping block. Why? Ostensibly because dead people don’t need these things, it makes no fiscal sense to spend money on them. Life isn’t easy, but it sure is cheap.

1 Like

Conservatives in action on one of their favorite subjects, states’ rights.

Or, um, no, wait a minute…


The right–big fans of market religion, until it starts to hurt what they like, like fossil fuels. Big fans of human life, until it’s born, and after that, shoot it, deny it health care, keep it in poverty and poison it. Big fans of the Constitution, as long as you leave out certain sections. Go figure.


It’s almost as if they are trying to get the poor/non-elite masses of Plebes to kill each other, lowering the population, and increase the number of people in their for-profit prison industry…


Kristen Rand said “…the body count of innocent victims killed by concealed carry permit holders will only rise.” Perhaps she should write less propaganda and read more facts. In 2016, firearms violations by police occurred at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Data isn’t available everywhere but in Florida and Texas, licensee violations occur at a rate of only 2.4 per 100,000. It could rise by a multiple of six and still be safer than law enforcement. Of course law enforcement handle firearms as part of their everyday jobs and their rate is astonishingly low. But the point is – well, Kristen seems to have intended to stir up emotions rather than tell the truth.

Pretty much what I was thinking. They used to oppose allowing the federal government to make laws that were the prerogative of the states, but now they’ve gone even further in the opposite direction by saying that New Hampshire (only age and non-felony requirements for conceal carry) has the authority to write laws for neighboring Massachusetts (one of the strictest states in the country.)

I remember a few years ago when Washington and Colorado legalized marijuana and these same hypocrites said it shouldn’t be allowed because then people will drive across state lines with their pot into Idaho and Utah that didn’t want to allow it.


The number may be small, but the supposedly sacrosanct notion of states rights is being trampled.

And why would you support someone from a state that allows concealed carry without a permit, to carry their weapon into a state that enacted tough gun laws, with good reason?

1 Like

So you don’t think the cited body count will rise? Is that your position?

It’s a yes or no question, Gene.

1 Like

One can argue that since a Constitutional right is involved, “state’s rights” doesn’t enter into the equation.

Should states be allowed to set the rules for journalists? Or should states be allowed to establish a religion?

BS----this is exactly what states rights is all about----and local community rights. People in local communities should have the right to put restriction on firearms----from what I understand this new tax bill will also create restriction on local areas to create taxes.

1 Like

See? Leaving sections out, as I said.

What sections am I leaving out? I tend to be a fan of all the sections of the Bill of Rights. I’m not advocating state control of journalists or religion - just asking why some of the Bill of Rights should be controlled at a state level and not others.

So, should communities be allowed to impose a religion on everyone in town? Or reinstitute slavery? Afterall, those are rights protected in the Constitution as well

And completely missing the point, besides.

So what point? Enlighten me

The point you miss is that gun ownership is not the same as religion or journalism.

That said, there is a long history of gun laws, and yes, there are laws forbidding religious practices like polygamy, and laws restricting foreign news organizations like RT.

Your viewpoint seems to be that there should be no gun laws. Is that your position?

1 Like

All three are covered by the first two amendments in the Bill of Rights. What I’m saying is that to the extent that there are limits on any Constitutional rights, those limits have to be established at a national level, not at a state by state level.

For example, laws on polygamy, or ownership of media outlets cannot be set on a state level, since they are federal level freedoms. As noted in another thread, for example, states cannot ban the recording of police actions in public - because it is a first amendment issue, not a state issue. In theory, there could potentially be some legislation at the federal level, although I shudder to think what it could be.