Democrat's push to revive gun-control after CA killings, WE MUST STAND & FIGHT

[IIIIIREPOIIIII]

Here we go and we need to fight!
Start the phone calls, Start the Emails, Start planning rally's
Don't give an inch!

• Richard Blumenthal promoted restrictions after Sandy Hook
• New effort may focus on mental health of weapons buyers

Senator Richard Blumenthal hopes to renew the push for new gun laws that failed after the 2012 massacre in Connecticut. Photograph: Jessica Hill/AP

Senator Richard Blumenthal said on Sunday he wants to revive gun-control legislation that was rejected by Congress in the wake of the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting, saying it could have helped prevent this weekend's deadly California shooting spree.

Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut, told CBS the legislation, which failed last year, could be revised to emphasise the mental condition of potential gun buyers.

"Obviously, not every kind of gun violence is going to be prevented by laws out of Washington," he said. "But at least we can make a start and I am going to urge that we bring back those bills, maybe reconfigure them, centre on mental health, which is a point where we can agree that we need more resources to make the country healthier and to make sure that these kinds of horrific, insane, mad occurrences are stopped.

"And the Congress will be complicit if we fail in that," he said.

On Friday night a 22-year-old college student identified as Elliot Rodger allegedly stabbed three people to death in his apartment in Santa Barbara, California, and then drove through the city and fatally shot three others with handguns he had legally bought. He later killed himself.

A YouTube video and a lengthy "manifesto" Rodger left behind were filled with rage and plans for "slaughtering" women because he felt they had rejected him. Rodger had been visited by Santa Barbara authorities last month after a family member expressed concerns about him. The Santa Barbara sheriff, Bill Brown, said Rodger was courteous to the deputies and did not meet the criteria for legal intervention.

President Barack Obama made gun control a priority shortly after Adam Lanza, 20, killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut with an assault-style rifle and two handguns in December 2012.

The Newtown massacre, coming on top of other mass shootings, set off an intense national debate about gun violence. But a few months later the Senate defeated Obama's proposals to restrict sales of certain types of guns and require greater background checks. Gun-rights groups, a powerful national political force, opposed the measures, saying they would infringe on Americans' constitutional rights.

Blumenthal said the defeated legislation could have given authorities in Santa Barbara a better chance to intervene in Rodger's case before the killings and would provide for "professionals trained in diagnosing and detecting this kind of derangement".

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence ranks California as the state with the strongest gun control measures, requiring background checks for all firearms sales, regardless of the type of gun or where it was purchased.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...rt-of-comments

[JenniferG]

Same old story, exploitation of a tragedy. None of the laws or restrictions would have stopped this killer. He murdered half his victims with a knife and the others with a handgun with a diminished magazine capacity. I guess there should be a pool on which democrat it will be that proposes new gun control measures after a tragedy.

[BimmerJon]

tar and feathering is so under rated

[Ecclectic Collector]

Poster Child for stronger laws=yeah right let me check:

Was seeing several therapists for his "problems"-check on the mental health system safety net

Had several law enforcement contacts over complaints/concern about his postings about hatred towards women, plans to kill-check

Applied for and bought only California approved guns-check

Waited long waiting periods for each handgun for approval to go thru in order to make sure he could cool off and not act impulsively-check

Had to have "permit" to buy ammo-check on how the buyer fee/ID scheme worked.

Killed several of his victims with a knife, but lets not confuse the issue on gun control and we'll juts quietly bury those people under the banner of spree killing victims.

Okay, so how did the California's strong laws save the people he killed?

Oh yeah, the antis latest tactic will be to want laws requiring a mental health professional to sign off before you can own a firearm?

(See first comment how well that will work- especially in light of how the therapists being paid by rich daddy and likely would be sued right out of existence at the mere hint that not approving rich, indulged son wishes.)

[Pilot321]

Keep your Communist ideas in Communist Connecticut Blumenthal.

[qmcorps]

[GeneCC]

Somebody figures that this kind of "initiative" works in an Election Year?

Remember 1994!!!

[bigandy1966]

How about a database or registry of those adjudicated as mentally ill, violent tendencies and or incompetent? Judged by a panel of psychiatrists, Mental health professionals and lawyers. To have your rights restored, another panel of the same type judges if you should have your rights restored. The law abiding mentally stable are not the ones who need laws pased against, or whose rights should be curtailed. Its those who need the help.

[wallyone]

So because he was courteous to the deputies they could not do anything? From what I saw of his YouTube rant and the snippets from his manifesto he was clearly making threats to do harm. What new laws do we need for these deputies to do there job? I think some questions should be ask about how little the sheriff's department really did here.

[GeneCC]

So because he was courteous to the deputies they could not do anything? From what I saw of his YouTube rant and the snippets from his manifesto he was clearly making threats to do harm. What new laws do we need for these deputies to do there job? I think some questions should be ask about how little the sheriff's department really did here.

They can only do what California law allows them to do. Only an experienced Attorney, who knows California law, can answer this question.

There is a limit to how much Government can do to prevent crime. After that point it's the responsibility of each of us to handle our own affairs, defense and being responsible for our own mental health.

Be careful what you wish for - it would not be too hard to find out your identity, open a Facebook account with "your name" and then post bad stuff. There is no biometric ID on the Internet, as much as the White House and Elitists would like us to have it.