Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

senate Bill S. 3053

Do People Convicted of Hate Crimes Need to be Banned from Buying Guns?

Argument in favor

People who have already demonstrated a willingness to perpetrate hate crimes shouldn’t have access to guns. This bill would change current law to prevent people convicted of misdemeanor hate crimes from buying or possessing guns.

Anna's Opinion
···
06/17/2016
We don't allow sex offenders around children, I don't know why we allow convicted felons around guns.
Like (258)
Follow
Share
ChrisConrad's Opinion
···
06/17/2016
People who have already demonstrated that they're willing to hurt others based on race, religion, gender, etc. shouldn't be given an easy way to acquire a lethal weapon that can easily kill multiple people in seconds. The only potential problem with the bill is that people could be wrongfully put on the list, but that's why there's an appeals process.
Like (109)
Follow
Share
BTSundra's Opinion
···
06/17/2016
People who went through due process and were convicted of terrorizing people because of the color of their skin, their religion, ect. do not need guns to further perpetrate their crimes. This is not to say that those who have NOT gone through due process deserve to have their rights taken away, and they must be convicted before any guns are taken.
Like (43)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

A ban on gun purchases for people convicted of hate crimes might be a good idea, but there needs to be due process. The threshold for a ban shouldn’t be lowered such that people “reasonably suspected to be guilty” have their rights taken away.

Loraki's Opinion
···
06/17/2016
For a MISDEMEANOR?! People who are “reasonably suspected to be guilty”?! You've gotta be KIDDING! This is the Democrats trying to CAPITALIZE on the shooting in Orlando, which was NOT a "hate crime" but an ACT OF ISLAMIC TERRORISM! Quit trying to deprive the American people of their civil rights without due process! Moreover, GUN CONTROL DOESN'T DO ANYTHING BUT PUT US ALL IN GREATER DANGER THAN WE ALREADY ARE! Orlando Victims Died Because They Were Unarmed – Not Because They Were Gay *************************************************** • ISIS agents kill all kinds of people under a spectrum of motives. • The victims did not die because gun control measures are not in place; Omar Mateen passed background checks when purchasing his weapons. No amount of added measures would have flagged him because he had no criminal record to speak of. And, as the ISIS attacks in Paris proved, bad guys can get their hands on guns even in countries with the most stringent gun control laws. • That night in Orlando ended in a bloodbath because there were no skilled civilian shooters, gay or straight, present in the building when the attack occurred. The lack of self defense instinct and a penchant for anti-gun politics make the gay community easy pickings. • The feds either ignored the danger or were well aware of the danger and did nothing (this seems to be a constant trend in the history of terrorism in the U.S.). In either case, the government is not going to save you from terrorism. • Even though these attacks are highly predictable, very few Americans seem to be preparing in any meaningful way to counter them. • The fact of the matter is, the American people CAN stop the majority of terrorist attacks of this nature anytime they wish, without the aid of government or the implementation of unconstitutional gun control measures. • The danger represented by “lone wolf” terrorism or organized terrorism is energized by the American public’s refusal (on both the Left and the Right) to accept that the only practical solution is an armed and trained citizenry. *************************************************** This article comes from Alt-Market.com http://alt-market.com/articles/2921-orlando-victims-died-because-they-were-unarmed-not-because-they-were-gay by Brandon Smith Numerous liberty movement analysts and proponents, myself included, have been warning about 2016 and the heightened potential for multiple terrorist events. I have written extensively on the history of #ISIS, its proven ties to western governments and the disturbing program to forcefully inject millions of Islamic #refugees into western nations in the name of dubious “multiculturalism,” allowing thousands of potential #terrorists into our borders without obstruction. The reality is that terrorist attacks of small and medium scale are likely to become a monthly or weekly occurrence in the U.S. and the EU as we close in on the end of the year. Get used to the idea, because this problem is not going to go away while our own governments are aiding and even funding the very psychopaths that they are supposed to be protecting people from. http://www.alt-market.com/articles/2741-isis-is-being-aimed-at-the-west-by-globalists-heres-what-we-can-do-about-it The recent attack at at gay club in Orlando by a self-proclaimed ISIS advocate, killing at least 49 people and wounding at least 53 more, was not at all a surprise. The scale of the attack should have been expected. No one in the U.S. should have assumed anything less given the number of dead during events in Europe. What is frustrating, however, is that even though these attacks are highly predictable, very few Americans seem to be preparing in any meaningful way to counter them. In fact, I happened across a clip of establishment mouthpiece Bill O’ Reilly the other day arguing that there “is nothing that we can do” to stop such “lone wolf attacks”. Ostensibly, this is an argument against the inevitable push for more gun control by Leftists in the wake of the Orlando massacre; but it also sets a dangerous and false precedent in the minds of the public. The fact of the matter is, the American people CAN stop the majority of terrorist attacks of this nature anytime they wish, without the aid of government or the implementation of unconstitutional gun control measures. On the “progressive” side of the debate, of course, their only solution is to promote more #guncontrol. They have a habit of exploiting every tragedy in order to defile the #2ndAmendment and dance in the blood of mass shooting victims while furthering their agendas. They could not care less about the people who died, they only care about the political capital their deaths can buy. In the wacky social justice camp, a “feel good” approach is being pursued. The argument among the cultural Marxists is that we must “turn hate into love,” whatever that means. But the basic strategy seems to be to ignore the glaring problems with Islamic fundamentalism (whether supported by government or not) and blame straight white people for their supposed “colonial privilege” instead. All camps also seem to be overly focused on the sexual proclivities of the victims. The fact that a gay club was the target has LGBT organizations in a frenzied rush to capitalize on the hate crime train. Of course, the reality that the Left has consistently defended the integration of #Islam and western culture is never brought up. I have not yet seen the social justice crowd explain how they can reconcile the #jihadist contempt for homosexuals with their supposed concern for the safety of the gay community. I am certainly interested to watch the mental gymnastics in action, though. Frankly, the sexual “identities” of those killed does not really matter much. Followers of ISIS have not necessarily shown any favoritism to any particular target group. They’ll kill just about anyone, including their own comrades in arms if there is something to be gained by it. With all the sociopolitical blathering going on in the mainstream media, the core issue has been completely overlooked — why did those people die? As stated in the title, they did not die because they were gay. ISIS agents kill all kinds of people under a spectrum of motives. They may or may not have been attacked because they were gay (according to former classmates and his ex-wife, Mateen may have even been gay himself), but they died for other reasons. The victims also did not die because gun control measures are not in place; Omar Mateen passed background checks when purchasing his weapons. No amount of added measures would have flagged him because he had no criminal record to speak of. And, as the ISIS attacks in Paris proved, bad guys can get their hands on guns even in countries with the most stringent gun control laws. Perhaps the federal government could have stopped Mateen; they had already been watching him for years. But, the feds either ignored the danger or were well aware of the danger and did nothing (this seems to be a constant trend in the history of terrorism in the U.S.). In either case, the government is not going to save you from terrorism, and if your only hope is that you expect the authorities to keep you from harm, you are probably going to die. Leftists want to direct public interest towards the gay issue. They want to make the Orlando attack a martyr’s cry for the #LGBT community and social justice warriors. But the cold truth is that most or all of the people killed in Orlando could have lived — if only they had a logical attitude of self defense. I have enough tactical background to recognize a professional shooter. Anyone who can walk into the sheer wall of human chaos that erupts in a crowded building during an active shooter scenario and still be able to achieve the fire discipline necessary to achieve kill shots on 50 people and wound 53 more is highly trained. A random spraying of bullets into a crowd is not going to produce such results. This was the work of a collected and skilled person, or, there were other shooters present that we are not yet aware of. The ONLY remedy to remove a skilled active shooter (or even most unskilled active shooters) is another skilled shooter. That night in Orlando ended in a bloodbath because there were no skilled civilian shooters, gay or straight, present in the building when the attack occurred. Now, given, if a terrorist is searching for a soft target, you can’t get much softer than a gay night club. The lack of self defense instinct and a penchant for anti-gun politics make the gay community easy pickings. However, the potential for self defense is present in almost every person as long as proper training is applied. As I have pointed out in the past, even the FBI admits that the vast majority of active shooter scenarios that are stopped are obstructed by civilians present at the event, NOT by law enforcement. Active Shooter Study 2000 - 2013 pdf. http://ow.ly/OVCR301lDyK The great lie being perpetuated in the mainstream is that you must have “government training” to handle an active shooter. In reality, civilians are the most common and effective stop measure. Many active shooters will even commit suicide immediately after they meet any resistance from intended victims in order to avoid prolonged pain or capture. You are the first and sometimes only responder when your own life is in danger. In the end, the danger represented by “lone wolf” terrorism or organized terrorism is energized by the American public’s refusal (on both the Left and the Right) to accept that the only practical solution is an armed and trained citizenry. We can argue for an eternity about “hate crime,” Islamic integration, government vigilance, etc. None of it will amount to jack. Nothing will ever be accomplished. The real debate, the debate that the establishment does not want the American public to entertain, is the debate over our level of personal preparedness. The mainstream narrative demands that we argue over gun control, multiculturalism, more government and better vetting of potential terrorists. While all these issues are vital for various reasons, none of them confront the greater problem. If Americans are not interested in methods to protect themselves, then all else is futile. Each individual must decide his or her potential safety margin. The bottom line? If you want better odds of survival, you will arm yourself, you will train regularly to handle active shooter scenarios and you will carry your weapon avidly. If you do not, then YOU are responsible for every consequence that you, and those you care for, suffer down the road. https://www.oathkeepers.org/orlando-victims-died-because-they-were-unarmed-not-because-they-were-gay/ To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address: Our founding fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. .... Now we are engaged in a great [civilization jihad], testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. .... [Let us] here highly resolve that [our] dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Like (58)
Follow
Share
pgshpak's Opinion
···
06/17/2016
Being "reasonably suspicious" that a person has committed any crime isn't a reason to strip them of any rights. This would clearly be used to allow authorities to strip a gun from any individual they pleased. Have you ever met a cop that wasn't reasonably suspicious of you? Well with this bill, that's all they would need.
Like (33)
Follow
Share
Will's Opinion
···
06/17/2016
Feels like the definition of guilty in this bill is a bit too loose. Overall I think it's a good idea though.
Like (29)
Follow
Share
    We don't allow sex offenders around children, I don't know why we allow convicted felons around guns.
    Like (258)
    Follow
    Share
    For a MISDEMEANOR?! People who are “reasonably suspected to be guilty”?! You've gotta be KIDDING! This is the Democrats trying to CAPITALIZE on the shooting in Orlando, which was NOT a "hate crime" but an ACT OF ISLAMIC TERRORISM! Quit trying to deprive the American people of their civil rights without due process! Moreover, GUN CONTROL DOESN'T DO ANYTHING BUT PUT US ALL IN GREATER DANGER THAN WE ALREADY ARE! Orlando Victims Died Because They Were Unarmed – Not Because They Were Gay *************************************************** • ISIS agents kill all kinds of people under a spectrum of motives. • The victims did not die because gun control measures are not in place; Omar Mateen passed background checks when purchasing his weapons. No amount of added measures would have flagged him because he had no criminal record to speak of. And, as the ISIS attacks in Paris proved, bad guys can get their hands on guns even in countries with the most stringent gun control laws. • That night in Orlando ended in a bloodbath because there were no skilled civilian shooters, gay or straight, present in the building when the attack occurred. The lack of self defense instinct and a penchant for anti-gun politics make the gay community easy pickings. • The feds either ignored the danger or were well aware of the danger and did nothing (this seems to be a constant trend in the history of terrorism in the U.S.). In either case, the government is not going to save you from terrorism. • Even though these attacks are highly predictable, very few Americans seem to be preparing in any meaningful way to counter them. • The fact of the matter is, the American people CAN stop the majority of terrorist attacks of this nature anytime they wish, without the aid of government or the implementation of unconstitutional gun control measures. • The danger represented by “lone wolf” terrorism or organized terrorism is energized by the American public’s refusal (on both the Left and the Right) to accept that the only practical solution is an armed and trained citizenry. *************************************************** This article comes from Alt-Market.com http://alt-market.com/articles/2921-orlando-victims-died-because-they-were-unarmed-not-because-they-were-gay by Brandon Smith Numerous liberty movement analysts and proponents, myself included, have been warning about 2016 and the heightened potential for multiple terrorist events. I have written extensively on the history of #ISIS, its proven ties to western governments and the disturbing program to forcefully inject millions of Islamic #refugees into western nations in the name of dubious “multiculturalism,” allowing thousands of potential #terrorists into our borders without obstruction. The reality is that terrorist attacks of small and medium scale are likely to become a monthly or weekly occurrence in the U.S. and the EU as we close in on the end of the year. Get used to the idea, because this problem is not going to go away while our own governments are aiding and even funding the very psychopaths that they are supposed to be protecting people from. http://www.alt-market.com/articles/2741-isis-is-being-aimed-at-the-west-by-globalists-heres-what-we-can-do-about-it The recent attack at at gay club in Orlando by a self-proclaimed ISIS advocate, killing at least 49 people and wounding at least 53 more, was not at all a surprise. The scale of the attack should have been expected. No one in the U.S. should have assumed anything less given the number of dead during events in Europe. What is frustrating, however, is that even though these attacks are highly predictable, very few Americans seem to be preparing in any meaningful way to counter them. In fact, I happened across a clip of establishment mouthpiece Bill O’ Reilly the other day arguing that there “is nothing that we can do” to stop such “lone wolf attacks”. Ostensibly, this is an argument against the inevitable push for more gun control by Leftists in the wake of the Orlando massacre; but it also sets a dangerous and false precedent in the minds of the public. The fact of the matter is, the American people CAN stop the majority of terrorist attacks of this nature anytime they wish, without the aid of government or the implementation of unconstitutional gun control measures. On the “progressive” side of the debate, of course, their only solution is to promote more #guncontrol. They have a habit of exploiting every tragedy in order to defile the #2ndAmendment and dance in the blood of mass shooting victims while furthering their agendas. They could not care less about the people who died, they only care about the political capital their deaths can buy. In the wacky social justice camp, a “feel good” approach is being pursued. The argument among the cultural Marxists is that we must “turn hate into love,” whatever that means. But the basic strategy seems to be to ignore the glaring problems with Islamic fundamentalism (whether supported by government or not) and blame straight white people for their supposed “colonial privilege” instead. All camps also seem to be overly focused on the sexual proclivities of the victims. The fact that a gay club was the target has LGBT organizations in a frenzied rush to capitalize on the hate crime train. Of course, the reality that the Left has consistently defended the integration of #Islam and western culture is never brought up. I have not yet seen the social justice crowd explain how they can reconcile the #jihadist contempt for homosexuals with their supposed concern for the safety of the gay community. I am certainly interested to watch the mental gymnastics in action, though. Frankly, the sexual “identities” of those killed does not really matter much. Followers of ISIS have not necessarily shown any favoritism to any particular target group. They’ll kill just about anyone, including their own comrades in arms if there is something to be gained by it. With all the sociopolitical blathering going on in the mainstream media, the core issue has been completely overlooked — why did those people die? As stated in the title, they did not die because they were gay. ISIS agents kill all kinds of people under a spectrum of motives. They may or may not have been attacked because they were gay (according to former classmates and his ex-wife, Mateen may have even been gay himself), but they died for other reasons. The victims also did not die because gun control measures are not in place; Omar Mateen passed background checks when purchasing his weapons. No amount of added measures would have flagged him because he had no criminal record to speak of. And, as the ISIS attacks in Paris proved, bad guys can get their hands on guns even in countries with the most stringent gun control laws. Perhaps the federal government could have stopped Mateen; they had already been watching him for years. But, the feds either ignored the danger or were well aware of the danger and did nothing (this seems to be a constant trend in the history of terrorism in the U.S.). In either case, the government is not going to save you from terrorism, and if your only hope is that you expect the authorities to keep you from harm, you are probably going to die. Leftists want to direct public interest towards the gay issue. They want to make the Orlando attack a martyr’s cry for the #LGBT community and social justice warriors. But the cold truth is that most or all of the people killed in Orlando could have lived — if only they had a logical attitude of self defense. I have enough tactical background to recognize a professional shooter. Anyone who can walk into the sheer wall of human chaos that erupts in a crowded building during an active shooter scenario and still be able to achieve the fire discipline necessary to achieve kill shots on 50 people and wound 53 more is highly trained. A random spraying of bullets into a crowd is not going to produce such results. This was the work of a collected and skilled person, or, there were other shooters present that we are not yet aware of. The ONLY remedy to remove a skilled active shooter (or even most unskilled active shooters) is another skilled shooter. That night in Orlando ended in a bloodbath because there were no skilled civilian shooters, gay or straight, present in the building when the attack occurred. Now, given, if a terrorist is searching for a soft target, you can’t get much softer than a gay night club. The lack of self defense instinct and a penchant for anti-gun politics make the gay community easy pickings. However, the potential for self defense is present in almost every person as long as proper training is applied. As I have pointed out in the past, even the FBI admits that the vast majority of active shooter scenarios that are stopped are obstructed by civilians present at the event, NOT by law enforcement. Active Shooter Study 2000 - 2013 pdf. http://ow.ly/OVCR301lDyK The great lie being perpetuated in the mainstream is that you must have “government training” to handle an active shooter. In reality, civilians are the most common and effective stop measure. Many active shooters will even commit suicide immediately after they meet any resistance from intended victims in order to avoid prolonged pain or capture. You are the first and sometimes only responder when your own life is in danger. In the end, the danger represented by “lone wolf” terrorism or organized terrorism is energized by the American public’s refusal (on both the Left and the Right) to accept that the only practical solution is an armed and trained citizenry. We can argue for an eternity about “hate crime,” Islamic integration, government vigilance, etc. None of it will amount to jack. Nothing will ever be accomplished. The real debate, the debate that the establishment does not want the American public to entertain, is the debate over our level of personal preparedness. The mainstream narrative demands that we argue over gun control, multiculturalism, more government and better vetting of potential terrorists. While all these issues are vital for various reasons, none of them confront the greater problem. If Americans are not interested in methods to protect themselves, then all else is futile. Each individual must decide his or her potential safety margin. The bottom line? If you want better odds of survival, you will arm yourself, you will train regularly to handle active shooter scenarios and you will carry your weapon avidly. If you do not, then YOU are responsible for every consequence that you, and those you care for, suffer down the road. https://www.oathkeepers.org/orlando-victims-died-because-they-were-unarmed-not-because-they-were-gay/ To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address: Our founding fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. .... Now we are engaged in a great [civilization jihad], testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. .... [Let us] here highly resolve that [our] dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
    Like (58)
    Follow
    Share
    People who have already demonstrated that they're willing to hurt others based on race, religion, gender, etc. shouldn't be given an easy way to acquire a lethal weapon that can easily kill multiple people in seconds. The only potential problem with the bill is that people could be wrongfully put on the list, but that's why there's an appeals process.
    Like (109)
    Follow
    Share
    People who went through due process and were convicted of terrorizing people because of the color of their skin, their religion, ect. do not need guns to further perpetrate their crimes. This is not to say that those who have NOT gone through due process deserve to have their rights taken away, and they must be convicted before any guns are taken.
    Like (43)
    Follow
    Share
    Being "reasonably suspicious" that a person has committed any crime isn't a reason to strip them of any rights. This would clearly be used to allow authorities to strip a gun from any individual they pleased. Have you ever met a cop that wasn't reasonably suspicious of you? Well with this bill, that's all they would need.
    Like (33)
    Follow
    Share
    Feels like the definition of guilty in this bill is a bit too loose. Overall I think it's a good idea though.
    Like (29)
    Follow
    Share
    A person convicted of a hate crime has demonstrated that they are a danger to society. A person considered a danger to society therefore should not be afforded the right to bear dangerous weapons.
    Like (29)
    Follow
    Share
    Orlando. Charleston. And the years (centuries) and violence against minorities. Have all proven that guns should not be in the hands of those who have been violent towards minorities.
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    This bill calls for the revocation of people's constitutional rights based on suspicion. The Constitution allows for the revocation of ones rights as a convicted felon, not for suspicion or the conviction of a misdemeanor. If one is convicted of a felony then that person has already lost there right to own and/or purchase a firearm and therefore we need to simply enforce the laws we already have in place.
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    No misdemeanor conviction should strip away fundamental rights.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    If they've shown a willingness to show aggression towards a specific group of people, why give them more options and opportunity with the ability to purchase a gun?
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    Convicted felons are already banned from purchasing guns. As hate crimes begin to include Orwellian "thought" crimes, including misdemeanor "hate crimes" on the no-buy list becomes a very slippery slope. Be very careful when allowing the elites to legislate away your rights free thinkers, for they have armed guards and the police state on their side.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Felons are restricted from gun ownership. We must enforce current laws. More laws will help no one other than lawyers.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Felons are already prevented from buying firearms (legally). This law would be redundant wouldn't it?
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    I would first like to say hate crimes are horrible. There are also many types of crimes out there that are just as bad. But we are a country of due process. To deny an American citizen of their right to due process goes against part of the very fabric that makes up this great country. We need to also think about others weapons if we going to bring this topic up. What about knives? What about bats? Spears?
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Two separate topics. Please rephrase the questions as sheets to hate crimes or Guns to murders. If sheet covered people bring horses to a cross burning, one could relate. Guns could be brought to social events without hate. Guns could be the center of the party. Hate could also be there if someone covets the gun. But I'm pretty sure it will be dress envy. And I'm also pretty sure if you come to fork in a road you should take it. I have never seen or heard my gun show any hate towards me or my family. So my answer is NO correlation.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Those who commit crimes often have their rights restricted—they are sentenced to terms in prison, made to pay fines, disenfranchised—why shouldn't they be restricted in this regard?
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    No! Due process is how we function!
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    People who have been proven to be violent and hateful should not have access to weapons.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    This is subject to much abuse and the definitions are not clear enough. Good intentions, but potentially deep negative consequences outweigh the possibility of a small increase in safety (unlikely).
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE