Kansas Democrats Have Ideas For Stopping Gun Violence Or Something

Too bad the “reporter” at the Kansas City Star failed to ask any of the Democrats if any of their ideas would actually stop shootings. I would have that questions along those lines would have been Journalism 101

Should Kansas City have more say over guns? Democrats will push plan after mass shooting

Missouri House Democrats on Monday outlined a proposed state constitutional amendment that would allow Kansas City and other local governments to set stricter limits on guns following the mass shooting last week at the Chiefs Super Bowl victory rally.

House Minority Leader Crystal Quade, a Springfield Democrat running for governor, said Democrats plan to introduce measures on Tuesday that would restore the power of counties and cities such as Kansas City and St. Louis to set rules limiting guns.

Missouri, which has some of the loosest firearm regulations in the country, also severely restrains local municipalities from setting their own gun regulations. Lawmakers for decades have given themselves the power to set rules on firearms, leaving local officials relatively little leeway. (snip)

It would give “local control back to where it belongs: local elected officials who best know the needs of their community,” Quade told reporters during a news conference on the steps of the Missouri Capitol. The legislation will mirror a citizen-led campaign called Sensible Missouri that has stalled.

OK, so, let’s say municipalities are given more power: what would that power be and would it make a damned bit of difference when it is primarily criminals who are doing the shooting and do not follow the law to start with. Will they crack down on the demographic that is responsible for the majority of shootings in KC? What it can do is make things very difficult to understand for the law abiding, making it harder and more perilous to carry for protection from the criminal element. Anyway, there’s pretty much zero chance this will pass the GOP controlled general assembly

Debates over gun control, including potential legislation barring minors from possessing firearms, are all but certain to roil the Missouri Capitol in the coming weeks. But the efforts face an uphill battle in the Republican-controlled General Assembly, which has for years relaxed regulations surrounding guns.

While it’s not against the law to sell, loan, or otherwise give someone under 18 a firearm in Missouri with parental consent, it’s still against federal law to sell a handgun to anyone under 21 and under 18 for rifles. And people still have to pass a federal background check. Which won’t happen with a minor. And criminals under 18 do not care. The very fact that all those arrested for the parade shooting are having their identities concealed because they are minors should tell you they do not care.

Nothing the Democrats are offering will stop criminals from shooting people. If Republicans were smart, they’d introduce legislation that heavily increases penalties on those who use them illegally. How about some hard labor while in jail? Enable police to make stops based who they think illegally possesses a firearm. Watch Democrats caterwaul and vote against it.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

13 Responses to “Kansas Democrats Have Ideas For Stopping Gun Violence Or Something”

  1. Dana says:

    it’s still against federal law to sell a handgun to anyone under 21 and under 18 for rifles

    The under 18 thugs — and Kansas City mayor accuses governor of racial ‘dog whistle’ for calling Super Bowl parade shooters ‘thugs’ — were already breaking existing gun control laws. And, as unfamiliar as I am with Missouri’s state laws, I’m still pretty sure that they were also breaking the law by shooting people.

    But sure, the Democrats think that passing more laws will stop thugs from carrying firearms and shooting people.

    • Professor Hale says:

      They probably thought it was OK since they weren’t using assault weapons.

    • CarolAnn says:

      From my experience with Missourians they are basically semi retarded. Perhaps that helps explain it.

    • Jl says:

      Typical liberal-apparently more concerned about the term “thug” than the actual violence. Last I heard “thug” is used no matter what the color. But they’re focusing on the important part-taking down statues and allegedly offensive descriptions, just to name several. All will be better…

  2. H says:

    Missouri has no law banning teenagers from openly carrying firearms.
    Of course the 2nd Amendment guarantee the right if teenagers should carry weapons. I mean what possibly could go wrong in today’s well ordered society ???

  3. H says:

    Teenage thugs without a felony conviction, are you ok with arming them until their first conviction?

    • Dana says:

      I was about 14-years-old when I walked past the Mt Sterling Police Station carrying a long gun I had purchased at our October Court Day festival; no one cared. I owned a .22 rifle and a shotgun while I was still in high school, and somehow, some way, I never shot, or threatened to shoot, anyone.

      I do not believe in restricting our constitutional rights without a conviction. But I wouldn’t be surprised if we eventually hear that this is not the first offense for the KC thugs.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        I’m pretty sure my teen life in the MO Ozarks, even in the poor side of town with Black neighbors, was different from the today’s mean streets of St. Louis, Louisville, Philly, KC or Baltimore. The drug of choice was cheap SGA beer we could buy at only certain stores. Every now and then someone would score a bottle of whisky or tequila. Like Mr Dana, we had access to .22 rifles and 12 or 20 g shotguns, often double barrel. Never saw a pistol back then. Deer hunters typically had lever action 30-30s. No shootings, no murders that I can recall.

  4. Professor Hale says:

    Maybe they should just pass a law making shooting people illegal. Severe penalties if it results in killing someone.

  5. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Our 2nd Amendment guarantees that ALL Americans can possess firearms for protection from criminals, foreign invaders and importantly, an oppressive central government!

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    What part of “shall not be infringed” is hard to understand? Clearly keeping handguns from 16 year olds is unConstitutional. One can make the practical argument that young Black men need handguns more than any other group! More guns – less crime! America will only be safe when everyone carries. Period.

    When I was a kid in the Missouri Ozarks, we’d get up on a Saturday grab a JC Higgins (Sear and Roebuck) .22 rifle walk or bike to the outskirts of town and go plinking! We used to squirrel hunt with iron-sight .22’s. Once, in high school daze, we were sitting on the back step of a farm house outside of town (Uncle B’s milk cow farm; we used to haul hay there), shooting blackbirds off the power line. Down the gravel road came Uncle B in his pickup, telling us to knock it off, that it sounded like a hailstorm in his metal roofed barn. Good times. Lesson learned.

  6. Steve says:

    Sorry, but Kansas City means Kansas City, Missouri, not Kansas. The quoted story even opens with “Missouri House Democrats…” How do so many people not know this?

    There is a Kansas City, Kansas, but it’s smaller, and if people mean that, they will say it explicitly.

  7. unklc says:

    How about some real criminal thug control? No, it’s not criminal to be a thug until you actually commit a crime, then you are a criminal thug and that seems to be the origin of most crime these days. Put their sorry backsides in prison and watch crime drop.

Pirate's Cove