Gun Violence Network (GVN)

After yesterday’s shooting it is probably safe to say, Trump will most likely go down in history as the ‘Gun Violence’ president (I’m sure there will be some other titles he will garner along the way to).

But why just stop with the President? Maybe the cable networks need to have a 24/7 news network dedicated to just gun violence? They could talk about the current mass shootings (seems like there is one about every other week these days) they could do historical pieces on past shootings, they could show feature docs about gun violence like ‘Bowling for Columbine’.

Along the bottom of the screen they could stream the names of everyone killed in the past 24 hours due to gun violence, whether that was an accident, suicide or homicide, than maybe pick one of the victims and do a feature story about them.

But I think the kicker of the day they could stream all the names of Federal and State lawmakers who receive money from the NRA and other gun groups, they could also attempt to get comments from them about the ‘latest shooting’. You know, like when Thune gave us all the great advice to ‘get small’.

I’m sure with all the talent in the cable news business they could easily put together such a network, and I guarantee it would probably be more watched than HLN, CNN and MSNBC combined.

We love our guns in the United States, but what we love even more is denial that we have a gun violence problem in this country.

Just let the NRA and Gun Manufacturers continue to control the conversation, and we can keep watching the body count rise.


#1 Michael Wyland on 11.06.17 at 11:40 am

The NRA has viable competition keeping it unbending on gun rights. The Gun Owners of America (GOA) has 1.5 million members, compared to 5 million for the NRA (source: Wikipedia). On the few times the NRA attempts to be “reasonable” and work with gun control advocates, the Gun Owners of America campaign loudly against the NRA and the GOA’s membership grows, with a significant portion of that growth coming from disaffected NRA members.

#2 l3wis on 11.06.17 at 1:07 pm

MW, you make a good point. Anytime you see ‘resonable’ gun owners come forward and support more gun control, the wack-a-doodle groups have to squash them.

#3 Emoluments Clause on 11.06.17 at 1:50 pm

“….the wack-a-doodle groups have to squash them.”

I can’t help but notice, whenever gun issues are discussed on a blog site like this one, that pro gun commentators often come out of the woodwork – commentators that you have never heard from before. Their guns are like their first born and they convey a “Kamikaze attitude” towards the gun control debate.

#4 10-90club on 11.06.17 at 2:06 pm

The TX shooter used an illegal firearm. He was gunned down by a citizen with a legal firearm. Guns aren’t the problem. Crazy people are.

#5 l3wis on 11.06.17 at 2:11 pm

EC, and the march has started.
10-90, actually he bought the guns legally, the problem was he should not have passed his background check.

#6 Fluff Mc Fluffin on 11.06.17 at 3:02 pm

So then, what’s your solution? Or is this just more bitching with no solution. Tough to admit for anyone but the solution is not banning gungs but overhauling the mental health system. If you think taking away a citizen’s legally owned firearms will stop crazy….well, you should do a little more research on mass killings. Especially those in “gun-free” countries.

#7 l3wis on 11.06.17 at 3:14 pm

Yeah, what is the solution? That’s a great question, because we are NOT willing to try ANYTHING. Like yourself, the gun lobby is quick to tell us ‘it won’t work’ yet they are not willing to let us try different ideas.

In Colorado a few years ago they started giving free birth control to teenagers and guess what? Unintended pregnancies went down over 40%. You have to actually implement and idea to see if it will work. We can continue to say ‘this won’t work’ and ‘that won’t work’ but until we try it IN AMERICA we will never know.

#8 10-90club on 11.06.17 at 3:23 pm

the shooter was a dishonorably discharged Air Force vet. Dishonorably discharged servicemen aren’t allowed to own firearms.

How would gun control have stopped this?

#9 The D@ily Spin on 11.06.17 at 3:44 pm

Guns are illegal in Mexico yet there was 40,000 murders in one year. I believe we must have the right to keep and bear arms. What’s missing is thorough background checks and not allowing sale of repeating or assault firearms. People feel safe and free with a gun at home. Thieves and law enforcement do not readily enter. Government has to much control. Guns ownership makes them heed protests and avoid revolution.

#10 Emoluments Clause on 11.06.17 at 3:44 pm

Part of the solution is to subject the gun industry to product liability lawsuits. The gun industry currently lives in a world of entitlement protected from the legal ramifications that most industries are subjected to in this country.

When the gun industry is finally forced to live in the real world, then, and only then will the gun industry grow up and begin to self regulate – and in so doing, take a greater interest in what guns should really be manufactured and for whom.

These continual tragedies are not the fault of responsible gun owners, but they are a tragic by-product of the arrogance and the political and social aloofness that the gun industry conveys to the rest of our country, in terms of guns and gun violence.

I am a homeowner. I don’t own my sidewalk out in front of my home, but if someone slips and falls on that sidewalk, then my homeowners insurance comes into play. But manufacture a gun or guns, that you know will often be used for illegal and violent means, and our current legal system cannot touch you. How is that fair? How is that being an American?

#11 Ljl on 11.06.17 at 4:33 pm

CNN tells us free speech led to Trupms victory, we better end the first amendment as well!

The real problem is low information bloggers trying to make complex problems fit into their simple mind.

#12 l3wis on 11.06.17 at 5:18 pm

Trying to remember the last time the 1st Amendment was used to kill 26 people in a church or dozens at a concert? My tiny brain can’t recall such an incident?

The real problem is we choose NOT to solve a complex problem.

#13 LJL on 11.06.17 at 5:58 pm

No, the problem is, folks like you want to throw rocks before talking about solutions….AND just like this thread, get confused about violence and gun regulation.

As I have pointed out before, unless you have invented the super magnet that pulls guns from bad peoples hands, you could not prevent the Texas shooter from his violence. He was already banned from having guns.

A far as the Vegas shooter, bump stops were approved by the ATF during the Obama era. They should have never been approved. You should need an additional federal background to purchase more than 2 firearms per year. A maximum of six rounds per weapon and a max 20 rounds on your person.

Would any of these laws prevented Las Vegas. Nope. Criminals don’t follow laws. And he carried hundreds of pounds of weapons and ammo through a building with hundreds of cameras and very sophisticated security.

The Vegas shooting is the result of the works of evil.

#14 Emoluments Clause on 11.06.17 at 6:19 pm

“CNN tells us free speech led to Trupms victory, we better end the first amendment as well!”

What? I am not following your logic train with that one. Are you trying to make an analogy to the 2nd Amendment? But how does an Amendment which guarantees the right for a “well regulated Militia,” a militia or militias which have since been replaced by the National Guard, have to do with gun ownership and usage today? 😉

#15 LJL on 11.06.17 at 6:48 pm

BTW.. The CNN/Trump/ free speech post was a metaphor about the complexity of our rights and society, but I clearly didn’t explain that in terms you could comprehend.

#16 scott on 11.06.17 at 7:06 pm

if it had been a muslim that killed those people, it would be a much different conversation today.

#17 Theodore on 11.06.17 at 7:45 pm

Wow Ljl, terrible example. You need to go back to the well on that one.

The funny thing is.

Brown guy kills 8 with a truck: “WALLS! BANS! BARRICADES!”

White guy kills 59 with guns: “well what can you do”

#18 LJL on 11.06.17 at 8:15 pm

Cherry picking the words of our Constitution? There is a second line you purposely left out.

The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791. It reads:
“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.”

AGAIN, we cant have an actual discussion if you lie and exaggerate. Be an adult, have an original thought and be useful to the conversation.

No Theodore, my example is how ridiculous this gun debate is. Very few in the anti gun group or the pro gun group want to really have a true discussion. It’s far easier to club one another with words than compromise in action.

#19 LJL on 11.06.17 at 8:27 pm

Lets apply the bullshit about gun manufacturers liability to motor vehicles manufacturers.

If I hop the curb and run over my neighbor, should my neighbor’s family be able to sue General Motors?

Thats is such a bogus crock of shit dreamt up by the fools in Think Progress and Move on.

Talk about flawed logic train. I’ll watch a few minutes of Racheal Maddow so you can stop typing.

#20 Fluff Mc Fluffin on 11.06.17 at 8:56 pm

Anytime you start talking about taking away a Constitutionally guaranteed freedom you will be met with powerful backlash. The majority should not be punished for the actions of the few. The Constitution should not be infringed based on the actions of a microscopic cross section of society. People have become poisoned by something. We need to find what that is, and it isn’t guns.

#21 Media's to blame on 11.06.17 at 9:09 pm

Maybe if the media wouldn’t spin every violent thing in America on a 24/7 news cycle and stop giving these crazy whack jobs, depressed and lonely people a media spin this stuff would slow down. Think about before Columbine and the media figured out how to drive ratings. They didn’t have much other stuff to cycle the news on except politics. The media is partly to blame glorifying these heinous acts even though they just say they’re ” reporting the news ” . Quit giving the nut jobs a reason to do this stuff and it’ll die down. The media likes to to do that at times. Trucking’s another example. A pickup truck or semi truck for that matte does something with the vehicle then they news target the trucks nonstop in hopes of getting more ratings by digging up other truck issues.

Heck look what happened with the buuld it downtown campaign. They started that and it was a non stop local news cycle. It happens everywhere. I know a Dr or two (Neurosurgeons) here in Sioux Falls we could create stories for days on the people they’ve maimed and their employers just tossed the patients like dirt and went on to the next victim. Heck I even had a neurosurgeon get up and walk out like a kid throwing a fit and said nothing was wrong with me and 4 days later I’m in the emergency room on my deathbed. Good thing I was proactive and didn’t believe that LIAR. Doctored medical records at the time as it was before electronic but they still blocked stuff out. Finally went out of state and got a real Dr that acted like a grown up rather than a spoiled rich kid who thought his sh*$ didn’t stink while lying to me in front of hospital risk management.

#22 Emoluments Clause on 11.06.17 at 11:54 pm


Prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, the Federal Bill of Rights only applied to an American citizen when they found themselves in a Federal courtroom of original jurisdiction.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to guarantee the maintenance of a credible militia against foreign invasion. Historically, any claim of the “right to bear arms” for a citizen must come from a state constitution and its common law interpretations. Not until the Heller decision (on a 5 to 4 decision)in 2008, did the SCOTUS ever suggest that one has the “right to bear arms” when deciding constitutional questions involving guns or arms. And many legal scholars still question – given the fact that Heller involved a law passed by the local government of Washington DC, which is a federal district – as to whether Heller can be applied to citizens and their relationship with any given state law. And this is because of the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, which limits the scope of the ability to use the 2nd Amendment via the 14th Amendment to potentially strike-down laws involving gun control.

As far as for your rant on GM, well, actually you can sue them if you can prove a defect in the manufacturing of the vehicle which caused the vehicle to jump the curb. But with guns, we already know that many will “jump the curb.”

As far as “original thoughts,” well, when you deal in facts you are not necessarily the first to regurgitated them, but if you deny facts, then you are more likely to dismiss them, when you hear or read them, on the simplistic and weak grounds that they are not “original.”

#23 Stiles Bitchley on 11.07.17 at 1:52 pm

Here’s an original thought: There are too many people in our country that place no value on life.

And the atheists, agnostics, progressives and all other “enlightened” proponents of moral relativism wonder why and demand that somebody do something. We should do something, even if it does nothing. We will feel better having done something.

“When they sow the wind,
they will reap the whirlwind.”

We are indeed reaping the whirlwind.

#24 Ljl on 11.07.17 at 2:25 pm

Wow you had to comb the internet hard to find that bs. Reminds me of Bill Clinton debating the word is Isn’t it al Frankenstein that said you can have your own opinions but not facts.

Again. If you can’t agree on the facts (like the very simple words in the constitution) there’s no need to begin to have an adult discussion about complex issues

#25 Emoluments Clause on 11.07.17 at 3:23 pm

Ljl, the apparent need for the 14th Amendment proves that it takes more than just “words” to apply the 2nd Amendment to modern day gun rights.

Why would our fore fathers give the intent to an Amendment as you suggest, that could not be enforced prior to the 14th Amendment?

In fact, prior to the establishment of judicial review (Marbury v. Madison 1803) some 12 years after the ratification of the federal Bill of Rights, our fore fathers had yet to even establish the means to argue that a law was unconstitutional, or with your contention, a denial of gun rights.

Federalism in our country has evolved over time to become stronger and preeminent. And if you think that the 2nd Amendment blatantly affords “the right to bear arms,” then that right has been dependent upon an evolutionary process in the growth of federalism from the formation of the Constitution, then the federal Bill of Rights, judicial review through Marbury v. Madison, the ratification of the 14th Amendment, and then the 2008 Heller decision which was the first time a majority of the SCOTUS suggested that one has a “right to bear arms.” But the great irony of all of this is, that if one is to take the position that the 2nd Amendment gives you “the right to bear arms,” that such a position is dependent upon the preeminent growth of our central government, our federal government, over the years. But this is a governmental reality which conservatives, or in most cases pro gun rights advocates, often loathe.

#26 Stiles Bitchley on 11.07.17 at 3:54 pm

Emoluments Clause – all your fancy-ass, quasi-legalese mumbo jumbo is further obfuscation of what you WANT to say but CAN’T say. The only way to eliminate these mass shootings is to forcibly take away all the guns from everyone. Only law enforcement and the military will have guns.

Just keep in mind, it will be a horrific, long and bloody battle and hundreds of thousands of innocent law-abiding American citizens will die.

Anything else is useless. Any gun control laws that are changed or created will only serve to make those who change or create the laws (and their supporters) feel better about themselves.

#27 LJL on 11.07.17 at 7:38 pm

I do find it ironic that the no gun law crowd often say, “we don’t need more gun laws just enforce the laws we have” but are the first to say we need more immigration laws and border walls.

#28 Emoluments Clause on 11.07.17 at 9:22 pm

“Anything else is useless. Any gun control laws that are changed or created will only serve to make those who change or create the laws (and their supporters) feel better about themselves.”

But…..sometimes gun control doesn’t work because bureaucracies like the US Air Force forget or neglect to place people on the “Don’t sell to list” for assault rifles – like they failed to do with the most recent assailant in Sutherland Springs, Texas.

Oh, and when it comes to “obfuscation,” a person’s claim of obfuscation might better be an example of a claimant who is best to be classified as a “low information voter….”