Conservative contortionism blames mass shootings on anything and everything but guns

[contrifan32]

So is a nuclear missile. Do you think they should be freely available to all?

WRONG, and not at all on topic which does not surprise me.

Nuclear missiles don't fire a projectile. They have a warhead thats designed to detonate above the ground before it reaches earth.

 

[Sean Renaud]

So?

A gun is designed to fire a projectile at high speed.

That is all it is designed to do. But without an operator it can't even do that.

-snip-​

For the moment lets ignore the fact that yes, guns can fire themselves under the proper conditions. That's sufficiently rare that we don't really need to cover that.

A gun is designed as a weapon, a high speed projectile is the chosen method but it is a weapon. Just like a sword (a real one) is not a decoration, nor an accessory. Just like a tank.

How so?

You are still talking about two inanimate objects that are inherently dangerous if misused.\

-snip-​

No, a car is a dangerous object if misused or you lose control of it. A gun, like all weapons are inherently dangerous when properly used.

Cite?

-snip-​

We can just point to anyplace else on the planet. Or the lack of certainly highly illegal weapons that are also concealable. Like you can make the argument that nobody uses a rocket launchers or .50 cal machine guns because they are simply to large to conceal. No such argument can be made for Uzi's or grenades. People don't use them because they are extremly difficult to obtain legally. Making it difficult to start a black market and difficult to steal them. Guns are not drugs, you can't grow a grenade in your garage or cook it in your bathroom so the comparisons to "how has prohibition worked for drugs" is at best naive.

We're not talking about the rest of the industrialized world. They don't live under the same constitutional system we do, so the point is moot.

-snip-​

The fact that they have different and clearly more effective laws is not a reason not to talk about them. At that point you simply have to make your peace with the number of people killed every year in various methods and admit you don't care. For the most part I don't, but I admit it. Those people are simply the price we pay for our freedom. Freedom and safety are not fully compatible and you have to choose which is more important.

Again, this is not the rest of the world, so that fact is irrelevant.

BTW, setting up "straw buyers" for firearms is already illegal.

That said, what changes do you propose? Try to be specific and not just pay lip service to it.

-snip-​

Again, this not being the rest of the world is not a reason for anything. Personally I would have three major changes.

1. Gun safety classes would be mandatory K-12.
2. Guns would be registered just like vehicles are.
3. Weapons would need to be registered as stolen in no more than 30 days. Crimes commited with your weapon outside of that time frame are your fault.

There's a few other things that I would love to change but those three would be easiest.

Sure you can say all you want. Hell you may even think you are obliged to do so. If it pleases you and you have such objections to a legally acquired item, be my guest to go jump up and down, yell and scream at the courthouse steps or petition to get the laws changed all you want.

-snip-​

And I will.

Otherwise, unless I'm doing something illegal, what I need is none of your business..

-snip-​

Sorry, you live in the same country as I do. So it's not a matter of if you are doing something illegal it's a matter of how much damage it stands to do to me and mine. You can't have dynamite because you might blow up your goddamn house. You can't (in most of the country) opt out of paying for fire protection, because you might burn down my house. No matter how badly you need to get somewhere you can't drive 100mph down city streets. (Or most freeways for that matter.) Because you have to sacrifice your freedom for my safety and comfort of mind. That's just how this shit works.

Now we can and should quibble over the exact details but that doesn't change the cold hard fact that I have a responsibility there.

I beg to differ.. It's none of their business..

Did he acquire it legally?
Is he using it in a safe and responsible manner?

If the above is true then why would you or anyone else care?

-snip-​

The majority of the country has decided that is sufficiently dangerous that you simply don't need one for anything. I'm kind of on the fence as far as Uzi's go mostly because I've got enough shooting experience to know other than in a crowded setting fully auto is about making noise and wasting ammo a lot more than it is about putting bodies in the ground. Other weapons depend entirely on your location. .50 cal rifles are kind of a problem in lots of settings. There is a reason many states force you to hunt with shotguns not rifles and its because of how far the round travels. In a crowded city I can easily shoot through a plaster wall and kill someone I wasn't even aware of.

At the end of the day though it basically boils down to majority rules and the majority has deemed these too dangerous.

That's not a gun problem, that is a people problem.

-snip-​

Nope, that's a gun problem. Without the guns the majority of those people would walk away at worst with some broken bones and bruises but walk away they would. That's just how the universe function.

Yeah and I hold an FFL, so what? My interest is only how the current laws affect my business. Above and beyond that I don't give a shit what the NRA or the NRA-ILA says.

You sure know their song pretty well for someone who doesn't give a shit.

 

[dan_c00000]

Where is your chart on the comparison of loss of human life over the last 35 years of abortion Vs Guns?

Abortion, as much as you and your insane religious clowns would love it to not be, is legal. Mass murder is not. Sorry.

 

[phrodeau]

WRONG, and not at all on topic which does not surprise me.

Nuclear missiles don't fire a projectile. They have a warhead thats designed to detonate above the ground before it reaches earth.

Missiles are projectiles.

 

[Sean Renaud]

WRONG, and not at all on topic which does not surprise me.

Nuclear missiles don't fire a projectile. They have a warhead thats designed to detonate above the ground before it reaches earth.

Missiles are projectiles.

Exactly. Just because the mechanics is different from a gun doesn't change what they are. Arrows, rocks and footballs are also projectile weapons.

Which at it's core doesn't actually change the question one bit. Either you believe that people have a right to arm themselves how they see fit or you do not. If you're like 99% of people and you do not after that we're debating details.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

liberal idiot, you should be in a 5150 hospital

Millions of guns and hundreds of dead American children.

Something is very wrong.

Conservative contortionism blames mass shootings on anything and everything but guns


Part of the deal that Republicans made to win elections, is to take money and support from anyone and everyone.

It should come as no surprise that one of the biggest pieces of the Republican propaganda/lobbying/fundraising machine is willfully ignoring the laws that govern its practices.

It abuses its tax-exempt status to funnel millions ($37 million in 2014) to political campaigns supporting Republican Congressmen, who in turn keep any laws from passing that might help alleviate America’s epidemic of gun violence, which kills more than 30 people a day. The NRA’s recent mega-convention in Tennessee (sixteen acres of guns!) featured every single major and minor Republican presidential candidate (except Rand Paul, who they don’t like), giving the same tired prattle of Second Amendment rights and jingoistic paranoia about the threat of “Muslim terrorists”.

http://www.occupydemocrats.com/nra-caught-illegally-funneling-donations-to-republican-candidates/

Yahoo News recently published a report exposing illegal transfers of funds from the NRA’s nonprofit to their lobbying group, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA), and then to their PAC, the Political Victory Fund. The NRA has been soliciting donations from their members and then funneling the cash into the PAC, using funds which a member may have thought were for funding events but are now being put to use supporting a political candidate with whom he or she may not approve of, which is very illegal.

NRA can’t claim to be raising money for the corporation — to finance such things as its lobbying or research initiatives — and then deposit that money into the account of its PAC.

The NRA also appears to have violated a federal law that bars soliciting for a connected PAC from anyone other than the group’s employees or members — what the law calls its “restricted class.” And the NRA appears to have violated another provision that says Internet solicitations must be at websites that are accessible only to members (the restricted class), not the general public.


https://www.yahoo.com/politics/the-nras-brazen-shell-game-with-donations-a-116744915796.html

The most bizarre list of deflections, from Republicans, were heard after the massacre in South Carolina .

Seven things Republicans have blamed the Charleston massacre on apart from race

http://i100.independent.co.uk/artic...eston-massacre-on-apart-from-race--bk1LiXKibl

 

[mark_j]

Lahti L-39 20mm anti-tank rifle - Finnish made.

Legal under NFA Title II with a tax stamp.

Only about 2000 of these were ever made with about 1000 being imported to the US from 1958-1964. If this is a fully functional piece, the guy paid a pretty hefty price for that example. Somewhere in the neighbourhood of $8000 to $10,000 a pop, with de-milled examples running for about a third of that (De-milled examples can be returned to function but the work requires a skilled machinist who is properly licensed to do that sort of gunsmithing. It isn't cheap to de-mil either).

Ammunition isn't cheap either. It runs about $35 per round for a modern loading. WWII era ammo (APHE) is even harder to get as it hasn't been manufactured since 1945.

An impressive collectors item, they aren't much good for anything other than punching holes through engine blocks.

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)

An impressive collectors item, they aren't much good for anything other than punching holes through engine blocks.

I can punch holes through engine blocks with my penis, so I don't need one.

 

[kzchopper]

A tool is a tool

I haven't read the whole thread, but feel the need to share. A tool be it a hammer or a firearm are just tools. neither good or evil it is the person using it and with what intent that does harm or good. A hammer can help build or destroy, A firearm can be used to defend that house or rob the occupants. We in the U.S. have laws against criminal behavior AND a constitution that states it citizens have a right to own firearms to defend country and community from those who would do harm. Criminals need to be incarcerated regardless of their method. The law abiding should not be made to suffer because of a "potential" for criminal behavior.

 

[Aglaopheme]

MacGyver would read the whole thread before commenting, that's what MacGyver would do.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I haven't read the whole thread, but feel the need to share. A tool be it a hammer or a firearm are just tools. neither good or evil it is the person using it and with what intent that does harm or good. A hammer can help build or destroy, A firearm can be used to defend that house or rob the occupants. We in the U.S. have laws against criminal behavior AND a constitution that states it citizens have a right to own firearms to defend country and community from those who would do harm. Criminals need to be incarcerated regardless of their method. The law abiding should not be made to suffer because of a "potential" for criminal behavior.

First, we really need to stop with the bullshit. Tools have proper functions. Hammers can kill yes, but they are meant to build. Guns are a specific class of tools called weapons. They are designed to drop bodies and are very efficient at it. Nobody has ever claimed that no gun has ever saved a life. There is of course a strong argument that they do that less often than the opposite but no stats truly exist to prove that one way or another.

Having laws against criminal behavior is entirely beside the point. They are cold comfort for the families and of no use to the dead.

What the Constitution does or doesn't say doesn't matter. It was written by men and can be rewritten by men. It was designed to be amended (if too difficultly) and nothing is truly stopping us from discarding it all together save the fact that geting 3/4s of Americans to agree Bush was president would be difficult.

Of course the law abiding can, should and do suffer because others don't obey laws or in the case you're talking about laws don't exist to prevent people from doing things. We all do that every single day because that's the price you pay for living in a society has been for thousands of years because it's the only way that this thing works.

 

[mark_j]

For the moment lets ignore the fact that yes, guns can fire themselves under the proper conditions. That's sufficiently rare that we don't really need to cover that.

Are you serious?

Regale me with one of those instances of "proper conditions".

While you are thinking about that, consider how many times a human hand has to interact with that gun to take it from safe (unloaded, uncocked) to fire under those "proper conditions". If you can get from safe to fire without human interaction please tell me what magic you are using.

A gun is designed as a weapon, a high speed projectile is the chosen method but it is a weapon

You think?

Just like a sword (a real one) is not a decoration, nor an accessory.

That's your opinion. I have three that I inherited from my dad. All are real swords yet I use them as wall decorations. A Knights Templar ceremonial sword (Masonic), cavalry sabre of unknown origin (story goes it was great granddads vintage WWI) and a samurai set (sharpened steel) that my dad picked up in Japan in the early 50's during the Korean war.

No, a car is a dangerous object if misused or you lose control of it. A gun, like all weapons are inherently dangerous when properly used.

So are a lot of other things.. The point here is that this isn't the problem of the tools involved (no matter what the design parameters are), it's the people who use them.

We can just point to anyplace else on the planet. Or the lack of certainly highly illegal weapons that are also concealable. Like you can make the argument that nobody uses a rocket launchers or .50 cal machine guns because they are simply to large to conceal.

Oh for pete's sake, we aren't talking about crew served weapons like rocket launchers and .50 cal MG (which BTW are legal under Title II though you have to render the motors and warheads inert on the rocket launcher).

No such argument can be made for Uzi's or grenades. People don't use them because they are extremly difficult to obtain legally.

That's not true. People don't use them for the most part because they aren’t practical. Granted finding a dealer who can legally deal in Title II weapons isn't very common and you have to go through a couple more steps to obtain the permits. Plus it is somewhat expensive to purchase. Which takes it out of the realm of an impulse item. Beside, criminals (the common street type) don't care about quality/precision weapons. They want what is cheap, easily available and disposable.

Making it difficult to start a black market and difficult to steal them.

This statement is completely stupid. International trade in black market weapons is a huge problem. By the same token this translates down to the street trade.

Guns are not drugs, you can't grow a grenade in your garage or cook it in your bathroom so the comparisons to "how has prohibition worked for drugs" is at best naive.

It's quite easy to make a grenade using common household items.

Again, this not being the rest of the world is not a reason for anything. Personally I would have three major changes.

1. Gun safety classes would be mandatory K-12.
2. Guns would be registered just like vehicles are.
3. Weapons would need to be registered as stolen in no more than 30 days. Crimes commited with your weapon outside of that time frame are your fault.

There's a few other things that I would love to change but those three would be easiest.

Item 1 - You actually trust the school system enough to do that?
Item 2 - There already is a de-facto registration.
Item 3 - Most prudent gun owners would do that anyway. If for no other reason than to facilitate recovery/return of the stolen item.

Sorry, you live in the same country as I do. So it's not a matter of if you are doing something illegal it's a matter of how much damage it stands to do to me and mine.

For the most part, things that are clearly a danger to you and yours are already regulated and/or illegal.

You can't have dynamite because you might blow up your goddamn house.

Not true. I can have it legally (with proper permits) I just can't store it at my house.

You can't (in most of the country) opt out of paying for fire protection, because you might burn down my house.

That's a bullshit statement. Most mortgages require at a minimum that the home owner have fire coverage and or liability. This is not to protect you, that is to protect the lien holder and home owner from loss.

No matter how badly you need to get somewhere you can't drive 100mph down city streets. (Or most freeways for that matter.)

Yeah because it is already illegal to do so and the time and money spent on the consequences are not worth breaking the law for.

Because you have to sacrifice your freedom for my safety and comfort of mind. That's just how this shit works.

Actually no, I don't. As long as I'm not breaking the law, being negligent or violating some other regulation I can tell you to fuck off and mind your own business. And that's how that shit works.

Now we can and should quibble over the exact details but that doesn't change the cold hard fact that I have a responsibility there.

See above..

The majority of the country has decided that is sufficiently dangerous that you simply don't need one for anything. I'm kind of on the fence as far as Uzi's go mostly because I've got enough shooting experience to know other than in a crowded setting fully auto is about making noise and wasting ammo a lot more than it is about putting bodies in the ground. Other weapons depend entirely on your location. .50 cal rifles are kind of a problem in lots of settings. There is a reason many states force you to hunt with shotguns not rifles and its because of how far the round travels. In a crowded city I can easily shoot through a plaster wall and kill someone I wasn't even aware of.

There are already regulations that deal with most of those things. What's your point?

At the end of the day though it basically boils down to majority rules and the majority has deemed these too dangerous.

Then why haven't the laws been changed?

Nope, that's a gun problem. Without the guns the majority of those people would walk away at worst with some broken bones and bruises but walk away they would. That's just how the universe function.

That'll make it all better? Seriously? You still have a street full of lawless punks causing mayhem and destruction. What are you going to do about that?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Are you serious?

Regale me with one of those instances of "proper conditions".

While you are thinking about that, consider how many times a human hand has to interact with that gun to take it from safe (unloaded, uncocked) to fire under those "proper conditions". If you can get from safe to fire without human interaction please tell me what magic you are using.

Dead serious. Just takes enough heat.

And in the rare case that you have a weapon that is fired electronically a static shock could set it off. You're also making the radical assumption that the gun was ever in a safe. Mine weren't for years. If you're gun is for shits and giggles (as mine are now) you keep them in a safe. If your gun is for self defense you keep it close at hand at all times.

They can also fall for any number reasons. But like I said, sufficiently rare that they really only need to be brought up in the case of "it can't happen" vs "it doesn't happen."

That's your opinion. I have three that I inherited from my dad. All are real swords yet I use them as wall decorations. A Knights Templar ceremonial sword (Masonic), cavalry sabre of unknown origin (story goes it was great granddads vintage WWI) and a samurai set (sharpened steel) that my dad picked up in Japan in the early 50's during the Korean war.

No, that is not my opinion. That is a simple fact. I can hit you with a frying pan, that doesn't make a frying pan a weapon rather than a cooking tool.

So are a lot of other things.. The point here is that this isn't the problem of the tools involved (no matter what the design parameters are), it's the people who use them.

Society has long since disagreed. There is a proper use for every tool and yes a tool should be judged first by it's primary use. And then if necessary by it's secondary uses. Make no mistake if people were routinely killing people with fertilizer bombs you'd need a permit to collect shit in a heartbeat.

Oh for pete's sake, we aren't talking about crew served weapons like rocket launchers and .50 cal MG (which BTW are legal under Title II though you have to render the motors and warheads inert on the rocket launcher).

If you're going to quote the Constitution we sure as fuck are. Hell the only thing making the hypothetical Death Star illegal under the Constitution is the argument that it's a "vehicle" not a "weapon." Which really is a bullshit argument because the only reason vehicles aren't protected under the Constitution is the same reason you don't have the right to hunt or grow food. That was such basic shit that there was no need to include it. You also don't have a right to clothing (Though depending on the mood the SCOTUS was in they might find away to justify it under the implied right to privacy.

That's not true. People don't use them for the most part because they aren’t practical. Granted finding a dealer who can legally deal in Title II weapons isn't very common and you have to go through a couple more steps to obtain the permits. Plus it is somewhat expensive to purchase. Which takes it out of the realm of an impulse item. Beside, criminals (the common street type) don't care about quality/precision weapons. They want what is cheap, easily available and disposable.

Holy shit! You aren't retarded, you just pretend so I'll keep responding to you!

This statement is completely stupid. International trade in black market weapons is a huge problem. By the same token this translates down to the street trade.

ROFL. Okay keep believing your fairy tales. There is nothing I can do make you see the truth. The reality is that as you mentioned above they have to come from somewhere, the fewer places they can come from the harder it is for the black market to come across them which means even if they can they become too expensive to be used. Which is functionally the same as unobtainable.

Since you don't want me putting words in your mouth I'll phrase this as a question even though it's a statement. If Obama decided tommorow to put ten dollar per bullet tax you'd call that gun control wouldn't you?

It's quite easy to make a grenade using common household items.

No it really isn't. People make these claims all the time but making a stable deadly explosive with household items is quite a bit harder than it sounds. There is a reason why it doesn't happen particularly often. It's also why you hear all sorts of funny stories about people who did try to build various kinds of bombs and hurt themselves or destroyed their homes or vehicles. The reality is most people lack the skill to do that. It might be easy for you, you're a goddamn genius just like everybody else on the internet.

Item 1 - You actually trust the school system enough to do that?
Item 2 - There already is a de-facto registration.
Item 3 - Most prudent gun owners would do that anyway. If for no other reason than to facilitate recovery/return of the stolen item.

1. Fuck yes I trust the school system more than enough to handle that. Not only am I sure they have someone on staff who is more than qualified if they don't I'm sure the local PD would be happy to send down an officer for a few weeks every year to handle it. If both of these fail we train personnel. If we're going to have them as a part of society people should be educated and like many other things it's simply too important to trust to their parents.
2. Yeah, it clearly isn't working particularly well.
3. Then it won't hurt to add it.

For the most part, things that are clearly a danger to you and yours are already regulated and/or illegal.

Not true. I can have it legally (with proper permits) I just can't store it at my house.

Yes, they are illegal, and thus difficult to obtain not impossible but difficult. Go apply for the permits, see how much fun it is.

That's a bullshit statement. Most mortgages require at a minimum that the home owner have fire coverage and or liability. This is not to protect you, that is to protect the lien holder and home owner from loss.

I wasn't talking insurance, I was talking paying the fire department in the first place. I could just as easily have said you can't opt out of ambulance service because you're so bad ass that if you have a heart attack you'll walk ten miles to the ER and check yourself in. Society set rules, and you follow. That's the cost you pay. You're also assuming that the person living there isn't the home owner.

Yeah because it is already illegal to do so and the time and money spent on the consequences are not worth breaking the law for.

Actually no, I don't. As long as I'm not breaking the law, being negligent or violating some other regulation I can tell you to fuck off and mind your own business. And that's how that shit works.

The mere existance of those laws is you sacrificing your freedom. Now you're just arguing over your extremely narrow definitions. It's illegal to drive that fast because society decided it was. Otherwise the only 'consequence' assuming you are skilled enough to handle your vehicle at those speeds would be getting to your destination faster. Sorry, speed limits are a loss of freedom. Just because you've been brainwashed into accepting them doesn't make them any less restrictive.

There are already regulations that deal with most of those things. What's your point?

Then why haven't the laws been changed?

Because people like you won't change the laws. You've alredy stated that you disagree with those regulations as they are Unconstitutional and what you have is none of my business. Please keep your bullshit story straight. Ultimately the laws don't change because people like you won't change the laws.

That'll make it all better? Seriously? You still have a street full of lawless punks causing mayhem and destruction. What are you going to do about that?

First, they don't seem in either case to cause loads of mayhem and destruction. But I'm going to bring in the police who are going to have a lot easier time subduing the crowd.

It's funny, you seem to believe somehow that a law isn't a restriction.

 

[dan_c00000]

I fall for things easily.

 

[Publius1990]

No big fan of the NRA here but banning guns isn't the answer. Reasonable gun control yes. Anytime the government bans something people figure out a way to get it. Take the war on drugs. Yeah, that's been real successful.

Mass shootings (and yes I get it. Guns do inflict major carnage versus other weapons) are complex issues. Liberals will deal with it the way they deal with everything - pass a law. Boom, problem solved.

 

[Sean Renaud]

While yes, banning guns would be an answer and the idea that it isn't is the same juvenile thinking that gets us into this corner nobody is talking about that. What is reasonable differs from one person to another, I made three suggestions that I thought would go a long way.

1. Mandatory K-12 firearm education. No opt outs.
2. Registration, just like cars.
3. If your weapon is stolen it must be reported within 30 days. (and that's only because I didn't set a lower standard it should probably be much lower like if you can't prove you were out of town 48 hours) after that a crime with your gun is your fault.)
and I'll add four.
4. Qualify every five years.

However while yes a certain percentage of people will manage to get something even if the government bans it that number is almost always lower than the number of people who will obtain it if it can be gotten legally. Most people obey most laws whether they like it or not. And the war on drugs is an entirely different situation that cannot be compared. Drugs can be made/grown relatively easily anywhere. 99.99% of people lack the skills and equipment to make modern firearms. (I would say firearms period but then someones gonna show up with a potato gun and say BOOYAH! But Bubba at the end of the street is not making an M16 in his garage. He may very well be growing weed.) But nothing is 100% and that's not a realistic goal.

Mass shootings if we're being honest are not complicated issues for people with IQs above room temprature. It simply boils down to shit happens. Most of that shit wouldn't happen if the guns were harder to obtain as the entire rest of the world can attest to but really there are better things to focus on if the number of people dying via mass shootings is what's got people up. If our murder suicide problem is something you care about then okay it's worth talking about.

Yes, pass a law, BOOM problem solved. That's how adults do things in the real world. Sometimes you pass the wrong law, sometimes whatever problem you thought you had was so small you really weren't going to fix it. The War on Terror is a good example of that. Terrorists simply don't kill Americans and never have in numbers worth caring about. Everything we've done to prevent terrorism in the last 15 years is roughly akin to making a kid wear water wings in Arizona to prevent drownings. It might make you feel good but mostly it makes you look dumb.

 

[mark_j]

Which at it's core doesn't actually change the question one bit. Either you believe that people have a right to arm themselves how they see fit or you do not. If you're like 99% of people and you do not after that we're debating details.

You sir, lack the conviction of your words. If it is true, as you say, that 99% of the people say that we don't have the right to arm ourselves, then what's stopping you?

Get the 2A repealed and be done with it.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You sir, lack the conviction of your words. If it is true, as you say, that 99% of the people say that we don't have the right to arm ourselves, then what's stopping you?

Get the 2A repealed and be done with it.

Do you think private citizens should be allowed to own/operate fully armed nuclear warbirds?

Maybe just an A-10....conventionally armed to the teeth....how about that??

 

[dan_c00000]

While yes, banning guns would be an answer and

I'd totally vote for a pol who was willing to repeal the Second Amendment. Australia, the UK, and a whole host of other countries seem to be doing a whole hell of a lot better than us.

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

Amy Schumer speaks out

We never know why people choose to do these things but sadly we always find out how, how the shooter got their gun. It’s often something that should haven’t happened in the first place, and today’s push makes so much sense because it seeks to address the how.


We need a background check system without holes and fatal flaws. We need one with accurate information that protects us like a firewall. The critics scoff and say well, there’s no way to stop crazy people from doing crazy things but they’re wrong. There is a way to stop them.


Preventing dangerous people from getting guns is very possible. We have common-sense solutions. We can toughen background checks and stop the sale of firearms to folks who have a violent history or history of mental illness. We can invest more in treating mental illness instead of slashing funding.

These are not extreme ideas and what Chuck is describing are sensible measures and restrictions and no one wants to live in a country where a felon, the mentally ill or other dangerous people can get their hands on a gun with such ease. The time is now for American people to rally for these changes.

These are my first public comments on the issue of gun violence, but I can promise you they will not be my last.

Amy Schumer received death threats before the mass murder.
Now, that she has spoken out about gun control, she is getting more death threats.

Check out Amy Schumer with Jon Stewart

Check your male white priveledge
Check your male white narcism
Check your male white entitlements

 

[Sean Renaud]

You sir, lack the conviction of your words. If it is true, as you say, that 99% of the people say that we don't have the right to arm ourselves, then what's stopping you?

Get the 2A repealed and be done with it.

No I do not. You quoted me and still missed the "as you see fit" part. Though I do think in an honest conversation 99.9% of Americans would either vote to repeal the 2A (Not that such a thing is actually possible for for the moment lets once again ignore your ignorance.) or they would rationalize it as the people capable of affording really bad things are few and far between. Though that would probably chance the first time some terrorists gassed a major sporting event.

I did however say as you see fit. We have laws which you have acknowledged several times. Without permits that require a lot of work to acquire you can't have fully automatic weapons, you can't store dynamite at your home, can't own grenades, can't have operational .50 cal machine guns so on and so forth. According the 2A we can do all of that and the government has no right to tell us we can't.

You aren't rallying that we should eliminate these things. So yes one of us lacks the courage of their convictions but it's not me. I'm the one saying we should sit at the table as adults and discuss what we think works for our society. You are saying we should be complete chaos. . .except in cases where you specifically deem that it is appropriate to have laws. That things are absoltely perfect as stands opposed to my maybe some of this doesn't hold in our modern world.

 

[Algos_Idoni]

Abortion, as much as you and your insane religious clowns would love it to not be, is legal. Mass murder is not. Sorry.

This picture is hilarious.. because in the attempt to ridicule the "gun" owner or those who believe in the protection of the 2A... it only shows the actual feelings of the so-called (mislabeled) progressives, by making a 'vagina' into a weakness.

 

[Sean Renaud]

This picture is hilarious.. because in the attempt to ridicule the "gun" owner or those who believe in the protection of the 2A... it only shows the actual feelings of the so-called (mislabeled) progressives, by making a 'vagina' into a weakness.

Congratulations and welcome to the Hall of Fame for most retarded statements ever.

 

[Algos_Idoni]

Congratulations and welcome to the Hall of Fame for most retarded statements ever.

Ahh... geez... did I offend you? Think about the statement of the meme.

What would someone need to overcompensate for having a vagina? It suggests that the vagina is something that needs to be compensated for.

 

[Sean Renaud]

No it really doesn't but thank you for revealing yourself as a retard. Carry on.