Will Trump succeed where Obama failed in curbing gun violence?

zipman said:

Other countries mental health rates are the same as ours and they don't have mass shootings on the level we do. Meanwhile, Trump signed a bill that struck down an Obama regulation last year that removed thousands with mental illness from the list that would have prevented them from buying guns.

Stop with the red herrings.

Click to expand...

"The level we do?"

First, who's doing the counting, what are they counting, and they do realize we have 340,000,000 people, right?

Three people shot in a driveby in gangland is a "mass shooting." Neither the shooter nor the victims in that example are likely NRA members given the likelood they are all felons and do not have the right to bear arms.

Do "other countries" potential mass-shooters (as you actually mean tbe term, not the statistics you are implying apply) get the opportunity for weeks 24/7 coverage glamorizing their acts displayed on a couple hundred television sets. Not that anti-gun nuts care when "analyzing" causes, but if you actually ask the shooters or read the ravings of the dead ones since columbine they value that.

coachdb18 said:

SCOTUS decided conceal carry is not restricted to just in home defense, it's outside the home too!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyZglx9zHTY

Click to expand...

Why would you conceal carry in your..., oh, never mind.

Que said:

"The level we do?"

First, who's doing the counting, what are they counting, and they do realize we have 340,000,000 people, right?

Three people shot in a driveby in gangland is a "mass shooting." Neither the shooter nor the victims in that example are likely NRA members given the likelood they are all felons and do not have the right to bear arms.

Do "other countries" potential mass-shooters (as you actually mean tbe term, not the statistics you are implying apply) get the opportunity for weeks 24/7 coverage glamorizing their acts displayed on a couple hundred television sets. Not that anti-gun nuts care when "analyzing" causes, but if you actually ask the shooters or read the ravings of the dead ones since columbine they value that.

Click to expand...

Not only that, but they're not using AR15s.

If I beat someone's brains in with my screw-hammer, is it then an assault-screw hammer, or just an assault-hammer?

WoundedKnee said:

Not only that, but they're not using AR15s.

Click to expand...

That is uniquely American. The rest of the world uses AK's.

Indeed.

The entire argument of the gun haters reads like ‘we’ve got a national epidemic of hit and run accidents. We gotta DO SOMETHING! And since all the cars used remind me of a DeSoto, I DEMAND the IMMEDIATE banning of ALL DeSoto automobiles!!!

Pretty much. Their focus on the NRA and AR15s puts them in the position of making a lot of noise about the problem while not doing a damned thing to actually solve the issue thus keeping it alive and well as an issue looking forward to the next horrible tragedy in order to go after the NRA and the AR15, both of which are meaningless symbols when it comes to the real underlying problems.

WoundedKnee said:

Pretty much. Their focus on the NRA and AR15s puts them in the position of making a lot of noise about the problem while not doing a damned thing to actually solve the issue thus keeping it alive and well as an issue looking forward to the next horrible tragedy in order to go after the NRA and the AR15, both of which are meaningless symbols when it comes to the real underlying problems.

Click to expand...

They like wingeing about the AR-15 because they know that it would be physically impossible to outlaw that without banning virtually every major platform on the market. They know that that's going to get people that actually understand that and have guns riled up and they can use that to proclaim, "Look! These gun nuts won't bend an inch on our "reasonable" approach to "gun violence" because they hate kids.

There probably are enough useful idiots like Frodo and BettyPoop that don't actually understand what restrictung AR-15s means to keep that stupidity floating indefinately, but none of staffers on The Hill that draft gun-grabbing legislation are unaware of the problem.

They used to claim that the NRA was a bunch of old racist white men until they got a woman spokesmodel. Now it's just fronted by "That stupid bitch."

the last time they went all in and they earned the Gingrich Congress. Let's hope it works just as well this time.

I think that they should actually resurrect The Clinton gun accessory ban.. bring it up for a vote in Congress and make the Democrats vote on it.

I should probably go stock up on bi-peds, folding stocks, and pistol grips.

The smart play would be really wicked, ugly looking, black accessories for the Ruger Mini-14.

Que said:

Are you having a stroke? You keep repeating the same thing that's been repeatedly refuted, including by SCOTUS.

Click to expand...

And SCOTUS has never reversed a decision? And laws never change? And absolutely nothing can be done to eliminate massacres? That's your story? Sad. Keep making excuses. Maybe you'll change your mind when your kids are shot.

Trump will accomplish next to nothing of the left's plans to repeal the Second Amendment and prevent private ownership of firearms. We need to put criminal penalties on government officials who fail to enforce existing gun laws. We need to make sure that anyone who commits a violent felony or an act of terrorism with a gun is either killed on the spot or never gets out of jail.

Hypoxia said:

And SCOTUS has never reversed a decision? And laws never change? And absolutely nothing can be done to eliminate massacres? That's your story? Sad. Keep making excuses. Maybe you'll change your mind when your kids are shot.

Click to expand...

The SupCt almost never reverses any of it's decisions. From the list on Wiki, they've only done it 123 times in 200+ years. They usually do so only in response to legislative changes made after the decision is given. And then, the reversal is often only in part, not completely.

123 is less than the total number of cases the court hears in just 3 years. Heller will not reversed any time soon. If ever.

So, you're going to 'stock' up on "investment accessories" which are marketed as a better way to kill people and become "assault accessories" the first time they are attached to a hunting rifle that is used to shoot people.

Why aren't they trying to ban the Walther P-22? One of the shooters used one. Is just not scary enough looking? Or how about the shotgun the naval yard shooter used in Philly? As I said before, they do not want to solve the issue and try to work with others to stop the shooting, they want the emotion of the issue to use politically.

HisArpy said:

The SupCt almost never reverses any of it's decisions. From the list on Wiki, they've only done it 123 times in 200+ years. They usually do so only in response to legislative changes made after the decision is given. And then, the reversal is often only in part, not completely.

123 is less than the total number of cases the court hears in just 3 years. Heller will not reversed any time soon. If ever.

Click to expand...

In other words, nothing will change, we'll see hundreds or thousands massacred annually, and you're okay with that. Sad. And beyond.

Have you ever heard of groundswells? Count the recent (R) vote wins. Right.

bellisarius said:

First of all virtually all vendors dealing in firearms at those shows have an FFL. Secondly there is ALWAYS a BATFE and State law enforcement presence at those shows, undercover and the people setting up tables at those shows know it.

So if anyone wanted to close the "gun show loophole" all that would be required is for the state, or the feds, to pass a law requiring that all vendors at such shows that offer firearms for sale have a FFL. It's just that simple.

Click to expand...

Well, congrats.
Even though you didn't actually admit in so many words you were posting BS about no gun show sales without a background check, at least you've admitted, in a round about way, that you were wrong.

Hypoxia said:

What CAN be controlled, imperfectly but with some noticeable effect, is the presence of firearms in public. That's why I insist on enforcing ALL of the 2nd Amendment. Enroll in the paramilitary "well-regulated militia" if you want to carry in public, under strict conditions. Otherwise stay home and shoot rats.

Click to expand...

Women were prohibited from joining the militia. The only ones who joined masqueraded as men.

Is it your belief that the founding fathers would have prohibited a woman from owning a gun and carrying it in public?
If so, what law or writings do you base that belief on?