So the answer is to arm the teachers whom are presumably trained BLM Radical Left marxists that are grooming our kids on CRT and socialism? Case Closed
So the answer is to arm the teachers whom are presumably trained BLM Radical Left marxists that are grooming our kids on CRT and socialism? Case Closed
Eastern Creek 95,Syd 1 98,Bris 2 98, Syd 1&2 03, Reading Fest 06, Bris 1 06, London 09, Hyde Park 10, Gold Coast BDO 14 Budapest 22 Krakow 22 Amsterdam 22 St Paul 1&2 23 Chicago 1&2 23 Chicago 1&2 24 New York 1 24 Philly 1&2 24 Boston 1&2 24 Gold Coast 24 Melbourne 1 24 Sydney 1&2 24
So the answer is to arm the teachers whom are presumably trained BLM Radical Left marxists that are grooming our kids on CRT and socialism? Case Closed
A Concealed Carry permit will be accepted in lieu of a teaching certificate for all new applicants.
I don't own a gun, nor does my wife nor my 10 year old daughter. I'm sure we are in the minority. At 40 having lived in some really rough neighborhoods in my younger days and never having needed a gun or having been so afraid I would justify getting one, I feel the best thing to do is go with what works which is not owning a gun.
if you want change, you have to know what change it is you want.
some of you keep hammering on the "semantics" issue. Sure, it's disingenuous from most on the gun toting side. I don't see it that way from mace. But I guess it's easier to pile on then to have an honest dialogue.
I see it this way, the extreme side of the anti-gun group want guns banned, the just past moderate side wants some guns/features banned or heavily restricted and the most approachable and reasonable group of that side are those who just want to implement tighter laws around the purchase and ownership of guns. This should be the group that gun advocates focus on and work with to reach an agreement to prevent some of these incidents from happening, but instead they want to focus on any conversation around guns that involves the word "ban" or deflect to any talk about gun laws as being political and not the right time.
Look, this isn't just me bloviating, listen to Abbot, watch the Ted Cruz interview. Cruz dropped the "psychopath" label almost immediately because it creates a separation between normal gun owners and what he wants to sell as the anomalies we can see coming. It's not that simple. But If that's the hill they want to die on, then people should be pissed off at law enforcement for not doing their job when all these red flags popped up, but instead Ted's out there backing the blue at a time when all they did was what they are hired and trained to do. Sure, the 18 year old can be described as a psychopath, but said psychopath was still able to purchase a gun so if you want to go down that road than be prepared for the follow-up of what the hell are you going to do about it? These "psychopaths" can purchase a gun with little to no effort besides a credit card and ID. Why not advocate for changes to the background process, longer wait times, age requirement changes or any other factors that increase the likelihood of preventing "psychopaths" from purchasing a firearm instead of avoiding discussing guns or deflecting that talk of gun law changes is political? Well, because these fucks are interested in self preservation of only one thing, their power and they know they will lose money and possibly votes if they even speak a word about doing anything gun related. And why is that? Because the people you want me to listen to and who are feigning honest dialogue are trying to inform people about the correct way to refer to certain types of firearms.
In what other profession, industry or field do we cater to this type of bullshit when it relates to preventing loss of life or severe injury? If my kid died in a car accident because the car seat I put them in was defective or made wrong, would the company tell me I wasn't describing the features of their car seat correctly when I said something needed to change or demanded higher standards for production? No, because they would know that the consumers of their product would no longer support them and they would go bankrupt or be held liable in court. Yes, I get it, guns are doing what they were made to do, kill, so in theory we should be applauding the manufacturers for creating these flawless tools of carnage. We should all be proud that 18 year old boys lacking a fully developed frontal lobe have the legal right to purchase as many AR-15's as they want, but yet we don't want them drinking alcohol legally and in most states they can't even smoke marijuana because drugs and alcohol bad, guns good.
I can't have this conversation with a gun advocate if they want to try and make it all about terminology. It doesn't have to be that way. Why aren't they super pissed? Why don't they reach out to their local elected official and demand change? Is it because they value owning a firearm over saving a life? It sure comes across that way. Be the change you want to see in the world. I grew up around guns and my family owned about 100 various firearms. I shot some sort of gun almost every day from the time I was 7 until I was 18. I carried a gun for my profession for 4 years. I was proficient and understand the differences in the types of firearms being mentioned, but I also know some people aren't, but that's not a sticking point when it comes to talking about ways to improve gun safety and the culture of guns in this country. I abhor guns besides those used to hunt with. We have been programmed to fear being attacked, fear being taken advantage of and fear the "other", but what are we really trying to protect with a gun in most cases? Property. A phone, a car, cash. Things that are replaceable. Our right to bear arms does not need to be so complicated. There can be compromises to what we as a country believe should be available to the citizenry without banning guns completely. We have restrictions and laws in place around every other aspect of what is acceptable to be a human being, and yes, there will always be people who break those laws and find ways around these systems, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something because it won't be 100% effective.
Anyway, I just want change. I want the GOP to come forward and recognize this is a bigger problem than just mental illness and that guns are a part of the problem and decide to do something about it.
Is it because they value owning a firearm over saving a life? It sure comes across that way.
And then this is what the abortion debate becomes... Just change Firearm to abortion and there you have it.
Funny, all of that and that's your take away? I am not even advocating for an all out gun ban. We're way past that. You are the one who has mentioned being fearful of guns being taken away. Well, that's not gonna happen any time soon, at least definitely not in your lifetime. Have you seen the SCOTUS? However, abortion is about to be banned, so I guess all these conservatives who want abortion banned and guns freely allowed probably are fearful it could happen to them and knew they were lying the last several years when they said Roe v. Wade will never be overturned.
I can't comment on every sentence...
It is interesting to me, that one line.
States Rights are becoming a big deal now. If you can have abortion taken away as a state right you damn well sure can take a gun away. I would see California doing that for sure with NY following.
Please stop. No state is going to ban firearms or come get your guns. They may restrict ownership. They may ban further sales of certain types but they're not going to confiscate or "take guns away." Waaaaaaaaaay too late for that.
Mace, I think it was Mace, said there was a large percentage of people who wanted to "ban firearms." I can't find any polling on what that percentage is. I'd appreciate a link to a known polling source and not some pro-NRA or gun rights advocacy group on what the actual percentage of Americans want to "ban firearms."
I thought the same about abortion...
Do you really believe that abortion is going to stop or women won't get abortions because of what laws OK, FL and Tejas (and other red states will pass) have passed? Conversely, do you really believe the gubmint is going to confiscate 400 million firearms in this country? Do you really believe that?
Can you live without the right to own an assault rifle but all other manner of firearms or would you consider yourself unable to defend yourself and your right to bear arms infringed?
Ban=Bad, I've always said that.
Other people want us to be like Canada and NZ, Australia where the gubmint does indeed round them up. It's not a nutso idea to think would come to light, it's not.
The ghosts of gun violence? I still haven't been able to find polling on what number of Americans want to "ban firearms." Boo! Talk about semantics.
And you didn't answer the question but chose to deflect with Ban=Bad. Again, can you live without the right to own an assault rifle but all other manner of firearms or would you consider yourself unable to defend yourself and your right to bear arms infringed? Its a yes or no question.
This is why nothing changes, slippery slope, semantics, lack of "responsibility." Last time I checked, it wasn't non-gun owners going around shooting places up.
Its in favor of banning a type of firearm and not all firearms. 6 in 10 are in favor of banning assault weapons. Not "all firearms." Why can't you answer the question I posed? Are you unable to defend yourself if your firearm is not an assault weapon? If you can't legally purchase an assault weapon but can purchase every other type of firearm, has your 2A been infringed? And you find that unacceptable?
What percentage of Americans want to ban ALL FIREARMS?
Ahhh, I missed the ALL.
I said no on banning assault type weapons, that isn't anything new with me so I will say it again.
if you want change, you have to know what change it is you want.
some of you keep hammering on the "semantics" issue. Sure, it's disingenuous from most on the gun toting side. I don't see it that way from mace. But I guess it's easier to pile on then to have an honest dialogue.
I see it this way, the extreme side of the anti-gun group want guns banned, the just past moderate side wants some guns/features banned or heavily restricted and the most approachable and reasonable group of that side are those who just want to implement tighter laws around the purchase and ownership of guns. This should be the group that gun advocates focus on and work with to reach an agreement to prevent some of these incidents from happening, but instead they want to focus on any conversation around guns that involves the word "ban" or deflect to any talk about gun laws as being political and not the right time.
Look, this isn't just me bloviating, listen to Abbot, watch the Ted Cruz interview. Cruz dropped the "psychopath" label almost immediately because it creates a separation between normal gun owners and what he wants to sell as the anomalies we can see coming. It's not that simple. But If that's the hill they want to die on, then people should be pissed off at law enforcement for not doing their job when all these red flags popped up, but instead Ted's out there backing the blue at a time when all they did was what they are hired and trained to do. Sure, the 18 year old can be described as a psychopath, but said psychopath was still able to purchase a gun so if you want to go down that road than be prepared for the follow-up of what the hell are you going to do about it? These "psychopaths" can purchase a gun with little to no effort besides a credit card and ID. Why not advocate for changes to the background process, longer wait times, age requirement changes or any other factors that increase the likelihood of preventing "psychopaths" from purchasing a firearm instead of avoiding discussing guns or deflecting that talk of gun law changes is political? Well, because these fucks are interested in self preservation of only one thing, their power and they know they will lose money and possibly votes if they even speak a word about doing anything gun related. And why is that? Because the people you want me to listen to and who are feigning honest dialogue are trying to inform people about the correct way to refer to certain types of firearms.
In what other profession, industry or field do we cater to this type of bullshit when it relates to preventing loss of life or severe injury? If my kid died in a car accident because the car seat I put them in was defective or made wrong, would the company tell me I wasn't describing the features of their car seat correctly when I said something needed to change or demanded higher standards for production? No, because they would know that the consumers of their product would no longer support them and they would go bankrupt or be held liable in court. Yes, I get it, guns are doing what they were made to do, kill, so in theory we should be applauding the manufacturers for creating these flawless tools of carnage. We should all be proud that 18 year old boys lacking a fully developed frontal lobe have the legal right to purchase as many AR-15's as they want, but yet we don't want them drinking alcohol legally and in most states they can't even smoke marijuana because drugs and alcohol bad, guns good.
I can't have this conversation with a gun advocate if they want to try and make it all about terminology. It doesn't have to be that way. Why aren't they super pissed? Why don't they reach out to their local elected official and demand change? Is it because they value owning a firearm over saving a life? It sure comes across that way. Be the change you want to see in the world. I grew up around guns and my family owned about 100 various firearms. I shot some sort of gun almost every day from the time I was 7 until I was 18. I carried a gun for my profession for 4 years. I was proficient and understand the differences in the types of firearms being mentioned, but I also know some people aren't, but that's not a sticking point when it comes to talking about ways to improve gun safety and the culture of guns in this country. I abhor guns besides those used to hunt with. We have been programmed to fear being attacked, fear being taken advantage of and fear the "other", but what are we really trying to protect with a gun in most cases? Property. A phone, a car, cash. Things that are replaceable. Our right to bear arms does not need to be so complicated. There can be compromises to what we as a country believe should be available to the citizenry without banning guns completely. We have restrictions and laws in place around every other aspect of what is acceptable to be a human being, and yes, there will always be people who break those laws and find ways around these systems, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something because it won't be 100% effective.
Anyway, I just want change. I want the GOP to come forward and recognize this is a bigger problem than just mental illness and that guns are a part of the problem and decide to do something about it.
Is it because they value owning a firearm over saving a life? It sure comes across that way.
And then this is what the abortion debate becomes... Just change Firearm to abortion and there you have it.
Funny, all of that and that's your take away? I am not even advocating for an all out gun ban. We're way past that. You are the one who has mentioned being fearful of guns being taken away. Well, that's not gonna happen any time soon, at least definitely not in your lifetime. Have you seen the SCOTUS? However, abortion is about to be banned, so I guess all these conservatives who want abortion banned and guns freely allowed probably are fearful it could happen to them and knew they were lying the last several years when they said Roe v. Wade will never be overturned.
I can't comment on every sentence...
It is interesting to me, that one line.
States Rights are becoming a big deal now. If you can have abortion taken away as a state right you damn well sure can take a gun away. I would see California doing that for sure with NY following.
Please stop. No state is going to ban firearms or come get your guns. They may restrict ownership. They may ban further sales of certain types but they're not going to confiscate or "take guns away." Waaaaaaaaaay too late for that.
Mace, I think it was Mace, said there was a large percentage of people who wanted to "ban firearms." I can't find any polling on what that percentage is. I'd appreciate a link to a known polling source and not some pro-NRA or gun rights advocacy group on what the actual percentage of Americans want to "ban firearms."
I can’t remember saying that, but likely could have said there are some who want to. If I did say “large” then I probably said would be okay with it. There’s a difference between being okay and wanting it. But I don’t recal either way. And there have been posts saying they wish the taxes and fees were so high that the typical person couldn’t afford a gun. I would consider that effectively a ban. Bringing the abortion analogy that Tempo brought up. Just like I would agree making abortions so expensive and so many loopholes and dr notes to get one would effectively be a ban on abortion too.
Adding a tax to certain weapons wouldn't be bad as long as it's not outrageous and they don't become elitist symbols. I expect someone rich to own a yacht and a plane, not to own a gun.
Stop it, they can't afford shoes. They are lucky to even have those guns...
I don't own a gun, nor does my wife nor my 10 year old daughter. I'm sure we are in the minority. At 40 having lived in some really rough neighborhoods in my younger days and never having needed a gun or having been so afraid I would justify getting one, I feel the best thing to do is go with what works which is not owning a gun.
yep....if I needed mine it would take 20 minutes to find it...find the bullets, lock and load. But that's fine.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
if you want change, you have to know what change it is you want.
some of you keep hammering on the "semantics" issue. Sure, it's disingenuous from most on the gun toting side. I don't see it that way from mace. But I guess it's easier to pile on then to have an honest dialogue.
I see it this way, the extreme side of the anti-gun group want guns banned, the just past moderate side wants some guns/features banned or heavily restricted and the most approachable and reasonable group of that side are those who just want to implement tighter laws around the purchase and ownership of guns. This should be the group that gun advocates focus on and work with to reach an agreement to prevent some of these incidents from happening, but instead they want to focus on any conversation around guns that involves the word "ban" or deflect to any talk about gun laws as being political and not the right time.
Look, this isn't just me bloviating, listen to Abbot, watch the Ted Cruz interview. Cruz dropped the "psychopath" label almost immediately because it creates a separation between normal gun owners and what he wants to sell as the anomalies we can see coming. It's not that simple. But If that's the hill they want to die on, then people should be pissed off at law enforcement for not doing their job when all these red flags popped up, but instead Ted's out there backing the blue at a time when all they did was what they are hired and trained to do. Sure, the 18 year old can be described as a psychopath, but said psychopath was still able to purchase a gun so if you want to go down that road than be prepared for the follow-up of what the hell are you going to do about it? These "psychopaths" can purchase a gun with little to no effort besides a credit card and ID. Why not advocate for changes to the background process, longer wait times, age requirement changes or any other factors that increase the likelihood of preventing "psychopaths" from purchasing a firearm instead of avoiding discussing guns or deflecting that talk of gun law changes is political? Well, because these fucks are interested in self preservation of only one thing, their power and they know they will lose money and possibly votes if they even speak a word about doing anything gun related. And why is that? Because the people you want me to listen to and who are feigning honest dialogue are trying to inform people about the correct way to refer to certain types of firearms.
In what other profession, industry or field do we cater to this type of bullshit when it relates to preventing loss of life or severe injury? If my kid died in a car accident because the car seat I put them in was defective or made wrong, would the company tell me I wasn't describing the features of their car seat correctly when I said something needed to change or demanded higher standards for production? No, because they would know that the consumers of their product would no longer support them and they would go bankrupt or be held liable in court. Yes, I get it, guns are doing what they were made to do, kill, so in theory we should be applauding the manufacturers for creating these flawless tools of carnage. We should all be proud that 18 year old boys lacking a fully developed frontal lobe have the legal right to purchase as many AR-15's as they want, but yet we don't want them drinking alcohol legally and in most states they can't even smoke marijuana because drugs and alcohol bad, guns good.
I can't have this conversation with a gun advocate if they want to try and make it all about terminology. It doesn't have to be that way. Why aren't they super pissed? Why don't they reach out to their local elected official and demand change? Is it because they value owning a firearm over saving a life? It sure comes across that way. Be the change you want to see in the world. I grew up around guns and my family owned about 100 various firearms. I shot some sort of gun almost every day from the time I was 7 until I was 18. I carried a gun for my profession for 4 years. I was proficient and understand the differences in the types of firearms being mentioned, but I also know some people aren't, but that's not a sticking point when it comes to talking about ways to improve gun safety and the culture of guns in this country. I abhor guns besides those used to hunt with. We have been programmed to fear being attacked, fear being taken advantage of and fear the "other", but what are we really trying to protect with a gun in most cases? Property. A phone, a car, cash. Things that are replaceable. Our right to bear arms does not need to be so complicated. There can be compromises to what we as a country believe should be available to the citizenry without banning guns completely. We have restrictions and laws in place around every other aspect of what is acceptable to be a human being, and yes, there will always be people who break those laws and find ways around these systems, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something because it won't be 100% effective.
Anyway, I just want change. I want the GOP to come forward and recognize this is a bigger problem than just mental illness and that guns are a part of the problem and decide to do something about it.
Is it because they value owning a firearm over saving a life? It sure comes across that way.
And then this is what the abortion debate becomes... Just change Firearm to abortion and there you have it.
Funny, all of that and that's your take away? I am not even advocating for an all out gun ban. We're way past that. You are the one who has mentioned being fearful of guns being taken away. Well, that's not gonna happen any time soon, at least definitely not in your lifetime. Have you seen the SCOTUS? However, abortion is about to be banned, so I guess all these conservatives who want abortion banned and guns freely allowed probably are fearful it could happen to them and knew they were lying the last several years when they said Roe v. Wade will never be overturned.
I can't comment on every sentence...
It is interesting to me, that one line.
States Rights are becoming a big deal now. If you can have abortion taken away as a state right you damn well sure can take a gun away. I would see California doing that for sure with NY following.
Please stop. No state is going to ban firearms or come get your guns. They may restrict ownership. They may ban further sales of certain types but they're not going to confiscate or "take guns away." Waaaaaaaaaay too late for that.
Mace, I think it was Mace, said there was a large percentage of people who wanted to "ban firearms." I can't find any polling on what that percentage is. I'd appreciate a link to a known polling source and not some pro-NRA or gun rights advocacy group on what the actual percentage of Americans want to "ban firearms."
I can’t remember saying that, but likely could have said there are some who want to. If I did say “large” then I probably said would be okay with it. There’s a difference between being okay and wanting it. But I don’t recal either way. And there have been posts saying they wish the taxes and fees were so high that the typical person couldn’t afford a gun. I would consider that effectively a ban. Bringing the abortion analogy that Tempo brought up. Just like I would agree making abortions so expensive and so many loopholes and dr notes to get one would effectively be a ban on abortion too.
Adding a tax to certain weapons wouldn't be bad as long as it's not outrageous and they don't become elitist symbols. I expect someone rich to own a yacht and a plane, not to own a gun.
Stop it, they can't afford shoes. They are lucky to even have those guns...
Looking at their house, they can afford shoes, they just opt to go au natural, perhaps the doughy lawyer hubby has a foot fetish or perhaps wifey is one of those maniacs who won't allow anyone to walk on her floors in shod feet.
I don't own a gun, nor does my wife nor my 10 year old daughter. I'm sure we are in the minority. At 40 having lived in some really rough neighborhoods in my younger days and never having needed a gun or having been so afraid I would justify getting one, I feel the best thing to do is go with what works which is not owning a gun.
yep....if I needed mine it would take 20 minutes to find it...find the bullets, lock and load. But that's fine.
Me too. Mine isn’t for home defense in a traditional sense. An intruder isn’t a fear of mine and I live in the middle of the biggest city in Texas. Plus at 2am I’ll probably sleep through it anyway. So I’ll either wake up in the morning or I won’t
Society breaking down, a hurricane that cuts us off for months or whatever. I’ll have plenty of notice I need to get it out.
Inaccessible is safest for my family so that works for me
So the answer is to arm the teachers whom are presumably trained BLM Radical Left marxists that are grooming our kids on CRT and socialism? Case Closed
Arming teachers = more money for gun manufacturers = more money for politicians
They don't care about stopping mass shootings. Mass shootings are actually good for GOP business if we're being honest.
All that other culture war bullshit doesn't matter.
Dead children or teachers DEFINITELY don't fucking matter.
So the answer is to arm the teachers whom are presumably trained BLM Radical Left marxists that are grooming our kids on CRT and socialism? Case Closed
Arming teachers = more money for gun manufacturers = more money for politicians
They don't care about stopping mass shootings. Mass shootings are actually good for GOP business if we're being honest.
All that other culture war bullshit doesn't matter.
Dead children or teachers DEFINITELY don't fucking matter.
That's the crazy part. The GOP will throw out the "dems are using this for political purposes" yet they immediately start pushing the gun control buttons that cause people to buy more guns. Great for the gun industry.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
if you want change, you have to know what change it is you want.
some of you keep hammering on the "semantics" issue. Sure, it's disingenuous from most on the gun toting side. I don't see it that way from mace. But I guess it's easier to pile on then to have an honest dialogue.
I see it this way, the extreme side of the anti-gun group want guns banned, the just past moderate side wants some guns/features banned or heavily restricted and the most approachable and reasonable group of that side are those who just want to implement tighter laws around the purchase and ownership of guns. This should be the group that gun advocates focus on and work with to reach an agreement to prevent some of these incidents from happening, but instead they want to focus on any conversation around guns that involves the word "ban" or deflect to any talk about gun laws as being political and not the right time.
Look, this isn't just me bloviating, listen to Abbot, watch the Ted Cruz interview. Cruz dropped the "psychopath" label almost immediately because it creates a separation between normal gun owners and what he wants to sell as the anomalies we can see coming. It's not that simple. But If that's the hill they want to die on, then people should be pissed off at law enforcement for not doing their job when all these red flags popped up, but instead Ted's out there backing the blue at a time when all they did was what they are hired and trained to do. Sure, the 18 year old can be described as a psychopath, but said psychopath was still able to purchase a gun so if you want to go down that road than be prepared for the follow-up of what the hell are you going to do about it? These "psychopaths" can purchase a gun with little to no effort besides a credit card and ID. Why not advocate for changes to the background process, longer wait times, age requirement changes or any other factors that increase the likelihood of preventing "psychopaths" from purchasing a firearm instead of avoiding discussing guns or deflecting that talk of gun law changes is political? Well, because these fucks are interested in self preservation of only one thing, their power and they know they will lose money and possibly votes if they even speak a word about doing anything gun related. And why is that? Because the people you want me to listen to and who are feigning honest dialogue are trying to inform people about the correct way to refer to certain types of firearms.
In what other profession, industry or field do we cater to this type of bullshit when it relates to preventing loss of life or severe injury? If my kid died in a car accident because the car seat I put them in was defective or made wrong, would the company tell me I wasn't describing the features of their car seat correctly when I said something needed to change or demanded higher standards for production? No, because they would know that the consumers of their product would no longer support them and they would go bankrupt or be held liable in court. Yes, I get it, guns are doing what they were made to do, kill, so in theory we should be applauding the manufacturers for creating these flawless tools of carnage. We should all be proud that 18 year old boys lacking a fully developed frontal lobe have the legal right to purchase as many AR-15's as they want, but yet we don't want them drinking alcohol legally and in most states they can't even smoke marijuana because drugs and alcohol bad, guns good.
I can't have this conversation with a gun advocate if they want to try and make it all about terminology. It doesn't have to be that way. Why aren't they super pissed? Why don't they reach out to their local elected official and demand change? Is it because they value owning a firearm over saving a life? It sure comes across that way. Be the change you want to see in the world. I grew up around guns and my family owned about 100 various firearms. I shot some sort of gun almost every day from the time I was 7 until I was 18. I carried a gun for my profession for 4 years. I was proficient and understand the differences in the types of firearms being mentioned, but I also know some people aren't, but that's not a sticking point when it comes to talking about ways to improve gun safety and the culture of guns in this country. I abhor guns besides those used to hunt with. We have been programmed to fear being attacked, fear being taken advantage of and fear the "other", but what are we really trying to protect with a gun in most cases? Property. A phone, a car, cash. Things that are replaceable. Our right to bear arms does not need to be so complicated. There can be compromises to what we as a country believe should be available to the citizenry without banning guns completely. We have restrictions and laws in place around every other aspect of what is acceptable to be a human being, and yes, there will always be people who break those laws and find ways around these systems, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something because it won't be 100% effective.
Anyway, I just want change. I want the GOP to come forward and recognize this is a bigger problem than just mental illness and that guns are a part of the problem and decide to do something about it.
Is it because they value owning a firearm over saving a life? It sure comes across that way.
And then this is what the abortion debate becomes... Just change Firearm to abortion and there you have it.
Funny, all of that and that's your take away? I am not even advocating for an all out gun ban. We're way past that. You are the one who has mentioned being fearful of guns being taken away. Well, that's not gonna happen any time soon, at least definitely not in your lifetime. Have you seen the SCOTUS? However, abortion is about to be banned, so I guess all these conservatives who want abortion banned and guns freely allowed probably are fearful it could happen to them and knew they were lying the last several years when they said Roe v. Wade will never be overturned.
I can't comment on every sentence...
It is interesting to me, that one line.
States Rights are becoming a big deal now. If you can have abortion taken away as a state right you damn well sure can take a gun away. I would see California doing that for sure with NY following.
Please stop. No state is going to ban firearms or come get your guns. They may restrict ownership. They may ban further sales of certain types but they're not going to confiscate or "take guns away." Waaaaaaaaaay too late for that.
Mace, I think it was Mace, said there was a large percentage of people who wanted to "ban firearms." I can't find any polling on what that percentage is. I'd appreciate a link to a known polling source and not some pro-NRA or gun rights advocacy group on what the actual percentage of Americans want to "ban firearms."
I can’t remember saying that, but likely could have said there are some who want to. If I did say “large” then I probably said would be okay with it. There’s a difference between being okay and wanting it. But I don’t recal either way. And there have been posts saying they wish the taxes and fees were so high that the typical person couldn’t afford a gun. I would consider that effectively a ban. Bringing the abortion analogy that Tempo brought up. Just like I would agree making abortions so expensive and so many loopholes and dr notes to get one would effectively be a ban on abortion too.
Adding a tax to certain weapons wouldn't be bad as long as it's not outrageous and they don't become elitist symbols. I expect someone rich to own a yacht and a plane, not to own a gun.
Stop it, they can't afford shoes. They are lucky to even have those guns...
Looking at their house, they can afford shoes, they just opt to go au natural, perhaps the doughy lawyer hubby has a foot fetish or perhaps wifey is one of those maniacs who won't allow anyone to walk on her floors in shod feet.
They don't really live there, that's "the help"...
So the answer is to arm the teachers whom are presumably trained BLM Radical Left marxists that are grooming our kids on CRT and socialism? Case Closed
Arming teachers = more money for gun manufacturers = more money for politicians
They don't care about stopping mass shootings. Mass shootings are actually good for GOP business if we're being honest.
All that other culture war bullshit doesn't matter.
Dead children or teachers DEFINITELY don't fucking matter.
That's the crazy part. The GOP will throw out the "dems are using this for political purposes" yet they immediately start pushing the gun control buttons that cause people to buy more guns. Great for the gun industry.
So the answer is to arm the teachers whom are presumably trained BLM Radical Left marxists that are grooming our kids on CRT and socialism? Case Closed
Arming teachers = more money for gun manufacturers = more money for politicians
They don't care about stopping mass shootings. Mass shootings are actually good for GOP business if we're being honest.
All that other culture war bullshit doesn't matter.
Dead children or teachers DEFINITELY don't fucking matter.
That's the crazy part. The GOP will throw out the "dems are using this for political purposes" yet they immediately start pushing the gun control buttons that cause people to buy more guns. Great for the gun industry.
It all makes perfect sense if you approach this from the perspective that these tragedies are actually good for their bottom line.
if you want change, you have to know what change it is you want.
some of you keep hammering on the "semantics" issue. Sure, it's disingenuous from most on the gun toting side. I don't see it that way from mace. But I guess it's easier to pile on then to have an honest dialogue.
I see it this way, the extreme side of the anti-gun group want guns banned, the just past moderate side wants some guns/features banned or heavily restricted and the most approachable and reasonable group of that side are those who just want to implement tighter laws around the purchase and ownership of guns. This should be the group that gun advocates focus on and work with to reach an agreement to prevent some of these incidents from happening, but instead they want to focus on any conversation around guns that involves the word "ban" or deflect to any talk about gun laws as being political and not the right time.
Look, this isn't just me bloviating, listen to Abbot, watch the Ted Cruz interview. Cruz dropped the "psychopath" label almost immediately because it creates a separation between normal gun owners and what he wants to sell as the anomalies we can see coming. It's not that simple. But If that's the hill they want to die on, then people should be pissed off at law enforcement for not doing their job when all these red flags popped up, but instead Ted's out there backing the blue at a time when all they did was what they are hired and trained to do. Sure, the 18 year old can be described as a psychopath, but said psychopath was still able to purchase a gun so if you want to go down that road than be prepared for the follow-up of what the hell are you going to do about it? These "psychopaths" can purchase a gun with little to no effort besides a credit card and ID. Why not advocate for changes to the background process, longer wait times, age requirement changes or any other factors that increase the likelihood of preventing "psychopaths" from purchasing a firearm instead of avoiding discussing guns or deflecting that talk of gun law changes is political? Well, because these fucks are interested in self preservation of only one thing, their power and they know they will lose money and possibly votes if they even speak a word about doing anything gun related. And why is that? Because the people you want me to listen to and who are feigning honest dialogue are trying to inform people about the correct way to refer to certain types of firearms.
In what other profession, industry or field do we cater to this type of bullshit when it relates to preventing loss of life or severe injury? If my kid died in a car accident because the car seat I put them in was defective or made wrong, would the company tell me I wasn't describing the features of their car seat correctly when I said something needed to change or demanded higher standards for production? No, because they would know that the consumers of their product would no longer support them and they would go bankrupt or be held liable in court. Yes, I get it, guns are doing what they were made to do, kill, so in theory we should be applauding the manufacturers for creating these flawless tools of carnage. We should all be proud that 18 year old boys lacking a fully developed frontal lobe have the legal right to purchase as many AR-15's as they want, but yet we don't want them drinking alcohol legally and in most states they can't even smoke marijuana because drugs and alcohol bad, guns good.
I can't have this conversation with a gun advocate if they want to try and make it all about terminology. It doesn't have to be that way. Why aren't they super pissed? Why don't they reach out to their local elected official and demand change? Is it because they value owning a firearm over saving a life? It sure comes across that way. Be the change you want to see in the world. I grew up around guns and my family owned about 100 various firearms. I shot some sort of gun almost every day from the time I was 7 until I was 18. I carried a gun for my profession for 4 years. I was proficient and understand the differences in the types of firearms being mentioned, but I also know some people aren't, but that's not a sticking point when it comes to talking about ways to improve gun safety and the culture of guns in this country. I abhor guns besides those used to hunt with. We have been programmed to fear being attacked, fear being taken advantage of and fear the "other", but what are we really trying to protect with a gun in most cases? Property. A phone, a car, cash. Things that are replaceable. Our right to bear arms does not need to be so complicated. There can be compromises to what we as a country believe should be available to the citizenry without banning guns completely. We have restrictions and laws in place around every other aspect of what is acceptable to be a human being, and yes, there will always be people who break those laws and find ways around these systems, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something because it won't be 100% effective.
Anyway, I just want change. I want the GOP to come forward and recognize this is a bigger problem than just mental illness and that guns are a part of the problem and decide to do something about it.
Is it because they value owning a firearm over saving a life? It sure comes across that way.
And then this is what the abortion debate becomes... Just change Firearm to abortion and there you have it.
Funny, all of that and that's your take away? I am not even advocating for an all out gun ban. We're way past that. You are the one who has mentioned being fearful of guns being taken away. Well, that's not gonna happen any time soon, at least definitely not in your lifetime. Have you seen the SCOTUS? However, abortion is about to be banned, so I guess all these conservatives who want abortion banned and guns freely allowed probably are fearful it could happen to them and knew they were lying the last several years when they said Roe v. Wade will never be overturned.
I can't comment on every sentence...
It is interesting to me, that one line.
States Rights are becoming a big deal now. If you can have abortion taken away as a state right you damn well sure can take a gun away. I would see California doing that for sure with NY following.
Please stop. No state is going to ban firearms or come get your guns. They may restrict ownership. They may ban further sales of certain types but they're not going to confiscate or "take guns away." Waaaaaaaaaay too late for that.
Mace, I think it was Mace, said there was a large percentage of people who wanted to "ban firearms." I can't find any polling on what that percentage is. I'd appreciate a link to a known polling source and not some pro-NRA or gun rights advocacy group on what the actual percentage of Americans want to "ban firearms."
I thought the same about abortion...
Do you really believe that abortion is going to stop or women won't get abortions because of what laws OK, FL and Tejas (and other red states will pass) have passed? Conversely, do you really believe the gubmint is going to confiscate 400 million firearms in this country? Do you really believe that?
Can you live without the right to own an assault rifle but all other manner of firearms or would you consider yourself unable to defend yourself and your right to bear arms infringed?
Ban=Bad, I've always said that.
Other people want us to be like Canada and NZ, Australia where the gubmint does indeed round them up. It's not a nutso idea to think would come to light, it's not.
The ghosts of gun violence? I still haven't been able to find polling on what number of Americans want to "ban firearms." Boo! Talk about semantics.
And you didn't answer the question but chose to deflect with Ban=Bad. Again, can you live without the right to own an assault rifle but all other manner of firearms or would you consider yourself unable to defend yourself and your right to bear arms infringed? Its a yes or no question.
This is why nothing changes, slippery slope, semantics, lack of "responsibility." Last time I checked, it wasn't non-gun owners going around shooting places up.
Its in favor of banning a type of firearm and not all firearms. 6 in 10 are in favor of banning assault weapons. Not "all firearms." Why can't you answer the question I posed? Are you unable to defend yourself if your firearm is not an assault weapon? If you can't legally purchase an assault weapon but can purchase every other type of firearm, has your 2A been infringed? And you find that unacceptable?
What percentage of Americans want to ban ALL FIREARMS?
Ahhh, I missed the ALL.
I said no on banning assault type weapons, that isn't anything new with me so I will say it again.
So the answer is to arm the teachers whom are presumably trained BLM Radical Left marxists that are grooming our kids on CRT and socialism? Case Closed
Arming teachers = more money for gun manufacturers = more money for politicians
They don't care about stopping mass shootings. Mass shootings are actually good for GOP business if we're being honest.
All that other culture war bullshit doesn't matter.
Dead children or teachers DEFINITELY don't fucking matter.
That's the crazy part. The GOP will throw out the "dems are using this for political purposes" yet they immediately start pushing the gun control buttons that cause people to buy more guns. Great for the gun industry.
It all makes perfect sense if you approach this from the perspective that these tragedies are actually good for their bottom line.
Yeah and the magats are pushing the "it was all a set up to get us closer to gun control" bullshit. Same as Sandy Hook.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
So the answer is to arm the teachers whom are presumably trained BLM Radical Left marxists that are grooming our kids on CRT and socialism? Case Closed
Arming teachers = more money for gun manufacturers = more money for politicians
They don't care about stopping mass shootings. Mass shootings are actually good for GOP business if we're being honest.
All that other culture war bullshit doesn't matter.
Dead children or teachers DEFINITELY don't fucking matter.
That's the crazy part. The GOP will throw out the "dems are using this for political purposes" yet they immediately start pushing the gun control buttons that cause people to buy more guns. Great for the gun industry.
It all makes perfect sense if you approach this from the perspective that these tragedies are actually good for their bottom line.
Yeah and the magats are pushing the "it was all a set up to get us closer to gun control" bullshit. Same as Sandy Hook.
According to Paul Gosar: in a since-deleted tweet, “It’s a transsexual leftist illegal alien named Salvatore Ramos.”
Echoed by Alex Jones and candice owens
it’s all their issues rolled into one person. It being true is not even required
So the answer is to arm the teachers whom are presumably trained BLM Radical Left marxists that are grooming our kids on CRT and socialism? Case Closed
And only having one door for the whole building, per Ted Cruz.
if you want change, you have to know what change it is you want.
some of you keep hammering on the "semantics" issue. Sure, it's disingenuous from most on the gun toting side. I don't see it that way from mace. But I guess it's easier to pile on then to have an honest dialogue.
I see it this way, the extreme side of the anti-gun group want guns banned, the just past moderate side wants some guns/features banned or heavily restricted and the most approachable and reasonable group of that side are those who just want to implement tighter laws around the purchase and ownership of guns. This should be the group that gun advocates focus on and work with to reach an agreement to prevent some of these incidents from happening, but instead they want to focus on any conversation around guns that involves the word "ban" or deflect to any talk about gun laws as being political and not the right time.
Look, this isn't just me bloviating, listen to Abbot, watch the Ted Cruz interview. Cruz dropped the "psychopath" label almost immediately because it creates a separation between normal gun owners and what he wants to sell as the anomalies we can see coming. It's not that simple. But If that's the hill they want to die on, then people should be pissed off at law enforcement for not doing their job when all these red flags popped up, but instead Ted's out there backing the blue at a time when all they did was what they are hired and trained to do. Sure, the 18 year old can be described as a psychopath, but said psychopath was still able to purchase a gun so if you want to go down that road than be prepared for the follow-up of what the hell are you going to do about it? These "psychopaths" can purchase a gun with little to no effort besides a credit card and ID. Why not advocate for changes to the background process, longer wait times, age requirement changes or any other factors that increase the likelihood of preventing "psychopaths" from purchasing a firearm instead of avoiding discussing guns or deflecting that talk of gun law changes is political? Well, because these fucks are interested in self preservation of only one thing, their power and they know they will lose money and possibly votes if they even speak a word about doing anything gun related. And why is that? Because the people you want me to listen to and who are feigning honest dialogue are trying to inform people about the correct way to refer to certain types of firearms.
In what other profession, industry or field do we cater to this type of bullshit when it relates to preventing loss of life or severe injury? If my kid died in a car accident because the car seat I put them in was defective or made wrong, would the company tell me I wasn't describing the features of their car seat correctly when I said something needed to change or demanded higher standards for production? No, because they would know that the consumers of their product would no longer support them and they would go bankrupt or be held liable in court. Yes, I get it, guns are doing what they were made to do, kill, so in theory we should be applauding the manufacturers for creating these flawless tools of carnage. We should all be proud that 18 year old boys lacking a fully developed frontal lobe have the legal right to purchase as many AR-15's as they want, but yet we don't want them drinking alcohol legally and in most states they can't even smoke marijuana because drugs and alcohol bad, guns good.
I can't have this conversation with a gun advocate if they want to try and make it all about terminology. It doesn't have to be that way. Why aren't they super pissed? Why don't they reach out to their local elected official and demand change? Is it because they value owning a firearm over saving a life? It sure comes across that way. Be the change you want to see in the world. I grew up around guns and my family owned about 100 various firearms. I shot some sort of gun almost every day from the time I was 7 until I was 18. I carried a gun for my profession for 4 years. I was proficient and understand the differences in the types of firearms being mentioned, but I also know some people aren't, but that's not a sticking point when it comes to talking about ways to improve gun safety and the culture of guns in this country. I abhor guns besides those used to hunt with. We have been programmed to fear being attacked, fear being taken advantage of and fear the "other", but what are we really trying to protect with a gun in most cases? Property. A phone, a car, cash. Things that are replaceable. Our right to bear arms does not need to be so complicated. There can be compromises to what we as a country believe should be available to the citizenry without banning guns completely. We have restrictions and laws in place around every other aspect of what is acceptable to be a human being, and yes, there will always be people who break those laws and find ways around these systems, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something because it won't be 100% effective.
Anyway, I just want change. I want the GOP to come forward and recognize this is a bigger problem than just mental illness and that guns are a part of the problem and decide to do something about it.
Is it because they value owning a firearm over saving a life? It sure comes across that way.
And then this is what the abortion debate becomes... Just change Firearm to abortion and there you have it.
Funny, all of that and that's your take away? I am not even advocating for an all out gun ban. We're way past that. You are the one who has mentioned being fearful of guns being taken away. Well, that's not gonna happen any time soon, at least definitely not in your lifetime. Have you seen the SCOTUS? However, abortion is about to be banned, so I guess all these conservatives who want abortion banned and guns freely allowed probably are fearful it could happen to them and knew they were lying the last several years when they said Roe v. Wade will never be overturned.
I can't comment on every sentence...
It is interesting to me, that one line.
States Rights are becoming a big deal now. If you can have abortion taken away as a state right you damn well sure can take a gun away. I would see California doing that for sure with NY following.
Please stop. No state is going to ban firearms or come get your guns. They may restrict ownership. They may ban further sales of certain types but they're not going to confiscate or "take guns away." Waaaaaaaaaay too late for that.
Mace, I think it was Mace, said there was a large percentage of people who wanted to "ban firearms." I can't find any polling on what that percentage is. I'd appreciate a link to a known polling source and not some pro-NRA or gun rights advocacy group on what the actual percentage of Americans want to "ban firearms."
I thought the same about abortion...
Do you really believe that abortion is going to stop or women won't get abortions because of what laws OK, FL and Tejas (and other red states will pass) have passed? Conversely, do you really believe the gubmint is going to confiscate 400 million firearms in this country? Do you really believe that?
Can you live without the right to own an assault rifle but all other manner of firearms or would you consider yourself unable to defend yourself and your right to bear arms infringed?
Ban=Bad, I've always said that.
Other people want us to be like Canada and NZ, Australia where the gubmint does indeed round them up. It's not a nutso idea to think would come to light, it's not.
The ghosts of gun violence? I still haven't been able to find polling on what number of Americans want to "ban firearms." Boo! Talk about semantics.
And you didn't answer the question but chose to deflect with Ban=Bad. Again, can you live without the right to own an assault rifle but all other manner of firearms or would you consider yourself unable to defend yourself and your right to bear arms infringed? Its a yes or no question.
This is why nothing changes, slippery slope, semantics, lack of "responsibility." Last time I checked, it wasn't non-gun owners going around shooting places up.
Its in favor of banning a type of firearm and not all firearms. 6 in 10 are in favor of banning assault weapons. Not "all firearms." Why can't you answer the question I posed? Are you unable to defend yourself if your firearm is not an assault weapon? If you can't legally purchase an assault weapon but can purchase every other type of firearm, has your 2A been infringed? And you find that unacceptable?
What percentage of Americans want to ban ALL FIREARMS?
Ahhh, I missed the ALL.
I said no on banning assault type weapons, that isn't anything new with me so I will say it again.
Ban=Bad
And therein lies the problem.
There is a word called compromise but this is where you and I won't agree because you lack the effort.
I have said multiple times what I am comfortable with, harder to obtain, wait list, more paperwork, but I am not in for a ban.
So the answer is to arm the teachers whom are presumably trained BLM Radical Left marxists that are grooming our kids on CRT and socialism? Case Closed
And only having one door for the whole building, per Ted Cruz.
Because creating a choke point DEFINITELY wouldn't help someone intending to kill as many people as possible.
if you want change, you have to know what change it is you want.
some of you keep hammering on the "semantics" issue. Sure, it's disingenuous from most on the gun toting side. I don't see it that way from mace. But I guess it's easier to pile on then to have an honest dialogue.
I see it this way, the extreme side of the anti-gun group want guns banned, the just past moderate side wants some guns/features banned or heavily restricted and the most approachable and reasonable group of that side are those who just want to implement tighter laws around the purchase and ownership of guns. This should be the group that gun advocates focus on and work with to reach an agreement to prevent some of these incidents from happening, but instead they want to focus on any conversation around guns that involves the word "ban" or deflect to any talk about gun laws as being political and not the right time.
Look, this isn't just me bloviating, listen to Abbot, watch the Ted Cruz interview. Cruz dropped the "psychopath" label almost immediately because it creates a separation between normal gun owners and what he wants to sell as the anomalies we can see coming. It's not that simple. But If that's the hill they want to die on, then people should be pissed off at law enforcement for not doing their job when all these red flags popped up, but instead Ted's out there backing the blue at a time when all they did was what they are hired and trained to do. Sure, the 18 year old can be described as a psychopath, but said psychopath was still able to purchase a gun so if you want to go down that road than be prepared for the follow-up of what the hell are you going to do about it? These "psychopaths" can purchase a gun with little to no effort besides a credit card and ID. Why not advocate for changes to the background process, longer wait times, age requirement changes or any other factors that increase the likelihood of preventing "psychopaths" from purchasing a firearm instead of avoiding discussing guns or deflecting that talk of gun law changes is political? Well, because these fucks are interested in self preservation of only one thing, their power and they know they will lose money and possibly votes if they even speak a word about doing anything gun related. And why is that? Because the people you want me to listen to and who are feigning honest dialogue are trying to inform people about the correct way to refer to certain types of firearms.
In what other profession, industry or field do we cater to this type of bullshit when it relates to preventing loss of life or severe injury? If my kid died in a car accident because the car seat I put them in was defective or made wrong, would the company tell me I wasn't describing the features of their car seat correctly when I said something needed to change or demanded higher standards for production? No, because they would know that the consumers of their product would no longer support them and they would go bankrupt or be held liable in court. Yes, I get it, guns are doing what they were made to do, kill, so in theory we should be applauding the manufacturers for creating these flawless tools of carnage. We should all be proud that 18 year old boys lacking a fully developed frontal lobe have the legal right to purchase as many AR-15's as they want, but yet we don't want them drinking alcohol legally and in most states they can't even smoke marijuana because drugs and alcohol bad, guns good.
I can't have this conversation with a gun advocate if they want to try and make it all about terminology. It doesn't have to be that way. Why aren't they super pissed? Why don't they reach out to their local elected official and demand change? Is it because they value owning a firearm over saving a life? It sure comes across that way. Be the change you want to see in the world. I grew up around guns and my family owned about 100 various firearms. I shot some sort of gun almost every day from the time I was 7 until I was 18. I carried a gun for my profession for 4 years. I was proficient and understand the differences in the types of firearms being mentioned, but I also know some people aren't, but that's not a sticking point when it comes to talking about ways to improve gun safety and the culture of guns in this country. I abhor guns besides those used to hunt with. We have been programmed to fear being attacked, fear being taken advantage of and fear the "other", but what are we really trying to protect with a gun in most cases? Property. A phone, a car, cash. Things that are replaceable. Our right to bear arms does not need to be so complicated. There can be compromises to what we as a country believe should be available to the citizenry without banning guns completely. We have restrictions and laws in place around every other aspect of what is acceptable to be a human being, and yes, there will always be people who break those laws and find ways around these systems, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something because it won't be 100% effective.
Anyway, I just want change. I want the GOP to come forward and recognize this is a bigger problem than just mental illness and that guns are a part of the problem and decide to do something about it.
Is it because they value owning a firearm over saving a life? It sure comes across that way.
And then this is what the abortion debate becomes... Just change Firearm to abortion and there you have it.
Funny, all of that and that's your take away? I am not even advocating for an all out gun ban. We're way past that. You are the one who has mentioned being fearful of guns being taken away. Well, that's not gonna happen any time soon, at least definitely not in your lifetime. Have you seen the SCOTUS? However, abortion is about to be banned, so I guess all these conservatives who want abortion banned and guns freely allowed probably are fearful it could happen to them and knew they were lying the last several years when they said Roe v. Wade will never be overturned.
I can't comment on every sentence...
It is interesting to me, that one line.
States Rights are becoming a big deal now. If you can have abortion taken away as a state right you damn well sure can take a gun away. I would see California doing that for sure with NY following.
Please stop. No state is going to ban firearms or come get your guns. They may restrict ownership. They may ban further sales of certain types but they're not going to confiscate or "take guns away." Waaaaaaaaaay too late for that.
Mace, I think it was Mace, said there was a large percentage of people who wanted to "ban firearms." I can't find any polling on what that percentage is. I'd appreciate a link to a known polling source and not some pro-NRA or gun rights advocacy group on what the actual percentage of Americans want to "ban firearms."
I thought the same about abortion...
Do you really believe that abortion is going to stop or women won't get abortions because of what laws OK, FL and Tejas (and other red states will pass) have passed? Conversely, do you really believe the gubmint is going to confiscate 400 million firearms in this country? Do you really believe that?
Can you live without the right to own an assault rifle but all other manner of firearms or would you consider yourself unable to defend yourself and your right to bear arms infringed?
Ban=Bad, I've always said that.
Other people want us to be like Canada and NZ, Australia where the gubmint does indeed round them up. It's not a nutso idea to think would come to light, it's not.
The ghosts of gun violence? I still haven't been able to find polling on what number of Americans want to "ban firearms." Boo! Talk about semantics.
And you didn't answer the question but chose to deflect with Ban=Bad. Again, can you live without the right to own an assault rifle but all other manner of firearms or would you consider yourself unable to defend yourself and your right to bear arms infringed? Its a yes or no question.
This is why nothing changes, slippery slope, semantics, lack of "responsibility." Last time I checked, it wasn't non-gun owners going around shooting places up.
Its in favor of banning a type of firearm and not all firearms. 6 in 10 are in favor of banning assault weapons. Not "all firearms." Why can't you answer the question I posed? Are you unable to defend yourself if your firearm is not an assault weapon? If you can't legally purchase an assault weapon but can purchase every other type of firearm, has your 2A been infringed? And you find that unacceptable?
What percentage of Americans want to ban ALL FIREARMS?
Ahhh, I missed the ALL.
I said no on banning assault type weapons, that isn't anything new with me so I will say it again.
Ban=Bad
And therein lies the problem.
There is a word called compromise but this is where you and I won't agree because you lack the effort.
I have said multiple times what I am comfortable with, harder to obtain, wait list, more paperwork, but I am not in for a ban.
Ultimately that’s the problem. I’m probably closer to your position than I am with the left flank of my party. I’m almost exclusively way left of center.
pushing for a ban means nothing gets done. There is value in incrementalism. All or nothing doesn’t work and it never will
in an ideal world I’m ok with assault weapons being illegal. I will strongly support any legislation that stops short of that though, to just do something . Anything is better than nothing
So the answer is to arm the teachers whom are presumably trained BLM Radical Left marxists that are grooming our kids on CRT and socialism? Case Closed
And only having one door for the whole building, per Ted Cruz.
So the answer is to arm the teachers whom are presumably trained BLM Radical Left marxists that are grooming our kids on CRT and socialism? Case Closed
And only having one door for the whole building, per Ted Cruz.
Because creating a choke point DEFINITELY wouldn't help someone intending to kill as many people as possible.
I think it's safe to assume he, and others, meant one door to get in and out of the school that isn't an emergency exit. All other doors remain locked from the outside at all times. Not that I should probably give them the benefit of doubt on this, but that was my interpretation.
if you want change, you have to know what change it is you want.
some of you keep hammering on the "semantics" issue. Sure, it's disingenuous from most on the gun toting side. I don't see it that way from mace. But I guess it's easier to pile on then to have an honest dialogue.
I see it this way, the extreme side of the anti-gun group want guns banned, the just past moderate side wants some guns/features banned or heavily restricted and the most approachable and reasonable group of that side are those who just want to implement tighter laws around the purchase and ownership of guns. This should be the group that gun advocates focus on and work with to reach an agreement to prevent some of these incidents from happening, but instead they want to focus on any conversation around guns that involves the word "ban" or deflect to any talk about gun laws as being political and not the right time.
Look, this isn't just me bloviating, listen to Abbot, watch the Ted Cruz interview. Cruz dropped the "psychopath" label almost immediately because it creates a separation between normal gun owners and what he wants to sell as the anomalies we can see coming. It's not that simple. But If that's the hill they want to die on, then people should be pissed off at law enforcement for not doing their job when all these red flags popped up, but instead Ted's out there backing the blue at a time when all they did was what they are hired and trained to do. Sure, the 18 year old can be described as a psychopath, but said psychopath was still able to purchase a gun so if you want to go down that road than be prepared for the follow-up of what the hell are you going to do about it? These "psychopaths" can purchase a gun with little to no effort besides a credit card and ID. Why not advocate for changes to the background process, longer wait times, age requirement changes or any other factors that increase the likelihood of preventing "psychopaths" from purchasing a firearm instead of avoiding discussing guns or deflecting that talk of gun law changes is political? Well, because these fucks are interested in self preservation of only one thing, their power and they know they will lose money and possibly votes if they even speak a word about doing anything gun related. And why is that? Because the people you want me to listen to and who are feigning honest dialogue are trying to inform people about the correct way to refer to certain types of firearms.
In what other profession, industry or field do we cater to this type of bullshit when it relates to preventing loss of life or severe injury? If my kid died in a car accident because the car seat I put them in was defective or made wrong, would the company tell me I wasn't describing the features of their car seat correctly when I said something needed to change or demanded higher standards for production? No, because they would know that the consumers of their product would no longer support them and they would go bankrupt or be held liable in court. Yes, I get it, guns are doing what they were made to do, kill, so in theory we should be applauding the manufacturers for creating these flawless tools of carnage. We should all be proud that 18 year old boys lacking a fully developed frontal lobe have the legal right to purchase as many AR-15's as they want, but yet we don't want them drinking alcohol legally and in most states they can't even smoke marijuana because drugs and alcohol bad, guns good.
I can't have this conversation with a gun advocate if they want to try and make it all about terminology. It doesn't have to be that way. Why aren't they super pissed? Why don't they reach out to their local elected official and demand change? Is it because they value owning a firearm over saving a life? It sure comes across that way. Be the change you want to see in the world. I grew up around guns and my family owned about 100 various firearms. I shot some sort of gun almost every day from the time I was 7 until I was 18. I carried a gun for my profession for 4 years. I was proficient and understand the differences in the types of firearms being mentioned, but I also know some people aren't, but that's not a sticking point when it comes to talking about ways to improve gun safety and the culture of guns in this country. I abhor guns besides those used to hunt with. We have been programmed to fear being attacked, fear being taken advantage of and fear the "other", but what are we really trying to protect with a gun in most cases? Property. A phone, a car, cash. Things that are replaceable. Our right to bear arms does not need to be so complicated. There can be compromises to what we as a country believe should be available to the citizenry without banning guns completely. We have restrictions and laws in place around every other aspect of what is acceptable to be a human being, and yes, there will always be people who break those laws and find ways around these systems, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something because it won't be 100% effective.
Anyway, I just want change. I want the GOP to come forward and recognize this is a bigger problem than just mental illness and that guns are a part of the problem and decide to do something about it.
Is it because they value owning a firearm over saving a life? It sure comes across that way.
And then this is what the abortion debate becomes... Just change Firearm to abortion and there you have it.
Funny, all of that and that's your take away? I am not even advocating for an all out gun ban. We're way past that. You are the one who has mentioned being fearful of guns being taken away. Well, that's not gonna happen any time soon, at least definitely not in your lifetime. Have you seen the SCOTUS? However, abortion is about to be banned, so I guess all these conservatives who want abortion banned and guns freely allowed probably are fearful it could happen to them and knew they were lying the last several years when they said Roe v. Wade will never be overturned.
I can't comment on every sentence...
It is interesting to me, that one line.
States Rights are becoming a big deal now. If you can have abortion taken away as a state right you damn well sure can take a gun away. I would see California doing that for sure with NY following.
Please stop. No state is going to ban firearms or come get your guns. They may restrict ownership. They may ban further sales of certain types but they're not going to confiscate or "take guns away." Waaaaaaaaaay too late for that.
Mace, I think it was Mace, said there was a large percentage of people who wanted to "ban firearms." I can't find any polling on what that percentage is. I'd appreciate a link to a known polling source and not some pro-NRA or gun rights advocacy group on what the actual percentage of Americans want to "ban firearms."
I thought the same about abortion...
Do you really believe that abortion is going to stop or women won't get abortions because of what laws OK, FL and Tejas (and other red states will pass) have passed? Conversely, do you really believe the gubmint is going to confiscate 400 million firearms in this country? Do you really believe that?
Can you live without the right to own an assault rifle but all other manner of firearms or would you consider yourself unable to defend yourself and your right to bear arms infringed?
Ban=Bad, I've always said that.
Other people want us to be like Canada and NZ, Australia where the gubmint does indeed round them up. It's not a nutso idea to think would come to light, it's not.
The ghosts of gun violence? I still haven't been able to find polling on what number of Americans want to "ban firearms." Boo! Talk about semantics.
And you didn't answer the question but chose to deflect with Ban=Bad. Again, can you live without the right to own an assault rifle but all other manner of firearms or would you consider yourself unable to defend yourself and your right to bear arms infringed? Its a yes or no question.
This is why nothing changes, slippery slope, semantics, lack of "responsibility." Last time I checked, it wasn't non-gun owners going around shooting places up.
Its in favor of banning a type of firearm and not all firearms. 6 in 10 are in favor of banning assault weapons. Not "all firearms." Why can't you answer the question I posed? Are you unable to defend yourself if your firearm is not an assault weapon? If you can't legally purchase an assault weapon but can purchase every other type of firearm, has your 2A been infringed? And you find that unacceptable?
What percentage of Americans want to ban ALL FIREARMS?
Ahhh, I missed the ALL.
I said no on banning assault type weapons, that isn't anything new with me so I will say it again.
Ban=Bad
And therein lies the problem.
There is a word called compromise but this is where you and I won't agree because you lack the effort.
I have said multiple times what I am comfortable with, harder to obtain, wait list, more paperwork, but I am not in for a ban.
You’re in the minority based on the polling you linked and I guess what you’re saying is that you’re incapable of defending yourself and you believe that your 2A rights would be infringed if you can’t buy, own or possess an assault rifle. That’s why nothing will change. It’s the disingenuous slippery slope argument.
The assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004, how many firearms were seized by the gubmint and were citizens unable to defend themselves or did they lose their 2A rights?
So the answer is to arm the teachers whom are presumably trained BLM Radical Left marxists that are grooming our kids on CRT and socialism? Case Closed
And only having one door for the whole building, per Ted Cruz.
Because creating a choke point DEFINITELY wouldn't help someone intending to kill as many people as possible.
I think it's safe to assume he, and others, meant one door to get in and out of the school that isn't an emergency exit. All other doors remain locked from the outside at all times. Not that I should probably give them the benefit of doubt on this, but that was my interpretation.
Yeah, I'm sure you're right, but like you said. It's hard to give them the benefit of the doubt.
if you want change, you have to know what change it is you want.
some of you keep hammering on the "semantics" issue. Sure, it's disingenuous from most on the gun toting side. I don't see it that way from mace. But I guess it's easier to pile on then to have an honest dialogue.
I see it this way, the extreme side of the anti-gun group want guns banned, the just past moderate side wants some guns/features banned or heavily restricted and the most approachable and reasonable group of that side are those who just want to implement tighter laws around the purchase and ownership of guns. This should be the group that gun advocates focus on and work with to reach an agreement to prevent some of these incidents from happening, but instead they want to focus on any conversation around guns that involves the word "ban" or deflect to any talk about gun laws as being political and not the right time.
Look, this isn't just me bloviating, listen to Abbot, watch the Ted Cruz interview. Cruz dropped the "psychopath" label almost immediately because it creates a separation between normal gun owners and what he wants to sell as the anomalies we can see coming. It's not that simple. But If that's the hill they want to die on, then people should be pissed off at law enforcement for not doing their job when all these red flags popped up, but instead Ted's out there backing the blue at a time when all they did was what they are hired and trained to do. Sure, the 18 year old can be described as a psychopath, but said psychopath was still able to purchase a gun so if you want to go down that road than be prepared for the follow-up of what the hell are you going to do about it? These "psychopaths" can purchase a gun with little to no effort besides a credit card and ID. Why not advocate for changes to the background process, longer wait times, age requirement changes or any other factors that increase the likelihood of preventing "psychopaths" from purchasing a firearm instead of avoiding discussing guns or deflecting that talk of gun law changes is political? Well, because these fucks are interested in self preservation of only one thing, their power and they know they will lose money and possibly votes if they even speak a word about doing anything gun related. And why is that? Because the people you want me to listen to and who are feigning honest dialogue are trying to inform people about the correct way to refer to certain types of firearms.
In what other profession, industry or field do we cater to this type of bullshit when it relates to preventing loss of life or severe injury? If my kid died in a car accident because the car seat I put them in was defective or made wrong, would the company tell me I wasn't describing the features of their car seat correctly when I said something needed to change or demanded higher standards for production? No, because they would know that the consumers of their product would no longer support them and they would go bankrupt or be held liable in court. Yes, I get it, guns are doing what they were made to do, kill, so in theory we should be applauding the manufacturers for creating these flawless tools of carnage. We should all be proud that 18 year old boys lacking a fully developed frontal lobe have the legal right to purchase as many AR-15's as they want, but yet we don't want them drinking alcohol legally and in most states they can't even smoke marijuana because drugs and alcohol bad, guns good.
I can't have this conversation with a gun advocate if they want to try and make it all about terminology. It doesn't have to be that way. Why aren't they super pissed? Why don't they reach out to their local elected official and demand change? Is it because they value owning a firearm over saving a life? It sure comes across that way. Be the change you want to see in the world. I grew up around guns and my family owned about 100 various firearms. I shot some sort of gun almost every day from the time I was 7 until I was 18. I carried a gun for my profession for 4 years. I was proficient and understand the differences in the types of firearms being mentioned, but I also know some people aren't, but that's not a sticking point when it comes to talking about ways to improve gun safety and the culture of guns in this country. I abhor guns besides those used to hunt with. We have been programmed to fear being attacked, fear being taken advantage of and fear the "other", but what are we really trying to protect with a gun in most cases? Property. A phone, a car, cash. Things that are replaceable. Our right to bear arms does not need to be so complicated. There can be compromises to what we as a country believe should be available to the citizenry without banning guns completely. We have restrictions and laws in place around every other aspect of what is acceptable to be a human being, and yes, there will always be people who break those laws and find ways around these systems, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something because it won't be 100% effective.
Anyway, I just want change. I want the GOP to come forward and recognize this is a bigger problem than just mental illness and that guns are a part of the problem and decide to do something about it.
Is it because they value owning a firearm over saving a life? It sure comes across that way.
And then this is what the abortion debate becomes... Just change Firearm to abortion and there you have it.
Funny, all of that and that's your take away? I am not even advocating for an all out gun ban. We're way past that. You are the one who has mentioned being fearful of guns being taken away. Well, that's not gonna happen any time soon, at least definitely not in your lifetime. Have you seen the SCOTUS? However, abortion is about to be banned, so I guess all these conservatives who want abortion banned and guns freely allowed probably are fearful it could happen to them and knew they were lying the last several years when they said Roe v. Wade will never be overturned.
I can't comment on every sentence...
It is interesting to me, that one line.
States Rights are becoming a big deal now. If you can have abortion taken away as a state right you damn well sure can take a gun away. I would see California doing that for sure with NY following.
Please stop. No state is going to ban firearms or come get your guns. They may restrict ownership. They may ban further sales of certain types but they're not going to confiscate or "take guns away." Waaaaaaaaaay too late for that.
Mace, I think it was Mace, said there was a large percentage of people who wanted to "ban firearms." I can't find any polling on what that percentage is. I'd appreciate a link to a known polling source and not some pro-NRA or gun rights advocacy group on what the actual percentage of Americans want to "ban firearms."
I thought the same about abortion...
Do you really believe that abortion is going to stop or women won't get abortions because of what laws OK, FL and Tejas (and other red states will pass) have passed? Conversely, do you really believe the gubmint is going to confiscate 400 million firearms in this country? Do you really believe that?
Can you live without the right to own an assault rifle but all other manner of firearms or would you consider yourself unable to defend yourself and your right to bear arms infringed?
Ban=Bad, I've always said that.
Other people want us to be like Canada and NZ, Australia where the gubmint does indeed round them up. It's not a nutso idea to think would come to light, it's not.
The ghosts of gun violence? I still haven't been able to find polling on what number of Americans want to "ban firearms." Boo! Talk about semantics.
And you didn't answer the question but chose to deflect with Ban=Bad. Again, can you live without the right to own an assault rifle but all other manner of firearms or would you consider yourself unable to defend yourself and your right to bear arms infringed? Its a yes or no question.
This is why nothing changes, slippery slope, semantics, lack of "responsibility." Last time I checked, it wasn't non-gun owners going around shooting places up.
Its in favor of banning a type of firearm and not all firearms. 6 in 10 are in favor of banning assault weapons. Not "all firearms." Why can't you answer the question I posed? Are you unable to defend yourself if your firearm is not an assault weapon? If you can't legally purchase an assault weapon but can purchase every other type of firearm, has your 2A been infringed? And you find that unacceptable?
What percentage of Americans want to ban ALL FIREARMS?
Ahhh, I missed the ALL.
I said no on banning assault type weapons, that isn't anything new with me so I will say it again.
Ban=Bad
And therein lies the problem.
There is a word called compromise but this is where you and I won't agree because you lack the effort.
I have said multiple times what I am comfortable with, harder to obtain, wait list, more paperwork, but I am not in for a ban.
Ultimately that’s the problem. I’m probably closer to your position than I am with the left flank of my party. I’m almost exclusively way left of center.
pushing for a ban means nothing gets done. There is value in incrementalism. All or nothing doesn’t work and it never will
in an ideal world I’m ok with assault weapons being illegal. I will strongly support any legislation that stops short of that though, to just do something . Anything is better than nothing
I agree, I want there to be a start and banning any firearm is a non-starter for the other side at this time no matter how much it may frustrate the opposition. Legislation happens through compromise. The Dems need to put forth a universal background check and longer wait period as a bare minimum on any bill they draft. Maybe include possible age limitations for certain firearms that are unrelated to hunting. See what the GOP comes back with. If they still balk at those increased requirements, then run that shit all over up until election.
I post this knowing full well that HB8 sits out there.
if you want change, you have to know what change it is you want.
some of you keep hammering on the "semantics" issue. Sure, it's disingenuous from most on the gun toting side. I don't see it that way from mace. But I guess it's easier to pile on then to have an honest dialogue.
I see it this way, the extreme side of the anti-gun group want guns banned, the just past moderate side wants some guns/features banned or heavily restricted and the most approachable and reasonable group of that side are those who just want to implement tighter laws around the purchase and ownership of guns. This should be the group that gun advocates focus on and work with to reach an agreement to prevent some of these incidents from happening, but instead they want to focus on any conversation around guns that involves the word "ban" or deflect to any talk about gun laws as being political and not the right time.
Look, this isn't just me bloviating, listen to Abbot, watch the Ted Cruz interview. Cruz dropped the "psychopath" label almost immediately because it creates a separation between normal gun owners and what he wants to sell as the anomalies we can see coming. It's not that simple. But If that's the hill they want to die on, then people should be pissed off at law enforcement for not doing their job when all these red flags popped up, but instead Ted's out there backing the blue at a time when all they did was what they are hired and trained to do. Sure, the 18 year old can be described as a psychopath, but said psychopath was still able to purchase a gun so if you want to go down that road than be prepared for the follow-up of what the hell are you going to do about it? These "psychopaths" can purchase a gun with little to no effort besides a credit card and ID. Why not advocate for changes to the background process, longer wait times, age requirement changes or any other factors that increase the likelihood of preventing "psychopaths" from purchasing a firearm instead of avoiding discussing guns or deflecting that talk of gun law changes is political? Well, because these fucks are interested in self preservation of only one thing, their power and they know they will lose money and possibly votes if they even speak a word about doing anything gun related. And why is that? Because the people you want me to listen to and who are feigning honest dialogue are trying to inform people about the correct way to refer to certain types of firearms.
In what other profession, industry or field do we cater to this type of bullshit when it relates to preventing loss of life or severe injury? If my kid died in a car accident because the car seat I put them in was defective or made wrong, would the company tell me I wasn't describing the features of their car seat correctly when I said something needed to change or demanded higher standards for production? No, because they would know that the consumers of their product would no longer support them and they would go bankrupt or be held liable in court. Yes, I get it, guns are doing what they were made to do, kill, so in theory we should be applauding the manufacturers for creating these flawless tools of carnage. We should all be proud that 18 year old boys lacking a fully developed frontal lobe have the legal right to purchase as many AR-15's as they want, but yet we don't want them drinking alcohol legally and in most states they can't even smoke marijuana because drugs and alcohol bad, guns good.
I can't have this conversation with a gun advocate if they want to try and make it all about terminology. It doesn't have to be that way. Why aren't they super pissed? Why don't they reach out to their local elected official and demand change? Is it because they value owning a firearm over saving a life? It sure comes across that way. Be the change you want to see in the world. I grew up around guns and my family owned about 100 various firearms. I shot some sort of gun almost every day from the time I was 7 until I was 18. I carried a gun for my profession for 4 years. I was proficient and understand the differences in the types of firearms being mentioned, but I also know some people aren't, but that's not a sticking point when it comes to talking about ways to improve gun safety and the culture of guns in this country. I abhor guns besides those used to hunt with. We have been programmed to fear being attacked, fear being taken advantage of and fear the "other", but what are we really trying to protect with a gun in most cases? Property. A phone, a car, cash. Things that are replaceable. Our right to bear arms does not need to be so complicated. There can be compromises to what we as a country believe should be available to the citizenry without banning guns completely. We have restrictions and laws in place around every other aspect of what is acceptable to be a human being, and yes, there will always be people who break those laws and find ways around these systems, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something because it won't be 100% effective.
Anyway, I just want change. I want the GOP to come forward and recognize this is a bigger problem than just mental illness and that guns are a part of the problem and decide to do something about it.
Is it because they value owning a firearm over saving a life? It sure comes across that way.
And then this is what the abortion debate becomes... Just change Firearm to abortion and there you have it.
Funny, all of that and that's your take away? I am not even advocating for an all out gun ban. We're way past that. You are the one who has mentioned being fearful of guns being taken away. Well, that's not gonna happen any time soon, at least definitely not in your lifetime. Have you seen the SCOTUS? However, abortion is about to be banned, so I guess all these conservatives who want abortion banned and guns freely allowed probably are fearful it could happen to them and knew they were lying the last several years when they said Roe v. Wade will never be overturned.
I can't comment on every sentence...
It is interesting to me, that one line.
States Rights are becoming a big deal now. If you can have abortion taken away as a state right you damn well sure can take a gun away. I would see California doing that for sure with NY following.
Please stop. No state is going to ban firearms or come get your guns. They may restrict ownership. They may ban further sales of certain types but they're not going to confiscate or "take guns away." Waaaaaaaaaay too late for that.
Mace, I think it was Mace, said there was a large percentage of people who wanted to "ban firearms." I can't find any polling on what that percentage is. I'd appreciate a link to a known polling source and not some pro-NRA or gun rights advocacy group on what the actual percentage of Americans want to "ban firearms."
I thought the same about abortion...
Do you really believe that abortion is going to stop or women won't get abortions because of what laws OK, FL and Tejas (and other red states will pass) have passed? Conversely, do you really believe the gubmint is going to confiscate 400 million firearms in this country? Do you really believe that?
Can you live without the right to own an assault rifle but all other manner of firearms or would you consider yourself unable to defend yourself and your right to bear arms infringed?
Ban=Bad, I've always said that.
Other people want us to be like Canada and NZ, Australia where the gubmint does indeed round them up. It's not a nutso idea to think would come to light, it's not.
The ghosts of gun violence? I still haven't been able to find polling on what number of Americans want to "ban firearms." Boo! Talk about semantics.
And you didn't answer the question but chose to deflect with Ban=Bad. Again, can you live without the right to own an assault rifle but all other manner of firearms or would you consider yourself unable to defend yourself and your right to bear arms infringed? Its a yes or no question.
This is why nothing changes, slippery slope, semantics, lack of "responsibility." Last time I checked, it wasn't non-gun owners going around shooting places up.
Its in favor of banning a type of firearm and not all firearms. 6 in 10 are in favor of banning assault weapons. Not "all firearms." Why can't you answer the question I posed? Are you unable to defend yourself if your firearm is not an assault weapon? If you can't legally purchase an assault weapon but can purchase every other type of firearm, has your 2A been infringed? And you find that unacceptable?
What percentage of Americans want to ban ALL FIREARMS?
Ahhh, I missed the ALL.
I said no on banning assault type weapons, that isn't anything new with me so I will say it again.
Ban=Bad
And therein lies the problem.
There is a word called compromise but this is where you and I won't agree because you lack the effort.
I have said multiple times what I am comfortable with, harder to obtain, wait list, more paperwork, but I am not in for a ban.
You’re in the minority based on the polling you linked and I guess what you’re saying is that you’re incapable of defending yourself and you believe that your 2A rights would be infringed if you can’t buy, own or possess an assault rifle. That’s why nothing will change. It’s the disingenuous slippery slope argument.
The assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004, how many firearms were seized by the gubmint and were citizens unable to defend themselves or did they lose their 2A rights?
The assault weapons ban had a lot of loopholes…. However what’s more important this: it passed 56-43
back then a filibuster wasn’t used for every single piece of legislation. Even controversial legislation.
a sixty vote minimum as a matter of course on anything is a larger problem. Polling doesn’t matter, when it’s minority rule in action
but has anyone contemplated the ratio of life safety legislation in America between fire safety and gun safety.
How many deaths in America are due to fires? How many deaths are in America due to mass shootings?
Fire codes are rampant... signage, signals, emergency exits, sprinklers, hydrants, electrical codes, combustible codes, etc. etc. and all of these are forced onto businesses and public buildings and residential buildings. All with one purpose in mind: Do these things to help save lives.
Is it feasible to think that because America can't get over their obsession of guns that legislation begins mandating safe rooms, barricades, automated lockdown buildings, classrooms, etc?
I imagine in America, there is a pull station and extinguisher in every classroom and cafeteria.
How comfortable would you be if it was later required to have bulletproof vests under every classroom chair?
Toronto 2000
Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
Boston I&II 2004
Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
Toronto I&II 2011
Buffalo 2013 Toronto I&II 2016 10C: 220xxx
There is a word called compromise but this is where you and I won't agree because you lack the effort.
I have said multiple times what I am comfortable with, harder to obtain, wait list, more paperwork, but I am not in for a ban.
You’re in the minority based on the polling you linked and I guess what you’re saying is that you’re incapable of defending yourself and you believe that your 2A rights would be infringed if you can’t buy, own or possess an assault rifle. That’s why nothing will change. It’s the disingenuous slippery slope argument.
The assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004, how many firearms were seized by the gubmint and were citizens unable to defend themselves or did they lose their 2A rights?
I went over this previously too, all of it... sorry.
Comments
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
I said no on banning assault type weapons, that isn't anything new with me so I will say it again.
Ban=Bad
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Society breaking down, a hurricane that cuts us off for months or whatever. I’ll have plenty of notice I need to get it out.
Arming teachers = more money for gun manufacturers = more money for politicians
They don't care about stopping mass shootings. Mass shootings are actually good for GOP business if we're being honest.
All that other culture war bullshit doesn't matter.
Dead children or teachers DEFINITELY don't fucking matter.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
airline stocks go down after every crash
It all makes perfect sense if you approach this from the perspective that these tragedies are actually good for their bottom line.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
in a since-deleted tweet, “It’s a transsexual leftist illegal alien named Salvatore Ramos.”
it’s all their issues rolled into one person. It being true is not even required
I have said multiple times what I am comfortable with, harder to obtain, wait list, more paperwork, but I am not in for a ban.
in an ideal world I’m ok with assault weapons being illegal. I will strongly support any legislation that stops short of that though, to just do something . Anything is better than nothing
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
The assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004, how many firearms were seized by the gubmint and were citizens unable to defend themselves or did they lose their 2A rights?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Yeah, I'm sure you're right, but like you said. It's hard to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I post this knowing full well that HB8 sits out there.
it passed 56-43
back then a filibuster wasn’t used for every single piece of legislation. Even controversial legislation.
a sixty vote minimum as a matter of course on anything is a larger problem. Polling doesn’t matter, when it’s minority rule in action
but has anyone contemplated the ratio of life safety legislation in America between fire safety and gun safety.
How many deaths in America are due to fires?
How many deaths are in America due to mass shootings?
Fire codes are rampant... signage, signals, emergency exits, sprinklers, hydrants, electrical codes, combustible codes, etc. etc. and all of these are forced onto businesses and public buildings and residential buildings. All with one purpose in mind: Do these things to help save lives.
Is it feasible to think that because America can't get over their obsession of guns that legislation begins mandating safe rooms, barricades, automated lockdown buildings, classrooms, etc?
I imagine in America, there is a pull station and extinguisher in every classroom and cafeteria.
How comfortable would you be if it was later required to have bulletproof vests under every classroom chair?
Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
Boston I&II 2004
Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
Toronto I&II 2011
Buffalo 2013
Toronto I&II 2016
10C: 220xxx