Sivad wrote:it's funny that liberals will always look for social reasons and environmental causes for everything and anything but on this issue the libtards go into full pathological denial mode and refuse to admit that it's the mass industrial education system, the mass drugging, and the demented culture that's driving this problem. this one is just bad apples for the libtards.
This type of stuff was predicted back in the 1980s. I think it's interesting that they deny it so vehemently. Even people like Al and Tipper Gore flirted with their Democrat version of a moral majority. Tipper Gore Was Right, Violent Video Games Are Bad For You
Drlee wrote:I find the very possibility reprehensible.
Did you find Washington's army reprehensible?
BigSteve wrote:Who pardoned what war criminals?
Some overzealous JAG prosecutors stuck it to some military personnel and Trump pardoned them.
Drlee wrote:They try to have us believe that their "right" to own an AR-15 is based upon the notion that they may use it to overthrow the duly elected government of the US because they disagree with the politics of that government. This is treason. It is contemplating the murder of our own children over a political disagreement.
Some might disagree whether the government is duly elected. If you haven't noticed, the Democrats have spent the last three years trying to overturn the election while spreading mass propaganda suggesting Trump is a foreign agent. Others think the Democrats are trying to effect a coup, and that Trump is no more a foreign agent than Jerry Nadler is fit to do 50 push ups. Civil wars start as a consequence of such things. Our forefathers all committed treason against the United Kingdom.
Drlee wrote:Oh I get that the founders fought off the British. They did not do it in today's climate of air power and surveillance. More importantly they did not do it with small bands of roving civilians popping British soldiers with squirrel guns as popular songs would have us believe. They did it with "well ordered militias". So when the constitution was created it enshrined these militias in the constitution. The founders did not intend to put the power to unseat them in a guy named Steve with an assault rifle. They intended to put it in the hands of the state militias.
A guy named Steve isn't a militia.
Drlee wrote:When a citizen thinks that the rifle in the closet is there to kill a United State Marine, they should absolutely NOT be allowed to have it. Period.
That's what General Gage thought. That's why we have a Second Amendment.
Drlee wrote:Younger people are not buying guns like geezers did.
That's because they can't even afford a house of their own.
BigSteve wrote:Gun control will only affect those who obey the law.
Exactly. The ship has sailed on gun control, because people can use desktop CNC machines to make what they need.
BigSteve wrote:Let's say I was required to register my sweet new Kimber. If I then decide to shoot someone, how is the fact that the gun is registered going to make the person I choose to shoot safer?
Here's your answer: It won't...
They're thinking about unarmed people trying to procure arms in a fit of passion. That's not all that typical.
Drlee wrote:We license car drivers and I know of not a single individual who says we shouldn't yet pea brained fools have convinced our law makers to not license something that is even more dangerous fatality wise.
We should not force people to buy insurance. People should buy insurance because they want it, not because the state forces them to buy it.
Drlee wrote:We require seat belts and they are saving lives but gun locks?
Yes, and the police can use that to pull people over and cite them, even subjecting them to searches. That happens to minorities a lot, and they really don't like it.
Drlee wrote:When I was a little boy I had gun safety training when I was in cub scouts. That is simply not done anymore in any real numbers. Gun safety is not even discussed at a national level.
So did I. They even had merit badges for that stuff. It's those damn liberals and commies that don't want kids learning about gun safety.
Drlee wrote:I imagine the rest of the world is laughing at us.
You appear to do that a lot. You seem to be a shame-based person. Have you ever thought about getting some counseling for that?
Drlee wrote:Oh. And by the way. As we are nattering on about gun control.
Watch Clint Eastwood's "Gran Torino". Hmong gangs. It could be in your neighborhood, yet worlds apart.
Godstud wrote:I never said that banning all guns was a solution. I said good gun controls and banning specific weapons.
Ok. That's lovely @Godstud. Now, considering this shooting, and @drlee's mention, both shootings happened in California which has strict gun control laws and ban the sale of AR-15s. How would your gun control proposals have stopped either of these two shootings?
What BigSteve is saying is that your proposals wouldn't have stopped either of these two shootings.
drlee wrote:But one that prudent gun control can.
Except for the two shootings mentioned in this thread, both of which happened in California where there are strict gun control regulations.
drlee wrote:I do not live in a macho fantasy world like so many GI-Wannabees do.
Are you saying that the media's depiction of the military creates "GI wannabees"?
ingliz wrote:Strangely, for a tool that is meant to save your life, gun suicides make up the majority (63%) of US gun deaths.
Right. Which is typically wrapped into gun violence statistics to try to sway people somewhat dishonestly.
Godstud wrote:Gun control laws work to reduce access to firearms, by criminals, of the types that cause the incidents. That's simply a fact you don't like to admit.
They may reduce access to legal firearms. However, in a state like California, with strict gun control laws, we still have the two shootings that have upset @drlee.
Godstud wrote:The threat from foreign takeover, in the USA, is only the stuff of movies.
... and yet the Democrats are trying to remove the POTUS from office based on the idea that he's controlled by foreign powers.