It just doesn't stop
- Thread starter Bumblebee
- Start date
Unfortunately I think it's already caught on....
TallTom
Registered
The other question for the ages will be how the left leaning media had sent the message in less than a lunch break time, that the president told people to inject bleach into themselves. That goes way past anything he said. Sarcastically or otherwise.
Would you like one? It’s digital trading card. The value of it will be YUUUUGE soon!
For those that have the time (10 mins) and care she nails it. You’re not putting that toothpaste (guns) back in the tube. Let’s talk about something else to remedy this. Yet the democrats every single time simply resort to ‘ban guns’. They offer no other solutions and make no attempt to do so.
Watch it.
Watch it.
It's been done several times before, why not again?
ottafish
Registered
Small steps.. One at a time is all it takes
We talk quite a bit about American gun ownership, the right to bear arms and carry weapons either in an open or concealed fashion....
I ask, how many of these mass killings have the CCW/open carry laws prevented or contained?
I know for a fact many legal gun owners own them for the sole purpose of saying they own them and to brag about either how many they own or how cool/expensive the ones they own are.....
I get the 2A and what it does for gun owners....does it makes sense in it's entirety in these modern times...no......but without it, lawful citizens of America will lose their right to choose...
The bad actors will always be able to get their hands on firearms and then lord this ability over the populace, at least now the populace has a slim chance of thwarting total dominance over them by these armed bad actors....if the castle or stand you ground laws were to vanish, the criminal element would have the ability to act with impunity, at least now some of them hesitate before conducting certain illegal, violent acts...
-only my opinion of course-
I ask, how many of these mass killings have the CCW/open carry laws prevented or contained?
I know for a fact many legal gun owners own them for the sole purpose of saying they own them and to brag about either how many they own or how cool/expensive the ones they own are.....
I get the 2A and what it does for gun owners....does it makes sense in it's entirety in these modern times...no......but without it, lawful citizens of America will lose their right to choose...
The bad actors will always be able to get their hands on firearms and then lord this ability over the populace, at least now the populace has a slim chance of thwarting total dominance over them by these armed bad actors....if the castle or stand you ground laws were to vanish, the criminal element would have the ability to act with impunity, at least now some of them hesitate before conducting certain illegal, violent acts...
-only my opinion of course-
michael parris heuberger
Registered
Hi. I do not know how many have been stoped. You would have to look maybe in many places to find out. Because the main news do not report it because it does not fit in to what they think is news.
That’s not how it works. The right to keep and bear was never intended to prevent crimes. Tell me how many shootings gun laws have prevented? The states with the strictest gun laws still have gun crimes. Gun laws are supposed to prevent crimes right? That’s what they say right? So how’s that working? It’s not.
Shall we seek and try something else or continue doing the same thing expecting a different result which is the definition of insanity?
Last edited:
I noticed you ignored Bee's 5th paragraph, talking about how there are laws that enable gun owners to protect themselves. Gun advocates are very hypersensative to guidelines to safe gun ownership as if any recourse at all is a bad one. There will always be gun crimes. The guns are out there and a tiny segment of society chooses to use them to kill people. All we can do is our best, and that includes rigorously registering and monitoring transfers to build a data base of who has guns. That will cause gun owners to be more careful about storage and hopefully make it a tiny bit harder for immoral people to get their hands on them. It won't do much at first, and a lot of guns will still be unaccounted for, but over time might make a difference. Yes it'll create a little more hassle for honest gun owners but it beats doing nothing; sitting back and reading about another mass killing with the morning coffee.
michael parris heuberger
Registered
Hi. That is all good to. I am all for that. We also need a government we can trust. That at some point in time that they will not use it to take all the guns away. I think people on here would have been on the British side in 1776.
I agree people need to be more responsible with the ones they own. I still think we should be shown the toxicology reports from all these mass shooters and see what drugs they were on. I’d guarantee many of them were on same ones. What are the side effects of them? Many of these drugs it is tendency to violence, suicide and extreme psychosis. But the info on what many were possibly on is never even asked or mentioned? People talk about the nra and its lobbying power. They donated approx $13 million in 2020 to politicians. Meanwhile big pharma gave over $374 million. Who do you think has more power?
After that you lost me at registration and compiling lists. Only thing in history that’s ever been used for is confiscation. So that’s a hell to the NO for me and tens of millions of others. Having said that when one fills out a 4473 to purchase and go thru NICS for a BC they do not ask what gun, make or model it is. They only ask the type, pistol, rifle or shotgun. It would not be out of my mind to think they already have a list that shows at least how many types of guns a person might have. I have many NFA weapons that required much more info and further investigation. These truly are already registered. I’m not worried about confiscation. They can simply make it so restrictive to own that most will simply turn them in rather than deal with the hassle.
pcs
Registered
Sheriff: Louisiana man shot child playing hide and seek
Bond has been set at $300,000 for a Louisiana man who authorities say fired a gun at children playing hide and seek outside his home, striking a 14-year-old girl. Southwest Louisiana authorities say 58-year-old David Van Doyle, of the Starks community, faces aggravated assault and battery...
apnews.com
another senseless shooting… so we recently had the young kid asking for direction get shot, the little girl getting her ball from a yard, the girl that drove down the wrong road.
I see you quoted my post but I'm not sure you read it....
Times and people have changed in the hundreds of years since the 2A was written...
My thought was in the form of a question, people who carry firearms have the right to protect themselves, what about protecting from an active shooter? Would they get raked over by defense lawyers if they intervened in such an incident I wonder and if so, is that the reason many would choose to go the other way.
Gun laws are supposed to prevent crime if they are used properly...having firearms under control within a home would deny that angry teenager access or having burglars gaining easy access....lots of stolen firearms are used in gun crimes due to the irresponsible legal owners not having care and control over their weapons.
We can "mental health" this to death, the bottom line is people are getting access to firearms who have no business touching them.....how does this get prevented is the real question...
You’re right we do have the right to protect ourselves. Except the mall in most recent event was a GFZ. So everyone there had that right restricted by the state. There have been plenty of incidents where citizens with guns stopped potential mass events either soon after it started or before it. It took a GGWAG to stop this dirt bag. He was a cop sure but never the less he had a gun and used it to stop the other guy who had one. I cannot imagine how many more would be gone had he not been there.
Having said that and since we both agree on our rights who is responsible for my safety when that right is restricted? My opinion is the owners of the mall are.
I seek daily decent ideas on how to prevent bad guys from getting guns while still not preventing good ones from getting them. Another law or ban in my mind won’t work and never has. Definition of a criminal is one who doesn’t obey the law. So what will more laws do? Nothing. Both sides need to sit down and come up with alternatives or these events won’t stop. The democrats would have the sheeple think ARs are responsible for all mass events. But in fact rifles of all types are used in less than 5% of gun crimes and military style rifles of all types are only 1% of that. So why do they focus so fastly and heartily on them? If they really wanted to stop crime wouldn’t they seek to ban what’s actually used most? Or can we just safely assume that’s what they will go after next when another AWB ban makes zero effect? Bit by bit they want. Till they’ve gotten all. Then when crime still happens what will they scream for? If one doesn’t think total ban and confiscation with only authorities having weapons is their goal then ask go ask any democrat where do they intend to stop? At what point? After what law? After what ban will they relax and say ‘ok we did good and are done.’ No one on the left can answer that.
Last edited:
I'd wager people on either side of the political fence would struggle with the answer as to how to broach the subject of how to keep legal firearms out of criminal hands...
I also agree that rifles are not the "go to" firearm for criminals as they are too hard to conceal...hand guns and SMGs are the go to weapon I would think.
Similar threads
