Excellent, i'll send them another check.I just joined the NRA.
I heard that Harvey Weinstein pledged to Gabby also.
That's exactly what I've been trying to say! How does a waiting period lower firearm ownership levels though? You directly contradicted me when I said it would be easier to come out and say we need less or no guns in this country. You said no, we just need background checks and waiting periods and it would save "tons and tons" of lives. You and I both now disagree with your previous position. If you want less gun violence you need less firearms, not waiting periods, not background checks. Just less firearms! duh! I believe Feinstein says as much, she obviously goes for one small step at a time and endorses what she thinks she can pass, but she absolutely understands that her mission is to remove firearms from this country. I do not understand why more people are not like her that support gun control. I'd just appreciate a more binary argument is all.
I'm all for the 2nd amendment, but I'm not stupid enough to realize that in a country without guns, there will be no gun violence.
We are already telling you what you need. Grenade launchers, anti tank weapons, machine guns and other such weapons are already in the "not yours" bucket. We're simply looking to expand the "not yours" list.
so checks written in crayon are now accepted? woo hoo, my grand nephew is gonna be stoked.Excellent, i'll send them another check.
More ignorance from the leaders of the left;
- Time Kaine
Trying to parrot Hillary's already factually wrong statement. Its not a silencer. And that is not what stopped him. He needs to stop sucking up, trying to be relevant, and stick to whatever he's good at. This isn't it.
Nobody screaming for more gun laws with consideration to Chicago. Wonder why that is.
http://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555580598/fact-check-is-chicago-proof-that-gun-laws-don-t-work
The simplest reason why gun laws are moot in Chicago is: Indiana.
So you agree these are mostly meaningless laws that restrict rights for no tangible gain?
When an individual with knives kill 60 people/injure 500 from 300+ meters away in 10 minutes yes I will demand knife control.
This post is confusing. To me, 1,600 deaths per year (from knives) is worse that about 100 per year (assault rifles). Both are horrific. Yet I think 1,600 grieving sets of families and friends is worse than 100. What does it matter if the 100 is reached in fewer incidences? What makes a few mass shootings per year worse than many many more individual murders?
knife control and gun control are not mutually exclusive. so let's start the knife control conversation at the next mass stabbing event.
You should stop inferring things. You're apparently terrible at it.So you agree these are mostly meaningless laws that restrict rights for no tangible gain?
My point went right over your head. Why is a mass even worse than far more individual events?
My point went right over your head. Why is a mass even worse than far more individual events? Are the 60 mourning families more important that the One THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED? If assault rifles only ever were used in individual killings, but used in 1,600 per year, would you then be OK with it?
Excuse me while I jump in to be logically retarded...
Is it missed on you that your comparisons are absurd? Knife collectors/gun collectors... Intended weapons. Cars, intended transportation. Pools, intended for fun and heat relief.
Now that we've got that cleared up... maybe gun owners should be responsible for one another. Police each other and leave the rest of the world alone. I mean... One of the bigger reasons people own guns is to protect themselves from other gun toting buffoons, correct? Seems prudent y'all might like to have a bit of say on how people behave with their guns... Or even who should be allowed to have them.
Mmmhmm, Yes I did. I sure did!
Lol..I'm not "anti-2A", I own 2 handguns and a shotgun. I am however in favor of continued regulation and a more self disciplined approach to guns and gun culture.
I look at gun regulation not as a means of limiting an individual behavior per se, but mainly as an important first step in pushing back on gun culture and the antisocial attitudes that track with this culture.
When tobacco was unregulated, it's not a coincidence that more people smoked. By having a hands-off stance, the government sent the tacit message that tobacco products weren't harmful enough to warrant constraining and that people's freedom to do what they want overrode any public health and safety concerns. Couple this with media portrayals of smoking as cool and sexy and you had the makings of a culture that didn't just permit tobacco abuse, but encouraged it. Even when it affected non-smokers through second-hand inhalation, social mores made it taboo for non-smokers to do anything about it. It took regulation to facilitate a cultural shift so that, for example, non-smoking areas could become the default, rather than the exception. It took regulation to get people to see smoking as not only an unnecessary expense, but also a major health hazard. Smokers also bear a stigma they used to not have, due to anti-smoking messaging sponsored by the government. Tobacco abuse is on the decline because of that, and along with that, the health conditions associated with smoking.
Guns are really no different. People keep "abusing" guns because something in our culture enables it. The more we shy away from regulating guns, the more entrenched this culture becomes.
There is a lot of important signalling over guns that is not happening, and that it's possible to encourage a more self-disciplined culture around gun use than anything we have today. There's a lot of complex signalling between the authorities, the public, the culture, politicians, special interest groups, and it's become too divided and ineffectual, and as a result too permissive. Look at this mass shooting: what signalling is occurring after this event? The same "hands off" stance only enables more of these acts in the future.
And his point apparently went over your head.
You can have gun control as well as many other regulations for any number of things that kill Americans needlessly. Right now though, we are talking about an event that killed a lot of people by way of a gun.
Cool. You are talking about banning something that might save a few lives per year. Fervently talking about it. Do you think you are being emotionally manipulated? There are many possessions we are allowed to own that kill way more people than assault rifles. And we're cool with that.
We don't want to rape you, we just want to take some of your guns away and make it harder for others to obtain them.
Cool. You are talking about banning something that might save a few lives per year. Fervently talking about it. Do you think you are being emotionally manipulated? There are many possessions we are allowed to own that kill way more people than assault rifles. And we're cool with that.
well let's put it this way, I certainly don't believe the solution to the problem is to do nothing. buy all the damn guns you want, let's just try to restrict people's ability to murder 50+ in a single sitting yeah?
Cool. You are talking about banning something that might save a few lives per year. Fervently talking about it. Do you think you are being emotionally manipulated? There are many possessions we are allowed to own that kill way more people than assault rifles. And we're cool with that.