If you need a mental health revolution to get conservatives to agree to banning guns, why the shit would you beat your head against banning guns instead of the mental health revolution? FFS that's what they've been calling for for like 30 years!
If you need a mental health revolution to get conservatives to agree to banning guns, why the shit would you beat your head against banning guns instead of the mental health revolution? FFS that's what they've been calling for for like 30 years!Yes, that is the goal to work towards. What’s the confusion here? This goes back to ‘it’s hard so don’t bother trying’.
No thanks, I’ll keep trying.
I don’t agree that we need a mental health revolution to make conservatives agree with our policy positions as a prerequisite to banning guns so you’re mistaking your position for my position.If you need a mental health revolution to get conservatives to agree to banning guns, why the shit would you beat your head against banning guns instead of the mental health revolution? FFS that's what they've been calling for for like 30 years!
The conservatives are not savable at this point. This is what democrats and independents haven’t truly gotten yet. They are anarchists and bigots and rage filled below average intelligence basket of deplorable who all think they are the superior future millionaires if only those pesky other Homo sapiens who don’t look like them would know their place as stools to put their feet on.If you need a mental health revolution to get conservatives to agree to banning guns, why the shit would you beat your head against banning guns instead of the mental health revolution? FFS that's what they've been calling for for like 30 years!
lol good luck with that. Sadly I doubt this gun fetish gets solved within 2 generationsFor example we just need to elect a few more democrats that are down with eliminating the filibuster and expanding SCOTUS to fill it with gun regulation friendly people.
Let’s restore the understanding for the second amendment to relate to the militia instead of individual ownership. Bam- gun bans galore are now legal.
See? No mental health revolution required. No constitutional amendment required.
Surely they passed laws or regulations that make it harder to purchase the ingredients used in that truck attack. Those restrictions seem to be working yes? If they work then the Vegas tragedy like in your 2nd example could be avoided.One of the worst mass casualty attacks is the nice incident with a box truck. 86 killed, 434 injured.
Our worst mass shooting attack is the Vegas shooter from a few years back. 60 killed, 850 injured.
Removing guns will not remove these crazy people.
Alright, so what's your solution for getting enough of them to agree, in the house, senate, and SC?I don’t agree that we need a mental health revolution to make conservatives agree with our policy positions as a prerequisite to banning guns so you’re mistaking your position for my position.
Then good fucking luck getting gun control passed. Conservatives are needed unless they lose so hard we end up with a one party majority.The conservatives are not savable at this point.
See my other post.Alright, so what's your solution for getting enough of them to agree, in the house, senate, and SC?
Then good fucking luck getting gun control passed. Conservatives are needed unless they lose so hard we end up with a one party majority.
Those may as well be constitutional amendments at this point.For example we just need to elect a few more democrats that are down with eliminating the filibuster and expanding SCOTUS to fill it with gun regulation friendly people.
Let’s restore the understanding for the second amendment to relate to the militia instead of individual ownership. Bam- gun bans galore are now legal.
See? No mental health revolution required. No constitutional amendment required.
Who knows? It’s the right answer and the only available answer though so you go with what you have.lol good luck with that. Sadly I doubt this gun fetish gets solved within 2 generations
Well how about this - you work on your mental health revolution and I’ll work on gun control. If either one of us succeeds we will both succeed. How fun for us!Those may as well be constitutional amendments at this point.
Surely they passed laws or regulations that make it harder to purchase the ingredients used in that truck attack. Those restrictions seem to be working yes? If they work then the Vegas tragedy like in your 2nd example could be avoided.
My only point is that every single thing you listed requires Republicans to cede control to Democrats and they'll never do so willingly, regardless of the consequences, else we'd have gun control already, and would have immediately after Columbine.Well how about this - you work on your mental health revolution and I’ll work on gun control. If either one of us succeeds we will both succeed. How fun for us!
In an armed society, people exchange gunfire over increasingly petty bullshit.
Nothing I listed requires Republicans to cede control to Democrats. Everything listed can be done exclusively with Democrats and with majorities similar to ones Democrats have achieved in the recent past.My only point is that every single thing you listed requires Republicans to cede control to Democrats and they'll never do so willingly, regardless of the consequences, else we'd have gun control already, and would have immediately after Columbine.
It really is that clear - as I’ve said repeatedly the empirical evidence is overwhelming.I mean, they're breaking the law if they do that though. And what we're debating are gun laws. I don't think another "law" is going to stop someone from blastin over petty bullshit. It might stop some of the accidental deaths, that kind of thing. But it's not as clear cut as some are making it out to be
SCOTUS would never permit that.Okay wouldn’t happen federally, but why don’t blue states slap a million percent bullet tax?
That's not relevant to the point I was making, you act as though having more guns in a society betters that society, and that just doesn't seem to be panning out.I mean, they're breaking the law if they do that though. And what we're debating are gun laws. I don't think another "law" is going to stop someone from blastin over petty bullshit. It might stop some of the accidental deaths, that kind of thing. But it's not as clear cut as some are making it out to be
How dare you infringe on the second amendment right to bare bullets tax freeOkay wouldn’t happen federally, but why don’t blue states slap a million percent bullet tax?
oh my God, they are breaking the law if they murder someone over jelly beans so the solution is MOAR GUNS. Are you sure you aren‘t ten years old? That is so simple minded childlike thinkingI mean, they're breaking the law if they do that though. And what we're debating are gun laws. I don't think another "law" is going to stop someone from blastin over petty bullshit. It might stop some of the accidental deaths, that kind of thing. But it's not as clear cut as some are making it out to be
I live basically unprotected. I have a telephone. I have guns, some of which are ready to fire, some not, including my 16 gauge Browning in the not ready category, and the one I would use in the house were it put together and up to snuff. I would still have to load it and don't know where my 16 gauge ammo is or if I even have any. If I lived in the country I would mostly want a fence to keep dear out of a garden and coyotes and foxes and raccoons away from pets and chickens. Nest I would want a dog. Then I would maybe want a safe house for fires and monsters that are want to seek hiding under beds. Then I would also want to post signs and have security devices like you have. I would also have my guns which I could finally enjoy for targets instead of just works of art.I own firearms but none of those are for home defense simply because any of those firearms will without effort shoot through my walls and through the walls of my neighbors thus needlessly endangering their lives as well as those loved ones in my own home.
If I were to use what I have on hand, it'd be through my shotgun delivering intimately ranged rock salt messengers out to the uninvited house guest and that's only when I've deemed it safe to do so. I rely on my home security system pulling sentry duty to give me enough time to respond accordingly.
I live in the 'burbs. If I were out in the sticks then of course the plan for home defense would reflect the specific needs that situation requires. Note though that none of those situations would require expending twenty or thirty rapid fire FMJ's to get the problem solved.
Lol what part of 2A covers ammo?SCOTUS would never permit that.
Step 1 has to be to change the composition of the court. Not just for gun regulation but really for the basic function of government at all levels.
Lol, expanding the SC dilutes conservative control of the judicial system. You'd see actual fistfights in Congress before that happened. Like half of conservative identity right now is tied up in guns, any gun control would be a vindication of liberal values, they'd lose support just by virtue of that alone.Nothing I listed requires Republicans to cede control to Democrats. Everything listed can be done exclusively with Democrats and with majorities similar to ones Democrats have achieved in the recent past.
The current court would likely correctly say ammo is part of the gun. Taxing it excessively would equate to a ban.Lol what part of 2A covers ammo?