Democrats Need to Drop the Gun-Control Issue

[JoeB131]

Let's be realistic here. With the number of guns currently in circulation, a ban would only leave the law abiding unarmed. You could MAYBE have something different with a relative handful of guns out there, but not now. It's wishful thinking, and you would only make criminals out of a lot of otherwise completely law abiding citizens.

Okay, let's be realistic.

A gun ban in and of itself would probably be impractical, but putting limits on NEW guns would keep them out of the wrong hands.

The thing is, every time there is a mass shooting, it's not done with the gun that has been sitting in someone's closet since the 1990's. It's done with the gun that someone just bought, who slipped by a background check because the gun industry has so watered down that process it's impossible to catch them before they go on a rampage.

The NRA and gun industry WANT rampages. They sell more guns.

 

[JoeB131]

No you fixate on other men's penises.

Yet, that whole long discussion, and the only thing you can focus on is "Joe made a dick joke".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You should not have to have a license or permit to buy a Gun or Assault rifle. The constitution gives every adult citizen the right to bear arms. License, permits, or why do you need a gun, are all infringements on your 2nd amendment right to bear arms.

Wrong.

The courts have consistently held that licenses and permits to possess and carry guns are perfectly Constitutional.

The Supreme Court has never ruled to invalidate measures requiring a license or permit.

Gun licenses and permits are in no manner an ‘infringement’ in the Second Amendment right.

They are not......the courts also thought separate but equal was Constitutional as they did slavery and returning slaves who escaped to free states....

In fact......the Supreme Court has ruled that charging a fee for the exercise of a Right is, in fact, unConstitutional...so any license or permit where you have to pay for them is unConstitutional....

what do you say about that Clayton? Clayton doesn't read my posts so someone please ask him/her/it that question...

And the Supreme Court found Poll Taxes and Literacy Tests unConstitutional as well...so any tax on the Right to own a gun is unConstitutional as well as is any mandatory test to exercise a Right......explain that Clayton...

Clayton....please explain your last post in relation to this actual Supreme Court ruling....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Held:
- A municipal ordinance which, as construed and applied, requires religious colporteurs to pay a license tax as a condition to the pursuit of their activities, is invalid under the Federal Constitution as a denial of freedom of speech, press and religion.


- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.


- The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

Opinion:
...It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution....
... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...


... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

A license tax Clayton...........you don't know what you are talking about...

The courts have consistently held that licenses and permits to possess and carry guns are perfectly Constitutional.

The Supreme Court has never ruled to invalidate measures requiring a license or permit.

Gun licenses and permits are in no manner an ‘infringement’ on the Second Amendment right.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No you fixate on other men's penises.

Yet, that whole long discussion, and the only thing you can focus on is "Joe made a dick joke".

You're not exactly doing a very good job of hiding your projection, nor of hiding the issues/deficiencies that clearly underlie that projection.

There isn't anyway that you would actually know anything about the genitalia of other men who participate in this forum; only your own. It only stands to reason that no matter how you try to project it, any issues you obsessively bring up about perceived deficiencies in the size of anyone's genitalia can only be about your own.

 

[2aguy]

We keep the ones who shoot people locked up...you doofus.....we keep the felons caught with illegal guns locked up...you doofus...that lowers the gun crime and gun murder rate 95%.....instead, the democrats keep letting those guys out...and they shoot people...

They shoot people because the Gun Industry has flooded our streets with guns.

Other countries that ban guns... don't have to lock up millions of people.. and don't have five figure murder rates.

No......Republicans have lots of guns...republicans aren't the ones shooting people.....it isn't access to guns, it is fatherless homes creating boys with no role models or guidance who then use gangs as their families and use violence because they have no other means of dealing with life.

Other countries that ban guns...are now finding more and more guns on their streets...and hand grenades....criminals need guns to protect drug turf, and criminals are becoming more violent and aggressive especially as they lose fear and respect for police...which you now have in Europe....

If your beliefs and theories were correct, there wouldn't be a difference in how guns are used.....there is....and it shows that you don't know what you are talking about..

As the below charts show, Democratic areas (measured by the party that controls the congressional district) are far more likely to experience almost all forms of malicious gun violence than Republican areas. These charts exclude suicides, for which data are not available on a congressional district basis, so it only breaks down the fraction of gun violence that is accidental or confrontational.
--------

A distinct pattern emerged: In Democratic regions of the country, which tend to be cities, people are more likely to be murdered with a gun than they are to shoot themselves to death.

In regions of the country won by Republicans, which tend to be rural areas and small towns, the opposite is true — people are more likely to shoot themselves to death than they are to be murdered with a gun.
----
In the most Democratic regions, gun violence is more often committed against another, crimes that probably generate more news coverage and fear. In the most Republican areas, it is more often committed against oneself, suicides that may not attract as much attention.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...prising-way-gun-violence-is-dividing-america/


If your beliefs and theories were correct, gun crime would not have dropped 75% as more people own and carry guns and gun murder would not have dropped as more people bought and carry guns....

Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019...guess what happened...

New Concealed Carry Report For 2020: 19.48 Million Permit Holders, 820,000 More Than Last Year despite many states shutting down issuing permits because of the Coronavirus - Crime Prevention Research Center


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

What happened in 2015 to change the downward rate of gun murder and gun violence?The democrat party decided it was a good idea to attack and handicap the police......since 2015 they have been attacking the police non-stop......and the police have reacted by not pro-actively engaging criminals in democrat party controlled cities....

Hard Data, Hollow Protests
The reason for the current increase is what I have called the Ferguson Effect.
Cops are backing off of proactive policing in high-crime minority neighborhoods, and criminals are becoming emboldened.
Having been told incessantly by politicians, the media, and Black Lives Matter activists that they are bigoted for getting out of their cars and questioning someone loitering on a known drug corner at 2 AM, many officers are instead just driving by. Such stops are discretionary; cops don’t have to make them. And when political elites demonize the police for just such proactive policing, we shouldn’t be surprised when cops get the message and do less of it.
Seventy-two percent of the nation’s officers say that they and their colleagues are now less willing to stop and question suspicious persons, according to a Pew Research poll released in January. The reason is the persistent anti-cop climate.
Four studies came out in 2016 alone rebuttingthe charge that police shootings are racially biased. If there is a bias in police shootings, it works in favor of blacks and against whites. That truth has not stopped the ongoing demonization of the police—including, now, by many of the country’s ignorant professional athletes. The toll will be felt, as always, in the inner city, by the thousands of law-abiding people there who desperately want more police protection.

 

[2aguy]

You should not have to have a license or permit to buy a Gun or Assault rifle. The constitution gives every adult citizen the right to bear arms. License, permits, or why do you need a gun, are all infringements on your 2nd amendment right to bear arms.

Wrong.

The courts have consistently held that licenses and permits to possess and carry guns are perfectly Constitutional.

The Supreme Court has never ruled to invalidate measures requiring a license or permit.

Gun licenses and permits are in no manner an ‘infringement’ in the Second Amendment right.

They are not......the courts also thought separate but equal was Constitutional as they did slavery and returning slaves who escaped to free states....

In fact......the Supreme Court has ruled that charging a fee for the exercise of a Right is, in fact, unConstitutional...so any license or permit where you have to pay for them is unConstitutional....

what do you say about that Clayton? Clayton doesn't read my posts so someone please ask him/her/it that question...

And the Supreme Court found Poll Taxes and Literacy Tests unConstitutional as well...so any tax on the Right to own a gun is unConstitutional as well as is any mandatory test to exercise a Right......explain that Clayton...

Clayton....please explain your last post in relation to this actual Supreme Court ruling....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Held:
- A municipal ordinance which, as construed and applied, requires religious colporteurs to pay a license tax as a condition to the pursuit of their activities, is invalid under the Federal Constitution as a denial of freedom of speech, press and religion.


- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.


- The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

Opinion:
...It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution....
... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...


... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

A license tax Clayton...........you don't know what you are talking about...

The courts have consistently held that licenses and permits to possess and carry guns are perfectly Constitutional.

The Supreme Court has never ruled to invalidate measures requiring a license or permit.

Gun licenses and permits are in no manner an ‘infringement’ on the Second Amendment right.

The Supreme Court has never ruled to invalidate measures requiring a license or permit.

I showed you the exact Supreme Court ruling that did just that....

And those courts are wrong.....in particular if there is a fee for the license and permits....

Are you familiar with the Supreme Court ruling Murdock v Pennsylvania?

Fees and licenses to engage in a Right are unConstitutional....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Held:
- A municipal ordinance which, as construed and applied, requires religious colporteurs to pay a license tax as a condition to the pursuit of their activities, is invalid under the Federal Constitution as a denial of freedom of speech, press and religion.



- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.


- The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

Opinion:
...It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax.

It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution....


... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...


... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment.


Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

 

[JoeB131]

You're not exactly doing a very good job of hiding your projection, nor of hiding the issues/deficiencies that clearly underlie that projection.

There isn't anyway that you would actually know anything about the genitalia of other men who participate in this forum; only your own. It only stands to reason that no matter how you try to project it, any issues you obsessively bring up about perceived deficiencies in the size of anyone's genitalia can only be about your own.

Uh, guy, you are the one who seems obsessed, but never mind. I mean, I really try to engage you guys on substantive discussions on your gun fetish, but it's kind of sad, really. You guys live in a fact free world where you think that guns make you safer.

When we are the most dangerous country in the industrialized world.

 

[JoeB131]

No......Republicans have lots of guns...republicans aren't the ones shooting people.....it isn't access to guns, it is fatherless homes creating boys with no role models or guidance who then use gangs as their families and use violence because they have no other means of dealing with life.

Other countries that ban guns...are now finding more and more guns on their streets...and hand grenades....criminals need guns to protect drug turf, and criminals are becoming more violent and aggressive especially as they lose fear and respect for police...which you now have in Europe....

Blah, blah, blah.

I'm not sure why you want to take the places people actually live out of the equation.

Um, yeah, grinding racism and poverty and wealth inequality are all problems we should address, too. We won't.

In many ways, gun violence is a symptom of other problems.

But as stated, most victims of murders KNOW their killers. It's not random street crime, it's a gun in the home making a bad situation worse.

 

[2aguy]

You're not exactly doing a very good job of hiding your projection, nor of hiding the issues/deficiencies that clearly underlie that projection.

There isn't anyway that you would actually know anything about the genitalia of other men who participate in this forum; only your own. It only stands to reason that no matter how you try to project it, any issues you obsessively bring up about perceived deficiencies in the size of anyone's genitalia can only be about your own.

Uh, guy, you are the one who seems obsessed, but never mind. I mean, I really try to engage you guys on substantive discussions on your gun fetish, but it's kind of sad, really. You guys live in a fact free world where you think that guns make you safer.

When we are the most dangerous country in the industrialized world.

We aren't the most dangerous country in the industrialized world...that is Germany....they murdered 12 million innocent men, women and children. Our gun murder is confined, largely, to criminals murdering criminals......Germany murdered 12 million innocent people.....

That number dwarfs all of our gun crime ........

 

[2aguy]

No......Republicans have lots of guns...republicans aren't the ones shooting people.....it isn't access to guns, it is fatherless homes creating boys with no role models or guidance who then use gangs as their families and use violence because they have no other means of dealing with life.

Other countries that ban guns...are now finding more and more guns on their streets...and hand grenades....criminals need guns to protect drug turf, and criminals are becoming more violent and aggressive especially as they lose fear and respect for police...which you now have in Europe....

Blah, blah, blah.

I'm not sure why you want to take the places people actually live out of the equation.

Um, yeah, grinding racism and poverty and wealth inequality are all problems we should address, too. We won't.

In many ways, gun violence is a symptom of other problems.

But as stated, most victims of murders KNOW their killers. It's not random street crime, it's a gun in the home making a bad situation worse.

Yes...criminals know the criminals who murder them....the gang member who shoots the other gang member he sees at the drive thru of Mcdonalds, knew the other gang member....and when the daughter of the gang member is also shot....that isn't a normal family out for an evening.....

The drug dealer who is murdered by the rival drug dealer also knows the other drug dealer...who happens to also murder the baby momma who is also in the apartment with her baby daddy drug dealer boy friend.....

These are the vast majority of gun murder in the U.S. and they take place almost exclusively in democrat party controlled cities, where the democrat party has a policy of releasing these violent offenders no matter how many times they are arrested for illegal gun possession, illegal use of gun, and even shooting and murdering people with guns....

Stop the democrats from releasing gun criminals and our gun crime problem disappears.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A gun ban in and of itself would probably be impractical,

Not to mention un-Constitutional, particularly with regard to handguns.

Being realistic, there won’t be any ‘bans’ or limits on new guns, that ship has long sailed – there’s no political will in Washington to do so and this Supreme Court would never allow such legislation to stand.

Nor should there be any new ‘bans’ or limits as they’d have no effect on gun crime and violence, given the fact that there are enough AR 15s in the country for every man, woman, and child in the state of New York.

Last, more government and more laws simply isn’t the answer – Democrats are correct to abandon those efforts.

 

[JoeB131]

We aren't the most dangerous country in the industrialized world...that is Germany....they murdered 12 million innocent men, women and children. Our gun murder is confined, largely, to criminals murdering criminals......Germany murdered 12 million innocent people.....

That number dwarfs all of our gun crime ........

Uh, guy, it was a WORLD WAR. 70 million people died on all sides.

I'm not worried about a war that happened 80 years ago, 20 years before I was even born.

I worry about some maniac shooting up my workplace because an idiot like you made it easy for him to get a gun.

 

[JoeB131]

Not to mention un-Constitutional, particularly with regard to handguns.

Being realistic, there won’t be any ‘bans’ or limits on new guns, that ship has long sailed – there’s no political will in Washington to do so and this Supreme Court would never allow such legislation to stand.

Nor should there be any new ‘bans’ or limits as they’d have no effect on gun crime and violence, given the fact that there are enough AR 15s in the country for every man, woman, and child in the state of New York.

Last, more government and more laws simply isn’t the answer – Democrats are correct to abandon those efforts.

YOu don't give up on trying to solve a problem because it's too hard.

So, yes, we aren't going to have a gun ban. We can make it a lot harder to get new guns out there, and we can hold the gun industry responsible.

The first thing I would do is repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). One thing that we find is that when you do a trace on illicit guns, they come from a fraction of gun dealers who have decided to be irresponsible.

For instance, the City of Chicago traced 850 illicit guns back to a single store in Indiana, where the gun selling rules are a lot more lax.

'Eye-popping numbers': Chicago sues Indiana gun store tied to 850 firearms recovered from crime scenes

The city of Chicago is suing an Indiana gun store it says is one of the main sources of illicit firearms for the criminal market.

www.usatoday.com

 

[JoeB131]

Yes...criminals know the criminals who murder them....the gang member who shoots the other gang member he sees at the drive thru of Mcdonalds, knew the other gang member....and when the daughter of the gang member is also shot....that isn't a normal family out for an evening.....

That's it, guy, keep just trying to write off our gun violence as "those people" dying.

At some point, they'll get sick of dying and vote to take away your toys.

 

[Colin norris]

I recently changed my stance on gun-control. I think it's a dead-end and only harms the Democratic Party.

Guns and the violence that accompanies it are too embedded in American culture, they enshrined it in their Constitution for Christ's sake.

Moreover, Americans are too fearful to ever put down their guns, so the Democrats need to wise up and just drop the issue.

At the very least change their stance and go full-bore in the opposite direction, I say flood the country w/guns and ammunition, let them buy weapons till their wallets burst.

However, at the same time, they need to promote gun safety and consequences for the lack thereof. Every gun owner should be insured, if not, they should be held financially and criminally liable if/when necessary.

Also, keep better track of them, that goes w/the previous sentence.

Let people get and keep their guns to theirheartscontent, but let's all be safe about it.

Guns should be handled like cars. Maintain a registry, pass a basic gun safety and knowledge test, show you can hit something, and be licensed and insured.

Driving isn't a right.

Doesn't matter.

NO right is unlimited.

How about not being a 2nd amendment zealot and consider some win win solutions? Nah. That would take common sense and I wouldn't expect that from someone who's only solution is MORE GUNS and MORE GUNS - it's a big industry after all.

We have win win solutions.....when someone uses a gun to commit a crime, we arrest them and put them in jail and then prison...

Win Win....what you want is to limit the Right of owning and carrying a gun to the point no one is capable of getting through the Red Tape, pay the taxes and fees and mandatory insurance and pass the massive training requirements.....so that few if any normal people can own and carry guns....that is what you mean by win win solutions.....

My way works, yours doesn't.....my way targets and stops actual criminals, your way disarms normal Americans in the face of violent criminals and future, out of control government.

Out of control governments???
Rubbish. Repuicans called Obama a terrorist, a Muslim and not even American. You lathered with generous terms of Marxism and Chinese communist party influence.
You had redneck replyicans smashing the capitol to overthrow democracy you all treasure yet no one of you hypocrit gun toting wannabes fired a shot in either instance. Not one. You cheered when they smashed the capitol and did nothing.
Don't tell me it's the home of the brave.
Person protection is another joke.
You hypocrites.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I recently changed my stance on gun-control. I think it's a dead-end and only harms the Democratic Party.

Guns and the violence that accompanies it are too embedded in American culture, they enshrined it in their Constitution for Christ's sake.

Moreover, Americans are too fearful to ever put down their guns, so the Democrats need to wise up and just drop the issue.

At the very least change their stance and go full-bore in the opposite direction, I say flood the country w/guns and ammunition, let them buy weapons till their wallets burst.

However, at the same time, they need to promote gun safety and consequences for the lack thereof. Every gun owner should be insured, if not, they should be held financially and criminally liable if/when necessary.

Also, keep better track of them, that goes w/the previous sentence.

Let people get and keep their guns to theirheartscontent, but let's all be safe about it.

Guns should be handled like cars. Maintain a registry, pass a basic gun safety and knowledge test, show you can hit something, and be licensed and insured.

Driving isn't a right.

Doesn't matter.

NO right is unlimited.

How about not being a 2nd amendment zealot and consider some win win solutions? Nah. That would take common sense and I wouldn't expect that from someone who's only solution is MORE GUNS and MORE GUNS - it's a big industry after all.

We have win win solutions.....when someone uses a gun to commit a crime, we arrest them and put them in jail and then prison...

Win Win....what you want is to limit the Right of owning and carrying a gun to the point no one is capable of getting through the Red Tape, pay the taxes and fees and mandatory insurance and pass the massive training requirements.....so that few if any normal people can own and carry guns....that is what you mean by win win solutions.....

My way works, yours doesn't.....my way targets and stops actual criminals, your way disarms normal Americans in the face of violent criminals and future, out of control government.

Out of control governments???
Rubbish. Repuicans called Obama a terrorist, a Muslim and not even American. You lathered with generous terms of Marxism and Chinese communist party influence.
You had redneck replyicans smashing the capitol to overthrow democracy you all treasure yet no one of you hypocrit gun toting wannabes fired a shot in either instance. Not one. You cheered when they smashed the capitol and did nothing.
Don't tell me it's the home of the brave.
Person protection is another joke.
You hypocrites.

Let me guess,you went to a liberal college and believed everything your marxist professors told you.

 

[Colin norris]

I recently changed my stance on gun-control. I think it's a dead-end and only harms the Democratic Party.

Guns and the violence that accompanies it are too embedded in American culture, they enshrined it in their Constitution for Christ's sake.

Moreover, Americans are too fearful to ever put down their guns, so the Democrats need to wise up and just drop the issue.

At the very least change their stance and go full-bore in the opposite direction, I say flood the country w/guns and ammunition, let them buy weapons till their wallets burst.

However, at the same time, they need to promote gun safety and consequences for the lack thereof. Every gun owner should be insured, if not, they should be held financially and criminally liable if/when necessary.

Also, keep better track of them, that goes w/the previous sentence.

Let people get and keep their guns to theirheartscontent, but let's all be safe about it.

Guns should be handled like cars. Maintain a registry, pass a basic gun safety and knowledge test, show you can hit something, and be licensed and insured.

Driving isn't a right.

Doesn't matter.

NO right is unlimited.

How about not being a 2nd amendment zealot and consider some win win solutions? Nah. That would take common sense and I wouldn't expect that from someone who's only solution is MORE GUNS and MORE GUNS - it's a big industry after all.

We have win win solutions.....when someone uses a gun to commit a crime, we arrest them and put them in jail and then prison...

Win Win....what you want is to limit the Right of owning and carrying a gun to the point no one is capable of getting through the Red Tape, pay the taxes and fees and mandatory insurance and pass the massive training requirements.....so that few if any normal people can own and carry guns....that is what you mean by win win solutions.....

My way works, yours doesn't.....my way targets and stops actual criminals, your way disarms normal Americans in the face of violent criminals and future, out of control government.

Out of control governments???
Rubbish. Repuicans called Obama a terrorist, a Muslim and not even American. You lathered with generous terms of Marxism and Chinese communist party influence.
You had redneck replyicans smashing the capitol to overthrow democracy you all treasure yet no one of you hypocrit gun toting wannabes fired a shot in either instance. Not one. You cheered when they smashed the capitol and did nothing.
Don't tell me it's the home of the brave.
Person protection is another joke.
You hypocrites.

Let me guess,you went to a liberal college and believed everything your marxist professors told you.

Forget about your irrelevant jibes.
Refutethe things I've said or shut up.
I know I'm right and you object to the truth being told. You are gutless.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I recently changed my stance on gun-control. I think it's a dead-end and only harms the Democratic Party.

Guns and the violence that accompanies it are too embedded in American culture, they enshrined it in their Constitution for Christ's sake.

Moreover, Americans are too fearful to ever put down their guns, so the Democrats need to wise up and just drop the issue.

At the very least change their stance and go full-bore in the opposite direction, I say flood the country w/guns and ammunition, let them buy weapons till their wallets burst.

However, at the same time, they need to promote gun safety and consequences for the lack thereof. Every gun owner should be insured, if not, they should be held financially and criminally liable if/when necessary.

Also, keep better track of them, that goes w/the previous sentence.

Let people get and keep their guns to theirheartscontent, but let's all be safe about it.

Guns should be handled like cars. Maintain a registry, pass a basic gun safety and knowledge test, show you can hit something, and be licensed and insured.

Driving isn't a right.

Doesn't matter.

NO right is unlimited.

How about not being a 2nd amendment zealot and consider some win win solutions? Nah. That would take common sense and I wouldn't expect that from someone who's only solution is MORE GUNS and MORE GUNS - it's a big industry after all.

We have win win solutions.....when someone uses a gun to commit a crime, we arrest them and put them in jail and then prison...

Win Win....what you want is to limit the Right of owning and carrying a gun to the point no one is capable of getting through the Red Tape, pay the taxes and fees and mandatory insurance and pass the massive training requirements.....so that few if any normal people can own and carry guns....that is what you mean by win win solutions.....

My way works, yours doesn't.....my way targets and stops actual criminals, your way disarms normal Americans in the face of violent criminals and future, out of control government.

Out of control governments???
Rubbish. Repuicans called Obama a terrorist, a Muslim and not even American. You lathered with generous terms of Marxism and Chinese communist party influence.
You had redneck replyicans smashing the capitol to overthrow democracy you all treasure yet no one of you hypocrit gun toting wannabes fired a shot in either instance. Not one. You cheered when they smashed the capitol and did nothing.
Don't tell me it's the home of the brave.
Person protection is another joke.
You hypocrites.

Let me guess,you went to a liberal college and believed everything your marxist professors told you.

Forget about your irrelevant jibes.
Refutethe things I've said or shut up.
I know I'm right and you object to the truth being told. You are gutless.

I laugh at your posts more than anything.
And trying to read your posts gives me a headache with your atrocious spelling and syntax.
And I see you didnt deny my hypothesis so it must be true.
Get back with me when you move out of your moms basement and start taking part in what we call the economy.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Refutethe [sic] things I've said or shut up.

You're not a moderator here.

You're not even anyone who has been here very long.

You're nobody.

By what ersatz authority do you purport to try to boss around a user who's been here for more than a decade?

 

[Blues Man]

No you fixate on other men's penises.

Yet, that whole long discussion, and the only thing you can focus on is "Joe made a dick joke".

When you continue to obssess on dick multiple times in every thread on guns it isn't a joke it's a pathology