Gun control vs. Terrorism (Dem hypocrisy)

[Skull Pilot]

The purpose of any tool is determined by the intent of the wielder of that tool.

The the design is the purpose. The purpose of a firearm is to project a bullet to kill another person. That's what it's design to do. When you Gun Nut wankers get on here and talk about guns, it's about how you want to off you some darkie, not about how you want to teach them paper targets a lesson.

No you are wrong as usual.

If I use a wrench to drive a nail then at that time the purpose of the wrench is to drive a nail
If I use a wrench to cave your skull in then at that time the purpose of the wrench was to cave in a skull.

The user determines the purpose of any tool.

 

[JoeB131]

Firearm ownership is none of your business, and certainly none of the federal government business.

Again, until the majority who don't own guns or even sensible gun owners who don't want crazy people to have them decided "enough is enough".

 

[Cellblock2429]

That truck is a "Vehicle of War" and no civilians should be allowed to own or rent one......and Home Depot should be sent to jail....or something......

I promise you, Home Depot will probably actually get sued and end up paying a lot of money to the families... because they didn't get themselves a special carve out in the law like the gun merchants did.

/----/ HD will get sued because blood sucking lawyers always go after the deep pockets even though HD was a passive victim. HD will most likely settle to avoid the expense of jury trials and the possibility the plaintiffs will win.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

What? Trucks aren’t designed to kill people but guns are? Absolute dumbest argument I have ever heard. As if the designers intended use of an object somehow determines weather it should be considered lethal or not. Both are deadly, and in the wrongs hands will kill people. I suppose if I design a gun intended for target practice it magically becomes unable to penetrate human flesh. If you have a point to make, try a sprinkle of logic.

Okay. Guns are designed to kill people. when the first gun was made, it was made to kill another person, because it was more efficient than a sword or arrow.

Trucks are designed to move heavy loads from one place to another. When the first truck was made, that's what it was designed for.

That's the difference.

This isn't complicated.

The purpose of any tool is determined by the intent of the wielder of that tool.

Good point. What picture shows what a chainsaw is designed to do?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I like to call out hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle when I see it, usually on the Right but today I see it on the Left. I just watched the press conference for the recent tragedy in Manhattan. My heart goes out to the victims. During this press conference I heard De Blasio and Como speak about the resolve of New Yorkers and Americans. They emphasized the point that terrorists are trying to break our spirit and if we change our lives in any way then we are letting them win. A respectable point.

It made me think about how the "Left" typically reacts to gun violence, something we heard a lot of after Vegas, and I noticed that the messaging is quite different. After a shooting event the Left seems quick and adamant to try and change our laws to make communities safer. I've heard it communicated as a negligence of duty to not talk about gun control after a shooting. In the same spirit, why isn't there a reaction to legislate a way to keep us safer from terrorism after a terror attack by the Left? Its a rhetorical question, i know why, hence the hypocrisy. But if anybody would like to try to rationalize it then please go ahead!

Note that i'm pretty liberal and support both of these reactions. I'm fine with common sense gun control measures and I am pro immigration and religious freedom. But I have to call it like I see it when hypocrisy hits.

We are very similar...I support common sense gun control, I am pro legal immigration and I support religious freedom.

What gun control do you think works? For me.....my common sense gun control is essentially these two items...

1) if you commit a crime with a gun, you go to jail for 30 years.

2) if you are a convicted, violent felon, caught in possession of a gun, you go away for 30 years.

That pretty much covers everything we need to stop criminals and illegal guns......

I think there are a few more factors involved. I don't think citizens should be able to walk into walmart and buy a fully automatic uzi, so I think limitations on available firepower make sense. I think every honest citizen should be able to get a pistol or riffle to defend themselves, but all this high power stuff, I'm fine with regulating. I'm fine with harsh punishments for gun violence offenders but it is very situational and I don't think a teenager who got caught up with the wrong crowd should go to jail till they are 50 for making a stupid mistake... Again, it all depends on the case.

In other words, you like the way the gun laws are now. There is no place in the US where you can LEGALLY walk in and buy a full auto UZI. If you want to own one legally, prepare for a long process.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Just one month ago, a mental case who was not a Muslim killed 60 people and wounded 550 in Los Vegas. It was deemed an issue of (domestic) Constitutional rights, and we immediately decided that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING should be done to prevent such tragedies from happening again. (Even after BOTH PARTIES agreed that, at the very least, devices like bump fire stocks, which convert semi-automatic rifles into full fledged machine guns should be illegal....nothing has been, or will be done. That was the lowest of the low hanging fruit, and it's apparently off limits.)

Jeff Flake ✔ @JeffFlake
Actually, the Gang of 8, including @SenSchumer, did away with the Diversity Visa Program as part of broader reforms. I know, I was there https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/925684982307348480 …

8:36 AM - Nov 1, 2017

 

[Weatherman2020]

It made me think about how the "Left" typically reacts to gun violence, something we heard a lot of after Vegas, and I noticed that the messaging is quite different. After a shooting event the Left seems quick and adamant to try and change our laws to make communities safer. I've heard it communicated as a negligence of duty to not talk about gun control after a shooting. In the same spirit, why isn't there a reaction to legislate a way to keep us safer from terrorism after a terror attack by the Left? Its a rhetorical question, i know why, hence the hypocrisy. But if anybody would like to try to rationalize it then please go ahead!

Simple.

Home Depot Trucks aren't designed to kill people.

Guns are.

But I will bet you'll find out that this guy had a harder time renting a truck from the Home Depot than that other nut had building up a small arsenal.

Yet 50,000 Americans will die inside their vehicles this year, dufus.

 

[jc456]

I like to call out hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle when I see it, usually on the Right but today I see it on the Left. I just watched the press conference for the recent tragedy in Manhattan. My heart goes out to the victims. During this press conference I heard De Blasio and Como speak about the resolve of New Yorkers and Americans. They emphasized the point that terrorists are trying to break our spirit and if we change our lives in any way then we are letting them win. A respectable point.

It made me think about how the "Left" typically reacts to gun violence, something we heard a lot of after Vegas, and I noticed that the messaging is quite different. After a shooting event the Left seems quick and adamant to try and change our laws to make communities safer. I've heard it communicated as a negligence of duty to not talk about gun control after a shooting. In the same spirit, why isn't there a reaction to legislate a way to keep us safer from terrorism after a terror attack by the Left? Its a rhetorical question, i know why, hence the hypocrisy. But if anybody would like to try to rationalize it then please go ahead!

Note that i'm pretty liberal and support both of these reactions. I'm fine with common sense gun control measures and I am pro immigration and religious freedom. But I have to call it like I see it when hypocrisy hits.

what common sense gun control do you speak of that isn't in existence today? Please enlighten the class. Because what the statistics tell us is the more gun control the more use of violent use of guns. Take Chicago and all of the other cities with the most stringiest gun laws.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Just one month ago, a mental case who was not a Muslim killed 60 people and wounded 550 in Los Vegas. It was deemed an issue of (domestic) Constitutional rights, and we immediately decided that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING should be done to prevent such tragedies from happening again. (Even after BOTH PARTIES agreed that, at the very least, devices like bump fire stocks, which convert semi-automatic rifles into full fledged machine guns should be illegal....nothing has been, or will be done. That was the lowest of the low hanging fruit, and it's apparently off limits.)

Jeff Flake ✔ @JeffFlake
Actually, the Gang of 8, including @SenSchumer, did away with the Diversity Visa Program as part of broader reforms. I know, I was there https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/925684982307348480 …

8:36 AM - Nov 1, 2017

DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING, WHO CARES IF IT ADDRESSES THE PROBLEM, WE TOOK AWAY SOME RIGHTS OF HONEST AMERICANS SO WE DID SOMETHING!!!

 

[jc456]

What? Trucks aren’t designed to kill people but guns are? Absolute dumbest argument I have ever heard. As if the designers intended use of an object somehow determines weather it should be considered lethal or not. Both are deadly, and in the wrongs hands will kill people. I suppose if I design a gun intended for target practice it magically becomes unable to penetrate human flesh. If you have a point to make, try a sprinkle of logic.

Okay. Guns are designed to kill people. when the first gun was made, it was made to kill another person, because it was more efficient than a sword or arrow.

Trucks are designed to move heavy loads from one place to another. When the first truck was made, that's what it was designed for.

That's the difference.

This isn't complicated.

what the fk does that mean? LOL. dude that is mumbo jumbo 101. Knives have been weapons before guns existed, so were rocks. your departure from reality is quite obvious here. A truck is a weapon. It's why people get license to drive them. ANY FKING VEHICLE. fk I hate your kind of stupid.

 

[danielpalos]

I like to call out hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle when I see it, usually on the Right but today I see it on the Left. I just watched the press conference for the recent tragedy in Manhattan. My heart goes out to the victims. During this press conference I heard De Blasio and Como speak about the resolve of New Yorkers and Americans. They emphasized the point that terrorists are trying to break our spirit and if we change our lives in any way then we are letting them win. A respectable point.

It made me think about how the "Left" typically reacts to gun violence, something we heard a lot of after Vegas, and I noticed that the messaging is quite different. After a shooting event the Left seems quick and adamant to try and change our laws to make communities safer. I've heard it communicated as a negligence of duty to not talk about gun control after a shooting. In the same spirit, why isn't there a reaction to legislate a way to keep us safer from terrorism after a terror attack by the Left? Its a rhetorical question, i know why, hence the hypocrisy. But if anybody would like to try to rationalize it then please go ahead!

Note that i'm pretty liberal and support both of these reactions. I'm fine with common sense gun control measures and I am pro immigration and religious freedom. But I have to call it like I see it when hypocrisy hits.

We have a Second Amendment. Why do our States have any security problems?

All States of our Union have a Commander in Chief of that which is declared Necessary, in our federal, Second Amendment.

 

[JoeB131]

/----/ HD will get sued because blood sucking lawyers always go after the deep pockets even though HD was a passive victim. HD will most likely settle to avoid the expense of jury trials and the possibility the plaintiffs will win.

Yes, they will. and they will also probably institute new procedures to keep this sort of thing from happening again, which is THE WHOLE PURPOSE of civil litigation.

The gun industry, however, has a special carve out after the DC Sniper case, where the victims won money after the gun industry sold guns to a convicted felon and a minor. Then they went on to market deadlier guns and nastier guns and things like Bump Stocks.

If Home Depot acted like the Gun Industry, they'd be renting trucks that look like this, and then mocking your manliness for not owning one.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ HD will get sued because blood sucking lawyers always go after the deep pockets even though HD was a passive victim. HD will most likely settle to avoid the expense of jury trials and the possibility the plaintiffs will win.

Yes, they will. and they will also probably institute new procedures to keep this sort of thing from happening again, which is THE WHOLE PURPOSE of civil litigation.

The gun industry, however, has a special carve out after the DC Sniper case, where the victims won money after the gun industry sold guns to a convicted felon and a minor. Then they went on to market deadlier guns and nastier guns and things like Bump Stocks.

If Home Depot acted like the Gun Industry, they'd be renting trucks that look like this, and then mocking your manliness for not owning one.

/----/ And once those new procedures are in place at the truck rental, you'll enjoy watching Muslims sue for discrimination and being profiled.

 

[danielpalos]

I prefer to have a State and be able to join a militia, and potentially become, a bazookanier of a brigade or a grenadier of the (National) Guard.

 

[jc456]

/----/ HD will get sued because blood sucking lawyers always go after the deep pockets even though HD was a passive victim. HD will most likely settle to avoid the expense of jury trials and the possibility the plaintiffs will win.

Yes, they will. and they will also probably institute new procedures to keep this sort of thing from happening again, which is THE WHOLE PURPOSE of civil litigation.

The gun industry, however, has a special carve out after the DC Sniper case, where the victims won money after the gun industry sold guns to a convicted felon and a minor. Then they went on to market deadlier guns and nastier guns and things like Bump Stocks.

If Home Depot acted like the Gun Industry, they'd be renting trucks that look like this, and then mocking your manliness for not owning one.

it is truly amazing the nut job mentality of the left. really, I mean how many sane people would post this mumbo jumbo? you all are the worst offenders of profiling of any human on earth. Now you're blaming home depot. fk, can't make this shit up. hey everyone, look at the nut job

 

[Slade3200]

I like to call out hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle when I see it, usually on the Right but today I see it on the Left. I just watched the press conference for the recent tragedy in Manhattan. My heart goes out to the victims. During this press conference I heard De Blasio and Como speak about the resolve of New Yorkers and Americans. They emphasized the point that terrorists are trying to break our spirit and if we change our lives in any way then we are letting them win. A respectable point.

It made me think about how the "Left" typically reacts to gun violence, something we heard a lot of after Vegas, and I noticed that the messaging is quite different. After a shooting event the Left seems quick and adamant to try and change our laws to make communities safer. I've heard it communicated as a negligence of duty to not talk about gun control after a shooting. In the same spirit, why isn't there a reaction to legislate a way to keep us safer from terrorism after a terror attack by the Left? Its a rhetorical question, i know why, hence the hypocrisy. But if anybody would like to try to rationalize it then please go ahead!

Note that i'm pretty liberal and support both of these reactions. I'm fine with common sense gun control measures and I am pro immigration and religious freedom. But I have to call it like I see it when hypocrisy hits.

We are very similar...I support common sense gun control, I am pro legal immigration and I support religious freedom.

What gun control do you think works? For me.....my common sense gun control is essentially these two items...

1) if you commit a crime with a gun, you go to jail for 30 years.

2) if you are a convicted, violent felon, caught in possession of a gun, you go away for 30 years.

That pretty much covers everything we need to stop criminals and illegal guns......

I think there are a few more factors involved. I don't think citizens should be able to walk into walmart and buy a fully automatic uzi, so I think limitations on available firepower make sense. I think every honest citizen should be able to get a pistol or riffle to defend themselves, but all this high power stuff, I'm fine with regulating. I'm fine with harsh punishments for gun violence offenders but it is very situational and I don't think a teenager who got caught up with the wrong crowd should go to jail till they are 50 for making a stupid mistake... Again, it all depends on the case.

In other words, you like the way the gun laws are now. There is no place in the US where you can LEGALLY walk in and buy a full auto UZI. If you want to own one legally, prepare for a long process.

Yes, I think it makes sense to regulate the firepower that citizens own. Everybody deserves basic protection but it shouldn’t be quick and easy for somebody to get a weapon capable of killing dozens of people in the matter of just a few seconds. Those “tools” as they’ve been called pose a great danger to society and deserve to be regulated.

The other side of the conversation that seems to get lost is the motivation, indicators, mental process, and conditions etc that drive people to kill in the way that they do because ultimately there is a person behind every trigger pull.

 

[jc456]

I like to call out hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle when I see it, usually on the Right but today I see it on the Left. I just watched the press conference for the recent tragedy in Manhattan. My heart goes out to the victims. During this press conference I heard De Blasio and Como speak about the resolve of New Yorkers and Americans. They emphasized the point that terrorists are trying to break our spirit and if we change our lives in any way then we are letting them win. A respectable point.

It made me think about how the "Left" typically reacts to gun violence, something we heard a lot of after Vegas, and I noticed that the messaging is quite different. After a shooting event the Left seems quick and adamant to try and change our laws to make communities safer. I've heard it communicated as a negligence of duty to not talk about gun control after a shooting. In the same spirit, why isn't there a reaction to legislate a way to keep us safer from terrorism after a terror attack by the Left? Its a rhetorical question, i know why, hence the hypocrisy. But if anybody would like to try to rationalize it then please go ahead!

Note that i'm pretty liberal and support both of these reactions. I'm fine with common sense gun control measures and I am pro immigration and religious freedom. But I have to call it like I see it when hypocrisy hits.

We are very similar...I support common sense gun control, I am pro legal immigration and I support religious freedom.

What gun control do you think works? For me.....my common sense gun control is essentially these two items...

1) if you commit a crime with a gun, you go to jail for 30 years.

2) if you are a convicted, violent felon, caught in possession of a gun, you go away for 30 years.

That pretty much covers everything we need to stop criminals and illegal guns......

I think there are a few more factors involved. I don't think citizens should be able to walk into walmart and buy a fully automatic uzi, so I think limitations on available firepower make sense. I think every honest citizen should be able to get a pistol or riffle to defend themselves, but all this high power stuff, I'm fine with regulating. I'm fine with harsh punishments for gun violence offenders but it is very situational and I don't think a teenager who got caught up with the wrong crowd should go to jail till they are 50 for making a stupid mistake... Again, it all depends on the case.

In other words, you like the way the gun laws are now. There is no place in the US where you can LEGALLY walk in and buy a full auto UZI. If you want to own one legally, prepare for a long process.

Yes, I think it makes sense to regulate the firepower that citizens own. Everybody deserves basic protection but it shouldn’t be quick and easy for somebody to get a weapon capable of killing dozens of people in the matter of just a few seconds. Those “tools” as they’ve been called pose a great danger to society and deserve to be regulated.

The other side of the conversation that seems to get lost is the motivation, indicators, mental process, and conditions etc that drive people to kill in the way that they do because ultimately there is a person behind every trigger pull.

so when is your legislation coming out to take illegal guns off the streets? You legislate that and then you may get attention. otherwise you have zip.

 

[danielpalos]

I like to call out hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle when I see it, usually on the Right but today I see it on the Left. I just watched the press conference for the recent tragedy in Manhattan. My heart goes out to the victims. During this press conference I heard De Blasio and Como speak about the resolve of New Yorkers and Americans. They emphasized the point that terrorists are trying to break our spirit and if we change our lives in any way then we are letting them win. A respectable point.

It made me think about how the "Left" typically reacts to gun violence, something we heard a lot of after Vegas, and I noticed that the messaging is quite different. After a shooting event the Left seems quick and adamant to try and change our laws to make communities safer. I've heard it communicated as a negligence of duty to not talk about gun control after a shooting. In the same spirit, why isn't there a reaction to legislate a way to keep us safer from terrorism after a terror attack by the Left? Its a rhetorical question, i know why, hence the hypocrisy. But if anybody would like to try to rationalize it then please go ahead!

Note that i'm pretty liberal and support both of these reactions. I'm fine with common sense gun control measures and I am pro immigration and religious freedom. But I have to call it like I see it when hypocrisy hits.

We are very similar...I support common sense gun control, I am pro legal immigration and I support religious freedom.

What gun control do you think works? For me.....my common sense gun control is essentially these two items...

1) if you commit a crime with a gun, you go to jail for 30 years.

2) if you are a convicted, violent felon, caught in possession of a gun, you go away for 30 years.

That pretty much covers everything we need to stop criminals and illegal guns......

I think there are a few more factors involved. I don't think citizens should be able to walk into walmart and buy a fully automatic uzi, so I think limitations on available firepower make sense. I think every honest citizen should be able to get a pistol or riffle to defend themselves, but all this high power stuff, I'm fine with regulating. I'm fine with harsh punishments for gun violence offenders but it is very situational and I don't think a teenager who got caught up with the wrong crowd should go to jail till they are 50 for making a stupid mistake... Again, it all depends on the case.

In other words, you like the way the gun laws are now. There is no place in the US where you can LEGALLY walk in and buy a full auto UZI. If you want to own one legally, prepare for a long process.

Yes, I think it makes sense to regulate the firepower that citizens own. Everybody deserves basic protection but it shouldn’t be quick and easy for somebody to get a weapon capable of killing dozens of people in the matter of just a few seconds. Those “tools” as they’ve been called pose a great danger to society and deserve to be regulated.

The other side of the conversation that seems to get lost is the motivation, indicators, mental process, and conditions etc that drive people to kill in the way that they do because ultimately there is a person behind every trigger pull.

The point is, the militia is best for the common defense.

 

[danielpalos]

I like to call out hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle when I see it, usually on the Right but today I see it on the Left. I just watched the press conference for the recent tragedy in Manhattan. My heart goes out to the victims. During this press conference I heard De Blasio and Como speak about the resolve of New Yorkers and Americans. They emphasized the point that terrorists are trying to break our spirit and if we change our lives in any way then we are letting them win. A respectable point.

It made me think about how the "Left" typically reacts to gun violence, something we heard a lot of after Vegas, and I noticed that the messaging is quite different. After a shooting event the Left seems quick and adamant to try and change our laws to make communities safer. I've heard it communicated as a negligence of duty to not talk about gun control after a shooting. In the same spirit, why isn't there a reaction to legislate a way to keep us safer from terrorism after a terror attack by the Left? Its a rhetorical question, i know why, hence the hypocrisy. But if anybody would like to try to rationalize it then please go ahead!

Note that i'm pretty liberal and support both of these reactions. I'm fine with common sense gun control measures and I am pro immigration and religious freedom. But I have to call it like I see it when hypocrisy hits.

We are very similar...I support common sense gun control, I am pro legal immigration and I support religious freedom.

What gun control do you think works? For me.....my common sense gun control is essentially these two items...

1) if you commit a crime with a gun, you go to jail for 30 years.

2) if you are a convicted, violent felon, caught in possession of a gun, you go away for 30 years.

That pretty much covers everything we need to stop criminals and illegal guns......

I think there are a few more factors involved. I don't think citizens should be able to walk into walmart and buy a fully automatic uzi, so I think limitations on available firepower make sense. I think every honest citizen should be able to get a pistol or riffle to defend themselves, but all this high power stuff, I'm fine with regulating. I'm fine with harsh punishments for gun violence offenders but it is very situational and I don't think a teenager who got caught up with the wrong crowd should go to jail till they are 50 for making a stupid mistake... Again, it all depends on the case.

In other words, you like the way the gun laws are now. There is no place in the US where you can LEGALLY walk in and buy a full auto UZI. If you want to own one legally, prepare for a long process.

Yes, I think it makes sense to regulate the firepower that citizens own. Everybody deserves basic protection but it shouldn’t be quick and easy for somebody to get a weapon capable of killing dozens of people in the matter of just a few seconds. Those “tools” as they’ve been called pose a great danger to society and deserve to be regulated.

The other side of the conversation that seems to get lost is the motivation, indicators, mental process, and conditions etc that drive people to kill in the way that they do because ultimately there is a person behind every trigger pull.

so when is your legislation coming out to take illegal guns off the streets? You legislate that and then you may get attention. otherwise you have zip.

What is wrong with gun lovers automatically being registered in a posse registry for their State and county?

 

[jc456]

I like to call out hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle when I see it, usually on the Right but today I see it on the Left. I just watched the press conference for the recent tragedy in Manhattan. My heart goes out to the victims. During this press conference I heard De Blasio and Como speak about the resolve of New Yorkers and Americans. They emphasized the point that terrorists are trying to break our spirit and if we change our lives in any way then we are letting them win. A respectable point.

It made me think about how the "Left" typically reacts to gun violence, something we heard a lot of after Vegas, and I noticed that the messaging is quite different. After a shooting event the Left seems quick and adamant to try and change our laws to make communities safer. I've heard it communicated as a negligence of duty to not talk about gun control after a shooting. In the same spirit, why isn't there a reaction to legislate a way to keep us safer from terrorism after a terror attack by the Left? Its a rhetorical question, i know why, hence the hypocrisy. But if anybody would like to try to rationalize it then please go ahead!

Note that i'm pretty liberal and support both of these reactions. I'm fine with common sense gun control measures and I am pro immigration and religious freedom. But I have to call it like I see it when hypocrisy hits.

We are very similar...I support common sense gun control, I am pro legal immigration and I support religious freedom.

What gun control do you think works? For me.....my common sense gun control is essentially these two items...

1) if you commit a crime with a gun, you go to jail for 30 years.

2) if you are a convicted, violent felon, caught in possession of a gun, you go away for 30 years.

That pretty much covers everything we need to stop criminals and illegal guns......

I think there are a few more factors involved. I don't think citizens should be able to walk into walmart and buy a fully automatic uzi, so I think limitations on available firepower make sense. I think every honest citizen should be able to get a pistol or riffle to defend themselves, but all this high power stuff, I'm fine with regulating. I'm fine with harsh punishments for gun violence offenders but it is very situational and I don't think a teenager who got caught up with the wrong crowd should go to jail till they are 50 for making a stupid mistake... Again, it all depends on the case.

In other words, you like the way the gun laws are now. There is no place in the US where you can LEGALLY walk in and buy a full auto UZI. If you want to own one legally, prepare for a long process.

Yes, I think it makes sense to regulate the firepower that citizens own. Everybody deserves basic protection but it shouldn’t be quick and easy for somebody to get a weapon capable of killing dozens of people in the matter of just a few seconds. Those “tools” as they’ve been called pose a great danger to society and deserve to be regulated.

The other side of the conversation that seems to get lost is the motivation, indicators, mental process, and conditions etc that drive people to kill in the way that they do because ultimately there is a person behind every trigger pull.

The point is, the militia is best for the common defense.

especially in cities like chicago. let's get these gang bangers and their illegal guns off the street.