bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
It's democrat killing fields of blue.Yeah, and so what?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's democrat killing fields of blue.Yeah, and so what?
Now do murders involving guns:
![]()
Murders involving firearms by state U.S. 2023 | Statista
In 2023, about 1,459 homicides were committed with the use of firearms in Texas.www.statista.com
California (Population: 39,613,493) Texas (Population: 29,730,311)Funny thing……California with the most extreme gun control in the country has more gun murders than Texas with its 2nd amendment environmemt
California (Population: 39,613,493) Texas (Population: 29,730,311)
![]()
FACT SHEET: California’s Gun Safety Policies Save Lives, Provide Model for a Nation Seeking Solutions | Governor of California
SACRAMENTO – With the country still reeling from the mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas that left 19 children and two teachers dead last week, California’s nation-leading record on gun safety provides a…www.gov.ca.gov
![]()
Texas leads nation in mass shootings, and gun statistics point to why
When a disturbed teenager in Uvalde sought a high-powered rifle that could fire numerous rounds, he didn’t have far to go. Texas has more licensed gun dealers...www.dallasnews.com
Why does it matter if murderers kill with a gun instead of with some other kind of weapon?So you admit that gun murder rates are increasing.
As above, so what?Gun murder rates are climbing. Active shooter incidents are becoming more common.
There isn't anything to be done. But even if there was, who cares what kind of weapon someone is murdered with?Perhaps we should do something about that?
You're looking in the wrong place. Check the text of the Second Amendment.Yes and the right to bear arms was not listed as I recall.
The right to keep and bear arms is held by the people, not limited to members of an organized militia.Are you in a militia?
The voters of NYC are criminals for violating people's civil liberties for no reason. They should be forced to pay reparations to their victims.You mean they are crapped on by the voters of NYC. It is called democracy.
Fake news. Never happened.Actually it appears gun crime decreased during the Assault Weapon ban around 1994 and remained low until it expired.
![]()
(The Assault Weapon Ban Saved Lives | Stanford Law School)
The discrepancy comes from the fact that the above claims of "lower gun crime" are fraudulent.So it seems more directly related to the assault weapons ban. That confuses me somewhat because I've been under the impression, mainly from 2A advocates that "assault weapons" are little more than tricked-out semi-auto hunting rifles with a lot more bells and whistles to make the LOOK ominous. So it doesn't make a lot of sense if similar firepower was always available but for whatever reason there was a drop off during the ban and it ended when the ban expired.
The only thing that gun laws are intended to do is abolish freedom.The UK suffered 30 suicides by gun in 2020. On average in total, the UK suffers 177 deaths per year by firearms.
If you take that per capita between the US and UK, gun laws do work, but give it several decades to bed in.
No. Freedom will never be outdated.The 2nd Amendment is outdated as well as it's text because it seems to be the most thing argued about in America. If the SCOTUS chop and change their rulings, that's evidence it's badly written.
Name calling.Sadly, gun nuts consider kids expendable, just as long as they can caress their guns in public.
Name calling.America needs to sort it's guns out, you gun nuts have had far too long with caressing guns in public with the daft logic of more guns sorts the problem. You need to step aside and let the grown ups sort the issue out. Your time is up.
Only to people who see freedom as a problem to be eliminated.Banning certain types of guns is a part of the solution.
We are not going to abolish our freedom.It's outdated, it was fantastic in the musket days, and in the Marion Robert Morrison fantasy films. But in the real world, it needs scrapped.
There are no gun problems.100% of the gun problems come from 32% of the population
Not really.Also, your arses got kicked in Vietnam and Afghanistan.
Nonsense. Preventing progressives from violating people's civil liberties does not cause a single death.As Vice President once told a US Senator, Go Fuck yourself.
But in your case, it is not you to get fucked, it is every child murdered and you and others who refuse to acknowledge guns, all types of guns are lethal weapons and need to be controlled; it is you who vote for Republicans who refuse to support control of these lethal weapons as another mass shooting in one in Philadelphia late Saturday Night.
That is incorrect. He accurately characterized progressives and their eagerness to use massacres as a way to attack our freedom. There is nothing wrong with him saying that.You're a damn liar, you posted only the first of my comments in your post 117. You're deplorable and a worthless human being.
So as previously pointed out, progressives hope to abuse these massacres as a way to attack our freedom.Yep and growing. The more murders of children will put more people to understand the R Party puts Politics and Money before the people.
Your conclusion is wrong. What he said makes perfect sense.Reading it three times I concluded this is word salad.
Why does it matter if a murder victim is killed with a gun as opposed to some other kind of weapon?Now do murders involving guns:
![]()
Murders involving firearms by state U.S. 2023 | Statista
In 2023, about 1,459 homicides were committed with the use of firearms in Texas.www.statista.com
Progressives call for it all the time.No one advocates for a ‘massive gun round up.’
Only if the limits and restrictions pass muster with Strict Scrutiny.Rights are neither ‘absolute’ nor ‘unlimited’ – government has the authority to place limits and restriction of our rights and to regulate those right consistent with Constitutional case law.
Making people wait for no reason is unconstitutional.“…laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms” – such as background checks, registration requirements, and waiting periods, all of which are perfectly Constitutional, none of which violate or infringe upon the Second Amendment, consistent with Constitutional case law as determined by the Supreme Court.
That is incorrect. It has always been accepted that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. And the Supreme Court has always ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Note the 1939 Miller ruling as one example.Prior to Heller, the collective interpretation of the Second Amendment was the accepted paradigm – nothing ‘bogus’ about it; for 217 years ‘the left’ was correct.
So in other words, only conservatives care about upholding the Constitution.That’s evidence of a partisan Supreme Court more interested in fomenting conservative dogma than legal precedent.
Limits and restrictions are allowed only if they pass muster with Strict Scrutiny.There’s nothing ‘wrong’ with the Second Amendment; although its case law is in its infancy, still evolving, it nonetheless codifies the fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘unlimited,’ that fact that government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on the right, and the fact that citizens have no right to possess any and all weapons available.
That is incorrect. Progressives are trying to ban guns, and that is the truth.When confronted with the fact that gun murder rates are climbing and active shooter incidents are becoming more common, conservatives respond with the false, wrongheaded, unwarranted notion that the solution will involve ‘banning’ guns and ‘confiscating’ firearms – when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
Keeping the Second Amendment also makes it impossible, since the Second Amendment forbids outlawing assault weapons.Indeed, eliminating the Second Amendment would result in making it impossible to ultimately ban assault weapons at some point in the future.
Murders are murders.Why does it matter if murderers kill with a gun instead of with some other kind of weapon?
Are murder victims more dead if they are killed with a gun??
As above, so what?
There isn't anything to be done. But even if there was, who cares what kind of weapon someone is murdered with?
It's not like murder victims are less dead if they are killed with a different kind of weapon.
Then it shouldn't matter which method murderers use to kill their victims. Instead the focus should be on the murders themselves.Murders are murders.
Why should the method be addressed when it doesn't matter what method is used?The method by which they’re being murdered would indicate where something should be addressed, if at all.
It does matter when mass killers are using guns to maximize damage.Then it shouldn't matter which method murderers use to kill their victims. Instead the focus should be on the murders themselves.
Why should the method be addressed when it doesn't matter what method is used?
Because it has more people.Again….
California extreme gun control….more gun murder than Texas……gun stores on every corner, open and concealed carry
Guns don't maximize damage. People who are killed other ways are just as dead. Guns don't make them more dead.It does matter when mass killers are using guns to maximize damage.
I’m not saying they’re more dead. I’m saying that people who want as much death as possible tend to do their damage with guns.Guns don't maximize damage. People who are killed other ways are just as dead. Guns don't make them more dead.
It doesn't matter what they use to do their damage though. Their victims would be just as dead if they killed them some other way.I’m not saying they’re more dead. I’m saying that people who want as much death as possible tend to do their damage with guns.
Because no one wants to.Probably doable but why haven't we done it?