Leftists

[pknopp]

Ok, you have a different definition of "accept" than Charlie Kirk I do.

If we found gun deaths truly unacceptable, we would ban guns. If you're not willing to do that, then you are in fact willing to accept some number of them.

No.

 

[Eman623]

Almost all random shooters are young men with access to guns. Young men are not stable and are quite dangerous. I would deny them guns until they are stable which is 30. Its a community safety tradeoff. Like the reason you need to be 16 to drive or 21 to drink or 25 to rent a car or 35 to be president.

Young men are not "quite dangerous." There are 160 million gun owners, most of them men and the vast majority have never and will never use their guns to shoot anyone, especially children.

Id require owners to demonstrate competency every few years to maintain a high level of safety training. I dont think that is a big deal.

Why? Do you have to take a driving test every few years? No. You take it once when you get your license and maybe again after a ticket or accident. Maybe when you reach 65 or so, they'll have you take it again.

We'll need to sacrifice some convenience or else you are right... we've accepted the killing of children as ok.

Even if we do all of your ideas, some number of child gun deaths will happen. You can admit that you are tacitly accepting this or not, but it's absolutely true.

 

[Eman623]

No.

You can admit it or not. It makes no difference to me.

 

[rightwinger]

With all of your hate toward Charlie Kirk can you explain what your political views are based on?

His were based on the following:

Jesus and Christianity
Family
Love of country

What exactly would you disagree with there?

Kirk knew what buttons to push with MAGA America.

Fear monger against blacks, homosexuals, transexuals, non Christians, women, the educated.

Us vs them

 

[Eman623]

Kirk knew what buttons to push with MAGA America.

Fear monger against blacks, homosexuals, transexuals, non Christians, women, the educated.

Us vs them

Who pushed the shooter's buttons? He seems to have had a extreme case of us vs them.

Say what you want about Kirk, but he never laid in wait on a roof and shot a liberal in cold blood. In fact he did the opposite - he invited them to the front of the line so he could peacefully and rationally debate them.

 

[citygator]

Young men are not "quite dangerous." There are 160 million gun owners, most of them men and the vast majority have never and will never use their guns to shoot anyone, especially children.


Why? Do you have to take a driving test every few years? No. You take it once when you get your license and maybe again after a ticket or accident. Maybe when you reach 65 or so, they'll have you take it again.


Even if we do all of your ideas, some number of child gun deaths will happen. You can admit that you are tacitly accepting this or not, but it's absolutely true.

I would rephrase and say that I am not willing to accept as many deaths as we are seeing. I am all for giving up all guns in the US but that isnt workable so i wouldnt even suggest it. Therefore stricter regulation and more security for targets are really the only 2 options we have. Id do both.

 

[rightwinger]

Who pushed the shooter's buttons? He seems to have had a extreme case of us vs them.

Say what you want about Kirk, but he never laid in wait on a roof and shot a liberal in cold blood. In fact he did the opposite - he invited them to the front of the line so he could peacefully and rationally debate them.

Of course not
Kirk had the right to say what he wants without a fear of violence.

But he made a lot of money off of hate, ridicule and fear mongering

 

[Eman623]

I would rephrase and say that I am not willing to accept as many deaths as we are seeing. I am all for giving up all guns in the US but that isnt workable so i wouldnt even suggest it. Therefore stricter regulation and more security for targets are really the only 2 options we have. Id do both.

I think most would agree with that, including me and even Charlie Kirk. I'm not sure why Kirk catching posthumous shit for saying something even you mostly agree with. Like Charlie, you are willing to accept some number, just a smaller number than now.

We can disagree on where to draw the lines for stricter legislation and red flags, but at least we can have a discussion about that.

 

[citygator]

I think most would agree with that, including me and even Charlie Kirk. I'm not sure why Kirk catching posthumous shit for saying something even you mostly agree with. Like Charlie, you are willing to accept some number, just a smaller number than now.

We can disagree on where to draw the lines for stricter legislation and red flags, but at least we can have a discussion about that.

You and I can have a discussion on that but the gun lobby will not. Even the Dems cant round up enough folks to propose a strict gun regulation bill due to the gun lobby funding. Its pretty much hopeless. The one thing we can do is defer the billions of dollars allocated to tracking down illegals, or that just went to defense, or that went to tax breaks and fund security in our public schools. Jut my thoughts.

 

[Eman623]

Of course not
Kirk had the right to say what he wants without a fear of violence.

But he made a lot of money off of hate, ridicule and fear mongering

I disagree, but something pushed the shooter's buttons. We should have a discussion about that and how to reduce the temperature to prevent it in the future.

It might start with not saying crap like Kirk "made a lot of money off of hate, ridicule and fear mongering". Talk like that could get a man killed.

 

[rightwinger]

I disagree, but something pushed the shooter's buttons. We should have a discussion about that and how to reduce the temperature to prevent it in the future.

It might start with not saying crap like Kirk "made a lot of money off of hate, ridicule and fear mongering". Talk like that could get a man killed.

Charlie Kirk made a career of pushing peoples buttons

He was quite good at it

 

[Eman623]

You and I can have a discussion on that but the gun lobby will not. Even the Dems cant round up enough folks to propose a strict gun regulation bill due to the gun lobby funding. Its pretty much hopeless. The one thing we can do is defer the billions of dollars allocated to tracking down illegals, or that just went to defense, or that went to tax breaks and fund security in our public schools. Jut my thoughts.

Illegals? You're losing focus.

The gun lobby is made up of people who you want to join the discussion, right? So you're going to have to take their opinions into account. Maybe we won't do all the stuff you want, but it's not hopeless.

 

[Eman623]

Charlie Kirk made a career of pushing peoples buttons

He was quite good at it

And you're back to Charlie.

You won't discuss, or presumably even think about the shooter's motivations and how the rhetoric on the left may have contributed to Charlie's death.

Whatever. Carry on. You were saying something about fear-mongering?

 

[rightwinger]

And you're back to Charlie.

You won't discuss, or presumably even think about the shooter's motivations and how the rhetoric on the left may have contributed to Charlie's death.

Whatever. Carry on. You were saying something about fear-mongering?

Motivation?

How about rage at all the shit Kirk said

 

[SeaMajor7]

This is not a ******* GUN PROBLEM.
It's an EVIL PEOPLE USING GUNS PROBLEM.
No more EXCUSES.
These people a PURE EVIL.
FACT.
Same goes for the water carring USEFUL IDIOTS that defend them.
ENOUGH TIP TOEING AROUND.
These people are EVIL.

 

[citygator]

Illegals? You're losing focus.

The gun lobby is made up of people who you want to join the discussion, right? So you're going to have to take their opinions into account. Maybe we won't do all the stuff you want, but it's not hopeless.

Hopeless. These easy ones were not passed into law:

• Assault Weapons Ban:
  H.R. 698, introduced in the 118th Congress, aims to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.
  
  
• Keep Americans Safe Act:
  Proposes to limit all new ammunition magazines to 10 rounds and prohibit their future production for civilian use.
  
  
• Bipartisan Background Checks Act:
  H.R. 8 calls for universal background checks on every gun sale.

 

[Eman623]

Hopeless. These easy ones were not passed into law:

• Assault Weapons Ban:
  H.R. 698, introduced in the 118th Congress, aims to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.
  
  
• Keep Americans Safe Act:
  Proposes to limit all new ammunition magazines to 10 rounds and prohibit their future production for civilian use.
  
  
• Bipartisan Background Checks Act:
  H.R. 8 calls for universal background checks on every gun sale.

Which of these would have prevented Kirk's death?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Which of these would have prevented Kirk's death?

Not one

 

[citygator]

Which of these would have prevented Kirk's death?

You moved the goalposts. I am suggesting there is no room in America for gun regulation because these very easy no brainers can’t be passed. Anything more restrictive that will make a difference is not remotely feasible.

 

[Moonglow]

A democrat Christian is like a Jewish Nazi

One can't claim to follow Christ while making sacrifices to Moloch

Thanks fer the laughs.