Rep. Steve King ( R- Iowa). If you have to be 21 for guns then make it 21 for voting!!

[jillian]

Well, that's a credible argument. In fact, if they can't buy beer until they're 21, and if they should not be able to buy guns until they're 21, why should they get to vote before they turn 21?

because your lowlife scum send them to die in pointless wars when they're 18.

but I do love how you're all whining like stuck pigs.

desperate hacks.

 

[Marion Morrison]

This is a good point and dems have no rebuttal. They want teens voting because teens are stupid drunks and vote dem. But they don't want them to have guns because they don't want anyone to have guns - except govt officials and celebs.

Rep. Steve King: If You're Not Responsible Enough to Own Gun Until 21, Don't Vote Until 21 Either

March 27 2018 Rep. Steve King (R-IA) observed that teenagers who believe people are not responsible enough to own guns until the age of 21 ought to be willing to wait until 21 before they vote.

The responses to King’s tweet varied, some of which were marked by vitriol and/or personal attacks too vulgar to print.

Definitely!

 

[jillian]

Well let be factual and admit that it was idiotic to lower the voting age in the first place.

Kids have no idea what they want or understand in life.

Most of these kids that wan to change the Second Amendment will most likely die from a opioid death, car crash or suicide before a mass shooting by some mental midget with a AR-15.

Also if they believe they can ban the Second Amendment without repealing it, well let them try but as it look the USSC will most likely strike them down, well hopefully.

In the end all this protesting and propaganda is all for nothing because the repeal of the Second Amendment will never happen so it is a dead subject to me...

That is correct. The left knows this however, so their goal is to restrict firearms as much as they can without crossing that Second Amendment line.

Now they conned these kids to perform their evil for them, and these kids are totally clueless how they are being used. They like the attention, they love all the people wanting to "friend" them on Facebook. They love seeing their names in the national media.

Democrats really don't care if we have guns. What Democrats hate is us being able to defend ourselves with guns. If they were ever able to take away our guns, then only the criminals and cops would have them.; Democrats know this. That would make all of us victims. Victims love Democrats and Democrats love victims. The more victims in this country, the more likely Democrat voters.

That's the problem. Nobody agrees on what "The line" is. The amendment is written to reflect a time in America when autonomy was still threatened and I'm sure the founders never intended that the US become the wild west. Also, it reflects a time when arms themselves were basic and when it couldn't be imagined what kind of arms would be available in the future. Those that take an absolute position on the right to bear arms understand that it is ludicrous to include arms such as Nuclear weapons, grenades, grenade launchers, and any number of other "arms." But we've already crossed the line of reason with semi auto and automatic weapons or kits to convert. Is the next step a 50 Cal mounted in the bed of your pick up truck? I mean, there is no clear line. So, the amendment already shows its out datedness. It needs to be repealed in order that a new standard based on modern capabilities be established.

Sure there is a line; arms means firearms. It doesn't mean bombs. If you are caught making a pipe bomb in your garage, they will haul you off to jail. Nobody needs a pipe bomb for self-defense.

The founders knew weaponry would advance just like anything else. That's one of the reasons they included an amendment process for our constitution. But most everybody would have to agree with such a change which is why you can't do it with a small majority of people.

Let me explain what the real problem here is: Democrats can't be trusted. That's it in a nutshell.

Let's say ten years ago we outlawed high capacity magazines like so many on the left demand. This school shooter didn't use any high capacity magazines. So would you have been satisfied with the results of that school shooting if we had such a law in place? Of course not. The left would be insisting on more restrictions. And if we did that, the next mass shooting they would be crying about even more restrictions.

Your Democrat leaders know quite well the problem is not firearms, the problem is the people. But......as long as they can blame the guns instead of the people, they think they can drum up support for their political agenda which is to disarm society.

Okay. I should have said an m-60 machine gun or uzi or tech 9 or mac 10. That's splitting hairs. These are arms that wern't around when the amendment was produced and I'm sure the founders didn't foresee a time when there were 300 million weapons in our society. BTW the school shooter had 10 round clips and quite a number of them. Agreed, a high capacity would have resulted in more deaths. But by that same logic, having to reload after only 2 or three would have resulted in fewer and without taking anyone's gun away. Reasonableness. That's what these kids and others want to see. But the argument is always that they or we want to take away everyone's guns. What inconvenience would it be to have to reload after fewer rounds? Is it not worth the lives it would save? There has to be a reasonable middle ground.

You can't let the brainwashing get to you.

I don't know how much you know about guns, but changing magazines only takes less than two seconds--one second if you count shots and practice. As this school shooting is proof positive of, smaller magazines won't do crap for any mass shooting. If somebody wants to kill as many people as possible, then changing ten magazines won't stop or slow him down.

So why is the left calling for this? Because it's one baby step in a series to come if they get their way this time. They figure that it won't upset all that many people as trying to take away all rifles or semi-automatic handguns. But if we let them get away with this, that time will come shortly.

The police who are highly trained miss their targets most of the time. It's normal when shooting a gun. The farther away your target, the more you will miss.

That being said, if you are confronted by several attackers instead of just one, a ten round magazine just may end your life. At a 20% accuracy rate, shooting ten times means you may only hit your target(s) twice. One round does not guarantee a kill or even that you will stop your attacker.

^^^^^^^^^^

amusing brain washed NRA shill.

 

[Norman]

Well, that's a credible argument. In fact, if they can't buy beer until they're 21, and if they should not be able to buy guns until they're 21, why should they get to vote before they turn 21?

because your lowlife scum send them to die in pointless wars when they're 18.

but I do love how you're all whining like stuck pigs.

desperate hacks.

Who do you mean by "you"?

Your Obama?

 

[Marion Morrison]

Well, that's a credible argument. In fact, if they can't buy beer until they're 21, and if they should not be able to buy guns until they're 21, why should they get to vote before they turn 21?

because your lowlife scum send them to die in pointless wars when they're 18.

but I do love how you're all whining like stuck pigs.

desperate hacks.

Projector.

 

[bodecea]

Well, that's a credible argument. In fact, if they can't buy beer until they're 21, and if they should not be able to buy guns until they're 21, why should they get to vote before they turn 21?

You DO know that there's a Constitutional Amendment giving them the vote, right?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Well, that's a credible argument. In fact, if they can't buy beer until they're 21, and if they should not be able to buy guns until they're 21, why should they get to vote before they turn 21?

You DO know that there's a Constitutional Amendment giving them the vote, right?

And that amendment can and should be changed. And each state needs to ban welfare users from voting.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Just learned through a Safe Driving Course that people over 85 have a lower accident rate than children under 24. But just to be on the safe side we need to immediately raise the legal driving age, nationally, to 26. After all, they're infants until 26. If you doubt me, read the reams of details that Obamacare laid down as gospel.

You know it's so amazing that Aunt Barry got away with that. Allowing parents to claim their kids as Obamacare dependents up to the age of 26.!!! If a white person proposed something like that the press would mock him unmercifully.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That is correct. The left knows this however, so their goal is to restrict firearms as much as they can without crossing that Second Amendment line.

Now they conned these kids to perform their evil for them, and these kids are totally clueless how they are being used. They like the attention, they love all the people wanting to "friend" them on Facebook. They love seeing their names in the national media.

Democrats really don't care if we have guns. What Democrats hate is us being able to defend ourselves with guns. If they were ever able to take away our guns, then only the criminals and cops would have them.; Democrats know this. That would make all of us victims. Victims love Democrats and Democrats love victims. The more victims in this country, the more likely Democrat voters.

That's the problem. Nobody agrees on what "The line" is. The amendment is written to reflect a time in America when autonomy was still threatened and I'm sure the founders never intended that the US become the wild west. Also, it reflects a time when arms themselves were basic and when it couldn't be imagined what kind of arms would be available in the future. Those that take an absolute position on the right to bear arms understand that it is ludicrous to include arms such as Nuclear weapons, grenades, grenade launchers, and any number of other "arms." But we've already crossed the line of reason with semi auto and automatic weapons or kits to convert. Is the next step a 50 Cal mounted in the bed of your pick up truck? I mean, there is no clear line. So, the amendment already shows its out datedness. It needs to be repealed in order that a new standard based on modern capabilities be established.

Sure there is a line; arms means firearms. It doesn't mean bombs. If you are caught making a pipe bomb in your garage, they will haul you off to jail. Nobody needs a pipe bomb for self-defense.

The founders knew weaponry would advance just like anything else. That's one of the reasons they included an amendment process for our constitution. But most everybody would have to agree with such a change which is why you can't do it with a small majority of people.

Let me explain what the real problem here is: Democrats can't be trusted. That's it in a nutshell.

Let's say ten years ago we outlawed high capacity magazines like so many on the left demand. This school shooter didn't use any high capacity magazines. So would you have been satisfied with the results of that school shooting if we had such a law in place? Of course not. The left would be insisting on more restrictions. And if we did that, the next mass shooting they would be crying about even more restrictions.

Your Democrat leaders know quite well the problem is not firearms, the problem is the people. But......as long as they can blame the guns instead of the people, they think they can drum up support for their political agenda which is to disarm society.

Okay. I should have said an m-60 machine gun or uzi or tech 9 or mac 10. That's splitting hairs. These are arms that wern't around when the amendment was produced and I'm sure the founders didn't foresee a time when there were 300 million weapons in our society. BTW the school shooter had 10 round clips and quite a number of them. Agreed, a high capacity would have resulted in more deaths. But by that same logic, having to reload after only 2 or three would have resulted in fewer and without taking anyone's gun away. Reasonableness. That's what these kids and others want to see. But the argument is always that they or we want to take away everyone's guns. What inconvenience would it be to have to reload after fewer rounds? Is it not worth the lives it would save? There has to be a reasonable middle ground.

You can't let the brainwashing get to you.

I don't know how much you know about guns, but changing magazines only takes less than two seconds--one second if you count shots and practice. As this school shooting is proof positive of, smaller magazines won't do crap for any mass shooting. If somebody wants to kill as many people as possible, then changing ten magazines won't stop or slow him down.

So why is the left calling for this? Because it's one baby step in a series to come if they get their way this time. They figure that it won't upset all that many people as trying to take away all rifles or semi-automatic handguns. But if we let them get away with this, that time will come shortly.

The police who are highly trained miss their targets most of the time. It's normal when shooting a gun. The farther away your target, the more you will miss.

That being said, if you are confronted by several attackers instead of just one, a ten round magazine just may end your life. At a 20% accuracy rate, shooting ten times means you may only hit your target(s) twice. One round does not guarantee a kill or even that you will stop your attacker.

^^^^^^^^^^

amusing brain washed NRA shill.

Amusing no real debate.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, that's a credible argument. In fact, if they can't buy beer until they're 21, and if they should not be able to buy guns until they're 21, why should they get to vote before they turn 21?

because your lowlife scum send them to die in pointless wars when they're 18.

but I do love how you're all whining like stuck pigs.

desperate hacks.

We are not the people whining. We didn't bring this issue up--your hero's did.

It's just fun pointing out the hypocrisy of the left. So I'll tell you what: We will write to our representatives to support an amendment limiting all firearms to those 21 and older, and you do the same limiting voting age to 21 and over.

Deal?????? I didn't think so.

 

[Wickerthing]

Well let be factual and admit that it was idiotic to lower the voting age in the first place.

Kids have no idea what they want or understand in life.

Most of these kids that wan to change the Second Amendment will most likely die from a opioid death, car crash or suicide before a mass shooting by some mental midget with a AR-15.

Also if they believe they can ban the Second Amendment without repealing it, well let them try but as it look the USSC will most likely strike them down, well hopefully.

In the end all this protesting and propaganda is all for nothing because the repeal of the Second Amendment will never happen so it is a dead subject to me...

That is correct. The left knows this however, so their goal is to restrict firearms as much as they can without crossing that Second Amendment line.

Now they conned these kids to perform their evil for them, and these kids are totally clueless how they are being used. They like the attention, they love all the people wanting to "friend" them on Facebook. They love seeing their names in the national media.

Democrats really don't care if we have guns. What Democrats hate is us being able to defend ourselves with guns. If they were ever able to take away our guns, then only the criminals and cops would have them.; Democrats know this. That would make all of us victims. Victims love Democrats and Democrats love victims. The more victims in this country, the more likely Democrat voters.

That's the problem. Nobody agrees on what "The line" is. The amendment is written to reflect a time in America when autonomy was still threatened and I'm sure the founders never intended that the US become the wild west. Also, it reflects a time when arms themselves were basic and when it couldn't be imagined what kind of arms would be available in the future. Those that take an absolute position on the right to bear arms understand that it is ludicrous to include arms such as Nuclear weapons, grenades, grenade launchers, and any number of other "arms." But we've already crossed the line of reason with semi auto and automatic weapons or kits to convert. Is the next step a 50 Cal mounted in the bed of your pick up truck? I mean, there is no clear line. So, the amendment already shows its out datedness. It needs to be repealed in order that a new standard based on modern capabilities be established.

Sure there is a line; arms means firearms. It doesn't mean bombs. If you are caught making a pipe bomb in your garage, they will haul you off to jail. Nobody needs a pipe bomb for self-defense.

The founders knew weaponry would advance just like anything else. That's one of the reasons they included an amendment process for our constitution. But most everybody would have to agree with such a change which is why you can't do it with a small majority of people.

Let me explain what the real problem here is: Democrats can't be trusted. That's it in a nutshell.

Let's say ten years ago we outlawed high capacity magazines like so many on the left demand. This school shooter didn't use any high capacity magazines. So would you have been satisfied with the results of that school shooting if we had such a law in place? Of course not. The left would be insisting on more restrictions. And if we did that, the next mass shooting they would be crying about even more restrictions.

Your Democrat leaders know quite well the problem is not firearms, the problem is the people. But......as long as they can blame the guns instead of the people, they think they can drum up support for their political agenda which is to disarm society.

Okay. I should have said an m-60 machine gun or uzi or tech 9 or mac 10. That's splitting hairs. These are arms that wern't around when the amendment was produced and I'm sure the founders didn't foresee a time when there were 300 million weapons in our society. BTW the school shooter had 10 round clips and quite a number of them. Agreed, a high capacity would have resulted in more deaths. But by that same logic, having to reload after only 2 or three would have resulted in fewer and without taking anyone's gun away. Reasonableness. That's what these kids and others want to see. But the argument is always that they or we want to take away everyone's guns. What inconvenience would it be to have to reload after fewer rounds? Is it not worth the lives it would save? There has to be a reasonable middle ground.

You can't let the brainwashing get to you.

I don't know how much you know about guns, but changing magazines only takes less than two seconds--one second if you count shots and practice. As this school shooting is proof positive of, smaller magazines won't do crap for any mass shooting. If somebody wants to kill as many people as possible, then changing ten magazines won't stop or slow him down.

So why is the left calling for this? Because it's one baby step in a series to come if they get their way this time. They figure that it won't upset all that many people as trying to take away all rifles or semi-automatic handguns. But if we let them get away with this, that time will come shortly.

The police who are highly trained miss their targets most of the time. It's normal when shooting a gun. The farther away your target, the more you will miss.

That being said, if you are confronted by several attackers instead of just one, a ten round magazine just may end your life. At a 20% accuracy rate, shooting ten times means you may only hit your target(s) twice. One round does not guarantee a kill or even that you will stop your attacker.

Well, I'm a retired Marine and was wounded in Vietnam so I know about certain guns from both ends.

Your contention that to have a differing opinion on the issue of gun violence is to be brainwashed is just a very dismissive way of saying, case closed. But something has to change. I'm saying that not from a political position but just from a common sense one. Our streets in the inner cities have become so dangerous that many of the yet unaffected are afraid to leave their houses and others are afraid to send their kids to school. That's not a partisan issue but a real one. The answer on the right seems to be more guns. In the hands of teachers no less. That's not what they signed up for. It's crazy. Statistics show clearly that incidents of gun violence corresponds directly to the number of guns in a society. Japan for instance has about one third our population and has very strict gun laws. Their average annual deaths from gun violence is around 10. Ten! That's not a partisan statement. It's a fact. We've gotta start to get this thing under control. We spend our time instead calling each other all kinds of vile things instead of banding together to find a lasting solution that's fair to everyone. I'm not saying we have to become Japan either but we've gotta do something other than what clearly doesn't work and is getting worse every day.

 

[Wickerthing]

Well, that's a credible argument. In fact, if they can't buy beer until they're 21, and if they should not be able to buy guns until they're 21, why should they get to vote before they turn 21?

You DO know that there's a Constitutional Amendment giving them the vote, right?

Yeah, so quick to trash that amendment but don't dare talk about the second amendment. There's just no true dialog because folks get entrenched in their partisan ways and are unchanging it seems for life.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That is correct. The left knows this however, so their goal is to restrict firearms as much as they can without crossing that Second Amendment line.

Now they conned these kids to perform their evil for them, and these kids are totally clueless how they are being used. They like the attention, they love all the people wanting to "friend" them on Facebook. They love seeing their names in the national media.

Democrats really don't care if we have guns. What Democrats hate is us being able to defend ourselves with guns. If they were ever able to take away our guns, then only the criminals and cops would have them.; Democrats know this. That would make all of us victims. Victims love Democrats and Democrats love victims. The more victims in this country, the more likely Democrat voters.

That's the problem. Nobody agrees on what "The line" is. The amendment is written to reflect a time in America when autonomy was still threatened and I'm sure the founders never intended that the US become the wild west. Also, it reflects a time when arms themselves were basic and when it couldn't be imagined what kind of arms would be available in the future. Those that take an absolute position on the right to bear arms understand that it is ludicrous to include arms such as Nuclear weapons, grenades, grenade launchers, and any number of other "arms." But we've already crossed the line of reason with semi auto and automatic weapons or kits to convert. Is the next step a 50 Cal mounted in the bed of your pick up truck? I mean, there is no clear line. So, the amendment already shows its out datedness. It needs to be repealed in order that a new standard based on modern capabilities be established.

Sure there is a line; arms means firearms. It doesn't mean bombs. If you are caught making a pipe bomb in your garage, they will haul you off to jail. Nobody needs a pipe bomb for self-defense.

The founders knew weaponry would advance just like anything else. That's one of the reasons they included an amendment process for our constitution. But most everybody would have to agree with such a change which is why you can't do it with a small majority of people.

Let me explain what the real problem here is: Democrats can't be trusted. That's it in a nutshell.

Let's say ten years ago we outlawed high capacity magazines like so many on the left demand. This school shooter didn't use any high capacity magazines. So would you have been satisfied with the results of that school shooting if we had such a law in place? Of course not. The left would be insisting on more restrictions. And if we did that, the next mass shooting they would be crying about even more restrictions.

Your Democrat leaders know quite well the problem is not firearms, the problem is the people. But......as long as they can blame the guns instead of the people, they think they can drum up support for their political agenda which is to disarm society.

Okay. I should have said an m-60 machine gun or uzi or tech 9 or mac 10. That's splitting hairs. These are arms that wern't around when the amendment was produced and I'm sure the founders didn't foresee a time when there were 300 million weapons in our society. BTW the school shooter had 10 round clips and quite a number of them. Agreed, a high capacity would have resulted in more deaths. But by that same logic, having to reload after only 2 or three would have resulted in fewer and without taking anyone's gun away. Reasonableness. That's what these kids and others want to see. But the argument is always that they or we want to take away everyone's guns. What inconvenience would it be to have to reload after fewer rounds? Is it not worth the lives it would save? There has to be a reasonable middle ground.

You can't let the brainwashing get to you.

I don't know how much you know about guns, but changing magazines only takes less than two seconds--one second if you count shots and practice. As this school shooting is proof positive of, smaller magazines won't do crap for any mass shooting. If somebody wants to kill as many people as possible, then changing ten magazines won't stop or slow him down.

So why is the left calling for this? Because it's one baby step in a series to come if they get their way this time. They figure that it won't upset all that many people as trying to take away all rifles or semi-automatic handguns. But if we let them get away with this, that time will come shortly.

The police who are highly trained miss their targets most of the time. It's normal when shooting a gun. The farther away your target, the more you will miss.

That being said, if you are confronted by several attackers instead of just one, a ten round magazine just may end your life. At a 20% accuracy rate, shooting ten times means you may only hit your target(s) twice. One round does not guarantee a kill or even that you will stop your attacker.

Well, I'm a retired Marine and was wounded in Vietnam so I know about certain guns from both ends.

Your contention that to have a differing opinion on the issue of gun violence is to be brainwashed is just a very dismissive way of saying, case closed. But something has to change. I'm saying that not from a political position but just from a common sense one. Our streets in the inner cities have become so dangerous that many of the yet unaffected are afraid to leave their houses and others are afraid to send their kids to school. That's not a partisan issue but a real one. The answer on the right seems to be more guns. In the hands of teachers no less. That's not what they signed up for. It's crazy. Statistics show clearly that incidents of gun violence corresponds directly to the number of guns in a society. Japan for instance has about one third our population and has very strict gun laws. Their average annual deaths from gun violence is around 10. Ten! That's not a partisan statement. It's a fact. We've gotta start to get this thing under control. We spend our time instead calling each other all kinds of vile things instead of banding together to find a lasting solution that's fair to everyone. I'm not saying we have to become Japan either but we've gotta do something other than what clearly doesn't work and is getting worse every day.

My goodness,, where to start. Okay......

First of all you can't compare our country with most others. We are a very diverse society, as such, we have groups of people that are much more violent than others. You don't have that in places like Japan and Europe.

Secondly is the fact that our violent (and gun) crimes have been on the decline since the early 90's. It kept dropping up until the Ferguson Effect in 2016. Then police officers stopped being pro-active and only addressed situations they were called out for. Until that time, the drop in violent crime was proportional with states adopting CCW programs and laws that protect the innocent. More people carrying guns.

Thirdly, most mass shootings take place in gun-free zones, or areas where a shooter is not in jeopardy of being injured himself. There is a correlation here because many killers just kill themselves once a threat is presented to them. Others just quit shooting and surrender or are caught.

So why you want to use circumstantial evidence like more guns equals more crime, there is stronger evidence to suggest that lack of armed citizens and gun free zones are a larger culprit when it comes to terrible events taking place.

Lastly, based on what you said about your military service, you are a bit older than I. If so, then you know that when we were young, we were considered the drug generation. We walked around with long hair, army jackets, bell bottom pants and we laughed a lot with glassy eyes. Recreational narcotics have been illegal our entire lives, and yet, our drug problem today is the worst in our history with now over 60,000 Americans dying form OD"s every year. In other words, laws don't stop the bad people from getting what they want. Disarm society, and only the criminals and cops will have the guns. I don't want to live in that world.

 

[Wickerthing]

That's the problem. Nobody agrees on what "The line" is. The amendment is written to reflect a time in America when autonomy was still threatened and I'm sure the founders never intended that the US become the wild west. Also, it reflects a time when arms themselves were basic and when it couldn't be imagined what kind of arms would be available in the future. Those that take an absolute position on the right to bear arms understand that it is ludicrous to include arms such as Nuclear weapons, grenades, grenade launchers, and any number of other "arms." But we've already crossed the line of reason with semi auto and automatic weapons or kits to convert. Is the next step a 50 Cal mounted in the bed of your pick up truck? I mean, there is no clear line. So, the amendment already shows its out datedness. It needs to be repealed in order that a new standard based on modern capabilities be established.

Sure there is a line; arms means firearms. It doesn't mean bombs. If you are caught making a pipe bomb in your garage, they will haul you off to jail. Nobody needs a pipe bomb for self-defense.

The founders knew weaponry would advance just like anything else. That's one of the reasons they included an amendment process for our constitution. But most everybody would have to agree with such a change which is why you can't do it with a small majority of people.

Let me explain what the real problem here is: Democrats can't be trusted. That's it in a nutshell.

Let's say ten years ago we outlawed high capacity magazines like so many on the left demand. This school shooter didn't use any high capacity magazines. So would you have been satisfied with the results of that school shooting if we had such a law in place? Of course not. The left would be insisting on more restrictions. And if we did that, the next mass shooting they would be crying about even more restrictions.

Your Democrat leaders know quite well the problem is not firearms, the problem is the people. But......as long as they can blame the guns instead of the people, they think they can drum up support for their political agenda which is to disarm society.

Okay. I should have said an m-60 machine gun or uzi or tech 9 or mac 10. That's splitting hairs. These are arms that wern't around when the amendment was produced and I'm sure the founders didn't foresee a time when there were 300 million weapons in our society. BTW the school shooter had 10 round clips and quite a number of them. Agreed, a high capacity would have resulted in more deaths. But by that same logic, having to reload after only 2 or three would have resulted in fewer and without taking anyone's gun away. Reasonableness. That's what these kids and others want to see. But the argument is always that they or we want to take away everyone's guns. What inconvenience would it be to have to reload after fewer rounds? Is it not worth the lives it would save? There has to be a reasonable middle ground.

You can't let the brainwashing get to you.

I don't know how much you know about guns, but changing magazines only takes less than two seconds--one second if you count shots and practice. As this school shooting is proof positive of, smaller magazines won't do crap for any mass shooting. If somebody wants to kill as many people as possible, then changing ten magazines won't stop or slow him down.

So why is the left calling for this? Because it's one baby step in a series to come if they get their way this time. They figure that it won't upset all that many people as trying to take away all rifles or semi-automatic handguns. But if we let them get away with this, that time will come shortly.

The police who are highly trained miss their targets most of the time. It's normal when shooting a gun. The farther away your target, the more you will miss.

That being said, if you are confronted by several attackers instead of just one, a ten round magazine just may end your life. At a 20% accuracy rate, shooting ten times means you may only hit your target(s) twice. One round does not guarantee a kill or even that you will stop your attacker.

Well, I'm a retired Marine and was wounded in Vietnam so I know about certain guns from both ends.

Your contention that to have a differing opinion on the issue of gun violence is to be brainwashed is just a very dismissive way of saying, case closed. But something has to change. I'm saying that not from a political position but just from a common sense one. Our streets in the inner cities have become so dangerous that many of the yet unaffected are afraid to leave their houses and others are afraid to send their kids to school. That's not a partisan issue but a real one. The answer on the right seems to be more guns. In the hands of teachers no less. That's not what they signed up for. It's crazy. Statistics show clearly that incidents of gun violence corresponds directly to the number of guns in a society. Japan for instance has about one third our population and has very strict gun laws. Their average annual deaths from gun violence is around 10. Ten! That's not a partisan statement. It's a fact. We've gotta start to get this thing under control. We spend our time instead calling each other all kinds of vile things instead of banding together to find a lasting solution that's fair to everyone. I'm not saying we have to become Japan either but we've gotta do something other than what clearly doesn't work and is getting worse every day.

My goodness,, where to start. Okay......

First of all you can't compare our country with most others. We are a very diverse society, as such, we have groups of people that are much more violent than others. You don't have that in places like Japan and Europe.

Secondly is the fact that our violent (and gun) crimes have been on the decline since the early 90's. It kept dropping up until the Ferguson Effect in 2016. Then police officers stopped being pro-active and only addressed situations they were called out for. Until that time, the drop in violent crime was proportional with states adopting CCW programs and laws that protect the innocent. More people carrying guns.

Thirdly, most mass shootings take place in gun-free zones, or areas where a shooter is not in jeopardy of being injured himself. There is a correlation here because many killers just kill themselves once a threat is presented to them. Others just quit shooting and surrender or are caught.

So why you want to use circumstantial evidence like more guns equals more crime, there is stronger evidence to suggest that lack of armed citizens and gun free zones are a larger culprit when it comes to terrible events taking place.

Lastly, based on what you said about your military service, you are a bit older than I. If so, then you know that when we were young, we were considered the drug generation. We walked around with long hair, army jackets, bell bottom pants and we laughed a lot with glassy eyes. Recreational narcotics have been illegal our entire lives, and yet, our drug problem today is the worst in our history with now over 60,000 Americans dying form OD"s every year. In other words, laws don't stop the bad people from getting what they want. Disarm society, and only the criminals and cops will have the guns. I don't want to live in that world.

So America is different because we are a more violent society and so that means we should have more guns? Really? I suggest to you that it's not me that's been brainwashed. The vast majority of Americans want much stricter gun laws and the largest counter to that position is the NRA who keep gun sales high through payola to politicians, and the most blood money by far goes to the GOP. And to equate the drug problem to gun violence is a total non sequitur except to recognize that drug dealers are armed to the teeth. And drug users do more damage to themselves than to others. People are not going around shooting 20 strangers with heroin so they die immediately. It's a silly argument. These students didn't choose to get shot to death because they were hit with a bb and liked the feeling and so it progressed to larger projectiles.
And these mass shootings are just a small part of overall gun violence and fewer guns equals fewer gun deaths. The Japan example and the Aussie example have shown that. .Australia adopted a system of categorizing firearms and assigning different restrictions on who can possess them. They've had good success. Something similar to those two systems may work here but we'll never know unless we try. It's what most Americans want. To feel safe in the street and in their schools and in their places of business. Again, the difference might just be that the NRA has greased so many of the right palms that gun control goes nowhere.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

This is a good point and dems have no rebuttal. They want teens voting because teens are stupid drunks and vote dem. But they don't want them to have guns because they don't want anyone to have guns - except govt officials and celebs.

Here's a rebuttal. If it has to be 21 for voting then make it 21 for a drivers license, military service or for getting a job. If you can buy a gun at 18 then make drinking age 18. These are all ridiculous arguments used in a limited way to rationalize ones opinion on a certain matter. When Reagan demanded all states raise the drinking age to 21 or not get federal highway funds or Bush required all drivers to have auto insurance if they had a license I saw no one from the right complain. It's never about actual philosophy/morality. It's always about your "team."

Driving is a state issue and not a federal one. For instance in our state, 15 year olds can get temp permits to start learning how to drive. Younger people in the military are the most valuable asset for our armed forces. The younger you are, the more physical strength you have. I'm against a national drinking age and BAL.

Because it's suggested by the libs that amendments can be subjected to age requirements simply by making a law. Like I said, if so, then I'm all for it. But if Democrats want that, then they have to give up something at the same time; something Democrats never do. After all, Democrats see negotiations as doing everything their way and you get nothing in return.

Well let be factual and admit that it was idiotic to lower the voting age in the first place.

Kids have no idea what they want or understand in life.

Most of these kids that wan to change the Second Amendment will most likely die from a opioid death, car crash or suicide before a mass shooting by some mental midget with a AR-15.

Also if they believe they can ban the Second Amendment without repealing it, well let them try but as it look the USSC will most likely strike them down, well hopefully.

In the end all this protesting and propaganda is all for nothing because the repeal of the Second Amendment will never happen so it is a dead subject to me...

That is correct. The left knows this however, so their goal is to restrict firearms as much as they can without crossing that Second Amendment line.

Now they conned these kids to perform their evil for them, and these kids are totally clueless how they are being used. They like the attention, they love all the people wanting to "friend" them on Facebook. They love seeing their names in the national media.

Democrats really don't care if we have guns. What Democrats hate is us being able to defend ourselves with guns. If they were ever able to take away our guns, then only the criminals and cops would have them.; Democrats know this. That would make all of us victims. Victims love Democrats and Democrats love victims. The more victims in this country, the more likely Democrat voters.

The more educated, the more likely to vote Dem.

Oh please... you fools have been parroting this nonsense for years.

Oh please this coming from the parts who not only claimed but then elected those who believe Obama was born in Kenya because...."he's, he's, he's, a black man!" Hypocrisy, falsehood and corruption define the modern conservative movement and their prime allies in Russia and Saudi Arabia. lol

You're nuts.. positively nuts.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Well, I'm a retired Marine and was wounded in Vietnam so I know about certain guns from both ends.

Your contention that to have a differing opinion on the issue of gun violence is to be brainwashed is just a very dismissive way of saying, case closed. But something has to change. I'm saying that not from a political position but just from a common sense one. Our streets in the inner cities have become so dangerous that many of the yet unaffected are afraid to leave their houses and others are afraid to send their kids to school. That's not a partisan issue but a real one. The answer on the right seems to be more guns. In the hands of teachers no less. That's not what they signed up for. It's crazy. Statistics show clearly that incidents of gun violence corresponds directly to the number of guns in a society. Japan for instance has about one third our population and has very strict gun laws. Their average annual deaths from gun violence is around 10. Ten! That's not a partisan statement. It's a fact. We've gotta start to get this thing under control. We spend our time instead calling each other all kinds of vile things instead of banding together to find a lasting solution that's fair to everyone. I'm not saying we have to become Japan either but we've gotta do something other than what clearly doesn't work and is getting worse every day.

HAHAHA. You're not a retired marine vet. You're another america-hating liberal calling himself a vet. You don't want to ban guns to save lives - you want to ban guns to stop americans from fighting the govt tyranny you libs so long for.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sure there is a line; arms means firearms. It doesn't mean bombs. If you are caught making a pipe bomb in your garage, they will haul you off to jail. Nobody needs a pipe bomb for self-defense.

The founders knew weaponry would advance just like anything else. That's one of the reasons they included an amendment process for our constitution. But most everybody would have to agree with such a change which is why you can't do it with a small majority of people.

Let me explain what the real problem here is: Democrats can't be trusted. That's it in a nutshell.

Let's say ten years ago we outlawed high capacity magazines like so many on the left demand. This school shooter didn't use any high capacity magazines. So would you have been satisfied with the results of that school shooting if we had such a law in place? Of course not. The left would be insisting on more restrictions. And if we did that, the next mass shooting they would be crying about even more restrictions.

Your Democrat leaders know quite well the problem is not firearms, the problem is the people. But......as long as they can blame the guns instead of the people, they think they can drum up support for their political agenda which is to disarm society.

Okay. I should have said an m-60 machine gun or uzi or tech 9 or mac 10. That's splitting hairs. These are arms that wern't around when the amendment was produced and I'm sure the founders didn't foresee a time when there were 300 million weapons in our society. BTW the school shooter had 10 round clips and quite a number of them. Agreed, a high capacity would have resulted in more deaths. But by that same logic, having to reload after only 2 or three would have resulted in fewer and without taking anyone's gun away. Reasonableness. That's what these kids and others want to see. But the argument is always that they or we want to take away everyone's guns. What inconvenience would it be to have to reload after fewer rounds? Is it not worth the lives it would save? There has to be a reasonable middle ground.

You can't let the brainwashing get to you.

I don't know how much you know about guns, but changing magazines only takes less than two seconds--one second if you count shots and practice. As this school shooting is proof positive of, smaller magazines won't do crap for any mass shooting. If somebody wants to kill as many people as possible, then changing ten magazines won't stop or slow him down.

So why is the left calling for this? Because it's one baby step in a series to come if they get their way this time. They figure that it won't upset all that many people as trying to take away all rifles or semi-automatic handguns. But if we let them get away with this, that time will come shortly.

The police who are highly trained miss their targets most of the time. It's normal when shooting a gun. The farther away your target, the more you will miss.

That being said, if you are confronted by several attackers instead of just one, a ten round magazine just may end your life. At a 20% accuracy rate, shooting ten times means you may only hit your target(s) twice. One round does not guarantee a kill or even that you will stop your attacker.

Well, I'm a retired Marine and was wounded in Vietnam so I know about certain guns from both ends.

Your contention that to have a differing opinion on the issue of gun violence is to be brainwashed is just a very dismissive way of saying, case closed. But something has to change. I'm saying that not from a political position but just from a common sense one. Our streets in the inner cities have become so dangerous that many of the yet unaffected are afraid to leave their houses and others are afraid to send their kids to school. That's not a partisan issue but a real one. The answer on the right seems to be more guns. In the hands of teachers no less. That's not what they signed up for. It's crazy. Statistics show clearly that incidents of gun violence corresponds directly to the number of guns in a society. Japan for instance has about one third our population and has very strict gun laws. Their average annual deaths from gun violence is around 10. Ten! That's not a partisan statement. It's a fact. We've gotta start to get this thing under control. We spend our time instead calling each other all kinds of vile things instead of banding together to find a lasting solution that's fair to everyone. I'm not saying we have to become Japan either but we've gotta do something other than what clearly doesn't work and is getting worse every day.

My goodness,, where to start. Okay......

First of all you can't compare our country with most others. We are a very diverse society, as such, we have groups of people that are much more violent than others. You don't have that in places like Japan and Europe.

Secondly is the fact that our violent (and gun) crimes have been on the decline since the early 90's. It kept dropping up until the Ferguson Effect in 2016. Then police officers stopped being pro-active and only addressed situations they were called out for. Until that time, the drop in violent crime was proportional with states adopting CCW programs and laws that protect the innocent. More people carrying guns.

Thirdly, most mass shootings take place in gun-free zones, or areas where a shooter is not in jeopardy of being injured himself. There is a correlation here because many killers just kill themselves once a threat is presented to them. Others just quit shooting and surrender or are caught.

So why you want to use circumstantial evidence like more guns equals more crime, there is stronger evidence to suggest that lack of armed citizens and gun free zones are a larger culprit when it comes to terrible events taking place.

Lastly, based on what you said about your military service, you are a bit older than I. If so, then you know that when we were young, we were considered the drug generation. We walked around with long hair, army jackets, bell bottom pants and we laughed a lot with glassy eyes. Recreational narcotics have been illegal our entire lives, and yet, our drug problem today is the worst in our history with now over 60,000 Americans dying form OD"s every year. In other words, laws don't stop the bad people from getting what they want. Disarm society, and only the criminals and cops will have the guns. I don't want to live in that world.

So America is different because we are a more violent society and so that means we should have more guns? Really? I suggest to you that it's not me that's been brainwashed. The vast majority of Americans want much stricter gun laws and the largest counter to that position is the NRA who keep gun sales high through payola to politicians, and the most blood money by far goes to the GOP. And to equate the drug problem to gun violence is a total non sequitur except to recognize that drug dealers are armed to the teeth. And drug users do more damage to themselves than to others. People are not going around shooting 20 strangers with heroin so they die immediately. It's a silly argument. These students didn't choose to get shot to death because they were hit with a bb and liked the feeling and so it progressed to larger projectiles.
And these mass shootings are just a small part of overall gun violence and fewer guns equals fewer gun deaths. The Japan example and the Aussie example have shown that. .Australia adopted a system of categorizing firearms and assigning different restrictions on who can possess them. They've had good success. Something similar to those two systems may work here but we'll never know unless we try. It's what most Americans want. To feel safe in the street and in their schools and in their places of business. Again, the difference might just be that the NRA has greased so many of the right palms that gun control goes nowhere.

When it comes to contributions, the NRA is at the bottom of the list. They don't contribute all that much money in comparison to other supporters of either party. The NRA is the boogie man the Democrats created. They had nothing to do with the last mass shooting, the one before that, or the one before that.

So why are the libs attacking the NRA? Because the NRA represents millions of Americans; Americans that value our constitutional right to self-defense with a firearm. And since the Democrats hate the constitution and American rights, it's better to attack the largest gun organization instead of making a mistake with another "deplorable" remark that likely cost them the White House. Again..... the NRA nonsense is more brainwashing.

The point I make about recreational narcotics is that the people who want them bad enough will get them no matter how many laws we create. I don't know where to get crack or heroin, but I don't deal with it either. The people who want crack and heroin? They can get it in two hours. The same would hold with guns if the leftists were ever able to rip that right away from us. You are not going to disarm the criminal. It will never happen.

In Australia, there is no concrete proof that their confiscation worked. Here's the chart showing what happened in the US compared too what happened in Australia when they instituted the ban:

Now if the gun ban worked, why did it take six years to see any results? In the meantime, the US surpassed Australia in lowering the homicide rate with all our guns.

The Captain's Journal » Do Gun Bans Reduce Violent Crime? Ask the Aussies and Brits

 

[Wickerthing]

Okay. I should have said an m-60 machine gun or uzi or tech 9 or mac 10. That's splitting hairs. These are arms that wern't around when the amendment was produced and I'm sure the founders didn't foresee a time when there were 300 million weapons in our society. BTW the school shooter had 10 round clips and quite a number of them. Agreed, a high capacity would have resulted in more deaths. But by that same logic, having to reload after only 2 or three would have resulted in fewer and without taking anyone's gun away. Reasonableness. That's what these kids and others want to see. But the argument is always that they or we want to take away everyone's guns. What inconvenience would it be to have to reload after fewer rounds? Is it not worth the lives it would save? There has to be a reasonable middle ground.

You can't let the brainwashing get to you.

I don't know how much you know about guns, but changing magazines only takes less than two seconds--one second if you count shots and practice. As this school shooting is proof positive of, smaller magazines won't do crap for any mass shooting. If somebody wants to kill as many people as possible, then changing ten magazines won't stop or slow him down.

So why is the left calling for this? Because it's one baby step in a series to come if they get their way this time. They figure that it won't upset all that many people as trying to take away all rifles or semi-automatic handguns. But if we let them get away with this, that time will come shortly.

The police who are highly trained miss their targets most of the time. It's normal when shooting a gun. The farther away your target, the more you will miss.

That being said, if you are confronted by several attackers instead of just one, a ten round magazine just may end your life. At a 20% accuracy rate, shooting ten times means you may only hit your target(s) twice. One round does not guarantee a kill or even that you will stop your attacker.

Well, I'm a retired Marine and was wounded in Vietnam so I know about certain guns from both ends.

Your contention that to have a differing opinion on the issue of gun violence is to be brainwashed is just a very dismissive way of saying, case closed. But something has to change. I'm saying that not from a political position but just from a common sense one. Our streets in the inner cities have become so dangerous that many of the yet unaffected are afraid to leave their houses and others are afraid to send their kids to school. That's not a partisan issue but a real one. The answer on the right seems to be more guns. In the hands of teachers no less. That's not what they signed up for. It's crazy. Statistics show clearly that incidents of gun violence corresponds directly to the number of guns in a society. Japan for instance has about one third our population and has very strict gun laws. Their average annual deaths from gun violence is around 10. Ten! That's not a partisan statement. It's a fact. We've gotta start to get this thing under control. We spend our time instead calling each other all kinds of vile things instead of banding together to find a lasting solution that's fair to everyone. I'm not saying we have to become Japan either but we've gotta do something other than what clearly doesn't work and is getting worse every day.

My goodness,, where to start. Okay......

First of all you can't compare our country with most others. We are a very diverse society, as such, we have groups of people that are much more violent than others. You don't have that in places like Japan and Europe.

Secondly is the fact that our violent (and gun) crimes have been on the decline since the early 90's. It kept dropping up until the Ferguson Effect in 2016. Then police officers stopped being pro-active and only addressed situations they were called out for. Until that time, the drop in violent crime was proportional with states adopting CCW programs and laws that protect the innocent. More people carrying guns.

Thirdly, most mass shootings take place in gun-free zones, or areas where a shooter is not in jeopardy of being injured himself. There is a correlation here because many killers just kill themselves once a threat is presented to them. Others just quit shooting and surrender or are caught.

So why you want to use circumstantial evidence like more guns equals more crime, there is stronger evidence to suggest that lack of armed citizens and gun free zones are a larger culprit when it comes to terrible events taking place.

Lastly, based on what you said about your military service, you are a bit older than I. If so, then you know that when we were young, we were considered the drug generation. We walked around with long hair, army jackets, bell bottom pants and we laughed a lot with glassy eyes. Recreational narcotics have been illegal our entire lives, and yet, our drug problem today is the worst in our history with now over 60,000 Americans dying form OD"s every year. In other words, laws don't stop the bad people from getting what they want. Disarm society, and only the criminals and cops will have the guns. I don't want to live in that world.

So America is different because we are a more violent society and so that means we should have more guns? Really? I suggest to you that it's not me that's been brainwashed. The vast majority of Americans want much stricter gun laws and the largest counter to that position is the NRA who keep gun sales high through payola to politicians, and the most blood money by far goes to the GOP. And to equate the drug problem to gun violence is a total non sequitur except to recognize that drug dealers are armed to the teeth. And drug users do more damage to themselves than to others. People are not going around shooting 20 strangers with heroin so they die immediately. It's a silly argument. These students didn't choose to get shot to death because they were hit with a bb and liked the feeling and so it progressed to larger projectiles.
And these mass shootings are just a small part of overall gun violence and fewer guns equals fewer gun deaths. The Japan example and the Aussie example have shown that. .Australia adopted a system of categorizing firearms and assigning different restrictions on who can possess them. They've had good success. Something similar to those two systems may work here but we'll never know unless we try. It's what most Americans want. To feel safe in the street and in their schools and in their places of business. Again, the difference might just be that the NRA has greased so many of the right palms that gun control goes nowhere.

When it comes to contributions, the NRA is at the bottom of the list. They don't contribute all that much money in comparison to other supporters of either party. The NRA is the boogie man the Democrats created. They had nothing to do with the last mass shooting, the one before that, or the one before that.

So why are the libs attacking the NRA? Because the NRA represents millions of Americans; Americans that value our constitutional right to self-defense with a firearm. And since the Democrats hate the constitution and American rights, it's better to attack the largest gun organization instead of making a mistake with another "deplorable" remark that likely cost them the White House. Again..... the NRA nonsense is more brainwashing.

The point I make about recreational narcotics is that the people who want them bad enough will get them no matter how many laws we create. I don't know where to get crack or heroin, but I don't deal with it either. The people who want crack and heroin? They can get it in two hours. The same would hold with guns if the leftists were ever able to rip that right away from us. You are not going to disarm the criminal. It will never happen.

In Australia, there is no concrete proof that their confiscation worked. Here's the chart showing what happened in the US compared too what happened in Australia when they instituted the ban:

View attachment 185683

Now if the gun ban worked, why did it take six years to see any results? In the meantime, the US surpassed Australia in lowering the homicide rate with all our guns.

The Captain's Journal » Do Gun Bans Reduce Violent Crime? Ask the Aussies and Brits

Why did you stop that chart in 2004? Curious.

 

[Wickerthing]

Well, I'm a retired Marine and was wounded in Vietnam so I know about certain guns from both ends.

Your contention that to have a differing opinion on the issue of gun violence is to be brainwashed is just a very dismissive way of saying, case closed. But something has to change. I'm saying that not from a political position but just from a common sense one. Our streets in the inner cities have become so dangerous that many of the yet unaffected are afraid to leave their houses and others are afraid to send their kids to school. That's not a partisan issue but a real one. The answer on the right seems to be more guns. In the hands of teachers no less. That's not what they signed up for. It's crazy. Statistics show clearly that incidents of gun violence corresponds directly to the number of guns in a society. Japan for instance has about one third our population and has very strict gun laws. Their average annual deaths from gun violence is around 10. Ten! That's not a partisan statement. It's a fact. We've gotta start to get this thing under control. We spend our time instead calling each other all kinds of vile things instead of banding together to find a lasting solution that's fair to everyone. I'm not saying we have to become Japan either but we've gotta do something other than what clearly doesn't work and is getting worse every day.

HAHAHA. You're not a retired marine vet. You're another america-hating liberal calling himself a vet. You don't want to ban guns to save lives - you want to ban guns to stop americans from fighting the govt tyranny you libs so long for.

And you are a naive follower of a third rate con man. And you have no thoughts of your own outside of the party line that you keep repeating over and over. And that denial of my service is another one of those kneejerk talking points you live by. I'm an America hater? What have you ever done to serve this country? I fought in Vietnam and gave my right leg in battle so that you are free to spout your hogwash. You're welcome.

 

[Wickerthing]

Here's a more up to date map of mass shootings between the two nations.

Perhaps cartography can come to the rescue. A map is worth a thousand words. And here are two pertinent examples.

First, a map of all mass shootings that have occurred in the United States in 2015, up to and including the deadliest incident so far, the San Bernardino shooting on December 2nd.. That attack claimed the lives of 14 victims and both perpetrators, as well as injuring a further 23 people.

The map was published by The Boston Globe, and is based on data collated by the Mass Shooting Tracker website. MST defines a "mass shooting" as an incident in which at least four people are shot. By that definition, the U.S. has experienced 353 mass shootings this year, resulting in 462 fatalities and 1,312 people injured (2).

The opacity of the red blobs on the map reflects the geographic density of mass shootings, their size the number of casualties claimed by each. Contrast that with the second map, showing all the mass shootings that have occurred in Australia since 1996.

That's right: none.

There's a reason why 1996 is chosen as the Year Zero for the second map. On 28 April of that year, a lone gunman went on a bloody rampage in Port Arthur, Tasmania, killing 35 people and wounding 23. It was the bloodiest shooting spree in Australia’s modern history (3). It was also the last. Shocked by the carnage, the Australian government rapidly enacted strict gun control laws.