There is simply no denying it is time for "common sense" gun laws

[2aguy]

It’s impossible to tell if most on the right are dishonest about ‘gun control’ or simply ignorant.

For example, there are regulatory measures that can be enacted which have nothing to do with the regulation of firearms per se, that place no further ‘restrictions’ on the sale or possession of firearms, measures that comport with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, such as funding for states to allow them to make more timely, comprehensive updates to the NICS database, and providing Americans access to comprehensive mental health treatment.

No one has a problem with that ...but that is never what your anti-gun nut jobs propose..........if the anti-gun nut jobs proposed that we could support it...but they don't...why? Because they don't want NICS to work faster and it is easier to attack gun owners than to actually improve the mental health system...besides....dangerously mentally ill people murdering people with guns is great for the anti gun agenda....they need fresh bodies to push more gun control....

 

[Wilbur Right]

Because they don't want NICS to work faster and it is easier to attack gun owners than to actually improve the mental health system...besides....dangerously mentally ill people murdering people with guns is great for the anti gun agenda....they need fresh bodies to push more gun control....

Gun control people do not need mentally deficient people to push a control agenda.

They have people like you who make it much easier. You supposedly are not crazy..except about guns.

 

[Geaux4it]

Nothing to see here.....move along

Guns abound as they are today are part of the acceptable risk we take every day to be an American.


-Geaux

 

[Skull Pilot]

Conservative hero Bill O'Reilly:

“There is too much gun crime in the USA, and high-powered weaponry is too easy to get,” O’Reilly said.

O’Reilly and others seem to consider the AR-15 as a heavy weapon. “That’s the fact. So let’s deal with it. We all have the right to bear arms, but we don’t have the right to buy and maintain mortars. Even if you feel threatened by gangsters or a New World Order. No bazookas, no Sherman tanks, no hand grenades,” O’Reilly said.

Implying Congress does indeed have the power to act, O’Reilly said, “That’s because the Second Amendment clearly states the government has a right to regulate militias, made up of individuals. They have that right in the name of public safety. Therefore, Congress should debate what kind of weapons should be available for public sale.”

Who says Oreilly is anyone's hero except you that is?

 

[Skull Pilot]

We have seen it far too often. Way too many tragic and unnecessary deaths. We have reached the point that no honest person could deny that it is time for "common sense" gun laws. Barack Obama has preached this for 8 straight years now and he has been right all along.

Wherever guns are banned (public schools, universities, movie theaters, etc.) - horrific tragedy ensues. Wherever guns are prevalent (White House, police departments, NRA meetings, etc.) peace and security ensues. Anybody with "common sense" would look at the indisputable reality and immediately implement "common sense" gun laws which would permit firearms everywhere, all the time. Fully automatic weapons in every building (just the Secret Service has while the president is in public). Teachers with guns on them. College students conceal carrying.

Anybody who doesn't support these basic "common sense" gun laws clearly isn't interested in public safety, preserving human life, or security. Instead they are simply interested in control. This one is so obvious - both sides can agree on it. Again - unless someone is more interested in a control/oppression agenda.

You people are so far up your own asses. Don't you see how ridiculous your logic is? Ok you want more "good guys" with guns but you fail to realize that by arming everyone you are only increasing the risk of more nut jobs getting guns. It's such a brainless idea.

And let's examine the "good guy" scenario. Many concealed carried people may have good intentions, but many of them probably know next to nothing about gun safety. How do you think that would turn out?

What percentage of legal gun owners actually become mass murderers?

 

[P@triot]

So much for the ignorant liberal false narrative about how well outlawing guns in England has worked out...

Labour Party politician shot in "gun free" England

Jo Cox MP dead after shooting attack - BBC News

 

[P@triot]

Bwahahahahaha!!!! Liberal lesbians rushing out in droves to buy firearms. Seems that libtards know what they won't admit: more guns = morse security. That being armed keeps people safe.



Gun sales surge among gays, lesbians after Orlando shooting

 

[P@triot]

Oh candycorn....



"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Seems even Barack Obama agrees that I need to have every single "military-grade" weapon that the U.S. military has in its arsenal. Bwahahahahahahaha!!!

 

[P@triot]

One has to ask - how come we haven't seen a single call to disarm the Secret Service by liberals? I mean - if "assault weapons" and fully automatic weapons are so dangerous, shouldn't we want them as far away from the president as possible?

In addition - who needs guns around them less than the U.S. President? When he travels, it is in a tank. The presidential limo is completely armored and can handle any round and even RPG's. And the White House is a bullet-proof bunker that can keep the president safe underground in the event of even a nuclear bomb.

More indisputable proof of how irrational liberals are.

 

[P@triot]

More indisputable evidence that we need the "common sense gun law" that over turns all gun laws and restores the 2nd Amendment to its true intent. No restrictions on the American people's right to keep and bear arms (including "military grade"). Because the Dumbocrats version of "common sense gun laws" sure as hell isn't working out in Chicago...

Father's Day weekend in Chicago: 12 murders, 54 shootings - CNN.com

 

[P@triot]

Bwahahahahahaha!!! Liberal reporter goes to a gun store to show how "easy" it is and ends up getting denied because he has a history of domestic violence. Typical liberal - not only keeping the liberal War on Women raging but also proving his own false narrative is ignorant!

STEINBERG: Would-be terrorists can buy guns, but a reporter? No.

 

[Little-Acorn]

There is simply no denying it is time for "common sense" gun laws


I completely agree.

Common sense gun laws are, of course, those which have worked in the past.

So that eliminates gun bans, assault weapon bans, one-gun-a-month restrictions, waiting periods, background checks, and most obviously, "gun free" zones. All of them have been tried, and not one has ever reduced the number of "gun crimes".

"Gun free zones", in fact, have had the effect of concentrating mass murders within the "gun free" zone. Far more mass murders have taken place in such "gun free" zones, than outside of them, as murderers use the free-fire zones given to them as areas where they can rack up huge body counts, with no one on the scene able to stop them, and get lurid headlines after the cops finally show up and kill them.

So, what "common sense" gun laws should we have? Which ones have actually reduced murders and other gun crimes?

One is, of course, letting all law-abiding adults carry concealed weapons wherever they go. Even with everyone allowed to carry this way, most still won't bother. But a few will. And the bad guys know that there are probably a few armed individuals somewhere in the crowd in the disco or office party or school grounds they are planning to shoot up. And so the bad guys know they won't be able to kill 49 people before someone stops them, they won't get weeks of blazing headlines they want... and so, many of the potential murderers will decide not to commit their crimes there, or maybe not at all.

So often their crimes never take place. How many lives are saved, without a single shot ever being fired?

This is a "common sense" laws that clearly will save innocent lives.

I fully agree with the OP. When can we expect him to start pushing for concealed carry by responsible adults?

 

[NoNukes]

We have seen it far too often. Way too many tragic and unnecessary deaths. We have reached the point that no honest person could deny that it is time for "common sense" gun laws. Barack Obama has preached this for 8 straight years now and he has been right all along.

Wherever guns are banned (public schools, universities, movie theaters, etc.) - horrific tragedy ensues. Wherever guns are prevalent (White House, police departments, NRA meetings, etc.) peace and security ensues. Anybody with "common sense" would look at the indisputable reality and immediately implement "common sense" gun laws which would permit firearms everywhere, all the time. Fully automatic weapons in every building (just the Secret Service has while the president is in public). Teachers with guns on them. College students conceal carrying.

Anybody who doesn't support these basic "common sense" gun laws clearly isn't interested in public safety, preserving human life, or security. Instead they are simply interested in control. This one is so obvious - both sides can agree on it. Again - unless someone is more interested in a control/oppression agenda.

Why would you want to live in a country where you think this is necessary? America is really fucked if all of this is necessary.

 

[P@triot]

I fully agree with the OP. When can we expect him to start pushing for concealed carry by responsible adults?

Little....that was the entire premise of my thread. That "common sense gun laws" means eliminating all bans and allowing people to carry. Banning guns doesn't work. You should have read what I wrote in its entirety rather than seeing the headline and flying off the handle. I was mocking the stupidity of Barry Sorento and liberals.

 

[P@triot]

We have seen it far too often. Way too many tragic and unnecessary deaths. We have reached the point that no honest person could deny that it is time for "common sense" gun laws. Barack Obama has preached this for 8 straight years now and he has been right all along.

Wherever guns are banned (public schools, universities, movie theaters, etc.) - horrific tragedy ensues. Wherever guns are prevalent (White House, police departments, NRA meetings, etc.) peace and security ensues. Anybody with "common sense" would look at the indisputable reality and immediately implement "common sense" gun laws which would permit firearms everywhere, all the time. Fully automatic weapons in every building (just the Secret Service has while the president is in public). Teachers with guns on them. College students conceal carrying.

Anybody who doesn't support these basic "common sense" gun laws clearly isn't interested in public safety, preserving human life, or security. Instead they are simply interested in control. This one is so obvious - both sides can agree on it. Again - unless someone is more interested in a control/oppression agenda.

Why would you want to live in a country where you think this is necessary? America is really fucked if all of this is necessary.

I don't think this is necessary - I know it is. The data proves it. And it's 100% necessary in any country. There are bad people in the world. It's a simple reality. It's time to stop living in la-la land and embrace reality. That is, unless one values ideology over human life.

 

[Geaux4it]

It was a good day in the senate yesterday. A really good day

-Geaux

 

[NoNukes]

We have seen it far too often. Way too many tragic and unnecessary deaths. We have reached the point that no honest person could deny that it is time for "common sense" gun laws. Barack Obama has preached this for 8 straight years now and he has been right all along.

Wherever guns are banned (public schools, universities, movie theaters, etc.) - horrific tragedy ensues. Wherever guns are prevalent (White House, police departments, NRA meetings, etc.) peace and security ensues. Anybody with "common sense" would look at the indisputable reality and immediately implement "common sense" gun laws which would permit firearms everywhere, all the time. Fully automatic weapons in every building (just the Secret Service has while the president is in public). Teachers with guns on them. College students conceal carrying.

Anybody who doesn't support these basic "common sense" gun laws clearly isn't interested in public safety, preserving human life, or security. Instead they are simply interested in control. This one is so obvious - both sides can agree on it. Again - unless someone is more interested in a control/oppression agenda.

Why would you want to live in a country where you think this is necessary? America is really fucked if all of this is necessary.

I don't think this is necessary - I know it is. The data proves it. And it's 100% necessary in any country. There are bad people in the world. It's a simple reality. It's time to stop living in la-la land and embrace reality. That is, unless one values ideology over human life.

I live in a civilized country where very few people carry guns. You are the one in La La Land. Wake up.

 

[P@triot]

We have seen it far too often. Way too many tragic and unnecessary deaths. We have reached the point that no honest person could deny that it is time for "common sense" gun laws. Barack Obama has preached this for 8 straight years now and he has been right all along.

Wherever guns are banned (public schools, universities, movie theaters, etc.) - horrific tragedy ensues. Wherever guns are prevalent (White House, police departments, NRA meetings, etc.) peace and security ensues. Anybody with "common sense" would look at the indisputable reality and immediately implement "common sense" gun laws which would permit firearms everywhere, all the time. Fully automatic weapons in every building (just the Secret Service has while the president is in public). Teachers with guns on them. College students conceal carrying.

Anybody who doesn't support these basic "common sense" gun laws clearly isn't interested in public safety, preserving human life, or security. Instead they are simply interested in control. This one is so obvious - both sides can agree on it. Again - unless someone is more interested in a control/oppression agenda.

Why would you want to live in a country where you think this is necessary? America is really fucked if all of this is necessary.

I don't think this is necessary - I know it is. The data proves it. And it's 100% necessary in any country. There are bad people in the world. It's a simple reality. It's time to stop living in la-la land and embrace reality. That is, unless one values ideology over human life.

I live in a civilized country where very few people carry guns. You are the one in La La Land. Wake up.

Yeah....very few people carry guns and many are raped, assaulted, and/or murdered. Bad people exist. It's an undeniable fact.

 

[P@triot]

It was a good day in the senate yesterday. A really good day

-Geaux

Great to see the U.S. Constitution prevail.

 

[kaz]

Conservative hero Bill O'Reilly:

“There is too much gun crime in the USA, and high-powered weaponry is too easy to get,” O’Reilly said.

O’Reilly and others seem to consider the AR-15 as a heavy weapon. “That’s the fact. So let’s deal with it. We all have the right to bear arms, but we don’t have the right to buy and maintain mortars. Even if you feel threatened by gangsters or a New World Order. No bazookas, no Sherman tanks, no hand grenades,” O’Reilly said.

Implying Congress does indeed have the power to act, O’Reilly said, “That’s because the Second Amendment clearly states the government has a right to regulate militias, made up of individuals. They have that right in the name of public safety. Therefore, Congress should debate what kind of weapons should be available for public sale.”

Wow, once again O'Reilly shows what a dumb ass he can be. Seriously, they put the right to own guns in the Constitution, then O'Reilly said government gets to decide what that right means. So why put it in the Constitution in the first place? And at number two? He's saying it's not a right, it's a suggestion. The idiot