What does it take to get a little gun control

[Anonymous]

Several children have been psychologically and physically injured. That is horrific for so many parents. As a mom, I would never survive this. We need policies to manage gun ownership, mental health.. do something! Of course nothing will happen with this administration who is too busy making ICE detain firefighters fighting wildfire in Washington. Is this what you voted for, you who voted for trump?? Why are certain politicians so against policies to help society advance. Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Several children have been psychologically and physically injured. That is horrific for so many parents. As a mom, I would never survive this. We need policies to manage gun ownership, mental health.. do something! Of course nothing will happen with this administration who is too busy making ICE detain firefighters fighting wildfire in Washington. Is this what you voted for, you who voted for trump?? Why are certain politicians so against policies to help society advance. Disgusting.

Nothing is going to happen because they want to cosplay army action hero and pretend to fight against government (i.e., Trump) tyranny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Several children have been psychologically and physically injured. That is horrific for so many parents. As a mom, I would never survive this. We need policies to manage gun ownership, mental health.. do something! Of course nothing will happen with this administration who is too busy making ICE detain firefighters fighting wildfire in Washington. Is this what you voted for, you who voted for trump?? Why are certain politicians so against policies to help society advance. Disgusting.

Join “Moms Demand action for gun sense”. They have a national chapter and a chapter DC, VA and MD

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To get a little gun control, Democrats have to abandon the idea that they want lots of gun control.

But their end goal is lots of gun bans.

One of the most insidious tactics employed by the left today is when they use the violence carried out by one of their favored demographics as a pretext to disarm White law abiding males who tend to be the most vigorous 2nd amendment defenders.

Then those white law abiding males turn into more bitter clingers who hold their guns and ammo more and more tightly, but never actually use them and thus loose power.

This thread is a masterclass in deflection. While children are being gunned down in churches and schools, the author wants you to believe the real crisis is that “White law-abiding males” feel bitter. Let’s be clear: the most urgent and undeniable threat to American lives today is gun violence, not imaginary disarmament campaigns.

Fact Check: Mass Shootings Are a National Emergency

In 2025 alone, there have been 268 mass shootings, leaving 262 dead and over 1,100 wounded.

Here we are in this thread, because yet another gunman opened fire on children, this time during a church mass in Minneapolis, killing two and injuring 17.

Guns are now the leading cause of death for children and teens in the United States.

This isn’t a partisan talking point, it’s a public health catastrophe.

The “Favored Demographics” Lie: The claim that Democrats exploit violence “by favored demographics” to target White males is not only baseless, it’s racially inflammatory. Gun violence affects all communities, and mass shootings have occurred in rural towns, urban centers, churches, synagogues, grocery stores, and schools. The victims span every race, religion, and income level.

The PP laments that White gun owners “never actually use” their weapons and “lose power.” That’s not just paranoid, it’s dangerous. The Second Amendment protects ownership, not vigilantism. Power in a democracy comes from civic engagement, not stockpiling ammo.

Most mainstream gun control proposals, of universal background checks, red flag laws, limits on high-capacity magazines are strongly supported by a majority of Americans, including gun owners. These are targeted, evidence-based policies aimed at reducing preventable deaths, not disarming law-abiding citizens.

The disingenuous posters above try to reframe a national tragedy as a culture war grievance. It ignores the bodies piling up in classrooms and churches. It weaponizes racial resentment while deflecting from the real issue: America’s gun violence epidemic. If your response to mass shootings is fear of losing symbolic power, not fear for the lives of children, then you’ve lost the plot and along with it, your moral compass. Sorry, PP, you've lost the debate. It only continues to exist in the rarefied atmosphere of well funded gun lobbyists and corrupt GOP politicians, not among the mainstream of America.

Gun violence disporportionaly effects communities of colour, this is an enormous social justice issue and the data is not up for debate. Nearly every major gun safety organization provides that talking point.

Red flag laws absolutely disarm law abiding citizens as they have not commited any crime. Same for limits on high capacity magazines by defintion because by removing them you have disarmed them.

The comments with respect to bitter white clingers are precisely because they don't execute the power that they could wield but don't. As such they're quite literally not a threat to the government and no one takes them seriously.

You're either being deliberately obtuse or the core of this debate has flown right past you.

Red flag laws don’t “disarm law-abiding citizens”, instead they temporarily restrict access when there’s credible evidence of imminent harm. That’s not punishment, it’s prevention. And limiting high-capacity magazines doesn’t disarm anyone, it reduces the number of people killed when someone decides to murder.

Your comment about “bitter white clingers” lacking power because they don’t use their guns isn’t analysis is a thinly veiled lament for political violence. The Second Amendment protects ownership, not fantasies of insurrection. Those fantasies are not grounded in fact or history. Within six months of ratifying 2A, the Founders passed the Militia Act, defining militias as state-regulated forces, not self-defined freelance rebels. And when the Whiskey Rebellion tested your “fight tyranny” theory, Washington himself led troops to crush it.

Gun violence is killing children. If your concern is symbolic power instead of public safety, you’re not defending liberty, you’re abandoning it. You not defending anything or anyone, frankly you are failing America and innocent children are paying the price.

What law has someone broken who is someject to a red flag law?

They’ve broken the red flag law. You’ve answered your own question.

Temporary deprivations based on anticipated danger to the community are not foreign to law. We have restraining orders, involuntary commitments, and laws that forbid serving alcohol to intoxicated patrons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump wants crazy people to have guns.

Here’s an inconvenient truth for you to wrestle with.

“ But gun control laws, like any law, should be fair, effective and not based on prejudice or stereotype. This rule met none of those criteria.

In this era of “alternative facts,” we must urge politicians to create laws based on reliable evidence and solid data.”

https://www.aclu.org/news/disability-rights/gun-control-laws-should-be-fair

Oh, so you're saying mental illness isn't real. It's all just a made-up prejudice or stereotype and there's no real evidence that mental illness is a thing. Wow.

The American CIVIL LIBERTIES Union came out in support of the repeal of this rule. That’s all any random anonymous person on a forum needs to know. Forgive me if I value the opinion of an organization whose mission is to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in the U.S. Constitution over whatever it is you think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We do various types of psychological and emotional screenings in many circumstances, like military, law enforcement and public safety, air traffic controllers, trauma surgeons, crisis counselors, daycare providers, teachers, astronauts, mission controls staff and so on.

People should be required to pass them before being allowed to purchase or own a gun. Along with not having any history of violence, domestic abuse, anger management issues, substance abuse and so on.

The rights afforded by the Constitution are not absolute. You don't have the right to abuse the first amendment by committing perjury, impersonating a police officer, by making terroristic threats, fraudulent claims about goods and services and so on. That's irresponsible and abusive to fellow Americans.

Accordingly, Americans should not have the right to abuse the 2nd Amendment either, because that is also irresponsible and abusive to fellow Americans.

Which other constitutional rights will have the same requirement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To get a little gun control, Democrats have to abandon the idea that they want lots of gun control.

But their end goal is lots of gun bans.

One of the most insidious tactics employed by the left today is when they use the violence carried out by one of their favored demographics as a pretext to disarm White law abiding males who tend to be the most vigorous 2nd amendment defenders.

Then those white law abiding males turn into more bitter clingers who hold their guns and ammo more and more tightly, but never actually use them and thus loose power.

This thread is a masterclass in deflection. While children are being gunned down in churches and schools, the author wants you to believe the real crisis is that “White law-abiding males” feel bitter. Let’s be clear: the most urgent and undeniable threat to American lives today is gun violence, not imaginary disarmament campaigns.

Fact Check: Mass Shootings Are a National Emergency

In 2025 alone, there have been 268 mass shootings, leaving 262 dead and over 1,100 wounded.

Here we are in this thread, because yet another gunman opened fire on children, this time during a church mass in Minneapolis, killing two and injuring 17.

Guns are now the leading cause of death for children and teens in the United States.

This isn’t a partisan talking point, it’s a public health catastrophe.

The “Favored Demographics” Lie: The claim that Democrats exploit violence “by favored demographics” to target White males is not only baseless, it’s racially inflammatory. Gun violence affects all communities, and mass shootings have occurred in rural towns, urban centers, churches, synagogues, grocery stores, and schools. The victims span every race, religion, and income level.

The PP laments that White gun owners “never actually use” their weapons and “lose power.” That’s not just paranoid, it’s dangerous. The Second Amendment protects ownership, not vigilantism. Power in a democracy comes from civic engagement, not stockpiling ammo.

Most mainstream gun control proposals, of universal background checks, red flag laws, limits on high-capacity magazines are strongly supported by a majority of Americans, including gun owners. These are targeted, evidence-based policies aimed at reducing preventable deaths, not disarming law-abiding citizens.

The disingenuous posters above try to reframe a national tragedy as a culture war grievance. It ignores the bodies piling up in classrooms and churches. It weaponizes racial resentment while deflecting from the real issue: America’s gun violence epidemic. If your response to mass shootings is fear of losing symbolic power, not fear for the lives of children, then you’ve lost the plot and along with it, your moral compass. Sorry, PP, you've lost the debate. It only continues to exist in the rarefied atmosphere of well funded gun lobbyists and corrupt GOP politicians, not among the mainstream of America.

Drowning is the leading cause of death for children 1-4.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The R position is so entrenched that it’s basically impossible. I don’t even think these get it done, but maybe:

Many private school shootings at the most elite schools in the country including a bunch of very powerful people’s kids. Like the top of the top elite (senators, billionaires). Many incidents, many victims, in a short time frame.

Legal citizen Muslims shooting dozens of schools with guns they bought legally. Hundreds of dead, mostly upper class schools. This might scare the gun nuts to make some changes to laws.

The R position is bullshit.

The R position on trans people is "just one trans person in womens sports or in womens bathrooms is too many"

Well what about MASS SHOOTINGS which destroy far more lives far more traumatically than one trans person in womens sports or womens bathrooms?

Sorry, Republicans. Your rhetoric is no longer valid. If one trans person is too many then one mass shooting is too many. You are WAY over your limit on mass shootings. It's time for this to END. Your BS can no longer be tolerated by America.

Say it loud, and say it with me:

ONE MASS SHOOTING IS TOO MANY MASS SHOOTINGS.

One brown person commits a rape therefore millions of brown people who didn't rape anyone need to be deported

ONE MASS SHOOTING IS TOO MANY MASS SHOOTINGS.

You Republicans should understand this logic, YOU INVENTED IT.

YOU FIX IT. ONE MASS SHOOTING IS TOO MANY MASS SHOOTINGS. END OF STORY.

Republicans want armed police and security enhancements at every school. That would go a lot farther to combat mass shootings than an assault weapon ban. People forget the VT mass shooting was perpetrated with handguns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump wants crazy people to have guns.

Here’s an inconvenient truth for you to wrestle with.

“ But gun control laws, like any law, should be fair, effective and not based on prejudice or stereotype. This rule met none of those criteria.

In this era of “alternative facts,” we must urge politicians to create laws based on reliable evidence and solid data.”

https://www.aclu.org/news/disability-rights/gun-control-laws-should-be-fair

Oh, so you're saying mental illness isn't real. It's all just a made-up prejudice or stereotype and there's no real evidence that mental illness is a thing. Wow.

The American CIVIL LIBERTIES Union came out in support of the repeal of this rule. That’s all any random anonymous person on a forum needs to know. Forgive me if I value the opinion of an organization whose mission is to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in the U.S. Constitution over whatever it is you think.

Children being forced to endure mass shootings is one of the worst violations of civil liberties in America right now. If ACLU isn't working to help stop this then they might as well fold and close shop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Several children have been psychologically and physically injured. That is horrific for so many parents. As a mom, I would never survive this. We need policies to manage gun ownership, mental health.. do something! Of course nothing will happen with this administration who is too busy making ICE detain firefighters fighting wildfire in Washington. Is this what you voted for, you who voted for trump?? Why are certain politicians so against policies to help society advance. Disgusting.

Join “Moms Demand action for gun sense”. They have a national chapter and a chapter DC, VA and MD

+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The R position is so entrenched that it’s basically impossible. I don’t even think these get it done, but maybe:

Many private school shootings at the most elite schools in the country including a bunch of very powerful people’s kids. Like the top of the top elite (senators, billionaires). Many incidents, many victims, in a short time frame.

Legal citizen Muslims shooting dozens of schools with guns they bought legally. Hundreds of dead, mostly upper class schools. This might scare the gun nuts to make some changes to laws.

The R position is bullshit.

The R position on trans people is "just one trans person in womens sports or in womens bathrooms is too many"

Well what about MASS SHOOTINGS which destroy far more lives far more traumatically than one trans person in womens sports or womens bathrooms?

Sorry, Republicans. Your rhetoric is no longer valid. If one trans person is too many then one mass shooting is too many. You are WAY over your limit on mass shootings. It's time for this to END. Your BS can no longer be tolerated by America.

Say it loud, and say it with me:

ONE MASS SHOOTING IS TOO MANY MASS SHOOTINGS.

One brown person commits a rape therefore millions of brown people who didn't rape anyone need to be deported

ONE MASS SHOOTING IS TOO MANY MASS SHOOTINGS.

You Republicans should understand this logic, YOU INVENTED IT.

YOU FIX IT. ONE MASS SHOOTING IS TOO MANY MASS SHOOTINGS. END OF STORY.

Republicans want armed police and security enhancements at every school. That would go a lot farther to combat mass shootings than an assault weapon ban. People forget the VT mass shooting was perpetrated with handguns.

No it won't "go farther." Hardening the schools just means they will shoot up churches instead. Or supermarkets. Or any other place where people gather. Armed guards at schools is a shortsighted concession that doesn't address the broader issue.

[Anonymous]

Next Dem president should do an emergency executive order and ban assault weapons. Getting the repugnants to vote on a common sense law has not worked since the previous ban expired. F'em. Time to pull a Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump wants crazy people to have guns.

Here’s an inconvenient truth for you to wrestle with.

“ But gun control laws, like any law, should be fair, effective and not based on prejudice or stereotype. This rule met none of those criteria.

In this era of “alternative facts,” we must urge politicians to create laws based on reliable evidence and solid data.”

https://www.aclu.org/news/disability-rights/gun-control-laws-should-be-fair

Oh, so you're saying mental illness isn't real. It's all just a made-up prejudice or stereotype and there's no real evidence that mental illness is a thing. Wow.

The American CIVIL LIBERTIES Union came out in support of the repeal of this rule. That’s all any random anonymous person on a forum needs to know. Forgive me if I value the opinion of an organization whose mission is to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in the U.S. Constitution over whatever it is you think.

Children being forced to endure mass shootings is one of the worst violations of civil liberties in America right now. If ACLU isn't working to help stop this then they might as well fold and close shop.

Nice deflection. I’m sorry that 2017 link didn’t accurately portray the point you wanted to make. Do some research before you post something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We would be better off spending a lot of 100 billion for this ridiculous mass deportation program on a buyback program. That is a legitimate opinion and I think we would all get a lot more out of it.

And the funds would go to a lot of American families instead of a bunch of billionaires in the prison industry.

If we deport the illegals, Americans can be a cohesive group again and work to enact policies to support Americans. The only people who win with mass immigration are the billionaires. It's something the right and left should agree on.

What are you smoking? We're not a cohesive group. We never have been. We are not now and we never will be. Obviously we have differences only. We settle them by voting.

I think we should have a constitutional right to abortion. That got voted away from me and if I want it changed I have to change the vote.

We never had a constitutional right to abortion. We had an activist court create it out of thin air. Look, I think every woman should have access to abortion for free, all subsidized by the government. But I can read the Constitution and see there's no such right in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The R position is so entrenched that it’s basically impossible. I don’t even think these get it done, but maybe:

Many private school shootings at the most elite schools in the country including a bunch of very powerful people’s kids. Like the top of the top elite (senators, billionaires). Many incidents, many victims, in a short time frame.

Legal citizen Muslims shooting dozens of schools with guns they bought legally. Hundreds of dead, mostly upper class schools. This might scare the gun nuts to make some changes to laws.

The R position is bullshit.

The R position on trans people is "just one trans person in womens sports or in womens bathrooms is too many"

Well what about MASS SHOOTINGS which destroy far more lives far more traumatically than one trans person in womens sports or womens bathrooms?

Sorry, Republicans. Your rhetoric is no longer valid. If one trans person is too many then one mass shooting is too many. You are WAY over your limit on mass shootings. It's time for this to END. Your BS can no longer be tolerated by America.

Say it loud, and say it with me:

ONE MASS SHOOTING IS TOO MANY MASS SHOOTINGS.

One brown person commits a rape therefore millions of brown people who didn't rape anyone need to be deported

ONE MASS SHOOTING IS TOO MANY MASS SHOOTINGS.

You Republicans should understand this logic, YOU INVENTED IT.

YOU FIX IT. ONE MASS SHOOTING IS TOO MANY MASS SHOOTINGS. END OF STORY.

Republicans want armed police and security enhancements at every school. That would go a lot farther to combat mass shootings than an assault weapon ban. People forget the VT mass shooting was perpetrated with handguns.

No it won't "go farther." Hardening the schools just means they will shoot up churches instead. Or supermarkets. Or any other place where people gather. Armed guards at schools is a shortsighted concession that doesn't address the broader issue.

I thought we wanted to protect children? Thanks for agreeing this is a soft target issue.