What does it take to get a little gun control

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The objective is to stop mass shootings. If they stop shooting children because they are afraid of guards they will instead shoot up synagogues or churches or shopping malls or picnics or street festivals or whatever else. You're missing the point with "children" - yes, we want to protect children but we want to protect everyone else too. Why are you caving to psychopaths saying "you can't have the kids but everyone else is fair game?"

Okay, what’s your plan, who will it save, and how? There are 400m guns in America. I am all ears. All I ask is that you work within the framework of the 2nd, 4th and 14th Amendments.

We have to stop navelgazing and playing games. One transperson competes in womens sports and overnight we have dozens of new laws about it, and that killed nobody.

One mass shooting is too many mass shootings. It's time to stop making excuses, time to stop deflecting, and time and start working on FIXING it.

There are thousands of gun laws on the books.

[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 Your rhetoric is no longer valid.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.

Never mind that the overwhelming majority of rapes in the US are committed by white males. But they aren't the problem, apparently.

Do you really want to start exploring which races are more inclined to commit murder??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even buying a gun, you are already supposed to take a background check.

There are 33 states that allow personal transfers with no corresponding background check for the sale.

Yup. Our system is a complete joke. And the criminals and crazies know it, and exploit it daily.

Do you need a license and a background check to post here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The objective is to stop mass shootings. If they stop shooting children because they are afraid of guards they will instead shoot up synagogues or churches or shopping malls or picnics or street festivals or whatever else. You're missing the point with "children" - yes, we want to protect children but we want to protect everyone else too. Why are you caving to psychopaths saying "you can't have the kids but everyone else is fair game?"

Okay, what’s your plan, who will it save, and how? There are 400m guns in America. I am all ears. All I ask is that you work within the framework of the 2nd, 4th and 14th Amendments.

Australia is a good example of what can and should be done.

Does Australia have a 2nd Amendment?

Not relevant. As others have pointed out Constitutional amendments are not absolute, and Australia did not pass a total ban. But what they did accomplish is a virtual end to mass shootings since passing their reform almost 30 years ago. And guess what, they did not descend into tyranny or crime waves where only criminals have guns and all of the other rationales gun-clingers cite. So their arguments are not valid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The objective is to stop mass shootings. If they stop shooting children because they are afraid of guards they will instead shoot up synagogues or churches or shopping malls or picnics or street festivals or whatever else. You're missing the point with "children" - yes, we want to protect children but we want to protect everyone else too. Why are you caving to psychopaths saying "you can't have the kids but everyone else is fair game?"

Okay, what’s your plan, who will it save, and how? There are 400m guns in America. I am all ears. All I ask is that you work within the framework of the 2nd, 4th and 14th Amendments.

Australia is a good example of what can and should be done.

Does Australia have a 2nd Amendment?

Not relevant. As others have pointed out Constitutional amendments are not absolute, and Australia did not pass a total ban. But what they did accomplish is a virtual end to mass shootings since passing their reform almost 30 years ago. And guess what, they did not descend into tyranny or crime waves where only criminals have guns and all of the other rationales gun-clingers cite. So their arguments are not valid.

They locked their people up during COVID. They have the worst form of tyranny: anarcho-tyranny. Their tyrants have replaced their population with hostile foreigners despite Australians not voting for such a takeover. As another example, you can look what his happening in England, where tyrants are trying to rule that migrants take priority over natives, and little girls are allowed to be attacked but not defend themselves.

These are sad times for the Anglosphere.

[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.

I thought the shooter was a woman. No?

[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.

Never mind that the overwhelming majority of rapes in the US are committed by white males. But they aren't the problem, apparently.

Do you really want to start exploring which races are more inclined to commit murder??

Majority of murders in America are committed by whites. That's demographics.

[Anonymous]

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.

I thought the shooter was a woman. No?

No. The shooter allegedly "transitioned to female" yet at the time of the shooting self-identified as male.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The objective is to stop mass shootings. If they stop shooting children because they are afraid of guards they will instead shoot up synagogues or churches or shopping malls or picnics or street festivals or whatever else. You're missing the point with "children" - yes, we want to protect children but we want to protect everyone else too. Why are you caving to psychopaths saying "you can't have the kids but everyone else is fair game?"

Okay, what’s your plan, who will it save, and how? There are 400m guns in America. I am all ears. All I ask is that you work within the framework of the 2nd, 4th and 14th Amendments.

Australia is a good example of what can and should be done.

Does Australia have a 2nd Amendment?

Not relevant. As others have pointed out Constitutional amendments are not absolute, and Australia did not pass a total ban. But what they did accomplish is a virtual end to mass shootings since passing their reform almost 30 years ago. And guess what, they did not descend into tyranny or crime waves where only criminals have guns and all of the other rationales gun-clingers cite. So their arguments are not valid.

They locked their people up during COVID. They have the worst form of tyranny: anarcho-tyranny. Their tyrants have replaced their population with hostile foreigners despite Australians not voting for such a takeover. As another example, you can look what his happening in England, where tyrants are trying to rule that migrants take priority over natives, and little girls are allowed to be attacked but not defend themselves.

These are sad times for the Anglosphere.

Ludicrous. They didn't even do any kind of meaningful "lockdown" - it was barely 2 weeks and there were angry mobs at state capitols. Get out of here with your weak "tyranny" nonsense. Trump's own policies have been far more tyrannical than your covid blah blah.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The objective is to stop mass shootings. If they stop shooting children because they are afraid of guards they will instead shoot up synagogues or churches or shopping malls or picnics or street festivals or whatever else. You're missing the point with "children" - yes, we want to protect children but we want to protect everyone else too. Why are you caving to psychopaths saying "you can't have the kids but everyone else is fair game?"

Okay, what’s your plan, who will it save, and how? There are 400m guns in America. I am all ears. All I ask is that you work within the framework of the 2nd, 4th and 14th Amendments.

We have to stop navelgazing and playing games. One transperson competes in womens sports and overnight we have dozens of new laws about it, and that killed nobody.

One mass shooting is too many mass shootings. It's time to stop making excuses, time to stop deflecting, and time and start working on FIXING it.

There are thousands of gun laws on the books.

And there used to be another one which was a ban on certain weapons. That is on the list of options that should be pursued. The fact that the NRA hates it so much must mean it would be a good one.

[Anonymous]

One mass shooting is too many mass shootings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The objective is to stop mass shootings. If they stop shooting children because they are afraid of guards they will instead shoot up synagogues or churches or shopping malls or picnics or street festivals or whatever else. You're missing the point with "children" - yes, we want to protect children but we want to protect everyone else too. Why are you caving to psychopaths saying "you can't have the kids but everyone else is fair game?"

Okay, what’s your plan, who will it save, and how? There are 400m guns in America. I am all ears. All I ask is that you work within the framework of the 2nd, 4th and 14th Amendments.

Australia is a good example of what can and should be done.

Does Australia have a 2nd Amendment?

Not relevant. As others have pointed out Constitutional amendments are not absolute, and Australia did not pass a total ban. But what they did accomplish is a virtual end to mass shootings since passing their reform almost 30 years ago. And guess what, they did not descend into tyranny or crime waves where only criminals have guns and all of the other rationales gun-clingers cite. So their arguments are not valid.

Hmm, so what other amendments are "not relevant"? I'm pretty sure we could quickly solve the criminal problems without the 4th and 8th Amendments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The objective is to stop mass shootings. If they stop shooting children because they are afraid of guards they will instead shoot up synagogues or churches or shopping malls or picnics or street festivals or whatever else. You're missing the point with "children" - yes, we want to protect children but we want to protect everyone else too. Why are you caving to psychopaths saying "you can't have the kids but everyone else is fair game?"

Okay, what’s your plan, who will it save, and how? There are 400m guns in America. I am all ears. All I ask is that you work within the framework of the 2nd, 4th and 14th Amendments.

Australia is a good example of what can and should be done.

Does Australia have a 2nd Amendment?

Not relevant. As others have pointed out Constitutional amendments are not absolute, and Australia did not pass a total ban. But what they did accomplish is a virtual end to mass shootings since passing their reform almost 30 years ago. And guess what, they did not descend into tyranny or crime waves where only criminals have guns and all of the other rationales gun-clingers cite. So their arguments are not valid.

They locked their people up during COVID. They have the worst form of tyranny: anarcho-tyranny. Their tyrants have replaced their population with hostile foreigners despite Australians not voting for such a takeover. As another example, you can look what his happening in England, where tyrants are trying to rule that migrants take priority over natives, and little girls are allowed to be attacked but not defend themselves.

These are sad times for the Anglosphere.

Ludicrous. They didn't even do any kind of meaningful "lockdown" - it was barely 2 weeks and there were angry mobs at state capitols. Get out of here with your weak "tyranny" nonsense. Trump's own policies have been far more tyrannical than your covid blah blah.

Love you how completely ignore the demographic problems. Great work!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The objective is to stop mass shootings. If they stop shooting children because they are afraid of guards they will instead shoot up synagogues or churches or shopping malls or picnics or street festivals or whatever else. You're missing the point with "children" - yes, we want to protect children but we want to protect everyone else too. Why are you caving to psychopaths saying "you can't have the kids but everyone else is fair game?"

Okay, what’s your plan, who will it save, and how? There are 400m guns in America. I am all ears. All I ask is that you work within the framework of the 2nd, 4th and 14th Amendments.

We have to stop navelgazing and playing games. One transperson competes in womens sports and overnight we have dozens of new laws about it, and that killed nobody.

One mass shooting is too many mass shootings. It's time to stop making excuses, time to stop deflecting, and time and start working on FIXING it.

There are thousands of gun laws on the books.

And there used to be another one which was a ban on certain weapons. That is on the list of options that should be pursued. The fact that the NRA hates it so much must mean it would be a good one.

Mass shootings have been committed with weapons other than semi-autos. Face it - you need total confiscation to get your dream of ending mass shootings. Good luck with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One mass shooting is too many mass shootings.

Weird how Democrats never care about taking guns away in the inner cities where there are far more mass shootings. Democrats just want to take guns away from law-abiding Americans.