What does it take to get a little gun control

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Activist courts in the 1980s through the 2000s also created the modern interpretation of the second amendment out of thin air (funded by the NRA). Prior to 1970, the 2A was largely ignored, and understood to be rooted in mistrust of a standing army and therefore applicable only to militias. James Madison’s first draft of the amendment explicitly stated: “a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.” Note the religious exemption clause, which doesn’t make sense if you’re talking about personal self defense. The phrases “well-regulated” and “militia” imply that the state has a right to regulate firearms.

If you want to be a strict originalist, go right ahead, but you can’t have it both ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will agree to every policy you just suggested if you agree to recognize a state issued concealed carry license in the same manner a driver’s license is recognized. We can carry in any state and city in America. Deal?

Ok deal. OP here.

I've never felt you needed to take away gun rights. If people are responsible, it negates the danger of random violence. This is why countries who love guns do not have our problems. So it's about responsibility.

Thanks! Million’s of people can’t wait. I’ll let you break it to CA, NJ, NY and CT. NYC will be particularly pissed at you.

What are these millions of gun owners planning to do with their guns as they walk around with them in public?

If it’s for self defense, self defense from who? The other millions of gun owners?

What happens when a firecracker goes off, someone gets trigger happy, and all the gun owners start firing at each other? In all the chaos, how can you tell who to shoot at?

What do the millions of gun owners require from an AR-15 that a small handgun or bear spray couldn’t also do? What is the practical need for a weapon that can mass-murder 45 people in one minute?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will agree to every policy you just suggested if you agree to recognize a state issued concealed carry license in the same manner a driver’s license is recognized. We can carry in any state and city in America. Deal?

Ok deal. OP here.

I've never felt you needed to take away gun rights. If people are responsible, it negates the danger of random violence. This is why countries who love guns do not have our problems. So it's about responsibility.

Thanks! Million’s of people can’t wait. I’ll let you break it to CA, NJ, NY and CT. NYC will be particularly pissed at you.

What are these millions of gun owners planning to do with their guns as they walk around with them in public?

If it’s for self defense, self defense from who? The other millions of gun owners?

What happens when a firecracker goes off, someone gets trigger happy, and all the gun owners start firing at each other? In all the chaos, how can you tell who to shoot at?

What do the millions of gun owners require from an AR-15 that a small handgun or bear spray couldn’t also do? What is the practical need for a weapon that can mass-murder 45 people in one minute?

These moron cosplayers think their AR-15's project against "government tyranny".

[Anonymous]

I'm the OP suggesting responsibility laws v guns off the street completely.

Morally and theoretically I wish there were zero guns but I'm a realist.
We will NEVER in the US convince gun owners ti sacrifice their hun ownership rights. Not will we ever be pull all off the streets. We will almost positively never be able to police gun violence away to a point it makes a difference.

Strategically, we have to look at a compromise.

You allow him ownership but in a way that has strings attached. Strings that enforce and embrace responsibility.

Look at the mentally ill and their ability to get guns with ease. How do you prevent that? By making it so it's harder to do.

Look at people who don't store guns properly or don't know how to use them correctly. You train them.

It's about education, limits and wait times - it's not about 100% just get rid of them as it's impossible to do!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Activist courts in the 1980s through the 2000s also created the modern interpretation of the second amendment out of thin air (funded by the NRA). Prior to 1970, the 2A was largely ignored, and understood to be rooted in mistrust of a standing army and therefore applicable only to militias. James Madison’s first draft of the amendment explicitly stated: “a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.” Note the religious exemption clause, which doesn’t make sense if you’re talking about personal self defense. The phrases “well-regulated” and “militia” imply that the state has a right to regulate firearms.

If you want to be a strict originalist, go right ahead, but you can’t have it both ways.

No, the militia refers to the general public. In the Miller case that said guns are for the militia that people like to cite, Miller was not part of any formal militia. Yet that was not the end of the case for the Supreme Court. They went into a more detailed analysis and ruled that the sawed off shotgun had no military purpose. If the 2nd amendment was about military units well regulated by the states, why did the Supreme Court have to go through what type of weapon was being used for someone not in a military unit? Also, strangely the case had no defense lawyer as Miller was a no show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will agree to every policy you just suggested if you agree to recognize a state issued concealed carry license in the same manner a driver’s license is recognized. We can carry in any state and city in America. Deal?

Ok deal. OP here.

I've never felt you needed to take away gun rights. If people are responsible, it negates the danger of random violence. This is why countries who love guns do not have our problems. So it's about responsibility.

Thanks! Million’s of people can’t wait. I’ll let you break it to CA, NJ, NY and CT. NYC will be particularly pissed at you.

What are these millions of gun owners planning to do with their guns as they walk around with them in public?

If it’s for self defense, self defense from who? The other millions of gun owners?

What happens when a firecracker goes off, someone gets trigger happy, and all the gun owners start firing at each other? In all the chaos, how can you tell who to shoot at?

What do the millions of gun owners require from an AR-15 that a small handgun or bear spray couldn’t also do? What is the practical need for a weapon that can mass-murder 45 people in one minute?

These moron cosplayers think their AR-15's project against "government tyranny".

Somehow people in Ukraine wanted all these guns for their people, and now they are dug into trenches and only advancing a few meters at a time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will agree to every policy you just suggested if you agree to recognize a state issued concealed carry license in the same manner a driver’s license is recognized. We can carry in any state and city in America. Deal?

Ok deal. OP here.

I've never felt you needed to take away gun rights. If people are responsible, it negates the danger of random violence. This is why countries who love guns do not have our problems. So it's about responsibility.

Thanks! Million’s of people can’t wait. I’ll let you break it to CA, NJ, NY and CT. NYC will be particularly pissed at you.

What are these millions of gun owners planning to do with their guns as they walk around with them in public?

If it’s for self defense, self defense from who? The other millions of gun owners?

What happens when a firecracker goes off, someone gets trigger happy, and all the gun owners start firing at each other? In all the chaos, how can you tell who to shoot at?

What do the millions of gun owners require from an AR-15 that a small handgun or bear spray couldn’t also do? What is the practical need for a weapon that can mass-murder 45 people in one minute?

Millions of people already carry a firearm around every day. Including around firecrackers.

Yes, for self defense. From the criminals that the people you vote for insist on NOT holding accountable for their crimes.

I don’t carry an AR15. I carry a handgun. Although I have AR-type rifles at home. Although they’re not AR15’s….. so thise must be ok with you, right?

Bear spray? I don’t have bears in my neighborhood. But I do have car jackers.


You sound really histrionic and it’s hard to take you seriously.

[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 it was a man claiming to be a woman. The media is not interested in reporting this detail, because it doesn't fit their preferred narrative.
There has been a tendency of trans shooters lately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After new town I was sure we were going to have at least a little sanity. After Parkland I totally gave up on the possibility of gun control. But since than we have had mass shooting at churches and schools and even the Amish have been victims. What does it take to do even the smallest reforms enacted?

Jesus this is ridiculous.

There is s nothing because politicians know their MAGA gun nuts will throw them out office. If their ok own children were murdered in school they would still do nothing because the office they hold is more important to them than their child and definitely more important than your child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dems are constantly whining about guns, but in Blue cities the DAs & judges are so lax that criminals are back on the street after doing little or no time in prison. Maybe if they actually enforced the laws they already have there wouldn’t be a need for more laws.

But that doesn't help the goal of banning guns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dems are constantly whining about guns, but in Blue cities the DAs & judges are so lax that criminals are back on the street after doing little or no time in prison. Maybe if they actually enforced the laws they already have there wouldn’t be a need for more laws.

But that doesn't help the goal of banning guns.

That’s never going to happen, so find a new goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will agree to every policy you just suggested if you agree to recognize a state issued concealed carry license in the same manner a driver’s license is recognized. We can carry in any state and city in America. Deal?

Ok deal. OP here.

I've never felt you needed to take away gun rights. If people are responsible, it negates the danger of random violence. This is why countries who love guns do not have our problems. So it's about responsibility.

Thanks! Million’s of people can’t wait. I’ll let you break it to CA, NJ, NY and CT. NYC will be particularly pissed at you.

What are these millions of gun owners planning to do with their guns as they walk around with them in public?

If it’s for self defense, self defense from who? The other millions of gun owners?

What happens when a firecracker goes off, someone gets trigger happy, and all the gun owners start firing at each other? In all the chaos, how can you tell who to shoot at?

What do the millions of gun owners require from an AR-15 that a small handgun or bear spray couldn’t also do? What is the practical need for a weapon that can mass-murder 45 people in one minute?

Millions of people already carry a firearm around every day. Including around firecrackers.

Yes, for self defense. From the criminals that the people you vote for insist on NOT holding accountable for their crimes.

I don’t carry an AR15. I carry a handgun. Although I have AR-type rifles at home. Although they’re not AR15’s….. so thise must be ok with you, right?

Bear spray? I don’t have bears in my neighborhood. But I do have car jackers.


You sound really histrionic and it’s hard to take you seriously.

So, self defense from….other gun owners. Got it.

I’m a lot less histrionic than the scaredy cats who need to bring an AK 47 to order a sandwich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will agree to every policy you just suggested if you agree to recognize a state issued concealed carry license in the same manner a driver’s license is recognized. We can carry in any state and city in America. Deal?

Ok deal. OP here.

I've never felt you needed to take away gun rights. If people are responsible, it negates the danger of random violence. This is why countries who love guns do not have our problems. So it's about responsibility.

Thanks! Million’s of people can’t wait. I’ll let you break it to CA, NJ, NY and CT. NYC will be particularly pissed at you.

What are these millions of gun owners planning to do with their guns as they walk around with them in public?

If it’s for self defense, self defense from who? The other millions of gun owners?

What happens when a firecracker goes off, someone gets trigger happy, and all the gun owners start firing at each other? In all the chaos, how can you tell who to shoot at?

What do the millions of gun owners require from an AR-15 that a small handgun or bear spray couldn’t also do? What is the practical need for a weapon that can mass-murder 45 people in one minute?

Millions of people already carry a firearm around every day. Including around firecrackers.

Yes, for self defense. From the criminals that the people you vote for insist on NOT holding accountable for their crimes.

I don’t carry an AR15. I carry a handgun. Although I have AR-type rifles at home. Although they’re not AR15’s….. so thise must be ok with you, right?

Bear spray? I don’t have bears in my neighborhood. But I do have car jackers.


You sound really histrionic and it’s hard to take you seriously.

So, self defense from….other gun owners. Got it.

I’m a lot less histrionic than the scaredy cats who need to bring an AK 47 to order a sandwich.

You're talking about a population that is in fear of having sandwiches thrown at them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After new town I was sure we were going to have at least a little sanity. After Parkland I totally gave up on the possibility of gun control. But since than we have had mass shooting at churches and schools and even the Amish have been victims. What does it take to do even the smallest reforms enacted?

Jesus this is ridiculous.

An anti-gun lobby with more money than the NRA and gun manufacturers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Activist courts in the 1980s through the 2000s also created the modern interpretation of the second amendment out of thin air (funded by the NRA). Prior to 1970, the 2A was largely ignored, and understood to be rooted in mistrust of a standing army and therefore applicable only to militias. James Madison’s first draft of the amendment explicitly stated: “a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.” Note the religious exemption clause, which doesn’t make sense if you’re talking about personal self defense. The phrases “well-regulated” and “militia” imply that the state has a right to regulate firearms.

If you want to be a strict originalist, go right ahead, but you can’t have it both ways.

No, the militia refers to the general public. In the Miller case that said guns are for the militia that people like to cite, Miller was not part of any formal militia. Yet that was not the end of the case for the Supreme Court. They went into a more detailed analysis and ruled that the sawed off shotgun had no military purpose. If the 2nd amendment was about military units well regulated by the states, why did the Supreme Court have to go through what type of weapon was being used for someone not in a military unit? Also, strangely the case had no defense lawyer as Miller was a no show.

“Militia” refers to a militia.

The Supreme Court ruled against Miller, stating that a sawed off shotgun did not have any known (to them) military use and therefore was not protected by the 2A.