Common Sense Gun Laws

[Anonymous]

Not surprising

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That may still be true, but why shouldn’t we make it a lot harder? Especially for these disturbed 18 year olds who want to shoot up schools? Id like to throw up every effin roadblock I can to prevent little kids being murdered. What is wrong with you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks: "Gun Control" is a dead term. It died at Sandy Hook. The new term is Massacre Reduction. Pass it on.

Yea, seems like a good way to refocus our efforts on the root cause of mental health crisis.

Great idea!!!

? "Mental health crisis" is a Republican talking point. See also: "Criminals."

The crisis is widespread retail access to assault weapons.

To that point, there's some sweet deals here if you're in the market:

https://www.sportsmansoutdoorsuperstore.com/category.cfm/sportsman/ar-15-rifles

But, yes, the new term (replacing soggy old, failed "gun control") is Massacre Reduction.

“massacre reduction” is a democrat talking point. See also “common sense gun safety laws”


At least have the honesty to call it what you actually want: “gun bans and gun confiscation”


Just be honest about it. Let people decide on the real goal, rather than hiding it in deliberately non-specific euphemisms.

Idiot,

Massacre Reduction is not a Democratic talking point, but it should be. See

I’m noticing a prevailing trend here: gun grabbers and hoplophobes like you always seem to begin their retort with an insult.

Why is that? Why are you incapable of discussion without insulting others? What do you attribute that to? A lack of self control?

Here's another prevailing trend: Mass shooters killing people. Didja hear the latest? 19 children were slaughtered last week, most of them by having their face blown off.

Non-sequitur.

Can you please try to answer the question?

Why does anyone need an AR 15? Why do these bloody slaughters happen mostly in the USA again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again?

There's lots of reasons to own one, but you will likely dismiss them.

+1. I use one for terminating chipmunks and wild boar, both of which wreak havoc on our farmland. The latter also tastes awesome. The other big thing that they can be used for is as an insurance policy against a tyrannical government, i.e. as the founding fathers intended. If just 5% of a 300 million population country owns weaponry, it makes going door to door and sending people the the gulag very costly for a government that gets out of hand. It’s hard to imagine a situation where the US government is going door to door and sending people to the gulag, but who thought it would happen in Germany at the time.

The founding fathers DID NOT intend for you to use an AR 15 to do anything, because at the time of the constitution, AR 15s DID NOT EXIST!. There is absolutely NO RIGHT IN THE CONSTITUTION TO OWNING AN AR 15- those items did not even exist at the time. So yes, you may be entitled to a musket, which existed at the time, but certainly not a semi automatic weapon.

Repeating firearms existed more than 50 years before the constitution. I'm pretty certain that the founders understood technological innovation, "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Article I Section 8 | Clause 8

Another proud voice from the Pro-Massacre Community. Welcome!

[Anonymous]

The constitution says what SCOTUS rules that it says. If they can engineer reproductive rights to their liking, we can do the same with gun rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not surprising

How about per capita?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The constitution says what SCOTUS rules that it says. If they can engineer reproductive rights to their liking, we can do the same with gun rights.

While that is true, arms are explicitly mentioned which makes it more difficult than reproductive rights.

It's probably better to go the amendment route.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That may still be true, but why shouldn’t we make it a lot harder? Especially for these disturbed 18 year olds who want to shoot up schools? Id like to throw up every effin roadblock I can to prevent little kids being murdered. What is wrong with you?

Some things have been changed since 1985 or society and culture and gun technology is not the same. I want my politicians to continue thinking like they did 30 years ago?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The constitution says what SCOTUS rules that it says. If they can engineer reproductive rights to their liking, we can do the same with gun rights.

While that is true, arms are explicitly mentioned which makes it more difficult than reproductive rights.

It's probably better to go the amendment route.

“the people” <> individuals

Well-regulated militia can keep the arms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The constitution says what SCOTUS rules that it says. If they can engineer reproductive rights to their liking, we can do the same with gun rights.

While that is true, arms are explicitly mentioned which makes it more difficult than reproductive rights.

It's probably better to go the amendment route.

Scotus is political. They will do what they are put on the court to do clearly. Obviously it can argued that an assualt weapons ban and high capacity magazine ban are constitutional.... We had them for a decade just fine. Justices need to be put on the court that see it as perfectly constitutional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The constitution says what SCOTUS rules that it says. If they can engineer reproductive rights to their liking, we can do the same with gun rights.

While that is true, arms are explicitly mentioned which makes it more difficult than reproductive rights.

It's probably better to go the amendment route.

“the people” <> individuals

Well-regulated militia can keep the arms.

Heller says otherwise, unless SCOTUS changes it's mind. Likewise when it came to militia SCOTUS also ruled that the government could regulate firearms that weren't suitable for military use, because those weren't proper for a militia to use.

That would support the idea that AR15s aren't weapons of war per the 1935 NFA

[Anonymous]

Fun-Fact: More people die yearly from knives and fists than guns

Another Fun-Fact: More people die yearly from handguns than AK/AR's

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fun-Fact: More people die yearly from knives and fists than guns

Another Fun-Fact: More people die yearly from handguns than AK/AR's

Ok. Fabulous. Stick to knives and fists and handguns and ban the ARs. Sounds like we can n actually agree on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fun-Fact: More people die yearly from knives and fists than guns

Another Fun-Fact: More people die yearly from handguns than AK/AR's

In Las Vegas, one loner misfit freak shot 411 people (killing 61) in a matter of minutes. Mass shooters just LOVE assault rifles. There really is no substitute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fun-Fact: More people die yearly from knives and fists than guns

Another Fun-Fact: More people die yearly from handguns than AK/AR's

#1 Killer of Children in the good old USA - GUNS!!! Maybe you and your ilk are all to willing to sacrifice children to your worship of the gun idol. But, not me.