Stop talking, start doing. That means you, Republicans. You are on the wrong side of this and you need to find your moral compass.
Do what exactly?
Solutions have been proposed, like Australia's. Get cracking.
You must have missed this post a few pages back. It’s time to move on from the Australia narrative.
Anonymous wrote:A person has posted this information in several topics on DCUM.
After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, Australia (a country with a comparatively strong 'gun culture', at least by world standards) said "F**k this."
1) They made it illegal to import, buy, sell, trade or transfer semi-automatic weapons (the mass shooters' favorite!)
The latest ATF information I could find reported that 12,521,614 firearms were manufactured in the U.S. in 2021. That nullifies an import ban(never mind the 400,000,000+ guns already in civilian hands).
Semiautomatic firearms are by far the most popular type owned by Americans. Making it “illegal” to buy, sell, trade or transfer them wouldn’t survive a legal challenge. A 5-4 liberal SCOTUS would strike any such legislation down on constitutional grounds.
2) Btw, ammosexuals, they did NOT seize anyone's semi-automatic weapons. If you have them, and want them, fine, keep them -- just don't sell them or convey them to someone else, or you've committed a crime.
If we’re conceding that Americans get to keep 400,000,000+ guns, how many mass shootings are we realistically hoping to prevent? The very public mass shootings you see weeks of 24 hour news coverage about make up a small portion of overall mass killings. An analysis of data by the AP, USA Today and Northwestern University looked at intentional killings where 4 or more people(excluding the assailant) died in a 24 hour period. Non-public mass shooting by a family member or acquaintance far outnumber public mass shootings every year since 2006. So, now what?
Let’s not forget that a Harvard study in 2017 estimated that 380,000 firearms are stolen each year. There are millions more guns in civilian hands now, which makes it even easier to steal guns.
Making it illegal to sell or transfer guns wouldn’t pass constitutional muster. Again, we need to work within the rights protected by the Constitution.
3) Simultaneously, they instituted a nationwide, no-questions-asked VOLUNTARY gun buyback program. If you have a firearm (any firearm, of any kind, operational or not) and would like to turn it in, the govt paid people $1,000 per gun (this was 25+ yrs ago).
The current value of $1,000 in 1996 is $2,058.94. I’d gladly go find and exchange decrepit, old, non-functioning guns for $2,000 each to fund a Porsche. What this voluntary process wouldn’t do is make any significant dent in number of civilian owned guns. I keep hearing that America has a “gun culture.” Why would anyone believe people would voluntarily turn in their guns?
You’dneed to confiscate them, and we all know THAT will never happen.
Then come up with a different solution. The status quo clearly id not working. Doing nothing is not working. Deflections and distraction is not working. One mass shooting is too many mass shootings. You are failing America and are getting people killed. The blood is on your hands.
"We already have enough laws" is not the answer, it's clearly not working. And, "we can't, because of 2A" is also not working or an appropriate answer. And neither is "prayers."
Do better. Stop making excuses.
Radio silence from the "yabut 2A" folks. If you aren't helping solve this problem then you are part of the problem. If you aren't offering up real solutions instead of empty deflections and false platitudes then at least get out of the way so that others can fix it.
DP. Incorrect. Just because you aren't helping to solve the problem doesn't mean you are part of the problem. One origin of this saying is a quote from Eldridge Cleaver as part of the Black Power Movement of the 1960s. You can also turn this phrase on its head and apply it to mental health for those who use guns to engage in mass shootings.
Wrong. Continuing to voting for leaders who block reform while mass shootings continue is not neutral, it's indeed complicity.
Yes, we have a gun problem. Yes, we have a mental health crisis. But using one to deflect from the other is a tactic, not a solution.
If you reject models like Australia's or others, then name a better one.
If you claim the Constitution ties our hands, then propose what can be done within it.
The bloodshed continues while you deflect with stalling tactics and hypotheticals. The time for vague outrage and passive excuses is over. Either show us your plan, or step aside and stop voting for people who aren't going to help solve it.
You have this little thing called a vote. So does everyone else. That's how we do things in this country. The people have voted for the leaders we have, and for the policies they support. Likewise, we have courts to rule on whether certain laws and regulations are constitutional, and again, your elected leaders select those judges.
There is no solution that Republicans and Democrats can get behind. Certainly not what the UK and Australia have in place. The UK is going even further than banning guns - it is banning speech because that speech hurts someone's feelings. Our founders declared independence for this and other reasons.
I find it disturbing that you would abandon the core principles of the US for an illusion of safety (Google knife attacks in the UK and Australia). Benjamin Franklin put it best "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Again, wrong answer. Let’s be clear: invoking Franklin while sidestepping the actual carnage unfolding in American communities is not a principled defense of liberty, it’s a rhetorical dodge. Your "illusion of safety" argument collapses under the weight of real data: the U.S. has over 45,000 gun-related deaths annually, and more than 600 mass shootings per year. That’s not theoretical. That’s funerals, trauma, and shattered lives.
Yes, we vote. And yes, courts interpret laws. But when the system produces gridlock while children are shot in classrooms, it’s not enough to shrug and say "that’s democracy." Democracy demands accountability. If elected leaders block reforms that could reduce harm whether through universal background checks, red flag laws, or limits on high-capacity magazines, then voters have every right to call that complicity - and your own complicity.
And no, rejecting Australia’s model doesn’t absolve anyone. If you believe it’s unworkable here, then propose something better. But don’t pretend that "doing nothing" is a neutral stance. It’s not, it's a choice, actively invoked at the ballot box. And it has destructive consequences.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact. It was designed to be interpreted and adapted to protect the public good. If you believe in liberty, then defend the liberty of children to attend school without fear. Defend the liberty of families to gather without worrying about crossfire. Defend the liberty of Americans to live without the constant threat of mass violence.
If you’re not offering solutions, then step aside.
About the same number of deaths as motor vehicle accidents. Haven’t banned cars, which by the way have no constitutional protections. Also, half of gun deaths are suicides, can’t say the same for motor vehicle deaths.
Bogus analogy comparing guns and cars.
Cars weren't explicitly and specifically designed to kill. Cars are utilitarian, and serve many purposes, and are for many Americans essential to everyday life. Guns on the other hand were specifically designed for killing. Only around 8.4% of Americans are subsistence hunters who depend on guns. Exceptions for hunters can be made (Australia and most of Europe and other countries with stricter gun laws than the US do this), and even then, hunters don't need AR-15s and high-capacity magazines. Nor does the average American need AR-15s or other military-design guns and high-capacity magazines to for self-defense.
The math is bogus too. In 2023, car deaths per 100k population were 12.06. Gun deaths per 100k population were 15,186. Guns are over a thousand times more deadly.
Sorry, I know math is hard but here are the facts. There were 40,901 deaths from motor vehicle crashes in the United States in 2023. This corresponds to 12.2 deaths per 100,000 people -
Fatalities from car accidents should be measured on a vehicle miles driven basis. Per capita is not particularly meaningful here.
Stop talking, start doing. That means you, Republicans. You are on the wrong side of this and you need to find your moral compass.
Do what exactly?
Solutions have been proposed, like Australia's. Get cracking.
You must have missed this post a few pages back. It’s time to move on from the Australia narrative.
Anonymous wrote:A person has posted this information in several topics on DCUM.
After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, Australia (a country with a comparatively strong 'gun culture', at least by world standards) said "F**k this."
1) They made it illegal to import, buy, sell, trade or transfer semi-automatic weapons (the mass shooters' favorite!)
The latest ATF information I could find reported that 12,521,614 firearms were manufactured in the U.S. in 2021. That nullifies an import ban(never mind the 400,000,000+ guns already in civilian hands).
Semiautomatic firearms are by far the most popular type owned by Americans. Making it “illegal” to buy, sell, trade or transfer them wouldn’t survive a legal challenge. A 5-4 liberal SCOTUS would strike any such legislation down on constitutional grounds.
2) Btw, ammosexuals, they did NOT seize anyone's semi-automatic weapons. If you have them, and want them, fine, keep them -- just don't sell them or convey them to someone else, or you've committed a crime.
If we’re conceding that Americans get to keep 400,000,000+ guns, how many mass shootings are we realistically hoping to prevent? The very public mass shootings you see weeks of 24 hour news coverage about make up a small portion of overall mass killings. An analysis of data by the AP, USA Today and Northwestern University looked at intentional killings where 4 or more people(excluding the assailant) died in a 24 hour period. Non-public mass shooting by a family member or acquaintance far outnumber public mass shootings every year since 2006. So, now what?
Let’s not forget that a Harvard study in 2017 estimated that 380,000 firearms are stolen each year. There are millions more guns in civilian hands now, which makes it even easier to steal guns.
Making it illegal to sell or transfer guns wouldn’t pass constitutional muster. Again, we need to work within the rights protected by the Constitution.
3) Simultaneously, they instituted a nationwide, no-questions-asked VOLUNTARY gun buyback program. If you have a firearm (any firearm, of any kind, operational or not) and would like to turn it in, the govt paid people $1,000 per gun (this was 25+ yrs ago).
The current value of $1,000 in 1996 is $2,058.94. I’d gladly go find and exchange decrepit, old, non-functioning guns for $2,000 each to fund a Porsche. What this voluntary process wouldn’t do is make any significant dent in number of civilian owned guns. I keep hearing that America has a “gun culture.” Why would anyone believe people would voluntarily turn in their guns?
You’dneed to confiscate them, and we all know THAT will never happen.
Then come up with a different solution. The status quo clearly id not working. Doing nothing is not working. Deflections and distraction is not working. One mass shooting is too many mass shootings. You are failing America and are getting people killed. The blood is on your hands.
"We already have enough laws" is not the answer, it's clearly not working. And, "we can't, because of 2A" is also not working or an appropriate answer. And neither is "prayers."
Do better. Stop making excuses.
Radio silence from the "yabut 2A" folks. If you aren't helping solve this problem then you are part of the problem. If you aren't offering up real solutions instead of empty deflections and false platitudes then at least get out of the way so that others can fix it.
DP. Incorrect. Just because you aren't helping to solve the problem doesn't mean you are part of the problem. One origin of this saying is a quote from Eldridge Cleaver as part of the Black Power Movement of the 1960s. You can also turn this phrase on its head and apply it to mental health for those who use guns to engage in mass shootings.
Wrong. Continuing to voting for leaders who block reform while mass shootings continue is not neutral, it's indeed complicity.
Yes, we have a gun problem. Yes, we have a mental health crisis. But using one to deflect from the other is a tactic, not a solution.
If you reject models like Australia's or others, then name a better one.
If you claim the Constitution ties our hands, then propose what can be done within it.
The bloodshed continues while you deflect with stalling tactics and hypotheticals. The time for vague outrage and passive excuses is over. Either show us your plan, or step aside and stop voting for people who aren't going to help solve it.
You have this little thing called a vote. So does everyone else. That's how we do things in this country. The people have voted for the leaders we have, and for the policies they support. Likewise, we have courts to rule on whether certain laws and regulations are constitutional, and again, your elected leaders select those judges.
There is no solution that Republicans and Democrats can get behind. Certainly not what the UK and Australia have in place. The UK is going even further than banning guns - it is banning speech because that speech hurts someone's feelings. Our founders declared independence for this and other reasons.
I find it disturbing that you would abandon the core principles of the US for an illusion of safety (Google knife attacks in the UK and Australia). Benjamin Franklin put it best "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Again, wrong answer. Let’s be clear: invoking Franklin while sidestepping the actual carnage unfolding in American communities is not a principled defense of liberty, it’s a rhetorical dodge. Your "illusion of safety" argument collapses under the weight of real data: the U.S. has over 45,000 gun-related deaths annually, and more than 600 mass shootings per year. That’s not theoretical. That’s funerals, trauma, and shattered lives.
Yes, we vote. And yes, courts interpret laws. But when the system produces gridlock while children are shot in classrooms, it’s not enough to shrug and say "that’s democracy." Democracy demands accountability. If elected leaders block reforms that could reduce harm whether through universal background checks, red flag laws, or limits on high-capacity magazines, then voters have every right to call that complicity - and your own complicity.
And no, rejecting Australia’s model doesn’t absolve anyone. If you believe it’s unworkable here, then propose something better. But don’t pretend that "doing nothing" is a neutral stance. It’s not, it's a choice, actively invoked at the ballot box. And it has destructive consequences.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact. It was designed to be interpreted and adapted to protect the public good. If you believe in liberty, then defend the liberty of children to attend school without fear. Defend the liberty of families to gather without worrying about crossfire. Defend the liberty of Americans to live without the constant threat of mass violence.
If you’re not offering solutions, then step aside.
Absolutely the WRONG answer and I will not step aside. The Constitution is to be interpreted as written. Courts cannot adapt the Constitution to protect the public good. They must work within its framework. If you don't like the Second Amendment - as interpreted by the Supreme Court - then change the Constitution. Franklin was 100% correct. As for defending the liberty of children to attend school without fear, please start with the mentally ill people who shoot up schools. That seems to be ignored time and time again. Taking away a lawful right for the vast majority of Americans is never the answer. Then again, you would probably be in favor of the way the UK and Australia handle free speech.
By the way, there is mass violence from stabbings in the UK. They may not be dozens at a time, but the sheer volume demonstrates the key point - it's the person, not the weapon.
Ah yes, the ole "it’s the person, not the weapon" refrain - classic misdirection.
Let’s unpack that. You’re arguing that because violence exists in other forms, we should ignore the uniquely catastrophic scale enabled by firearms. That’s like saying we shouldn’t regulate drunk driving because people also die in bike accidents.
And invoking Franklin? Please. Quoting a man who lived in an era of single-shot muskets to justify the civilian stockpiling of AR-15s is not constitutional fidelity, it’s historical cosplay. The Second Amendment was written when "arms" meant powder, ball, and a 30-second reload. Our founding fathers did not envisage deranged civilians with the capacity to fire 45+ rounds per minute and use high capacity magazines. In less than 10 minutes, Stephen Paddock fired over 1100 rounds into a crowd of concert goers in the Las Vegas mass shooting. That's more firepower than an entire revolutionary war company of 50+ soldiers.
You say courts can’t adapt the Constitution to protect the public good. That’s not originalism, it’s paralysis. The Constitution has been amended 27 times precisely because its framers knew that liberty without progress is just stagnation in a powdered wig.
And your claim that "taking away a lawful right for the vast majority of Americans is never the answer?" That’s not a defense of rights, it’s a refusal to reckon with reality. Rights come with responsibilities. When one right, unchecked and unregulated, leads to thousands of preventable deaths, it’s not tyranny to intervene. It’s governance.
Mental health matters, yes. But using it as a rhetorical shield while refusing to address mental health, and while blocking every attempt to regulate access to weapons of war is not concern, it’s complicity and false concern trolling about mental health. You don’t get to point at the mentally ill while voting against funding for mental health services, red flag laws, and crisis intervention programs.
So no, I WILL NOT go along with your charade and pretend your stance is principled. It’s disingenuous, and is 100% performative. And while you cling to your selective reading of the Constitution, the rest of us are burying children.
You want to defend rights and liberty? Then start by defending the right to live. Either that or stand aside, you fraudulent charlatan.
Glad we agree that the Constitution can only be changed by amendment. Until that happens, we live within its framework. The Second Amendment exists to defend the right to live. Just ask those who died at the hands of homicidal dictators. I'm quite sure they would have preferred to keep their guns. But of course, back then you would have voted to take them away in the name of "public safety" - just like those countries did.
Stop talking, start doing. That means you, Republicans. You are on the wrong side of this and you need to find your moral compass.
Do what exactly?
Solutions have been proposed, like Australia's. Get cracking.
You must have missed this post a few pages back. It’s time to move on from the Australia narrative.
Anonymous wrote:A person has posted this information in several topics on DCUM.
After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, Australia (a country with a comparatively strong 'gun culture', at least by world standards) said "F**k this."
1) They made it illegal to import, buy, sell, trade or transfer semi-automatic weapons (the mass shooters' favorite!)
The latest ATF information I could find reported that 12,521,614 firearms were manufactured in the U.S. in 2021. That nullifies an import ban(never mind the 400,000,000+ guns already in civilian hands).
Semiautomatic firearms are by far the most popular type owned by Americans. Making it “illegal” to buy, sell, trade or transfer them wouldn’t survive a legal challenge. A 5-4 liberal SCOTUS would strike any such legislation down on constitutional grounds.
2) Btw, ammosexuals, they did NOT seize anyone's semi-automatic weapons. If you have them, and want them, fine, keep them -- just don't sell them or convey them to someone else, or you've committed a crime.
If we’re conceding that Americans get to keep 400,000,000+ guns, how many mass shootings are we realistically hoping to prevent? The very public mass shootings you see weeks of 24 hour news coverage about make up a small portion of overall mass killings. An analysis of data by the AP, USA Today and Northwestern University looked at intentional killings where 4 or more people(excluding the assailant) died in a 24 hour period. Non-public mass shooting by a family member or acquaintance far outnumber public mass shootings every year since 2006. So, now what?
Let’s not forget that a Harvard study in 2017 estimated that 380,000 firearms are stolen each year. There are millions more guns in civilian hands now, which makes it even easier to steal guns.
Making it illegal to sell or transfer guns wouldn’t pass constitutional muster. Again, we need to work within the rights protected by the Constitution.
3) Simultaneously, they instituted a nationwide, no-questions-asked VOLUNTARY gun buyback program. If you have a firearm (any firearm, of any kind, operational or not) and would like to turn it in, the govt paid people $1,000 per gun (this was 25+ yrs ago).
The current value of $1,000 in 1996 is $2,058.94. I’d gladly go find and exchange decrepit, old, non-functioning guns for $2,000 each to fund a Porsche. What this voluntary process wouldn’t do is make any significant dent in number of civilian owned guns. I keep hearing that America has a “gun culture.” Why would anyone believe people would voluntarily turn in their guns?
You’dneed to confiscate them, and we all know THAT will never happen.
Then come up with a different solution. The status quo clearly id not working. Doing nothing is not working. Deflections and distraction is not working. One mass shooting is too many mass shootings. You are failing America and are getting people killed. The blood is on your hands.
"We already have enough laws" is not the answer, it's clearly not working. And, "we can't, because of 2A" is also not working or an appropriate answer. And neither is "prayers."
Do better. Stop making excuses.
Radio silence from the "yabut 2A" folks. If you aren't helping solve this problem then you are part of the problem. If you aren't offering up real solutions instead of empty deflections and false platitudes then at least get out of the way so that others can fix it.
DP. Incorrect. Just because you aren't helping to solve the problem doesn't mean you are part of the problem. One origin of this saying is a quote from Eldridge Cleaver as part of the Black Power Movement of the 1960s. You can also turn this phrase on its head and apply it to mental health for those who use guns to engage in mass shootings.
Wrong. Continuing to voting for leaders who block reform while mass shootings continue is not neutral, it's indeed complicity.
Yes, we have a gun problem. Yes, we have a mental health crisis. But using one to deflect from the other is a tactic, not a solution.
If you reject models like Australia's or others, then name a better one.
If you claim the Constitution ties our hands, then propose what can be done within it.
The bloodshed continues while you deflect with stalling tactics and hypotheticals. The time for vague outrage and passive excuses is over. Either show us your plan, or step aside and stop voting for people who aren't going to help solve it.
You have this little thing called a vote. So does everyone else. That's how we do things in this country. The people have voted for the leaders we have, and for the policies they support. Likewise, we have courts to rule on whether certain laws and regulations are constitutional, and again, your elected leaders select those judges.
There is no solution that Republicans and Democrats can get behind. Certainly not what the UK and Australia have in place. The UK is going even further than banning guns - it is banning speech because that speech hurts someone's feelings. Our founders declared independence for this and other reasons.
I find it disturbing that you would abandon the core principles of the US for an illusion of safety (Google knife attacks in the UK and Australia). Benjamin Franklin put it best "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Again, wrong answer. Let’s be clear: invoking Franklin while sidestepping the actual carnage unfolding in American communities is not a principled defense of liberty, it’s a rhetorical dodge. Your "illusion of safety" argument collapses under the weight of real data: the U.S. has over 45,000 gun-related deaths annually, and more than 600 mass shootings per year. That’s not theoretical. That’s funerals, trauma, and shattered lives.
Yes, we vote. And yes, courts interpret laws. But when the system produces gridlock while children are shot in classrooms, it’s not enough to shrug and say "that’s democracy." Democracy demands accountability. If elected leaders block reforms that could reduce harm whether through universal background checks, red flag laws, or limits on high-capacity magazines, then voters have every right to call that complicity - and your own complicity.
And no, rejecting Australia’s model doesn’t absolve anyone. If you believe it’s unworkable here, then propose something better. But don’t pretend that "doing nothing" is a neutral stance. It’s not, it's a choice, actively invoked at the ballot box. And it has destructive consequences.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact. It was designed to be interpreted and adapted to protect the public good. If you believe in liberty, then defend the liberty of children to attend school without fear. Defend the liberty of families to gather without worrying about crossfire. Defend the liberty of Americans to live without the constant threat of mass violence.
If you’re not offering solutions, then step aside.
About the same number of deaths as motor vehicle accidents. Haven’t banned cars, which by the way have no constitutional protections. Also, half of gun deaths are suicides, can’t say the same for motor vehicle deaths.
Bogus analogy comparing guns and cars.
Cars weren't explicitly and specifically designed to kill. Cars are utilitarian, and serve many purposes, and are for many Americans essential to everyday life. Guns on the other hand were specifically designed for killing. Only around 8.4% of Americans are subsistence hunters who depend on guns. Exceptions for hunters can be made (Australia and most of Europe and other countries with stricter gun laws than the US do this), and even then, hunters don't need AR-15s and high-capacity magazines. Nor does the average American need AR-15s or other military-design guns and high-capacity magazines to for self-defense.
The math is bogus too. In 2023, car deaths per 100k population were 12.06. Gun deaths per 100k population were 15,186. Guns are over a thousand times more deadly.
Why would you discount for suicides, unless you’re intentionally trying to make the math fuzzy to downplay the danger? Guns still cause more deaths than cars.
Stop talking, start doing. That means you, Republicans. You are on the wrong side of this and you need to find your moral compass.
Do what exactly?
Solutions have been proposed, like Australia's. Get cracking.
You must have missed this post a few pages back. It’s time to move on from the Australia narrative.
Anonymous wrote:A person has posted this information in several topics on DCUM.
After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, Australia (a country with a comparatively strong 'gun culture', at least by world standards) said "F**k this."
1) They made it illegal to import, buy, sell, trade or transfer semi-automatic weapons (the mass shooters' favorite!)
The latest ATF information I could find reported that 12,521,614 firearms were manufactured in the U.S. in 2021. That nullifies an import ban(never mind the 400,000,000+ guns already in civilian hands).
Semiautomatic firearms are by far the most popular type owned by Americans. Making it “illegal” to buy, sell, trade or transfer them wouldn’t survive a legal challenge. A 5-4 liberal SCOTUS would strike any such legislation down on constitutional grounds.
2) Btw, ammosexuals, they did NOT seize anyone's semi-automatic weapons. If you have them, and want them, fine, keep them -- just don't sell them or convey them to someone else, or you've committed a crime.
If we’re conceding that Americans get to keep 400,000,000+ guns, how many mass shootings are we realistically hoping to prevent? The very public mass shootings you see weeks of 24 hour news coverage about make up a small portion of overall mass killings. An analysis of data by the AP, USA Today and Northwestern University looked at intentional killings where 4 or more people(excluding the assailant) died in a 24 hour period. Non-public mass shooting by a family member or acquaintance far outnumber public mass shootings every year since 2006. So, now what?
Let’s not forget that a Harvard study in 2017 estimated that 380,000 firearms are stolen each year. There are millions more guns in civilian hands now, which makes it even easier to steal guns.
Making it illegal to sell or transfer guns wouldn’t pass constitutional muster. Again, we need to work within the rights protected by the Constitution.
3) Simultaneously, they instituted a nationwide, no-questions-asked VOLUNTARY gun buyback program. If you have a firearm (any firearm, of any kind, operational or not) and would like to turn it in, the govt paid people $1,000 per gun (this was 25+ yrs ago).
The current value of $1,000 in 1996 is $2,058.94. I’d gladly go find and exchange decrepit, old, non-functioning guns for $2,000 each to fund a Porsche. What this voluntary process wouldn’t do is make any significant dent in number of civilian owned guns. I keep hearing that America has a “gun culture.” Why would anyone believe people would voluntarily turn in their guns?
You’dneed to confiscate them, and we all know THAT will never happen.
Then come up with a different solution. The status quo clearly id not working. Doing nothing is not working. Deflections and distraction is not working. One mass shooting is too many mass shootings. You are failing America and are getting people killed. The blood is on your hands.
"We already have enough laws" is not the answer, it's clearly not working. And, "we can't, because of 2A" is also not working or an appropriate answer. And neither is "prayers."
Do better. Stop making excuses.
Radio silence from the "yabut 2A" folks. If you aren't helping solve this problem then you are part of the problem. If you aren't offering up real solutions instead of empty deflections and false platitudes then at least get out of the way so that others can fix it.
DP. Incorrect. Just because you aren't helping to solve the problem doesn't mean you are part of the problem. One origin of this saying is a quote from Eldridge Cleaver as part of the Black Power Movement of the 1960s. You can also turn this phrase on its head and apply it to mental health for those who use guns to engage in mass shootings.
Wrong. Continuing to voting for leaders who block reform while mass shootings continue is not neutral, it's indeed complicity.
Yes, we have a gun problem. Yes, we have a mental health crisis. But using one to deflect from the other is a tactic, not a solution.
If you reject models like Australia's or others, then name a better one.
If you claim the Constitution ties our hands, then propose what can be done within it.
The bloodshed continues while you deflect with stalling tactics and hypotheticals. The time for vague outrage and passive excuses is over. Either show us your plan, or step aside and stop voting for people who aren't going to help solve it.
You have this little thing called a vote. So does everyone else. That's how we do things in this country. The people have voted for the leaders we have, and for the policies they support. Likewise, we have courts to rule on whether certain laws and regulations are constitutional, and again, your elected leaders select those judges.
There is no solution that Republicans and Democrats can get behind. Certainly not what the UK and Australia have in place. The UK is going even further than banning guns - it is banning speech because that speech hurts someone's feelings. Our founders declared independence for this and other reasons.
I find it disturbing that you would abandon the core principles of the US for an illusion of safety (Google knife attacks in the UK and Australia). Benjamin Franklin put it best "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Again, wrong answer. Let’s be clear: invoking Franklin while sidestepping the actual carnage unfolding in American communities is not a principled defense of liberty, it’s a rhetorical dodge. Your "illusion of safety" argument collapses under the weight of real data: the U.S. has over 45,000 gun-related deaths annually, and more than 600 mass shootings per year. That’s not theoretical. That’s funerals, trauma, and shattered lives.
Yes, we vote. And yes, courts interpret laws. But when the system produces gridlock while children are shot in classrooms, it’s not enough to shrug and say "that’s democracy." Democracy demands accountability. If elected leaders block reforms that could reduce harm whether through universal background checks, red flag laws, or limits on high-capacity magazines, then voters have every right to call that complicity - and your own complicity.
And no, rejecting Australia’s model doesn’t absolve anyone. If you believe it’s unworkable here, then propose something better. But don’t pretend that "doing nothing" is a neutral stance. It’s not, it's a choice, actively invoked at the ballot box. And it has destructive consequences.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact. It was designed to be interpreted and adapted to protect the public good. If you believe in liberty, then defend the liberty of children to attend school without fear. Defend the liberty of families to gather without worrying about crossfire. Defend the liberty of Americans to live without the constant threat of mass violence.
If you’re not offering solutions, then step aside.
About the same number of deaths as motor vehicle accidents. Haven’t banned cars, which by the way have no constitutional protections. Also, half of gun deaths are suicides, can’t say the same for motor vehicle deaths.
Bogus analogy comparing guns and cars.
Cars weren't explicitly and specifically designed to kill. Cars are utilitarian, and serve many purposes, and are for many Americans essential to everyday life. Guns on the other hand were specifically designed for killing. Only around 8.4% of Americans are subsistence hunters who depend on guns. Exceptions for hunters can be made (Australia and most of Europe and other countries with stricter gun laws than the US do this), and even then, hunters don't need AR-15s and high-capacity magazines. Nor does the average American need AR-15s or other military-design guns and high-capacity magazines to for self-defense.
The math is bogus too. In 2023, car deaths per 100k population were 12.06. Gun deaths per 100k population were 15,186. Guns are over a thousand times more deadly.
Why would you discount for suicides, unless you’re intentionally trying to make the math fuzzy to downplay the danger? Guns still cause more deaths than cars.
Lots of products and activities play a role in premature deaths, but we make little to no effort to materially regulate most of them. Bad behavior or poor choices by individuals are behind most such deaths, but it's easier to blame the instruments than the actors.
Stop talking, start doing. That means you, Republicans. You are on the wrong side of this and you need to find your moral compass.
Do what exactly?
Solutions have been proposed, like Australia's. Get cracking.
You must have missed this post a few pages back. It’s time to move on from the Australia narrative.
Anonymous wrote:A person has posted this information in several topics on DCUM.
After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, Australia (a country with a comparatively strong 'gun culture', at least by world standards) said "F**k this."
1) They made it illegal to import, buy, sell, trade or transfer semi-automatic weapons (the mass shooters' favorite!)
The latest ATF information I could find reported that 12,521,614 firearms were manufactured in the U.S. in 2021. That nullifies an import ban(never mind the 400,000,000+ guns already in civilian hands).
Semiautomatic firearms are by far the most popular type owned by Americans. Making it “illegal” to buy, sell, trade or transfer them wouldn’t survive a legal challenge. A 5-4 liberal SCOTUS would strike any such legislation down on constitutional grounds.
2) Btw, ammosexuals, they did NOT seize anyone's semi-automatic weapons. If you have them, and want them, fine, keep them -- just don't sell them or convey them to someone else, or you've committed a crime.
If we’re conceding that Americans get to keep 400,000,000+ guns, how many mass shootings are we realistically hoping to prevent? The very public mass shootings you see weeks of 24 hour news coverage about make up a small portion of overall mass killings. An analysis of data by the AP, USA Today and Northwestern University looked at intentional killings where 4 or more people(excluding the assailant) died in a 24 hour period. Non-public mass shooting by a family member or acquaintance far outnumber public mass shootings every year since 2006. So, now what?
Let’s not forget that a Harvard study in 2017 estimated that 380,000 firearms are stolen each year. There are millions more guns in civilian hands now, which makes it even easier to steal guns.
Making it illegal to sell or transfer guns wouldn’t pass constitutional muster. Again, we need to work within the rights protected by the Constitution.
3) Simultaneously, they instituted a nationwide, no-questions-asked VOLUNTARY gun buyback program. If you have a firearm (any firearm, of any kind, operational or not) and would like to turn it in, the govt paid people $1,000 per gun (this was 25+ yrs ago).
The current value of $1,000 in 1996 is $2,058.94. I’d gladly go find and exchange decrepit, old, non-functioning guns for $2,000 each to fund a Porsche. What this voluntary process wouldn’t do is make any significant dent in number of civilian owned guns. I keep hearing that America has a “gun culture.” Why would anyone believe people would voluntarily turn in their guns?
You’dneed to confiscate them, and we all know THAT will never happen.
Then come up with a different solution. The status quo clearly id not working. Doing nothing is not working. Deflections and distraction is not working. One mass shooting is too many mass shootings. You are failing America and are getting people killed. The blood is on your hands.
"We already have enough laws" is not the answer, it's clearly not working. And, "we can't, because of 2A" is also not working or an appropriate answer. And neither is "prayers."
Do better. Stop making excuses.
Radio silence from the "yabut 2A" folks. If you aren't helping solve this problem then you are part of the problem. If you aren't offering up real solutions instead of empty deflections and false platitudes then at least get out of the way so that others can fix it.
DP. Incorrect. Just because you aren't helping to solve the problem doesn't mean you are part of the problem. One origin of this saying is a quote from Eldridge Cleaver as part of the Black Power Movement of the 1960s. You can also turn this phrase on its head and apply it to mental health for those who use guns to engage in mass shootings.
Wrong. Continuing to voting for leaders who block reform while mass shootings continue is not neutral, it's indeed complicity.
Yes, we have a gun problem. Yes, we have a mental health crisis. But using one to deflect from the other is a tactic, not a solution.
If you reject models like Australia's or others, then name a better one.
If you claim the Constitution ties our hands, then propose what can be done within it.
The bloodshed continues while you deflect with stalling tactics and hypotheticals. The time for vague outrage and passive excuses is over. Either show us your plan, or step aside and stop voting for people who aren't going to help solve it.
You have this little thing called a vote. So does everyone else. That's how we do things in this country. The people have voted for the leaders we have, and for the policies they support. Likewise, we have courts to rule on whether certain laws and regulations are constitutional, and again, your elected leaders select those judges.
There is no solution that Republicans and Democrats can get behind. Certainly not what the UK and Australia have in place. The UK is going even further than banning guns - it is banning speech because that speech hurts someone's feelings. Our founders declared independence for this and other reasons.
I find it disturbing that you would abandon the core principles of the US for an illusion of safety (Google knife attacks in the UK and Australia). Benjamin Franklin put it best "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Again, wrong answer. Let’s be clear: invoking Franklin while sidestepping the actual carnage unfolding in American communities is not a principled defense of liberty, it’s a rhetorical dodge. Your "illusion of safety" argument collapses under the weight of real data: the U.S. has over 45,000 gun-related deaths annually, and more than 600 mass shootings per year. That’s not theoretical. That’s funerals, trauma, and shattered lives.
Yes, we vote. And yes, courts interpret laws. But when the system produces gridlock while children are shot in classrooms, it’s not enough to shrug and say "that’s democracy." Democracy demands accountability. If elected leaders block reforms that could reduce harm whether through universal background checks, red flag laws, or limits on high-capacity magazines, then voters have every right to call that complicity - and your own complicity.
And no, rejecting Australia’s model doesn’t absolve anyone. If you believe it’s unworkable here, then propose something better. But don’t pretend that "doing nothing" is a neutral stance. It’s not, it's a choice, actively invoked at the ballot box. And it has destructive consequences.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact. It was designed to be interpreted and adapted to protect the public good. If you believe in liberty, then defend the liberty of children to attend school without fear. Defend the liberty of families to gather without worrying about crossfire. Defend the liberty of Americans to live without the constant threat of mass violence.
If you’re not offering solutions, then step aside.
Absolutely the WRONG answer and I will not step aside. The Constitution is to be interpreted as written. Courts cannot adapt the Constitution to protect the public good. They must work within its framework. If you don't like the Second Amendment - as interpreted by the Supreme Court - then change the Constitution. Franklin was 100% correct. As for defending the liberty of children to attend school without fear, please start with the mentally ill people who shoot up schools. That seems to be ignored time and time again. Taking away a lawful right for the vast majority of Americans is never the answer. Then again, you would probably be in favor of the way the UK and Australia handle free speech.
By the way, there is mass violence from stabbings in the UK. They may not be dozens at a time, but the sheer volume demonstrates the key point - it's the person, not the weapon.
Ah yes, the ole "it’s the person, not the weapon" refrain - classic misdirection.
Let’s unpack that. You’re arguing that because violence exists in other forms, we should ignore the uniquely catastrophic scale enabled by firearms. That’s like saying we shouldn’t regulate drunk driving because people also die in bike accidents.
And invoking Franklin? Please. Quoting a man who lived in an era of single-shot muskets to justify the civilian stockpiling of AR-15s is not constitutional fidelity, it’s historical cosplay. The Second Amendment was written when "arms" meant powder, ball, and a 30-second reload. Our founding fathers did not envisage deranged civilians with the capacity to fire 45+ rounds per minute and use high capacity magazines. In less than 10 minutes, Stephen Paddock fired over 1100 rounds into a crowd of concert goers in the Las Vegas mass shooting. That's more firepower than an entire revolutionary war company of 50+ soldiers.
You say courts can’t adapt the Constitution to protect the public good. That’s not originalism, it’s paralysis. The Constitution has been amended 27 times precisely because its framers knew that liberty without progress is just stagnation in a powdered wig.
And your claim that "taking away a lawful right for the vast majority of Americans is never the answer?" That’s not a defense of rights, it’s a refusal to reckon with reality. Rights come with responsibilities. When one right, unchecked and unregulated, leads to thousands of preventable deaths, it’s not tyranny to intervene. It’s governance.
Mental health matters, yes. But using it as a rhetorical shield while refusing to address mental health, and while blocking every attempt to regulate access to weapons of war is not concern, it’s complicity and false concern trolling about mental health. You don’t get to point at the mentally ill while voting against funding for mental health services, red flag laws, and crisis intervention programs.
So no, I WILL NOT go along with your charade and pretend your stance is principled. It’s disingenuous, and is 100% performative. And while you cling to your selective reading of the Constitution, the rest of us are burying children.
You want to defend rights and liberty? Then start by defending the right to live. Either that or stand aside, you fraudulent charlatan.
The Second Amendment was written when “arms” included privately owned field artillery that fired “grape” (canister) shot, specifically designed for anti-personnel use.
Stop talking, start doing. That means you, Republicans. You are on the wrong side of this and you need to find your moral compass.
Do what exactly?
Solutions have been proposed, like Australia's. Get cracking.
You must have missed this post a few pages back. It’s time to move on from the Australia narrative.
Anonymous wrote:A person has posted this information in several topics on DCUM.
After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, Australia (a country with a comparatively strong 'gun culture', at least by world standards) said "F**k this."
1) They made it illegal to import, buy, sell, trade or transfer semi-automatic weapons (the mass shooters' favorite!)
The latest ATF information I could find reported that 12,521,614 firearms were manufactured in the U.S. in 2021. That nullifies an import ban(never mind the 400,000,000+ guns already in civilian hands).
Semiautomatic firearms are by far the most popular type owned by Americans. Making it “illegal” to buy, sell, trade or transfer them wouldn’t survive a legal challenge. A 5-4 liberal SCOTUS would strike any such legislation down on constitutional grounds.
2) Btw, ammosexuals, they did NOT seize anyone's semi-automatic weapons. If you have them, and want them, fine, keep them -- just don't sell them or convey them to someone else, or you've committed a crime.
If we’re conceding that Americans get to keep 400,000,000+ guns, how many mass shootings are we realistically hoping to prevent? The very public mass shootings you see weeks of 24 hour news coverage about make up a small portion of overall mass killings. An analysis of data by the AP, USA Today and Northwestern University looked at intentional killings where 4 or more people(excluding the assailant) died in a 24 hour period. Non-public mass shooting by a family member or acquaintance far outnumber public mass shootings every year since 2006. So, now what?
Let’s not forget that a Harvard study in 2017 estimated that 380,000 firearms are stolen each year. There are millions more guns in civilian hands now, which makes it even easier to steal guns.
Making it illegal to sell or transfer guns wouldn’t pass constitutional muster. Again, we need to work within the rights protected by the Constitution.
3) Simultaneously, they instituted a nationwide, no-questions-asked VOLUNTARY gun buyback program. If you have a firearm (any firearm, of any kind, operational or not) and would like to turn it in, the govt paid people $1,000 per gun (this was 25+ yrs ago).
The current value of $1,000 in 1996 is $2,058.94. I’d gladly go find and exchange decrepit, old, non-functioning guns for $2,000 each to fund a Porsche. What this voluntary process wouldn’t do is make any significant dent in number of civilian owned guns. I keep hearing that America has a “gun culture.” Why would anyone believe people would voluntarily turn in their guns?
You’dneed to confiscate them, and we all know THAT will never happen.
Then come up with a different solution. The status quo clearly id not working. Doing nothing is not working. Deflections and distraction is not working. One mass shooting is too many mass shootings. You are failing America and are getting people killed. The blood is on your hands.
"We already have enough laws" is not the answer, it's clearly not working. And, "we can't, because of 2A" is also not working or an appropriate answer. And neither is "prayers."
Do better. Stop making excuses.
Radio silence from the "yabut 2A" folks. If you aren't helping solve this problem then you are part of the problem. If you aren't offering up real solutions instead of empty deflections and false platitudes then at least get out of the way so that others can fix it.
DP. Incorrect. Just because you aren't helping to solve the problem doesn't mean you are part of the problem. One origin of this saying is a quote from Eldridge Cleaver as part of the Black Power Movement of the 1960s. You can also turn this phrase on its head and apply it to mental health for those who use guns to engage in mass shootings.
Wrong. Continuing to voting for leaders who block reform while mass shootings continue is not neutral, it's indeed complicity.
Yes, we have a gun problem. Yes, we have a mental health crisis. But using one to deflect from the other is a tactic, not a solution.
If you reject models like Australia's or others, then name a better one.
If you claim the Constitution ties our hands, then propose what can be done within it.
The bloodshed continues while you deflect with stalling tactics and hypotheticals. The time for vague outrage and passive excuses is over. Either show us your plan, or step aside and stop voting for people who aren't going to help solve it.
You have this little thing called a vote. So does everyone else. That's how we do things in this country. The people have voted for the leaders we have, and for the policies they support. Likewise, we have courts to rule on whether certain laws and regulations are constitutional, and again, your elected leaders select those judges.
There is no solution that Republicans and Democrats can get behind. Certainly not what the UK and Australia have in place. The UK is going even further than banning guns - it is banning speech because that speech hurts someone's feelings. Our founders declared independence for this and other reasons.
I find it disturbing that you would abandon the core principles of the US for an illusion of safety (Google knife attacks in the UK and Australia). Benjamin Franklin put it best "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Again, wrong answer. Let’s be clear: invoking Franklin while sidestepping the actual carnage unfolding in American communities is not a principled defense of liberty, it’s a rhetorical dodge. Your "illusion of safety" argument collapses under the weight of real data: the U.S. has over 45,000 gun-related deaths annually, and more than 600 mass shootings per year. That’s not theoretical. That’s funerals, trauma, and shattered lives.
Yes, we vote. And yes, courts interpret laws. But when the system produces gridlock while children are shot in classrooms, it’s not enough to shrug and say "that’s democracy." Democracy demands accountability. If elected leaders block reforms that could reduce harm whether through universal background checks, red flag laws, or limits on high-capacity magazines, then voters have every right to call that complicity - and your own complicity.
And no, rejecting Australia’s model doesn’t absolve anyone. If you believe it’s unworkable here, then propose something better. But don’t pretend that "doing nothing" is a neutral stance. It’s not, it's a choice, actively invoked at the ballot box. And it has destructive consequences.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact. It was designed to be interpreted and adapted to protect the public good. If you believe in liberty, then defend the liberty of children to attend school without fear. Defend the liberty of families to gather without worrying about crossfire. Defend the liberty of Americans to live without the constant threat of mass violence.
If you’re not offering solutions, then step aside.
Absolutely the WRONG answer and I will not step aside. The Constitution is to be interpreted as written. Courts cannot adapt the Constitution to protect the public good. They must work within its framework. If you don't like the Second Amendment - as interpreted by the Supreme Court - then change the Constitution. Franklin was 100% correct. As for defending the liberty of children to attend school without fear, please start with the mentally ill people who shoot up schools. That seems to be ignored time and time again. Taking away a lawful right for the vast majority of Americans is never the answer. Then again, you would probably be in favor of the way the UK and Australia handle free speech.
By the way, there is mass violence from stabbings in the UK. They may not be dozens at a time, but the sheer volume demonstrates the key point - it's the person, not the weapon.
Ah yes, the ole "it’s the person, not the weapon" refrain - classic misdirection.
Let’s unpack that. You’re arguing that because violence exists in other forms, we should ignore the uniquely catastrophic scale enabled by firearms. That’s like saying we shouldn’t regulate drunk driving because people also die in bike accidents.
And invoking Franklin? Please. Quoting a man who lived in an era of single-shot muskets to justify the civilian stockpiling of AR-15s is not constitutional fidelity, it’s historical cosplay. The Second Amendment was written when "arms" meant powder, ball, and a 30-second reload. Our founding fathers did not envisage deranged civilians with the capacity to fire 45+ rounds per minute and use high capacity magazines. In less than 10 minutes, Stephen Paddock fired over 1100 rounds into a crowd of concert goers in the Las Vegas mass shooting. That's more firepower than an entire revolutionary war company of 50+ soldiers.
You say courts can’t adapt the Constitution to protect the public good. That’s not originalism, it’s paralysis. The Constitution has been amended 27 times precisely because its framers knew that liberty without progress is just stagnation in a powdered wig.
And your claim that "taking away a lawful right for the vast majority of Americans is never the answer?" That’s not a defense of rights, it’s a refusal to reckon with reality. Rights come with responsibilities. When one right, unchecked and unregulated, leads to thousands of preventable deaths, it’s not tyranny to intervene. It’s governance.
Mental health matters, yes. But using it as a rhetorical shield while refusing to address mental health, and while blocking every attempt to regulate access to weapons of war is not concern, it’s complicity and false concern trolling about mental health. You don’t get to point at the mentally ill while voting against funding for mental health services, red flag laws, and crisis intervention programs.
So no, I WILL NOT go along with your charade and pretend your stance is principled. It’s disingenuous, and is 100% performative. And while you cling to your selective reading of the Constitution, the rest of us are burying children.
You want to defend rights and liberty? Then start by defending the right to live. Either that or stand aside, you fraudulent charlatan.
Glad we agree that the Constitution can only be changed by amendment. Until that happens, we live within its framework. The Second Amendment exists to defend the right to live. Just ask those who died at the hands of homicidal dictators. I'm quite sure they would have preferred to keep their guns. But of course, back then you would have voted to take them away in the name of "public safety" - just like those countries did.
2A doesn't say any and all arms, and nothing about what kind. The government already passed NFA and it has been repeatedly upheld. High capacity magazines and military-patterned rifles absolutely can be banned without violating the Constitution. Stop pretending it's a complete ban on all guns or that it simply can't be done. Neither of those things are true.
Stop talking, start doing. That means you, Republicans. You are on the wrong side of this and you need to find your moral compass.
Do what exactly?
Solutions have been proposed, like Australia's. Get cracking.
You must have missed this post a few pages back. It’s time to move on from the Australia narrative.
Anonymous wrote:A person has posted this information in several topics on DCUM.
After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, Australia (a country with a comparatively strong 'gun culture', at least by world standards) said "F**k this."
1) They made it illegal to import, buy, sell, trade or transfer semi-automatic weapons (the mass shooters' favorite!)
The latest ATF information I could find reported that 12,521,614 firearms were manufactured in the U.S. in 2021. That nullifies an import ban(never mind the 400,000,000+ guns already in civilian hands).
Semiautomatic firearms are by far the most popular type owned by Americans. Making it “illegal” to buy, sell, trade or transfer them wouldn’t survive a legal challenge. A 5-4 liberal SCOTUS would strike any such legislation down on constitutional grounds.
2) Btw, ammosexuals, they did NOT seize anyone's semi-automatic weapons. If you have them, and want them, fine, keep them -- just don't sell them or convey them to someone else, or you've committed a crime.
If we’re conceding that Americans get to keep 400,000,000+ guns, how many mass shootings are we realistically hoping to prevent? The very public mass shootings you see weeks of 24 hour news coverage about make up a small portion of overall mass killings. An analysis of data by the AP, USA Today and Northwestern University looked at intentional killings where 4 or more people(excluding the assailant) died in a 24 hour period. Non-public mass shooting by a family member or acquaintance far outnumber public mass shootings every year since 2006. So, now what?
Let’s not forget that a Harvard study in 2017 estimated that 380,000 firearms are stolen each year. There are millions more guns in civilian hands now, which makes it even easier to steal guns.
Making it illegal to sell or transfer guns wouldn’t pass constitutional muster. Again, we need to work within the rights protected by the Constitution.
3) Simultaneously, they instituted a nationwide, no-questions-asked VOLUNTARY gun buyback program. If you have a firearm (any firearm, of any kind, operational or not) and would like to turn it in, the govt paid people $1,000 per gun (this was 25+ yrs ago).
The current value of $1,000 in 1996 is $2,058.94. I’d gladly go find and exchange decrepit, old, non-functioning guns for $2,000 each to fund a Porsche. What this voluntary process wouldn’t do is make any significant dent in number of civilian owned guns. I keep hearing that America has a “gun culture.” Why would anyone believe people would voluntarily turn in their guns?
You’dneed to confiscate them, and we all know THAT will never happen.
Then come up with a different solution. The status quo clearly id not working. Doing nothing is not working. Deflections and distraction is not working. One mass shooting is too many mass shootings. You are failing America and are getting people killed. The blood is on your hands.
"We already have enough laws" is not the answer, it's clearly not working. And, "we can't, because of 2A" is also not working or an appropriate answer. And neither is "prayers."
Do better. Stop making excuses.
Radio silence from the "yabut 2A" folks. If you aren't helping solve this problem then you are part of the problem. If you aren't offering up real solutions instead of empty deflections and false platitudes then at least get out of the way so that others can fix it.
DP. Incorrect. Just because you aren't helping to solve the problem doesn't mean you are part of the problem. One origin of this saying is a quote from Eldridge Cleaver as part of the Black Power Movement of the 1960s. You can also turn this phrase on its head and apply it to mental health for those who use guns to engage in mass shootings.
Wrong. Continuing to voting for leaders who block reform while mass shootings continue is not neutral, it's indeed complicity.
Yes, we have a gun problem. Yes, we have a mental health crisis. But using one to deflect from the other is a tactic, not a solution.
If you reject models like Australia's or others, then name a better one.
If you claim the Constitution ties our hands, then propose what can be done within it.
The bloodshed continues while you deflect with stalling tactics and hypotheticals. The time for vague outrage and passive excuses is over. Either show us your plan, or step aside and stop voting for people who aren't going to help solve it.
You have this little thing called a vote. So does everyone else. That's how we do things in this country. The people have voted for the leaders we have, and for the policies they support. Likewise, we have courts to rule on whether certain laws and regulations are constitutional, and again, your elected leaders select those judges.
There is no solution that Republicans and Democrats can get behind. Certainly not what the UK and Australia have in place. The UK is going even further than banning guns - it is banning speech because that speech hurts someone's feelings. Our founders declared independence for this and other reasons.
I find it disturbing that you would abandon the core principles of the US for an illusion of safety (Google knife attacks in the UK and Australia). Benjamin Franklin put it best "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Again, wrong answer. Let’s be clear: invoking Franklin while sidestepping the actual carnage unfolding in American communities is not a principled defense of liberty, it’s a rhetorical dodge. Your "illusion of safety" argument collapses under the weight of real data: the U.S. has over 45,000 gun-related deaths annually, and more than 600 mass shootings per year. That’s not theoretical. That’s funerals, trauma, and shattered lives.
Yes, we vote. And yes, courts interpret laws. But when the system produces gridlock while children are shot in classrooms, it’s not enough to shrug and say "that’s democracy." Democracy demands accountability. If elected leaders block reforms that could reduce harm whether through universal background checks, red flag laws, or limits on high-capacity magazines, then voters have every right to call that complicity - and your own complicity.
And no, rejecting Australia’s model doesn’t absolve anyone. If you believe it’s unworkable here, then propose something better. But don’t pretend that "doing nothing" is a neutral stance. It’s not, it's a choice, actively invoked at the ballot box. And it has destructive consequences.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact. It was designed to be interpreted and adapted to protect the public good. If you believe in liberty, then defend the liberty of children to attend school without fear. Defend the liberty of families to gather without worrying about crossfire. Defend the liberty of Americans to live without the constant threat of mass violence.
If you’re not offering solutions, then step aside.
About the same number of deaths as motor vehicle accidents. Haven’t banned cars, which by the way have no constitutional protections. Also, half of gun deaths are suicides, can’t say the same for motor vehicle deaths.
Bogus analogy comparing guns and cars.
Cars weren't explicitly and specifically designed to kill. Cars are utilitarian, and serve many purposes, and are for many Americans essential to everyday life. Guns on the other hand were specifically designed for killing. Only around 8.4% of Americans are subsistence hunters who depend on guns. Exceptions for hunters can be made (Australia and most of Europe and other countries with stricter gun laws than the US do this), and even then, hunters don't need AR-15s and high-capacity magazines. Nor does the average American need AR-15s or other military-design guns and high-capacity magazines to for self-defense.
The math is bogus too. In 2023, car deaths per 100k population were 12.06. Gun deaths per 100k population were 15,186. Guns are over a thousand times more deadly.
Sorry, I know math is hard but here are the facts. There were 40,901 deaths from motor vehicle crashes in the United States in 2023. This corresponds to 12.2 deaths per 100,000 people -
Fatalities from car accidents should be measured on a vehicle miles driven basis. Per capita is not particularly meaningful here.
And, one should compare numbers of fatalities from cars that were either intentional or suicides to those by guns. Those numbers are also wildly different. Guns are clearly far more of a threat.
Stop talking, start doing. That means you, Republicans. You are on the wrong side of this and you need to find your moral compass.
Do what exactly?
Solutions have been proposed, like Australia's. Get cracking.
You must have missed this post a few pages back. It’s time to move on from the Australia narrative.
Anonymous wrote:A person has posted this information in several topics on DCUM.
After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, Australia (a country with a comparatively strong 'gun culture', at least by world standards) said "F**k this."
1) They made it illegal to import, buy, sell, trade or transfer semi-automatic weapons (the mass shooters' favorite!)
The latest ATF information I could find reported that 12,521,614 firearms were manufactured in the U.S. in 2021. That nullifies an import ban(never mind the 400,000,000+ guns already in civilian hands).
Semiautomatic firearms are by far the most popular type owned by Americans. Making it “illegal” to buy, sell, trade or transfer them wouldn’t survive a legal challenge. A 5-4 liberal SCOTUS would strike any such legislation down on constitutional grounds.
2) Btw, ammosexuals, they did NOT seize anyone's semi-automatic weapons. If you have them, and want them, fine, keep them -- just don't sell them or convey them to someone else, or you've committed a crime.
If we’re conceding that Americans get to keep 400,000,000+ guns, how many mass shootings are we realistically hoping to prevent? The very public mass shootings you see weeks of 24 hour news coverage about make up a small portion of overall mass killings. An analysis of data by the AP, USA Today and Northwestern University looked at intentional killings where 4 or more people(excluding the assailant) died in a 24 hour period. Non-public mass shooting by a family member or acquaintance far outnumber public mass shootings every year since 2006. So, now what?
Let’s not forget that a Harvard study in 2017 estimated that 380,000 firearms are stolen each year. There are millions more guns in civilian hands now, which makes it even easier to steal guns.
Making it illegal to sell or transfer guns wouldn’t pass constitutional muster. Again, we need to work within the rights protected by the Constitution.
3) Simultaneously, they instituted a nationwide, no-questions-asked VOLUNTARY gun buyback program. If you have a firearm (any firearm, of any kind, operational or not) and would like to turn it in, the govt paid people $1,000 per gun (this was 25+ yrs ago).
The current value of $1,000 in 1996 is $2,058.94. I’d gladly go find and exchange decrepit, old, non-functioning guns for $2,000 each to fund a Porsche. What this voluntary process wouldn’t do is make any significant dent in number of civilian owned guns. I keep hearing that America has a “gun culture.” Why would anyone believe people would voluntarily turn in their guns?
You’dneed to confiscate them, and we all know THAT will never happen.
Then come up with a different solution. The status quo clearly id not working. Doing nothing is not working. Deflections and distraction is not working. One mass shooting is too many mass shootings. You are failing America and are getting people killed. The blood is on your hands.
"We already have enough laws" is not the answer, it's clearly not working. And, "we can't, because of 2A" is also not working or an appropriate answer. And neither is "prayers."
Do better. Stop making excuses.
Radio silence from the "yabut 2A" folks. If you aren't helping solve this problem then you are part of the problem. If you aren't offering up real solutions instead of empty deflections and false platitudes then at least get out of the way so that others can fix it.
DP. Incorrect. Just because you aren't helping to solve the problem doesn't mean you are part of the problem. One origin of this saying is a quote from Eldridge Cleaver as part of the Black Power Movement of the 1960s. You can also turn this phrase on its head and apply it to mental health for those who use guns to engage in mass shootings.
Wrong. Continuing to voting for leaders who block reform while mass shootings continue is not neutral, it's indeed complicity.
Yes, we have a gun problem. Yes, we have a mental health crisis. But using one to deflect from the other is a tactic, not a solution.
If you reject models like Australia's or others, then name a better one.
If you claim the Constitution ties our hands, then propose what can be done within it.
The bloodshed continues while you deflect with stalling tactics and hypotheticals. The time for vague outrage and passive excuses is over. Either show us your plan, or step aside and stop voting for people who aren't going to help solve it.
You have this little thing called a vote. So does everyone else. That's how we do things in this country. The people have voted for the leaders we have, and for the policies they support. Likewise, we have courts to rule on whether certain laws and regulations are constitutional, and again, your elected leaders select those judges.
There is no solution that Republicans and Democrats can get behind. Certainly not what the UK and Australia have in place. The UK is going even further than banning guns - it is banning speech because that speech hurts someone's feelings. Our founders declared independence for this and other reasons.
I find it disturbing that you would abandon the core principles of the US for an illusion of safety (Google knife attacks in the UK and Australia). Benjamin Franklin put it best "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Again, wrong answer. Let’s be clear: invoking Franklin while sidestepping the actual carnage unfolding in American communities is not a principled defense of liberty, it’s a rhetorical dodge. Your "illusion of safety" argument collapses under the weight of real data: the U.S. has over 45,000 gun-related deaths annually, and more than 600 mass shootings per year. That’s not theoretical. That’s funerals, trauma, and shattered lives.
Yes, we vote. And yes, courts interpret laws. But when the system produces gridlock while children are shot in classrooms, it’s not enough to shrug and say "that’s democracy." Democracy demands accountability. If elected leaders block reforms that could reduce harm whether through universal background checks, red flag laws, or limits on high-capacity magazines, then voters have every right to call that complicity - and your own complicity.
And no, rejecting Australia’s model doesn’t absolve anyone. If you believe it’s unworkable here, then propose something better. But don’t pretend that "doing nothing" is a neutral stance. It’s not, it's a choice, actively invoked at the ballot box. And it has destructive consequences.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact. It was designed to be interpreted and adapted to protect the public good. If you believe in liberty, then defend the liberty of children to attend school without fear. Defend the liberty of families to gather without worrying about crossfire. Defend the liberty of Americans to live without the constant threat of mass violence.
If you’re not offering solutions, then step aside.
About the same number of deaths as motor vehicle accidents. Haven’t banned cars, which by the way have no constitutional protections. Also, half of gun deaths are suicides, can’t say the same for motor vehicle deaths.
Bogus analogy comparing guns and cars.
Cars weren't explicitly and specifically designed to kill. Cars are utilitarian, and serve many purposes, and are for many Americans essential to everyday life. Guns on the other hand were specifically designed for killing. Only around 8.4% of Americans are subsistence hunters who depend on guns. Exceptions for hunters can be made (Australia and most of Europe and other countries with stricter gun laws than the US do this), and even then, hunters don't need AR-15s and high-capacity magazines. Nor does the average American need AR-15s or other military-design guns and high-capacity magazines to for self-defense.
DP. A gun is a weapon. But using it to kill is up to the person pulling the trigger.
A guy with a gun is presumed to be a good guy with a gun, right up until they pull the trigger and are discovered to have been a bad guy with a gun all along.
Unless you're a Texan, then you're just a shameful coward with a gun.
There were well over a hundred Texans with guns at Uvalde, and not a single one of them saved a life. And citizens are even more ineffective, unreliable, inexperienced and unprepared than trained police. "Good guys with guns" is nothing more than a cute fiction, fabricated by the gun industry to sell more guns. It has little grounding in reality.
Stop talking, start doing. That means you, Republicans. You are on the wrong side of this and you need to find your moral compass.
Do what exactly?
Solutions have been proposed, like Australia's. Get cracking.
You must have missed this post a few pages back. It’s time to move on from the Australia narrative.
Anonymous wrote:A person has posted this information in several topics on DCUM.
After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, Australia (a country with a comparatively strong 'gun culture', at least by world standards) said "F**k this."
1) They made it illegal to import, buy, sell, trade or transfer semi-automatic weapons (the mass shooters' favorite!)
The latest ATF information I could find reported that 12,521,614 firearms were manufactured in the U.S. in 2021. That nullifies an import ban(never mind the 400,000,000+ guns already in civilian hands).
Semiautomatic firearms are by far the most popular type owned by Americans. Making it “illegal” to buy, sell, trade or transfer them wouldn’t survive a legal challenge. A 5-4 liberal SCOTUS would strike any such legislation down on constitutional grounds.
2) Btw, ammosexuals, they did NOT seize anyone's semi-automatic weapons. If you have them, and want them, fine, keep them -- just don't sell them or convey them to someone else, or you've committed a crime.
If we’re conceding that Americans get to keep 400,000,000+ guns, how many mass shootings are we realistically hoping to prevent? The very public mass shootings you see weeks of 24 hour news coverage about make up a small portion of overall mass killings. An analysis of data by the AP, USA Today and Northwestern University looked at intentional killings where 4 or more people(excluding the assailant) died in a 24 hour period. Non-public mass shooting by a family member or acquaintance far outnumber public mass shootings every year since 2006. So, now what?
Let’s not forget that a Harvard study in 2017 estimated that 380,000 firearms are stolen each year. There are millions more guns in civilian hands now, which makes it even easier to steal guns.
Making it illegal to sell or transfer guns wouldn’t pass constitutional muster. Again, we need to work within the rights protected by the Constitution.
3) Simultaneously, they instituted a nationwide, no-questions-asked VOLUNTARY gun buyback program. If you have a firearm (any firearm, of any kind, operational or not) and would like to turn it in, the govt paid people $1,000 per gun (this was 25+ yrs ago).
The current value of $1,000 in 1996 is $2,058.94. I’d gladly go find and exchange decrepit, old, non-functioning guns for $2,000 each to fund a Porsche. What this voluntary process wouldn’t do is make any significant dent in number of civilian owned guns. I keep hearing that America has a “gun culture.” Why would anyone believe people would voluntarily turn in their guns?
You’dneed to confiscate them, and we all know THAT will never happen.
Then come up with a different solution. The status quo clearly id not working. Doing nothing is not working. Deflections and distraction is not working. One mass shooting is too many mass shootings. You are failing America and are getting people killed. The blood is on your hands.
"We already have enough laws" is not the answer, it's clearly not working. And, "we can't, because of 2A" is also not working or an appropriate answer. And neither is "prayers."
Do better. Stop making excuses.
Radio silence from the "yabut 2A" folks. If you aren't helping solve this problem then you are part of the problem. If you aren't offering up real solutions instead of empty deflections and false platitudes then at least get out of the way so that others can fix it.
DP. Incorrect. Just because you aren't helping to solve the problem doesn't mean you are part of the problem. One origin of this saying is a quote from Eldridge Cleaver as part of the Black Power Movement of the 1960s. You can also turn this phrase on its head and apply it to mental health for those who use guns to engage in mass shootings.
Wrong. Continuing to voting for leaders who block reform while mass shootings continue is not neutral, it's indeed complicity.
Yes, we have a gun problem. Yes, we have a mental health crisis. But using one to deflect from the other is a tactic, not a solution.
If you reject models like Australia's or others, then name a better one.
If you claim the Constitution ties our hands, then propose what can be done within it.
The bloodshed continues while you deflect with stalling tactics and hypotheticals. The time for vague outrage and passive excuses is over. Either show us your plan, or step aside and stop voting for people who aren't going to help solve it.
You have this little thing called a vote. So does everyone else. That's how we do things in this country. The people have voted for the leaders we have, and for the policies they support. Likewise, we have courts to rule on whether certain laws and regulations are constitutional, and again, your elected leaders select those judges.
There is no solution that Republicans and Democrats can get behind. Certainly not what the UK and Australia have in place. The UK is going even further than banning guns - it is banning speech because that speech hurts someone's feelings. Our founders declared independence for this and other reasons.
I find it disturbing that you would abandon the core principles of the US for an illusion of safety (Google knife attacks in the UK and Australia). Benjamin Franklin put it best "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Again, wrong answer. Let’s be clear: invoking Franklin while sidestepping the actual carnage unfolding in American communities is not a principled defense of liberty, it’s a rhetorical dodge. Your "illusion of safety" argument collapses under the weight of real data: the U.S. has over 45,000 gun-related deaths annually, and more than 600 mass shootings per year. That’s not theoretical. That’s funerals, trauma, and shattered lives.
Yes, we vote. And yes, courts interpret laws. But when the system produces gridlock while children are shot in classrooms, it’s not enough to shrug and say "that’s democracy." Democracy demands accountability. If elected leaders block reforms that could reduce harm whether through universal background checks, red flag laws, or limits on high-capacity magazines, then voters have every right to call that complicity - and your own complicity.
And no, rejecting Australia’s model doesn’t absolve anyone. If you believe it’s unworkable here, then propose something better. But don’t pretend that "doing nothing" is a neutral stance. It’s not, it's a choice, actively invoked at the ballot box. And it has destructive consequences.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact. It was designed to be interpreted and adapted to protect the public good. If you believe in liberty, then defend the liberty of children to attend school without fear. Defend the liberty of families to gather without worrying about crossfire. Defend the liberty of Americans to live without the constant threat of mass violence.
If you’re not offering solutions, then step aside.
Absolutely the WRONG answer and I will not step aside. The Constitution is to be interpreted as written. Courts cannot adapt the Constitution to protect the public good. They must work within its framework. If you don't like the Second Amendment - as interpreted by the Supreme Court - then change the Constitution. Franklin was 100% correct. As for defending the liberty of children to attend school without fear, please start with the mentally ill people who shoot up schools. That seems to be ignored time and time again. Taking away a lawful right for the vast majority of Americans is never the answer. Then again, you would probably be in favor of the way the UK and Australia handle free speech.
By the way, there is mass violence from stabbings in the UK. They may not be dozens at a time, but the sheer volume demonstrates the key point - it's the person, not the weapon.
Ah yes, the ole "it’s the person, not the weapon" refrain - classic misdirection.
Let’s unpack that. You’re arguing that because violence exists in other forms, we should ignore the uniquely catastrophic scale enabled by firearms. That’s like saying we shouldn’t regulate drunk driving because people also die in bike accidents.
And invoking Franklin? Please. Quoting a man who lived in an era of single-shot muskets to justify the civilian stockpiling of AR-15s is not constitutional fidelity, it’s historical cosplay. The Second Amendment was written when "arms" meant powder, ball, and a 30-second reload. Our founding fathers did not envisage deranged civilians with the capacity to fire 45+ rounds per minute and use high capacity magazines. In less than 10 minutes, Stephen Paddock fired over 1100 rounds into a crowd of concert goers in the Las Vegas mass shooting. That's more firepower than an entire revolutionary war company of 50+ soldiers.
You say courts can’t adapt the Constitution to protect the public good. That’s not originalism, it’s paralysis. The Constitution has been amended 27 times precisely because its framers knew that liberty without progress is just stagnation in a powdered wig.
And your claim that "taking away a lawful right for the vast majority of Americans is never the answer?" That’s not a defense of rights, it’s a refusal to reckon with reality. Rights come with responsibilities. When one right, unchecked and unregulated, leads to thousands of preventable deaths, it’s not tyranny to intervene. It’s governance.
Mental health matters, yes. But using it as a rhetorical shield while refusing to address mental health, and while blocking every attempt to regulate access to weapons of war is not concern, it’s complicity and false concern trolling about mental health. You don’t get to point at the mentally ill while voting against funding for mental health services, red flag laws, and crisis intervention programs.
So no, I WILL NOT go along with your charade and pretend your stance is principled. It’s disingenuous, and is 100% performative. And while you cling to your selective reading of the Constitution, the rest of us are burying children.
You want to defend rights and liberty? Then start by defending the right to live. Either that or stand aside, you fraudulent charlatan.
Glad we agree that the Constitution can only be changed by amendment. Until that happens, we live within its framework. The Second Amendment exists to defend the right to live. Just ask those who died at the hands of homicidal dictators. I'm quite sure they would have preferred to keep their guns. But of course, back then you would have voted to take them away in the name of "public safety" - just like those countries did.
Why should we adhere to the Constitution? Trump’s been freely violating it ever since he got back into office, with zero consequences. So far he’s violated the Emoluments Clause, due process (5th Amendment), free speech and free press (1st Amendment), the separation of powers, and the 14th Amendment (misusing the power of the DOJ to pirsue and attack his enemies). Nobody’s batting an eye. The courts can waggle a finger at him, but they have no power to enforce anything. Congress certainly isn’t going to stop him.
So no, we don’t have to live rigidly within its framework. Trump’s exposed it for the mere piece of paper that it is.
As for defending against tyranny, well, it’s pretty much here, in the form of masked government thugs roaming the streets and disappearing people, but I don’t see anyone rising up. The Gadsden Flag types have been silent, even though this was their worst fear when Obama and Clinton were in office. Heck, MAGA likes tyranny. They invited it right back in last election.
Self defense against dictators is a fiction we’ve been sold for decades to silence any real discussion of the problem. We’re tired of sacrificing living people to the hypothetical fears of a minority.
Stop talking, start doing. That means you, Republicans. You are on the wrong side of this and you need to find your moral compass.
Do what exactly?
Solutions have been proposed, like Australia's. Get cracking.
You must have missed this post a few pages back. It’s time to move on from the Australia narrative.
Anonymous wrote:A person has posted this information in several topics on DCUM.
After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, Australia (a country with a comparatively strong 'gun culture', at least by world standards) said "F**k this."
1) They made it illegal to import, buy, sell, trade or transfer semi-automatic weapons (the mass shooters' favorite!)
The latest ATF information I could find reported that 12,521,614 firearms were manufactured in the U.S. in 2021. That nullifies an import ban(never mind the 400,000,000+ guns already in civilian hands).
Semiautomatic firearms are by far the most popular type owned by Americans. Making it “illegal” to buy, sell, trade or transfer them wouldn’t survive a legal challenge. A 5-4 liberal SCOTUS would strike any such legislation down on constitutional grounds.
2) Btw, ammosexuals, they did NOT seize anyone's semi-automatic weapons. If you have them, and want them, fine, keep them -- just don't sell them or convey them to someone else, or you've committed a crime.
If we’re conceding that Americans get to keep 400,000,000+ guns, how many mass shootings are we realistically hoping to prevent? The very public mass shootings you see weeks of 24 hour news coverage about make up a small portion of overall mass killings. An analysis of data by the AP, USA Today and Northwestern University looked at intentional killings where 4 or more people(excluding the assailant) died in a 24 hour period. Non-public mass shooting by a family member or acquaintance far outnumber public mass shootings every year since 2006. So, now what?
Let’s not forget that a Harvard study in 2017 estimated that 380,000 firearms are stolen each year. There are millions more guns in civilian hands now, which makes it even easier to steal guns.
Making it illegal to sell or transfer guns wouldn’t pass constitutional muster. Again, we need to work within the rights protected by the Constitution.
3) Simultaneously, they instituted a nationwide, no-questions-asked VOLUNTARY gun buyback program. If you have a firearm (any firearm, of any kind, operational or not) and would like to turn it in, the govt paid people $1,000 per gun (this was 25+ yrs ago).
The current value of $1,000 in 1996 is $2,058.94. I’d gladly go find and exchange decrepit, old, non-functioning guns for $2,000 each to fund a Porsche. What this voluntary process wouldn’t do is make any significant dent in number of civilian owned guns. I keep hearing that America has a “gun culture.” Why would anyone believe people would voluntarily turn in their guns?
You’dneed to confiscate them, and we all know THAT will never happen.
Then come up with a different solution. The status quo clearly id not working. Doing nothing is not working. Deflections and distraction is not working. One mass shooting is too many mass shootings. You are failing America and are getting people killed. The blood is on your hands.
"We already have enough laws" is not the answer, it's clearly not working. And, "we can't, because of 2A" is also not working or an appropriate answer. And neither is "prayers."
Do better. Stop making excuses.
Radio silence from the "yabut 2A" folks. If you aren't helping solve this problem then you are part of the problem. If you aren't offering up real solutions instead of empty deflections and false platitudes then at least get out of the way so that others can fix it.
DP. Incorrect. Just because you aren't helping to solve the problem doesn't mean you are part of the problem. One origin of this saying is a quote from Eldridge Cleaver as part of the Black Power Movement of the 1960s. You can also turn this phrase on its head and apply it to mental health for those who use guns to engage in mass shootings.
Wrong. Continuing to voting for leaders who block reform while mass shootings continue is not neutral, it's indeed complicity.
Yes, we have a gun problem. Yes, we have a mental health crisis. But using one to deflect from the other is a tactic, not a solution.
If you reject models like Australia's or others, then name a better one.
If you claim the Constitution ties our hands, then propose what can be done within it.
The bloodshed continues while you deflect with stalling tactics and hypotheticals. The time for vague outrage and passive excuses is over. Either show us your plan, or step aside and stop voting for people who aren't going to help solve it.
You have this little thing called a vote. So does everyone else. That's how we do things in this country. The people have voted for the leaders we have, and for the policies they support. Likewise, we have courts to rule on whether certain laws and regulations are constitutional, and again, your elected leaders select those judges.
There is no solution that Republicans and Democrats can get behind. Certainly not what the UK and Australia have in place. The UK is going even further than banning guns - it is banning speech because that speech hurts someone's feelings. Our founders declared independence for this and other reasons.
I find it disturbing that you would abandon the core principles of the US for an illusion of safety (Google knife attacks in the UK and Australia). Benjamin Franklin put it best "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Again, wrong answer. Let’s be clear: invoking Franklin while sidestepping the actual carnage unfolding in American communities is not a principled defense of liberty, it’s a rhetorical dodge. Your "illusion of safety" argument collapses under the weight of real data: the U.S. has over 45,000 gun-related deaths annually, and more than 600 mass shootings per year. That’s not theoretical. That’s funerals, trauma, and shattered lives.
Yes, we vote. And yes, courts interpret laws. But when the system produces gridlock while children are shot in classrooms, it’s not enough to shrug and say "that’s democracy." Democracy demands accountability. If elected leaders block reforms that could reduce harm whether through universal background checks, red flag laws, or limits on high-capacity magazines, then voters have every right to call that complicity - and your own complicity.
And no, rejecting Australia’s model doesn’t absolve anyone. If you believe it’s unworkable here, then propose something better. But don’t pretend that "doing nothing" is a neutral stance. It’s not, it's a choice, actively invoked at the ballot box. And it has destructive consequences.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact. It was designed to be interpreted and adapted to protect the public good. If you believe in liberty, then defend the liberty of children to attend school without fear. Defend the liberty of families to gather without worrying about crossfire. Defend the liberty of Americans to live without the constant threat of mass violence.
If you’re not offering solutions, then step aside.
About the same number of deaths as motor vehicle accidents. Haven’t banned cars, which by the way have no constitutional protections. Also, half of gun deaths are suicides, can’t say the same for motor vehicle deaths.
Bogus analogy comparing guns and cars.
Cars weren't explicitly and specifically designed to kill. Cars are utilitarian, and serve many purposes, and are for many Americans essential to everyday life. Guns on the other hand were specifically designed for killing. Only around 8.4% of Americans are subsistence hunters who depend on guns. Exceptions for hunters can be made (Australia and most of Europe and other countries with stricter gun laws than the US do this), and even then, hunters don't need AR-15s and high-capacity magazines. Nor does the average American need AR-15s or other military-design guns and high-capacity magazines to for self-defense.
The math is bogus too. In 2023, car deaths per 100k population were 12.06. Gun deaths per 100k population were 15,186. Guns are over a thousand times more deadly.
Why would you discount for suicides, unless you’re intentionally trying to make the math fuzzy to downplay the danger? Guns still cause more deaths than cars.
Lots of products and activities play a role in premature deaths, but we make little to no effort to materially regulate most of them. Bad behavior or poor choices by individuals are behind most such deaths, but it's easier to blame the instruments than the actors.
That’s completely wrong. If a product is unsafe, it gets banned or regulated. If food is tainted, it gets recalled. Many products go through extensive testing and must meet federal requirements. Toy guns are more tightly regulated than real guns.
“Unrelated things sometimes cause death so we shouldn’t make any effort to prevent gun deaths” is not a logical argument.
Stop talking, start doing. That means you, Republicans. You are on the wrong side of this and you need to find your moral compass.
Do what exactly?
Solutions have been proposed, like Australia's. Get cracking.
You must have missed this post a few pages back. It’s time to move on from the Australia narrative.
Anonymous wrote:A person has posted this information in several topics on DCUM.
After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, Australia (a country with a comparatively strong 'gun culture', at least by world standards) said "F**k this."
1) They made it illegal to import, buy, sell, trade or transfer semi-automatic weapons (the mass shooters' favorite!)
The latest ATF information I could find reported that 12,521,614 firearms were manufactured in the U.S. in 2021. That nullifies an import ban(never mind the 400,000,000+ guns already in civilian hands).
Semiautomatic firearms are by far the most popular type owned by Americans. Making it “illegal” to buy, sell, trade or transfer them wouldn’t survive a legal challenge. A 5-4 liberal SCOTUS would strike any such legislation down on constitutional grounds.
2) Btw, ammosexuals, they did NOT seize anyone's semi-automatic weapons. If you have them, and want them, fine, keep them -- just don't sell them or convey them to someone else, or you've committed a crime.
If we’re conceding that Americans get to keep 400,000,000+ guns, how many mass shootings are we realistically hoping to prevent? The very public mass shootings you see weeks of 24 hour news coverage about make up a small portion of overall mass killings. An analysis of data by the AP, USA Today and Northwestern University looked at intentional killings where 4 or more people(excluding the assailant) died in a 24 hour period. Non-public mass shooting by a family member or acquaintance far outnumber public mass shootings every year since 2006. So, now what?
Let’s not forget that a Harvard study in 2017 estimated that 380,000 firearms are stolen each year. There are millions more guns in civilian hands now, which makes it even easier to steal guns.
Making it illegal to sell or transfer guns wouldn’t pass constitutional muster. Again, we need to work within the rights protected by the Constitution.
3) Simultaneously, they instituted a nationwide, no-questions-asked VOLUNTARY gun buyback program. If you have a firearm (any firearm, of any kind, operational or not) and would like to turn it in, the govt paid people $1,000 per gun (this was 25+ yrs ago).
The current value of $1,000 in 1996 is $2,058.94. I’d gladly go find and exchange decrepit, old, non-functioning guns for $2,000 each to fund a Porsche. What this voluntary process wouldn’t do is make any significant dent in number of civilian owned guns. I keep hearing that America has a “gun culture.” Why would anyone believe people would voluntarily turn in their guns?
You’dneed to confiscate them, and we all know THAT will never happen.
Then come up with a different solution. The status quo clearly id not working. Doing nothing is not working. Deflections and distraction is not working. One mass shooting is too many mass shootings. You are failing America and are getting people killed. The blood is on your hands.
"We already have enough laws" is not the answer, it's clearly not working. And, "we can't, because of 2A" is also not working or an appropriate answer. And neither is "prayers."
Do better. Stop making excuses.
Radio silence from the "yabut 2A" folks. If you aren't helping solve this problem then you are part of the problem. If you aren't offering up real solutions instead of empty deflections and false platitudes then at least get out of the way so that others can fix it.
DP. Incorrect. Just because you aren't helping to solve the problem doesn't mean you are part of the problem. One origin of this saying is a quote from Eldridge Cleaver as part of the Black Power Movement of the 1960s. You can also turn this phrase on its head and apply it to mental health for those who use guns to engage in mass shootings.
Wrong. Continuing to voting for leaders who block reform while mass shootings continue is not neutral, it's indeed complicity.
Yes, we have a gun problem. Yes, we have a mental health crisis. But using one to deflect from the other is a tactic, not a solution.
If you reject models like Australia's or others, then name a better one.
If you claim the Constitution ties our hands, then propose what can be done within it.
The bloodshed continues while you deflect with stalling tactics and hypotheticals. The time for vague outrage and passive excuses is over. Either show us your plan, or step aside and stop voting for people who aren't going to help solve it.
You have this little thing called a vote. So does everyone else. That's how we do things in this country. The people have voted for the leaders we have, and for the policies they support. Likewise, we have courts to rule on whether certain laws and regulations are constitutional, and again, your elected leaders select those judges.
There is no solution that Republicans and Democrats can get behind. Certainly not what the UK and Australia have in place. The UK is going even further than banning guns - it is banning speech because that speech hurts someone's feelings. Our founders declared independence for this and other reasons.
I find it disturbing that you would abandon the core principles of the US for an illusion of safety (Google knife attacks in the UK and Australia). Benjamin Franklin put it best "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Again, wrong answer. Let’s be clear: invoking Franklin while sidestepping the actual carnage unfolding in American communities is not a principled defense of liberty, it’s a rhetorical dodge. Your "illusion of safety" argument collapses under the weight of real data: the U.S. has over 45,000 gun-related deaths annually, and more than 600 mass shootings per year. That’s not theoretical. That’s funerals, trauma, and shattered lives.
Yes, we vote. And yes, courts interpret laws. But when the system produces gridlock while children are shot in classrooms, it’s not enough to shrug and say "that’s democracy." Democracy demands accountability. If elected leaders block reforms that could reduce harm whether through universal background checks, red flag laws, or limits on high-capacity magazines, then voters have every right to call that complicity - and your own complicity.
And no, rejecting Australia’s model doesn’t absolve anyone. If you believe it’s unworkable here, then propose something better. But don’t pretend that "doing nothing" is a neutral stance. It’s not, it's a choice, actively invoked at the ballot box. And it has destructive consequences.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact. It was designed to be interpreted and adapted to protect the public good. If you believe in liberty, then defend the liberty of children to attend school without fear. Defend the liberty of families to gather without worrying about crossfire. Defend the liberty of Americans to live without the constant threat of mass violence.
If you’re not offering solutions, then step aside.
Absolutely the WRONG answer and I will not step aside. The Constitution is to be interpreted as written. Courts cannot adapt the Constitution to protect the public good. They must work within its framework. If you don't like the Second Amendment - as interpreted by the Supreme Court - then change the Constitution. Franklin was 100% correct. As for defending the liberty of children to attend school without fear, please start with the mentally ill people who shoot up schools. That seems to be ignored time and time again. Taking away a lawful right for the vast majority of Americans is never the answer. Then again, you would probably be in favor of the way the UK and Australia handle free speech.
By the way, there is mass violence from stabbings in the UK. They may not be dozens at a time, but the sheer volume demonstrates the key point - it's the person, not the weapon.
Ah yes, the ole "it’s the person, not the weapon" refrain - classic misdirection.
Let’s unpack that. You’re arguing that because violence exists in other forms, we should ignore the uniquely catastrophic scale enabled by firearms. That’s like saying we shouldn’t regulate drunk driving because people also die in bike accidents.
And invoking Franklin? Please. Quoting a man who lived in an era of single-shot muskets to justify the civilian stockpiling of AR-15s is not constitutional fidelity, it’s historical cosplay. The Second Amendment was written when "arms" meant powder, ball, and a 30-second reload. Our founding fathers did not envisage deranged civilians with the capacity to fire 45+ rounds per minute and use high capacity magazines. In less than 10 minutes, Stephen Paddock fired over 1100 rounds into a crowd of concert goers in the Las Vegas mass shooting. That's more firepower than an entire revolutionary war company of 50+ soldiers.
You say courts can’t adapt the Constitution to protect the public good. That’s not originalism, it’s paralysis. The Constitution has been amended 27 times precisely because its framers knew that liberty without progress is just stagnation in a powdered wig.
And your claim that "taking away a lawful right for the vast majority of Americans is never the answer?" That’s not a defense of rights, it’s a refusal to reckon with reality. Rights come with responsibilities. When one right, unchecked and unregulated, leads to thousands of preventable deaths, it’s not tyranny to intervene. It’s governance.
Mental health matters, yes. But using it as a rhetorical shield while refusing to address mental health, and while blocking every attempt to regulate access to weapons of war is not concern, it’s complicity and false concern trolling about mental health. You don’t get to point at the mentally ill while voting against funding for mental health services, red flag laws, and crisis intervention programs.
So no, I WILL NOT go along with your charade and pretend your stance is principled. It’s disingenuous, and is 100% performative. And while you cling to your selective reading of the Constitution, the rest of us are burying children.
You want to defend rights and liberty? Then start by defending the right to live. Either that or stand aside, you fraudulent charlatan.
Glad we agree that the Constitution can only be changed by amendment. Until that happens, we live within its framework. The Second Amendment exists to defend the right to live. Just ask those who died at the hands of homicidal dictators. I'm quite sure they would have preferred to keep their guns. But of course, back then you would have voted to take them away in the name of "public safety" - just like those countries did.
Why should we adhere to the Constitution? Trump’s been freely violating it ever since he got back into office, with zero consequences. So far he’s violated the Emoluments Clause, due process (5th Amendment), free speech and free press (1st Amendment), the separation of powers, and the 14th Amendment (misusing the power of the DOJ to pirsue and attack his enemies). Nobody’s batting an eye. The courts can waggle a finger at him, but they have no power to enforce anything. Congress certainly isn’t going to stop him.
So no, we don’t have to live rigidly within its framework. Trump’s exposed it for the mere piece of paper that it is.
As for defending against tyranny, well, it’s pretty much here, in the form of masked government thugs roaming the streets and disappearing people, but I don’t see anyone rising up. The Gadsden Flag types have been silent, even though this was their worst fear when Obama and Clinton were in office. Heck, MAGA likes tyranny. They invited it right back in last election.
Self defense against dictators is a fiction we’ve been sold for decades to silence any real discussion of the problem. We’re tired of sacrificing living people to the hypothetical fears of a minority.
Such an unserious and wholly impractical response. You seem to be advocating for an insurrection.
Stop talking, start doing. That means you, Republicans. You are on the wrong side of this and you need to find your moral compass.
Do what exactly?
Solutions have been proposed, like Australia's. Get cracking.
You must have missed this post a few pages back. It’s time to move on from the Australia narrative.
Anonymous wrote:A person has posted this information in several topics on DCUM.
After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, Australia (a country with a comparatively strong 'gun culture', at least by world standards) said "F**k this."
1) They made it illegal to import, buy, sell, trade or transfer semi-automatic weapons (the mass shooters' favorite!)
The latest ATF information I could find reported that 12,521,614 firearms were manufactured in the U.S. in 2021. That nullifies an import ban(never mind the 400,000,000+ guns already in civilian hands).
Semiautomatic firearms are by far the most popular type owned by Americans. Making it “illegal” to buy, sell, trade or transfer them wouldn’t survive a legal challenge. A 5-4 liberal SCOTUS would strike any such legislation down on constitutional grounds.
2) Btw, ammosexuals, they did NOT seize anyone's semi-automatic weapons. If you have them, and want them, fine, keep them -- just don't sell them or convey them to someone else, or you've committed a crime.
If we’re conceding that Americans get to keep 400,000,000+ guns, how many mass shootings are we realistically hoping to prevent? The very public mass shootings you see weeks of 24 hour news coverage about make up a small portion of overall mass killings. An analysis of data by the AP, USA Today and Northwestern University looked at intentional killings where 4 or more people(excluding the assailant) died in a 24 hour period. Non-public mass shooting by a family member or acquaintance far outnumber public mass shootings every year since 2006. So, now what?
Let’s not forget that a Harvard study in 2017 estimated that 380,000 firearms are stolen each year. There are millions more guns in civilian hands now, which makes it even easier to steal guns.
Making it illegal to sell or transfer guns wouldn’t pass constitutional muster. Again, we need to work within the rights protected by the Constitution.
3) Simultaneously, they instituted a nationwide, no-questions-asked VOLUNTARY gun buyback program. If you have a firearm (any firearm, of any kind, operational or not) and would like to turn it in, the govt paid people $1,000 per gun (this was 25+ yrs ago).
The current value of $1,000 in 1996 is $2,058.94. I’d gladly go find and exchange decrepit, old, non-functioning guns for $2,000 each to fund a Porsche. What this voluntary process wouldn’t do is make any significant dent in number of civilian owned guns. I keep hearing that America has a “gun culture.” Why would anyone believe people would voluntarily turn in their guns?
You’dneed to confiscate them, and we all know THAT will never happen.
Then come up with a different solution. The status quo clearly id not working. Doing nothing is not working. Deflections and distraction is not working. One mass shooting is too many mass shootings. You are failing America and are getting people killed. The blood is on your hands.
"We already have enough laws" is not the answer, it's clearly not working. And, "we can't, because of 2A" is also not working or an appropriate answer. And neither is "prayers."
Do better. Stop making excuses.
Radio silence from the "yabut 2A" folks. If you aren't helping solve this problem then you are part of the problem. If you aren't offering up real solutions instead of empty deflections and false platitudes then at least get out of the way so that others can fix it.
DP. Incorrect. Just because you aren't helping to solve the problem doesn't mean you are part of the problem. One origin of this saying is a quote from Eldridge Cleaver as part of the Black Power Movement of the 1960s. You can also turn this phrase on its head and apply it to mental health for those who use guns to engage in mass shootings.
Wrong. Continuing to voting for leaders who block reform while mass shootings continue is not neutral, it's indeed complicity.
Yes, we have a gun problem. Yes, we have a mental health crisis. But using one to deflect from the other is a tactic, not a solution.
If you reject models like Australia's or others, then name a better one.
If you claim the Constitution ties our hands, then propose what can be done within it.
The bloodshed continues while you deflect with stalling tactics and hypotheticals. The time for vague outrage and passive excuses is over. Either show us your plan, or step aside and stop voting for people who aren't going to help solve it.
You have this little thing called a vote. So does everyone else. That's how we do things in this country. The people have voted for the leaders we have, and for the policies they support. Likewise, we have courts to rule on whether certain laws and regulations are constitutional, and again, your elected leaders select those judges.
There is no solution that Republicans and Democrats can get behind. Certainly not what the UK and Australia have in place. The UK is going even further than banning guns - it is banning speech because that speech hurts someone's feelings. Our founders declared independence for this and other reasons.
I find it disturbing that you would abandon the core principles of the US for an illusion of safety (Google knife attacks in the UK and Australia). Benjamin Franklin put it best "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Again, wrong answer. Let’s be clear: invoking Franklin while sidestepping the actual carnage unfolding in American communities is not a principled defense of liberty, it’s a rhetorical dodge. Your "illusion of safety" argument collapses under the weight of real data: the U.S. has over 45,000 gun-related deaths annually, and more than 600 mass shootings per year. That’s not theoretical. That’s funerals, trauma, and shattered lives.
Yes, we vote. And yes, courts interpret laws. But when the system produces gridlock while children are shot in classrooms, it’s not enough to shrug and say "that’s democracy." Democracy demands accountability. If elected leaders block reforms that could reduce harm whether through universal background checks, red flag laws, or limits on high-capacity magazines, then voters have every right to call that complicity - and your own complicity.
And no, rejecting Australia’s model doesn’t absolve anyone. If you believe it’s unworkable here, then propose something better. But don’t pretend that "doing nothing" is a neutral stance. It’s not, it's a choice, actively invoked at the ballot box. And it has destructive consequences.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact. It was designed to be interpreted and adapted to protect the public good. If you believe in liberty, then defend the liberty of children to attend school without fear. Defend the liberty of families to gather without worrying about crossfire. Defend the liberty of Americans to live without the constant threat of mass violence.
If you’re not offering solutions, then step aside.
Absolutely the WRONG answer and I will not step aside. The Constitution is to be interpreted as written. Courts cannot adapt the Constitution to protect the public good. They must work within its framework. If you don't like the Second Amendment - as interpreted by the Supreme Court - then change the Constitution. Franklin was 100% correct. As for defending the liberty of children to attend school without fear, please start with the mentally ill people who shoot up schools. That seems to be ignored time and time again. Taking away a lawful right for the vast majority of Americans is never the answer. Then again, you would probably be in favor of the way the UK and Australia handle free speech.
By the way, there is mass violence from stabbings in the UK. They may not be dozens at a time, but the sheer volume demonstrates the key point - it's the person, not the weapon.
Ah yes, the ole "it’s the person, not the weapon" refrain - classic misdirection.
Let’s unpack that. You’re arguing that because violence exists in other forms, we should ignore the uniquely catastrophic scale enabled by firearms. That’s like saying we shouldn’t regulate drunk driving because people also die in bike accidents.
And invoking Franklin? Please. Quoting a man who lived in an era of single-shot muskets to justify the civilian stockpiling of AR-15s is not constitutional fidelity, it’s historical cosplay. The Second Amendment was written when "arms" meant powder, ball, and a 30-second reload. Our founding fathers did not envisage deranged civilians with the capacity to fire 45+ rounds per minute and use high capacity magazines. In less than 10 minutes, Stephen Paddock fired over 1100 rounds into a crowd of concert goers in the Las Vegas mass shooting. That's more firepower than an entire revolutionary war company of 50+ soldiers.
You say courts can’t adapt the Constitution to protect the public good. That’s not originalism, it’s paralysis. The Constitution has been amended 27 times precisely because its framers knew that liberty without progress is just stagnation in a powdered wig.
And your claim that "taking away a lawful right for the vast majority of Americans is never the answer?" That’s not a defense of rights, it’s a refusal to reckon with reality. Rights come with responsibilities. When one right, unchecked and unregulated, leads to thousands of preventable deaths, it’s not tyranny to intervene. It’s governance.
Mental health matters, yes. But using it as a rhetorical shield while refusing to address mental health, and while blocking every attempt to regulate access to weapons of war is not concern, it’s complicity and false concern trolling about mental health. You don’t get to point at the mentally ill while voting against funding for mental health services, red flag laws, and crisis intervention programs.
So no, I WILL NOT go along with your charade and pretend your stance is principled. It’s disingenuous, and is 100% performative. And while you cling to your selective reading of the Constitution, the rest of us are burying children.
You want to defend rights and liberty? Then start by defending the right to live. Either that or stand aside, you fraudulent charlatan.
Glad we agree that the Constitution can only be changed by amendment. Until that happens, we live within its framework. The Second Amendment exists to defend the right to live. Just ask those who died at the hands of homicidal dictators. I'm quite sure they would have preferred to keep their guns. But of course, back then you would have voted to take them away in the name of "public safety" - just like those countries did.
Why should we adhere to the Constitution? Trump’s been freely violating it ever since he got back into office, with zero consequences. So far he’s violated the Emoluments Clause, due process (5th Amendment), free speech and free press (1st Amendment), the separation of powers, and the 14th Amendment (misusing the power of the DOJ to pirsue and attack his enemies). Nobody’s batting an eye. The courts can waggle a finger at him, but they have no power to enforce anything. Congress certainly isn’t going to stop him.
So no, we don’t have to live rigidly within its framework. Trump’s exposed it for the mere piece of paper that it is.
As for defending against tyranny, well, it’s pretty much here, in the form of masked government thugs roaming the streets and disappearing people, but I don’t see anyone rising up. The Gadsden Flag types have been silent, even though this was their worst fear when Obama and Clinton were in office. Heck, MAGA likes tyranny. They invited it right back in last election.
Self defense against dictators is a fiction we’ve been sold for decades to silence any real discussion of the problem. We’re tired of sacrificing living people to the hypothetical fears of a minority.
Such an unserious and wholly impractical response. You seem to be advocating for an insurrection.
Stop talking, start doing. That means you, Republicans. You are on the wrong side of this and you need to find your moral compass.
Do what exactly?
Solutions have been proposed, like Australia's. Get cracking.
You must have missed this post a few pages back. It’s time to move on from the Australia narrative.
Anonymous wrote:A person has posted this information in several topics on DCUM.
After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, Australia (a country with a comparatively strong 'gun culture', at least by world standards) said "F**k this."
1) They made it illegal to import, buy, sell, trade or transfer semi-automatic weapons (the mass shooters' favorite!)
The latest ATF information I could find reported that 12,521,614 firearms were manufactured in the U.S. in 2021. That nullifies an import ban(never mind the 400,000,000+ guns already in civilian hands).
Semiautomatic firearms are by far the most popular type owned by Americans. Making it “illegal” to buy, sell, trade or transfer them wouldn’t survive a legal challenge. A 5-4 liberal SCOTUS would strike any such legislation down on constitutional grounds.
2) Btw, ammosexuals, they did NOT seize anyone's semi-automatic weapons. If you have them, and want them, fine, keep them -- just don't sell them or convey them to someone else, or you've committed a crime.
If we’re conceding that Americans get to keep 400,000,000+ guns, how many mass shootings are we realistically hoping to prevent? The very public mass shootings you see weeks of 24 hour news coverage about make up a small portion of overall mass killings. An analysis of data by the AP, USA Today and Northwestern University looked at intentional killings where 4 or more people(excluding the assailant) died in a 24 hour period. Non-public mass shooting by a family member or acquaintance far outnumber public mass shootings every year since 2006. So, now what?
Let’s not forget that a Harvard study in 2017 estimated that 380,000 firearms are stolen each year. There are millions more guns in civilian hands now, which makes it even easier to steal guns.
Making it illegal to sell or transfer guns wouldn’t pass constitutional muster. Again, we need to work within the rights protected by the Constitution.
3) Simultaneously, they instituted a nationwide, no-questions-asked VOLUNTARY gun buyback program. If you have a firearm (any firearm, of any kind, operational or not) and would like to turn it in, the govt paid people $1,000 per gun (this was 25+ yrs ago).
The current value of $1,000 in 1996 is $2,058.94. I’d gladly go find and exchange decrepit, old, non-functioning guns for $2,000 each to fund a Porsche. What this voluntary process wouldn’t do is make any significant dent in number of civilian owned guns. I keep hearing that America has a “gun culture.” Why would anyone believe people would voluntarily turn in their guns?
You’dneed to confiscate them, and we all know THAT will never happen.
Then come up with a different solution. The status quo clearly id not working. Doing nothing is not working. Deflections and distraction is not working. One mass shooting is too many mass shootings. You are failing America and are getting people killed. The blood is on your hands.
"We already have enough laws" is not the answer, it's clearly not working. And, "we can't, because of 2A" is also not working or an appropriate answer. And neither is "prayers."
Do better. Stop making excuses.
Radio silence from the "yabut 2A" folks. If you aren't helping solve this problem then you are part of the problem. If you aren't offering up real solutions instead of empty deflections and false platitudes then at least get out of the way so that others can fix it.
DP. Incorrect. Just because you aren't helping to solve the problem doesn't mean you are part of the problem. One origin of this saying is a quote from Eldridge Cleaver as part of the Black Power Movement of the 1960s. You can also turn this phrase on its head and apply it to mental health for those who use guns to engage in mass shootings.
Wrong. Continuing to voting for leaders who block reform while mass shootings continue is not neutral, it's indeed complicity.
Yes, we have a gun problem. Yes, we have a mental health crisis. But using one to deflect from the other is a tactic, not a solution.
If you reject models like Australia's or others, then name a better one.
If you claim the Constitution ties our hands, then propose what can be done within it.
The bloodshed continues while you deflect with stalling tactics and hypotheticals. The time for vague outrage and passive excuses is over. Either show us your plan, or step aside and stop voting for people who aren't going to help solve it.
You have this little thing called a vote. So does everyone else. That's how we do things in this country. The people have voted for the leaders we have, and for the policies they support. Likewise, we have courts to rule on whether certain laws and regulations are constitutional, and again, your elected leaders select those judges.
There is no solution that Republicans and Democrats can get behind. Certainly not what the UK and Australia have in place. The UK is going even further than banning guns - it is banning speech because that speech hurts someone's feelings. Our founders declared independence for this and other reasons.
I find it disturbing that you would abandon the core principles of the US for an illusion of safety (Google knife attacks in the UK and Australia). Benjamin Franklin put it best "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Again, wrong answer. Let’s be clear: invoking Franklin while sidestepping the actual carnage unfolding in American communities is not a principled defense of liberty, it’s a rhetorical dodge. Your "illusion of safety" argument collapses under the weight of real data: the U.S. has over 45,000 gun-related deaths annually, and more than 600 mass shootings per year. That’s not theoretical. That’s funerals, trauma, and shattered lives.
Yes, we vote. And yes, courts interpret laws. But when the system produces gridlock while children are shot in classrooms, it’s not enough to shrug and say "that’s democracy." Democracy demands accountability. If elected leaders block reforms that could reduce harm whether through universal background checks, red flag laws, or limits on high-capacity magazines, then voters have every right to call that complicity - and your own complicity.
And no, rejecting Australia’s model doesn’t absolve anyone. If you believe it’s unworkable here, then propose something better. But don’t pretend that "doing nothing" is a neutral stance. It’s not, it's a choice, actively invoked at the ballot box. And it has destructive consequences.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact. It was designed to be interpreted and adapted to protect the public good. If you believe in liberty, then defend the liberty of children to attend school without fear. Defend the liberty of families to gather without worrying about crossfire. Defend the liberty of Americans to live without the constant threat of mass violence.
If you’re not offering solutions, then step aside.
About the same number of deaths as motor vehicle accidents. Haven’t banned cars, which by the way have no constitutional protections. Also, half of gun deaths are suicides, can’t say the same for motor vehicle deaths.
Bogus analogy comparing guns and cars.
Cars weren't explicitly and specifically designed to kill. Cars are utilitarian, and serve many purposes, and are for many Americans essential to everyday life. Guns on the other hand were specifically designed for killing. Only around 8.4% of Americans are subsistence hunters who depend on guns. Exceptions for hunters can be made (Australia and most of Europe and other countries with stricter gun laws than the US do this), and even then, hunters don't need AR-15s and high-capacity magazines. Nor does the average American need AR-15s or other military-design guns and high-capacity magazines to for self-defense.
The math is bogus too. In 2023, car deaths per 100k population were 12.06. Gun deaths per 100k population were 15,186. Guns are over a thousand times more deadly.
Sorry, I know math is hard but here are the facts. There were 40,901 deaths from motor vehicle crashes in the United States in 2023. This corresponds to 12.2 deaths per 100,000 people -
Fatalities from car accidents should be measured on a vehicle miles driven basis. Per capita is not particularly meaningful here.
Using that logic then measure gun deaths by rounds fired. That would be a more meaningful measure as well.
Stop talking, start doing. That means you, Republicans. You are on the wrong side of this and you need to find your moral compass.
Do what exactly?
Solutions have been proposed, like Australia's. Get cracking.
You must have missed this post a few pages back. It’s time to move on from the Australia narrative.
Anonymous wrote:A person has posted this information in several topics on DCUM.
After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, Australia (a country with a comparatively strong 'gun culture', at least by world standards) said "F**k this."
1) They made it illegal to import, buy, sell, trade or transfer semi-automatic weapons (the mass shooters' favorite!)
The latest ATF information I could find reported that 12,521,614 firearms were manufactured in the U.S. in 2021. That nullifies an import ban(never mind the 400,000,000+ guns already in civilian hands).
Semiautomatic firearms are by far the most popular type owned by Americans. Making it “illegal” to buy, sell, trade or transfer them wouldn’t survive a legal challenge. A 5-4 liberal SCOTUS would strike any such legislation down on constitutional grounds.
2) Btw, ammosexuals, they did NOT seize anyone's semi-automatic weapons. If you have them, and want them, fine, keep them -- just don't sell them or convey them to someone else, or you've committed a crime.
If we’re conceding that Americans get to keep 400,000,000+ guns, how many mass shootings are we realistically hoping to prevent? The very public mass shootings you see weeks of 24 hour news coverage about make up a small portion of overall mass killings. An analysis of data by the AP, USA Today and Northwestern University looked at intentional killings where 4 or more people(excluding the assailant) died in a 24 hour period. Non-public mass shooting by a family member or acquaintance far outnumber public mass shootings every year since 2006. So, now what?
Let’s not forget that a Harvard study in 2017 estimated that 380,000 firearms are stolen each year. There are millions more guns in civilian hands now, which makes it even easier to steal guns.
Making it illegal to sell or transfer guns wouldn’t pass constitutional muster. Again, we need to work within the rights protected by the Constitution.
3) Simultaneously, they instituted a nationwide, no-questions-asked VOLUNTARY gun buyback program. If you have a firearm (any firearm, of any kind, operational or not) and would like to turn it in, the govt paid people $1,000 per gun (this was 25+ yrs ago).
The current value of $1,000 in 1996 is $2,058.94. I’d gladly go find and exchange decrepit, old, non-functioning guns for $2,000 each to fund a Porsche. What this voluntary process wouldn’t do is make any significant dent in number of civilian owned guns. I keep hearing that America has a “gun culture.” Why would anyone believe people would voluntarily turn in their guns?
You’dneed to confiscate them, and we all know THAT will never happen.
Then come up with a different solution. The status quo clearly id not working. Doing nothing is not working. Deflections and distraction is not working. One mass shooting is too many mass shootings. You are failing America and are getting people killed. The blood is on your hands.
"We already have enough laws" is not the answer, it's clearly not working. And, "we can't, because of 2A" is also not working or an appropriate answer. And neither is "prayers."
Do better. Stop making excuses.
Radio silence from the "yabut 2A" folks. If you aren't helping solve this problem then you are part of the problem. If you aren't offering up real solutions instead of empty deflections and false platitudes then at least get out of the way so that others can fix it.
DP. Incorrect. Just because you aren't helping to solve the problem doesn't mean you are part of the problem. One origin of this saying is a quote from Eldridge Cleaver as part of the Black Power Movement of the 1960s. You can also turn this phrase on its head and apply it to mental health for those who use guns to engage in mass shootings.
Wrong. Continuing to voting for leaders who block reform while mass shootings continue is not neutral, it's indeed complicity.
Yes, we have a gun problem. Yes, we have a mental health crisis. But using one to deflect from the other is a tactic, not a solution.
If you reject models like Australia's or others, then name a better one.
If you claim the Constitution ties our hands, then propose what can be done within it.
The bloodshed continues while you deflect with stalling tactics and hypotheticals. The time for vague outrage and passive excuses is over. Either show us your plan, or step aside and stop voting for people who aren't going to help solve it.
You have this little thing called a vote. So does everyone else. That's how we do things in this country. The people have voted for the leaders we have, and for the policies they support. Likewise, we have courts to rule on whether certain laws and regulations are constitutional, and again, your elected leaders select those judges.
There is no solution that Republicans and Democrats can get behind. Certainly not what the UK and Australia have in place. The UK is going even further than banning guns - it is banning speech because that speech hurts someone's feelings. Our founders declared independence for this and other reasons.
I find it disturbing that you would abandon the core principles of the US for an illusion of safety (Google knife attacks in the UK and Australia). Benjamin Franklin put it best "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Again, wrong answer. Let’s be clear: invoking Franklin while sidestepping the actual carnage unfolding in American communities is not a principled defense of liberty, it’s a rhetorical dodge. Your "illusion of safety" argument collapses under the weight of real data: the U.S. has over 45,000 gun-related deaths annually, and more than 600 mass shootings per year. That’s not theoretical. That’s funerals, trauma, and shattered lives.
Yes, we vote. And yes, courts interpret laws. But when the system produces gridlock while children are shot in classrooms, it’s not enough to shrug and say "that’s democracy." Democracy demands accountability. If elected leaders block reforms that could reduce harm whether through universal background checks, red flag laws, or limits on high-capacity magazines, then voters have every right to call that complicity - and your own complicity.
And no, rejecting Australia’s model doesn’t absolve anyone. If you believe it’s unworkable here, then propose something better. But don’t pretend that "doing nothing" is a neutral stance. It’s not, it's a choice, actively invoked at the ballot box. And it has destructive consequences.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact. It was designed to be interpreted and adapted to protect the public good. If you believe in liberty, then defend the liberty of children to attend school without fear. Defend the liberty of families to gather without worrying about crossfire. Defend the liberty of Americans to live without the constant threat of mass violence.
If you’re not offering solutions, then step aside.
Absolutely the WRONG answer and I will not step aside. The Constitution is to be interpreted as written. Courts cannot adapt the Constitution to protect the public good. They must work within its framework. If you don't like the Second Amendment - as interpreted by the Supreme Court - then change the Constitution. Franklin was 100% correct. As for defending the liberty of children to attend school without fear, please start with the mentally ill people who shoot up schools. That seems to be ignored time and time again. Taking away a lawful right for the vast majority of Americans is never the answer. Then again, you would probably be in favor of the way the UK and Australia handle free speech.
By the way, there is mass violence from stabbings in the UK. They may not be dozens at a time, but the sheer volume demonstrates the key point - it's the person, not the weapon.
Ah yes, the ole "it’s the person, not the weapon" refrain - classic misdirection.
Let’s unpack that. You’re arguing that because violence exists in other forms, we should ignore the uniquely catastrophic scale enabled by firearms. That’s like saying we shouldn’t regulate drunk driving because people also die in bike accidents.
And invoking Franklin? Please. Quoting a man who lived in an era of single-shot muskets to justify the civilian stockpiling of AR-15s is not constitutional fidelity, it’s historical cosplay. The Second Amendment was written when "arms" meant powder, ball, and a 30-second reload. Our founding fathers did not envisage deranged civilians with the capacity to fire 45+ rounds per minute and use high capacity magazines. In less than 10 minutes, Stephen Paddock fired over 1100 rounds into a crowd of concert goers in the Las Vegas mass shooting. That's more firepower than an entire revolutionary war company of 50+ soldiers.
You say courts can’t adapt the Constitution to protect the public good. That’s not originalism, it’s paralysis. The Constitution has been amended 27 times precisely because its framers knew that liberty without progress is just stagnation in a powdered wig.
And your claim that "taking away a lawful right for the vast majority of Americans is never the answer?" That’s not a defense of rights, it’s a refusal to reckon with reality. Rights come with responsibilities. When one right, unchecked and unregulated, leads to thousands of preventable deaths, it’s not tyranny to intervene. It’s governance.
Mental health matters, yes. But using it as a rhetorical shield while refusing to address mental health, and while blocking every attempt to regulate access to weapons of war is not concern, it’s complicity and false concern trolling about mental health. You don’t get to point at the mentally ill while voting against funding for mental health services, red flag laws, and crisis intervention programs.
So no, I WILL NOT go along with your charade and pretend your stance is principled. It’s disingenuous, and is 100% performative. And while you cling to your selective reading of the Constitution, the rest of us are burying children.
You want to defend rights and liberty? Then start by defending the right to live. Either that or stand aside, you fraudulent charlatan.
Glad we agree that the Constitution can only be changed by amendment. Until that happens, we live within its framework. The Second Amendment exists to defend the right to live. Just ask those who died at the hands of homicidal dictators. I'm quite sure they would have preferred to keep their guns. But of course, back then you would have voted to take them away in the name of "public safety" - just like those countries did.
Why should we adhere to the Constitution? Trump’s been freely violating it ever since he got back into office, with zero consequences. So far he’s violated the Emoluments Clause, due process (5th Amendment), free speech and free press (1st Amendment), the separation of powers, and the 14th Amendment (misusing the power of the DOJ to pirsue and attack his enemies). Nobody’s batting an eye. The courts can waggle a finger at him, but they have no power to enforce anything. Congress certainly isn’t going to stop him.
So no, we don’t have to live rigidly within its framework. Trump’s exposed it for the mere piece of paper that it is.
As for defending against tyranny, well, it’s pretty much here, in the form of masked government thugs roaming the streets and disappearing people, but I don’t see anyone rising up. The Gadsden Flag types have been silent, even though this was their worst fear when Obama and Clinton were in office. Heck, MAGA likes tyranny. They invited it right back in last election.
Self defense against dictators is a fiction we’ve been sold for decades to silence any real discussion of the problem. We’re tired of sacrificing living people to the hypothetical fears of a minority.
Such an unserious and wholly impractical response. You seem to be advocating for an insurrection.
LOL your whining is hilarious. The "insurrection" angle is precisely what the right wing has been pitching for decades in defense of 2A. But when someone says the same thing about Trump you suddenly get offended. Hypocritical double standard it seems. Republicans love the idea of guns and insurrection when it's them fighting Democrats but heavens to betsy it's unthinkable that the left might start to throw the same rhetoric around.
Stop talking, start doing. That means you, Republicans. You are on the wrong side of this and you need to find your moral compass.
Do what exactly?
Solutions have been proposed, like Australia's. Get cracking.
You must have missed this post a few pages back. It’s time to move on from the Australia narrative.
Anonymous wrote:A person has posted this information in several topics on DCUM.
After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, Australia (a country with a comparatively strong 'gun culture', at least by world standards) said "F**k this."
1) They made it illegal to import, buy, sell, trade or transfer semi-automatic weapons (the mass shooters' favorite!)
The latest ATF information I could find reported that 12,521,614 firearms were manufactured in the U.S. in 2021. That nullifies an import ban(never mind the 400,000,000+ guns already in civilian hands).
Semiautomatic firearms are by far the most popular type owned by Americans. Making it “illegal” to buy, sell, trade or transfer them wouldn’t survive a legal challenge. A 5-4 liberal SCOTUS would strike any such legislation down on constitutional grounds.
2) Btw, ammosexuals, they did NOT seize anyone's semi-automatic weapons. If you have them, and want them, fine, keep them -- just don't sell them or convey them to someone else, or you've committed a crime.
If we’re conceding that Americans get to keep 400,000,000+ guns, how many mass shootings are we realistically hoping to prevent? The very public mass shootings you see weeks of 24 hour news coverage about make up a small portion of overall mass killings. An analysis of data by the AP, USA Today and Northwestern University looked at intentional killings where 4 or more people(excluding the assailant) died in a 24 hour period. Non-public mass shooting by a family member or acquaintance far outnumber public mass shootings every year since 2006. So, now what?
Let’s not forget that a Harvard study in 2017 estimated that 380,000 firearms are stolen each year. There are millions more guns in civilian hands now, which makes it even easier to steal guns.
Making it illegal to sell or transfer guns wouldn’t pass constitutional muster. Again, we need to work within the rights protected by the Constitution.
3) Simultaneously, they instituted a nationwide, no-questions-asked VOLUNTARY gun buyback program. If you have a firearm (any firearm, of any kind, operational or not) and would like to turn it in, the govt paid people $1,000 per gun (this was 25+ yrs ago).
The current value of $1,000 in 1996 is $2,058.94. I’d gladly go find and exchange decrepit, old, non-functioning guns for $2,000 each to fund a Porsche. What this voluntary process wouldn’t do is make any significant dent in number of civilian owned guns. I keep hearing that America has a “gun culture.” Why would anyone believe people would voluntarily turn in their guns?
You’dneed to confiscate them, and we all know THAT will never happen.
Then come up with a different solution. The status quo clearly id not working. Doing nothing is not working. Deflections and distraction is not working. One mass shooting is too many mass shootings. You are failing America and are getting people killed. The blood is on your hands.
"We already have enough laws" is not the answer, it's clearly not working. And, "we can't, because of 2A" is also not working or an appropriate answer. And neither is "prayers."
Do better. Stop making excuses.
Radio silence from the "yabut 2A" folks. If you aren't helping solve this problem then you are part of the problem. If you aren't offering up real solutions instead of empty deflections and false platitudes then at least get out of the way so that others can fix it.
DP. Incorrect. Just because you aren't helping to solve the problem doesn't mean you are part of the problem. One origin of this saying is a quote from Eldridge Cleaver as part of the Black Power Movement of the 1960s. You can also turn this phrase on its head and apply it to mental health for those who use guns to engage in mass shootings.
Wrong. Continuing to voting for leaders who block reform while mass shootings continue is not neutral, it's indeed complicity.
Yes, we have a gun problem. Yes, we have a mental health crisis. But using one to deflect from the other is a tactic, not a solution.
If you reject models like Australia's or others, then name a better one.
If you claim the Constitution ties our hands, then propose what can be done within it.
The bloodshed continues while you deflect with stalling tactics and hypotheticals. The time for vague outrage and passive excuses is over. Either show us your plan, or step aside and stop voting for people who aren't going to help solve it.
You have this little thing called a vote. So does everyone else. That's how we do things in this country. The people have voted for the leaders we have, and for the policies they support. Likewise, we have courts to rule on whether certain laws and regulations are constitutional, and again, your elected leaders select those judges.
There is no solution that Republicans and Democrats can get behind. Certainly not what the UK and Australia have in place. The UK is going even further than banning guns - it is banning speech because that speech hurts someone's feelings. Our founders declared independence for this and other reasons.
I find it disturbing that you would abandon the core principles of the US for an illusion of safety (Google knife attacks in the UK and Australia). Benjamin Franklin put it best "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Again, wrong answer. Let’s be clear: invoking Franklin while sidestepping the actual carnage unfolding in American communities is not a principled defense of liberty, it’s a rhetorical dodge. Your "illusion of safety" argument collapses under the weight of real data: the U.S. has over 45,000 gun-related deaths annually, and more than 600 mass shootings per year. That’s not theoretical. That’s funerals, trauma, and shattered lives.
Yes, we vote. And yes, courts interpret laws. But when the system produces gridlock while children are shot in classrooms, it’s not enough to shrug and say "that’s democracy." Democracy demands accountability. If elected leaders block reforms that could reduce harm whether through universal background checks, red flag laws, or limits on high-capacity magazines, then voters have every right to call that complicity - and your own complicity.
And no, rejecting Australia’s model doesn’t absolve anyone. If you believe it’s unworkable here, then propose something better. But don’t pretend that "doing nothing" is a neutral stance. It’s not, it's a choice, actively invoked at the ballot box. And it has destructive consequences.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact. It was designed to be interpreted and adapted to protect the public good. If you believe in liberty, then defend the liberty of children to attend school without fear. Defend the liberty of families to gather without worrying about crossfire. Defend the liberty of Americans to live without the constant threat of mass violence.
If you’re not offering solutions, then step aside.
Absolutely the WRONG answer and I will not step aside. The Constitution is to be interpreted as written. Courts cannot adapt the Constitution to protect the public good. They must work within its framework. If you don't like the Second Amendment - as interpreted by the Supreme Court - then change the Constitution. Franklin was 100% correct. As for defending the liberty of children to attend school without fear, please start with the mentally ill people who shoot up schools. That seems to be ignored time and time again. Taking away a lawful right for the vast majority of Americans is never the answer. Then again, you would probably be in favor of the way the UK and Australia handle free speech.
By the way, there is mass violence from stabbings in the UK. They may not be dozens at a time, but the sheer volume demonstrates the key point - it's the person, not the weapon.
Ah yes, the ole "it’s the person, not the weapon" refrain - classic misdirection.
Let’s unpack that. You’re arguing that because violence exists in other forms, we should ignore the uniquely catastrophic scale enabled by firearms. That’s like saying we shouldn’t regulate drunk driving because people also die in bike accidents.
And invoking Franklin? Please. Quoting a man who lived in an era of single-shot muskets to justify the civilian stockpiling of AR-15s is not constitutional fidelity, it’s historical cosplay. The Second Amendment was written when "arms" meant powder, ball, and a 30-second reload. Our founding fathers did not envisage deranged civilians with the capacity to fire 45+ rounds per minute and use high capacity magazines. In less than 10 minutes, Stephen Paddock fired over 1100 rounds into a crowd of concert goers in the Las Vegas mass shooting. That's more firepower than an entire revolutionary war company of 50+ soldiers.
You say courts can’t adapt the Constitution to protect the public good. That’s not originalism, it’s paralysis. The Constitution has been amended 27 times precisely because its framers knew that liberty without progress is just stagnation in a powdered wig.
And your claim that "taking away a lawful right for the vast majority of Americans is never the answer?" That’s not a defense of rights, it’s a refusal to reckon with reality. Rights come with responsibilities. When one right, unchecked and unregulated, leads to thousands of preventable deaths, it’s not tyranny to intervene. It’s governance.
Mental health matters, yes. But using it as a rhetorical shield while refusing to address mental health, and while blocking every attempt to regulate access to weapons of war is not concern, it’s complicity and false concern trolling about mental health. You don’t get to point at the mentally ill while voting against funding for mental health services, red flag laws, and crisis intervention programs.
So no, I WILL NOT go along with your charade and pretend your stance is principled. It’s disingenuous, and is 100% performative. And while you cling to your selective reading of the Constitution, the rest of us are burying children.
You want to defend rights and liberty? Then start by defending the right to live. Either that or stand aside, you fraudulent charlatan.
Glad we agree that the Constitution can only be changed by amendment. Until that happens, we live within its framework. The Second Amendment exists to defend the right to live. Just ask those who died at the hands of homicidal dictators. I'm quite sure they would have preferred to keep their guns. But of course, back then you would have voted to take them away in the name of "public safety" - just like those countries did.
Why should we adhere to the Constitution? Trump’s been freely violating it ever since he got back into office, with zero consequences. So far he’s violated the Emoluments Clause, due process (5th Amendment), free speech and free press (1st Amendment), the separation of powers, and the 14th Amendment (misusing the power of the DOJ to pirsue and attack his enemies). Nobody’s batting an eye. The courts can waggle a finger at him, but they have no power to enforce anything. Congress certainly isn’t going to stop him.
So no, we don’t have to live rigidly within its framework. Trump’s exposed it for the mere piece of paper that it is.
As for defending against tyranny, well, it’s pretty much here, in the form of masked government thugs roaming the streets and disappearing people, but I don’t see anyone rising up. The Gadsden Flag types have been silent, even though this was their worst fear when Obama and Clinton were in office. Heck, MAGA likes tyranny. They invited it right back in last election.
Self defense against dictators is a fiction we’ve been sold for decades to silence any real discussion of the problem. We’re tired of sacrificing living people to the hypothetical fears of a minority.
Such an unserious and wholly impractical response. You seem to be advocating for an insurrection.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}