What does it take to get a little gun control

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is what it is. Elementary school children are getting torn to shreds with AR-15's to defend somebody's right to cosplay army guy. If you vote GOP, you partially own every one of their deaths.

People here act like Obama and Biden didn’t have a Democrat controlled Congress.

Well, let’s check the wayback machine. The 110th Congress (under Obama) passed a bipartisan law to strengthen background checks. The 117th Congress (under Biden) passed S.2938, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which broadened background check requirements. That bill also funded several programs and initiatives to increase access to mental health care aimed at reducing gun violence.

Note “bipartisan” in these bills: on both sides of the aisle, agreement that criminals and mentally unstable people should not have access to guns.

What have Republicans done to reduce gun violence?

No assault weapon ban?

No, that would make too much sense. This gun control issue is better left an issue to divide the American people per the agendas of our two major parties. Kinda like immigration. The duped fools who identify as "Republicans" and "Democrats" keep falling for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One mass shooting is too many.

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.

Trump's governance has exposed the frailty of the Constitution. There is nothing sacred or permanent concerning the Second Amendment. A future generation will gut it.

That may well be true. The framers of the constitution wisely put a process in place to amend it. But look at the reality of the situation today. 30 states allow shall issue or constitutional concealed carry. There is no changing the 2nd today or anytime in the near future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One mass shooting is too many.

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.

Trump's governance has exposed the frailty of the Constitution. There is nothing sacred or permanent concerning the Second Amendment. A future generation will gut it.

That may well be true. The framers of the constitution wisely put a process in place to amend it. But look at the reality of the situation today. 30 states allow shall issue or constitutional concealed carry. There is no changing the 2nd today or anytime in the near future.

We changed how it was interpreted. We can change that again at any time.

[Anonymous]

Americans don't want a little control. The majority of them don't want any control. Sure, they sympathize with the victims, but for most Americans, as long as they're not the ones being shot at or killed, they will defend the constitution and sit back feeling that they are safe, and that they have the right to blow someone's head off if they feel the slightest bit threatened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Americans don't want a little control. The majority of them don't want any control. Sure, they sympathize with the victims, but for most Americans, as long as they're not the ones being shot at or killed, they will defend the constitution and sit back feeling that they are safe, and that they have the right to blow someone's head off if they feel the slightest bit threatened.

Show me any credible poll showing a majority of Americans are fine with the status quo of mass shootings and don't want any gun control. Every poll I have ever seen says a solid majority DOES want gun control. Instead we're being fed fabrications, fictions, fantasies as gun lobby propaganda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Americans don't want a little control. The majority of them don't want any control. Sure, they sympathize with the victims, but for most Americans, as long as they're not the ones being shot at or killed, they will defend the constitution and sit back feeling that they are safe, and that they have the right to blow someone's head off if they feel the slightest bit threatened.

Show me any credible poll showing a majority of Americans are fine with the status quo of mass shootings and don't want any gun control. Every poll I have ever seen says a solid majority DOES want gun control. Instead we're being fed fabrications, fictions, fantasies as gun lobby propaganda.

“credible” = “any poll from pro-gun-ban organization or any poll that uses leading questions and/or cherry-picks responses to show overwhelming support for banning guns”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Americans don't want a little control. The majority of them don't want any control. Sure, they sympathize with the victims, but for most Americans, as long as they're not the ones being shot at or killed, they will defend the constitution and sit back feeling that they are safe, and that they have the right to blow someone's head off if they feel the slightest bit threatened.

Show me any credible poll showing a majority of Americans are fine with the status quo of mass shootings and don't want any gun control. Every poll I have ever seen says a solid majority DOES want gun control. Instead we're being fed fabrications, fictions, fantasies as gun lobby propaganda.

You're mistaken. Most people want fewer mass shootings, but there is no agreement around the causes or cures. Some think firearms "cause" shootings, while other think people operating firearms illegally bear responsibility. I wonder if the people who think that firearms "cause" mass shootings also think that retail stores and banks "cause" robberies because they have cash on hand? Do computers "cause" cybercrime, or are they merely instruments used by some criminals as well as by people who are law-abiding? Shall we "control" all computers, because billions of dollars are lost annually to cybercrime?

Criminals, whether mentally ill, addicted, or just sociopaths, are the problem, not the mechanisms they use to facilitate criminal conduct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Americans don't want a little control. The majority of them don't want any control. Sure, they sympathize with the victims, but for most Americans, as long as they're not the ones being shot at or killed, they will defend the constitution and sit back feeling that they are safe, and that they have the right to blow someone's head off if they feel the slightest bit threatened.

Show me any credible poll showing a majority of Americans are fine with the status quo of mass shootings and don't want any gun control. Every poll I have ever seen says a solid majority DOES want gun control. Instead we're being fed fabrications, fictions, fantasies as gun lobby propaganda.

“credible” = “any poll from pro-gun-ban organization or any poll that uses leading questions and/or cherry-picks responses to show overwhelming support for banning guns”

STFU. You were busted in a lie. You have NO evidence to support your claim that a majority of Americans do not want any gun control. Just go the hell away. You have been full of nonstop deflections and disingenuous commentary. You are complicit with mass shooters. You ARE the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Americans don't want a little control. The majority of them don't want any control. Sure, they sympathize with the victims, but for most Americans, as long as they're not the ones being shot at or killed, they will defend the constitution and sit back feeling that they are safe, and that they have the right to blow someone's head off if they feel the slightest bit threatened.

Show me any credible poll showing a majority of Americans are fine with the status quo of mass shootings and don't want any gun control. Every poll I have ever seen says a solid majority DOES want gun control. Instead we're being fed fabrications, fictions, fantasies as gun lobby propaganda.

“credible” = “any poll from pro-gun-ban organization or any poll that uses leading questions and/or cherry-picks responses to show overwhelming support for banning guns”

Every GOP and NRA response to children getting slaughtered is less restrictions. No background checks, open carry, bump stocks, no red flag laws, etc. "Thoughts and prayers" is code for how can we all more easily own and carry guns, while making the false argument about "gun bans". Again, anybody that votes GOP is complicit in school children murder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Toy guns are more tightly regulated than real guns.

Preposterous claim.

No, it’s correct. The CPSC oversees toy safety. There is no federal agency that oversees gun safety.

I can hand a 12-year-old a $100 bill, send them into a toy store, and ask them to buy me toy guns. Try that with an actual gun shop.

Your claim is preposterous. The ATF would agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Americans don't want a little control. The majority of them don't want any control. Sure, they sympathize with the victims, but for most Americans, as long as they're not the ones being shot at or killed, they will defend the constitution and sit back feeling that they are safe, and that they have the right to blow someone's head off if they feel the slightest bit threatened.

Show me any credible poll showing a majority of Americans are fine with the status quo of mass shootings and don't want any gun control. Every poll I have ever seen says a solid majority DOES want gun control. Instead we're being fed fabrications, fictions, fantasies as gun lobby propaganda.

\

Who cares what you want?

An amendment must be proposed either by a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress or by a convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures. The proposed amendment then needs to be ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 out of 50) to become part of the Constitution.

Until then, go away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Americans don't want a little control. The majority of them don't want any control. Sure, they sympathize with the victims, but for most Americans, as long as they're not the ones being shot at or killed, they will defend the constitution and sit back feeling that they are safe, and that they have the right to blow someone's head off if they feel the slightest bit threatened.

Show me any credible poll showing a majority of Americans are fine with the status quo of mass shootings and don't want any gun control. Every poll I have ever seen says a solid majority DOES want gun control. Instead we're being fed fabrications, fictions, fantasies as gun lobby propaganda.

\

Who cares what you want?

An amendment must be proposed either by a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress or by a convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures. The proposed amendment then needs to be ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 out of 50) to become part of the Constitution.

Until then, go away.

Not really. The President just needs to re-interpret the Second Amendment and have SCOTUS agree. Going forward, a true Constitutional amendment is not required.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Americans don't want a little control. The majority of them don't want any control. Sure, they sympathize with the victims, but for most Americans, as long as they're not the ones being shot at or killed, they will defend the constitution and sit back feeling that they are safe, and that they have the right to blow someone's head off if they feel the slightest bit threatened.

Show me any credible poll showing a majority of Americans are fine with the status quo of mass shootings and don't want any gun control. Every poll I have ever seen says a solid majority DOES want gun control. Instead we're being fed fabrications, fictions, fantasies as gun lobby propaganda.

You're mistaken. Most people want fewer mass shootings, but there is no agreement around the causes or cures. Some think firearms "cause" shootings, while other think people operating firearms illegally bear responsibility. I wonder if the people who think that firearms "cause" mass shootings also think that retail stores and banks "cause" robberies because they have cash on hand? Do computers "cause" cybercrime, or are they merely instruments used by some criminals as well as by people who are law-abiding? Shall we "control" all computers, because billions of dollars are lost annually to cybercrime?

Criminals, whether mentally ill, addicted, or just sociopaths, are the problem, not the mechanisms they use to facilitate criminal conduct.

Why do you persist in your failed tactics and rhetoric? Let’s clear this up with facts, not analogies.

The claim that “most Americans don’t want any control” or that there is a vast, irreconcilable gulf in consensus around approaches is flatly contradicted by every major national poll. For example, the 2025 Johns Hopkins National Survey of Gun Policy found that 74% of Americans support laws requiring gun owners to lock up firearms when not in use, including 62% of gun owners and 65% of Republicans. https://publichealth.jhu.edu/center-for-gun-violence-solutions/national-survey-of-gun-policy That’s not fringe, it’s broad, bipartisan consensus.

And this isn’t cherry-picking, it's consistently found across poll after poll after poll by numerous independent organizations. For example, Pew Research consistently shows that majorities support background checks, red flag laws, and restrictions on high-capacity magazines. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/24/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns

Americans may have some differences on the how, but your insistence they’re at complete odds on approaches, or opposed to any form of gun regulation is a myth perpetuated by absolutist gun lobby rhetoric, which you keep trying to inject into this thread even though it's repeatedly been debunked and disproven.

As for the analogy: comparing firearms to computers or cash is a category error. Guns are lethal by design. Their primary function is to exert force, unlike computers or currency, which become dangerous only through misuse. That’s why public health experts treat gun violence as a means-access problem, not just a behavioral one. Limiting access to lethal tools in high-risk contexts isn’t about blaming the tool, it’s about preventing harm.

So yes, criminals pull the trigger. But policy isn’t about moral blame; it’s about risk reduction. And the public overwhelmingly supports that. Just stop pretending otherwise, because you don't have any solid or credible basis for your rhetoric.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Americans don't want a little control. The majority of them don't want any control. Sure, they sympathize with the victims, but for most Americans, as long as they're not the ones being shot at or killed, they will defend the constitution and sit back feeling that they are safe, and that they have the right to blow someone's head off if they feel the slightest bit threatened.

Show me any credible poll showing a majority of Americans are fine with the status quo of mass shootings and don't want any gun control. Every poll I have ever seen says a solid majority DOES want gun control. Instead we're being fed fabrications, fictions, fantasies as gun lobby propaganda.

\

Who cares what you want?

An amendment must be proposed either by a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress or by a convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures. The proposed amendment then needs to be ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 out of 50) to become part of the Constitution.

Until then, go away.

Not really. The President just needs to re-interpret the Second Amendment and have SCOTUS agree. Going forward, a true Constitutional amendment is not required.

Try enforcing that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Americans don't want a little control. The majority of them don't want any control. Sure, they sympathize with the victims, but for most Americans, as long as they're not the ones being shot at or killed, they will defend the constitution and sit back feeling that they are safe, and that they have the right to blow someone's head off if they feel the slightest bit threatened.

Show me any credible poll showing a majority of Americans are fine with the status quo of mass shootings and don't want any gun control. Every poll I have ever seen says a solid majority DOES want gun control. Instead we're being fed fabrications, fictions, fantasies as gun lobby propaganda.

\

Who cares what you want?

An amendment must be proposed either by a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress or by a convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures. The proposed amendment then needs to be ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 out of 50) to become part of the Constitution.

Until then, go away.

Not really. The President just needs to re-interpret the Second Amendment and have SCOTUS agree. Going forward, a true Constitutional amendment is not required.

Does the President even need to care about SCOTUS? Trump clearly doesn't care about courts and is ignoring many court orders. This is the MAGA precedent being set.

A future Dem President could just declare bans as edict and MAGA would have nothing to gripe about since they endorsed this kind of behavior by Trump. So who cares what the PP whining about 2/3rds majority or a convention of state legislatures wants, right? You made your beds, now sleep in it.