What does it take to get a little gun control

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Who is enforcing Trump's violation of court orders?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is always the "go to" response, isn't it? We all know you'll be hiding in your bathroom fighting off "government tyranny". The Second Amendment isn't sacred and can be gutted. Trump has provided the roadmap. It'll take time, of course.

[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.

Then we will no longer be living in a free America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then we will no longer be living in a free America.

We'll be living in the same free America that we're living under Trump. He's just updated the governance model. A Constitutional amendment will not be required. Just a re-interpretation of the language.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then we will no longer be living in a free America.

We'll be living in the same free America that we're living under Trump. He's just updated the governance model. A Constitutional amendment will not be required. Just a re-interpretation of the language.

NFA legally and constitutionally put extra restrictions around private ownership of full auto machine guns. Same can and should be done with other classes of guns and magazines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The claim covers safety regulations around the design and manufacturing. It has nothing to do with regulations around who can purchase. Nice try though.

[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.

Good luck with that. There is already Supreme Court precedent on the subject, and you would need a liberal court majority to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Good luck with that. There is already Supreme Court precedent on the subject, and you would need a liberal court majority to do it.

Precedent doesn't matter. SCOTUS has shown that they can twist arguments, language, and reasoning to achieve a desired end. Yes, a more liberal SCOTUS will be required, but an amendment is not required. The Second Amendment is not sacred and can be re-interpreted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Good luck with that. There is already Supreme Court precedent on the subject, and you would need a liberal court majority to do it.

Precedent doesn't matter. SCOTUS has shown that they can twist arguments, language, and reasoning to achieve a desired end. Yes, a more liberal SCOTUS will be required, but an amendment is not required. The Second Amendment is not sacred and can be re-interpreted.

Ah but it is. It is the amendment that allows all of the rest to stand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Good luck with that. There is already Supreme Court precedent on the subject, and you would need a liberal court majority to do it.

Precedent doesn't matter. SCOTUS has shown that they can twist arguments, language, and reasoning to achieve a desired end. Yes, a more liberal SCOTUS will be required, but an amendment is not required. The Second Amendment is not sacred and can be re-interpreted.

Ah but it is. It is the amendment that allows all of the rest to stand.

Cosplaying army guy doesn't mean you're able to resist "government tyranny". Change will come.

[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.

Firearms absolutely cause mass shootings. Someone who is contemplating murdering a lot of people very quickly has an easily accessible weapon to do so that will give them a high certainty of success. For some people, that’s enough to push them from fantasy into action. Why would we want to make it easier for these tragedies to happen?

The very presence of a firearm also makes it more likely that a confrontation will escalate and turn deadly. See: any number of tragic road rage and family annihilation incidents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Good luck with that. There is already Supreme Court precedent on the subject, and you would need a liberal court majority to do it.

Precedent doesn't matter. SCOTUS has shown that they can twist arguments, language, and reasoning to achieve a desired end. Yes, a more liberal SCOTUS will be required, but an amendment is not required. The Second Amendment is not sacred and can be re-interpreted.

Ah but it is. It is the amendment that allows all of the rest to stand.

That’s nonsense. I don’t see MAGA out there with guns defending free speech or voting rights. In fact, they’ve been cheering on the loss of constitutional protections, so long as it doesn’t affect them.

The second amendment has been reinterpreted into a license for violence. It’s there to protect supremacy, not to protect all Americans. Look at how fast gun controls were enacted in California in the 1960s when the Black Panthers started carrying. Look at how unequally Stand Your Ground laws are enforced when it’s a woman or black person defending themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The claim covers safety regulations around the design and manufacturing. It has nothing to do with regulations around who can purchase. Nice try though.

The initial post mentioned nothing about safety, just “regulations.” Toy guns are not regulated more than actual guns.

Like other products, if there is a proven safety issue there will be a recall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cosplaying resistance is cute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The claim covers safety regulations around the design and manufacturing. It has nothing to do with regulations around who can purchase. Nice try though.

The initial post mentioned nothing about safety, just “regulations.” Toy guns are not regulated more than actual guns.

Like other products, if there is a proven safety issue there will be a recall.

Not necessarily. Recalls are voluntarily up to the gun manufacturer. The gun industry is the only manufacturer of a consumer product that is exempt from federal health and safety regulations. It doesn’t mean safety features don’t exist at all, it means there is no federal agency that can require a recall of defective guns and ammunition or warn consumers of any safety hazards, the way they do for toys. In that respect, yes, toy guns are more regulated. (The NSSF estimates that 40 percent of new guns contain defects. Caveat emptor.)